Martin Bryant, after arrest with burnt back
by Mary W Maxwell
Cheryl Dean and I wrote a Gumshoe article called “Twinning” that compared the Port Arthur case of Martin Bryant with the Boston Marathon case of Jahar Tsarnaev. In this article I will compare Port Arthur with the Sydney Siege.
Note for the uninitiated: The Sydney siege took place on December 15/16, 2014; it’s main man was Man Haron Monis who called himself a sheik of the Shi’ite branch of Islam.
The Port Arthur massacre took place on April 28, 1996. Martin Bryant was involved in the hostage business at Seascape cottage, but not at the massacre site in the Broad Arrow Café (for which he is serving a life sentence).
- Both cases got dramatic media coverage but no probing questions by media.
- Both featured a lone nutter (supposedly), although one of them, Monis, also had an ideology (supposedly).
- Both had a scandalous police stand-down.
- Both stand-downs have engendered public complaints by cops who were stood down.
- Monis was shot dead when the Sydney episode ended; Bryant was supposed to be burned to death but escaped.
- Both scenes are unresolved as to number of shots fired, number of guns firing,
- The gun skills of both Bryant and Monis were amateur (although Monis had been trained to use a gun as a security guard).
- Both incidents led to legislation to control all citizens.
- The prime minister in both cases (John Howard, Tony Abbott) was clearly not out for the people’s needs.
- Monis (of Sydney siege) was said to have been involved in the death of his ex-wife. Bryant was accused by gossipers of the death of Maurice Bryant, his father.
- In both cases Canberra was covertly in control. In the Port Arthur case this was in the form of SAC-PAV.
- There was a drill in Martin Place a year earlier (2013); there were several preparedness exercises conducted in Tasmania in April, 1996.
- At one site a mother and two little daughters were killed; at the other a mother of three pre-school children was killed.
- Both sites now have memorials to the victims.
- Both events involved a “hostage situation.”
- Both men seemed to have no escape plan whatsoever.
- Both were “diagnosed” as attention seekers; although one was said to have been motivated to violence by a grudge, the other by religion.
- Both had an inquest, but the Port Arthur inquest was aborted after 6 months
- Both incidents lack a critique by an academic spokesperson.
- Both incidents are said to have “changed Australia forever.”
What Are the Statistics for Belief in a Port Arthur Conspiracy?
More than a hundred Tasmanians were keen to get at the truth of Port Arthur soon after it happened. Luckily for us, several staff members of the Historic Site were on duty that Sunday – and did not get wounded. So they aided the information-seekers, who met at clubs and public halls.
Still, it took a long time for people to get near justice. Once the “baddy” was in jail (i.e., the innocent Martin Bryant), it became very unfashionable to mention that anyone other than Martin may have committed the massacre.
Naming the real criminals (government agents) was more then unfashionable; it was outright taboo. Actually the taboo is largely self-imposed; we all have major reluctance to accuse “Authority” of sin. Authority is “Daddy” in our deepest brain.
Thousands of Australians now want to bring the Port Arthur matter to a head — partly because of a petition at Change.org, sponsored by Cherri Bonney. Of course that leaves millions who don’t care, or wouldn’t agree, or have not heard that there are activists on the case.
Naturally, most people accept the official story. We wait to see what that augurs for the Sydney siege (also known as the Lindt Café hostage incident, or the Martin Place terrorist event).
It is now the month of August, twenty months after the siege. Do most Australians even know that there are rumblings (as at Gumshoe News)?
Speeding Up the Analysis
I shall now play the role of putting the case that both the Sydney siege and the Port Arthur massacre were invented by someone far away.
And who might that be? It might well be the World Government, also known as the cabal. The cabal’s most important goal is to stay in power.
Although they claim not to worry about a fall from grace (or a fall on their veritable nose), they must worry subconsciously. In various animal species, the alpha knows that rivals are always waiting for “the opportunity.”
How to keep a large population from ousting the bosses? One way is to stay concealed – tell the people that some other majestic authority is really the one in charge.
However, the Internet has put paid to the conceal-ability of the top persons. For example, annual meetings of the Bilderbergers get spied on by dissidents and reported within the hour.
One of the cabal’s major operations is to control the public by “psychological operations” — psy-pops.
I once read about a psy-op in a South American country that centered on “the quarter man.” It was an actual human body cut into quarters. Of course the media could contribute plenty to make this creature bring fear all around the country.
In my hometown of Boston in the 1960s, the “Boston strangler” had a similar effect. In that case, media coverage included comedians. Almost every week, someone on prime-time TV would make a humorous remark about the Boston strangler. This would keep it fresh in people’s minds.
Since around 1970 we were all taught that Arabs were out to get us. They reportedly did umpteen hijackings. Do you recall one that led to the death of Olympic athletes?
In those days the label was ethnic – Arabs. Later it shifted over to “Muslim.” We mainly heard about it in the context of the Arabs in Palestine fighting the Israeli Jews. They staged an intifada, remember?
In Oklahoma City, where a bombing took pace in 1995, an ex-Army boy, Timothy McVeigh, was named as the terrorist. He had no connection to Islam. But as Jayna Davis carefully documented, the original plan was to blame Iraqi’s of whom there is a large immigrant community in Oklahoma.
Apparently there was a last minute switch regarding who would be assigned to take the blame.
In 1996, there was a school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland and six weeks later, the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. Neither was chalked up to religion or politics. Each was chalked up to a mentally disturbed lone gunman.
I declare them to have been of the same purpose as the Arab thing. It gave everybody a lesson in vulnerability. When you send your child to school now, you have it in the back of your mind that the child may be attacked. When you go on a tourist trip, all hell might break loose.
The total number of things the media frightens us with is amazing. Poisoned food. Sexual predators. Kidnappings. Banks that steal your life savings. Train crashes.
Most likely some psy-op technicians learned exactly what amount of exposure to alarming headlines will render people insecure.
Recognizing the Pattern
In Part 4 of this series, I listed ten Youtube videos that identified the Sydney siege as a psy-op. All ten Youtubers were based overseas and all of them uploaded their commentary within days of the event.
In other words, a certain style of psy-op is now so routinized that it is the first thought that comes to mind to some folks when media announce a new incident.
It is usually a bombing or a shootout, although there have been a few deviations such as, in Nice France, an errant truck, or a while back in Japan, the use of sarin gas in the subway.
Lately it is almost always Muslim-related. It seems to reach people’s brain most easily if the harm-doer is an enemy group that plans to take us over. All humans are instinctively prepared to react, whether they know it or not, to the mention of an enemy.
Making the Case
Dee McLachlan and I are satisfied, from the research that went into our book, Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough, that that massacre was a psy-op. As such it assaulted every Australian who was alive that day, and thus every Aussie has a right to be angry about it. (One can hardly imagine what “rights” the bereaved families have in this situation!)
We are not capable of producing a similar book about the Sydney siege. But please consider the 20 “twinning” items listed above. I now nominate five of them as clinchers, or near clinchers, for the Sydney siege being a planned psy-op:
Both cases got dramatic media coverage but no probing questions by media. (1)
Both had a scandalous police stand-down. (4)
Both incidents led to legislation to control all citizens. (7)
There was a drill in Martin Place a year earlier (2013); there were several preparedness exercises conducted in Tasmania in April, 1996. (10)
Both men seemed to have no escape plan whatsoever. (14)
Actually I think if I had to pick just one of those as the clincher it would be the police stand-down. How can hundreds of Tasmanian police fail to show up for six horrendous hours when people are in a panic? How can NSW snipers be ready all day to shoot Monis, yet not be allowed to do so? There’s got to be a reason.
Others, I know, would choose Number One as the clincher. They’d say “How can anyone explain a news writer or a radio host not wanting to entertain questions about a terrifically compelling story? How could they not want to invest their time in doing a better job of it than their rivals? Doesn’t human nature say they would do this?”
Good old human nature. I think it’s a worthy criterion when addressing oddball behaviors. But it’s abandoned regularly — our leaders brush off the behavior of a Monis or a Port Arthur gunman as being somehow caused by their personality.
If a better explanation is available – and it surely is – that explanation should win out over a stupid explanation.
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Prosecution for Treason (Trine Day Press, 2011).
Photo credit: i.guim.co.uk