Thanks, DC. I've been looking forward to a discussion like this.
To start with, I have to agree that ATS is a small fish. That is understood and any attempt to over-glorify our position in the world would be pretty
arrogant. Having stated that, how important are two genes? How important is one quart of oil in your engine? How important is two degrees Fahrenheit
when trying to boil or freeze water?
I firmly believe that ALL things become part of a collective consciousness, or a collective reality. It would be just as silly to deny OUR influences
on each other and the world as it would be to assert that influence as more important than anyone else's.
We have to KNOW that we are part of webbot and other unknown and very classified systems of information gathering, classification and reporting. We
are part of the 'alternate viewpoint' crowd, that as a commander, or leader, one would HAVE to be aware of. Governments, though they seem to fly in
the face of it, have read history books as well. A small number of people can, when working together, have a huge impact on the operation of any
system. If I were a leader of this country, or responsible for supplying intelligence to him, I can guarantee you that there would be bots scouring
this site regularly as well as others to pick out things that may be of interest or concern.
Now the interesting part. The original question, as I would interpret it was whether our through DISCUSSIONS of potential false flags, or even REAL
operations for that matter, they could be delayed, prevented or somehow changed merely by them being a debate in our collective.
This is as deep pychologically as any subject I have ever encountered on this site.
If a group of leaders' advisors, let's just call them a 'think tank' for now is responsible for collecting and analyzing information and then
reporting to those leaders, they would certainly be remiss if they discounted ideas of patriots, scientific and philisophical giants, spiritual
evolutionists, stargazers, astronomers, videographers, mathmeticians, sociologists and common citizens. There is just such a community of non-paid,
but highly skilled and dedicated individuals right here on ATS.
Recap. The leaders MUST use information available. There is a wealth of expertise and understanding right here.
This is the point where it becomes more of a poker game. If I had ever been able to PLAY poker successfully, I'm sure I would understand it a little
better. I think that a little bit of human nature comes in to play and you'll have to forgive me, as the only human nature I am almost intimately
familiar with is my own.
If you tell me I am going to go to the store in ten minutes and buy me a Dr. Pepper, (yum) I may in fact WANT a Dr. Pepper, but what I DON'T want is
YOU telling me when I am going to have one. I will either wait until ten minutes and four seconds, or I will leave now and get it before. There are
few things I hate more than someone trying to tell me exactly what I'm going to do, whether they are right or not. I f you tell me there is something
that you ABSOLUTELY KNOW about me, then I will try my damnedest to prove you wrong. I'm just a prick that way. In this regard, I don't know if my
human nature lines up with anyone else's, but again, it's all I know.
A leader, being human, would have to, I'm sure, turn away from some of the more selfish things that dominate the human experience. Some have not, and
have paid the price. He would at least need to disguise them a little better, or increase the violence with which he rules. It would be arrogant of me
to assume that a leader of a great nation would have any of the limitations internally that I have nurtured for so long, that's why I'm not the
I am overly simplistic sometimes. To ME, if I was in charge and my think tank told me that on September 13th the CTs are claiming an impending
false-flag, I would change my plans if they had been for that date. To allow it to happen would lend credence to this group of people that I have
tried so hard to discredit. Their following would increase and the problems inherent in their free speech would increase. By ignoring their claims and
continuing my false flag as planned, they have become prophets. There can be no prophetic leaders in my nation unless they are working for me.
By moving the date a week or so, or a month, or scrapping those plans altogether and adopting another, there is no risk that the legitimacy of my
false flag will have been compromised. For all of our complexities, I think that in times of dispute, or difficulty, or thinking becomes more
simplistic. As we gain more time to make a decision, or options are explored further.
As an example: (This is hypothetical, bots, so bite me.) I'm the leader of a great nation. I am planning a false flag to rally my people, even though
I am corrupt. My approval ratings have slipped, my people are angry at the increased spending and lack of attention to their voices. My intention is
to destroy a large ship on August 26th and leave evidence and make statements to pin the blame on a country whose religious and social ideologies are
far from those shared by my people, thus making a convincing enemy. It's a week ahead of time and my think tank reports that someone has predicted
just such an attack and has even got the date right. To preserve my leadership, I add about 26 days to the target and change the large ship to a
building. Problem solved. I remain in control and the insightful CT is discredited and his following neutralized before they have become a problem.
Since I am the leader of a nation, with trillions of my citizens' taxes to spend, I can change my plans on a whim. It's only YOUR money after all.
To make it easier for me, when I plan my false flags now, I have twelve scenarios and choose the one least discussed. This seems like a lot of
trouble, but again, it's only YOUR money and I can't have anyone interfering with my plans.
Do I think it's possible that our discussions could prevent false flags? Yeah, I do, to a certain extent. But the solution becomes obvious when
it's looked at from that angle.
We just have to spend a lot of time coming up with and discussing every false flag we could conceive of and that would limit the governments'
ability to perpetrate one.
Easy enough right? Ok, Well, I guess when you put it that way, it might sound a little silly.