Picking Cain's Brains

[Cain]

Dear Mr. teh Cain man,

The 45th president of the US is in the process of declaring Mexican drug cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

I'm not sure they should be categorized as terrorists, as I don't believe they have a political agenda, per se.  However, I wanted to get the opinion from someone who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.

Thoughts?

Well, everyone has a political agenda in some sense of the word. The Italian mafia was blowing up entire streets to take out judges in the 1980s, as I'm so fond of reminding people.

But are they actually aiming to displace the state through political violence? Or are they merely using a mixture of violence and corruption to deter local law enforcement and politicians from interferring in their profitable ventures? Are they, as groups, pushing overtly or covertly for political outcomes that cannot be related just to the survival and profitability of the cartels?

I'm not convinced, as you can tell.

[altered]

One day I need to to give me a book to read about the whole P2 thing, Cain, because I'm weirdly obsessed with it.

[Cain]

One day I need to to give me a book to read about the whole P2 thing, Cain, because I'm weirdly obsessed with it.

I had a good one, it was mostly focused on the wider terrorist situation in Italy at the time, but it touched on it.

Ah, here we go.  Philip Willan's Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy. Dead tree format isn't cheap, but the Kindle version should be. Beyond that, they're mentioned as piece players in other books, mostly on the mafia.

[LMNO]

Dear Mr Cain,

Maybe I'm not as plugged in as I could be, but with all the national attention on Qanon these days (NPR has had a segment on them just about every day for the past week or more), the White Hats haven't gotten around to doxxing Q?  I'd think even if it wasn't for ethical reasons, outing Q would be mega lulz.

[Cain]

Because it's not really possible. Q started off on 4chan, then moved to 8chan. You'd need to hack their databases, see which IPs used the triptych and then you'd hit a brick wall. Because of the nature of 4chan and 8chan's anonymous posting, the IP address would be functionally worthless without a larger list of users to reference it against.

Q could be Jim Watkins, owner of 8kun. He could be a Falun Gong member (their websites have heavily pushed Qanon content), seeking to have American evangelical insanity take down China. He could be a Russian FSB cyber disinfo program gone wildly right, at least from the FSB's point of view. Any combination of these could be correct, as all three have vested interests in not just being Q, but amplifying Q's message.

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm curious to hear more what your analysis of Q is, Cain.
I've got a coworker that is into it, and feeds me from that bubble.
He convinced me that Trump was aware of it, and was, at the least, playing into it.  After enough time, I became convinced that Trump is actively coordinating with whoever it is.  Beyond that, I reserve judgement.

[Cain]

I think that's very plausible. I don't think Trump himself is deeply involved, but people in Trump's circle are definitely aware of it, and trying to milk it for all its worth.

I suspect Q was initially viewed by these people as a simple way to deflect Trump's own links with sex traffickers like Epstein, but as the mythos grew, and became correspondingly more insane, it took on a life of its own and escaped their ability to control it. But by that point, it was too late, Q was running riot through Trump support networks and it was a case of "swim with the current or drown".

At this rate, Q will be the mainstream Republican position in 4 years. 2, if Biden becomes President.

[Elder Iptuous]

Where do you see the line of plausibility ending, and the bat shit starting?
I seems very clear to me that there are powers at play that use compromising material in the form of pedophilia and freaky cult shit to control folks in positions of influence.
It feels so strange having my bullshit detector so far out of cal, but ridiculous things seem quite plausible to me these days.
What disqualifies the Q narrative from being true, essentially as they portray it?

[Cain]

Basically as soon as adrenochrome starts being mentioned. Hunter S. Thompson made that bullshit up, and freely admitted it. Or how all the elite pedophiles are of a particular political bent (if anything, pedophilia's political inclination is towards fascism). Any elite pedophile is going to do what any successful corporation does and play both sides of the aisle.

I have no problem with the idea that Epstein was an intelligence asset, using video evidence of what people did to the girls he arranged for underage rape sessions as blackmail material.

Anything beyond that gets really questionable, really fast. Let alone Q's retread of the "Satanic panic" conspiracy theories - that's always a classic sign of impending insanity, when there's a global Satanic network involved.

[Elder Iptuous]

Satanic panic is what keeps me reserved on the issue.
The adrenochrome is ridiculous, and when I point out the hunter s Thompson connection, the retort is that it was a signal veiled in fiction.   Also the same claim made with eyes wide shut.
So that seems weak.  But it's also not really the central claim of the cult...
What do you make of the claim that there is an organized effort at using kompromat at a global level (deep state), and that there is a group of military intelligence, utilizing trump presidency, trying to fight it?
Where does that claim fail?

[Cain]

Well, my principle objection would be that nothing I have seen Trump doing would actually be helpful in that situation, and a number of things (like the FEMA camps) are actually creating a pool of easily trafficked and abusable children.

Beyond that it's all classic conspiracy theory wank. An organised effort to use compromising information at a global level, undertaken by a single group? Like that wouldn't fall apart in five minutes, with various factions running at counter-purposes. The CIA and FBI can't even share information on terrorists without turning it into a pissing match. And why would an opposing cabal use a malignant narcissist who is friends with known organised crime figures and human traffickers in the first place? Why would they use someone who is so obviously open to not just blackmail but is easily bribed off with not just actual bribes, but even public flattery?

If there was any such cabal, they would have killed Trump for being a goddamn walking national security disaster first and foremost, and quite frankly I'm more surprised that some off the books CIA Russia desk asset hasn't tried whacking him already.

[Elder Iptuous]

Mmm. Yes. I'm surprised there hasn't been any serious state run attempts at assassination that were clearly evident.

My coworker views *everything* through the lense of the Q narrative.  I criticize him for making his mind up about things based on whether it fits the story or not without actual evidence.

It itches my mind that the best argument against the central claim, however, is personal incredulity.

Oh well.  If there's anything to it, I guess we'll  find out.

[Cain]

Well when the whole thing's based on "trust me, I'm a super secret insider" I'm not sure what else you can expect. It's not like there has been any evidence forthcoming for any of this.

[Junkenstein]

Hey Cain, what's happening with greenwald/the intercept? Looks like a total shitshow, on both sides.

[Cain]

Greenwald has, perhaps unsurprisingly for anyone familiar with his work, decided that "being edited" is "cancel culture" and so thrown a huff and decided to build his own newsletter, with blackjack and hookers. Essentially his article for the Intercept had some questionable assertions within and the editors wouldn't run it unless he removed them, which he refused to do.

Greenwald has been out the outs with The Intercept for a while though. As you may recall, he badly bungled the Reality Winner situation, which almost certainly led directly to her arrest and subsequent prison sentence. His frequent insistence that the Trump campaign Russia links were little more than a "witch hunt" by establishment Dems also caused him to essentially overlook one of the major intelligence stories of the decade - which is not exactly helpful, when you're making a name writing on security adjacent issues. Between the two, I suspect sources simply aren't coming to The Intercept with useful info anymore and even before the article issue they were probably looking at letting him go in some fashion.

I give it maybe 4 months before Glenn goes full alt-lite.