Long Live Basil Fawlty, I Mean John Cleese - and no sirree, we won't mention the war!

It must be something about brilliance, it's so often associated with eccentricity and so-called eccentrics, and occasionally also with (material) wealth...though here I think and speak not of a certain self-promoting 'trump-tastic' individual, but of two fellas, namely, Great Britain's own inimitable John Cleese - juxtaposed, in this instance, over against Aotearoa-New Zealand's own millionaire personality Sir Robert ('Bob') Jones. The only other connection, in this case, that caused me to place these two side-by-side is their, I mean John Cleese's, latest foray/s into politics or at least 'political' commentary (over the whole Brexit debate, and now its rather sordid and elongated, ongoing aftremath) alongside an incredibly insightful and adept, ever so perceptive question-and-answer 'profile' of left-wing political parties, offshoots etcetera  (and their adherents and/or fellow travellers) in his equally memorable, witty and discerning *Families And How To Survive Them; set over against an amazing amount of political commentary by Bob Jones, whether in simply publicly-aired pronouncements, articles in the mainstream press, or especially numerous volumes generally in years and decades gone by; particularly concerning various oddball (as well as more orthodox) kiwi politicoes. Never a dull word or idle comment in that regards from either Jones or Cleese - when(ever) they feel they need to speak; and invariably, more importantly, have something worthwhile to say.

But here I'll return to and stick with John Cleese. Though his pre-Brexit comments undoubtedly earned him favour with the longsuffering British (and especially Welsh) masses - though of course the 'Remain' commentariot and intelligensia barely reported then quickly ignored such disturbing dissonnance from the(ir) prevailing wisdom - and obviously less so with both the Scots and the Northern Irish, whose majorities of course voted 'Remain' in the latter instance, and 'Leave' in the former. Anyhow, Cleese's very latest remarks ('twitters', evidently) have really gotten the Scotch knickers in a knot, so to speak, and I say that not as someone who's presently, let alone ever, had it in for the Scots; indeed I find them - as a race, an ethnicity, a group of people - a fairly good and decent, open-minded and straightforward, unpolitically correct bunch, especially in these days of PCness gone riot. Yes, Scots are actually one of my preferred peoples/ethnicities, alongside the Welsh and Brits and Irish; as well as, incidentally, are Filipinos, Indians, Nepalese, 'Caribbeans', (especially black) Africans; and also Slavic and Middle Eastern peoples for that matter; Scandinavians; and even the Germans - but no, we won't mention the war.

Anyhow - as I was saying - though haling from the Scottish 'Edinburgh of the South', i.e. Dunedin, Aotearoa-New Zealand - I felt 'Good on ya, John', **after hearing about your latest twitter, for giving what I anyhow supposed to be a well-needed 'right royal serve' to those (?Celts/Scots/Scotch) - however presently admirably led by that ever so gutsy, no-nonsense, 'stick it to ya' - and with no knobs on! - First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Yes, how dare those self-serving Scots seek to exit - post-Brexit - the United Kingdom, the re-newly 'Great' Britain. No, they need to be repositioned firmly, fairly and squarely 'in their place': once-and-for-all, over and out; el finito; kaput! 

 * A book he co-authored, alongside Life And How to Survive It, with psychiatrist Robyn Skinner.

**Upon RNZ National's afternoon 'Panel', in fact, where either resident comedian Jim Elliot or his fellow guest, the other day, 'excused' Cleese's 'latest outburst' (in their apparent estimation) as the dangers ever lurking in one's sending off, through over-tiredness or tendency to immediately 're-act' (as afflicts say ye average talkback show host to an inordinate degree) late night emails (or in this case commentary) which one - almost instantaneously - comes to regret...when one has - soon enough - 'thought better of it' and dearly wished one had kept one's powder dry (presumably for a later, inevitable, more important skirmish or battle royale).

Willy Wonka has died; long live - the memory and legacy of - Willy Wonka

It was with deep sorrow the news broke across the 'newswires' early this morning: that Gene Wilder - the one and only, real Willy Wonka himself - had died at age 83 (of Alzheimers Disease); in Stanford, Connecticut...I believe the home 'town' (or at least later abode) of my all-time favourite psychotherapist, the late great H Scott Peck. (Though I'm sure they had little else in common.)

This is simply to acknowledge the earthly passing of a person truly 'larger than life', whose memory and legacy will burn on for a long time yet in the hearts and souls of many another child at heart. Whose classic work has probably done a heckuva lot more to instill good moral values into the hearts and lives of children and adults the world over than many a moralistic sermon or piece of parental advice; much less political or ideological do gooderism!

And to think that some would-be filmmakers supposed to remake *David L Wolper's all-time best ever kids' film, and with a second-rate Hollywood actor to boot... !

I can only repeat my rather pathetic, faltering words: Willy Wonka (aka Gene Wilder) has died; long live Gene Wilder (Willy Wonka)!

*Of course from the Roald Dahl classic book ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory''.

Yes, They Really Suppose They've Got Us All Fooled: or, If It Looks Like A Set-Up, & It Walks Like A Set-Up, & It Talks Like A Set-Up...Hey Folks - "Wise Up" (& Fast!): Perhaps It Really Is A Con Job - or, alternatively: The 2016 American Presidential Election A Real Jack-Up? Why, Yes Indeed, And In More Ways Than Might Appear; From Its Very Inception, Moreover; And With Bill Clinton Himself Holding The Trump Card

Part One: My Essential Thesis

Donald J Trump's "playing the American people [and hence the whole world] for suckers"? Maybe, but perhaps he ain't actually doin' it all on his lonesome... .

Yes, I've a conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories: Mr D. Trump's out-of-left-field (right field - or any field for that matter) candidacy for America's (and the Planet's) top office is nothing less than a well-hatched, full-blown, and thus far exquisitely-executed plot - to astound even Machiavelli himself - by Mr Trump, in full and willing cooperation - nay, collusion - with former President Bill Clinton and would-be President Hillary Clinton, to conclusively deliver Ms Clinton the White House (on the proverbial silver platter) in around (i)75 days or so. And so decisively in fact that she - and let's not forget Bill - stays there for a 'good' eight years.

So how do I reach such a conspiratorial conclusion, you exclaim, undoubtedly now categorizing me as even loopier and more insane than 'the Donald' himself? Well, let me explain... .

Essentially because Mr Trump's candidacy is simply - far - too good to be true, from both the Democratic Party's standpoint in general and Hillary Clinton's in particular. Indeed, it defies credibility. Firstly, that such a character would even secure the Republican Party's nomination, let alone retain it after such a, let's face it, inimitable 'performance' - to match, rival and even 'excel' all possible such performances. And secondly, that as smart a fellow as Donald J Trump indisputably is, he has - on seemingly innumerable occasions already, both pre-nomination but especially thereafter - literally 'blown away' what actually were significant popular (as judged by opinion polling, anyhow) electoral advantages: whether nationwide or more importantly in critical swing states.

My point is simply this: to strike such a succession and moreover plethora of own goals really defies logic or good sense, or even - for that matter - reasonable psychological explanation. And I 'say' that as someone personally familiar with the well-documented 'phenomenon' of self-sabotage; well-schooled - if by association and osmosis rather than design - alongside my siblings in the 'art' of psychological analysis by a psychotherapist Dad.

But from - I strongly suspect and suggest - master strategist Bill Clinton's perspective, such a candidacy is a real political coup de grace - and then some. Which stands to achieve a number and variety of deeply-coveted goals. Such as the obvious: delivering the Oval Office easily and decisively to the Clintons once again, and for as long as possible (i.e. two full terms); removing the Grand Old Party from both the presidential and general political equation ideally for the forseeable future; and in the aforesaid process clinching the deal with a Mr Donald J Trump, who will himself - inevitably of course - stand to benefit from singlehandedly helping secure this deeply-desired and wily objective. (ii)For as he once memorably declared: 'Deals work best when each side gets something it wants from the other.' Duh, but of course!

Yes, such a stratagem now appears well on the way to achieving said aims. I.e. in the first instance ensuring a 'smooth', clear pathway to certain victory for the Democratic Party's nominee - theoretically (iii)'whoever' that transpired to be; though all so conveniently as we have indeed witnessed, Ms Clinton is the one to move into that coveted position. Next, attempt at any rate, to not merely vandalize but take the proverbial wrecking ball to the once great Republican Party, thus consigning it to presidential history for at least the short to medium term thereby pretty well placing it beyond hope of a successful comeback for the forseeable. And, most importantly of all, to re-ensconce the Clinton 'dynasty' for another eight years of American dominance and control.

And so Donald Trump's otherwise utterly inexplicable, ongoing, seemingly never-ending series, indeed multiplicity of mistakes, missteps and misfires are really not at all unpredictable - when read in this context alone, I would suggest. For indeed 'from word go' he has ever been a 'way out there' candidate, and so all this faux 'shock and horror' media-beaten up (if not created) response to his litany of 'gaffes', 'bloopers' and far more outrageous assertions, declarations and accusations is, I suggest, disingenuous in the extreme. For in keeping with a now well-established pattern of Trumpesque shock-and-awe tactics, how can that still really take anyone following the political discourse and Trumpesque narrative - not even all that closely - by genuine let alone 'complete' surprise? Donald J Trump - call him whatever you well may - is patently not dumb (or "a dumbass", as he'd put it).

So what else, if Mr Trump really is so very determined to wrest the 2016 Presidential election from his chief rival ''Lyin' Hillary'' and into his own mercurial grasp, could possibly account for his thoroughly unaccountable unteachability and apparent unwillingness - though I would contend most definitely not inability - to, and speedily, learn from both his frequently-recurring political misdemeanours and much more concerning (iv)'hanging offences'? Again, the fellow might well be all manner of things - including (v)narcissist 'par excellence' - but a 'fool' - intellectually at least (if not emotionally!) - he sure as heck ain't.

Well folks, you'll have to stay glued to your seats for the next instalment on how this truly 'most significant' of American elections in not just a generation or even a half-century, but arguably a century - or beyond - is indeed effectively being 'rigged'; but not in the (vi)(vii)ways that the two major party candidates are suggesting.

(i) 'Apologies' (of sorts) well in advance for the fact that this multi(five plus)-part opinion piece is effectively, and rather unavoidably, somewhat of a moving banquet - a political buffet if you will; because - obviously - the final run-down to November 8th alongside the rapidly-evolving events and multitudinous new and unexpected developments throughout the campaign have literally overtaken me (as they doubtless have many other presidential pundits, commentators and other assorted 'wags' and political 'junkies'.) And yes, I well realize that time has truly moved on: we've now just seven (five) days to go...(till potentially one of the most important presidential elections in America's history).

(ii) Dim Wit: The funniest, stupidest things ever said (U.K., 2008).

(iii) Yet as we all well know, though that person was long expected by Bill, Hillary and most observers, commentators and pundits to be Ms Clinton herself, that was not a given while self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders succeeded in giving her a real run for her political money.

(iv) Such as Trump's 'suggestion' to NRAers to deal to Ms Clinton. Though as far as making (alleged) death threats to other presidential candidates is concerned, how come the media seems to overlook the fact that Ms Clinton herself made a pretty similar 'threat' after the 2000 Presidential Election when she suggested - after Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was widely seen as having acted as a 'spoiler' candidate preventing Al Gore becoming President - something along the lines of his 'being taken out the back and shot'? Yes of course it was 'just an offhand remark' expressing her frustration, alongside that of many fellow Americans, and people worldwide, at the way that election ultimately played out - but then, can anyone reasonably suggest Mr Trump's own similar remarks were anything more? I mean, really?

(v) As coincidence would ever have it, today, a couple weeks after writing this, I heard New Zealand's brilliant satirist and occasional political commentator Joe Bennett mention on Jim Mora's much-acclaimed Panel (upon RNZ National) how, upon recently perusing some psychological analysis of narcissism and moreover the traits of a narcissist, he was dumbfounded when he immediately realized that Donald J Trump met all the specifications listed with flying colours!

(vi)(vii) According to Donald Trump the sources thereof (i.e. of such alleged rigging) being everything and everyone from "Crooked Hillary" herself ably assisted by her hubby in association with the U.S. Attorney-General, through to the media, along to the polls, over to the voting officials and even system itself; while for Hillary Clinton it's been the 'downloading' of Wikileaks' revelations and emails via Julian Assange c/o the (ultimately responsible) 'Russkies' on behalf of a certain President Putin - alongside, late in the piece, the renewed investigation - and moreover, highly public pronouncement thereabouts - of more of her emails by the F.B.I. .

Part Two: Now For The Really Interesting, Albeit Much More Concerning, Even Worrisome Stuff

No, I suggest that nothing else satisfactorily serves to explicate the present state of affairs, which is, as Katherine Ryan, New Zealand's RNZ National Nine to Noon (radio) host, put it so aptly the other day [August 16th]: ''The [American] Republican Party is being effectively hijacked by someone who (i)doesn't [even] identify as being a Republican''; or today (November 8th, 'pre-election day', especially with US correspondent Susan Milligan): "we need to remember that Trump's not a Republican's Republican...he's colonized a party...Trump['s] colonizing an entire party establishment". Or as a guest in an hour-long RNZ National documentary/discussion (recorded in August at the Christchurch, N.Z, Writers' Word Festival) upon the upcoming American Presidential Election well expressed matters: "Donald Trump's a RHINO - i.e. (i)'a Republican in name only'!" Yes, now we're beginning to drill down to the real nub of the problem, which is Donald Trump himself.

Look for example at what occurred in the American body politic, according to opinion polling, immediately following the two major party conventions, and how one candidate in particular followed this up. As is characteristic, both Democratic nominee Clinton and before her Republican nominee Trump experienced the usual sort of 'bump' upwards in the polls, though Mrs Clinton's 'bounce' was considerably more substantial. And yet, as almost invariably happens with Mr Trump, straight away on the heels of any polling resurgence he enjoys, he forthwith - and ever so 'successfully' is the point - seems to do his level best to not only blunt and reduce that however slight polling advantage, but more importantly blow it out of the proverbial altogether.

Yep, as we've come to expect, Donald J Trump reacted as (ii)he is wont, by 'emoting'! Of course the idiosyncratic way Mr Trump nearly always does this involves saying yet another odd and unaccountable thing, and invariably something even more outrageous and questionable than his own previous most outrageous comment. Yes, Donald J Trump's mouth is 'the gift that just keeps on giving', i.e. towards the success of the Clinton campaign.

Indeed, Donald J Trump is skilled in one political 'art' in particular: that of continually shooting himself in the foot, 'skillfully' engaging in the self-defeating political equivalent of hara-kiri. But what's even more significant (in my view) - which has done more than anything else to lead me down the road I've been travelling, to establish the bedrock certainty of it in my own mind pretty well beyond a shadow of a doubt - is the apparent reality that he has done this for no comprehensible, discernible, fathomable reason or rationale - either political or otherwise. Except for the 'common wisdom' that he just can't help himself, that he is simply 'being himself' and thus reverting to predictable type; that he has permanent foot-in-mouth disease. 

Admittedly a bunch of rather cute, if, I would respectfully suggest, well-worn ideas - yet I would contend altogether inadequate to justify such clear and inexplicable self-sabotage; such a plethora of never-ending own goals. And in such a serious as, high stakes contest, where so very much is at stake: not only for the (iii)two main contestants themselves - and for their died-in-the-wool partisans - but moreover for the nation (and world) they presumably genuinely hope to one day soon lead. Yes sirree, the four-yearly recurring campaign to take the highly-coveted position of next American President is no laughing matter, so - without a great deal of insight required - I would again suggest there's much more beneath the surface here.

Okay then, how about this take upon the situation? I.e. that Mr Trump's ongoing needless repetition of such politically unhelpful self-sabotage - a thing moreover he has kept up throughout the entire campaign from the earliest primaries on - is something he is only too well aware that he is doing. And so I would contend that it is in fact something that he is quite deliberately perpetrating upon himself. But ipso facto, 'logically speaking', surely then it stands to reason that - far from this being a case of mere 'happenstance', accident or sheer clumsiness, itself a far-fetched idea when repeated on the sort of scale and frequency with which Mr Trump's erstwhile political 'career' has thus far been marked - he must ultimately have some rather more meaningful rationale for inflicting such not merely unnecessary but completely gratuitous self-defeating behaviour upon himself. It really - in the final analysis - stands to reason, surely; and that whether one is inclined towards conspiracy theories or not.

All right, consider the following hypothesis, actually quite plausible in its plain 'everydayness', however arguably far-fetched and I concede conspiratorial the resultant implications might well be: the Clintons - Bill especially - have simply used/exploited/capitalized upon (choose whichever term you prefer, or feasibly all of the above) their well-known, longstanding, once (presumably) extremely cordial, friendly as relationship and connections with Donald Trump; possibly, I'll perhaps concede, (vi)only really majorly forged since the couple's post-Presidential move to the Big Apple in early 2001. Living in such relative close proximity I submit they formed strong personal ties with one another, and, hey presto, the 'ideas President' William Jefferson Clinton gradually developed a brilliant plan: to wrest the United States Presidency back into the Clinton fold via a high-profile oddball celebrity billionaire plant into the American Republican Party.

Someone who, he correctly envisaged - and as it has indeed so transpired - would take the deeply-riven, seemingly increasingly unbalanced, even, some critics would allege, completely unhinged, once 'Grand Old Party' by veritable storm. Relying upon a 'plague on all your houses, throw the rascals out', anti-establishment attitude that has been ever increasing over recent decades; in fact towards not only presidents but senators and congress-'people' generally, if the regularly published opinion surveys on such are to be believed. While no-one - but no-one - suspects a thing!  And folks, I (vii)do believe we're presently witnessing the unmitigated success of their 'little scheme'.

Yes, Bill Clinton well knows that virtually no-one - at least no-one who 'matters' politically, that is - will possibly, even remotely suspect an 'inside job'. And of course (viii)no-one believes in conspiracy theories any more. And all - ultimately - so he, alongside Hillary, can once again have the inside running on, or rather (if vicariously) of, the most powerful position in the free world. Oh, and yes, so that he himself can also 'carry on where he (so disreputably) left off' - i.e. ensuring plenty of fancy and comfy spaces and places for some more 'affaires d'amoure' all for his lonesome (I mean, twosome; or has he now perhaps 'progressed' to threesomes and the like? I kid - but not substantially.)

Okay, I'll personally confess that - for literal months now - I've instinctively and intuitively suspected as much. I.e. I've surmised that Donald J (ix)Trump's a plant, a stooge, a willing dupe if you will; a trojan horse to enable his - (x)one-time, anyway - good friends Bill and Hillary to reclaim the Oval Office for their own, and thereby revisit upon Americans, and thus the world-at-large, the Clinton 'dynasty'. While no-one has even the faintest idea. Brilliant!

So why not tell everyone asap? Hey, I ain't stupid myself; like, who would ever believe an unemployed drifter like myself? And apparently a wide-eyed conspiracy theorist to boot!

But yes, you've heard me aright. What I'm suggesting we're presently all witnessing is a political coup de grace, and engineered by someone - i.e. (xi)President Bill Clinton - whose own regard for democratic principles is so high and lofty he (xii)once remarked that ''one thing that's wrong with (xiii)[America] [is that] everybody gets a chance to have their fair say.''

And who could really put it past the likes of the Clintons? Not only the oh so crafty, convenient and (especially) economical with the truth, (President) (see (xxiii)-(xxvi))Bill, but also his wife, ''Lyin' Hillary'', as Mr Trump never fails to identify her as. Someone who is equally well-known for her own many, often ingenious and highly creative, 'reworkings' of, deviations from and evasions of the truth. Yes indeed, both Clintons' lifelong political proclivity for stretching or 'bending' the truth is of course legend by now.

The consummate politician who - long before her much more recent 'encounters' with truth and falsehood - (xiv)once remarked: ''I misspoke.'' And this in back-handed explanation and supposed apology for having claimed she'd once been personally under sniper fire in Bosnia(-Herzegovina); while visiting during the 90s' civil war amidst her husband's aerial bombing campaign there. A person who apparently - yes, I accept it's still news to most people worldwide, not just in America - has evidently (xv)''always opposed'' the TPPA (the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Trade) Agreement still being negotiated though teetering on the brink of political oblivion). Yes, I can already see you doing a bit of a double take; or, as kiwis are wont to remark about other outlandish claims: yeah, right!

This can even be seen in the way Hillary Clinton is, I've little doubt, letting sitting President Obama  - c/o the Houses of Congress - do her own dirty work re the TPPA in the lame duck session between presidencies: so that Ms Clinton gets none of the blame, yet thereby ensures swift and sure, and, by means of this modus operandi and underlying game plan (as outlined), utterly 'secretive' legislative passage of something she really personally subscribes to. Yes sirree, the very sort of thing her own track record would suggest she is more than capable of (engineering). Yet isn't she in fact the selfsame Secretary of State who so staunchly and enthusiastically endorsed, nay even championed it? No, I can readily reassure you that you're not imagining things, much less hallucinating!

So that a measure is put in place which she has always supported, yet conveniently providing her an easy 'out' by her now being placed 'on the record' publicly and vehemently opposing it, claiming moreover that it wasn't even her own idea in the first instance. Which moreover lets her (later on down the track, assuming she becomes President) then declare that she doesn't wish to interfere with the legislative arm of government by repealing it. (xvi)Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when once we [set about] to deceive!

As a rather disturbing side-note my brother (mid-August) informed me - as if he himself was hibernating throughout the nineties, but again I exaggerate - of his deep sense of disquiet upon recently finding out about Hillary Clinton's own attempt/s to put the kibosh on (yet more) women coming forth with serious allegations vis-a-vis Bill Clinton's long and infamous womanizing past...especially someone alleging he'd (xvii)raped her. A truly awful accusation (regarding Bill Clinton), obviously - yet who at a much later point in time could really ascertain the actual truth of such a claim, which is of course the major issue with so many historical rape allegations? However surely the point here is Hillary Clinton's apparent preparedness to do pretty well anything and everything required to defend Bill Clinton's (already much-tarnished) reputation, seemingly not just for reasons of personal loyalty, but - as much as anything - to prevent her own candidacy for President being somehow seriously besmirched - if only by association. For by Ms Clinton's having thus sought to defend the indefensible - even merely alleged rape - and moreover as per his long and infamous track record the undefendable, i.e husband Bill, any supposedly genuine 'feminist' credentials she might still wish to bandy about start to look increasingly tenuous.

On that matter I cannot help thinking that Donald Trump himself was onto something when, in the second debate I believe, he pointed out the (xvii)media et al's apparent double standards over Trump's 'vulgar comments' in that now notorious 2005 video, comparing them with the 'vulgar actions' of a certain former President (i.e. Bill Clinton). As in, which is (far) worse: saying something awful or actually doing it?! Which was a very salient point indeed, and makes me simply ask: where are peoples' real priorities these days? 'Cause sure, Trump's remarks could well be seen as making him 'wholly unfit for office', but then - by that standard - what are we to judge concerning Mr Clinton?!?!

Personally anyhow I happen to find Hillary Clinton's remarks upon some of the innocent victims of America's worldwide 'War on Terror' as mere 'collateral damage' to be far more truly vulgar and offensive than any such childish remarks ((xvii)(xix)or far worse, potentially, I'll admit) of Mr Trump's upon grabbing and groping women he fancied. Though in Trump's case one couldn't be blamed for assuming he was actually referring to real life actions upon his part, (xix)in which case he clearly has some serious questions to answer and situations to face - in the courts - if certain individual women from his past ever dare to confront him thereupon!

But back to Bill for a moment. Hey, the man was the first U.S. President impeached - and for (xxiii)(xxiv)(xxv)perjury, no less! So let's give him his due - yes, he makes Richard Milhaus Nixon, let alone the infamous Beagle Boys of dearest childhood memories, look like rank amateurs in the well-studied arts of deception. The same fellow - sorry, President - who once danced on the head of a pin in seeking to deny that he'd ever 'had [real] sex with that woman' [i.e. Monica Lewinsky]. And moreover someone who has (xxviii)yet to adequately account for any personal involvement - or the lack thereof - in the disappearance/downing of a plane carrying his cabinet member Ron Brown, also a one-time chairman of the United States Democratic Party and rumoured as then (in the early nineties) being about to 'spill the beans' on his own Commander-in-Chief. And that's not even mentioning the succession of women - both publicly identified but far more often studiously ignored or 'merely' sidelined by said media - who President Clinton has ever managed to wheedle his way out of accountability for his treatment of (throughout his long tenure in political office, from the days in the governor's mansion in Arkansas onwards).

Yes, on this one Mitt Romney, Republican Party standard-bearer back in 2012, is spot on, 100% correct: Donald J Trump is playing us all for suckers. Needed correction: Mr Trump, in close and longstanding personal association with a certain Hillary and Bill Clinton, are all-together playing the USA and its citizenry for such. Added clarification: they're therefore taking the whole world for a ride, since whoever rules America these days is the de facto leader of not just 'the free world', but pretty well the whole shebang.

Yes, Trump and the Clintons are playing everyone for fools, in this oh so cynical attempt to 'screw the scrum' in favour of Ms Clinton, and oh, a certain William Jefferson (Clinton). A thing that will thereby consign the GOP to political oblivion for the forseeable, or at least that's the intention (plot). Mr Clinton, ever the cool and calculating political tactician, realized from much personal experience that voters are often - even unaccountably - fickle, and was therefore unwilling to leave anything - but anything - to sheer chance. And so he entered into an arrangement with his good lady to let Donald Trump engage in the ultimate act of political self-immolation, because - as I read it, anyhow - DJT is the (anointed) sacrificial cow in a much greater cause.

(i) There's such a shopping list of things which - early on in the primaries especially - should have sent alarm bells screeching throughout the Republican Party heartland (not just amongst its leadership) - quite aside from Donald Trump's essentially crass and vulgar attitude and approach to anyone opposing him in any way. If Republicans generally had not been so readily beguiled and taken in by Trump's celebrity shock jock tactics and 'new politics' they'd have perhaps reflected upon how - far from being a 'true-blue' (in kiwi lingo), or 'deep red' (in American parlance) traditional conservative, he's ever been anything but! Without even considering his longstanding social liberalism on all sorts of hot-button subjects (like abortion) - and which Republican presidential wannabes (see John McCain etc) doesn't suddenly undergo a religious conversion the moment they take up that particular challenge? - one only has to consider his essential economic positioning as a protectionist and nationalist etcetera; stances which, alongside his - former (and heartfelt, I tend to believe) - support for federal healthcare place him well to the left of modern-day Republicans, positions which would have seen him quite at home with such party moderates as Presidents Nixon and Ford in the 60s and 70s. Ideas - including those on immigration - indeed which would have sat very well indeed with his Democratic Party forbears of the 1930s (including those of such then 'left-wing' populists as Louisiana Governor Huey Long or Catholic broadcaster 'Father' Charles Coughlin.

Indeed, during the primaries I distinctly recall a speech in which Trump, alongside threatening that, if not ultimately selected as the GOP's nominee, he might well run as an independent, 'justified' this traitorous approach by claiming to be 'as much an economic Democrat' as anything! Likewise as CBN political commentator/pundit David Brody, appearing on the 700 Club immediately post-election (November 10th/11th NZ-time) expressed it (on Shine TV): "[President-Elect] Trump's not a Republican in the truest sense of the word...he's a 'Trumpublican' "!

(ii) Though it's true to say - however much the mainstream media chooses to pretend otherwise - that both major candidates have a habit for such emotional 'reactionism'; it's just Ms Clinton is far more studied, subtle and less over-the-top in her own 'version'.

(iii) Meanwhile let's not forget the two significant third party candidates, the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Dr Jill Stein, who individually and together - according to recent (September?) polling, anyhow - stand to play a much more influential role in this election than any other third party candidates or independents have since 2000. And who knows, is it possible they could even garner (between themselves) - such is the seeming universal dislike and distrust of both Clinton and Trump - almost as much as the considerable 21 percent or so obtained by Ross Perot in 1992?; a sizeable percentage only previously rivaled by then incumbent President Theodore Roosevelt's attempt at a third term back in (iv)1912;  'Teddy' Roosevelt, if I (v)remember rightly, obtained a rather whopping 24% of the presidential vote that year.

(iv) Not 2012! (As originally, mistakenly 'penned'.) Silly me.

(v) No, I mean from books and magazines, not of course from personal observation!

(vi) Unless, that is, they fraternized while Bill and Hillary lived in the White House.

(vii)(viii) With gratitude to two/three outstanding (secular and Christian, respectively) popstars of the 70s (and beyond), Paul Simon (and/or Art Garfunkel) and Keith Green, from whose memorable lyrical phraseology I believe I have here unconsciously borrowed - if I can't quite place the particular songs involved.

(ix) Despite my basic theorem, however, as a Bible-believing Christian I've found it fascinating how the 'Good Book' seems to make two striking allusions to the possibility of a Trump Presidency, by declaring - quite obviously in the context of Earth's very last days - as follows (in the 'original' King James Version only, mind you): ''For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them...''(1 Thessalonians 4:16,17); (1 Corinthians 15:51,52): ''We shall not all sleep, But we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, At the last trump:"  (Bold lettering and italics all supplied by translators, underlining all mine) The Newberry Bible (MDCCCXC: Roman numerals for 1890, I believe). So, for those who like myself believe in a divine sense of humour, let's just say that God has the last laugh!

(x) Because naturally, with all the bad blood that has thus far been shed throughout the primary and general campaign season, who knows what the current, let alone ultimate 'friendship' would or even could possibly be between Trump and the Clintons - irrespective of whether or not their little scheme comes to pass. Nevertheless if it all serves to get Hillary elected, and moreover with a whopping electoral and popular 'mandate', well voila - 'mission accomplished'. And so they might 'remain ' - albeit necessarily in the utmost secrecy - 'best of buddies', for ever and a day. Conceivably!

After all, anyone helping to deliver the most powerful position in the world to one is, after all, someone to be eminently grateful to - for as long as this life shall last. So any momentary 'altercation' as we've witnessed over recent months might well become as so much water under the proverbial. That is, unless Trump reneges on the agreement, and then all hell might well literally break loose...but see the concluding sections of this opinion piece for elaboration upon that matter.

(xi) Seeing as - purely by convention, I gather - one-time American presidents ever retain the title, I suppose I ought to myself observe that longstanding convention also. Especially as I personally upbraided a church minister of my particular denomination once (while sojourning in America) in the early-mid nineties, while Mr Clinton was the sitting president, for, alongside the subtle, mild dislike ever represented by simply using a particular politician's surname to represent her or him, doing so moreover in Bill Clinton's case in a less than flattering tone of voice, a thing I found a tad disrespectful - whatever I might have happened to think of Bill Clinton himself; (which opinion - of mine - ever since the later nineties, anyway, would admittedly be every bit and whit as unfavourable as his.)

Something I perhaps learnt off my own Minnesotan Grandfather who, while visiting 'God's Own Country' - i.e. Aotearoa-New Zealand - back in 1977 or 1980, expressed his own (if mild) displeasure at our then Prime Minister, often nicknamed 'Piggy' Muldoon for his particular brand of facial 'beauty', having the disrespect for then sitting U.S. President Jimmy Carter by referring to him simply - and disdainfully - as merely a 'peanut farmer'. (Though as a died-in-the-wool - if by today's standards extremely moderate - Republican, my Granddad was no fan of Mr Carter.)

(xii) Dim Wits (2008)

(xiii) And hence - by obvious implication - with democracy itself, presumably!

(xiv) ibid (2008)

(xv) As indeed Mr Trump rather convincingly pointed out in the first debate today; (yes, this article series is a literal 'moving feast'; we're now under 40 (make that precisely 20 - no, now 14/13/12/10/7 and dropping/falling) days till Election Day). It was actually arguably his most effectively made point throughout - as even Trump-hostile media readily conceded; i.e. that he had won the first twenty minutes or so - the first quarter - which pretty well concluded with this soundly driven home, really quite unanswerable contention. Alongside his equally-unanswerable 'quip' about the utter gall (my paraphrase) of Hillary Clinton daring to compare herself with "Honest Abe" Lincoln, in respect apparently of how a politician often has - and Mrs Clinton contended is quite justified in having - two different opinions (she deemed perspectives on, or some such) upon a particular matter under consideration.

She explained this dichotomy between one's "public" and "private" views as simply being how one legitimizes one's approach using two differing aspects of the matter, as opposed to the idea, well-known and adundantly-verifiable evidently, that Clinton has at times, for example, publicly championed such things as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Trade) Agreement, while in private staunchly opposing it; obviously another matter entirely! Thus making her analogy from President Lincoln, well-known for his honesty and integrity in matters many today (but certainly not myself, or anyone claiming an orthodox biblically-based faith) would consider utter trifles, sheer puff 'n stuff; enough, I imagine - were it possible - to make him not merely turn in his grave, but verily arise, and that with a start. (To somewhat understate matters, I'm sure!)

Returning to that ever on-again, off-again controversial as wannabe-trade pact, I found some recent comments of a politician I have generally held in high regard, former New Zealand Prime Minister (for six weeks) Mike Moore, more recently NZ ambassador to the United States, and more famously still Secretary-General of The WTO (the World Trade Organization) for some years, disturbing if all too predictable. Conversing in quite a lengthy, revealing tete-a-tete with TV1's Jessica Mutch on 'Q&A' on October 30th, Moore was asked by Mutch if - presuming Hillary Clinton is duly elected - "she just needs to dress this[TPPA] up differently to get it passed (into law in the US Congress - though ratification of course also needs to occur throughout the other would-be signatory nations around the Pacific Rim)?" Moore's reply was fascinatingly brief and to the point, but as I say concerning  - if also downright honest and full of 'realpolitik'. Moore agreed that "she essentially ['surprise-surprise'] supports it...but can't politically be seen to [i.e. support it]."

Whoa - exactly my point, and that of many other, far more knowledgeable and astute commentators and pundits. So yes, once again she's been caught out telling major fibs - I personally believe 'lies' is the correct terminology...and she really has the temerity to ask (let alone wonder) why her trust-ability (my new term, meaning ability to trust) levels are so abysmally low among Americans? Which incidentally is why so many political pundits have stated of late that had it been almost any other Republican, including Ted Cruz, standing against her, Clinton'd presently be on a hiding to nothing. (One foreign (US) correspondent with NZ Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking (27/10) essentially agreeing with his assessment of Clinton being an extremely flawed candidate, and that "in a normal American presidential election" "any one of these 16 (major) points" (i.e. black spots) against Hillary Clinton in Julian Assange's Wikileaks' revelations would have quite literally "blown her election prospects out of the water.")

(xvi) No guessing who originally penned this ever-memorable quote: yep, the inimitable William Shakespeare. (But in which comedy, tragedy or romance I have no idea.)

(xvii) I note with some disquiet, even disgust and near disbelief - though truth be told I'm really not all that surprised these days - that selfsame socially liberal mainstream media's convenient sidestepping if not positively ignoring and turning a blind eye to Donald Trump's pre-debate press conference with 'the four women' who were allegedly victims of Bill Clinton's sexual proclivities, baser instincts and potentially criminal activities. But even that is as nothing when set against one of these alleged victims in particular: to wit, said media's evidently dismissing out of hand - itself accentuated by the second debate's two otherwise hard-hitting moderators' neglecting what would seem utterly appropriate 'fodder' for follow-up questioning - Trump's evidently fairly well-substantiated condemnation of Presidential contender Hillary Clinton's public, lawyerly defence of her husband against the allegation of rape with a 12-year-old once. That while publicly flagellating, even excoriating Trump in no uncertain terms for his now (xviii)ultra-infamous misogynistic statement about women in a 2005 video, which voice recording they obviously deem as tantamount to an admission of actual sexual assaults carried out by Mr Trump (both then as well as before and probably afterwards) - as opposed to a 'mere' crude and rude depiction of the way he - at least at one time - conducted his sexual activities with fellow jet-set females.

Clearly they hold Trump's (xviii)inexcusably appalling declaration then as a strict 'letter of the law' description of actual sexual assault, even rape - which could certainly be the case, obviously. And this (xix)therefore obviously necessitates the most serious and expedited follow-up to establish the veracity or otherwise of the matter. Yet their fellow-travelling mainstream media-at-large apparently are and indeed have ever been prepared to allow as wide an interpretation to be placed upon Bill Clinton's own one-time equally notorious activities, seemingly applying a 'nudge, nudge, wink and look the other way' interpretation thereabouts, seeing it all as the sign of a rather oversize libido, as almost middle age indiscretions and excesses as opposed to utterly immoral if not downright criminal activity. Because quite frankly the sheer zeal with which they ever and always pounce upon the merest whiff of Trump's own 'misbehaviour' (and admittedly potentially far worse 'dalliances' with both ethics and the law) can only be contrasted - in the abjectest of terms - with selfsame media's seemingly looking the other way in days gone by re the then President.

(xviii) Curiously the selfsame people getting so uppity, so incredibly high-and-mighty about Trump's subgutter-level speech in that video (and other contexts) would generally be the first to maintain that we're all descended from the primates, and share their essential characteristics etc. (Whereas at university these days we're more akin to an automaton, and therefore expected to act accordingly, without respect to basic laws of health and well-being!) The thing is, if we're all mere animals anyhow, why on earth are DJT's comments so utterly deplorable? I suggest the answer they most assuredly are so deplorable is quite simple, and is evidence we are not mere animals, but made in the divine image.

However, it should also be noted that one major alternative media, the New York-based (xx)radical socialist broadcaster Democracy Now - itself hardly an especially keen promoter let alone defender of Hillary Clinton's public record on all sorts of levels - this very morning (October 12th, New Zealand time) cited that aforementioned almost identical allegation against Donald Trump having himself raped a (xxi)12-year-old in times past; though said radio station only a couple days before didn't even cite Mr Trump's strident condemnation of Hillary Clinton's appalling defence of her husband on the selfsame type of charge (at the debate), then suddenly mentioned it the next day, though in so doing left it hanging in thin air as if holding it up to sheer and predictable public ridicule (for the garbage they presumably regarded it as)! Sorry, in journalism omission - of serious and pertinent allegations, anyhow - is as good as ignoring if not condoning those very 'things', and especially so for a broadcaster not in the slightest backward about coming forward whenever it suits them in accusing to the utmost anyone else and any other especially political 'institution' or organisation they take issue with; such as Donald J Trump in this particular instance.

Today (October 14th) the proverbial seems to have well and truly hit the fan, and evidently (the enormously popular, media darling) First Lady Michelle Obama has now spoken out majorly, being "unable to stop thinking about the words [Donald Trump] used in that video 11 years ago"; and thus and so it was now high time "for all Americans to stand up and say, 'Enough is enough!' " And of course who - except the man himself (D J Trump, I mean, and his most died-in-the-wool, do-or-die partisans) - could possibly say anything but "Amen; bring it on, sister"?

But just a mo(ment): does the selfsame stuff apply to the Obamas' new (since evidently not especially so in times gone by) special friends the Clintons, in particular a certain former President Bill? Methinks undoubtedly not, and hence the lack of credibility such faux shock-and-horror of the so-called (serious) feminist 'class'/community automatically carries (with it) to those of us who still believe in such things as journalistic balance, objectivity and impartiality; the age-old principle of 'one law for all'; and moreover that even the ruling class is not above the arm of the law. Or does that less-privileged status apply only to tin-pot dictators in the third world?

But perhaps Ms Obama is far closer to the 'real money' on the matter with her other words in this much-acclaimed speech. For, in justifying her call for women to rise up and demand an end to this kind of politics - or rather politician in this case - saying that "no woman deserves to be treated in this way" (spoken evidently in regard to that much-excoriated 2005 video, with all that preceded it - though perhaps not the rape allegation, which didn't surface until a day or two later) the First Lady declared: "This is not normal...this is not politics as usual!" Whoa - that's exactly my own point throughout this expose of the Trump phenomenon. I'll concede, Ms Obama is now onto something!

Following on, then, any really 'thinking' person - and that Michelle Obama is one of those, there's little doubt - should be lead, indeed impelled to add two and two, and realize that something highly fishy is up, or alternatively 'is going down' (as they say), and ultimately come to one inescapable conclusion. That is, however reluctant they might find themselves to the very thought of ever embracing any so-called (xxii)conspiracy theory, they surely cannot help but decide that this must be precisely that - or rather the real deal type of 'conspiracy'. For folks, in all candour and seriousness, what else makes sense and serves to adequately explain what we're all confronted with here (in this departure from the utterly rational situation that American presidential politics has previously ever entailed, however otherwise apparently dysfunctional)? Yes indeed, as I will state throughout this 'opinion piece', nothing but nothing else makes sense!

(xix) But actually 'prosecuting' such matters is entirely another potential 'can of worms', because as most people are well aware these days, historical charges are not only notoriously hard to prove, in addition to the rate of conviction on such charges of sexual violation against females - and no doubt males for that matter - being woefully low; but endless amounts of relevant and irrelevant paraphernalia - political undercurrents, pride and prejudices etcetera - inevitably attach themselves to such, so that in the end very little often comes of them. Comparing the American situation with that of Great Britain, we have not only seen the likes of  'Ken Barlow'(William Roache) and a fellow Coronation Streeter have the charges brought against them dismissed, but song legend Sir Cliff Richards also recently being put through the wringer with his reputation and in all likelihood his longstanding career destroyed upon what may well be utterly spurious grounds; while we also have witnessed the likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris - and perhaps very soon in the US of A Bill Cosby - being (if, in the former instance, posthumously) implicated/prosecuted in a sordid string of sexual perversion and 'soul sickness'.

So it would indeed appear that the more high-profile an individual and alternately loved or loathed by the populace-at-large the more people can be found coming out of the woodwork - however many years and often decades on - to accuse them, however justified, or conversely - as doubtless occurs at times - in a conspiracy of false accusation. Who's really to know? But perhaps if the mainstream media judge. jury and prosecution had pursued the many and various accusations against a certain President Bill Clinton with the same vigour, earnestness and zeal that they are now readily, relentlessly and in one would-be President's view rather ruthlessly applying against a certain Donald J Trump, we could rest better assured that pure ideology and political partisanship had much less to do with the matter than seems the case!

(xx) I say that not to disparage them in any way, or criticize their almost invariably deeply insightful critique upon especially American and Middle Eastern (though not always Israeli) politics; I happen to enjoy and learn much in every way from almost every single 'listening' I make of their weekday hour-long broadcasts - so-called 'moral issues' such as the long contentious one of abortion being a complete exception. No, I simply use 'radical socialist' (in the American context, especially) to properly and accurately 'position' them upon the traditional political continuum. Much as Bernie Sanders himself had both the honesty and commendable courage to identify himself as a socialist; 'courage' because in decades gone by such an admission would've been an automatic disqualifier for selection as nominee for a major party ticket in the States, the political equivalent of committing suicide!

(xxi) Though (at least) one internet reference mentions the girl's age as 13.

(xxii) Though a new friend encountered just as I'd completed my first major draft of this (thoroughgoing to be positive, long-winded to be negative) essay intimated that 'conspiracy theory' is a quite unfair term for such 'stuff', being of course a pejorative, dismissive approach to all such unorthodox theories. She suggested that a more appropriate description, one more accurately categorizing thus reading between the lines of the explicit public discourse, was that it reflected a process of 'mindfulness', meaning an openness to ideas and realities that are well and truly 'there', simply hidden from those not open to them. Which I tend to like, correlating so very closely as it does with the sorts of things my own Lord and Master put so very eloquently albeit ever simply, clearly and understandably. I.e. that great truths are often denied the supposedly 'wise and prudent' of the present age, and revealed instead to 'babes', or those not too full of 'the world's wisdom' to be teachable (as to the real causes behind what we see all around us); that the greatest truths and realities are un-discernible by mere human 'insight' and 'wisdom', but are indeed available and accessible to those open to a greater and deeper reality, as well as in touch with the Truth Teacher Himself.

(xxiii) As well as obstruction of justice.

(xxiv) Indeed Bill Clinton in 2001 in the New York Daily News, admitted - three years on - to having then indeed lied under oath. (xxv) Though 17 years on from those 1998 Congressional proceedings, yet another interview with President Clinton upon those infamous hearings revealed that he 'went out parsing unto the [very] end, admitting to giving false accounts but not to [actual!] lying'.

(xvi) All I can conclude is that 'here lies' the classic case of - or rather dealer in - political double-speak, yes, maybe in recent, 1984-onwards (at least 'civilized') world history even. George Orwell (xxvii)would've been proud of him! (xxvii) In a strictly literary sense that is, as one fulfilling his own futuristic world scenario; certainly not for epitomizing the morals of a proverbial polecat, and even they would be disgusted - and quite rightly so.

(xxviii) Pastor Charles ('Chuck') Mis(s)ler's '66-40' (a weekdays' daily radio show).

Part Three: But The Plot Goes Much Deeper Still, or: What's Really, Ultimately Behind All Of This?

Okay, I'll admit it, you second-guessed me correctly: Hillary Clinton's prospective election to America's and the world's highest office - as the United States' first female President and all - is actually nothing more than a mere sideshow, a footnote, an hors d'oeuvre if you will, to the main course, the coming 'grand event'. Yes, what I am not only suggesting, but find myself, even as I 'pen' these words, increasingly convinced, yea 'convicted' of in my innermost being, is this: what (otherwise are admittedly rather odd-sounding suppositions, I freely concede) we are here witnessing, c/o this (i)elaborately-laid jack-up/'trump up'/stage-managed (again, choose your preferred descriptor) Machiavellian-style plot of political intrigue - and why it is so very significant and moreover profoundly concerning, even in fact frightening - is a full-blown attempt, via their own carefully-selected puppets, namely President Bill Clinton and Vice-Presidential candidate Tim (ii)Kaine - and yes, the (iii)most popular ever pope, Pope Francis himself; by an ancient (global) order (i)(iv)seeking thus to reassert its long-lost supremacy on the religio-political world; which is 'so far, so good' presently succeeding beyond their wildest imaginings! And no, I actually blame neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton particularly in this at all; in my book they're relatively innocent or at least naive pawns in this 'game' - just like the rest of us looking on in complete un-suspicion.

So then, what really gives? I'm glad you asked. How about this - in terms of what's really behind such alleged shenanigans (for really, truly rigging such an important thing as an American presidential election)? Well, it involves a definite no-go area for today's historically-challenged mainstream Western, and especially American media - an area, however, that they are never backward about coming forward regarding; one they are indeed ever wont to discuss whenever it comes to would-be Republican presidential nominees, anyhow: i.e. the 'religious question'?

Sure, there is as yet no religious test for public office in America - thank God, and God alone, for that state of affairs, I suggest - and may that long continue; and no doubt it will (v)as long as the United States Constitution remains in good and proper standing. Which is itself a bit of a worry these days - on all manner of fronts, moreover - but methinks I better leave that well-founded concern for another day! So back to the main subject: just what is this intimated 'something'?

Well, how about the following line of inquiry - or again, the conspicuous lack thereof? I'm referring to Bill Clinton's early training at a Jesuit College, and - far more significantly, but 'just coincidentally', presumably - Hillary Clinton's unusual and unprecedented selection of a card-carrying member of the highly secretive Roman Catholic order of the Jesuits as her running-mate. An order, as we're now well aware, from which - for the first time in history, apparently - the Church's College of Cardinals selected Pope Francis.

'Incidentally' - but not very - I'm actually of the belief that Bill, as opposed to Hillary, was the ultimate guiding force behind that choice: i.e. of Virginia's Junior Senator, former Governor Tim (ii)Kaine, as Ms Clinton's VP nominee. Indeed, Ms Clinton had previously appeared to 'endorse' (and profusely and publicly) a fellow prominent (vi)social liberal as not only her likely, but even her (vii)presumptive running-mate, i.e. Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren. But why should this be a useful and important 'angle' to examine or avenue to pursue?

Surely it's no more significant than oftentimes presidential candidate Ralph Nader's own apparent 'bugbear' about the selfsame mainstream media's total indifference to both President George W Bush's and would-be (and some would still maintain the duly-elected) 'President' Al Gore back in 2000 belonging 'in times past' (or even then? I'm admittedly unsure) to the similarly seriously secretive 'Skull & Bones Society'? Though actually, far from dismissing Nader's concern, I personally believe he was making a quite legitimate point, however jarring to present-day journalistic sympathies, sensibilities and overall inclinations: i.e. that one's presidential efficacy and moreover integrity - even if only perceived - is surely compromised by belonging to such an oddball, sworn-to-secrecy organization, and moreover one even (implicitly) committed to goals and objectives which are surely inimical to American national interests let alone the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of its citizenry!

No, Mr (ii)Kaine belongs to not just (i)(iv)'any old' Roman Catholic order. By no means. And yes, even thus making that unfavourable if oblique reference to Catholicism, I well realize, might instantly evoke a very negative reaction in many folk. For such an assertion surely smacks of that hateful token of yesteryear, 'religious intolerance', and thus and so is well and truly damned by association these days with ideas of bigotry, prejudice et al. So, lest you accuse me of reviving that old bogey-man of so-called anti-Catholic rantings and ravings of a bygone era, let me readily reassure you. Not just any RC order; no, indeed!

Again, let me assure folk it has nothing to do with the Catholic religion (viii)per se. Indeed Democrats such as (President) 'JFK', Vice-President Joe Biden, and a succession, even a plethora, of recent potential Republican presidential nominees - such as House Speaker and Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012, (xi)Paul Ryan, the Floridians Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio, as well as wannabe/also-ran (but formidable for awhile) 2012 candidate Rick Santorum, have well and truly - let's be grateful - put paid to that. Yes, we're thankfully living in a completely new era of 'tolerance', respect and all the rest. Or so the media never quit reminding us - though somehow or other they don't seem to believe in applying those virtues in a remotely consistent manner much of the time, i.e. to those who don't happen to back their own preferred side of any political argument.

But again, the Jesuit order has a rather distinctive and unsavoury history - and not just in the distant past (though especially therein). The Jesuits are, after all, as chronicled in world history - and more often not, I'd suggest - the very masters of deception and duplicity. Now again, if you find that a statement of the utmost 'blind' religious prejudice and bigotry, well, sorry folks, it ain't. I suggest you just go consult a good dictionary sometime. You'll find the term is actually synonymous with those very traits - and far worse! Yes indeed.

Historically - for millennia throughout Western Christendom - a Roman Catholic order not only no strangers to, but actually well-versed, seriously experienced, and moreover eminently qualified - if you will - in the dark, sinister, clandestine 'arts' of dissembling and dissimulation. (Though apparently - so people simply presume - they are not so, are indeed 'none of the above' these days; as if such evil-mindedness, barbarous intentions and follow through somehow just evaporated in the bright, clear light of modern-day 'enlightened' times!) But not only that; long associated - and for very good reason, as it so happens - in a multitude, even multiplicity, of European (especially) wide revolts, uprisings, assassinations and revolutions throughout the pre-modern era. But more on that another time.

What we've established for now is the (xii)thoroughly unpleasant, extremely unsavoury nature of the organization - which I've ever yet to hear publicly disputed or refuted, even remotely. The thing is that today's media simply doesn't even want to go there. Supposedly - one can only imagine - to avoid ruffling some delicate religious sensibilities, for stepping upon some rather sensitive religio-cultural toes/anatomy. Irrespective of said media's supposed (universal) commitment to such one-time journalistic norms as searching out and revealing the truth (xiii)'with fear of and favour toward none'.

And so 'jesuitism' and/or being a  'jesuit' are terms with which no right-minded individuals, including (xiv)even politicians, would surely wish to be - even remotely - associated. Certainly not any of our recent slew of high-profile supposedly principled Roman Catholic Republican candidates - such as (xi)Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush. However - returning from the realm of the idyllic to good old-fashioned 'realpolitik' - seeing as these fellows' supposedly 'staunch' and 'do-or-die' anti-Trump language, stance and principles evaporated.like the proverbial pretty well the moment he clinched the Republican nomination, perhaps they are indeed more in tune with the Jesuits' methods and modus operandi than one might have thought... ? I.e. holding certain positive 'principles' and virtues to be subservient to other less savoury ones whenever the chariot's wheels truly hit the tarmac.

But no, that's unfair - to the Jesuits! Call them what you will, they certainly stand by a set of 'principles' - including such 'notables' as skullduggery, duplicity and deviousness, cruelty etcetera. For a moment I was goin' to suggest the sort of values that were right up the Clintons', and more particularly Bill's, alley...but now, stop to think of it...(you fill in the details yourself!)

Yes, these fellows (not Carly Fiorina, I believe - to her infinite credit) once adamantine opposition to Donald Trump's nomination has melted away like the purity of the driven snow, (xv)unlike their 'fight-to-the-finish' compatriot Ted Cruz. Yes, it has quietly and 'miraculously' evaporated - whatever supposedly genuine misgivings they once entertained. No, when it comes to firm, unyielding principle and integrity, give us a (xv)Ted Cruz, a (xvi)Ben Carson, or, best of all (in my opinion) a Rand Paul - over any (or all) of them any day!

And so I ask: is it mere coincidence that someone trained in a Jesuit school - and, after all, the Jesuits were (xvii)the ones to proudly declare 'Give me a child until s/he is three/seven, and I'll show you the wo/man!' - has his wife later pick the first Jesuit (no, not simply Catholic) Vice-Presidential candidate for a major American political party in history? Moreover, at the selfsame time the first - and wildly popular and adulated from pillar to post - Pope 'just so happens' to hail from that selfsame quite notorious and controversial Catholic sect? And moreover when those selfsame people - former President Bill Clinton and would-be President Hillary Clinton - are themselves known as much as anything for their congenital proclivity (admittedly, alongside that of a certain Donald J Trump these days) for playing fast and loose with the truth? Gosh, the chances of such a (xviii)coinciding of coincidence upon coincidence - pardon the obvious 'punning' by word juxtaposition - almost makes the idea of this conspiracy theory look relatively tame and much less far-fetched by comparison!

Okay, I'll admit (xxvi) (xxvii) (xxviii)I've never readily trusted the Clintons, especially Bill, and from the time I first heard of and read about them in Time Magazine prior to the 1992 Presidential Election (notwithstanding the media's quickly anointing Bill as the Democratic favourite over Paul Tsongas and all other 'pretenders' to the nomination). What especially 'grabbed' me and ever after remained with me was how, following Bill Clinton's defeat after only his first term as Arkansas Governor in 1978, two seemingly minor 'events' occurred. Hillary's changed her surname (Rodham) to Bill's, and both started re-attending church. Revealing two essential qualities both Clintons have long displayed: political strategic 'street smarts' and a ready penchant for political pragmatism and/or expediency - i.e. doing whatever it takes to secure election (and/or re-election) to whatever posts they were pursuing. And folks, I suggest they've thus far succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings - and then some! (Despite Hillary Clinton's apparent setback in 2008.)

Yet all of the foregoing is relatively inconsequential alongside the views of America's all-time most respected and esteemed President. For Abraham Lincoln himself was far from unaware of the very serious threat that that order and its adherents 'well schooled in the arts of dissembling' posed not only to the American people in general and the American presidency in particular, but moreover to his own rule even more specifically still. Which threat indeed was not mere paranoia as events soon enough transpired. Yes indeed, the Jesuits were an 'outfit' suspected by no less than America's all-time most adored and acclaimed President, of masterminding - plotting, and eventually carrying through to fruition (effectively instigators of and accessories to) - his ultimately 'successful', but to his contemporaries and posterity horrific and unconscionable, odious and diabolical, assassination.

So what exactly am I getting at? Simply this: though it is certainly a little known fact these days, John Wilkes Booth was by no means the only person implicated in the assassination of America's greatest President (someone even the 'ever so humble' Donald Trump himself defers to as being a better President than he himself could ever hope to be. Wow - the incredibly humility of the man!) There were indeed others, people well known for their implacable opposition, 'just incidentally', to the abolition of slavery which Lincoln's time in office ultimately served to accomplish (and (xxx)expeditiously). 'People' - if such isn't too good a word for them - who wished, and asap, to remove Abraham Lincoln from the political equation altogether.

As it transpired, President Lincoln had a very real presentiment of his soon demise via a vision or dream apparently, thus (xxxi)realizing he had a deadly enemy on his tracks. 'As Providence would have it' - hey, what other credible explanation could there possibly be? - Samuel Morse, the famous inventor of electric telegraphy and the Morse Code, 'just so happened' to be visiting Rome, where he uncovered a papal plot to assassinate his friend Abe Lincoln. This led him of course to readily inform the President. Lincoln later spoke, in a spirit evidently of resigned acceptance - (xxxii)'que sera, sera' ('whatever will be, will be') - of his impending fate, reflecting his worldview which implicitly embraced the providential ordering of events. Accordingly - though personally I never ever recall hearing of this in my own history lessons - in addition to Booth, (xxxiii)eight people were later implicated in the 'successful'  papal plot and four later executed, though some escaped.

Yet even this - (xxxiv)most appalling of political assassinations, if ever there were one - is hardly surprising, or 'out of this world': the Jesuits well-crafted and adeptly-executed policy down the centuries has (xxxv)ever and always been to insinuate themselves into the affairs of men - artfully, sleuthily, behind-the-scenes, and ne'er suspected! Thus furthering their own nefarious ends - always, at heart, dutiful and secretly beholden to their lordship, 'his Holiness' the Pope (of the day). Yes, and guess who 'just so happens' to hold that all-important, no, not mere titular or purely symbolic and 'nominal', post of religious (and let's not forget temporal) power - and for the very first (one and only, no doubt) time in their 'celebrated' history? Yes, let me repeat it, and not just for emphasis - it really is that important: Jorge Bergoglio, a card-carrying Jesuit; the first ever Jesuit Pope.

An almost universally admired and adored - throughout the world, from staunchest Catholics across to liberal Protestants through to the most secular and atheistic individuals - man who is very soon about to see - if events go according to plan - the installation, a mere heartbeat away from the American Presidency, by far the most powerful political position in the present-day world, of another card-carrying member of his selfsame order. And 'incidentally' the United States' largest state has another such Jesuit 'just so happening' to preside at the very same time:(xxxvi)California Governor Jerry Brown is yet another - evidently unashamed - (xxxvii)lifetime Jesuit-educated and trained powerful Jesuit 'figurehead'; presently (xxxviii)studiously attending to the Pope Francis' 'climate change gospel' to boot!

But hey, you quickly reassure me, 'it's just a coincidence'. Despite the Jesuits (as of January 1, 2015) numbering only 16,740 members worldwide(xxxxi), it's just some kind of odd fluke that such disparate, eminently powerful positions 'just so happen' to be (potentially even) filling out with jesuits at this particular stage in world history. Then I can only ask rhetorically: so who's the real conspiracy theorist here, or rather Denier-in Chief? I can assure you it sure ain't me!

(i)(iv) A carefully-planned stratagem in which I suspect 'our' ever-eulogized (to the rafters) newest Pope (Francis), features as well, being after all (apparently) the first Jesuit Pope since the Roman Catholic (iv)order's founding around (1,534-)1,540 A.D., some 576-582 years ago now; and about which, I somehow doubt, he will be none too displeased. Let me clarify my comments about Pope Francis, however, so there's entirely no misunderstanding or misinterpretation - malicious or unintended - about my references to the present Pontiff. I'll firstly readily concede the following: (from my own biblically-based, evangelical perspective within the Christian Church), pretty well all he says and does seems almost picture postcard perfect...which is one reason my attennae went up so soon and why I'm so concerned. Pope Francis not only doesn't, he also can't seem to put a foot wrong - with a couple glaring exceptions, both of which perhaps shine a probing light into what is really going on here (with his much-praised pontificate).

On the one hand Pope Francis, while in the US awhile ago, in attempting to please and/or placate both sides of the now raging 'LGBT' [i.e. lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender] 'debate' - itself covering issues ranging from same-sex marriage (and officiating thereat) through to the use of public toilets (and other facilities), ended up simultaneously inspiring with false hope and upsetting both sides. He did so by secretly meeting with controversial Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis as well as individual (Catholic) homosexuals at different times during his visit, while making statements either highlighting or downplaying his views on the relevant issues (such as religious freedom in a pluralistic nation, the place of non-heterosexuals within the (RC) Church etcetera) in America (and elsewhere). So that he ultimately pleased neither side of said discussion/s very much, I suspect, while for myself anyway raising suspicions as to his real underlying motives.

On the other hand and far more significantly, surely, despite all his grand words and fine-sounding intentions and even tentative programmes to deal with the longstanding scourge of child abuse (by paedophile priests) within Catholicism, apparently very little and exceedingly slow progress is actually being made where it really matters: Vatican officials and Roman Catholic clergy throughout the world are still evading outing much less disciplining, excommunication and prosecution for their horrific crimes whilst numerous victims worldwide are still awaiting justice which just never seems to come. These things are not happening in the expeditious fashion people were initially led to expect, and so folk inside and outside the Church are understandably starting to ask questions about what's actually really going on.

As I stated before, that's my own very real concern: is Pope Francis' Christlikeness just a show fit for public consumption, a whitewash to paint over a rotten core at the heart of his Church, or a thin veneer to cover up a less inviting, even sinister secret agenda? I readily concede, I can't fault almost any of his speeches nor public actions, it's just what's really behind all of these that's my real concern. To only heighten or deepen such suspicions, I cannot help but recall the Jesuits of Medieval times, who were themselves rather infamous for the selfsame style of religion...i.e. hiding (what in their case, anyhow, were) their rather disreputable, unsavoury, sordid and even nefarious aims and objectives beneath a 'cover' of fair speeches and benevolence - the latter including visiting the sick and imprisoned, and ministering to the poor and outcast (and no doubt 'stranger' - i.e. sojourner in the land: yesterdays' immigrants). Now who spoke thereabouts not all that long ago - regarding a certain candidate for U.S. President? No guessing... !

(ii) Trust me - please! (My original 'Paine' - which suddenly came to mind overnight (Nov. 8th!) - was purely a slip of the tongue, I mean - mouse; wholly unintended; really, truly!)

(iii) Hey, naturally we've no way to really know for sure, but it's a fair possibility, anyhow. Let's qualify that by saying, surely the most popular pope ever among non-Roman Catholics - hands down.

(v) Though I have it on good authority that the United State of America will eventually - ultimately - repudiate every protestant principle upon which the nation was founded.

(vi) But moreover - unlike Hillary Clinton - an economically left-wing politician, pretty well the female counterpart ideologically of presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders. And so 'naturally' a perfect VP nominee for Sanders if he'd been picked as Democratic Presidential nominee, though doubtless also sheer political suicide, as VPs are invariably chosen to balance the ticket (geographically, ideologically, genderwise and every which way). Yet their joint candidacy would also have been sheer political dynamite - the most left-wing major party ticket ever - and by a sheer country kilometre or several hundred million, no less.

(vii) But once again the pro-Clinton media entourage not only failed to note this or pick it up, but conveniently ignored it when the final rundown to the formal choosing of Clinton's running-mate gathered pace. But whether Warren herself felt so indifferently is another matter entirely. I know that I'd be a little brassed off after receiving such a public, apparently ironclad undertaking! Not altogether dissimilar in a way from Clinton's 'decision', whilst visiting New Zealand in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake, to 'definitely' not be running for president in 2016. But then what else is new about the way Hillary Clinton (admittedly, like oh so many other politicians, especially those who 'go far' in that sphere) operates, and moreover is accepted as legitimately operating by her ideological partisans, political operatives and media handlers? Undertakings solemnly given apparently are as worthless as confetti, as meaningful as your guess or mine! 

(viii) That is, insofar as subscribers to that particular religious system are not mere blind, cultlike adherents, and moreover do not, in moments and matters of major earthly crisis, conflict and contention, hold themselves to be automatically released from their normal obligation to any and every relevant earthly law out of prior subservience to a mere man: to wit, 'he' whom Catholics traditionally have seen as 'God upon earth' (i.e. the Pope), especially whenever speaking 'ex cathedra'. For those who do maintain this prior, primary allegiance have historically shown themselves to be trodding some rather unsafe ground (as is only too evident in the historical persecutions, crusades and inquisitions of various hues that especially marked out the aptly named 'Dark Ages').

As needn't be repeated here, much that then went - and has since gone - under the name of 'Christian' has often been the furthest thing from Christlike; and has indeed at times been little short of demonic, devilish, even diabolical. And yes, such ghastly evils, obscenities and even - oftentimes, the real truth be told - crimes against humanity, of genocide itself - have verily been practiced, perpetrated and peddled by not only 'Babylon the Great, Mother', but by (ix)her daughters, '(the) harlots and...the abominations of the earth'. But that too for another occasion; innumerable and copious books, religious and secular, have of course been written upon the subject.

(ix) Implied. See The Revelation of Jesus Christ, chapter 17:5 etcetera. If to a vastly lesser extent. While one innocent victim is someone for whom Jesus Christ would have laid down His precious life, the 'Church of Rome' is estimated to have 'disposed' of (and often in the most horrific fashion imaginable) around 150 odd million people (men, women, children and nursing infants even) throughout their centuries-spanning reign at the head of the 'Holy Roman Empire'. Just a 'tad' more, let's say, than their various Protestant successors; i.e. by a very long way (numerically speaking).

President John Kennedy, by favourable contrast, when (x)confronted upon this very issue by certain non-Catholic church representatives concerned about such a very real possibility under America's prospective first Catholic President ever, pledged - honourably (as in true to his word), as it transpired - that his first loyalty was to America itself; hopefully, I would venture, subject to his prior loyalty to his God. And yes, I too well know that heaps of (incriminating) stuff has been posthumously published about JFK, so I'm thankful that God, not you or me, is the ultimate Judge.(x) Recollections from an annual summertime Christian 'camp meeting' in Christchurch, New Zealand in the nineties or early 2000s.

(xi) Though I was personally rather appalled at how each of these latter three - i.e. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and even (despite the especially bad blood between Bush and Trump) Jeb Bush of late - were prepared - for the sake of Republican Party unity and 'such like', no doubt, to ultimately endorse Donald Trump for president, especially when one duly considers the tone and intensity of the previous comments they made about him. Utter inconsistency and lack of principle and backbone, if not downright hypocrisy, are certainly words which spring readily to mind, though the same could now easily and legitimately be said, regrettably (in my view), of Bernie Sanders in his own vigorous and ongoing endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

(xii) So disreputable an order, in fact, that every modern-day pontiff - up to and including Pope John Paul the Second - were publicly, anyhow, highly censorious towards them. However, in thus sternly warning them, and decrying their presence (perhaps through the likes of Liberation Theology) in the public space, maybe they were simply telling them to lie low (and thus not bring the RCC into disrepute)? Because surely if they were really as bad as various pontiffs have publicly accosted them as being, it would have been a fairly straightforward matter to simply excommunicate them, a tool every pope has had up his sleeve, and that has been employed in recent times, anyhow, with the likes of the theologian Hans Kung; and moreover with entire nations, such as ancient Bohemia, in centuries past!

(xiii) For readers' interest, the very thing I for one ever remain absolutely committed to, hence my byline in this blogsite and/or my other one (http://davidedwinisms.blogspot.co.nz/ (or .com/).

(xiv) Though yes, the irony is hardly lost on me that the view of  'ye average person in the street' is that politicians - over and above almost every other interest group or sector in Western society, save perhaps the ever (opinion polling) discredited journalists and insurance and used car salesmen - already have their 'bottom of the heap' reputation largely based on essentially similar attributes like deceitfulness, dissembling and covering up their real agenda... !

(xv) As I now update these words (on the eve of the first face-to-face Democratic vs Republican candidates' debate) we have just been treated to an even more inglorious spectacle, Ted Cruz himself now joining the 'crew' endorsing Donald Trump. Methinks his very (sur)name (betokening an overly easygoing nature) ever gave him away. But talk about the utter abandonment of principle, honour and all those great virtues and signets of nobility once so esteemed by his truly honourable (Republican) forbears! (As Mr Trump himself, while privately smirking, might well have secretly intoned today when he heard the (no doubt unexpected) good news: 'just another professional, fair weather politician' who can be bought and sold in the marketplace of so often fickle and malleable public opinion.)

(xvi) Despite Mr Carson's (admittedly implicit, but nevertheless) wholly unbiblical views upon the taking of innocent blood, whether 'at home' in America's ongoing 'gun wars', or overseas in its imperialistic wars - where the awful, even abominable term 'collateral damage' (which I'm not claiming Carson himself ever used - to my knowledge) is regularly and readily employed to cover over some of the worst crimes against innocent humanity perpetrated every bit as much by the US of A these days as Russia. (Incidentally Carson's own endorsement of Donald Trump, while somewhat odd perhaps, was hardly in stark contrast to things he'd said during the primaries about Donald Trump - conspicuously unlike those others mentioned.)

(xvii) Though the Jesuits were actually not the only ones to grasp and articulate such a seemingly obvious yet profound psychological truth, the prolific writer and lay theologian Ellen G White also saying something very similar - despite belonging to a religious 'tradition' diametrically opposed to all the Jesuit order stands for. And of course the 'Good Book' says something generally similar (in Proverbs, about training up a child in the way s/he should go, and when s/he is old, s/he won't depart from it).

(xviii) While on the matter of interesting coincidences - which I well realize many today might well deem the stuff of conspiracy theorists - how about the following catalog of quite interesting (cf xx)religio-political developments in recent times... . That unlikeliest of former state governors, Jerry Brown, newly-re-elected Governor of California, America's most populous state to boot, is apparently a Jesuit (resurrected from beyond the political graveyard, as it were); someone who, like fellow Jesuit, Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, is now a very senior citizen indeed, an almost unheard of thing in US politics (and usually readily employed as an excuse for 'dissing' any aspiring politician; correction: any right-of-centre aging politician! The (xix)same rules never apply to the liberal/Left evidently.)

(xix) Yet again this very morning (November 6th, now just 3 days out from an election like no other in America's history), on TV1's Q&A, wholly unlike its competitor 'The Nation', devoting the entirety (not just 10-20%) of its programme, as with next Sunday's, to the US (exclusively presidential) election, we hear the same 'ole refrain vis-a-vis the Clintons and Hillary in particular...in regards to issues with her aides (this time): a pervasive sense that the rules (everybody else is apparently bound by) just don't ever apply to her/them; i.e. an innate sense of privileged entitlement. Yes, you could well ask, 'So what else is new about high-flying politicoes - of any description - feeling (and acting) thus?' Granted; I'd simply say that many feel the Clintons have turned this into a veritable art-form (and well beyond.)

(xx) Yet on the age-old super-divisive matter of Roman Catholicism itself - from a traditional Reformation-based Protestantism of whatever denomination, that is - isn't it a curious fact that not just in the USA but also in God's Own (i.e. New Zealand), these days we have a hugely disproportionate number of (at least nominal) Catholics not only in Parliament, but within the (unprecedentedly popular) National Party - a once unheard of thing, and moreover in the very senior echelons of its ministerial ranks themselves! Reminding me of a (twice met) acquaintance who once informed me that that party over recent decades was continually undergoing a see-saw between traditional Protestant elements and Roman Catholics, and certainly the leadership thereof alternated over a period of 20 years or so (1985/1986 through 2003/2005/2006) between the two poles of Christendom. Similarly in America, where, in the United States' (two) Houses of Congress, Catholics now constitute the largest block of congresspeople; and where - just as significantly - Catholics themselves are also - for the first time in American history - the predominant (xxi)'denomination' throughout the majority of U S 'parishes'  (i.e. population blocks across the land).

(xxi) Since the Roman Catholic Church traditionally - and to this day - maintains that it alone constitutes the one true church, I appreciate the term 'denomination' is inadequate if still the best term available.

And when one considers the United Kingdom - under so many monarchs and especially the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First long the bastion of truly protesting Protestantism - it was interesting how ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair converted to Catholicism the very moment he left office, becoming the Mideast envoy for peace in that religiously-fraught region. Curiously this followed his having while PM one especially notable accomplishment (that is recognized by political foe and friend alike, that is): that of - alongside ministers such as the memorable Mo Mowlan, let's give due credit where it's deserved - helping broker a finally-effective peace in Northern Ireland, that age-old bastion of Protestant-Catholic rivalries. Mr Blair has even often been touted - (xxii)up until the UK's Brexit recently, anyway! - as the leader of a now frequently-cited future United States of Europe. I admit to extrapolating out a little here, for it was only ever suggested he was a likely candidate for European Union leadership, but a large number of commentators these days are certainly espying such a development (of a US of E, that is) in the not altogether too distant future.

(xxii) Unless of course Mr Blair (and family) relocate to elsewhere in Europe (Northern Ireland or Ireland perhaps?), something indeed many of Mr Blair's compatriots probably actually wouldn't mind all that much! But whether those nations (the former only a 'wannabe' at this stage) would themselves consider him a worthy representative is itself another matter entirely!

But whether that suggests he might one day 'become' the Beast (at least figurehead) of last days' infamy so graphically portrayed in the book of Revelation is another matter (incidentally as a lay theologian I don't really believe it stacks up); though many of his countrymen these days might feel the description fits, and even some of his own fellow Labourites (such as Labour M.P. (former actress) Glenda Jackson - in his early (P.M.) days) did indeed consider him the Devil incarnate; (my recollections of a magazine-cover demon-eyed Blair still fresh in memory from almost two decades ago!)

Still that 'peace-making' individual or entity - i.e. the biblical Antichrist - does have much (natural) charisma, can speak well etcetera, so who really knows or is to say? Nevertheless I hold to the traditional (Reformation-era and beyond) interpretation thereof, which while it certainly doesn't completely rule out Mr Blair, seems - to me, anyhow - to much more definitively 'single out' a far more charismatic, peace-promoting - and moreover, popular as - individual currently bestriding the world stage (I'll leave you to guesstimate)!

While in Great Britain the constitutionally-enshrined (xxiii)'Right of Succession' has been altered - as a consequence of Prince Charles' marriage to Camilla - to now allow for a Catholic accession to the throne there, (xxiv)something also once not only unheard of but utter anathema to all its otherwise widely differing Protestant sects.

(xxiii) And indeed follow-up laws have (one-two years ago) been passed in New Zealand to fit in with this seemingly inconsequential but actually significant law change, as no doubt has also occurred throughout other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

(xxiv) All 'stuff' of interest, naturally, to those folk - such as myself - who adhere to a rather traditional, orthodox (if highly out of vogue and often deemed a good indication of narrow-minded religious bigotry, denominational partisanship and prejudice) view of traditional Catholicism (or more accurately papal-dictated religion and practice). Such religiously-based laws supposedly being just meaningless traditions these days which many would deem as relics of the medieval era, a time in which all things in the Western world were seemingly shrouded in impenetrable gloom, and the centuries-reigning 'Eternal City' was apparently merely a reflection of these particular societal trends as opposed to their principal cause.

It'll surprise no-one to have me confess to holding the latter view - and for innumerable good and sound reasons - which there is hardly time nor occasion to detail here. Which I'll concede - and is clear enough to anyone at all familiar with the actual state of play today of real life breathed, believed and lived out Catholicism throughout both the Western and developing (e.g. Central and Southern American) worlds especially - is not the particular brand of Catholicism adhered to by many - even most? - 'card-carrying' Catholics in our day and age.

But suffice to say that what some would deem 'a conspiracy' and thus seek to shut down any further discussion upon the matter - a common, indeed popular trend of modern mainstream media alongside the various well-ensconced political, cultural and intellectual elites presently reigning throughout the Western world - others, such as myself, while - for argument's sake - accepting the use of 'conspiracy' to delineate what's actually going on here, would nevertheless contend that it's only commonsense and good judgment to conclude - as I do in regard to my basic contention throughout this opinion piece - that if something looks and sounds and acts and breathes like a certain thing, then only a fool or someone with her or his head in the sand will try to find any and every other possible explanation for that certain thing than the blindingly obvious; i.e. that it is indeed the very thing indicated.

Not altogether dissimilar from Jesus Christ's (xxv)own oft-repeated admonition that the worldly wise and those wise in their own eyes are actually blind (to what really matters), and moreover that unless one becomes as a little child one cannot ultimately know or experience the kingdom of God. Some things really are that simple, plain and clear-cut; though not necessarily all that simple to accept and embrace with heart and soul. Yes, dying to one's own long-held understanding and world view is something else altogether!

(xxv) See many and various references throughout the four (biblical) Gospels.

(xxvi) But who does? Correction: apart from Chelsea.

(xxvii) Yes, whatever one happens to think of and feel about Bill and Hillary Clinton and however one wishes to characterize them, who could possibly deny them their well-earned title/s of Commander-in-Chief and would-be Commander-in-Chief of deceit, duplicity and general underhandedness? No, really?

(xxviii) And how about the Clintons' well-known and easily-accessible long stint in the public eye, and frequent and significant (xxix)'run-ins' down the years and decades - and let's not forget 'Whitewater', either - with not only American investigative authorities of various hues and stripes but moreover with that oh so inconvenient thing 'the truth'?

(xxix) As D J Trump has also himself 'enjoyed' at various times and of late, truth be told.

(xxx) Though slavery in a sense effectively remained in America for almost exactly another hundred years; admittedly, not in the technical sense of the term, but psychologically and in every other sense. And of course we're still seeing throughout a number of America's cities (and elsewhere) - such as St Louis, Missouri - very real remnants of the selfsame mindset which was inextricably wrapped up in just such inhumanity.

Incredibly, 'The Doctrine of the Jesuits' by Gury, (cited in 'The Protestant') asserts: 'Slavery does not constitute a crime before any law divine or human.' Accordingly Abraham Lincoln is also quoted therein as declaring the following: "This [American Civil] war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons", then adding (a real clincher): "I pity the priests, the bishops and the monks of Rome in the United States when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war"(italics all mine).

(xxxi) Elsewhere Lincoln once stated: ''There is a fact which is too much ignored by the American people, it is that the best and leading families of the South have received their education in great part if not all from the Jesuits...''

(xxxii) Appreciation again to that great 'ole hit Nana Mouskouri made famous - though I happen to prefer the version of Sir Paul McCartney's one-time protege, Mary Hopkin.

(xxxiii) Even more concerningly - yet withal a confirmation of the sinister nature of the aforementioned 'alleged' background to the assassination of America's most popular ever President - popular as indeed in after years though apparently not while he was President, amazingly - is the following statement based upon those selfsame facts in Bruce McMillan & Evan Sadler's Elizabeth the Last? An Expose of the Hidden Power behind the Drive for Republicanism: 'Obviously , there was a grand conspiracy to bring down the United States government on the evening of April 14 1865. Evidence brought forward shows that in the Roman Catholic village of St. Joseph, Minnesota, a great number of priests announced the murders four hours before they were carried out!' (Bold lettering as originally printed.) Evidently Secretary of State William Seward was stabbed to death, and both Vice-President Johnson and General Grant would have themselves shared Lincoln's and Seward's fate had they not managed to physically absent themselves from positions of danger by chance, providence and/or a sense of impending doom on the night.

(xxxiv) Certainly I'm not here claiming - except say for the assassination of such as Adolf Hitler et al (that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example, contemplated) - that any and every such incident isn't a crime and an odious one at that. Though unlike so many I believe the evidence is most definitely there that Lee Harvey Oswald fired (at least) one of the fatal shots that killed President John F Kennedy - and had any number of personal motivations for so doing - I'm not convinced there wasn't an associated conspiracy, involving other gunmen much closer at hand, ensuring he end up with the blame. If so, I strongly suspect that, whether 'LBJ' (Lyndon Baynes/Baines Johnson), who immediately became President, as a native Texan and ambitious to the hilt, was also involved - and he could well have been - the Jesuits again were connected with what occurred, as the chief antagonists involved behind the scenes - where they so often surreptitiously implant themselves completely unsuspected. If that were indeed the case - and again, at this point I agree this is all pure speculation on my part -  perhaps the principle reason was JFK's (aforementioned) refusal to kowtow to their nefarious designs, for example by mandating nationwide religious legislation (such as Sunday laws). As I say this is pure supposition, though it's interesting that the contemporaneous U.S. Supreme Court did institute just such first-day laws.

(xxxv) See Ellen G White's best-selling classic The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan.

(xxxvi) At present, with his first two term tenure long since notched up three-four decades ago, the longest-serving American Governor in U.S. history. (And oftentimes Democratic Party presidential also-ran.)

(xxxvii) From 'googling' 'Jerry Brown Jesuit' I 'scored' numerous 'hits' - 2,080,000 results to be precise. From the first ten 'entries' there were incredible 'finds', including especially one interview he had with 'ZENIT', from the 'Church of God News' on-line newsletter, where he openly revealed his longstanding connection with Jesuitism ever since he entered the unhallowed ranks of 'the Society of Jesus' (xxxx)(not!) An interview in which he simultaneously expresses his admiration for Pope Francis, his desire to meet him during his then upcoming visit, speaking at the United Nations, in late 2015, and his personal dedication to the pontiff's (xxxviii)climate change agenda (as well as the Pope's encyclical calling for a(xxxix) 'new world order'), even speaking of the 'moral dimension' thereof at a climate summit in Rome.
(xxxviii) Though I'd rather not re-litigate the contentious matter of 'climate change'/'global warming' here, suffice to say that though I accept it is primarily aggravated by if not actually caused by homo sapiens (the dumbest species on earth in most respects, despite ongoing efforts to claim the contrary - since 'sapiens' is Latin for wise/wisdom), what much more concerns me are these inter-related things: increasingly strident attempts to vilify anyone not adhering to this modern-day 'gospel' of life; simultaneous attempts to refuse not only to enter into proper discussion and/or debate with, but effectively shut those who disagree out of the public 'debate' and space altogether; and even, indeed far more concerningly, attempts in some circles to now claim that 'climate deniers' should even be denied the vote etc because they are such unfit people. What, will the next step be to physically quarantine them off - and far worse? It's certainly been attempted (for all kinds of ostracized minorities, including some already mentioned) in times past!

Alongside these extremely fascist/totalitarian trends I, alongside numerous others neither of my denominational let alone Christian 'persuasion' much less my ideological viewpoint, 'see' - for my part due to denominational 'prejudice' or brainwashing, some might allege - a United Nations-emanating, United States of Europe-propagated agenda which will one day - perhaps sooner than any of us realize - issue in such things as the long-prophesied American-wide 'national Sunday law' and eventually international (as far as it is practicable and legislatible) Sunday laws. Something, quite incidentally but curiously, a member of my local church once remarked regarding, inasmuch as he said he'd - somewhere or other, I don't know where (but it was in the nineties, presumably) - heard President Bill Clinton, in some speech (or other) declaring (and bragging that) he'd be the (first) President to bring back Sunday laws nationwide. Which I then thought was sheer poppycock et al, if for no other reason than said Mr Clinton had long since left office, so had no ability to!

Why this interests me especially - apart from the obvious already stated - is that the Bible Codes - made famous by (the agnostic) Jewish American Michael Drosnin, and a certain Israeli mathematician especially, 'cite' amidst their mathematically precise and intricate lettering patterns two present-day well known politicoes (a Syrian 'As(s)ad' and an Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu) for major connection with future significant events; not necessarily connected with one another in that regards, though going by the connected 'prophecies' they could well be also. The point was that they were cited in such 'prophecies' at a time when Asad's father, the long-time former Syrian leader, had just died - and thus the 'prophecy' appeared an abject 'failure'; and Netanyahu also, after a brief initial spell in power in the late 90s, had been pretty smartly displaced from power by the people, and thus evidently his political 'star' had sunk to rise no more. So 'it's never over (as I'll mention again) till it's (all) over'!

(xxxix) This 'nova ordinus del orbis' being something that President George Bush (the first) was also once well known for making quite a deal of.

(xxxx) As in truly representing and reflecting Jesus' winsome spirit; they'd be the furthest thing from it!

(xxxxi) Church of God News (above).

(xxxxii) Believe it or not I 'stumbled upon' that amazing tome, Dim Wits - (the title) in itself an apt as summary of American presidential election 2016 if there ever were one! - amidst regularly displayed ex-library sale books while typing some of this out there, long (weeks even) after I'd scribbled out my original notes.

Part Four: But What If I'm Just Whistling Dixie, And My Idea Is So Much Puff & Stuff?

Yes, I'll admit the thought has - occasionally, if not all that convincingly - occurred to me; actually more often in my (i)less sober moments. In other words, say all this actually isn't a jacked up, trumped up set-up of Machiavellian proportions and dimensions; well, what then? Well, being the smart, savvy, canny 'bloke' and operator he undoubtedly is, Donald J Trump will do whatever - i.e. precisely what it takes - to ensconce his own bulky torso in the Oval Office; i.e. to get elected...not continue ever onwards in his own ((ii)general) (iii)self-propelled trajectory towards implosion and self-destruction; or, even more aptly, '(self-)immolation' in spectacular style.

Yet as we're continually reminded, 'it's not (all) over till it's (all) over'. Accordingly, as Dr Bryce Edwards, one local kiwi political scientist and commentator, alongside many others, has often pointed out, one is advised to not write off Donald Trump just yet, as 'all it would take' is one horrendous event - e.g. another major terrorist incident on American soil - to throw things decisively his way. Or so the pundits suppose.

In my own view, however - in pre-planning for the home stretch of the campaign - I believe Bill pre-informed Donald that he'd have to especially step up his efforts in order to keep their stratagem well under wraps and to avoid appearing completely clueless and out of his depth, thus 'giving the(ir) game away'. And indeed Trump has managed to achieve this in various ways, not only with his Mexican visit but equally significantly, oddly enough, through making the supreme act of self-sacrifice by maintaining an amazing, previously unheard of composure in refusing to capitalize upon Hillary Clinton's ill-health, insofar as she clearly revealed this in one memorable public incident in particular. By refusing to engage in his 'el usual' 'attack dog' politics at his opponent's most vulnerable, and take advantage of the situation as per usual, Trump actually attracted much positive media attention and favourable commentary; and thus boosted his stock with suddenly impressed voters immeasurably.

Yes, Donald J Trump would need to seem both eminently presidential and serious - showing due gravitas et al - to deflect any suspicions (for good) and thereby 'cut off at the pass' any last minute, last-ditch effort by a suddenly undeceived Republican Party (or at least one utterly unpersuaded of Trump's due 'electability') to dump (or at the least dis-endorse) him; doing so in favour of some more generally acceptable face of the Republican cause, say perhaps a Marco Rubio. But obviously this would preferably be long prior to the veritable dying moments of the campaign.

And thus for those now chuckling, suggesting this utterly disproves my theorem, I humbly submit that it only serves to strongly reinforce it. On the contrary, we can see precisely why Trump is apparently now conducting himself in a somewhat different way to previously, seemingly more focused and less erratic and frankly 'all over the place'. Yes indeed, he has been acting 'super-presidential' - as one can hear him putting it himself! - to deflect any and every suspicion, especially from those in 'his own' (really only expediently adopted late in the piece) Republican Party. Yes, if all else fails, 'double down' and super-pretend to actually be the real deal.

Donald J Trump ever does just enough to seem semi-presidential so as not to unnecessarily arouse undue suspicions - which have probably, after all, been lurking there in the background ever since Trump put his name forward for selection as the presumptive GOP nominee months ago. In order to avoid giving their little game away and thus triggering a wholesale revolt among Republicans wising up to what he's in fact been doing, it's an endlessly-repeating ploy that Trump's been carefully coached by President Clinton to engage in. Do just enough in a 'right and proper' fashion - from time to time - then, lickety-split, almost instantaneously blow whatever advantage he's studiously built up, inevitably, as night follows day, reverting to type; just like an old worn record, caught increasingly often upon innumerable little grooves, yet somehow ever steadily progressing towards its ultimate goal, i.e. record's end, even if listeners then decide to chuck the whole thing altogether!

Yes, it's an especially masterful strategy upon Bill's part that this 'acting himself ' [i.e. Trump's real self] - playing the fool', alternating with 'seeming presidential - getting his act together at long last', will so befuddle and throw off (of the scent) 'ye average voter' that it would not just make their plan absolutely fail-safe and thus keep the deal immune from detection and even impenetrable, but it would eventually lead to voters becoming so utterly, completely fed up and exasperated with Trump as to want to see the last of him as soon as possible. (One reason I believe so many voters, especially traditional Republicans, and female Republicans  in particular (I've a hunch), have cast their ballots so early this time - and not necessarily in the way many would expect.) The Clintons, and Bill especially, are nothing if not shrewd political gamblers and tacticians - though less generous commentators might rephrase that 'conniving schemers and (even) sheisters'! Yes, they've not only carefully calculated and weighed up, and meticulously, painstakingly worked everything out well in advance, it has looked very much as if they'll pull the whole thing off in a canter.

But if this isn't the case, why would Mr Trump so conspicuously throw away even the final debate, especially when he had quite literally so improved (within it) as to give Hillary Clinton a very real run for her political money? Having, as I suggest, the debate almost 'in the 'bag', why else throw it all away in the dying minutes? At a moment when he's finally made his long-anticipated 'break', and so looks well and truly (at least potentially) headed for the Oval Office? Unless, once again, it's all been one long, canny ruse, and he really never actually intended even so much as making a half decent effort, of trying to win in the first place. It figures, don't ya reckon?

But perhaps we can look at all of this another way entirely. Maybe in fact what (I've previously unveiled and intricately and thoroughly elaborated upon - my 'conspiracy theory to beat all (previous) conspiracy theories') was originally no more than a sudden inspirational flash of genius that (then former) President Bill Clinton had one day. Knowing human nature as he so well does (whether as a diligent Jesuit (albeit an ever secretive, closet variety one - but then that's the very essence of Jesuitism) or otherwise, say simply as a person of innate intellect and brilliance) - at one time or another Mr Clinton proceeded to 'merely' suggest the idea to Donald Trump; all the time 'just knowing' (in his cunning heart of hearts) that Mr Trump would act upon it. Either way an effective 'collusion' - whether by original deliberate design (on President Clinton's part) or otherwise.

A political 'script' whereby, as I suggest elsewhere, Bill is the chief manipulator (or Manipulator-in-Chief) and 'the Donald', and even Hillary, are his dutifully-manipulated pawns or puppets. The sort of thing, naturally enough, that the Mr Trump 'we all love or loathe' would find quite intolerable to publicly acknowledge, Because to concede that someone - anyone - had somehow 'got one over him' would be just too humiliating by half.

If DJ Trump - eventually, despite it all - wins (the Presidency), in that unlikely and (vi)'concerning' eventuality - well, really, who knows? I imagine then that all bets would be off. Yet I pretty well suspect - in his most private, innermost musings - that that thought hasn't really even occurred to Bill. Or Hillary. Or perhaps even Donald! Though being the narcissist and self-believer he so obviously is, I doubt that with him anyhow that is actually the case.

As I say, for Bill - and no doubt Hillary - Clinton, I suspect that contingency has not even entered the deepest and darkest recesses of their innermost brains, let alone into their wildest, most 'far out there' calculations. I correct that: make that their coolest, most calculated machinations - especially those of Bill himself. For cool and calculating they most definitely are.

I conclude by respectfully suggesting that a certain DJ Trump does indeed know this formula - i.e. of electability and just what will ensure it transpires - and what will just as surely utterly thwart it! Yes, he knows this intuitively, instinctively, off by heart. Therefore there is one logical, rational reason - and only one - that he has ever, and now on an ongoing basis, deviated from it (that is, the former formula of electability). Yes indeed - 'surprise, surprise' - he doesn't actually, really - in his heart of hearts - desire to win; believe it or otherwise.

And why on earth not? Why specifically wouldn't Trump really want to win? I suggest we need look no further than the behind-the-scenes machinations I have herein outlined, and accept that Mr Trump has made a faustian deal; what he, anyhow, regards as the 'deal of the century'. Yes, quite literally in fact, and financially a (viii)rather lucrative one at that - perhaps even c/o the flush Clinton Foundation itself. Hey, it only stands to reason.

Yes, I submit that everything suggests a certain Donald J Trump has, indeed, made the deal of the century. And has he what! 

(i) Mentally, that is; for I have ever been a teetotaller since my late teens. (Prior to which I imbibed the standard half glass of wine or beer my Dad etcetera once or twice dutifully offered me on special family occasions; but thankfully I never developed the taste - in fact I found all alcohol horrid and distasteful in the extreme.)

(ii) The odd apparent (polling et al) gain and/or 'presidential' move notwithstanding - and admittedly since the start of September we've seen more than our share of those. As some might feasibly conclude puts paid to my neat little theory, even blows it out of the water entirely, a reasonable case could well now be mounted that Mr Trump has indeed turned a corner in his presidential campaign approach; and that he is even moreover, now pursuing it with every fibre in his being. Well, the jury is out on that one, and perhaps is even more inconclusive after the (iii)first debate today.

(iii) For what it's worth, from my own well-studied observations and indeed from commentators generally it would appear that while Trump and Clinton were reasonably well-balanced in terms of who actually came out on top, Clinton did manage to effectively trounce Trump if only in terms of not only a rather polished performance herself - and I say that as certainly no fan of 'the (former) Secretary' (of State); but moreover her ability (perhaps ably assisted by a generally extremely competent and not (iv)overly partial adjudicator) to corner Trump as it were throughout 75-80% of the 'latter' part of the debate. However in the third debate Trump vastly improved his performance - in every which way - alongside Clinton herself turning in yet another picture-perfect professional
as performance. Yet despite Donald Trump's own exceedingly valiant (and quite successful) effort - let's be perfectly clear about the fact - Trump - 'incredibly' - proceeded to (v)throw said (at least co-)'triumph' completely away as the debate's ended.

(iv) Everything indeed being somewhat relative in this most unusual of presidential campaigns. And yes, no adjudicator should ever be remotely partial; however, being human, they invariably are - though many are simply by 'virtue' of the fact that the great majority of Western journalists have long been known (c/o properly conducted surveys) to be far more left-wing than the general population, especially upon so-called 'moral issues'. Which doesn't mean it ain't their utmost duty within such contexts to keep those biases out of view and  non-impactful, something good media men (and women) down the years were at one time quite capable of doing! The two 'adjudicators' in debate two, by contrast, were so much - generally - on Ms Clinton's 'side', or in her corner, that it must've - naturally - affected Trump, novice politico as he is, quite adversely. The third debate's Fox Channel moderator was unquestionably - his TV station's clear (past) strongly pro-Republican bias notwithstanding - quite easily the most impartial in any of the debates; delivering excellent opportunities for both candidates to either shine or the converse (as the case indeed proved).

(v) Of course of recent days (that is, in the run-up to and post the third and final debate) 'all bets are indeed off '; yet to his credit (integrity-wise, if it's possible to juxtapose that term with 'the Donald'), but to his utter discredit politically speaking, Trump - though given endless opportunity to recant both during and at the conclusion of said debate - held fast to his ammunition; unfortunately that being the self-destructive variety!

(vi) For me, anyhow, principally in terms of his likelihood of triggering - however inadvertently and/or unintentionally - a nuclear World War 111. But then, as others have pointed out, Donald Trump's good relations with the present-day (vii)other most troubling, militarywise, major nuclear power, Russia, perhaps suggest he'd actually be a safer pair of hands in that regard than his chief rival Hillary Clinton. (vii) With China not far behind Russia and the USA admittedly.

(viii) Perhaps an immediate ambassadorship to Russia might also be on the cards - and not a bad thing for America and the world either, I'd wager, since worldwide polling has shown that however many other peoples and nations tend to despise Trump - Mexicans giving him close to a 0-2% favourable rating (understandably!) - Russians are the only ones, and by a sizable margin, moreover, favouring Donald Trump becoming American president over Hillary Clinton. Also as we have now been informed, Trump's got extensive business dealings no doubt with the Russians, maybe even their government. So perhaps he indeed would be less likely to get into a World War 111 with them than Ms Clinton, despite prevailing sentiment altogether in the opposite direction. And whatever high-level corruption that might well involve!

In terms of the type of 'deal' cut between the 'two' parties, however, i.e. between the Clintons and Mr Trump, there's some important stuff we ought to cover off. Yes, I well know that all of this is speculation and supposition, pure and simple, but if my basic theorem is indeed true - and I wager that it is - then the sort of recompense accruing to Trump should the scheme be carried off satisfactorily is worthy of our consideration. Incidentally I find it rather odd and moreover troubling that now the shoe's well and truly on the other foot, so to speak, and our 'billionaire' candidate might not in fact be that at all, might indeed be considerably less wealthy than previously supposed (and/or trumpeted by the man himself), the general Leftist commentary tends to be ridiculing Trump for this lack of dosh, for his seeming inability to match Ms Clinton in campaign contributions (from rich donors) and thus (the supposedly absolutely critical) money necessary for campaign spending, for (the underlying assumption being) achieving success at the polls.

It's almost as if it's perfectly okay for 's/he with the biggest wallet' to effectively buy the election - to thus 'purchase' if you will the Presidency. Such commentators I note have not even commended Trump's call (at one or two of the debates) for Hillary Clinton to make just a little of that financial largesse available (from the Clinton Foundation in particular) to benefit just some of the needy groups and causes she tends to speak so vociferously on behalf of, and no doubt oftentimes advocates that the federal government itself support. But political and ideological inconsistencies are a quarter a baker's dozen nowadays. Yet the selfsame commentariat and party hacks in times past loved to promote the cause of campaign finance reform - at least when their own preferred candidate needed it. Curiously one person (next to Arizona Senator and 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain) with the most to say on this score in times past - a Mr (Senator) Bernie Sanders - now seems strangely silent on the matter, having perhaps sold his own soul to the devil; sorry, I mean the Clinton bandwagon.  

Anyhow, any such post-Presidential deal that 'the Donald' stitched up with the Clintons - cold hard cash and/or some major diplomatic posting, as outlined - would presuppose that Trump managed to 'screw out of ' (if you'll 'scuse my French) Bill and Hillary enough to ensure he shuts up thereafter (i.e. after - presumably - losing; I doubt there was anything offered in the other direction, Bill being so dead certain it was already a done deal). One emailer (August 29th-30th) to RNZ National's weekdays' 'The Panel', incidentally - by the way, a week after I first posted this (initial) blogpost and literally months after the essential idea came to me - is probably quite correct in suggesting that Bill Clinton likely offered Trump billions of dollars in recompense for his pains and troubles. Yet presumably there's similarly some (sort of automatic) payback built into the system in case Trump later reneged on the deal, and even decided to expose it publicly - though again, I can imagine/ envisage Trump responding when Bill Clinton raised this possibility, assuring and reassuring him that no, it'd never happen, things'd be just fine, no need to worry etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. 

So again, chances are - pretty dead certain - nothing was ever actually put down upon paper as such. And of course how could Trump possibly think he'd actually get away with revealing such a deal, as it'd presumably hurt Trump himself every bit as much as the Clintons. But not necessarily, for if DJT loses the presidency, what has he really got to lose by 'going rogue'? Since 'a few billion' is neither here nor there to him (or so he's led 'us all' to believe in times past). And of course with Trump's considerable entrepreneurial skills he can easily get another monetarily-lucrative contract, such as the new TV show of which talk is already in the offing; no worries at all! 

By the way, is it just any old coincidence, for example, that DJT has given $100,000 - or whatever - into the Clinton Foundation in times past? And what do we make of Mr Trump's statement (at one of the debates, I believe): "I know many of her[i.e. Mrs Clinton's] donors"? (No doubt referring to her presidential campaign, and/or to the Clinton Foundation.)

Afterthoughts: Postscript - Embracing An Alternative Possibility, However Implausible

But say I'm wholly wrong, not only completely 'off my rocker', but over the other side and into weirdo territory? No, I really don't believe I am. But I would say that, wouldn't I. Not necessarily.

Granted, I'll accept that the game plan might well have changed in the interim (i.e. since the stratagem was agreed upon and eventually set in motion with Trump's G.O.P. candidacy); no, not officially, formally, as in an altered (written or verbal) contract - though I don't believe there ever was one in that sense. But the easier to keep it permanently hidden, clearly - no trace or 'fingerprints' to take one back to the guilty parties involved, and hence no ultimate conviction: on the charge of high treason; against the high bar of American public opinion, that is. No indeed - Bill certainly ain't that dumb! But things could well have changed in another major sense...so please let me explain... .

Yes, I'll concede the following. One - eminently possible, even plausible - deviation from this (strictly unteleprompted) script or scenario I most definitely cannot rule out. It is this: yes, DJT did indeed originally, in the long ago (around eight years ago, most probably, after Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination) enter into such an arrangement and clandestine pact - unholy alliance - (i)'with the devil', aka Hillary and, lurking in the shadows, Bill Clinton. But Donald Trump has long since come to majorly regret it, realizing that the actual American presidency, no less, is entirely within his grasp - with just a bit more effort on his part. As if he's awoken from dreaming the impossible dream, and now sees that what he imagined is for real.

Yes, now, Mr Trump, since becoming the Republican nominee good and proper - actually well before their primaries even ended - has received a major ego boost (to put it mildly). (And let's not forget that the man already has a sizeable ego and then some! But I digress... .) And so now he actually fancies - and obviously for eminently good reason - that he could really be elected to the Presidency. And even, as he never ceases to remind everyone, "be a great President". Or at least as good - as great - as every other past president save Abraham Lincoln. Thank God, the man has a modicum of humility!

So he's now - naturally and understandably enough - come to believe his own stuff. Indeed most commentators these days (at various points at least did) believe he actually has (had) a fairly good chance (and the (ii)latest polls - for quite some time - have given him an 'even steven' chance of pulling it off), though not all that long ago his chances were again rapidly (iii)'slip, sliding away' - in particular immediately following his (iv)unexpected coup of a visit to Mexico, after which he expeditiously shot himself and his rapidly accelerating chances once again in the foot.(viii)Someone who's a narcissist 'par excellence' (or more aptly 'horribilus').

'In the final analysis' I'll concede this much: that, having formerly - in the Republican presidential primaries - gained a certain seemingly unstoppable momentum (which admittedly (xiii)now appears to have been an utter mirage), any such prearranged deal between the parties (i.e. Trump and the Clintons) was forthwith 'off the cards'; or if not actually already relegated to 'never, never land', it could very easily still fall apart, especially if the polls keep on firming, thus closing the (not all that far back) 'wid-esh' margin between the two major candidates. But who knows - though at this point (18-19 days out) it appears eminently Hillary Clinton's election to lose... . (xiv)In this on-again, off-again campaign of all campaigns, as, with the re-opened FBI investigations into Clinton's emails, the Trump peacock has most definitely been set amongst the (xv)Chelsea-r (cf cheshire) cats once more.

On the other hand, any belated (or simply 'after the (initial) fact') reevaluation, reinterpretation or renegotiation of such an undertaking between Monsieur Trump and Madame and Monsieur Clinton would hardly alter the alarm, utter disbelief and seething fury of Americans should the real facts that such ever occurred one day be exposed to public view and scrutiny. No, Americans like any people, or at least fellow Westerners used to a system of true parliamentary style democracy, however flawed, do not take all that kindly to attempts to - as New Zealanders might put it - 'screw the scrum'.

Thankfully for Bill Clinton in particular, I believe he's covered his stealthy tracks very securely, having gained an inordinate amount of experience in this most clandestine of 'arts' in past political lives. Sad to say, I highly doubt any such 'smoking gun' will ever see the light of public day. "But"  - as JRR Tolkien's brilliant schizophrenic hobbit Smeagol/Gollum once memorably put matters: "we'll see...yes, we'll see!"

(i) The operative question, however, that confronts us is this: was that devil Donald Trump, as the media would have us all believe, or Hillary - or Bill? Or both Clintons? Or all three? You be the judge!

(ii) These were generally post-convention through September, up to the first debate or thereabouts. I appreciate that times - and more pertinently polls - have long since changed, and moved markedly in Hillary Clinton's favour. Nevertheless it is equally true that Ms Clinton has not pulled well clear of Mr Trump nearly as much as one might have anticipated; certainly not in the very unique set of circumstances we've seen playing out (almost to the nth degree, that is, in Mr Trump's 'disfavour') over recent weeks especially. Besides which, in 'the crucial, battleground states' like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania the margins remain tight as, indeed one particular - apparently historically highly indicative - tracking poll suggests a Trump win; as do (correction: did!) the equally 'spot on' predictions of statistical whiz-kid Nate Silver. 

(iii) Acknowledgment to yet another songster whose 'recollect-able' lyrics- if not necessarily tune or overall song - just seem to stick in the recesses of my mind.

(iv) Indeed it - momentarily - seemed, as if nothing else was capable of "finish[ing] him off ", D Trump's "flip...-flopp[ing] on being a flip-flopper", as New Zealand's (Newstalk ZB) radio talkback host Larry Williams put it so aptly - spoken in regards to Trump's apparent resiling, while in Mexico visiting with its President, from his flagship, standard-bearing pledge to erect a wall between Mexico and the US - would surely sink his candidacy for good. Being a monumental backdown if ever there was one on what has long been ridiculed as Trump's by far most significant if silly, even stupendously stupid position. But not of course with Trump true believers - who readily lapped up his almost immediate recantation of that 'about-face' while in Mexico, upon his return to the USA addressing a campaign rally in Arizona; no doubt putting it down to the perceived sense of a need to use 'diplomatic-speak' while abroad, while wielding a big stick when back home. 'Sell-outs' are, after all, in the eyes of the particular political partisans - or for that matter utterly uncommitted Americans - beholding.

But Trump's unprecedented visit to Mexico deserves much more (v)comment and analysis, for it temporarily promised to be a major turning-point in his bid for the White House. Though, as we saw, he soon enough blew it by, almost before the day was over even, once more 'doubling down' on his earlier, oh so controversial, stake-in-the-ground pledge to build a huge American-Mexican border wall, Mr Trump's initial apparent 'about-face', and in a presidential-like garb to boot - scoring what was seen as virtually a diplomatic coup in what had otherwise been a litany of furious fits, foibles, and other assorted failures - for a golden moment at least had looked to be a virtual 'gift from the heavens'. Without hardly trying he seemed to have scored a personal victory, however small - or even ultimately uncertain - via the concession he appeared to have extracted from the Mexican President.

Yes, it all appeared a real political coup of sorts. Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump at the time desperately needed something - anything - to seem 'presidential' and thus look legitimate... and this his apparent 'rapprochement' with Mexico, its people and Government seemed made-to-order for; a very feasible opportunity, well grasped, which could've worked majorly to his advantage. But as we know, he blew it - big time, and the rest is history, as they say.

So what to make of it all? Hey, it seems very simple to this pleb, anyhow. To me, Trump's post-Mexico doubling down  (as it's so often been referred to) was final, irrefutable proof - if any were yet needed - that this so-called presidential 'contest' is an utter sham. For of course as we soon saw, once (vi)'back in the USA' any such Mexican deal seemed a pure fiction, Trump reiterating his pledge to build such a wall, moreover to be financed by Mexico and to begin construction (or planning) from Day One of a Trump Presidency!

All tending to raise a logical enough question - in sane minds anyway: does Donald J Trump really know how to conclude a deal? Too right he does! Goodness gracious - if you'll pardon my Mexican - the man (vii)apparently recently wrote an entire book on the subject! Yes, DJT knows precisely how to cut a deal; only he's done so this time - long (months, even years) before his Mexican visit - no, not with anyone there, but with Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. And thus Trump's supposed ineptitude was nothing of the sort, rather his doubling down was fully intended, thereby confirming the special deal he'd made with the Clintons way before he even announced his initial candidacy.

(v) For which I'm indebted to Jim Mora's Daily RNZ National (Radio) Panel discussion/s, though only snippets of the above discussion are other than my own thoughts and musings.

(vi) Again, John Lennon's 'ole 'Back in the USSR' reverberated in the echo chambers of my mind as I coined this mini-phrase.

(vii) Apparently titled 'The Art of the Deal'.

(viii) Although Trump initially pledged to respect (ix)whatever outcome the American people ultimately delivered in early November, and thus 'get behind President Clinton' (if she manages to 'seal the deal') - despite previously suggesting that (ix)if Ms Clinton won it would only be because she (or her cronies) had rigged the system - New Zealand's broadcaster Guyon Espiner (in a TV1 Q&A interview over recent months) cited a very real concern in that regard. Speaking with a former U.S. Canadian ambassador, close to Ms Clinton politically, he mentioned there was concern in the Clinton camp that if Trump lost he might then bring up some rather unsavoury things - for example the frequently-cited allegations that the Clintons were themselves involved in the 'disposal' (i.e. murder) of some former aides. Interestingly, the very latest issue of New Zealand's Uncensored magazine has published a rather lengthy list of just such aides (making my own 'listing' of only one such instance, i.e. that of Ron Brown, the Democratic Party's first ever black party chairman, look comparatively 'tame')!

Even more problematic and cause for concern, moreover, is that such alleged (pattern of) disappearance-execution of numerous former (Bill and Hillary) Clinton aides is perfectly in keeping with the Jesuits' age-long modus operandi, and also reminds me of a broadsheet (quoted elsewhere here). 'The Protestant: Voice of The Advent Movement' insinuates that other American presidents - such as Presidents Harrison (1841), Taylor (1850), Garfield (1881) and McKinley (1901) were thus likewise disposed of by that clandestine religious order, the method in the first two instances being 'the poison cup', and in the last two (as with Lincoln) 'the leaden bullet'. Rather worryingly, the United States 'Congressional Record 'house Bill 1523' cites the 'Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction' - which itemizes methods infinitely worse, and declares that 'neither sex[gender], age nor condition' of the individual 'heretics, Protestants and Liberals' concerned will serve to ameliorate the type/s of murderous punishment meted out!

(ix) Incredibly, in the first two debates (and especially the first) we actually see someone (Donald Trump) virtually (x)willing to concede (already!); once again, a needless and completely self-defeating luxury never indulged in by previous candidates, much less those like Ronald Reagan (whom Trump and/or his partisans initially compared Trump to) who ultimately went on to convincing victories. And seemingly not even content with that colossal concession-in-waiting, actually somewhat resigned to the prospect; almost as though it wouldn't really matter to him all that much anyway if that's how it all ended up! All utter and complete no-nos of course in the (xi)unwritten candidate's book of 'How to Conduct a Successful Campaign'!

Something one would assume is surely self-evident and therefore needn't any explanation, since previously no serious, especially major party, candidate, ever engaged in such concession-making-before-the-fact. Indeed it's a spectacle to behold from someone who's ever been so down on losers himself. So is Donald Trump really, truly evincing not only a loss of bravado but his previous underlying self-confidence as some might assume? No, it's (x)'all the better to fool the voters with'!

(xi) As Donald Trump had indeed also done - only once, to my knowledge - some time prior to any of the debates.

(xii) Just like President Ronald Reagan's 'eleventh commandment' not to speak ill of a fellow Republican (cited by Pat Robertson, himself a one-time (1988 at least) Republican Presidential hopeful, upon his week-nightly '700 Club'). Which implicit understanding no Republican 'wannabe' needed to be informed of in times past, it was just an obvious 'given'. Mr Robertson also pointed out as the Republican primaries were concluding about how said Republican presidential candidates' ongoing and (off the charts) 'out there' internecine bickering was serving to provide Hillary Clinton's campaign with plenty of fodder for her upcoming general election campaign - to use against whoever the Republican candidate turned out to be. And of course Robertson was spot on, Hillary Clinton and her experienced team well knowing that Americans wouldn't easily or readily forget - let alone forgive - (much if not all of) Trump's anti-Mexican/Muslim et al incendiary as rhetoric early on in the primaries, and so would screen these frequently, endlessly replaying them in TV and radio and internet ads right up until Election Day. Which presumably is precisely what they've done.

(xiii)(xiv) Okay, I utterly give up! The opinion polls and the two major candidates' 'standings' therein are all over the place - and look guaranteed (if there's any 'guarantee' in this election of elections) to remain so right up until till Election Day itself.

(xv) Okay - alright - my attempt at pun here admittedly doesn't quite come off or do proper justice to my metaphorical allusion! Perhaps it should've rather been 'the Trump mountain lion among the Clinton pigeons' etc.

Final Comment: Once this is - finally, belatedly - completed (later today, just five days out from the election), following this weekend or more probably the Big Day (In) itself, I'll peruse internet sites of those with a similar view (that my aforementioned new friend/acquaintance informed me about many weeks ago)...as I swear to God I've chosen not to consult either of the two sites she mentioned in the meantime, so as not to be at all influenced by their ideas, opinions or arguments, however many others have inadvertently or otherwise chosen to get on board this 'stroke of mindfulness', let's call it.

P.P.S. (The Aftermath) Curiously enough, on Election Day itself, as the results rolled in over New Zealand airwaves on Newstalk ZB, a caller gave Kerre (Woodham-)McIvor and Mark Dye her own essential 'gist' of a conspiracy theory, not markedly differing - in its essential if stark outlines - from my own. This youngish lady contended: 1) elections (esp. of the American Presidential variety) are just a show; 2) the winning candidate has already been pre-selected (by the intelligensia/powers-that-be); 3) Donald Trump himself was just a decoy; 4) Hillary Clinton would win; and 5) following on from said election the world would be ushered into one of the most evil (problematic) periods it has ever experienced.

My own essential difference, however - and of course as it has indeed transpired! - is that the final outcome is still not a pre-ordained, predetermined necessity. Though the Western 'tweedle dum versus tweedle dee' scenario is all too common, and even at times some (people and/or institutions) behind the scenes are trying all in their efforts to get  a certain favoured individual elected, I happen to believe that at least in 'the free world' - by-and-large - elections and the voting system are neither rigged nor merely for pretence. If it really is, explain for me if you will the two confounding outcomes of 2016 Western politics: the Brexit decision of voters in the United Kingdom; and Donald J Trump's elevation to 'top dog' in America?!?!

P.P.P.S. Glenn Greenwald in his own after-analysis upon today's (November 11th NZ-time, 10th U.S.-time) 'Democracy Now' broadcast suggested that Hillary Clinton and her advisors/media sympathizers [acolytes] etc pretty well set Donald Trump up as ye proverbial straw man to more effectively and easily then knock down, setting him up to (thus ultimately) fail. By thus treating Trump and his message as if he and it were actually serious, and accordingly elevating DJT in the media and likewise his [off-the-wall pronouncements] [into a position of respectability (just by being cited there)] - over two/three of his much more serious Republican rivals (such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio) - HC & Co were ultimately the authors of her/their own demise. They thus propelled him ever upwards and onwards till he at last succeeded - beyond their wildest nightmares.