From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Insiders 1 of 4
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:54:57 GMT

In article <ROTEN.93Jan26133237@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov> roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes:
>In article <C1C1K3.826@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu 
>(Chunde Shi) writes:
>
> [3 header lines deleted]
>>From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
>>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Subject: Repost: "The Insiders" part 1 of 4
> [5 header lines deleted]
>
>Yeeesh !  Chunde, I've got to warn you .. I grew up in a political 
>culture _SATURATED_ with conspiracy theories.  Hence, I tend to 
>automatically discredit a post from the alt.conspiracy group ...  
>
>But things get better later .. :-)  
>
>>=============================================================================
>>    File Name:      ins1of4.txt
>>    Description:    BOOK: "The Insiders" - part 1 of 4
>
>
>>    Original copies of this material may be ordered from:
>
>>		       The John Birch Society
>                       !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>		       Post Office Box 8040
>>		       Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
>>		       (414) 749-3780
>
> [rest deleted]
>
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!                                                                 !
>!      The _JOHN_ _BIRCH_ _SOCIETY_ !!  GAAAAACCCCKKK !!!!        !
>!      There went my breakfast ...  :-)  ;->                      !
>!                                                                 !
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Chunde, I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.  
>Maybe you feel SCC netters should know about some dark conspiracy inside 
>the American government.  Or, perhaps you think the opinions cited in 
>the article you reposted are typical of American political thinking.  I 
>really don't know.  
>
>But I _GREW_ _UP_ during a period when the John Birch Society was much 
>more active than it is today.  And even the politcal conservatives of 
>that time discounted them for the lunatics they so obviously were (and, 
>clearly, still are).  And the liberals just laughed at them.  The 
>Republicans avoided them like the plague when anything serious was in 
>the works.  And the Democrats would not touch them with a ten-foot pole.  
>
>American politics has these marginal groups .. the so-called 'lunatic 
>fringe'.  They tend to use conspiracy theories a _LOT_, since they never 
>have hard facts to back up their case.  In fact, the use of conspiracy 
>theories is one of the things that should put anyone's political bogosity 
>detector into high gear.  
>
>From the look of things, the Bircher's paranoia has not changed much in 
>the last 30 years.  Put them in the same category as Lyndon LaRouche's 
>little band of nuts .... candidiates for the political equivalent of a 
>padded cell in an asylum.  In fact, thinking about it, that is where 
>they are already.  :-) :-)  They are so marginalized, and have such low 
>credibility outside their own little cults that their influence on _ANY_ 
>political decision is zero, or maybe even less.  :-)  :-)  
>
>Take my advice .. don't waste your time with _BIGTIME_ _LOSERS_ like the 
>John Birch Society.  They haven't a clue in this world, and never did.  
>In fact, they don't even know what a clue _looks_ _like_ ...  And 99.9% 
>of the American public and power structure has known it for decades.  
>
>--
>Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
>  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
>  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
>  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman

I did not finish reading of "Insiders" myself. I do not think it is a big
deal. I took it as one school of opinion, rather than whole sale acceptance.
For example, Some derogatory phrases were used by the author in the book.
For the "Trilateriallist" , The post was direct quotation from what assitant
secratary wrote in his book. The quotation should not be discredited, simply
the "quotator" may deserve to be discredited.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china