from Alt-Market Website
I have no personal experience in the business of false flag terrorism, but I imagine that engineering a successfully staged terror attack to be blamed on innocent or semi-innocent parties with the goal of psychologically manipulating a population requires that one also be an accomplished storyteller.
It demands an avid imagination and an organized sense of foresight.
And, most of all, it requires a consistency of
narrative. Without consistency, the audience’s ability to suspend its
disbelief is damaged, and they become disconnected from the fantasy being
The “villain” of the original plotline was clearly meant to be “rightwing extremism” as numerous mainstream talking heads, led by federal agency inferences, began repeating the “homegrown right wing terrorist” meme everywhere.
This meme was partly abandoned after the alternative media and the Liberty Movement began its own investigation, revealing a large federal presence on the scene, including military Civil Support Teams often tied to the DHS and Northcom, as well as the witnesses who observed what on-scene officials called “training exercises” during the marathon.
I have no doubt that these citizen
investigations forced the establishment to change the direction of their
crime tale, and use Plan B patsies instead. This, however, complicated the
momentum of the fiction, and created even more questions.
This is a bit awkward for the FBI considering they asked the American public to help them “identify the suspects in on-scene photos” while they failed to mention that they knew EXACTLY who the two young men were already (this is what we might call a contrived story arch).
Today, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is conveniently dead. The younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had his throat conveniently shot out.
The feds are now supplying the media with
“written confessions” from Dzhokhar to which there is no proof of
legitimacy. For all we know the boy hasn’t written a word.
Though the criminal elements of our federal government and adjoining alphabet agencies did not yet get the right wing patriot patsy they obviously wanted, they have still so far gleaned considerable social capital from the bombings.
The point of a false flag is to frighten the population of any given nation into relinquishing freedom in the name of safety, which in the process gives the central government even more control.
In the wake of the Boston attack, the
establishment is having a field day…
The city lockdown and subsequent militarization was swift, though any intelligent and guilty suspect could have easily left the area before hand. This kind of response to catch only two supposed perpetrators is outlandish, unless you understand that it was not about catching the bombers.
Rather, it was an exercise designed to test the malleability of the American people during a crisis scenario.
In Watertown, residents were not only forced into lockdown; they were also subjected to house-to-house searches without warrant, pat downs, and numerous other violations of their 4th Amendment rights.
Take note that almost everything you see in the video below is an illegal and unconstitutional action on the part of Boston authorities:
As this was occurring, officials were consistently pushing media cameras away from the area in the name of “safety”, even though media cameramen are sent into domestic shootouts and foreign warzones on a regular basis.
The only real purpose that I can see to removing
them from the scene was to reduce the amount of video footage depicting
these illegal searches and seizures:
This kind of behavior on the part of government will not be limited to disasters like Boston, or New Orleans during Katrina; a precedence is being set to use martial law-style tactics anywhere for any reason at anytime. The “national security argument” is being used as a free license to institute any measure regardless of law to achieve a particular combat objective.
The environment we saw in the dark days of Boston is an
environment we’ll soon see all over the country, and here is why…
After the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2012, his Miranda Rights under the Constitution were denied due to,
Numerous lawmakers called for the suspect to be treated
as an “enemy combatant” so that he could be interrogated under the laws of
war without due process.
The White House has always claimed that it would not use the combatant provisions against American citizens, but has never denied that those provisions could be applied to us. The idea is that while the president does have these powers at his disposal, we’re supposed to have “faith” that he will not abuse them.
During the debate over the passage of the NDAA, Obama opposed certain language within the legislation that REQUIRED him to treat accused domestic terrorists as enemy combatants, not because he thought it was wrong, or unconstitutional, but because he wanted the OPTION to decide whether he would or would not black bag a citizen and throw him into an unspecified hole.
He has simply exercised his “option” for
a citizen trial, at least this time around…
Whether through TSA, or the use of state
authorities under the watch of the DHS, the government has been desperately
clamoring to expand the control grid out of airports and federal buildings
bus stations, subways, trains, highways and
sidewalks of America.
Recent comments by NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg only reinforce my belief.
Bloomberg, in reference to the marathon attack, stated that:
Ironically, the only enemy out there that appears ready to “take our
freedoms away” are men like Bloomberg; snakes in the grass that pay lip
service to the Constitution while constantly trying to undermine it.
The Lexington Green board, one
member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided
to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by
the liberty minded group.
However, when Oath Keepers held a brief oath
ceremony at the Green in protest of the decision, a
police force was sent to watch them.
Black protesters were told that they could not obtain proper permits for peaceful marches because their “own safety” and the safety of the public could not be ensured. This matter of using broad hypothetical dangers as a catalyst for censorship was finally argued before the Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham.
The court sided with the protestors, pointing
out that the use of undefined safety concerns and “prior restraint” to
silence speech was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the decision has not
prevented the U.S. government from slowly undermining public protest rights
They debate using logical fallacies like:
And how about this gem…
This is statist psychology at work.
Freedom, in their minds, is a privilege doled
out by governments, rather than an inborn attribute outside of the realm of
law. They do not understand that the violation of the rights of one American
is a violation of the rights of ALL Americans. They do not understand that
the destruction of some constitutional protections will one day lead to the
destruction of ALL constitutional protections.
And, if our government is following
Operation Gladio false flag model (look it up, folks, it was openly admitted
government funded terrorism), as I believe they are, then we can count on
Boston-style bombings all over the U.S. very soon.
The bottom line? Our civil liberties are not up for compromise. Period.
Shootings, bombs, nukes, nothing! There is no rationalization that will ever make tyranny a moral enterprise. I, like many other Americans, do not care what boogeyman fantasy is paraded in front of me. We are not frightened, and we are not ignorant.
No attack, no matter how heinous, will ever
convince us to hand over our freedom.