GO100, the GEC And Queuing Up

Previous posts:
Deep Throat v. Q
Q The Conspiracy - A Phenomenon
The Gospel According To Q
A-Marketing We Will Q
The Name Of The Q
Q The LARP Carp
Spe-Q-lating On Q
In The Twilight Of The Q
Jonesing For Q
Analyzing Q-Analysis

The Silence of the Q

The Q Prophesy
To Q Or Not To Q
A Quantum Of Q-Bit
Surfing the Q Wave
CQ CQ CQ
Q Tips And Quislings
Some Quick Q
The Voice Of Q
The Q Treason
Q The Endgame
Right On Q?
Q The God-Emperor
Who Is Q?
Behold The Qult
Notre Dame du Q
The Q Genesis
Behind the Q Ball
The Qiller Q
Q d'Etat
Q the Revolution

READER NOTE: For those asking about a printer-friendly version, I can find no setting in Blogger to help. I recommend selecting "Black and White Only" in your printer's set-up window. That should produce black text on a white background for easy printing.

UPDATE: 4 August 2020 - the Mainstream Medium continues to push the idea that QAnon is a popular conspiracy theory that has sprung up from basements across America, rather than a sophisticated psy-op being promulgated by intelligence services to groom and channel popular dissent.  Interesting to note the undertone of fear and urgency, confirming that they know the truth.

Americans have been trained by the Bernaysian school of public relations, for well over a century, to think in sound bites and tag lines.

Ron Paul was an intellectual who could not give quippy answers to complex questions, because he knew the issues were deep and broad, with many interconnected issues.  He appealed to those who had taken the time to ponder the profound problems with the world and US governance, but he couldn't reach a wide audience, in part due to the media literally hiding him, but also because the well-trained audience tuned out as soon as he started sounding like a history teacher.

When Paul ran for president in 2012, he exposed a vast group of disaffected voters who had given up on the System as being intractable and monolithic.  Both major political parties were, as many people knew but seldom articulated, two sides of the same coin.

It was clear to the ruling class that this group had to be defused or deflected, or they would eventually win and cause irreparable harm to elites' now-centuries old control apparatus we commonly call government.

Cue Donald Trump.

In stepped Donald Trump.  He is a marketing genius, regardless of one's opinions of him.  He was able to tap into the Paul brigade with his blatant and gruff attacks on the Establishment and his appeal to broadly popular issues like crime, immigration and economy.  He was able to do it in a pithy and entertaining manner that attracted a large base of voters, including Paul's base, who had otherwise given up on affecting any meaningful change in government.

With his intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Main Stream Media (MSM), Trump circumvented the usual circuit breakers that defeated Paul.  Combined with Trump's celebrity status and sound bites that were irresistible to the MSM, he was able to steal the spotlight from all the other candidates in both parties and keep the cameras focused on him.  Trump fed the MSM's insatiable hunger for something to talk about, and he was rewarded with a steady stream of free - and priceless - air time.

In order to solidify and expand this loyal base, Trump - or at least his handlers - needed to speak directly to that base, confirm their worst fears, even installing new ones.  The media were ensconced in their ideological roles as gatekeepers, but Trump has spent a lifetime creating new markets and being the first to serve them.  Exploiting markets is what the MSM's raison d'être, and Trump was a gold mine of fresh eyeballs.

When I say Trump's handlers, many supporters with immediately bristle, for it is an object of faith that Trump is fully independent, unbeholden to the Establishment.  However, the Qvians will readily agree that Trump was recruited by military intelligence types precisely to lead the current Culture War.

As they say in politics, you gotta dance with who brung you, and if Trump was recruited and carefully managed by military intel (admitted by all interested parties), then his loyalty is primarily to them above all others.

Enter the Q Operation.

Four years ago, a broad segment of the population would have gone berserk if you had told them that thousands of secret warrants had been issued for political crimes, and that after the mass round-up of opposition had taken place, they would be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, where military tribunals would pass judgement, and that both National Guard and military regulars would be sent onto the streets of America to perform law enforcement.  After nearly three years of Q, these same people are cheering, even clamoring for it.

If Q is the script, then Trump is the Stage Manager.  Trump is powerless to change the script, but he can time the entrances and exits for maximum effect.

The complexity of the Q Phenomenon has increased exponentially since its humble beginnings.  In an environment where all information is weaponized on all sides, we regular folks spend a lot of time trying to discern which source is least full of cow dung.

When it comes to Q, there are only two parties - those who preach it like a new religion, and those who dismiss it as a ridiculous LARP or conspiracy theory.  The latter group is fully entranced by the MSM and cannot or will not break out of the spell to investigate for themselves.

I take a third line.  I believe Q is real and is a military and/or intelligence service function.  Where I depart from the other parties is that I see Q for what it is - a weaponized marketing plan, where the product is winning hearts and minds.

What sets my spider sense to tingling is the fact that people who used to view government intervention, neighborhood military patrols and star chambers as patently unAmerican, now view these things as utterly necessary and patriotic.  That is a profound change in Weltanschauung, and says to me that the Q Operation is wildly powerful and effective.  Imagine if Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton were to espouse these same ideas.

To get a handle on what is happening in the US, let's turn to the chess metaphor.  In this metaphor, government consists of the back row of pieces, while the electorate are the pawns.  The opposing side is China, or Russia, or the EU, with minor players constituting the Southern Hemisphere.  The two major political parties are the knights.  They are powerful and maneuverable, able to leap obstacles.  They are close to the real power of the King and Queen, but they serve, they do not lead.

In chess, it is a common tactic to sacrifice a piece to achieve a strategic goal.  For example, I may use a rook to capture the Queen, even though I know I will lose it the next round.  I sacrifice a powerful piece in order to neutralize a more powerful one.

In the trenches, it makes little or no sense that the Democrats would nominate a man who is clearly incompetent, and adopt issues that are anathema to American sensibilities.  It is unthinkable that a major US political party would espouse positions like the wildly absurd Green New Deal, or defunding/disbanding police, or supporting Marxist violence, and so on.  It is political suicide to adopt all of those issues in the same critical election.

Unless the Player is sacrificing a knight to take out a more powerful piece.

As I have stated many times before, the current geopolitical environment is one of competing mafiosos.  One of these gangs, a powerful one, supports the dissolution of nation-states and the unification of the world under a single global government.  Another of the gangs has enjoyed profit and success under the status quo, and is vehemently opposed to significant change.  These are the two dominant factions, though there are quite a few others who serve at the pleasure of the top bosses.  They are the bishops, knights and rooks in our chess metaphor.

The Nation-State Player needs to unify the pawns (us) under its banner to defeat the opposing gang.  It cannot afford to split its loyalties and has chosen the Republican knight as its champion.  It must therefore have the Democrat knight fall on its sword to achieve its strategic goals.  Thus, the Democrat knight has been ordered to do everything offensive to the pawns' sensibilities to drive mass support to one side of the board.

Trump is one of the bishops, and Q is the other.  Together, they are guiding the pieces in defense of the King and Queen.  Who the latter two pieces represent we don't know.  Us mere mortals are not privy to that information.  Our job is to clear a path for the power pieces to advance.

Now that we have a clear picture of the global situation, we can take a closer look at the relationship between Q and Trump.  As noted, they are the bishops in our chess metaphor.  They are close to the Ultimate Mafioso, but they are not him or her.

Trump is, to switch metaphors, a carnival barker.  He cannot perform the tricks that the freaks inside can, but he has a commanding presence and the ability to convince the rubes to part with a few shekels.  Q is the freak show.  It performs all the parts and entertains the audience, and leaves them feeling like they got their money's worth.  Trump is doing his job to fill the house, and Q's Bearded Lady, Human Serpent and Contortionist have filled the bill.

A common question is, if Q is real, then who/what is it?

Here, we come to the GEC.

The Global Engagement Center, or GEC, is a little-known department of the US Department of State.  It is run by Lea Gabrielle, whom you've probably never heard of.  The GEC's Mission and Vision statement is:

"Core Mission: To direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations.

"Vision: A data-driven Mission Center leading U.S. inter-agency efforts to proactively address foreign adversaries’ attempts to use disinformation and propaganda to undermine U.S. interests."

That's about as concise a statement of Q's modus operandi as we are likely to find.  Going further, the GEC utilizes its Technology Engagement Team, or TET, in the following way:

"The Technology Engagement Team’s Mission: To defend against foreign disinformation and propaganda by transitioning technologies from concept to application at scale and in support of smart policies and operations. TET leads U.S. Government innovation efforts by convening technology experts and programmatic authorities from the public and private sectors, and pushes innovation against this key problem. TET has developed a dedicated effort for the U.S. Government to identify, assess, test and implement technologies against the problems of foreign propaganda and disinformation, in cooperation with foreign partners, private industry and academia."

I have repeated stated that Q represents a novel form of weaponize information and it would fit neatly within the TET's described mission to develop and launch new technologies to create counter-narratives and undermine efforts to steer the pawns in the wrong direction.  It seems clear to me that the primary target of both the GEC and the entities (state, non-state) it goes against is the American people. All other targets are secondary.

The GEC was authorized by Executive Order 13721, signed by Barack Obama in March 2016.  It was funded by Congress in Fiscal Year 2017, which began 1 October of that year.  Q first appeared on 27 October 2017.  We now have an agency, a funding mechanism and creation date, and a Mission and Vision statement that all coincide with the appearance of Q.

We now have at least two factions, or Players - the Globalists and the Nationalists.  They each have entrenched ideologies that are mutually exclusive.  They are both using weaponized information, with Player One using the so-called Main Stream Media and censored social media, while the other is using Q and possibly other similar weapons we are yet unaware of.

We have Donald Trump and Q working in concert as bishops in the grand chess game.  Trump is both the carnival barker drawing the rubes in, and the lightning rod, keeping focus off of other things.

We have Q, which one might think of as an arsenal of information weapons,  It disseminates a narrative, counters other narratives, and listens to the global chatter to determine where the information bombs are coming from and what effect they are having on the general populace, which is Q's so-called "dark" phases when it ceases posting.  During the dark periods, it gathers and assimilates information, as well as develops and launches strategies.

The final piece in this proposed scenario is what happens if the war goes hot, which it may be doing as I write, with riots and chaos in various American cities (and globally).  Up to this point, we have seen a war of words between the various factions, but we cannot depend on that remaining the case.

What happens if police departments in major cities cease to function (under way now) and the judicial system no longer functions (see Michael Flynn case).  Suppose Law and Order break down on a mass scale?

We now come to the Lieber Code, or General Orders 100.  What follows may be dry and tedious to many readers, but the legal provisions for martial law in the United States is an action with very real prospects at this moment.

Since the Petition of Right of 1628, English Common Law has clearly not recognized the concept or practice of martial law.  This is little comfort, since the southern States have already experienced it at the end of the Civil War, and the abilities and constraints of it are enshrined in US law.

In Luther v. Borden the US Supreme Court decided that Rhode Island had acted legally and constitutionally in declaring martial law during a time of insurrection, and by 1863, the decision had made martial law a tool in the government's toolbox to essentially protect itself from the masses.

In the famous Milligan case, the Supreme Court ruled:

“If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power."

The military, at that time, were acting under Abraham Lincoln's General Orders No. 100, which established a set of rules for military justice (martical law), the treatment of prisoners, and a host of other functions to maintain society at a minimal level until the civil authority could be reconstructed.

It is notable in today's headlines that Antifa, BLM and the various "dark" groups leading them are specifically targeting courthouses and police forces.  We can interpret this as a specific agenda to disrupt the smooth functioning of the civil authorities and daring Trump to declare martial law.

The pandemic lock-down also plays into this agenda, by attempting to shut down the civil authorities.  However, at least for the time being, technology seems to have outstripped the concept of functioning courts.  Closed circuit video and online meeting applications appear to be making end-runs around the concept of "functioning courts," by removing the courts from a physical location to a virtual realm.  It remains to be seen whether a crafty lawyer and a compliant judge will challenge this practice and essentially shut down the virtual courts until the Supreme Court can rule on the practice.

In the meantime, we note that the law, the Supreme Court, international law, and history allow for martial law under circumstances very similar to what is occurring in the US right now.

With regard to international law, it is necessary to understand that the Liever Code was used as the basis for much of the body of law that constitute the Rules of War and international humanitarian laws.  It is essentially the Lieber Code which has broght thousands of refugees into Europe and is governing their resettlement there, and which is why they are more or less untouchable by local authorities.

To wrap this overlong exploration up in a tidy package, we have a global game of chess, in which the Players are dominant power factions, playing an elaborate game of information warfare, but on the verge of going "hot".

We are able to place key characters, including Trump and Q, into their respective positions and identify them with multiple lines of evidence.

We have seen that the tactics of the various actors seem to be targeting not only the perceptions of the masses (Q and the MSM), but physically attacking key civil authority in the hopes of drawing out a response (martial law), which can be further used in the information war.

In Drop Q4510, Q essentially deputized its followers into a digital public relations war  This is predicated on the understanding that perception is reality, thus what the masses "think" or "believe" is an fundamental goal of victory for all sides in this conflict.  To put it succinctly, the Globalists are using the well-established MSM as their mouthpieces, while Q is trying to yank the carpet out from under them by appealing directly to the masses.

That Q is real is no longer a question.  That Twitter found it necessary to ban or limit 157,000 accounts connected to QAnon makes it real.  This has never been done to UFO enthusiasts or JFK researchers, so Q's existence and effect are quite real and at least some factions fear its effect.

The most pressing question we must now face is not whether there is a Culture War, or a Q Anon, but which side we support, or whether we -The People - do something altogether different.

e-Books for additional reading:
Crystalizing Public Opinion by Edward Bernays
Propaganda by Edward Bernays
The Art of War by Sun Tsu
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

The True War

At his trial in Nuremberg, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring is recorded as saying, “Der Sieger wird immer der Richter und der Besiegte stets der Angeklagte sein,”   In common speech, this is often misquoted as, "History is written by the victor."  The actual words are, "The victor is always the judge and the loser is the accused."  Truer words he probably never spoke.

To this I would add that the judge always positions himself as the moral superior.  After all, might makes right, sine qua non?

America is convulsing because its history is a bedtime story told to itself to hide the painful truth.  On all sides of the current mess there, folks are asking, or rather stating that Civil War 2.0 is underway.  In a profound sense, it is just a continuation of the original, much like World War 2 was inevitable because the wrongs of World War 1 where never settled.

After orgies of violence we humans call wars, the winners - and losers - are in a rush to turn away from the horrors that were committed on all sides, and in that rush a convenient narrative is concocted to ease the vivid nightmares.  The winners absolve themselves of the crimes by heaping guilt on the shoulders of the losers, regardless of right or wrong, or the truth.

As any good lawyer will tell you, there are three sides to every story - your side, my side and the truth.

When it comes to the American Civil War of 1860-63, the soothing narrative the winners concocted was that the evil South wanted slavery, and the bright shiny North wanted to abolish it.  Since the North won, their side of the story has dominated the narrative, but that makes it neither right nor the truth.  The real story is much more complex with plenty of guilt to go 'round.  As we proper Southerners know it, it was the War of Northern Aggression.

As the great Greek tragedian Aeschyius reminds us, "The first casualty of war is the Truth."

The issue of slavery began simmering in the Union before the ink was dry on the Constitution.  Abolitionists wanted to end slavery primarily because it was a vestige of British colonialism, but also because it was antithetical to the ideals of the new nation.

Many abolitionists advocated sending slaves back to Africa, which eventually happened when a US colonial group created the western African nation of Liberia and offered passage to any slaves wanting to emigrate there.  Abraham Lincoln recognized Liberian independence in 1862, and liked the idea of repatriating slaves, as he was not a fan of racial integration.

In 1824, the Democratic Republican Party split into two factions - the Democrats and Republicans - over support for John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Among the issues at the core of the split was slavery and abolition.  The Democrats were willing to compromise on slavery, as demonstrated by The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which brought the free state of Maine and the slave state of Missouri into the Union.

While the compromise placated both sides for  atime by maintaining the balance between free and slave states, it was undone by the Kanas-Nebraska Act of 1858.

Aside from all the idealistic rhetoric, the underlying tensions were primarily economic.  The northern states were dominated by industrial and financial interests, while the southern states were agricultural.  The balance that the politicians sought to maintain was between the suppliers of raw materials and food in the south, and the factories and banks in the north.  This tension was exacerbated by the apportionment of representation using population.  This one fact is the seed from which the Civil War and two centuries of social unrest have sprung.

The north benefitted from cheap raw materials that made its finished products highly competitive in global markets.  This made the industrialists and financiers grossly wealthy.  But they also faced increasing pressure to raise wages and offer benefits to labor, an issue that didn't affect the slave states.  Furthermore, it was in the best interests of the northern parties to maintain the supply of cheap raw materials.

The south, on the other hand, found that they could fetch much better prices for their goods in Europe, and could buy manufactured goods cheaper than from the north.  More and more of the south's output was shipping overseas.  The southern plantation owners were also hiking the prices for northern buyers, while buying fewer and fewer finished goods from the north, and their wealth was beginning to rival that of the industrial-financial interests.  Thanks to slavery, the plantation owners didn't have an expanding middle class to deal with.

The United States enacted Protective Tariffs almost as fast as the nation came into being.  While they were initially intended to be temporary to help fill up the Treasury, they were never lifted and became a tool of northern interests to maintain control over the south.  By making southern goods more expensive overseas, they forced the flow of raw materials to their factories.  Import tariffs were levied to force the south to buy finished goods from the north.

This made the industrial-financial interests happy, and the expanding middle class enjoyed rising wages, who thus threw their support behind the tariffs, as well.  In the election of 1860, the Morill Tariff was a major plank in the Republican party's platform, and James Buchanan ended up signing the Morill Tariff into law before Abraham Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861.

In November of 1860, frustrated by tariffs, economic shenanigans and the northern dominance of Congress, the southern senators walked out and secession soon followed on 12 April 1861.  The northern bankers and financiers, fearing a middle class uprising and shrinking profits, persuaded Lincoln to set up a blockade.

The blockade was a blatant act of war against sovereign states who were exercising their Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment rights.  The blockade covered 3,500 miles of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, cutting off the newly formed Confederacy from their trading partners in Europe.  The same act today is still considered an act of war against a sovereign nation, though the US still uses it as a routine sanction against nations it doesn't like (i.e. the banking and financial interests disapprove of).

There was and is no law preventing secession from the Union and every foundational document of the united States recognizes this fundamental right.  Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in the Declaration of Independence that a people had the right to sever ties with another when the government of the latter was abusive to their interests and liberty.

We must pause here to note that the abolutionist argument at the time was not about ending slavery, but whether new territories conquered by the federal government in its war on the native population would expand slavery into those regions or not.  We must also note that not a single slave ship ever flew the Confederate flag.  They were either British of Union flagged ships.

Having undermined the Confederate economy and brutally invaded a sovereign state (a common practice of the US), the Union forces decimated the South, which produced raw materials and not the finished goods of the north.  So the north cut off the South's livelihood, while protecting their interests by purchasing raw materials from colonial powers abroad.

Note well that the Confederate states were exercising their rights, as recognized and memorialized in the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Also note that the Union invaded the Confederacy, and not the other way around.

The north clearly profited from slavery on all sides and had no intention to end its practice.  On the other side, the cost of purchasing and maintaining slavery was becoming a burden on the southern producers and would have ended one way or another before the end of the century.



On 1 January 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Contrary to the legend propagated by the victors, this document did not "free" any slaves.  It promised escaped slaves that made it past the Mason-Dixon line that they would not be returned to the Confederacy.    It did not grant equal rights or suffrage or even freedom - just that they would not be returned to their owners.  In other words, it was yet another act of deception by the Union, which it was quite adept at even then.

In fact, slavery in the north did not end for several years after the Civil War and emancipation proclamation.  There was a slave market right where Wall Street is today into the 1870s.

The Dred Scott decision, which affirmed the right of property to a human being, was not overturned until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, a full three years after the end of the Civil War, and even then the practice of slavery in the north tapered off slowly.

That the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed God-given rights in favor of "privileges and immunities" is the topic of many a long and dry essay.  Suffice it to say that the bankers and financiers did not free any slaves, but rather made slaves of every citizen of the "United States," itself a corporate entity created by the Act of 1871. (note "united States" versus United States)

It may seem like legal hair-splitting, but there is a profound difference between a "right" and  "privilege".    In Enlightenment philosophy, a right is the sacred property of an individual by virtue of birth.  A privilege is granted by an authority and requires a license or permission to exercise.  Go back and read the Fourteenth Amendment again.  As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, rights are "unalienable" or incapable of having a lien placed on them.  In other words, no authority may claim possession of those rights.

The American Civil War was not about slavery as we commonly think of it.  It was in point of fact about expanding slavery to everyone, not ending it for some.  It was a key expansion of the banking and financial interests in the US, and by means of two world wars, expanding that error to the entire world.

Until we recognize the truth of the Civil War, and acknowledge that we are all slaves to the banking class, we will never be truly free.  In many ways, this one Great Lie has caused so much death and destruction in our modern world.  Because we labor under a profound deception, we can never cure the ills that afflict us at this very moment.

Think about how many times you have heard or said, "The Constitution grants us the right to..."  It does no such thing, nor does the government grant rights.  We are born with them as a gift of Nature and Nature's Creator.

The American Civil War never ended, it only became a global conflict with vile banksters pulling the strings.  We need only look a bit closer at where groups like Black Lives Matter or Antifa get their funding to see the subversive hand of banking and finance.

It is not just American blacks who are owed reparations, it is every human being on this planet born since the banksters took over.


New York Slave Market
Dred Scott decision
Franklin Pierce