On Tuesday’s presidential election

November 12, 2016

Yesterday, a former student of mine, whom I count as a friend, requested on Facebook that any Facebook friends of hers who voted for Trump unfriend her. This is my response.

Dear …,

In compliance with your request on Facebook yesterday, I am unfriending you. But, for the sake of past friendship, I would ask that you read the following account of why I voted for Mr. Trump this past Tuesday. My decision came down to basically two issues: the issue of war, and the issue of crime.

First, the issue of war. Mrs. Clinton, as shown by her actions and statements over the past two decades, is a notorious war hawk, one of the architects of the doctrine of “humanitarian interventionism” that is essentially imperialism with a smiley face. In her concern to outdo the Republicans at their own game, she never met a war she didn’t like. As First Lady, she supported her husband’s bombing of Serbia; as senator, she voted in favor of the war on Iraq and supported the Patriot Act; as Secretary of State, she orchestrated the assault upon Libya which left that once prosperous country in ruins; she joked about the brutal sodomizing and murder of Libya’s president, Col. Gaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died”); she helped organize the “rat line” whereby the CIA illegally transported arms from Benghazi to jihadists in Syria via Turkey (one consequence of which was the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens, who recognized the danger he was in and had petitioned the State Department in vain for an armed guard); through her protégé Victoria Nuland she orchestrated a violent “color revolution” in Ukraine that has led to a civil war in that country and thousands of deaths; since leaving office, she has continued to back the terrorists fighting to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria – using the bogus excuse that the people we are supporting are “moderates” — and, disastrously, she has called for the implementation in Syria of a “no fly zone,” which could easily lead to a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia. Many compare the current situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 (frequently referred to as the most dangerous moment in human history), and have pointed out that, if anything, the dangers of nuclear war are greater now than then, partly because the existence of “mini-nukes” makes using nuclear weapons more thinkable, partly because the current Washington political establishment is less restrained and self-critical, more addicted to group-think, and more beholden to foreign governments for guiding US foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton is the perfect embodiment of that political establishment; she seems utterly oblivious to the dangers of war; like her neocon advisers, she is happy to support the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, place nuclear missiles on a hair trigger within easy striking distance of cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, and, at home, direct a constant stream of abuse towards the Russians, blaming them for all of America’s problems including Wikileaks’ revelations about corruption at the DNC and in her own campaign. Among these revelations, there is the fact that Mrs. Clinton received massive funding (illegally) from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar when she knew that these governments were funding ISIS and supplying it with arms to murder and rape women and children. This, then, in short, is why I publicly stated long ago that I could not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She is a person with a lot of blood on her hands, and has repeatedly demonstrated bad judgment in the very area where she thinks her credentials are strongest, foreign policy. I saw a vote for Clinton as being a vote for war, for an escalation of proxy regime change wars in Syria and elsewhere, and for the suicidal possibility of nuclear war with Russia and/or China. I rejected this by voting for Trump, who has clearly expressed his intention to end the Syrian war and cooperate with Russia in fighting Islamic terrorism, maintaining this position even in the face of the hypocritical media criticism that he is Putin’s puppet. With Trump, there is at least a possibility that the neocons who have dominated American foreign policy thinking for the past generation will be kicked out of power. I would like to see that.

Then there is the issue of crime. This is a more diffuse and nebulous subject, since the reported criminality of the Clintons is prodigious and multifaceted, but the facts are less easily established; at one level, this criminality involves bribery, money laundering, kick-back schemes, vote-rigging, use of a charitable organization for private enrichment, and the illegal use of a private e-mail server for transmitting classified information; at a deeper level, there is evidence that it involves kidnapping, child abuse, and murder. Because the former allegations are better known, I will focus on the latter. Around the beginning of August this year, I became aware of a string of deaths of at least five people who had been investigating the Clintons, all of whom died within the space of a month, some murdered without apparent motive, others said to have committed suicide; among them were Seth Rich, Sean Lucas, and Victor Thorn. If one does an internet search on “Clinton Body Count” one can find a remarkable infographic chart which, if nothing else, makes it clear that possessing compromising knowledge about the Clintons’ personal activities can be hazardous to one’s health. I have read enough history to understand that the common, benign assumption that American politicians are basically good and do not murder to further their careers is false; among presidents, Lyndon Johnson and the Bushes are men who rose by this nefarious practice. If mainstream news does not report these matters, if they label any attempt to shed light upon them “conspiracy theories,” it is because people in the media would rather keep their comfortable positions by writing pabulum than end up dead like Seth Rich, Sean Lucas, Victor Thorn, Michael Hastings, and other investigative journalists who sought to expose corruption in high places (note that Mrs. Clinton, in a meeting with her staff, expressed a desire that someone would get rid of Julian Assange; at first, they thought she was joking, but it became clear she wasn’t).

More recently, just before the election, I came across a picture that juxtaposed Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta and his brother Tony Podesta with police sketches made some years ago by Scotland Yard in its investigation of the abduction of a three-year-old girl, Madeleine McCann, from a hotel room in Portugal on May 3, 2007. (See http://sli.mg/vbobS8 ) To my thinking, the resemblance of the two brothers to the faces in the police sketches is uncanny, particularly so in the case of John Podesta. Later, I read an article that pointed out that the sketch resembling Tony Podesta shows a small mole over the corner of his right eyebrow; Tony Podesta has a small mole over the corresponding corner of his left eyebrow. Other evidence: Wikileaks’ cache of John Podesta’s emails begins on the day after the abduction (May 4, 2007), suggesting that earlier emails had been erased from the server; also, it shows that John Podesta in fact had visited Portugal, and had business contacts in Praia da Luz where Madeleine McCann was kidnapped. Add to this the Podesta brothers’ acquaintance with Marina Abramovic, their invitation to one of her “Spirit Cooking” affairs (a form of “art” involving blood and semen that is essentially a satanic ritual), perverse artworks in Tony Podesta’s house depicting violence to children, the association of the brothers with the “Comet Ping Pong” nightclub in Washington, D.C., and the frequent appearance in Podesta’s e-mails of pedophile code language: the result was that I became convinced that the Podestas are involved in some form of child trafficking. Other evidence tying this activity with the Clintons: Bill Clinton’s frequent flights on the convicted pedophile Jeremy Epstein’s private jet; Hillary Clinton’s intervention to free Laura Silsby, who was in jail in Haiti after being convicted of trafficking children; the sick behavior of Andrew Wiener, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest adviser, Huma Abedin. The net result of all this is that it appears likely to me that child abuse is part of the political culture to which the Clintons belong, and that the Clintons themselves belong to, and probably are at the heart of, a political child trafficking ring, in which child abuse is used, among other things, for political ends — most likely, for blackmailing potential opponents so as to silence them and keep them in line.

These revelations about the Madeleine McCann abduction were what finally tipped the balance for me. Until that point, I had seriously considered voting for Jill Stein. But, given that I live in a swing state, where the election might have been decided by a few votes, I did not want to do anything that would allow Hillary Clinton to enter the White House. I voted for Trump, with a clear conscience. There are many things that I do not like about Mr. Trump, not least his grotesque private comments about women; I also disagree with him on many matters of policy, particularly concerning the environment and economics. These are important issues, but I considered them less important than preventing nuclear war and preventing a crime syndicate from taking control of the United States government. On both these issues, I am genuinely convinced that Mrs. Clinton represented a real danger. You may disagree. But I hope that the above discussion shows that my vote for Mr. Trump was not done from motives of “racism” or “sexism,” but out of concern for the common good.

Yours truly,
Peter Gilbert

Advertisements

4 Responses to “On Tuesday’s presidential election”

  1. T. Chan Says:

    Kyrie eleison.

  2. rlprior Says:

    Agree with your conclusions regarding the selection of a Presidential candidate.

    No-one expects to like the candidates 100%.

    In summary:-

    if one candidate has a particularly negative policy – the vote will go to the other candidate.

    if one candidate evokes a lack of trust, the vote will go to the other candidate.

    In my case, it came down to Trade Policies. As a Price Waterhouse management consultant, Bilateral trade policies carried greater benefits and much less risk than Multi-lateral policies of the progressives in the US and Europe.

    Trump was a simple choice based on this single criterium.

  3. benedictus Says:

    I have been a fan of your blog for some time because of the light it sheds on the Latin / Greek issues through the lens of John Bekkos.

    I am, however, disappointed and quite disturbed by the posting of this statement on your blog.

    I don’t judge those who voted for Mr Trump, although I fear that many will regret it, and are already regretting it.

    The only thing I will say is that the Podesta / Madeleine McCann claim or theory or accusation is so clearly a hoax and a calumny. For one thing, the images in question depict not two men but two versions of the *same* suspect. The suspect is remembered of as being at least 30 some years younger than Mr Podesta.

    The talk about “fake news” from the President himself is bizarrely laughable given that alt-right forces supporting his cause flooded Facebook with phony stories from authentic looking news websites. It isn’t inconceivable at all that the election was swung in favour of DT through this disgusting strategy. And, unsurprisingly, the Podesta story appears as part of this hoax.

    But Christian charity demands, I believe, the removal of this post. It is a calumny and the spreading of an outright falsehood spread by anti-democratic racist thugs who have glommed onto Trump as a means of destabilizing the country.

    There is plenty about Hillary, Podesta, et al. that is objectionable. And I can understand the thought process of those who protest voted for Trump. My attitude was and is: pick your poison. Hillary is poisonous but she had a vested interest in keeping the order which would have kept her in power. Trump is an imbalanced, possibly mentally ill individual, who is being knowingly promoted / used by radical ideologues who focused on him precisely because of the probability that he will lead the country into trauma and crisis.

    It’s your blog, but this is a blight on an otherwise consistently excellent effort on your part.

  4. bekkos Says:

    Benedictus,

    I do not intend to retract the article, since it does what it was meant to do: explain how I voted this past November, and why. It is not meant to cast a permanent judgment, whether positive or negative, upon Mr. Trump’s presidency, which, at the time that I wrote this, still lay in the future. Neither is it meant to give irrefutable proof of the involvement of the Podesta brothers in the Madeleine McCann kidnapping case, in “Pizzagate,” or in any other criminal activity. It states what seemed to me at the time reasonable grounds for thinking that there was some involvement of members of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in criminal activity, possibly including a pedophilia ring, and very likely including the murder of investigative journalists. I would not have voted for Mrs. Clinton in any case, but (as stated in the article) the accumulation of evidence pointing in this direction finally outweighed any inclination I may have had towards voting for a third-party candidate; I voted for Trump to avoid a greater evil.

    “In nearly all the affairs of life with regard to which we are called upon to act it is more or less difficult to ascertain what is in fact the case” (L. Susan Stebbing, 1939). That statement was true in the 1930s when it was first made, and it is true now. I would agree with you that there are circumstances which weigh against identifying the faces portrayed in the McCann sketches with the Podesta brothers: chiefly, the circumstance that the two sketches are reportedly sketches of the same suspect, not of two different people. Still, the resemblance of the sketches to the two Podesta brothers, even down to a mole on Tony Podesta’s face, is striking; I do not know all the details on how these two sketches came to be made, but the possibility remains, I think, that these are actually sketches of two people, who were later confused into a single suspect.

    If the idea that members of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign engaged in human trafficking was based only upon these two sketches, I would reject it as absurd. But (as mentioned in the article) there is the evidence of John Podesta’s e-mails, released by WikiLeaks, the evidence of Tony Podesta’s creepy pedophilic art collection, Mr. Clinton’s relationship with Jeremy Epstein, and other things. (One thing which was not mentioned above in the article, which happened shortly after the election: the death in Haiti of Monica Petersen, who had been investigating Mrs. Clinton’s brother in possible connection with human trafficking; her death was called a suicide.) I do not think one can just dismiss all of this as “a calumny and the spreading of an outright falsehood spread by anti-democratic racist thugs.” As far as I know, no document released by WikiLeaks has ever been shown to be inauthentic. This in spite of the Washington Post having placed it on a blacklist of “fake news” sites. (See Ben Norton’s and Glenn Greenwald’s criticism of this list in The Intercept.)

    The term “fake news” is the latest manufactured popular slogan designed to close down rational debate upon public issues. The only way to determine what news is genuine and what news is not is by freely considering the evidence. In the present state of open journalism, where anyone with a computer can post things to the internet, it is sometimes difficult to determine what claims are factual and what is made up, who has real expertise and who is a charlatan. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that only established organs of journalism publish “real news,” and that what comes from amateurs (e.g., bloggers) is necessarily “fake”; if anything, such new forms of media play an important role in holding up the established media to critical scrutiny. Blacklisting sources of information, out of a supposed concern for democracy, does nothing to uphold democracy and much to undermine it. It assumes that there is an all-knowing authority that can decide for the rest of us what is to be known and what we must think. It is not the province of Facebook or Google, or the New York Times or Washington Post, or Mr. Trump or Fox News or anyone else, to tell us which sources of news and opinion we must hold as reliable; that is for us to decide, as rational beings and free citizens.

    So, in brief, do I regret my vote? No. I regret the fact that the choice presented to American voters was between the lesser of two criminals. I am not happy with most of what Mr. Trump has done in office, but I never expected that I would be. There are many issues on which I never agreed with him. My main disappointment is that Trump has proved less independent of the neocons in foreign policy than I had hoped; we are still pursuing the same “Clean Break” regime change strategy in the Middle East that was pursued by the last two presidents, which has cost the United States trillions of dollars and caused (arguably) millions of deaths, has destroyed the sovereign states of Iraq and Libya on bogus charges, and is in the process of destroying Syria. It has also caused the refugee crisis in Europe, and has helped bankrupt America, placing us in a permanent wartime economy. I thought Trump might do something to turn this process around, so that we might focus our energies on rebuilding our country; he is unlikely to be able to do this, and perhaps never really intended to. It well may be that he is unstable; I still hope that he might do something to rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure, which, in the Midwest particularly, is a huge problem.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: