Victims or Actors? Part 1

The Lie Machine

In recent weeks a debate has rumbled on among British and Irish dissidents that centres around the reported terrorist bombing of an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena in 2017.

Given the demonstrable lies of 9/11, not to mention the numerous false flag attacks that preceded it, all subsequent set piece media terrorism events are viewed with suspicion.

As I wrote with regards to the alleged assassination attempt on Donald Trump on 13^th July, 2024, there are three ways to view these scenarios. One is to believe the story of events as presented, and a second is to view them as in some way permitted or perpetrated by authorities in order to be blamed on a selected scapegoat. The third option involves also ascribing the event to the authorities and for the same motive, but to view it as wholly faked -as an elaborate and acted stage show.

Accepting unquestioningly what is presented by officialdom is the socially acceptable and prevailing default position. Until one is given cause to question everything presented by media and government this is an understandable standpoint. We all began at this point and it is important to remember that then, as now, we had more to learn.

To anyone who has discovered the duplicitous nature of the afore-mentioned institutions, considering the possibility of false flags becomes perfectly reasonable, yet this position is often decried as disrespectful to the victims and their families. For those who want to silence questions it is rarely the appropriate time, place, or forum, to raise them. It is always 'too soon,' until the official story has been firmly established and its objectives achieved. On the other hand, no matter how little evidence is available or has been evaluated, it is rarely considered socially inappropriate to unquestioningly regurgitate official narratives, despite the risk of dangerous long-term consequences that can include wars, loss of liberty, and societal and personal harm.

Those who receive criticism for daring to believe in the possibility of false flag attacks sometimes then apply that same criticism to those who ask if terror-inducing events have been wholly faked. To some extent such criticism is understandable and perhaps even helpful in encouraging intellectual rigour. Challenging the notion of wholesale fakery is intended to avoid unfairly maligning innocent or grieving victims.

The potential harm caused by accusing victims of fakery is the key issue driving the debate with regards to the Manchester arena incident. Researcher Richard D Hall has recently been found guilty of harassing its alleged victims in his efforts to ascertain whether the bombing was genuine. Journalist Aisling O'Loughlin argues that to assert that the bombing was faked and that the alleged victims' injuries and deaths were feigned, also serves to discredit the wider cause of exposing state crimes by associating serious inquiry with far-fetched claims.

Answering this point in a discussion with Abi Roberts, James Delingpole rejects the idea that there are people who, “would believe in vaccine injury but won’t because the person who said this thinks that Paul MacCartney died in 1966 and was replaced.”

Experience suggests he is wrong to dismiss this concern. This is precisely why nonsense is deployed as a weapon. For example, no matter what David Icke says there are those who will dismiss his opinion because of his more outlandish views. Dissidents who share some of his opinions will often be tarred with the same brush.

Delingpole himself has been on the receiving end of such disregard in his now discontinued London Calling podcast when Toby Young explicitly told Delingpole he lacks credibility because he, "just (has) to have the slightest whiff of a conspiracy about something, you read one article claiming Paul MacCartney died in 1966 or chemtrails and you believe it wholeheartedly." (See 23:50)

To be fair to Delingpole and his intended point, it is possible that some people who refuse to listen to a dissident view would refuse to do so regardless of what other views the dissident holds. In these cases less credible arguments merely provide useful ammunition for an attack. Yet it seems evident that for any speaker their less credible opinions are not helpful and serve only to discredit them. This is the age old wisdom of the story of 'the boy who cried wolf.'

To illustrate this, in the discussion in which Delingpole makes his point, Abi Roberts takes issue with the weakest evidence put forward by Richard D Hall to support the notion that the Manchester event was wholly faked. This is the witness statement analysis highlighted for criticism by O'Loughlin, which Roberts likens to a spoof.

News as the Fiction Department

Aisling O'Loughlin has passionately engaged with the debate over the Manchester arena incident. Asserting her expertise and experience as a mainstream journalist, O'Loughlin rejects the possibility that the event could have been faked. Although O'Loughlin is right to demand journalistic rigour, in recent times people have discovered that experience in the mainstream media holds no currency in relation to the truth.

O'Loughlin rejects the notion of the "news as the fiction department." Regrettably that is exactly what it is.

The function of news agencies is to manufacture public faith in state crimes and consent for related schemes. The BBC, for example, has been used in this way since its inception.

Through propaganda and omission the media has played its role in false flags attacks which have instigated ongoing devastation and war. Many historic examples have been admitted to by officialdom. Notable deceptions include those involving the USS Maine and Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Lavon affair, the Bay of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, Kuwaiti babies in incubators, 9/11, Weapons of Mass Destruction, lockdown, and vaccines. These have resulted in millions of casualties and deaths. As examined previously, the current iteration of the crippling financial system was brought into being through the use of a media that was controlled in 1911. This has led to further monopolisation of media and other institutions by the ruling bankers.

Other incidents that have bolstered state agendas are the Oklahoma City (19/4/1995), Madrid (11/3/2004), and 7/7 London bombings (2005), and a host of other terrorist attacks and shootings including those at San Bernardino (2/12/2015) Charlie Hebdo, Paris (7/1/ 2015), Bataclan, Paris (13/11/2015), Nice (14/7/2016), Brussels (22/3/2016), Orlando (12/6/2016), Las Vegas (1/10/2017), and those on London Bridge (3/6/2017 and 29/11/2019). This is not an exhaustive list and as with the Manchester incident many of these events have provoked inquiry and debate into the extent of the deception or fakery involved. The media also presented to us the official stories of the assassinations of Robert and John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and the alleged moon landings.

Regarding 9/11, a number of broadcasters and official sources exhibited foreknowledge of the unprecedented and unforeseeable collapse of Building 7. The BBC's reporter Jane Standley reported the collapse 23 minutes before it occurred with the 47 storey skyscraper still standing behind her. She was not the only reporter to announce the building’s destruction whilst it stood intact and visible on screen. Later on when it was found that the anthrax for the mail attacks that followed 9/11 could only have come from US laboratories the media seemed less concerned with this information than it had been about propagating the story that Iraq was responsible. As with Building 7 the story of the 9/11 anthrax attacks was dropped and is now largely ignored or forgotten.

Suffice it to say that if we are going to apply the moral of 'the boy who cried wolf,' we must apply it evenhandedly. The mainstream media and its journalistic practices are no benchmark for what is true. When O’Loughlin says that she, “knows about certain standards,” from “when there used to be standards in newsrooms” we have to wonder when that time was, or whether those standards were high or low.

As Delingpole observes, the media and government constitute, "a lie machine," and that being so, as writer and researcher Miri Finch told O'Loughlin, "the burden of proof is on the media," to prove to us that which they want us to believe. Put simply, a lie machine is no place to find the truth.

Part 2 is here.