QAnon and John-John


Well-Known Member
My interpretation is that the corporate elites are willing to work with Trump's antics, albeit they would be even happier with a more professional team of Democrats in the White House.
If this is so, why did Hilary lose in 2016, or is there no connection?

Jerry Russell

Staff member
I can hardly do better than to quote Andrew Thomas, who is highlighted in another active thread here. He wrote:

Factions Within Factions
The presumption is often made that the very existence of a ruling elite means that those involved must be all-powerful and of one mind, accurately manipulating domino events that hit the required spot every time, all to a predetermined agenda. But this may apportion them an unwarranted infallibility.
There is evidence to show that there are factions and disputes within the echelons of those with great influence over our lives. After all, the world is a big and complex place. Even with a general agreement on how it should move forward, the pressures of regional needs and personal biases are almost certain to blur the clarity of purpose from time to time. Going on the word that does sneak out from Bilderberg meetings and the suchlike, it seems that as many disagreements, compromises and negotiations arise there as within any supposedly democratic Parliament. If this weren’t the case, the meetings would not presumably need to take place, so pre-orchestrated would the scheming be.
As with Masonic and other secret society structures, there is also a pecking order to consider. It is doubtful that all those ‘in’ on a global conspiracy seeking centralised control would be party to every machination, and certain players may themselves be manipulated from within without realising it. From the outside, for example, it appears that British ex-prime minister Gordon Brown, for all his many references to creating a ‘New World Order,’ seemed destined to be a fall-guy from the start, set up to come to power just as the world economy took a tumble. The question is, did Brown know the full plan? Was he someone faithfully playing a game with a known outcome of outward failure, while secretly ensuring success in an agenda of weakening the UK on the world stage to quicken a move towards One World Government? Or did he cling on in the genuine belief that all would come right and that he would one day be hailed as a political hero?
Likewise, when Bill Clinton found himself under threat of impeachment following the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, was this all part of a contrived drama, or a sign of factions within factions very genuinely trying to remove him after an unplanned gaffe? And did Richard Nixon go rogue or was he just playing a pre-auditioned role? On a smaller level, when a man in the crowd died after being pushed to the ground by a policeman during the 2009 G20 protests in London, it took all the seemingly contrived focus away from images of a few people smashing a bank window, and suddenly all the headlines became howls about police brutality. Was this an ongoing twist to deliberately stir civil unrest or was it (as many suspect) something going unexpectedly wrong and changing the script? Does every war and false-flag terror attack really go to plan, or is there as much ‘cock-up’ involved as conspiracy?
How organised, then, is this global elite, and is it really as united as some truth seekers give credit for? The evidence suggests that there are chinks in the armour and disagreements within, and weaknesses and unpredictable elements always arise in any grand plan.
It seems plausible to me, that the Democrats and Republicans represent different factions with real disagreements between them, and that they compete in a see-saw battle. Yet at the same time, both of them collaborate with powerful corporate and/or cultural elites who are determined to keep both parties within certain clear boundaries, so that their interests are safe no matter who wins.

At yet another level, the drama could be completely pre-meditated and orchestrated, with each major politician playing a symbolic role in the recapitulation of epochal Revelation. Richard was continually trying to demonstrate that events are under control at that level. I always felt that this was an intriguing but unproven hypothesis.
A wonderful election, with a choice between two rapists who enjoy flirting with little girls.

I'm sorry to ask this, but do you have links to those predictions? I did a google search and came up with nothing. Wikipedia has a link to this Daily Dot article which has a list of failed predictions, but they generally seem very vague, especially when you look at the actual text of the Q "drops".

My interpretation is that the corporate elites are willing to work with Trump's antics, albeit they would be even happier with a more professional team of Democrats in the White House.

I'd draw a distinction between the "Deep State" and the real corporate elites. "Deep State" is generally defined as the career bureaucratic staff in the military, intelligence agencies, government institutions, and the press. I'm not convinced those people really have a lot of power.
The real Corporate Elites determine who is in the DEEP STATE through their Foundations (Rockefeller, Gates, Carnegie, etc.). The Great Foundations though their patronage determine who is qualified, etc. Also, only financially or sexually compromised individuals are allowed in DEEP STATE positions.

No, the Elites work with Trump on some things, but he won't go along with Globalism / UN World Government, etc. so they have to get rid of him. They want BOUGHT and PAID for DEMs who are all in for Globalism and the destruction of America as needed to achieve Globalism. Professional DEMs? You must be thinking about decades back!

No, I don't have links to Q predictions. They have been mostly scrubbed by Google, Twitter, etc. I was very familiar as they arose, however. Now the FBI defames Q people as terrorist tending, etc. All nonsense. Q people sit at home "trusting the plan" watching Trump play alleged 4 dimensional chess.
Last edited:
Yes, I prefer the multiple faction view of the ruling class / conspiracy(ies) as well. As soon as many people see one conspiracy they assume there is only one. I guess it is possible the top conspirators manipulate the rest or try to. . .

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hi Lloyd,

I basically agree with your take on the power structure, that the Corporate Elites, foundations, UN / World Government types are at the top. And I'd add that they overlap & conflate with the Zionists (both Jewish & Christian), Davos, Freemasons & etc. Furthermore, I think you're right that when most people talk about the Deep State today, they're talking about that.

Peter Dale Scott was writing about "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" back in 1993. I'm not sure he actually used the term "deep state" in that book, but he was looking into the power of career machine politicians, civil service, CIA and so forth. These must be a piece of the puzzle, but I agree your definition is more modern & describes a much "deeper" state.

Why wouldn't 1,000,000 man Trumper marches on Congress have been more effective?
Interesting looking back at this in hindsight. What about that "Million Maga March"? Have you seen any credible crowd size estimates, based on extrapolated counts of sampled crowd areas, showing their work? Reuters so-called "fact check" (linked above) has nothing but guesswork to offer.

Charles Watkins

Active Member
The so-called Deep State operates on the principles of formalism and incrementalism. Essentially, they go by the book and take things in measured steps. This does not sound like fertile ground for an overthrow. The opposition to Trump we see is due to his insertion of political operatives into apolitical offices.