| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Anatomy of False-Flag Events…
by Kevin Scott King, Truth Shock:
Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, London 7/7 bombings, Madrid train bombings, Osama bin Laden Capture/Death, 2011 Norway Attacks, Charlie Hebdo, Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, JFK, RFK, MLK, Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Aurora CO shooting, Charleston church shooting, Tucson (AZ) shooting, Port Arthur, AUS, all very real illusions.
The purpose of this article is to break down false flag events into their parts, deconstruct them. In so doing then create a template on how to study an event and determine if it is a false flag. Normally when one thinks or speaks of a false flag event they are referring to the Main Event. This presentation is about the entire operation or plan of which the Main Event is but one part.
Note: What follows is but a brief or summary of a much larger project. I am posting this to the community at large to inspire others to turn this into a full fledged project which could include a website, presentation(video), and book. Further details can be found at the end of this article.
What is a False-Flag?
What exactly is a false flag, why is it called false flag? The term false-flag is a naval term from the age of sail that refers to a ship flying the colors (flag) of a country other than the one the ship belonged. This was done for multiple reasons but a common one was to lure an enemy vessel into gun or boarding range and then at the last moment drop the false flag and run up the true colors before attacking. It was fair sport to use false flags but considered immoral/unethical to attack under one. To the point that it was never done. But that was a different age…
The simplest definition of a false-flag is an event in which the actual perpetrators and the reported or blamed perpetrators are different. The classic use of a false-flag, and hence the military origin of it’s name, goes as follows. Country A’s King wants to conquer and loot Country B’s land to enrich himself. Of course if this is what King A tells his army they may choose not to fight or revolt. Or best case their effort will be lacking. In order to get the most out of their soldiers, the commanders need them to be emotionally involved… anger, hatred, revenge. Now the skilled orator and manipulator might be able to create this mood with just words. But not many have this level of skill. It is much easier to motivate and/or raise an army if one’s country has been attacked, hence you are acting in defense. And this is where the false flag comes in. Country A’s King and its top General(s) conspire to launch an attack against itself, claiming that the attackers were from Country B. The attack needs to be big enough to create real panic and fear, and for maximum affect there needs to be real deaths. The attackers need be convincing in their role as soldiers of Country B, so clothes, uniform, weapons need to match appropriately. The likely hood of success of the attack is high since it would be unexpected or a surprise attack. Even if the attack were to technically fail, the fact alone of an attack might be enough to manipulate a response. King A could use men from within to execute the attack, or it might be better to use mercenaries. Regardless, a successful attack will incense the populace against the ‘evil’ Country B, and therefor justify an invasion.
The above is just one example, or a classic example of a false-flag. However, it is very important to understand that the false-flag event can take on countless forms. I recently read a comment where the commentator stated that because actual people died it was not a false-flag. The defining characteristic of a false-flag is not it’s specific type or whether or not non-actors died, or even if the event occurred at all, meaning the entire reported event is a fabrication. One defining characteristic is that the real perpetrator is never known or revealed. So the author or director/producer of the ‘production’ is unknown. The audience’s attention is locked on the stage, the villain, clearly identified through the official narrative, is known. But who are behind the curtains? When a staged play is sold as real then the actors become irrelevant, what is important is who are the Producers! Who are the people that wrote, directed, and funded the event? These are the real perpetrators, not the actors on the stage. Cui Bono?… Who Benefits?
The other defining characteristic is that the event is a catalyst for the true objectives. Thus the false-flag uses the classic Hegelian dialectic of Problem-Reaction-Solution. From the example above, the surprise attack is the ‘problem’ (a threat to personal safety), the population’s anger, fear, concern is the desired ‘reaction’, and the ‘solution’ is to invade the offender to eliminate the threat which is enabled by the populations reaction. The false-flag then is a deliberately created illusion whose purpose is create the environment in which the objective or ‘solution’ will be accepted and thus implemented.
Why use False-Flags?
As explained in the previous section the classic false-flag was used to justify an invasion of another country. But there are numerous motivations for using false-flags. Thus the false-flag event has been used throughout history to initiate change. Problem-Reaction-Solution. If the change that the leader(s) want is not going to be wanted or accepted by the population then the false-flag is an excellent tool in order enact said change. So the false-flag is a tool of manipulation(deception) to direct the opinions and actions of the populace. This problem-reaction-solution model of the false-flag is but one tool of the social engineers who are directing the actors on the world stage. While the audience, the 99.9% of the world, much more than just mere spectators, are directly affected by these ‘engineers’ from the moment of their birth until the time of their passing. They (we) are actually unknowing-unwilling participants in the machinations of the .1%.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
From an interview between Gustave Gilbert, an American psychologist, and Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials. Found in the book; ‘Nuremberg Diary’
Reality-based Community… “The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,” quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):
“The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.””
On December 1st of 1941, 80+% of the US population was against getting involved in the war in Europe. FDR wanted the US to join the war, a now well established fact. So how does FDR convince the US population to participate in a war across the ocean that they do not want to be in? The US took 8 steps to incense the Japanese and encourage or force them to attack. The US had broken the diplomatic and military codes of the Japanese in the 30’s. The US knew what they were up to. The Japanese diplomats were to declare war on the morning of Dec 7 before the attack, but this meeting was intentionally delayed. Thus the claim of a ‘surprise’ attack could be maintained, and the surprise, horror, shock of the attack was used to manipulate the population into joining WWII. The Army and Naval commanders (General Walter Short and Admiral Husband Kimmel) at Pearl Harbor, who were blamed for failing to be ready and immediately dismissed, were both exonerated in ’44. Both the Navy Court and the Army Board found Washington guilty. That officials within the US Govt knew the attack was coming but failed to pass this information on to the appropriate personnel.
