(LifeSiteNews) — Can human beings determine if other human beings are pretending, acting, or otherwise not being genuine in their actions? If the question is annoying, it’s because the answer is obvious. Some human beings are certainly able to identify acting or pretending by others.
But if the FBI, local police, or other government employees enacted a hoax, false flag, or otherwise falsified event, would observers be able to identify acting or pretending?
Hypothetically speaking, if an occurrence of a hoax crime made national news for several weeks and included video recordings supposedly taken randomly by those at the event, would some human beings be able to identify whether at least some of those involved in the event were pretending or acting?
It is likely that some would recognize obvious falsifications. It might be difficult, however, to determine which government entities were involved, and the acting of some of the performers might be easier to detect than that of others. (For this article, the terms “false flag,” “ruse,” and “hoax” should be understood as interchangeable .)
These questions are relevant because there have been at least a few public occurrences involving significant numbers of government employees which had looked like hoaxes. Appearances are not always misleading; sometimes things are as they appear to be.
Most of the events (some not very recent) which seemed to be at least partial hoaxes cannot be mentioned specifically; however, one of those events that resembled a hoax included several government employees’ responses to what was reportedly a deadly COVID-19 pandemic. In the early stages especially, but also throughout, several speeches of some government employees had the appearance of being “made-for-TV.”
President Trump at first labeled the event a hoax; his statement should have carried more weight as he surely had been informed about U.S. government classified information and law enforcement methods. “Hoaxes,” as will be explained in a moment, are apparently described in U.S. federal law as licit methods for “investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.”
There was also the so-called “riot,” or “insurrection,” at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. There were unexplained nonchalant responses by at least some of the uniformed government employees involved, as if they expected what was happening and were merely “going through the motions” and doing what they were told. In some ways the event resembled a practice, an exercise, or something similar. Those who have played American football or basketball might suggest the January 6 events looked like a day-before “walkthrough” practice, where gameday plays are practiced in slow motion, certainly without 100% effort.
Some of those who followed the above-mentioned events closely are aware of such apparent pretending. Additionally, it was revealed after the supposed 2021 insurrection/riot that there were an unknown number of plain clothes FBI “paid informants” at the riot. Such people would have been pretending in one way or another; hence, it could be said that there was acting/pretending at the Capitol riot. How much of it was indeed acting is a significant question that could be answered if government employees revealed their secrets.
Moreover, while surveys are easily falsified and can’t always be relied upon, one survey did show that a significant number of people believe that U.S. government employees provoked the supposed riot. Those involved with the supposed rioting, though, were apparently mostly (if not completely) in civilian clothing. Thus, if the survey is accurate, it seems that some Americans believe U.S. government employees were acting and pretending at a nationally publicized event to provoke others.
In other words, the above examples suggest both that government employees act and/or pretend at public occurrences, and some Americans at least think that they might have identified such behavior. More examples could be given, but those who observe current events closely are likely already aware of them.
READ: ‘Sinister’ study suggests assisted suicide will save Canadian health system $136 million
FBI and police hoaxes permitted by law
There are several points to be made about the dangers of such hoaxes, “false flags,” or ruses. First, though, it is necessary to discuss the U.S. federal law which apparently allows the FBI, local law enforcement, the intelligence community, and others to commit hoaxes.
A U.S. federal law prohibits hoaxes and falsifying information for many Americans and then apparently exempts law enforcement from that law. The law, enacted in 2004 and originally called the “Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004,” states that:
… whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of title 49
shall be punished in various ways. The law then provides an exemption for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The exemption is as follows:
(d) Activities of Law Enforcement.—
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
The U.S. government has clearly written that such language means that the anti-hoax law is not applicable to the FBI, police, and many other government employees. One of the clearest examples is found in a U.S. Congressional Hearing of a Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Specifics of the congressional hearing are irrelevant and might only confuse the reader. The main point here is that lawyers for the FBI describe language the same as the above as a “law enforcement exemption.” This suggests that such laws are not applicable to the FBI, police, and others like undercover investigators and secret police.
The lawyers for the FBI suggest specific language for a law enforcement exemption by writing:
… the language we [lawyers at the FBI and/or U.S. government] suggest is as follows:
“Nonapplicability to Law Enforcement –
No provision of this bill shall be construed to prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a state, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.” (Pages 1159- 1160,
The language requested by U.S. government lawyers is nearly identical to the language used in the previously mentioned law. In other words, the U.S. federal law which prohibits hoaxes and propagating false or misleading information is likely not applicable to law enforcement or intelligence agencies of the federal, state, or local governments.
Additionally, the Department of Justice described “lawfully authorized” investigative, protective, or intelligence activity thus: “The term ‘lawfully authorized’ describes functions approved in accordance with an agency’s rules and practices.”
Moreover, those who have been reading previous articles similar to this one will know that the Department of Justice has rules and practices for the FBI known as “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.” Those rules and practices apparently allow the FBI to commit violence, secretly get involved with federal, state, or local government operations, and use:
Untrue representations by a person participating in the undercover operation concerning the activities or involvement of any third person without that individual’s knowledge or consent. (Page 8)
“Untrue representations … concerning the activities … of any third person without that individual’s knowledge or consent” could be interpreted to mean “hoaxes” and/or “false flags.” “Representations” include acting/pretending rather than merely communicating words. Hence, it seems the FBI has “lawfully authorized” themselves to commit hoaxes.
U.S. government employees supported killing innocent people
Because the FBI and other government entities keep much of their information secret, it is difficult to know how many public events in America were falsified or “untrue representations.” However, the mindset of secret police entities like those who plan and enact FBI undercover operations might be discernable from the secret U.S. government documents that were declassified after 40 years. In the 1960s, the CIA and Department of Defense had planned an operation known as “Operation Northwoods.” It was summarized in April/May 2001 by ABC News as follows:
In the early 1960s, America’s military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
[…]
The plans had the written approval of all Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But apparently they were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
An author quoted by ABC News correctly observed:
The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse: the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.
While it cannot be elaborated, the action of tricking Americans through the use of a false flag sounds a lot like President Biden’s and Vice President Kamala Harris’ “Nudge Unit.”
And a few quotes from the declassified documents are particularly helpful to this discussion. The U.S. government employees suggested using terrorism or “terror campaigns” within the country and other hoaxes:
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government. (Page 9, emphasis added)
And:
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. (Page 10)
This particular hoax would involve only the appearance of casualties through using a duplicate airplane with no passengers substituting for the real airplane with passengers with “carefully prepared aliases.” The airplane with passengers with aliases would be unloaded at a separate location. (Page 10) The documents were de-classified sometime before 2001 but were apparently uploaded onto a national journalists’ archive on April 30, 2001.
(The documents show how the U.S. government might use a significant number of Americans with aliases in a hoax; would the U.S. government do a similar thing today with “carefully prepared aliases?” Advanced technology like directed energy weapons which move at the speed of light, are invisible, and are operable from long distances away might be able to injure some with cuts or other non-fatal injuries to help make “mass casualty” events appear more realistic to innocent bystanders.)
We need to undersand how military and other secretly operating U.S. government employees might use, or mis-use, their brains. As the plans above exhibit, such government employees’ thinking would surprise most people.
Causing terrorism with violence and even death, using untrue representations of that terrorism in the United States, and killing American soldiers to get support for a war in Cuba suggests that America’s enemies have infiltrated the U.S. government.
The examples show at least one problem with the FBI, intelligence community, and other secretly operating government entities. One could easily imagine anti-American or even American citizens using such hoaxes to “nudge” Americans to support one thing or another.
Such hoaxes could be used by the government to kill or otherwise harm Americans. Similarly, there is the possibility of anti-American entities controlling one or more FBI field offices in opposition to another FBI field office, police department, or other significantly weaponized government entity in another location. The FBI hoaxes then could be used to attempt to start a civil war in America – making it appear as though American citizens are fighting for or against this or that false “civil right” (like the false right to abortion or the false right to “gay marriage”) while they are controlled by anti-American entities to cause chaos and deaths of Americans.
Additionally, U.S. government employees could obtain jobs within the Catholic Church and then exploit their positions to cause lawsuits or other legal actions against the Catholic Church. They might also support an invasion of the United States of America under cover of supposed humanitarian efforts.
The list could go on, but the main point has been made. U.S. government hoaxes, especially those of the FBI and local police, would be detected by at least some observant people. Such hoaxes could also cause unthinkable destruction, up to and including war, terrorism, and deaths throughout every city in America. FBI and law enforcement hoaxes, helped along by advanced technologies, could be employed to bring an end to the United States.
READ: Bishop Strickland: There is clearly a ‘militant effort to destroy the Church’