2 consecutive steps of questioning:
the Shakespeare authorship debate should always be divided into 2 consecutive steps of questioning:
1.) Is William from Stratford the "false" Shakespeare ?
If yes.....
2.) Who may be the "true" one ?
The first step results from the (ever since) increasing doubt that the Stratfordman William Shakspere could not possibly have been the author William Shakespeare who wrote „Hamlet“, „King Lear“ or „Loves Labours Lost“-
The doubts developed gradually with the discovery of an ever increasing number of bizarre theories (such as: Shakespeare The Collaborator) because of too many unanswerable questions .
(Click the TOP 10 of Cutlers and Emmerichs questions, - True, but a bit too old worn-out - in my opinion- , compared to the new TOP 1000 ! )
The TOP 10 Reasons of
"Keir Cutler" and "Roland Emmerich" to doubt the Shakspere Authorship |
Many more of these questions were early adressed by a remarkable group of human beings (artists, intellectuals, scientists, teachers, actors, free thinkers etc. termed "Non- or Anti-Stratfordians") over time …. ideas, thoughts and documents of these independent thinkers have infected many people for too long, their illness is no longer curable...
( the "Red Berets" or Oxfraud - still consider Non-stratfordians as a bunch of Idiots...)...
A tiny selection of Shakspere Doubters [Anti-Stratfordians]:
→1, →2, →3, →4, →5 , →6, →7, →8, →9,
→10, →11, →12, →13, →14, →15, →16, →17, →18,
→19, →20, →21, →22, →23, →24, →25, →26, →27,
→28, →29, →30, →31, →32, →33, →34, →35, →36
→37, →38, →39, →40, →41, →42, →43, →44, →45,
→46, →47, →48, →49, →50, →51, →52, →53, →54,
→55, →56, →57, →58, →59, →60, →61, →62, →63,
→64, →65, →66, →67, →68 .-
→1, →2, →3, →4, →5 , →6, →7, →8, →9,
→10, →11, →12, →13, →14, →15, →16, →17, →18,
→19, →20, →21, →22, →23, →24, →25, →26, →27,
→28, →29, →30, →31, →32, →33, →34, →35, →36
→37, →38, →39, →40, →41, →42, →43, →44, →45,
→46, →47, →48, →49, →50, →51, →52, →53, →54,
→55, →56, →57, →58, →59, →60, →61, →62, →63,
→64, →65, →66, →67, →68 .-
Historically, the second step and (re)search („If is was not the Stratfordman, who was it ?“) wouldn’t have taken place without the first ..-
Since Stratfordians denied to take the first step they more or less had to declare the Anti-stratfordians with all their arguments and critical thinking (conscious and unconscious) from the beginning as truthers or conspiracy theorist …that is to say as mad or crazy people.
The spearhead of the Stratfordians, the "Red Oxfraud Berets", or "Orthodox "Ant-Anti-Stratfordians", an interesting microscopic group of a mentally armed "Special Stratfor(d) Command" of cloaked intelligence with their unofficial warrior diplomats (Mike Leadbetter, Tom Reedy, [his favorite word is "Pissing"] Mark Johnson, Nemo Whilk etc ) draw a clear position on their Webpage:
"Any person with a studied view of the debate knows that the case for Shakespeare is solidly documented in the historical record. What we're interested in is .......why anti-Stratfordians deny that record. We're not here to give each other high-fives."
It is astonishing (more than refreshing) to observe the Oxfraud "Red Berets" most often feeling seemingly in a joyful superior position compared to the ineradicable group of old fogeys Anti-Stradfordian....,
