TL;DR: We survey the landscape of conspiracy that has built up over a century and a half regarding this notable historical event. The bonus features yet another Parker.

Advisory: Aside from the bonus, there are no new revelations here. I assume everyone reading this is aware that it was a hoax and that the Salem Witches were behind it, just as they were behind so many other historical events. It all seems so familiar to me now, but I can imagine that if this was the first time someone encountered these claims, they might strike as quite unbelievable. In fact, if you can’t believe those claims might possibly be true, bail out now because you’re just going to get madder as we go along and present evidence to that effect.

This post is actually about the importance of efficiency in research. Sounds boring, but ask yourself this: Which do you think will run out first, Their capacity to generate bullshit and nonsense, or your capacity to find your way through it while avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater? It is vital to decide what you can ignore or discard as fast as possible.

There is a jungle of deceptions and irrelevancies that has grown up over the centuries, and They are busy planting more trees. You need a chainsaw to have any hope to get through it all and—just maybe—get to the truth. If you’ve carefully trimmed a beautiful topiary with nail clippers and you’re proudly showing it off to everyone who will come look, well… you’re getting what you wanted.

I’ll make a serious point that many will find offensive: if you’re a truth-seeker, you have got to get over trying to be the smartest person in the room. You seldom will be, so just forget about it. You see, we’re about to take a look at a lot of smart people saying a lot of smart things about Honest Abe, and most of it can be thrown out. The key issue is context.

Lincoln—as prominent as he is in history and even currently—was on the fringes of the Salem Witches and was always under their influence. All his actions and all events involving him must be evaluated in that light. For normies, a Presidential assassination is a big deal and faking one is out of the question (that is, until recently because They are getting really desperate to smear a certain someone in any way available).

However, for those familiar with the Salem Witches, such historical manipulations are commonplace. See how context changes everything? Again, if you’re new to this, the “receipts” were brought in a prequel post:

Was Abraham Lincoln just some rando born in a log cabin? You won’t think so after hearing who he’s connected to, like the Salem Witches and even more Parkers (conspiracies.win 7/23/2025)

To coin a new term, this is a “meta-deep-dive” into the historiography (or so to speak) of the 1865 Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. First, should we say “alleged” assassination? The issue here is that for virtually anyone that knows about it, it is not alleged. You could not point to a single person literally alleging that it happened.

That is, no one prefaces any statement regarding it with, “I claim that President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and….” It just happened and everyone knows it. Yet it did not. As big as the English language is, we don’t really have an adjective or noun for this particular state of affairs, perhaps aside from “psychosis”.

The second item to notice concerns the base level of “common knowledge”. Lincoln was shot by a moody loner with a gun, obviously. All subsequent such events get anchored to that “knowledge”. Every time we are told a moody loner with a gun does what moody loners do, we all “know” what happened.

I was recently watching the classic “Ring of Power: Empire of the City” conspiracy documentary. You have to admit it goes pretty deep, does it not? However, they described the assassination as when “a gunman with European connections shot him down in cold blood”. A big miss, particularly considering the next item.

The third item to notice is that the mainstream actually admits that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy. You can read up on it right on that wiki page—it was quite elaborate. A number of people were (purportedly) hanged for it. But my point is that very, very few people realize this. I myself never knew there was a larger conspiracy until I read the paper by Miles Mathis a number of years ago. The world and my view of it have come a long way since then.

I saw it suggested several times that the recent assassination attempts involving Crookes and Routh should be presumed to be conspiracies and investigated on that basis. I think I heard the Lincoln conspiracy mentioned once in response. Of course, everyone was shouted down as “conspiracy theorists”.

Actually, that conspiracy too is being written out of history and I’ll tell you how. Do you remember the film Lincoln from 2012? Produced and directed by Steven Spielberg, if that indicates anything to you. In the 2016 Presidential debates, I recall Hillary cited the film as if it was actual history. No one I was watching with was similarly scandalized. I never actually saw the film, but do want to know how wiki summarizes the part of the plot where the assassination takes place?

On April 14, Lincoln meets members of his cabinet to discuss future measures to enfranchise blacks, before leaving for Ford's Theatre. That night, while Lincoln's son Tad is watching a play at Grover's Theatre, the manager stops the play to announce that the President has been shot. The next morning, at the Petersen House, Lincoln dies with a peaceful expression across his face….

A heart-rending narrative of American bullshit. There was no conspiracy because Spielberg and the screenwriters did not deign to give us one. The film isn’t historical—it is how history is written, understand?

Here we begin the exercise in efficiency. Knowing what you know now about Lincoln, if you had the opportunity to try to inform a fellow truth-seeker about what was “really going on” with the assassination, how much of the wiki page on it would be important to your case? Not very much at all, right? Yet it distills God knows much work of historians on the event. Virtually worthless.

The same applies to a lesser extent to what I might call “suppressed mainstream scholarship”. It’s drawn from all the same sources using all the same methods as conventional scholarship, but it somehow never gets discussed because it clashes with the mainstream narrative.

Contrary to that narrative, Lincoln was a tyrannical jerk. A site that has a lot of such research is run by Lew Rockwell, former Chief of Staff for Ron Paul, and you might like to begin with this search on his site. I particularly recommend the work of Thomas DiLorenzo. You may wish to look up his video presentations on YouTube about Lincoln and other subjects.

Even all that material must be reconsidered with the knowledge that Lincoln was a lifelong pawn embedded in a larger game. It’s very hard to say what Lincoln “did” or “thought”, because you wonder what forces were manipulating him behind the scenes. Crucially, you would only be able to discern those forces if you knew they existed, right?

So we have seen that the mainstream authorizes us to believe certain conspiracies, and that these authorizations may also be revoked. At the level of “conspiratorial” conspiracies (again, there are no terms for this), there are a range of theories more in keeping with the connotation of “not discussed in the mainstream to this day”. A good selection of them is here:

LINCOLN ASSASSINATION THEORIES: A SIMPLE CONSPIRACY OR A GRAND CONSPIRACY? (Roger J. Norton)

What to say about them? It’s not so much that they’re wrong, it’s that they’re not right. They may be made of all true and important facts, yet none ever get at the vital truths of the event. Well, okay, they tried their best, right? Similar to Norton is the legendary Dave McGowan. While his major works are mentioned quite frequently, I’ve never once heard anyone mention his magisterial 12-part series on:

WHY EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION IS WRONG (Center for an Informed America)

It’s about as good as you’ll get from any conspiracy researcher and he has a well-deserved reputation. Dave, though, never really “cracked the code”. I suppose it just never occurred to him it was all a hoax. As much research as he’d done—even on the Moon Landing hoax—was it still outside his Overton Window that the Lincoln assassination was also faked? I found one single comment on the final installment saying this:

All these comments and to some extent McGowan’s writings suggest that Lincoln died from injuries suffered on April 14, 1865. Did he?

No, Kent, he did not. Anyway, skim through Dave’s writeup and ask yourself—knowing what you know now—how much of it you would feel vital to pass along at the next conspiracy cocktail party. Again, I’m trying to make a point about efficiency in research.

But past efficiency there is a huge problem: off-target conspiracy theory opens a perfect vector for disinformation. We don’t see it much with Lincoln since the event is so old, but all the high-profile JFK assassination research is such disinformation. It’s all true and it’s all tantalizing and it will get you exactly nowhere and it has worked perfectly since 1963. That’s why the CIA wrote it.

Bonus: I stumbled into another one. As I mentioned, I never watched Lincoln and I was browsing through the very long cast list to see who was in it. Fifth from the bottom—so far down I suspect his name was never spoken in the movie itself—was “Asa-Luke Twocrow as Lieutenant Colonel Ely S. Parker”. You gotta be kiddin me. After a bit of research, I have three things to say about this guy.

First, yes, he’s definitely one of “those” Parkers. You’ll see he was all tied up with a guy named Lewis H. Morgan. If you’re thinking, “Haha, as in JP?”, yes. They actually admit that right on Lewis’ page.

Second, you’ll notice that he’s Native American, or at least he ain’t white. That recalls something Mark Passio mentioned about the Satanists he had been involved with. He said they were of all races, all ethnicities, rich, poor, young, old, all types of occupations. All the Parkers I’ve dug up so far have been white, but we can see there’s no prohibition on intermarriage or perhaps adoption.

Third, you know how I always say these Salem Witches operate from just outside the spotlight? Turns out Ely was Ulysses S. Grant’s right-hand man in the Civil War (i.e. War of Northern Aggression). He even “wrote much of Grant's correspondence”.

This phenomenon, of being just outside the center and unnoticed, frequently reminds me of another film. In Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks (you will recall from the last post Abe’s mother was born Nancy Hanks) shows up in the background of all kinds of famous historical events.

Well, have you ever taken a close look at the iconic lithograph of when Lee Surrenders to Grant at Appomattox? Just like he was fifth from the bottom of the cast list, take a look at who is fifth from the right in that picture. Seriously, I don’t think I’m going too far to say that all of mainstream history needs to be reconsidered.

Thanks for reading!