Wednesday, July 30, 2014

371 How a False Flag is effective in combination with immediate false accusations.

This blog:

Paul Craig Roberts noted the usefulness of being the first one to accuse your opponent of beïng responsable for a disaster. 

Here is his explanation: 

Peter Duveen explained that having foreknowledge of news events that Washington orchestrates allows Washington to control the explanation before any evidence is available. By the time evidence is gathered, the narrative is established and the evidence ignored:

“Part of the US propaganda mill’s effort is into forming the conversation. Once certain narratives take hold, true or untrue, they edge out other narratives. So the effort is to get control of the narrative, to form the conversation with whatever materials, usually false, are available. Then, of course, the false information will be referenced as true, and the direction of the narrative will be fixed. The narrative being lowered into place, for example, is that Russia was somehow responsible for the downing of Flight 17. With the help of the media, the hope is that the narrative will gain momentum. Eventually, if it catches properly, it will be impossible to question, just as people are considered freaks who question the official narrative of 9-11. That is why the narratives are introduced as quickly as possible. Thus, we saw how quickly it was announced that Flight 17 was brought down by a surface to air missile. That would lead me to believe that it was actually not brought down by a surface to air missile. So also with this incredibly amateurish effort regarding Russian shelling of Ukrainian positions. Russian reaction is never obtained in the articles about it, and it is no longer mentioned that Russian territory has been shelled by the Ukrainian military.”


I think mr Duveen does not describe  the whole 'strength' of the method. 

Here is my take on it: 

The use of the MH17 crash. ‘Branding Putin as a demon.’

In his 19 july article on ICH  Dr. Paul Craig Roberts described the tactic of ‘Spreading the news first’ in order to occupy the minds of the people with false ‘facts’ long before the truth gets known.

As a psychologist I understand this tactic. But there is more to it than just providing narratives or explanations that will stay after the truth comes out. In situations of ‘blood and fear’ ( Twin towers, MH17) we desperately want to know where the danger comes from, and the first answers that are so important for our survival, are burned in our brains.

Remember 911. Just hours after the planes hit the Twin Towers we all  knew for certain that arabs with boxcutters were the culprits. The well known CNN journalist Barbara Olson had called her husband Ted Olson (sollicitor  general for DOJ) from one of the four hijacked planes.

A few years later it became known that cellphones don’t work at that altitude and speed.
“Sorry, it was a seatback phone”, NIST said. But there were no seatback phones in those planes!  In the 2006 Moussaoui trial the FBI stated the following about the Olson-Olson call:  “One call attemped. Unconnected. 0 seconds.” ( David Ray Griffin)  The conversation between Barbara and Ted Olson had never taken place. Absolutely impossible. It did not change anything, of course.  But it is one of the indications that some people knew what was going to happen, and had prepared for full use of it: “War against islam Terror”.

Somebody knew that it was crucial to point a finger to ‘The Culprit’ at a moment when existential fear is still there. The event is burned into our memory, and becomes impossible to erase. (Where were you when you heard about the Kennedy assasination…)

In the case of NH17 there was no Barbara Olson call. But within hours the Ukraïnian government  produced a taped conversation between two Separatists. And in the week thereafter we were covered with ‘solid evidence’ that accused the rebels and ‘thus’ Putin as the real culprit.  ‘Solid evidence’ of  the well known Colin Powell quality was mixed with stories of looting, disappeared bodies, disrespect for the dead’s belongings and tampering with black boxes.

Here we have either a False Flag or an accident that ‘they’ expected to happen sooner or later. They were very well prepared to feed our brains with information that answered our deeply rooted question “Where  does the danger come from”. The goal was to demonise Putin, possibly in preparation for ‘A war on Putin’.

The best recipe for fast demonisation is:  Create blood + be the First to point the finger.
Our genes do the rest. The ‘blood’ creates a ‘fight or fly’reaction. No time for good investigations.  As soon as someone has identified the source of danger we believe it immediately. In life threatening situations this is indeed the best strategy for survival. Those who create False Flags and are the First to point the finger, they know this very well.
Their victim will be branded in our brains as ’Dangerous !’ or ‘Demon !’.

We all think of ourselves as rational people, but we are not. Firmly held believes can hardly be changed. And our interpretations  of new events are filtered by our ‘believes’.  It is called ‘confirmation bias’ in psychology. ‘Truth’ and ‘proof’ have little chance to replace strongly felt existing believes.

Leo Tolstoy described the effect of ‘strong convictions’ like this: "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow- witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." 

No comments:

Post a Comment