Remember the first Pope John Paul?

[Minstrel Boy]

I posted this a couple of months ago here, from my blog, and thought this would be a good time to repost it.

"My God - they killed him!"

The streets are filled with vipers who've lost all ray of hope
You know it ain't even safe no more in the palace of the Pope
- Bob Dylan



Is everything a conspiracy? No. Just the important stuff.

Since there's a lot of speculation these days about who will succeed Pope John Paul II, it seems a good time to recall the circumstances of the last papal succession. Because Luciani Albini, Pope John Paul I, was almost certainly murdered, by an international network of fascists and money launderers, with ties to far-right elements within military and intelligence agencies. (And isn't it just amazing, how often we find that convergence?)

He only served 33 days; what could he have done in that short time to deserve death? What kind of Pope was he becoming?

To the second question, there's the suggestion of an answer in this passage from David Yallop's In God's Name:

On August 28, the beginning of his papal revolution was announced. It took the form of a Vatican statement that there was to be no coronation, that the new pope refused to be crowned. There would be no sedia gestatoria, the chair used to carry the pope, no tiara encrusted with emeralds, rubies, saphires, and diamonds. No ostrich feathers, no six-hour ceremony.... Luciani, who never once used the royal "we," was determined that the royal papacy with its appurtenances of worldly grandeur should be replaced by a Church that resembled the concepts of its founder. The "coronation" became a simple Mass. The spectacle of a pontiff carried in a chair...was supplanted by the sight of a supreme pastor quietly walking up the steps of the altar. With that gesture Luciani abolished a thousand years of history.... The era of the poor Church had officially begun.

That right there would have been enough to make the Vatican's power elite nervous, but surely not enough to seek the Pope's death. Not even his expressed interest in reconsidering the Church's position on birth control would have been enough for that. What was enough, was his intent to overturn the tables of the corrupt Vatican Bank, and purge the Vatican of the P2 Lodge.

This is one of those things that make being a "conspiracy theorist" seem entirely superfluous. Just try imagining P2: an elite, ultra-secretive, neo-fascist, Masonic cabal, involved in money laundering, assassination and false-flag terrorism. (The "Strategy of Tension," to discredit Italy's Communist Party. For instance, the engineering of Aldo Moro's kidnapping and murder, and the Bologna train bombing.) P2 counted among its members the future Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, and reputedly boasted honourary members like Henry Kissinger, George HW Bush and arch-neocon, Michael Ledeen.

I mentioned P2 last August, with regard to Ledeen's long history with the Italian far right and the linchpin of Italian military intelligence to the Niger "Yellow Cake" forgery. (For more on the significance of P2 to US intelligence and the "Octopus," refer to David Guyatt's excellent articles "Operation Gladio", "Holy Smoke and Mirrors" and "The Money Fountain.")

Licio Gelli was P2's Grandmaster, and can't even be called a neo-fascist. He was Old School: a member of the Italian Black Shirt Brigade which fought for Franco in the Spanish Civil War. During World War II, he spied on partisans in his native Italy for the Nazis, and obtained the SS rank of Oberleutenant. This same Gelli was a honoured guest of George HW Bush after the 1980 inauguration, and there is evidence that Gelli and P2 played a role in the October Surprise; even that Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was murdered on Gelli's orders because he'd refused to provide Swedish cover for the covert transfer of money and arms. In her October Surprise, Barbara Honegger writes that a P2 informant claimed to her that before Palme's death, Gelli sent a message to former Republican National Committee advisor (and also alleged "honourary" P2 member) Philip Guarino, assuring him that "the Swedish tree will be felled," and to "tell our good friend Bush."

Your head exploding yet? There's more. GHW Bush's reputed code name for October Surprise was "The White Rose," which was also the name of a far-right Cuban exile group with which the CIA's Bush was reportedly engaged during the ramp-up to the Bay of Pigs. Honneger reports that when Italian police uncovered the P2 control cell responsible for terrorism in Italy, they learned that its code name was "The Rose of Twenty." Gelli seems to have had a weakness for the flower.

And this may mean nothing, or I know what you did: In 1988, on the 25th anniversary of John F Kennedy's murder, Ted Kennedy marked the occasion in Runnymede England by placing, at the foot of his brother's memorial, a single white rose.

Gelli's network financed itself in part by purchasing and plundering banks, thanks to the likes of P2 brothers Michele Sindona and "God's Banker," Roberto Calvi. Mafioso Sindona, in 1968, had become a financial advisor to Pope Paul VI; Calvi was running Banco Ambrosiano; and another P2 member, American Bishop Paul "You can't run the Church on Hail Marys" Marcinkus, who bore the nickname "the Gorilla," was heading the Vatican Bank. For a while, it was a sweet operation.

Clockwise, from top right: Calvi, Marcinkus, Sindona and Gelli


As cardinal of Venice, Albini had butted heads with the bankers. As Pope, he could finally do something more. Most revelatory, he became privy to the secret list of Freemasons in the Vatican. For the first time, he learned of P2's penetration of the Church.

Yallop again:

If the information was authentic, then it meant Luciani was virtually surrouded by Masons.... The secretary of state, Cardinal Villot, Masonic name Jeanni, lodge number 041/3, enrolled in a Zurich lodge on August 6, 1966. The foreign minister, Monsignor Agnostino Casaroli. The cardinal vicar of Rome, Ugo Poletti. Cardinal Baggio. Bishop Paul Marcinkus and Monsignor Donato de Bonis of the Vatican Bank. The disconcerted pope read a list that seemed like a Who's Who of Vatican City.

Here's a good summation of what happened next:

With his bright intelligence and naive fearlessness, John Paul I penetrated to the heart of this maze of corruption within weeks of his coronation. On the evening of September 28, 1978, he called Cardinal Villot, the leader of the powerful Curia, to his private study to discuss certain changes that the Pope proposed to make public the next day.... Among those whose "resignations" would be accepted by the Pontiff the following day were the head of the Vatican Bank, and several members of the Curia who were implicated in the activities of Sindona and P2, and Villot himself. Moreover, Villot was told that John Paul I would also announce plans for a meeting on October 24 with an American delegation to discuss a reconsideration of the Church's position on birth control.

When Pope John Paul I retired to his bedroom on the evening of September 28, clutching the paperwork that would expose the Vatican's financial dealings with the Mafia and purge the Curia of those responsible, a number of very ruthless individuals had a great interest in seeing to it that he would never awaken to issue these directives.

When the Pope's housekeeper knocked at his door at 4:30 a.m., she heard no response. Leaving a cup of coffee, she returned fifteen minutes later to find the Pope still not stirring. She entered the bed chamber and gasped when she saw the Pope propped up in bed, still holding papers from the night before, his face contorted in a grimace. On the night table beside him lay an opened bottle of Effortil, a medication for his low blood pressure. The housekeeper immediately notified Cardinal Villot, whose first response to the news was to summon the papal morticians even before verifying the death himself or calling the Vatican physician to examine the body. Villot arrived in the Pope's room at 5:00 a.m. and gathered the crucial papers, the Effortil bottle, and several personal items which were soiled with vomit. None of these articles were ever seen again.

Although the Vatican claimed that its house physician had determined myocardial infarction as the cause of death, to this day no death certificate for Pope John Paul I has been made public. Although Italian law requires a waiting period of at least 24 hours before a body may be embalmed, Cardinal Villot had the body of Albino Luciani prepared for within 12 hours of his death. Although the Vatican refused to allow an autopsy on the basis of an alleged prohibition against it in canon law, the Italian press verified that an autopsy had in fact been performed on one of the Pope's predecessors, Pius VIII. Although the conventional procedure for embalming a body requires that the blood first be drained and certain internal organs removed, neither blood nor tissue was removed from the corpse; hence, none was available to assay for the presence of poison.

There's an old Kris Kristofferson song, entitled "They Killed Him." I learned it from a Dylan cover, on almost certainly his weakest album, Knocked Out Loaded. To be honest, it's pretty lousy. (If you haven't heard it, all you need to know is it has a children's chorus.) And yet, it chills me.

A verse:

Another man from Atlanta, Georgia
By name of Martin Luther King
He shook the land like the rolling thunder
And made the bells of freedom ring today
With a dream of beauty that they could not burn away
Just another holy man who dared to make a stand:
My God, they killed him!

My point here hasn't been to rehash the case for assassination. My point, I suppose, is simply my exasperation: that My God - they killed him, too!

This material can lead to despair. If they can whack the Pope, and get away with it, what hope do we have? I don't find it consoling to know of what they're capable; that they are, as Dylan sang in another song, "bound and determined to destroy all the gentle." That's not about justice. That's about being forewarned, and forearmed. And these days, that's almost as important as justice.

But it is a consolation of sorts to remember that these people are flesh, just as we are. Gelli is still alive, but since his extradition from France in 1998, he has been serving a 12-year sentence for his role in the Banco Ambrosiano affair. Marcinkus received Vatican immunity from Pope John Paul II, when it became apparent Italian authorities intended to prosecute him for his criminal stewardship of the Vatican Bank, and eventually left Rome for Sun City, Arizona. (A fascinating glimpse of Marcinkus today, here.) Sindona died in prison drinking poison coffee, possibly the same administered to the Pope. Calvi, after his string played out, met a peculiarly Masonic fate, hanging from a rope beneath London's Blackfriar's Bridge, his hands tied behind his back and 12 pounds of bricks stuffed in his pockets. (Naturally, originally deemed a "suicide.")

The suicided Calvi

[Rick Myers]

1. That's a great summary!!!

Thanks... I'd forgotten alot of that stuff!!! Very interesting!

:thmubsup:

[acmavm]

2. You know why there have been conspiracy theories throughout history?

BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN CONSPIRACIES since the first two former knuckle draggers stood upright and communicated with each other just well enough to formulate a plan to get rid of former knuckle dragger number three. You know, the big one with all the bananas.

Do I believe this particular story? Put it this way, it could happen (thank you Judy Tanuta). And very probably did.

[Beam Me Up]

10. "History" IS a kind of conspiracy.

A temporal map which we habitually confuse for the real territory of eternity.

[havocmom]

3. Thank you for the info. Yes, I remember him

and, although not Catholic, I weep for what was lost when he was killed. How different the whole world might be today, had he been given the time to act on his intentions. Indeed, the assassins knew, and greatly feared, their days were numbered with such a Pope in Peter's Church

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Wasn't there a reference to this in "The Godfather"?

[lolly]

5. Godfather III

Yes. Michael was finally going to really come clean, and was working with JPI, when JPI was killed, I believe.

Now I want to go watch it again . . .

Sometimes I think that trilogy should have won for best documentary . . .

[Al-CIAda]

6. Which played last night on HBO ...yes it did...they know. -eom

[Ruffhowse]

7. Thanks for the article. Amazing the amount of corruption at high

levels with ties to the Vatican, US Government, and the Mafia. I guess when you play with the big boys, life is cheap.

[arikara]

8. Thanks so much for this!

I was just thinking about him tonight, I do remember when it happened but I was much younger and not as interested in world affairs. I was just going to sit down and do some research on it so you helped.

[Piperay]

9. Very interesting

thanks!

[IronLionZion]

11. Hmm...Sounds like Godfather III

All I know is that the USA backed John Paul II, and the Soviets tried to kill him but failed.

[imenja]

12. never let reason stand in the way of paranoia

the man got sick. What can anyone do in 33 days? You don't think they know who they are getting when they choose a pope?

[Minstrel Boy]

15. "the man got sick" - and you say this, why?

Here's what his personal secretary tells David Yallop in In God's Name:

"Albino Luciani did not have a bad heart. Someone with a bad heart does not, as the patriarch did every year with me from 1972 to 1977, climb mountains.... There was never a sign of cardiac insufficiency. On the contrary, at my insistence in 1974 an electrocardiogram was carried out, which recorded nothing irregular. Immediately before leaving for the conclave in August 1978 and after his visit to the Stella Maris Insistute he had a full medical checkup. The results were favorable in all respects."

The Pope's longtime personal physician conducted three full medical examinations of him during his 33-day papacy. The last just a week before his death. He found him in such good health, that instead of seeing him in two weeks time, as usual, he would see him in three weeks. When he was asked, on hearing of the Pope's death, about his health, he said "Non sta bene ma benone" - " He is not well, but very well."

BTW, the Vatican refused to perform an autopsy.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. A bad heart?

Hell, Douglas Adams died of a heart attack before his 50th birthday, and he was a health nut. Get off it now, eh?

[Minstrel Boy]

20. Cause of death is still officially unknown.

The Vatican refused to perform an autopsy, lying that it was against precedent. (Popes have been autopsied.)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. Ya.

And Lee Harvey Oswald is Jeff Gannon.

[WillowTree]

21. If he was so darned healthy...

....why would he have had three "full medical examinations" within a 33 day period and another presumably within days before that?

[imenja]

23. History, pleaseee

Check the papers to see if John Paul II is undergoing an autopsy. My guess is that he is not. And should your grandparents pass peacefully, they likely will not have autopsy's either.

Then do something for your fellow citizens who suffers the ignominy of a government run by madmen: Get off the internet long enough to go to a local university library and read some history books. Any book, just make sure they are peer reviewed books published by university presses, that have full lists of sources and endnotes/footnotes. Just because someone puts someone online or in a book published by a vanity press, doesn't make it so.

I realize you think actually trying to learn history is far less interesting that conspiracies like these, but you'll find that isn't the case. For one thing, you can read fascinating books about the
history of sexuality, culture, ritual, mapping, the environment, etc... There is all kinds of great stuff to learn. And if you look at the author's sources and footnotes, you'll learn something about how one validates narrative authority, how to tell if an author's claims have evidentiary merit.

You no doubt think some great conspiracy took out JFK, since he was such a racial who posed a tremendous thread to corporate America by slashing their tax rates and being a blazing Cold Warrior. You may even think NASA never landed on the Moon. And doing so, you share a tradition followed by those Republicans who believe Republicans believe W found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When people believe simply what they want or because they found it written on the internet somewhere, no wonder the inmates are running the asylum.

[LibraLiz1973]

24. Is it that you believe there has never been a conspiracy? Or just this 1?

Conspiracies DO happen. So does murder.

[imenja]

37. all kinds of "conspiracies" have happened:

The US backed coup against Salvador Allende in Chile; The CIA ouster or Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala; assassination plots against Castro; the assassination of Che Guevara; US financial or torture and dictatorship around the globe. The list is endless. I evaluate such claims based on evidence. If evidence exists that clearly establishes such a "conspiracy" or even occurred, I have no trouble accepting it. What I will not do is believe something just because it fulfills some sort of political desire on my part, just because I want to do so.

If we believe something just because we find it expedient, without a rigorous examination of evidence, how are we different from those who insist Saddam was behind 9/11 or the the United States is part of some huge international government conspiracy to dominate our lives?
Will we then believe whatever the next president tells us simply because he is a Democrat? If so, we have a very dangerous future awaiting us.

[Eloriel]

25. Oh, imenja,

You're embarrassing yourself. Really. It is YOU who need to do some further research. This comment nails it:

You no doubt think some great conspiracy took out JFK,

I venture to say virtually NONE of the more well-informed, long time DUers believe the assassination of JFK was anything BUT a conspiracy -- we could quibble about whether or not it was 'great,' I suppose.

And you really ought to take this info about John Paul I more seriously as well, along with Operation Gladio and its U.S. counterpart, Operation Paperclip and Operation Mockingbird. And hey, don't stop there -- go on to MKUltra and so forth.

As for your peer-reviewed admonishment, please. That can be very useful, and it IS considered the "scholarly" approach (as if there is no chance non-peer reviewed material could be both footnoted/resourced AND credible), but there's another huge benefit to the practice, and that is guarding the conventional wisdom, the Official Stories and Mythologies, such as The Warren Commission Report, for example, at all costs. If "peer reviewed" is the sine qua non of knowledge for you, you've got some hard lessons ahead of you -- or at least I hope you'll get those lessons.

[Dutch]

28. Yeah right, Imenja is the one embarrasing him/herself...

I mean, some cazy people will insist on spouting accepted wisdom, instead of good, solid, unproven paranoid speculation....

[imenja]

36. let's see, accepted wisdom like

the JFK assasination must be a conspiracy because everyone on DU thinks it's so?

[imenja]

33. What Duers believe does not make it so

and while I do have not read into the JFK assassination at any length and pretend no special knowledge in the subject, I know professional historians do not accept the view that it is a conspiracy. I do not dismiss the idea entirely, but I need to see evidence to find the argument persuasive. One stumbling block for me is that I can imagine no conceivable reason why the CIA or another government organization would want to take out a conservative president who so assiduously worked to protect corporate interests and fight a cold war. For some reason, people believe JFK would have been a hero, untouched by the economic and political interests that guide all politicians. And the fact is LBJ was far more liberal than JFK ever was. He fought for Civil Rights and the Great Society. JFK did ensured the economic interests of the wealthiest Americans. So why kill Kennedy and not Johnson?

If there is indeed documentary evidence to suggest a plot behind JFK's murder, I have no problem scrutinizing it and accepting it if I find it convincing. But I will not believe something just because a group of so-called informed DUers believe it to be so. I do not evaluate evidence based on popular opinion. And if you think there is something remotely persuasive in arguing that popularity equals truth, you are mistaken. A majority of Americans believed Saddam caused 9/11. That did not make it so. On free Republic you could doubtless find a majority of people who believe the UN is some great world conspiracy to take over all of us. Does that make it so? Any assertion requires evidence. If some documentary evidence is revealed that suggests JFK was killed by some massive government conspiracy, then I evaluate it based on it's merits.

What the JFK conspiracy theory reveals to me is the poverty of leadership in the Democratic party. Are we so starved for ideas and heroes that we must resurrect them from the ashes?

If you think professional historians making 38-45 K a year are part of some big corporate or government conspiracy, you've obviously read very few history monographs in your life.

I find it interesting that no one has any defense for the content of the OPs statements on some nefarious conspiracy to take out a pope, an argument that you all reveled in, and instead focus on a passing reference I made to JFK.

[Minstrel Boy]

26. A peer reviewed book published by a university press

I highly recommend: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, by Dr Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press. One of the most important books you've surely never read. Kirkus Reviews called it, "A staggeringly well-researched and intelligent overview not only of the JFK assassination but also of the rise of forces undermining American democracy - of which the assassination, Scott says, is symptomatic."

Your raising the ridiculous strawman of a moon landing conspiracy, and implying I'm a gullible paranoiac who believes everything he reads on the internet, only gives me reason to not take you seriously, when I might have otherwise.

I suggest you inform yourself, or at least credit those at whom your knee jerks that we've informed ourselves.

[imenja]

35. thank you for the citation

Question: what is the author's view about why JFK represented such a threat?

[bin.dare]

27. Apples and Oranges ...

"you can read fascinating books about the history of sexuality, culture, ritual, mapping, the environment, etc... There is all kinds of great stuff to learn. "

Yea? and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I am sure MB has read about sexuality, culure, ritual, mapping, the environment. i am sure he has even read about etc.., the question would be: what have YOU read about the death of JPI since that is the point of this post?

[imenja]

40. evidently people find history dull

So they feel a need to recount stories based on little or no evidence. My point was that history is not dull. There are no end of fascinating books to read. One need not imagine plots about dead popes to be entertained. Also, and this is perhaps a misplaced hope, that if people read history they will start to learn something about how narrative authority is established and what does and doesn't
constitute evidence. I find myself increasingly concerned that so many people believe that which they find politically convenient rather than scrutinizing evidence. That is why I raised the parallel of Bush and WMD. If people believe what they want independent of a rigorous review of evidence, they can believe anything. They believe Saddam was behind 9/11. They believe the swift boat stories about John Kerry. Critically evaluating all evidence, whether one likes the point of view of the speaker or not, is indispensable to representative government. What if the next president who lies to take us into war is a Democrat? Will we accept his word simply because we think he is on our side, simply because he tells us what we want to hear?

[Frederik]

30. Imenja...

I understand that you're impressed by "peer reviewed books published by university presses", with lots of endnotes. I can understand that, I used to be too - until I had read enough of them to understand that what those books have been through is not so much a process of quality assurance (though there is that too, of course, at least sometimes) as a process of - for lack of a better word - censorship. That censorship can take on many forms, but it is most prominently exercised (even if not, necessarily, consciously and deliberately exercised) through what the political scientist Johan P. Olsen has called a "logic of appropriatness". That's to say, in academic institutions as in any other types of institutions there will be certain norms governing what is considered appropriate and not - in an academic field, or at an institute, or with a publisher, concerning what is considered an appropriate type of explanation of a phenomenon, what lines of enquiry are appropriate to pursue, what sort of conclusions can appropriately be reached and so forth.

Norms are absolutely necessary in academic work. Without them any kind of academic or scientific research would be impossible, or rather, impossible to recognize or discern from a non-academic or non-scientific assertion or claim. But the norms of Academia do not just assure that the researcher applies stringency and rigour to his work, they also have a way of leading him away from cerain lines of inquiry, certain types of explanations or conclusions in the direction of which logic, reason and empirical evidence might otherwise have led him. And in those cases, the norms, or prejudices, or unwritten rules of an academic field, an institute or a society may contribute to lead a researcher away from the truth rather than towards it.

I'm currently reading a book by Mark Curtis, called "The Great Deception - Anglo-American Power and the World Order" (it has 40 pages of footnotes, so it must be a serious book, right?). His thesis is basically that the foreign policy elites of the US and the UK have been conspiring to rule the world for the last 50 years, that they have been largely successful at it, and this to the detriment of more or less everybody else. Now, granted, this is rather simplistic as a description of our infinitely rich reality. But it explains the post-WWII and present world better than most textbook introductions to international relations or modern world history I've read. It is also an example of a type of narrative that is frowned upon in the academic world.

Yes, you can read fascinating books about the history of sexuality and so on, (for instance Foucault's "Histoire de la sexualité", if you're into that post-modernist approach, which is not really "history" of course), but you must be aware of what you will not learn by reading those books. And what you will remain oblivious to is the often conspiratorial and sometimes criminal nature of big politics, big business, big media and big religion.

Let me tell you about some of the things I "hold to be self-evident", to paraphrase the founding fathers. I do believe that it is a common occurrance, to a larger extent than most people are aware of, that powerful people make plans together with other powerful people, plans to which the general public is not necessarily privy. I believe plans are sometimes - or often - made by powerful people who have formed relations out of a concern for common interests, which usually amount to money and power. I believe relations between powerful people often transgress formal boundries such as they exist in constitutional democracies: boundaries that are supposed to exist between legislatives, judiciaries and executives, between business and politics, between politics and religion, between politics, business and the media, and between all of the above and the world of organized crime, and that these relations to a large extent can be hidden from the public eye and even, in the course of time, be institutionalized. I do not think it is unrealistic to assume that plans made by powerful people, who gather in rooms that may or may not be smokefilled (the "smokefilled room" is of course the favourite of the "debunker"), and who are not supposed to be making plans together, can affect the "course of history". I believe that powerful people who make plans together sometimes have the power (because they are powerful, duh) to steer the public perception (even among the most educated) of what happened as a result of their plan in the direction of their choosing.

All of the above, to my mind, is nothing but common sense. But, curiously, what I have just listed are perceptions about the nature of social reality that, in North America, the British Isles and partly Western Europe, qualifies anyone who holds them as a "conpspiracy theorist" in the eyes of the educated and polite. Why? It is always interesting to discuss these things with people from other parts of the world. In Russia and Eastern Europe, for instance, they can't believe our naivety, and especially that of the most educated and supposedly most intelligent among us. They watch CNN and their default reaction is to not believe what they're told. I used to think that was ridiculous, but now I don't. I'd like to think that I've wisened, but maybe I just became a conspiracy theorist. I'm starting to think that 70 years of living under communism, with Pravda and Tass, has given our Eastern European friends a healthy scepticism towards "official reality" that we have perhaps lost in the West.

Anyway, in the field of history, the best historians are often conspiracy theorists. They uncover relations and plans that were not known at the time or in their immediate posterity. But this requires both investgative work, intuition, and, not least, fantasy. You'd be hard pressed to uncover a conspiracy you're not able to imagine. It sometimes takes a hundred years before some conspiracies are uncovered - many more probably remain unknown.

You wrote, "just because someone puts something online or in a book published by a vanity press, doesn't make it so". You are quite right in pointing that out, of course, but as I don't think anyone here believes that, it's a rather banal pronouncement. If you'll allow me to paraphrase you, though, I'll point out something much more important for you: just because someone puts something in a peer reviewed book published by a university press, and ostensibly supports his assertion with a plethora of foot- and endnotes, it does not make it so. You'd be well advised, I think, to remember that, because your comments about Kennedy and your condescending tone reveals that there are many things you have yet to learn about the world that surrounds you.

[imenja]

34. some of your points are accurate / rigor and evidence in Academia

Professions and publishers do steer academics in a certain direction, most particularly toward that which is new rather than a continual rehashing of work done in the past. And I'm sure you're right that political and diplomatic history are less esteemed than approaches academics consider more innovative. Still, that is the sort of history that most Americans read, so it does find publishers and certainly greater books sales. There also are online journals and digital book projects that do rely on peer evaluation. If someone is unwilling to submit a work for review, that is not simply a question of his work not being fashionable. It, to me, suggests the author knows the work does not meet acceptable evidentiary standards within the profession.

Foucault is a theorist rather than a historian, but he has given inspiration to many important works of history. Of course, those accustomed to a view of knowledge dominated by positivism and white patriarchy are not comfortable accepting it as history, but that is simply result of their own inexposure or hostility toward new ideas. And it seems to be ingenuous to contest the value of evidentiary standards while simultaneously denouncing post-structuralist works as "not really history." One of their greatest contributions has been to highlight the cultural biases embedded in language. One thing you do learn by reading such books is how to think. To ask and answer new questions. To stretch one's mind analytically beyond simply what did and did not happen. Yet even in their innovation, post-structuralist rely on evidentiary support for their arguments. To analyze culture, sexuality, and language, they must demonstrate to the reader the nature of those constructions.

The rigor of any academic work depends on both the academic and the press. That is why a peer review process is important, and it is also important that the press chooses specialists who know well the particular field in question. Vanity presses produce works like that by the Swift boat absurdities. I am not impressed simply by the presence of footnotes. The importance of citations is that they allow the reader to examine the type of evidence the author uses. Footnotes exist to be scrutinized, not simply to impress those too lazy to evaluate them.

Any thing is possible. It is possible that a group of neo-fascists killed Pope John Paul I. It is possible that the CIA murdered JFK. It is possible that George Washington was a Martian. To take those possibilities beyond mere speculation requires evidence. And to suggest the absence of evidence is somehow exemplary, that to use evidence at all suggests some sort of pro-government bias, is nothing but intellectual laziness. Anyone can site sources. Anyone can go to the library of congress and request FOIA releases. That is not simply a privilege limited to us powerful historians who live fat off the hog on our 42,000 a year salaries. If one is truly interested in the accuracy of any particular position, an examination of evidence is crucial. On the other hand, if one wishes to believe simply what he or she finds convenient, that demonstrates an absence of intellectual honesty and rigor.


As for your last point about what people believe: My impression is that most people, including those on DU, believe that with which they agree, that which is convenient for them to believe. That is as common on the left as the right, and as a result we live in a world where the media bothers to substantiate or rebuff little. Americans believe FOX or Air America, depending on what they WISH to believe, not on whether it holds up to scrutiny. I consider this a great tragedy in American society and responsible for creating the kind of government we have today.

[Octafish]

13. To the world's powers, nothing is scarier than an awakened public...

Except an enlightened writer with a long memory.

Thanks for the great recap of Pope John Paul I's short papacy and the sinister circumstances of his passing.

Odd how the same crew that haunts North America haunts Europe -- the NAZIs, the monied elites and the twisted royals, those who make war for profit and power.



Great blog you got there, Minstrel Boy.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. That was fascinating, Minstrel Boy

and something I didn't know about. Not being Catholic I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention in 1978, but it did seem odd that John Paul I died so soon and suddenly after becoming pope. And it certainly sounds like he would have been a good one, too. What a shame that there is so much evil in the world.

[Wright Patman]

16. The second temptation (Luke 4:5-8)

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Satan’s second temptation centered on the appeal to seize worldly power. The prince of this world offered his kingdom to Jesus. Jesus again answered his tempter by quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy (6:13)

http://www.founders.org/ss/092604.htm

[n2mark]

17. In God's Name

is the title of a book I'm reading, an investigation into the murder of Pope John Paul I. Just started, so far very interesting.

[Matilda]

18. I read the book a long time ago, and have forgotten details,

but at the time I found it very chilling, and convincing. I do
believe that at the very least, Luciani was allowed to die, but I
wouldn't rule out murder.

I do remember that after his death, the word was given out,
presumably from the Vatican, that he was not really a strong man,
and the burden of the office was just too much for him. Now that's
bollocks, you just don't get that far in the Catholic Church by
being a weakling, or simple-minded.

I also felt very let down that JPII allowed Marcinkus to escape the
law - it was back to business as usual, and I could never warm to
him after that.

[ancient_nomad]

29. Thanks much, Minstrel Boy

Had read this awhile ago, but had forgotten all the details.
Look forward to your posts - they are always informative and
interesting. Like your blog alot, too!

:toast:

[bobthedrummer]

31. I remember, most of all, the fact that John Paul I promised reforms and

accountability-and then he was dead. Historically there is evidence of assassination of Popes as well as other Church officials.

Anyone recall the Medici's?

[Frederik]

32. Thanks for posting that again

The connections between the P2, the Vatican and the CIA are certainly interesting. Particularly in light of the "Yellow Cake" report and Michael Ledeen's past. I wasn't aware of the possible connection to Palme's murder, but his murder is widely suspected to be connected to the arms trade in some way.

You're right, though, the best conspiracy theorist couldn't make up the P2 if he tried. Italy is just something else.

[Matilda]

38. Do you know what is happening to the reopened investigation

into the death of Calvi?

I know it was put on hold for a while, but wonder whether that really
means the British police have had the word from higher up to drop
it?

[Larkspur]

39. Yes, I remember JP I. In a prayer service referred to God as both

Mother and Father. I had hope with JP I. I was still a practicing Catholic then, but JP II's male supremacy was too much to take for me, so I left the Church in 1990.