False Flag Terror

Written by James Goad

Complementing a state’s capacity to terrorise its own citizenry are the methods used by its intelligence services and affiliated state institutions to generate a political outcome. Introducing to you the false flag ‘terror’ event.

The term being derived from seventeenth and eighteenth century piratical intrigues on the high seas, its meaning has broadened to include:

  1. Actions from foreign states which are known about in advance and allowed to happen to further the cause of the ‘victim’ state
  2. Events planned by a state on its own citizenry and blamed on one or more patsies
  3. Events planned by the state which not only fake the perpetrators, but also the victims
  4. Events entirely invented by a state to generate support from their citizenry for a particular course of political, economic, or military action

Point number one comprises the ‘let it happen on purpose’ approach. Perhaps the best historical example is the Japanese Empire’s assault on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. After United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt froze Japanese assets in July of that year, cutting the Japanese off from the natural resources it urgently needed, it left the latter in no other position than to attack. Roosevelt cultivated the tensions with the Japanese with the ultimate aim of entering the war and suppressed intelligence reports on the Pearl Harbor attack which were available from intercepted message transcripts. The story is told in John Toland’s ‘Infamy’. Historian David Irving claims to have found correspondence from Churchill also demonstrating his foreknowledge of the attack. Pearl Harbor was the gateway to United States participation in the Second World War, which Roosevelt evidently wanted, despite numerous public protestations to the contrary for years beforehand.

On the second point, this approach appears to be the most common. In a previous article, I’d mentioned the 7/7 attacks on London transport. Four young British Asians were painted as the perpetrators of a horrific attack. To expand on the summary already given, it’s likely these four were young British patriots co-opted into taking part in the live training event already underway on the day. So not only did four young ethnic minority men get the blame for an attack perpetrated by the state, their ethnicity and religion was used to shore up haemorrhaging public opinion during the unfolding foreign policy disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. As it happens, a G8 summit was underway in Scotland. Fancy that. In his initial statement on the attack, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair said, ‘It is important … that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world’. Read the other way round with the state as perpetrator, I’d agree.

There is evidence in support of the third point supporting the notion that the 2017 Westminster Bridge terror attack featured fake perpetrators and victims. The perpetrator, Khalid Masood, was originally misidentified when it turned out that the original individual named responsible was still in prison. Another had to be sought to fit the bill. It is doubtful that a vehicle could have driven along the pavement as Transport for London had shut it off, making it virtually impossible for a car to drive over the barriers to mount the pavement. Unusual angles of the alleged victims made it seem as though dummies were used.

Finally, the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident which escalated United States intervention in Vietnam ultimately turned out to be a fabricated event, or at least a non-event that was ‘sexed up’ to provide a long-intended military intervention in support of U.S. Cold War policy.

It is not yet clear if the ‘assassination’ of Jo Cox in June 2016 was an example of the second or third approach above. Perhaps further research will tease out more facts to understand exactly what happened. At least there can be no doubt that the official story is a nonsense.

There are clearly no lengths a state will not go to achieve a desired outcome. We can extend this view to our collective experience over the last two years. It is surely a natural progression for state institutions, perhaps in competition with each other, to build on decades of public manipulation through successful fabricated, focused scenarios to implementing terror on a nationwide basis. Like an apex predator that has tasted blood, the state will continue the attack until either the victim fights back, or a third party intervenes.

Read more articles from this edition of Free Speech here.

Published by Christopher J. Wilkinson

Company Director of Blacklist Press Ltd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: