Truth and Shadows launches exclusive Barrie Zwicker series on false flags, the most destructive of deceptions


2328200102b

By Craig McKee

It was suggested to me some months ago by a reader that the name of the 9/11 Truth movement should be changed to the False Flag Awareness movement.

While I didn’t think the suggestion was very practical (how do you go about changing the name of a movement?), the idea of putting 9/11 in the larger context of false flags stayed with me. Not only would it help people to understand what the event was really all about, but it also would show how 9/11 is not unique but instead part of a continuum that goes back centuries.

It makes sense to me that we should work to raise awareness that events like 9/11 are not isolated or outside of the normal pattern of manipulation and control by the powerful over the powerless, they are business as usual.

I know that many “official story” believers wonder why some of us are still questioning the truth about 9/11 more than 11 years after the event. Why don’t we just move on?

The answer, of course, is that this is not only an event that continues to have terrible repercussions for the world (horrific wars, ridiculous arms spending, and the accelerating destruction of privacy and personal freedoms), but it is not an event that “changed the world forever” as we’ve been told so often. It just continued a longstanding process of global elites controlling the masses through intimidation and deception.

What 9/11 did do was hurtle us forward in the direction in which we were already heading. But it definitely took the game to a new level. Is there anyone in the 9/11 Truth movement who isn’t familiar with these prophetic words from the 2000 document  “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” created by the neocon Project for a New American Century?:

“… the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

They could easily have written, “… some catastrophic and catalyzing false flag event” but that would have been a bit too honest.

So, with 9/11, we skipped the long, slow “process of transformation” and went straight to imperial conquest in overdrive. Invasions, the brazen toppling of regimes, and drone attacks on civilians by the hundreds are barely being questioned by the majority of Americans and Canadians (one would hope that the awareness outside of North America is somewhat greater).

Terrorism was certainly painted as a menace before 9/11, but after that, it became the focal point of our collective world view. But what the majority of us don’t understand is that the terrorism we fear so much is often the creation of our own governments: a systematic policy of committing and justifying mass murder for profit.

In our artificial obsession, we have been conned into believing that we have to change our way of life to protect ourselves against terrorists. But in reality, the terrorists are our own civilian, corporate, intelligence, and military leaders.

In Barrie Zwicker’s essential book on this monumental false flag operation, Towers of Deception: the Media Cover-up of 9/11, he devotes a section to false flags through history. He writes about the sinking of the Maine in 1898, the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933, and the “sneak attack” at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Zwicker is a career journalist, author, documentary producer, and media critic in Toronto, Canada. He was the first journalist to state on national television anywhere in the world that 9/11 was an inside job.

When Barrie and I met over dinner in Montreal in late 2011, I learned that he was working on a book on the subject of false flags. I was excited by the prospect because I consider him to be as valuable a source on the subject as there is. This is a book I want to read, I thought.

At the time, I floated the idea of Barrie contributing something to this blog at some point (Nobody can say I lack nerve: the creator of a one-year-old blog asking one of the most respected journalists in Canada to write for him). My real hope was that he might at some point consider writing an essay on false flags for T & S, summarizing what he would address in his book.

But after contributing several articles on other subjects in recent months, Barrie is going one better than the false flag essay I was hoping for. A big one.

In the next few days, he will begin a series of articles on false flag operations, and he’ll be doing it right here on this site. The series will not only help us to understand and recognize false flags, past and future, but it will specifically use 9/11 to illustrate just how the phenomenon works and how devastating the consequences can be.The series at a glance

The installments of this series will appear on a regular basis over the next year or more. Of course, in between these installments, I’ll be writing plenty of articles on 9/11 and other related topics, including several on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

Barrie will be introducing his series in an article in the next few days, so I’ll leave most of the detail to him, but I do expect that I and all our readers will learn a great deal about what a false flag operation is and how it has been used throughout history to deceive us all.

43 comments

  1. Splendid, I am delighted to read about this new series. And I would like to applaud Craig for his wonderful introductory remarks above.

    I think it is very much a critical issue and the time is at hand to come to grips with the larger panoramic view of our now tenuous situation–plummeting towards the global gulag of neofeudalism.

    I have found Barrie Zwicker to be one of the most level headed straight shooters in his analysis of 9/11, and the issues surrounding it, such as the media side. I refer to this as the ‘Public Relations Regime’.

    While the “Action Men” of covert operations are an essential aspect of the plunge into global tyranny, first and foremost; the greatest tool of the “Diaboligarchy” {love that term}, as it is that which delivers the “Enchantment” of this false paradigm of the current era.

    Again gentlemen, Bravo!!

    \\]![// ~ Willy Whitten

  2. Craig says of Barrie Zwicker in Towers of Deception:

    “He devotes a section to false flags through history. He writes about the sinking of the Maine in 1898, the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933, and the ‘sneak attack’ at Pearl Harbor in 1941.”

    Regarding the Reichstag, I am fine. Yet, Nazi Germany’s false-flag about Poland for starting the European portion of WWII must be included in any list (Barrie mentions it on p. 273 but not as a part of his historical list).

    Both the sinking of the Maine and Pearl Harbor are in a different class, however, because the actual destroying agent was not the domestic power. In the case of the Maine, Barrie seems to accept the explosion as an accident that the U.S. then mis-characterized to its advantage for entering into war. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the argument Barrie makes is that the U.S. provoked Japan and could have prevented the attack. Still, the Japanese planes did the operation, not U.S. planes.

    Barrie’s book indexes “False-flag operations” for pp. 257-302 and inclusive of the Maine and Pearl Harbor. He defines a “false-flag operation” on p. 262 as “a contrived, staged event, usually shocking, planned by its actual perpetrators to appear to have been done by others”. Neither the Maine nor Pearl Harbor qualify under that definition, but he includes them in his historical list. Why?

    This is not inconsequential. If 9-11 were an operation in which the destroying agents were Islamic, but provoked by the U.S., Barrie would need to call that a “false-flag operation”. He would be opening the door to a quite different interpretation of 9-11 (something like LIHOP). But he doesn’t believe that.

    My point: define carefully what we mean by “false-flag operation” and then apply it consistently, not sweepingly.

    I look forward to Barrie’s series.

    Paul

    1. Hi Paul, and to all;

      I appreciate your concerns and an attempt to get a cohesive and consistent definition to the term. “false flag”. I would however make a bit more of a subtle argument if I may.

      What we consider a crime [malum inse] is based on two factors, 1} a perpetrator and 2} a victim.

      The equation can be applied to a penumbra of situations, just simply adding that there can be singular or multiples of both perpetrators and victims. Direct action as a perpetrator, or in case of criminal conspiracy, accessory as planner, or any other who knowingly aids and abets. Such activities as ‘entrapment’ are in the natural law sense. is criminal activity.

      Now applying these core principles to the concept of what can be reasonably termed as a false flag, it seems to me that the proximate motivating actor should be seen as the prime causal agent for any crime [Proximate Cause]. In that case, those with intent, planners and actors are all part of any criminal operation. In the case of coercion; pressuring into an untenable position, there will be many subtle factors involved, as the “mark” may have less than pure motivations in various situations. And therefor may willingly go along with activities in some accessory manner. As such they may ultimately end up as victims in a game they willingly participate in.

      I think that taking all of this into consideration, it leaves room for classifying “types” of false flag operations. As it stands, the bottom line is, whether by proxy or by direct action, an event that is planned and carried out must be assessed as to ‘Proximate Cause’, and those who ultimately benefit, as prime motivators are in fact the prime perpetrators.

      I cannot impose this thinking as a rule, and I think all involved in this discussion will come to their own reasoned conclusion as to how they will define a “False Flag”. However, and of course, I personally tend towards a more general definition, with the idea of the caveat of ‘types’ to come to a term for specificity.

      \\][//

    2. “Nazi Germany’s false-flag about Poland for starting the European portion of WWII must be included in any list” – Yes! This was exactly my thought when reading the post. Greetings of shalom from Poland😀

      1. Yes to both Wielislawa and Onesliceshort,

        The same scheme that the Nazis used on Poland, the internal national propaganda, is very much an analog to today’s US driven NATO PR of “Responsibility to Protect”, that we have seen played out since the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia, the resulting “Balkanization” – then moving forward to Libya, and now Syria. The wars in-between being the FF excuse for the US attack on Afghanistan, and partially that for the invasion of Iraq – which was however based more on the lies involving charges of Iraqi “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. However as we should all know, a large proportion of the US population STILL believes there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

        The Public Relations Regime of the postmodern US – and the ‘Western World’ by extension, is the most effective high tech PR ever to plague this planet.

        A HUGE challenge for those promoting Truth…

        \\][//

  3. Just a further thought on my last comment:

    We might consider the way the term “Close Encounters” is dealt with, such as CE of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Kind. 1} Visual of UFO in the sky. 2} Visual of landed craft and sighting of occupants. 3} Actual contact and interaction with occupants

    So a rating system might be applied to the term “False Flag”.

    OR…It may be decided on a strict interpretation, such as Mr Zarembka seems to suggest.

    \\][//

  4. re: “false flag” definition.

    i agree with barrie’s definition, as quoted by paul (“He defines a “false-flag operation” on p. 262 as “a contrived, staged event, usually shocking, planned by its actual perpetrators to appear to have been done by others”. ), and also agree with paul’s analysis.

    for me, it’s a simple matter. were the perpetrators trying to frame others (the liberty incident, see http://whatreallyhappened.wikia.com/wiki/U.S.S._Liberty); or not (the japanese at pearl harbor)? as per barrie’s definition, i would argue, the former was a false flag event, the latter was not.

    yes, you can define “false flag” (or whatever) however you want. but, i would argue, once you define a term, you ought to remain committed to that definition, and apply it scrupulously.

    20 (or was it 50?) years ago, “he’s bad” was a negative assessment. nowadays, “he’s bad” is a compliment. just thought i’d throw that in.

    my two cents,
    –d

    1. Dennis,

      I can go with that. I think the word that is common to both of your examples is “Provocation” – so the Liberty Incident would be a proper “FF”, and Pearl Harbor would be “provocation”

  5. Looking forward to this!

    @Paul

    I recently entered a debate as to the definition of “false flag”.

    I had labelled the decade long FBI “stings” since 9/11 in the absence of any more alleged “Jihadi attacks” (not one from these alleged masterminds!) as a collective false flag operation. A single “sting” operation could not be categorized as a “false flag op” but a series of them?

    “a contrived, staged event, usually shocking, planned by its actual perpetrators to appear to have been done by others”.

    Maybe the definition or terminology is outdated as there are many categories of operations that fall under the label of “staged event”?

    What would the blatant, intentional lies told to foment the war in Iraq come under?

    The attempted blanket imposition of dictatorship in South America during the Reagan era (and before) based on more lies and financing/training of these monsters?

    (Sorry for expanding the argument even further)

    The first “incident” was to start a war. The second “incident” to exert control. Both lead to the deaths of humdreds of thousands of innocent lives. Both were carried out over a prolonged period of time. But basically just one desired outcome in each case.

    For me personally, it’s open to interpretation but the bottom line is the intentional aggressive campaign of coercion by underhand means (where the cost is usually innocent life) whether by physical or psyop wargames (or both). Whether it’s an event that lasts one minute, one morning or one decade.

    Even at the alleged LIHOP level, the lack of action by a person or group to prevent another’s harmful action can be deemed as having played an active part in that operation.

    It all comes down to intent.

    2cents.

  6. I agree that the three examples I mentioned from Barrie’s book may not fit the strictest definition of false flag events but I also know that Barrie has told me that he believes that there are a number of different kinds of false flag attacks.
    I believe Barrie will go beyond the strict definition he himself offers to include other deceptions under the umbrella of false flag events. Pearl Harbor (as Paul points out) was indeed a Japanese attack against the U.S. But we know that the attack was deliberately provoked by the U.S. and that the timing of the attack was known well in advance.

    The population thought Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack that was not predicted. American lives were sacrificed as part of this “deception.” In fact, the attack could have been prevented, had that been the wish of the government. So while it wasn’t an example of Americans doing the attacking, it was a fake “sneak attack.” It was made to appear that innocent lives were lost and that the Japanese were totally to blame. This was not true. One could say, I believe, that the Americans were complicit in the attack in that they allowed it to happen. In fact, they took deliberate actions to make this attack happen.

    We’ll see what Barrie has to say about Pearl Harbor in his series, but I would argue that a broader definition of false flag events could indeed include this attack.

    So I agree with Paul that the term should not be used to sweepingly, but I think that when the supposed victim (the U.S. in the case of Pearl Harbor) was actually a participant (even if not as an actual attacker) then I think it could qualify. As Hybridrogue1 suggests, I think there are different categories of false flags. I also acknowledge that the one we primarily concern ourselves with is the narrow definition of an attack done by one party so that it appears to have been carried out by another.

    We’ll see how Barrie approaches this question.

    1. Hey Craig,

      You mentioned this being the upcoming 50 year anniversary of the JFK assassination.

      I mentioned this document in an email to you earlier, and I thought I would give a URL for it here, for others who may be interested in it. Very deep, and on par with and mirrors quite a bit of what is in FAREWELL AMERICA.

      ‘Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal’ by William Torbit

      http://scribblguy.50megs.com/torbitt.htm

      \\][//

  7. I have the highest regard for Barrie Zwicker’s 9/11 work but I would counsel both Barrie and others here to be a little more circumspect about the Reichstag Fire as a ‘self-evident false flag’ event.
    The name ‘David Irving’ has, more-or-less successfully, been rendered a ‘neo-NAZI do-not-read’ Red Flag by the present Western Establishment (and I don’t mean just the Holocaust Industry branch of it either – for which he has even served time in a German prison among other ‘free-world’ outrages), but his knowledge of WWII remains second to none on the planet. He has conducted personal one-to-one interviews with more surviving NAZI officials and family members – including all Hitler’s surviving Berlin Bunker staff – than anyone; he discovered Himmlers complete diaries and much other embarrassing stuff for the West trawling through the newly opened Moscow archives in 1990 – most notably catagoric proof that the Katyn Massacre was the work of the Soviet NKVD – he even named the Soviet official responsible for signing the execution orders who is still drawing a pension in Moscow. IOW, his opinion on WWII controversies merits careful consideration.
    Irving’s opinion – strongly voiced in both his ‘Hitlers War’ and his Herman Goering biography, is that the Reichstag fire was emphatically NOT a false flag and I personally find his extended treatment of the subject very persuasive indeed.
    I think that the present-day truth movement needs to be a bit more careful about historical dogmatism.

    1. Wikispooks,

      I am sure all of us here would be more than a bit interested in whatever material you might offer to give an outline of what Irving has discovered about the Reichstag Fire. Just a few key points to give an indication of what Irvings proofs are.

      I don’t think that this can be considered “historical dogmatism,” however, as the larger mainstream historical account seems to take the position that it may “possibly” have been a covert Nazi op, while the ‘independent’ researchers have been more apt to see it as more a certainty.

      And this is a point where we should all keep our perspective…and avoid that tendency to start to characterize the original independent research as the same thing as the mainstream dogma. I have seen it seriously asserted that such original 9/11 researchers as Prof Jones, and even David Griffith; having their work characterized as ‘the official story’.

      “I have the highest regard for the Constitution.”~Judge Bork, in the Congressional Hearings into his candidacy for the Supreme Court.

      \\][//

      1. The two Irving books were intended as references. All Irving’s books are available as pdf’s from his web site. They are goldmine on all things WWII. However, by way of example, here is a brief extract from one of his diary pieces posted on his US speaking tour from Knoxville, Tennessee in June 2012:
        Quote
        “A reader writes:

        What I would like to inquire concerns . . . the Reichstag Fire. According to the official story, on the night of February 27, 1933 a squad of SA men acting on orders from Hitler, Goebbels, and Göring met in a passage way leading from Göring’s residence to the Reichstag and collected some incindiary equipment and fuel, entered the Reichstag, scattered the fuel about, and ignited it setting the Reichstag ablaze. . . But is that the real story? Is there any reason to question or doubt this version of events or any part of it?

        I (Irving) reply: “The communists manufactured evidence to throw the blame off their man Van der Lubbe who started the fire. The Goebbels diary which I found in the Moscow archives in June 1992 proves that he and Hitler were astonished at the news that the building was on fire. The most reliable account of the fire is by Fritz Tobias who died this year.” That is his book The Reichstag Fire.
        http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2012/160612.html

        Perhaps ‘dogmatism’ was a bit harsh; but I think you’ll find that portraying the RF as a sort of False Flag is equally prevalent in both mainstream and dissident histroriography; the reason: It has the benefit of further confirming Hitler’s 3rd Reich as the epitome of evil, a perspective that seems still to suit everyone – after all we fought the good war didn’t we?

        1. I didn’t posit that at all, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. I do know that Churchill said there was no way he/England was going to allow Hitler/Germany to establish an economy separate from that of Euro banks and that going to goad Germany/Hitler into a war no matter what he had to do to get that war – putting Germany in its “economic place.”

          You elucidate the “cognitive trap” of boxes within boxes quite well with your leap to misconstruing everything I wrote. We, generally, have a Pavlovian response to the name, “Hitler,” particularly when the name, Hitler is followed with mention of, “The Fire.”

          Again, in reality, and I do mean REALITY, WWII was begun by Winston Churchill working as a lackey for banksters against Adolph Hitler’s realization that the only way to get Germany on its feet was to NOT take bank loans for rebuilding his country at rates so ridiculous Germany would resemble a post-colonial African nation, and instead create a German currency for German banks (nationalization of banks or currency, or a primary natural resource is a sure way to get yourself assassinated – or, in the case of Germany, get your country embroiled in a war). The German banks then lent money to German business people who quickly rebuilt Germany and put the country at the top of the European pecking order.

          This should be obvious, but I have to take the time to explain: this is not meant to condone whatever atrocities committed by Adolph Hitler and his psychopathic henchmen.

          The Fire, then becomes just another ruse thrown up by the winners writing theirstory. We, the people ingesting theirstory, believe them (why, I never know) when it is conducive to our worldview (I lied, I do know). And when every institution parrots theirstory we somehow think they must be telling the truth (as if there aren’t liars and mockingbirds on all sides of the aisles).

          In truth, the Excuse Event was Churchill acting on behalf of the bankster and throwing down the economic gauntlet to Germany – beating the drums of war, even if it meant the destruction of his own country (which it did).

          But because we insist on The Fire being a false flag event, we never get the truth. And this is why we catch the predictive programming – the predictive element must be performed for the Excuse Event to be imbued with its intended power – after the fact, rather than being able to see it in advance.

          Full disclosure: I cannot, in advance, see these events as they pertain to world politics. However, because of my understanding of sports I do see them when they relate to sporting events (sports being the easiest lens for us to view our socio-cultural present and its near-future path). This way I translate what I perceive to national socio-cultural patterns and trends – and am usually very close to the bullseye. But global stuff??? I’m not close to understanding. What I have learned, though, is to take nothing for granted. In fact, when there is a consensus, I move in a totally different direction. William Colby said (I’m paraphrasing), when “we” (powers that be and their worker bees) can get everyone believing a lie all the time, we can control them (us) completely.

          Onto JFK: Lansdale was intimately involved in the assassination and, through his appearance in Dallas strutting by the Tramps, appears to be the “main man on the ground.” I am sure there was a cadre of folk above him, in the planning and financing of the assassination – and here’s a sports tie for you – including a former owner of an NFL team and a man who’s son owned and AFL team.

      2. Thanks Wikispooks,

        You end with:
        >”It has the benefit of further confirming Hitler’s 3rd Reich as the epitome of evil, a perspective that seems still to suit everyone – after all we fought the good war didn’t we?”

        Well personally I have been disabused of this view for a great portion of my life. No I certainly don’t go for the “Good War” – “Greatest Generation” of the Studs Terkel narratives. But I also don’t exactly buy into Hitler as the Hero revisionism either.

        I will also have to say that the “One True Researcher” meme makes me nervous.
        What are the other sides to Irvin’s assertions? If his research is indeed valid, there must be proofs beyond on single man that can give some credence. I am asking because I don’t know – not to harass you. These items from the old Soviet Union, who else has seen them? Who else can verify them as authentic?

        Isn’t there indeed, or wasn’t there in fact a tunnel leading from Göring’s residence to the Reichstag? Or is this too up for question?

        Let me say that I have studied enough of the histories of the world wars and their manipulations by the Money Powers, to realize that they were indeed caused by the reach for the global dictatorship we see in fruition at this time. But the actors chosen as “Leaders” of the various camps were, none of them, without blemish. Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler; were all placed into seats of power at opportune times, and were controlled as all national leaders are up to this very day, by the “power behind the throne”.

        It is this ‘Power Behind the Throne’ that I am mainly interested in. And I don’t think it is any great mystery who it is.

        “Same as it ever was…”~David Byrne

        \\][//

      3. “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare…. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” (Winston S. Churchill, from War Office minute, 12th May 1919.)

        \\][//

  8. …and Farewell America is every bit lacking as other books of its type (Wm Torbit – an alias). Anyway, “the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933” was an “Excuse Event,” as was 9.11. Interestingly, the fire has also served to cloak the machinations in which Churchill was engaged for years previous. So, rather than provide a sober treatment of the events that led to the rise of Adolph Hitler – hint, he was not the Time mag, “Man of the Year” because he was monumentally evil – the fire acts as the, Event A results in Event B, which kicks off Events C, D, E… when, in reality, it was the people who, daily, wound Winston’s clock, who are to blame for the Excuse Event.

    (…an occurrence, in the form of a question, that shows us the boxes within the boxes “they” keep us in: doesn’t anyone find it odd that signs of predictive programming are only perceived/understood/revealed AFTER an Excuse Event?)

  9. DK Wilson,

    Okay, so you posit that the Reichstag fire was actually a British operation. It is an interesting hypothesis. Do you have actual empirical evidence? I am not saying it is unbelievable by any means, just asking what more you have.

    “Wm Torbit – an alias,” yes, clearly stated in the doc itself. And FAREWELL AMERICA is also by a non d’plume – said to actually be a French Intel document.

    So, with all that said…did British Intel kill JFK?

    I think the orders came down from the highest levels – which certainly are not seated in the US. But the actual mechanics, that seems to have leads that flows perceptively to the Secret Service, FBI and CIA, and of course the subsidiary cut-outs.

    From Prouty, I think his case that Landsdale was the main architect is on pretty solid ground. Unless of course you wish to posit that Prouty himself is an operator. So this concept of ‘boxes within boxes” can be a cognitive trap in itself, leading to the conclusion that nothing can be known. This may be true in an ‘ultimate sense’…but we get into metaphysics at that point. Therefore I suggest that the way forward is in forensic investigation and the maxims that entails: Motive, M.O., Opportunity, Cui Bono.

    Are we all onboard that November 22, 1963 was a coup d’etat?

    \\][//

  10. I’m delighted at the number and quality of the posts already in response to Craig’s (very well done) intro to the series.

    I shouldn’t and can’t respond as fully as I’d like to the posts so far (coming up to 22h00 Easter Sunday) but would like to clear up a couple of points:

    1 Paul Zarembka’s point about the importance of including the Nazis framing the Poles is well taken and he will be gratified that it is (included). To quote from my 4300-word Introduction (Part 1): “Part 3, The Unlucky Seven, will examine seven false flag operations: the 1915 sinking of the Lusitania, the 1933 Reichstag fire “set by Communists,” the 1939 “Polish attack” on the German radio station at Gleiwitz, the “sneak attack” on Pearl Harbor in 1941, JFK’s 1963 assassination “by a lone gunman,” the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident in 1964 and finally “the attack by crazed Muslim hijackers” of 9/11. These gigantic fakeries are chosen because it can be argued that each, after the first one, was a prelude for the following one.” So as you can see I’ll be dealing extensively with Operation Himmler.

    2 As to definitions of false flag ops, let me first quote again a fragment from the Intro: “In contrast, the term False Flag is not yet widely known. No well-grooved neural pathway leads to a mental storage area.

    Additionally, those familiar with the term offer similar but varying definitions of what it means. (The sizable definitional issues will be addressed later in this series.).”

    I would no longer agree with the definition of false flag op that I included in my 2007 book Towers of Deception. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I wrestled with the definitional issues for at least a year, not that they are all resolved.

    To quote again from high up in the Intro: “…not all False Flags are both large and brazen. In this series I will try to give some idea of the dizzying array of forms that False Flags take: false flag events, false flag pseudo-events, false flag front organizations and false flag operators. You can barely open a newspaper without seeing the telltale markings of a False Flag – if you know what these markings are.”

    A sidebar “Defining False Flag” has been written, but since it doesn’t make sense for me to go on quoting from what will be posted in a few days, let me again quote a fragment:

    “Ironically an almost-essential component of the definition can be found on an anti-Truther site, Skeptoid* as follows:

    If one were to work solely from [“conspiracy hotbeds”] it would be easy to get the impression that our recent history is jammed with prefabricated incidents designed to enable our government to grab more power, take away the rights of the common people and/or line their already fattened pockets.
    “Exactly.”
    Again I can’t get into the Reichstag fire extensively here, but will say that of the 16 books I have on the Nazis and the Third Reich, I have so far been relying a lot on Ian Kershaw’s monumental two volume set Hitler, 1889-1936 Hubris and Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis, and William L Shirer’s also monumental The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Both have their strengths, the first of the professional historian, the second of the brilliant journalist. Kershaw’s account of the Reichstag fire is only about five pages (out of 1,960 pages in toto) and relies on questionable accounts. He just doesn’t seem to grasp the import and so did little work on it. Shirer deals with the fire on 11 of his 1249 pages and concludes it was the Nazis. I was glad to see that Shirer figures as I would expect he would in the film clip usefully posted by onesliceshort.
    About Churchill: he was intimately involved both in arranging for the almost certain sinking of the Lusitania and also in constantly supporting FDR in the year-long provocations of Japan. Churchill knew America had to be brought into the Second World War – or else.
    Craig has written a fine initial response, above. The only thing I’ll add at this time is that already the terrific thoughts and feedback include ideas, details and challenges that will be of considerable help as I proceed to write the series.
    Thanks to all.

  11. Hybridrogue1….

    My ‘we fought the good Good war’ was a bit of rueful sarcasm. My way of getting thru the day trying to cope with the self-evident (to me) absurdities of most official narratives – sorry.

    I do not regard Irving or anyone else as infallible, so would be very nervous of your ‘one true researcher’ meme too.

    The importance of the Moscow archives lies in the plain fact that they ARE the official archives of the old Soviet Union, opened up by Gorbachov as part of his perestroika ‘break-with-the-past’ initiatives. They have all the attributes of other ‘official archives’, including no doubt attempts at obfuscation and downright falsehood; but we’re talking about the originals of the captured Himmler and Goebels diaries here and those were not available to either of the sources quoted by Barrie in his comment.

    Also, there is some very damning stuff – for the Soviets/Russia – in those archives, notably full details of the authorisation for, and execution of, the Katyn Massacre by the NKVD. Other researchers ARE trawling the archives but, what with the language issue and the obstacles now being erected by the present Russian establishment – newly awakened to the continued implacable hostility of the West – it is a slow and difficult process. There is also the not inconsiderable matter of their threat to that Western ‘Good war’ narrative. For example, the German forced labour and prisoner statistics they contain confirm, quite unambiguously, existing dissident (and thus ridiculed) research showing that more of the Wehrmacht died in WESTERN concentration camps (notably Eisenhower’s Rine Meadow camps) than were killed in the actual fighting – over 1 million of them !!! – That’s another of the West’s dirty little WWII secrets. See here for brief details:
    http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Other_Losses
    http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:In_Eisenhower%27s_Death_Camps

    A Google search will turn up more but the whole nasty business is truly sickening and still very well hidden.

    Irving’s problem is that he has told things as he has found them and earned the undying hostility of both ‘Holocaust Industry’ and Western establishments generally. Australia won’t even grant him a visa to visit his daughter and grandchildren. How’s that for vindictive nastinaess? – and it’s what faces anyone who effectively exposes the Emperor’s New Clothes’ I’m sorry to say.

  12. Further to my last comment I meant to include:
    I cerainly don’t see Hitler as ANY kind of hero either. He was a product of his time, specifically a defeated WWI soldier required to swallow the vindictive travesty of the Versaile Treaty. He could never have gained power had the victors had an ounce of compassion and had not subjected the entire German people to unimaginable ongoing privations. But, as Lord Acton observed well before either war “All great men are bad men”. Hitler was no exception and, for my money there is absolutly nothing to choose between the personal moralities of Churcill, Roosvelt or Stalin.
    Irving’s big problem is that he reveals Hitler in his essential humanity (ie his membership of the human race) rather than the evil monster that the official narrative requires of its approved and feted historians.
    He has done so with such meticulously researched authority that he is seen as a serious threat that simply has to be marginalised.
    Frankly, that maginalisation effort has been so successful that – I am asamed to say – it took me many, many years to get around to reading his WWII stuff. Having now done so, I regard is as among the most definitive available to date and a MUST READ for anyone wishing a deeper understanding WWII and its consequences to date.

    1. Thank you Wikispooks,

      I am familiar with quite a bit of the “nasty side” of the Allied Forces of WWII, and do appreciate your articulating your findings further for us, and myself in particular.
      I am certainly more interested in looking into Irving more thoroughly than I have so far after our exchange.

      \\][//

      1. Thanks Hybridrogue1
        Irving is inclined to make off-the-cuff comments that I sometimes find repulsive and which his enemies (and he has many) pounce on with glee. I personally struggled to get past both that and the Establishment demonising but I’m glad I did and I now regard him as one of THE foremost experts on WWII. Nobody can be expert on everything though and I certainly wouldn’t consult Irving on say Gun Control, The Deep State or Immigration policy – for example; neither should personal pecadillos (we all have them) blind us to the fruits of vast scholarship and diligent research. IMHO Irving does not have an agenda other than to make a living from honestly publishing what he finds. He could certainly have earned far more by being ‘establishment friendly’ too, but I’m personally rather glad his obvious bloody-mindedness precluded that comfy avenue.

        PS please bear with some dreadful apparent typos and grammar gaffs in my posts – mild dyslexia when I type fast which annoys the hell out of me

  13. I would just like to make a note on protocol; it would be beneficial for clarity in this exchange to make it clear who one is addressing when making or answering comments, unless your comment is generic and meant to the general readership.

    Anyone who would like a response from me will have to addressed me specifically, I am not into guessing games nor any other, just clear communication.

    Thanks, \\][//

  14. This is a document that should concern all of us. I recommend downloading this and reading and grasping what this actually means for our future…
    . . . . .

    INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS

    http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

    DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution authorized to the DOD and DOD contractors only to protect technical or operational information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other means. This determination was made on 8 December 2008. Other requests for this document must be referred to the Commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School, ATTN:
    ATZT-TDD-M, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 270, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

    DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

    Field manual (FM) 3-39.40 is aligned with FM 3-39, the military police keystone FM. FM 3-39.40 provides guidance for commanders and staffs on internment and resettlement (I/R) operations. This manual addresses I/R operations across the spectrum of conflict, specifically the doctrinal paradigm shift from traditional enemy prisoner of war (EPW) operations to the broader and more inclusive requirements of detainee operations.
    . . . .
    \\][//

  15. Here’s an excellent example (one of many available) of a false flag operation in the original meaning of the term carried out by the British State in Belfast.

    http://mcgurksbar.com/research/

    A bar was blown up in the early 70s by a group of (British) loyalists under the instruction and control of British intel. The op was immediately blamed on the IRA, claiming that some of the victims themselves had been preparing a bomb which exploded prematurely.

    The father of a family friend died in the attack and the official narrative is still upheld in the face of all of the counter evidence.

  16. That manual 3.39-40 is both a door stopper and a thought-provoker. Imagine the number of person hours it took to produce it. I also wonder how many of those who are supposed to read it have read it all — and absorbed it. I wonder if the sniper assigned to crowd control who knows he or she has authority to fire lethal ammo will refer to 3.39-40. I didn’t notice any criteria in that section as to how to make that decision, but admittedly I have only glanced this over. I find it hard to imagine the lives of the people involved with this manual in any way.

    1. Oh yea Barrie,

      I was just discussing this with an email friend. This is a systematic template for Full Spectrum Dominance – domestic martial law. Amazing detail, everything in order by the order.
      And it is already in movement under the radar, staffing, construction of facilities, calls for outside contractors, the billion dollar ammo buying…
      It is obvious to me that the clock is ticking.

      We read of the term: “Humane Treatment of Detainees” and then look at the reality on the ground when such facilities are in actual action – Guantanamo as an instance, the treatment of Bradly Manning…etc. We face something truly horrific in this. Especially when one combines this with that Air Force Academy doc that came out around Halloween of last year, which defines the “internal enemy”…that is us…just about all of us, the definitions are so vague and wide open. But “Conspiracy Theorist” is one…as well as “Defenders of the US Constitution” (wow and WTF??)

      I anticipate that it will be the looming financial crisis that will set this off at FFWD. We are teetering already. It seems that Mr Toad’s Wild Ride is about to begin.

      \\][//

  17. “[H-53] Refusal to work or eat. Individuals may refuse to work or eat (collectively or individually) as a means of harassing the detaining power or in an attempt to gain concessions from the detaining power. Prompt isolation and segregation of such offenders and their ringleaders normally control this type of disorder.”
    [pg.245 – FM 3-39.40]

    This is a very interesting document from a philosophical and epistemic perspective. The subtext glows like neon…the assumptions this protocol is based on is so obvious in the depth of error, and can be rightfully characterized as psychotic.

    Just the term “detaining power” is problematic as far as to the twists of logic needed to assert that this ‘power’ has any moral or rational legitimacy.

    The attempt to reverse the victim/perpetrator concept we see the term, “harassing” used to describe what in reality is defensive, not aggressive activities.

    And here we have a 326 page tome, a grimoire of black magic spells written as modern English rhetoric, when in fact the paradigmatic ground is medieval and deep dark ages.
    If ever the human race becomes enlightened, it will look back on such documents as these in great disgusted wonder and awe.

    \\][//

  18. “In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.”
    . . . . .
    This West Point paper [See: 2nd URL to PDF] should be seen as a companion document to Field manual (FM) 3-39.40 – discussed above. Grasping the expansive definition of what “domestic terrorism” is according to the System is essential in identifying the full dominance approach to the coming martial law crackdown. Both papers present utter Orwellian Newspeak, literally surreal in its nature. We have indeed entered The Twilight Zone.

    \\][//

    http://endthelie.com/2013/01/19/west-point-study-identifies-violent-far-right-with-recognizing-tyrannical-corrupt-nature-of-government/#ixzz2IWpxHzmq

    http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf

    http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-pentagon-is-defining-we-the-people-as-domestic-enemies-of-the-united-states-for-a-reason/

  19. Craig,

    Looking forward to reading all of this – keep up the good work – I’m quiet these days but still read whenever I can.

    KP

  20. Isn’t a “Lone Gunman Assassination” a type of False Flag?
    Or is it simply in the “Provocation” – “PSYOP” category?

    To contract or flex the lexi is the question.

    \\][//

  21. Apr 03, 2013 · Dozens of fire crews battled for hours to extinguish the fire that spread quickly through the newly built … Fire rages in new Grozny skyscraper …
    Fire has engulfed an unoccupied 40-story apartment building under construction in Chechnya…
    The fire that engulfed an unoccupied luxury skyscraper in Grozny, Russia, was extinguished early Thursday morning, according to RIA Novosti.

    Defying the new 21st century physics proclaimed by NIST pertaining to the WTC, the Grozny high-rise did not collapse through itself as one might have expected…

    \\][//

  22. Via Del Luz ala Cartesian Wheels

    I hold this Truth to be Self Evident: That all of humanity, each Individual, is Born Equal in their Rights to Liberty.

    The extant of such Liberty cannot be enumerated, but can only be suggested by philosophical treatise.

    “Government” is a racket, and must be taken as such, and therefor transparent in all it’s actions to all it presumes to govern. “Government” is defined by it’s monopoly of the use of force.

    Any associations formed by the full and conscious assent of the membership that does not claim a monopoly on the use of force is not properly defined as “government”.

    “Nongovernmental Organizations” that promote and are maintained by a “government” that presumes to hold a monopoly on the use of force, is a misnomer (Newspeak) , they act as subsidiaries to, and are therefore part of “government”

    Corporations are NOT individuals, and do not possess the Individual Rights to Liberty of a human individual.

    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s