Australia Gun Control!
By Joe Vialls
There are dozens of different cases to choose from, but the two ultimate examples of this test bed approach were synthetic "terrorist" attacks on Australians, the first at Port Arthur in 1996, and the second in Bali during 2002. Less than two weeks after each event, in which dozens of their fellow citizens had been brutally murdered, Australians lab rats across the nation were told they would have to "give up their guns".
If the Australian public could be made to comply with this insane political doctrine when all logic and reason pointed in the opposite direction, each social experiment could be declared a success. As if to prove the point, politicians drove the last few nails into the coffin of democracy by ordering 26-man heavily armed ASIO teams to smash their way into private houses at dawn, throw the unarmed civilian occupants to the floor, put boots on their bare necks, and strip search the women.
There should have been a public outcry, but it never happened. The ASIO "officials" should be hauled before the Supreme Court as the gutless and vicious criminals they have proved themselves to be, but this essential legal duty will have to wait for a year or two yet. For the moment at least, the politicians have most Australian citizens running scared, despite the vastly superior numbers of the latter. Sooner or later it will be time for payback, but that time is not now.
With George W. Bush's mental problems becoming so obvious that the Canadian Defence Minister was moved to call him a "complete moron" at NATO Headquarters last Friday, we need to get to grips with this social engineering rubbish, and stop it going any further. If we fail in this task, it now seems inevitable that a moron who chickened out of his local defense duties in Texas, will be allowed to plunge both of our nations into a completely unjustified genocidal war in the Middle East. Since it is impossible to change the future without understanding the past, we'd best look back at the more extreme antipodean lab rat experiments.
On Sunday 28th April 1996, a team of well-trained professional terrorists launched an attack on Australia. The lead terrorist entered the Broad Arrow Café, pulled a sawn-off Mistaravim AR-15 out of a bulky sports bag and opened fire on the unarmed diners. In just under thirty seconds, 20 people were killed and another 12 seriously injured. Of the twenty dead, the first nineteen were killed by incredibly accurate single shots to the head, all fired from the right hip of the terrorist as he performed a faultless moving pirouette down the length of the café, covering his own back while picking off his moving targets.
During the initial Café phase of the attack, the terrorist used only 29 rounds to kill or injure a total of 31 people. Subsequent forensic analysis proved that two of his shots scored "double", i.e. each bullet literally "exploded" the head of one victim, with the resulting bone and bullet fragments continuing on to injure a second victim standing directly behind the first. By firing only 29 counted rounds, the shooter ensured he still had a live round in the breech of the weapon to protect him during the two seconds he needed to fit a fresh 30-round magazine. This terrorist was a consummate professional who could never be taken by surprise.
By early the next day the Australian Government had all of these gruesome details, and knew very well that the overall carnage at Port Arthur and Seascape Cottage could only have been caused by a thoroughly professional team of imported terrorists. But despite this knowledge and absolute certainty at the highest of political levels, the mass murder was promptly blamed on a left-handed intellectually impaired young man by the name of Martin Bryant, whose shooting skills were limited to a single-shot Webley air rifle.
By noon on 29th April 1996 at the latest, the Government knew that Australia had suffered a horrific terrorist attack, and [should have had] no reason to assume the terrorists would stop there. Clearly, as was the case in Great Britain during 1940 when the Local Volunteer Force was formed and armed with 520,000 weapons to help combat feared fifth columnists in the United Kingdom, it was time to arm Australian civilians for defense. Inexplicably, this did not happen.
Instead, on 10th May 1996, the Prime Minister directly and illegally interfered with State Police Ministers, and ordered the disarmament of Australian civilians across the nation. In all, approximately 660,000 serviceable firearms that could have been used to defend Australia against terrorist attacks then and in the future, were confiscated, crushed, and melted down. Though it cannot yet be proved conclusively, but based on the bizarre actions of politicians after Port Arthur, the primary motive of the terrorist operation [obviously] appears to have been the disarmament of Australia.
Why did Australian civilians have to be disarmed? Again this is very hard to prove until events make the reasons self-evident, but it is useful to remember that even back in 1996, Wall Street was in serious trouble. During the mid-nineties with rapidly escalating costs, it was easy to foresee the day when certain giant multinationals would no longer be able to pay their greedy "investors" large enough dividends. What then? Experts in Wall Street suggested the easiest answer was to cut upstream costs, by stealing the raw materials that multinational corporations would normally be required to buy with investor funds.
Australia has a very small population, but is beyond doubt the world's biggest open-cut mine, with truly staggering quantities of iron, aluminium, copper, zinc, gold, silver, diamonds and just about anything else you care to name. So Australia was an obvious target for a hostile Wall Street "takeover", were it not for the hordes of armed civilians who might object to the massive theft. As Wall Street knew very well, armed Australians are not people to be taken lightly, a fact noted by the Japanese High Command during World War II. Imperial papers released after the war confirm Japan intended to invade Australia, but dropped the whole idea after fifth columnists reported back on the huge numbers of armed civilians. In a nutshell, the Japanese High Command was confident it could take Australia's major cities, but would be unable to hold the entire country in the long term.
If you think the idea of a desperate Wall Street attacking Australia is absurd, take a very close look at Iraq. Using George W. Bush and the mythical "War on Terror" as fronts, an even more desperate Wall Street is openly planning to use the US military to invade and capture Iraq's oil. After that, the intent is to cut the oil-rich former Soviet republics away from Mother Russia, and basically steal the lot. Israel would get its usual ten-percent cut, and all will be well with Wall Street again. Or will it?
In order to give even the slightest semblance of credibility to its war plans on Iraq, Wall Street needed and still needs other "willing" [read subservient] nations to join in. Top of the list is Australia, with Prime Minister John Winston Howard ready and willing to illegally incite war against Iraq. Indeed, he had already done so almost countless times on Australian television. But the problems John Winston Howard and Wall Street faced during October 2002 were twofold and almost insurmountable. The vast majority of Australians voters were not prepared to engage in a Wall Street war on Iraq, and many of them had still not been completely disarmed, meaning they were still a very real hazard for treacherous politicians. Then, as if by divine intervention, the Bali Bombing just happened. As I wrote earlier in an earlier report about the event:
"It was precisely 11.30 p.m. on Saturday 12 October 2002, when someone somewhere pressed a button that sent a single coded radio-squirt to an underground aerial located in a monsoon drain outside the Sari Club in Bali. An unseen circuit closed and a primer fired, then one-millionth of a single second later, a terrible fireball formed under the street. Less than six inches in diameter and burning at a staggering 300,000 degrees centigrade, the fireball was a perfect shimmering sphere, made possible by 99.78% Plutonium 239 manufactured at Dimona in the Negev Desert."
Targeted deliberately on a bar known to be constantly frequented by Australian [rather than American] tourists, the entire Bali nightmare was essentially a deadly Hollywood spectacular, designed to force Australian citizens to "follow their leader" into an American-led invasion of Iraq and the Muslim Republics. But despite the massive death toll in Bali, the scam failed to work. If anything, most Australians were even more angry at John Winston Howard for failing to protect Australian citizens abroad, and surprisingly few were buying the manufactured media garbage about "Muslim Terrorists" being responsible for the atrocity. Three days later on 15th October, it had become obvious in New York that these insubordinate Australians would have to be rendered less dangerous, by disarming them some more.
In a small book I self-published a few years ago called "Deadly Deception at Port Arthur", I predicted that the mass murder at Port Arthur would not be the last atrocity on the road to Australian disarmament. Addressing the wider risks Australia would face if police failed to properly investigate the terrorist attack, I wrote, "Riding piggyback on the atrocity at Port Arthur, the lobbies and politicians are currently setting up Australian sporting shooters as internal redneck terrorists, and if no aggressive defensive legal action is taken, I can confidently predict that within months or years another psyop [Covert Psychological Operation] will be executed in Australia; this time using semi-automatic handguns and revolvers, aimed at introducing legislation that will outlaw all such weapons for ever."
[page 54] Winston Churchill, Great Britain Churchill enthusiastically displays a civilian Home Guard Thompson sub-machine gun, issued to defend the United Kingdom from attack in 1940 Winston Howard, Australia Howard wears body armor [visible beneath shirt] to protect him from angry Australian farmers, who he disarmed after the Port Arthur terrorist attack in 1996.
At exactly 11.20 a.m. on 21st October, just nine days after the terrorist attack on Bali, student Huan Yun Xiang entered a tutorial room in the Menzies Building of Melbourne's Monash University, loaded down with a total of four heavy semi-automatic handguns and revolvers, plus a considerable quantity of spare ammunition. Described by one witness as being in a "trance-like state", Xiang then mechanically opened fire with a single semi-automatic handgun, killing two of the occupants and wounding another five. He was overpowered by staff, arrested by police, and remanded in custody to appear in the Victorian Supreme Court on 25th February 2003. It was swiftly reported by media that Xiang was a "properly licensed" shooter, legally entitled to own a total of seven different handguns. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Prime Minister John Winston Howard then went on the public record saying he would ban "all seven types" of handgun, though Winston backed off a bit when he found that even the mainstream media had apparently lost its normally voracious appetite for endless gun control. Nonetheless, Winston was not to be denied his second bite at the gun control cherry, telling Radio 5DN that it was "Ludicrous that ordinary people in Australia should have access to handguns". The Prime Minister claimed he supported the concept of police and security workers having such weapons, "But other than that you don't need a handgun, and I think most people would agree with that."
If Winston Churchill had heard thispompous treachery, he would have turned in his grave. His pint sized antipodean namesake was psyching up the entire Australian population to be "vigilant" while looking for mythical "Muslim terrorists" who might attack the nation with guns, bombs, and perhaps even giant battle cruisers. Then in his very next breath, John Winston Howard clearly expected the good people of Australia to believe his absurd claim that "You don't need a handgun…"
Obviously the carefully orchestrated 'trigger' for this radio madness was the shooter at Monash University, but what was not reported about the shooter is probably the most important part of the story. Huan Yun Xiang was suffering from severe depression, and being actively treated by a Melbourne psychiatrist for the condition.
This was the same psychiatrist who was paid a vast sum by the Government to "help" three Port Arthur survivors, who were having a lot of trouble remembering the official government story about the Broad Arrow Café. After being loaded up to the gills with psychoactive drugs, and then subjected to multiple sessions of narco-hypnosis, all three made remarkable "progress", to the point where they could once again "remember" the gunman in the Broad Arrow Café was Martin Bryant, rather than a taller thinner man with an entirely different face.
As yet there is no hard evidence to prove that Xiang was "narco-hypnotized" into carrying out the murders at Monash University, but the firm possibility exists. I have taped and written documentary evidence of the remarkable mental changes this man brought about in the three recalcitrant Port Arthur survivors: extreme changes which indicate strongly that this man's obscene skills would certainly be more than a match for Huan Yun Xiang's conscious ethics. These incriminating documents are currently held in a safe deposit box, well out of reach of criminally negligent federal authorities, and will be presented at Martin Bryant's trial whenever that may be.
The gun control so desperately sought in Australia by Wall Street and treacherous local politicians, has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. Its underlying agenda and long-term goal is to facilitate external control by foreign multinationals, with the [assumed] added bonus of protecting Australian politicians and bureaucrats from angry Australian citizens, who will soon become furious. New laws are currently being enacted in Canberra, which will allow for the arbitrary arrest and detention by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization [ASIO], of any Australian "reasonably suspected" of having possible links with any group, which ASIO might suspect in turn of having possible links with alleged terrorists invented by Wall Street.
Corrupt Australian politicians and bureaucrats are now getting visibly desperate about their own survival, proved graphically by the "small print" in this legislation. What it literally allows for is the arbitrary arrest and detention of whole families for up to seven days on a single warrant. Then, one minute after they have to be released at the end of the first seven day period, they may lawfully be arrested again on a second warrant for another seven days, and so on. Do not listen to ridiculous claims from the Australian Federal Attorney General's department that the new law is "protected" by "safeguards". No, it is not. The bottom line is that at a single stroke, politicians intend to remove the right to freedom that has underpinned Australian democracy since the very beginning.
This process was started at the covert level many years ago, as I found to my family's cost when I self-published my book on Port Arthur. The Federal Attorney General ordered that my name be placed in the nationwide Bureau of Criminal Intelligence computer database as a "security risk" to Australia, despite it being known in Canberra that I formerly held an extremely high NATO security clearance, and had no criminal record at all in any country. I found out about this illegal activity only when my children failed their "integrity checks" for jobs, based on the allegation that they were associating with a "known criminal" – their own father!
After a lot of hard work I managed to have the matter resolved, and was advised formally in writing that the blatantly false data had been "removed from the BCI database". But the moral of this story is not solely about what was done to my family and I by the Federal Government. Recently when 26 large armed ASIO agents pinned an unarmed family of four civilians to the floor of their own Australian home at 5.30 a.m. one morning, they did so on the "reasonable suspicion" that the father might be a "security risk", because he had attended a religious lecture by an Indonesian cleric who Australia had recently and arbitrarily declared a "terrorist", despite a total lack of proof.
Direct comparison between the two cases proves that members of ASIO have not the slightest genuine interest in protecting Australian national security. By their actions to date, they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are employed solely to do the bidding of the Federal Attorney General and other politicians, whether that bidding is legal or not. ASIO members have thus become the latest in a long line of political "Thought Police", using whatever force might be necessary to crush community dissent.
The history books are loaded down with similar examples. Every ruler on earth [read politician in this case] has started out with the "interests of the people" as his or her stated aim, and then has slowly but surely forgotten his original manifesto and promises. It normally goes something like this: A powerful fellow comes up with some ready cash for the politician because he wants to take over the village next door. The cash is tempting, and anyway, who will notice that a small village has been given away? The politician pockets the cash, and then finds that another fellow is offering even more cash for two villages on the other side of the hill. Why not? Without giving a thought to whether or not the villagers might actually want to be taken over, the politician pockets the cash and then quietly spends a little of it on two fine horses and a new chariot.
Several years pass during which the politician sells more villages, surrounds himself with paid secret police, and then the people down tools and refuse to work. No problem! At the stroke of a pen the politician allows the new landowners to import foreign labor to do the work for less money, despite the fact that the imported workers have customs and behavior alien to those of his own villagers. When word reaches the politician that the villagers are threatening open rebellion, he orders his secret police to do the rounds and confiscate every scythe and pitchfork in sight. Bathed in a glowing but entirely false sense of security, he relaxes again. Just two years later the villagers overwhelm his secret police with their bare hands, play with the hated politician's body parts for a while, before finally impaling his severed head on a rusty spike.
This cycle repeats itself throughout history without exception. There is not a single policy maker on record who managed to control the angry masses by any means in the long term. History also tells us that the harder a politician pushes the people, and the more Draconian the measures he introduces to protect his own hide under the false guise of national security, serve only to rapidly accelerate his demise. What is more, the mass attack normally happens so quickly that no security or intelligence on earth is capable of predicting or preventing it, no matter how sophisticated its equipment, and no matter how "clever" its personnel. A disenchanted & disenfranchised nation is a truly dangerous nation.
One excellent recent example would be Iran, back when the Shah sat on the Peacock Throne in Tehran. Loved to bits by his Wall Street backers, the Shah indulged himself to extraordinary excess, and handed over anyone who objected to the hated Savak, Iran's version of Australia's ASIO. Savak already had the powers that ASIO are currently seeking, so had no problem knocking the prisoners around, or hooking them up to the mains electricity supply. The Shah and the American CIA were sure Savak could protect him forever, but they were wrong. When the Iranian Revolution finally came, it came with breathtaking speed. Within months, and despite them having "protected" identities like ASIO members, ninety percent of the Savak operatives were tracked down to their homes, where they were slowly butchered in front of their families.
In equivalent terms today, Australian and American citizens are probably at the same point the Iranians were two or three years before they finally overthrew the Shah and Savak. There is huge public dissent smoldering just below the surface, a reality reinforced by increasingly frantic attempts by government to disarm the citizens of both nations. The politicians have sensed the increasing risk, but have failed to see the harsher reality; a novel reality shoved right under their noses by a single man in America during the month of October.
For two long weeks, a sniper paralyzed three American States to the point where children were no longer allowed to go to school, workers were too frightened to go to the office, and drivers stopped refueling their cars for fear of being hit by a bullet. Whoever the real sniper was, it was certainly not John Allen Muhammad, the man arrested for the crime. The FBI jumped too quickly in this case, accidentally arresting the suspect before realizing that Muhammad no longer owned the .223 Bushmaster rifle named in the warrant, which was then waved around by police on national television in order to incriminate him.
Muhammad did indeed buy the Bushmaster cited in the warrant from Welcher's Gun Shop in Tacoma, Washington, but sold it back to the same store on 23rd May 2000. I confirmed this fact with the owner of the store by telephone from Australia, and was freely provided with the Bushmaster serial number. Welcher's owner also stated the Bushmaster named in the warrant had subsequently been bought by another citizen of Tacoma, who still had it safely under lock and key. So the Bushmaster being waved around in front of the American media by the FBI, was certainly not the firearm originally owned by John Allen Muhammad.
We can safely set aside the actual identity of the sniper, for it is largely irrelevant to the lesson the sniper was teaching American citizens, and any other citizens who cared to diligently analyze the situation. His targets were of no particular religion, race, creed, sex or age. Indeed, during the two-week period he shot men, women and children who were white, brown and black. Because of this apparently random [but probably planned] technique, the sniper denied government authorities any chance of a "psychological profile", thereby ensuring his continued freedom in the community. The sniper only ever fired a single shot at each target, thereby ensuring he avoided detection by sophisticated aerial surveillance platforms.
The main thrust of the sniper's lesson, seemed to be that of teaching governments and citizens alike that there is absolutely no point in confiscating 660,000 firearms from Australians or anyone else, when it is clearly possible for a mere handful of expert snipers to bring an entire nation to its knees. Think about it people, think about it. This man single-handedly paralyzed three American States for two weeks, and could have continued for months if he had wanted to. How many American States are there in total? The bottom line is that this single man proved America could be completely crippled at will by no more than twenty expert snipers, each causing mass panic in his or her three designated States.
Was the sniper wrong to teach Americans this lesson? Quite possibly. Was it cruel and unnatural punishment for the unfortunate targeted American citizens who had never harmed anyone? Yes it certainly was, but nowhere near as cruel an unnatural as the proxy murder of 500,000 Iraqi women and children by Wall Street economic sanctions.
"Deadly Deception at Port Arthur" by Joe Vialls Perfect bound 110 page close-typed book including detailed maps and photographs of Port Arthur. Price $16.00 including airmail postage anywhere in the world. Click on the PayPal button below and please remember to include your full shipping address Vermin Controller, Circa 2005 trea'son (-zn) n. 1. (also high ~) Violation by subject of his allegiance to sovereign or chief authority of State (e.g. compassing or intending sovereign's death, levying war against him, or adhering to his enemies); ~ felony, attempt to depose sovereign or levy war in order to compel change of measures, intimidate parliament, or stir up foreign invasion. 2. Breach of faith, disloyalty (to cause, friend, etc.) trea'sonous adj.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------