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
Professor Finds $21 Trillion Missing from Government Budget
A Michigan State University economics professor discovered $21 trillion unaccounted for in the federal budget starting in 1998 until the end of fiscal year 2015. Professor Mark Skidmore enlisted the help of his graduate students to examine government documents from the Department of Defense and Housing and Urban Development to uncover an unfathomable amount of unauthorized spending.
According to the Constitution, all federal spending must be voted on and authorized by Congress each fiscal year. Any discrepancies found in the way of unauthorized spending would normally elicit a congressional hearing and investigation.
Skidmore and his students’ analysis used publicly available government documents from the two agencies’ websites to expose this inconsistency. Shortly after Skidmore published his findings, both agencies removed those documents from public access.
While no congressional committee tied to the budget had signaled the would open an inquiry prior to Skidmore’s findings, the Department of Defense allowed a first ever department-wide audit by independent firm Ernst & Young.
Skidmore says that sometimes there can be discrepancies meant to account for inadequate transactions, but those adjustments are usually no more than 1 percent of the total budget.
The Army’s annual budget for FY 2015 was $122 billion, meaning that an adjustment for inadequate transactions might be around $1.2 billion. The Army’s actual adjustments for FY 2015 were $6.5 trillion – 54 times what it was authorized to spend.
Out of thousands of documents spanning that period, Skidmore was able to find Army budget documentation for 13 of those years, saying its budget represented roughly $11.5 trillion of the missing $21 trillion. He also called these accounting documents “opaque,” saying it was not clear what the unauthorized adjustments were for.
That amount of unauthorized, “missing” money is equivalent to about $65,000 for every person in America. The government estimated that the federal deficit sits at around $20 trillion, an entire $1 trillion less than what Skidmore found missing in these adjustments.
So, what exactly is this money going towards? The revelation of a $56 billion Pentagon black budget for secret military, space, and surveillance programs has led some to speculate that it could be merely a fraction of what’s actually being spent.
Skidmore said he reached out to the Office of Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and Congressional Budget Office, asking if maybe the $6.5 trillion figure was a mistake and was instead supposed to be $6.5 billion. It was confirmed that $6.5 trillion was the correct adjustment. Though, when he asked if any of these agencies were alarmed or considering this a red flag, his questions were met with slight confusion and little concern.
Though Skidmore has reserved his speculation as to what he thinks the money might be going toward, it’s clear that either someone knows that a large amount of taxpayer dollars is being spent without authorized permission, or the accounting practices of those in charge of massive amounts of public money are that flawed.