While such strategies as ‘Black’ or ‘False Flag’ Operations are as old as the dependent concepts of deception and passive aggression themselves, their sophistication has increased over the years as has information technology and access to media. With access to the intenet, blogs and tools like Facebook and an increased mass media penetration through cooperation with newspapers, television and other forms of commercial media, the ‘manufacturing of consent’ has become a much broader task. The work of public relations firms and ‘right wing think tanks’ such as the American Enterprise Institute and other ‘baby Rand corporations’ have developed surprisingly successful strategies to change public opinion – and the voices of any opposing pundits have been so succesfully silenced through the channeling of corporate monies, that the ‘powers that be’ hold exclusive sway over the mass of public opinion and can call their own shots with very little fear of reprisal.

As such – the propping-up of most military operations can be assured success through a well planned roadmap that includes a reasonably well designed media campaign as a pretext. The conditions for deception include the following;

	Public complicity, usually through media campaigns. This requires a degree of control over the media reportage – but this is usually done through well established means and is not terribly difficult, especially under the current poltical climate. No paper trail or responsibility – use of privately funded forces and high levels of secrecy under oath. Chain-of-command discretion: only a few of the highest ranking officers to have knowledge of the operation. Lower officers need only follow orders. See also Reference Page on Chain of Command Patsies: a ‘patsy’ is an actor or someone willing to play a specific arbitrary role in the operation. For example – someone witnessing a ‘terrorist’ setting a bomb aboard an airplane. There are many types of Patsy however – including (but not limited to) a terrorist/fanatic (duped or real), police agents, provocateurs, or anyone else ‘useful’ to the operation at hand and who will help it appear more convincing the public. Direct and indirect agents: These include planning staff (the number of which should be kept to an absolute minimum to ensure secrecy), moles, government officials, etc. see also: ‘Chain-of-Command’ above and at the following link: https://physics-911.com/military-chain-of-command/		False Flag Operations: Basic Requirements

EXAMPLES OF FALSE-FLAG OPERATIONS

Specifically, a False Flag Operation is a military strike or event that appears to be coming from an illusory enemy or from under a ‘different flag’ than it seems to be.

The Reichstag Fire of 1933:

Good examples of this would be the Nazis’ Reichstag Fire of 1933 – an act of apparent terrorism. The search conducted by police revealed the communist Marinus van der Lubbe as the arsonist – however things were not quite this simple. Hindsight revealed something other than the events as they went down on record. It turned out that it was precisely the sort of event that Hitler required in order to set martial law in place in Germany – on the grounds that the Communists (the apparent terrorists in this case) be arrested – as the Communist Party was the minority government at this time, it placed the National Socialists (Nazi party) in a position of unfettered fully consolidated power. Later evidence uncovered the fact that van der Lubbe had been set up as a ‘patsy’ for the purpose of

			Example: Operation Northwoods – an interview with Author James Bamford Author James Bamford, "A Pretext For War", discusses the recently declassified "Operation Northwoods" documents revealing that in 1962 the CIA was planning to stage phony terrorist attacks on the US and blame it on Cuba to start a war. Why would they do this? What is the motivation? Would the US military really ‘fake’ an attack on their own property in order to justify war?

Please continue on this page: THE ART OF DECEPTION: MEDIA INFLUENCE (click)

REFERENCES