All narratives are created equal!

One of the looniest political conspiracy theories I have read to date involves a long tale about Abraham Lincoln being a secret Jew, a Rothschild, that his wife was addicted to narcotics provided by her Confederate drug dealer John Wilkes Booth, that she, not he, was the assassin, and lots more. The "evidence" was all tucked away, and was discovered recently. Where it is, and why historians haven't recognized its validity, who knows?

during a search of some old property records and will in a small courthouse in central North Carolina, Alex Christopher the author of "Pandora's Box", found the will of one A.A. Springs in an old will book dated around 1840. Upon reading the will he was shocked and amazed at the secret it disclosed. But the fact is that wills, even though classified as public records the same as property and corporation records, are rarely combed through as he was doing. These documents can hold dark secrets hidden from public view and never uncovered because few research these old records.

Thus secrets are hidden in public view so that when accused of concealing the records, bureaucracy can reply "It was on public record in plan view for any and all to find."

"It" is not provided anywhere, of course.

Here's the "true" account of the assassination:

When Booth actually opened the door to the darkened room where Abe and Mary were sitting, he went into a panic and shock. Abe was asleep with his head on Mary's left shoulder and the First Lady had her head turned toward the left looking at the door. . . When she was sure the man who opened the door was Booth, she turned and looked at the President to be sure the pistol she was pointing would explode beneath the lower left earlobe of her husband. Before Mary pulled the trigger, John Wilkes Booth, drug supplier to the First Lady, realized he was the patsy in all this mess. But he did not know if he was only Mary's patsy or also a chump for the Rothschild family. Were the men hiding around the back door of Ford's Theater there to help Booth with the kidnaping or to point the false finger at the 'innocent' Booth? Booth was not about to run into the hallway or down the backstairs to find out the answer to that question. The only escape route was to jump the balcony and crash onto the stage during the performance. That night, Booth gave a literal interpretation of the theatrical phrase 'brake a leg' as he fractured one of his during his leaping act from 'lethally looney Mary' and the men lurking around the back entrance of Ford's Theater.
The original plan was to kidnap Lincoln, but the motivation? International bankers (who else?) were angered by Lincoln's secret plan to make America independent of the Rothschilds!
Lincoln was seriously considering one major movement or event that would galvanize his fellow Northern and Southern patriot countrymen into cutting loose the United States of America from the dictatorial grip of the Hapsbergs bloodline and banking control in Europe. At this time the Rothschilds were trying to take control of the entire world monetary system, and also trying to get a foot-hold in America and find a way around the British, Virginia Company, and French Bourbon family that were gaining influence over this country with government help . . .

Lincoln found himself in real hot water, because the 48 families that formed the Virginia Company covenant, were all of the Holy Grail Bloodline. This country was to be an extension of the dominion of the royal families of Europe. The royalty of Europe is Hapsburg, no matter what their name. The royal family of England is one such example.

It's very amusing, and I'd like to think of it as satire, but I don't think the authors intended it that way. Doubtless they would claim that "conventional" history is being unfair to their "side."

What that means is that I shouldn't have called this "one of the looniest political conspiracy theories I have read to date."

It was very judgmental of me, and I apologize.

How should I atone?

Perhaps by looking at another contested piece of history, and treating it fairly so as to set an example for all of us?

Let me try . . .

As it happens, at the same site I found a link to a seemingly incredible assertion. If true, this would provide us with important piece of Stalin history which has been covered up so successfully that even I (someone who has read more books on Stalin than I care to remember) had never read even a hint about it.

This blockbuster of a claim is that Stalin's grandson is now serving in the United States Senate!

Soviet dictator Josef Stalin reportedly had an illegitimate son. The offspring, Stalin's illegitimate grandson reportedly is U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. His father was also a U.S. Senator who was censured by the U.S. Senate as a result of a scandal. A close associate of Chris Dodd in the past often visited Moscow and Siberia reportedly as part of the "U.S. State Department".
Now, why didn't any of the numerous books I've read about Stalin tell me that? Is it possible that I might have been duped?

Again, I can only offer my apologies, but by way of explanation, my hopelessly old-fashioned view of history is based upon my kneejerk tendency to regard the metanarrative as historically normative (something we now know must be avoided in favor of a "multiplicity of theoretical standpoints").

The explosive new Stalin revelations come from a man named Sherman Skolnick, who is pictured on this stamp:

PatriotSkolnickStamp.gif

Skolnick, a well known conspiracy theorist, promulgates many other fascinating and entertaining stories, such as this exciting 9/11 theory including stuff I'd never read before linking Timothy McVeigh and Clinton White House aide Vincent Foster.

But I'm more interested in Stalin than in McVeigh or Foster, and I think history is too.

Is there any way to confirm the story? I saw not one substantiating piece of information. No link going anywhere.

What that means is that unless Senator Dodd comes forth to confirm or deny his lineage, we'll have to decide this purely based on photographic evidence. Far be it from me -- a lowly blogger -- to render pronouncements on such an important question. I think it might be better to simply lay out the evidence and let readers decide. (After all, this is a democracy!)

So I'll start with the official portraits:

DoddOP.jpg stalinOP3.jpg

And a couple of semi-profiles:

DoddSP.jpg stalinSP.JPG


Well, there's a general similarity in hairlines, shape of nose and earlobes, but is that enough to convince a physical anthropologist?

Who knows?

I don't think political opinions are hereditary, so it probably wouldn't be helpful to look for similarities in such things as positions on such issues as gun control or the role of the state in various matters.

What about comparisons based on physical behavior? While the evidence is scanty, I did find evidence that both men did (er. one still does, assuming the photographs are to be believed) a particular thing with their hands which we call "clapping" (also known as "applauding"):

DoddClaps.jpg Stalinapplauds.jpg

Is that definitive evidence?

You decide!

I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but for what it's worth, I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that more proof is needed before we declare Lincoln was shot by his wife in a Rothschild conspiracy, or that Senator Dodd is Stalin's grandson. But I remind readers to take what I say with a grain of salt, because I favor the biased and old-fashioned "metanarrative" approach.

No offense, of course, to those who think otherwise. (But all theories and narratives being of equal value, don't we have to present both sides of every issue?)

posted by Eric on 04.08.06 at 09:56 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3482






Comments

Sherman Skolnick's still around? I thought he disappeared off the deep end 20 years ago. His nuisance lawsuits were one of the more entertaining aspects of Chicago politics when we lived there.

triticale   ·  April 8, 2006 10:51 AM

You know what just occurred to me while reading all this? That maybe it's time to stop referring to conjectures about conspiracies as "conspiracy theories". Anti-evolutionists can say, with a straight face, things like "it's just a theory" at least partly because the word "theory" itself has been so cheapened by exactly this kind of usage.

I know "conspiracy hypothesis" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but isn't there a different way to say it that doesn't lend credibility to the conjecturer in question by borrowing it from legitimate scientific theories?

CITIZEN JOURNALIST   ·  April 9, 2006 11:53 AM

I believe I speak for all of us when I say "Huh?" If Booth didn't want to kill Lincoln, and didn't want to be a patsy, why couldn't he have simply shouted "My God, lady, what are you doing?! Help!! Someone's trying to kill the President!!" Why couldn't he have tried to get the gun out of her hands? (An attempt to hold and fire the gun from a completely different angle from what would work for her should have been easy to frustrate.) I think that's one conspiracy story that will never make it to the level of a "theory."

Soviet dictator Josef Stalin reportedly had an illegitimate son...

Only ONE? He was the undisputed absolute ruler of a totalitarian state, which he ran like a huge crime-gang, and no woman could possibly say "no" to him, call the cops, or even insist on a condom (if such were even available then); so I'm sure he had far more than ONE kid. When people like that have illegitimate kids, it's neither a surprise nor a big deal.

Raging Bee   ·  April 10, 2006 10:34 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits