by Geoff. Muirden.

From a lecture given in Hobart, November 1997

New World Order guinea pigs

Back to Martin Bryant and Port Arthur

US citizens are concerned about the Australian attempt to ban guns. In a report titled WAKE UP CALL FOR AMERICA, it says : "The people of Australia are only used as New World Order guinea pigs. What happens in Australia is almost always done later in America, so, US citizens, you better get ready! Soon, a horrible "terrorist" act will be committed by a person who will be branded by the media as a "crazed shooter". The President and the media will scream and holler for action. New, draconian, gun-confiscation legislation will be rushed into law by our controlled and bought-off Congress. You'll have to bring your guns-or else go to prison.

Issue of gun control is important to every Australian citizen, whether they have guns or not, because the right of the citizen to bear arms is a fundamental tenet of self-defence and national defence.

A letter to police in Perth received this response: "an inalienable right to bear arms does not exist in Western Australia". But he might as well have said "Australia" since guns are now banned nationwide. And there's something worrying about it, because the man who alienated an inalienable right could just as easily alienate other inalienable rights, such as the right to free speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, trial by jury, etc., because this is the way things are headed: in the direction of fewer civil liberties.

We are now being told that having a gun in self-defence is not acceptable. Not that this is anything new. An ad. placed in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph, during 1992,defended gun registration and insisted that "personal protection is no reason to have a gun". And now this is a nationwide policy.

This is the first stage in a war against the rights of Australian citizens and a dress rehearsal for a slave state. The main purpose of the government is to defend its citizens. But now they seek to deny them a basic right: the right to self-defence with guns if attacked. Denial of the right to have guns for self defence is rather like saying that you can have food, but you can't eat it, you can have water, but you can't drink it. There is a natural right of self defence and national defence being denied.

It was precisely this right of the individual to keep and bear arms that was a foundation of freedom for the American pioneers. Some people have suggested that the US Founding Fathers meant only the Organized Militia (National Guard) to have weapons. If you listen to the following quotes from the US Founding Fathers, it couldn't be more clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to apply to all US citizens.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorise Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms".

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun".

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed,which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation".

Short of drawing diagrams, it couldn't be clearer, The Founders of the US wanted grassroots citizens to have a gun to defend themselves from tyrannical government.They had to battle for their freedom, it wasn't given to them on a plate, now they wanted to safeguard it.

BILL OF 1688
The same thing applied in the case of the 1688 Bill of Rights. It was part of the culmination of a disastrous war in which the citizens fought for their freedom and wanted to save future generations from that suffering, Clause 7 of the 1688 Bill of Rights affirms the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Why don't we learn from history? Must we keep repeating the pattern where citizens have to fight for their rights, seek to protect future generations from tyrannical government, to find these principles later discarded?

These people realised that the greatest enemy they might have to face was their own governments, and this has proved true today, especially in the light of the Waco and Randy Weaver cases.

In a wider sense it has implications for the defence of the country.

At a time when the national defences are totally inadequate to fend off an attack, which may come from a well armed country such as Indonesia, or perhaps China, the backup of a citizen militia, such as exists in Switzerland, is crucial.

If you wanted to invade Australia, wouldn't you want to wait until the country's citizens had disarmed? Otherwise, when you invade, the citizens may be unsporting enough to fire back.It's better for invaders when their fire isn't returned.

Indonesia has a history of invading neighbouring countries, and Australia, during both the ALP and Liberal/National Governments has had a history of appeasing them, even allowing Indonesian troops to train in Australia: supplying them with weapons and assistance and turning a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities, including the shooting of five Australian journalists.

The armed forces at the moment in Australia are woefully inadequate to handle an Indonesian invasion. What is needed is a citizen militia trained in the use of weapons and having guns at home to use. At the moment, even the regular army's short of ammo.

Despite the fact that most adult Swiss citizens are armed, Switzerland has NO record of mass shootings and assassinations. Switzerland trusts its own citizens. Apparently Australia cannot. And that strikes at the hearts of our so-called democracy. But what are the real issues? Why are guns banned?

Pardon the diversion into botany, but is the government treating us like mushrooms, are the explanations provided not entirely adequate or truthful?

We know what the government and the media tell us: guns are banned, gun control laws and also the lowest crime rate.It was a barrier to the imposition of uniform gun laws, so perhaps it had to be taught a lesson, Perhaps an incident had to be manufactured to "convince" them? We don't know exactly who organized that., We do know that the Port Arthur Massacre was preceded by the Australian signing of the UN Conventions designed to implement universal disarmanent (see September issue of Shooters' Journal)

There was no referendum to ask the Australian people what they thought, or any intention to notify them what was planned

The fact that there was a move on banning guns and getting State-wide agreements within 12 days of the shootings suggests prior planning. It seems possible that the politicians were ready to act on any excuse to ban guns.

Franklin Roosevelt said that "in politics, nothing happens bychance". Things can be and have been engineered for political means. An illustration of the way things can happen is suggested in a letter in Christian Identity Ministry Newsletter, August,1997:

CLINTON GUN CONTROL. It says: "President Clinton had a gun control bill that Congress would not pass". An incident was staged where four federal officers were killed by a "cult" that supposedly had machine guns, illegal ammunition, handgrenades,etc. The cult was wiped out, killing 86 men, women and children and Mr. Clinton's gun bill passed in Congress with flying colours.

A second incident is mentioned: Later Mr Clinton had an anti-terrorism bill that was going to be defeated. A federal building was blown up, killing 168 and the bill passed.

A third incident: Mr Clinton's airport security bill was going down. A missile shot down flight 800 killing 230 people and Mr Clinton's airport security bill was passed. It was proven that the FBI was involved in the Trade Towers' bombing. All this was done under Clinton's administration. This is legislation by mass murder. Is anyone ready to believe that this sequence of events "just happened" by pure chance, enabling these controls to be forced through?I don't think so.

A pattern is created:
1. suggest a bill to remedy a social problem.
2. If they don't pass the bill, create the social problem.
3. Enforce the answer to the social problem which you created.

Could something like the Port Arthur Massacre have been engineered for Australia to create the problem of a lone nut assassin so that uniform gun controls could be forced through on the tide of popular sentiment? Or am I being too cynical? Was it more noble than that? Was Little Johnny Howard a champion protecting the safety of the people? This is the way he was presented in the Melbourne Herald Sun cartoon, as an Olympic champion protecting the people-an award winner. But is this the reality or is it an image created to justify a preconceived policy. Could Howard have been manipulated by forces behind the scenes?

To what extent did manipulation operate? Is it possible that Martin Bryant was either not the real assassin or that he was trained as an asssasin? Maybe. There are 2 theories bearing on this. One is the theory by Joe Vialls in Strategy magazine (May, July & August,1997) and in the magazine Exposure. And the other is that of Douglas and Sharp in New Citizen, the journal of the Citizens' Electoral Council (the LaRouchites), June-July,1997.

The first part of Joe Vialls's article is his documentation of the way in which an English policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, was assassinated in England, allegedly by Libyan terrorists, so that Libya could be expelled from England, which it was. He concluded that it wasn't carried out by Libyans but by some other group trying to implicate the Libyans.

He decided that the same type of tactics were used in the Port Arthur Massacre, which he feels is an engineered atrocity. He argued that Martin Bryant didn't have the IQ or the skill to carry out a massacre which he feels showed the skills of a sharpshooter. He feels that either Martin Bryant was assisted by others or that a man, perhaps of Martin Bryant's general build, did the shooting and that Martin Bryant was the "fall guy" or "patsy" forced to take the blame. Part of his goal in writing is to call for an investigation into the shooting that may clear Bryant.

Part of his evidence is that the frantic shooting of Martin Bryant at Seascape Cottage hit no targets, inconsistent with the high kill rate at the Broad Arrow Cafe. Later information from Joe Vialls is to the effect that the gunman shot from the right hip and finished off 12 head shots in 15 seconds, firing 12 feet away, an accomplishment showing a professional sharpshooter skill beyond that of Martin Bryant, whereas Martin Bryant is left handed. He claims that those in the Cafe were in a state of shock and trauma and not able to properly assess what was happening. In a later article in Strategy, Joe Vialls suggests that a Tasmanian gun dealer, Ted Hill, was used as a "scapegoat" after the incident, blamed for having sold guns to Martin Bryant.

The version of events from CEC or the Larouchites agrees with Joe Vialls that it would have taken a man with professional military skill to carry out the massacre. However, they claim Bryant did it, but that he was programmed or encouraged to carry out his killings, which they attributed to a London based terrorist outfit called Tavistock Institute which the CEC believes is a centre for world terrorism.

The CEC may be wrong in thinking it was necessarily the Tavistock Institute who did the killings, as it could equally well have been another group - U.S. for example.

Joe Vialls may be right in thinking that there is an inconsistency between the high kill rate at the Broad Arrow Cafe and the ineffective firing by Bryant at the Seascape Cottage.

But the details have to be worked out.

Both theories differ in details, but they agree in one respect: Military training was needed for the sharpshooter. Other queries include who supplied the shooters high-tech weapons? Was it modelled on the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland?

We can't be sure of the identity of the group behind the massacre but we do know the underlying motive, summed up in the letters G.U.N. Grab by the United Nations, as a move towards global disarmanent. And here we have the real motive-part of the real issue. But before we leave the topic of the Port Arthur incident, leaving to one side whether or not it was engineered, let's point out that if we had a situation, such as applies in Switzerland where most able bodied males have what amounts to a machine gun in their homes,then any assassin could have been surrounded by people from homes in Port Arthur who could have ordered him to drop his gun or be killed? So the problem is not having too many guns, but too few.

Before we go on, let's examine the issue of gun control. One survey suggests that about 78% of people surveyed supported gun control, and whether that's an exaggeration or not,nevertheless many people have supported the policy. Many feel that gnn control is a good thing: that it takes dangerous weapons out of irresponsible hands, that banning would prevent or lessen crime. Part of the answer to this has already been suggested: that guns provide a remedy against government tyranny, and the Switzerland allows its citizens to bear arms without many incidents of "lone nut assassins. Did Little Johnny Howard in his touching concern for our welfare, believe he was doing us all a good favour, thus explaining his ruthless determination to ban guns?

I don't think so, because if Little Johnny had done any research, he would have found a lot of evidence refuting the idea that gun control means less crime, some of it coming from within the Federal Government department,the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Is it that he didn't look, or didn't he want to know?

For example, if Johnny had checked with the federal department, The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the booklet titled Firearms Deaths In Australia (ABC cat. no. 4397.0) p.5, he would read that crude firearm death rate declined from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population in 1980 to 2.6 in 1995. This represented a decline of 49% over a period of 16 years.

"The majority (78%) of firearms deaths during the relevant period (1980-95) were sucides: 15% were homicides, while deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms contributed" So most firearms fatalities during 1980-95 were suicides, not homicides. However, regarding suicides with firearms, it says in another ABS survey, Suicides Australia,1982-1992 (cat. 3309.0) p.8, says that "there has been a change in the pattern of suicide methods between the years 1982-1992. In 1982 suicide deaths from the use of firearms and explosives accounted for 31% of total suicides. By 1992 this has decreased to 21% of all suicides".

So the general pattern was reduction in deaths owing to firearms.

The general pattern has been observed: it is generally the lawabiding citizens that willingly hand in guns: criminals refuse to. An article in the Melbourne newspaper,The Age, 1/9/96,mentions that two American cities with the tightest gun controls are Washington, D.C and New York City, and both are rife with illegal guns. Experience in the US has shown that criminals hesitate to attack citizens with guns.Guns can prevent crime.

US citizens are concerned about the Australian attempt to ban guns. In a report titled WAKE UP CALL FOR AMERICA, it says : "The people of Australia are only used as New World Order guinea pigs. What happens in Australia is almost always done later in America, so, US citizens, you better get ready! Soon, a horrible "terrorist" act will be committed by a person who will be branded by the media as a "crazed shooter". The President and the media will scream and holler for action. New, draconian, gun-confiscation legislation will be rushed into law by our controlled and bought-off Congress. You'll have to bring your guns-or else go to prison.

"Of course, only you, the individual, law-abiding citizen, will have your guns confiscated. The ruthless gangs in the inner cities will actually be given more guns. Guns headed for gangs are being smuggled in almost every day now on Red Chinese ships docked in Long Beach, California, and Portland, Oregon. "You and I will be left unarmed and defenceless. We will be prey to urban gangs, criminal elements, roving packs of illegal immigrants, and the entire federal Gestapo (the FBI,BATF,CIA, the EPA, NSA and all the other alphabet cops). It's time for us to protest now, or soon it will be too late. They've already cracked the whip on gun owners in Australia. We're next! "

The drive to ban guns in Australia, and later in the US-has a very ominous precedent- that every time Communists have taken over a country, they moved to confiscate guns.

If you want a description of how that operates, hear the audiotape by Reverent Milne, a Christian minister who worked in China, prior to and during the Communist takeover of China. He relates how the Communists first reacted with a plastic smile, treating people with courtesy until they had taken their guns. Then they moved in for terrorist control. (see How The Communists Captured China, by Rev. Milne, from; Australian Freedom Foundation, PO Box 140, Glenelg,S.A. 5045 or Christian Identity Ministries, PO Box 146,Cardwell,Qld.,4849)

Mentioned in Aid & Abet Newsletter, Feb.,1997, published by Police Against The New World Order (PANTWO) "Gun registration always lead to gun confiscation! As a matter of fact, the seven major genocides that occurred in the 20th century,each and every one of them was preceded by gun control. No tyrant can force his will on the people of his nation if the people are all armed. That is why our founding fathers insisted on giving us the 2nd Amendment in our US Constitution which reads in part: "the right of our people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". According to a study done by Professor R.J. Rummell, there were 119,000,000 people killed by their own governments in the 20th century, while 35,000,000 were killed on battlefields in that same period of time! That means that governments have killed almost 4 times as many of their own people as did war in this century.

And now we're faced by an intended monopoly of weapons control on the part of the UN, a super government that will eliminate national sovereignty and impose a One World dictatorship. They have the potential for a total global tyranny that will make murders by national governments pale into insignificance!

The historian, Lord Acton, made the famous statement: "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" If men were angels, there would be no problem, but the potential for absolute power placed in the hands of globalists answerable to nobody is an invitation to tyranny. The history of UN so-called "peacekeeping" shows a determination to protect Communist rulers. For example, under UN rule, Croation Moslems were disarmed while Serbians were armed., The Serbs were allowed to commit genocide or "ethnic cleansing".

Then there's the case of Katanga, now part of Zaire. One of the best references for this is The Fearful Master, by Edward Griffin. Briefly, in 1960, the Belgian Congo was given its independence, and the country was taken over by a Communist dictator, Lumumba, who established a reign of terror, murdering and torturing men, women and children. In this situation, one area of Congo,the province of Katanga, headed by a man, Moishe Tshcmbe, declared its independence. Tschombe was a devout Christian and an ardent anti-Communist. Instead of the UN being thrilled to support such a declaration of independence, Communist-led influence led the US to join with the USSR in support of a UN resolution, July 14,1960, authorising sending troops to the Congo to suppress Katanga.

UN troops, including US warplanes, bombed and strafed civilians in schools, churches and hospitals, obviously with genocidal intent. Troops even bayonetted Red Cross officials who tried to help the wounded. There has been no admission of wrong doing on the part of the UN, no apology and no restitution for victims of this UN atrocity. It served its purpose, to bring Katanga under Communist control.

This is the same kind of body that wants universal control, and wants to take away all our guns so they can enslave us. Their goal is to have global control by the year 2000.

A body with absolute power would be able to suppress all civil liberties, including free speech, to crush all dissent.

Some people are withholding guns, and risking arrest or massive fines to prevent their guns being seized. But we shouldn't have to risk life and limb to retain what remains of our freedom.

One option is suggested by Joe Vialls- that funds be raised to form a Royal Commission into the Martin Bryant case, including also the scapegoating of Ted Hill, the Tasmanian arms dealer, to open up information being withheld from us. ''1688 BILL OF RIGHTS-Several Attorney-Generals of individual States have admitted that the 1688 Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms is still in force. On this basis, some patriots want to launch a High Court challenge to the validity of the gun laws, claiming it is banned by the 1688 Bill of Rights. However, lawyers that I've spoken to insist that it is not in force, that it has been overriden by the Statute of Westminster dated 1931 and ratified 1932 which allows Australia to pass laws repugnant to British law. One QC insists that the 1688 Nill of Rights is not even valid in U.K., let alone Australia. This seems to be based on the idea of Pariamentary supremacy. The reality is, of course, that UN is becoming supreme over the Parliaments. There are some moves you can take.

Support a political party that favours unbanning guns, such as Australia First and One Nation and make the right to keep and bear arms an election issue. Say you won't vote for politicians that support banning guns.

One possible move is to press for Citizens Initiated Referenda,which would give the ordinary grassroots a voice, and demand a refenda on the gun issue.

We need to consider that the immediate implementation of the plan to ban guns will depend mainly on the police.

I appeal to police to heed the literature put out by Jack McLamb's Police Against the New World Order (PANTWO), to read the booklet,OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER, available from, Christian Identity Ministries Box 146, Cardwell, Qld,. 4849. A lot of this deals with the way police are being conditioned to support the "system" rather than the individual. The tendency is to create an "us versus them" mentality, that means any citizens who won't hand in their guns are portrayed as dangerous rednecks and not as individuals who want to preserve their freedom. Under thinking like this, there have been invasions of property and seizure of guns before the gun amnesty even ended. A significant section in PANTWO's Operation Vampire Killer is the comment: "the question each officer individual must face is a very difficult but realistic one: which way will your own gun face when the orders are issued?"Will you protect the people you have sworn to protect? Or will you do what other patriotic officers from other countries have done to their countrymen, "obediently just follow orders?"

Perhaps it will help that you will be told by superiors, "It 's for the national good" and/or "it's for the good of society (History proves that the nations' enforcers can expect some such motivational indoctrination such as this) "Could there be such a police action, taken against the public, if the police were told the truth, ie.. that officers should take the guns and liberties from the masses so that the Controlling Elite of the nation can enslave them? We think not. In other words, police officers, is it such a good idea to prepare the grounds for a police state, run by the UN in the interests of a one eyed class with absolute power at the top? Be aware of what is going on, instead of blindly following orders, be aware of the consequences of your action. You may be interested to learn the results of a poll conducted in the US with over 16,000 police, conducted by the American Federation of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police (Aid & Abet Newsletter, v. 1# 9) concluded that: 90% said that they did not agree that by banning ownership of firearms by private citizens, there would be fewer crimes committed with firearms.

"86% believe that it was not for "hunting and target shooting" that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the US Constitute but for every citizen to (1) defend their person and property;(2)defend this nation (US) from enemies, domestic and foreign.

"71% do NOT believe that a waiting period will have any effect on the criminals obtaining firearms.

"86% are critical about the way in which media presented particular crimes such as shooting, riots,etc.

"90% resent the hypocritical manner in which the media hypes violence and at the same time promotes the banning of firearms for law abiding citizens. So please note that US police officers are mostly against the banning of guns for citizens. Will Australian police consider coming out against this policy when they realise it's intended to create a slave state?

Lastly, police may themselves be disarmed under a New World Order because. according to a UN volume, World Peace Through World Law, the authors claim that local "police forces supplemented by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling pieces might conceivably constitute a serious threat to a neighbouring country. So they recommend "rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by civil police and private citizens.

Last but not least, foreign troops and maybe foreign police may be sent to patrol Australia.

According to a map in OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER (p. 74) foreign troops and police will be sent to guard countries, including Australia. One possible reason for this is that troops and police may hesitate to fire on their own citizens but foreigners will have less hesitation in doing so. I've left the best for last. PRAY that we can successfully awaken the people to the real dangers to freedom posed by the UN gun grab and its One World tyranny, before it's too late.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen

Back to Top