Something announced recently by French media should really strike us as odd and potentially suspect.
The recent announcement, first by French newspaper Le Monde and then considered by others, that French media might stop publishing images or identities of terror perpetrators, is curious to say the least.
Le Monde made the announcement on July 27th after the brutal killing of an elderly priest in Normandy. Some others in French media have openly considered adopting the same practice.
While the stated logic behind this idea is to deny glory or fame to terrorists and, I quote, to defeat the “strategy of hatred”, a more cynical mind might wonder whether this is really the beginning of a strategy to make false-flag operations even easier.
Think about it: if, in the future, the identities of alleged terrorists or lone-wolf attackers are no longer divulged or published, you no longer even have to have patsies or real terrorists involved. That way, there’s less chance things can go wrong in any prospective false-flag operation and also less flawed or contradictory information in the public domain for sceptical observers to look at and draw attention to (as we have done time and time again).
Given the problems exposed in the narratives of the Paris attacks, the Nice truck attack, the Charlie Hebdo killings and now even the horrific killing in Normandy, this would eliminate some of the difficulties in convincing people of the official stories.
People often argue that, where there is an omission or absence of images of victims, it is out of respect to the victims and their dignity and out of sensitivity to the families. I absolutely accept that and agree with it.
However, if this is how it goes in future, and if people get used to the idea of reported terror attacks with no images or even identities of the alleged perpetrators, we could potentially have terror attacks every week: some agency or another can carry it out (or just simulate it) and the authorities and the media can just say, ‘yeah, some guy did this; this is terrible – we need more state powers‘.
I mean, that’s essentially going on already anyway: but this way, they could just eliminate the middleman from the equation entirely and just resort to pure fiction – thus avoiding embarrassing facts like one of the Normandy teenage killers being under surveillance or the odd footage of the Munich shooter arguing with onlookers.
There are two types of false-flag operations: (1) an op in which a ‘real’ perpetrator or perpetrators are involved, but acting either in concert with or under duress by intelligence agencies or Deep State actors, and (2) an op where there is no ‘real’ terrorist or perpetrator, only intelligence assets or Deep State agents simulating an attack.
Now the (2) category of operation would generally and obviously be easiest every time; the problem with it is that people – and the media – want details, images and names to go with the story. And as soon as you have to provide those details, images or names, your narrative becomes vulnerable. This has been evident in pretty much every Western terror event from 9/11 onward.
So the ideal scenario now would be to resort to pure simulation, but with none of the current burden of proof or details; and also to eventually be free of reliance on real patsies or temperamental human assets. They were scraping the barrel with the Munich kid, for sure. Real perpetrators or false-flag assets are a liability: and the French media may end up paving the way for them to be done away with entirely and establishing a precedent for other nations’ media to do the same.
We know that intelligence agencies are already scraping the barrel as far as finding real ‘terrorist’ patsies goes: Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was an obvious example of this, as was the Munich teenager.
This is also perfectly demonstrated further by the couple who were recently freed after being accused of the Canada Day bomb plot – a judge ruled that they had been obviously entrapped by the police (see here).
Even more ridiculous is the story of the FBI grooming a mentally-disabled, white American teenager (with no Muslim connections) to be an ‘ISIS terrorist’ (seriously, this is one of the worst to date – see here).
I also touched on this area more thoroughly in this piece, regarding Trevor Aaronson’s work exposing FBI grooming/entrapment methods to create patsy ‘terrorists’.
If intelligence agencies and covert ops are genuinely so low of real terrorists for false-flags that they have to resort to trying to groom disabled teens, then clearly the whole fake terror business needs a new way of operating. And eliminating the patsies from the equation entirely is perfect.
This could be going in a frankly ridiculous direction now. And if the media in France does adopt this policy, will other countries decide to slowly do the same?
It could simply be a planned/coordinated response to a problem that has been plaguing the false-flag terror arena for some time now: specifically that too many people don’t buy the stories or are able to find flaws or problems in official images or videos.
Almost immediately after the Nice truck attack, there were people pointing out problems with the footage, skepticism with the bodies, doubts about the bullet holes in the truck window, etc. We also subsequently learnt that France’s anti-terrorist executive (sous-direction anti-terroriste- SDAT) had ordered Nice’s urban surveillance authorities to destroy all CCTV footage of the Nice attack on Bastille Day.
I’m guessing most agencies would’ve wished for a long time that those badly photo-shopped images of the alleged 7/7 perpetrators (below) weren’t still in the public domain, or the the images of mercenary firm actors at the Boston Marathon Bombing, (also below, second image) to name just two among many, many examples.
This gives us pause to wonder if, after making it normal to not divulge the images or identities of alleged perpetrators, we might eventually end up in a policy where crime scenes, victims and footage of terror attacks might also be omitted from the media – and for the same stated reason of not wanting to glorify or empower terrorists or spread hate.
Again, when a false-flag op is poorly executed, when the alleged perpetrator’s story doesn’t add up or when the footage of the crime is highly unconvincing or contains flaws, it presents massive problems for the narrative; and we can imagine that those trying to cement the narrative would rather those problems didn’t exist – it would be easier to not have to provide or fake any of those things.
And it would be smart to slowly get people used to the idea of not being shown the attacks or the perpetrators at all.
A good example is also the ISIS execution of James Foley video, which created real problems for the official narrative of that story. We quickly ended up in a situation where people were being dissuaded from watching the Foley video. Scotland Yard in fact announced that “viewing, downloading or disseminating the video within the UK might constitute a criminal offence under terrorism legislation.”
This might’ve been because it was considered bad taste (which it was) or insensitive to the victim and his family: but you also have to wonder if it was because the video was so widely regarded as having been faked that someone decided to try to restrict people seeing it.
Same motive is likely for the French anti-terror authorities wanting the Bastille Day CCTV footage destroyed.
So, although Le Monde and others might be genuine in their stated desire to not glorify or give fame to terrorists (though I doubt it), it may simply be a not-so-subtle way to take us down the road of strategic censorship for the sake of an easier maintaining of psy-op fictions.
Perhaps the most interesting thing will be to see if media organisations in other countries will start to follow suit.
Related: ‘Bastille Day Attack: 100% False-Flag‘, ‘7/7 London Bombings: What the Media Won’t Tell You‘, ‘Paris Attacks: There Were NO Suicide Bombers‘, ‘Orlando: Is This Proof of What Really Happened?‘