That's another very clear and succinct summary Francis - thanks.
I was going to write something about this new 'fake events narrative' at some point myself. It seems to me to be a relatively recent phenomenon, and its specific target is clearly the so-called 'truth movement' - that's to say the natural questioners and dissidents. Until this fake events narrative came along we had gotten to the stage where we could immediately spot a false flag (your second option, that is - a real event blamed on a scapegoat, for this or that reason). This is especially true in the Internet age (or web 2.0, rather). So it is understandable that the cabal had to come up with something to deal with this. And that's where we have your third option which is the 'it was all staged/faked'.
I think one of the major methods we can use to identify cognitive infiltrators is simply look at who is relentlessly pushing this 'fake events narrative', even to the extent of attempting to claim that events we have known for years were real-but-false-flags were actually fakes or psyops. The epitome of this being the Miles Mathis committee, of course.
This is all about attacking the good guys. It's about spreading cognitive dissonance and doubt and ultimately 'learned helplessness', where we simply can't trust anything anymore, and all information is uncertain (a kind of gaslighting, actually). One interesting point, however, is that in order to push this agenda they would, in fact, have to carry out some genuinely 'staged' events. Then their cognitive infiltrators can draw attention to them and then start burbling about how 'it's all staged events'. A historical analysis of when this narrative got going would be a worthy piece of research. I think we're probably talking around the 2012/13 mark, although that's just an educated or instinctive guess.
And yes, re Icke, the point about 'discredit by association' is always a favoured trick of theirs. It's tried and tested and it works.
So it is important that we study these subversive methods and then educate our fellow resistance members about it, so they can be on their guard. Once we learn how to spot cognitive infiltrators, we can tell what the bad guys' narrative is by simple observation of what their subversion agents are saying.
Counter-subversion (or even counter-espionage) - that's the thing. We need to start thinking like intelligence analysts of the first order, or else they will always have an advantage. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't understand the first thing about espionage or subversion.
Fake events are most certainly NOT a recent phenomenon! This “debate” about the Manchester Ariane Grande bombing was deeply gone into by those observing at the time and quickly seen as the fake event it was. Same with the Christchurch, NZ event. If you want to go back in time, there’s the attack on the US ship Maine in Cuba to start that particular war, there’s the Bay of Tonkin incident which brought the US into the Vietnam war. The list goes on and on….
Maybe I should've qualified what I say about 'fake' a bit more. I'm really talking about a very 'intricate' kind of fakery. The Manchester incident for example is a vastly different entity than simply lying about an 'event that never happened' like Tonkin. That kind of thing doesn't involve a whole load of crisis actors and fake videos and photos and all the rest of it. There's no CGI involved, no concerted plan to say 'let's do a false flag terrorist attack but we'll actually fake it'.
So when I talk about it being a recent phenomenon this is the intricate kind of fakery - presented as a 'psyop' - which I'm really talking about. Back in the day, before the likes of social media or even everyone having televisions and such like, they didn't need to go to such absurd intricate lengths to fake something. They can just lie about it. People's trust in authority means they don't question. They read a headline 'Vietnamese torpedo US ship' and they have no reason to disbelieve, let alone any access to contradictory evidence. Because the bad guys would know this, it would never have occurred to them to come up with some intricate fakery involving crisis actors and so on, because it was entirely unnecessary.
It's only become - shall we say 'technically' different - in recent times. Lying about stuff, sure. But actually faking it, no. Now there are different considerations for them. It's also much harder for them to do a genuine false flag and get away with it, for similar reasons (as I said in my original comment).
As a corollary, we should also remember the psychological aspect. These are evil psychopaths we're talking about. Given the choice between faking something and actually murdering innocent people and traumatising even more, they would choose murder. This is a very important insight because it reveals the fact that if they fake something then they must have a very serious reason for choosing fakery over reality - and that, to me, suggests a very serious agenda. And this is the 'fake events narrative' which I talked about.
Notice also how the cognitive infiltrators always blithely dismiss this clear psychological insight. That's extremely telling, in my considered counter-subversion view.
Lots of lesser-known analysts (including me) have also written or made videos to prove it. Thus the question arises as to why none of us gets taken to court. UK Critical Thinker made 40 excellent videos on the event which most helpfully were stored on RDH's website after being wiped from YouTube ... but just recently they simply vanished from RDH's website too. Most interesting. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
The thing is you don't need an "investigation" into Manchester, it's all laid out in plain sight. You don't need to check up on little girls to see if they were faking injuries. "Investigating" crisis actors is like investigating streel-level drug dealers instead of investigating the big drug lords when all the phone records and bank statements and whatever else necessary implicates them. Street-level drug dealers get off when they give good information to catch the big fish but we don't need that kind of information from the crisis actors ... because it's all laid out before us. Why didn't Rich go to the police or the hospital who are also not the main instigators but nevertheless a little further up the ladder and say to them, "Hey, please explain why all the photos of the children in hospital show ZERO signs of injury and yet paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, said in a BBC interview “What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield."?
In a limited way I did. I emailed Dr Ibrar Majid and asked him about the contradiction of his claims against what they showed us ... no response of course. In his case, I thought it particularly egregious because as a Muslim himself he was helping to press people's buttons against people of his religion.
We have to ask why RDH bothered to "investigate" when absolutely no other analyst thought it necessary to do that kind of investigation.
Francis - The whole Building 7, BBC take is complete and utter misdirection. If you've really looked into the narratives spewed by the media on 9/11 you would find that there were multiple reports of buildings going down the whole day...
The ‘exposure’ of RDH and latterly of Delingpole by AOL has troubled me and I have struggled to put it into words. You have done it for me and reinforced why my initial instincts were correct.
In repeatedly referring to victims and the lack of compassion by those questioning, it creates cognitive dissonance. I don’t want to be seen as unsympathetic but I also know there are many unexplained inconsistencies.
AOL may be accurate in her analysis of RDH but it serves no purpose to keep talking about the same thing. The focus should be the same for both points of view; if it was a false flag, who was behind it and why are they getting away with it? It was a terrorist, who was behind it, who knew about it, when did they know about it and why are they getting away with it? If there are genuine victims, nothing is going to bring them back or change their circumstances.
Excellent article, Francis. Regarding the London bombings on 7/7/2005, remember that London was announced as the Host City for the Games of the XXX Olympiad, in 2012 on the previous day. A prominent Guardian reporter wrote an ill-considered article in which he stated observing that one of the tube's carriage floors had erupted upwards from the supposed rucksack device, not realising that the explosion would had to have occurred from below. A correction soon followed!
An essential part of psyop MO is RoM - they TELL us they're hoaxing us. It is quite impossible to look at Manchester with clear-sighted eyes and not recognise it as a psyop because of the RoM if nothing else. As Miri AF says though, Richard D Hall is a controlled opposition agent and the Statement Analysis is just one big setup. If Saffie's parents are crisis actors then they will be scripted to say whatever they say so if they're saying things that might suggest the girl died in an accident prior to the event that WILL BE SCRIPTED. So the question is why would they be scripted in that way?
Back in 2017 there were quite a number of analysts talking about Manchester including the excellent UK Critical Thinker whose 40 videos were posted on RDH's site until a week or so ago - very sadly disappeared. I wonder why ... although truth be told I wonder why they were on RDH's site considering he seems to be an agent.
Nothing adds up in the Manchester story. There are the usual show-and-tell contradictions, eg, paediatric orthopaedic surgeon telling us, "What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield,” when what we see are children in hospital WITH NOT A THING WRONG WITH THEM. It is unbelievable!
I semi wakened up at the Weapons of Mass Destruction fake scenario but unfortunately it wasn't until the covid farce that truly made me realise the level of deception we are immersed in. Good article.
That's another very clear and succinct summary Francis - thanks.
I was going to write something about this new 'fake events narrative' at some point myself. It seems to me to be a relatively recent phenomenon, and its specific target is clearly the so-called 'truth movement' - that's to say the natural questioners and dissidents. Until this fake events narrative came along we had gotten to the stage where we could immediately spot a false flag (your second option, that is - a real event blamed on a scapegoat, for this or that reason). This is especially true in the Internet age (or web 2.0, rather). So it is understandable that the cabal had to come up with something to deal with this. And that's where we have your third option which is the 'it was all staged/faked'.
I think one of the major methods we can use to identify cognitive infiltrators is simply look at who is relentlessly pushing this 'fake events narrative', even to the extent of attempting to claim that events we have known for years were real-but-false-flags were actually fakes or psyops. The epitome of this being the Miles Mathis committee, of course.
This is all about attacking the good guys. It's about spreading cognitive dissonance and doubt and ultimately 'learned helplessness', where we simply can't trust anything anymore, and all information is uncertain (a kind of gaslighting, actually). One interesting point, however, is that in order to push this agenda they would, in fact, have to carry out some genuinely 'staged' events. Then their cognitive infiltrators can draw attention to them and then start burbling about how 'it's all staged events'. A historical analysis of when this narrative got going would be a worthy piece of research. I think we're probably talking around the 2012/13 mark, although that's just an educated or instinctive guess.
And yes, re Icke, the point about 'discredit by association' is always a favoured trick of theirs. It's tried and tested and it works.
So it is important that we study these subversive methods and then educate our fellow resistance members about it, so they can be on their guard. Once we learn how to spot cognitive infiltrators, we can tell what the bad guys' narrative is by simple observation of what their subversion agents are saying.
Counter-subversion (or even counter-espionage) - that's the thing. We need to start thinking like intelligence analysts of the first order, or else they will always have an advantage. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't understand the first thing about espionage or subversion.
Fake events are most certainly NOT a recent phenomenon! This “debate” about the Manchester Ariane Grande bombing was deeply gone into by those observing at the time and quickly seen as the fake event it was. Same with the Christchurch, NZ event. If you want to go back in time, there’s the attack on the US ship Maine in Cuba to start that particular war, there’s the Bay of Tonkin incident which brought the US into the Vietnam war. The list goes on and on….
Maybe I should've qualified what I say about 'fake' a bit more. I'm really talking about a very 'intricate' kind of fakery. The Manchester incident for example is a vastly different entity than simply lying about an 'event that never happened' like Tonkin. That kind of thing doesn't involve a whole load of crisis actors and fake videos and photos and all the rest of it. There's no CGI involved, no concerted plan to say 'let's do a false flag terrorist attack but we'll actually fake it'.
So when I talk about it being a recent phenomenon this is the intricate kind of fakery - presented as a 'psyop' - which I'm really talking about. Back in the day, before the likes of social media or even everyone having televisions and such like, they didn't need to go to such absurd intricate lengths to fake something. They can just lie about it. People's trust in authority means they don't question. They read a headline 'Vietnamese torpedo US ship' and they have no reason to disbelieve, let alone any access to contradictory evidence. Because the bad guys would know this, it would never have occurred to them to come up with some intricate fakery involving crisis actors and so on, because it was entirely unnecessary.
It's only become - shall we say 'technically' different - in recent times. Lying about stuff, sure. But actually faking it, no. Now there are different considerations for them. It's also much harder for them to do a genuine false flag and get away with it, for similar reasons (as I said in my original comment).
As a corollary, we should also remember the psychological aspect. These are evil psychopaths we're talking about. Given the choice between faking something and actually murdering innocent people and traumatising even more, they would choose murder. This is a very important insight because it reveals the fact that if they fake something then they must have a very serious reason for choosing fakery over reality - and that, to me, suggests a very serious agenda. And this is the 'fake events narrative' which I talked about.
Notice also how the cognitive infiltrators always blithely dismiss this clear psychological insight. That's extremely telling, in my considered counter-subversion view.
Agree with all your points, yes.
I'm glad! It is true that sometimes points need clarifying. Otherwise some people start thinking they disagree and get into all manner of spats!
Manchester Arena was so obviously a false flag hoax.
Richard D Hall and Iain Davis have researched and written more than enough to prove this.
Lots of lesser-known analysts (including me) have also written or made videos to prove it. Thus the question arises as to why none of us gets taken to court. UK Critical Thinker made 40 excellent videos on the event which most helpfully were stored on RDH's website after being wiped from YouTube ... but just recently they simply vanished from RDH's website too. Most interesting. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
The thing is you don't need an "investigation" into Manchester, it's all laid out in plain sight. You don't need to check up on little girls to see if they were faking injuries. "Investigating" crisis actors is like investigating streel-level drug dealers instead of investigating the big drug lords when all the phone records and bank statements and whatever else necessary implicates them. Street-level drug dealers get off when they give good information to catch the big fish but we don't need that kind of information from the crisis actors ... because it's all laid out before us. Why didn't Rich go to the police or the hospital who are also not the main instigators but nevertheless a little further up the ladder and say to them, "Hey, please explain why all the photos of the children in hospital show ZERO signs of injury and yet paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, said in a BBC interview “What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield."?
In a limited way I did. I emailed Dr Ibrar Majid and asked him about the contradiction of his claims against what they showed us ... no response of course. In his case, I thought it particularly egregious because as a Muslim himself he was helping to press people's buttons against people of his religion.
We have to ask why RDH bothered to "investigate" when absolutely no other analyst thought it necessary to do that kind of investigation.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/manchester-bombing.html
Francis - The whole Building 7, BBC take is complete and utter misdirection. If you've really looked into the narratives spewed by the media on 9/11 you would find that there were multiple reports of buildings going down the whole day...
CNN reported on Building 7 going down AN HOUR before it did and then BBC just regurgitated the misinformation... Here, have a look at the CNN broadcast: https://rumble.com/v59p0wc-building-7-on-911-greasy-gage-lucky-larry-and-the-anomaly.html
Some suggested reading:
The 9/11 Building 7 HOAX
Building 7 did NOT go down to fire or explosives.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-building-7-hoax-video-of-2011
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
September 11, 2001 - An Essential Guide (2024)
Sept 11, 2001 has been and still is a 23 year long PSYOP.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/september-11-2001-an-essential-guide
Thanks for tackling this subject head on.
The ‘exposure’ of RDH and latterly of Delingpole by AOL has troubled me and I have struggled to put it into words. You have done it for me and reinforced why my initial instincts were correct.
In repeatedly referring to victims and the lack of compassion by those questioning, it creates cognitive dissonance. I don’t want to be seen as unsympathetic but I also know there are many unexplained inconsistencies.
AOL may be accurate in her analysis of RDH but it serves no purpose to keep talking about the same thing. The focus should be the same for both points of view; if it was a false flag, who was behind it and why are they getting away with it? It was a terrorist, who was behind it, who knew about it, when did they know about it and why are they getting away with it? If there are genuine victims, nothing is going to bring them back or change their circumstances.
Excellent article, Francis. Regarding the London bombings on 7/7/2005, remember that London was announced as the Host City for the Games of the XXX Olympiad, in 2012 on the previous day. A prominent Guardian reporter wrote an ill-considered article in which he stated observing that one of the tube's carriage floors had erupted upwards from the supposed rucksack device, not realising that the explosion would had to have occurred from below. A correction soon followed!
Francis you write beautifully and succinctly with such a plomb 10/10
Thank you, Jonathan.
Enjoyed this balanced article, thanks Francis x
Thank you, Jules x
In all this talk about Manchester why isn't Revelation of the Method (RoM) mentioned?
https://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/revelation-method-predictive-programming-and-prime-directive
An essential part of psyop MO is RoM - they TELL us they're hoaxing us. It is quite impossible to look at Manchester with clear-sighted eyes and not recognise it as a psyop because of the RoM if nothing else. As Miri AF says though, Richard D Hall is a controlled opposition agent and the Statement Analysis is just one big setup. If Saffie's parents are crisis actors then they will be scripted to say whatever they say so if they're saying things that might suggest the girl died in an accident prior to the event that WILL BE SCRIPTED. So the question is why would they be scripted in that way?
https://miri.substack.com/p/richard-ds-hall-of-mirrors
Back in 2017 there were quite a number of analysts talking about Manchester including the excellent UK Critical Thinker whose 40 videos were posted on RDH's site until a week or so ago - very sadly disappeared. I wonder why ... although truth be told I wonder why they were on RDH's site considering he seems to be an agent.
Nothing adds up in the Manchester story. There are the usual show-and-tell contradictions, eg, paediatric orthopaedic surgeon telling us, "What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield,” when what we see are children in hospital WITH NOT A THING WRONG WITH THEM. It is unbelievable!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4541026/The-Queen-visits-Royal-Manchester-Children-s-Hospital.html
This is the page I did on Manchester in 2017
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/manchester-bombing.html
I semi wakened up at the Weapons of Mass Destruction fake scenario but unfortunately it wasn't until the covid farce that truly made me realise the level of deception we are immersed in. Good article.
Prof David A, Hughes – An 1h Presentation of irrefutable 9/11 evidence in 2024
There are three key layers to perception management:
(i) the official narrative,
(ii) the official approved alternative narrative, and
(iii) the truth.
Presentation: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Thank you, Amat.