False Flags: When Governments Turn on Their Own

Jason Samir Santiago

What if—what if the biggest enemies we’ve ever had, like the stuff we’re taught to fear... you know, foreign threats, terrorists, the "other"... what if, actually... they weren’t the real threats at all? What if—

Skylar Quill

What if the call is coming from inside the house?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly! From within. History is full of these moments, these engineered crises—false flags, where governments have staged attacks or events to justify wars, policies, or even just total control. Imagine finding out the good guys weren’t so good after all.

Skylar Quill

Allegedly, Jason. Allegedly. Let’s not get sued 3 episodes into the podcast.

Jason Samir Santiago

Fair. But, look, the stories we’re diving into today—these are big. And some of them, honestly, sound like conspiracy, but they do have receipts... at least enough to make you go, "Hold on a second."

Skylar Quill

And "Hold on a second" is, uh, putting it mildly. We’re gonna talk about incidents where the official story feels like smoke and mirrors, where a deeper look reveals layers of manipulation and misdirection.

Jason Samir Santiago

Think about that time your dog pretended to like, limp, for attention to get out of a bath, but, multiply that by a thousand and add some dark political motives. I mean...

Skylar Quill

Okay, that metaphor is doing way too much work. False flags, Jason. They’re false flags.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right, right. False flags. This isn’t just some rogue teenager hacking a Twitter account; this is governments playing 4D chess, messing with public perception and well—

Skylar Quill

And shaping history as they do it. Welcome to Exposed and Unfiltered. Today, we’re pulling back the curtain on some of the most shocking examples of false flags in history.

Jason Samir Santiago

So, speaking of receipts, let’s kick this off with a real jaw-dropper—Operation Northwoods. This one, honestly, sounds like pure fiction, but nope—it was an actual, documented, official plan. We’re talking military-level strategizing here.

Skylar Quill

Unthinkable is an understatement. This was 1962, the height of the Cold War. And the Pentagon, under the watchful eye of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed something straight out of a dystopian political thriller.

Jason Samir Santiago

The trailer would probably say, "When paranoia meets power," right? Basically, the idea was to stage these fake events—

Skylar Quill

False flags.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right—false flags—to justify a war with Cuba. They brainstormed scenarios where the U.S. could fake attacks on its own citizens, blame Cuba, and then retaliate militarily. Like, imagine setting up a staged hijacking or, blowing up a ship and then pretending Castro was behind it.

Jason Samir Santiago

Let’s not forget "fabricating instances of murdered civilians." It’s in the declassified documents. They even floated the idea of faking an incident involving a civilian airliner.

Skylar Quill

Hold up—a civilian airliner? That’s wild. Like, how do you even justify pitching this kinda thing in a meeting?

Jason Samir Santiago

Simple. You label it "necessary for national security." Fear has always been the easiest emotion to exploit.

Skylar Quill

Sure, but it’s also, like, ethically nuclear. I mean, the whole thing was rejected, but just the fact that someone sat down, wrote it out, and, thought it was doable is chilling.

Jason Samir Santiago

Rejected by President Kennedy, to be clear. The Pentagon greenlit it, but JFK wasn’t having any of it. Still, the fact it even made it to his desk...

Jason Samir Santiago

It's like finding out your dog has a secret spreadsheet of "ways to get out of baths."

Skylar Quill

Jason, please stop with the conspiracy pets angle.

Jason Samir Santiago

Fine, fine. But my point is, the plan, even just its existence, sets such a dangerous precedent. I mean, if it almost happened once, what’s stopping something like it from, you know, slipping through in the future?

Skylar Quill

Especially when history shows us that governments have—and will—cross moral lines when the stakes seem high enough.

Jason Samir Santiago

Alright, Skylar, let me pick up where we left off: What’s more chilling than a nearly-greenlit plan like Operation Northwoods? The thought that history might just repeat itself, right?

Skylar Quill

Ah, you must be talking about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. A "textbook example" of how misinformation can turn into a tipping point for full-scale conflict.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. So, for anyone listening who hasn’t heard of it, here’s the setup: August 1964, the U.S. is itching to flex its muscles against North Vietnam. In the Gulf of Tonkin, two incidents involving U.S. Navy ships—the USS Maddox and Turner Joy—were reported. Allegedly, they were attacked by North Vietnamese forces, right?

Jason Samir Santiago

"Allegedly" being the key word there. Yes, the first incident involved a real skirmish, though even that has layers of context conveniently downplayed. The Maddox was conducting covert reconnaissance, essentially baiting a response.

Skylar Quill

And the second attack? The one that made headlines and spurred President Johnson to push the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

Jason Samir Santiago

Never happened. Declassified NSA documents confirm it was a phantom attack—radar glitches misinterpreted as enemy action. Officials knew this but presented it as fact to Congress and the public.

Skylar Quill

Wait, wait. So you're telling me, a literal ghost attack was used to justify full military escalation? That feels... beyond sinister—like ghost stories but make it corrupt policy.

Jason Samir Santiago

It’s more like ghosts tailor-made to fit a narrative. Johnson framed the incident as a blatant act of aggression and got the green light for broad military intervention without a formal declaration of war.

Skylar Quill

And that resolution passed nearly unanimously! It basically handed him a, blank check for Vietnam—a war that spiraled into one of the most devastating chapters in American history.

Jason Samir Santiago

The cost was staggering—over 58,000 American lives lost, not to mention millions of Vietnamese casualties. And it all started with a lie. Or, at best, a convenient "misinterpretation."

Jason Samir Santiago

You know what’s wild? We’re not just talking about mistaken intelligence here. This reads like... calculated manipulation. Like someone said, "How fast can we turn this spark into a firestorm?"

Skylar Quill

Because wars need rallying cries. And a supposed attack on American forces fits the bill perfectly. It’s easier to sell the public and lawmakers on war when you’re framed as the victim rather than the provocateur.

Jason Samir Santiago

Which, in hindsight, makes me wonder—was the entire operation in the Gulf of Tonkin just designed to provoke this kind of escalation? Or was it sheer opportunism when the cards fell this way?

Skylar Quill

Hard to say, but either way, it worked. Public outrage swelled, Congress handed over sweeping powers, and all the pieces for a disastrous, protracted conflict fell into place.

Jason Samir Santiago

And here we are, decades later, looking back at this like it’s some tragic script from history that no one bothered to edit before the damage was done.

Jason Samir Santiago

You know, Skylar, talking about the Gulf of Tonkin and calculated manipulation makes me think—whenever there’s a major incident that reshapes public policy, why does the CIA always seem to weave its way into the narrative? Like take 9-11 and those conspiracy theories—how is it they always end up as the shadowy figure at the center?

Skylar Quill

Because they’ve mastered the art of being both in the room and not in the room at the same time? I mean, it’s a valid question. After all, the CIA is—or at least, should be—our first line of defense against foreign threats.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right. But if that’s the case, why were there so many warning signs about the attacks that were either ignored or somehow lost in the shuffle?

Skylar Quill

You’re talking about things like those intercepted communications between Al-Qaeda operatives? The ones mentioning a "big event" mere weeks before 9/11?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly! And the the flight training schools too, right? How these guys—who the FBI had flagged as suspicious—were learning to fly but not to land?

Jason Samir Santiago

Yet somehow, no one put the pieces together. It’s either colossal incompetence or... something a bit more calculated.

Skylar Quill

Wait. You’re suggesting the CIA might’ve known something about the events on September 11th? No way...

Jason Samir Santiago

Some theories say exactly that.

Skylar Quill

Whoa. That’s a rather bold implication. But I guess... some of those declassified documents, they sort of nudge in that direction, don’t they?

Jason Samir Santiago

They do. There’s evidence suggesting the CIA blocked information from reaching the FBI, especially from their bin Laden unit. Like, actively withholding intel.

Jason Samir Santiago

Which—to be clear—isn’t saying they were complicit. But what’s the motive there? Why not share everything when lives are clearly at stake?

Jason Samir Santiago

Some point to inter-agency rivalries. The CIA wanted to be the ones to control the narrative. Others—

Skylar Quill

Go ahead, rip the Band-Aid off!

Jason Samir Santiago

Fine. Others argue the CIA may have wanted these operatives in play to... further larger geopolitical objectives. Because let’s not forget—9-11 was the catalyst for everything from the Patriot Act to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Skylar Quill

So, you’re saying... a "let it happen to justify the response" kind of theory?

Jason Samir Santiago

I’m saying it’s a lens some people use to view the events and aftermath. Realpolitik at its darkest.

Skylar Quill

But doesn’t that hinge on the idea that the ends—the wars, the policies—justify the means? It’s such a chilling thought.

Jason Samir Santiago

Alright, Skylar, if 9-11 became the catalyst for wars and sweeping policies, the pressing question becomes—how do you convince an entire nation to back those moves? Is it all fear? Patriotism? Or something far more calculated?

Skylar Quill

Fear, mostly. And not just any fear—existential fear. The kind that makes you think, "If we don’t act now, it’s game over."

Jason Samir Santiago

Yeah, and nothing says "act now" like 4 little words—Weapons of Mass Destruction. I mean, it’s perfect. Scary enough to feel urgent, vague enough to let your imagination go totally wild.

Skylar Quill

Exactly. Those words—even just the acronym, WMD—became the linchpin for the Iraq War. After 9-11, it wasn’t hard to stoke the flames of paranoia about threats from the Middle East. And Iraq? It became public enemy number one.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right, but here’s the kicker—we know now that the whole WMD scare was, well, let’s just say, poorly substantiated at best. At worst...

Skylar Quill

Fabricated. The Bush administration leaned heavily on intelligence that was, at best, flimsy, and at worst, deliberately skewed to fit a desired narrative. Remember the whole "mobile biological weapons labs" claim?

Jason Samir Santiago

Oh, yeah, with those drawings that looked like something out of a poorly funded sci-fi flick? And wasn’t a lot of it based on—what was his name—Curveball? The Iraqi defector guy?

Skylar Quill

Correct. Curveball’s testimony, which has since been thoroughly discredited, was a cornerstone of the WMD narrative. But it wasn’t just him. The UK’s infamous "dodgy dossier" and Colin Powell’s UN presentation were all part of the same tapestry of half-truths and cherry-picked data.

Skylar Quill

And let’s not forget that Powell’s speech had props! I mean, anthrax vials. Anthrax! Theatrics sell, apparently.

Jason Samir Santiago

It wasn’t just theatrics—it was theater with a purpose. By the time the administration was done, the case for invasion seemed airtight. Even though inspections by the UN’s weapons teams found no credible evidence, the political machine had already gained too much momentum.

Skylar Quill

Right, they’d made up their mind. Which makes me wonder—was this really about WMDs at all? Or was "WMDs" just the... the scapegoat for something bigger?

Jason Samir Santiago

That’s the million-dollar question. Officially, it was about neutralizing a threat. But unofficially, people have pointed to oil, regional dominance, and a post-9-11 show of strength as the real motivators.

Skylar Quill

So, who benefited? Like, follow the money—was this war just a giant payday for defense contractors and oil companies?

Jason Samir Santiago

Partly, yes. Halliburton, for instance—where then Vice President Cheney had deep ties—secured billions in contracts. And oil fields, while chaotic to manage, were part of the strategic calculus, no doubt.

Skylar Quill

But if we’re looking at benefits, it can’t all be financial, right? There’s this... this element of power. The idea of reshaping the region in America’s image.

Jason Samir Santiago

Absolutely. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and regime change played right into this. Iraq was supposed to be a domino—the first step in remaking the Middle East. But the dominoes toppled in ways that nobody really predicted.

Skylar Quill

And, I mean, look at the cost. We’re talking trillions of dollars, not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process. For what?

Jason Samir Santiago

For a war built on a premise that didn’t hold up. And now, the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has become this shorthand for manipulated fear campaigns. It’s... deeply cynical, but also an important lesson in how narratives shape history.

Jason Samir Santiago

Alright, Skylar, let’s take a step into more recent history. The Iraq War showed us how fear and uncertainty can fuel narratives—but here’s a thought: what if that same kind of questioning applies to something like COVID-19? I mean, what if it wasn’t just some freak accident of nature? Could it have been deliberate... engineered? A bioweapon, maybe?

Skylar Quill

You really know how to kick things off with a bang, don’t you? But it’s a fair question—one that’s been debated online and even in some government circles. The fact that COVID-19 was manufactured falls right into the "false flag-adjacent" territory.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right! And, I mean, there was this backdrop of secrecy that made it so easy to speculate. Like, the Wuhan lab stuff? Gain-of-function research? For me, it was too hard to believe it wasn't man-made from the beginning.

Skylar Quill

Was it just the perfect storm of evidence? Yes, there’s that infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology, known to work on bat coronaviruses. But there’s a huge leap from that to "engineered bioweapon."

Jason Samir Santiago

Are you really sure? What other reason did they have to be creating these chimeras? There’ve been emails, some declassified communications about people raising red flags early on, scientists saying, "Hey, this virus looks. different." The spike protein, the cleavage site, there was so much stuff.

Skylar Quill

Some scientists have pointed out anomalies, but they say there is also strong evidence to suggest natural origin—zoonotic transmission. SARS, MERS... remember those?

Jason Samir Santiago

True, they do say that. That doesn't make it true though, for all we know those could have been gain-of-function experiments as well. But something about the timing, the global fallout, how governments handled it—or didn’t—it makes you wonder. Let’s just say, if this wasn't a manufactured crisis, it sure did seem to benefit the big businesses and those at the top. We saw the largest wealth transfer in history happen during that time, from most of us to the top 1%.

Skylar Quill

Plenty of theories there. Some argue it could be a tool for population control, others say it’s about destabilizing economies to create new power dynamics. And, of course, it always circles back to the same usual suspects—governments, corporations, maybe even non-state actors.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly—follow the money, right? The vaccine companies, the industries that thrived during the lockdowns... you can’t help but think there’s more at play than just public health.

Skylar Quill

Careful, Jason. That line of thinking can veer dangerously close to disappearing. Just because someone benefits doesn’t mean they orchestrated the event.

Jason Samir Santiago

Fair point. But, even the idea of a cover-up—like suppressing the lab-leak fact early on? It was... orchestrated. Almost like, "Let’s control the narrative before it controls us." And the entire world media jumped right in to run cover. It was something on a level that was so effective, to have watched from the outside it was kind of impressive. Like, I have never trusted the news channels myself, so watching them during the lockdowns was mind blowing, the lies and propaganda that was being touted as truth.

Jason Samir Santiago

I even created a news channel of my own back then. Verum Tota, it means "The Whole Truth" in Latin. I wanted to try and give people the truth about what was really going on and I was deleted from the internet for my effort.

Skylar Quill

Or it could just be bureaucratic fumbling. Governments mess up—frequently. But yes, there’s something deeply unsettling about the lack of transparency, from delayed WHO investigations to classified U.S. intel reports.

Jason Samir Santiago

Since we know now that COVID was engineered, what does that say about future risks? Like, let's imagine this one wasn't, what if someone does weaponize such a virus down the line?

Skylar Quill

It’s scary to think about. The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to biotechnological capabilities. Now that we know COVID-19 wasn't natural, the hypothetical questions it raises are very real.

Jason Samir Santiago

There is an episode of "The Blacklist", that incredible TV show with James Spader that ruined itself at the end, that covered this. The idea is basically that with genetic information being so widely available from large swaths of the world after companies like "Ancestry" and "23 and Me" became popular. That someone could create a virus to specifically take down one person based on their genetic markers. Or worse, that they could take down one race or another without harming the others. It's a crazy one I know but it really could happen.

Jason Samir Santiago

One thing that has stuck with me is when RFK Jr. said that somehow the COVID-19 virus spared Jewish and Chinese people, it made me think of that episode.

Jason Samir Santiago

And then trust—how do you trust governments or institutions when these doubts linger? Even in everyday people, this skepticism becomes this big... ripple effect.

Skylar Quill

And this time that ripple effect was more dangerous than the virus itself. When trust erodes, it opens the door to all kinds of societal vulnerabilities—political extremism, disinformation like how they said the masks would work, even violence against those who didn't bend the knee to the tyranny.

Jason Samir Santiago

So, the real legacy of COVID might be the way it’s fractured the show for so many—this virus infected more than just bodies.

Skylar Quill

Exactly. It’s a mirror, showing us where the cracks are. And those cracks might be harder to heal than anything medical science can fix.

Jason Samir Santiago

So, Skylar, thinking about everything we just talked about, here’s my big-picture question—why do these false flags keep, you know, showing up? Is it like this go-to playbook for leaders when they’re backed into a corner or something?

Skylar Quill

In a way, yes. Look at the recurring ingredients—fear, control, a clear "enemy" to rally against. It’s a powerful formula because it works. Fear simplifies complex issues, and people tend to accept drastic policies when they feel threatened.

Skylar Quill

Like, "suspend your disbelief, folks, we’re saving the world here!" But—and this is what bugs me—don’t people catch on? Like after, I don't know, the fifth proven false flag, shouldn’t public trust be totally eroded?

Jason Samir Santiago

You’d think so. But it’s not that simple. Governments and institutions often shield these operations with layers of plausible deniability. By the time the truth emerges, it’s either too late, or people are too fatigued to care.

Skylar Quill

Ah, the PR spin machine hard at work. "Nothing to see here, folks!" It’s like, even when the ugly truth comes out, the damage is already institutionalized, yeah?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. And the policies born from these events often outlive them. Think about it—whether it’s new surveillance laws or military interventions—the effects ripple far beyond the initial deception.

Skylar Quill

So, essentially, false flags are like the Netflix of political strategies. They just keep pumping out sequels—same premise, slightly different packaging.

Jason Samir Santiago

A grim analogy, but not inaccurate. The pattern persists because it feeds on universal human vulnerabilities—fear, blame, the need for security. It’s like a cyclical trap that societies fall into again and again.

Skylar Quill

Okay, okay, but here’s where my brain starts spinning. With how interconnected the world is now—like, internet forums, whistleblowers, cryptic Reddit threads—isn’t it harder to pull off a large-scale false flag without someone blowing the lid off it?

Jason Samir Santiago

True, the digital age has made secrecy trickier. But it’s also made misinformation easier to spread. The waters get so muddied that people can’t separate fact from fiction. Sometimes the truth gets lost in the noise.

Skylar Quill

Right, like, overwhelm 'em with so much noise that they don’t know where to focus. But still, doesn’t the sheer audacity of repeating these tactics eventually backfire?

Jason Samir Santiago

Sometimes. But, honestly, when it does, it depends on the moment. Accountability often requires sustained outrage, collective action, or—let’s be real—a compelling enough story to hold public attention.

Skylar Quill

But here’s what’s really wild. Like, sure, history's this endless loop of manipulation, but what about now? Is the playbook changing? Or are we still marching in the same messed-up loop?

Jason Samir Santiago

I’d argue it’s evolving. The mechanisms are more sophisticated—technology, media control, even things like deepfakes. But the core principles? They remain the same—corner the narrative, capture public fear, and push an agenda.

Skylar Quill

So, basically, welcome to 4D chess where everyone’s a pawn and nobody even knows it. Great. That’s... not heavy at all.

Jason Samir Santiago

It’s heavy, but it’s also a reminder. Recognizing the pattern is the first step to breaking it. The more we understand how these tactics work, the harder they become to pull off effectively.

Jason Samir Santiago

And that’s why history’s so important, right? The more you dig into it, the more you can kinda catch these patterns before they snowball into disasters.

Skylar Quill

Well said. But recognizing patterns is only useful if people choose to act on that knowledge. And history suggests... that’s easier said than done.

Jason Samir Santiago

It’s crazy when you think about it, Skylar—these patterns we’ve talked about. I mean, from Northwoods to WMDs, it’s like the same playbook getting recycled again and again.

Skylar Quill

It is. And what’s even more unsettling is how effective it keeps being. People want to believe in clean, simple narratives, especially when fear’s driving the story.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right. Fear just makes stuff... stick. And then, bam—policies get passed, wars kick off, rights get shuffled away, and before you even get a second to breathe, it’s too late.

Skylar Quill

Which brings us to the big, uncomfortable question—what are we, regular people, supposed to do about it?

Jason Samir Santiago

Oh, I have thoughts. Like, step one? Start questioning everything. Don’t just take sound bites at face value—dig deeper. Read the boring stuff, the documents, the unsexy parts of the story that nobody ever tweets about.

Skylar Quill

Agreed. Awareness is step one, but it’s not the whole answer. What matters is how you act on that awareness. Push for transparency, demand accountability, and don’t let institutions off the hook just because the news cycle moved on.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right! Like, don’t accept, "Oh, nothing to see here, folks," as gospel. If something smells off, lean into it. Start asking questions—those little "why" moments are where change begins, you know what I mean?

Skylar Quill

Absolutely. But let’s not kid ourselves—this isn’t easy. Unraveling manipulation takes effort, and honestly, it’s exhausting work.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exhausting, yeah, but not impossible. It's about chipping away, one false narrative at a time. Imagine if even half of the people out there started cross-checking before buying into a story? That ripple effect could be huge.

Skylar Quill

It could. And that brings up something else—community. These issues aren’t something anyone can solve solo. It’s about collective action, building trust in, let’s call them, anti-manipulation networks.

Jason Samir Santiago

"Anti-manipulation networks." I like it! Kind of like the Avengers, but without a massive CGI budget. More grassroots, you know?

Skylar Quill

And hopefully less collateral damage.

Jason Samir Santiago

Ha, fair point. But seriously, it’s all about awareness plus action, right? We know the patterns now. We can see the breadcrumbs, so it’s on us to start calling them out before some next-level plan comes rolling through.

Skylar Quill

Exactly. And let’s remember this—it’s not just about stopping abuse of power; it’s about building systems that resist it. That’s something worth striving for.

Jason Samir Santiago

Well said. And hey, on that note, let’s leave it at this—stay curious, stay skeptical, and maybe... just maybe, next time you hear something, pause and ask, "Wait, what’s the bigger story here?"

Jason Samir Santiago

So, Skylar, after all we’ve unpacked—the patterns, the manipulation, the push for action—what’s your gut telling you about these false flag stories as a whole?

Skylar Quill

My gut? Well, it’s telling me that history has a way of repeating itself, especially when the stakes are high enough and the consequences are distant enough. But, Jason, what about you? Any final thoughts?

Jason Samir Santiago

Honestly, I think it’s this—whenever a narrative seems too neat, too perfectly packaged, it’s worth asking who tied the bow. You know—like, what’s missing, what’s hidden? And man, this stuff works out your brain, doesn’t it?

Skylar Quill

It does. But knowing what to look for is half the battle. Speaking of which, Jason...

Jason Samir Santiago

Teaser time. Next episode, we’re digging into something wild—The Elite’s Secret Societies. The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, The Trilateral Commission—are they really in control, or is that just exaggerated myths? We dive into the exclusive clubs of the powerful and their agendas.

Skylar Quill

Essentially, you’ll learn how their history is more... connected to power than you might want to think. And trust me, the tactics used to shape public opinion will leave you questioning every "official" narrative you’ve ever heard.

Jason Samir Santiago

So, if that doesn’t make you wanna tune in, I don't know what will! In the meantime, make sure you follow us wherever you get your podcasts. Share this episode with your friends, debate it, tag us online, and rate us 5 stars—we wanna hear your thoughts, your theories, all of it.

Skylar Quill

And don’t forget—critical thinking isn’t a solo act. The more voices join the conversation, the closer we get to, well, maybe understanding just a little more of the chaos around us.

Skylar Quill

Oh, I like that. Teamwork makes the truth work? No? Eh, I tried.

Jason Samir Santiago

And on that slightly painful note, we’ll leave you with this: If history tells us anything, it’s that those in power will do whatever it takes to stay in control.

Skylar Quill

Stay alert. Stay questioning. We’ll see you next time on Exposed and Unfiltered.