Egg Up! Egg Up! and Play the Game!

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Do any of us know whom we are supposed to be fighting today? The pink-clad girl seems to me to be acting sensibly. When ordered not to enter her home, she shouldered the cops aside. And since she knew that we do not have to submit to the media, she (or her friends) threw eggs at a cameraman. I haven’t seen egg-throwing in years.

It’s more difficult to determine what was going on last week when the 15-year-old boy, Jabar, shot a man dead (Mr Curtis Cheng) on the street in Parramatta. The authorities are making a big to-do about it, raiding the homes of other Muslims in Sydney. They have implied that the shooting is owing to religious fanaticism, or is an example of blowback.

Note: “blowback” means that a nation’s policy caused another nation (or non-state actors – remember Mohammed Atta?) to get violent in an unpredicted way). I suppose it’s reasonable to believe that a person whose ethnic group has been attacked may lash out at the attackers.

Probably it does not happen too often. The Irish are sometimes called “the fightin’ Irish,” and have a reputation for having made trouble for the English who invaded their land and oppressed them. But that is not a very accurate picture. A typical reaction of Irish persons – and of all persons, including me and thee – is to just lie there and take it.

Beating back one’s oppressor is very hard. I admit I found it pleasing to see the broken eggs. It seems as though doing something is better than doing nothing, these days. But what should we be doing?

Is It Blowback or What?

We really should pursue the matter of the 15-year-old, whom we can’t interview about his motives as he is now deceased. Indeed we still need to find out what Man Haron Monis was doing in the December 15, 2014 siege of the Lindt café.  He, too, cannot be questioned — for the same reason.

Let’s start by saying that there are two quite different ways to deal. The first way is to find out what truly happened. I mean, what did Monis have in mind that morning when he left his house? Perhaps it was blowback for harm done to Iran. The second way is to look at Big Political Plans. Was the 15-year-old controlled by others? Was Monis ‘run’ by a handler?

If yes, then the acts they performed (killing Mr Cheng outside the Parramatta police HQ, or killing Tori Johnson in the Lindt café) were performed as agents of someone else, and that someone else is legally the correct party to blame for those killings.

Big Political Plans

We do know a lot, thanks to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s willingly spilling the beans in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur. He informed us that, back in 1980, it was US policy – he himself invented it – to pay billions of dollars to some Muslims in Pakistan (the “Mujahidin”) to create mayhem on the ground in Afghanistan.

Brzezinski claims his purpose was to distress the Soviet invaders, but the religious camps sowed seeds of “Islamic terrorism” generally. Maybe Brzezinski knew (again, maybe he holds the patent?) that Communism was scheduled to grind to a halt, circa 1989, and so a whole new “metaphysics” would be needed. If Americans no longer had to band together against Commies, they could be taught to see Arabs as their enemy.

This is not the place to argue the case for 9-11-as-Inside-Job, but note that the media told everyone that Mohammed Atta was a Muslim fanatic and that he was seeking revenge on the US. (Blowback.) Never mind that Atta’s girlfriend said he was a drinker and a gambler – things that don’t match up with fundamentalist adherence to the Quran. Somebody wanted Americans to band against Arabs. Period.

I pass over the fact that it was later found that Mr Atta had been a frequent visitor to the yacht of Jack Abramoff who is now allegedly doing time for embezzlement. (Oops, I just googled for Abramoff. I guess he’s out, as you are invited to “book him as a speaker.” Wow.)

“More on Merkel”

Please recall my GumshoeNews article of September 24, 2015, “Is It Bad To Protect One’s Country?” I claimed that Angela Merkel has opened up Germany to the so-called refugees from Syria in a way that is bound to distress the German people. I say “so-called” refugees as they were apparently forced by the Angela Merkels of this world to leave their home in Syria.

The goal, I think, is: distress for all. Distress for the families who had to run from the bombing in Damascus, and distress for the citizens of Germany who don’t know why  immigration regulations have so suddenly been dropped.

If you don’t think anyone would deliberately cause distress, you need to peruse the literature that outs our hidden controllers. If there is one tactic that they utterly rely on, it is: “Distract people’s attention from us at the top – at all costs.”

Loyal To Whom?

I said in my September 5, 2015 article, “Killing Is No Picnic,” that we have two sets of morality and that this was well recognized by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in his 1932 book Moral Man and Immoral Society. In my sociobiology article of October 6  (“Maxwell Writes to EO Wilson”), I mentioned again that we have “dual morality.”

The first type is the morality to be observed in our local social circle. It calls for restraint – basically the Ten Commandments: “Don’t kill or steal.” The other is inter-group morality, guiding our behavior towards foreigners. It says: “Kill and steal, please; you will be a hero for doing so.”

Folks don’t seem to be aware of the great contradiction between the two sets of morality. They get emotional about doing the right thing — but such emotions are easily taken advantage of by manipulators.

It’s high time we got on top of this, as the Powers That Be are now going at full tilt in the effort to confuse us as to who our real enemy is. (It is they, of course!)

Almost every evening, TV provides a barrage of stories about the new menace in Australia. I do not deny that the menace actually exists! In the 1980s, with the US picking up the tab, men in Pakistan were sent to religious camps and given guns to finish off the enemy.

At that time the enemy was the Soviets, but it took only a dab of white-out to change the name to “Yankee infidels.” Right now somebody wants us to believe that the fanatics hate Oz.

When a man polishes his gun, he loves his gun. He wants to use it, or risk being a wimp. Yes, I think manliness is involved in the current excitement in Oz. (Our pink-clad girl acted manly, for a’ that.) But who should a soldier works for? Please invest 2 minutes in this video about a battle in the Sudan in 1885. Be astonished that Brits could wear long sleeves in that heat!

That battle of Abu Klea later caused Sir Henry Newbolt to laud the Etonian (or similar) tradition thusly:

…The sand of the desert is sodden red,

Red with the wreck of a square that broke;

The Gatling’s jammed and the colonel dead,

And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.

The river of death has brimmed his banks,

And England’s far, and Honour a name,

But the voice of the schoolboy rallies the ranks,

“Play up! play up! and play the game!”

All Very Emotional

Inspirational, no? The poet was accurately calling on the upper-class Brits’ sense of inter-group morality. In a word: Conquer Africa. Granted, the troops had to be fooled a bit by being told that the Sudanese were doing something-or-other that was naughty, but there was a reasonable match between a goal for British people (grab resources) and the work needed to attain it (fight).

So what about Australia today?  Whom should this country be fighting against? As for the NSW young people “of immigrant descent”  (aren’t we all of immigrant descent?) – to whom should they be loyal? I hope they will join the main team here.

Naturally they can’t make that decision if they’re under actual hypnosis, but I’m aiming my remarks at those who still have access to their noodle.

Mainly I want to say this. Andrew Bolt, columnist in The Herald Sun and other Murdoch dailies, says the behavior of Muslim gunmen is a sign of religious fanaticism. I said above that we don’t know if people like Monis or Jabar were acting freely or got patsified in some way, but please pretend that Bolt is right; the motive was religious fanaticism. Now ask: What to do?

Is there any reason for Aussies to open their box of human rights and reach for some phrases about religious freedom? Hell, no. Religion has to do with how a society lives with its own people. Let them believe what they want (as we all do).

But if they make a decision to attack other folks militarily, the event is no longer “religion.” It is war. Even if they say Scripture has forced them to do it. Who cares? War is war.

Remember Law?

If social mayhem is happening, how can we respond? I’m sure we should go with the law. But what if the people we employ to enforce the law are confused? What if our lawmakers in Canberra don’t have a clue?

Think about this: if Brzezinski is right, that terrorism is but a tool for the powerful to use in disrupting societies, how can a particular society (Australia) maintain its cool? Does it do any good to appeal directly to people’s emotions of loyalty?

“The Gatling’s jammed and the colonel dead,

And the regiment blind with dust and smoke….”

Do YOU know which way to play up and play the game today? Is your training at Eton going to be of any use? Not unless you can identify the enemy.

Come on, egg-throwers of the world. Take a close look at what is happening.

News photographer zooming in on the weapon of mess destruction.

— Mary Maxwell can be reached in Adelaide via her website ProsecutionForTreason.com