It's widely agreed that the "House Divided" speech that Lincoln gave in June 1858, accepting the Republican nomination for the Senate and warning that the spread of slavery must be stopped or the whole nation would be taken over by slavery, is one of the greatest speeches by an American politician. I was reading Don Fehrenbacher's important book on Lincoln in the 1850s the other night when he repeatedly referred to the speech as being dominated by a conspiracy theory.
Well, this is a true fact, as we say in journalism. In the speech, Lincoln looks back over events of 1854-1857, from the Kansas-Nebraska Act to the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, to statements of the former President Franklin Pierce and sitting President James Buchanan, and sees a hidden pattern in them, of a plan to promote slavery throughout the country, not just the south.
Lincoln urges his Republican party listeners to "run the mind over the string of historical facts... Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring." He analyzes a series of actions by the two presidents, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, and Senator Stephen Douglas, and imagines a conspiracy by the four men:
Many critics of the Israel lobby have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists. And I guess conspiracy theory has gotten a bad name for being wild speculation, in light of several sensational events in recent history. It's worth remembering that conspiracy theory is often just another name for insight into how power works, because powerful people don't like to leave their fingerprints on dealmaking, especially when the deals involve standing up for apartheid in a foreign country. People with imagination have to read between the lines, and establish the pattern.
Lincoln was a radical. This is something that all the news reports on the man widely considered our greatest president overlook. He had a middling political career until great moral events fired him up as an outsider. He could have played along with the slave power, as the Democratic Party did, but Lincoln chose an oppositional stance around a new party. In doing so, he used his great political imagination to see the disastrous moral pattern in government actions. I have no doubt what he would focus on today.
It's getting more than a little bizarre with the Lincoln columns. Lincoln would not have been a Palestinian supporter. He used biblical and religious points in his speeches. And immediately lifted Grants order no 11. It's kind of like the drive to make Jesus, ( an observant Jew) into a Palestinian.
"It's worth remembering that conspiracy theory is often just another name for insight into how power works, because powerful people don't like to leave their fingerprints on dealmaking, especially when the deals involve standing up for apartheid in a foreign country. People with imagination have to read between the lines, and establish the pattern."
Thank you for making that statement. A detective who wants to solve a murder mystery must embrace several conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem at the beginning, and no matter what others (especially those implicated in his thoughts) call him, to find the truth.
There are conspiracy theories which turn out to be true, and others which don't. You can't tell them apart without looking, sincerely and open-minded, into all of them.
The best way to carry out conspiracies is to ridicule "conspiracy theorists" beforehand–that is, anyone who might detect them.
SOG, Lincoln was a Christian, not a Zionist cultist, like yourself.
I've noticed that the Obama cult is trying to glom on to Lincoln's heritage as well, apparently replacing the bust of Churchill that Bush had in the White House with a bust of Lincoln. How does Obama square his professed respect for Lincoln with his staunch support for institutionally racialist Zionism? The fact is, he can't, and won't even try to, which just goes to show that Leftist cultists routinely jump in and out of bed with Zionist cultists in each's war to undermine and erode Western civilization in order to replace it with their own ideology.
Chameleon-like parasites always temporarily adopt the appearance of those they are attempting to exploit and control until they can firmly impose their own identity on the host society. We've seen this from the Zionists, we're seeing it from the Leftists.
That "conspiracy theory has gotten a bad name" is itself the result of a conspiracy.
Theories about conspiracies are not off the top signs of mental disturbance. People have conspired against other people since the invention of language opened up the possibility.
Having theories about conspiracies is at the same time a portal to madness and the threshold of reality.
As the access to information broke out of the hierarchal and controllable mass media and into the wide-open fields of the web, where before the pamphlets and self-published books of conspiracists had almost no weight against glossy magazines and the nightly news,it became pretty clear that viable leaks were going to be an issue – on the internet's pages high-paid journalists and isolated witnesses both can look the same – and those leaks were going to be too many and too low-profile to head off completely.
So first establish the derogatory platform, the ground of derision, start with scorn and only then work toward the possibility of truth, as opposed to begin with an open mind and evaluate. And, as Me noted above, that's what you see.
Anything that smacks of intrigue is dismissed out of hand, still, by the rapidly shrinking majority.
Kennedy, 9/11, Bush1 and the cocaine industry, lots of things out there look pretty complex, and conspired into being.
Gary Webb is still dead.
Notions of a powerful Israeli lobby weren't controversial before Mearsheimer and Walt published their book. The loosely affiliated "pro-Israel" lobby (like AIPAC) and their influence was routinely discussed and accepted.
In retrospective, its almost humorous that articles like the 2003 Economists discussion of the vanishing "Saudi Lobby," that the Israeli lobby is described as
Descriptions like this permeate the mainstream press before Mearsheimer and Walt's work on "the lobby." In fact, this is one of the key thrusts of their work. The (expected by M&W) panicked and hysterical opposition to their work ran smack into these same descriptions.
Comical.
Dead Gazans, dead Iraqis, dead American soldiers, broken Gaza, broken Iraq, broken America.
Hysterical.
If news reports focused on Lincoln's radical characteristics, they would necessarily shed light on just what his radicalism engendered. To wit, a leviathan federal government and executive office with powers expanded far beyond what any of the writers of the Constitution could have imagined in their worst nightmares.
Lincoln wasn't focused on the moral aspects of slavery. He was focused on how abolishing it (or supporting it) could help his political career and achieve his goals of pseudo-Whig domination. He was slapping the American Plan onto the nation- abject mercantilism- and he was enabled and financed by some rather shadowy figures (or not so shadowy, if you're a Rothchild). Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, an Empire Builder, and – truth be told- a white nationalist who cared not a whit about the black man unless he could be used as a political tool. He would feel the same about the Palestinians, and the choices he (and Salmon P.) made in financing Licoln's bloody war of Empire should give us an idea of who Lincoln would be kowtowing to today- not that his eventual end would be any different, given the treacherous nature of his associates of choice.
So are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion really a work of Anti-Semites? Are we sure? What if they are a long con? a very long con?
What if someone decided to create a smoke screen, or several smoke screens and what if it is a double bluff? You know, you can's say we are doing these things even if it looks like we are doing exactly these things because it's in the book and book, everybody knows is a forgery. Only…… is it?
Would that make conspiracy theory square? Or conspiracy theory cubed?
LOL
One of the evils proposed by elders of Zion was universal suffrage, and in Poland by pure coincidence Roza Pomerantz-Meltzer, of Lvov, was the first woman ever elected to the Parliament of Poland (Sejm). She was elected in 1919 as a member of a Zionist party. This fuelled no end of conspiracy theories in Poland, but also shows a political freedom that minorities enjoyed in Poland.
@Ms. Smagacz:
Can you tell me why Dan Brown and countless other writers can say what they want about the Vatican (and I like what they say ;-)), but noone would ever be allowed to write "Angels and Demons" if it involved shenangians within Jewish circles?
Now I don't know about any actual historical conspiracies, but I want to read entertaining stories about ALL ancient/religious organizations, not only the Catholics.
You can't: not in this political climate and with this ownership of media and Hollywood. Stereotypes are are a political weapon. You can blacken the character or whiten it at will. So Arabs are violent, stupid and fanatical, Indians are slimy when older and kung-fu fighters when younger, African Blacks are all princes incognito, Jews are not allowed to be shown with large noses (sad but true – see the HUGE aproar about the size of the olfactory appendage, or the depth of his depravity in the latest film adaptation of book called "Oliver Twist"). For a sake of few brownie points character of Fagin was recreated to have little of both, in the direct contradiction to the original material and with damage to the storytelling. A bit like making "Uncle Tom's cabin" with the entire white cast so that the differences between blacks and whites were airbrushed. Did I say that Arabs are violent, stupic and fanatical?
That is the script. Conspiracy theorists are people who see the holes in original narrative and ask intelligent questions. Religeous nuts are people who see other things than you as of importance worth dying for (taliban worldview versus anti-abortion laws). Reasonable is what your editor sees as uncontroversial after seeing his buddies in the country club. etc, etc,…….
"So are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion really a work of Anti-Semites? Are we sure?"
Yes Eva.
Do you now desire to question the Holocaust?
Chris, Eva is just sorry that a few Jews managed to escape Poland pose WW2. I keep asking about her family and Jedwebne. You know the village where the Poles couldn't wait to slaughter their Jewish neighbors. Or Kielce. But guess what, she won't answer. Speaking of sterotypes I guess the one where Poles are dumb has shit rally does apply. And like Shamir said, they take in anti-semitism with their mothers milk;.
Eva, these two comments from Michael Hoffman might interest you:
============================================
Dear Joe
In my opinion the "Protocols" was NOT authored by Judaics. Please see "Judaism Discovered" pp. 51, 648 and 969.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
============================================
Dear Joe
No, I didn't pen my response to you "for some other reason." I have no hidden agenda.
You are under no obligation to read or buy my book, but your familiar defense of the "Protocols" tar-baby is unfortunate. We don't need to discredit our movement by using the "Protocols" to prove our points.
The authentic "play-book" was published by the learned Johann Andreas Eisenmenger in 1700, "Entedecktes Judenthum." We reprinted portions of this master-key to Judaism in English, with a long introduction by yours truly, under the old English title, "Traditions of the Jews." I'll bet you haven't read that either.
Now, the question is, who do you think planted the fake "Protocols" in our midst and who would make us believe that it serve as our handbook for proving a rabbinic conspiracy, while the heavily documented work of towering scholarship by Dr. Eisenmenger was suppressed and obscured?
Can you entertain the possibility that the right wing is full of useful idiots who do the work of the rabbis with their "Protocols" promotion?
By what act of prestidigitation did the "Protocols" replace "Entdecktes Judenthum" as the primary sourcebook on Judaism?
Why did Hitler choose to promote the "Protocols" and derogate "Entdecktes Judenthum"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Until you start to develop your research and curiosity, you're only regurgitating tired right wing boilerplate that does little to advance knowledge.
The System loves to publicize the "Protocols" and has been suppressing Eisenmenger's book for 300 years, and continues to fear it today. Ask yourself why.
I don't mean to be uncharitable, but I have little patience at this late date for folks who won't do the research and are content to parrot dead-ends that fulfill the script into which our enemies have cast us.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
============================================
From
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21240636&postID=4952188944653203469&isPopup=true
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/
The main textual source for the Protocols was Maurice Joly's satirical pamphlet against Napoleon III, "Dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in Hell". Joly was, I understand, a Freemason and a Jew.
As I said, this is conspiracy theory squared and cubed. Do I really need to mark more intelligent posts with "Irony alert" for our resident trolls?
Hello, Hello: the post about Conspiracy theories was about Conspiracy theories. For origins of Protocols see Maurice Joly.
Eva? LOL. Intelligent posts? Please. You are a steriotypical antisemite trying to disguise your racism. You are pretty much a joke.
@ SOG
"It's getting more than a little bizarre with the Lincoln columns. Lincoln would not have been a Palestinian supporter. He used biblical and religious points in his speeches. And immediately lifted Grants order no 11. It's kind of like the drive to make Jesus, ( an observant Jew) into a Palestinian.
Posted by: Sword of Gideonthe point."
Lincoln would not been a supporter of wronging the Palestinians. He would have seen the hidden structure, connected the dots as they say nowadays, just as Phil says. We need a new anti-hasbara piece, a new Emancipation Proclamation speech by Obama–directed at stiff-necked zionists, in behalf of the helot Palestinians and the USA's highest values. Biblical stories would support it in ethical and humanitarian principle. Lincoln did not disagree with what Grant saw on the ground, with why Grant issued Order No 11 against the jews who were milking the Union Army soldiers and their government in much the same way any loan shark does with payday loans. Grant has recently gone way up in
polls of historians on the greatest USA president, and for good reason–despite those under him
were corrupt once he became president. Grant wrote his memoirs right up to his ailing death–
go take it out of the library and you will see what the jews did on the Civil War soldier's grounds. But, just as Lincoln was willing to kick the slavery can down the road to save the Union first–until he knew France, then England were about to join the Stars and Bars due to King Cotton, he was willingly
to put up with jewish vampires on Union soldiers and Union monetary & fiscal policy for the time-being, first things first. Sort of like Truman booting General MacCarther (likely sic?). Lincoln needed
Jewish moneybags to save the Union, same as the Confederates did to maintain their agenda.
loan shark
RE: ""So are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion really a work of Anti-Semites? Are we sure?"
Yes Eva.
Do you now desire to question the Holocaust?"
There's lots of information available about the Protocols. Here's a taste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Maurice_Joly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly
was maurice joly a jew? joseph levy /Moses Joel
A BRIEF REPORT OF THE LIBEL ACTION AT BERNE — May 1935
link to iahushua.com
"New light on The Jewish Protocols:
link to radioislam.net
Re: "Do you now desire to question the Holocaust?"
Err, don't we at least need to try to get the facts straight? For example, Americans grow up hearing the figure
6 million joined with any mention of The Holocaust"
Actually that figure amazingly was also used during WW1.
Is this reference next below anti-semitic data?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Death_toll
Everything about the founding fathers, the revolutionary war, the Civil War, Slavery, the Indian wars, the Mexican war, for examples, has been questioned, and more facts constantly brought to life, here in the USA. Why not The Holocaust, which did not even happen on US soil though there is a temple built to
it on prime land in DC and all our congress people repeat it incessantly to justify our expensive foreign policy.
Lamp shades made of human skin? Gas extermination chambers. The Nuremberg testimony of self-proclaimed hoards of eye-witnesses not subject to the elementary rules of evidence, or forensic evidence?
What's not to question?
Did the Armenians get to proclaim their catastrophe a Holocaust? Is the Nakba a Holocaust? What is
a Holocaust–burnt offerings made to God for a piece of land belonging to innocent others?
Indeed.
I just added a comment about Jewish conspiracy on my blog.
What a wonderful, clear statement of the problem here in the USA, Joachim–kudos to your wife! I will email it to all I know with the slightest interest.