False Flags, Including Domestic Ones.  When Should Citizens Be Angry?

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

It is excellent to have at our disposal the list of 42 “admitted to” false flags provided by Infowars.com. It brings together many reports of governmental figures admitting that actions loudly blamed on B were really done by A. That certainly beats hurling the label “conspiracy theorist” at any person who observes that a particular official story is full of beans.

Allow me to sort the List of 42 into three different types. We’ll also consider the evolutionary explanation for this age-old behavior. And then raise the question: are these operations acceptable? If not, what to do?

Your Classic False Flag: Type 1

Type 1 is the classic false-flag arrangement. Nation A wants to hurt Nation B. It dresses up as B and commits an atrocious act. This triggers a war, or justifies some other punishment of B.

Most false flags on the admitted-to list (which is not exhaustive) are Type 1’s. The example given as #1 by Infowars  is that of Japan wrecking train tracks in 1931, blaming it on the Chinese, and thus justifying action against the Chinese.

Another example, not on the list but for which the FBI has publicly admitted involvement, is the 1993 bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center. It was done by the US, but blamed on Islamic extremists, for the purpose of justifying many later acts against Middle Eastern countries. Classic, no?

A variation on Type 1 involves a third nation. Nation A, dressed up as B, attacks Nation C. The point might be to smear B falsely, as in Type 1. Thus, in example #15, when the US attacked Trinidad and blamed it on Cuba, it had no real interest in the harming of Trinidad. The point was to add to the legend of Cuba as dangerous aggressor. Hence, a classic false flag operation.

Framing, For the Purpose of Escaping Blame: Type 2

Type 2 is a false flag where the need is for Nation A to be able to do something it wants to do to Nation B, and never get caught. Stalin killed 14,000 Polish soldiers of which 8,000 were army officers in the Katyn Forest in 1940. Why? Because those men were likely to pose a challenge later. Yet the USSR pinned the blame on Nazi Germany (and the US assisted by saying “Yep, Germany did it.”)

Mary Maxwell at Katyn Memorial in Adelaide

So for both Types 1 and 2, it is the purpose of the action that characterizes the categories that I am modeling here. Repeat: in Type 2 the plan is not to draw Nation B into war.  It is to commit a crime and walk free, as it were. It still pays to call it a false flag (though it is more like classic patsy-creation).

As was pointed out by Andrea, commenting on Dalia’s article “Admissions of Past Terror Attacks,”  it helps simply to let people see that one nation may carry out an act and blame another. We shouldn’t exclude the term “false flag attack” just because the purpose might be concealment of one’s acts. It is a helpful concept that the public should get to know (9-11 being the biggie, biggie, biggie).

Agents Provocateurs and/or Central Casting: Type 3

Now for Type 3. The defining characteristic here is that the false flag occurs within the domestic society. We are not talking about two nations, but about the dominant group, usually the governing elite, versus another domestic entity, be it a racial minority or a political opposition.

The “flagging” consists of the upper group labeling an act of the lower group as bad. To qualify as a false flag, the top men have to pull off a scenario in which the low-men look like they have done something wrong and should be clobbered by the law.

Here’s an example, #29. In Genoa, to prepare for the G-8, in 2001, police arranged a fake stabbing of an officer, to justify whacking the protestors. Many peaceful protestors of G-8 were dragged to jail and tortured. In Italy!  Journalists got especially brutalized. See Mark Colvert’s case. Italy’s Ministry of the Interior ended up paying him about a third of a million pounds compo.

Another example of Type 3 from the List, #38, is that Colombia admits to having killed 57 of its citizens and then dressed in them in the garb of rebels, to justify a crackdown. It might be handy to call this “central casting,” as a subdivision of Type 3 false flag.

Note how imaginative the whole game can get. In the Genoa case, the protestors were not armed at all. In the Colombian case there were no actual rebels at all; Colombia’s authorities simply conjured up the whole event (and then killed 57 people).

A subcategory of Type 3 has to do with the almost ubiquitous gig today, in which the police create a situation that the parliament will duly recognize as calling for draconian laws. Gumshoe News has given prominence to this issue. (See, for example, the preceding article about Cameron in the UK.)

But the Purpose of Type 3 Can Be More Complicated

In the apartheid days of the US (so to speak), crimes were often pinned on African Americans. The purpose, as in Type 2 above, was — at least occasionally — that someone wanted to commit a crime, walk free, and get a conviction of someone who was legally helpless (as blacks were).

More often, I think, the point was to kick black people around, lest they become a force beneficial to society, and hence a threat to the elite. (Certainly Malcolm X had to go, for this reason.) And the whites needed to be kept busy worrying that they might get mugged, as this took eyes off the real issues of the day.

I don’t have a name for this subcategory of Type 3 false flag. Let us just be aware that it is well within the resources of a ruling group to make a minority look bad. (See Lawrence Dunegan, MD’s report, from the 1969 Dr Day talk, about this sort of thing as standard manipulation of society.)

Minor Flaws in the List of Admitted-to False Flags

I have a few criticisms of the Infowars list, but believe me they are picayune.  Their #20 example is about Germany framing a prisoner for a crime by planting “escape tools” on him. To me, that’s just a frame-up. Think Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, the Unabomber, etc. Call it a frame-up or patsy-creation. No need to list it as false flag.

Also, I think #33 on the List does not meet the stated criterion of “admission by an official or participant.” It is simply a report published by United Press International. You may say that UPI, along with AP and Reuters, is the government. It’s no doubt World Government, but regs are regs.

By the way, the most unexpected item on the list is the one about John Yoo, #32. (No, not in regard to torture; it seems he is a man of many parts, but we can save that discussion for another day.)

Where Is EO Wilson When You Need Him?

Much more should be taught in schools as to our evolutionary past and, hence, our phylogeny. The traits reflected in the three types of false flag-making are quite easily explained by the unique evolution of Homo sapiens. These traits include: a need to hate a foreign group (Type 1), a need to get away with crime (Type 2), and plain old hierarchy formation (Type 3).

The first trait, the hating of foreign groups, has been explained by sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe as “the failure to include strangers under the umbrella of altruism.” I am sure that’s correct – although the emotion looks more like ‘positive’ hostility.

We enjoy hating our enemy, or even our rival.  I see no end to one group conquering another, and if they can use false flags to do so, they will.

As for the second trait, escaping blame, this is essential, and we all do it. The control that society used to have over us in pre-modern times was ordinary “social control.” This is best conducted by expressing disapproval, or anger, at wrongdoers.

It still matters, as we can see by the lengths to which some some people go, to cover up their sins.

Regarding the third evolved trait, hierarchy-formation, some species of social mammals have a strong hierarchy. What each individual needs for his own survival are resources. This leads to competition, and so to dominance of one individual over others. In humans it brings about the forming of alliances and social classes.

It pays to be a member of a class, as the whole group will fight for its rights. That includes the elite group. (Today the elites have whole armies of Tavistockians working for them to deceive the masses. They have become so adept at setting up domestic “terrorists” as false-flags that it has become ludicrous!)

So Do I Condone the Whole Kit and Caboodle?

What to do? We can speak of bastards (pardon my French). Finding out that the bastards in one’s own society have done horrible things should naturally engender anger and lead to punishment. Thus it is useful to make clear the big distinction: false flags that are weapons of war in enemy contests, or false flags that occur in domestic society. The latter are treasonous.

Here is a case that really stinks. According to #37 on the List, Egypt looted precious cultural treasures in its own land in order to blame that behavior on “protestors.” Wow, this needs to be dealt with!

The sociobiologist in me says: Mary, dear, don’t even bother to tell nations they should stop competing with one another. It is not going to happen. But there is every reason to say we shouldn’t condone power-wars in our respective societies!

It’s time we got around to making laws, even if only from the lips of the folks (a sort of default procedure when a legislature has copped out). Here’s such a People’s Law law: “Any member of government caught doing this outrageous business gets put in the stocks.”

Being in the wooden stocks is a stress position; it also involves hunger and humiliation. Not really all that bad, but the public gets to watch and have their adoration of government dented a bit. We are way too adoring of “Daddy.” That is yet another phylogenetic problem.

Also, concentrating on due process to a needle-in-a-haystack degree has got to go. “White shoe law firms” need to be driven out of business by a week from Thursday. Law was not meant to be a shield for the guilty, though it has amazingly become so today. We can turn this around.

What To Do Immediately

Thank God for the term “false flag.” With it, we can see what’s going on. It is a standard weapon of war, and as I have argued, it will remain so. You try to make your enemy look bad. Fine. Congratulations. But when social classes or political groups get away with doing this sort of thing domestically, it mustn’t be tolerated. Already it is undoing much of our established laws and rights.

So who is going to turn things around?  I say let’s give up on couch-potatoes. The adult public is so resigned to these things it is pathetic. We knowingly let pollies use psy-war on us, painting the wrong persons as the baddies.

How about we throw the issue at the kids, the high-schoolers?

Invite any and all 16- and 17-year-olds to figure out how to solve the problem of “domestic false-flag syndrome.”

It’s not as if the young can’t track down the last three centuries of political philosophy and law in the library. They can.

I wager they can easily figure out what to do about Martin Place and 9-11 and the Underwear Bomber and all sorts of things, if they are asked to think about it. Just give them a pad of paper (yes, paper as in paper), a couple of hours, and no TV, no radio, no Internet, no cell phone.

They can discover their long lost medulla oblongata. It is better than sex and they will thank you for showing it to them.

Let it start happening right now, before it’s too late. I’m not being a silly old Cassandra. These young lives are in danger and the young had better start to care for themselves since we are doing such a lousy job of it.

Have a fresh look at Port Arthur. Thirty-five Aussies shot dead in a restaurant. Pure, unadulterated false flag, Type 3.

— Mary W Maxwell welcomes you at her website (unless you’re grounded, as just described) at ProsecutionForTreason.com.