Psychological Warfare and the “False Flag” Meme

By James F. Tracy

False flag operations and assassinations are a central component of the elaborate psychological warfare campaign waged on the American public to justify the so-called “global war on terrorism,” and the events of September 11, 2001 are this project’s cornerstone.

Major US news outlets turn a blind eye to a wide array of evidence “that Western covert operators were behind” events such as “Bali, Madrid, London 7/7, mosque bombings in Iraq and elsewhere and, of course, 9/11. Because the mainstream media are integral to the Industrial Military Academic Intelligence Media complex,” journalist Barrie Zwicker observes, “the cold-blooded technicians of death face no journalistic scrutiny. Without moral, legal, technical or financial constraints, the black operators range freely, executing the orders of the global oligarchies.”[1]

An undeniable effect of the Boston Marathon bombing was that the term “false flag”—meaning a typically illegal act carried out by a government against itself that is often blamed on another entity to justify its own policies—became a recognizable expression among a broader swath of the American public. For example, web-based searches for the phrase spiked in the wake of the April 15 event after a correspondent for the alternative news site Infowars questioned Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick on the suspicious circumstances surrounding the bombing.[2] Some news outlets predictably moved to condemn any cogitation along these lines as “conspiracy theorizing.”[3]

In the United States the citizenry is especially well-indoctrinated through an overwhelming dependence on such corporate media. Yet for the peoples of many countries “false flag” has become a commonplace term. This is particularly so in the Middle East, where journalists and the broader public routinely witness inexplicable terror attacks on civilian populations. Placed in a broader historical context there is a concurrent understanding of such tactics as emblematic of military and intelligence-related meddling from Western nations.

For example, in the early 2000s waves of car bombings throughout Iraq were rumored to have been carried out by British or US intelligence. “The word on the street in Baghdad is that the cessation of suicide car bombings is proof that the CIA was behind them,” independent journalist Dahr Jamail wrote in 2004. “Why? Because as one man states, ‘[CIA agents are] too busy fighting now, and the unrest they wanted to cause by the bombings is now upon them.’ True or not, it doesn’t bode well for the occupiers’ image in Iraq.”[4]

Along these lines, in September 2005 Iraqi police arrested two British soldiers disguised in conventional Iraqi jallabahs [loose cloaks] and Arab headscarves after the costumed pair reportedly drove a car equipped with explosives while opening fire on Iraqi police. British armed forces then used several tanks and helicopters to liberate the masquerading combatants from the police barracks where they were detained.[5]

Similar to NATO’s Operation Gladio, or the FBI’s more recent efforts at generating newsworthy terrorist incidents in the US,[6] such black operations designed to cultivate terrorism were in fact authorized by the United States in 2002 to further perpetuate its “war on terror.” At that time military officials established the “Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG).” P2OG’s overall strategy combined “CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception” to execute terrorist acts on civilian populations in order to provoke and respond to such consequent indigenous terrorism.[7] In other words, this was an elaborate and deadly “make work” program by and for the military and intelligence communities.

With the above in mind, it is perhaps little wonder that “false flag” has become a standard term in the discourse of non-Western and especially Middle Eastern news outlets. Conversely, the expression is either absent from US-based news media, or carefully neutralized in editorial commentary and lighter entertainment or lifestyle-related coverage.

LexisNexis news searches for the dates April 15, 2004 to April 15, 2014 yields 1,012 newspaper items and more than 100 broadcast transcripts where “false flag” is used in the headline or text. An overwhelming majority of references appear in Pakistani and Iranian newspaper coverage and commentary, where the term is almost uniformly intended to denote instances of terrorist violence.

BBC Monitoring International Reports–52
Press TV (Iran)–51
Pakistan Observer–42
The Frontier Post (Pakistan)–28
The Nation (Thailand)–24
The Washington Post–20
Mail Online–19
The New York Times–18
McClatchey Tribune Syndicate–17
International New York Times–16
Mehr News Agency (Iran)–15
National Post (Canada)–15
The Washington Times–15
Daily News (Sri Lanka)–14
The Jerusalem Post–14
Daily Times (Pakistan)–13
Gold Coast Publications (Australia)–13
Sunday Times (Islamabad)–13
The Augusta Chronicle–12
FARS News Agency (Iran)–11
The Times (London)–10
The Guardian (London)–10
News Outlets and instances of “false flag” referenced in news and opinion articles or broadcast transcriptions, April 15, 2004 to April 15, 2014

“The Mumbai attacks indeed have been used to scuttle the composite dialogue bringing Pakistan under pressure, accusing it of abetting terror” an opinion piece in Thailand’s Nation reads. “Simultaneously, only days after a warning of an Israeli ‘false flag’ bombing against the US as being ‘in the works’, a car bomb is discovered in Time[s] Square!”[8]

Indeed, the false flag meme is routinely deployed in a wide swath of global news discourse, the top ones of which are listed above. A cross section of contextual usages from Middle Eastern-based publications is presented below.

“The way [Osama bin Laden] was hastily buried under mysterious circumstances gave rise to speculations that it was a false flag operation to undermine Pak[istan’s] Army, Air Force and ISI and to defame Pakistan,” states an analysis in Pakistan’s Frontier Post.[9]

False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public at large. During Algeria[‘s] civil war and struggle for independence [the] French government had resorted to similar tactics to crush the freedom movement. Some investigating journalists and organizations had also described [the] 9/11 attacks as false flag operations conducted by the CIA, Mossad and the RAW to take on the Muslim world … Israel is known for such operations, as it deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during [the] 1967 war.–Pakistan Observer[10]

The news claiming that Iran has launched a cyber attack on US banks is a sheer lie and an obvious false flag operation. With US President Barack Obama ready to sign an executive order to control the Internet in the name of cybersecurity, could it be more obvious that this ‘cyber attack’ is a total setup? … US news website Infowars reported.–FARS News Agency (Iran) [11]

Whenever and wherever a blood-dimmed tide is loosened in Pakistan, the government blames Al Qaeda or Taliban for it. What the people have witnessed at Rawalpindi is yet another false flag operation perpetrated by a group that has some ulterior motives for creating such turmoil. For their personal benefits they are sowing the wind without realising that they would ultimately harvest a hurricane.–The Nation (Thailand)[12]

On January 13th 2012, Mark Perry broke a story in Foreign Policy magazine, in which he laid bare a false flag operation that Israel’s Mossad ran for several years. It involved their agents posing as CIA operatives in London and contracting the new infamous Jundullah (Iran), to conduct cross-border terrorism from Pakistan into Iran.–Daily Times (Pakistan)[13]

However, Damascus categorically rejected the baseless claim, and announced later that the chemical attack had actually been carried out by the militants themselves as a false flag operation.–PressTV (Iran)[14]

On the other hand, the degree and nature of the idiom’s usage in US news outlets is telling. Indeed, to forthrightly discuss false flag operations as the above items do is to render them useless as psychological techniques. The term is thus almost entirely absent in US-based broadcast (ABC, CBS NBC, Fox, NPR) and cable news programming transcripts (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). It is invoked a total five times over the past ten years on Fox News programs–three of which focus on University of Wisconsin Arabic Studies instructor Kevin Barrett, who was subjected to a relentless media frenzy for publicly questioning the US government’s explanation of September 11, 2001.[15]

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow references “false flag,” in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, focusing on Infowars’ coverage of the event.[16] The phrase also appears in an ABC transcript of a 2011 George Stephanopoulos interview featuring former Minnesota Governor and author Jesse Ventura.[17]

As noted, the term’s appearance in major print news media is largely restricted to the editorial, entertainment, and lifestyle sections, with exceptional framing in news coverage generally proving the rule. For example, over the past decade the term appears in 20 items published in the Washington Post, yet only five such usages are in reference to primarily non-Western military or intelligence-related concerns, with the remainder involving editorial comment on politics and entertainment reviews or event listings, a few of which obliquely reference the Boston Marathon bombing aftermath. “But there are a few bold, determined [Republican congresspersons] who may rescue Obamacare,” Michael Gerson writes. “If I were prone to conspiracy theories, I’d suspect a false-flag operation. Since I’m not, there must be explanations that arise from within tea party ideology.”[18]

“[A] top [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard officer named Brig. Gen. Ali Reza Asgari vanished in Istanbul,” the Post reports. “The betting among spy buffs is that Asgari was recruited in what’s known as a “false flag” operation. His handlers may be Israelis posing as officers of another intelligence service, perhaps even during the debriefing.[19]

Another reference to “false flag” is used in describing the untimely demise of one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s former associates.

Before he died, [Alexander[ Litvinenko blamed his impending demise on Putin, whose enemies tend to meet untimely deaths. Litvinenko was said to be on the verge of obtaining documents — or maybe they were already in his possession; this part is unclear — proving that Putin had staged attacks on Russian civilians and made it look as if Chechen separatists were responsible so that Putin would then be free to wage a brutal war of suppression against the Chechens. In the secret world, this sort of gambit is called a “false flag” operation.[20]

As noted, only one deployment of the term in the Washington Post since 2004 is in relation to US, British or Israeli covert practices, and here the exception indeed proves the censorial rule, for it is referenced in reportage describing sanctioned interrogation practices for Guantanamo detainees.

“[US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld then asked a working group of lawyers, intelligence officials and representatives of the Office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to come up with permanent interrogation guidelines for Guantanamo,” the Post reports.

They looked at 35 techniques, including covering a suspect with wet towels to simulate drowning, and stripping detainees. Only 24 techniques survived, the result of a rancorous debate. Seven of those approved techniques are not included in U.S. military doctrine, and are listed as: “change of scenery up; change of scenery down; dietary manipulation; environmental manipulation; sleep adjustment (reversal) ; isolation for 30 days”; and a technique known as “false flag,” or deceiving a detainee into believing he is being interrogated by someone from another country.[21]

Usage of the term in the even more influential New York Times follows a similar course. Four of the eighteen Times articles referencing “false flag” involve coverage of the episode in early 2010 when cyber-attacks against Google and other US-based corporations were traced to Chinese military and educational institutions. Times reporters cited speculations by western industry and government officials that Chinese “schools were cover for a ‘false flag’ intelligence operation being run by a third country.”[22] “Security experts caution that it is hard to trace online attacks and that the digital footprints may be a ‘false flag,’” the Times instructs in a follow-up story, “a kind of decoy intended to throw investigators off track.”[23]

Seven New York Times articles are found in the editorial, entertainment, or style sections and deal with the term in an expectedly playful and detached manner. For example, one writer addressing the topic of “conspiracy theories” remarks that “in recent years, it seems as if every tragedy comes with a round of yarn-spinning, as the Web fills with stories about ‘false flag’ attacks and crisis actors’ — not mere theorizing but arguments for the existence of a completely alternate version of reality.”[24]

Aside from the episode involving China’s would-be involvement in cyber-terrorism, only once does the Times employ the “false flag” phrase in the context of serious international news coverage—a somewhat depreciative story profiling Mother Agnes Mariam published in the wake of the 2013 chemical attacks on Syrian civilians. “When Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, wanted to bolster his argument that rebels had carried out the poison gas attacks near Damascus on Aug. 21,” the Times reports,

he pointed to the work of a 61-year-old Lebanese-born nun, [Mother Agnes Mariam of the Cross,] who had concluded that the horrifying videos showing hundreds of dead and choking victims, including many children, had been fabricated ahead of time to provide a pretext for foreign intervention … Through conversations with Syrians and clergy throughout the country, she said, she uncovered [sic] ”the false flag of the Arab Spring.” Instead of a popular uprising by citizens enraged by economic stagnation and political oppression, she said, she found a conspiracy cooked up by international powers to destroy Syria.[25]

The UK Guardian and Times of London each reference “false flag” ten times over the past decade, with articles equally apportioned between editorials (four), news stories (three), and entertainment or style pieces (three). Only a few of these relate the term to the methods of Anglo-American empire.

For instance, a Guardian article from 2006 sneeringly reviews a lecture on 9/11 by Professor David Ray Griffin who, alongside other “conspiracy theorists,” maintains  “[t]he attacks … were not carried out by al-Qaida [sic] but were a ‘false flag’ event used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.”[26]

The Times notably includes a report (buried on page 39 of the print edition) on Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s March 2014 censorship of YouTube after a recorded conversation between the NATO country’s top government officials was posted on the site. In the discussion “a false flag attack on Turkey” was considered as a pretext to move against “an al-Qaeda splinter group that controls sections of northern Syria bordering Turkey.”[27]

The above suggests how, much like the taboo topic of “conspiracy theories,” US news media broadly reject the subject of false flag terror as the stuff of delusion, or otherwise perceive it as being mainly restricted to fictional narratives. Indeed, within the acceptable parameters of public discourse such things are, quite literally, unspeakable. If one accepts the basis for reality established in corporate media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, or their broadcast counterparts, the only strategies and policies deemed worthy of notice almost entirely take place in the clear light of day. This is because, the theory goes, we live in a democratic society where the public is adequately represented and its interests genuinely well-articulated.

Yet nations and peoples routinely impacted by false flag terror unequivocally recognize the phenomenon as a legitimate item of public knowledge and discussion. Here western doctrinal institutions entrusted to define acceptable discourse and opinion, not to mention forging the accepted historical record, do so to expressly mislead those who unwittingly pay for false flag terror and military aggression abroad— chiefly the American citizenry.

Despite a series of momentous political assassinations in the 1960s with proven government complicity alongside unmistakable “false flag” events such as the Tonkin Gulf incident, the USS Liberty, the 1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing and the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the above suggests the conscious and now-standard use of psychological warfare methods to contain most Americans’ political horizons and understandings, thereby perpetuating the broader geopolitical status quo.


[1] Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11, Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2006, 2, 3.

[2] Adan Salazar, “’What’s a “False Flag”?’ Google Trends Show Search Term Spike,”, April 18, 2013.

[3] Meghan Keneally, “Conspiracy Theorists Claim Boston Was ‘False Flag’ Attack Arranged by the Government,” Daily Mail, April 16, 2013; Rachel Maddow, “The Rachel Maddow Show for April 24, 2013,” MSNBC, April 24, 2013; “Infowars Confrontation: Boston Resident Blasts Dan Bidondi Over Marathon Bombing Conspiracy Theories,” Huffington Post, April 30, 2013.

[4] Dahr Jamail, “Dahr Jamail Blog From Baghdad,” The New Standard, April 20, 2004. Retrieved April 23, 2014 from

[5] Michel Chossudovsky, “British Undercover Soldiers Caught Driving Booby Trapped Car,” Global Research, September 20, 2005.

[6] Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, London and New York: Frank Cass, 2005; Trevor Aaronson, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, New York: Ig Publishing, 2013. The American press has afforded almost no news coverage or commentary to Gladio, even though the US has figured centrally in subverting the political process in European countries since 1948. See James F. Tracy, “False Flag Terror and Conspiracies of Silence,” Global Research,
August 10, 2012.

[7] David Isenberg, “’P2OG Allows Pentagon to Fight Dirty,” Asia Times, November 5, 2002.

[8] S. M. Hali, “Too Many Coincidences!” The Nation (Thailand), May 11, 2010.

[9] Asif Haroon Raja, “Uproar Over Leaked Abottabad Commission Report,” The Frontier Post, August 7, 2013.

[10] Mohammad Jamil, “False Flag Operation & Subterfuge,” Pakistan Observer, January 12, 2010.

[11] “US Website: Iran’s Cyber Attack on US Banks Obvious False Flag,” FARS News Agency, October 3, 2012.

[12] Ghulam Asghar Khan, “Rendezvous with Death,” The Nation (Thailand), January 1, 2008.

[13] Fundy Kasuri, “How Terrorists Fund Their Activities,” Daily Times, November 21. 2013.

[14] “Iran Warns Against Military Intervention in Syria,” PressTV, August 27, 2013.

[15] See, for example, Bill O’Reilly, “Impact: Update on UW Professor,” Fox News, October 11, 2006.

[16] Maddow, “The Rachel Maddow Show for April 24, 2013.”

[17] George Stephanopoulos, “Secret Government Documents; Former Governor Speaks Out,” ABC News Transcript, April 4, 2011.

[18] Michael Gerson, “A Custer for Our Time,” Washington Post, August 2, 2013, A15.

[19] Michael Ignatius, “15 Britons in a Sea of Intrigue,” Washington Post, March 30, 2007, A17.

[20] Eugene Robinson, “The Case of the Poisoned Spy,” Washington Post, November 28, 2006, A19.

[21] Dana Priest and Bradley Graham, “Guantanamo List Details Approved Interrogation Methods,” Washington Post, June 10, 2004, A13.

[22] John Markoff and David Barboza, “2 China Schools Said to Be Tied to Online Attacks,” New York Times, February 18, 2010.

[23] David Barboza, “Hacking Inquiry Puts China’s Elite in New Light,” New York Times, February 22, 2010, A1.

[24] Maggie Koerth-Baker, “Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories,” New York Times Magazine, May 26, 2013, 15.

[25] Ben Hubbard, “A Nun Lends a Voice of Skepticism on the Use of Poison Gas by Syria,” New York Times, September 22, 2013, A11.

[26] Audrey Gillan, “Full House as Leading 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Has His Say,” Guardian (London), September 9, 2006.

[27] Alexander Christie-Miller, “Erdogan Blocks YouTube Over Leaked War Plans,” Times (London), March 28, 2014, 39.

Published at Global Research on May 1, 2014.

108 thoughts on “Psychological Warfare and the “False Flag” Meme”

  1. Mein Gott! that O´Reilly is a disgusting coward. He invites two young inexperienced girls to discuss their professor Barrett. And demanding his career to be ruined. Get the man on in person so he can defend himself!

    Just sitting there telling these girls what and who Kevin Barrett is can can only be a character assassination for political means. One of the girls has a conscience and tries to be a little balanced, but is stopped by that raving lunatic O´Reilly, who keeps telling them Barrett has no facts to back up his claims. A cheap way to lull the public into believing there is nothing to see, just walk on. Fox is so cheap!

    1. Col. he usually just tells his victims to “SHUT UP!”. The fact that his ugly mug is still on prominent display should tell us something about the “authenticity” of “the media”.

      On any given day you can tune in to a gaggle of yammering jackals on TV all talking at the same time. I rather suppose that for those too young to have known anything else they consider this “normal”. It doesn’t get better with age.

      1. OMG I did not think of that! Of course the younger generations will think that this is normal. What a frightening thought!

  2. “For example, in the early 2000s waves of car bombings throughout Iraq were rumored to have been carried out by British or US intelligence. “The word on the street in Baghdad is that the cessation of suicide car bombings is proof that the CIA was behind them”

    …Again a partial premise of argument is based upon admitted rumor and innuendo. Who’s rumor? Embarrassing to whisper down the lane.

    The alternative media is rightly so, alternative.

    1. Of course, the impressionable Iraqis should wait for a pronouncement from L. Paul Bremer or Donald Rumsfeld before “jumping to any wild conclusions.” It follows that one should curse the blind after having plucked out their eyes.

      1. Of course every “journalist” should read a bit of history, namely yellow journalism. This type of media died 120 years ago and is now made cheaply through the advent of the internet.

        The reason those rumors don’t appear is from the lessons learned from more acute researchers in the past.

        1. “Nataeg” why have you changed your name from “Wilson”? As you know, a thoroughly new identity will also require a fresh IP.

          Indeed, how can an “unembedded” journalist such as Dahr Jamail be taken seriously?

  3. O’Reilly is no different than any smart talking conman except that he has so much influence, sitting in front of cameras every day. The cameras are what drive up sales of his ersatz history books, too. The one girl who does attempt to fight back could have mentioned the peer reviewed scientific paper about the WTC, which probably is mentioned in Barrett’s book.
    The wiki entry on false flags is pretty good for once, a dry factual description.

  4. The biggest popular delusion is that we the people are consulted before important decisions are made involving war. We are not considered at all, except as a mass to be moved from our occupations to serving theirs. It helps to have more people straddling the roles of peacetime citizens and wartime patriots.

    I think about the doctors who have dutifully mouthed the Boston Marathon story, underscoring its validity. When were they co-opted? At the beginning of their careers? Do they occupy a role as well-trained cadres which can be brought in without question? It’s difficult to say. But someone can put the arm on them when the need arises, and they willingly succumb to power when it decides they are useful, never uttering a disclaimer.

    Where are the professionalism and the ethics of people who traditionally are believed to be acting with integrity and honor, independent of outside manipulation? Their steadfast presence in the event endorses it as valid and not a mere drill. That they are cogs, predictably compliant, no better than the servile press itself which no power fears, is the conclusion one must painfully draw. By the time they revolt it will be too late.

    At the National Academy of Sciences, in a medical meeting several years ago, when the topic arose about torture at Guantanamo, no one was in position to denounce it. Instead, they tried to concentrate merely on the topic of force-feeding and whether it violated rights not to let a hunger striker starve himself to death. The discussion concluded that you could “save a life” with such means, as though doctors at the base were heroic and performing functions traditional to medicine. The actual events which led to the hunger strike were of course never broached, nor did anyone question the violation of the Hippocratic oath when doctors participated as team members in these events.

    By carefully circumscribing the allowed discussion, by focusing on only one action by doctors, force-feeding, it became possible to justify their position at Guantanamo as compassionate. Not since Dr. Mengele have dutiful professionals in a country imposing tyranny been so cagey about treating such doctors as benefactors. I am sure there were professional justifications for “selections” and murders by doctors acting as Mengele did. At the moment, the evasions to discuss the other matters at Gitmo show we may not have not gone quite so far as the Germans had, at least generally towards American citizens (although drone strikes argue otherwise) but had the actual torture been brought into the discussion, there would have been less of a framework for justification.

    In the end, creating a propaganda framework around events seems to do the trick. At the moment, Boston media is promoting the story that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is receiving visits from his sisters, women in headscarves who look oddly fanatic in their facial expressions, like members of the Manson family. They are reported as possibly bringing information from their witchy mother (who is also portrayed in a sort of writhing posture in her home in Daghestan), and therefore the system here is seen as bending over backwards to be fair, even while risking “another terror attack” and in order to justify surveillance of prisoner conversations. The fact that Tsarnaev is being held in a military “medical facility” (due to his throat wound undoubtedly) — pardon me but I cannot put all of this in quotes but suffice it to say that I consider all of this a contrivance– means that anyone really held in such conditions would be subject to the full panoply of techniques employed at Gitmo and completely accepted by the top levels of the medical profession as necessary and proper to the protection of the citizenry.

  5. I do want to add one thing: by using the phrase “false flag” to describe BMB or Sandy Hook, one alienates those who reject the idea of a giant conspiracy that would kill Americans in order to make a point about terrorism or gun control. Because false flags have traditionally involved death and mayhem, and indeed are well within the “wheelhouse” of secret government, particularly abroad, it is a huge stretch to accept that these events, presented as real, were in actuality caused by one’s own bureaucrats. I really feel that this misunderstanding is what causes so much resistance to examination of what really happened in the event.
    I know that some are motivated to prove the government would stop at no evil, and of course it would not, but this particular event is designed to be impervious to analysis. It is designed to make people look away from its true causes.

    I find it luxurious at this moment in history to be able to understand it as a hoax, and I want to share that luxury with my fellow citizens, so we can enjoy the game together. I want to deny them their talking point or casus belli. But by harping away on “false flag” one is virtually certain of allowing that other thought to flourish – that some enemy has done this to us, because something so terrible would never have been done by our government to its citizens.

    I even have room to think that few if anyone died on 9/11, but that’s radical I know.

    Once you understand the hoax meme, it puts things in a whole new light. Yes, in the end people do die, mostly foreigners but also our own soldiers who volunteer to fight them. Indeed it does lead to death, only not so directly, because you could not get so much help.

    If I thought the BMB had really caused deaths, I would not be so willing to jump onboard here. But I feel the phrase “false flag” cuts two ways, and not in a good way towards truth. Or as I sometimes like to say, Truth.

  6. Although not directly related to false flags, there is a controlled media when it comes to bar publications, as well, which self-censor reports of lawyers’ and judges’ conduct. These publications (and I point expressly to “Law Week,” published in Denver, as well as “,” a rag published in New York) are staffed by hand-picked toadies of the judicial-banking complex. There is no independent exercise of judgment, and no critical analysis. These publications patently ignore any stories about corruption on the bench and within the bar, instead issuing crazy sycophantic awards (e.g., “Top Ten Lawyers in Colorado!” “Lawyer of the Year!”) to, and writing gushing reviews about, the very worst criminals–the fixers and operators, not the lawyers taking cases on contingency or pro bono, fighting to make the system fairer, and exposing injustice. (Of if they do, you can bet that person has “bellied up to the bar” in other ways.)

    In a nutshell, the press outlets devoted to the justice system are, instead, obsessed with whitewashing, and presenting a very skewed picture of that system.

  7. How could anyone reading Dr. Tracy’s in-depth analysis not be open to rethinking 9/11, et. al? Bill O’Reilly’s dodge and over-speak debate techniques only display his intellectual deficits graphically. (See
    adjoining tiles after video.)

    He should quit while he’s ahead. (Don’t take on Jon Stewart, Bill…)

    1. Thanks for the heads up. I’m going to try to research this, but have to say that at the very outset I am skeptical. Psychiatry is based on a lie, which is that issues of character and politics are really just physiological or biological ‘illnesses’ in the brain. Anyone who has been ‘practicing psychiatry’ for the last 30 years (and maybe ever) is already participating in a lie-based ‘field,’ so it seems hard to imagine that any would or could then expose the actual truth. Things may not be as they seem here…

      Here’s a re-post of one a friend sent me, regarding the new ‘hate speech’ laws being lobbied and solutions for enforcement of them through the ‘mental health’ racket:

      “With the capability to intercept every digital communication sent over the internet or telephone it’s no surprise that Big Brother is pushing to further expand its role in the lives of Americans.
      Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) is proposing a new bill that would send government web bots across the internet looking for hate speech or material allegedly determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.” Once identified, the Congressman wants reports to be disseminated to Congress so that they can monitor, control and potentially criminalize thoughts and expressions deemed by an unknown panel of government bureaucrats to be hateful.
      You and I both operate in the arena of words and ideas… freedom of expression and thought… that is the coin of our realm.
      I really think it is the duty of journalists and people in the media to look at any potential instance of the government coming in and trying to monitor or potentially criminalize thoughts and words.

      Senator Markey wants this obscure Federal Agency to scour these online sources… TV, radio and so on… for any speech they find threatening. He wants them to do it in connection with the Department of Justice, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and then file a report with Congress on what out there is potentially hateful and could lead to hate crimes.
      This is clearly Big Government sticking its nose into people’s speech and their thoughts.

      There’s no criteria in the bill… what’s the template? When you go through and check the boxes what counts as hate speech and who makes the determinations? It’s this abstruse group that no one’s ever heard of buried within the bureaucracy of the federal government.
      The definitions for what constitutes hate speech are broad or non-existent, making such a bill that much more dangerous. According to the Examiner, “The bill does not specify what, exactly, constitutes “hate,” but given the source of the proposal, it’s not too difficult to figure out.”
      The proposed bill has prompted concerns that individuals or groups who speak out against the government or disagree with certain politicians will be identified as inciting hate.
      Many questions about how the process of finding hateful people in the United States via the internet would work have been left unanswered.
      A few weeks ago Senator Harry Reid of Nevada referred to protesters at Bundy Ranch as “domestic terrorists.” Since these people defied official directives and hate the idea of government overreach, would they now also fall under new hate speech guidelines being proposed by Senator Markey? Will they be added to yet another red list and flagged as persons of interest for simply posting their thoughts in a forum on the internet?
      Psychiatrists are now identifying those who express their frustrations with the government as a mental illness called Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) as per the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V). Under the new proposal from Senator Markey defiant thoughts or ideas could potentially not only leave you diagnosed as mentally ill, but also a “hater.”
      Will “hate” now be deemed a terrorist activity such as making a gun gesture with your hand, purchasing ammunition, or paying cash for items at the grocery store?
      As we noted previously, there are already pre-crime systems actively monitoring the internet looking for discussions and behaviors that can be used to identify potential criminals before any crime occurs. Combined with new Web Bot hate speech tools, could the government then preempt detentions and arrests under the Patriot Act or National Defense Authorization Act, both of which allow for action to be taken against those who threaten national security, yet another broadly define term?
      The bill is full of loop holes and broad assumptions, as is generally the case with government mandates. And, with the Department of Justice included within the new ‘hate speech’ mandates it should be clear that the end goal is criminalization of thoughts and expressions that go against the prevailing agenda.
      All that aside, perhaps we should just pass the bill first before we find out what’s in it.
      Hattip Be Informed
      Please Spread The Word And Share This Post”

      1. My re-post above had several links by phrase to articles; the one I’ll re-post exposes this trojan horse aka ‘mental health:’

        According to the psych system, everyone on here has ODD, and should be interned/imprisoned/’reeducated.’ Or maybe that would just be applied to those of us who actually question the chief orchestrators of the NWO…

        In any case, a backlash is already forming to deal with the inevitable whole scale rejection of the psych system now that it’s become beyond obvious it is just a tool of political repression. Some of it’s ‘practitioners’ are realizing that when a lie gets pushed into total absurdity, it gets rejected completely. Psychologists also have an inherent clash with psychiatry as they don’t make their money off of forcing drugs onto people.

        I think it’s possible that the psychologist who promotes ‘reform’ in the article may be an expression of controlled opposition, although that seems much less likely than him spontaneously trying to defend his ‘turf.’

  8. I’m so pleased to read Dr Tracy’s analysis of what could be going on today, I just wish someone in the UK had the same intellect and blow this whole game play open. 7/7 comes to mind and Woolwich ….as musings says ” where is the professional conduct and ethics of these so called workers, who go along with these planned events. My mind boggles at the thought of ‘ Robots’.. can we not think for ourselves.

  9. “the exception indeed proves the censorial rule”

    The remarkable thing about what Paul Craig Roberts snidely calls “freedom and democracy America” is the degree to which a completely blind, ignorant, people thinks it is fully informed and has a genuine hand in the country’s governance.

    I have to hand it to James. This is an investigation long overdue. It is so obvious a censorship no one even noticed–and no one can be convinced of it. The odious O’Reilly is the perfect spokesman (the clip was genuinely painful to watch), whatever the left mindlessly thinks about him–he speaks for the whole cabal. The fact that the press almost all Americans get their worldview from essentially never evokes the concept of “false flag” operations–and on the odd chance that it does, it is only in reference to some wicked, inscrutable, country most Americans can’t find on a map–is extremely revealing.

    “Seven New York Times articles are found in the editorial, entertainment, or style sections and deal with the term in an expectedly playful and detached manner.”

    I like the “playful and detached” part of this sentence, but “expectedly” is even delightful. Yes, if we know what’s going on (what’s that, .001% of the population, I’m guessing?). But the American people are so clueless that they can’t see the irony, at all. This is tragic beyond description.

    “The above suggests how, much like the taboo topic of “conspiracy theories,” US news media broadly reject the subject of false flag terror as the stuff delusion…Indeed, within the acceptable parameters of public discourse such things are, quite literally, unspeakable.”

    Exactly. In 1984, Newspeak is systematically developed to make “thoughtcrime” literally unthinkable, but the job has not yet been accomplished by the time the story takes place; it’s THINKING the “unspeakable” that gets Winston Smith tortured into compliance. To paraphrase Dear Leader Reagan, it’s 1984 in America. Of course, the odious Mr. Sterling indicates that the “unspeakable” is already upon us.

    Incidentally, this is why I would quibble with musings when she says “I really feel that this misunderstanding is what causes so much resistance to examination of what really happened in the event.” I don’t think it matters if the sheep hear us call things “false flags; they won’t listen to us no matter what verbiage we use (if there IS a formulation that miraculously unlocks the closed, hypnotized, mind, I’d like to learn the magic words). But I suspect that in the end, she actually agrees with me on this; choosing the right words is important, on the odd chance we can slip between the cracks, but a mind-controled person is largely immune. Something else must crack the shell they are trapped within, beyond easy to dismiss catch-phrases that turn them off, knee-jerk fashion.

  10. Patrick, I think “false flag” as used in warfare, involves real unwanted damage (unlike building implosions that are sought for multiple purposes) and loss of life. Neither is present in the BMB or Sandy Hook. I have no idea if the events described as subway bombings in Spain or London killed anyone, so maybe they were false flags. But a hoax is not a false flag. The chief objection of what you call the mind-controlled (but what I am willing to believe also involve people of good will who think their fellow citizens have been murdered – as many of us felt originally too) is the idea that their own governments could murder that way at that kind of event. They think it’s real and we are simply defending gun rights or Moslems out of a perverse need to attack our government and align promiscuously with any group but the one in charge.

    I therefore would submit that the very real occasion known as a false flag cannot be applied once something is proved to be a stage-play hoax with actors. Period. I assume there are marginal numbers of people who will grasp the difference, but those people in their minority may well be key and are not to be dismissed cavalierly as unenlightened zombies.

    1. I take your point. And I appreciate the clarification. I hate to find myself dumbing down items that have important distinctions, yet this I have done. Thank you for pointing it out, musings.

      1. Upon re-reading these messages, musings, I think I take issue with you after all. It is indeed a subtle topic.

        Was not the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” a false flag, even though it was entirely imaginary? You say: ““false flag” as used in warfare, involves real unwanted damage.” Not so in that case. True, it was done amidst a low-grade war, to escalate it into the real deal, but it was entirely fake, just as was Sandy Hook, and Boston.

        So as much as I love you, and like it when you appreciate my comments, I think I have to withdraw my response to your reply to my remarks.

        Boston, at least, has to be a false flag in the Gulf of Tonkin sense, if not the “Remember the Maine” sense (but almost). We don’t know for certain that the Chechens were the original patsies (too much hopeful talk by the usual MSM suspects immediately after it supposedly happened that it was garden-variety Americans behind the episode). But as the drama unfolded, the Chechen connection was the plot-line ultimately used, and as you speculated, it probably had something to do with the Olympics and Ukraine. Very plausible. Blame another country (sort of) for a fake event that traumatizes the country it (supposedly) happens in.

        That said, I still take your point that in the case of, for instance, Sandy Hook, that the term “false flag” is not apposite, and we should endeavor to use terms with care when we wish to persuade those who are skeptical.

        Still, it is all of a piece with James’ essential argument: the press in America censors all of it. The blind, stupid, sleeping, sheep are never to be treated as intelligent news consumers, much less be allowed to ponder the possibility that the stage play they are watching is not reality.

      2. Okay, you have a point if indeed the Gulf of Tonkin incident is to be considered a false flag. But the operative word is “flag” because the false story was circulated from the top by the military, with a causus belli in mind, the reason to attack. No such assertion can be made about Sandy Hook, even though federal acquiescence at the very least was present behind the scenes, and active participation when Obama invited the Parker family to the White House. But we still are agreed that we do not know to what end. That is why, since propaganda rather than immediate action has followed, it’s a horse of a different color, as is BMB. I began to think a short time after Chechens were implicated that this was a psyop directed at future enemy Russia (little did we know). So in a way it might indeed qualify. It may have had something to do with the resolution of the Syria crisis which was going on at that time, when Russia called our bluff and won the engagement.

        But for the purpose of disarming the propaganda aspect, I think it is important to show and tell the American people (somehow) that nobody was hurt in these two events. Unfortunately, the virus still rages in the press.

      3. “But for the purpose of disarming the propaganda aspect, I think it is important to show and tell the American people (somehow) that nobody was hurt in these two events.”

        We can dream.

      4. Patrick, I concur. I think that is about ALL we can do. If more come to understand how dishonest and pervasive this is, perhaps they’ll be less likely to spend so much time absorbing it from the flickering screen.

        Once the rusty neurons begin to wiggle again they may find themselves with unoccupied time on their hands to actually think about some of this. They may even regain the power of speech and dialog and come to realize that they are not just observers in this life.

        I always have been a “dreamer”.

  11. “False flag’ may be a sharper designation than ‘Conspiracy Theory’ for many of the US power system’s homicidal operations. For example, in the John Kennedy assassination, Oswald was not merely conceived as a patsy, but as an agent of Communism. I still remember the right wing signs of demonstrators, “Communism killed our president.” Similarly the 9/11 homicides were blamed on Muslims. As were the Boston Marathon Bombings.

    ‘False flag’ has a war connotation of American power killing the American people and blaming it on the Other for political purposes. At the risk of offending the racist truthers of this blog, I will point out that the American people killed in these false flags are White people. Pseudo-radicals like Chomsky and Alex Cockburn do not mind Mentioning the homicidal conspiracies against non-White people, just denying that they occur against Whites.

    Because most American Whites covertly or implicitly support killing non-Whites at home or abroad, but are strongly against the killing of Whites. So when Whites are killed, the Enemy must be blamed, and power will select one to suit its purposes.

    1. I find it funny that you consider Chomsky to be european, and that in a country where members of my race – european – are being murdered and raped every day by non-europeans, you actually think there is such a thing as ‘racism’ against non-whites.

      Our government is definitely and thoroughly racist, yes, just not in the direction you’re claiming, without one iota of concrete proof I might add.

  12. Mark, mark, mark – “At the risk of offending the racist truthers of this blog”? Wah? You mean you really think the BMB had homicides? And if we don’t think that – what – I don’t think too many people here think that anyone died. If anyone is racist, it would be a government trying to pin the blame on a Caucasian who is a Caucasian. So your response is kind of off the mark, Mark.

  13. For your consideration, read it and weep (or laugh): “Professor unveils design for new tribute to Officer Sean Collier… Cost of permanent structure by Stata is still uncertain.” The artist is J. Meejin Yoon

    In the paper edition of the same paper is a remark which does not so obviously appear on the first page of the online version:

    “Where were you during the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings? ‘Our Marathon: The Boston Bombing Digital Archive’ will be at MIT today and tomorrow’ (that was April 29-30) ‘to collect stories from the MIT community…” etc.

    “Stop by the Bush Room (10-105) tomorrow” (April 30) “from 11 am to 3 pm to share your story.” This is a venue which is used by public service matters such as informational or fund-raising, and is in the main corridor of the building beneath one of the two domes, the larger of the two. It also has war memorials, and is thus evocative of sacrifice and tradition, drenched in patriotic blood.

    It’s also a loud, echo-filled place where the history-taking might be distorted in more ways than one.

    Again, a comedy to those who think.

  14. Very useful research, thank you! I’ll respectfully add that the sincerity of governments and media in countries that are the targets of false flags is still very unsatisfactory, as they have yet to educate their public on the indisputability of the twin towers’ terrorist controlled demolition. Hence the conspiracy theory that they truly report to the same elusive Masters as the U.S. mass media, and that their subdued denunciations of false flags are one trick to keep the trust of their public.

    It also bears remembering that governments and mass media are only the most obvious component in the success of the false flags’ censorship. Less visible but at least as vital is the participation of other institutions who would ostensibly gain much credibility or popularity by denouncing false flags: universities, professional associations of mental health professionals, anti-war groups, human rights protection groups, religious institutions, etc. Their top leaders are more dangerous and more vicious criminals against humanity than governments’ and media’s top leaders. Whenever enough people realize this, humanity may take a significant step out of the war system and into a much more favorable era.


  15. @musings:
    What you think you know about Dr. Mengele, Adolf Hitler, the NSDAP of Germany, World War II and its cause, and how jews were treated in the work camps is absolutely false propaganda. I suggest you look deeper into history, especially revisionist history as told by Deanna Spingola, David Irving and many others.

    Witness the additional events such as the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, et. alia, which although not strictly “false flag” events, were instigated by a prolonged secret barrage of assaults by the governments claiming to be innocently attacked. In the case of Tonkin, the “event” (which never happened) was created from whole cloth.

    Whosoever thinks that propaganda is only employed during war, may be correct, because we (as a population of people) have been, are and forever shall be in perpetual war. This has been a fact of history for thousands of years. Can anyone even name one decade where some sort of war was not ongoing? Today’s high-tech propaganda theater is just a new and improved version of what always has been. It is just a modern “Plato’s Cave”. If you receive your reality from the TV or any other media, you are living in Plato’s Cave and are completely deceived. Plato, “The Allegory of the Cave”

    Do you think that ordinary people, in an effort to live an ordinary life, protecting their ordinary families, and eking out a humble existence on Earth are declaring and sustaining these wars? Is it not more plausible that there exist a tribe or class of (uncommon) parasitic people who need these wars in order to sustain themselves and their families, (because that’s all they are willing or able to do to live), are forever deceiving the common man to go to war? Is it not (almost) obvious that these people (almost) completely control the flow of information of every kind in the world? They control the main academic, scientific, religious (not saying that most of Science is not a religion), news, print, theater, fiction, TV, radio. The Matrix was a very good analogy, up to a point.

    musings, you have taken the bait of propaganda, hook, line and sinker of the WWII story, or, alternatively, you have a vested interest in perpetuating this false narrative.

  16. Forever the optimist, am hopeful that the latest uproar from the MSM on a recently revealed email, received from an FOI request from Judicial Watch on Benghazi are signs of the tide changing.

    Have not seen the whitehouse spokesman squirm as he did yesterday, when and ABC! reporter grilled him on why this email was heavily redacted when sent to congress and a court order was necessary to get the actual document. He tried to insist it was not related to the Benghazi murders and the coverup, which it clearly is.

    It appears all the MSM are given this big lie at least some coverage, however late it is, even CNN!

  17. Perhaps the most recent example is the putsch in Ukraine. The U.S. spent at least $5B on this and the “influential” New York Times is is pulling out all the stops to blame Putin.

    There is a deeply ingrained meme in America that “we just don’t do these things”. We “bring democracy”. This belief is not only naive, it is dangerous. Do you ever ask yourselves, “who are these mutts to decide what sort of world we’ll have?”.

    At this site, perhaps more than any other place, we should be aware of how these things work. Just like with “Operation Gladio”, fear is needed to manipulate the eaters to allow the sort of “change” they’re after. Without this roaming troupe of troublemakers the world would be a much safer place. Of course that wouldn’t be conducive to total global hegemony.

    This was an excellently researched and well-written article. Of course, I think its very obvious that what passes for “media” is really just the propaganda arm of the NWO. Indeed, I often think back to the days when we were told how controlled the Soviet press was. Trust me, Pravda had nothing on the NYT.

    I think its safe to say that the NWO has been discussed so many times that it has become trite. The problem is that it is very real. It is not especially hidden either. “Ordo ab Chao” rings a bell with me when we look at these “events” and try to understand their meaning.

    It is beyond doubt that we are witnessing the denouement of a long running plan. We should all be making plans of our own for how we will respond.

  18. I think that Musings brings up an excellent point about our use of the term ‘false flag’ here. It is very inexact in the context of the BMB or the Sandy Hook school shooting where no one died. These events are really a new phenomenon never seen before in american political culture. We don’t have an accurate term for them.

    While no one died in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, it was otherwise a classic ‘false flag’ in that it involved a foreign power attacking a US war ship. America accepted its authenticity without question because the ‘facts’ were provided by our military and commander in chief, and were otherwise shrouded in mystery.

    The events in Newtown and Boston on the other hand required the participation of civilian actors, first responders, doctors, victims, and most of all, the entire apparatus or the main stream media. Here we are presented with actor/witnesses lying directly to us about their experiences. We have staged scenes with blood and other props. Most importantly, this new phenomenon takes place on American soil, and strikes directly at our sense of personal safety.

    We need a new term for this kind of staged casualty free provocation used by the government to advance multiple agendas, and not simply to start a war. We also need a whole new level of skepticism to fully comprehend this new kind of event which totally undermines our trust in the veracity our fellow citizens, government and media. No wonder it is such a hard sell.

    1. Yes, it is a new phenomenon. Although Operation Northwoods was said to be a plan circulating as a possible idea for an excuse to attack Cuba, with some of the Sandy Hook and other features, the thing would have been a plan of immediate action to take based on the event, and indeed it would differ from these hoaxes.

      “Here we are presented with actor/witnesses lying directly to us about their experiences.” You can also see that the lies continue periodically over a year or so, often using sports venues to promote them, as rallying cries go out for certain agendas. It is taking the crisis actor/drill genre and injecting it with the life-like sequels which are actually believed.

      In that sense they are staged miracle plays which create shrines and nationalistic rallying points in times of stress, as happened a lot around the late 19th century in urbanizing, industrializing cultures which were terrifying to those who needed a sense of rootedness, and came from generations of peasants now thrown into confusion (worse when it all turned into WWI). I would say that Lourdes and Fatima are prime examples, and I am sure that throughout the Middle Ages in response to plague there had been many too.

      A recent Croatian shrine arose out the break-up of Yugoslavia at Medgorge. I know someone who went there with a woman who appeared on CNN during the independence movement of Croatia and who married one of the soldiers (they now live in L.A.) – this miracle was part of the national identity movement there. It was “Croatia Strong.”

      But today’s is not a popular phenomenon which began with an uneducated person or children and was exploited by anti-modernists or anti-communists in their home countries. On the contrary.

      No, it was crafted to be an updated version, and in the case of BMB with immediate high production value reminders as banners everywhere (Fine Arts Museum, Fidelity Investments, local fire departments – all had extremely professional banners advertising “Boston Strong” and some had a ribbon effect in the colors of the Marathon, blue and yellow) – it was top-down from the start.

      The constant repetition of the stories and the witness “testimony” combined with solicitations for “history” as one project at MIT has advertised (a meeting place where MIT people can tell their memories of that day for posterity) – takes Lourdes and Fatima a whole lot farther, but to perhaps some similar end – “salvation” and “solidarity”, only directed by puppet-masters not peasant visions of heaven.

  19. James Tracys text about the murder of Litvinenko may be worth elaborating on. Litvinenko was said to accuse Putin at a late stage.
    Apparently the oligarch Berezovsky was involved in this late phase.
    Initially Litvinenko said he believed the murderer to have been the man who gave him documents about Anna Polikovskaja.
    There has been some discussion about the murder weapon. Polonium 210 an isotope costing $69 dollars for 0,1 micro Curie online but you need 30000 portions of that size to kill someone.
    Ie 2 million dollars from that source + lots of trouble to open all those 30000 packets and handling the resulting combined quantity.
    Since officially Russia dominates the production of that rare isotope, it wouldnt be a clever choice of murder weapon if it really were the russians. It would be more likely the choice of someone who wanted to put the blame on the russians.
    As is indirectly stated above Berezovsky also blamed Putin for the appartment bombings in 1999. CNN had a web article about it, since removed from every available webpage, where CNN asked an expert, who said the magnitude of the bomb was 100-300 tons tnt equivalent
    CNN probably hoped to cast suspicion on the russians themselves and it was later assumed that it was a false flag to bring Putin to power.
    The pattern however was similar to many other bombings. Officially a car bomb. This was incompatible with the form of the crater which indicated an underground placement, such as in a sewer. And the magnitude indicated a mininuke. This is probably the reason why CNN removed the article. If it was the russians carrying out a false flag it would have sufficed to use conventional bombs.
    Some western media reported that later fsb had been caught barehanded placing a conventional bomb, but the truth was probably that they discovered one not placed it.
    The result of these terror attacks(there were two) was that Russia joined Usa in the war on terror. As mentioned in the article Chechnia was blamed. The russian experts knew it was a nuke. Did they think the Chechnians had nukes? Maybe not, but maybe they saw it as a win win because they wanted a showdown with Chechnian extremists anyway. They were blackmailed by the Us to do what they already wanted to do.
    Dmitri Khalezov has speculated that several people reported dead have actually joined witness protection programs and presumably been given handsome sums of money. He speculates that Litvinov was such a case. He also suggested General Aleksandr Lebed was another case. Lebed spread false rumours of stolen suitcase nukes.
    Yet another case he speculates is still alive is the doctor who monitored bodycarried meters on the rescue workers at wtc. He believes those meters were dosimeters for radioactivity. That doctor was reported dead from cancer aged 50. Although the reliability of those speculations is unknown its worth thinking about such alternatives in other cases. The former Cia op Gene Chip Tatum was reported dead in 2007 but he seems to have returned from the dead.

    1. I have a few observations about you, Peter.

      You have unconventional views about German and Russian history (the last hundred years).

      You have trouble with English spelling and punctuation, because it is a language that is not your own.

      You have a theory (I’m not certain what it is) about reportage in the American press about events outside the United States, that points to a dark mystery–a systematic cover-up. You know this theory is true, although you are somewhat presumptuous in this regard.

      You believe something big is going on that Americans are being systematically denied knowledge of, and have been for more than half a century. You think you know what it is, and that we do not.

      You are (probably) Swedish. You remind me of Knut Hamsun (no Swede!) sometimes. I love his work. In his personal life, he was willing to defend a position most today think indefensible–his reasons were very reasonable, which is a reason I love even the choice he made to side with Germany. I like people who don’t fall into line just because they are expected to do so. I especially like people who endure trouble because they are willing to defy the tide. I hope he had no idea that all the Jews of Europe would be systematically exterminated in Europe when he chose to side with Germany (I think his decision had to do with the fact that he disliked England more than he liked Germany). I suspect that the plan for the extermination of the Jewish race came as a surprise to lots of people who thought the war was a case of sticking it to the English.

      You assume we know a lot more about abstruse matters than anyone can possible expect.

      It is this last observation that inspires my comment. While it is in a sense a compliment to the high level of conversation that prevails here that you expect that we know more than we do, it is also pretty annoying. I can accept that you are a European intellectual, with whatever that comes with in terms of assumptions about Americans. Just be a little less of that, if you don’t mind.

      That is, I think we can all learn a lot from you, but try not to lord it over us.

      Certainly, you have demonstrated a degree of mastery as regards the works of Carroll Quigley, which no American can be expected to do. You know more about us than we do about the world you live in. I get it. Tone it down. If you want to impart knowledge, I’m sure you can do it without being so annoying.

      1. Patrick thanks for your thoughts
        I’m just impatient, thats why I’m so elliptic, ie leaving out stuff.
        And my spelling, you see I dont want to seem so intellectual … 🙂
        I know people are not aware of what really happened in the 19th century. Thats what makes me so terribly worried.
        In my eyes what happens in Ukraine is not just intended to hurt Russia but Germany as well. Those two were beginning to cooperate, the germans helping Russia to get more middle class small business entrepreneurs going. (Of course this would open up lots of opportunities for Germany as well. Win-win. The russians had asked the germans for counceling and the germans said what you’re lacking is just that: a middle class of entrepreneurs. And there were news releases about them two to go ahead with that. In 1904 Halford Mackinder, later to become an MI6 analyst, analyzed the geopolitical importance of the east with one result being that Germany and Russia should be prevented from forming an alliance. And dont think military alliance. Think business alliance. Cooperation. Only parasitic structures such those existing among the idle rich and their mechs, the bankers, can make money from war. Thats why the british parasitic structure needed war.
        The german merchant ships was the true worry, not the war ships, far outnumbered by the british fleet.
        There are very good reasons to dislike the role played by England.
        And its really true that the Germans were entirely innocent what regards the WWI. I’m not sure many germans are aware of that, being dominated by media and ‘documentaries’ just like those we get. I have been aware of this distorsion of historical truth before but lately the excellent work by Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History (2013) has made this information available in a form that I hope will contribute to spread the word to a wider audience. I strongly recommend it.
        They also simultaneously gives you insight into Carroll Quigleys exposure of the british elites in a way that may save you the trouble of actually having to go through his thick tome. The book is a good place to see contextual examples why Quigley had to go public about what he knew.
        The deviousness of the british is way beyond what you could imagine. And there is no doubt about the reality and objectivity about such an assessment of the brits. I have nothing against people in britain. Evil came from a secretive elite. Of course the same holds for americans. But due to the indoctrination ordinary people may still pose a grave danger to the rest of the world. And due to the facts about banking England has had a particularly destructive impact on the world. Not the least of which has affected your country. The monopolies were forced on you by the brits acting behind the scenes.
        (In order to qualify the term ‘brits’ here I would have to lay down my philosophy about how power derives from all the wealthy people, not just the bankers, who I view as the mechanics of class war. )
        There were actually discussions among the british before WWI to attack the US with 6 million men.
        And during WWI when they were supposedly allies, the americans were making preparations for the occupation of Halifax in order to prevent british troops to land there, and expecting 8 million british in the attack.
        That this was not just routine may be seen from what happened after WWI when the british temporarily had access to most of the worlds oil reserves (I think I read the part about oil in William Engdahls Century of war) but the americans reversed the situation rapidly.
        The actual priorities of the british led angloamerican establishment were complicated. I leave that point.
        The Oil production in Russia had been destroyed by the bolsheviks, but those guys were acting on behalf of big oil of Us & Uk. They wanted Russian oil to be kept in the ground for later looting.
        Maybe you remember the price fall due to the Saudis increasing oil production in the 80s. Some believe this was economic warfare particularly directed against the Sovjet union. It hurt them bad and contributed to their downfall.
        I guess I failed to be less annoying didnt I Patrick?
        There is one more thing to comment but I’ll save it for a bit later.

      2. “I guess I failed to be less annoying didnt I Patrick?”

        Not at all. You tried well.

        I very much appreciate your contribution to out little community, Peter, and I tried to be as cautious as possible when admonishing you. It’s just that everything you say here is really the start of a long evening over a bottle of single malt scotch.

        It impossible for you to compress that long night of conversation into a few paragraphs. I try to do it, in my native language, and often fail. So I don’t blame you. Everything you say in this comment is apposite, and helpful to our learning, and I thank you for it. I know much of that material, but detect that you know a lot more. You can help us all with your insights, and I’m glad I did not come off as nasty; I really meant it as helpful, as you thankfully understood.

        I mentioned Hamsun last time. In our present day context, I wonder if you follow David Goldman, AKA Spengler? His insights into the Russia/Ukraine situation have bee, for me, invaluable.

      3. Patrick I quote you and ask you to be more explicit, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Is it the CNN web article about ‘car bombs’ of 100-300tons tnt equivalent?
        “You have a theory (I’m not certain what it is) about reportage in the American press about events outside the United States, that points to a dark mystery–a systematic cover-up. You know this theory is true, although you are somewhat presumptuous in this regard.”

        Quoting next paragraph
        “You believe something big is going on that Americans are being systematically denied knowledge of, and have been for more than half a century. You think you know what it is, and that we do not.”

        Patrick dont you think many americans like your good self would agree with that paragraph in more than one case. Ufos, Jfk etc
        Still I’m not sure what you mean in my case.

      4. My reaction to your thoughts was more general than I usually like to be; I tend to try to be specific. But the comment I replied to reminded me of what seems a common theme in the remarks you have expressed here over time.

        It seems to me that you have an alternate interpretation of WWII, for example. As I said, you remind me of Knut Hamsun, because you give the impression that Germany has been wrongly portrayed since the end of the war. Certainly, if I lived in Scandinavia in the first half of the 20th century, and had to chose between the British Empire and Germany, I’d probably go with the latter, just on general principles.

        You also have an alternate theory about Russia. If I remember correctly, you believe that Stalin was not so bad, and he didn’t intentionally starve millions of Ukrainians to death, causing many to turn to cannibalism.

        You understand the Rhodes/Milner plan to rule the world by means of a reunified American/British elite, and this seems to inform your oblique references to what might really be behind Russian and German events today, with Anglo-American machinations behind it all. But you don’t actually say what you think is going on. I’d like to know, and I am slightly annoyed by being tantalized that way. Certainly, you can come out and say it, at least one piece at a time, the whole theory being too big, probably. (Alternately, you could write a longer piece, and submit it to James for possible publication as a stand-alone article).

        I like alternate histories, and theories that reveal what the American press says about almost anything, past or present, to be empty propaganda. You seem to have an interesting one, but you don’t seem to want to tell us in detail what it is. You obviously feel strongly about it, and it might be very helpful model, were you to lay it out in an orderly way.

        For instance, you might perhaps give an outline of what you think really happened with the rise of Putin, and what Germany and America have to do with it. I read Paul Craig Roberts, whenever he posts something new, and I suspect that you agree with Roberts most of the time. He is very strongly on the Russian side, and thinks Washington is trying to start a nuclear war over there.

        Sorry I was not more clear about what I was getting at, Pater.

      5. Here’s a specific example:

        “There has been some discussion about the murder weapon. Polonium 210 an isotope costing $69 dollars for 0,1 micro Curie online but you need 30000 portions of that size to kill someone.
        Ie 2 million dollars from that source + lots of trouble to open all those 30000 packets and handling the resulting combined quantity.
        Since officially Russia dominates the production of that rare isotope, it wouldnt be a clever choice of murder weapon if it really were the russians. It would be more likely the choice of someone who wanted to put the blame on the russians.”

        You don’t speculate about who it might be, or what the motive would have been. What’s your theory?

        We were told (or it was implied )that the radioactive poison was hidden in sushi. Certainly, he was poisoned in London, but from your comments it sounds like the poisoned sushi story is false. There has to be a bigger picture, and I suspect you can paint it for us.

      6. Abouth the nazis directing german economy from various nodes such as in South Americas. One of Dave Emorys favourite themes.
        Sure, the germans maintained as much control as they were allowed to. But this was in the interest of their business parters in the US.
        American finance coowned companies in nazi germany. And american subsidiaries there produced weapons and Wall street and corporate america made profits on both sides of the atlantic.
        It is likely that it was profitable even when german warplanes shot down american bombers. Of course the bill was payed by the honest and hardworking middle class, who sacrificed their kids.
        And the german civilians were burned alive with phosfor bombs.
        (And the jews worked themselves to death building underground constructions where those crossatlantic joint ventures were moving to escape the bombing)
        Allen Dulles took care of financial operations connecting the two partners via bank of international settlements(?)in Switzerland. Officially he helped the allies to spy on Germany. Sure he did…
        In order to see the part of the picture that people like Emory ignores, in his feverish zeal to bash the germans, I quote Steven R. Shearer former intelligence op.

        American elites buy up foreign companies after World War II

        There are exceptions to the rule that forbids foreigners to buy up hard U.S. assets – as in the case where Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler, and other German companies such as Bayer and Siemens have been buying up parallel U.S. assets; and there are many, many other cases beyond Daimler-Benz, Bayer, and Siemens. But would you be surprised to learn that since the end of the Second World War, American shareholders have held a controlling share of the stock in these companies and many others besides, not only in Germany, but in the rest of Europe and in Japan. That, however, is another story; a story that has been carefully hidden from the American public, and a story that goes a long way in explaining why the U.S. has allowed these and other companies such as Toyota, Nissan, Sony, etc. to penetrate the American economy to the degree that they have. While this has played havoc with the jobs of ordinary Americans, it has had the wonderful effect (insofar as the elites are concerned) of –

        “Destroying American unions (which the American elites hate with a passion that is hard for ordinary people to understand), and –

        “Greatly enriching the American elites who systematically and very, very covertly bought up the stock of these companies after the Second World War from “native stockholders” who could at the time do nothing more than paper their walls with their all but worthless stock certificates – stock certificates that gave “native stockholders” a claim on nothing more than a pile of rubble. THE OWNERSHIP OF THESE “FOREIGN COMPANIES” BY AMERICAN ELITE INTERESTS IS ONE OF THE DEEPEST SECRETS OF THE POST WORLD WAR II ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

      7. Patrick, my comment dated MAY 4, 2014 AT 10:06 PM was in answer to your comment dated MAY 4, 2014 AT 8:46 AM where you brought up nazis in Argentina. So the order of the comments becomes confusing in that case.
        I think you’re right about Hamsun not anticipating the mass deaths.
        But in addition most of Hitlers sympathizers didnt know to what extent he was forced upon the germans. Had they known it was all a plot by Wall street and London they wouldnt have been so enthusiastic. In particular if they also knew that the plan was to bleed both the russians and germans to death.

    2. Peter, your comments are interesting, but I have a difficult time attributing actions of these various players with some sort of nationalist agenda or “country”. While everyone lives in one, they’re nationality does not guarantee that what they do is related to where they live.

      A simple example of that is when a talking head says “today the U.S. did…….whatever”, I know I’m in the U.S. but nobody asked me. If someone is Russian I don’t assume that whatever he does was a product of Putin.

      There may have been a time when we could analyze things on this basis (but then again, perhaps not), but it certainly does not apply today. The larger agendas and national consequences are not decided or engineered in government houses. They may stage a play to hide their bosses orders, but they certainly do not make decisions.

      I have mentioned before that the Controllers allow their operatives their little scams. That is their reward and, so long as that doesn’t interfere with the Grand Plan, it is fine with them. Sometimes they play dirty.

      It is sufficient for their purposes to have stress and conflict. They can spin that in any way they like to land the “blame” for a given action on their chosen target. It can be interesting to examine the details, as you have here, and try to determine the source for these little spats. Beyond that, it really doesn’t indicate anything meaningful.

      In my mind it is beyond doubt that the buildings at the WTC were destroyed by nukes. Hence, the dosimeters. As to Letvinenko, he apparently died of radiation poisoning. The alleged type, as you say, makes it problematic. There are certainly other ways to remove someone, albeit less dramatic, with less expense and trouble. It is, however, a good device if one wants to “frame” someone else for the crime.

      The whole thing has the smell of Mossad all over it. D.K. also has great material, although he has been known to get a little “over imaginative”. Finally, as to the Chechens, as in the Boston extravaganza, there is an obvious agenda at play. For the majority of people it is enough to know that it’s a scary world out there. For those who know more it doesn’t make sense.

      There is obviously a “bloc” that intends to exercise hegemony over the entire world. They’re not there yet. It is a psychotically ambitious undertaking. It is all well and good when they are picking off defenseless “brown people”, it gets a little tougher when they start trying to push others around who have the wherewithal to fight back.

      To that end we see the “color revolutions”. It is nothing more than divide and conquer. If this continues it is because the Controllers wish it so. The individual machinations that go into that are interesting but can be extremely misleading. None of “us” profit from this. As in most other things, “Qui Bono” is the guiding principle.

      1. Lophatt
        Unfortunately the mossad seems to be involved in many things that cannot possibly benefit the Israeli people. Terrible. I have no opinion about the Litvinenko murder.
        About your doubting that nation states are the culprits.
        This my comment became longdwindling because I anticipate passive readers for sensing BS unless I go a little bit further.
        I do think Us/Uk play a unique role, having a longer era of parasitic banking, and so called intel, which unlike that of Germany for instance is heavily involved in ciminality. And criminality of enormous proportion. The purpose being not to harvest legitimate info but only to aid the finance/corporate interests to grab wealth from others and undermine the freedom of all countries.
        Both countries also have a large number of extremely wealthy people.
        Since I’m quite sure there is an inborn urge among such people to see forthcoming generations continue along the same lines and since presumably they have more than one child/each wealthy individual, consequently they are growing exponentially and their requirement for amassing wealth is likewise growing exponentially.
        Note that clear info about who owns what is often unavailable.
        Anyway this unavoidably leads to catastrophic changes since the growth cannot continue. Wars and the familiar boom bust cycle are manners in which the catastrophy may appear. Imperialism and the accompanying parasitic banking scam go together with the concentration of wealth.
        The very wealthy unlike the middle class, don’t pay for themselves other than in exceptional cases, as when they happen to be extreme achievers.
        The banking scam robs the middle class and imperialism robs foreigners.
        Edward J Griffin who wants to abolish the fed thinks private banks are ok so long as they are allowed to go bankrupt if they take irresponsible risks.
        I disagree since that was the situation in the 19th century when the british got a hold on Us banks by bailing them out. And crises were nearly always artificially created.
        I dont think any private banks should be allowed to use other than close to 100% reserve. Only democratically reliable banks should be allowed to use significant fractional reserve. And no secrecies. Complete transparency.
        Tame the beast.
        I can anticipate many counterarguments about limiting private banking like this, but without radical change in this respect, things will never get better.
        Nearly all high quality science in the Us has come from state sponsored research – I think.
        Reformed theology – Gary North – wants to ‘change the bible’ to be more clearly in favor of free market capitalism. He claims in spirit it already is. I think the first generation of entrepreneurial achievers should be able to build a fortune. But then having too much money they sooner or later become moneylenders indirectly or directly.
        Good ideas are needed about how to proceed.
        Philantrophic foundations have sometimes turned out to be anything but philantropic. The Carnegie foundation funded theorizing about war being the best option for the Us before WWI.
        People who think the system works disregard imperialism. The robbing of other countries.

        Marx was a great help to the wealthy by pitting the proletariat against the middle class, postponing the analysis of how to deal with real power until late and died without having finished the work.
        Webster Tarpley, in Against Oligarchy on his website mentions that Marx worked under the british elites and that they encouraged him.
        They needed him to undermine other monarchies.
        Knowing about Marx’s employers it’s no surprise why the middle class became the target.

        I think your characterization of DK was well put.
        But he still outperforms the rest by a wide margin about 9/11.
        DK suggests Timothy McVeighs apparent death was a fake termination and that he was transferred to FBIs witness protection program. Wouldnt that seem possible? A payed undercover agent. How could they hope to recruite such people again if they risked being wasted?
        Ideally McVeigh would have been unknowingly used but its alot smoother if you can control all parameters. No surprises. Everybody playing their roles perfectly. Spending his jailtime knowing he will be richly rewarded.

      2. I just got to this one, Peter, which you wrote just this morning. All very interesting.

        Have you looked into Antarctica? I have spent quite a few hours reading about the Nazi base there, and Admiral Byrd’s mission. Mae Brussell did a five part series about it, and why the Falklands war was really fought. Three recent books about Hitler’s escape via u-boat to Argentina seems a strange coincidence; someone seems to want us to know that the war did not end with a German defeat.

        Craig Roberts’ (not Paul) recent book The Power Elite and the Secret Nazi Plan lays out how trillions (in today’s dollars) went with the Nazis to South America, and most of it was in the form of patents and company ownership that prevails to this day: the top Nazis knew the ground war would be lost, years before the end finally came, and planned to rule the world from corporate boardrooms after the war.

        Add to this Barry Chamish’s excellent work in popularizing knowledge about the Transfer Agreement; most of what we’ve been told about the 20th century is a fable.

        There is a scene in the Marlon Brando movie The Formula, which is about the idea that there was no post-war “de-nazification,” where a flunky tells Brando’s oil CEO character “we can blame it on the Arabs”, and Brando bursts out laughing: “We ARE ‘the Arabs!'”

      3. Thanks Peter, I don’t think we’d have much to quarrel about. Some of your comments confirm that I need to do a better job of explaining my meaning. It is naturally easier for me to understand what I mean than for others.

        It is true that the UK/US banking alliance is “unique”. I suppose I was trying to say that it wasn’t about “the nation” involved but it can be the nation’s unique job assignment by those in real control. Those “controllers” know no allegiance to any country. That generally applies to those who work for them as well.

        Interesting take on Mc Veigh. I’ve read this before. It could be. It seems a lot easier, however, to simply have him “think” he’s going into “witness protection”. So, they either double-crossed him or he’s playing Pinocle with Ken Lay and Babs Olsen.

      4. Lophatt
        But they do indeed have allegiance to certain countries
        Not to the ordinary middle class in those countries but most certainly to the rich in those countries.
        Compare Germany on one hand and the US on the other
        It makes a huge difference to bombed asunder like Germany compared to the US.
        Germany lost 17 million people in those wars and 18% of its territory
        Do you think the rich in Germany didnt care?

        The idea that the global financial elite is an altogether independent entity is a benefit for the wealthy in US/UK.
        Thats how they manage to bring everyone along in the wars and con them into thinking that there is any good deal to be found for them.
        While the correct way to deal with those rouge companions would have been to form an alliance among all their competitors and a separate banking/payment system. Stalin was long gone to form something akin to the BRICS and thats why he was murdered. Probably on Churchills order.

  20. “You can also see that the lies continue periodically over a year or so, often using sports venues to promote them, as rallying cries go out for certain agendas”

    musings, you evoke the post-Roman world in your remarks, but this comment reminded me more of the great spectacles of Rome, and the hypnotic propaganda value that attended them. OUR “leaders” do it a lot better, I suspect (not having been there in ancient Rome). No viewer knows that the fake “Jeff” is a fraud, but waving whatever flag he swishes around causes the masses to swoon, nonetheless. And don’t get me started on Carlos.

    The thing about the thousand years post-Rome is that it was more organic and real than anything we can imagine today, because it was a radically decentralized environment. There were no grand spectacles in those years, and ecstatic visions, if they drew the curious, had no corporate sponsors. Rome, and today, are all about the sponsorship, because the whole reality in each of those worlds is manufactured. Who knows what the visionaries, and the curious, experienced in Lourdes and Fatima (Medjugorje, too, I guess)? Certainly, the state had nothing to do with it.

    Which is the point. The state has absorbed our lives in the last few centuries, and I do not like that fact. I want the state to go away. I am not going to get my wish granted. We are in 1984. If I could, I’d translate myself into the year 1000 in a heartbeat.

      1. My point about the miraculous spectacles is that peasants had these visions all the time. Joan of Arc was probably one example. But when it serves the state, they can use them and today Lourdes has almost as many hotels as Paris according to Wikipedia. We just haven’t heard about the peasants whose visions were not used. Also – the Medjorge or however it’s spelled screams of that: the bishops denied the miracle, but because it is a 100% Croat town near Mostar in Bosnia-Herzogovina, a place where around the time of WWI some Roman Catholic monks were murdered by another ethnic group (perhaps Orthodox), it is like this trophy that the other side wants to take back. I wouldn’t have believed such a thing until I was at a restaurant during communist times in Yugoslavia with my father-in-law (who isn’t even an ethnic Hungarian) and he was looking at all the city shields in the stained glass windows, and ticking off one by one how they were actually Hungarian and had been “stolen.” Miracles serve the powerful a lot of the time. The one near Mostar seems a present-day example.

  21. Interesting observation from Judge Nepoliaton, Fox News, ‘If the government can punish us for our thoughts, there is no limit to their power.”

    All of the terror threats the FBI has thwarted, are actually those, they have been a partner to creating. It is getting pretty crazy, and as one of our esteemed posters has already directed us to, the extreme in your face hoaxes are only a distraction to keep us from seeing what is really going on.

    1. Kathy, while we try to put a rational face on these bizzare events, the militarized law enforcement agencies on all levels continue to expand
      and run amok. The usual brakes that control them or the oversight
      that should run parallel with public saftey are absent.

      The agencies protect their own and generally admit to no infringements
      It is unusual to find the police or FBI personel guilty in their own tribunals.

      Recently, an off-duty policeman got raving drunk in a bar near his precinct, while still strapped with his gun, drove several miles and opened fire on two men who were driving by, wounding one severally with six shots. Fortunately, the driver was not shot and managed to speed off to a nearby hospital. This policeman cannot clairm “he felt threatened” or “thought the victim was reaching for a gun.”

      This was in NYC and I am curious how this will be played by the
      command heads. We are not being served by drunken, armed cops who
      drink, drive, carry. Just another day in the state-sponsored melee of public vs. public servants. Where is it written that wearing a badge and
      handling a gun confers the license to kill? Daily, reports from across the country make headlines; some unarmed person is shot without probable cause.

      Most law enforcement people are decent but the rogue bad apple should give us pause. Pushishment should be swift and fit their crime.

      What is it that we don’t understand?

  22. Musings, I really don’t think this has as much to do with “visions” as conditioning. For what it’s worth, I actually went to MEDJUGORJE but that is a long (and probably boring) tale. I will say that, while I was there, there was a “civil war” raging that was a Muslim/Christian event. I had no idea when I left for there but I did when I was coming back!

    In an earlier age where religion played a bigger part in everyday life I suppose “visions” were a tool (at times). In our present age I rather suspect that “education” plays a larger role. We are all exposed to team sports and encouraged to choose sides and root for “our team”. Most get pretty inculcated with that.

    Politicians and other worthless life forms use that conditioning to their advantage. Creating fear, posturing as a “savior” and waving symbols at the eaters is usually all they need to get the bumper sticker business in full bloom. As you know, this is not a mental exercise. Those sticker buyers are not Mensa candidates.

    The truly sad part isn’t that it takes a lot of expertise to influence the masses. It is that it does not. That is why they spend much more time getting the little darlings to root for the home team than they do getting them to learn to think critically. Even more sadly, it doesn’t improve with college.

    1. I do feel that it isn’t the visions themselves – it is the management of conditioning. But I felt that in Boston, especially, where there are many believers in the magical aspects of religion – who may or may not have their own visions – this has been treated as a religious event, almost, with shrines everywhere. I understand that is what we do in the modern age – that Princess Diana’s death for instance had that sea of flowers, but this is a little different, in that there was good and evil in the play, and the evil one was the outsider, set up to be that by those who staged it. So it was manipulation of two pieces of the society – the ones who come to the universities and the “townies” – bolted together by this thing that no one dares to examine in detail, the way you don’t examine a big movie you’re in the middle of watching. Conditioning has gone on with television and infotainment too, as well as faked reality shows. A broad swath of the population has been conditioned.

      I certainly heard the Fatima story as a child – everyone was so curious to learn of the third secret in it – and there was a scene in which the observers saw the sun dance in the sky, after being told to stare at it. There is a scientific explanation for this “apparition” and it isn’t holy at all – in fact it was dangerous to peoples’ vision. But mass hysteria happens.

      The thing which politicians seem not to grasp until it is too late is that when they start something like this, they may lose control of it.

      1. Musings, I’m obviously doing a poor job of conveying my thoughts here. We are ALL conditioned. The only distinction is how well we learn to manage that fact.

        Even among the “enlightened” the conditioning shows through in their assumptions. For example, the use of the phrase “more scientific”, to mean, “more believable” or “truer”. Really?

        Some of the programming is quite deep, some more superficial. In an extravaganza like BMB, the shrinks in their employ spared no effort to exploit every potential trigger at their disposal. If we didn’t have the huge list of obvious problems to look at, this alone would be a tip off.

        Here is a recent example of a “low budget” drill:

        It is of poor quality, but it contains the same basic elements. These are sort of fillers between the main features. They serve to keep the tension in place.

        In an event like the Boston Hoax, they go for broke. That is the present day equivalent of the “D-Day Invasion”. All available triggers were pulled. As you said, we were “in the movie”. There was something for everyone.

        It is INDEED the management of the conditioning. It is the reason for the conditioning in the first place. It is for CONTROL. I often laugh (or cry) when people wonder about “mind control”. What do they think they’ve been exposed to all their lives? Do they think that was for no purpose?

        It may be worth noting that it is the purpose for which the use of the conditioning is put that matters in the end. It is too late to undo the conditioning. One can resist it, but you can’t really get rid of it. There is a distinction between genuine belief and conditioning.

  23. We should realize that one of the purposes of the BMB was to discredit the false flag conspiracy meme in an American context. The reason that it has reached the mainstream now and not in relation to earlier events is that it is supposed to look preposterous. In response to these allegations, we are expected to ask: “Really? The government would blow up people on patriots day at the Boston Marathon?. Has the paranoid fringe lost all shame?”

    The entire event and all its ramifications were a carefully planned spectacle. As Musings points out, much like a miracle play. Very little was left to chance. One even has to wonder whether the confrontation between Biondi and governor Patrick was staged to introduce the false flag meme.

    There is evidence that the both the Tang and Thorndike photo sequences were preplanned to give the event a cinematic quality. Real chaos does not look like this. Key pieces of action are omitted, blocked from view, or possibly photoshopped out.

    The first frame in the Thorndike sequence shows a man with his clothes shredded, running in a panicked frenzy in front of the camera. He is perfectly silhouetted against a background of opaque white smoke. He sets the scene.

    As the smoke clears we see the group of Bauman, Williams and Daniels, right in the middle of the frame looking almost like a renaissance pieta. Daniels has on a red jacket with a white blouse underneath, a nice artistic touch, and the perfect target for the jet of blood which was supposed to spurt from Bauman’s prosthetic. Something goes awry here however, and the plumbing doesn’t seem to work. One can see the consternation on Daniels’ face, as she and Bauman franticly signal with their hands to the overweight lady in the brown shirt. Brown shirt (Mimi Valverde) then points her finger upward and soon a veil of smoke descends upon the scene, marking the end of the Thorndike sequence.

    Next up, Carlos and the famous wheelchair ride, and Krystal Campbell’s death photo with the attractive EMT.

    It seems to me extremely unlikely that all these scenes just happened in front of the cameras in such a cinematic way. Someone with moviemaking experience has put a great deal of thought and planning into each vignette. So yes, this was a modern miracle play, complete with shrines, and public moments of worship at sporting events. James’ larger point that the BMB marks the statistical emergence of the false flag meme into the Main stream media is well taken, yet I think that we should see it as a calculated outcome of this event, and one which is intended to discredit all Truthers as paranoid and delusional.

    1. I believe the photos may have won prizes. The Boston Globe won a Pulitzer for its coverage, although perhaps an Academy Award in a special category was more in order. Best “false flag” picture of the year? “You wept to the three-hanky ‘women’s picture’ of Sandy Hook in 2012, released just in time for Christmas, ‘It’s a Terrible Life with the Second Amendment’, now the Academy has given the Oscar to the thrilling ‘No Time for Muslims’ that is the non-stop action film of 2013 based on the Boston Marathon Bombing scenario. We can only imagine what they have in store for us for 2014. Hold onto your seats! This one will be, in the words of Boston’s mayor Menino, that he spoke about the sequel to his 2013 Marathon extravaganza ‘even more spectacular.’ There are so many holidays to ruin and so little time to do it.”

    2. Christo, yes, just so. That was an important intention. It wasn’t the “only” intention, but it was large in their planning. You have a good eye. I’ve seen this sort of thing as a dead giveaway. The “emotional shot”.

      We would do well to realize that these things are “story boarded” ahead of time. I think they try to reproduce the studio work in the street, not the other way round. It doesn’t have to be exact, it only has to give the “impression” of the “money shot” seen later on TEE VEE.

      These things are primarily non-verbal. Very visual/emotional. They are meant to evoke shared feelings and memories. Over all that is the drone of the narrative.

      You make an excellent point in saying that emotion is used to control the dialog. If the “outrage” is high enough it becomes “heresy” to actually think. Emotion is more important than logic. They whip them into a frenzy so that a dissenter might be set upon by the angry mob.

      I mean just look at SHES. “Children were killed so how could you dare question the media?”. Does that even make sense? Of course not, but it isn’t logical. Instead of being outraged by being lied to they are outraged by the “thought” of alleged dead kids and people’s “crassness” in having the temerity to question the story.

      So, I agree, the photographer deserves an award. The rest of them deserve prison.

  24. The Fraud is proven along with ID of people from a Corporation that helped them pull it off and are now running charity fraud. . This is unquestionable. I add more evidence and pictures daily so check back at the link for additional entries.

  25. The denial of deaths by Musings and other commenters in the Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, and other mock false flags indicates another reason for the historical illiteracy of the American people. People are afraid of death and therefore don’t want to dwell on the mass homicides of the nightmare of history. We especially deny the role of our states in mass murder, which has been a major tendency In American homicidal foreign and domestic policy.

    In THE POLITICAL BRAIN, the psychologist Drew Westen states:

    “More than 250 experiments in over a dozen countries have demonstrated that reminding people of their mortality–activating networks about the fear of death–tends to tilt our brains to the right….

    People are reminded of their mortality will become less tolerant toward people who differ from them in religion, more nationalistic, and harsher in the way they punish people who transgress traditional moral values.” [p.364]

    It may well be therefore that people deny death in the same way we deny racism, especially as US power has killed literally millions of non-White people since world war 2. ( White is a cultural designation, of which skin color is only a marker; as James Baldwin noted, many Black people had lighter skins than many White people )

    The media narrative of Sandy Hook and the Marathon bombings were profoundly fraudulent, but that does not mean people were not killed.
    Nancy, who was portrayed as being shot a number of times in her bed had a death certificate published, and it is by no means established beyond a reasonable doubt that no one else was killed.

    In the Marathon Bombings a policeman was killed and the older brother, the latter most likely by the police. They attempted to kill the younger brother. It is by no means established that no one else was killed. This does not mean the media narrative was less fraudulent, only that there were real homicides involved, that these mock false flags were not casualty free.

    1. By the way “the historical illiteracy of the American people” is something they count on when you plant yourself in front of the tv screen. This is not an illiterate crowd here, but the opposite, so you are being arrogant and attempting to wipe out our work in one fell swoop. I care about the difficulties of amputees. I just wish they didn’t lie about how they received their injuries. I understand how difficult it is for them. But they made a very bad calculation when they decided to get their special treatment by participating in a Big Lie. It will end badly for some of them.

      1. As for the other deaths, if they existed, it is a maxim of the law that “falsus in unum, falsus in ominous.” If they lied about the BMB (which they did), then they have certainly lied about the rest. And no, I may live near Boston, I may have some connection to the scenes, but I did not know the friendly campus cop alleged to have been killed, and as I understand it, no one who wasn’t an insider saw him go down. It was a very spooky kind of event without witnesses except for cops, or men in cop uniforms.

    2. “People are reminded of their mortality will become less tolerant toward people who differ from them in religion, more nationalistic, and harsher in the way they punish people who transgress traditional moral values.”

      It is with trepidation that I engage Mark, once again, after lo these many months, but into the yawning gap I tread. I can only think of the natives Hernando Cortez encountered when he arrived on these shores. EVERYONE was “reminded of their mortality” prior to the liberation Cortez imposed upon that world, every day. Hundreds of thousands were murdered as living sacrifices, every year. The great Cortez arrived to ” transgress traditional moral values”, and everyone was better off for it. EVERYONE.

      So it’s entirely relative, these “traditional moral values,” and the goodness/badness of transgressing them.

      Too bad we don’t have time machines. I’d like Mr. Westen to use one to go back to the Aztec world, and ask the poor slobs who were slated to have their beating hearts held up to the Sun god, if they’d like the “traditional moral values” they lived under to be transgressed. Were they, imminently “reminded of their mortality,” less tolerant toward people (i.e. the Spaniards) who differ from them in religion, knowing that the murders were soon to stop, because the Spaniards were about to impose new rules against ritual human sacrifice? Or did they become “more nationalistic,” and appeal from their soon to be torn out hearts that they be allowed to be slaughtered, in opposition to the Spanish interference with their traditional way of, er, homicide?

      But then, Mark, I’m a racist, after all.

  26. My wife just suggested to me that it may not be death itself that is denied, but rather, that these deaths are significant. That is, they are related to us in some important way.

    1. I’m afraid you do not understand me. I know plenty about death. I’m not just a generic American with a death-denial complex. I am talking about actual evidence being lacking in the whole BMB. I am following the evidence, not my whims which you feel called on to deconstruct as though this were simply an exercise in “explication de texte.” I live near Boston, I am in the community, have walked on streets which I know were altered for filming. It was a movie set where all this stuff went down, and the actors used make-up. Isn’t that the whole point that came out about this (apart from the absolutely impossible rate of amputations from obvious smoke bomb non-destruction)?

  27. rebelready I can’t tell exactly what you are alleging in that link. Could you put it in a nutshell or tell me where to look? How do you know that this Corporation helped to pull it off, and what is the charity fraud?

  28. Mark— I don’t have any way of verifying this but here is an article that claims the Tsarnevs are all actors. It is from Pravda.

    1. I have thought this all along. Those brothers, the parents, the uncle- all part of the play. Finally someone mentioned it. Their friends stating that the younger was out and about like nothing happened the wednesday after was damning them knowing their roles and how it was to play out. The uncle was a dead giveaway too.
      The mother, however, was intriguing in that she alone set the stage for the conspiracists… I cant figure out her role. But she spoke so calmly and matter-of-fact that you could tell she knew nothing bad happened to her boys – that is, if she was even their mother.

Comments are closed.