Lindt Café Inquest, Part 16: (Imaginary) Coroner Takes Testimony from Expert Witness, Doctor X

kenyamaumau (1)Mau Mau terrorists, 1952, captured by the British

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Pretend the coroner questions the expert witness, Dr X:

Coroner –  Do you promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Doctor X –  Do I ever!

Coroner –  This is a courtroom, you must answer respectfully.

Doctor X –  Sorry. I do promise.

Coroner –   What is your occupation?

Doctor X – Occupation? Mostly I’m unoccupied.

Coroner –  I’ll cite you for contempt of court if you keep this up.

Doctor X – Sorry, I meant that I don’t get much paid work, almost none, but I work hard at research.

Coroner –  The subject matter in which you claim to have expertise, relevant to this Inquest, is terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism, is that correct?

Doctor X –  Not exactly. I don’t know much about “Islamic terrorism” and may even doubt that there is any such animal, but what I know about is the way in which “Islamic terrorism” is conjured up.

Coroner –  Conjured up by whom?

Doctor X –  By whoever conjures it up.

Coroner –  Bailiff!

Doctor X –  No, wait. I mean it could be anybody. Naturally the reason I am here is that one group that does the conjuring is the Australian government.

Coroner –  Which part of the Australian government?

Doctor X –  The bad part.

Coroner –  I am going to give you only one more chance, Dr X. This is a courtroom.

Doctor X –  Truly, Your Honor, it is the bad part of government. It’s not a part that we can specify by department name. For example I can’t say “The legislature conjures up Islamic terrorism” I can’t say “the ADF or the AFP conjures up Islamic terrorism.” Each of those – Parliament, Defense, and Federal Police do conjure it up, but not in their normal legitimate role. Rather, the bad part of those groups engage in it.

Coroner –  Who, specifically, is in those bad parts?

Doctor X –  I don’t dare answer, as you will call the bailiff.

Coroner –  Give as honest – and as respectful – an answer as you can.

Doctor X –  My answer to the question “Who is in the bad parts?” is: “those who are doing these things.” There is a big section, I’ll call it Group B, who also populate Parliament, Defense, and AFP, but who merely act as “Yes men.”

Coroner –   So we have Group A, I deduce, an inner circle that plans things and they are supported by others whom you call Group B. How many B’s are there, in terms of percentage?

Doctor X –  I can only offer a wild guess. Of the entire population of Parliament, ADF and APF, I imagine 10% or less really know exactly what’s going on.  These have blood on their hands. That’s Group A. And maybe some individuals are as innocent as lambs. (I should call them Group L for their lambishness.)

But there is a huge section, Group B, who would do anything they were asked to, in regard to the conjuring up of Islamic terrorism. They would not shrink from such crime, but they haven’t been asked to participate.

Coroner –  What if a person did shrink from it?

Doctor X –   Does the name Harry Holt ring a bell?

Coroner –  Can you name someone a bit more recent than Holt?

Doctor X –  I am aware of members of the Australian government who have been killed for their honesty, but not in relation to the Islamic terrorism thing.

Coroner –  Never mind for now the guessing of percentages, just state who is at the top?

Doctor X –  I want to say “traitors” but will try to be more helpful. It must be that all the very top leaders of Parliament, Defense, and Police, are doing it.

Coroner –  When you said traitors, did you mean holding allegiance to a nation other than Australia?

Doctor X –  I did mean that, since that is a traditional definition of the word ‘traitor’ – selling out one’s own group. But it could also mean going against one’s own group perhaps for a selfish goal that doesn’t entail selling out to foreigners.

Coroner –  Are you trying to create a legal definition for which there is no law?

Doctor X –  ‘Fraid so, as far as Oz is concerned. In America, the Constitution there does spell out “treason” along the lines I just described. It’s in Article III, section 3.  The Australian Constitution is more geared to calling someone a traitor if they harm the sovereign, not if they harm the people.

Coroner –  Why do they harm people?

Doctor X –  Why do the birds keep on singing?

Oops. I just meant they do it because they are in the habit. But as for “the purpose” of it, I feel sure it’s a foreign purpose. The instructions come in from another country.

Coroner –  Which one?

Doctor X –  My best guess is Mother England. Other scholars say the US and some say Israel. To me it looks as though ASIO, the CIA, MI6 and Mossad all work for one boss and that’s what I call World Government. I am pretty sure that the section of World Government working on the conjuring up of “Islamic terrorism” is geographically situated in London.

Coroner –  How can you be sure?

Doctor X –  I can’t be completely sure, but the Brits founded the first Islamic rebel group that I am aware of, the Muslim Brotherhood, in Arabic lands, around 1920. I certainly think they ran the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, and as you may know a lawsuit has recently been settled. The Brits had castrated some of the men. (Talk about terror!)

Coroner –  Why did the British imperial government want Muslims to have a Brotherhood – assuming you are correct?

Doctor X –  I’ll give three reasons:

  1. They recognized that religion, indeed moral ideas in general, make people feel strong. They would thus predict that some natural leaders among the Muslims would create an anti-British organization based on Islam. So by starting one themselves, the Brits would be able to spy on it and know if it was becoming a threat.
  1. Besides spying on it, they would be able to put their stamp on it. As long as they could control some of the leaders they could recommend actions. I assume one action they would recommend would be violence, and these rebels would then get punished. Perforce, all members of the public would worry about joining Islamic organizations. What clever!
  1. By creating, or at least encouraging, some men who had the ability to influence people, the Brits could do what they are masters at – divide and rule. They could make schisms in the religion or build up resentments toward particular sections of a group.

Coroner –  Is there some reason why Americans are not adept at such control also?

Doctor X –  They were adept, say, by starting the Ku Klux Klan to keep everybody interested in the black-white conflict. But they are not quite of the same caliber as the Brits.

Coroner –  Do the Americans create terrorists?

Doctor X –  I think of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s interview with a French magazine in 1998. He openly admitted that the US started training camps for Muslim extremists in Pakistan. I assume that the average recruit who was being indoctrinated into the religious ‘rationale’ for jihad was unaware that he was being used for nefarious purposes.

Coroner –  Nefarious in what way?

Doctor X –   Brzezinski alleged that his creation of of a Mujahidin was to help the West fight the Soviets who had invaded Afghanistan. I wouldn’t trust anything Brzezinski says. There is a very long-term goal, I hear, about destabilizing the Middle East in order to start World War III.

I do see, that since 1968 or so, there has been a massive media effort to create in our minds the idea that Muslims are the cause of just about any trouble one could name. It is almost comical, but it will be horrendous if it actually starts a war.

Coroner –  Let’s get to the matter at hand: the Sydney siege. This was ostensibly carried out by a man with Islamic motivation.

Doctor X –   I do not think that could be the case. I think any of us can tell a sincerely religiously motivated person when we meet one. Monis seems wholly insincere – that’s just an impression I received.

Coroner –   Have you studied the background of Man Haron Monis?

Doctor X –  I’ve read three histories of Monis: the one printed by “Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet jointly with NSW Premier and Cabinet,” the Biography printed by the Lindt Café Inquest, and the article by N Wahid Azal which seems to come from inside knowledge of Australia’s Muslim communities.

Coroner –  What can you tell us?

Doctor X –  Your Honor, you will recall I claim that my expertise is in the conjuring up of Islamic terrorism by governments. Given that I think Monis must have been a patsy, I haven’t bothered to look much into his own religiosity or politics.

He came to Australia in 1996 on a business visa. Maybe he was “captured” at that point as a potential patsy, a usable trouble-maker, or whatever.

Coroner –  You mean you cannot picture him having organized the Sydney siege by himself?

Doctor X –  No, absolutely not. May I cite other Muslim examples?

Coroner –  Yes.

Doctor X –  The two brothers accused of the Boston Marathon bombing and the two brothers accused of the Charlie Hebdo shoot-out in Paris were plainly incapable of doing what they are accused of.  But at least those brothers had each other. Monis does not appear to have had any assistant. I can’t envision him thinking up all the particulars of the siege.

Coroner –  Which particulars are you referring to?

Doctor X –  He would have had to know a lot about the nature of the Lindt café, where the customers and employees were, whether any cops were in the habit of getting a morning coffee there, how many clever young people on the premises would be able to use cell phones to defeat him, whether the after-hours door button worked, and so forth.

I also think it should be taken very seriously by the Inquest that he had no escape plan. That is a big indicator that he is operating for someone else. Presumably his handler would have promised him protection.

Coroner –  How about his past public protests; do you think those were genuine?

Doctor X –  I don’t think anything about him is genuine. One thing that particularly stands out is Monis’ crazy letter-to-the-parents-of-dead-soldiers routine. To me, such an idea is recognizably from the hand of a public-opinion specialist.

The inventor of it would have cleverly built the image of Monis as both cuckoo and nasty. But the letters also contributed to the public’s fear of Islamic “blowback,” since he focused on how the Diggers had been cruel to folks in the Middle East.

Coroner –  Please comment generally on the media’s role.

Doctor X –  The person who best informed everyone of this is Udo Ulfkotte, a German journalist. He admits to following the directions of the CIA until one day he couldn’t bear it any more. He said all his colleagues are bought by the CIA, via money and job promotions. (William Colby of the CIA openly stated “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”)

Journalists use talking points provided from above. And as a part time professor of anti-terrorism, Ulfkotte was often approached by “insiders” with hot scoops that he could use – but these, too, were really CIA.

Coroner –  I did not so much mean the media’s role in stirring people up about Islam; I had in mind the media role in the siege.

Doctor X –   Immediately the siege began we were told it was terrorism. I think it is patent that one purpose of the siege was to put all of us in a state of apprehension. Heck, you can’t even sit down for a cup of hot chocolate in the business district anymore without looking over your shoulder.

Coroner –  Do you have more to say as an expert witness on scripted terrorism?

Doctor X –  Heaps.

Coroner –  That is all for today, Dr X. You may step down.

— Today’s witness, Dr X lives in South Australia and is a recovering carnivore.

Photo credit: atlasweb.it

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Dr X, early in the piece you mention, “against the Sovereign, not against people”, However, I am informed that the People are the Sovereignty, or the People are Sovereign, I don’t know if there is a difference.

    • Mal, this is in Part 5.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Australia)
      80.1 Treason
      (1) A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:
      . (a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister…”

      “sovereign” here means Her Maj. The PM was added in in a fairly recent amendment. Mal, this is not Dr X spicking; this is MM — they are not NECESSARILY the same person.

      • Mal, just watch the first 40 seconds to find out who claim to be the sovereign people. But Seppos don’t talk about it anymore.
        If you don’t claim it, ya haven’t got it. Quel pity.

        I am a bit embarrased to display this ad, as it proves my mind is always in the same rut. Oh well, I may yet change. I could go fascist. I could go vegan. Or I could just go.
        .

  2. Ned, because I haven’t subscribed to theTimes.co.uk, I am only allowed to read one paragraph per article. Here is obituary of Appleby’s model:
    “Unlike the popular satire of the obfuscating Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Minister, Oulton could not view an institution of state without wanting to change it. His most important innovation was as the architect of a national Crown Court system centrally administered by the lord chancellor’s department. The new courts replaced the increasingly byzantine regional Assizes and Quarter Sessions at the start of the Seventies.”

    I say “Bring back the assizes.” — Dr X

  3. I did not know that Sir Humphrey Appleby has now retired to SA and is going vegan.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Part 16 of this series, I light-heartedly showed what it would look like if an expert in “scripted terrorism” – Dr X […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: