Do You Know How to Identify a False Flag Event?
A false flag is an action carried out by a person or group, like a government or cabal, that is blamed on someone else to achieve a subversive goal. False flags pose as imminent threats to the security of a populace, when in fact they’re usually committed by that group’s own government.
False flag conspiracy theorists are often derided as being overly paranoid, fear mongering, and irrational, and sometimes rightfully so. But when it comes to being suspicious of a potentially deceitful authority, that skepticism should be warranted; especially if there is historical precedence. And often theories about government operations that sound the most heinous or absurd are those where the most scrutiny should be applied.
False flag events are a manipulation of our trust in authority. They play on our fear and employ propaganda, essentially controlling our minds and the way we perceive events. History is rife with false flags, whether they are officially recognized or not, but being able to identify the signs and wake up to the truth is the only way to prevent them from happening in the future.
The Age of False Flags
A History of False Flag Events
A false flag event takes its name from the days of piracy. Before taking over a ship, pirates would sail the flag of a nation that was known to be friendly to their targeted ship. When they got close enough, the pirates would raise their flag, showing their true colors and commandeer the unsuspecting ship taking all its valuables and killing its crew. Today’s false flag operations are much more subversive and don’t give their victims the courtesy of knowing they’ve been duped. Instead, modern false flags go for the long play. This way they can maintain legitimacy and power and commit other false flag acts in the future to further their agenda.
Among the numerous instances of false flags, one event that has become synonymous with the term and effectively led to one of the most atrocious outcomes was the Reichstag Fire. The Reichstag Fire was an act of arson that was supposedly committed by a communist German, named Marinus Van Der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe set fire to the parliamentary Reichstag building, under the guise of a communist radical. While he was known to be eccentric and a mental patient who might commit such a crime, his behavior during the subsequent trial, as well as the extenuating circumstances surrounding German government at the time, tell a different story.
Before the Reichstag fire, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany during its nascent democracy. He of course wanted authoritarian power, which could only be attained by invoking an emergency clause called the Enabling Act. In order to pass the act, he needed a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag, but the Nazi party only controlled 32 percent. By burning down the Reichstag and blaming communists, he could manipulate the populace and use its fear to assume power.
There are a few pieces of evidence that exposed Nazi involvement in the fire after the Reichstag burned. Aside from the fact that it conveniently allowed Hitler to implement his fascist regime, he was immediately prepared with an emergency decree, laying out his plans. Also, Hitler’s right-hand man, Hermann Göring, showed up to the fire with arrest lists already prepared. All of the warning signs and the framework for a false flag were there, and although it is widely accepted to be a false flag, it has never officially been labelled such, making it a testament to its success.
The Telltale Signs of a False Flag Event
There are some key characteristics that can be indicative of a false flag event. The catalyst is typically an explosive, spectacular event, which is followed by immediate media saturation. Of course this is inevitable in any tragic scenario and simply the nature of news, but there are a few warning signs of a plotted false flag. If the major news outlets are all in sync, reporting on the event without thoroughly vetting the information available, then there is cause for concern. Within a relatively short period of time a scapegoat will be named, establishing an enemy with little to no trial or investigation into other possibilities. The case will be closed, government action will ensue, and, on a much more subversive level, someone will reap profit. And often those who profit are large corporations or military contractors that make exorbitant revenue through war and conflict.
These scenarios work best when the stakes are high. The greater the shock value, the less likely people are to question the authenticity of the event. If someone dares to question the mainstream’s sanctioned culprit in a tragedy, they’re labelled crazy, insensitive or unpatriotic. Skeptics are denounced as pacifists who are unsupportive of their country in a time of attack. Those who do succumb to the hysteria, perpetuate a groupthink that can be easily persuaded to allow government to restrict liberties and implement authoritarian laws. Examples of this can be seen throughout history and as recently as within the past few decades.
Proposed False Flags: Operation Northwoods
While it was never actually carried out, one proposal made to President Kennedy, laid out plans for an incredibly insidious false flag attack. Operation Northwoods was a plan concocted by the Department of Justice and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, intending to garner support for an unprovoked war against communist Cuba through a number of subversive means, making Cubans out to be the aggressors. The plans ranged from blowing up U.S. naval ships to hijacking commercial airliners and crashing them, faking the deaths of U.S. civilians.
The plan was meticulously thought out, providing an array of devious plots to manipulate the public perception of Cuba at the expense of Cuban and potentially American lives. Although it was rejected by Kennedy, similarly duplicitous tactics have been carried out by the U.S. and many other large governments with the resources to do so.
In the modern era, technological advents have allowed for surreptitious cyber attacks and widespread propaganda. In the U.S., this irregular style of warfare falls under the title Psychological Operations, or PsyOps, and is simply the contemporary term for the military’s propaganda tactics.
We now know the extent to which these tactics can be employed and how they’ve been willingly used on the country’s innocent citizens for surveillance purposes. Will they continue to find even more subversive measures to manipulate us and advance their self-serving goals? Or will this usher in an era of awareness and resistance to manipulation from the powers that be?
False Flags of the Cold War
Controversial Characteristics of Fractional Reserve Banking
Chances are, if everyone at your bank decided to withdraw the entirety of each of their bank accounts, the bank would not have enough money at its disposal to meet the demand. This is because banks commonly operate under a fractional reserve banking system. In other words, the bank uses your money however it wants, banking (ahem) on the fact that its account holders won’t protest. Unfair? It sure sounds like it. Stealing? The banks prefer to call it “borrowing.”
What Is Fractional Reserve Banking?
Many people believe that when they deposit money into a bank, the bank keeps all of their money on hand, in a vault, in cash. But this isn’t the way most banks work. According to Investopedia.com, fractional reserve banking refers to a system where banks only back a fraction of bank deposits with actual cash on-hand, available for immediate withdrawal.
This means only a fraction of the money you deposit into your account is required to be available for withdrawal at any given time. For most banks, that fraction is a mere 10 percent of your deposit. So, instead of putting $100 into the vault when you deposit a $100 check, only $10 goes in. That $10 is known as “reserves.”
Surprisingly, many banks are not required to even keep 10 percent on hand — and some aren’t required to keep any reserves at all. Any bank with less than $15.2 million in assets is exempt from keeping any reserves, and those with assets between $15.2 million and $110.2 million are only required to keep 3 percent.
There is an incentive, though, for your bank to keep more of your money in the vault: The Federal Reserve pays out interest on all reserves and excess reserves. The interest is called IOR (“Interest On Reserves”) or IOER (“Interest On Excess Reserves”), and since 2009, it pays out 0.25% at an annual rate.