Once upon a time not all that long ago,

John Podesta, the guy heading Hillary Clinton's election campaign and once Chief of Staff at the White House under Bill Clinton, stated in an email that he'd make an example of leakers.

podesta threat.jpg

And then Seth Rich died.

Taken at face value, one could consider it confirmation bias or correlation equalling causation. However given the timeline:

Jan 2015 - Rich contacts Wikileaks about the shady doings of the DNC
Feb 2015 - Podesta sends email about making examples of leakers
July 2016 - Rich is shot twice in the back. Camera footage shows the feet of two assailants

One must consider that there may indeed be something to this. Also consider that the DNC hired a PR firm to represent the Rich family; isn't that a conflict of interest?

seth rich PR.png

Or is it a way to keep tabs on a grieving family and head them off from asking uncomfortable questions?

Every now and again, a gem of truth is found, polished, and put on display.

seth rich.jpg

If the DNC got hacked per the Russia Narrative (how many different versions are there of that tale and how Putin fucked up things for Hillary by hacking DNC servers, the Election, Trump's brain, and western media?) then why did they not permit the FBI to forensically investigate said hacked servers? molyneax seth rich russia.png

Yesterday, May 16, 2017, there were echoes of the same thing floating across the interwebs: HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH. From Zero Hedge to Fox News, the murder of Seth Rich is finally getting major coverage since Rod Wheeler, former DC police homicide detective turned Private Investigator told Fox News that DCPD and the FBI have not been forthcoming about the murder of Seth Rich, and that there is evidence that Rich was in touch with Wikileaks. Take into consideration, that it's peculiar the DCPD took Rich's laptop. Uh, if he was randomly shot during a supposed robbery AND THAT'S ALL on the street, why would law enforcement want to take the victim's laptop into custody? That strikes me as particularly odd. And as more of these details emerge, the more bullshit from the establishment will bombard our senses and try to get us to tune things out and focus on safer topics; topics where they control the narrative.

shattered russia narrative.jpg

Right now, it's terribly predictable how the establishment is spinning their wheels to have us accept the Russia Did It narrative without questioning certain aspects such as:

Why is it permissible for the Clintons to have dealings with Russia while HRC served as Secretary of State, but when it's someone else it suddenly becomes unacceptable (despite the precedent set)? Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to accept a hefty chunk of change from Russia for a speech given in Moscow around the time the State department approved the sale of Uranium One?
Why do mainstream media sources pump out Russia pieces whenever there's a revelation that calls out the lies spewed by HRC and DNC? Especially odious since in the example below, it's The Washington Post; the same outlet that serves as CIA propaganda machine, now with John Podesta opinion pieces. Why is it hard for some people to wrap their minds around the fact that a) when an outlet runs a story that involves one of their workers/contractors and doesn't state their connection or bias, it doesn't look good for the publication's optics. In fact, it looks like spin doctoring or a mega dose of razzle-dazzle-magic-distracto-hands. Combine the Podesta/WaPo connection with the fact WaPo is silent regarding Seth Rich... it isn't pretty; and b) people notice the silence and when asked, get more silence, it fills a confirmation bias slot, bolstering the gut feeling many people have about the crumbling Deep State that has lost control of the narrative and information.

EXAMPLE:
time matters.jpg

Why does HRC and company fail to accept that her second presidential loss was the result of her and her baggage, and not the actions of a foreign country? Was it a foreign country that sicced the FBI on her twice? Was it a foreign country that made the Clinton Foundation violate it's tax status of a state-side entity and delve into international waters? Was it a foreign country that invited known human trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell, to Chelsea's wedding? Or were they just hoping we wouldn't notice the smell of their shit downwind?

For all those bitching about the Trump clan desecrating the White House, please consider that Trump is a symptom of a problem with our political/government system, and not the problem itself. Perhaps if people before him hadn't put Wall Street bankers and donor cronies in positions of power; if quid pro quo and influence peddling weren't a thing; if personality politics were ignored in favor of focusing on what needs to be accomplished, why it needs to be accomplished, and then holding those responsible for accomplishing said things accountable for their actions, if maybe our compliance wasn't based on shopping, professional sports, and blind patriotism... maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now. But the reality is that we are in such a situation, and for our own preservation, we must not just change the politicians, but the system itself. To keep us, the unwashed masses, from upsetting the scale of power, we're kept divided through various means: political parties, religions, sports teams, what's taught in school... all these add up to keep the populace from uniting. What they didn't account for was the fact that child sex abuse (pizzagate/pedogate) transcend those divides; decent people from all walks of life are against child abuse. Period.

But to keep us otherwise occupied and having to work harder to get the message out, the establishment and their cronies have been flooding our feeds with news unrelated to important topics; it's like a tennis ball being fake-thrown for a dog to look for but never find. Facts don't matter, not to the news media. And once people note that it's the same outlets echoing the same propaganda, over and over, will they realize how we all are being led like a lamb to slaughter, taught to blindly follow their leaders and never questioning the blood-covered knife in their hands.

The followers of Hillary Clinton demonstrate this sentiment oh so beautifully.

Present them with facts, such as her state department covering up her ambassador/donor (Howard Gutman) as he tried preying on children in Belgium, and watch them short circuit and deflect onto Trump, ignoring that Clinton helped set the precedent. Like how the Clinton Foundation takes funds from countries renowned for their hatred of women's rights and homosexuality, and going as so far as to execute people... meanwhile HRC's campaign flouted a feminist (the "women are equal to men and men are harmed by the patriarchy, too" kind of feminism, not the "enslave men on stud farms and execute the rest" kind of feminism) message and accused all other presidential candidates, whether true or not, of being misogynistic. Or that the DNC fraudulently present itself as a means to select a candidate based on the populace's will; hardcore dems will ignore that their own Charter says they'd be impartial and look over the fact Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to step down for her participation in corruption. And rather than play the pariah role, she was welcomed oh-so-quickly to HRC's side; do they not care about optics and how shitty that looks? That caught doing wrong and instead of punished, one is taken aboard and given an honorary role, and we're supposed to be okay with that?

The mentality of "it's only corruption if the other side is doing it," has to fucking stop. NOW. Either you're for corruption or against it. If one looks over the dirty deeds done by their party and focus on what the other assclowns are doing, then they are endorsing corruption. Period. Either you want integrity or to win at any cost, and what one chooses says a lot about them as a person.

This same mentality carries over to the darker doings of those in power at the DNC. Think about it; the six masters of the CIA, heavily associated with a clandestine branch of the government, essentially the White House's bully arm. Who was president when Seth Rich was murdered? Obama, Democrat. John Podesta, as Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff, was another one of the CIA's masters (There are six, per Bob Woodward)

It's been revealed that Seth Rich handed over 44,000 DNC emails to Wikileaks. 44,000 pieces of evidence that the DNC rigged the system, milked voters for money under the pretext of giving them a say, and more.