Did you know that the Governor of Wisconsin has admitted that he and his advisors “thought about” launching a false-flag terror attack against the people of Wisconsin – and decided not to only because he wasn’t sure it would achieve his political objectives?
False-flag terror is the oldest and arguably most powerful trick in the book of governments. By stirring up trouble and spreading fear, rulers trick the people into begging them – the rulers – for security at any price. Whether you are a state governor or the President of the United States or a tinpot dictator like Mubarak, the best way to augment your power is to hire special ops professionals to dress up as “terrorists” and perpetrate violence. You can then blame the violence on your political enemies, destroy those enemies, consolidate power, and rule unopposed.
Governor Scott Walker isn’t the first Western ruler to admit to plotting – or perpetrating – false-flag terror. The list of known, suspected, or admitted false-flag attacks is so long that those who study the subject often end up suspecting that the vast majority of terrorist attacks blamed on anti-government rebels are in fact the work of the rulers themselves. (If you’re skeptical, google: Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, and Lavon Affair.)
And yet our mainstream media continues to portray “terrorism” as the work of rebels, not governments. The very phrase “false-flag terror” is rarely mentioned, and anyone who uses it is likely to be labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”
Let’s look more closely at Governor Walker’s planned false-flag attack against the people of Wisconsin. In a conversation with a man he believed was billionaire campaign contributor David Koch, Walker was asked whether he had thought about planting “troublemakers” in the crowd. Walker responded: “The only problem with that … we thought about that… My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has got to settle to avoid all these problems.”
In this context, “troublemakers” can only mean instigators of violence, and “ruckus” can only mean violence. Obviously those Walker and his advisers considered sending in to instigate violence would not advertise themselves as Walker supporters, but would instead pretend to be out-of-control anti-Walker protesters. This false-flag violence would create fear (terror) in the public mind, allowing Walker to crack down on the real protesters with the approval of the public. In short, Walker considered a classic false-flag terror operation.
So why didn’t Walker send in goons disguised as left-wing protesters to break windows, attack police and security guards, maybe even set off a bomb or fire a gun? Because, as Nixon used to say, “it would be wrong”? No – Walker was afraid that the violence would be politically counterproductive, as happened after the 2004 Madrid bombing, when Spanish voters punished the government that had participated in a huge false-flag terror attack by voting it into oblivion.
And that is the one good thing about false-flag terrorism: once the public understands how it works, it loses its effectiveness. Widespread public doubts about the official version of 9/11 have created an atmosphere in which would-be despots like Scott Walker cannot be sure that the public will buy their lies.
Meanwhile, it would be highly instructive – and beneficial in preventing future false-flag terror – if Madison Police Chief Noble Wray could convince the District Attorney to launch an investigation of Walker and his advisors’ apparent conspiracy to commit assault. And it would be even more instructive and beneficial if the corporate media would finally tell it like it is and publish headlines like “Walker Under Investigation in False-Flag Terror Plot.”
* * *
[For a concise, readable, and thoroughly-documented introduction to the subject of false-flag terror in the post-9/11 world, check out my book Questioning the War on Terror. For a copy, send $15 to: Khadir Press, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556]