The #QAnon Conciousness Phenomena

Most of the media will never mention all these failed predictions
Fortunately, the Innerwebz allows free-thinkers to circumvent their war-mongering stranglehold.

mwGsaZi.jpg


If not for the Intenet, hundreds of thousands of American kids would be dying in Syria fighting Russian kids at this very moment.
 
If not for the Intenet, hundreds of thousands of American kids would be dying in Syria fighting Russian kids at this very moment.
Exactly - this is what upsets me about those who pride themselves on leaning left. Most of them have no clue about what they are really supporting. The alt-right seems far closer to the old Left on issues of war and peace - and what other political issue is more important?

David
 
No. I'm saying that if #QAnon's message was so important, and so easily co-opted and/or subverted by Pretenders, he would employ a digital signature.
Well that was a PGP digital signature, but do you mean it wasn't maximum length?

I mean, I certainly agree - if QAnon deliberately compromised his own communication method, he is probably fake too - though he does seem to be reporting some plausible information.

David
 
but do you mean it wasn't maximum length?

No. I haven't looked at GPG in a long time, but I don't think there is a maximum message length.

I'm only interested if there is any spooky consciousness stuff in QAnon's posts.

I'm not interested in the day-to-day political fighting. Those cards are dealt. We the People won't have any more input on such things until the 2018 mid-term elections start heating up in late Summer.

So, I don't pay much attention to politics other than enjoying funny memes that pop up.
 
Sorry - I was referring to the length of the key!

David

At the risk of sticking my nose in where it's not wanted and further confusing things, it seems to me that there's some miscommunication happening. David, I think that what Charlie was trying to say in his original post to which you responded is "If this qanon guy had wanted to secure and protect his identity, he would have used a GPG/PGP signature, which looks like this - but he didn't. That was foolish and diminishes his credibility". It seems to me that you have somehow misunderstood Charlie's example of a GPG/PGP signature as an actual signature used by qanon, and thus misunderstood Charlie as saying that there was some sort of problem with the GPG/PGP signature that qanon (as you understood Charlie to be asserting) used. But no, Charlie was only providing an example of what a GPG/PGP signature would have looked like had qanon used one, which qanon didn't, and which Charlie was critiquing him for.

Apologies if my inserting myself into this exchange is unwelcome - I just hope that I might have helped to dispel some apparently ongoing confusion.
 
At the risk of sticking my nose in where it's not wanted and further confusing things, it seems to me that there's some miscommunication happening. David, I think that what Charlie was trying to say in his original post to which you responded is "If this qanon guy had wanted to secure and protect his identity, he would have used a GPG/PGP signature, which looks like this - but he didn't. That was foolish and diminishes his credibility". It seems to me that you have somehow misunderstood Charlie's example of a GPG/PGP signature as an actual signature used by qanon, and thus misunderstood Charlie as saying that there was some sort of problem with the GPG/PGP signature that qanon (as you understood Charlie to be asserting) used. But no, Charlie was only providing an example of what a GPG/PGP signature would have looked like had qanon used one, which qanon didn't, and which Charlie was critiquing him for.

Apologies if my inserting myself into this exchange is unwelcome - I just hope that I might have helped to dispel some apparently ongoing confusion.
Right - now I get it!

It takes about an hour to learn how to digitally sign a block of text in a way that nobody can deny the text is from the author by using the free, open-source program

This is what caused the confusion - I read it as 1 hour of computer time - which would be far too long to merely sign a message, and sounded like the time required to crack a very weak digital signature!

Thanks for pointing it out!

David
 

I think Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post makes a response that's worth considering:

The “Fake News Awards” announced on the Republican National Committee website and touted by President Trump pose a conundrum: Does it really count if the news organization admits error?

Regular readers of The Fact Checker know that we do not award Pinocchios if a politician admits error. Everyone makes mistakes — and the point is not to play gotcha. News organizations operate in a competitive arena and mistakes are bound to be made. The key test is whether an error is acknowledged and corrected.

President Trump almost never admits error, even as he has made more than 2,000 false or misleading statements.

He goes on to analyse each award and concludes:

To sum up, at least seven of the “Fake News” winners resulted in corrections, with two reports prompting suspensions or resignations. One of the winners [was] simply a tweet that [was] quickly corrected and never resulted in a news article. One was an opinion article in which the author later retracted his prediction.

Let’s put it this way: If the president admitted error as frequently, he would earn far fewer Pinocchios.

For David: the opinion article to which Glenn refers is Paul Krugman's which you mentioned earlier in the thread. As Glenn points out in his article, Paul retracted his prediction just three days later:

There’s a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now. It’s at least possible that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly.
 
For David: the opinion article to which Glenn refers is Paul Krugman's which you mentioned earlier in the thread. As Glenn points out in his article, Paul retracted his prediction just three days later:
Well this guy is a famous professor of economics at Princeton, would you really expect him to shoot his mouth off like that (which might have actually generated the crash he predicted) , and then for things to have changed so much in 3 days that he could re-analyse the situation and drop his claim!

Yes, many of those awarded by the president retracted their comments afterwards. The problem is, many people only hear the original remark, which is hyped on television, and never even realise it was retracted. I imagine the media bosses are aware of this, which is why they permit such loose reporting to happen.

In any case, this example shows the incredibly insolence of so many well heeled opinion formers towards a man who had just won the election for president - what ever happened to the 100 days honeymoon period?

I know I have said it before, but if HC had won, none of us might be here any more, because HC wanted to ramp up the war in Syria (that she started while secretary of state) to win against Russia.

David
 
Well this guy is a famous professor of economics at Princeton, would you really expect him to shoot his mouth off like that

As compared to, say, the President of the USA? ;-)

Even the best make these kind of slip-ups from time to time. Correcting them within three days seems pretty reasonable to me.

for things to have changed so much in 3 days that he could re-analyse the situation and drop his claim!

I don't think anything external changed - as far as I can tell he simply realised he'd been a little hasty in his analysis.

The problem is, many people only hear the original remark, which is hyped on television, and never even realise it was retracted. I imagine the media bosses are aware of this, which is why they permit such loose reporting to happen.

Oh, I really don't think the media bosses "permit" these reporting mistakes. Look how much mileage the President gets out of them. The media bosses, I would expect, are well aware that even retracted mistakes play right into the President's hands - not to mention his narrative.
 
I have no prior knowledge of Krugman (aside from recognising his name), and have barely looked into the Austrian School of Economics, so I can't comment on any of that. In any case, I think the point that correcting a hasty opinion within three days is pretty reasonable still stands.
 
I have no prior knowledge of Krugman (aside from recognising his name), and have barely looked into the Austrian School of Economics, so I can't comment on any of that. In any case, I think the point that correcting a hasty opinion within three days is pretty reasonable still stands.

True, but Krugman is a slippery fellow with a long history of taking diametrically opposed positions, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. Those familiar with his hypocritical, self-serving antics consider him as nothing more than a propagandist for the Democratic Party. While I despise many of the Trump administration's policies, and believe we'll all be worse off in the long run because of them, I can't help being delighted at Trump's exposure of Krugman's nonsense.

As it happens, Krugman's wild claim that markets would never recover (because of Trump), and subsequent retraction, was covered in depth in a recent podcast by two very popular Austro-libertarians, Tom Woods and Bob Murphy:

http://contrakrugman.com/ep-120-krugman-tries-to-explain-away-the-2017-economy/
 
True, but Krugman is a slippery fellow with a long history of taking diametrically opposed positions, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. Those familiar with his hypocritical, self-serving antics consider him as nothing more than a propagandist for the Democratic Party. While I despise many of the Trump administration's policies, and believe we'll all be worse off in the long run because of them, I can't help being delighted at Trump's exposure of Krugman's nonsense.

As it happens, Krugman's wild claim that markets would never recover (because of Trump), and subsequent retraction, was covered in depth in a recent podcast by two very popular Austro-libertarians, Tom Woods and Bob Murphy:

http://contrakrugman.com/ep-120-krugman-tries-to-explain-away-the-2017-economy/

Thanks for that, Doug. Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from. Speaking personally, though, again it's hard for me to make an assessment given that I'm unfamiliar with all of these players. I listened to the podcast and the podcasters seem to make sound points. But are Krugman's apparent contradictions really significantly greater than that of the average public academic with a prolific output? I don't have enough information to make that judgement. I understand that (it seems to me that) you feel that you do, and I totally respect that.
 
I believe the the previous administration was guilty of many crimes. But I think the way the republicans are divulging the evidence is being carefully planned and managed for maximum effect on public opinion. It is a sort of stage show or psychological operation. "Release the memo" is part of it. They are doing this for two purposes: to minimize democratic voters' disbelief, and to maximize the political effect on the 2018 midterm elections. It was criminal for the previous administration to abuse the FISA court, FBI, and justice department to undermine the Trump candidacy and administration, but it is also unethical, in my opinion, to use the machinery of government and justice for political purposes while exposing and prosecuting those crimes.


https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ee-will-vote-to-release-fisa-corruption-memo/

The entire enterprise of exposing the corruption and conspiracy has just begun.

CTH readers are well ahead of the entire storyline; however, for the rest of America -including a massive part the voting electorate- they have no idea what’s coming.

Devin Nunes is just the beginning. Batting Order:

  • First-up: Devin Nunes (Chairman Intel Committee, Full I/C Oversight)
  • Second: Chuck Grassley (Chairman Senate Judiciary – DOJ/FBI Oversight)
  • Third: Bob Goodlatte (Chairman House Judiciary – DOJ Oversight)
  • Clean-up: Michael Horowitz (DOJ Inspector General)
•House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is focused on the FISA abuse; and overall abuse from the larger intelligence community (FBI, CIA, ODNI and NSA). The FISA-702 angle is his leverage to reveal it.

•Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is focused on the Dossier fraud; and the overall DOJ and FBI corruption. The Steele Dossier is his leverage to reveal it.
...
•House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte is focused on the FBI and DOJ corruption; and his leverage is the Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, and the year-long IG investigation that just began turning over 1.2 million pages of investigative documents.
...
Remember, this entire process didn’t begin with the Nunes memo, it began back in March and April of 2017 when Chairman Nunes discovered the unlawful unmasking and FISA surveillance activity; and the seeds of that discovery go back to March 2016 when National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers noticed the unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) searches.

In March 2017 Devin Nunes was stuck in a legal conundrum due to the classified nature of the information and the fact that declassification by the DOJ was adverse to their interests. The DOJ was the entity carrying out the prior unlawful action contained within the classified evidence viewed by Devin Nunes.

A plan was developed.

In April and May 2017 Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and NSA Director Admiral Rogers, began assembling a pathway for Devin Nunes to climb out of that intelligence box. ODNI Dan Coats declassified the FISA Court opinion, and that opened the door for Horowitz, Grassley, Goodlatte and Nunes to question the content therein that circled the unlawful action of the DOJ and FBI.

Where we are today is a step in the investigative process that is an outcome of months of work by Coats, Rogers and Horowitz to extract Chairman Devin Nunes and bring all prior DOJ and FBI corruption to the surface.​
 
Last edited:
Former federal prosecutor and independent council Joe diGenova says the FBI "tried to frame an incoming President with a false Russian conspiracy that never existed and they knew it and they plotted to ruin him as a candidate and then destroy him as a President."

He says by now this is a matter of public record, what is in the Nunes memo are the names of the FBI officials who were involved.

The "public record" is this declassified ruling by the FISA court: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf


diGenova at 23:28 says "The Russian collusion was a complete fabrication of the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, senoir DOJ and FBI officials to create a way to dirty up Trump as a candidate and then destroy him as a president. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that has ever been introduced of any conspiracy."

And don't miss what he has to say about the Mueller investigation at 23:54.


Joe diGenova, a former federal prosecutor, connects the dots on former Obama administration Justice Department and FBI officials who may have “violated the law, perhaps committed crimes” to politicize law enforcement and surveillance against political opponents. He says former FBI Director James Comey conducted a fake criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as they “followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, with no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrants. That’s not an investigation. That’s a Potemkin village. It’s a farce.”​

"People that were senior career civil servants violated the law, perhaps committed crimes, and covered up crimes by a Presidential candidate [Hillary]. But more than that, they tried to frame an incoming President with a false Russian conspiracy that never existed and they knew it and they plotted to ruin him as a candidate and then destroy him as a President. That’s why this is important. That’s why connecting the dots is important, because the FBI now has to be completely reconstructed from the ground up.”
 
Last edited:
Thanks Jim,

There is a lot of detail there, and it looks like we all should heartily thank Admiral Rogers for what he has done to thwart this plot. The gist of this story seems to be confirmed by a lot of sources, and hopefully this will be in the open very soon.

I have a feeling that this story will have deep roots, and that a lot more will be uncovered in the months and years ahead. I have a strong feeling that George Soros must have funded this one way or another.

David
 
I don't understand why President Trump doesn't just FIRE all of the Senior Administrators at DOJ, FBI, DIA, State, CIA, et al.

He is the freakin Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Government. I thought he had the legal authority to do that.
 
Back
Top