HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:54:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Aug18.165542.26574@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.204231.27166@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>>     
>>Citizens become more susceptable to propaganda precisely because they
>>     lack a good education.  With T.V. and commercial magazines doing 
>>     the thinking for them, people are killing off their minds, 
>>     strangling the very thing that could protect them from irrational
>>     pinheads with a presuasive voice and power on the mind.  So, what
>>     can we do then?  Keep T.V. from the people?  Regulate the hours
>>     a station can run programming?  I don't know.  Any suggestions?
>
>
>How do you explain the fact that one of the most educated and sophisticated
>populations in the world at the time, was victim to propaganda despite
>its education (Germany, 1930s).
>In this context, how would you suggest that such a decline into barbarism
>might be prevented?

	This argument is a bit of a red herring. It was the least educated
segment of the German population that embraced Nazism. True, people like
Goebbels and some of Himmler's SS types (well, let's throw in Heidegger in
for good measure) were college educated, upper class/upper middle class
men. But these people were largely pseudo-intellectuals. At bottom, the
Nazi Movement turned out to nothing more than a ticket for them to get
ahead in life, not a serious intellectual commitment. When Germany lost 
the war, it became pathetically easy to turn these people into "liberal
democrats". (Reminds me an AWEFUL LOT of some Reagan-era wimp conservatives
and libertarians I know - just look at the polls and I think you'll
catch my drift)

	Anyway, the bottom line is that the "intellectuals" failed in
Germany not because they were fooled, but because they had no guts. The
ones who could not live a lie fled Grossdeutschland, and populated American
academia for a decade - until the Sixties generation came along and bullied
them for a second time.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Candidates and their women
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:27:19 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug18122631@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <13384.2a906e3f@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>   Isn't it interesing how some people associated with controversy about
>   Reagan or Bush are conveniently dead?
>
>Silly me, I should have spotted this CIA plot along time ago.  Just like
>the way they gave brain cancer to William Casey.  You know, Wild Bill
>Donovan, wartime leader of the OSS (the CIA's predcessor) also died of
>brain cancer.  If that doesn't prove a conspiracy I can't imagine what
>would.

Well, how do you know Bill & Bill are dead?
I heard they were spotted with Elvis last year in Topeka.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.culture.yugoslavia
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: More Sarajevo notes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:57:00 GMT

Still not much has been published in the way of pictures
of the alleged destruction of Sarajevo. There are two possible
reasons for this:

1. There is no destruction, after all; to some degree or other,
   it's a hoax.

2. There is destruction, but the media are waiting to release
   pictures to coincide with some event in the offing.

Those familiar with my other postings will know that I've
favored (1), but it's worth considering (2) in the light of all
the talk about the expected UN resolution to use force to
protect their relief effort. The deployment of troops, including
Americans, to carry out this resolution could be the event for
which they're waiting. In either case, such news management
would be easy to bring off because the public, not able to
imagine who could benefit from the ploy, would never recognize
that it was happening. 

Speaking of American troops, I read that a general told
Congress yesterday that 

  "...it may be one of the prerequisites for that 
  happening successfully [i.e. deployment of troops]
  is to build a permissive environment [in Bosnia] through
  political and diplomatic action."

I can just hear him at his =next= meeting with Congress,
when it's demanded of him that he explain what he was
talking about: "Senator, I meant to say that we cannot
risk the use of FORCE until PEACE comes to the area!
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:29:47

John D. Mathon states <speaking of, he claims, Sweden, Norway,
Germany, France, "and so on">:
> Not only that but they have unemployment rates DOUBLE THE
>US Average.
Oh my god!  You mean it's DOUBLED here in Norway since the last
report two or three weeks ago?  I've GOT to start reading the
papers more closely.

> Every one of them has had a transition in the last ten(except
Fran\ce)
>years to more conservative governments and the opposition leftist
parties
>have become more conservative than the rightest were before.

I must have slept through this here.  I could swear the country
was still led by Labor - which has been almost taking turns with
the Conservatives since the end of the war in leading the government.
But since you say so, i am sure you, on the other side of the
Atlantic, must know more than i do living here.  Also this shift to
the right, i was totally unaware of it.  Just think!  All this
major change going on right under my nose, and i missed it!

>THERE IS NO REASONABLE MEASURE BY WHICH ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT
EUROPEANS
>ECONOMY IS HEALTHIER THAN AMERICANS>

Using capital letters.  Now i'm convinced that you're right.

If i were you, i'd get your eyes checked; it seems that jingoism
is making everything look black and white to you again.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Candidates and their women
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:49:14 CDT

In article 2a906e3f@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () writes:
|In article <ART.92Aug17100856@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug15.094733.597@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|> 
|>    In article <1992Aug15.014816.26727@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
|> [...]
|> 
|> 	   But I think this misses the main point.  Why has the press had
|>    free reign to bludgeon Gary Hart, Clinton and others with stories of
|>    their picadillos but seems to just now be coming out of its strait
|>    jacket with respect to GHWB?
|> 
|> Because these is objective proof that Hart and Clinton were fooling
|> around.  There is no such evidence in Bush's case.  The putative
|> statements of a dead man don't count for much.
|> 
|
|Isn't it interesing how some people associated with controversy about
|Reagan or Bush are conveniently dead?
|
|-Garrett




Answer 1)  Yea, they are pretty old arn't they?    ;^)




Answer 2)  It is always easier to dig up a dead witness than a live
	   one.  You don't have to worry about whether he will 
	   contradict you when he is interviewed.  It is especially
	   easier to make unsubstantiated claims or start rumors.  



---
--David C. Adams  
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:42:31 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu  writes:

> sm> Stephen McIntyre
> 
>sm> [E]ducation is the best way to help society protect itself from the
>sm> blatherings and blubberings of political and/or religious propaganda.  It
>sm> would be a good tool in creating a more unified, and informed, world.
> 

[Gary Strand]

gs]   Under a WG, who will run the education system? The WG? If so, you should 
gs]   examine what's been happening with education in the US. If anything, too
gs]   many citizens are becoming *more* susceptible to government propaganda.
gs]   Read Chmosky or Chomsky-lite (ie, Harel) to see what I mean. 

Let the individual countries run their own school systems (as the
     states do here.)  Better yet, allow private enterprise to run 
     the schools.  
     
Citizens become more susceptable to propaganda precisely because they
     lack a good education.  With T.V. and commercial magazines doing 
     the thinking for them, people are killing off their minds, 
     strangling the very thing that could protect them from irrational
     pinheads with a presuasive voice and power on the mind.  So, what
     can we do then?  Keep T.V. from the people?  Regulate the hours
     a station can run programming?  I don't know.  Any suggestions?
     
Stephen @Trajan







> 
> 
> --
> Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
> strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: More UN (was Re: Iraq renews threats against Kuwait)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 13:44:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.054736.29033@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  Are you ever going to get your own account? 
>
>f > "Frank" (Robin Collins)
>
>f > [I]f the UN is to be a "civilized body", then perhaps it should first be
>f > democratic, in terms of national representation (if not population
>f > representation). How can one state on the Security Council over-rule the
>f > views of 150+ in the General Assembly and the SC still be civilized?
>
>  Oh, I don't know, perhaps the same principle that allows one individual to
>  overrule the desires of a lynch mob. It's called individual rights. Now,
>  it doesn't generally apply to whole nations, but I have no problem at all
>  with one state having the power to override the wishes of many others.

                           

Please explain how are "individual rights" defended by  one country 
(the US) or a handful of countries (the security council) dictating
what the rest of the world can do?  It is not surprising that you "have no
problem" with the dictate of one country, but the question is how you can
claim that this dictate is in any sense democratic.




>f > I do insist on democracy at the UN and have seen very little of it. Do
>f > you fear abolishing the veto? 
>
>  No, I'd rather the UN go away entirely. Proto-governments are almost as
>  bad as governments.


I'm sure you would rather have an international forum disappear than
have the rule of one country or an elite group of them get away with
anything they want without criticism.

But the question really is whether you claimed the massacre in the Gulf
was an international action because the "UN" authorized it or whether
you agreed that the General Assembly never had any input into the military
slaughter than followed the over-riding of sanctions. 
Do you remember where you stood that far back?

Frank.






Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5528 alt.activism:14667 talk.politics.misc:39055
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:18:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug12.002637.14449@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com  writes:
>
>> In article <BstxFE.C88@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug11.145521.29060@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>> >...
>> >>World govenrment is closer at hand now than in the 60's and yes I will
>> >>not hide it Frank can speak for himself but I will stand proud and say
>> >>I AM IN FAVOR OF WORLD GOVERNMENT AND I REFUSE TO FEEL ANY ALLEGENCE TO
>> >>ANY SUBUNIT OF THE WHOLE COMMONLY KNOWN AS A COUNTRY!!!!
>> >
>> >    Do you realize that if the New World Order takes hold,
>> >    there will be no place to hide?
>> 
>>    This is correct.   The single biggest problem with one world
>>    government is that if you don't happen to agree with it or
>>    like it you're still stuck with it.  Note that this is a 
>>    problem even if it's not some sort of totalitarian police
>>    state.   And what if is IS some sort of totalitarian police
>>    state?
>
>Proof, I beg you-- PROOF!  I say that if you don't agree with the one
>     world government, then change it.  You're allowed to do that
>     in the U.S.; why not with a body that governs the world?

   So I take it you agree with everything the US government does.  
   (else you would have changed it; you're allowed to do that, you
   know)  I hope you realize this makes you, personally, responsible
   for the federal budget deficit.   (Let's get him, boys!)


>The biggest (not the only) problem I see in implementing a body
>     that would serve the world happens to be religion.  Beyond
>     that (and some other problems, such as language), I see no
>     evil in placing a government that would serve the needs of
>     our Earth.

   Who gets to decide what those needs are?   Why do you assume
   that what the majority (I assume you have in mind some form 
   of democracy) would want is what's good for the Earth?  Why
   are you so sure that people won't just want what's good for
   them, personally?   In America people vote for pork-barrel
   projects to bring jobs, wealth, etc to them, by raising taxes
   on everybody else.  Why wouldn't this just happen on a worldwide
   scale?     Anyway, what gives a a bunch of French, Indians,
   Argentinians, Chinese, or Swedes, the right to make laws and
   decisions affecting *my* life?   


---peter
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5718 alt.activism:15043 talk.politics.misc:40495
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:53:17 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp  writes:

> >  ii) "How does one get billions of people to agree?"
> >  
> >      Mass media.  It's happening now and will progress as time
> >      passes by.  How do you think tens of millions of people
> >      can agree now on a single subject?
> 
> Ah Herr Goebbels would be delighted, as would Coca Cola's ad agency.
> If you don't understand propaganda, and the way mass media can be
> used to further it, talk to an ad man or watch some WWII movies.
> It's easy to sway people to a point of view. What's hard is to 
> have a sophisticated and educated populace that recognizes bovine
> waste when it sees it.

If you're dumb enough to be fooled by propaganda (or the Coca-Cola
     company), then I feel sorry for you.  You make a good point, 
     however: education is the best way to help society protect
     itself from the blatherings and blubberings of political
     and/or religious propaganda.  It would be a good tool in 
     creating a more unified, and informed, world.

> Gary

Stephen @Trajan
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 11:41:01 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug12.185553.8165@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
|> In article <Bsvrv2.4Js@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> >
|> >   Nations only work when there is a basic set of values or common
|> >   culture to bind people together.  Attempts to create nations where
|> >   these don't exist is folly.  Witness Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, 
|> >   USSR, India before partition, etc.   
|> >
|> Peter, you are mixing up apples and oranges yes these states fell apart
|> because they were kept together by coercion and the government did not
|> respect local autonomy. A world government could have 
|> constitutional restrictions on its power so it can only deal with global 
|> issues.

And I'm sure this would work just about as well as the U.S. Constitution
has in limiting Federal power...



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5553 alt.activism:14706 talk.politics.misc:39218
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: European Social democracy vs. American Capitalism
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:27:58 GMT

Alex Bunker writes
> Carl Edman writes:
> >NOT ! NOT !
> >
> >The Eurosocialists did _not_ take away power from the Christian Democrats.
> >The Eurosocialists have had control of the EP since it was founded. This 
> >just didn't change the last time around. 
> >
> 
> NOT! NOT! NOT!
> they used to rule in coalition with the christian democrats but after the
> last european parliamentary election they gained enough seats so they could
> make a new alliance with the greens (officially known as "rainbow block")
> in the european parliament and shut out che C. dems.

NOT!^4

The european parliament _has_ no executive. There are no permanent governing  
coalitions like in France, Britain or Germany. Hence nobody there rules in  
combination with anybody else. Before _or_ after the last election.

> >As for the CDU, every single mid-term it has been low in the polls and yet
> >did win every single national election in Germany for more than a decade.And  
> >the opposition party which is by the way the SPD (you would not happen to be
> >a synonym for Thurgood Marshall here posting on the net ?). This party is so  
> >_terminally_ embarrased about it close friendship with the butchers of the  
> >StaSi-state that I'm surprised that it is still around e.g. just a few years  
> >before the wall fell they actually managed to get the west german center for  
> >the tracking of human rights violations in east germany closed because it  
> >offended their friends who are now on trial for mass murder (that was  
> >_their_  argument).
> >
> Maybe but the CDU has NEVER lost the REINLAND PALATINATE
> provincial election before (Kohls home state and all)
> they have been caught lying (oh no reunification will not
> cause a tax rise NOT!) and now they will pay. Besides Byorn
> Engholm is a FAR more likeable fellow than that
> overweight blathering unilingual boor. 

Yes, the CDU has never lsot the r_h_einland palatinate before. On the other  
hand the SPD did never lose Hessia until a few years ago. Nothing happend then.  
Nothing will happen now.

Your Engholm, BTW, was the man who spearheaded the successful effort to kill  
the west german registry for Stasi crimes just a few years before the wall came  
down because it might offend the East German regime. Whether that renders him  
"FAR more likeable" may be a matter of taste.

> >As for Mitterand he is one of the last ruling self-confessed communists in  
> >Europe. But if East Berlin and Moscow can fall, so can Paris.
> 
> Has Mitterand currently stated his position as being a
> communist?

In Mitterands acceptance speech when he was first elected he stated literarily  
(not quite - he said it in french) that "in my head I'm a Socialist, but in my  
_heart_ I'm a Communist!". 

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Schmidling is simply wrong.
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug12.143615.3188@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:08:40

In article <1992Aug12.143615.3188@oakhill.sps.mot.com> diaz@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Rafael Diaz) writes:
>	   As a child in Tel-Aviv during the early days of the  6-Days-War, 
>   my family watched television broadcasts from Cairo showing in vivid 
>   (black-and-white) graphics the advances of the Egyptian army from the
>   Mediterranean sea, towards the coastal-way of Tel-Aviv, cutting Israel
>   in several central areas.
>
>	   To me and my family it was a "comedy-show", since here we are,
>   sitting in Tel-Aviv, and seeing utter rubbish on Egyptian T.V.
>
>	   Your point (vs. Steven, Stewart, 1937) , that "Israelis had 
>   been intercepting radio transmissions from Cairo and rebroadcasting 
>   them to Jordan in a modified form, luring Jordan into the conflict
>   and...." is really too much. 

You must have had a pretty good TV set, as Tel Aviv and Cairo are
about 300 miles apart.

Steven does say in his book that the Egyptians were broadcasting false
news for domestic consumption in the early days of the 1967 war.  Yet
he does also say that the foreign radio broadcasts from Cairo, giving
actual accounts of the battle, were purposely altered by the Israelis
to draw Jordan into the war.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5532 alt.activism:14675 talk.politics.misc:39073