By Patrick Murphy
Most will likely agree that 9/11 is a qualitatively different event from the Sandy Hook massacre and Boston bombing. Nevertheless, with such highly questionable events the first question that must be asked is, “Did something happen?” The second question is, “What happened?” These questions lead us to ask why such events happen, what parties are behind the events and what are their possible rationales.
With 9/11, it is a certainty that something happened, because the World Trade Center Towers turned to dust and disappeared. What caused that is a subject of considerable debate. In any event, people definitely died because one could see them being ejected from the towers and falling through the air to the ground.
With Sandy Hook, there is absolutely no evidence that anything happened–just words out of peoples’ mouths, and much of that talk is demonstrably false. Until we see video, until we see still photos of the bloodied classrooms and of all the claimed spent rounds and guns piled up on the floor, until we see proof that a person called Adam Lanza ever existed, until we see death certificates and the coroner’s reports, all we have are the claims of untrustworthy government officials and propagandists.
With Boston, something obviously happened, but it is unclear what took place. It can be thought of as a hybrid of 9/11 and Sandy Hook: like 9/11, there is a great deal of photographic and video evidence that demonstrates that the official explanation consists mostly of lies.
If an impossible event is claimed to be true, it remains impossible. However, government officials make such ridiculous claims and broad swaths of the public find them acceptable. Concerning Boston, since the whole Cowboy Hat Guy story line is not possible, regardless of what anyone says, the reality of the whole event must be questioned. Until we see open casket funerals and death certificates, and actual proof of amputations–not just words out of the mouths of very questionable talkers–we have to conclude the whole thing is fake.
The third and fourth questions can only be worked on after the first two are settled: Why? and Who? With these probable false flag events, it is possible that the answers to these questions can never be known, but there are ways to narrow the options down.
For instance, with 911 if what was used to destroy the WTC Towers involved weaponized Tesla technology or some similarly sophisticated set of methods, we have to ask, “Who could have developed such a capability?” Certainly it would be very expensive, and the incredible secrecy under which that technology was developed points to Deep Underground Military Bases. But is that what we think of as “the government”? That any politician is allowed to know anything about the detailed operations of the secret government strikes me as laughable. The people that make up the secret government are, for all intents remain nameless, as do the agencies they use to carry out their agendas.
Which brings us to, Why? What are those purposes?
Again, it is very difficult to know with certainty, but one thing all false flags seem to have in common is to advance the elements of the emerging police state; the systematic destruction of our liberties. Whoever these people are, they are showing their hand by the changes wrought in the aftermath of these major events.
Kennedy’s murder started it; the destruction of Richard Nixon continued it. This was an era of increasing control over the media for propaganda on behalf of the secret government. Such forces direct the narrative and shape public opinion by defending obvious lies while simultaneously subjecting independent analysis that contradicts the official story to scorn and mockery.
Kennedy and Nixon were both successful coups–successful, because no matter how obvious the truth was, the political system went on according to the wishes of the coup plotters. Both Kennedy and Nixon had defied the deep state and were made to pay. With the exception of Reagan, who attempted to be autonomous and arguably got shot for it (Bush ran the show after that), never again would the selected president attempt to actually think and act independently on behalf of the polity.
Oklahoma City started a new phase in false flag events, where large-scale catastrophes, blamed on “terrorists,” could be used to justify totalitarian legislation. This phase also constituted a systematic tweaking of the use of media to shape the narrative and send the initial reporting down the memory hole. It strikes me that these events were largely tests to see how stupid the public had become, how willing to forget they now were to forget what was initially reported and seamlessly accept as a “given” a completely different set of “facts.” However contradictory the facts taken as a whole may be, they almost invariably replace the ones that were presented initially. Such events have become part of a broader process to shape the public to precisely to the mentality Orwell describes in 1984.
Since 9/11, the American people seemingly will believe anything and cheerfully accept any reduction of their freedoms. That was proven in Boston, when the region’s inhabitants earnestly agreed to stay in their houses or be frog-marched into the street by soldiers in full Robocop. They then amazingly cheered their oppressors after being released, with chants of, “USA! USA! USA!”
Since the false flags appear to be coming faster and faster, and the news media now almost monolithically and unquestioningly work to promote whatever preposterous story the secret government wishes the public to believe, one can only wonder if the experiment is nearing its end. If so, a wholly unbridled police state will be upon us very soon.