Darwin saw what everyone saw, but thought what nobody thought. – Author unknown1
This is the first part in Barrie Zwicker’s series on false flag operations. The next installment is Maximum Illusion Time.
Part 1: An Introduction
Everyone has seen a False Flag Operation, but few have recognized one. The classic example is 9/11, seen by millions on TV but not recognized for what it really was – a treasonous inside job.
Unlike 9/11 and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin “attack” (that never took place) and the 1933 torching of the Reichstag, the German parliament building, by Hitler (but which he blamed on “the communists”) not all False Flags are both large and brazen. In this series I will try to give some idea of the dizzying array of forms that False Flags take: false flag events, false flag pseudo-events, false flag front organizations and false flag operators. You can barely open a newspaper without seeing the telltale markings of a False Flag – if you know what these markings are.
What all False Flags have in common is that they are deceptions, a category of phenomena too ambitious for this series. But I will argue that historically, materially and politically the False Flag is the most important and damaging type of deception.
The word deception and the concept it describes are familiar because of the fact, again known by everybody, that deceptions abound.
Equally important, if you stop to think about it, is that there’s this well-established word, deception, that names the phenomenon. It has a well-grooved place in our neural pathways. The concept and its emotive and other nuances can be instantly retrieved when we encounter an obvious deception.
In contrast, the term False Flag is not yet widely known. No well-grooved neural pathway leads to a mental storage area.
Additionally, those familiar with the term offer similar but varying definitions of what it means. (The sizable definitional issues will be addressed later in this series.).
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS: WHY SO DEADLY?
False flag operations (we’re dropping the caps now) are the pre-eminent launching pad for wars, the usual smokescreen for assassinations, the all-purpose generator of moral panics, the stock-in-trade of the gigantic spy establishment. Black operations (almost always called “covert operations” – a term that somehow bestows acceptability) are frequently of the false flag variety. (Some black ops are just spying.)
There are explanations for the gross under-use of the term false flag operation, for this black hole in the language that helps keep hidden the reality behind it.
First is that false flag operations are planned and executed in utmost secrecy.
But that’s just the beginning. The initial secrecy fades into relative insignificance compared with the reality that false flag ops are followed up as quickly as possible by elaborate cover-ups, conceived concurrently by the same hidden operators, within the same cocoon of secrecy.
The false flag cover-up is well understood by the perpetrators to be integral to the front-end deception, just as bank robbers arrange to have their getaway car around the corner and the motor running.
But the total operation does not end with the cover-up.
Partly because it is elaborate, the cover-up constitutes a great danger for the perpetrators. Detectives will attest that many major crimes are solved because some aspect of the cover-up has gone awry. A botched cover-up much more commonly leads to the solution of a crime than does, for instance, criminals coming forward to confess.
The insecurity of the cover-up derives in part because it involves many more personnel than the initial operation – hundreds if not thousands compared to just a handful or possibly a few score for the initial operation.
The “need-to-know” principle of clandestine operations increasingly becomes a liability as the “need” factor expands. (Think of the personnel at NIST, at the FAA, at Underwriters Laboratories, at the City of New York, at the Pentagon, in the FBI and on and on, who knowingly have participated, and continue to participate, in the 9/11 cover-up.) Loose lips sink ships, as the Second World War billboards had it. Cover-up activities therefore are a significant Achilles Heel for the perpetrators.
AN ASSEMBLY LINE OF COVER-UPS WITHIN COVER-UPS
Luckily for them, this Achilles Heel is protected by a titanium heel guard in the form of the pre-installed machinery of deception, censorship and other forms of control firmly embedded within the modern national security state. This machinery for covering up their cover-ups now is almost unimaginably vast. Think COINTEL on steroids. Agents of the state are embedded in bureaucracies such as the FBI (essentially a national political police), in the judiciary, local police forces, academia and most importantly within the mainstream media as well as most so-called alternative media – all as gatekeepers.
Serial cover-ups of false flag ops and the cover-ups of those merge to become an ugly tapestry of fake history supporting the world of illusion that surrounds us. It’s as if we’re trapped in a real-life Truman Show. 
To summarize so far:
1 Four walls are erected around a false flag event to ensure as much as possible that as many people as possible will not see it for what it is, immediately or ever. The first wall is comprised of the illusory aspects of the event. The second wall is the initial (but ongoing) cover-up that reinforces the illusion. The third wall is the cover-up of the initial (but ongoing) cover-up. Finally, the fourth wall is the knitting together of current and previous cover-ups through subsequent illicit pilings-on.
2 The perceptual apparatus for seeing false flags to begin with, or seeing the telltale signs of their presence, and for conceiving of their enormity is hobbled by a widespread lack of enabling and thus empowering terminology.
3 It is not an exaggeration to say that the most important factors in human history and our lives – war and peace, life and death, the economy, bread and butter issues and the environment – have been, and continue to be, impacted with extreme negative prejudice by false flag operations, their cover-ups, and the ongoing blanket of covered-up cover-ups.
If all this seems too large a leap to imagine, consider lesser but still important realities through history that were unthinkable. One, that the Earth circles the sun, was officially and unofficially squelched from 270 BCE until past 1633, the year Galileo was convicted of “grave suspicion of heresy”  because he differed with the accepted perception, which was that the sun circled the Earth.
In the contemporary world consider just one category of reality that does not exist for most people because of the effective non-existence of a term to describe the reality. That term is “violence against men.” To be viable a term has to be on offer, to be widely used. When and where and how often have you encountered the term “violence against men?”
Everyone’s brain responds in milliseconds – emotionally and with images – to the commonly heard term “violence against women.” And rightly so, in the main. But hardly anyone ever thinks about a much larger category: violence against men. This is because no recognized “word slot” has been promoted and accepted for us to begin to store even the fundamental data within this category of reality. That reality is that for every woman who dies violently at least two men do. 
The effectively non-existent terminology includes men killed in wars (which they are in greater numbers than are women – and which, amazingly, are deleted from most tallies of violent deaths when those of men and women are being compared).
There are very legitimate reasons for treating male and female violent deaths differently, starting with the important as well as emotionally laden reality that more men kill women than women kill men, in war and peace, in both absolute and relative terms.
But does this justify there effectively existing no mental shelf or folder, no term for use generally, for identifying and storing data about the much more widespread phenomenon of violence against men?
The movement for women’s rights did not gain serious traction until the phrase “women’s rights” gained currency and enabled the concept to be discussed, so that the actions needed to win those rights could become thinkable – a prelude to them becoming reality.
WE UNDER-ESTIMATE THE POWER OF LANGUAGE AT OUR PERIL
The perpetrators of false flag operations are acutely aware of the importance of language. It is not just by the natural evolution of language that the term “the terrorist attacks of 9/11” has become the commonest descriptor – used almost universally on billions of occasions – of the treasonous criminal inside job of 9/11, which by no reasonable logic or linguistic rule could be called “an attack.” That compact descriptor contains the DNA of the 9/11 Big Lie, pre-defined by Mikhail Bakunin in a little-known phrase as “the propaganda of the act.” 
If one side of the 9/11 defining phraseology coin is inscribed “the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001” the flip side should be inscribed “inside job” or “false flag operation.” But insofar as they can control the language, the perpetrators of false flag ops and their enablers and accomplices will do all in their considerable powers to render stillborn any word or phrase making linguistically available an alternative accurate descriptor for their deadly deceptions.
It’s relevant that the title of one of the best-researched and most insightful books on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by Canadian James Douglass.  The key word here is “unspeakable.”
For the term “false flag operation” to become ever more widespread – as is slowly happening – as a clear and meaningful mental category, will be very injurious to the perpetrators of false flag ops and their ongoing agenda. They must exert birth control over truthful politically relevant terminology. Perhaps the most effective prophylactic developed by the masterminds of psychological warfare regarding 9/11 and other false flag ops is the thought spermicide “conspiracy theorist,” otherwise known as a language bomb. 
It is not for nothing that we speak of “language tools.” Without the words, we cannot think the thoughts they denote. Thus the concept of the “power of naming.” Which in turn enables us to conceive of the power of the prevention of naming.
To further set the stage for this series on false flag operations consider just one of the many psychological issues surrounding them. That issue is perception, or more exactly perceptions: in the case of 9/11 the most calculated and damaging view of 9/11Truthers held from outside, and then the commonest view of 9/11 Truthers from inside the 9/11Truth movement. These views vie and interact.
SOME TRICKS OF ONE 9/11TRUTH DENIER
Start only with criticisms trotted out against 9/11Truthers by 9/11Truth Deniers and then only one of these criticisms. (Truthers’ self characterizations will be dealt with in Part 10 of the series.) On December 10th, 2009, then Globe and Mail leftwing columnist Rick Salutin wrote an opinion pieced headed “Climategate’s Not Evil. It’s Just Unhinged.” 
His peg was the hysteria generated around that time by those in the climate change-denying lobby. They’d found a few political paragraphs in a huge database of otherwise scientific emails. After taking to task these climate change deniers, Salutin goes on to generalize in a negative way about those he says think their cause is the most important cause. In the third paragraph, he writes:
Now extend onto less average terrain and you get the “truthers,” who say 9/11 was a U.S. government plot masked by myths of hijacked planes; and the “birthers,” who insist that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. I use both since they are taken to represent the left and the right. I think it’s worth hearing their arguments but, when you do, you sense that nothing anyone says can shake them. This is symptomatic of non-medical craziness.
Those university climate scientists have been accused of betraying science for politics, but they’re also human, and human beings are political. They weren’t betraying science, they were pursuing politics, and politics can make you crazy. One sign of this is that people with a passionate political cause often think all those who disagree with them are crazy (or evil). Another: They believe their issue is uniquely critical to the future or to survival.
A number of observations are in order. First Salutin’s wrongly lumping together two “Truther” communities as if they’re the same.  It’s a version of “the myth of symmetry.”
Second is the way he self-servingly positions himself as a rational (read superior) observer above it all, who adopts the self-advantageous “plague on both your houses” stance.
Third is what I would characterize from this column – as well as from the body of his opinions for more than a decade – as either insincerity (“I think it’s worth hearing their arguments”) or extreme inattentiveness to the massive evidence available to him regarding 9/11, or both. It need hardly be pointed out here that Salutin has been and remains a reliable 9/11Truth left gatekeeper.
He doesn’t use “obsessed” as a single word description of “non-medical craziness” but he might as well have. Others in tune with his stance have done so. One of the finest tributes, in my opinion, to my book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 was an offhand put-down by Martin Levin, books editor of The Globe and Mail. Levin wrote that Towers “is an often entertainingly obsessive rant.”
So this is the first psychological hinge point I want us to consider. Outsiders (this takes in a wide variety of people from immediate family members to the likes of Jonathan Kay, author of the book-length hit piece Among the Truthers) tend to seize on our relative single-mindedness and treat it as a flaw. “Non-medical craziness” isn’t the worst put-down lobbed in our direction.
It’s the case that obsession generally has a bad rep. Deservedly so when it involves a narrow and destructive passion, such as exhibited by a stalker.
THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF OBSESSION
But consider: Important achievements in science, literature, politics, religion and sports are generally if not usually associated with individuals or teams that are focused, dedicated, determined, persistent, single-minded, even obsessed. Especially – often by self-declaration – obsessed. As Barbra Streisand said: “I’ve been called many names like perfectionist, difficult and obsessive. I think it takes obsession, takes searching for the details, for any artist to be good.”Or as Margueritte Harmon Bro put it: “Many people are inventive, sometimes cleverly so. But real creativity begins with the drive to work on and on and on.”
So one of many language and psychological tasks facing 9/11Truthers is rehabilitation and elevation of the meaning of obsessive associated with single-minded determination into a positive. We know we’re not closed-minded. Rather it’s those who won’t give the time of day to any of the evidence we have assembled who are closed-minded. They seem obsessed with not knowing.
Now to relative importance. Many – no make that most – people, including members of our own families, close friends or just acquaintances, see causes other than 9/11Truth as being the most important in their lives. In my own case I have family and friends who hold spirituality, animal rights, the environment, Canadian independence and anti-corporatism as their most important, judging by their words and actions.
I support most of them morally and at times with energy and money.
Currently I’m involved in a project to preserve and make available the history of progressive communities of all hues. My attitude is: if someone’s marching in the same general direction as I am, that’s great. And it’s not so bad when someone I’d hoped would espouse 9/11Truth declines. What is unacceptable is being attacked for pursuing 9/11Truth or for just questioning the official narrative.
A revolutionary cause, it has been said, requires only 10 per cent support from the population to succeed, even if 90 per cent stand aside. It’s the enemies of a worthy cause, and the mode of their operations, that we must pay close attention to.
This is why, in this series, five of 12 parts focus upon enemies of 9/11Truth and by extension enemies of the truth of false flag operations.
1 The author of the series cannot currently identify the author of the quotation. Information welcomed.
2 Selected from the Wikipedia entry on this movie
[a] Ronald Bishop of Sage Journals Online thought The Truman Show showcased the power of the media. “In the end, the power of the media is affirmed rather than challenged. In the spirit of Antonio Gramsci‘s concept of hegemony, these films and television programs co-opt our enchantment (and disenchantment) with the media and sell it back to us.”
[b] Utopia: Parallels [with The Truman Show] can be drawn from Thomas More‘s 1516 book Utopia, in which More describes an island with only one entrance and only one exit. Only those who belonged to this island knew how to navigate their way through the treacherous openings safely and unharmed. This situation is similar to The Truman Show because there are limited entryways into the world that Truman knows. Truman does not belong to this utopia into which he has been implanted, and childhood trauma rendered him frightened of the prospect of ever leaving this small community. Utopian models of the past tended to be full of like-minded individuals who shared much in common, comparable to More’s Utopia and real-life groups such as the Shakers and the Oneida Community. It is clear that the people in Truman’s world are like-minded in their common effort to keep him oblivious to reality. The suburban “picket fence” appearance of the show’s set is reminiscent of the “American Dream” of the 1950s. The “American Dream” concept in Truman’s world serves in an attempt to keep him happy and ignorant.
3 Based on his book Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems), which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822.) In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned.
4 A United Nations poster text reads: “Each year more than 1.6 million people worldwide lose their lives to violence. For everyone who dies as a result of violence, many more are injured and suffer from a range of physical, sexual, reproductive and mental health problems. Violence is among the leading causes of death for people aged 15-44 years worldwide, accounting for about 14% of deaths among males and 7% of deaths among females in that age group.[My bold ital.] Because it is so pervasive, violence is often seen as an inevitable part of the human condition.”
An Internet search will show how difficult, even in a world drenched with data, to find basic stats on the ratio of male violent deaths compared with female violent deaths. Virtually all of the hits found by entering “violence against men” in a Google search deal only with domestic violence. Violent deaths in war, overwhelmingly male, are hidden away like the proverbial needle in a haystack. For instance the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention leave out war, apparently, as seen in this excerpt, in which the numbers literally do not add up:
“Globally, more than nine people die every minute from injuries or violence—that’s 5.8 million people of all ages and economic groups who die each year from both unintentional and violence related injuries. […] The three leading causes of injury and violence-related deaths are road traffic incidents (1.3 million), suicides (844,000), and homicides (600,000).”
At Worldmapper we read: “The violent deaths shown here are homicide (murder and manslaughter), but exclude deaths due to war. In 2002 over half a million people died violent deaths.”
But even in the sad category of domestic violence it appears true that 61% of men treated in emergency rooms for injuries suffered in domestic violence are men, and 39% women. From
“Some indication of the disparity between men and women concerning their relative likelihood of reporting violent victimizations can be gleaned from medical emergency room records. For example, in 1994, the majority (61%) of hospital emergency room patients treated for intimate-violence-related injuries were men, while nearly half as many (39%) were women. Yet, the vast majority (more than 90%, according to some authorities) of the reports to authorities of violent victimizations by intimates were made by women.
“If, as all the reliable data suggests (see above), males are at least as likely to be victims of domestic abuse as females are, yet only 10% of those who choose to report the incident to authorities are male, then we must conclude not only that women are more willing than men to report the incident to authorities when they are abused, but that women are about 9 times more likely than men to report when they have been victims of abuse. The survey research tends to corroborate the hypothesis that women are indeed 9 times more likely than men to report it to police when they have been assaulted by their spouses.
“What evidence there is suggests that most men have to be very severely injured before they will even consider reporting an incident or threat of domestic abuse to the authorities. And even then, it is doubtful that they will. Unlike most women, it would not even cross most men’s minds to report their partners to authorities or take any other kind of legal action because they have been pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped or had their hair pulled. And unlike most women, most men do not choose to make a report even after they have been so severely wounded that they have to be transported to the hospital in an ambulance – or indeed, even after they have had their penises lopped off.”
The same site provides 78 reasons for under-reporting domestic violence against men.
5 Although usually attributed to the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, Wikipedia correctly notes:
One of the first individuals to conceptualise propaganda by the deed was the Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane (1818–57), who wrote in his “Political Testament” (1857) that “ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around.” Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), in his “Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis” (1870) stated that “we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda.”
The phrase propaganda by the deed was popularized by the French anarchistPaul Brousse (1844–1912). In his article of that name, published in the August 1877 Bulletin of the Jura Federation, Brousse cited the 1871 Paris Commune, a workers’ demonstration in Bern provocatively using the socialist red flag, and the Benevento uprising in Italy as examples of “propaganda by the deed.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
7 The phenomenon of “language bombs,” otherwise known as thought-stoppers, designed to destroy the emergence of important language tools such as false flag operations, will be dealt with in this series. In the bunkerbuster category of language bombs is “conspiracy theorist.”
9 This lumping together trick is trotted out by almost all 9/11Truth Deniers. One of the most egregious examples is Jonathan Kay and his book Among the Truthers: A Journey into the Growing Conspiracist Underground of 9/11Truthers, Birthers, Armageddonites, Vaccine Hysterics, Hollywood Know-Nothings and Internet Addicts. Kay evidently had second thoughts about his sub-title, as the original is hard to find, being replaced by A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground. One gets well into the second page of Google hits before one can find the original s ub-title.
An author’s note: Why write about false flags?
“Why?” is the most important of “The Five W’s” of journalism – who, what, when, where, why. “Why this series?” is a fair question for readers to ask of the author.
The simple answer is that I’ve come to believe that false flag operations are the single most effective and therefore dangerous ruse of rulers to trigger wars, get away with assassinating domestic enemies and other crimes.
Then why, in turn, have I come to believe this? The answer is less simple. A blend of factors have led me to my present worldview.
Which is that the main reason peace (whatever your definition of it may be) does not prevail on Earth is because forces that benefit from conflict and war hold the balance of power and perhaps always have. While the majority of people have always wanted peace, the forces that benefit from conflict and war have been successful in tricking the majority into supporting wars. The rulers’ main weapon is deception, and their deceptions have become increasingly sophisticated.
From an early age I took it for granted that world peace was the ultimate cause. My father was a United Church clergyman. “Prince of Peace” was the description of Jesus he most used. This goal has remained with me but paradoxically, because I’ve been obliged to revise my understandings of how the world works, has also taken a back seat.
The paradox rests on the hard-won understanding that we cannot achieve lasting peace without justice. And that we cannot achieve justice without securing truth.
Therefore it’s not logical to seek peace directly. Peace not based on justice, and justice not based on truth, will not last. Truth is the necessary prerequisite beginning for the two that follow. Truth is foundational. After truth becomes known – in any situation from the intimately personal to the vast historical – paths open that can lead to lasting peace. One path is justice. Another path is reconciliation. It’s relevant that South Africans established a Truth & Reconciliation Commission. They left out justice.
The first factor that propelled me toward my current understandings was an instinctive skepticism from about the age of 12. The second factor was the Cold War from which I was alienated from the beginning. I became suspicious of conventional thinking, of “invisible axioms” that “everyone” believed, usually without being able to explain why. Or if they explained they were obviously parroting the official line. Third I was drawn to journalism, in which I was paid to “dig, dig, dig.”
I clung, however, to the goal and dream of peace for most of my life, marching in peace parades and promoting a peace agenda many other ways. It was not until my deeper studies of communications and of political power opened my eyes that I saw that marching for peace was destined to fail so long as the majority of people could be persuaded that war after war had to be supported.
Without consciously setting about to do it, I began a search for the truth about who starts wars, and why, and how they start them, and how they extend them, and how they profit from postwar reconstruction just as they do from the wars, and how these war-supporting forces have perfected a “mightly Wurlitzer” of false notes that plays pro-war lies nonstop. Being inside the media from age 15 to the present helped. I then turned, in 1970, to media criticism. At first I dwelt on mis-used words, then missed stories, then to decision-making in the media, then to the ownership structure. This led me to the existence of the ultra-rich, ultra-privileged, ultra-powerful of the world, the network of oligarchies that I dubbed the Diaboligarchy and finally to the Diaboligarchy’s deepest secret: the false flag operation.
War makes me angry and sad and frustrated. Especially now that I know that mainly invisible Western forces are driving the killing in Syria, for instance, as they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. It makes me angry and sad and frustrated to anticipate a false flag operation in which Iran will be blamed for god-knows-what to justify a horrible attack on Iran by Israel and the USA. Most of the mainstream evening TV news makes me angry and sad and frustrated, because there’s little digging but much acceptance of “invisible axioms.”
My personal motivations include the future of my grand-daughter and the death of my wife’s father (that I wrote about in my reflections on Remembrance Day for Truth and Shadows).
Something I did not include in that piece was what happened after a seven-year-old girl living in Owen Sound, Ontario, learned in 1945 that her father Charlie had been killed in the Second World War while serving in the Canadian Army in Holland. She learned it by hearing her mother wailing as she approached their home for lunch. She knew right away what that meant. What happened was that in the middle of that night she sleep-walked for the first and only time in her life. Her mother and grandmother found her on a road called The Goat Path – searching for her lost Dad. That girl became my wife.
My emotions spilled over the last time I visited Charlie’s grave, in the summer of 2005, at the immaculate Canadian war cemetery near Nijmegen, Holland. I was alone. I hugged his gravestone and sobbed. It was a spontaneous reaction for which I am not in the least embarrassed. It’s also a reaction I have analyzed. My grief was and is for Charlie himself, 36 when he was cut down days before war’s end. It’s for his family, his widow who was left to raise a family alone for many years until she finally remarried. It’s for my wife. It’s for the millions of others – soldiers and civilians, even children as young as my wife was, or younger — who have been blasted to smithereens, gone spiraling down from the sky, drowned grievously wounded in muddy ditches, been mowed down by machine guns to fall back into graves they themselves had been forced to dig.
Why this series? It’s fuelled by anger. Come to think of it, that’s not the why. It’s the what.