BY DESIGN OR NOT, IRAN IS SERVING AS A SIGNIFICANT DISTRACTION FROM THE BIG PICTURE

• 

This might fire-up some of the more staunch advocates in the QAnon/’Trust the Plan’ camp, but that’s okay. This is an honest, pragmatic and logical assessment of the actual status quo. It’s an exercise in realism, not hope.

It’s also important to note that this line of logic permeates through most of what I’ve written. Many of the articles on the website touch on this concept and have for some time.

• 

Thanks to all things Iran, the balance of the ongoing coup d’etat seems to have faded further into the backdrop. Is that by design? Was the Iran construct fabricated to steer the national narrative away from the illegal underpinnings of the ongoing coup d’etat facing President Trump? Is there a reason it’s happening at this very critical time on the overall timeline? The implication here is an old one – that everything is calibrated to the 2020 election cycle. Is that why the Iran construct is happening now? Is it because that on that timeline, the actual aspects of preserving the institutions are now upon us as the DSSG advises us that there’s nothing to see here, rather, “Iran, Iran, Iran!”?

The answer to those questions? It’s all within reason.

Here is the plausible angle to help piece together Iran and the Barr/Durham institutional preservation effort. Consider that another potential Middle Eastern conflict, regional war or perhaps even global war, is an exceptionally effective distraction that is capable of shifting an entire nation’s lens of focus because it’s antithetical to and contradicts the President’s 2016 and 2020 campaign platforms; it deeply tugs on the heartstrings of war-weary Americans (emotional compromise is an important component to propaganda and population control – see the article commenting on ‘false flags‘); it creates portals for the DSSG to further undermine the Trump Administration in the headlines; and it presents avenues to entangle the Iran matter with the balance of the other coup components thus making for a very dynamic, fluid and manipulable scenario. As importantly, it represents 360-degree, asymmetrical political warfare with seemingly countless war fronts. These duplicitous Democrats know what precisely they’re doing.

With all of this in mind, we owe to it to ourselves to examine the evidence, which continues to stack-up demonstrating that the Barr/Durham effort is an exercise in institutional preservation. This stands directly counter to the QAnon ‘Trust the Plan’ position in most respects because that outcome is rooted in defeating the full scope of self-preservation, meaning exposing and prosecuting most everyone who deserves it.

• 

I’ve written extensively about how those two political forces – institutional preservation v. self-preservation – are mutually exclusive because the folks who stand to be indicted and prosecuted are a part of those very same institutions. If Barr/Durham were to give full fidelity to the ‘Trust the Plan’ approach, they would be forced to tear down the very institutions they seek to preserve by means of prosecuting all of those people. You can have one, you can have the other or you can have some contrived hot mess in the middle and that last option is exactly where we are headed.

• 

Therefore, for those of us expecting pragmatic, logical and likely outcomes from Barr/Durham, the expectation for a full exposure and a full spectrum exercise in the application of the rule of law is nowhere in the cards. That’s a fallacy. We’ll see something that falls in the middle of these two opposing dynamics.

Moreover, there is also little evidence to document such a fallacy actually occurring despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Despite the appearance of supportive evidence, such information functions to mislead folks into believing that something unrealistic will happen. Currently, the actual evidence says otherwise.

So what is that evidence? Here’s an incomplete list that paints a compelling picture to support this notion (CTH has done extensive work in the same direction) and we don’t even really have to go beyond recent events. Consider:

1. We still don’t have Rosenstein’s SCOPE MEMOS.
2. The DOJ declined to prosecute James Comey.
3. Pelosi is sending the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT to the Senate next week.
4. To-date, no high-value political targets have been indicted or arrested.
5. To-date, some of those high-value political targets are either running or planning to run (with a late entry) for President of the United States and with apparent state-sanctioned impunity.
6. The entirety of the HUBER INVESTIGATION was a fallacy and a head fake (after having lost the Clinton Foundation evidence 3 times. BTW, how exactly does someone lose a planeload of evidence? Much less 3 times?)
7. The FBI redressed FISA abuses at by creating a training video.
8. The defrauded FISA court appointed an Obama-era National Security adviser to review the FBI’s reform efforts.
9. The DOJ is pursuing a harsher sentence for General Michael Flynn.

Every iota of what is outlined above speaks to the institutional preservation component. Where is the evidence to the contrary? Importantly, the request is for evidence, not rhetoric.

(Continues below)

• 

‘Wait.’ That’s an important word. It’s also what we’ve done since the 08 Nov 16 election and before President Trump was inaugurated on 20 Jan 17, which is when the Left first started calling for his impeachment. Those articles go to the Senate next week.

‘Wait’ is also a significant and critical component of something called APPEASEMENT: “to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.” By pacifying such groups with misinformation, the thirst for fidelity to the rule of law is essentially quenched. The desire to see the rule of law enforced is exchanged for a grander promise in the future. When this happens, such groups willingly stand-down and wait.

Now ask yourself how many times you’ve been told to wait for the next OIG report, which always results in something fruitless. Or, to wait for the next investigative summary findings, which turned-out to be a head fake. Or _______________ . There have been many instances of waiting. We’ve been waiting for over 3 years at this point, which is why we can say unequivocally that everything is calibrated to the election cycle.

I often question whether or not the QAnon/’Trust the Plan’ scenario is an exercise in appeasement. Frankly, I can make that argument from both sides of Q – Q being authentic and Q being inauthentic. Enigma status is certainly appropriate for Q. Despite the fabric of Q having been able to prognosticate a considerable number of events and confirm them; in addition to presenting a body of verifiable facts, there is still room to question it all. Just as there is reason to have faith in it all.

Here’s the U-turn in this article; surprising or not. Personally, I’m still holding out hope. I’m still WAITING AS INSTRUCTED for the anticipated Durham summary findings that are expected in the early spring. I’m also waiting for the President to move forward with selective declassification and hopefully as a function of dismantling the impeachment scam on his way to an historic 2020 landslide victory.

• 

Here’s another concession. Waiting might just be necessary at the moment and that, by default, makes it a part of some form of a plan. I’m hoping it’s the President’s plan and I’m hoping that QAnon is eventually verified as authentic. Until then, everything requires scrutiny.

Given the available evidence and for anyone wanting a realistic perspective on the outcome of this all, we can expect to land somewhere between self-preservation and institutional preservation; and with Barr accomplishing aspects of both.

Given what I’ve outline above, institutional preservation is full steam ahead.

We’ll reconsider it all when the evidence directs us to.