Martin Geddes: Digital warriors LOOK AT THE DATA; fools do not


It feels like we are the cusp of profound changes in human society. We are watching the removal of a multi-generational and transnational "supermafia" who have covertly controlled much of our banking, media, religious, academic, industrial, medical, military and other institutions. This has been achieved through secret societies, extreme violence, psychopathic culture, occult practises, systematised paedophilia, and widespread blackmail. A two-tier society has placed an unseen few well above the law, and many into de facto enslavement well below it.

The quintessential feature of such "dark power" is its ability to hide itself, often in plain view. My work over the last few years has been to play a small part in shining light into those shadowy places. It would be tempting to frame this essay as being about the arrival of "Q", my role in interpreting that information source, and the challenge that it poses to the power of the mass media. But that would be to put the focus in the wrong place, and perhaps belongs in books to be written once this corruption purge is completed.

Instead, I would like to put this work into the context of what I was doing previously, so it can be understood as an ordinary act of empirical research and logical reasoning. My previous professional role was working at the leading edge of telecoms and computer science. I don’t need to boast about my pedigree in that space, it is well enough known and acknowledged. What was special about the work I was doing was that I helped to build bigger "conceptual universes" to understand what unarticulated "thinking limits" were preventing progress.

° ° °

Without delving into unnecessary technical detail, there are multiple fundamental errors in current internet architecture: that networks do "work" ("moving" packets rather than duplicating data); that layers matter more than scopes (it’s both); that emergence is preferable to engineering; that more quantity always causes better quality; that you can distinguish intentional from emergent effects; and that safety cases can be infinitely extrapolated. I may an intellectual pygmy, but I am a damned nimble one, and discovered these things by climbing onto the shoulders of many computer science giants.

What this taught me was that there are people who have awards for the creation of the current Internet who don’t actually — deep down — fully understand how it works (or fails). Furthermore, many of the giants looking at these basic problems were previously unaware of each other. My contribution, as the most gymnastic pygmy, was to stand on their shoulders and point them at each other. Good things came to pass as a result of this effort. A community of "radicals" formed who saw the orthodoxy for the constraining folly it is.

It was an exercise in uncovering all the naked emperors in distributed computing, and my goodness there are a lot of them. Perhaps my most cherished memory is speaking at a conference after a Stanford computer science professor. What I was presenting was so far ahead of what he was doing that he didn’t understand it, because it was unthinkable to him that he might have anything to learn from me. My speech wasn’t worthy of him listening to — and I watched him arrogantly sit on the front row wallowing in his unconscious ignorance. He was a very well credentialled fool.

Because I had no books or awards in telecoms filled with false orthodoxy to recant, and no obsolete academic papers to defend, I had nothing to lose by being curious — and digging deeper and deeper into the rotten conceptual foundations. This made me unpopular in some circles, as you were not meant to challenge the venerated Internet pioneers and their sainthood. But the existence of real working technologies that were "impossible" in the conventional paradigm meant that there was no debate to be had.

It wasn’t a "conspiracy theory" that the present Internet is just a crude prototype; there are multiple working real-world technologies out there the prove something vastly better is achievable. A whole industry as vast as telecommunications is founded on fundamental and basic category and conceptual errors. Simple branches of mathematics needed to model supply and demand are missing. The telecoms emperor is a cross between a streaker and a naturist. I had an existence proof of a complete industry founded upon technical insanity.

° ° °

I am telling you this story because what happened next is that I just repeated the same philosophical exercise, but relocated from telecoms to world affairs. A true scientist identifies the current subject matter giants to get the best view, examines all the data, including that which may contradict the hypothesis, and makes rational inferences. The "Q hypothesis", if we are to use scientific terms, is that the global mass media has a single point of control via a network of corrupt intelligence agencies. This enables them to get away with warmongering, drug running, profiteering, genocide, financial fraud, human trafficking and other crimes.

The unconscious belief in telecoms was that there was some modest ceiling to how much value you could extract from a given data transmission resource, requiring networks to remain mostly idle. The reality of innovation proved this belief unfounded, and far more yield was possible, even running them in overload. Similarly, in world affairs there is an unconscious belief that there is some innate limit to the scale of crime that can be conceived and executed in a globalised world. An examination of the data, and the role of the mass media in facilitating such crime, quickly showed this to be fallacious — as any totalitarian society proves.

But this is not an essay about Q or to justify that conclusion about the scalability of criminal cultures. It is about my own personal journey and experience. All I did was to LOOK AT THE DATA — thousands of Q drops, and hundreds of thousands of messages from the public analysing them and linking them to other hard empirical data. Just as I had no personal stake in the foundations of telecoms being robust or rotten, I likewise had no stake in the Q data being helpful or hopeless. I am just a curious creature who likes to get to the bottom of things.

Yet what it did was to plunge me unexpectedly into one of the most contentious issues in modern history. If the "Q hypothesis" is true, then the power of a corrupt global "elite" (really just criminal psychopaths) depends on their control over the mass media not being recognised by the public — since it is key to keeping the masses in ignorance of their subjugation. The media endlessly suggests that "conspiracy theories" are delusional tales of rabid fantasists. This conveniently fits the preferred narrative of a transnational mafia keen to keep its crimes unspoken.

The alternative is that very powerful people like to make business plans, and some of those collaborations are criminal and vast. Oddly enough, the same cybernetic theory that says how telecoms networks can scale better also explains how compartmentalisation of criminality can scale. At the end of the day it is all about the imposition of scopes of control over information, and how they form a hierarchy.

° ° °

I had become accustomed in the world of telecoms to seeing very senior people with very big accolades speaking beyond their real competence. So I was prepared for the same to happen in the domain of world affairs. I expected many other intelligent people to take a similar interest in this novel information source, and how it exposed the powerful as frauds. Is "Q" a military intelligence operation to expose a corrupt media industry, or is it not? Who is Q? And why is this identity question verboten in the mass media?

It doesn’t take an Ivy League degree in formal logic to figure it out (although I got one anyway just in case). Surely lots of other professional people will also look at the source data and reason about it in this logical way? Yet it didn’t work out that way.

Those who had NOT LOOKED AT THE DATA formed their worldview about Q from the very same media that was accused of being institutionally corrupt to the core. Their ignorant colleagues all agreed too with the media’s vehement assertion: those who paid attention to the data Q was offering were "right-wing, extremist, violent, cultist, delusional troublemakers". Nothing more needed to be said, since the coordinated propaganda offered a socially acceptable worldview.

However, the Q data doesn’t stand in isolation; it links to a vast network of open source intelligence. So you can easily check for yourself that the financial filings of the Clinton Foundation cannot possibly be for a legitimate charity, and that the media is silent on the matter. The media accusation about Q and the anons (i.e. people like me) doesn’t withstand elementary scrutiny. The failure to seek out data that contradicted the hypothesis — of a trustworthy mass media — made the "mainstream" vulnerable to social engineering and collective delusion.

° ° °

My sin was to do actual political science: to look at source data and to follow it to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion showed the "consensus reality" to be absolute nonsense — just like in telecoms performance engineering. This, however, meant absolute ostracism in my professional world, since it implies that the political beliefs of the tech "liberal" intelligentsia were even more crazy than the architecture of today’s prototype Internet.

My former industry associates are happy to denounce everything to do with "QAnon" — an arbitrary label invented by the (corrupt) media with its own semantics — rather than actually LOOK AT THE DATA about corruption. This was brought home to me recently when I pointed out that coerced vaccinations break the Nuremburg rules and are war crimes, only to have that casually dismissed as a "QAnon thing". Such is the power of the propaganda: to cause logical thinking and ethical behaviour to stop once a recognised "good label" or "bad label" is identified.

The Q drops started in October 2017, and I first wrote about them in March 2018. It has been a brutal three years, since I refuse to lie by omission. I have merely applied the same ruthless rigour that I adopted in telecoms to this question of corruption in the mass media. I have sought out the fundamental principles and defining frameworks. I have put every idea out in public for challenge by anybody who so chooses, so I can identify any errors. As a result I have been reviled for speaking a simple truth about media corruption that makes many arrogant intellectuals look like fools.

Those who declare the "Q hypothesis" to be untrue cannot account for the simplest questions about how the media coordinates and fabricates stories, and ignores many important events. None of them can tell you who Q is, or why the media avoids uncovering this obvious data point. As a consequence, everyone who has NOT LOOKED AT THE DATA (and I repeatedly emphasise for good reason) has now set themselves up for the most epic fall due to their unjustified pride.

Scientists look at the data; political scientists add the extra dimension of corrupt power and rigged data. Fools consult with fellow sheep and crooked frauds to form their understanding.

° ° °

In retrospect we can now see the fuller role of the Q drops in the Second American Revolution. The most crucial function of a corrupt mass media is to help engineer the outcome of rigged elections. This maintains a veneer of legitimacy for the criminal ruling class. The 2020 Presidential election was a set-up and sting operation to draw out every corrupt actor involved in this crime — which has been going on for decades, and not just in the United States.

Via the Q operation there has been several years of quiet alliance building between the military and a substantial part of the public. These "anons" are the community of radicals who see the nakedness of the orthodox media narrative and the true nature of the constitutional crisis. This tacit alliance now gives the military a necessary space of a few months to run "The Bidan Show" while the clean-up and arrest operation happens in secret, since this involves acts of war by foreign powers, and has global implications.

Without the Q operation, the United States would already be in a civil war; "trusting the plan" is essential to keeping Patriots — temporarily denied their legitimate Presidential choice — from pulling out their firearms and rising up. Once the clean-up is over, the global military wakeup operation can begin… and it is going to be epic beyond imagination.

Just by looking at the data and telling the truth of what I saw I have become one of the few prominent public analysts on this subject of Q — and the Great Awakening from mass brainwashing via corrupt media. The comprehensive failure of journalists, lawyers, historians, and more to get to grips with Q will be the subject of theses and movies for decades to come. I don’t seek vindication or recognition, just the truth to be in the open and acknowledged.

° ° °

My tiny part in this global corruption purge is as a "digital soldier". This is in the virtual, but I am very much a physical human being. Much of the last few years are best described as "nonstop agony". For instance, I have been libelled by mass media like the BBC, Financial Times, Times, Evening Standard and more. There are moments when I have worried about my personal safety. My health has had a number of knocks from the stress. I have lost friends, and family relationships have strained too.

Yet I have refused to defer to the unearned authority of those who have NOT LOOKED AT THE DATA. Whatever pain I have endured for doing real political science is nothing compared to the excruciating horror facing those who mocked LOOKING AT THE DATA. For the assumption that the "media consensus" in world affairs is "sane" is as equally mistaken as the one that the current Internet is the "best possible" and beyond substantial improvement.

All it took was to LOOK AT THE DATA and apply the scientific method. If you didn’t, then you may not enjoy the upcoming show as much as the rest of us. It was your choice. Now you get to own it.

Yet despite these divisions I believe we will reconcile. It turns out that this wasn’t about me, you, Q, Trump, the Vatican, British Crown, Chinese Communists, or the criminal elite.

It is about the trafficked and murdered children. Millions of them. The news is going to be nightmarish. We will all shed tears, as we are human. As the horrific truth comes out, we must find a way to overcome our differences, however hard it may be.

Because as a society WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AWAY FROM THE DATA for much longer.

Download my ten best Q essays for free

Received by E-Mail.