On August 24, 2025 I reported that a story was being covered in the UK that showed Britain just ordered mobile morgues.
BRITAIN ORDERS MOBILE MORGUES. CREEPY LITTLE GLOBALISTS AREN'T THEY.
“ When the UK Home Office quietly signed contracts for mass death tents, hard mobile morgues and refrigerated buildings that could hold up to 700 bodies, it barely made the news. Some regional media picked up on it. But beyond that? Silence. Jim Ferguson responds, saying that both the scope of the contracts and the intentions behind them should have been…
I went through my spam today where I found some interesting messages.
“As an Aussie with little trust in our Govts am very interested to read your words today about a Govt scenario which is similar to what took place in Tasmania at Port Arthur in about April 1966. During the preceding 3-4 yrs a couple of politicians had publically said "It will take a gun massacre in Tasmania before there is any restriction on firearms". Or words to that effect. Around 18 months prior to the mass slaying of about 35 at Port Arthur the Tassie Govt bought a mobile morgue vehicle which carried about 20 corpses. About 1.5 yrs after the Massacre it was sold to a wrecker in Rockhampton QLD and effectively disappeared.”
The Tasmania massacre was the IMPETUS FOR GUN SUPPRESSION LAWS IN AUSTRALIA.
HERE is the Official Narrative of the Tasmania Massacre
Official narrative OF THE TASMANIA MASSACRE - LONE NUT
“The Port Arthur massacre of 28-29 April 1996 was a killing spree which claimed the lives of 35 people and wounded 37 others mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia.[4] The attack was perpetrated by "lone nut" Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, who (in spite of having an IQ of only 66) displayed considerable shooting skills, killing 12 people in 15 seconds.[5][6] After initially denying responsibility, Bryant pleaded guilty to the crimes and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.”
THE RESULT OF THE MASSACRE? GUN SUPPRESSION LAWS. PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD:
“We need to achieve a total prohibition on the ownership, possession, sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. That will be the essence of the proposal that will be put by the Commonwealth government at the meeting on Friday...”
John Howard [16]
WATCH POLITICIAN DESCRIBE NEEDING A GUN MASSACRE AT TASMANIA IN ORDER TO GET …GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION
Alternative culpability
“It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia.”
Barry Unsworth (29 April 1996) [7]
Right after the event and ever since concerns about the official narrative have been raised.
Tavistock Institute
Allen Douglas and Michael J. Sharp wrote in EIR that the British security services through the Tavistock Institute connected psychiatrist that were evaluating Bryant.[8]
The Mossad
Joe Vialls claimed early on that the Mossad did it, but that it was covered up by the Australian government.[9][10] While this theory was the most popular originally, following the introduction of gun control, the gun control narrative became the most popular narrative, especially amongst US viewers of this event, who note the same gun control theories about various events in USA.
Australian "domestic terrorists"
Some[Who?] have claimed that this may have been done by "domestic terrorists" aiming to control tourist traffic to Australia, and in particular trying to prevent foreign tour guides (especially Japanese) from taking jobs away from Australians. Unlike the above two theories, this is in line with previous government policies, and is supported by the gunman's statement, immediately prior to the attack :"There are a lot of WASPS, not a lot of Japs".[11][12]
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
Gun lobbyists including the NRA had blamed the Australian government of organising it, through the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in order to push forward the gun control that won the John Howard Government the election a couple of years later. The massacre was followed by "a nationwide overhaul of gun regulation, as well as the buyback of more than 650,000 firearms."[5]
Mort Truck
There exists reports that the official government issued mort truck for the region was custom built shortly before the massacre and sold off directly thereafter.[13][14]
Outcome
The National Firearms Agreement was implemented for firearm control.[15] Four days after the killings, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard told the parliament:
“We need to achieve a total prohibition on the ownership, possession, sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. That will be the essence of the proposal that will be put by the Commonwealth government at the meeting on Friday...”
John Howard [16]
The laws to give effect to the Agreement were passed by Australian State governments only 12 days after the Port Arthur massacre.[17]
External links
WASP - The Port Arthur Massacre Movie - Indiegogo campaign for a documentary about the massacre[18]
Article from the SydWalker Blog
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Port_Arthur_Massacre
FALSE FLAGS ARE THE EXPERTISE OF THE INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS. THESE APPEAR NOW TO BE IN SERVICE TO THE GLOBALIST CABAAL. (PEDO BAAL MOLECH CAANINITES)
“The video presented in this article - A Question of Guilt: The Massacre at Port Arthur – isn’t as swish as the documentary about the Sydney Hilton bombings (Australian Conspiracy) featured previously on this blog.
It has a more amateurish feel and was probably completed on a much lower budget. Critics might well claim it’s not ‘TV quality’ – providing broadcasters a convenient excuse not to screen it on television. The fact that it hasn’t been shown to a mass audience is more than a shame, because the subject matter of A Question of Guilt is every bit as explosive as Australian Conspiracy and it deserves the widest possible attention.
One of NewsCorp's disgraceful front pages that portrayed the face of suspect Martin Bryant to a traumatised public, contaminating subsequent witness statements
For Australians, establishing the truth about what happened – and what did not happen – at Port Arthur in eastern Tasmania, late April 1996, is arguably even more crucial than uncovering the truth about the 1978 Hilton bombings. The Port Arthur massacre is a more recent event, a lot more people were killed at Port Arthur – and a man remains incarcerated because of his alleged role in the atrocity. As the documentary shows, there are compelling reasons for believing Martin Bryant’s conviction and jailing were a cruel miscarriage of justice.
Most articles critical of the Port Arthur ‘official narrative’ present anomalies and unexplained facts about the incident and aim to pursuade readers that something is deeply amiss with the official story. For me, the most persuasive in the genre that’s available online is The Port Arthur Massacre – Was Martin Bryant Framed? Written by the pseudonymous Carl Wernerhoff and published in Nexus Magazine in mid-2006, it sets out the sceptics’ case with reasonable clarity. It’s well-referenced and fairly up-to-date. There’s more material available, but Wernerhoff’s article is the best succinct written demolition job of the official narrative that I’ve encountered. Read it – and at the very least you’re likely to have more questions about the worst massacre in recent Australian history. (Wernerhoff also has a lengthier book about the Port Arthur massacre – in draft form – entitled What’s Going On? A Critical Analysis of the Port Arthur Massacre. It’s available for download here).
The Port Arthur saga is – in part – a story about the media. En bloc, Australia’s mass media quickly embraced the orthodoxy that Martin Bryant was guilty of committing the atrocity, that he acted alone – and that these ‘facts’ are not in serious doubt. The media also promoted the view that anyone who does doubt these ‘established facts’ is likely to be a disgruntled shooting enthusiast, who may themselves be deranged and dangerous. Needless to say, dissenters were branded with the silly label ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Mainstream politicians also fell into line behind the official narrative to a quite remarkable extent. Consequently, doubts and dissenting opinions about the Port Arthur massacre were relegated to an unrespectable ‘fringe’. I suspect it’s no accident that the well-researched and documented article by Wernerhoff was (a) written under a pseudnymn (we’re told the author works as a teacher and I can well believe association with Port Arthur ‘conspiracy theories’ might harm his career) and (b) published in Nexus Magazine. Nexus has been around a long time and over the years it has published interesting material. But it also has a reputation for carrying material that’s not credible at all. It’s a ‘New Age’ publication. Many Australians – certainly most of the mainstream intelligensia – would regard publication in Nexus as indicative in itself that there’s something ‘flakey’ about the material and the theory it promotes.
In any event, articles such as The Port Arthur Massacre – Was Martin Bryant Framed and audio-visual material such as A Question of Guilt: The Massacre at Port Arthur martial a compelling case that at the very least an inquest and/or honest public inquiry is long overdue and needed as a matter of urgency. I think it’s clear to anyone who reviews this material with an open mind that the official story is far from proven. As that case has already been made – and made well – I don’t intend to cover the same ground here. In this article, I aim to review the Port Arthur massacre in a broader historical context – based on the unorthodox premise that the massacre was indeed a conspiracy (not the work of a ‘lone nut’)…
Before returning to that theme, I think it’s important to emphasise what an obvious breach of due process has occured. This massacre was the biggest mass murder in Australia in modern times in terms of the number of victims. Yet to date there has been:
no coronial inquiry or inquest
no trial at which the prosecution evidence was put to the test
no subsequent public inquiry of any kind
In other words, the greatest of crimes has had the least imaginable investigative follow-up. That alone must be considered highly suspicious – although it has since become alarmingly common since then in high profile cases in the post 2001 ‘War on Terror’ era. There are parallels, for instance, with the mysterious death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 (still no inquest) and the 7/7 London bombings (an inquest is taking place only now, after five years following enormous a sustained public campaign).
Martin Bryant’s ‘trial’ took place some six months after the atrocity. After his arrest, for months on end, he repeatedly insisted on his innocence. Then, following an unexplained change in defense barrister, Bryant was eventually pursuaded to plead guilty to all charges. As a consequence, there was in effect no trial at all – merely sentencing.
The sad story is explained in more detail in Wernerhoff’s written accounts and in A Question of Guilt. But I’ll add a footnote here that may have some significance. Bryant’s second barrister, John Avery, has since been utterly discredited – see Eyes that Shame Australian Journalism.
John Avery remains in jail at the time of writing. He played a key role in the Port Arthur affair. His persuasive skills were deployed to head off the need for a full trial – a trial that could have been extremely embarrassing for the prosecution, to say the least. Avery’s exposure as a fraudster is another red flag suggesting all may not be well with the official tale.
________________________
In retrospect, I think the Port Arthur massacre can be regarded as a magician’s trick. The most obvious consquence was more stringent national gun laws. Similar ‘gun atrocities’ were occuring elsewhere around that time such as the Dunblane massacre in Scotland and several shooting-sprees in the USA. There had already been a few gruesome (although considerably less lethal) shooting sprees within Australia in the previous decade). Taken together, the incidents created a clamour within the English-speaking world for much stronger restrictions on private gun ownership. Within Australia, the Port Arthur incident has always been viewed through the prism of a national debate over gun laws.
But I suspect more was at stake for the real planners of the horrific Port Arthur massacre and frame-up.
Port Arthur took the attention of most Australians away from the Hilton bombings and associated concern about State-sponsored terrorism. It got us all to fixate instead on the horror of a massacre supposedly carried out by one psychotic loner. That’s the sort of threat from which only a strong and highly-regulated State might protect us. Port Arthur, in other words, was a psychological ‘game changer’.
Back in the early 1990s, Australia’s left-wing intelligensia showed considerable interest in the Hilton bombings and put some effort and resources into covering that highly confusing saga. I don’t mean to suggest it was only a left-wing cause. The entire NSW Parliament – when put on the spot by Independent MP John Hatton – voted in support of a public inquiry into the Sydney Hilton bombings (an inquiry that’s still not happened to this day). Nevertheless, establishing the truth about the Hilton bombings case was a cause celebre for the left. It was a natural continuation of left-wing concern about Australia’s ‘intelligence agencies’ since their inception.
Probing questions about the Sydney Hilton bombing were asked in the Federal Parliament in 1995. Green Left Weekly covered the issue on several occasions. There was widespead support for a public inquiry (at long last!) – both federally and at state level in New South Wales. Australia’s national broadcaster, the ABC, screened Australian Conspiracy on one occasion.
John Howard: his tough response to the Port Arthur massacre was a vote winner in the 1998 election
Then, a few weeks after the election of the Howard Government in early 1996, the horrific events at Port Arthur with 35 dead and many injured literally blew that momentum away. The Hilton bombings barely got a mention in mainstream debate from that time on (I can’t, for instance, find a single reference in the Federal Hansard post-1996). Focus switched to lone-nut murderers and gun control.
Prime Minister John Howard used the opportunity to introduce national gun laws. He was widely congratulated for this. The left and centre ground of Australian politics had long been in favour of more stringent gun control laws. Progressives found themselves, often rather grudgingly, applauding the Howard Government for showing ‘courage’ in standing up to right-wingers opposed to more restrictive gun controls.
From the outset and almost without exception, the Australian Left showed little interest in the possibility that the official narrative about the Port Arthur massacre was false. Queries in the media about the official account were few – and they were typically associated with the shooters lobby in Australia, portrayed as the equivalent of ultra-nationalist militias in the USA. Most Australians ‘knew’ at the time (or thought they did) that it was ‘people like Bryant’ who’d been responsible for the horrific slaughter of innocents in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Disarming crazed extremists that seemed a good idea to the left and centre-ground of Australia’s populace, the majority of whom live in cities or suburbia and have little interest in guns (except for the understandable preference not to be shot).
Australian ‘progressives’ found it easy to ignore complaints about Port Arthur in the years following the atrocity. We tended to assume dissent was just self-serving bleating by ‘red-necks’ overly fond of their guns. At last, we thought, John Howard and his Government had stood up to the gun lobby and achieved what previous left-leaning State Governments failed to accomplish. After all, the New South Wales Unsworth Labor Government had lost an election in 1988 largely over the issue of gun laws. So yes… with a certain amount of reluctant admiration, the left and centre of politics backed the Howard Government’s push to bring in tougher gun laws – and ignored murmerings that all was not well with the story of the massacre itself. We dismissed Port Arthur ‘conspiracy theories’ as the fantasies of angry gun owners. We shut our ears to dissenting views. I know. I was one of them at the time.
The trashing of due process alone should have raised enough red flags to cause widespread concern. It did (for me) – when I eventually discovered how little due process had occured. But I’m ashamed to say it took me nearly 10 years to get there. Only after I’d absorbed the painful shock of concluding that 9-11 was a bogus trigger-event was I ready to look again at other events of modern times, such as the Port Arthur massacre, which continued to attract a kind of muffled controversy. When I took the time to review the Port Arthur story again with an open mind, I was horrified.
In restrospect, Port Arthur was not only a way for this nation’s cryptocracy to regain the agenda and brush aside lingering embarrassments such as the Sydney Hilton bombings. Perhaps more importantly, it was a way to test and train Australia’s mass media in the dismal art of uninquisitive conformity – even when covering the most ghastly of mass murders. ‘Road testing’ the western media, I now believe, must have been extremely important for the planners of 9-11. Thery had to be confident that when the Twin Towers imploded and the ‘War on Terror’ began, there would be few quizzical murmerings – not only within the US media but in other western countries such as Britain and Australia. Just one courageous and truly independent newspaper or unruly broadcaster – anywhere in the English-speaking world – might have been enough to destory the legitimacy of the official 9-11 legend and the ‘War on Terror’ for which it provided the rationale. Leaving media reaction to chance was not an option, given the stakes. If I’m correct about this (I accept, of course, it’s highly speculative), Port Arthur should also be understood as a ‘test’ for the mass media – a test that, from the perspective of those conducting the experiment, the media passed with flying colours.
After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia’s mainstream media responded with quite extraordinary lack of curiosity. There was almost no ‘breakout’ from the official narrative. A few questions were raised around the time of the massacre – as snippets of the ABC’s 1996 coverage documented in the video indicate. But although ABC MediaWatch made probing inquiries on one occasion, the ABC did no systematic follow up. Quite soon, it became normal for all the mass media to ridicule Port Arthur sceptics as extremist kooks. I recall Phillip Adams, presenter of Radio National’s Late Night Live, frequently reassuring his listeners in the late 1990s that such views were ‘toxic’ and best ignored entirely. At the time I believed him.
The bottom line is that – in all likelihood – an innocent man remains incarcerated in a Tasmanian jail. Reports of Martin Bryant’s condition since 1996 suggest he’s desperately unhappy – but what else could be expected? How would you feel if you’d been living a quiet, peaceful life until 1996 – at which time you were suddenly whisked away into incarceration, with apparently no prospect of release, for a crime you didn’t commit and can barely comprehend. Depressed? I imagine so!
Perhaps the most alarming thing of all, for someone of my political persuasion, is the role played by the Tasmanian Greens. The Greens Party has been stronger in Tasmania than elsewhere in Australia since its birth over 20 years ago. The Greens, characteristically, are less beholden to corporate interests and I’ve always regarded the party leadership as relatively free from institutional influence compared with Australia’s two major political parties. The Tasmanian Greens were well-placed to ask hard questions about Port Arthur and demand real answers. At the time of the massacre, not only did the Tasmanian Greens have members in State Parliament; they were part of a coalition government led by Liberal Premier Tony Rundle. Yet as far as I can tell from a distance, they completely squibbed the issue.
Christine Milne: Tasmanian Greens leader in 1996, now Deputy Leader of the Federal Greens. Was this courageous conservationist badly advised about Port Arthur?
I hope the Greens don’t let that sorry history prevent them now from looking again at the Port Arthur massacre. Along with some of the House of Representatives Independents in our current Federal Parliament, I think Greens in Federal Parliament have a responsibility to raise the issue of Port Arthur and demand a belated inquest and/or new, honest inquiry. A Senate Inquiry might be a good start – because it would provide an opportunity for public airing of the issues via submissions from the public and public hearings. Confidence in closed judicial processes is now at such a low ebb that a Parliamentary Inquiry might, in the first instance at least, be preferable to the more obvious approach of establishing a Royal Commission.
Australian justice itself is on trial in this case. As things stand, it fails – and fails badly. For Martin Bryant, that’s a profound personal tragedy. For relatives and friends of the victims, it means there’s a lack of real justice or closure. For the rest of us, it means we live in a society with a deep stain on its integrity. How can Australian governments pronounce in international forums about the ‘rule of law’ when we show ourselves capable of making a travesty of our own long-established legal processes?
There’s another important reason why we must re-open the unresolved crime of the Port Arthur massacre.
If the official story is bogus, the killers are still out there…
________________
I began this short article by saying this video – A Question of Guilt: The Massacre at Port Arthur by Sunrise AV Productions – isn’t ‘swish’.
By modern TV productions standards that’s true.
Yet the makers of the movie should be complimented. This is real journalism, driven by grass roots concern! It’s not the only video about Port Arthur on the web that’s critical of the official story. It is, I think, by far the most comprehensive, informative and persuasive.
A Question of Guilt draws on fascinating TV footage from the mid-1990s. Several journalists who are featured – such as Kerry O’Brien of the ABC and News Corp’s Paul Kelly – are still prominent in the media. ‘Media Watch’, at the time presented by Stuart Littlemore, remains a central fixture of Australian TV.
So kudos to the brave Australians struggling for justice and for the truth to come out about the Port Arthur massacre! You deserve our respect and thanks. Congratulations to the courageous folk who refused to roll over and accept a big lie, such as the battling survivor Wendy Scurr and Victorian ex-policeman/independent investigator Andrew MacGregor! Speaking personally, I’m sorry I ignored you for so long.
Learning to listen respectfully to everyone’s story, for me, has been a real education.
Now here’s the video…
A Question of Guilt can also be viewed on YouTube in seven short segments:
Part 1 + Part 2 + Part 3 + Part 4 + Part 5 + Part 6 + Part 7
I also recommend a two-part video of a presentation given by Wendy Scurr and Andrew MacGregor to the 2001 Inverell forum.
_________________________________
A final note about disinformation.
I’ve claimed the Port Arthur saga is about:
due process (or the lack thereof)
manipulation of public opinion
conformist, ‘whatever-it-takes’ politicians
dishonest mass media
complicity of agencies of the state charged with protecting the public
‘testing’ a system of public manipulation that would become even more crucial in the new century
Now I want to make another extraordinary claim. The saga of Port Arthur may also, in part, be about deliberate disinformation. I don;t believe all ‘independent investigators’ and ‘sceptics’ played a straight game. In particular, I suspect that Joe Vialls, who produced an early book ‘Deadly Deception at Port Arthur’ and whose work can still be found online via the web archive, was most likely a disinformationalist.
In the late 1990s and first few years of the 21st century, Joe wrote about a number of ‘conspiracies’. Until his reported death in mid-2005 he ran some busy websites promoting his ideas. They were always an interesting read – but I’d already come to the conclusion, based on reading Joe Vialls’ material about other topics such as 9-11, that he was not an honest commentator. It’s interesting that also seems to be the view of invesigator Andrew MacGregor with specific reference to the Port Arthur case.
Disinformation professionals can have various roles. In a case such as this, they often set out to discredit sceptics entirely in the eyes of the general public. Sometimes their task is more subtle. In this instance, I think, Joe deliberately mixed nonsense with accurate criticisms of the official Port Arthur narrative, partly to discredit sceptics – but also aware he’d fairly soon fall under suspicion within the small community of bona fide Port Arthur sceptics. As a consequence, serious researchers might be put off some of his most sensational conclusions, imagining them to be yet more inaccuracies on Vialls’ part.
One of the most sensational claims made by Joe Vialls is that it wasn’t only Australian personel involved and that the real killers at Port Arthur were from overseas. I suspect he may actually have been right about that and Joe’s role, in part, was to help discredit such a fanciful-sounding idea.
International involvement would help explain the extraordinary media lock-down around the official story. It’s consistent with the hypothesis the atrocity was a ‘road test’ for 9-11, which I believe was a Zionist-directed black-op.
My gut feeling is that the Port Arthur massacre was something similar. The actual slaughter was probably left to external professionals (one expert shooter in particular) who could be whisked far away soon afterwards. The role of Australian ‘intelligence agencies’ and key individuals in institutions such as the police, the Tasmanian and Federal Governments and the mass media, was primarily to organise the subsequent cover-up. This entailed pinning all blame for the slaughter on one hapless patsy. It was no easy task, because rather like 9-11, the official story of the Port Arthur massacre could withstand only minimal scrutiny. Lack of investigative scrutiny was accomplished in the case of Port Arthur by keeping the patsy alive (had Bryant been killed, I understand an inquest would have been unavoidable), persuading him to plead guilty at trial and competent to plead (avoiding the need to test the prosecution case in open court) and ridiculing sceptics (heading off pressure for a subsequent public inquiry or Royal Commission).
If I’m right about this – and I admit it’s highly speculative – it explains why it’s been so hard to get justice in this case… as hard as the struggle for 9-11 Truth.
It also emphasises the importance of establishing the truth about Port Arthur, if we’re ever to be free from the threat of seemingly inexplicable terror and from blatant and cynical subversion of our system of justice.
_____________________________
FOOTNOTE: If you’re anything like me, you appreciate hearing both sides of a controversy (often there are many sides to consider). In the case of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, I was interested to find the strongest material available suggesting the atrocity was the result of a conspiracy as well as the strongest material available that rebuts scepticism about the official story.
As the principal tactic employed by the mainstream media has been to ignore and/or ridicule Port Arthur ‘conspiracy theorists’, there’s remarkably little material available in which one finds reasoned debate between sceptics and non-sceptics. The best I’ve been able to locate is the audio-file from an interview conducted earlier this year on 2WAYFM in Port Macquarie NSW. Entitled Port Arthur Massacre – The Conspiracies. It’s in two parts on Youtube: one & two.
The interview has some problems. First, it’s not a real ‘debate’. A 2WAYFM interviewer engages in dialogue with a spoksesperson in favour of the official story, but no well-informed sceptic is on air to challenge him. Additionally, the debunker is anonymous. It’s hard to understand why. Reiterating the official story is unlikely damage anyone’s career in contemporary Australia.
In any event, a 20-minute opportunity to rebut Port Arthur sceptics without a sceptic on hand to reply is, one might imagine, the most favourable possible terrain for a rebuttal. Even so, I for one find it extremely unconvincing. Rather like the infamous Popular Mechanics rebuttal of 9-11 sceptics, this man misrepresents the best arguments of sceptics. If the facts supported his case, he surely wouldn’t need to do that.
Perhaps the mysterious ‘man who wants the conspiracy theories to stop’ could emerge from the shadows and engage on open debate with the rest of us?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20140319134345/https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Port_Arthur_Massacre_-_A_sceptical_re-appraisal
I found the movie here.
What is the real transgression.
Are the Canaanites in a 3 thousand year struggle against the non baal worshipers that is not part of the history except in the Bible?
Is the child sacrifice, orgy, occult cult of the Canaanites coming to impose their satanic order.
Is there a pedo order in the highest offices. Would the Canaanites or Phoenicians or Occult be forced out through the true release of Epstein files. Are these people within our elite intelligence orders - above the law, reprobates and experts of child sacrifice, torture, abuse… and false flags.
Is this child abuse order simply the Canaanites we follow through the Bible. Is Nimrod who built the tower of Babel attempting to build it again - the ai smart city death cult, CBDC with child sacrifice everywhere.
The enemies of old are here.
You know who HATES THESE VERSES the baal worshippers, the child sodomites. Because it is they who are referred to in this verse. And many interpret the pronunciation to utterly destroy them as “interpretation” only.
perhaps child sacrifice and harming of children and their incest order was foul to God.
Deuteronomy 20
17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. 19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege: 20Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.”
was God angry at the intergenerational child fuckers. Did he think their orgies and child sacrifice and their blood feasting an abomination. Are the child abusers, demon worshipers, child torturers coming to impose their vision on the entire world. For they are the canaanites. They were led by Nimrod.
maybe God did want them all slayed and it is not a matter of interpretation.
Deuteronomy 7:2
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
oh I can see how the pedo order would ridicule the Bible, over the years and dumb us down to seperate us from it. For they are the absolutely hated order from the dawn of records.
Babylon was where the child sacrificing cult existed. Nimrod their ruler.
New Testament:Revelation 19:13-21 - And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. (Verses like Revelation
Interesting that there is censorship now and the sword comes from the mouth.
Jeremiah 48:10 - Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.
Ephesians 6
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
WE ARE AT THE TOWER OF BABEL ONCE AGAIN with One Speech being imposed.
Genesis Chapter 11
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
Nimrod was a worshipper of Baal and Molech.
. 6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. 7And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men. 8And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver. 9Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.
WHO ARE THE WATCHMAN WHO DO NOT BLOW THE HORN
Ekzekiel
6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.
Well I am blowing the horn for Britain. Because buying those morgues is what intelligence orders (the Sir pedo order) do in the planning to lay waste.
Now consider who serves the Jews. Let us think about this together. But if the people of Israel were instructed to slay the child abusing cartel of the canaanites, of Nimrod and Baal that instruction must still hold true. God’s message to israel (not the political nation but the people) was clear.
Deuteronomy:
thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
The people of Israel must smite the child abusing Baal worshiping sorts.
17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. 19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege: 20Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.”
How can God favor any association with the pedo cult.
WE THE LION HEARTED of the world that know who it is they worship must wear the full armor of God.
The depopulation order is demystefied when you actually get to the core it is the satanic order alive and preparing their last plates for us. Their ai babylonia is perhaps the antichrist before us.
Luke 19 Jesus says
27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
We are only deceived by the order of liars and pedophiles for so long.
Matthew 18
6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
The globalists of the world are playing their hands concealed in their dark towers.
The reason they pit the 3 Abrahamic religions against each other?
who is in charge of our world. Epstein pedo cult. Baal worshiping Nimrod occult.
The Jews are commanded to eliminate them;
The Christians are bound by the same old testament and by the New;
The Muslims are saved from the hell fires by fighting shatan along side Jesus in his return (a hadith)
Jeremiah 16:16
16 Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.
Matthew 4:19
19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
of course the Bible seems repulsive to the demon order. They fear us knowing it.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
you are not to sacrifice your children. Child sacrifice, abortion, sterilization and permitting the pedo order to use children thus is a most great sin in the eyes of God.
We are actually in biblical times.
At some point those of us who are unable to grasp the hour just suddenly will. The thirst will be too much.
I changed the comment rules to all subscribers
The only thing the Brits have to fear is the government. Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. We have a satanic government led by Satan's emissary Keir Starmer. Never forget Covid, everything was a fraud. Covid flu, fake PCR, lockdowns & isolation. Anything else Satan brings against us will follow the same pattern. Resist everything, they have no power, only propagation of fear.