The Rise of the FALSE False Flag

In my previous article, Why you should never believe your eyes, we discussed new technologies that make the creation of literal “fake news” more possible than ever. In this follow up we’re going to discuss the potential benefits of faking the news vs creating the news.

A false flag operation is generally defined as ”an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party”

The phrase originates in naval warfare, when ships would literally fly a flag of another nation’s navy.

Historically speaking, they are covert military operations carried out with the aim of creating a cassus belli, either initiating, justifying or perpetuating a war.

The attack is very real, only the flag is false.

But recent years have seen the rise of a new idea – the false false flag.  That is to say – entirely fake “events” with only the barest relationship to objective reality. Blanks and crisis actors, fake victims and fake shooters.

This concept has been the subject of discussion recently, with the civil suit against Alex Jones for calling Sandy Hook a “hoax” and the on-going trial of journalist Richard D Hall in the UK for suggesting the Manchester Arena bombing was fake. Similar suggestions have been raised about the Boston bombing of 2013 as well. Others, including Riley Waggaman, have raised questions about the recent “terrorist attack” in Moscow too.

Now, I’m not definitively claiming any or all of those events were faked – though of course they may have been. What I’m pointing up is the shift in discussion.

But then, we don’t need to look far for the greatest provably “fake event” in recent times: “Covid”, which was purely a construction of media hype and corrupt science creating an entirely fake pandemic.

Once you’ve absorbed all the facts of the case, that’s the only interpretation that stands up to scrutiny.

In fact it was such a vast infestation of fakery it spawned mini-fakes. It wasn’t so much a fake event as a flock of fakes of varying sizes.

Covid alone proves that the powers-that-be certainly do engage in staged or faked events. And, as highlighted in the first part of this series, it’s been known for decades that news reports are regularly faked, on both the small and large scale.

Yet, still, the question that gets asked whenever the possibility of fakery is invoked is “why?”

Why would a state apparatus with the power to really do something, opt to only pretend to do it?

This is a standard argument made against the idea of state-sponsored fakery, and although it is logically flawed as being purely an argument from incredulity, it is a question we can and probably should endeavour to answer.

So – why would the state, or powerful actors within the state, choose to fake something rather than simply do it? 

Clearly we can rule out moral or ethical considerations. That shouldn’t require further explanation. The state has no objection to causing suffering, that has been demonstrated over and over again. It wouldn’t shrink from sponsoring a real terror event just because real people would end up dead.

Indeed, a “fake event” doesn’t even necessarily preclude real death – as (again) “covid” has shown us.

The “pandemic” was entirely fake but those allowed to die through inaction or directly killed by DNRs, denial of care or ventilator-abuse were real.

As was the very real and often very fatal fallout of lockdown and other “anti-Covid” measures.

But, if not a moral objection to inflicting real death and/or suffering, then why would a fake event be perceived as a better option? What benefits does fake have over real?

Well, here are some possibilities for consideration:

1. You can’t prove a negative. A fake event, in an odd way, is harder to disprove than a real one. It is quite easy to show the official explanation for a real event is false (think 9/11). But if there is no real event, only a story, then there will be no inconvenient facts  to challenge you. And of course it’s virtually impossible to prove a negative – an absence of existence.
2. Lack of physical evidence. An extension of point 1, but a fake event cannot be forensically traced back to real culprits. Real gunpowder and explosives are traceable and leave real chemical residue. Fake events have none of this baggage.
3. Keeps your options open. A real event is bound by the physical realities of the situation. Your story must try to fit those facts. A fake event is open ended and can fluidly change as the needs of the story changes. Again, we saw this with Covid.
4. No real victims. A real shooting or bombing creates real victims and leaves real grieving families who might demand investigations and ask awakward questions (see the 9/11 victims’ families). A fake event has only fake victims who are on your payroll, not only will they never ask awkward questions they are incentivized to conceal the truth.
5. Less guilt or regret. Institutions and agencies don’t have consciences, but individuals do. It is generally easier to persuade “foot soldiers” (literal and metaphorical) to pretend to hurt people than to actually hurt them. It’s an extension of the single blank in the firing squad.
6. Easier to control. An entirely staged event is easier to control than a real event. For example, a real pandemic disease might fade away too quickly or not be deadly enough. Worse still, it might kill the wrong people – you or your family. A fake disease kills exactly who you say it killed and no one else, and can go away or come back as your need dictates.

Those are all just practical considerations, of course. We haven’t even got into the more unknowable world, the potential psycho-social motivations of what we call the global deep state.

What might be the victory conditions of this psychological war  “the Elite” are waging against the people of the world?

As I noted in my article The Perfidious Unreality of the New Normal, observation would suggest a deliberate agenda of undermining the very idea of objective reality. A move by our controllers to insert themselves as a filter between every person on the planet and the world they experience.

The final aim being that everything – everything – the entire fabric of our shared reality – is made up?

Because that is the ultimate demonstration of total control?

Here we come to the point where we should address the key difference between a staged event and real one – the target.

If you need a President dead, you can’t pretend to shoot him. If you need to claim terrorist insurance, you can’t pretend the buildings fell down.

A fake event can only be a  preferred possibility when your aim is purely optics.

In other words, the real target of a fake event is always the audience.

It’s always a psychological attack aimed at our perception of the world or of certain groups of humans, or certain alleged dangers.

With the advent of AI generative technology, deep fakes, voice synthesizers and the like, the fact of the matter is we can likely expect a great flood of “fake news” sold to us as real – because why not? Why wouldn’t this option be utilised at least sometimes?

The questions moving forward  are – how far has it already gone or will it go? And are we prepared enough psychologically to be able to tell the difference?