QAnon and John-John

Seeker

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

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

https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-ruling-elite

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

Administrator
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.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I stand corrected! Yes, Miles Mathis was years ahead of the QAnon group.

And of course, Richard also insisted in this very thread, that John-John might have been sent to the Hidden Resort. And it was just a few short weeks later, that Richard himself met his untimely end. If only I had been nicer to him, and humored him that maybe JFK Jr did look like John Fusca, perhaps he might still be with us? :(

But then again, the circumstances of Richard's death were highly suspicious. A police report? A call from his brother-in-law? A cremation, with ashes scattered to some undisclosed, recently re-defined mountain? How convenient!! :mad:

Richard always claimed that he was of humble birth and modest means. But with a name like Stanley, who believes that? What would Miles Mathis say? Maybe we should ask him point-blank. What are the odds, that Richard has gone to the Hidden Resort and is now consulting and offering his wisdom to JFK Jr himself? (friendly smiley :))

Honestly I don't see how this sort of speculation can ever be disproven. Nor have I ever seen evidence that's particularly convincing.

And ultimately, even if it were true, what difference would it make? Both John-John and our Richard are lost to us, wherever they might actually be.

I saw this article inspired by the 9/11 twentieth anniversary, "Out-Thought, Out-Bought, Out-Fought: Why the '9/11 Truth' Movement Failed", by Alan Sabrosky. The article makes a great many excellent points. Out-thought: "the sheer number of contending – and often contradictory or mutually exclusive – ideas presented, some sensible but many not, without any overarching design meant a good deal of activity with little or no practical effect." While 9-11 Truthers debated among themselves, the mass media presented a consistent story about 9/11, accompanied by a drum-beat that the 'Truthers' were nut cases. Certainly "Out-bought": Truthers never raised any serious amount of money. And, "Out-fought": with no coherent strategy, probably infiltrated by intelligence operatives, and outflanked by the normies at every turn.

But for all of that, I don't think that the 9/11 Truth effort was as completely useless as Sabrosky says. His summary:

The best of the “Truthers” shared one thing in common: they were right that the US Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks was singularly flawed, in whole and in all its major parts. But they – and I include myself here – were never able to convey that message in a politically significant way to enough of the American public to matter.
But the movement did reach a huge percentage of the American public, and even more among the public world-wide. Public opinion polls consistently show very high levels of skepticism about the Official Story. But he's exactly right about the lack of Political Significance.

And the same thing goes for all the factual issues that we discuss at this site. Was Jesus a fictional character? Who killed JFK in Dallas in 1963, if indeed anyone did? Did a 757 strike the Pentagon on 9/11? Where are John-John and Richard?

What matters is this: for those of us who are convinced that all or most of these mysteries devolve to a belief in Elite Conspiracies -- WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??

We have been unable to organize and become a political force.

Is there any hope for change? I think that every past major conspiracy has galvanized a small percentage of the population into an activist position, but never enough at the same time. Could there be a cumulative effect, as "JFK Buffs" combine with 911 Truthers and now Anti-Vaxxers with similar world views?

At any rate, the first step to change: is to realize that what we've been doing, is not good enough. We need to do better.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
If only I had been nicer to him, and humored him that maybe JFK Jr did look like John Fusca, perhaps he might still be with us? :(
NO!!! Don't beat yourself up over this, Jerry. Richard was a big boy who certainly could dish it out, and also take it. My impression was that he loved to get a reaction out of someone, whether pro or con, as it meant that they were listening to him.
Richard always claimed that he was of humble birth and modest means. But with a name like Stanley, who believes that? What would Miles Mathis say? Maybe we should ask him point-blank.
Miles Mathis would say that both Stanley AND Russell are suspicious, and that both of you had your family histories "scrubbed" at a certain point.
At any rate, the first step to change: is to realize that what we've been doing, is not good enough. We need to do better.
Or accept the New World Order, as Tupper Saussy apparently did, after exposing it in "Rulers of Evil".
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
NO!!! Don't beat yourself up over this, Jerry.
Really I'm not being hard on myself about it, just quietly puzzled. Unsure to this day, to what extent Rick's decision was impulsive and based on emotions of the moment, and to what extent he was carrying out an inevitable long term plan.

Or accept the New World Order...
That's what Rick would have said. Not necessarily accept it with enthusiasm or endorsement, but accept that there's nothing to be done about it.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
to what extent Rick's decision was impulsive and based on emotions of the moment, and to what extent he was carrying out an inevitable long term plan.
Yes, from what you had described at the time about his mindset, if I remember correctly, he had a long term plan to do what he did, perhaps overwhelmingly exacerbated, on the spur of the moment while brooding in solitude, that he was becoming a burden to his family, as there was to be an imminent meeting with them.
That's what Rick would have said
I can see certain parallels in the thinking of Richard with Charles N. Pope, and you too. Charles also thought that he could save the world at one time, using his "Domain of Man" site, but had given up, and was very pessimistic about the future of man(and woman)kind. However, lately, he seems to think that because the center of power has shifted to America, perhaps WW3 is not a foregone conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
But then again, the circumstances of Richard's death were highly suspicious. A police report? A call from his brother-in-law? A cremation, with ashes scattered to some undisclosed, recently re-defined mountain? How convenient!!
Didn't you also say at the time that there was a neighbor who witnessed his demise?
Honestly I don't see how this sort of speculation can ever be disproven. Nor have I ever seen evidence that's particularly convincing.
I do understand and respect your concern about evidence, but has it ever occurred to you that the Elite don't intend to leave you "evidence", so that if you have an original thought about things, you are labelled as a "crazy conspiracy theorist", for thinking outside the box of Elite Establishment "academia"?
And ultimately, even if it were true, what difference would it make? Both John-John and our Richard are lost to us, wherever they might actually be.
"Even if it were true", the difference is that both John-John and Richard would have a different role to play, which might very well change the future of the world in the "big picture", not necessarily being in "your picture". This brings us back, of course, to the unprovable Elite identity swapping, advocated by such as Ralph Ellis, Roman Piso, and Charles N. Pope. I am not saying that this is how it must be, but Richard could have been "farmed out" by the Elite to an obscure, humble, family, and perhaps not even known it, which would make it that much easier to provide him with a new identity later on, if necessary. Charles certainly wasn't thinking of Richard when he postulated about the future of this planet, but perhaps Richard is now working with the center of power in America, helping to prevent WW3. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, which reminds me of the "reconciliation" that Tupper Saussy advocated in "Rulers of Evil".
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Didn't you also say at the time that there was a neighbor who witnessed his demise?
Yes, that was the story I was told at the time. But I didn't personally call the neighbor to verify the story. I can just hear Miles Mathis muttering, "How Convenient! Russell himself is obviously implicated in the cover-up!"

I am being somewhat facetious or ironic in this entire line of discussion. To be fair, from the Bayesian point of view, JFK Jr was well known as a scion of the economically and politically crucial Joseph Kennedy clan. And as such, there's far more reason to be suspicious about allegations of premature demise of such an elite figure in the prime of life. Richard's overall life situation was more mundane, and thus the Bayesian prior probability of a grand conspiracy around his death would be far lower.

I do understand and respect your concern about evidence, but has it ever occurred to you that the Elite don't intend to leave you "evidence", so that if you have an original thought about things, you are labelled as a "crazy conspiracy theorist", for thinking outside the box of Elite Establishment "academia"?
I don't mind if anyone has original or speculative thoughts. And I'm quite sure that when Elites are engaged in criminal and immoral conspiracies, they try to leave as little evidence as possible.

Even so, it's difficult to carry out great crimes while leaving no evidence. Also, there is a hard-won principle in common law: innocent until proven guilty.

About the importance of evidence, I saw another essay at Charles Eisenstein's substack, about president JFK's assassination. Eisenstein argues at great length, that the assassination was a conspiracy with wide-ranging ramifications. He says it was a coup, establishing the power of the "deep state" which was consolidated by murdering RFK, MLK and Malcolm X. Eisenstein says:

The JFK affair opened a gulf between people and government that no bridge can span. It was the death of America—the America of a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” People and government are now separate. The political class, interlocked with other elites, is a class unto itself, deploying propaganda, PR, psychology, “messaging,” spin, hype, “optics,” “narrative” and all kinds of manipulation on a population it holds in, at best, patronizing contempt: unruly schoolchildren who must be managed, surveilled, tracked, locked up, and locked down for their own good.
What can we do now? If the radioactive pellet of the JFK assassination and cover-up is the source of so much illness, what would it take to remove the pellet? It would take Disclosure.
"Disclosure". That is, Facts & evidence.

My reply is that this undermines the real contribution that "conspiracy theorists" have already provided: namely, mountains of facts and evidence that this coup really did happen. And also that it continued with the events of 9/11/2001, and that it is continuing now with the "Great Reset".

More disclosure would be a great thing. But Eisenstein's essay also points to another aspect: ORGANIZATION. We have been involved in an individualistic quest for ideas, facts and evidence, competing to build the most complete & accurate picture of the past. To quote Eisenstein again:

In the post-WWII era, we had faith in ourselves as a people that cut across political divisions. The Story of the People was strong. Today it is in shreds. To fulfill the possibility of greatness that was so visible in 1962, we need to come together, both around traditional American ideals that, though never universally applied,were very much alive post WWII, and also a new story of peace and healing. Disclosure would be a huge step in establishing the trust necessary for such a coming together.
I would put the emphasis on the "need to come together", and say that there's already been enough "Disclosure" to get started on that project.

Eisenstein is only asking for "Disclosure" about the facts of the JFK assassination. He doesn't say that we also need full disclosure about 9/11, and about the origins of SARS-Cov2 and the "vaccines", but in my mind those are just as important. Full Disclosure about the JFK assassination would tell us a lot of things we don't know for sure. What roles were played by the CIA, the FBI, the Bushes and LBJ? Who were the kingpins of the operation, and who merely stood aside and kept quiet? And for that matter, did JFK really die that day, or was he among the conspirators? To what extent was Kennedy intending to institute real reforms, and to what extent was he cynically laying the groundwork of his legend? All of this would certainly be nice to know.

But we already know enough to come together, to refuse to "swallow obvious lies", and to "demand authenticity", to use Eisenstein's words.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
I can just hear Miles Mathis muttering, "How Convenient! Russell himself is obviously implicated in the cover-up!"
Yup, and he may even give you a fancy Elite Russell pedigree into the bargain to "prove" it! ;)
JFK Jr was well known as a scion of the economically and politically crucial Joseph Kennedy clan. And as such, there's far more reason to be suspicious about allegations of premature demise of such an elite figure in the prime of life.
Even so far as now being the "Hidden King" of America, as Miles stated? In this scenario, he never shows his face in public, so presumably no disclosing photos to worry about in the latest scandal mag/rag.
there is a hard-won principle in common law: innocent until proven guilty.
The Elite certainly use the law and lawyers for their own advantage, in order to APPEAR innocent, regardless of any PRINCIPLE involved behind it.
All of this would certainly be nice to know.
Yes, it would, especially since "Even so, it's difficult to carry out great crimes while leaving no evidence". Really? I think those involved behind the Kennedy assassination (?) might disagree with you about that, but of course, with no sarcasm intended, they live in a completely different world than you do, and you very likely will never meet them, which of course is their intention.
 
Last edited:

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
What matters is this: for those of us who are convinced that all or most of these mysteries devolve to a belief in Elite Conspiracies -- WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??

We have been unable to organize and become a political force.
There's so much in this thread, IDK that I should have even clicked on it! Let me agree with Seeker's words about any reponsibility that Jerry bears in this. We all miss Richard.

If it may in some small way honor him to express an opinion on the Truther Movement(TM), I think it got locked into a way of being, and lacked the flexibility to stay tactical - to adapt to the situation as it evolved. Or - if I dare to hold out hope - it, so far, has lacked that flexibility. I will explain.

When 9/11 happened, there was shock, obviously, people had questions, naturally. People were glued to the news, and the news sought a cohesive narrative. As that narrative began to coalesce, some people were like, "nah... " and not without reason :: raised eyebrow ::

An alternate narrative began to emerge, only - as pointed out - it was many narratives, and many conflicting narratives at that. The focus moved from gathering and processing intel and presenting and distributing information to one of politics.

The issue has since stayed political and it certainly has political implications, but the issue itself was never fundamentally one of politics. What I mean is that the divisions within the TM was never about whether our government should use jet fuel or nanothermite when demolishing a building. The one thing agreed upon is that a crime took place - even the mainstream narrative agrees with that much.

We have a means for determining "truth" in criminal cases - and it's not politics. There's a fundamental contradiction in the logic of trying to expose a lie created by politics by doing more politics.

The regular court system is not going to hear the case of "citizens of the USA vs George W. Bush, et al," I would expect. If only there were some alternate trial that could be set up. Without legal authority to impose direct consequences, maybe nothing would come of the findings or the verdict. I have to think I, for one, would tune in, though
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, it would, especially since "Even so, it's difficult to carry out great crimes while leaving no evidence". Really? I think those involved behind the Kennedy assassination (?) might disagree with you about that...
I have been meaning to answer this, believing that it might take a lengthy bit of writing. But while I've been procrastinating, this perfect essay turned up.

By Edward Curtin​

Despite a treasure trove of new research and information having emerged over the last fifty-eight years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. They have drunk what Dr. Martin Schotz has called “the waters of uncertainty” that results “in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance that is.”[1]
Then there are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission.
Both these groups tend to agree, however, that whatever the truth, unknowable or allegedly known, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, ancient history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred more than a half-century ago, so let’s move on.
Nothing could be further from the truth, for the assassination of JFK is the foundational event of modern American history, the Pandora’s box from which many decades of tragedy have sprung.
Curtin goes on to present an amazingly concise yet powerful summary of the enormous evidence left behind by the perpetrators. There may not be enough here to resolve every detail, or to identify the complete chain of command behind the assassination, or even to prove definitively that JFK himself was killed, rather than some body double. But IMO the key points are unmistakably clear, and leave little if any room for Warren Commission supporters.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
But IMO the key points are unmistakably clear, and leave little if any room for Warren Commission supporters.
Ditto
For more J'FK wasn't shot and killed', here's a repost of my take on the subject. https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/12/23/jfktv-new-revised/
Very intriguing, and as you probably know, Richard was very big on that "Hidden Resort" aspect. I noticed that you are acquainted with, but not convinced by, "The Hidden Kings" Kennedy theory of Miles Mathis. I also see that you authored another article, using Charles N. Pope as a source- https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/11/02/moses-vespasian-biden-defeats-pharaoh-nero-trump/ As a matter of fact, Jerry and I are both familiar with the theories of Charles N. Pope.
 
Top