Larken Rose
Website: Larken Rose
False Flag for Dummies  
I realize that "government" operations are notoriously incompetent, but it's getting embarrassing how juvenile and amateur the Obama administration's psy-ops, false flag, and propaganda operations have become. Is this really the best they can do? I'm speaking of the fact that Reuters just reported (if you can call reprinting state propaganda "reporting") that our ever-courageous FBI just foiled a diabolic plot by five "self-described anarchists" to blow up a bridge in Ohio. Well, golly, I feel so much safer!
Allow me to offer a few words regarding the federal fear-mongers and their bungling incompetence in this obvious false flag ploy.

In movies, villains do hugely destructive things just to be evil. In real life, they don't. Even people who commit real evil usually feel righteous about it, and are trying to accomplish something, usually trying to lash out against a perceived injustice. Real terrorists, for example, don't "hate us because of our freedoms"--they're angry because of what the U.S. empire has done. Of course, that doesn't make killing innocent people okay--the point isn't that people who commit evil have good reason to; the point is, they have some reason to. They may be misguided, demented, stupid, and/or sadistic, but there is always some motivation, something they're trying to accomplish. 

So why, for example, would these "self-described anarchists" (a.k.a. government operatives) want to blow up some bridge in Ohio? The Reuters story doesn't even take a wild guess at a motive. If someone had tried to blow up a police station, or an army recruiting office, or an IRS building, or a politician's office, then I could maybe believe the story. But risking their lives to blow up some random bridge? Why?

And if you're going to put up mug shots of the supposed "self-described anarchists," don't consult a casting director. Don't make them look so unbelievably cliche, as the five mug shots in the "story" are. It looks like they found four drugged out morons, put a box in their hands, dropped them off at a bridge, and then "busted" them as devious masterminds of a terrorist plot.
And the reason it looks like that is because that's probably exactly what happened. Oddly, the feds admit a lot of that. They admit that the FBI was involved the whole time, and supplied the fake explosives for the job. The public was never in danger, the feds proudly proclaim, because they were involved the whole time. What they didn't say is that they were the only reason the non-existent plot was ever cooked up.

I know a lot of people who call themselves anarchists. A few--very few--are just stupid punks who think the name sounds cool, even though they have no grasp on anything remotely philosophical. These are the twits who go around breaking stuff for fun, on camera, so the media can show what "anarchists" are like. And, on several occasions, it has been discovered that such violent trouble-makers are usually "government" instigators, trying to make things turn violent (which is what "government" does best). And how convenient for the feds that these (fake) evil-doers couldn't wait to proclaim themselves to be "anarchists."

In all honesty, I'm glad this is the best the federal fear-mongers can do. Looking at the comments under the Reuters article, lots of people can see through the transparent propaganda. If the feds had anyone with actual brains, then we'd be in serious trouble, because convincing, effective false flag operations would be pretty easy to pull off, in a way that would dupe a lot more people. (Read "The Iron Web" for an example.)

As one example, the feds blowing up the Murrah building years ago--with or without the help of Patsy McVeigh--only deserved a C+ as a false flag operation. That time, at least they came up with a believable motivation--revenge for Waco--even if the story itself and the cover-ups were seriously bungled by the federal mass murderers. In contrast, the Ohio false flag stunt deserves an "F."

For now, it's comforting that with all the voices out there rationally explaining the moral superiority of a voluntary, stateless society (Stefan Molyneux, Marc Stevens, Bill Buppert, Jim Davies, etc.), this lame response by the federal fear-mongers is the best they could come up with. What I worry about is what happens when they get more desperate, when their power really starts slipping away. Expect things to get really nasty then, and the mayhem and bloodshed won't be the result of "self-described anarchists"; it will be the result of the megalomaniacal, narcissistic sociopaths in "government."