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.
Impact 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
From g space:
In Spring 2018, the source of Flood's metadata was discovered and reported on here: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/did-guccifer-2-plant-his-russian-fingerprints/ (the metadata came from a document originally authored by Flood in 2008 that was attached to Podesta's emails and that can be downloaded here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/41518/11169).
A subset of the RSIDs on all three Guccifer 2 documents that had Flood's name on them can be traced back to the 2008 document and the metadata matches.
For further details on this and a lot more evidence discovered in relation to Guccifer 2, please read the final summary report here: https://g-2.space/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution/
Further analysis of Guccifer 2.0: http://g-2.space.com
Read this blog including comments:
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-simplest-model-of-bisexual-females.html
"Gay males are defined by psychological, and even physical, stuntedness in childhood. Click on the category label "Gays" to see the wealth of posts supporting this view. It does better than the mainstream views that gays are feminized or hyper-masculinized.
They're Peter Pans who never grow out of the "girls are yucky" phase, which brings most or all of their other distinguishing traits along with it. Homosexuality in males is not just a sexual preference, it is a broader syndrome of dysfunction and depravity."
From leftist source race is real:
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2018/08/darwin-evolution-pre-1960s-left-and.html
"Darwin is of course worshipped by much of the modern Liberal and even radical Left, but his actual views about evolution and human beings would probably get him arrested for “hate speech” in much of Western Europe.
Shockingly for the modern Left, Darwin also accepted racial differences: “There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,—as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans, who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.” (Darwin 1874: 163–164).
“The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. So it is with the lower animals. All who have had charge of menageries admit this fact, and we see it plainly in our dogs and other domestic animals.” (Darwin 1874: 26). So Darwin clearly did believe in racial differences, although he tended to prefer the term “sub-species” to race (Darwin 1874: 176).
How long will it be before the insane Cultural Left demands that we ban Darwin’s works, tear down Darwin’s statues, or ban the teaching of evolution?
For Darwin, quite clearly, thought that there were general, or average, differences in certain cognitive, mental and behavioural traits between the races. So did Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s friend and scientific colleague, who was a famous 19th century British Liberal (see Huxley 1895 [1865]: 66–67).
Contrary to the modern blank-slate Left, these views were normal up until about the 1950s, and even normal and widely believed on the Left itself (though, of course, many people also did have some absurd and false ideas on the issue).
For example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed in the reality of races (even if they seem to have been confused and slipped into Lamarckian evolutionary ideas at times), and so did many of the Marxists who led the Socialist Party of America such as Ernest Untermann and Victor L. Berger. And even the radical leftist anarchists Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Proudhon 1869: 221–222) and Mikhail Bakunin noted racial differences (see Bakunin’s book God and the State: “The idealists, all those who believe in the immateriality and immortality of the human soul, must be excessively embarrassed by the difference in intelligence existing between races, peoples, and individuals” [Bakunin 1910: 46, n.]).
Bertrand Russell – who was one of the most radical (but non-Marxist) Leftists/Liberals of his day – thought that racial differences existed (Russell 1929: 266).
John Maynard Keynes, too, also accepted race was real (Toye 2000: 151)."
"were the 20th-century progressive Leftists correct when they thought that race was real and some evolutionary racial differences in average mental traits were real?
The answer is: yes, they probably were, and now the genetic evidence is accumulating rapidly from science, even if there is a desperate attempt to suppress it: (1) For objective classifications of races based on differences in “tandem repeats” or DNA repeats, see:
Rosenberg, N. A., J. K. Pritchard, J. L. Weber, H. M. Cann, K. K. Kidd, L. A. Zhivotovsky, and M. W. Feldman. 2002. “Genetic Structure of Human Populations,” Science 298: 2381–2385.
(2) For classification of races based on Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNPs), see:
Li, J. Z., Absher, D. M., Tang, H., Southwick, A. M., Casto, A. M., Ramachandran, S., Cann, H. M., Barsh, G. S., Feldman, M., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and Myers, R. M. 2008. “Worldwide Human Relationships inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation,” Science 319.5866: 1100–1104.
(3) Admission of the existence of race by a leading geneticist (but with the absurd, dishonest and desperate lie that it is still just a “social construct”): David Reich, “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’,” March 23, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
(4) For the shocking suppression of genetic evidence of racial differences in IQ by the academic world:
Lance Welton, “‘This Will Not Stand’: Academic Establishment Suppresses Italian Anthropologist’s Proof That Race IQ Differences Are Genetic—For Now,” May 5, 2018, https://vdare.com/articles/this-will-not-stand-academic-establishment-suppresses-italian-anthropologist-s-proof-that-race-iq-differences-are-genetic-for-now When the Leftist media is increasingly faced with such evidence of the objective reality of race, there are horrified cries that this “vindicates” the far right.
In reality, it can just as easily be seen as a vindication of early 20th-century progressive Leftists and Liberals, who accepted race realism. It could even be seen as a vindication of early American race-realist Marxists like Ernest Untermann and Victor L. Berger.
And the trouble is this: at some point, the modern Left will be faced with an overwhelming mountain of genetic evidence about the objective reality of race, and the only people honestly talking about it will be libertarians like Stefan Molyneux (who holds crackpot economic ideas) or the far right (some of whom support outright authoritarianism). As on many issues (like its irrational opposition immigration restriction), the modern Left will be utterly humiliated and defeated.
At some point, the Left will have to rediscover its own earlier intellectuals and intellectual tradition that accepted the reality of race, and think up humane and civilised new ideas about the policy implications of such truths."