Hoaxes, Illusions, and False-Flags

There seems to be a great deal of confusion lately about the use of the word ‘hoax’ in regards to the latest traumatic mass casualty events. Events that have been demonstrably proven to be False-Flag actions. In particular the argument is that a Hoax ≠ False-Flag. Or that because real people actually died then it is not a hoax. To address this let’s first start by looking at the definition of ‘hoax’.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
to trick or deceive (someone)
to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

Cambridge Dictionary
a plan to deceive a large group of people; a trick:
to deceive, especially by playing a trick on someone

Websters 1828 Dictionary
Noun: Something done for deception or mockery; a trick played off in sport.
Verb transitive: To deceive; to play a trick upon for sport, or without malice. [A colloquial word, but not elegant.]

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools’ Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.

From the above definitions we get one consistent theme. A hoax = deception. However, it does not say what kind or type of deception. A hoax could simply be a fabricated story, a falsehood, and that is all the hoax is. A hoax could be a created ‘performance’, presented as real in public (street theater), but never revealed as fabrication. Or the hoax could be an elaborate illusion, in which what people see, and what actually happened are different. Such as an Illusionist’s performance. The lady was not actually sawed in two, but it is made to appear as such.

But what is an illusion? Let’s see what the experts have to say:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
something that looks or seems different from what it is: something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real

Cambridge Dictionary
an idea or belief that is not true, or something that is not what it seems to be

Websters 1828 Dictionary
Deceptive appearance; false show, by which a person is or may be deceived, or his expectations disappointed; mockery.

An illusion appears to be something that it is not. An illusion is a type of deception. And this is precisely what the vast majority of TV and Movies are. Illusion. The war movie with countless deaths… but in which no one died. And it looks so authentic, so real. In part because a tremendous effort has been taken to be as ‘realistic’ as possible. So if they can make a movie, that you absolutely know is fiction, in which there are numerous deaths that look real. Then could they not create the same illusion in the ‘real’ world. Except they never reveal that the illusion was just that, an illusion? It is one thing to go to a performance of David Copperfield in which you know all of his actions are illusions. And yet still be mystified as to how the illusion was created. But how would you be able to discern this if it was created ‘on the street’? Something you witness in person. But it is never revealed or implied that what you saw was an illusion. How would you know? But how easy would it be to create this illusion using video? Where one can have multiple ‘takes’ to get it right. And then the best take is presented as reality, on the news.

There are many different types of illusions, and many different types of hoaxes. But at the core of each is deception. In my opinion the way ‘hoax’ is used by most people today is that the alleged event is either fake or did not occur.

Now let’s consider False-Flags. Unlike the word ‘hoax’, the phrase ‘false-flag’ does not have readily accessible definitions. But events are specifically identified as false-flags for a reason. The origin of false-flag is from the age of sail when ships flew their colors to identify which nation they belonged to. A false-flag attack would therefor be a sneak attack where a ship would fly the colors of another nation, though normally the attacking ship would run up it’s true colors just before opening fire. So deception was used to lure the prey into range. Today the definition refers to the same principal accept for one critical difference, the ‘true color’s are never revealed. In fact that is the whole point. To blame the event; the attack, the bombing, the shooting on a specific party. While concealing the true author of the false-flag event.

Traditionally the False-Flag attack was just that, it was a military action. But it’s meaning morphed to include an attack designed to blame the designated enemy as the aggressor and justify war.  In which the ‘attackers’ are actually soldiers of the side attacked or paid agent provocateurs. Which means the victim and the attacker are from the same nation. The recent classic, and now admitted too by multiple persons in the know, false-flag attack is the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Which was used to justify the war in Vietnam.

But false-flags today are now used for more than justifying war. Today they are used in the classic Hegelian Dialectic synthesis; Problem – Reaction – Solution. The false-flag creates the problem, the populations reaction is the desired effect, and the solution is thus proposed to alleviate the reaction and end the problem. This is applied liberally today in order to affect change in society, and is a form of social engineering. A group wants to enact a gun ban, therefor they create problems; false-flag mass shootings. The public is afraid, desires solutions. The proposed solution is legislation banning the ownership of personal firearms. Rinse and repeat until the public is terrified, manipulated, or shamed into submission. And this is exactly what is happening today in the USA.

So just like the hoax, at the core of a false-flag is deception. And by that very definition alone one could surmise that a false-flag is always a hoax.

But let’s not jump to that conclusion yet. Ultimately the questions I want to address are thus;
Are hoaxes and false-flags different?
Is a false-flag always an illusion?

Before going further we can confidently state that a hoax can exist and not be a false-flag. A hoax can be perpetrated simply for fun, or to embarrass someone, or to defraud someone. So therefor we can state that a hoax can exist, and not be a false-flag. And in that same vein we can then surmise that a hoax can exist and be a false-flag. And thus a false-flag can be a hoax.

So then the question that needs to be answered is thus;  “Can a false-flag exist, without being a hoax?”

Often I see this comment in regards to proving that a suspected false-flag is not a hoax. “Real people died, therefor it is not a hoax.” This is a fallacy. And probably one deliberately inserted to muddy the waters where people are discussing suspected false-flag events. If we refer back to the top of the article and the definitions of ‘hoax’. We see simply that ‘deception’ is the consistent operative. Just because real people actually died does not preclude deception. For instance, it is possible that a few people do die, and the rest of the ‘victims’ are fabricated. In San Bernardino I do not believe anyone died at the Inland Regional Center, where allegedly all the victims were shot. But I am willing to consider that the two alleged perpetrators (patsies) were killed.

It is important to discuss whether or not the alleged dead/wounded are real or not, because this will direct resources to investigate the deaths, and be able to point to areas where it would be difficult to hide this fact. Highlight that the lack of evidence (pics, videos, blood, emergency services) of mass casualties is evidence that there were no mass casualties. If one can prove no deaths occurred, then one can absolutely expose these events for the False-Flags they are. And certainly if no one died then the event is also a proven hoax.

But from a standpoint of addressing the totality of a suspected false-flag operation, and from the standpoint of the media’s message. The impact is the same. Unless you plan to investigate whether or not the deaths are real. Don’t get bogged down in whether or not they are. Because either way this does not change the ‘who is behind’ the event, and ‘for what purpose’. That is what needs to be investigated and exposed.

Another position commonly expressed, and basically an inverse of the above example, is because the alleged traumatic event (shooting, bombing) did not occur it is a hoax. That seems like a reasonable conclusion. But, let’s explore this. Just because the alleged shooting did not occur, does not mean that everything following did not. So is this not then an argument for no hoax?

But here we must make an important qualification. The news event may be a real fact, existing objectively, or it may be only an item of information, the dissemination of the a supposed fact. What makes it news is it’s dissemination, not it’s objective reality.

Jacques Ellul,  Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965)

Today in particular, the vast majority of the overall false-flag operation is not the ‘main’ traumatic event, the alleged deadly action, but the media coverage that occurs after the event. The quote above elucidates the very fact that when something is reported in the news, it becomes ‘real’. Whether or not it exists, or did exist in reality. Which means that an entire false-flag operation could simply be the media coverage following an alleged terrorist event. The alleged terrorist action is fabrication, but the media coverage is real. And by real I mean actual people talking, reporting, writing articles. But this does not mean the people are actually there, or telling the truth. Just that the news broadcast or news article exists objectively. Which leads one then to ask; does the media believe the terrorist act was real? And hence they are deceived and just passing on the deception unknowingly. Or is the media, or parts of the media, knowingly participating in the deception? It’s a slippery slope. But that is the very nature of deception. To confuse, obfuscate, distract. The art of deception is ancient, devious, and clever. And a subject for a whole other article.

But referring back to Ellul’s quote. If simply the dissemination of a supposed fact is enough to make it ‘real’. Then it seems prudent if a group wants to successfully pull off a false-flag event that they have assets in the media, and at all levels. This does mean or imply that everyone working for the news is ‘in on it’, just enough to control the narrative.

One could argue that the traumatic event not occurring is simply deception, and selling this deception through the mass media is the hoax. But that is splitting hairs. We can say unequivocally that if the traumatic event did not occur we have a hoax. But let’s return to the question of; if the traumatic action event is real, then is there no hoax?

So flip it 180°. The main event, the traumatic event, is real. Real people died. Let’s say it’s a real bombing. The suicide bomber dies as well. In fact the only piece of fraud is that the suicide bomber was not a member of some tiny radical Muslim extremist group. But was actually a lonely, vulnerable, poor kid who got MK-Ultra’d (severe mind control) by a large nation’s intelligence services, and was used to create terror to justify sending troops into a country with a large Muslim population… that just happens to have large oil reserves. The deaths were real, the grieving parents are real (exhibiting real trauma; shock, blood shot eyes, crying real tears), the funerals are real (and the actual dead bodies are in the caskets), the reporting is real. Just one piece of deception, who the real perpetrators are. Timothy McVeigh and a truck bomb did not damage the Murrah building and kill 150+ people. But real explosives were used and real people did die at Oklahoma City.

Are the above examples a hoax? Based on the definition of ‘hoax’, the answer is yes. But I suspect most would say no.

My conclusion is that any false-flag is ultimately a hoax. A hoax can exist without being a false-flag, but a false-flag, by definition, is a hoax. Deception was used. Whether the deception was simply a lie, or an elaborate plan. Whether or not the deaths were real, or an illusion. The intent of the false-flag operation is to deceive, and always employs deception at some level. And thus is a hoax.

But what of illusion? Does a false-flag always imply illusion? Especially from the standpoint of the actual traumatic event. Let’s take JFK. He certainly was killed by a headshot. But from where? Many eyewitnesses rushed to the fence on the grassy knoll. We have the Zapruder film that shows… back and to the left. And yet the blood splatter goes out from the front of the skull. It can’t be both. A person will instinctively move away from an impact, blood spatter happens when a projectile ‘exits’ a body. A typical rifle headshot is a small clean entry wound and a large messy exit wound. Thus I would say the Zapruder film as we know it, is an illusion. There are countless videos of the Twin Towers falling, but that does not mean that airplane strikes and fires caused the towers to ‘disintegrate’. And to be honest I was skeptical until I came to understand how incredibly strong the inner core of the towers were. Yes we can see the towers falling. But HOW and WHY they disintegrated is the issue. I would classify the falling of the Twin Towers as an illusion.

False-flags regularly use illusion to deceive. At this point it seems important to re-address the definition of illusion. In particular that the ‘illusion’ is something that is seen, whether in person or recorded. In the OKC bombing they blame the destruction on the alleged truck bomb. But multiple demolition experts have proven that the damage profile is impossible with a fertilizer truck bomb 60 feet from the building. There is no video evidence of the explosion… surprise, surprise. We have numerous pictures/videos of the Murrah building post explosion. And given the explanation that truck bomb did it. But ultimately this is not an illusion. The pictures of the Murrah building are real. The explanation is a falsehood, but not an illusion. The same reality exist with Sandy Hook. We are told that 20 children died. But there is no evidence of this. However, we do have evidence of illusion with supposed grieving parents. Robby Parker, laughing and grinning from ear to ear and then hyper ventilating and giving his performance of loss. 20 dead children is a falsehood, Robby Parker’s performance is an illusion. In fact any interview of a crisis actor pretending to be a real victim, or victim’s relative, is an illusion.

A hoax can exist and not be an illusion. A hoax can exist and not be false-flag. An illusion can be neither a hoax or false-flag. But a false-flag is by definition a hoax, and false-flags regularly involve illusion at some level.

Which leads me to my overall point. I believe we need to stop using the terms ‘hoax’ and ‘illusion’ altogether when discussing false-flags. Yes a false-flag is always a hoax, but the vast majority of hoaxes are not false-flags. Yes it seems that illusion almost always exists at some level in a false-flag operation, but most illusions are not false-flags. We need to reserve the terms ‘hoax’ and ‘illusion’ for all those deceptions that are not false-flags.

Let the term False-Flag stand alone.

An operation created by an unseen party (secret societies, government agencies), employing deception and a traumatic event, in which another party is framed or blamed (lone gunman, terrorist). The operation creates fear and trauma and is used to manipulate the populace into the direction desired by the unseen party.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s