A Catch22 when predicting False Flags
Recently a lot of highly reliable commentators have pointed at the possibility of a false flag attack at the London Olympics. Undoubtedly these predictions have merit, but they do create a dynamic of their own: when they work, in the sense that they prevent the attack, they were wrong as a prediction.
By Anthony Migchels for Real Currencies
Peter Eyre, Henry Makow (through a guest writer) and Rixon Stewart, whose psychic friend tells us the elites are ‘pissed off’ because of the predictions, are among those warning the public. Truth be told, rock solid evidence of a false flag has not been offered, but there is indeed a wealth of circumstantial evidence, some of it highly intriguing. And it clearly would fit with our master’s modus operandi and their agenda in the Middle East.
The obvious problem with correctly predicting a false flag attack is that the perpetrators will most likely decline to push through the planned event. In that case the prediction was highly successful, but nobody will ever know. And after a few of such events, the public may wary of such warnings. The Mainstream Media will start ‘exposing’ the ‘fearmongering’. The boy that called wolf syndrome starts to operate.
And the next time, the Powers that Be will be able to pull it off anyway, notwithstanding the warnings of the Free Press, with the MSM saying: ‘well, they had to be right at some point, and this time happens to be it.’
It takes courage to make such predictions in the face of inconclusive evidence. It must be done, even when risking to be wrong. Too much is at stake. But the tactic for the opposition is predictable and although I can’t offer a strategy at this point, it is useful to discus it nonetheless.