In the tradition of blogging, I have a wildly improbable conspiracy theory to tell. One that predicts the next ALP Prime Minister of Australia.

Also, there are claims of the discovery of the ‘love child’ of Abraham Lincoln and Rupert Murdoch. True.

But first, a Pop Quiz:

1. What would be the political colour of the offspring of these two ‘Great Americans’?
With a reputation as a fighter for human rights, a supporter of the abolition of slavery, the architect of the emancipation of slaves, and much of the credit for the formation of a union of separate states into one unified country, Abe Lincoln certainly has what most of us would think of as a humanitarian streak. This is a moot point however as Lincoln famously said: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union … I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free”.
Whilst the debate on intent may rage, history says plenty.

During the breakdown of the Union (soon after Republican candidate Lincoln won the 1860 election, seven southern states seceded from the Union to form the ‘Confederacy’ – they were later joined by several other states and territories) Lincoln exercised his executive powers to arrest and detain thousands of suspected secessionists – without trial. As a matter of national security – regardless of the ‘rule of law’.

Rupert Murdoch is also regarded as a determined and revolutionary thinker. Arguably, with fewer accolades from the oppressed as has Lincoln – he is a man who precipitates change and evolution. Recent revelations of some practices undertaken by employees of News Limited (no pun intended) leave us in no doubt as to the level of respect for the ‘rule of law’ this organisation has – when applied to the general population. Blameless bosses do not exist. The ‘culture’ of a company comes from the top.

So the love child of Abe and Rup would almost certainly be a political animal. Someone who is willing to tow the party line and play hard ball when required. Someone who has an agenda which is above and beyond the ‘rule of law’.


2. What political affiliations would this love child have?

Conservative – no doubt about it. Abraham Lincoln was elected as the Republican Party candidate for the presidency of the Union. And there is no prize for guessing which political party Rupert Murdoch has connections – yes, that’s right, whichever one wins (which also happens to be a matter in which Mr Murdoch has considerable influence).

Can you imagine the natural essence of Mr Murdoch being Rich, kosher and Republican? Rupert’s appetite for various political experiments in global politics seemingly proceeds unabated. Clearly,“influence” through favourable media coverage is a very powerful tool. Mr Murdoch is reportedly a stoic supporter of Israel and the domestic policies contained therein.

For the record, according to Wikipedia:
Republican: An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the ‘rule of law’.

Note the use of the word “generally”.

The love child would have to be a conservative. Someone who appears to to the general public as a supporter of ‘democracy’ and ‘rule of law’. Almost certainly the love child would be an individual who is interested in engaging in the spheres of influence and politics. Perhaps adherence to the term ‘democracy’ and the concept of ‘rule of law’ may be a little flawed, but there can be little doubt that our candidate be attracted to executive powers.

The love child would also be a big supporter of the USA administrations policies, and a committed supporter of US foreign policy.


3. Who would be the enemies of our love child?
Abraham Lincoln is credited with the quote: “The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend”. Despite this attribution, Lincoln was almost as despised as he was admired. Lincoln fought hard for his causes – often at odds with the wishes of his constituents and fellow elected representatives, regularly operating outside the ‘rule of law’ (unavoidable when you engage in Civil War – just ask Richard III, Pol Pot and Bashar al-Assad – to name but a few). History has judged Abraham Lincoln rather favourably all things considered … then again, to the winner goes the privilege of writing and re-writing history. I wish to be named amongst those who support of the Emancipation Proclamation – even the politicised, subversive, manipulative original version (which conveniently ignored the 500,000 slaves in Union States, and only applied to slaves in the Confederacy … a jurisdiction over which technically, the Union ironically had no power). Despite this, kudos to Lincoln.

The enemies of Rupert Murdoch are another story altogether. Phew! – where to start?

There are the rival media barons / corporations / interests which are enemies of Murdoch for reasons ranging from revenue, political influence, jealousy, corporate rivalry, share of purse, political leanings … this list could easily become very long and very boring. You no doubt get the point.

Other enemies include individuals who have thwarted – or attempted to stymie – the acquisitions and permissions granted to News Limited (including, but not limited to Vince Cable, Robert Emmel, Ted Turner, Dennis Potter, Richard Branson … you can do a Google search if you have plenty of spare time). Some of these enemies perhaps belong in the previous paragraph list … definitions become a murky when you delve too deep in these muddied waters.

Enemies of Rupert Murdoch include Enemies of the State (“the State” being the United States of America). In this group you have individuals such as Julian Assange (an enemy for several reasons – from a business perspective Assange is a publisher and journalist; plus he allegedly has documents pertaining to Murdoch and News Ltd business matters that ‘may be of interest’; plus Assange is a revolutionary calling for greater levels of transparency and accountability – arguably, potentially contrary to the continuation of the sphere of influence of the mainstream media) … then there is a supporting cast – including, but not limited to, Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn, Jérémie Zimmermann, Bradley Manning, Rafael Correa, Bob Brown, Mark Stephens, Jennifer Robinson, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Micheal Moore, I could go on here but I’m sure you get the point … plus various organisations and individuals who desire to bring worldwide attention (of sorts) to what they see as corruption and complicity amongst a global elite. (We’ll leave this debate for another time).

Basically, when it comes to enemies, Rupert has his share.
Our love child would no doubt understand the importance of having friends in the mainstream media and the US administration (being a political animal – see Q2, above). With such a pure pedigree, our love child knows that you don’t rock the political boat. Know your lines, answer probing questions with confusing and deliberately misleading statements, deny knowledge, support the mainstream media (or they will no longer support you), stay in step with the Pentagon (regardless of who you purport to represent), and above all, seek to maintain the status-quo as much as is possible.

If you have not yet guessed the identity of the love child Abraham Lincoln and Rupert Murdoch union, below is a visual clue.







Surely there are incongruities that must be acknowledged … doubts that may be cast … inconsistencies that bring the “love-child” theory into question …

Lincoln was born dirt-poor in rural Kentucky, USA.
Murdoch began life in an ‘established family’ in Melbourne, Australia.
So perhaps it fits that Carr was born into white middle-class Australia, in suburban Sydney … roughly half-way point between his two fathers.

Lincoln didn’t give a damn about Julian Assange.
Murdoch wants to hang him.
Carr denies any knowledge of Murdoch wanting to hang Assange … again, arguably somewhat a mid-point (although it seems that in relation to all things “Julan Assnage”, Carr has received significantly more instruction from father Murdoch than he has from father Lincoln). And the midway point is again evident … Carr represents Assange as he would any other Australian experiencing difficulties with foreign powers (after all, it’s part of the portfolio) … all indications however, suggests that Mr Carr would hand Assange over to the USA without delay should such a phantasy ever be realised.

During his presidency, Lincoln sought to silence newspaper editors that spoke in opposition to his policies. At one point, he went so far as to jail uncooperative editors – without due legal process – just because they were critical of him.
Murdoch, in a weird year 2013 parallel universe with a contemporary twist – ends political careers if they don’t subscribe his philosophical leanings.
Carr, like the good love-child that he is, follows Rupert’s orders to the letter – in the spirit of Lincoln. Another wonderful blend.
Now to the reason I mention the “love child” theory, is that the answer to that question is also the answer to the question Who will be the next Labor Party Prime Minister of Australia?

It’s not my theory, but here it is …

I was treated to an excellent home cooked curry dinner by a friend recently, and the theme of his discourse for the evening was the installation of Bob Carr as the next Prime Minister of Australia (again, this is not my theory – it’s an idea I was asked to entertain).

I suspect that the foundation of the “Bob Carr for PM” theory comes from either a far right wing blog, or the Herald Sun newspaper (the online version of which could be justifiably described as a far right wing blog – but I digress!).

The reasoning goes like this:
Gillard has fallen behind Abbott in the opinion polls.
Being less popular than Abbott is a serious indictment on any character.
Gillard must be replaced if the ALP is to provide the appearance of a reasonable contest at the next Federal Election.
The position of leadership of the ALP (also Prime Minister of Australia) at this time is seen as the “poison chalice” … which is why the expected suitors for the role are silent (Bill Shorten, Greg Combet and Stephen Smith) … the notable exception being Kevin Rudd … who not only has no concept of silence – at this point in time, he does not have the numbers.

Why change leaders before the next election?
To protect Gillard’s legacy (presumably this refers to the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme, or Gillard being the first Australian female PM, or as being the person who saved a nation by removing Kevin Rudd from the top job).
To protect the reputation of the ALP (the late change of leader being the principal reason for such a poor showing at the 2013 poll).
Gillard might not want to take responsibility for the ALP being reduced to pulp at the 2013 poll.

So why serve up Bob Carr as the sacrificial lamb?
He has nothing to lose. In fact, Bob Carr has never been elected to the Federal Parliament of Australia … he slithered in through a crack in the back-door as a “nomination” to fill a “casual vacancy” caused by the resignation of Mark Arbib. Another “Bold Personality” posing in “Fine Cotton” … I wonder if Mr Carr has a penchant for white socks!
Mr Carr will benefit. He will go down in history as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia. He will be entitled to a Prime Ministerial retirement package including a significant pension … airline gold pass … office … four staff … car … driver … and whatever else goes with the deal.

Which is a pretty good deal (for Mr Carr) when you consider that Mr Carr was never elected to his current position. And if my host is correct, Mr Carr will be the first PM that was not actually voted into Federal Parliament (ever – at all) in the history of Australia. And if the polls and mainstream media are right, it might be a good deal for Ms Gillard too.

The ALP can then claim to be the party of Australia’s first female PM, and the party of the first person to not be voted into Federal Parliament and yet, still became PM.
Hang on, is that constitutional? In a ‘democracy’? How can it be?

Anyway, a couple of weeks have elapsed since this curry dinner conversation. The time frame for this particular prediction coming true is narrowing by the minute.

Stranger things have happened … like the evocation of a love child … with two fathers … and a 120 year discrepancy … If my host is correct about Bob Car for PM, I’ll take notes at the next curry dinner and report to you his next predictions.