Venezuela: Maduro Accused of False Flag Over Helicopter Grenade Attack

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 29, 2017

In every country in the world other than Western Europe and its colonies, the idea of a “false flag” is considered whenever anything happens.

After Tuesday’s helicopter grenade attack on a government building in Venezuela, people are asking questions.

Washington Post:

A rogue helicopter that buzzed Venezuela’s Supreme Court building and possibly dropped grenades became a strange centerpiece Wednesday in the country’s meltdown — with some suspecting it was a ruse by President Nicolás Maduro to further clamp down on the opposition.

The chopper flight Tuesday was initially hailed by opposition groups as a sign that security forces were breaking ranks in the first step in a possible coup.

But later, questions crept in. The pilot of the helicopter, which trailed a banner proclaiming “Freedom,” turned out to be an actor, Oscar Pérez, who also served in special operations forces. Maduro opponents then began to interpret the incident as a possible government-staged charade to muster support for even tougher measures against protesters as Venezuela’s political crisis grows more violent and desperate.

At least one prominent journalist rejected that, describing the chopper flight as a genuine act of rebellion by a man who “maybe has a touch of craziness.”

The helicopter was found intact Wednesday on a jungly hillside north of Caracas. But there was no sign of Pérez, who remained at large.

Even as Venezuelans tried to sort out what has been called the “Chopper Coupster,” the nation sank deeper into chaos.

Opposition groups and demonstrators have been outraged by the Maduro government’s attempts to dissolve the National Assembly and change the constitution. More than 70 people have died and at least 1,000 have been injured in near daily clashes over the past several months. Thousands have been arrested, and detainees have alleged physical and mental abuse by security forces.

Maduro, who has presided over an economic collapse marked by extreme shortages of food and medicine, has refused to back down

On Tuesday, Maduro denounced the helicopter incident as a “terrorist attack” and deployed tanks and other armored vehicles onto the streets of the capital to “keep the peace.” Pro-government gangs surrounded parliament and kept lawmakers inside for hours.

Of course, there is no way to know in an incident such as this whether or not it was a false flag, or if the “hijacking” explanation is true.

It seems that the false flag option is more probable.

Regarding Conspiracy Theories

I have been known to be critical of various conspiracy theories. This is because many of them that pop-up on the internet appear to exist for the sole purpose of making any questioning of the mainstream narrative look absurd. This could itself be looked at as a form of informational false-flagging.

There is also a very real type of psychological profile, a person who will believe absolutely any conspiracy theory, and that allows a lot of real hard kookery to spread out of control, thus creating a situation of mass confusion, where people are likely to return to the safety of the mainstream, rather than deal with people claiming that the earth is secretly flat or that the Lee Rigby beheading was staged by actors.

The kook-tier theories make it very difficult to have a real discussion about the possibilities of real conspiracies.

My rules on conspiracy theories are as follows:

1. Yes, you should be able to question everything
2. A theory should have a who, how and why
3. A theory should make sense, generally
4. A theory should never be presented as a fact
5. Hard, provable facts should always be the focus of any political presentation, with conspiracy theories serving as a side issue or a mental exercise

I think that as long as those rules are followed, it is okay to discuss various things. I also feel these are very reasonable rules, that no one can in good faith disagree with.

With the hard-kooks you sometimes see on the internet – whether they are real people or state actors trying to sow chaos, you can never tell, and it doesn’t matter anyway because the effect is the same – one or more of these rules is ignored. Quite regularly, every rule but the first one is ignored.

I was the first person on the internet to write about the idea that last year’s failed coup in Turkey could have been staged by Erdogan in order to solidify power. I wrote about it while it was still happening. To this day, that remains the most viewed article ever on this site. I think it must have been read by every English-literate person in Turkey, and mainstream Turkish journalists were quoting it.

I still feel strongly that this is most likely what happened, based on the available data.

However, I have never stated that I know for a fact that this is what happened, as I don’t. There is no hard proof. It is simply, in my estimation, more likely than not that this is what happened.

False Flags

False flags are a very regular occurrence all throughout history, and whenever any attack happens, this option should be considered. And in most countries, this is the case.

In a recent article about a fireboming of the American embassy in the Ukraine, I wrote:

Slav stuff is all so mysterious and double-tricky compared to what we’re used to in the West.

Like, in this case, I would just assume that it is some kind of false flag or double false flag – someone doing it to blame someone else or someone doing it to make it look like someone else did it to blame someone else.

Or rather, I wouldn’t necessarily assume that – I would just consider it to be the most likely scenario, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking – from my own assessment of the statistics, which are not clear, as we are talking about double-trickery here – most political killings and terrorist attacks in Slavland are done not for the purpose of terrorizing the group being attacked, but for making it look like some other group did it.

And then look – all Slavs are already aware of that fact. So when some type of political violence happens, it could also be someone actually attacking the target they want to attack in order to make it look like their enemies were doing a false flag against their target.

And then you can just keep layering that.

I think it’s fine to think this way.

But we should always be reasonable, and always put the facts first.

For Instance

We don’t know for a fact that the Jews did 9/11.

I think it is 100% fair to say that they are responsible, as it is their policy that led to Moslems being in the country in the first place. There is also a whole lot of circumstantial evidence which very much points to prior knowledge by the Jews and Israel.

The recently revealed 27 pages of the 911 Commission Report which had previously been withheld, however, admit that the Saudi intelligence services were directly involved, meaning that there is no way the Jews didn’t know about it, and making it unlikely that they didn’t plan it themselves.

Bombs in the buildings have never been proven, however, although that does seem more likely than not. Without being an engineer, you can look to the fact that the designer of the towers spent a lot of time considering the possibility of them being hit by planes, and said they could withstand the impact of two large jets. We also have the fact that no other steel-framed building that has burned up has collapsed.

Grenfell tower for instance burned up totally, but the steel frame still stood.

However, no building the size of the WTC towers (even tower 7) has ever burned up.

I’m not 100% on bombs in the building, though I think that the arguments of theorists are compelling.

The bottom line is to just always be reasonable. We don’t want to end up looking like the US Congress with their Russian nonsense. We aren’t a bunch of kooks.

We have some many hard facts about what the Jews are doing to us that we don’t need to pretend to know things we don’t know or go overboard with theoreticals.

In the case of 911: it is nowhere near as important as the Holocaust, an event which we know for a fact did not happen. Or at least, we know for a fact that there is no physical evidence that it happened.