The False Flag Paradigm
Hi again ATS,
Like many of you, I have watched an interesting development over the past six or seven months. A cultural shift within our community that has come to
dominate much of the discussion on not just this site, but the Internet at large. It is a dialogue that used to be only part of certain discussions
which has bled over into just about every subject that we deal with her.
Of course I am speaking about the predisposition to see nearly every news worthy event as a “false flag
For those who might not be fully familiar with what the phrase “false flag” means, I offer this snippet from Wikipedia:
False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as
though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried during
peace-time by civilian organisations (sic), as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to
hide the real organisation behind an operation.
The name "false flag" has its origins in naval warfare where the use of a flag other than the belligerent's true battle flag as a ruse de guerre,
before engaging an enemy, has long been acceptable. Such operations are also acceptable in certain circumstances in land warfare, to deceive enemies
in similar ways providing that the deception is not perfidious and all such deceptions are discarded before opening fire upon the enemy.
For awhile I personally suffered from a visceral reaction to these ideas and the people who seek to further them. Having been involved in the
discussion of September 11, 2001 for a number of years I was used to being exposed to some very outlandish beliefs. But to see it happening on such a
large scale really did take me aback. I found myself in a state of feeling deep offence when people would suggest that the victims of tragedies were
not only not
really victims... but were actually actors and frauds ( thus not only negating a tragic death, but inferring that these people are
actually morally bankrupt charlatans )... well it pushed my indignation to ever increasing heights.
Sadly my reaction, and the reaction of others who felt the same way, only served to further the cause of those who pushed the false flag idea. Each
time anyone shows indignation it seems to offer only “proof”, to believers, that they are right. They see all opposition to their beliefs as an
organized attempt to marginalize or silence them. In playing the victim card, in this manner, they fomented a fair amount of support from the
community and their voices became increasingly louder and more resolute. The battle cry of “This must be true because the shills are out in force”
tended to add weight to their claims – bringing sympathy and allies.
Thus, the kind of circular rhetoric that used to be confined to the 9/11 forum, the chemtrail forum, and arguments about whether or not the lunar
landings were faked, suddenly spilled over into the new forums, the current event forums, the general conspiracies forums, and even the light hearted
“off topic” areas of the boards.
For better or for worse, the culture of our community has changed and, for now at least, we live in a world where everything is considered a false
flag. From a shoplifting bust at Wal Mart to, God forbid, airline crashes or natural disasters – all things immediately spawn a “Was this another
false flag” trend of threads. Those are soon followed by “proof” threads that devolve into debates over minutia, usually based upon Youtube
videos and blurry pictures.
Another unfortunate development in all of this is that much of the “evidence” the false flag crowd wishes to offer is of a nature that violates
this sites Terms and Conditions. Many of the people who do promote false flag ideas are respectful of the site rules and do their best to remain
within them ( Kudos to you good folks, by the way ) - but others manipulate this reality to their own ends. They post things that they know
will be removed – solely with the agenda of manufacturing dissent by screaming censorship. They know that ATS will not publicly address why posts or
threads are removed – nor will ATS publish private communications involving these people. So they take that opportunity to write their own false
narratives of what exactly happened... all to create a situation where they can claim that their theories must be true – because TPTB are seeking to
That's right folks. Some of the proponents of the false flag movement are creating their own false flags to further their cause and to confuse the
facts. How messed up is that? Think about it for a few minutes.
In the end much of the argument is based in a sort of “We know that false flags have happened before, therefore it is safe to assume that THIS is
one as well” absolutist approach. An assumption that the possible is probable and then approaching it from there. IMO there is far too much
conformation bias involved. If one is looking for “clues”, with a predisposed notion of what will be found, then that persons eye will inevitably
be drawn to anything and everything that might support their theory, while ignoring all that does not. I believe that, to a large degree, this is
driven by emotion rather than by logic. Sadly this goes hand in hand with being human.
From my personal perspective this situation does have a genesis point. The Aurora, Colorado shootings. From my memory the first truly shocking thing I
can recall reading was a post contending that Aurora was faked and that James Holmes is actually a heroic martyr and the only real
that “faked” event.
My jaw was agape when I read those words. Had a person in my real life spoken such things in my presence I am positive that my reaction would have
been one of pure aggression. Being that this is the Internet my only recourse was to use my keyboard to voice my feelings about what I felt was a
totally inappropriate and shameless insult to the victims of the shooting and their families. To my shock and dismay several people immediately
responded by inferring that I was either a shill, a sheeple, or asleep. An ad-hom attack meant to totally marginalize my opinions. It left a bad taste
in my mouth that remained for a very long time. A taste made much more bitter by having to watch countless others silenced in the same manner.
As of late, that bitter taste has finally gone away – allowing me to try and empathize with those I do not agree with. The subject and the methods
of attack have evolved a bit, but the dialogue, since then, has remained largely the same – just on a much grander scale. This thickened my skin and
numbed me to the rhetoric, allowing me perspective free from personal indignation. Thus, now, I can voice some of my thoughts and opinions without
fearing that I am speaking from a place of emotion and reaction.
edit on 5/5/13 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)