Home Australia Martin Place: How Do Messages Come Down from On High?

Martin Place: How Do Messages Come Down from On High?

6

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

This is not about God, at least as far as I know. But it certainly is about the top level of our species. The deciders. That top level has to be composed of humans (men and women? my guess is: all men). Their names? We don’t know.

Their nationalities? Mixed, if the Bilderberg group is any guide. Whole continents may be unrepresented, viz., South America, Africa, and Australia. In 1973, David Rockefeller included Japan, bigtime, in the Trilateral Commission; Henry Kissinger brought ‘Red China into the world’s fold by shaking hands with Mao Zedong in 1973. Still, the identity of those higher up than David and Henry is a secret.

Mao and Kissinger in 1973.Mao Zedong and Henry Kissinger. 

Presumably there’s a constant stream of messages coming down from “on high.” For example “Run a terrorist incident today,” or “Change your nation’s TV from analog to digital next decade.”  How do the secretive governors of the world pass instructions to, say, the Supreme Court of Canada, the legislature of Florida, or the premier of Western Australia? Clearly they do accomplish this.

Governments Must Be among the Perps

I have recently published articles showing that the ‘cover story’ of many famous killings cannot possibly be true, and that, since governments zealously promote the cover stories, they must have guilty knowledge as to who the perpetrators are. Indeed, they must have played a part in those killings, since they control the police and the courts. (The courts? No innocent patsy ever gets cleared, does he?)

In a January 1, 2015 article I said:  “The government is the perpetrator of the Marathon bombing, the Sandy Hook killings, and of course, Nine-Eleven. Whoever the killers are, we know that they are ruthless and, by definition, sociopathic.”

Ruthless and Sociopathic?

So let me spend a minute on the words ‘ruthless’ and ‘sociopathic.’ I am persuaded that all members of the Top Level are ruthless. The ancestry of that word is “without rue.” ‘Rue’ means remorse or sadness about one’s behavior, as in “You’ll rue the day.”

I have yet to hear of any top dog expressing remorse — though they are busy hiding in order to avoid legal punishment, so aren’t really in a position to talk confession-style. Dee Ferdinand has posted testimony about her Dad’s deathbed regret concerning his life as a drug dealer for the NYPD, mafia, and CIA – combined! Wow. A triple dipper. However, he was low-echelon.

As to the meaning of ‘sociopathic,’ it’s relative. We can only say that some persons hate society more than others do. Probably we all hate our fellow man a bit, since the life of every member of H sapiens is competitive. Yet it’s very normal to care about, and have obligations to, others.  The Top Level guys I’m describing admit to no caring, and they categorically eschew obligation.

An important aside here. A friend of mine who was abused as a child, and is now a very good psychology counselor, told me it’s standard knowledge that persons who have had bad things done to them think it’s OK to harm others. (An aside voir dire: I wonder if military trainers hurt their soldiers terribly so they will learn to suppress the moral instinct. Hmm.)

My Shyness about Sydney

It’s hard to be objective about an incident so close to home as Martin Place was on December 15, 2014.  By contrast it’s easy for an Australian to analyze Paris’s Charlie Hebdo incident. For instance, Gumshoenews has talked about the ease with which the alleged killers made an escape. Others are questioning the purpose of the Hebdo cartoons.

In regard to the Sydney siege, various Australian critics, including myself, have wondered aloud about the fact that the police knew early in the day that there was only one gunman, yet kept the public on tenterhooks. Journalists, even in the mainstream, have mentioned that the patsy, Man Haron Monis, was a ‘media mascot’ for a few years prior to the so-called siege. (For other mascots, google “the Finsbury Mosque.”)

But who dares say that if the world record shows there is government involvement, Sydney must have been an inside job by Oz officialdom? You may have seen my Youtube video chastising the prime minister for laying a bouquet of flowers in Martin Place. I will go that far. I will say that the PM is in on the scene-setting, to make this a national tragedy. But more?

Not Quite So Shy about Boston

In May, 2013, I happened to be giving a paper at the Law and Society Association meeting in Boston. The famous Marathon had occurred only a month before.  I thought it a bit peculiar that the LSA’s printed program expressed solidarity with the people of Boston in the aftermath of the Marathon. And vendors in the hotel lobby were selling “Boston Strong” tee shirts like hotcakes. Like the flowers at Martin Place, rubbing the message in: we have been violated.

boston martin place“Boston Strong” tee shirt and flowers at Martin Place.

Yes we were violated, but it was by the Top Level, wasn’t it? I am a Bostonian as well as an Adelaidian. I feel certain that the Marathon and the Sydney siege were both scripted. OK, I’ll leave a sliver of room for Monis or the Tsarnaevs to have acted alone, and to have received no ideological brainwashing from Western governments. (Forgive me, Zbigniew Brzezinski.)

But slivers don’t count; Occam’s razor says go for the simplest explanation. That would be “These events were inside jobs.”

How Do the Messages Get Passed Down?

But how does it work? The top level sent a message to Oz, or maybe direct to NSW or even direct to the city of Sydney? The message was: “Run a terrorist incident.” I assume this led to Monis being robotized to do what he did.

So far, no harm done, but by 2am next day three Australians had been killed, reportedly by police. (Yes, I am counting Crazy-man Monis as an Australian.) We seem to have a crime here. Probably murder. Who committed it? Anybody want to own up to it? The ‘criminal’ is not necessarily the one who pulled the trigger. The responsible party is Top Level.

In the wee hours of today, 26 January, I uploaded to Rumor Mill News an article entitled “Australia Day, 2015: Terrorism Problem Solved. Thanks, Dr Lawrence Dunegan!”

I had re-read the account, by Dunegan, of a ‘conspirtatorial’ speech that Dr Richard Day gave to a medical audience, back in 1969. By 1988, Dr Dunegan couldn’t hold it in any longer. He spilt the beans, on the Randy Engels radio show. He said:

“There was a discussion [by Dr Day] of terrorism. Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world.  At that time it was thought terrorism would not be necessary in the United States. It could become necessary in the United States if the United States did not move rapidly enough into accepting the system. … just a little bit of terrorism would help convince Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place, or can be if we don’t relinquish control to the proper authorities.”

[Note: as of 1988 there had still not been the slightest hint of terrorism in the US.]

Baseball and Roe v Wade

Not only does Day’s lecture prove that terrorism comes from on high, it proves that umpteen other things do, too. To give but one example, Dr Day said “Abortion will no longer be a crime.” How did they get all the governments to decriminalize it? They must have done so. OK, one more example. Day said, and this was at the height of American devotion to baseball, “Baseball will be downplayed in favor of soccer.”

How could Dr Day divine that? Obviously he did not divine it. The Top Level made it happen. He even described how they would do it. They would raise the players’ salary so high that folks would stop feeling loyal to a team.  Talk about having an eye on our human nature!

Oops, I don’t mean that the ways-high-ups go around setting baseball salaries, but whoever does set them must be open to instructions from the Top Level. And how about the US Supreme Court in 1973?  Were they free, in Roe v Wade, to let Texas continue to outlaw abortion? I say No.

Is There an Antidote for Shyness?

You sense that I want to call a spade a spade re Martin Place, but I lack the mettle. I have no supporters that I know of, except the editor of Gumshoe (which is a lot, God bless Dalia, but not enough). So I want to put out this tempting tidbit, to any takers. Follow my logic:

It would be very wise to act now, despite big risks. Later, when push comes to shove (i.e., when you are being pushed and shoved around in Room 101) you will think, “Wow I had every opportunity to speak out and appeal to the law. But I was too shy.”

Is there going to be a Room 101? Yes. How do we know? Simple science. When tyrants take over, they do that. It’s been proven, time and again.

It has also been proven, though, that tyrants do not have the last word. Bullies can be dealt with if you’ve got the numbers.

— Mary W Maxwell invites you to her show at the Adelaide Fringe on March 13 and 14. In fact, she would appreciate knowing if you plan to attend, as there’s plenty of scope for ‘audience participation.’ The name of the show is “Puppetry of the Watermelons.” Please write to Dalia at Gumshoe.

 

 

 

 

6 COMMENTS

  1. Mary, there is much in your analysis.
    All readers should take on board the address by Dr. Dunegan (1969) as reported by Dr. Day in and from 1988.
    Please, please, readers and democratic media look up the notes by Dr. Day on various sites: ‘NWO exposed by insider’.
    A readable article is at Jeff Rense. Com.
    Ok. Now a spade is a shovel, get off your couch, read it and care for your kids. No! Well, lay down and die and allow the controlled mass media ( as planned) to hympmotize you with the planned world bread and blood distraction of soccer. (Football)
    You think this is way out? Well, read in the Dr. Day notes that soccer is a planned world distraction to turn you into tribal idiots.

  2. It has been called to my attention that I should have qualified the phrase: “Persons who have had bad things done to them think it’s OK to harm others.” I now add the word “Some” before “persons”: Some persons think it’s OK to harm others; many do not.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion