|
Throughout history, versions of the false flag
attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the
force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking. At
times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil
liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.
Indeed, false flags are themselves capable of
taking on a wide variety of forms – domestic or foreign, small or large,
economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into
one another. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and
tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.
For instance, the chemical weapons attack
which took place inside Syria in August, 2013 serve as an example of a
foreign false flag designed to whip up American fervor for war, on the
platform of Responsibility to Protect similar to the Gulf of Tonkin.
Domestically speaking, a large-scale false
flag such as 9/11, can be used to whip up both a massive public support for
war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional
procedure, and constitutional/human rights. Economic false flags may take the
form of manufactured “government shutdowns” or “government defaults” designed
to create a demand for austerity or other pro-Wall Street solutions. Lastly,
smaller-scale domestic false flags such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, often
involve the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state.
There are, of course, many different versions
of false flag attacks and none fit into a tightly crafted classification
beyond the generalized term “false flag.” As stated above, some false flags
may indeed embrace an element of each of the different versions listed
previously both in terms of methodology and purpose.
With that in mind, it is also true that, while
massive false flag attacks are always a possibility, it has been the
small-scale false flags coming in the form of “shooters” (most often of the
“lone gunmen” variety), that have been used most effectively by the ruling
class and its mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. While the scale of
the attacks have diminished, their frequency has rapidly increased.
However, due to a growing competent
alternative media and researching community, as fast as the false flag
attacks are launched, a volley of deconstructions of the official narratives
are being provided. While many criticisms of the official version of events
are wildly incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are
capable outlets and researchers who are able to expose the false flag for
what it is. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered
serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness as of late and why it
continues to do so.
Because the false flag attack is designed to
instill fear, panic, and a guided response from the general public, it is
important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented.
However, we cannot simply be consumed by attempting to expose and deconstruct
every false flag attack that comes our way. We cannot ignore the greater
issues, the winnable battles, and the demands we must be making simply to
expose each and every false flag. We cannot ignore the forest fire to
extinguish the occasional burning bush. The false flag, after all, is only
the symptom of the disease.
For that reason, it is important to enable the
general public to recognize the false flag itself, not simply the
questionable elements of a particular false flag which will soon be overtaken
by a new one. We must train both ourselves and the public to recognize the
signs of the false flag when it happens and thus render the attack neutral.
The following is a list of some of the most
common elements of the false flag attack which should immediately be looked
at in the event of some other incident that pulls at the heartstrings and
emotions of the general public.
1. High Profile Event: The first question to
ask would be “Is this a high profile incident?” The answer, of course, is
fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex
causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the
White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can
be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the
major factor such as the case in Sandy Hook Elementary School, a nationally
unimportant location but a horrific act that made national news nonetheless.
The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of
location or the act, if the media picks up the story and runs it
simultaneously on all major mainstream channels, the incident can be
considered a “high profile event.”
2. Changing Stories: In informed researching
circles, it is well-known that the information that comes out shortly after
the event is usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence
of confusion related to panicked reports coming from eyewitnesses and the
like. However, the information coming out early on has not yet been subjected
to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story
becomes molded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either
directed the attack at the higher levels or at least have connections with
those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets
report the event.
For instance, in times of false flag attacks,
the initial reports may point to 5 gunmen. Very shortly after, reports may
only mention two. Only a few hours after the attack, however, all references
to more than one gunmen are removed entirely, with only the “lone gunman”
story remaining. Any other mention of additional gunmen after this point is
ridiculed as “conspiracy theory.”
3. Simultaneous Drills: One hallmark of the
false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the
actual attack. Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of
events that takes place during the real life attack . These drills have been
present on large scale false flags such as 9/11 as well as smaller scale
attacks like the Aurora shooting.
For instance, as Webster Tarpley documents in
his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA, at least 46 drills were underway
in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These 46
drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11 in
some way or other.[1] Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running
drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same
times and locations.
Although one reason may take precedence over
the other depending on the nature and purpose of the operation drills are
used by false flag operators for at least two reasons. One such purpose is
the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the
actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill
as a cloak to plan the attack or even “go live” when it comes time to launch
the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the
planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the
military/intelligence agency’s tight chain of command structure and
need-to-know basis. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent
stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told
that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training
exercise. This deniability continues all the way through to the actual “going
live” of the drill. After the completion of the false flag attack,
Coincidence Theory is used to explain away the tragic results.[2]
4. Cui Bono? The most important question to
ask immediately after any high profile incident is “cui bono?” or “Who
benefits?” If one is able to see a clear benefit to any government,
corporation, or bank, then the observer becomes capable of seeing through the
false flag attack immediately. Many of these questions can be answered by
taking a closer look at the behavior of these organizations prior to the
attack and shortly thereafter.[3]
For instance, the presence of legislation
which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which
is quickly passed (or at least heavily pushed) afterwards is one clue that
the conveniently timed attack was actually a false flag. Patriot Act style
legislation was actually written before 9/11 but stood little chance of
passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the
time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both
Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the blessing of the
American people.
Returning to 9/11, it is a fact that a number
of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during
the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle
Eastern countries.[4] After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling
class of the United States and the American public followed right along.
After the Underwear Bombing, we saw the
rollout of the TSA full-body scanners, a technology which would not have been
readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign.
However, the scanners had been purchased one year earlier by a firm owned by
Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security.
Likewise, in terms of the LAX shooting, TSA
purchased 3.5 million dollars worth of ammunition in August. Yet, in August,
TSA was not an armed agency. After the LAX shooting, however, talk has turned
to arming the agency, thus indicating possible foreknowledge on the part of
someone higher up in the governmental structure.
Of course, the same can be said for the
explosion of crazed lone-gunman shooting sprees that took place all across
the United States amid propaganda pushes for increased gun control measures.
5. Unanswered Questions: Another hallmark of
the false flag operation is relatively obvious – the presence of unanswered
questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, the motive
and so on. Although the media narrative that takes shape soon after the
attack will ignore these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers
are able to think for themselves and focus only on the information. An
example of such questions would be Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of
additional shooters at Aurora and Sandy Hook.
6. Case is quickly closed: Once an acceptable
patsy and cover story is chosen by the media, all other opinions and
questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the
official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy,
if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted
in a largely secret or shadowy proceeding. In most cases, the suspect is
killed in the process or shortly after the fact thus negating any first hand
contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very
soon after the event.
7. Suspects’ Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other
Intelligence Agencies: One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be
looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or
group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to
any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in
explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the
perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who
actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged
hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other
high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad).[5] Likewise, the
Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the
Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.
In many instances, connections to certain
military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as
connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely
been blended together.
8. Convenient Scapegoat: One clue leading an
informed observer to suspect a false flag attack is the existence of the convenient
scapegoat. Any false flag operation will have a carefully crafted narrative
complete with a group of individuals set up for demonization. The OKC bombing
had McVeigh and thus, “right-wing extremists” and “militias.” On 9/11, the
group was Muslims. In many of the domestic shooting sprees, the demonization
was set for gun owners. With the recent LAX shooting, the “perpetrator” was
an “anti-government conspiracy theorist.” In the instance of the false flag,
a readily identified pasty will exhibit all or most of the aspects of the
group and social demographic set to be demonized.
9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against
Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties: One clue suggesting a
false flag is that, immediately after the attack and after the perpetrators
have been “identified” by “officials” and the media, corporate media outlets
begin not only demonizing the demographic group to which the “perpetrator”
belongs, but begins promoting “solutions” in order to prevent such an attack
from ever happening again. This narrative will always involve the erosion of
liberties, the greater implementation of a police state, a specific economic
policy, or a march to war.
Simply put, the media promotes the PROBLEM,
allows for and guides the REACTION, and then provides the pre-determined
SOLUTION.
10. Government Begins to “Take Action” Against
the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative: After a
healthy dose of propaganda from mainstream media outlets regurgitating the
terror of the attack, the perpetrator, and the police state solutions, the
Government then begins to take action. Political speeches are given in order
to capitalize on the fear and anger felt by the public and in order to
reinforce the idea that government is there to act as protector. Political
solutions are then offered as bills, executive orders, or political mandates
whether it is the curtailment of the 4th Amendment, gun control, or military
strikes on a foreign country.
11. Clues in pop media: Pop media clues, more
accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in
hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring
in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the
conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack
into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived
spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was
hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center
towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy
Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.
Conclusion
Although it is extremely important to educate
the general public as to the nature and purpose of false flags, education
cannot be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the
truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to
understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time.
Creating a culture in which the general public
is able to recognize the false flag attack as it is happening, without the
need for a massive push by alternative media sources, researchers, or
activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in
corralling the force of the people toward true action or, at the very least,
creating a culture in which that force cannot be corralled by the ruling
class.
While false flag attacks must be addressed, we
must not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted off a path of political
action, mass mobilization, and the making of real attainable demands.
Notes:
[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic
Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.
[2] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th
Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.
[3] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the
Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink Publishing Group. 1stEdition. 2004.
[4] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the
Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink Publishing Group. 1st Edition. 2004.
[5] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the
Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink Publishing Group. 1st Edition. 2004.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/11-signs-of-false-flag.html
|
