The all-too convenient destruction of the German parliament building
by Mary W Maxwell
Tomorrow, April 28, 2017, is the 21st anniversary of the killing of 35 people in or near Port Arthur Tasmania. Last year there was quite a buzz for the 20th anniversary. This year all is quiet.
At GumshoeNews I have a False Flag series going. The cases dealt with so far are Operation Northwoods and Operation Desert Storm (assisted by April Glaspie). May as well have one on “Operation Port Arthur.” First, I will try to put PAM (Port Arthur massacre) in perspective with other known false flags.
False Flags in Perspective
In a false-flag set-up, an overseer causes a harmful incident to take place and claims the incident was wearing the flag of a foreign, or undesirable, group. This, naturally, justifies action against them.
Some of the best known false flags are the firing on Fort Sumter (by “parties unknown”) that started the War Between the States in the US in 863, and the “sinking of the USS Maine” that got the Spanish-American war underway in 1898.
I recall my father, born in 1899, saying that he was embarrassed in school at having to wear a soldier costume — because he was tallest boy in the class – in a 15th anniversary celebration of that war.
As to the spoils of that war the official historian in the US State Department says (at history.state.gov):
“U.S. victory in the war produced a peace treaty that compelled the Spanish to relinquish claims on Cuba, and to cede sovereignty over Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the United States. The United States also annexed the independent state of Hawaii during the conflict. Thus, the war enabled the United States to establish its predominance in the Caribbean region and to pursue its strategic and economic interests in Asia.”
Of course Dad was not embarrassed about the war’s having been started by a false flag, as he would never have known that sort of thing. He was just shy about the costume!
The next famous FF is the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in 1917, and the Reichstag fire in Berlin of 1933. The former helped bring America into “the Great War” – what a name – and the latter allowed Hitler to blame the Commies.
We have noted before that some people have said “Port Arthur was Australia’s 9-11.” But, chronologically it is more correct to say “9-11 was America’s Port Arthur.” So let’s think about this for a minute.
How High Is Up?
Apparently there are people in this world who are so “high up” – if you could call it that – that they can “script” an event and make it happen. They get people to carry it out by specific instruction, and some others get caught up into it, typically as victims.
Going back to the firing on Fort Sumter, all that was required was for a few volleys to be heard, and then there could be speculation that “the South” had done it. So the war was on.
As for the sinking of the American Navy ship, the Maine, in the harbor of Havana Cuba, all that was needed was an enemy. The media mogul of the day, Randolph Hearst, is credited with stirring up emotions in his newspapers and before you know it, there was a war against Spain.
Gosh, I just noticed how well the rhyme works. “To hell with Spain; remember The Maine.” Do you reckon maybe the ship was given that name in the first place with an eye to events down the line? “To hell with Spain; remember The Vermont” just would not have cut it.
On Being Admitted To
Speaking of South America, we learned a couple of years ago from a list of “admitted to” false flags, that the nation of Colombia suffered a particularly awful case. As reported by Wikipedia (of all people!):
“There was a series of murders in Colombia, part of the ongoing armed conflict in that country between the government and guerrilla forces of the FARC and the ELN. Members of the military had poor or mentally impaired civilians lured to remote parts of the country with offers of work, killed them, and presented them to authorities as guerrilleros killed in battle, in an effort to inflate body counts and receive promotions or other benefits.”
But then, as we saw from the “admitted to” Northwoods memo, dressing up as the bad guy is Standard Office Procedure.
At this point, one must pause to note that the admitting-to factor does not make much impression on people. I say it’s because nothing ever follows by way of punishment.
Of course we never expect a group to punish itself when the misdeed – the false flag deception – has resulted in a gain. But even when the killers and the killed are both in the same nation, nothing seems to happen. It’s Ho hum city.
What Really Happened at Port Arthur?
Although Dee McLachlan and I have co-authored a 2016 book entitled Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough, we really haven’t got much knowledge of how it was planned and carried out. We mostly spent our ink knocking down the official story as being ludicrous.
Port Arthur qualifies as a false flag to the extent that a violent activity took place and it was all “down to one man,” namely the 28-year-old Martin Bryant. He was considered to be intellectually handicapped, had no police record, and was described by friends as a gentle soul. Clearly he didn’t do it.
This case is not a strong example of a false flag. The nation didn’t proceed to declare war on Martin Bryant, or on low-IQ citizens, but on gun-ownership.
McLachlan and I realize that the case we make is missing many parts. Conceivably one could give a more generous interpretation of the events of April 28, 1996. One could say the capture of Bryant was a case of mistaken identity. Police got the story wrong and then never bothered to pursue any other possibilities.
I am not so generous as to believe that; I think many bits of the 1996 court case and follow-up studies bespeak a conspiracy.
So, let me speculate what really happened. I think Martin was chosen as a child, as part of the Tavistock stuff run by Dr Dax in Tasmania, to play some role later, maybe as a real killer. I think the Dad, Maurice Bryant, was bumped off in 1993, and that Martin’s employer and benefactor, Helen Harvey, was bumped off in 1992, as a way of getting control over Martin.
(Note: Martin’s being handled by Tavistock is documented, but “murders”of Maurice and Helen have no proof whatsoever.)
On the day of the massacre Martin did not have to perform any shooting but only to wait in the Seascape cottage to carry out what was drilled in advance. This consisted of his reading a script.
Meanwhile back at the Broad Arrow Café, someone else – it may have been more than one person – carried out the shooting of 20 or more people. The same man then drove up the road and killed some more and then drove further up the road to Seascape, which was a B&B.
It is seldom mentioned but Stewart Beattie explains in his book A Gunsmith’s Notebook on Port Arthur, that the man alighted from his car before going onto the driveway at Seascape and took shots at four cars passing by.
Beattie deduces, since one of the road victims was the wife of a Canadian embassy staffer, that she was meant to be killed and that this was aimed at exciting the people of Canada to pass gun-control laws. (She did not die, was only wounded in the hand.)
By the way, Beattie’s book exists only in electronic form and is catalogued as one of the holdings of State Library of Tasmania. That same library is also please to host the Maxwell-McLachlan book. Yippee!
Where Was What’s His Name?
Other speculations have been put forward about the day’s event – on April 28, 1996. One is that a prominent member of the Tasmania police, who never officially came to work that day, was in fact inside Seascape cottage supervising the events.
All it would take is a short interrogation of him as to why he is not on the record that day. This would be followed up by a questioning of all his colleagues, as to what they knew of him, or saw of him, that day.
Up until this point those cops, as individuals, have had no forum for stating their opinion about this. Surely they can’t come forward to the media as there is no such media, if you know what I mean. (Well, there’s Gumshoe now, and a few others, but there were none back in those days.)
Another speculation is that a cop inside Seascape supervising events could have escaped the fire next morning by exiting, when it was still dark, by helicopter – the place was loaded with helicopters – or simply by boat. The east side of Seascape is on the water.
The Hard Part
Personally, I have taken the easy way out of dealing with the Port Arthur false flag by concentrating on legal matters (and by putting on comedy shows!). It is as easy as pie to show how the Court fouled up. I now must discipline myself to look harder.
The logical deduction is that the people who planned 9-11 and the people who planned PAM are the same. Most likely, Port Arthur was a try-out for 9-11. Other tryouts for 9-11 include the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Bldg in Oklahoma City, the 1993 bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center, and the 1992 crashing of an El-Al plane into the wall of an apartment building in Amsterdam.
Many writers say that the main purpose of PAM was to take away the guns from gun-owners n Australia. Certainly that mission was fulfilled. But the day’s events, and the aggressive cover-up and bamboozling of the public, also set precedent.
I mean it was a “job well done” and must have made it easier for authorities and media to plunge in, regarding such events as the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and the Sydney siege in 2014, not to mention the array of school shootouts such as Columbine and Sandy Hook.
In those cases, with the exception of Sydney and Boston where a radicalized Muslim (can you imagine) was seen as the culprit, the blame was on “nut jobs.” By now the planners of massacres must be feeling assured that folks will accept any crime if it is chalked up to a person with mental illness.
(Eeks, wait a minute – you don’t think, do you, that mental illness has been engendered and cultivated for the purpose?)
Has Anyone Seen SAC-PAV?
As I said, it’s hard to tackle the true facts rather than laugh at the false facts. The true fact is that SOMEBODY DID PLAN AND CARRY OUT A KILLING OF 35 PEOPLE, mostly Australian tourists, on Sunday afternoon in the autumn of 1996.
I think it was SAC-PAV. That is a government agency similar to Homeland Security. It is a federal Australian overseer of Special Operations Groups and other kinds of special forces police. The name SAC-PV almost gives it away. The acronym stands for Special Advisory Committee for Protection Against Violence. Oh please.
Where are they? Have you seen them? Do you know what their job is? Do you know who appoints them? Do they have any relationship to Australia’s Commandos or the SAS (Special Air Service? What kinds of events trigger their getting involved? Surely a massacre should get them involved.
I noticed during the Sydney siege that the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Police both said their policy was hands-off, as the State Police of New South Wales was capable of handling it. But the gunman, Man Haron Monis, had said “Australia is under attack.” Isn’t that enough to allow the army to be called in?
It would be good for the public to get clued in as to who is supposed to protect them.
Or get clued in as to who is supposed to massacre them, as the case may be.
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Inquest: Siege in Sydney. Note: the acronym for that book is ISIS.