Victims or Actors? Part 8

The farce flag

One of the achievements of the 9/11 Truth Movement was to raise awareness and understanding of the term “false flag.”

Yet, the notion of a completely faked event is so far outside of public consciousness that we do not have a similar pithy phrase for it in our lexicon. Kit Knightley suggested the awkward, “false false flag,” and Iain Davis uses the term, “hoaxed false flag,” which is serviceable, although a hoax is a deception or a trick -which all false flag events are by their nature. In the faked event the false flag is raised above a 'ghost ship,' and a key distinguishing feature is the employment of actors that seek to persuade us that the phantom vessel has substance. This theatrical play on emotions makes the event more of a pantomime false flag or a false flag farce -a farce flag perhaps.

In considering the possibility of a farce flag, the public are hamstrung by their incredulity and innocence. In 2001, people could not conceive of the fact that a government would attack its own people, despite the documented history of governments doing just that. When speaking of 9/11, I would routinely be asked, “Why would they attack their own people?” as though murderous warmongers care about the nationality of the millions of people they kill to achieve their goals. In 2020, even some people who accepted the lies of 9/11 could not conceive of the fact that the government would lock them in their homes in order to inject them with malicious intent.

People seem willing to accept stories of innocents being brutally killed, and even by the government, but react with aversion to the notion that those same innocents might not have been killed, and that instead the government lied. Some of those who now acknowledge the all encompassing deceptions of the scamdemic react with horror or scorn at the idea of other fakery by the same outlets, agencies, and institutions, in service of a different facet of the same agenda.

Many reject out of hand the notion that liars of the most outrageous lies might have told other outrageous lies, when one might reasonably suppose all the offerings of outrageous liars to be suspect. Questioning of events such as the Manchester Arena incident is thought to be due to an excess of cynicism, when the fatal flaw that has plagued us in recent years has been an excess of trust. It is considered that those who ask such affronting questions have lost their intellectual moorings because of the deceptions of the scamdemic, but such inquiry long predates the scamdemic and happened as set piece media terror events occurred. The deceptions of the state were evident for decades before 2020, there were just fewer people paying attention and fewer willing to consider the questions those people posed.

When it is used in terms of awareness of state crimes, some people do not like the term 'awake,' perhaps thinking it to be self-congratulatory, or pejorative to those to whom it does not apply. Do we think less of people when they sleep? Maybe of Jeffrey Epstein’s prison guards. Otherwise the sleeping are merely more vulnerable and less aware of any wrongdoing around them. It is also common parlance to say someone is 'awake,' to a ruse or a possibility. Alternatively it can be said that someone is 'alive,' to a trick, but that leaves those who are not, dead.

Recently I saw a lady I had met through opposition to the scamdemic a few years ago. She indicated her children, saying her daughter was 20, adding jokingly, “so a two year old adult,” in reference to 18 being the legal age of adulthood in the UK. Biologically, adulthood is obviously the stage when a person becomes physically mature, but socially it is also considered to be a point at which we have acquired the fortitude and understanding necessary to face the challenges and realities of life. Many societies engage in rites of passage for young people to demonstrate this progression. Some cultures pass on generations of experience to their young, providing information and skills in how to navigate their environment which can then be tested by the recipient for their utility. Given that much of our intellectual inheritance is false, or useless for the challenges we now face, we might regard a certain, 'adulthood,' as beginning when we 'awaken,' to the reality of these deceptions and of our world. Those no more than a few years old have much to learn and however attached they are to their current opinions, their outlook is likely to change. To those opinions we should attach an appropriate level of importance.

Aisling O'Louchlin says of questioning alleged victims, “that's bonkers,” but it is not if that is where the evidence leads. O'Loughlin may have woken up to the scamdemic but if she is only now learning of the nature of a public figure like Andrew Tate, what value can we place on her opinion of the illusory screen reality presented to us? She says that seven years have passed since the Manchester arena event and in that time it has not been proven that the victims are fake, but as we have seen this places an unfair burden on the investigator. Despite the many years of research that have passed since 9/11 the roles of passengers and airline staff in the hijackings and telephone calls are still not clear. The keys to the evidence are held by perpetrators who have not proven their own contentions.

Satirical cartoonist Bob Moran and analyst Alex Kriel have discussed how people who misled the public over the scamdemic now masquerade as leaders of the medical freedom movement. Kriel labels the situation a, “reverse meritocracy,” the term for which is a kakistocracy.

Conservationist, Leo Biddle, who in 2020 observed no evidence of a pandemic in primates, extends this concern to figures given prominence in the movement who continue to lack awareness of the broader context of the plandemic.

Moran suggests those whose poor judgement misled the public during the scamdemic be given a role befitting their incompetence. Moran suggests these reprobate actors should sit at the back and hand out the biscuits, while others might suggest for them, garrotting or the gallows.

Biddle applies a similar meritocratic rationale to those who had not previously questioned state narratives prior to 2020.

“God love Normies if they're honest but if you only found out last week that the moon landing was a fraud, your opinion on what the fuck is going on isn't probably going to be of much use up against whatever this is.”

“At this point anyone saying they only noticed something was wrong in 2020, may be well intentioned but is somehow missing the point. It's a much bigger problem than just virus and vaccine.”

Unless we want to repeat the mistakes of recent years, we cannot glibly dismiss the contentions of those who draw attention to possible state crimes because they upset our sensibilities. If we are genuinely interested in establishing the truth we must engage with the evidence. All opinions are not equal. In discussing possible state crimes, the opinion of someone who has not engaged with the evidence, is worthless.

Also problematic is a conditioned tendency to require external validation to confirm the indications of evidence. As I said to Alex Kriel,

"The funny thing about this dissident world that we live in is that things don't seem to be accepted as true until they are validated by the liars. Even amongst our audience, or our peers -dissidents, we require liars to validate the truth. It's a bizarre phenomenon."

We have seen evidence that calls into question what we have been told about the Manchester Arena event but when we reach our conclusions, we will not be told by an authority figure if they are correct. Iain Davis writes, “That there was “no bomb” can be said to be a “fact” because the statement is supported by all of the primary, observable evidence.” That is the situation until, “a rational explanation,” is offered to explain this evidence.

People whose faith in cultural institutions led them to lock themselves in their homes in 2020, have now re-established their certainty and again become indignant when their shifted foundations are threatened. Some adopt a supercilious attitude towards those who continue to ask challenging questions about other events that nudge public perceptions in line with state agendas. For these people the most important lesson of the scamdemic has not been learned. One might have expected such hauteur to have been punctured along with their shoulders.

Part 9 is here.