Skip to main content

The Wicked Witch Of The West Part 2, The Hillary Rape Crimes

I covered Hillary Clinton's warmongering and war-crimes, as well as her dubious and corrupt ties to wall street, media, big oil, the MIC and the banks in Part 1

But there is a subject I left out because I have a tendency to focus on political and economic reasons behind why powerful interests act, and what their agendas really are when compared to their stated agenda's.  That subject is those bizarre cover-ups of Bill Clinton's rapes, handled in a manner so sociopathic I think the material may have more resonance with the average US voter who can't conceptualize her true depravity when confronted with her political crimes committed mostly half way across the world, or in the realm of numbers and figures.  Her relationship to the presstitute media has once more provided her with salvation, but it has offered little more than slander to the true victims of her husbands (and her) predatory and ruthless ambition.  They are now just collateral damage, just like the bodies of Libyan and Syrian children after her needless wars.

This video looks at the evidence and contrasts her stated attitude to sexual assault victims with her actions and exposes her as someone who exploits (rather than fights for) women everywhere.

Here is the best case I could find for letting Hillary off the hook on this, it's weak at best. Snopes is a reasonable source, but they can unintentionally function as establishment apologists because of the resources they use, and have been known to get it wrong on issues requiring more subtle understanding of international geopolitics.  The weak case they make here I think shows up that fact because they focus on the wrong aspect of this particular case:

Here are a few links for media coverage in a similar direction:

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute  for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalists an…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…