by Home home
nothing of the sort. It has framed any questioning of the
state's narratives within strict boundaries. The only
legitimate concerns relate to potential failures to 'stop' the
terrorists. Any further questions are eschewed.
61
A Dangerous Ideology
Governmental inquiries, also examining possible 'failures of
intelligence,' have been convened. Were the secret service
asleep on the job? On every occasion, these 'investigations'
have reassured us this was not the case. Though some
things could have been done better, the real problem
consistently seems to have been a lack of resources in the
face of the scale of the threat. Invariably requiring more tax
payer funding, in order for the military industrial intelligence
complex to 'keep us safe.'
Another common theme has been to consider what various
communities could have done to alert the intelligence
agencies to the threat. This has led to calls for the Muslim
community, in particular, to 'do more.'
Salman Abedi, the 22 year old who allegedly killed 22
concert goers in the UK’s Manchester Arena on the 22nd of
May 2017 was repeatedly highlighted as a potential threat by
members of his own community, and even his own family.
Abedi supposedly hung Islamist extremist flags out of his
bedroom window. His Imam, family and friends all reported
his extremist views and worsening behaviour to the
authorities.[59] Unfortunately, as ever, due to a lack of
resources, the security services were unable to ‘keep us
safe.’
An unfortunate consequence of the 'us vs them' narrative,
incessantly reported in the mainstream media, seems to
have been the rise of purportedly influential 'far right'
activists like Stephen Yaxley Lennon. Also known as Tommy
Robinson.
Rarely out of the headlines, Robinson's finger pointing,
blaming Muslims for pretty much everything, has
undoubtedly contributed to increased division and tension
between communities. Robinson is just one of many
prominent, 'far right' talking heads.
On both sides of the Atlantic, these 'hated' extremists have
no difficulty at all in regularly appearing in and on the
media. It's almost as if there is some sort of concerted effort
to use 'divide and rule' as a means of controlling public
opinion. Just as with every exploration of mistakes, failings
and unintended consequences, so the 'far right' Muslim
62
A Dangerous Ideology
'blame game' is based upon the assumption of Islamist
extremist's unilateral crimes.
So it seems odd that the 'conspiracy theorists,' who
fundamentally reject this view, should also be labelled 'far
right.' Though many prominent 'conspiracists' would relish
the opportunity to publicly challenge the far right's 'hate all
Muslims' gibberish, unlike the neo-fascists, not a single one
of them can get anywhere near the mainstream media.
While these conspiracists acknowledge the possible role of
Islamist extremists in carrying out terrorist atrocities, they
suggest the picture is far more complex than the simple
black and white explanations promoted by the likes of
Robinson and his mainstream media backers.
In regard to 9/11 and 7/7 they contend the evidence firmly
indicates that any Islamist terrorist involvement was directed
by Western deep state operatives. Further, the attacks could
not have proceeded as we are told without assistance. Both
the attacks themselves, and the subsequent accounts given
to the public, were carefully orchestrated to ensure Islamist
extremism was perceived as the sole cause. Thereby
providing the excuse, and necessary public support, to wage
an endless war with an unseen enemy. All for shareholder
profits and political control.
If this is true then the intelligence services must have been
deeply involved in the planning, preparation and execution of
the operation. Furthermore, a select group of senior political
figures and influential globalists would also have been
required. Both to direct the operation, and manage the
media response.
This is the potential explanation for 9/11 and 7/7 that can
never be acknowledged. Any and all assessments of these
events, that exclude this possibility, are fundamentally
flawed, say the conspiracy theorists.
There are sound reasons to consider the likelihood that both
9/11 and 7/7 were 'false flag' operations. While most people
simply cannot accept the suggestion that any part of the
state apparatus would ever be involved in such heinous
crimes against its own population, the proven historical
63
A Dangerous Ideology
examples of states doing exactly that are so numerous, it
would be surprising if 9/11 and 7/7 weren't false flag
attacks.
If the state itself was behind such vile mass murder of
civilians, the implications are almost beyond imagination.
Even entertaining the concept requires we contemplate the
destruction of everything we believe about our own society. It
questions every aspect of our history and potentially
eviscerates our shared reality.
Our inability to confront the potential implications of this
idea is the cognitive dissonance Shermer, and others, have
ascribed to the psychology of conspiracy theorists. Yet he is
among the millions who simply refuse to accept that large
scale, state run, false flag operations are relatively common.
Despite the extensive and unequivocal evidence which
proves they are.
Familiarising yourself with some historical examples of these
false flags is a useful step towards overcoming this
psychological hurdle. It may be an uncomfortable experience
but could set you free from some powerful illusions.
It is pointless for me to pretend this isn't disorientating. It
opens the proverbial rabbit hole. We can choose to enter it or
not. In the Hollywood movie, the Matrix, the character Neo is
offered the choice between the red or blue pill. This has
become a popular cultural meme for good reason. It is a
poignant metaphor.
The red pill promises knowledge and freedom but also
uncertainty and brutal, painful truths about reality. The
blue pill offers certainty and security but perpetuates only
blissful ignorance, ensuring continued slavery and
exploitation.
To apply this analogy to the investigation of terrorist attacks
we must tentatively accept the potential existence of
evidence which questions the official narratives. If we don't,
should it exist, we will simply be unable to recognise it. Our
seemingly rational 'truths' will be nothing but fables.
Eyes are useless when the mind is blind, so which pill are
64
A Dangerous Ideology
you willing to take?
This is not some meaningless philosophical conundrum. It
goes to the heart
of who we are, who we want to be and what
future we are capable of building for our children.
As a species we are plagued by war and violence. Yet very
few of us would ever choose to harm, and certainly wouldn't
kill, another human being. So how are millions killed in
conflict every year? Where, on the continuum from loving
family member to mass murderer, do we so frequently go
wrong?
This question has perplexed society for millennia. Ultimately,
the people we call conspiracy theorists offer a simple answer.
We are led to war by leaders who frequently use deception to
promote conflict. If we don't even try to understand how, or
why, the confidence trick works, we are condemned to fall for
it every time. Until we eventually destroy ourselves.
So let's start by looking at some examples of false flags.
There can be confusion among those new to the concept of
'false flag attacks.' The term is frequently misused and
wrongly attributed to relative trivialities. This is part of a
comprehensive disinformation campaigns by the mainstream
media (MSM). While they are happy to talk at length about
highly questionable 'false flag claims,' often borne from the
knee jerk reactions of the twitterati,[28] they never mention
the more concrete, historical precedents.
Many conspiracy theorists consider this to be another
example of MSM attempts to illegitimately destroy the
credibility of their more substantial theories. The ultimate
aim is to ensure the wider public never considers the
evidence upon which they are based.
We live in a capitalist society. Inevitably a 'truther industrial
complex' has emerged. Some have seized on the opportunity
to make a few bucks out of the large swath of people who
doubt the state's narratives. Having watched a few YouTube
videos, jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, these people
offer themselves as 'analysts' exposing 'the truth.' Most,
having done little or no independent research themselves,
65
A Dangerous Ideology
then garner support from 'followers' who are often willing to
buy the products they offer.
Because these 'superstars' frequently don't know what they
are talking about, either endlessly capitalising upon the one
decent piece of research they did years ago, or piggy backing
on the investigations of others, they often stray into the
realms of the ridiculous. They commonly lack, or are willing
to forgo, the scepticism which underpins conspiracy theory
suspicions. Content to accept what they are 'told' and then
repeat it, ad infinitum, to their acolytes. This primes them to
spread disinformation.
In particularly, those with strong party political views are
liable to offer, as fact, any political 'conspiracy theory' which
promotes their favoured dogma. This is antithetical to
genuine conspiracy theory which is critical of all political
doctrines and insists upon free thought, based upon
scepticism and an exploration of evidence.
These spurious 'official' conspiracy theorists are the only
ones widely acknowledged by the MSM. Easy to discredit,
because their allegations are driven by commercial necessity
rather than any desire to expose corruption, they are offered
as definitive examples of conspiracy theorists. Their obvious
falsehoods can then be exposed to suggest that all
conspiracists 'must' be equally deluded.
This is a strategy called ‘controlled opposition.’ It's a slippery
yet fairly common tactic, which organisations throughout
history have deployed. The idea is that you present your
own, controlled version of your enemy. A variation would be
to infiltrate your opponent in the hope of getting your
controlled asset into a high ranking position. Another could
be merely to misrepresent your opponent’s views, using
'straw-man arguments' for example.
As Lenin said:
“The best way to control the opposition is to
lead it ourselves.”
If genuine conspiracy researchers expose evidence, which
the MSM are compelled to confront, they simply misquote
66
A Dangerous Ideology
them, edit their statements or place their words out of
context. What they never do is direct you towards that
research in order for you to evaluate it yourself. They will
instead personally attack the researcher and forcefully label
them a 'conspiracy theorist' who must therefore believe the
Earth is flat and the Queen is a lizard.
By tarring all with the same brush, the MSM's hope is that
you will associate any who question 9/11, 7/7, or any other
significant geopolitical event, with people who believe
Copernicus couldn't add up.
This a bit like claiming that all who believe in Christ
unquestionably accept that Jesus drove demons from two
possessed men's souls into a herd of pigs, who then, terribly
upset by the whole experience, drowned themselves in a
lake. The attempted, alleged, 'guilt by association' is asinine.
On rare occasion, and never when discussing recent
'terrorist attacks,' the MSM will acknowledge the known
examples of 'false flag' operations.[56] Generally however,
they are eager to give the impression that those who suspect
an attack was manipulated are clearly insane. The fact that
it is difficult to find a major conflict that didn't start with an
act of provocation, usually some form of false flag, is
studiously ignored. With this historical evidence safely
obscured, they invariably insist that any who suspect a false
flag are insinuating the event was a 'fake.' This is yet another
MSM misdirection.
Suggesting an attack was a 'false flag' is not to equate it with
a 'hoax.' A hoaxed attack is one where the event itself didn't
happen. Hoaxes take different forms. The use of false
intelligence to convince decision makers an event occurred,
the creation of fake media reports to swing public opinion or
the planting of evidence etc. Others are pure theatre.
Sometimes the supposed victims are people faking injuries.
So called 'crisis actors.'
There are numerous agencies who specialise in creating fake
terrorist attacks and other mass casualty situations. They
offer their skills to militaries, emergency services, law
enforcement or anyone else who needs to add realism to
their training exercises. It certainly is not beyond the wit of
67
A Dangerous Ideology
the intelligence agencies, media companies or private
military contractors to employ their services for whatever
purpose they choose.
For example, CrisisCast[29] are a UK based firm specialising
in the simulation of large scale emergencies. With clients
including the UK Home Office and the private security firm
G4S, among others, their website states:
“We dramatise events for emerging security
needs in the UK, Middle East and
> worldwide. Our specialist role play actors –
many with security clearance – are trained
by behavioural psychologists and rigorously
rehearsed in criminal and victim behaviour
to help police, the army and the emergency
services, hospitals, schools, local
authorities, government, private security
firms, shopping centers, airports, big
business, criminal justice departments,
media and the military to simulate incident
environments for life saving procedures.
We use state of the art British film industry
techniques, props and special effects to help
trainers deliver essential, hands-on, high
octane crisis response and disaster
management training. We also work with
trainee doctors, psychologists and care
professionals.”
This in no way suggests that CrisisCast have ever been
involved in any suspected hoaxes in the Middle East or
elsewhere. However, companies like CrisisCast exist. The
rolling of the eyes whenever conspiracy theorists mention the
possible use of 'crisis actors' only demonstrates ignorance of
the fact.
Hoaxed events do happen. For example, in September 2013
The BBC aired a documentary called 'Saving Syria's
Children.'[30] The evidence suggests that some, if not all,
footage used in the documentary was fake. It was an
apparent hoax. The same footage was used on the BBC news
earlier in August, on the day the British Parliament were due
68
A Dangerous Ideology
to vote on UK government proposals to launch military
action against Syria. The Government subsequently lost the
vote.
The footage purported to show victims arriving at Atareb
hospital in Aleppo. They had apparently been injured when a
bomb was supposedly dropped by the Syrian Air force on a
playground. When the relevant segment of footage was first
aired, on the day of the important vote, the report speculated
the injured were victims of 'maybe napalm.' However, in the
later documentary, the same 'live commentary,' given by a
doctor at the scene, had apparently changed to claim the
victims were from a 'chemical attack'.
In the August news footage, run on the eve of the Commons'
vote, the doctor is heard to say:
“It’s just absolute chaos and carnage here…
umm… we’ve had a massive influx of what
look like serious burns… Er… it seems like it
must be some sort of…not really sure…