Lunatics In Charge Of The Asylum
Perhaps its the rebellious and skeptical nature I’ve inherited from my largely Irish ancestry but I do not have an ounce of confidence or trust in government, even less so when the people we elect take their orders from some place else. I was six days shy of my tenth birthday when I awoke to the news that President John F. Kennedy had been shot in Dallas Texas, an event that is still significant to me all these years later and one I believe is still very pertinent to the subsequent history and events that occur to this very day. The age old battle between good an evil continues and although the actors and players come and go the interests and agendas along with the corrupt way the game is played remain the same, passed down through generations of family lines that remain very much connected and produce much the same results. I still believe to this day that this tragic November day in Dallas became a pivotal turning point for the worse in the entire course of human history having ongoing ramifications for the direction of politics, the entire planet’s future decided by that loss of innocence, as evil triumphed on that day, and appears to have continued on unchallenged since.
The term conspiracy theory and theorists was, as legend has it, coined by the CIA in the aftermath of the assassination to ridicule those who questioned the official theory, given the unofficial ones suggested the involvement of government agencies and identities. which is a common claim in relation to all sorts of world events these days. It is a term that is liberally applied to anyone who questions any official narrative, The Kennedy Assassination, 9/11 and in Australia we have the Port Arthur Massacre. On the other hand, where there’s smoke its usually accompanied by fire and if anything is known about conspiracy theories, it is that they are certainly not discounted when government authorities apply lengthy suppression orders to cases that prevent the facts becoming known, as we have seen with the Kennedy case, the Port Arthur incident or indeed in connection with pedophile suppression orders issued coincidentally by the Howard government, hardly suggestive of “nothing to see here.”
People prefer to feel positive about life and many wear a mask of outward confidence to conceal the fears they feel deep in their psyche, thus choosing to live in denial and avoid facing unpleasant realities, appearing to be the only option to avoid the pessimism and negative emotions that accompany such factual realities in life, but in the meantime things progressively worsen due to neglect. Years ago without much community objection Fluoride was added to the water, a forced mass medication just like the modern spectre of forced immunizations promise to line the pockets of big pharma today. Big governments applying their monopoly of wisdom off their own bat adopt all manner of profitable “initiatives” to offer the very young even presuming to provide options for meaty subjects such as sexual identification along with providing avenues to prosecute any who offer any opposition, and very few express any concerns at all, whatever they do.
Its probably a logical conclusion that the aversion to facing unpleasant realities largely explains why they persist, being consciously aware of problems is usually the prelude to correcting them but apathy and ignorance on the other hand permits them to proliferate and fester. However there are lots of people not drawn to truths that they would rather just not know about, and if that applies on a personal level, you’ll be delighted to discover just how much the media is prepared to cooperate and cater to your tastes, keeping your focus firmly on the most minutiae details of decidely infantile and trivial irrelevancies that one could possibly imagine. It is not beyond the media’s capabilities to create virtual heroes out of the very lowest form of human scum while on the other hand painting those possessing integrity, ethics, a love of justice, who speak the truth, as crack pots and conspiracy theorists, thus manipulating public opinion is child’s play when people are averse to painful truths.
Of course, one of the highest expressed intentions of these marvellous political heroes is the “protection of Australians.” Our security it appears, is the government’s highest priority, of utmost importance and they will not compromise on this objective, this is why former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull introduced the Fixated Person’s legislation, it is why our police now appear, and are, armed like storm troopers. I must say that the last vestige of respect for either the government or the media disappeared altogether for me when by accident I stumbled upon a video of Mike Willessee conducting interviews with various actors involved with the Port Arthur Massacre which prompted my own process of enquiry after becoming initially suspicious, while viewing the John Avery and Paul Mullen interviews. Mullen has apparently come out of retirement to head up the Turnbull’s Fixated Persons Research Group to beef up security measures against “domestic” terrorists. What qualifies him I have no idea, a spotlight of incompetency shone on the unprofessional and incompetent profiling of Martin Bryant by Mullen who on Willesee’s program proceeded to offer insights and observations of Martin Bryant’s early experiences in life without ever indicating that he’d actually ever spoken to anyone from Bryant’s past to verify his pitiful observations. Impressive only to the dull of intellect, the profile offered, was a cocktail of conclusions based on nothing but wild conjecture, vain imaginings and baseless assumptions pulled presumably, out of his arse, lacking completely in either proof or a logical rationale. Regrettably conducted by Mike Willesee who was seemingly happy to risk whatever there was left of his credibility with this piece of ineptitude. He then unwittingly proceeded to depict John Avery as the pathetic excuse for a human being and defence council, that he undoubtably is, before attempting to paint Avery in the end, as both Bryant’s friend, and victim of him, which demands one hell of a stretch of a viewer’s credulity even if there was nothing else attempted or achieved by this unmitigated garbage.
It must be very convenient for the Liberal and Labor governments who are on similar paths to have such academically qualified expertise on hand that can be procured on demand to secure suitable psychiatric assessments fit for purpose that can be used against dissenters and political opponents. Arguably, the purpose of having guns for hire like Mullen, is to attack our fundamental democratic principles by silencing critics. What history shows and what we can be sure of, is that sooner or later the worm will turn, and while they obviously believe that spending millions creating bodies like the Fixated Person’s Research Group or building fences around the parliament in the hope that it offers them security, such initiatives will only fuel the fire and hasten the advent of a reaction, the use of force and violence always create a forceful and violent resistance. As John F. Kennedy is quoted “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” I am reasonably certain that the French elites who formed the view that the peasants were revolting found them quite nasty as well, as was the experience in the Russian Revolution.
It would be somewhat reassuring, if we could, in all conscience, believe the official storyline of a lone nut gunman conducting a massacre in Port Arthur, one who has randomly decided to massacre everyday people including women and children but unfortunately, facts get in the way. A far more attractive tale than entertaining the idea of our own officialdom being involved in such an evil act, but the existence of this rather unique vehicle pictured below, and the timing of its appearance seriously call into question the viability of the lone nut scenario and raises higher the probability of official involvement.
This vehicle’s existence is just one of an entire list of questions that Ray Martin opted not to “delve” into at all when he launched his own much publicised enquiry, and of course it wasn’t one that Mike Willesee was stupid enough to pursue either, after pushing the boundaries of credulity in the interview with the so called defence council, John Avery, along with the dubious psychiatrist who concluded that the alleged perpetrator, who had for the presumed (not demonstrated) reason of boyhood rejection indulged himself in this orgy of murder as a result, further and somewhat conveniently, declaring the same accused, to be sane, at least sane enough enough to permit a guilty plead. If the Port Arthur massacre was not planned by authorities consistent with their official narrative, we as a consequence are to believe that some pen twiddling bureaucrat came up with a clever and original thought, an almost astonishing concept in and of itself, to dream up the idea that a 22 person refrigerated mortuary truck might be needed in Tasmania (when in the previous 100 years or so, the most number of people injured or killed by means of gun play was two.) This was by any measure an extraordinary bit of brilliant foresight, so brilliant in fact, that no one has stepped up to claim the credit.
The idea to order such a vehicle is one issue, yet another is the coincidence in terms of timing, the vehicle (the only one of its type in Australia) arrived just months before the massacre. Foresight it seems, is rather amazingly similar to foreknowledge, given the vehicle, was not garaged in a larger centre like Melbourne or Sydney or even Hobart, it was domiciled in the next town over from Port Arthur, who’d a thunk that such an amazing string of coincidences, almost like magic, could ever weave themselves together. Then after comprehensively and positively demonstrating its worth, utility and value it is astonishingly offered up for sale some 12 months later with no other state government showing any apparent interest in a purchase, strange that. What all Australians should learn from Port Arthur, along with all manner of injustices occurring in this country, is to limit their faith in the power of political forces to add much in the way of value to our lives, but rather to be on guard for what they remove.
I am quite unaware that questions raised by people surrounding the existence of the hearse, like many other pertinent anomalies have ever been explained or that any effort whatsoever has been exerted in any attempt to clarify those riddles, and while quite a number of issues remain inadequately explained, for mine, the handling of DNA evidence would have to be the ultimate key factor capable of throwing some definitive light on the entire affair, by actually providing incontestable and indisputable evidence that would either prove Martin Bryant’s guilt or innocence, once and for all.
As we all know the gunman ate, drank and left a sports bag at one of the tables before embarking on the shooting spree. Standard procedure, after a crime scene has been secured, is the examination and gathering of all forensic evidence including DNA samples for processing, procedures which the police have announced were observed, at least to some degree. If these procedures were dutifully followed and a thorough examination of all items had taken place then unmistakable proof of the guilt or alternately the innocence of Bryant would have been confirmed to investigators, including the Coroner, within weeks of the massacre one might reasonably expect. One could then conclude that the Coroner, and presumably other authorities, knew realistically and conclusively, at the very least, which suspects could be exonerated and excused at that time. Without a DNA match with Bryant, the available DNA samples could only have indicated that the shooter was someone other than Him. We are not told if the DNA points towards a different suspect or if any other matching DNA has been identified and apparently no one’s asking the question.
However, there is no other option, someone ate, drank and did the shooting, whether that someone was a different “lone nut” or part of something a bit more sinister is the question, that sits above all others. If indeed the DNA was a match with Bryant then that would be all the more reason to proceed with an evidence based trial regardless of the fact that Bryant, changed his plea, under circumstances unknown, and ultimately pleaded guilty. Qualified lawyers, like John Howard for instance would be well aware that guilty pleas do not invalidate the need for a trial, it is certainly not appropriate for a crime of this magnitude and few with an understanding of the law could justify such an action on these grounds, it would be tantamount to destroying or interfering with evidence resulting in the charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
As it turns out, the powers that be relied solely on his “confession” or more accurately, his guilty plea to halt any trial and to halt any coroner’s investigation (contrary to the law at the time) but the fact that the equivalent of an 11 year old under guardianship being convicted under these circumstances doesn’t strike investigative journalists like Ray Martin, Mike Willesee, Charles Wooley, Kerry O’Brien or even Waleed Aly, to be even slightly suspicious or inappropriate is almost beyond belief. Again it is almost impossible to accept that any self respecting, investigative journalist acquainted with the law could also ignore the fact that police purposely recorded interviews innapropriatley, with very much a child like person, who was actually under guardianship at the time because of his intellectual limitations. It is also incomprehensible that these interviews were conducted without either his defense counsel or his guardian in attendance.
Perhaps an apt summation would indicate that sentencing upon a guilty plea may well be sufficient from a legal perspective, but most certainly not the preferred course. However it is blatantly obvious, that it becomes in fact, the only possible option if the DNA, forensic, ballistic, and testamentary evidence is lacking or non existent, or indeed the evidence has pointed to a different culprit, and certainly preferred for someone who was in particular a part of a larger conspiracy, and even more particularly if it involves some one who’s charged with the task of managing it all.
Regardless of those abnormal practices it would seem, according to comments by Tim Fischer in an address made to gun owners at Alice Springs, a month after the massacre, that he certainly didn’t attribute the murder to a lone nut, but rather a group he referred to as “they.” He appeared to know who was responsible, he also apparently knew what they wanted and that the “they” he identified, were to be feared. Let it sink in,“If we don’t get it (gun laws) right this time, next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us.” Just who are the “they” he was referring to?
If we analyse what Fischer has said, it becomes fairly plain that he is firstly talking in the plural, and that the “they” appear to have an agenda to get the gun laws “right” but never has it been suggested by anyone that Martin Bryant, and/or any known associate, maybe his mother, had expressed any interest in bringing about gun law reforms. It hardly seems logical that he’s referring to Bryant when he states “and if we don’t get it right” (presumably accomplish this goal to Bryant’s satisfaction,) that Bryant might escape to perform (and there will be) another “massacre.” I am not convinced that once again he is here referring to Bryant, or any alleged associate, that might combine to “take all our guns off us.” Bryant in imprisonment, would certainly not have been paid the homage that the “they” actually were, by the government taking so much notice of events that Fischer, along with Howard, would immediately get out on the hustings and begin selling the idea of the Utopian state of security, that gun laws would usher in.
There is no mistake, Tim Fischer has virtually told us straight up that Port Arthur was a planned and organised event, and didn’t even hint that Martin Bryant was the mastermind behind it all. He also plainly suggested that “they” were a group with some authority and standing while it stands to reason that the tragedy would not have been staged successfully without the cooperation of the Australian government. It appears that the “they” are now focused on America, who do not have gun laws, but have any number of Martin Bryants apparently who pop up every other week. While we in Australia haven’t seen another lone nut since Port Arthur and neither have New Zealand since the Mosque attacks. Its difficult to comprehend just how crazy the system is and just how both callous and dumb people can be, but I suppose, at the end of the day what’s a couple of massacres between friends and political allies when there’s bigger fish to fry, deadlines to meet, careers to worry about, superiors to impress and grand visions to control the entire world, pity there’s no bank balances in the after life and no rich and poor to justify the madness.
This of course is how they work, offer a snippet of how life might look like if their policies and advice are not followed. No one suspects that these people themselves work hard to create the demand for the very solutions they offer. Ironically, people appear not to notice that the promised security seems very elusive and transient, and little wonder because those who stand in parliament declaring they want to keep Australians “safe” are the very ones who’s “solutions” pose the greatest risks to us all. It would be for example, a terrorist act of extreme aggression against the people to allow geo-engineering to be quietly but deliberately, foisted upon people with the resultant bush fires being used to convince us of the need to address “climate change” which in concert with the need to address “sustainable development” we awake to find that achieving these goals requires fart less cows, and given the rarity of this breed, the only other option demands the demise of agricultural pursuits both here and in New Zealand.
A true understanding of reality is of far greater service in the quest for survival, than the bliss of ignorance no matter how much more pleasant the latter seems. The supreme point of this article, above all else is, that it is critically important for Australian’s to have an accurate understanding of the real nature of our insane government’s capabilities and priorities and to understand that their beneficial intent does not include us. We need to be consciously aware of reality in order to have any chance of uniting to deal with them effectively, otherwise there’s every chance they will deal with us conclusively. As I have read elsewhere and totally agree, the precise reason that government doesn’t want weapons in the public’s hands is that they know full well what the public might use them for when they see the grand designs being rolled out by their masters.
At the moment our farmers are being starved off the land while the government has allowed speculators to buy and sell water to profit corporations, rather than supply it to food providers. Government are paying scant regard to the suffering in communities resulting from the taxing of people to the level of outright theft which really is what taxation is, while the media ignores the all pervading corruption in a system where ironically its actually the media that’s even more corrupt than the groups it reports on. We have government diminishing our rights at every opportunity in order to “protect us”, yet concern for us, doesn’t prevent them from allowing the untested 5G technology to be forced upon us, just as they permit forced vaccination and mass medications, not to mention offering succor to the pedophiles infesting our societies.
Politicians are taking no notice of the people’s concerns and don’t even waste much time on pretending to care. It is, beside being relevant, also a timely reminder of how the political animal works to “get things done” shown in those prophetic remarks made by NSW Premier Barry Unsworth some years prior to the Port Arthur tragedy, “We will not have uniform gun laws in Australia until there’s a massacre in Tasmania.” Given the high probability of Australians reaching a critical mass of disenchantment with government, the people may learn from the government’s own strategies and actions and decide that “we will not have uniformly good government, until there is a massacre in the ACT.” While tyrannies continue to persist in this world, history tells us that violent and bloody revolutions tend to follow, all of it quite pointless in the end because there are no debits and credits where each one of us will spend the greatest part of eternity, six foot under, with no exceptions.