False flag series part 1: General arguments against hoax theories, disinformation & coincidence shopping

In this series, I will cover extensive evidence that several high profile mass killings have likely had government covert/black operations components to them. The two key evidences indicating this are 1) the near universal presence of additional accomplices not recognized in the official stories; and 2) the subsequent cover-up by government/law enforcement and media regarding additional accomplices, among other things. Additionally, in many of these high profile shootings and attacks, the patsies (whether they be complete or partial patsies) show many signs of having been provoked, harassed, entrapped and manipulated into participating in the plots they were supposedly involved in primarily by what are likely private contractors composed of ex-intelligence services & law enforcement personnel (FBI, CIA, DHS, police, military, etc.) using a range of techniques from blackmail to psychoactive drugs to “electronic harassment”. At the very least, the vast majority of these highly publicized massacres have been extensively covered up for whatever reason.

My primary motivation for doing this is to counter popular theories propagated on social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan and Reddit that these events are “staged hoaxes” and “never happened.” These outlandish theories have become astonishingly popular since the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings , right as viral so-called “news” began to proliferate on social media through websites like nodisinfo, yournewswire, YouTube channels such as redsilverj/TeamWakeEmUP, LifttheVeil, etc. and additional throngs of dubious blogs and personalities. An entire cottage industry has emerged out of the analysis of mass shootings as staged events. The vast majority of the hoaxers’ arguments rest on highly questionable analysis of various video footage and photographs, their own incredulity regarding the event and the apparently bizarre behavior of those involved afterwards, which the hoaxers assert is proof positive that they are faking their involvement and that the shooting or bombing simply never occurred (hence the ever-so-popular term ‘crisis actor’). Many of their so-called evidences are literally outright lies and/or fabrications and several high-profile hoaxers routinely and consistently lie and fabricate evidence as well as directly or indirectly stalk, threaten and sue anyone who dares call them out on their deceits.


I won’t counter all specific claims made by hoaxers in relation to each event, as that has already been accomplished by others who have exhaustively poured over every detail of every irrelevant rabbit hole the hoaxers have ever gone down and refuted their claims, but I will, before diving into my evidences, address general claims and talking points hoax theory promoters put out seemingly every time any event occurs and discuss the near categorical implausibility of hoax explanations. Unfortunately, the conspiracy community has increasingly embraced absurdism and abandoned any sense of discernment or having a systematized method for analyzing events, and the hoaxers have contributed greatly to this.


By far the most powerful generalized argument against any staged/hoax theory is the first principle of compartmentalization, an umbrella under which keeping secrets/conspiracies as small as possible sits. Compartmentalization is essentially the practice within organizations (be they intelligence agencies, governments, corporations, private groups, etc.) of dividing jobs, tasks and the information required to do said jobs/tasks up amongst various individuals and/or groups. Within the context of this blog post (covert operations, intelligence agencies, etc.), each individual’s knowledge of the goings on in any other area of the group or conspiracy is limited as much as possible, and this is done so as to minimize the risk of the whole conspiracy/covert operation being exposed by someone within leaking to the press or any other interested party, accidentally spilling information, having information tortured out of them, etc. – the purpose is to keep the full conspiracy secret.

8063128However subtle this is, it is probably the most crucial aspect of maintaining strategic and operational secrecy (and therefore success) in any organization. It is how the CIA, NSA, FBI, MI6, Mossad, terrorist organizations, large police departments, many NGOs/think tanks, and large corporations (among many others) work and how they keep their plans under wraps – many large corporations even have highly secretive so-called “skunk works” divisions (named after Lockheed Martin’s formerly secret black budget aircraft development team in the desert outside Los Angeles) that carry out prototyping and high-level R&D known only to high level executives. If a conspiracy is not highly compartmentalized, it will almost surely at some point be exposed due to accidental or intentional leaks. Hardly anyone involved in Iran-Contra, the Manhattan Project, Watergate, MKULTRA, BCCI, Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, CIA drug running or any other conspiracy were aware of the whole operation before it became exposed. Sure, some have intimations and suspicions and perfect compartmentalization is impossible, but no full context or hard proof typically reaches anyone it’s not supposed to.

Any threat of leaks by those involved in covert operations and conspiracies is systematically drilled out of them through years of training to merely take orders and ask no questions as well as bribes and veritable threats/blackmail.

The fundamental problem with hoax/staged explanations for mass killings is that an entirely staged event would be impossible to compartmentalize, in other words, it would have to involve far too many people with near full knowledge of the plot (if not before, after the fact when it gets on the news) for it to succeed either in its goal or keeping the fact that it was a hoax secret. In order to pull of a full or even partial hoax staged openly and in public, hundreds upon hundreds of people would have to be involved – tens if not hundreds of crisis actors pretending to be victims and/or witnesses (and if the “victims” and their families and everyone who knows them are real people, you must hide them for the rest of eternity), all law enforcement and medical professionals who came in contact with the scene, reporters/media personnel on scene, etc. It would have to be ensured that none of the involved actors’ families or friends ever found out, that no one who was in the vicinity of the hoax or anyone who witnessed anything who weren’t supposed to ever say anything, identities would have to be faked or manipulated for the victims and perpetrators (and cover stories created), many people would have to pretend to have known the victims & perpetrators, etc.

Additionally, if, as many of the hoax theorists claim, the “crisis actors” involved in the hoax are unemployed B-rate acting school graduates (and many times this accusation is the result of lazy and haphazard background searches), are they really expected to reliably keep such a massive secret, even if they are bribed or threatened? To think so would be preposterous – they aren’t spooks or government contractors used to simply taking orders and not talking out of school who are aware of the very serious repercussions of doing so. And yet, we haven’t had a single whistleblower from inside any of these supposed staged hoaxes exposing the event, naming names, giving specifics, etc.

It would be one thing if there were a plot involving this many people where no one individual (except the group hatching the orchestrating the plot) knew the entire operation or its purpose, but a hoax shooting, bombing or attack would require that everyone be aware of the narrative/story being spun (far in advance too, of course) and all in one place at the same time (in other words, almost zero compartmentalization). It is utterly implausible and highly unlikely that anything on that magnitude could be contained with that many of full knowledge of the conspiracy being involved even if compartmentalization is attempted – the entire plot is simply impossible to obfuscate.

Why go through all the trouble of “staging” this convoluted disjointed mess when you could simply make it happen?

The hoax theory unnecessarily overcomplicates any explanation of a shooting or bombing, has no discernible motive (why a hoax when they can just hire mercenaries to carry out a real attack – much cleaner), is not required to account for any observations in any highly publicized massacre so far and virtually every oddity the hoaxers have ever dug up have far simpler and far more likely alternate explanation that account for all of the observations. The official stories of Sandy Hook, Columbine, 9/11, OKC, Aurora, Boston Bombing, etc. do not overcomplicate the matter, but on the other hand cannot account for all of the observations surrounding the events, such as multiple credible eyewitness reports and occasional video evidence of accomplices not present in the official story. A much simpler explanation than a staged hoax exists that comports with and explains all observations and anomalies exists for many of these events – a very real massacre was carried out by one or more deniable mercenaries (likely privately contracted) under the direction of some government-connected entity whose roles are covered up as well as potentially the attacker the entire event is pinned on – they are either partial or full patsies who are typically killed after they’ve played their part.

This kind of covert operation is relatively simple – it very easy to compartmentalize/divide responsibility for and to keep rather small. It would only have to involve several people – the people orchestrating and hatching the false flag, patsy or patsies, one to three additional shooters or bombers, a couple handlers for the patsy, and however many (probably no more than a small division) critical law enforcement personnel to cover up for the accomplices, who are usually from special divisions within the FBI and state police and probably don’t ever have any direct involvement or knowledge of the conspiracy – they are merely predictable law enforcement officers who carry out orders and cover up whatever they’re told to for whatever reason (if one is even given). Theoretically, most of the participants wouldn’t even necessarily have to interact with each other, no one would have to know of the full plot in the run up/planning stage and it wouldn’t be unnecessarily complex or cumbersome.

“No evidence” of an attack

Many hoaxers, after all of their specific claims are countered, will resort to claiming that there simply isn’t enough photographic or video evidence to satisfy them and convince them that anyone died. The problem with this is that 1) they never specify what is “enough” evidence as well as what kind of evidence counts as evidence to them and will simply continually move the goal post; and 2) “lack of evidence” of A (the official story) is not proof of B (a staged hoax). Just because photos of deceased victims haven’t been released does not mean that a hoax occurred – 1) in most states, homicide victim images as well as images from autopsy reports and any other evidences related to criminal investigations (such as surveillance footage) are exempt from disclosure to anyone. In all other states, disclosure is strictly limited to next of kin, estate representatives, prosecutors, etc. and in states where entire autopsies are public record by default, autopsy photos can be withheld at the discretion of law enforcement; and 2) if the latter somehow didn’t apply, this could mean and would more likely mean (taking into account evidence of accomplices) that a cover up has ensued because law enforcement does not want to expose the presence of accomplices of the patsy’s.

The same goes for the withholding of any information/photographs/videos of the official perpetrators or shooters – they are not necessarily public record and may compromise the official story or the cover-up of what actually happened, but their absence is not proof of a hoax. Also, a common practice among those who are suspicious of the official stories surrounding mass bombings and shootings is searches for victims and alleged perpetrators on background checking sites such as Whitepages, Spokeo, Intelius, Pipl, Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, etc. No one should ever come to any final conclusions based solely on queries of these sites – the databases they search are very often incomplete or not up to date, their web crawlers can extract incorrect information and very often estimate or infer information, etc. Genealogies, birth/death certificates and phone numbers are particularly prone to being totally inaccurate.

Search engine document/cache timestamps, indexing

Some webpages & tweets relating to attacks such as Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, etc. appear to have been, based upon various search engine date published/document & cache timestamps, published before the event took place, indicating foreknowledge of the attack or hoax. The problem with this is that these timestamps are not entirely accurate and can be off by several years in some cases (especially if time restriction is used in the search). Each time Google or Bing’s web crawlers & spiderers visit a webpage/html file, they attempt to estimate or infer the date the page was published and/or last updated based upon data available to be extracted from the html file and URL – sometimes the available data allows for a more accurate time and date and sometimes it doesn’t, and the search engine’s algorithms must work harder to estimate a time and date, and these can be off quite dramatically.

Highlighted area is not always accurate

In other words, the timestamp displays what Google, Bing or Yahoo thinks was the date the page was published, not the exact time that page was indexed by the search engine (although that index date can be incorporated into the estimate). The exact time a given page is published is typically only known to the webmaster and the time a page is first indexed or crawled may or may not be stored by Google or Yahoo or Microsoft and can only be determined by the webmaster by searching their server logs for visits from Google’s crawler (the “Googlebot”). Additionally, some webpages and items on webpages are not indexable and the displayed cache timestamp is based off a redirected URL or a duplicate page, however you will never know that the specific page whose cache time & date you are looking at was never technically indexed.

Highlighted area not always accurate (prone to error) and not necessarily the cache for the specific item you’re looking for.

Any number of “errors” can occur when document or cache timestamps are generated – items on websites can be postdated or backdated even though the material was actually posted at a later/earlier date than displayed, old date information can be retained from URLs that change dynamically, etc. (meaning the cache timestamp could be for something you aren’t even looking for, it could be entirely useless). Twitter timestamps are also known to be inaccurate and Facebook page date founded timestamps do not update when the name of a page is changed. Also, common sense would tell you that a shadowy group who is otherwise competent enough to near flawlessly execute gigantic staged hoaxes wouldn’t make the simple mistake of publishing webpages and online material related to the event a whole day before it occurred and that, for example with Sandy Hook, they wouldn’t involve the website for a random school in rural Ohio in their grand hoax conspiracy.

Photographic/video evidence:

Photo and video analysis is all highly interpretive and all debatable. Many conspiracy theorists (and hoaxers in particular) not only present an incomplete picture by selectively picking and choosing what photos and videos they display in order to bolster their narrative, but also outright manipulate their evidence by cropping, blurring, editing, and otherwise butchering it. This is precisely why YouTube is the premier hoaxer outlet – people like to laze around eating a bowl of ice cream watching the equivalent of a movie instead of parsing and digesting text.

“Crisis actor” evidence

The above is really a misnomer. There has been no real evidence that anyone involved in a terror attack or shooting or interviewed or captured on tape by the media have been crisis actors, only hoaxers contending that said people must be crisis actors based on their own personal evaluation of their behavior (often not in context, or presented in a totally incorrect one) – people in media video footage after the event are sometimes captured “smiling”, making strange faces, reading off cards (not at all rare for anyone interacting with the media to do in any circumstance), supposedly changing their story, etc. Another favorite is face overlays and comparisons which are supposed to prove that people from two different photos who are ostensibly different people are actually the same person. This is sheer trickery and nothing else and virtually every one of these “same person” claims have been exposed as incorrect and often fraudulent.


This kind of “analysis” is laughably shaky and isn’t proof or even an indication of anything outside that individual and by far the weakest hoax evidence there is (and, curiously enough, by far the most prevalent). And, again, this could mean many other things besides the shooting or bombing having been a staged event. Many hoaxers will back up their claims with background check site searches which allegedly prove that their “crisis actors” are actors by trade, but, as we’ve already established, those sites are often inaccurate and many of the hoaxers specific claims have been incorrect. For example with Sandy Hook, Gene Rosen was alleged to have been a member of the Screen Actors’ Guild based off a background query, but it turns out that whoever’s Spokeo or LinkedIn result they paraded all around YouTube was in fact a different Gene Rosen’s than the one involved in Sandy Hook who had never lived in Connecticut.

This isn’t to say that “crisis actors” may not be used (likely to a very small extent) to further sensationalize and emotionalize events such as mass shootings – government contractors providing “crisis actors” do exist – but there is no strong evidence or indication of this and it does not lend itself to the conclusion that “no one died” or that the entire event was a DHS “drill” or “simulation”, only that dubious “witnesses” are presented to the news media.

“Drills” & “simulations”

Almost every time a shooting or bombing ever occurs, it is revealed that some kind of terror or mass shooting drill or training simulation had taken place either within the same couple days as the event, or, in some cases, simultaneously. This is largely coincidence shopping given the fact that law enforcement terror drills & training simulations occur very frequently (often every week to every other day in major metropolitan areas) in both North America and Europe and, moreover, drills and simulations are not necessarily required to explain all observations during the event. However, it can’t be totally dismissed because it’s still rather unlikely that almost every single highly publicized mass killing just so happens to occur around a local law enforcement drill of some sort. What I can say is that the presence of some kind of drill or simulation is not proof or really even a strong indication of a staged event/hoax – simpler explanations include coincidence and that these kinds of false flag events are intentionally planned during already existing drills and simulations so that law enforcement resources (particularly law enforcement personnel not connected to the cover up) are diverted so as not to disrupt or ruin the false flag (this was particularly true on 9/11 and we do need to invoke the existence of drills to account for the lack of following of procedure by the military).


Why, assuming these events are entirely staged hoaxes and that the media entirely controlled by the [insert a spooky-sounding term like NWO or Illuminati], would the perpetrators of the deception disseminate all of the information that always comes out that tends to contradict not only other information being released, but the official story itself? Why not just put out an airtight story and eliminate any doubt as to what happened, especially if we’re dealing with something as fragile as a hoax? It makes no sense. I posit instead that firstly, the media is not entirely or largely actively controlled (it is effectively and mostly passively controlled through executives and editors) and that anomalies and discrepancies occur in media reports (especially initial ones) precisely because the media is not totally controlled and therefore cover-ups do not take effect immediately, different media organizations compete to break stories first (leading to inaccuracies), etc.

sandy-hook-second-shooter-cover-up-vik-battaile-politics-1356087588Of course, the “skeptics” (who are really there to defend the government’s story) are not immune from criticism here, either. They simply cannot explain away discrepancies as to the number of shooters or suspects or any other anomalies by simply asserting that early media reports tend to be inaccurate. Firstly, how true this is isn’t specifically known. Secondly, the initial reports in the media are not founded upon nebulous theories or speculation (that’s an easy way to get sued), they are founded upon witness statements and available information on the ground. Those witness statements and other such information remain and typically make it into official police reports as well. It’s not as if the information is positively “incorrect” – someone somewhere makes the decision not to incorporate that information into the sterilized narrative, most often based upon what a senior law enforcement official or media executive (who may or may not be involved in cover up) dictates. Thirdly, this is almost always just asserted flat-out based on how the narrative of the attack changes in the media itself and the fact that an official and final story is eventually converged on in the media. The skeptics define what is an accurate narrative based on the very thing being disputed – what actually occurred, which they define as the official/government story (in other words, the “skeptic” argument is circular).

Skeptics will also unfairly attack the reliability of eye witnesses. The oft-repeated claim that eye witness statements are unreliable entirely neglects the fact that eye witness statements must be individually evaluated based on their context and is largely predicated upon studies of eye witness reliability from suspect line-ups and court room testimony. Obviously, it is one thing for someone to pick from a line up of faces who exactly they saw commit a given crime and an entirely different thing for someone who witnessed part of a mass shooting or terror attack to merely recall the general characteristics of a person they saw (such as their frame, what color clothes they were wearing, whether they had a mask or cap on or not, etc.), when and where they saw that person, if that person was with someone else, if they saw two clearly different people, etc. Additionally, most eye witness testimony is recorded the day of the event or within the following days, meaning the memory does not have much time to be distorted or warped by outside or conflicting information and people tend to remember significant details, such as how many people they saw the day of a massacre and how they were dressed. People tend to inaccurately recall more insignificant details, such as the color of the car they witnessed hit someone else’s car in the Walgreens parking lot.

It becomes even more dire for the skeptics when multiple eye witness statements correlate and reinforce other eyewitness statements, as is the case with most of the false flags I will cover. Eyewitness confidence is also another major predictor of eyewitness accuracy as well, and eyewitnesses of mass shootings and bombings tend to be confident as to who they believe they saw.


One of the most curious aspects of the “hoax theory” phenomenon is how it all of the sudden miraculously appeared immediately after Sandy Hook occurred. After looking extensively into the relevance of search terms associated with hoaxer online content (such as ‘crisis actor’, ‘false flag’ and ‘hoax shooting’) before and after Sandy Hook as well using time restricted search results to determine whether pre-Sandy Hook/Aurora attacks, bombings and shootings were ever subject to a barrage of hoax conspiracy theories, I’ve come to the conclusion that the abrupt arrival of the hoaxers and their mindless sloganeering cannot be entirely or even largely accounted for by natural forces and was very likely not spontaneous, but rather the result of a concerted effort by disinformation experts to derail real conversation and discredit plausible conspiracy theories by means of co-opting. The operational arm of this is very likely from within the Department of Defense/military intelligence/NSA and their contractors, not the CIA. ‘CIA’ has become a blanket term under which all covert operations have fallen, but the DoD, with it’s utterly immense budget and greater breadth, is more likely from what we know in charge of disinformation operations, either directly itself or indirectly through private contractors.

Aerial photo of MacDill Air Force Base south of Tampa Florida
MacDill AFB in Tampa, FL, where many military intelligence disinformation operations are rumored to be based out of.

Just as a preface, this isn’t an unheard of idea. Cass Sunstein, who was the head of the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs under Obama from 2008-2012 and named to an NSA Advisory Panel in 2014 (all the while remaining one of Obama’s closest advisors), wrote a paper in 2008 which proposed “cognitive infiltration” of so-called extremist groups and “groups that produce conspiracy theories” involving the introduction of “cognitive diversity”, which could very well mean, when implemented, the insertion of false narratives into conspiratorial discourse to discredit any discussion of conspiracy at all. The timing of this is all too suspicious – all the hoaxers come out the woodwork only a few months after Sunstein departs from his (official) position with the Obama administration. It was revealed in the Snowden leaks that the NSA and GCHQ, through GCHQ’s “Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group” (or JTRIG), had operational cognitive infiltration schemes whose two primary tactics were “(1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.”


Buckley AFB in Aurora, CO. A major operational base for the NSA and another rumored disinformation center.

The US military has awarded contracts to government IT contracting corporations to carry out online psychological operations and various other “web engagement” operations using bots and sock puppet accounts to “create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.” This kind of activity of course predates the Obama administration – the Bush Pentagon employed teams of former generals to pose as “independent media analysts” while secretly coordinating with the Pentagon. Of course, there are many other examples that could be given, but the precedent has been set.





I became curious as to whether the terms ‘crisis actor’ and ‘shooting/bombing hoax’ and ‘shooting/bombing false flag’ and ‘false flag’ in general were ever really of any relevance before Sandy Hook or if they even existed at all, because presumably these terms wouldn’t just appear out of nowhere if highly publicized suspicious mass shootings had occurred in the past when the internet was around (which they have).

So, I looked at the Google Trends results (basically shows the search volume relative to total searches) for the terms (with and without quotations) ‘crisis actor(s)’, ‘false flag’, ‘shooting/bombing hoax’, and ‘shooting/bombing false flag’ and it turns out that crisis actor(s) and ‘shooting/bombing hoax/false flag’ more or less didn’t exist at all before Aurora and Sandy Hook (July 2012-January 2013 time period). This is highly suspicious (although I admit that Google Trends/search analytics is a somewhat blunt instrument). After 2012 they clearly adopted a new, much higher baseline relative search volume and also spike way more dramatically than they did before 2012. I excluded results before May 2006 (they start in 2004) because Google Trends backdated/inferred those results and so they tend to generally overstate any given index, they’re incredibly choppy (likely overfitted) and most of the time don’t even seem to correspond to any real world events or news articles or make any sense at all. I also tried to account for the meteoric rise in these terms’ usage by looking at the Trend results for “shooting” and “bombing” and “conspiracy”, and, although their relative search volume has risen quite a lot since 2012, their proportional rise in relative search volume is outdone by magnitudes by the proportional rise in search volumes of crisis actor/hoax/false flag terms (which is often by factors of over 100).

Google Trends indexes and time restricted search results posted at bottom of post 

Google Trends index for ‘shooting hoax’ w/o quotations
Google Trends index for ‘crisis actors’ w/ quotations
Google Trends index for ‘false flag’ w/ quotations. As you can see, it wasn’t an essentially nonexistent search term before Sandy Hook as ‘crisis actor’ and ‘shooting/bombing hoax’ were, but clearly adopted a new baseline and spike far more dramatically around bombings and shootings post Aurora-Sandy Hook.

So after this I searched for specific results w/ these terms in relation to three major attacks/bombings/shootings that occurred before 2012, were highly publicized, had video footage and photographs of the event and the aftermath, occurred during a time in which the internet was widely available in the US and were subject to conspiracy theories – 9/11, OKC, London tube bombing, Columbine, DC Sniper, 2009 Ft. Hood and Virginia Tech. All of these also had plenty of video footage of both the event and the aftermath, which is the basis for basically all hoax/crisis actor claims. I noticed that basically all the hoax/crisis actor videos and articles surrounding them were published after 2012 (they really began popping up around 2013-2015), but after restricting the results to a year within which those shootings occurred (giving sufficient room for error in document timestamps) as well as a year before the event occurred until around 2012 (Aurora & Sandy Hook), I found that there were almost no hoax/crisis actor videos or articles in those time periods., and the ones that did exist were extremely low in the search rankings or if they were YouTube videos very few views (and most of them aren’t pushing a 100% hoax/staged theory – it’s all very mild compared to the flavor of the stuff you see today on YouTube). Generally the pattern is that the vast majority of the hoax videos and articles relating to these events come after Sandy Hook.

jwnosteelMore hoax-related results showed up for 9/11 than any other event, but they mostly refer to very specific videos, images and one phone call that was the subject of a 2004 article that was proven to have been faked in the mainstream press. There were very very few articles or videos stating that the entire event was a gigantic hoax that was entirely staged (as happened with Aurora, Sandy Hook & Boston Bombing, Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino, etc.), mostly people referring to certain parts of it having been staged in order to bolster their personal theory of what really happened. And a lot of the results are merely clickbait that don’t really have any content or analysis relating to 9/11 being a hoax. It gets even more dire when you search with quotations. Almost all of the hoax/staged results in relation to 9/11 occur after 2008 and most of the post-2008 (when Cass Sunstein took office) results are post-Sandy Hook. It’s my opinion that the Loose Change no-plane at the Pentagon as well as the lunatic Judy Woods “dustification” narratives were disinformation around 9/11, but neither one of these purports that no event actually occurred – the proposition that 9/11 was a “staged hoax” is a relatively new one that has only become relevant since Sandy Hook.

I searched for OKC hoax results from 1995 to 2012, and virtually nothing. You would think that since these were much bigger events that you would have more articles about these events being hoaxes or staged even years after they happened when the internet became more widespread (adjusted for the size of the internet at the time). There are a lot of articles about 9/11 and OKC being “inside jobs”, but very very little about total hoaxes or stagings (and basically none about OKC, as far as I can tell from a cursory search).

This is clearly anomalous. You would think that some proportion of the population/conspiracy would think that certain events (9/11, OKC, VA Tech, Columbine, etc.) were hoaxes/staged/had crisis actors regardless of whether it’s actually true or not (at the time of the event) and that that proportion wouldn’t just randomly explode during 1 or 2 events – previous events such as 9/11 and Columbine have been analyzed by hoaxers after 2012, so why not when they happened? I’ve yet to think up any way as to how this drastic and sudden spike in hoax-related theories and search terms could have been an emergent or natural pattern or trend – the growth of the internet in general and the “viral news” aspect of social media whereby people more or less shop for the most absurd and sensational headlines and the consequent devolution of conspiracy analysis in general has enabled it and can likely explain some of it, but not nearly all of it. I very strongly suggest that this false hoax narrative began being deliberately introduced somewhere around Aurora and Sandy Hook (likely between the two of them).

Credit: Fitzpatrick Informer

The overall point is that disinformation campaigns (likely carried out by disparate parties, not necessarily one group or organization) and viral media, which, in my opinion have spawned and legitimized the staged hoax theories, have opened the floodgates for sheer absurdism and given any idiot with a YouTube channel or Twitter account carte blanche to spew any ludicrous theory or conjure up any set of meaningless coincidences they please without being rightly ridiculed. They have sufficiently muddied the water so that every time any anomalies or ostensible cover-ups are discovered in relation to these massacres that are bolstered in the press, everyone jumps to the conclusion that the event “didn’t happen” because that notion has been maliciously inserted into the discourse.

Credit: Fitzpatrick Informer

This trend of absurdist disinformation of course includes the new (or, more accurately renewed) trend of legions of so-called “independent researchers” and “internet sleuths” contriving ludicrous pedophile and child trafficking ring conspiracy theories and “solving puzzles” based on vague passages from emails, poems supposedly encoded into the titles of YouTube videos with ROT-13 algorithms, numerology, entirely made up out of whole cloth “cheese pizza hazelnut handkerchief” code languages, comments on Instagram posts, Google maps results, supposed Masonic occult symbolism, etc. These really aren’t even theories because they aren’t attempting to explain or predict anything, they are just contrivances spun entirely out of weak coincidences and loose connections whose conclusions are arbitrarily arrived at. These are the real hoaxes and shams that take one or two disinformation artists or political operatives to conjure up and let loose, not mass shootings and bombings that are impossible to fake. Truly, the absurdist hoaxer flat earth pizza/pedogate segment is a plague upon not only conspiracy analysis but the internet as well as real victims of shootings and bombings.

Simply put, avoid 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Reddit, Crowdsourcing the Truth and all these other ridiculous message boards and forums infested with clickbait peddlers and disinformation experts where fruitless rabbitholes and puzzleholes are spawned which serve only to distract from real conspiracy.

The next installation in this series will be on the mother of all hoaxer events, Sandy Hook.

Google Trends indexes (you can go to Google Trends and download the Excel file for any of these to check these results):

‘Crisis Actor’ May 2006-November 2012 (Before Sandy Hook/before Obama 2nd term): – Average index: 3.99

‘Crisis Actor’ December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook/after Obama 2nd term): – Average index: 20.39

‘Crisis Actor’ w/ quotes May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: .228

‘Crisis Actor’ w/ quotes December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook): – Average: 14.833

‘Crisis Actors’ May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook/before Obama 2nd term): – Average index: .07

‘Crisis Actors’ December 2012-present (after Sandy hook/after Obama 2nd term): – Average index: 12.075

‘Crisis Actors’ w/quotes May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: 0

‘Crisis Actor’ w/ quotes December 2012-present (after Sandy hook): – Average: 11.32

‘False Flag’ May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: 5.365

‘False Flag’ July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 15.425

‘False Flag’ w/ quotes May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora) – Average: 4.95

‘False Flag’ w/ quotes July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 14.966

‘Shooting’ May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: 20.25

‘Shooting’ July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 29.135

‘Shooting Hoax’ May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: .316

‘Shooting Hoax’ December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook): – Average: 10.26

‘Shooting Hoax’ w/ quotes May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: .24

‘Shooting Hoax’ w/ quotes December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook): – Average: 10.98

‘Shooting False Flag’ May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: .203

‘Shooting False Flag’ July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 8.017

‘Shooting False Flag’ w/ quotes May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora) – Average: .054

‘Shooting false flag’ w/ quotes July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 6.932

‘Conspiracy’ w/ quotes May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: 34.08

‘Conspiracy’ w/ quotes July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 38.6

Time-restricted search results (keep in mind some document timestamps may be inaccurate – use discretion and be sure to click through links not only to check for dates but also content):

‘Sandy Hook hoax’ Dec 14 2011-2013 – https://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F14%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F14%2F2013&tbm=#q=sandy+hook+hoax&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:12/14/2011,cd_max:12/14/2013&start=0

‘Sandy Hook hoax’ Dec 14 2011-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F14%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘9/11 hoax’ Sept 11 2000-2002 – https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F11%2F2000%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F11%2F2002&tbm=

‘9/11 hoax’ Sept 11 2000-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F11%2F2000%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=#q=9/11+hoax&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:9/11/2000,cd_max:1/1/2012&start=10

‘9/11 hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘OKC hoax’ Aprl 19 1994-1996 – https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F19%2F1994%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F19%2F1996&tbm=

‘OKC hoax’ April 19 1994-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F19%2F1994%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘OKC hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘Columbine hoax’ April 20 1998-2000 – https://www.google.com/search?q=columbine+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F20%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F20%2F2000&tbm=

‘Columbine hoax’ April 20 1998-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=columbine+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F20%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘Columbine hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=columbine+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘Virginia Tech hoax’ April 16 2006-2008 – https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+tech+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F16%2F2006%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F16%2F2008&tbm=

‘Virginia Tech hoax’ April 16 2006-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+tech+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F16%2F2006%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘Virginia Tech hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+tech+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘7/7 bombing hoax’ Jul 7 2004-2006 – https://www.google.com/search?q=7%2F7+bombing+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F7%2F2004%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F7%2F2006&tbm=

‘7/7 bombing hoax’ Jul 7 2004-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=7%2F7+bombing+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F7%2F2004%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘7/7 bombing hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=7%2F7+bombing+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘DC Sniper hoax’ October 2001-2003 – https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+sniper&client=opera&hs=W7J&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F10%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F10%2F2003&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/10/2001,cd_max:1/10/2003&q=dc+sniper+hoax

‘DC Sniper hoax’ October 2001-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+sniper+hoax&client=opera&hs=1ne&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F10%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F10%2F2012&tbm=

‘DC Sniper hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+sniper+hoax&client=opera&hs=F9J&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F14%2F2017&tbm=


Fox News Operates Like an Intelligence Agency

The unraveling of two of the most influential figures at Fox News, Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes, has shed much light on the internal workings of the company. While nearly all attention has been focused on Bill O’Reilly’s bizarre behavior and his seeming complete and utter inability to control himself around female coworkers, much more interesting revelations have come out in relation to Fox News’ intelligence operations as well as further confirmation of its political weight. For decades, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes – both very politically connected – have covertly operated a compartmented section of Fox News/News Corp. involved in spying, computer hacking/electronic surveillance, blackmail, smears, bribery, intimidation, harassment, etc. that works very much like an intelligence agency or even a sophisticated organized crime syndicate.

However, before diving into the particulars of Fox News’ sordid black bag operations, it is important to lay the groundwork for behavior like this at Fox and briefly surmise its history of conniving and consorting with the highest levels of government. According to declassified US government documents obtained by award winning journalist Robert Parry, while Rupert Murdoch was still an Australian citizen and his media empire was relatively small and largely confined to the New York Post in the United States, he was recruited into a Reagan-era early ’80s “perception management” (i.e. propaganda) campaign spearheaded by then-CIA director William Casey and CIA operative Walter Raymond Jr. that aimed to bolster Reagan foreign policy and combat “anti-Americanism” indirectly through private entities, such as Murdoch’s newspapers. Murdoch, likely picked by the Reagan CIA because of his vehement support for Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, began advancing hard-right politics in the US as opposed to just in the UK and Australia. Additional participants included Charles Wick, director of the now defunct US Information Agency (the propaganda house behind Voice of America and Radio Free Europe), Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire heir to the Mellon family fortune who dedicated his life to financing right-wing counter-establishment media and Roy Cohn, a powerful political fixer and lawyer who was intimately connected to the CIA, ran pedophilic blackmail rings and mentored, advised and ran interference for none other than Donald Trump right up until his death in 1986.[1][2]

b5bca-35a96d7800000578-3660027-image-a-24_1466881215842Like many who cooperate with the American intelligence community early in their career, Murdoch acquired tremendous power and influence of his own as Fox News emerged as the sole voice of the hard-right on cable television and as his media empire continued to grow in the UK, where prime ministers still to this day rely heavily upon positive coverage from Murdoch’s numerous newspapers to win elections, which has prompted Murdoch to be labeled the “kingmaker” of the UK and the most powerful media executive in the world. His close relationship with former British PM Tony Blair has perhaps been the most closely scrutinized, particularly in regards to his convincing of Blair to back Bush II’s War in Iraq. Murdoch has met former PM David Cameron secretly on many occasions. Most recently, he has met with current PM Theresa May, who was a favorite of Murdoch’s Sun newspaper.[3] Murdoch’s stranglehold on such a large portion of the British media puts him in a position such that any aspiring national-level British politician grovel to him and his empire.

In the US, Murdoch was essentially guaranteed a spot at the table given his ties with both the Clintons and Donald Trump, having cultivated a relationship with all of them. However, his history far predates the 2016 election. The New York Post’s endorsement of Ed Koch (a close friend of Trump’s) in 1978 – a decision Murdoch made at the very last moment – ensured his mayoralty (this perhaps marked the beginning of his role as a powerbroker in the United States). After Trump won the GOP nomination, Murdoch conducted a two day meeting with Trump at one of his golf courses in a time during which almost any other presidential candidate would be totally occupied campaigning. Murdoch’s tabloid, the New York Post, was instrumental in “making” Donald Trump through showering him with publicity when he was otherwise relatively obscure. It should be no surprise then that Murdoch has tremendous access to the president today, discussing “strategy” with the Trump weekly.[4][5]

“I would actually sit there where (Roy Cohn) would have a (New York Post) reporter on the phone, and he would be dictating the story, dictating word for word: ‘Donald Trump made a billion-dollar deal with the Saudis today, period, paragraph.’ You know, it was extraordinary.” – Roger Stone

“Look at Al Franken — one day he’s going to get a knock on his door and life as he’s known it will change forever… If any woman ever breathed a word, I’ll make her pay so dearly that she’ll wish she’d never been born… Ailes knows very powerful people, and this goes all the way to the top.” – Bill O’Reilly

Murdoch’s long-time former deputy, Roger Ailes, who resigned as CEO of Fox News in 2016, is not without political consequence either, having served as a highly influential media consultant to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bush I & II, Rudy Giuliani, and most recently, Donald Trump, who Ailes helped break into politics by giving him a call-in segment on Fox & Friends and has been closely advising since before Trump even declared his candidacy.[6] Ailes and Trump are so close in fact that Ailes had Trump conduct severance negotiations with a former Fox PR executive, Brian Lewis, who was accused by Ailes of having been a source for an unauthorized biography of his.[7] Along with Lee Atwater, Ailes was at the forefront of engineering the GOP’s virulently aggressive media strategy and pioneering television as a medium for propaganda from the Nixon years onward (this strategy would later be implemented at Fox News, founded in 1996). He was also reportedly behind a push to run David Petraeus for president in 2012 and suggested to George W. Bush ways to handle the fallout from 9/11 in the media.[8]

From internal Nixon administration memo authored by Ailes

The hub of Fox’s intelligence network was the so-called ‘Black Room’, which was directed almost exclusively by Ailes and those loyal to him, although Rupert Murdoch surely knew of the operation and tacitly endorsed it. Through this ‘Black Room’, Roger Ailes employed private detectives, political/public relations consultants and operatives as well as computer hackers and electronic surveillance experts who reported solely to Ailes. The purpose of this legion of spies and PR mercenaries was to conduct harassment, intimidation and smear campaigns against anyone (including Fox employees) in opposition to Ailes and his agenda.[9][10] This ‘black room’ revelation shouldn’t be surprising given complaints from within Fox News of electronic surveillance, phone tapping, etc. Apparently, his spy ring also extends beyond the private sector. A leaked NYPD Intelligence Division memo obtained by Morning Media revealed that the NYPD conducted counter-surveillance against some party on behalf of Ailes and that Ailes has a retired NYPD detective at his side at all times:

Name: Roger Ailes, President of Fox News Network

Residence: Cresskill New Jersey

Work: 1211 Ave of the Americas

Remarks: Request for counter surveillance from Threats Desk. Mr. Ailes employs a retired NYPD Detective as personal escort. He arrives via private Car and is dropped off daily in front of 1211 Ave of Americas daily between 7am and 9am. He is Escorted into building by his security and is met by building security.

At the request of Mr. Ailes his security is not to be notified. He is aware of the pending counter surveillance attempt. Lt. Chapman (917) xxx-xxxx will be notified of the times and dates before conducting counter surveillance.

Andrea Tantaros, a former Fox host, has lobbed a very credible accusation of phone and computer hacking against Roger Ailes, Bill Shine and Peter Snyder, who owns Disruptor Capital, a venture capital firm based in Northern Virginia (flags should already be going off) that invests in “disruptive technologies.” Shine and Snyder allegedly used an army of Twitter bots to harass and smear Tantaros and someone somewhere hacked Tantaros’ phone and computer, as unique malware was recovered from her electronic devices.[11] Perhaps this lawsuit was the impetus for Bill Shine (and perhaps even Ailes) to resign from Fox, since surely Murdoch and friends don’t want a phone hacking scandal erupting in the United States and permanently damaging Fox News (as well as causing heads to roll in high level government positions) as occurred in the United Kingdom from the late ’90s all the way up until 2011 with an utterly massive scandal involving News Corp. British subsidiary, News of the World, a magazine that was more or less the British analog of the New York Post until its discontinuation in 2011 as a result of the scandal.


Employees of News of the World operated in a fashion reminiscent of intelligence agencies and apparently in a manner parallel to Fox News’ “black room” in the United States – bribing government and law enforcement officers, hacking, directing an extensive network of nasty, nefarious private detectives to spy on and intimidate seemingly almost anyone, etc. The network that News of the World ran had access to numerous confidential databases at telecommunications companies, banks, government agencies, and universities, had reliable informants in the highest levels of British government and law enforcement and managed to hack or illicitly obtain information (directly or indirectly) on members of the British royal family, politicians, celebrities, athletes, and various other subjects of British news coverage. Paul Stephenson, the former Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, was forced to step down over his ties to a newspaper editor accused of conspiring to hack cellphones.[12][13] (Might an American hacking scandal implicate parts of the NYPD?)

As far as we know, this nexus of News Corp., Murdoch, Ailes and CIA-esque intelligence gathering and shady political maneuvering stems from Murdoch’s early partnership with the CIA/USIA/Reagan White House and Ailes’ role in spearheading the dissemination of propaganda through television. It is easy to get lost unraveling a given powerful individual’s history, but if you look hard enough, you eventually stumble upon a decisive event, involvement or connection from their past (and often family) that establishes a foundation for their ascension into the elite and explains their political clout. And that brings us to Tucker.

The Future of Fox

Can’t help but wonder if Tucker is a closeted homosexual, like many others on the ostensibly anti-gay hard right.

The most recent casualty of the barrage of scandals coming out of Fox News has been Bill Shine, a high ranking director. Bill O’Reilly, Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly’s departures have prompted an enormous shakeup in the network’s nightly lineup, and inconspicuous Tucker Carlson has emerged on top, at least for now. Certainly, Carlson’s meteoric rise out of relative obscurity on the back of anti-establishment backlash should be scrutinized. Perhaps the most crucial aspect of Carlson’s past is his seldom mentioned father, Dick Carlson, who was the associate director of the aforementioned US Information Agency as well as chairman of Voice of America, which put out pro-American propaganda in Eastern Europe and Asia during the Cold War. This is perhaps no surprise in the context of Rupert Murdoch’s involvement with the USIA and lifelong pro-American agitation.

After anchoring at CNN then MSNBC, Carlson became a contributor to Fox and later a full anchor. During his rise at Fox, Carlson simultaneously served as editor in chief of The Daily Caller, a trendy alternative right website that more or less echoed “anti-establishment” paladins Donald Trump and Ted Cruz that he founded with Neil Patel (a former policy advisor to none other than Dick Cheney) with funding from a GOP mega donor investment banker and friend of the Koch brothers, Foster Friess.

Although we don’t know how much longer this barrage of head rollings at Fox will continue, I most definitely think the shake up is about more than just sexual harassment allegations. Executives who would have had intimate knowledge of Ailes’ intelligence operation, such as Bill Shine, are being cut loose weekly. Another hacking scandal would surely be utterly devastating, if not lethal, for Fox and News Corp.


[1] Murdoch, Scaife & CIA Propaganda


[2] Deep State Misappropriation & the Cryptocratic Clique Behind Trump


[3] UK PM Theresa May met ‘kingmaker’ Rupert Murdoch on UN visit


[4] Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch speak on the phone every week to discuss strategy


[5] Murdoch’s Game


[6] How Roger Ailes Made Donald Trump


[7] Oh Good, Donald Trump Might Have Dirt on Roger Ailes


[8] Fox News chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate


[9] Roger Ailes Used Fox News Budget to Finance ‘Black Room’ Campaigns Against His Enemies


[10] Roger Ailes Reportedly Threatened Physical Violence Against New York’s Gabriel Sherman


[11] Former Fox News Host Alleges Network Operatives Hacked Her Phone As Part of Smear Campaign


[12] UK Phone Hacking Scandal Fast Facts


[13] Operation Motorman: the full story revealed


Why the ‘border tax’ is a bad idea

The Trump administration’s border tax has been trumpeted by legions of supposedly pro-market pundits in the right wing media for months now. It is relatively simple to dissect this misguided policy:

First, it’s necessary to get past the obfuscatory language – ‘border tax’ is essentially a glorified term for a tax on imports, or tariff (border tax sounds more exciting though, doesn’t it?). A tariff’s intended effect is to make (presumably cheaper) foreign imports at least relatively (if not, absolutely) more expensive than the same domestically produced goods in order to prop up domestic firms. Since imports become more expensive as a result of the tax, the level of imports drops and more domestic goods are purchased since they become cheaper than foreign goods. Another less obvious effect of the tariff is, since the equilibrium price is not being attained and production does not reflect consumer preferences, a decrease in allocative efficiency/overall societal economic benefit. In other words, the marginal benefit to the consumer of consuming the last unit of a good is less than the marginal cost to the producer of producing the last unit of said good and consumers end up with a burden of taxation/loss of economic benefit/utility (necessarily) in excess of any increase in economic benefit to producers. This is illustrated by this graph:


As you can see, value to consumers is lost in two areas where trade with the tariff does not take place – from QC1 to QC2 under the demand line and from QS1 to QS2 under the supply line. The overall loss in consumer surplus (the difference between what a consumer is willing to pay for a good and what they end up paying on the market) is expressed by the area composed of producer surplus above P-world, tax revenue and societal loss. Part of the loss in consumer surplus is canceled out by gains accruing to producers (because of the increase in the market price of their good and increased production) and part of the loss is recouped in the form tax revenue, but some of the lost consumer surplus is irretrievable and accrues to no one (hence the overall “loss” in societal benefit).

It is important to note that this example is of a market for one specific good. If we were to extend this out to the entire economy, an even greater societal loss would likely occur as a result of some of almost all firms’ producer surplus being canceled out by increased costs of inputs caused by the tariff.

So, already we have a loss in economic efficiency and overall well-being. However, this is only a first-order effect. Now we must observe any second-order effects of the so-called border tax:

Assuming international trade always means that different currencies are traded/purchased as means of payment for foreign goods, a crucial identity holds in the long-run: value of imports = value of exports. Let’s flesh this scenario out further and see why this holds:

Since foreign goods are now more expensive than domestic goods as a result of the tariff/border tax, the level of imports decreases. In order for firms in one country to import goods from another country, it must purchase said foreign goods with foreign money (in practice this is done for them by international banks). Foreign money is purchased on the foreign exchange market at the prevailing exchange rate between the domestic and foreign currency, then used to purchase foreign goods. The foreign exchange market functions like any other market for goods or services (more or less) – it follows the laws of supply and demand.

Since less foreign products are purchased after a tariff is implemented, demand for foreign currency decreases and less domestic currency is supplied into the foreign exchange market. The effect of this is to increase the value of domestic money relative to foreign money (or, conversely, decrease the value of foreign money relative to domestic money since currency A’s exchange rate relative to currency B = 1/currency B’s exchange rate relative to currency A).


This makes domestic products more expensive for foreign firms to purchase because domestic currency is now more expensive to purchase on the foreign exchange market, and so less domestic goods are imported by foreign countries. So, ironically enough, the border tax not only cuts imports, but it also cuts exports (hurting domestic producers) commensurately. Imports = exports. So, the final result is a decrease in overall trade and an increase in prices (both representing significant loss of economic gains), which is indisputably bad for the economy and population as a whole.

Trump administration and media misdirection

The Trump propaganda mill has remained in full swing despite the election already having happened. Nothing is more demonstrable of this than cable news’ “coverage” of Trump’s so-called deals with Carrier Corp., Ford, SoftBank and a few other large companies. It was utterly inadequate and failed entirely to demonstrate how Trump and his proxies deceived and lied to the American people regarding the details of the deals, i.e. that they were more or less payoffs/subsidies (meaning decreased allocative efficiency) and did not result in nearly as many “jobs saved” as Trump and his team claimed (and in the case of SoftBank was enabled by funds from Saudi Arabia, a country Trump is supposedly intent on punishing). [1] A few major mainstream print outlets did dissect and pull apart each deal, but a message isn’t transmitted to the vast majority of the country unless it’s reiterated constantly on mainstream cable news and social media – it must be a drumbeat.

The next act in the theater was “pissgate,” which demonstrated again (remember pizzagate?) the sheer gullibility of the alt-right after the vast majority of them embraced a version of events whereby 4chan originated the “intelligence” memos as an elaborate hoax based on the claims of a person who declared after the fact to have written the memos and photos/screencaps of completely fabricated excerpts from the document (apparently none of them thought to actually read the document just to be sure esoteric 4chan references were actually present in the document). Of course many labeled pissgate a sophisticated intelligence/deep state-backed black bag hit job on Trump, but this clearly wasn’t the case. Firstly, the scandal blew over fairly quickly – real deep state influence in the media takes the form of narratives that are drummed into the American people over the course of years (such as Trump being a “political outsider”), not one-off scandals that have no long-run effect on the rate of support for a given politician. If someone really wanted to blow the lid of a scandal that would put Trump in the ground they would get in touch with Les Wexner, who likely has Trump having sex with underage girls on tape.

Secondly, the memos originated from two private intelligence/opposition research firms – one an American firm which originally conducted the research and the second a British firm hired by the first firm to write up a plausible sounding narrative about Trump’s relationship with Russia largely using facts that could be summarized by anyone who regularly follows current events. Neither one of the companies appears to have deep state connections (Orbis, the British firm, was co-founded by a retired MI6 agent who had a long but ultimately unexceptional career). The only major unique fact presented in the memos was the “golden showers” bit, which was clearly the main piece of information the memos intended to transmit. Personally, I think the golden showers allegation is likely mostly true – firstly, it fits Trump’s pattern of previous sexual behavior (and if Trump himself wasn’t involved in the behavior what would germophobia have to do with it?) and secondly, nothing else in the memo seems to have been an outright fabrication or fiction – so why should golden showers be, especially given the fact that it was clearly the selling point of the memo?

Pictured above: 4chan’s insane unfounded rendition of pissgate events (photo credit: NY Post)

As for other contents of the document, such as Russia’s cultivation of Trump as a potential intelligence asset, they are somewhat believable as well given Trump’s long history and established ties with the Russian-Jewish mafia and other Eastern European interests through people like Felix Sater, Mikhail Fridman, Sam Kislin, etc. [2] It’s not entirely implausible that Russian intelligence may have had their eye on Trump long before his 2016 run given his previous bouts in politics (Obama birth certificate, potential presidential and governorship candidacies, etc.). Despite this, the media narrative that Trump is more or less a Russian plant and that Russia swayed the election is false. The supposed evidence of Russian hacking into DNC servers is weak and inconclusive – Cyrillic text files, known Russian or Ukrainian cryptographic keys, etc. could very easily have been planted in the server logs by someone who knew what they were doing. And, if this truly were the work of sophisticated hackers deployed or hired by Russia, the NSA would surely be able to provide evidence and detailed analysis of the exfiltration and how the stolen data was routed and be able to present it in a roundabout way without compromising their own methods. Some have speculated that the Russian hacking narrative is being spun to escalate war with Russia, but I think it has rather been a way of covering up insider leaks, which if exposed would undermine Trump’s status as an outsider.

From left to right: Trump, Tevfik Arif and Felix Sater (photo credit: WaPo)

As is typical with every administration, there are key handlers placed in unassuming, low profile positions throughout the administration there to ensure that the global elites’ and military-defense establishment’s agendas are upheld and to make sure the president and his inner circle don’t buck the establishment on important issues – Trump will require careful handling in regards to foreign policy and trade/commerce, two issues which he, at least on the surface, appears to diverge from the establishment on (however, Trump is fully on board with the establishment as it relates to domestic policy, surveillance, police state, internet regulation, assertion of American dominance, etc.). Neoconservative CNP member and former UN ambassador John Bolton will likely become the Deputy Secretary of State (who is typically hands-on and behind the scenes as opposed to the secretary) , following in the footsteps of a long line of foreign policy handlers – Warren Christopher, Strobe Talbott, and Richard Armitage among others. CFR president Richard Haass is the backup if Bolton is blocked in confirmation hearings. K.T. McFarland is deputy national security advisor and is clearly in a position to handle sensitive issues that the incompetent Michael Flynn is unfit to. She was a former Kissinger NSC staffer and protege of Reagan defense secretary and Bechtel counsel Caspar Weinberger of Iran-Contra and SDI fame (in many ways Trump and his administration is a rebirth of New Right-CNP-John Birch-Reaganite neoconservatism in both ideology and personnel).

Of course, this isn’t to say that there aren’t establishment mainstays in high profile cabinet positions either. Wilbur Ross, former senior managing director Rothschild Inc. who, with Carl Icahn, engineered a deal whereby Trump was able to maintain control of his Atlantic City casinos after they were foreclosed upon, is now secretary of commerce. I should note that this is a fitting position for someone who has been highly involved in technology transfers to China and Russia. Bonesman, political paymaster and long-time Goldman Sachs partner Steve Mnuchin will be secretary of the treasury. Mnuchin, like Ross, has been involved in business dealings with Trump – his firm Dune Capital invested heavily in Trump hotels in Chicago and Hawaii. Interestingly enough, George Soros (a one-time business partner of Mnuchin’s) was also part of a consortium of investors into the Trump tower in Chicago that after completion of the tower effectively forgave Trump hundreds of millions in interest payments by allowing Trump to purchase the remaining portion of the loan at a drastically reduced price. [3, 4]

It’ll certainly be interesting to observe the administration’s maneuverings from this point on.


[1] The big money behind Trump’s tech deal is from Saudi Arabia


[2] Trump; Clinton; Jewish Mafia; CIA sex rings


[3] Big names back Trump tower


[4] Did George Soros forgive Trump of a $312 million debt?



Trump shills in the media

Originally published at Akamai Tree blogspot on 8/2/16


One of the most fascinating and seldom discussed aspects of the Trump campaign/phenomenon is the use of Trump camp proxies, shills, and surrogates in both the mainstream and alternative media in plainsight.

However, before getting to the use of these proxies specifically, it’s important to preface it by touching on the media’s complicity in Trump’s meteoric rise from the very beginning (about halfway through 2015). There are several evidences for this, and I’ll touch on the key ones here:

1) The media heaped massively oversized coverage (i.e. free advertising) upon Trump (mentioning his name hundreds upon hundreds of times a day on mainstream cable news networks) subsequent to Trump’s registering of significant numbers in polls. The significance of this is that it disproves the assertion by many that the media simply responded to Trump’s popularity by giving him more coverage or that the media only started covering him once he became popular enough to start making them tons of money through increased ratings and viewership (if this were true and it was merely a cynical ploy by the media to make money off of Trump, why didn’t they do this when Trump played up running in 2008 and 2012? – he behaved similarly then). And we now have direct proof of intentional inflation of the amount of Trump coverage in the media with complaints from within CNN about how there are orders from the top (i.e. Jeff Zucker) to cover Trump incessantly;

2) Virtually every major media organization treats Trump with kid gloves. This goes for Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. All three of these networks seem especially willing to treat Trump preferentially, for example by letting Trump conduct interview over phone or on his home turf in the Trump Tower (the media in all other cases requires that major political figures conduct interviews via live satellite uplink or in-studio) and by refusing to ask him any tough questions in interviews, push back on anything he says, or catch in him any err live (the media will do these things in interviews with people they are truly attempting to destroy, such as Ron Paul). In fact, not only does the media treat Trump with kid gloves, but, as evidenced by the Morning Joe leak, the media literally allows Trump to commandeer them and tell them what they can and cannot ask them! This point is fleshed out further in my post “Trump and the election, again”;

3) If the media were truly deadset on destroying Trump, they would do what the media does to people they’ve subdued historically – pull the microphone/not cover the subject they don’t want gaining traction, blow the subject off as inconsequential and laugh them off the stage, or, in special circumstances, reveal a truly catastrophic scandal that results in a blitz of coverage but does result in the subject going down. The media has been doing the exact opposite of these three things since Trump entered the political scene halfway through 2015. The media heaps mounds of coverage on Trump, even though some of it is critical (but, as the old saying goes, all PR is good PR), continually plays him up as a serious candidate (unlike in 2008 and 2012), and never throws any real dirt in Trump’s direction (like his association with Epstein- only weaksauce quotes out of context and criticisms of his performance in the real estate and casino business which the media knows are just political talking points, will never truly fly and can be deflected easily by the Trump team and Trump supporters in the media.

The fourth has to do with the main subject of this blog post – the mainstream (and controlled alternative) media’s willingness to bring on (in some cases explicit) Trump proxies and surrogates.

First, we’ll touch on Roger Stone, the former Trump campaign manager who has been the primary Trump proxy operating in the alternative media realm, frequently appearing on the Alex Jones Show/Infowars and occasionally on Fox (which is supposedly anti-Trump). Stone has a rather colorful history – politically assassinating Eliot Spitzer (and then bragging about the lies he told about him), helping get Bush into office in 2000, serving as Nixon’s man in Washington in the ’80s, aiding Reagan’s career with the help of Roy Cohn (Stone delivered a briefcase containing a bribe and/or blackmail material to the head lawyer of the New York Liberal party to split the opposition to Reagan in the state), and undermining the Democrats’ chances of winning the presidency in 2004 after he began “advising” Al Sharpton (himself an FBI informant), among other things. Of course, Stone claims that he’s officially off the Trump campaign and off the payroll, but this is doubtful given that acting as a mouthpiece and disinformation outlet for Trump is still Stone’s fulltime job (even going to the extent of flying around the country organizing rallies and convention disruption ploys) and storied political operatives and tricksters such as himself don’t work for no gain. Stone himself claims that he’s been a close confidante of Trump for decades (and still is today) and a lobbyist for Trump’s business interests. The relationship between the two shouldn’t be surprising given the fact that Stone was introduced to Trump by Trump’s mentor, deceased CIA-connected fixer and legal hit man Roy Cohn.

It is of course not surprising that alternative media (WorldNetDaily, Breitbart, Drudge, Infowars, Rense, Coast to Coast, etc.) is playing along with the mainstream media in bolstering Trump (though in a far more explicit manner) and the over-hyped and government engineered Islamic threat seeing as though right wing alternative media is a controlled, insular cult very much tied into the Christian right-wing power structure consisting of the John Birch Society and organizations connected to it such as the Council on National Policy. Joseph Farah, the founder of WorldNetDaily, was at one point member of the CNP. Sebastian Gorka, who’s been the National Security Editor at Breitbart since 2014, has not only been employed as a consultant (read: possibly paid off) by the Trump campaign but also happens to be a grade-A counterterrorism and counterintelligence spook. Roger Stone, who has previously been associated exclusively with Eastern Establishment liberal Republicans, has recently been brought into the fold of this clique and has been at the epicenter of reviving Clinton scandals and conspiracy theories.

This time-honored tradition among the right-wing alternative media originates with the documentary “The Clinton Chronicles,” which was produced by then-to-be CNP member Pat Matrisciana and funded by anti-Clinton CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife. It was then promoted by CNP insider and ultra-Christian right-wing asset Jerry Falwell. Some parts of the documentary are true, namely drug running out of Mena, Arkansas and the connected money laundering associated with BCCI/CIA, Don Tysons, and Jackson Stephens (although the documentary doesn’t dig all the way into the Mena story as that would necessitate recognizing that drug running out of Mena originated before Clinton became governor under the direction of the Reagan-Bush CIA).

Other parts, such as the Clinton body count, Whitewater, Bill’s sexual misconduct, and Bill Clinton rape accusations are often unclear and less solid (although they did spawn tens of other documentaries on the topics). The sexual allegations have been by far the most damaging to the Clintons (in fact these eventually morphed into the Lewinsky investigation headed up by CNP/Christian right-wing insider Kenn Starr) and are what Roger Stone has expounded upon and added to in his latest book, The Clinton’s War on Women. This is the latest in the long line of publications backed by Christian right-wing groups pushing the disinformation that the Clintons single handedly hijacked Arkansas and the country once and wish to do it again. The truth about the Clintons is that they themselves don’t hijack anything – they are puppets who were initially facilitated and brought to power by kingmakers such as Jackson Stephens and Don Tysons. Now, even the mainstream media has joined in on attacking the Clintons (before 2008, the media more or less protected the Clintons) by hyping the email and Benghazi stories conveniently right before the election season began ramping up in order to help CIA-connected Trump. Stone aides this.

Ann Coulter’s shilling for Trump isn’t surprising given her connections to the radical ultra-Christian right which date clear back to the phony Paula Jones rape case (promoted by the whole cast of characters from the CNP – Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Whitehead, etc.) when Coulter was an unpaid advisor to Jones’ attorney.

Next, we have Corey Lewandowski, another former Trump campaign manager (and former Koch operative) who was supposedly fired and subsequently shunned by the campaign now run by former Roger Stone colleague and operative Paul Manafort (despite Lewandowski having been spotted at a Trump event in New Hampshire after supposedly being fired). Now, Lewandowski, while still being paid by the Trump campaign (and likely contractually obliged not to say anything negative about Trump), is at CNN, a network whose operational chief (Jeff Zucker) is intent on covering Trump as much as humanely possible. Of course, CNN knows this and knows very well that Lewandowski will not be an unbiased commentator, yet they still hire him. Now, in addition to Roger Stone, we have another person who, with no pretense of neutrality at all whatsoever, is allowed to become a mouthpiece on a major news outlet.

Jeffrey Lord, Katrina Pierson, Healy Baumbardner, Kayleigh MacEnany are additional Trump shills featured on CNN. Lord was a political director in the Reagan White House (it seems as though the Trump phenomenon has been engineered by ex-Reagan operatives such as Stone, Manafort, Lord, etc.). McEnany is an up and coming operative and alumnus of the Georgetown Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service.

Several politicians who’ve become Trump acolytes play into the Trump media complex, the most prominent of which being former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (who happens to have quite a past with Trump) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is still engaged in the gradual process of rebuilding his image and reentering public life.

Certainly, Trump operatives’ influence isn’t contained to cable news networks. Tens of influential right-wing radio hosts are effective Trump proxies, the most notable of which being CIA-facilitated Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage/Weiner, and now even Bill O’Reilly, who was initially a tad pregnant on Trump. Limbaugh is by far the most sophisticated and least explicit, but subtly bolsters the idea that the Trump phenomenon is an entirely organic one which threatens the establishment by making it a point nearly every show to claim that Trump is “not a media creation,” which of course is obviously untrue to anyone who bothers to actually look.

All of the people mentioned above are part of the machine operating deep inside both mainstream and alternative media to bolster the phony outsider Trump by giving him tens of billions in free advertising. Trump isn’t some genius at maneuvering the media – the media promotes him on their own.

Analyzing the candidates

Originally published at Akamai Tree blogspot on 12/16/15


Donald Trump: see previous post.

Ted Cruz: Ted Cruz has been designated an outsider candidate by the mainstream media and the majority of the alternative media. However, this is simply not true. Cruz may have true “conservative” leanings and may not be a favorite among Republicans such as Boehner, Ryan, or McConnell because of all the attention grabbing theater he orchestrates in the senate (he was after all a big actor at Harvard and Princeton), but the establishment in reality would be comfortable with a president Cruz. He has an aggressive iteration of establishment foreign policy regarding Iran, is powerful and imposing behind a podium, has more or less an establishment posture regarding immigration, and supports the arch-elitist Trans-Pacific Partnership. His wife works for Goldman Sachs in Houston, was the director to South America for the NSC, and was part of a team which drafted a paper for the CFR proposing a North American Union featuring effectively open borders and interoperability between law enforcement. When asked about this, Cruz, as opposed to simply saying he disagrees with his wife, dismissed the issue out of hand and blew it off as inconsequential. Perhaps the largest indicator that Cruz is in fact an insider is that he was a policy “advisor” (i.e. handler) to George W. Bush and was even instrumental in getting John Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court. Cruz’s many insider and elite connections shouldn’t be surprising given the fact that his entire campaign is being run by a CIA contracting company called Cambridge Analytica (a subsidiary of Strategic Communications Laboratory in England) which utilizes sophisticated psychometric modeling to sway public opinion and induce certain demographics and groups of people to accept certain ideas. Cruz is being pitted against the elite and mega donor backed Rubio as the outsider candidate in the media, but this is a sham; it’s just political theater. Both candidates are more or less establishment friendly candidates who are being played off against each other. Cruz has attracted plenty of elitist, mega donor money, much of which has migrated from the Jeb and Christie camps. A key indicator that Cruz is either one of the preferred establishment candidates or perhaps is being surged as a means of election manipulation is all the primary conservative pundits’ (who are mostly controlled and directed entities) near universal support for him, even if their support is more subtle than for Trump. Even CIA-backed Rush Limbaugh, who was tasked with playing the role of the primary Trump exponent by his handlers is gradually bolstering Cruz. Cruz, like Rubio, would serve the elites purposes as a national security and foreign policy hawk, especially regarding Iran, which is in the West’s crosshairs, and would push the Islamic terrorism threat, which is being thrust full force upon the West unlike anything we’ve seen since the Bush years. However, I don’t believe that the elites are completely comfortable with Cruz because he doesn’t appear to be a very easily controllable or corruptible person, which is why Cruz is the kingmakers’ third or fourth choice after Bush, Christie, and perhaps Rubio.

Marco Rubio: Marco Rubio, currently senator from Florida, is the Republican equivalent of Barack Obama – he came out of nowhere onto the national stage after being carefully engineered and facilitated by establishment power brokers and manipulators. Rubio’s background hasn’t been fleshed out very thoroughly yet, as Obama’s has. As information has come out about Obama, he’s been outed as a CIA creation – his father, step father, mother, and grandparents were all deep cover American intelligence assets or pro-Western agitators. Obama himself started out as a CIA infiltrator into leftist and black activist circles in Chicago and various universities and worked for a company called Business International in New York City, a known CIA front. He was obviously identified by a controller at some point as someone who could be useful to them as a smooth talking manipulator (he very likely received elite esoteric speech training) and was given a fast-track in politics. Rubio strikes me in the same way. He’s a masterful, authoritative speaker who has clearly had his rise in politics helped along by higher powers. Like Obama, Rubio has had a couple of very suspicious elections. As with Obama, Rubio’s background and past has been obfuscated and outright lied about. Rubio’s parents, Mario and Oriales Rubio, left Cuba in 1956 during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista after being called to Miami by their employer, Meyer Lansky. Rubio lied in his first iteration of his parents’ story and claimed they had fled Cuba during Fidel Castro’s reign. Rubio’s mother, for some odd reason, made several trips back back to Cuba after Castro’s rise. Make of this what you will, but it’s possible Rubio’s parents were intelligence assets, just as Obama’s parents were. Firstly, the fact that Rubio’s parents were so ingrained in the anti-Castro Cuban mafia in Miami means there was at most one degree of separation between them and CIA assets in the Cuban mafia. Secondly, it was extremely rare for anyone, even Cubans, to visit Castro’s Cuba from the U.S. during his reign. Additionally, Rubio’s brother in law, Orlando Cicilia, ran a multi million dollar cocaine smuggling ring in Miami in the 1980s. He hopped out of prison 23 years early, 4 days after Rubio was re-elected to the House of Reps. in 2000. There are also rumors floating around the internet that Rubio is a homosexual – he was arrested in 1990 in a park known for being a hotbed of homosexual prostitution in Ocala, Florida. He was arrested while in a car with two other men, one of which was Angel Barrios who rented a house out to a gay pornography studio. More will come out on Rubio as time progresses, especially if he continues to be a major force in the election season. It’s very clear that Rubio has elitist and mega donor support – Larry Ellison, Shelden Adelson, Ken Griffin, Paul Singer, Cliff Asness, Frank Vandersloot, etc. He sits on two very powerful Senate committees – the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Select Intelligence Committee, which must mean he’s a trusted asset of the establishment. The alternative media is correct that Rubio is an establishment candidate and holds establishment policy positions. He’s controllable because he can probably be blackmailed (what’s out now about Rubio’s connections to drugs and the anti-Castro Cuban mob isn’t even the tip of the iceberg) – another plus for the handlers. However, I don’t think the establishment is 100% comfortable with Rubio’s chances – he’s a tad young and cherubic and perhaps not commanding enough to be taken completely seriously by the public. This is why they’re keeping their options open with Christie and Cruz.

Ben Carson: Carson is an open shut case of an artificially surged election manipulation ploy. He was surged out of nowhere in the polls and given a media blitz. Now he’s collapsed after his media coverage collapsed and was character assassinated by Politico – he’s not going anywhere. He was used perhaps to draw a certain demographic, fracture Trump’s support, and/or perhaps as an instrument to redistribute support to preferred candidates. But it’s clear the establishment doesn’t really support Carson – he has no elite mega donors and he is in no position to serve even as a controllable figure head there to make a good impression. Carson is clearly a mentally unstable individual. He displays a history of erratic behavior and explosive violence, reportedly having tried to smash his mother’s head in with a hammer. Carson does come from an elitist background – he made elite connections in Yale and is an emeritus fellow in the Yale Corporation, the governing body of Yale, which puts him in the company of many establishment people and clandestine globalist spooks. But despite this, the controllers clearly don’t want him as president. I think Ben Carson is okay with this, though. He’ll make millions selling books.

Jeb Bush: Jeb Bush was the preferred establishment candidate going into the election and faired rather well for a while before Trump was surged and the field was crowded with candidates intentionally. Despite his surprising performance at the Las Vegas debate, Bush is done for – despite all that the establishment has done to attempt to buoy Jeb, he can’t be resurrected at this point. Granted, the election engineers have performed miraculous resurrections previously, for example with John McCain. But they also have failed several times, for example with Rudy Giuliani. McCain was an exception since he was never a major contender with a lot of exposure to begin with. Giuliani was a favorite and had a lot of exposure, but no one liked him and he was stigmatized. Same scenario with Bush. He’s burned through most of his funds and many of his donors have migrated to the Cruz and Rubio camps. The establishment likes Bush not only because he’s a Bush but because he’s privy to the control system (but never opposes it) and is controllable because of all the dirt that exists on him regarding his drug smuggling connections in Latin America, which carried over into Florida, in addition to his relations with the anti-Castro Cuban mafia in Florida. But the public clearly doesn’t want another Bush in the White House and Jeb will never be able to shed his identity as a Bush and all the baggage that comes with that.

Chris Christie: Christie was another candidate who received and still receives establishment support. He was actually the front runner for a significant portion of 2014. Christie was a Bush minion as the District Attorney of New Jersey, played up the war on terror and made a name for himself prosecuting terrorist patsies (taking on a Giuliani-esque persona) and various politicians and other powerful people designated to be destroyed by Christie’s bosses. He then became governor of New Jersey. Christie’s progression is common in politics – a controllable, corruptible person moves up the ladder for said qualities. In that regard, Christie is similar to Jeb Bush. Chrsitie would have made a very predictable, controllable president, and that’s what the establishment wants. But all of Christie’s skeletons in his closet, him and his family’s mafia connections, Christie’s corruption in the Fort Lee lane closure, etc. prevented him from ever gaining a foothold in the polls and his numbers collapsed. However, since Jeb Bush has all but fallen off the map, the establishment is giving another go at Christie – having a major New Hampshire newspaper endorse him leading up the NH primary, giving him gimme questions at the debates, and hand selecting media pundits to disseminate the notion that Christie has performed extremely well in the debates and that he is poised to do very well in the New Hampshire primary. So far, this hasn’t translated into much in Christie’s polling numbers, but do look for the election engineers to continue buttressing Christie.

John Kasich: Kasich, governor of Ohio, is a life-long politician and establishment Republican who had toyed with the idea of running for president again after his failed 2000 campaign for some time. Kasich never commanded much of a presence this season. He’s probably not being used in any major way to to manipulate the election, but he’s been given just enough attention in the media to keep him on the radar in order to fracture support and direct a block of voters (Ohio voters) who will go a certain way when Kasich inevitably drops out and endorses an establishment candidate, probably Rubio or perhaps Christie.

Carly Fiorina: Fiorina was clearly used as an election manipulation instrument when she was artificially surged to 12% support in mid-September with extensive media coverage. Like most other artificially boosted candidates, she was labeled an “outsider” because she had never held office, although she is anything but. After Fiorina dutifully supplied a truckload of HP server equipment to the NSA at the request of Michael Hayden one week after 9/11, Fiorina guaranteed herself a spot on the “External Advisory Board” to the CIA and NSA created by Hayden. This was nothing other than a avenue by which technology companies and academics colluded with the military, NSA, and CIA. Fiorina was allowed to promenade through the halls of the most secretive intelligence agency in the world, the NSA, and made close friends with some of the most powerful people in the world (heads of intelligence) – obviously not an outsider. Now, to be clear, Fiorina likely was never informed of the NSA’s most powerful or experimental technologies or given the real inside scoop on the scale and scope of the NSA’s activities – she was merely used as a conduit between private industry and the intelligence community. But that kind of position still indicates that she is someone who is not an outsider at all. Her father was also a powerful federal judge. Her campaign was never going to go anywhere, though. I think she’s simply being positioned to take a powerful job in Washington in some kind of globalist think tank or NGO. No wonder then that Fiorina recently purchased a multi million dollar home in swanky Great Falls, Virginia.

Rand Paul: Rand Paul is the only true, pure outsider candidate with mostly outsider policy positions in the Republican field. He had a relatively strong showing in the beginning of the season but has seen his support slowly eroded away over time. He hasn’t been able to replicate the success his father, Ron Paul had, even with his own libertarian base. Paul has watered down his father’s hardline libertarian message and compromised on a number of key issues thinking it would earn him brownie points with the elites, which has significantly weakened Rand and made him less distinguishable from run of the mill establishment Republicans – he’s disarmed himself and his message and deprived himself of his distinguishing characteristics. Rumor has it that Ron Paul is quite disappointed with Rand, which would make sense given that Ron Paul hasn’t donated a cent to Rand’s campaign. I think Rand is sincere, but at the same time I believe he’s being set up to serve the role of normalizing moderate libertarian ideas in mainstream contemporary political discourse as the Republicans seek to co-opt the libertarian ideology to draw a younger demographic to the GOP. There has to be a reason the Republican National Committee and media have gone out of their way to include Rand in debates he shouldn’t have been in given his dismal polling numbers.

Mike Huckabee: Mike Huckabee is an establishment election manipulation instrument and minion of Roger Ailes’ who, like Kasich, was included in this campaign to fracture support and eventually deliver his demographic (mostly Republicans still clinging to radical social conservatism of the early 2000s variety) to the establishment candidate, Cruz, Christie, or Rubio. In 2012, Huckabee was tasked by the establishment (which wasn’t 100% comfortable with Romney) with attempting to weaken Mitt Romney among Evangelicals by attacking his Mormon religion. He’s clearly not going anywhere and never has, but has been maintained by the election engineers as an instrument of control over the remaining Evangelicals in the Republican party.

Lindsay Graham: Graham, a senator from South Carolina and accomplice of John McCain, Joe Lieberman and the rest of the neocons, was thrown into the election as a potential voter bloc controller and to inject hyper hawkish neoconservative rhetoric into the debate. Despite his near nonexistence in the polling numbers, the media gives Graham and his hawkish rhetoric disproportionate coverage.

George Pataki: Pataki never had a shot at the Republican nomination. He is a New York liberal. There is really nothing interesting about Pataki.

Rick Santorum: Santorum evidently thought he could run in 2016 off the inertia of his 2012 run in which he placed second to Romney. Clearly, this hasn’t worked, since Santorum has no support this time around. Santorum has always predicated his campaigns on social conservatism. Unfortunately for Santorum, the social conservative faction of the GOP has been withering for some time and doesn’t have near the presence it had only 8 years ago.

Scott Walker: Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, who has since dropped out of the race, was actually one of the front runners going into the race, with 14% support at one point. After peaking at 14%, Walker’s numbers only fell and he was never able to resurrect his campaign. He didn’t perform well at the debates he attended. I think he was probably asked to fall on his sword and shoot his campaign in order to coalesce support around another establishment candidate or perhaps as an emergency maneuver to boost Jeb’s numbers and funding.

Bobby Jindal: Jindal is a very strange character – an ethnic Indian with a Louisiana accent. Jindal clearly entered the race confident, believing there were big developments ahead for him and his campaign, but his numbers never went anywhere and he dropped out.

Rick Perry: Perry, the former Texas governor with a Texas swagger, was pressured into running for president in 2012 after initial numbers showed him leading the field. He fared well for a while before a number of embarrassing mistakes and media hitpieces upset his campaign and relegated him to 5th place in the Iowa caucus. After preliminary numbers showed him trailing in South Carolina, Perry dropped out. Perry was the first to drop out in 2016 primarily due to his lack of funding. I think the establishment would welcome a Perry presidency, but he’s simply never been able to get his act together.

So, broadly speaking, the election engineers brought out Trump to draw in the disaffected white, lower middle class, uneducated, non-ideological, apolitical demographic to the Republican Party with too good to be true, infectious populist/nativst rhetoric and bombast, which of course plays into the hands of the Western agenda of taking down Syria and Iran under the cover of waging a war against ISIS and other radical Islamic extremists. The engineered theater which is ensuing in the media will drive people to the polls in both the GOP nomination and for the GOP in the general. The establishment candidates (Cruz, Christie, and Rubio) then co-opted and homogenized Trump’s message, which is exactly what happened when Perot and Goldwater ran. After the election engineers dump Trump through primary and/or convention manipulation (although it is possible that Trump has been in on the manipulation the whole time and will drop out unexpectedly as Perot did) and Cruz, Rubio, or Christie are nominated, the Republicans will likely still get to carry the demographic that Trump excited into the general, especially if Trump endorses someone. This will make the GOP’s chances of winning the general far more likely. The elites in my estimation do not want Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office – she is too bullheaded, independent, and obstinate. She would definitely try to inject herself into the control system and buck her handlers – she’s power hungry. Carson, Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee, and Graham have been used as election manipulation instruments – used either to siphon voters from a specific voting bloc or demographic to the establishment candidate and/or to fracture support.