Proof that DNC manufactured the Russian controversy in June 2016

This post unmasks Guccifer 2.0's identity as none other than the DNC.

Guccifer 2.0 hosted a Wordpress site where the DNC documents could be publicly downloaded. June 15th was the date of the first Guccifer 2.0 leak; further leaks would continue thereafter. I focus only on the first leak, as they contain the metadata which are essential to proving it was a DNC operation.

What were in the leaked Guccifer documents?

Guccifer 2.0 leaked a total of 10 Office documents from the DNC in the first batch (many more would come, but none contain the same "mistakes" as the ones I shall detail).

All Microsoft Office documents have metadata entries which contain attributes about the document itself such as the user that created them, the user that modified them, and so on.

It would be unusual for a leaker to modify the metadata, but Guccifer 2.0 did, claiming that it was his "watermark."

In Office, the metadata includes the owner of the Office application who created the file and the owner of the Office application who modified the file. I present a list of the document names having metadata values for original author & modified author:

Document name Original author Modified author

1.doc Warren Flood ?????? ??????????

2.doc Warren Flood ?????? ??????????

3.doc Warren Flood ?????? ??????????

4.doc Blake

5.doc jbs836 ?????? ??????????

?????? ??????????, or Felix Dzerzhinsky in the English alphabet, was an early Soviet statesman who died in 1926.

So what... Warren Flood, Blake, and jbs836 were the original authors?

Short answer: No. Non-technical answer: For one thing, we can cross-reference the actual authors from the Wikileaks dump. 1.doc is in the "verified" Wikileaks release as the attachment which can be downloaded from here which has the original author of "Lauren Dillon." So, wait, who is Warren Flood et al? Each of these documents had a creation date of June 15, and were modified by "?????? ??????????" a few minutes later.

In Office 2007 format specification, there is a certain stylesheet template which dictates overall formatting for the document. In three of the documents by Warren Flood, we find the identical metadata.

{\s108\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\contextualspace \rtlch\fcs1 \af1\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0\f1\fs20\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049\sbasedon0 \snext108 \slink107 \sqformat \spriority1 \styrsid11758497 No Spacing;}

The above line appears across all three of Warren Flood's documents. styrsid11758497 is an unique identifier that is author-associative. The fact that it does not appear in the other documents indicates it's associated with Warren Flood and not ?????? ??????????.

Why is this important? Well, the \langfe1049 portion is a setting saying that Russian language should be used as the default language for the document.

Had ?????? ?????????? been setting the "watermark," it would be the same across all documents. But instead, distinct watermarks were created for each document creator, suggesting inconsistent application or three different creators applying their own watermark.

In other words, document creators set the document properties to use Russian language and created three distinct so-called 'watermarks' in doing so, not '?????? ??????????.'

Warren Flood opens a DNC document, copies it, and pastes it as a new document to his computer.

Warren Flood sets the theme language to Russian in some way (this process is different for all authors).

Warren Flood modifies the document's author to ?????? ??????????.

The modified document is then uploaded to the Guccifer website and publicly published a short time thereafter.

The pertinent point is that: the metadata forensic proof is irrefutable that Warren Flood, or someone who owned a copy of Word registered to Warren Flood, shoehorned in obvious "Russian" fingerprints all over the documents.

mpact of Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC creation

The "Russian influenced the US election" campaign all started from the DNC leak.

Allegations of Russian influence was built on a completely fabricated foundation of lies.

In hindsight, we now know that Obama administration unmasking of US campaign officials on the pretext of "Russian interference" started in June 2016, same date as when Guccifer 2.0 began.

Who cares why the DNC did it?

Because it proves that "Russian interference" started as a total DNC fabrication that persists to today. The whole Russian campaign started before Trump made his infamous joke about Russians getting Hillary’s emails.

Illegal unmasking of Trump campaign officials over Russian interference began June 2016. Was this predicated on Russian interference with the DNC hacks? If so, this means that the leaks not only implicate DNC and plague President Trump himself, but also implicates Obama administration officials and all the involved intelligence agencies.

Why did DNC leak their own documents?

It’s right in Guccifer 2.0’s blog. Pertinent quote: "The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon." TheDNC knew they were having their documents leaked to Wikileaks, and wanted to make sure a Russian hacker took credit for the leaks.

How did the DNC know Wikileaks was going to release the DNC emails?

Appendix – Technical details

Microsoft Word 2007 format specification:https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/confirmation.aspx?id=10725

Much more detailed analysis of the Warren Flood documents - http://g-2.space/intent.html

Download Tor Browser here:

https://www.torproject.org/download/

Alphabay:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaBay

"As early as 8 August 2021, AlphaBay was online again.[35] Details of the new operation surfaced after a conversation between Wired and a user with the same verified public key as a former site administrator for AlphaBay. Using the alias DeSnake, the former vendor and self-described co-founder of the original AlphaBay now claims to operate the marketplace, placing a higher emphasis on operations security than the previous administration, stating "there is no overkill" regarding the site.[1]

As part of the site's relaunch, multiple new features have been advertised and new rules announced. Notable among new features are AlphaGuard (which allegedly prevents users from losing funds even if seizures on all servers occur at the same time), an automatic system to resolve disputes between buyers and sellers, exclusive use of Monero wallets, and the offering of I2P mirrors."

AlphaBay address enter into Tor:

http://alphabay522szl32u4ci5e3iokdsyth56ei7rwngr2wm7i5jo54j2eid.onion

AlphaBay uses monero use hadware wallet ledger nano s:

https://www.getmonero.org/

https://shop.ledger.com/products/ledger-nano-s

https://www.keysheet.io/guides/best-monero-wallets/

Kind of a random topic, but there are often laws banning public nudity. Presumably even nudity that can be seen in public, but which takes place on private property (say someone is showering or sunbathing in the nude outside).

How would this issue be dealt with in ancapistan or under a "free" government?

So in 1913 the government created the Federal Reserve. That way the system had a means to finance various world wars. But the thing is, how does the middle class protect themselves from the constant ruin of their pay and savings? Well it turns out the middle class found that one good way to protect yourself was to take out a long term mortgage and buy a house. As the government ruined the money, that house would gain dollar value in proportion.

But why does this work in the USA, and not other countries like say Ecuador? Well, the reason is that that USA had a strong and large middle class, and had a lot of economic liberties, low taxes, and low regulations, and low corruption compared to other countries. So you take the economic liberty of the USA, and add in some zoning laws to limit alternatives, and it turns out people could make a lot of money on their house. This also enabled a lot of people to gain out sized wealth off of real estate, like Trump.

So that's what Trumps agenda is. Kill the bullshit taxes and regulations to make the US economy grow, and re-create the world he grew up in.

But there is just one problem with that. All that fed money printing isn't organic. It creates bubbles. One way or another, those bubbles need to pop, either through ruining the money, or through a big crash. And so, while Trump can solve a huge amount of problems by deregulating, and getting taxes off the backs of the middle class, he can't solve the bubble problem. Those bubbles also create social problems, like wokeness. The free market isn't just about a bunch of assholes throwing around money, it's also a clearing mechanism. It rewards productive behavior, and kills unproductive behavior. It's not a coincidence that workness exploses out of control at the same time that the fed's balance sheet exploded out of control from the bank bailouts.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on his view of the importance of division of labor in capitalist-technological society:

A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person… but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly… [B]esides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished… to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

I think Hoppe is denying the humanity of such people perhaps incorrectly, but unironically some primitivists might agree and say yes, they are animals or like them, and that's a good thing, that's the point, they want to be "wild and free". The primitivist might in response argue that dependence on technology and specialists is not particularly "libertarian".

Case in point, when technology becomes so complicated that "superviruses" are unleashed that we are compelled to rely on mRNA technologies we may not understand and "specialist doctors" who we basically have to decide if we trust or not.

A lot of ancaps or people in general seem to be ignorant of the anarcho-primitivist or anti-civ(ilization) critique of technology's impact on freedom, so I'm not sure what Hoppe would think of such critiques. Perhaps I or someone could email him or some of the Mises Institute people to ask their opinion (note: one email sent). This quote sent me on a deep dive of economics topics like of the idea of "comparative advantage" that two people could separately produce only so much, but if they decided to divide labor and specialize they might be able to produce more that they could trade together. I accept this as being true in theory.

However, take an example of two people, one foraging for strawberries exclusively and the other producing meat. If they decide not to trade, the meat hunter gets scurvy from no vitamin C from the strawberries (accept this for the sake of argument), while the strawberry gatherer gets no protein. So the division of labor creates a kind of fragile depedence and removes their primitive liberty that they possessed previously, of self-sufficient freedom but with less productive output.

While growing up to enjoy the idea of "American freedom", this led me to consider anarchism as the full expression of freedom, but more specifically "individualist anarchism", which was kind of a mix of primitivism but open to a little technology and not necessarily capitalist or socialist: the ideal of a self-sufficient homesteader who could make some tools and produce much of what they needed, of someone living before or shortly after the Industrial Revolution. Personally I encountered problems with authorities or experts offering potentially bad advice which I was dependent on. The fragility of such a scenario did not seem particularly liberating.

However, of course having less productivity seems limiting as well. And the development of technology and free arrangement in a division of labor seems to be a genuine expression of liberty in the beginning. But it then seems to foster a kind of technological slavery, and slavery of dependence on capitalist division of labor.

If one cannot opt out of using certain technologies, or of joining teams as a specialist in a capitalist society, then is one "completely" free?

Does this imply that libertarianism requires primitivism on some level, or rejecting an unrestricted development of technology and the division of labor involved in capitalism?

The future we need to shoot for:

Currently there is the Dems and the RINOs, and everybody else is considered fringe. But I think even MAGA would agree that it would be in all of our best interests that in the future it is MAGA and the Libertarians, and the Dems and RINOs are considered some kind of fringe movement

On the economy:

Like MAGA, the libertarians understand that a healthy economy needs low taxes and regulations, however unlike MAGA libertarians understand that the fed creates constant bubbles and is a constant source of trouble, and simply needs to be ended, as well of kicking the government out of the money business forever.

On education:

Like MAGA, the libertarians understand that woke education is ruining everybody, however, unlike MAGA the libertarians understand that any government in the education sector is always going to be a corrupting infulence, and it's better to kick the state out. Vouchers may be a good start in that direction, but in the end the government needs to be completely kicked the fuck out.

On social security:

MAGA tends to support social security, but libertarians understand that it is a disaster and a scam, the the only lasting and just solution is to abolish it, and maybe do stuff like liquidate government land and parks to compensate the victims of this ponzi scheme.

On health care:

Both MAGA and the libertarians tend to understand that excessive government in the health care sector is making it insanely expensive, however, the libertarians also understand that as long as government is financing health care, it will always be corrupted.

On the debt:

MAGA wants to grow out of the debt, but the libertarian truth is that we would probably be all better off if we just defaulted on the government debt. And yes, interest rates would rocket, and there would be no more financing of government programs. Good.

On taxes:

MAGA wants taxes on programs that "work", but the libertarians understand that the very nature of taxes corrupts. The goal should be to get rid of all taxes, but most especially the income tax and the inflation tax.

On regulations:

Both MAGA and the libertarians seem to understand how bad most of these are for society and the economy. (except for zoning laws, see below)

On immigration:

MAGA wants to control immigration. But the libertarian truth is that the problem isn't the immigrants, but that the immigrants are getting on government programs, heavily encouraged by leftists. There is nothing wrong with immigration, when it comes to hard working family folks, even illegal immigration, it helps the economy. The problem isn't immigration, but that much of the current immigration isn't organic and isn't market driven.

On the police:

MAGA want's police that work for the people. But the truth is, we need market mechanisms to make police work for the people, not political mechanisms. Instead of trying to reform the police, create market orientated reforms like police vouchers, and eventually phase those out too and make the police all private.

On wars and empire:

Both MAGA and the Libertarians seem to understand that all these constant wars are expensive and unproductive, however, unlike MAGA the libertarians seem to understand that the way to have a strong national security isn't through a strong military, but through a strong economy. It's better to free up military resources to the private sector whenever possible.

On housing:

Unlike MAGA, the libertarians seem to understand how destructive land use restrictions, subdivision restrictions, and zoning laws are. They need to be eliminated. People need to focus on how they use their property rights, not what their neighbors do with their property. (see the section on the fed also, because they are a major source of housing bubbles, and the reason people turn to financing real estate to protect their wealth)

On tyrannies and gays and other weird behavior:

MAGA wants to center around family and culture. But the truth is, there was never anything wrong with people having these strange offshoots (other than damage to children). The problem was when they got in bed with the state and state schools to impose their values and go against parents when indoctrinating kids. Some immoral behaviors do have poor social consequences, but those will filter themselves out without state interference.

On the war on drugs:

MAGA seems to know that the war on drugs has problems, but wants to reform it. No, it needs to end and be treated like a public health issue, and not a crime issue.

EDIT: On intellectual property:

Copyright and patent don't work, are very destructive, and just need to be phased out.

view more: Next ›