Victims or Actors? Part 4

The uneven playing field

Establishing the truth

In a discussion with journalist James Delingpole on the question of whether actors were used in the Manchester arena incident, comedienne Abi Roberts asked of the standard of evidence we require to establish the truth, "doesn't one standard apply to both sides?" It does.

Delingpole argues that in issues of this kind, the same standard is not being applied. This is also true. Generally people are prepared to accept an official story without question but subject those questioning it to intense scrutiny; ‘Why would that happen? How could that happen? Why would they do that? How could they do that? Who are they?’

In relation to the two seminal events of our times, 9/11 and the scamdemic, these questions are asked of the dissident, often where none are asked of the official lies.

The playing field is further tipped as the official side is supported by a multi-billion pound (or dollar) military grade propaganda machine replete with behavioural scientists, and all the machinery of the media, state, and related institutions.

That these are put at work to influence people’s judgement was made explicit on 22nd March 2020, when UK government behavioural scientists stated their intention to "use media to increase the sense of personal threat." On 18th March, 2020, the BBC had reported that, “nudge theory,” (which was previously known as propaganda or psychological manipulation) was, “already widely used by governments,” to, “change social "norms."”

Many people are simply not aware of what they are up against, of the admitted history of deception, or of the suspected deceptions to which they have been subjected in recent years.

The uneven playing field

When establishing the truth all theories should be subject to the same rigour, but in an ideal world, all theorists would be permitted equal and open access to the evidence. In relation to a false flag event, the evidence is inevitably controlled by the perpetrators. As Iain Davis, who has investigated the Manchester arena incident, recently noted, “If it is not officially acknowledged…that evidence does not exist.” (1:07:00)

This echoes the words of 1999 National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis, who lamented of the official 9/11 investigation, “you can’t do science when you are deprived of the evidence... and the most likely hypothesis wasn’t even mentioned.”

An unproven official account assumes the status of fact until proven otherwise. Unlike an independent researcher, the mainstream media is not considered to be wholly discredited even when its lies are proven.

In the case of the 9/11 anthrax attacks the official story was accepted as fact until independent researchers established that the anthrax could only have come from a US lab. Had this not occurred the official story would have held sway without being proven. Dissidents are required to prove their contentions. This is the inequality.

In 2013, Tony Rooke was taken to court for refusing to pay his BBC licence fee. He argued that as the BBC had reported the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 before it happened and then refused to divulge its source for the story, the corporation was aiding and abetting terrorism. His evidence regarding the events of 9/11 was not heard in court, but Rooke claimed a moral victory when he was given a conditional discharge. He continues to refuse to pay the TV licence fee.

In 2008, a man named John Hill (aka ‘Maud Dib’) sent dvds of his film, ‘7/7 the Ripple Effect,’ to the judge and jury of a trial of three muslim men accused of involvement in the 7/7 attack. Hill’s film implicates the British government in the bombings. Hill had been extradited from Ireland, spent 151 days in jail, and faced a sentence of up to 20 years. In 2011, a jury trial found him not guilty of perverting the course of justice. The inference is that his film is pertinent to the course of justice.

Where the dissident incurs risk, the state and media operate largely with impunity. Even when state lies are independently exposed, the truth is often ignored and the agenda rolls on, with the lie lodged in the public mind. Where state lies have consequences for others, the truth often has visible consequences only for those with the courage to speak it. As many discovered during the 2020s, even outside of the courts the dissident risks social and professional ostracism.

Delingpole tells Roberts,

"The standards of proof you are demanding are so high that essentially it will be impossible ever to suggest, for example, 9/11 was an inside job or that we haven't been to the moon," but this is not the case. The reason why 9/11 is so important and occupies high status in the pantheon of unadmitted false flag attacks is because the evidence that the official story is false meets any standard. It seems that this is a major reason why every effort is still being made to prevent this evidence being heard in court. Delingpole has argued that Building 7 is not a silver bullet in awakening people to state crimes as for those incapable of changing their minds there is not one, but for those still capable of doing so, it is the nearest thing we have. This is why footage of the demolition of Building 7 is not shown on television.

Questions

Abi Roberts says of potential crisis actors,

"It's human nature...if I had a roomful of people now and we all knew something that we weren't meant to reveal to other people ...it would probably be about ten minutes before somebody had told somebody else that it wasn't true or that it was not how it was portrayed."

That may be true of a random selection of people, but there is a vetting process for a group of crisis actors. The actor has to put themselves forward, and before they start work they will have been selected for at least that one role. Their first role may not involve deception, such as working in the training of military or emergency services -but even a role in training activities can require secrecy and involve signing a non-disclosure agreement. As in other walks of life, trusted employees may progress to more high profile or clandestine operations.

For comparison, it is notable how few whistleblowers there are among the health services since 2020, and among the firefighters and police who lost colleagues on 9/11. Of the 650 MPs in Parliament, how many have spoken out against the fake vaccines? These examples constitute larger pools of people than the numbers required to act out some false flag attacks.

Journalist Jacqui Deevoy, who has a following of 57,600 people on Twitter, has been unable to find a single person who took part in the widely shared videos of, ‘ritual,’ dancing by supposed health care workers that accompanied the scamdemic. Deevoy believes the dances to have been performed by “actors.” Whoever the dancers were, they do not appear to be talking.

We have seen how media personalities and social media influencers were enlisted as propagandists. Some advocated the scamdemic policies to the point of absurdity. TV doctor Hilary Jones directed viewers to perform CPR whilst covering the patient’s airways. How many of those that were paid propagandists have confessed their roles?

Abi Roberts asks of those suspected of feigning their victimhood,"What are they being given to shut them up?"

If we accept that people can keep secrets and do so all the time for reasons of self interest or concern for others, then we might accept that crisis actors could do so too, if provided with sufficient motivation for secrecy, or deterrent for disclosure. In professional roles a degree of secrecy is commonplace. Doctors and lawyers maintain client confidentiality, journalists protect their sources, and military personnel keep secrets for their own professional and personal security, as well as a belief in their moral purpose.

A much cited example of secrecy is the Manhattan project -the name given to the alleged building of a nuclear bomb in the 1940s- that involved 129,500 people over three years. If we accept that false flag attacks such as 9/11 occur and that those employed to carry them out have since kept quiet, then it follows that the same might be true of faked events.

It is commonly accepted that spies fake their identities and even their own deaths, and that they do not reveal their occupation. In recent times TV doctors who pushed the scamdemic lies have been suspected of exactly these acts. One intelligence service formerly operated under the motto, “By way of deception thou shalt make war.”

As I wrote of controlled opposition:

At this point it is worth calling to mind the experience of animal rights activists with the London Metropolitan police between 1987 and 2010. Police agents who infiltrated the activist group went so deep undercover that they entered long term relationships and even fathered children. One was described as 'going native,' after facilitating crimes for which activists were arrested.

When being compromised, people seem to be motivated by sex, money, or power, or to be inhibited by fear. The past four years has demonstrated the power of such incentives and coercion.

In high profile suspected false flag events the victims often receive an enormous amount of money in donations to fundraisers. £21 million pounds was raised for the alleged victims of the Manchester Arena incident. Bereaved families received 40% of this money, with the physically injured receiving 38%, and the psychologically injured, 20%.

As I wrote of the George Floyd incident that in 2020 provided a timely distraction from the ongoing lockdown and is now openly accused of being a lie,

A memorial fundraiser set up two days after Floyd’s death surpassed $13 million, breaking the record for individual donations to a Gofundme account. The family were also paid $27 million by Minneapolis city council. A separate fundraiser for the Minnesota Freedom Fund received around $40m in 2020.

Another relevant motivation for a crisis actor could be ideology. The outcome of the 2024 US presidential election exposed the 2020 election result, (and by extension the electoral system and the media) to be fake. It is notable that there has been no mainstream media coverage of this faked event, that nobody involved in faking the 2020 election has blabbed, and that millions of people took part in the event believing it to be real.

In his statistical analysis of the election fakery, Alex Kriel wrote,

“Querying the 2020 election outcome implies that I am prepared to accept that an element of the Left could, in principle, carry out mass falsification of voting ballots.  I believe that is true given the fervent attachment to their ideology and willingness to denounce anyone opposing Leftism as a Nazi.  If (they) really believe this, then ballot stuffing could be seen as a civic duty.”

Similarly, if somebody supports gun control, they might be willing to take part in acting out a fake shooting that would reinforce calls to disarm the public, believing that in the long term they were working to save lives. People might be persuaded to take part in a fake bombing in order to entrap a suspected terrorist or to bolster anti-terrorism measures, again for the ultimate goal of saving lives. After 9/11 many people joined the armed forces with motivations that ranged from protecting their nation to enacting revenge. If people can be incited to kill they might also be willing to pretend to be killed. After the past four years, is there any doubt as to the lengths people will go to for ideological reasons, especially if they believe themselves to be saving lives?

As well as the possibility of a crisis actor’s ignorance of the true nature of their role, there is also the possibility of more informed participation in faked events. In relation to the George Floyd incident that provoked variously, racial tensions, calls to defund the police, riots that served a real estate acquisition plan, and the destruction of historic monuments, there were associations with freemasonry that included Floyd himself, who was also an actor. As with politicians, some of those involved in fake events may be compromised but others may believe in the over-arching ideology which they serve.

If a crisis actor was to speak out who could they tell? If they told someone in the complicit media it seems unlikely that their story would be reported -and they would be putting themselves at risk. If they told someone close to them they would put that person in danger too. Witnesses such as Barry Jennings, Kenneth Johanneman and Danny Jowenko, who spoke out about 9/11, died prematurely.

Another question is, "Why would they (fake terrorist attacks) rather than carry them out?"

It is thought that faked attacks remove the trouble of grieving relatives who might tirelessly pursue answers and justice. Each victim may have parents, siblings, a spouse, children, and other relatives and friends who may be sparked into investigation. If an incident were to kill tens of people and injure hundreds more then it could produce a small, highly motivated, and relentless army of campaigners.

Writing for the Off-Guardian, Kit Knightley offers the following suggestions as to why a faked event might hamper dissidents and assist the perpetrators:

1. You can’t prove a negative. (or at least it is difficult)

2. Lack of physical evidence. (meaning it can’t be traced to the culprits)

3. Keeps your options open. (so the story can change if necessary)

4. No real victims. (as discussed above)

5. Less guilt or regret. (on the part of ‘foot soldiers’ enacting the event)

6. Easier to control. (no mistaken killings or accidents)

Another consideration is the availability of mass murderers. Would it be easier to find people willing to engage in mass murder and suicide, or to find actors willing to be paid well? Acting seems a little more fun, especially if the actor is unaware of the wider consequences and believes what they are doing is for a social good such as combatting terrorism.

A final reason could be that when a faked event is suspected the perpetrators will be protected by the incredulity of the public.

Part 5 is here.

Abi Roberts has produced a compilation of first hand accounts of the lockdown that is free to download with hardback and paperback versions available at cost price. It is illustrated by Bob Moran. This valuable historical document is available here.