Aug 4, 2019
On October 28, 2018, I uploaded a video about the difference between a hoax and a false flag to clarify these terms that many people confuse. YouTube decided it violated their guidelines and they removed it, labeling it "inapropriate content."
Why? Because I gave examples. And YouTube's rules under Harassment and Bullying say that you cannot post "Content claiming that specific victims of public violent incidents or their next of kin are actors, or that their experiences are false." In other words, don't ever question the official narrative, no matter how ludicrously obvious the fakery is.
But YouTube's gag rule ends on YouTube and I own this domain, so no censorship on these items. (However, I'm not a rich person so I'm going to try to avoid things that will cause lawsuits. Those behind both of these types of events are quite litigious and have very deep pockets.)
Many people confuse the terms "hoax" and "false flag." In fact, if you use the term "false flag," most will assume you mean nobody was hurt or died. That's simply not true. So, here's the difference.
A HOAX is:
- A staged performance
- Meant to mislead people into thinking it really happened
A FALSE FLAG is:
- An actual event
- To drive a specific agenda behind the scenes
In a HOAX, the perpetrator is often a fictitious person. Photos are usually faked or usually obviously photoshopped. (Example: Adam Lanza and the photoshopped picture with a straight line on his neck, badly used cloning tool, and mug-shot-esque blue background.)
In a FALSE FLAG, the responsible unnamed group allows blame to fall on an individual or a small number of individuals who actually carried out the event. This person (or persons) may or may not be knowingly complicit. Mind control is often involved so the perpetrator has no control over his/her actions and may not even remember what they did. (Example: Sirhan Sirhan, a clip is in this video, but I recommend viewing the entire video)
In a HOAX, "authorities" are relied on to perpetuate the hoax. Actors may be hired for television purposes, such as when Sandy Hook's Robbie Parker was caught smiling only moments before he assumed his character to give his performance. Most importantly, in a hoax nobody is killed or wounded.
In a FALSE FLAG, some "authorities" will be in on it, but others won't be so the event comes off more realistically. Actors are inserted into the event (or inserted after the event) to drive the appropriate narrative and are usually the only ones interviewed on television or in the media. Some witnesses are also interviewed to add more realism, but if they stray from the narrative (like saying the perpetrator had a different type of weapon or was dressed differently or there were more perpetrators than the official story), their segment is never aired again and scrubbed so nobody else ever sees it.
The most important aspect of a false flag, though, is that real people are wounded and die. Unfortunately, the minute someone calls an event a false flag, most assume they are saying it never happened or that nobody died. This is why they're often irritated or even angered by the term.
It's hard to believe there are those in this world who are so evil they don't care if people are hurt or killed just to further their agenda, but it's true. With the definition of a false flag I've given above, you can see that it would only require a small group who received either financial gain or some other reward for their participation and a complicit press to create any scenario and make it believable to the majority of the public.
In southern Indiana, Camp Atterbury Army Base has 30,000 acres, and over 1800 buildings that simulate various regions of the world as training areas for the Indiana National Guard. Each of those parts of the camp are designed to look as realistic as possible so the troops will experience what it's like in those regions. My brother toured it and said he was surprised at how detailed those various sections were. If our Army can create these places that look like they're real and Hollywood regularly creates sets that are expected to be realistic looking for movies and TV shows, is it such a stretch to think groups with enough money and media connections might create "movies" to drive their agenda?