False Flag to Discredit Ron Paul?
By Staff News & Analysis - February 17, 2010

Establishment media talking points from every direction strongly indicate that a false flag attempt on President Obama's life is being considered, to be blamed on patsies from either the "extreme" right or left, in order to silence dissent in America and blackmail Obama into launching a military assault on Iran. Throughout the presidential campaign, the public was constantly told that Obama was an assassination target and that his safety was always in jeopardy, a claim that was given credibility after numerous odd secret service security lapses at public events where Obama really was put in danger, whether intentionally or otherwise. This had the effect of training people to accept the inevitability of someone making an attempt on the President's life at some point down the line. "Since Mr. Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400% from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service," reported the London Telegraph. The "gatecrashers" story also served to increase awareness about Obama being vulnerable to attack by people who can seamlessly slip through security and get face to face with the President relatively easily. Meanwhile, the corporate media and its operatives like Glenn Beck on the phony right-wing side and establishment liberals on the phony left were busy manufacturing ready-made patsies upon which the false flag would be blamed. Beck forwarded 9/11 truthers as the main threat to the President's life in a ludicrous continuation of his debunked premise that people who question the official 9/11 story are somehow terrorists themselves, despite the fact that there is not one single example of a 9/11 truther committing a crime or an act of violence in pursuit of their cause. – Info Wars

Dominant Social Theme: Commies!

Free-Market Analysis: This is an interesting article, excerpted above, not because we believe necessarily that the powers-that-be are contemplating a false-flag event but because there is certainly room for escalating violence in American (and Europe, too). In fact, Infowar's Alex Jones' point is that such violence could then be blamed on Internet-spawned freedom-oriented groups that Western governments feel increasingly threatened by. As dominant social themes collapse, Jones et al. begin, in fact, to look more prescient. Though Mr. Jones still isn't what we would call mainstream, we couldn't pass up the opportunity to spread the word.

Before we follow up, we want to make a historical point that has to do with the Oklahoma City bombing, purportedly by Timothy McVeigh. Of course, just as with 9/11 there are plenty of questions about the "almost lone" bomber theory that sent McVeigh eventually to his death – his lips apparently still tightly sealed. Our point is that we remember reading that then-president Bill Clinton supposedly indicated that the Oklahoma City bombing had helped Democratic election prospects by making anti-government sentiment (at least temporarily) unfashionable. Unfortunately, we could not find that quote, but we did find an article in the prestigious conservative publication, the National Review, circa 1995 (May 29), that makes the same kind of point more generally as follows:

Exploiting Oklahoma – liberal exploitation of Oklahoma City bombing … in the weeks since the Oklahoma bombing, a myth has been sedulously cultivated by both Democratic politicians and the liberal media (insofar as any distinction divides the two). It is that this mass murder was the consequence of recent conservative politics: that the main suspect, Timothy McVeigh, was an active member of a far-right violent militia, linked to other militias in a nationwide conspiracy, inspired by the anti-government rhetoric of Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich, conservative leaders like William Bennett, and talk-radio performers like Rush Limbaugh.

Thus, Michael Lind in the Washington Post theorized that conservative leaders such as Mr. Bennett, William F. Buckley Jr., and Dan Quayle "had helped to legitimate the world-view of the Oklahoma bombers" by, among other things, "promulgating the inflammatory myth of an anti-religious, anti-family, tax-devouring government, guilty of mass murder on a scale that dwarfs that of Hitler and Stalin," and "feebly condemning anti-abortion zealots," including those guilty of murder. Curiously, Mr. Lind was an affable member of the conservative movement for most of this period. Did he simply not notice that his friends and colleagues were legitimating mass murder? Or did he think it good clean fun at the time? For the record, NATIONAL REVIEW has called for the murderers of abortionists to receive the death penalty.

There was a less inflammatory version of the same theory from Jonathan Alter (ironically, Newsweek's media watchdog): "From what we already know of the Oklahoma City crime, it's clear that the bombers took mainstream conservative ideas — resistance to gun control, the United Nations, and a powerful federal government — and made them extreme-right views."

History (and this excerpt above) unfortunately shows us that both American parties like to leap on miserable events to blacken the names of their opponents. We are absolutely sure that the movement launched by Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul (pictured above) after his presidential campaign is not in good odor with either the Republican or Democratic parties. If by some lousy happenstance, an attempt is made on President Obama's life (presumably one that fails) we would be most disappointed if the individual or individuals involved were somehow linked to a larger libertarian movement. This would be a little like linking a Muslim "terrorist" with the one billion plus Muslims who practice the religion throughout the world.

Of course, we know the temptation is there. Various federal and local law authorities have already been caught trying to link concern for the American Constitution to free-market types who need to be closely monitored. And despite retractions and denials, we are sure that these sorts of linkages are still made. The federal government and the powers-that-be are quite nervous right now about the manifestations of free-market thinking in the general electorate.

In fact, we would not be surprised if authorities attempt in the fairly near future to link a violent event to libertarians, Ron Paul, et al. Such a linkage would be preposterous if tried, and would be morally bankrupt as well, but we are not so naive as to think it wouldn't be tried. It would indeed be false. The libertarian movement in America and worldwide is a peaceful movement – antiwar and anti-state – as it must be because free markets cannot grow and prosper in any other environment. To conflate free-markets with violence and hate would be, therefore, an obvious manipulation of a violent, heinous act. If such a manipulation takes place we hope free-market thinkers everywhere would do their best to debunk the linkages.

After Thoughts

Again, we don't believe necessarily that the powers-that-be are contemplating a false-flag event aimed at President Obama or anyone else. What DOES seem possible to us – and we thank Jones et al. for pointing it out – is that these are desperate times in America. Indeed, a violent act or acts could be committed by a person or persons that could then be linked to the exploding free-market movement in this country, one that includes the Tea Parties, Ron Paul, etc. We hope nothing like this happens. Forewarned is forearmed (with ideas, not weapons!).

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap