From: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Government Coverups (Re: Moon Activities?)
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:31:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff Papineau) writes:
	Sorry charlie, 

... please spell my name correctly, thank you.  (Attempting to
belittle you opponent's argument by belittling your opponent is not a
proper technique for learned people.)

	The Watergate info I'm refering to says only that Nixon tried
	to blackmail the CIA into doing his bidding, helping him in
	his hour of need.

... what you said was that the CIA "set up" Nixon.  Now you say
something different.  Which was it?

	Your right, I was thinking of E. Howard Hunt. Have you read
	Plausible Denial? He figures heavily in this work.

... yes, I've read a number of the assassination books.  As I recall,
Mark Lane (the author) is one of the "giant conspiracy" people -- CIA,
FBI, Dallas Police, Warren Commission, Secret Service, wrong-thinking-
people, whoever-else-can-be-included.  I take such books with a large
grain of salt -- so should you.  Try reading "Final Disclosure" and
"Disinformation, Misinformation, and the Conspiracy to Kill JFK
Exposed".

	Obviously Nixion didn't get his way, but he also stopped short
	of getting himself shot too.

... this is a serious hole in your theory, and you should recognize
that.  If Nixon "had something" (implicit in your assertion that he
tried "blackmail") on the evil CIA, then whether he was president or
not, he could not be allowed to live.  Booting him out of the White
House doesn't change anything, in that regard.  If the Agency let
Nixon down, they would expect him (if he "had something" on them) to
use it for revenge; so they'd have to kill him.

	Most people in the US don't realize the amount of propaganda
	we're exposed to in this country; but the Europeans understand
	it pretty well.

... ah, so we're to *that*, eh?  "You Americans are so naive", and all
that.  That's the last refuge of someone who has no facts to back him
up...  The idea that the US government gives out more propoganda than
European ones (since you used that example) is just plain wrong.
Americans don't trust their government.  That's a fact, and its been a
fact pretty much for the entirety of our history.  If many people
don't see things the way you do, that's another matter.  (Believing
that people who don't think your way are all stupid or evil is a trap,
and I recommend you stay out of it.)


	Ultimately, what the WASP ruling class of the Western world
	has failed to do is raise it's spirtual evolvement to the same
	rate of expansion as that of the technological advancement
	that is going on.  And that leads to imbalance, and ultimate
	downfall.

... to expect spiritual advancement to occur at the same rate as
technological advancement is absurd.  Technological progress is
geometric, since people are creating new devices and technologies all
the time; building on each other's work.  Spiritual progress happens
one person at a time, and must be built up "from scratch" in each
person.  ("Spiritual advancement" is not necessarily the same thing as
"thinking just like Jeff does", you know. :-)

	Rome lasted 2000 years; so far all great empires have self-
	destructed. 

... well, if we are generous, the Roman Empire lasted from 264BC
(beginning of the Punic Wars) to 1453 (fall of Byzantium).  That's
only a little over 1700 years (if the extra 300 years seem like a
trifle, I suggest you try and live that long and see).  But the Roman
Empire really begins in 27BC (Octavian) to 476 (last western Emperor
deposed).  The eastern (or more correctly "Byzantine" empire lasted
from 395 (first non-cooperating division of the empire) to 1453 (fall
of Constantinople), or 1350 or so.  Please try to be more accurate, it
will help your case; tossing around numbers for bombast doesn't.  But
I digress...

	I see little reason to believe that we don't face
	the same destiny sooner or later.

   I can't quite figure out what this apocalyptic is intended for, or
how it bolsters (or impinges in any way upon) your argument.  (An
empire may fall, but the culture survive - the British are an example;
or evolve - the Japanese are an example).

Charles