Interest In “False Flag” Terrorism at All-Time High

Interest In False Flag Terrorism Goes Through the Roof

We have no idea whether or not the Boston bombings were false flag terrorism … the trick which governments from around the world have admitted they use to justify war or consolidate power.

But interest in false flag terrorism is at an all-time high.

Specifically, here’s the interest in the phrase “false flag” between 2004 – when Google Trends was launched – and today:


Most of the searches came from North America, Australia, the UK and Malaysia:



“Before We Plunge Ahead In Creating a Fishbowl Society of Surveillance, We Might Want to Ask Whether Such New Measures or Devices Will Actually Make Us Safer”


For the first time since 9/11...

For the first time since before 9/11 — more respondents were unwilling (45 percent) than willing (43 percent) to sacrifice personal freedoms to reduce the threat of terrorism


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson 1791

Minority Rules

Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas:

10 %!!! Are We Not There?


How meaningful?

Surely those who are convinced 9/11 was an inside job have totaled above 10% for some time, but the tipping point has yet to be passed. Even many who agree with us in wanting a real investigation to answer all outstanding questions seem to adopt a kind of provisional acceptance of the official story for as long as we're blocked from getting those answers. Or maybe that's related to the phenomenon of people having inner doubts about the official story, but who outwardly continue to go along with it, seeing all too clearly how ostracized people are who give voice to their doubts.

A basic question about this study is: How much does their 'model' resemble our society? Did they not think to include some kind of power structure in their 'networks'? Any degree of hierarchy in terms of wealth, power, and prestige? Any highly concentrated hegemonic control over systems of mass communication? If they had, then they might have posed the question of what happens when there's a minority opinion that seriously threatens that power structure. Might it not be faced with a concerted, ongoing effort in defense of that structure to prevent this minority view from ever reaching a tipping point?

Conversely, might some minority views that accord with the interests of those in power be promoted and hyped until they are shared by a majority?

Something else to consider is, if all it takes for an opinion to become prevalent is simply for it to be 'strongly held' by 10% of the population, is that necessarily such a good thing? The findings might be good news if those opinions were understood to have been formed by the minority on the basis of facts and reasoned analysis, but the study doesn't say anything about that. What if the minority's reasons for 'strongly holding' these opinions are BS?

Who knows what the real number is...

From my own experience, people I had given up sending information to long ago have been snapping out of the fog of fear left and right. The key is to point something out, but don't harp on them. In time, they will make the connections. It's critical that people make discoveries.

The next phase is a war on the 1st Amendment (for "public safety" of course). Tell people now, and they will see through the propaganda later.

Expect more attempts to link terrorists with the 9/11 Research and Justice movement.

Vintage audio of Aldous Huxley speaking

Aldous Huxley speaking (circa 1961?... early 60s) on what he calls the "Ultimate Revolution": the uses of terrorism and psychological warfare in social control:

(Downloadable or listen online)

"The techniques of terrorism have been known since time immemorial.... but if you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent..."

He expresses his surprise, even back then, of how much these techniques had developed and were in use since his writing of "Brave New World" in 1931.


"He expresses his surprise, even back then, of how much these techniques had developed and were in use since his writing of "Brave New World" in 1931." -- jnelson

There's an exponential growth aspect to all of this. As example, when former World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer became a Grandmaster he did so in the 1950's at the age of 15+. He was a sensation. It took 34 years until that record was beat, if I remember, by the brilliant, young woman Judit Polgar in 1991. Today Fischer is now #34 down on that list of youngest GMs (we now have very good, affordable chess computers and vast, searchable data bases used for training). Let that sink in...

In brief, those carrying out these despicable acts of control are very good at what they do and they have new and improving tools to do it.

Late edit: Obama from AP story,

"His speech Thursday was designed to move America's mindset away from a war footing and refine and recalibrate his own counterterrorism strategy. Obama asserted that al-Qaida is "on the path to defeat," reducing the scale of terrorism to pre-Sept. 11 levels."

Feeling the heat of 9/11 skepticism, among other issues?