And now the shocking truth: Kevin Rudd like as not wrote the plays of William Shakespeare ...

(Above: found here at Judge: Bacon Wrote Shakespeare Plays).

A few months ago, Eric Idle (who was most likely Michael Palin) established some important points about authorship in The New Yorker with Who Wrote Shakespeare?

While it is perfectly obvious to everyone that Ben Jonson wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays, it is less known that Ben Jonson’s plays were written by a teen-age girl in Sunderland, who mysteriously disappeared, leaving no trace of her existence, which is clear proof that she wrote them. The plays of Marlowe were actually written by a chambermaid named Marlene, who faked her own orgasm, and then her own death in a Deptford tavern brawl ...

There are many aspects to his theory:

Many people believe that Richard III not only was a good man who would never hurt a fly but actually wrote “She Stoops to Conquer,” and that the so-called author, Oliver Goldsmith, found the play under a tree in 1773 while visiting Bosworth Field, now a multistory car park (clearly an attempt to cover up the evidence of the ruse).

And it leads the pond to announce that Christopher Pearson finds his columns for The Australian in the chimney, where they're delivered by the stork.

How else to explain this?

It is sadly a PP (post fickle finger of gold bar paywall) column, so no link, but clearly Pearson was upset by Robert Manne's bout of man love for former chairman Rudd in Why Rudd's return is Labor's only chance of survival (not that there's anything wrong with man love, but why former chairman Rudd? Why does he attract all the man love? What's gone wrong with George Clooney?)

Now it's true that Manne seems to have undergone some kind of trauma, such that it might well be that his columns are currently written by Paul Kelly, because back in the day Manne was front and centre propounding profound insights at universities, and so blessed La Trobe University with The Rudd Government: What Has Gone Wrong.

... the bit that I now think is very strange is that he said that his great hero was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who stands for the greatest kind of act of moral and political courage in the twentieth century for Rudd. And then, in the last few months, it’s been said by almost everyone, I’ve never seen such cowardice over the ETS. Both cowardly and mis-judged. But the cowardice is what I want to concentrate on. How can one put together a person whose moral hero is Dietrich Bonhoeffer and whose actions make Graeme Richardson seem to be principled? And who has acted on the greatest moral challenge of the twentieth century for humankind in such a cowardly way. I can’t put it together.

Oh curse and damn you cowardly lion Rudd. Quick, Dorothy click heels three times and escape.

Not so quick, because happily Judith Brett was to hand to confirm Manne's worst fears:

Well, I don’t actually have much of a psychological take on Rudd because I find him so incredibly unappealing. So I find him very unempathetic. I thought what Lenore was saying about this moment things snapped because I can bear almost… I can’t bear to listen to him any more except that I have a professional commitment to hearing what he says. So I think that he’s now at the point where people leave the room. You know, you turn him off.

Oh the man hate.

Yep, it was a hate fest of the first water, with one questioner evoking the ABC series The Hollow Men, and damning ridiculous media speculation about Julia Gillard as a potential leader, and Paul Kelly throwing things wide open (with Lenore Taylor) to a faint glimmer of hope:

One of the interesting features of the government is, there is an accepted successor to Rudd, that's Gillard, which could make the second term particularly interesting.

And so we now live in interesting times - thanks Chinese proverb - and now Manne wants to bring back Rudd to make the times even more interesting, but the most amazing thing is that Christopher Pearson somehow thinks this sort of contradiction is contradictory.

Astonishing really, given his endless campaigning and speculation last year from the very get go of the Gillard era about the imminent return of Chairman Rudd. Next day, next week, or in a worst case scenario by next month.

It wouldn't be easy, but Kevin Rudd could pull this off is but one spectacular example of an avalanche of pieces allegedly written by Pearson - but possibly ghosted by Miranda the Devine or Piers "Akker Dakker" Akkerman - explaining how former Chairman Rudd could return to the throne of power, change policy, take a new stance on people smuggling, the carbon tax, gambling in clubs, and so end the reign of the Wicked Witch of the West.

Happily such pieces are PP (pre gold fickle finger of fate paywall), so the pond can link to them, and readers can still frolic through them for free, therefore not violating the most offensive PP of all (Pay to read bloody Pearson?)

Yep, it was back in September that Pearson went overboard on Rudd's return:

There's a joke doing the rounds that Rudd has only one friend, Newspoll, but it's a very powerful ally. How could Rudd convert that political capital into a return to the Lodge? He'd have to act quickly, perhaps within the next few weeks before parliament resumes, while the mood in caucus grows ever more desperate and before support gathers behind another candidate. Simply by being in the House of Representatives, Rudd is a reminder to many voters, especially in Queensland, of the legitimacy problems that dog Gillard's leadership.

Within the next few weeks?

There's a joke doing the rounds at the pond that Pearson has the predictive insight of random tea leaves at the bottom of an over-brewed cup of tea, soggy and lumpy, and it surely makes it even funnier to realise most likely it was Robert Manne writing his columns way back then ...

Unless of course it was Phillip Adams, mounting his clarion call last September Let Rudd resume rightful role. He had a helpful illustration from Nicholson to make his point:

Yep, at various times Adams and Pearson and Manne have been one in their desire to bring back Rudd, except when they have been three on the matter of bringing back Rudd, and so the world came to understand the concept of the unholy trinity.

Meanwhile, Gillard might well be going, though she's been longer in the going than some expected or demanded, but there's an authorship crisis surrounding her involving Tony Hodges and Kim Sattler - Outed unionist Kim Sattler says PM Julia Gillard's story is inaccurate).

This week's capers haven't helped, but does anyone - outside of Manne now, and Pearson and Adams back in September last year - think Rudd is the solution, as opposed to being part of the problem?

More to the point, in this PP environment, would anyone pay to read the unwholesome, unseemly spectacle of Pearson, preening prat and sufferer of long term memory loss in the matter of Rudd, bag Robert Manne, sufferer of long term memory loss in the matter of Rudd ...

Truly expert analysis and opinion might matter, but the theories of Manne and Pearson are probably only worth a pinch of Python:

Mere lack of evidence, of course, is no reason to denounce a theory. Look at intelligent design. The fact that it is bollocks hasn’t stopped a good many people from believing in it. Darwinism itself is only supported by tons of evidence, which is a clear indication that Darwin didn’t write his books himself. They were most likely written by Jack the Ripper, who was probably King Edward VII, since all evidence concerning this has been destroyed.

Uh huh. Well the pond's theory that Miranda the Devine is actually Christopher Pearson who is actually Piers Akerman will have to wait another day, until we've proven that Tim Blair is actually the pigeon droppings from Andrew Bolt's table ...

Paranoia? Of course not. It’s alternative scholarship. What’s wrong with teaching alternative theories in our schools? What are liberals so afraid of? Can’t children make up their own minds about things like killing and carrying automatic weapons on the playground? Bush was right: no child left unarmed.

Why this dictatorial approach to learning, anyway? What gives teachers the right to say what things are? Who’s to say that flat-earthers are wrong? Or that the Church wasn’t right to silence Galileo, with his absurd theory (actually written by his proctologist) that the earth moves around the sun. Citing “evidence” is so snobbish and élitist. I think we all know what lawyers can do with evidence. Look at Shakespeare. Poor bloke. Wrote thirty-seven plays, none of them his.

Right. Look at Christopher Pearson. Poor bloke. Wrote at least thirty seven columns demanding, mentioning, pleading or praying for the return of former Chairman Rudd, and now none of them are his, because Robert Manne's stolen the idea, and gone overboard with it, and Robert Manne, poor bloke, wrote many many columns and spoke many many words, denouncing former Chairman Rudd's cowardice and now none of them are his ...

It must be the lawyers, it has to be the lawyers. First shoot them all, and all will be well, eh Bill?

(Below: we've run it before, and like as not in these Rick Santorum/Tankard Reist times, we'll run it again).