We've all heard the term false flag, and it seems that people use it far more freely now. But is there a new element to these stories, or is the prevalence of false flag accusations just making it seem like such incidents are solely in the realm of the conspiracy theorist?
The more we hear about false flags, the less we tend to believe that they're taking place. We have shock jocks calling almost every terrorist incident some kind of cover-up; we have the Twitter mob reacting to every shooting, every international or foreign policy decision as if it were a staged event to seize power. And here's the problem: False flags do happen, and they are happening more and more, but because of the deluge of accusations, the majority of the public now just cast such claims aside with little thought.
Let's consider the Russia collusion story and examine it through the false flag lens. To do this, we need to look at several aspects.
First, what are false flags and what factors indicate that something untoward is happening? Second, can we demonstrate that these factors have been used in the past as a verifiable false flag? Third, do governments actually engage in false flag operations? And, fourth, do these factors apply to the Russiagate story?
Let's start by looking at where the term false flag came from. It's deeply entwined with another term in common use: true colors. Many years ago, ships used their flags to signal what country they represented and what kind of ship they ...
