Moncloa and the Narrative: False Flag Theory Circulates Online

Moncloa and the Narrative: The False Flag Theory Spreading in Forums

A handful of messages, 79 replies, and two days of conversation suffice to show that distrust of the official narrative is no longer debated; it is taken for granted. The opening question—what might the Government be plotting—does not seek information but confirmation. It finds it in a repertoire ranging from alleged electoral fraud to false flag attacks, including satanic invocations as a recurring joke. If there is consensus, it is that **something is brewing** and citizens will only see the result when it is too late.

The starting point is a scene: a group of unshaven advisors eating pizza since Friday over a table of papers and empty cups. This image, half literary and half caricature, serves more than just humor. It describes a method: **politics as a narrative workshop**, where decisions are manufactured behind closed doors and released when the calendar allows. From there, hypotheses proliferate.

From Election Fraud to False Flags: A Catalog of Suspicions

The most repeated theory is not the most spectacular but the most bureaucratic: **high-quality electoral fraud**, with the state apparatus—police, judges, prosecutors, state lawyers—at the service of the cause. It is argued that institutional creativity allows any maneuver to be sold as a democratic exercise, and that what we have seen so far is merely a dress rehearsal. The reference to events in Poland appears as a mirror: a Supreme Court suspending elections and public television reporting it as an attack by the far-right.

The second block concerns **false flags**. Here the repertoire is broad: an attack attributed to the extreme right, an alleged assault on the president himself or the Minister of Transport, an incident in a region governed by the PP (Partido Popular)—Galicia, Madrid, or Murcia—or a hospital fire in the capital. The logic remains constant: **the event produces the narrative**, and the narrative produces the electoral shift. Those who propose this recall the precedent of the trains and elevate it to a method.

Some refine the argument by focusing on timing. The synchronized schedule—the term is used with irony—would set deadlines: first the narrative, then labeling everything contradicting it as fake news. And a date marked in red: **November 11th**, with the warning that the rabble—as they are called—would take to the streets after disabling a Halloween of riots due to its proximity to the Urda incident.

The Venezuelan Precedent and Maduro’s Shadow

The conversation relies on a lengthy analysis of Nicolás Maduro’s hold on power, from 2013 until the end of his mandate in early 2026. The text describes an adaptive strategy based on **institutional control, military loyalty, and the management of economic subsistence networks**, divided into two phases: gaining power and tactics to retain it. The conclusion drawn is that the script has already been invented and was rehearsed here previously.

The comparison with Lula in Brazil closes the Latin American circle. No new data is provided, only the intuition that an exportable pattern exists: **elections, institutions, and the street** managed as a single mechanism. Economic policy takes a back seat but does not disappear: housing is mentioned as a saturated sector, and healthcare and education are pointed to as the next territories to stir up trouble, with scenarios such as a death under Ayuso’s management or the collapse of a high school.

The Institutional Response: Left-Wing Algorithms and Activist Armies

Against this catalog of suspicions, the other side also organizes. Messages circulate calling to **mobilize La Peter’s entire army** to counter the ultra-right algorithm, with the slogan that against fake news comes more participation, and against noise, more commitment. The instruction is explicit: ignore, do not interact, do not block, just scroll past. A full-fledged digital guerrilla manual.

The detail is amusing. While some denounce narrative fabrication from power, others organize narrative fabrication from activism, using the same logic of fattening the algorithm. **The battle is for visibility**, not for argument. In this arena, each side accuses the other of doing exactly what they themselves are doing.

The Economic Backdrop: Who Pays for the Narrative?

Beneath the theories lies a material concern appearing in several messages: healthcare, education, and housing. It is argued that the Government needs an external enemy to avoid discussing domestic pain points, and that the electoral calendar dictates when the bombshell drops. The idea that **Spaniards get used to any dystopia once the initial shock fades** functions as both diagnosis and resignation.

There is also room for internal skepticism. Not everyone believes the Government’s strategy is Machiavellian; some suggest it falls for traps immediately and focuses more on the counter-narrative than on its own agenda. This is the only sustancia ilegal in a wall of distrust that otherwise presents itself as compact.

---

With this material, the initial question answers itself: what unsettles is not what is being plotted, but the certainty that something is being plotted. If narratives are fabricated on both sides, who is left to tell them?