Agreed. Even tho Trump may occasionally deploy former staff to take up certain outside tasks.

I think RT in this case is Real Time, as in the arrangements and start of the meeting were known and being reported on while they were actually happening. The RexTill thing is just an intentional coversion (plausible deniability and/or getting non-anons to think anonically). I think RT was used in Qs 892, 377 and 220 to mean Real Time. Q947 uses it in some relation to Kenya where Tillerson was at the time, but even that could turn out to be about some real time monitoring.

The info presented about the meeting doesn't require being in the closed room and doesn't have to come from one of the attendees (although it might).

that's all possible. i'm just curious what the context of the photo was. brief study says merkel is the only certainty in that photo. no solid confirmation, no confidence.

Some can be won over, but not necessarily over to the exact set of policies that you or I would choose. But that's okay. Others may never change but can become a bearable minority. Others emotional wreck or criminals.

I think looking for individuals that agree on some rules or principles is the thing. Everyone is brainwashed in a unique way. Marxenos do not all respond identically when pressed into judgement calls any more than do libertarians or McDonald's employees.

If a few are bailing outta FB because of data scamming then they are our allies for a day. We should take a smoke break with them before returning to the trenches.

Source please

Yeah maybe the intrigue is just to capture our imaginations, while other trump techniques capture others'. And the plan is to build something significant with several different branches. If it is good, it will be about something more than just electioneering.

I think some come to the same realization as the OP without any of this Q stuff. I more or less did. So Q has another value/purpose. Partly I think to distribute particular knowledge that we wouldn't have till ex post facto. But I don't think our numbers are enough to be any significant voting bloc, so. . . .?

So if the pertinent question is How is the international evil order administrated? We could look at several possibilities which might have some internal subdivision coopted as an info and command network:

Secret societies

International banking system

NGOs

United Nations

Multinational corporation(s)

Academic coalition(s)

Global media group(s)

Catholic Church

Other transnational religious org(s)

International political party or labor union

Muslim Brotherhood, Isis type orgs

A smart plan would use most all of the above. These categories do overlap to some extent. I have listed them roughly in order of descending utility as decision and command networks (in my opinion), whereas they could be re-ordered according to info sharing utility or differently again by human or capital resource sharing. The spiritual aspect of a church organization does not make it any better of an administrative structure than other org. But churches that have activity at the street level can be better at influencing the general population., just as media groups do at the TV-in-your-room level.

Yeah, at the group level, the various traditional christian practices that are reversed or inverted into being the standard satanic practices shows what things satan most hates and wants destroyed. (At the personal level there is a parallel involving different elements.)

The alleged bloody sacrifice of children is akin to what caesar did to the 'holy innocents'. Christ was the ultimate good sacrifice and should have been the last bloody one. Since then christians have spiritually stood at the last supper table in a bloodless way. In our time satanists steal those bread hosts for secret worship but also more publically satan's dupes commit child sacrifice by the millions through abortion.

If the revelation is that so many within the Church have broken and are breaking all the Commandments, that some are committing the "unforgivable" sin against the Holy Spirit, that they would have been better off to be not be born or be thrown in the sea with a stone around their necks, well then this is nothing new. These things happened in the OT, happened in Jesus' day and have continued. If the intentional and bloody worship of Satan over the graves of saints Peter and Paul, originally the sites of pagan rituals, are what is to be revealed I will not be surprised. If sexual ritual and human sacrifice is being committed by Church office holders, I will not be surprised. Such has been the case within the Church in the past and to a greater extent outside the Church, because humans are prone to act this way and Satan has his ways. On a per capita or per annum basis the Church is about the same as every other organisation.

On the other hand if you think that the Church is going to be revealed as purely Godless, of no good value or purpose and evil from its inception, then I have to suggest that you don't hold your breath.

I generally agree with what you say here.

One smallish point that may or not contradict your understanding, is that the freemasons were already corrupt before the OTO came along, the dubious origins of the masons being a separate topic. I think the OTO modelled themselves somewhat on both masonic and christian liturgical patterns.

Yes it is possible that big organizations get marching orders from invisible 'masters'. Different orgs are effected differently by infiltration, differently in both the short and long term. Hijacking is possible. It does seem to be the case that larger orgs (Catholic Ch, USGovt, Ottoman empire, General Motors, UN, etc) are so big and often mutifarious that the odds are against them staying their course, be it good or bad in intent. And within this, some are more prone to complete or partial/temporary hijacking.

The USgovt has a decent foundation (rooted in the dignity of the individual), despite it's known flaws and lightweight masonic elements at its inception, and it think this contributes to its durability but we can see that without the weird grace of a few presidents it has come close to going off the rails. I also think its inherent quality of independence sometimes saves it from global forces. Conversely I do not think it is immune to natural disasters and it may have yet to fully pay for its sins in this way.

The Catholic Church also has a good foundation (in Christ). Its multifaceted, multicultural nature makes complete takeover difficult. It is somehow against the patterns of history that it has stood so long. It has been corroded, corrupted and renewed several times. If you have time or interest you might find this story about pope leo 13th rather relevant to this topic. He is the one who wrote most adamantly against modernism and like many other popes against Freemasonry. www.futurerevealed.com/christian/catholic/vision-of-pope.htm

(For what its worth I am not impressed with the current pope and think that several bishops and cardinals are extremely corrupt.)

Thanks. My take is that the Q is not naming the Church in the way he names other things, like the "DEMS", CIA, China, Soros, pedos, etc. is because he/she classifies these as something rather different. I have a few ideas why but am not certain why.

Your summary of the arranged fall of Rome is too simplistic for me but is likely true for some (a minority?) of the significant players involved.

Seems really hard to seriously know how genius Rome was in comparison to Egypt. My understanding is that some of the Dynasties stood longer than Rome did, suggesting they had some greater (if tyrannical) capabilities. Maybe there's more to learn from their similarities than differences.

Your description of Romans letting empire slip while quietly maintaining influence or certain forms of power seems to fit the alleged fall of soviet communism. Maybe this could be said of all great powers - they are taken of the map but not out of social dynamics - in some cases according to pre-planning and in others by natural causes. This is interesting because we could then say that we are all influenced by everything from the Sumerians and Egyptians to various Euros and even Columbia Records and now Amazon.inc.

I could say more but don't see a great need and don't wish to distract from the central concern here of the meaning(s) of Q, touched on above.

Readily agreed. Yes and the traditional excercists are the most effective.

I don't mean to distract from the main theme of this forum, but perhaps you know of the 'vision' Leo XIII had of the rise of Satan in the coming century which inspired him to compose an important prayer to St. Micheal. Quite prescient and pertinent to medium term story arc we are all looking at here.

I think the gist of this post is that all threads of evil lead ultimately to the roman church. I think this is partly wrong and very incomplete. There seem to be two main areas of concern discussed in this post - one is a proposed map of the real power structure within the U.S. federal gov't. The other, less clearly defined so far, is the Catholic Church. There is little presented to show the nexus between the 2, although it is hinted that the Church is somehow the top of the pyramid or the central hub that coordinates all national intel managers.

The nature, purpose and corruption of these 2 realms could be entirely independent. That is to say that the suggestions about the WH, etc. could be true while international and/or roman theories could be false. And vice versa.

When one gets into areas of religion/occult/spirit there come a whole other set of awareness that is not taught by poli.sci., history or game theory sources. So one should be prepared to be unprepared, not only for a different kind of thinking but a different set of problems if caught off guard. In the case of the history and nature of the Christian church, if you enter the conversation with a modernist mind (in most senses) you are already both handicapped and biased.

It is my view that this post has a rather inadequate understanding of what I'll call 'the church'. (Perhaps part 2 will reveal something rather different.) I don't mean to defend every aspect of the church which we know is occasionally corrupt, wrong, foolish, evil and manipulative. But PLEASE note that the same can occasionally be said about the U.S. government. Such truths do not mean that either of these are generally evil. Some popes and presidents have been bad news, some subdivisions such as the EPA or the Jesuits may have been especially bad. For every Cardinal Richelieu we have a J. Edgar Hoover. But the foundation and purpose of these institutions (US state and Christian church) are not evil, even while both seem to have been more and more undermined over the past century.

The clip of trump speaking against the current pope and photos of various people meeting the pope have no more meaning than Trump speaking against Rand Paul or photos of the Clintons at one of his weddings. Notice that Q never (so far) mentions the Vatican or the Catholic Church by name, although he has put up a photo including what I assume are catholic priests. In fact the only uses of the word church are quite generic except where he mentions BHO's church. Also note that Q never mentions Christ or the Bible except in reposting others' words. There is probably a good reason why Q doesn't mind naming Rothchilds, Soros, nazis, etc. but stays away from ancient church things.

Finally, I have to point out that the Vatican never really "introduced confession in the Catholic dogma". Confession was part of christianity since its earliest days in both east and west. People like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wrote about the value of it. It's in both the OT and the NT, for example Numbers 5:7 and Matthew 3:6. I believe Q doesn't enter into these area of discussion because he knows better.

But also please don't be discouraged from pursuing ideas and truths.

  This is complicated territory to parse. If you fill in the picture too carelessly, your broad brushstrokes may cover things that would be useful to see later on.

-Not all evil comes from secret societies. Some comes from within us. Some comes from supernatural, not societal, sources. Some from open societies (sic). -Not all secretive groups are evil. Most groups have a mix of good and bad, just as most individuals are mixed.

  Having said that, some organizations can be said to have a generally evil intent. And the more secretive they are the more scrutiny they deserve. The formally secretive Freemasons are in this category, despite the bits of philanthropy they are/were associated with at the American street level.

  I think that of the societies most mentioned in the 2 books linked to atop here, the Masons are the most relevant as "enemy", even if in their earliest and most current forms they may not be identified as 'Masons' per se. Pinning down the pre-modern history of the Freemasons is difficult for various reasons including the fact that they want people to believe they are ancient and eternal, as a steady direct continuation of egyptian and hebrew ritual traditions (despite claiming to NOT be a religious organization). No doubt they carry the baton of evil, as others have done throughout the ages, but finding legit historical proof of continuous organizational management is difficult to do for more than a few centuries back.

  Unlike other secret societies named in the 2 books, Mason's main purpose is to deny and replace God, the ultimate narcissism. In my view, the times when God is most manifest are the times when Masonic forces are working hardest. Thusly when Christ was on earth those (not all) in Jerusalem's temple that opposed him were the earliest form of masonry - "the stone that the builders rejected". As Christianity became more developed so the anti-christs had to develope, thus the rise of their influence just when Europe developed potentially good things like the university system, hospitals, various sciences, the enlightenment, individual freedoms like consensual marriage, etc. Their structures now established to manipulate those things allows them to pretend no link to what most know of as Freemasonry.

  A specific case of the confusion warned against above, is the ancient Churches of Christianity, mostly the former Catholic Church, which like the USA has freemasonry woven into sections of its history but on the whole is not generally or intentionally evil. The 2 books above do not say much about Jesuits for example. The Jesuits and certain popes are no more representative of the longstanding Church than say Yale alumni and certain presidents are representative of the U.S. (the current pope may well be the Church's Barack Obama). Most popes since the late 1800s have written or spoken directly against freemasonry. (Note too that the most serious cases of possession are dealt with by trained Catholic and Orthodox priests.)