Canada's Domestic False Flag War Has Many Fronts

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.  All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,  and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials

There is no doubt that the attack on Parliament Hill last October, by a lone wolf gunman, became Stephen Harper's false flag war; as the government, with the help of the media, painted it as an attack perpetrated by ISIS.

In the wake of 9/11, the fear on that day was real, as no one knew how many gunmen were involved, and how organized the attack. We now know that it was just one mentally unbalanced homeless man, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who had no ties to any terrorist organization.

Since then, the Conservatives have used this false flag war as an excuse to further erode our civil liberties, in the name of terror. On the campaign trail, Harper is emphasizing the need for security, while suggesting that only he can keep us safe. The politics of fear.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." -- Adolf Hitler

Not Canada's Only False Flag War

The term "false flag" originated in the days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy, before attacking another ship in its own navy. This would then be used as excuse to go to the war. After all, didn't they have the right to defend themselves?

However, "false flag" does not have to refer to fact manipulation, in order to promote a military engagement, but can also be used as a tactic to undermine political opponents. There is little doubt that Justin Trudeau was set up to take the fall for Bill C-51, the Harper government's egregious, so-called anti-terrorist bill.

If all is fair in love and politics, the NDP's political exploitation of the situation, could be called "fair" or at least a clever tactic against Trudeau and the Liberal party, leading into the election campaign.  It certainly hurt the Liberals, at least temporarily.

What surprised me however, was the media's complicity in this.  If it is a journalist's job to inform the public, while recording history; what will future historians think of the reporting and recording, of the events following the passage of Bill C-51?

They might initially believe that it was Justin Trudeau's bill, until realizing that he wasn't the prime minister. He wasn't even the leader of the official opposition and did not head a coup. How could he possibly be responsible?

It would be easy for them to see through the actions of the NDP, but might be understandably puzzled by the direction taken by "journalists".

Not that the media hasn't helped to fan the flames of war, but why did they see it as their responsibility, to attack a political party with biased reporting, to help the prospects of another political party or parties?

However, while the NDP might, seemingly, have been the beneficiaries of this engagement, in the end, by giving Harper a free pass on the bill, they could also be the fallen soldiers.  They chose the wrong allies.  The Conservative army takes no prisoners.

The NDP's False Flag War Claims Many Victims

With the distraction of the orange dog and pony show, there was important information that the Canadian public was not privy to. Bill C-51, was not just an anti-terrorism bill, but an omnibus bill, with many critical elements that should have been examined and made election issues. According to Vice:

.. this national debate about surveillance is also a distraction from the fact that Stephen Harper is once again using a monstrous bill to simultaneously change dozens of pieces of legislation while severely limiting Parliament's ability to have a meaningful debate about these issues. Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill, meaning that it is creating two laws but also amending roughly a dozen others from the Department of Fisheries Act to the Criminal Code to the Income Tax Act.

This Means that we have lost the opportunity to debate these things, that are rarely mentioned by the media, too wrapped up in the Justin Trudeau nonsense.

There is now a series of memes being passed around, that make many of the things that Stephen Harper does in his politics of fear, pale by comparison. Showing a protest group and the idea that stopping protests, is the real reason for the bill, is not only a false flag, but entirely false.

Originally there was a clause that allowed "lawful" protest. However, when concern was raised that "lawful" could be left to interpretation, the word was removed. This means that the bill does not stop protests

"The first amendment would clarify that any protest or dissent would not fall under C-51. .. University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese, along with fellow academic Kent Roach, has conducted an in-depth analysis of the bill. Forcese said that dropping the word “lawful” from C-51 to ensure it doesn't target civil disobedience activities may allay some concerns on the part of environmental and aboriginal groups.

So why are these people trying to suggest that protests will no longer be allowed in Canada?

This bill is flawed for so many reasons, and in the wrong hands could certainly be used for a lot of things. However, we have seen human rights abuses in this country, long before Bill C-51.

These images are designed to create fear where there should be no fear, while hiding the things we should be afraid of.

This kind of hyperbole can actually have a different affect than expected. Over the top fear tactics often turn people off, but more importantly, they might do irreparable harm to future protest actions.

If people are frightened that engaging in such things, could get them arrested or painted as terrorists, they might think twice before taking part.

The politics of fear, whether coming from the Conservatives or NDP, are still the politics of fear.