The art of the magician is largely based on mastery of surprise and the ability to destract an audience’s attention at crucial moments.

So called ‘false-flag’ operations, which can be considered malevolent magic tricks on a grand scale, work on similar principles. But because they are malevolent and political in objective, there are other aspects to false flag operations. The audience doesn’t even know it’s being subjected to a trick – nor does it know when the magic tricks have concluded. The ultimate goals of conspirators who perpetrate false flag operations are not declared or explicit; in the absence of credible confessions, they must be inferred or remain unknown

Anders Behring Breivik - a real 'lone nut' for once?

One characteristic of false flag ops is that perpetrators typically convince not only ideological friends – but enemies also – that the events are authentic. At least, they can do this for a while. Over time, as the ultimate agenda becomes more apparent, more people do get suspicious. But by then it’s usually too late. The perpetrators’ agenda has already been rolled out. They are onto their next crime…

Many people now accept that the 9-11 attacks on America were, in essence, a Zionist false flag operation, so I’ll use the 9-11 case as an initial example. In the immediate aftermath of that horrific and mind-numbing event, most Muslims accepted the guilt of the famous 19 (alleged) hijackers and their even more infamous cave-based commander in Afghanistan. Those Muslims who didn’t accept the mainstream 9-11 story were conveniently labelled ‘radical Islamists’, treated as suspicious and marginalized by the mass media.

The perpetrators of 9-11 planned carefully for this. They prepared not one, but TWO narratives. Both were promulgated from Day One – and of course, many more subtle variations on these basic themes evolved over time.

The first and most dominant mainstream narrative was that evil Muslim terrorists had attacked America – and revenge was essential.

The ‘alternative’ narrative was that America had suffered ‘blow-back’ because of its imperialist policies and pro-Israel bias. According to this analysis,  more understanding of Arab/Muslim grievances was needed. This less vengeful analysis appealed to many (but not all) liberals and to many Muslims. But, of course, in retrospect, both narratives were like two sides of a fake coin. Reality lay elsewhere…

A case less well-known around the world was the terrible mass murder in Tasmania that took place in April 1996, commonly known as the Port Arthur massacre. It’s also less common to suggest the Port Arthur massacre was a ‘false flag’ operation. Most Australians, to this day, believe the sole perpetrator was Martin Bryant, the man arrested on the scene and subsequently jailed for life.

I don’t believe that – and I’ve explained why previously. At the very least, I maintain that the case for a comprehensive public re-examination of the case is extremely strong. The lack of official enthusiasm for such an inquiry itself speaks volumes.

One of my reasons for disbelieving the offiical narrative of the Port Arthur massacre is the quite remarkable lack of due process that followed Australia’s largest ever mass murder. An inquest was never completed. The case came to trial, but by that time the plaintiff had switched his initial plea to guilty, so the prosecution’s case was never tested in court. Nor was there any public inquiry after that. Repeated pleas by many victims’ relatives for a public inquiry and/or resumption of the inquest were barely reported by Australia’s mass media. This is highly ironic, as respect for the pain felt by victims’ families and a desire not to cause them further grief was the pretext used at the time to rationalise not holding a completed inquest or public inquiry.

In short, the most lethal mass homicide in Australian history received less legal scrutiny than the most commonplace of murders.

The media has never interviewed Martin Bryant since his arrest. For many months in the lead up to his trial, his own mother was denied access to him on the grounds that was his wish. Bryant, as is well known, has a low IQ and is probably quite manipulable. It would seem likely that’s what happened; after several months in isolation and after a somewhat mysterious change of barrister, Bryant entered a guilty plea at trial. He’s been incarcerated ever since.

As far as I’m aware, no politicians have ever raised the alarm about this appallling lack of due process. The closest was Pauline Hanson, the maverick right-wing politician from Queensland. Unfortunately, her comments on the Port Arthur case lacked focus and probably helped solidify the conviction of most Australians that only cranks doubt the official Port Arthur narrative.

Which brings me to the present – and the latest horrifying slaughter of innocents to blight the annals of western civilisation. I’m not, for once, referring to the west’s military crimes in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc – but to the tragic mass murder in Norway last Friday.

In the very first hours of the atrocity blame was widely attributed – without evidence – to Muslim extremists. After that it was announced that a suspect had been arrested who is likely to have committed the atrocity alone. His politics, we’re told, are on the far right. Almost everyone has accepted that he is, indeed, the killer. We have a face, we have the report of his lawyer, some information about his appearance in court and the rather gruesome legacy he left in the form of a manifesto, a video and twitter and facebook entries. Now the global chatter machine is off. Having accepted these basic ‘facts’ of the case, it’s chattering away about the implications following entirely predictable lines of disputation.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store is greeted by BDS protestors on Utoya, the day before the massacre. This widely circulated photo fueled initial speculation about a Zionist connection

Initial notions that this might be a Zionist false-flag operation were inevitable, given the long history of such activities. They were voiced on the margins of mainstream debate from soon after the attack. But as it’s emerged the alleged perpetrator has strong Zionist sympathies, these claims look less believable than in the immediate aftermath. If this really was a Zionist false-flag op, why create a patsy with Zionist sympathies? It doesn’t make sense…

But of course, false flag operations are typically designed to make no sense at the time – or rather, designed so that the only conceivable sense seems to be the official narrative or narratives.

At the time of writing, I must say it is entirely possible the ‘mainstream narrative’ about the Oslo murders is correct. Perhaps this unspeakable horror was indeed the result of one, lone nutcase. Perhaps there really is nothing more to see in this case…

Yet given the long history of false flag operations, it behoves us to be very careful. Above all, we must avoid allowing due process to be disregarded at crucial times. Due process is protection against rorts. If due process had been observed in the case of Martin Bryant, it’s likely that lingering doubts about the case would have been resolved long ago, one way or another.

Anders Behring Breivik appeared in court yesterday. However, his appearance in court was not public. A plausible explanation was given for this: the desire to avoid giving a public platform to an extremist which he could use to inflame hatred (or even, it was argued, to deliver coded messages to possible supporters!)

We’re told Mr Breivik will now be incarcerated in solitary confinement for a month. His family have not seen him and apparently don’t intend to visit.

These abnormalities may be explicable, but they should be of concern to the Norwegian public and to people everywhere who care about the truth. There are very good reasons for the long-established principle of open court hearings. Open justice is not only for the benefit of the accused. It’s also in the general public interest. We – the public – need to have rational, properly documented grounds for accepting the integrity of the judicial process. This helps protect us, not only against rogue criminals within society as a whole, but also against criminals who may have embedded themselves in the State’s intelligence agencies and judicial system.

The Sun, 23rd July 2011 stated 'Al Qaeda' was to blame on page one. Murdoch's newspapers have never been famous for 'keeping an open mind'

After all, if the official versions of 9-11 and Port Arthur were bogus – as I believe to be the case – it follows that those running investigations at the time were corrupted and/or negligent. It would be extreme folly to ignore that possibility in this latest case in Norway.

The Norwegian authorities should not be permitted to monopolize the public’s flow in information about the suspect. The public should resist the temptation to encourage this. We need justice, not revenge. We’ve seen already what happens when revenge preceeds justice. Think Jack Ruby. Think Afghanistan.

If the atrocity in Norway IS a Zionist false-flag op, why on earth would the Zionists use ‘one of their own’ as patsy?

I can think of at least one reason, although of course this is speculation, not more.

If this was another ‘false-flag’ op, the key to understanding it, I suspect, is to look at this horror not on its own but as part of a larger historical process.

For over a decade, there has been an orchestrated and remorseless attempt by the Zionist movement to demonize Muslims and the Islamic faith and to make the Muslim populations of Europe and North America psychologically insecure and politically weak. At this stage, the horror in Norway would seem to run counter to that push and to weaken its momentum – but maybe not. After all, we don’t know what’s coming next…

If, over the next few weeks, one or more comparable atrocities were to be (apparently) perpetrated by Muslims against innocent Europeans, an intensified ‘clash of civilizations’ between Christians and Muslims could take off like a bonfire on a dry woodpile. Breivik’s stated motives for the Oslo crime would be quickly sidelined; what would be remembered is the notion that there are irreconcilable differences between Muslims and Christians.

I repeat – the bomb-blast in central Oslo and the subsequent slaughter on Utoya Island may be a ‘genuine’ atrocity perpetrated by the man who the authorites say is likely to have been solely responsible – but if so, that’s actually quite unusual in historical perspective.

Alternatively, something quite different and even more vile may be in progress.

We should reserve judgment while insisting on due process, keeping our eyes open and retaining our own archive copies of the news as it comes in. If it IS a false flag operation, interesting anomalies in the earliest reports are likely – and these are likely to dispappear over time. There are indications of this already – such as reports of multiple shooters on Utoya.

Media reports that compare the Oslo/Utoya massacres to the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 do not inspire confidence. There was much more to the Oklahoma bombing than the US authorities have ever admitted. Let’s wait and see if the same applies in this case.