Understanding False Flags

On Deception by Design plus a FREE False Flag Operation Checklist (pdf)

Oct 08, 2023

I think it’s time we talked about False Flags.

180 Degrees is the first book I’ve read that really addressed the subject properly. But I’ll come back to that later. Have you bought your copy yet? I sound like I must be on the take for promoting this book, maybe I should be, but the years of work that Greenwood has put into it need supporting (if you can).

180 Degrees (thriftbooks.com)

180 Degrees (Amazon.com)

180 Degrees (Amazon.com.au)

The entire basis of this Substack is to meander through the rabbit warren that Covid revealed to try to figure out true from untrue. Fake from Real. False from, well Unfalse.

So, I think False Flags are in my wheelhouse. I feel obliged to say something about them.

I’m going to try to be thorough, so please forgive me for the length of this stack.

Synopsis

We are going to delve into the complex and controversial subject of False Flags, covert operations designed to deceive by appearing as though they are being carried out by other entities. Drawing from historical examples, we will explore the characteristics, common perpetrators, and psychological impacts of these operations. I’m also addressing the concept of Passive Facilitation, where governments allow attacks on their own people to advance their agendas. I’ll conclude with a comprehensive checklist to gauge the likelihood of an event being a False Flag operation.

Some of the areas covered will be:

Defining False Flags
Examples of False Flags
Common Perpetrators
Psychological Impact
Passive Facilitation
Checklist for Gauging Likelihood
What Governments Stand to Gain

Let’s start with the basics.

What is a False Flag?

A "false flag" operation refers to a covert action designed to deceive by appearing as though it is being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed it. The term originates from naval warfare, where a ship would fly the flag of another country as a disguise to deceive enemy vessels. In modern times, the term has been extended to include various forms of deception in politics, espionage, and military operations.
Characteristics of a False Flag Operation:
1.       Deception: The primary objective is to deceive the target audience or entity.
2.       Misattribution: The operation is designed to appear as if it is being carried out by another group, often an enemy or rival.
3.       Hidden Agenda: The true motive is often concealed and may involve gaining political advantage, justifying military action, or discrediting an opponent.
4.       Manipulation: Public opinion, political landscapes, or strategic situations may be manipulated as a result of the false flag operation.
Examples:
1.       Historical Warfare: In naval warfare, ships would sometimes fly the flags of enemy countries to approach them without being fired upon.
2.       Terrorism: Some terrorist acts have been suggested to be false flag operations, though these claims often require rigorous investigation to be substantiated.
3.       Cyber Attacks: In the digital age, false flag operations can also occur in cyberspace, where attackers may leave "clues" to implicate another party.
4.       Political Scandals: In politics, a false flag can involve actions that are designed to appear as if they are carried out by the opposition to discredit them in the eyes of the public.

Who are the common perpetuators of False Flags?

False flag operations can be carried out by a variety of actors for different purposes. It's important to approach any claims of false flag operations with rigorous scrutiny and demand credible evidence. Here are some common types of entities that conduct or are involved in false flag operations:
Governments
1.       Military: To justify military actions or interventions.
2.       Intelligence Agencies: To manipulate public opinion or political situations.
3.       Political Leaders: To consolidate power or divert attention from other issues.
Non-State Actors
4.       Terrorist Groups: To create confusion about responsibility for an attack.
5.       Rebel or Separatist Groups: To provoke government overreaction and gain sympathy for their cause.
6.       Private Military Contractors: To create a need for their services.
Corporations
7.       Industrial Espionage: To discredit competitors or manipulate market conditions.
8.       Resource Companies: To create a pretext for exploiting resources in other nations.
Media
9.       Propaganda Outlets: To sway public opinion or create a diversion.
International Bodies
10.   Supranational Organizations: Organizations like the UN can be involved in false flag operations to justify international interventions.

Let’s pause here for a moment.

Can I assume that we have all learned our lesson from the last three years about what Governments are capable of?

Especially what they are capable of against their own citizens.

This recently from @Inversionism is worth repeating:

It seems like a lot of people have the memory of a goldish and have just got sucked into supporting/defending another "current thing", so here are some reminders to refresh your memory and bring everything back into the proper context.
Remember when every major country across the world came together to orchestrate the greatest psyop in all of human history with the manufactured COVID pandemic and subsequent vaccine?
Remember when they censored and banned anyone who went against their narratives, even if they were demonstrably and scientifically true?
Remember when they banned you off social media for talking about your vaccine injuries or friends or family that died after the shot?
Remember when people were bankrupted by the medical costs that resulted from injuries caused by the shot?
Remember when they fired you from your job for not getting the shot?
Remember when they kicked you out of restaurants for not wearing a mask or being vaccinated?
Remember when they destroyed your businesses with lockdowns and draconian measures, and then transferred trillions of dollars of YOUR wealth to the richest people and mega corporations like Blackrock and Vanguard?

Whenever you hear the drums of war, it’s these same people that are the drummers.

Let us not be goldfish.

Now, let’s look at the list of known, and accepted False Flags.

“Credible” sources acknowledge these events as False Flags. You will not often hear the “Conspiracy Theory” slur used.

1. Reichstag Fire (1933)

Country Involved: Germany
Description: The Reichstag building in Berlin, which housed the German Parliament, was set on fire. The Nazis blamed the Communists for the act, which led to the suspension of civil liberties and the arrest of Communist Party members.
Outcome: The event facilitated Adolf Hitler's rise to power and the consolidation of Nazi rule.
Source: "The Reichstag Fire," History.com

2. Operation Northwoods (1962) - Not Executed

Country Involved: United States
Description: A proposed plan by the U.S. Department of Defense to stage acts of terrorism on U.S. soil and blame it on Cuba to justify military intervention.
Outcome: The plan was never approved or carried out.
Source: "Operation Northwoods," National Security Archive

3. Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964)

Country Involved: United States
Description: The U.S. claimed that its naval vessels were attacked by North Vietnamese forces in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Outcome: The incident led to the escalation of American involvement in the Vietnam War, although later evidence suggested that the "attack" was either exaggerated or fabricated.
Source: "Gulf of Tonkin Incident," History.com

4. Operation Gladio (Cold War Era)

Countries Involved: NATO countries.
Description: A covert NATO project where secret "stay-behind" armies were involved in political subversion and false flag terrorism in Europe.
Outcome: Exposed in the 1990s, leading to investigations and public outcry.
Source: "Operation Gladio," BBC Documentary

5. Mukden Incident (1931)

Country Involved: Japan
Description: Japanese soldiers detonated a small amount of dynamite near a railway line owned by Japan's South Manchuria Railway near Mukden (now Shenyang).
Outcome: The incident was used as a pretext for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
Source: "Mukden Incident," Britannica

6. Operation Ajax (1953)

Countries Involved: United States, United Kingdom
Description: Orchestrated protests and acts of sabotage to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, falsely attributing these acts to Communists.
Outcome: Led to the overthrow of Mossadegh and the reinstatement of the Shah.
Source: "Operation Ajax," CIA Archives

7. Operation Susannah (1954)

Country Involved: Israel
Description: Also known as the Lavon Affair, Israeli agents planted bombs in Egyptian, American, and British-owned targets in Egypt, intending to have them blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood or local nationalists.
Outcome: The operation was exposed, leading to a political scandal in Israel.
Source: "Operation Susannah," Jewish Virtual Library

8. Operation Himmler (1939)

Country Involved: Nazi Germany
Description: Also known as The Gleiwitz Incident, is when German operatives, dressed as Polish soldiers, attacked a German radio station near the border with Poland, and falsely blamed on Polish forces.
Outcome: Used as justification for the invasion of Poland.
Source: "Operation Himmler," WW2 Database

9. The Manchurian Incident (1931)

Country Involved: Japan
Description: Japanese soldiers staged an explosion on a railway in Manchuria and blamed it on Chinese dissidents.
Outcome: Used as a pretext for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
Source: "The Manchurian Incident," Britannica

10. Operation CHAOS (1967-1974)

Country Involved: United States
Description: CIA program aimed at monitoring, infiltrating, and discrediting U.S. organizations considered "subversive," including civil rights groups.
Outcome: Led to illegal surveillance and violation of civil liberties.
Source: "Operation CHAOS," CIA Archives

11. Operation Bumblebee (1950s)

Country Involved: United States
Description: U.S. Navy project that involved faking UFO sightings to cover up missile tests.
Outcome: Created public hysteria over UFOs, diverting attention from military activities.
Source: "Operation Bumblebee," Military Archives

12. Operation Valuable Fiend (1949-1950)

Countries Involved: United States, United Kingdom
Description: CIA and MI6 orchestrated a plan to infiltrate Albania and overthrow its Communist regime, using agents posing as anti-Communist Albanians.
Outcome: The operation failed but was used to justify anti-Communist activities in the region.
Source: "Operation Valuable Fiend," CIA Archives

13. The Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)

Country Involved: United States
Description: CIA-trained Cuban exiles invaded Cuba, aiming to overthrow Fidel Castro. The U.S. initially denied involvement.
Outcome: The invasion failed, leading to a diplomatic crisis.
Source: "Bay of Pigs Invasion," History.com

14. The Mainila Incident (1939)

Country Involved: Soviet Union
Description: The Soviet Union shelled the Russian village of Mainila and blamed it on Finland.
Outcome: Used as a pretext for the Winter War against Finland.
Source: "The Mainila Incident," Winter War Archives

15. Operation Condor (1970s-1980s)

Countries Involved: Several South American countries with U.S. support
Description: A campaign of political repression involving assassinations and intelligence operations, often falsely attributed to leftist groups.
Outcome: Led to the deaths and disappearances of thousands of people.
Source: "Operation Condor," National Security Archive

16. The Nero Decree (1945)

Country Involved: Nazi Germany
Description: A plan to destroy German infrastructure to blame the Allies and demoralize the German population.
Outcome: The plan was never fully executed due to internal opposition.
Source: "The Nero Decree," WW2 Facts

17. Operation Gladio B (1990s-Present)

Countries Involved: United States, NATO countries
Description: An extension of Operation Gladio involving the infiltration and instigation of terrorist activities in Asia, falsely attributed to Islamist groups.
Outcome: Ongoing; details are largely classified.
Source: "Operation Gladio B," The Corbett Report

18. The USS Liberty Incident (1967)

Countries Involved: Israel, United States
Description: Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty, a U.S. Navy ship, during the Six-Day War. Israel claimed it was a case of mistaken identity.
Outcome: Strained U.S.-Israel relations; Israel paid reparations but many questions remain.
Source: "The USS Liberty Incident," Naval History and Heritage Command

19. The Informbiro Period (1948–1955)

Country Involved: Yugoslavia
Description: Yugoslav authorities orchestrated purges and show trials, blaming them on Soviet influence to consolidate power.
Outcome: Strengthened Tito's rule and distanced Yugoslavia from the Soviet Union.
Source: "The Informbiro Period," Encyclopaedia Britannica

20. Operation Washtub (1950s)

Country Involved: United States
Description: A covert CIA operation to plant Soviet arms in Nicaragua to suggest a communist invasion.
Outcome: Unclear, as details remain classified.
Source: "Operation Washtub," CIA Archives

21. The Trust Operation (1921–1927)

Country Involved: Soviet Union
Description: Soviet secret police created a fake anti-Bolshevik organization to identify and arrest opposition members.
Outcome: Successful in arresting and executing many anti-Bolshevik figures.
Source: "The Trust Operation," Soviet Archives

22. Operation Anthropoid (1942)

Countries Involved: Czechoslovakia, United Kingdom
Description: Czech and Slovak soldiers, trained by the British, assassinated SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich. The operation was falsely attributed to local resistance.
Outcome: Led to severe reprisals but boosted Czech morale.
Source: "Operation Anthropoid," BBC History

And that’s just the ones we know about.

Every single one of these stories went through the “Conspiracy Theory” tin-foil hat phase. They are now accepted as history.

What’s the moral of the story?

Governments have done this; they do do this; they will do this to their own people and to their allies to achieve any one of multiple ends.

Passive Facilitation

So far, we have looked at False Flags where the government, via its many instruments, is the perpetrator.

But there is a far more insidious form of False Flag, where a government knowingly allows another entity to attack its own people and then uses that attack to advance its own agenda, such as justifying war or curtailing civil liberties, it is another form of false flag operation. In this scenario, the government may not be directly carrying out the attack, but its complicity or deliberate inaction would make it morally and ethically responsible for the consequences.

In such cases, the government's role would be one of passive facilitation rather than active execution of the attack. This could involve:

Failure to Act: Knowing an attack is imminent and deliberately failing to prevent it.
Misdirection: Providing false or misleading intelligence to divert attention away from the real threat.
Cover-Up: Suppressing information or evidence that could reveal the government's foreknowledge or involvement.
Exploitation: Using the attack as a pretext to implement policies or actions that would otherwise lack public support.
Deception: Misleading the public or international community about the attack's origins or details to provoke a specific reaction.
Manipulation: Covertly encouraging or supporting the attacking entity without direct involvement in the attack.

Do we have known examples of Passive Facilitation?

Well sure we do.

Pearl Harbour is the big one. I’ve written about it here.

The RMS Lusitania is another big one.

Here is a summary of the subject from 180 Degrees again.

Summary of RMS Lusitania Incident
Official Story:
The RMS Lusitania, a British passenger liner, was torpedoed by a German U-Boat on May 7, 1915, during World War I. The attack, which occurred 11 miles off the Irish coast, resulted in the loss of around 1,200 lives, including 128 Americans. The incident was condemned as a "brutal act of wanton slaughter."
Effect:
The sinking shifted U.S. public opinion against Germany and contributed to America's eventual entry into the war.
What Actually Happened:
The British government had funded the Lusitania's construction with the condition that it could be used by the Royal Navy in wartime. Contrary to U.S. law, the ship carried both passengers and munitions, a fact concealed by falsifying the manifest. Edward Grey, Britain's foreign minister, had even discussed the potential impact of such an incident with Edward Mandell House, an advisor to President Woodrow Wilson. The ship was sent into an area known to have U-Boat activity without any escort. A massive secondary explosion ensured the ship sank rapidly.
Additional Points:
1.       The Admiralty, aware of German U-Boat locations, sent the Lusitania into dangerous waters without escort.
2.       Walter Heinz Page, U.S. ambassador to the UK, and King George V had both expressed prescient concerns about the Lusitania being targeted.
3.       An official inquiry allegedly scapegoated William Thomas Turner, the ship's captain.
4.       Salvage attempts in the 1980s found a square hole cut into the ship's side, and its cargo was missing.
Conclusion:
Evidence points to a set-up. Historian Patrick Beesly posits that the incident was not just a random act of enemy aggression but involved internal planning, placing it in a 'Made It Happen On Purpose' category.

There is significant psychological value to False Flags. It’s a high-risk strategy but with a very high return on investment.

The psychological impact of false flag operations can be profound and far-reaching, affecting both individuals and entire communities. Here are some key psychological aspects:
Manipulation of Public Opinion
1.       Fear: False flags can instill a sense of fear and vulnerability, making people more willing to accept restrictive measures for the sake of security.
2.       Anger and Outrage: By framing another group or nation as the perpetrator, false flags can generate anger and calls for retribution.
3.       Unity: In the face of a common enemy or threat, people are more likely to put aside differences and unite.
Political and Social Consequences
4.       Justification for Action: False flags can provide the pretext for military interventions, policy changes, or the curtailing of civil liberties.
5.       Diversion: They can divert public attention away from other issues, such as economic problems or political scandals.
6.       Legitimacy: Governments can use the emotional response to false flags to gain or regain legitimacy, especially if they can "solve" the crisis.
Cognitive Effects
7.       Confirmation Bias: People are more likely to believe information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, making them susceptible to the narratives presented in false flag operations.
8.       Simplification: False flags often present complex issues in a simplified "good vs evil" framework, making it easier for people to process and accept.
Social Cohesion and Identity
12.   Nationalism: False flags can foster a strong sense of national identity and cohesion, especially if the operation is framed as an attack on the nation or its values.
13.   Stereotyping and Prejudice: They can reinforce or create stereotypes and prejudices against particular social, ethnic, or national groups.
The psychological value of false flag operations lies in their ability to manipulate emotions, perceptions, and beliefs, thereby influencing political and social outcomes.

The challenge with False Flags is that they are very hard, almost impossible, to understand and identify in real-time. The general population (including my pre-Covid self) is simply not sufficiently distrustful of government that it would consider a real-time event as a False Flag.

But, as we know, a fake pandemic can create the required level of awakening and distrust so that events can be considered as possibly false in real-time.

The ingredients required to spot a False Flag in real-time are:

Healthy distrust of institutions that are proven serial liars.
Probabilistic thinking.
Fact pattern recognition.

Which brings us to the following checklist that I have compiled. The idea of a checklist I got from 180 Degrees and I have also incorporated a checklist that Greenwood provided in that book into this broader list.

You can download this worksheet to help you score an event’s False Flag likelihood. You might need to wait 1-2 weeks as the information starts coming in before you can assess the situation, calmly and objectively.

Comprehensive Checklist For Gauging The Likelihood Of A False Flag Operation

159KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Comprehensive Checklist for Gauging the Likelihood of a False Flag Operation (including Passive Facilitation)

Here's a simplified and numbered list of the 34 points (in the above pdf) to gauge the likelihood of a false flag operation, along with their respective weighted scores.

Immediate Attribution (4): Quick blame without evidence.
Timing (4): Convenient for a political agenda.
Inconsistencies (5): Conflicting official reports.
High Emotional Impact (3): Strong public emotions.
Drills Occur (5): Simulated drills at the same time.
ID Found (4): Perpetrator's ID at the scene.
CCTV Issues (3): Non-functional CCTV.
Foreknowledge (5): Prior knowledge of the event.
Multiple Shooters (4): More than one shooter.
Eyewitness Accounts (4): Conflicting eyewitness stories.
Media Consistency (3): Uniform media narrative.
Expert Opinions (4): Experts question the narrative.
Historical Context (2): Ignored historical background.
Tampered Evidence (4): Altered photos or videos.
Public Discourse (3): Controlled public opinion.
Social Media Trends (3): Online narrative control.
Rapid Policy Changes (5): Quick policy or military actions.
Transparency (4): Lack of openness.
Standard Protocols (4): Ignored standard procedures.
Links to Intelligence (5): Perpetrator linked to intel services.
Key Witness Suicide (4): Key witness found dead.
Admission by Third Party (4): Unintended admission of guilt.
Physical Evidence (5): Hidden or removed evidence.
Symbology/Numerology (2): Use of symbols or numbers.
Crisis Actors (3): Use of staged witnesses.
Recent Sale (3): Recent sale of involved property.
Insurance Change (3): Recent insurance policy change.
Call for Policy Changes (4): Calls to remove freedoms.
Whistleblowers (4): Insiders question the narrative.
Gut Feeling (2): Something feels off.
Lack of Prevention (5): No effort to prevent the event.
Intelligence Failures (5): Major intel shortcomings.
Inadequate Response (4): Slow or poor response.
Contradictory Statements (4): Conflicting official statements.

You can use this list to quickly assess the likelihood of a false flag operation by assigning each point a score between 0 and the weighted score, based on the evidence you find. Then, sum up the scores for a final assessment.

Scoring Interpretation

0-50: Low likelihood
51-100: Moderate likelihood
101-150: High likelihood
151-200: Very high likelihood

At the risk of stating the obvious, let’s ask:

What do governments have to gain from creating False Flags?

Political Gain:

Justification for War: To create a pretext for military intervention in another country.
Divert Attention: To distract the public from other pressing issues or failures of the government.
Consolidate Power: To create a crisis that allows the government to consolidate power and restrict civil liberties.

Social Engineering:

Manipulate Public Opinion: To sway public opinion in a particular direction, often to gain support for a policy or initiative.
Create Fear: To instill fear in the population, making them more willing to give up freedoms for the promise of security.
Target a Group: To vilify or demonise a particular social, ethnic, or political group.

Economic Interests:

Resource Control: To justify actions aimed at controlling valuable resources in another region.
Economic Gain: To create conditions that benefit certain corporate interests or economic sectors.
Market Manipulation: To influence stock markets, commodity prices, or currency values.

Internal Cohesion:

Nationalism: To foster a sense of nationalism or unity within the country.
Suppress Dissent: To crack down on political opposition or social movements.

International Relations:

Ally Support: To secure support from allied nations for mutual goals.
Discredit International Bodies: To undermine international organisations or agreements that are seen as unfavorable.

Lies are Unbekoming

Discussion about this post