Friday, March 23, 2007


it is a pejorative construction. intended to throw the individual labeled with that epithet into a hole.

let me make it clear, the study of history is the investigation into conspiracies. that is what history is, in the main, a record of conspiracies.

i have never heard barbara tuchman described as a CONSPIRACY THEORIST. still, her histories concerning the origins of the first great war deal with conspiracies amongst the great powers.

then there is izzie stone. he wrote a very insightful analysis into the origins of our invasion of korea[THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE KOREAN WAR]. i recall he was labelled a communist, unamerican, for this analysis. but never a conspiracy theorist. even in the 1950's, he was viewed as a historian, albeit wrong-headed.

oddly enough, in the early 1980's, a princeton scholar and historian, by the name of bruce cumings, under the imprimatur of the princeton university press, published a two volume history entitled THE ORIGINS OF THE KOREAN WAR. in a very real sense, this exhaustively comprehensive investigation validated stone's "conspiracy theory".

how was cuming's analysis/history reviewed by the amerikan arbiters of the record of the past? i think that it was ignored.

was there a conspiracy amongst the cognoscenti, the controllers, to hide historical reality from the amerikan populace? you bet there was.

the story of the united states of amerika-orchestrated coup in chile is another instance of how analysts of that event are labeled, pejoratively, as conspiracy theorists. i would like to think that we all recognize now that nixon, kissinger, and the intell apparat, the military apparat, conspired to effect the coup in chile .... destroying one of the older democratic republics in the western hemisphere.

how do they get away with the labeling of analysts of the events as conspiracy theorists? and this "they" encompasses the right as well as the purported "left". consider how it is that alexander cockburn, noam chomsky, david barsamian, disparage this analysis, those analysts.

who are the real conspirators?

let me mention once again, pete brewton. writing for the houston post, he analyzed the bushit family, organized crime, and the s&l crisis of the 1980's. pretty amazing stories. but astonishingly, oddly written. the lede was always buried. still, it became pretty stinky when the nyt and the wapo continued to ignore his stories. the implication was that brewton was crazed, didn't know what he was talking about. but it got so bad, that the columbia journalism review came to houston to review brewton's sources, notes. this was done with the intention to destroy brewton and his investigation.

well, brewton gave the cjr unlimited access to his files. and afterwards, in print, the cjr admitted that brewton's research was unassailable.

still, the nyt, the wapo, the ap, et alia, continued to ignore brewton's stories.

clearly there was a conspiracy to snuff pete brewton's work.

a similar conspiracy to snuff afflicted bob parry. and gary webb.

an overlooked conspiracy is how the press snuffed alan friedman's investigation into the reagan/bush arming of saddam hussein[SPIDER'S WEB: THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOW THE WHITE HOUSE ILLEGALLY ARMED IRAQ].

i want you to get over how the usg lied to you about panam 103. those prevarications were a part of a conspiracy. if you doubt that, here are some resources for you...




i was in ayrshire then. i an assure you that the us press functioned as a pr agency for the usg.

a conspiracy to impose disinformation, i think.

i close this way, if you adopt the position that the usg is always lying to you, you would be correct.


Blogger Mooser said...

Geez, Albert, or rather, if you prefer, albert, I was hoping good 'ol al-coa (Sheikh al Coa?) would write to explain the US Attourneys hub-bub! Maybe all those prosecuters fell on top of each other and "pancaked", thus bringing down the entire structure?

I'm sure there was no "conspiracy" involved.

10:56 AM  
Blogger albertchampion said...

you know, al coa[sic] didn't know shit about anything.

and as i said previously, why was he contaminating this blog?

al coa's interest in contaminating this blog started with something i posted on steve soto's site. in response to soto's applauding the invasion of afghanistan... because afghanistan was responsible for the events of 11/09/01.

my response to that remains unchanged. soto was an idiot. afghanistan had nothing to do with the events of that day.

the events of 11/09/01 were false flag ops. used to align the amerikan public with military invasions of afghanistan, iraq.

because of the bushit/mossad operation of that day, the amerikan people have been stampeded to kill scores of thousands throughout the islamic world. virtually all of them noncombatants.

i have written on this subject extensively on eschaton site.

in closing, al coa may just be an ignorant reptillian. on the other hand, there is always the proposition that al coa is a state agent, and that anyone disputing the state becomes a target for attacking.

i mean, after all, why would anyone pay any attention to this blog?

8:03 PM  
Blogger Al Coa said...

I'm sure there was no "conspiracy" involved.

I'm rather certain there was.

What does that have to do with the collapse of the WTC towers mooser?

i mean, after all, why would anyone pay any attention to this blog?

You have made many claims about what you believe happened on 9/11/2001. And when challanged on them you don't respond. Rather you simply prefer to sink deeper into your delusions and picture me as an 'agent of the state'. It's quite pathetic.

There really is no reason for anyone to come to this site. Other than as a case study in lunacy that is.

3:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home