Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

April 11, 2015
In today's show we bring you a historical overview of alternative views on HIV/AIDS, with a focus on a group of highly qualified scientists and health… Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

Pax Britannica & The New World Order

17 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.citizinemag.com/politics/politics-0409_nwo_piccone.htm

Imperial roots of today's evolving world system.

By Tom Piccone

Cecil Rhodes (1853 -1902)The New World Order -- You have probably heard these words used in recent years, perhaps beginning with President George Bush in 1990.

But what does this phrase mean? Who has been using the expression? When and where did this idea of a new world order originate? How will this new world order be implemented? More importantly, how will this new world order affect you?

The words "new world order" have been in use for decades, and did not originate with President Bush. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government.

Most of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance, and will mean the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them.

Origins of The New World Order

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919)In the late nineteenth century, with the industrial revolution sweeping Europe and America, certain individuals dreamed of a world far different from the one in which they lived, a world organized in such a way that wars would be impossible and every aspect of human life would be arranged by educated men for the benefit of all. These dreamers included men of great ability and wealth who devoted their talents and fortunes to carry out their plans. The point of origin of these people was England, and their idea initially was to extend the British Empire to include the whole earth. If British rule were complete, how could there be any reason for war, and who could attempt it?

The most prominent of the individuals who developed the idea of a new world order were Cecil Rhodes, Andrew Carnegie, and members of the Fabian Society, particularly H. G. Wells.

Cecil Rhodes went from England to Africa in an attempt to improve his poor health, and acquired enormous wealth by developing diamond mining properties. He died in 1902 and donated his fortune to establish a Rhodes scholarship program at Oxford University to carry out his ideas. The scholarships were to go to promising young men from the British colonies and the United States, with the majority going to Americans.

Andrew Carnegie went from Scotland to the United States and founded U. S. Steel, earning for himself a substantial sum of money. Carnegie used his wealth to set up foundations to fund educational, religious, and political organizations to "cultivate the international mind" and promote world peace. Some of his money went to the Federal Council of Churches. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was established, and began funding educational initiatives. By the end of World War II, the U. S. State Department was largely controlled by Rhodes scholars and members of this Carnegie Endowment, and was emphasizing the idea of world peace through the United Nations.

The Fabian Society was a group of intellectuals in England who believed that socialism was the way to organize the world for social and economic progress. H.G. Wells was originally a member of the Fabian Society and wrote extensively on political topics, influencing thinking in international affairs. In one of his books, entitled The New World Order (1939), Wells stated that world socialism was inevitable, and that there would be a difficult and painful transition period in which many "quite gallant and graceful-looking people" would "die protesting against it."

Structure of The New World Order

H. G. Wells (1866 -1946)The basic concept of the new world order is world government. For Rhodes and Carnegie, it was British rule expanded to cover the earth, or at least British influence through English-speaking countries to organize the rest of world according to the English way of life and thinking. Wells and others set out to bring the world under socialism, step by step, in a gradual process. Over the years, proposals were made successively for world federation, a League of Nations, and the United Nations.

The new world order is to be implemented through regionalism. Basically, the world is to be divided into geographical regions, internationally, nationally, and locally, and these regions are to be the new units of government, replacing the old, traditional notions of nation-states, cities, towns, villages, etc. Control over every aspect of human life is to be exercised in the form of an administrative dictatorship, from the top down, through an enormous bureaucracy of appointed officials, specialists, and planners accountable only to the elected executives.

Political power is to be concentrated in the executive branch of government, removing it from the control of the people through their elected legislative representatives. The choices presented to the people for the elected executives are limited to candidates selected by the political establishment, and not by the people themselves. In this way, the outward form of democracy is retained to an extent, but the power is entirely taken away from the people and concentrated in government.

The transition to world government is being carried out gradually, with appropriate "education" of the populace, until the system is fully in place. Forces have joined together to push for world government, first by one means, and then by another after the first method meets opposition. These forces never stop. They never admit defeat. There is only delay, and then new ideas of how to bring the entire world into a planned administrative system.

Truth News Radio Australia - live from the Tom Mann Theatre

15 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Download mp3: click here (right-click, save target as...)
www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=21

On Friday, 12 September, we recorded our show with a live studio audience at the Tom Mann Theatre in Sydney.

The show featured a panel discussion followed by a question and answer session.  On the panel we had the pleasure of the company the following esteemed guests:

  • Gillian Norman (Film Maker)
  • John Bursill (Boeing Engineer)
  • Dr. Frank Legge (Chemist)
  • James O’Neill (Barrister at Law)
  • Dr. David Leifer (Architect and member of ae911truth.org)

 

The panel engaged in a lively critique of the new Italian 9/11 film Zero, and we covered a variety of other topics, some of which proved to be controversial within the group.

A big thankyou from Josh and myself to everyone who helped make this happen, especially Jose who managed to find an essential piece of equipment at the last moment!

Please pass this podcast link on to your friends and feel free to download and burn to disk if you wish.

I hope to have the video version online soon.

Amy Goodman discusses her arrest

14 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Amy Goodman discusses her arrest, the arrests of her colleagues, police response to demonstrators, and freedom of the press at the Republican National Convention.

Aired on September 5, 2008 on NOW on PBS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNTFnWrJDfA

Breaking The Silence - Truth and Lies in the War on Terror

14 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/break.html

An astounding documentary from John Pilger (2003).  The film ends with the chilling words "If we remain silent, victory over us is assured".


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-210088912352527308

Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies".

Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, America has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban". In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination.

Pilger also interviews presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, and former intelligence officers, all the while raising searching questions about the real motives for the 'war on terror'.

While President Bush refers to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as two 'great victories', Pilger asks the question - victories over whom, and for what purpose? Pilger describes Afghanistan as a country "more devastated than anything I have seen since Pol Pot's Cambodia". He finds that Al-Qaida has not been defeated and that the Taliban is re-emerging. And of the "victory" in Iraq, he asks: "Is this Bush's Vietnam?"

TNRA 12 September 2008

September 12, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

14 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement, Australia ]

On Friday, 12 September, we recorded our show with a live studio audience at the Tom Mann Theatre in Sydney.

The show featured a panel discussion followed by a question and answer session.  On the panel we had the pleasure of the company the following esteemed guests:


  • Gillian Norman (Film Maker)

  • John Bursill (Boeing Engineer)

  • Frank Legge (Chemist)

  • James O'Neill Barrister at Law)

  • Dr. David Leifer (Architect and member of ae911truth.org)


The panel engaged in a lively critique of the new Italian 9/11 film Zero, and we covered a variety of other topics, some of which proved to be controversial within the group.

A big thankyou from Josh and myself to everyone who helped make this happen, especially Jose who managed to find an essential piece of equipment at the last moment!

Please pass this podcast link on to your friends and feel free to download and burn to disk if you wish.

I hope to have the video version online soon.

400 European truth activists march in Brussels

12 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

United for Truth - European 911 Truth Movement

www.unitedfortruth.org

BRUSSELS - SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

Last Sunday over 400 European truth activists ignored the rain and had a non-violent march in Brussels. They gathered at 2 P.M. in front of the Berlaymont building at Schuman, Brussels. At 3 P.M. they took a walk of 4 kilometers with a stop at the US Embassy. Before the rally left, the organizers delivered a letter to the assistant to Giulietto Chiesa, Euro-MP for Italy. Under police guidance they tried to deliver a letter containing their request to start an independent and international investigation to what happened in the U.S.A. just 7 years ago. They were told that the embassy was closed and didn't accept their letter unless is was delivered by mail. There were no incidents during the protests, and the organizers were once again very positive about the collaboration with the Brussels Police.

Furthermore, the platform is endorsed by various Non Governmental Organizations like The Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt (CATMD), CODIP, ReOpen911 and ATTAC Brussels. The first Belgian political party CAP (Comité Autre Politique) joined the rally at the end.

The platform these people and organizations support is: "In solidarity with the American citizens, we demand an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks, which were the pretext for too many wars, lies, and a serious decrease of (y)our civil rights ("anti-terrorist"-acts, secret prisons, "Patriot act", etc). We want European troops back home! We want European laws that guarantee neutrality of the internet and that explicitly forbid tracing/chipping (RFID) of human beings as well as other electronic threats on our freedom. We want democratic and public control of financial organizations (IMF, WB, etc) and the mass media. But most of all we want to get our life back."

United for Truth made its first public appearance in September 2007. They organized the first European protest in Brussels calling to support a majority of the American people, who want a re-investigation of the 9/11 attacks. This protest is coordinated by two Belgian artists; a 25 year old Dutch speaking producer who associated with a 41 year old French speaking percussionist.

English & Dutch: Julez Edward, +32 479 936 236
French & Spanish: Olivier Galand, +32 477 257 255

www.unitedfortruth.org
unitedfortruth@julezedward.com

Protest Outside ABC Studio - 11 September 2008

10 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

The Sydney Truth Action group will be staging a protest outside ABC studios in Ultimo on Thursday, 11 September from 11:00 AM - 01:00 PM (see map).

ABC Studios Ultimo

This is a great opportunity to make a difference, and let our (taxpayer funded) national broadcaster know we require that they exercise due diligence in covering matters of grave public concern such as 9/11.

According to a recent report, Australia currently has 1080 troops deployed in Afghanistan, yet neither the Taliban leaders nor Osama bin Laden have ever been indicted for the terrorist attacks on 9/11!

We have been misled into a conflict which has no basis in international law.

9/11 was never properly investigated.

Can we continue to allow our fellow Australians to kill and to die for a lie? 

Voice your concern and join us in protest on 11 September.

Four Corners forum discusses “The Third Tower”

10 September 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Last Night ABC TV (Australia) aired the BBC documentary The Third Tower, which purports to be an objective investigation into "conspiracy theories swirling over 9/11".

This morning there a number of discussion topics on the Four Corners website dedicated to the topic, and from a quick look it is clear once again, as was demonstrated when ABC Unleashed published a short  opinion piece on 9/11 unanswered questions, that the public is simply not satisfied with the level of journalistic integrity evidenced by the major media.

Sample:

Last night's programme on World Trade Centre 7 was neither, “Investigative" nor "Journalism". It was just a rerun of a BBC programme that left major questions unanswered. I expected more from my ABC. If this is your measure of the qualities to which you apparently hold yourselves to, then everything that you show from this point on has no credibility.

There is so much more that needs to be explained here.

- Mark

Read more here.

 

Page 88 of 109 pages ‹ First  < 86 87 88 89 90 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Wayne, have you not read any of my posts? I suggest you must have misunderstood the times I have written because noting I have written coincides with your “it isn’t being done” statement.

I doubt I will continue reading this forum as it seems to be about argument and not discussion nor debate. I think it is best for people to simply believe what they believe.


“Leonard Clampett was willing to involve himself in discussion on the basis of “it isn’t being done”.  Is he still, I wonder?

Anyway, I have had some communication from Robert M. Forgette, and although I have no intention of trying to involve him in the time-wasting sado-masochism of the discussion here, perhaps there is now some hope of light being shed on the psychology of Mike Glynn, who says that Robert will “vouch for” him.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 10 - 21:38:19
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.”

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 19:11:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

again josh chimes in with hereward who both hypocritically pretend they dont indulge in insult.. or “abuse”

they would rather debate insults than the topic, and close down the thread because they fear they are losing the argument.

such a pretentiously haughty display - not an insult, a statement of fact.

By agin mee on 2012 11 15 - 19:07:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Sorry Josh, I am not here for argument I want to know why and what is being sprayed around the world, as it is.

Supersaturation of the atmosphere is impossible and not a theory. Check the science.

It would seem you believe that water detection paste is not reliable and that all the airlines and aircraft flying the world airways are in imminent danger whenever they leave the ground. That is something that should be brought to the attention of all aviation authorities, civil, military and naval, immediately.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 19:04:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

just because you are trying to hide your insults behind many words, they are still what they are. They are noted, as is your consent to others being abusive.

I found that insults often tend to come up if factual arguments are running out.

By Josh on 2012 11 15 - 18:56:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett said:

“Depending upon another’s opinion, such as Mike Glynn, [...] to give credence to your opinion is not exactly science.”

The chemistry of combustion is not a matter of opinion. Ask not just Michael Glynn, ask any professional jet pilot, chemistry teacher, atmospheric scientist. Ask Google, at least.

Are you aware that your “no water from combustion” and “supersaturation doesn’t exist” statements are actually new scientific theories?
Now you would have to show the scientists of the world why your theories are better than previous ones, even if they are overthrowing the entire knowledge collected so far.

If you can do this, it will be a revolution.

By Josh on 2012 11 15 - 18:50:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hereward Fenton you are the one controlling this forum and you are the one who has the ability to deprive me of my “right to free speech”, not the opposite.

I have never in my life had to resort to an appeal to my “right of free speech” in order to attract attention to what I want to say. I do not propose to start doing so now.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 11 15 - 16:56:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall, you have finally shown your true colours apparently:

They do not have to have “the right to free speech”. The world is going to come to a sticky end unless a competing political entity can be constructed that does not fetishize the “right to free speech”, which is a “principle” that needs to be appealed to only by those with agendas they do not wish to declare: scoundrels.

For some time now you have been tacitly endorsing the abusive statements made by others, but you have now joined the ranks of the abusers yourself.

In declaring your intention to deprive me of my right to free speech you have crossed a line. You and your friends who post here are in breach of every guideline and standard of civilised discourse.

I am not closing the thread yet. This is just an assessment of the situation.

Would you like to clarify or retract anything you said?

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 11 15 - 16:33:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Jok3r thank you for the explanation.

Living in Greece as I do, where mass demonstrations and strikes have become an everyday phenomenon, we have become familiar with the activity of “anonymous” (i.e. masked) ostensible opponents of state oppression, who take every opportunity to smash and wreck everything they can in the course of demonstrations. In recent years this has included what used to be the most stylish and elegant cinema in Athens, now a charred ruin, a bookshop frequented by “progressive” intellectuals, and numerous other buildings and facilities. My local post office was burned down in one demonstration not too long ago. The mass transit system in Athens is comprised of an old-style electric railway, where some remnant of traditional trade union organization seems to persist, and a modern metro, built for the 2004 Olympic Games. The two coexist uneasily. Anonymous graffiti writers and vandals have totally ruined much of the rolling stock of the electric railway, smashing its windows and covering entire carriages, indeed entire trains, with spray paint.

Perhaps some of the protagonists in these fiestas of anonymous criminality imagine themselves as warriors against the state. I would like to see them doing whatever they are doing in such a way as to be identifiable. Fortunately I don’t spend most of my time in Athens but outside of it, in a smaller community where it is much more difficult for anything (or perhaps not ANYTHING, but anyway most things) to be done anonymously. I prefer to live, and indeed to try to be an activist, in such an environment where one knows with whom one is dealing.

This thread may be as worthless (or rather futile) as you say, though it seems to me that it at least has some intellectual content. Certainly it is run by people who should be ostracised and treated like social outcasts. But in order for there to be outcasts there has to be a society from which they can be cast out, and in that society people must have names and stable identifies. They do not have to have “the right to free speech”. The world is going to come to a sticky end unless a competing political entity can be constructed that does not fetishize the “right to free speech”, which is a “principle” that needs to be appealed to only by those with agendas they do not wish to declare: scoundrels.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 11 15 - 15:17:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

When you say something is correct or incorrect, Josh, be reminded that it is your opinion on correctness, not a fact.

Depending upon another’s opinion, such as Mike Glynn, or relying upon a QANTAS (QANTAS is an acronym, it is not Qantas) employee to give credence to your opinion is not exactly science.

Chemtrails exist even if you do not like, know or understand, according to me experience and observations over some 50 years enjoying our skies across the globe.


Leonard Clampett said:

“the engine used does not determine a contrail, it can be a piston engine or a turbine. It is ambient conditions that predicate contrails obeying the laws of physics and thermodynamics.”

That is correct.

“The only moisture that comes from combustion is from the hydrogen molecules and they are not overly saturated as there is no water in fuel in aircraft. Ergo, the only moisture emitted from an exhaust came from the intake air and minuscule amounts of hydrogen.”

This is incorrect - not because I say so (plus Qantas pilot Michael Glynn), but because it contradicts basic chemistry.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 15:01:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

From the Courier Mail item dated November 01, 2012;

“Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said: “The trail that you see from the ground is water vapour. It’s like on a frosty winter’s morning when you go outside and breathe. What comes out is your hot, warm, moist breath and when it hits cold, dry air you get condensation. It’s exactly the same with aircraft warm air comes out of the engine and hits the cold dry atmosphere.”“

What he did not say, or that was edited out, is that as soon as the two merge and balance the contrails disappear, and is the reason why you do not see contrails in cloud at all.

This statement tells us about contrails and why chemtrails are not contrails.

I believe that one of the easiest ways to understand the problem is by comparison. Can those who refute the idea of chemtrails see by example what happens if we were to pour a litre of water at, say, 35 degrees Celsius into a container with 1,000 litres of water at, say, 15 degrees Celsius.

Would the 1 litre warm the 1,000 litres or would the 1,000 litres cool the 1 litre? The answer is called equilibrium and I suspect with such dilution there would be no change in temperature of the 1,000 litres but the 1 litre would be rapidly cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding 1,000 litres. This is only a small scale comparison because an aircraft would be putting out thousands of litres of exhaust gas into billions upon billions of litres of its surrounding atmosphere as it transits and balance would reign supreme as in this comparison.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 11 15 - 14:18:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories