Right – by Elijah TownsendStrange how every “terrorist” event in the past ten or fifteen years benefited the various imperial governments of Britain, Israel, Australia and the USA.
These false flag terror operations help cement power, by spreading terror throughout the victim nation.
By spreading the effects of terror–pictures of damage and film interviews of mass hysteria and confusion–the mainstream media of the traumatized country served as an unquestioning, ultra-effective propaganda vehicle.
The national media acts as a brilliant, second phase of the false flag operation, by further spreading the terror while muddying the waters to any conflicting evidence or subsequent investigation.
It’s way too early to tell, but as the cafè is part of Martin Place, which holds the Reserve Bank of Australia — the country’s central bank — and several other financial institutions, the situation can’t help but to look like another false flag with an ISIS scapegoat.
Considering channel 7 news was directly across the street from the cafe’ it certainly raises questions.
“A black flag with white Arabic writing — similar but not exact to the ISIS flag — hangs in the window of the Lindt Chocolate Cafè in Sydney, Australia, while an unknown number of reported hostages are trapped inside, some with their hands pressed to the window for the cameras to see.“
This X22Report sheds light on the Australia’s Cafe’shooting yesterday and the most recent economic report, Baltic Dry Index and what it means. As you will see the numbers are being manipulated, along with a short summary on Russia, their war room status and much, much, more.
Below the X22Report I am including a Australian video that gives you a look at the last false flag event, “The Port Arthur Massacre”
Port Arthur Massacre: Australia’s False Flag event that lead the people to turn in their weapons for the benefit of Australian society, or so it was told.
On Sunday 28 April 1996, the historic site of the Port Arthur penal colony in south-eastern Tasmania attracted hundreds of visitors. At lunchtime the Broad Arrow Cafe was full.
28 year old Martin Bryant from Hobart entered the cafe, ordered and ate a big lunch, then pulled a semi-automatic rifle out of his bag and started shooting indiscriminately at tourists and staff. Within 15 seconds, 17 shots had been fired, 12 were dead and 10 injured.
By the time Bryant had finished his rampage, he had killed 35 people using a range of semi-automatic weapons in and around Port Arthur. The newly-elected Howard government sat for the first time the following week.
By May 10, all state and territory ministers had agreed to heavily restrict the ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns.
A gun buy-back scheme was initiated, funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million.
Australian current affairs show ‘Witness’ hosted by Jana Wendt about the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996, interview with the neighbours of gunman Martin Bryant.
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.
The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970′s when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of the BBG’s broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department’s efforts from the internal propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union.
Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government’s broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years.
BBG spokesperson Lynne Weil says these efforts aren’t simply pro-government hype machines.
“They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States,” she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: “Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible, discussion, and open debate.”
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. “Somalis have three options for news,” the source said, “word of mouth, Al-Shabaab or VOA Somalia.”
As Weil points out, this will bring a new level of transparency to the BBG as communicating toAmericans is no longer prohibited. If nothing else, transcripts of BBG programming will be easier for Americans to get ahold of. A court ruled in 1998 that the limitations of the Smith-Mundt Act exempted the Voice of America from releasing transcripts in response to FOIA requests.
Another possible plus is the fact that the BBG will provide a free, “local” news source for immigrant populations.
The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. “Those people can get Al-Shabaab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia,” the source said.
These positives aside, the thought of a state-run news agency being allowed to direct its efforts at Americans is still uncomfortable. Despite claims of independence, it’s hard to believe the source is 100% trustworthy when its stated purpose is to run flack for the State Department in foreign nations. (Of course, the mainstream media outlets haven’t shown much reluctance to regurgitate talking points, which almost makes the BBG’s efforts seem redundant.)
While the BBG may provide a less-biased source of news for many foreigners (or at least provide adifferent bias), the purpose of its broadcasts to its new American audience is less clear. The fact that the State Department is behind the effort doesn’t do much to allay fears that the BBG will become a tool of domestic propaganda. The State Department’s reaction to the leak of diplomatic correspondence by Wikileaks was to block its employees’ access to the site (or any site containing the word “Wikileaks”) and demand the digital documents be “returned.” How will a state-run press react to developments like these? Will it be forced to play by the department’s rules, no matter how illogical, or will it be able to deal with them in a more forthright manner?
In a time where the administration seems to be forced to play defense with increasing frequency, it’s hard to believe it won’t be willing to exploit this addition to its PR arsenal.