From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Why Ross is dangerous. Was: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:06:35 GMT
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

This article is overlong, I am afraid that the interesting stuff starts mid way
through. I would reorganise but the bus leaves imminently.


In article <Bvnv42.17n@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>,
dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct4.153440.23995@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>>In article <BvKF4L.L69@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>,
|>>dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
|>>
|>>|>Nevertheless, YOU HAVE benefitted from the military stability on the
|>>|>European continent due in some part to the presence of American troops.
|>>|>Your personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the argument.
|>>
|>>I have also suffered from US interference in our domestic affairs such as
|>the
|>>intelligence center at GCHQ.
|>>
|>>US foriegn policy , particularly that of the republican right is not popular
|>>abroad. Particularly the invasion of Vietnam and the destabilisation of
|>>democratic governments in South and Central America.
|>>
|>>Perhaps you consider that we should attempt to extract payment from the
|>Indians
|>>for the rather nice railway we built over there. Point is that as with the
|>US
|>>stationing troops in europe it was done for self interest, not altruism.
|>
|>Why would I advocate this?  I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that 
|>we should just get out of Europe.  When you asked me about the BAOR, I
|>said its your business.  Once again, whether or not you want to charge
|>India is your (and obviously their) business.

Hang on a sec when I brought up the BAOR it was in a private email. It was also
in the context of informing you that the Germans already pay the British (and
one would presume the US troops) a contribution towards costs incurred through
stationing troops here.

If the US wants to be paid the full cost then it's troops would have to be
arranged as mercenaries within our armies (cf the Gurkhas, the French foreign
Legion.) and could not be allowed to go off to serve US needs when required.


|>I have tried not to pass judgement nor opinion on *why* we were there, 
|>I merely claimed you benefitted from the presence of troops which 
|>were in Europe at our expense.

The US is not the only country with troops posted overseas. If the US wants to
withdraw from NATO, fine. Fact is that the US was never asked to wind up its
military commitments to such a ludicrous level and many people on this side of
the pond were rather irritated that it did.

|>>Point of fact, the US did not "bail the British out". The US was 
|>>attacked by the Japanese and then Germany declared war on the US. The 
|>>only reason why the British got into the war in the first place was 
|>>that we were bailing Poland out.  Of course both the UK and the US 
|>>entered the war because they knew that if they did not Germany 
|>>would attack them.
|>
|>Point of fact, my grandfather was there for the First World War.  
|>
|>In 1918, there were over two million American troops fighting in
|>France for the Allies.  I venture to state that one of the major
|>reasons that the German offensive of 1918 ultimately failed was the
|>reserves available to the Allies which were a direct result of the
|>stretches of the front held and advanced by American troops.

1918 was a bit of a disaster all round. If you want to open that can of worms
though you would have to settle the matter of reparations for the breakup of
China under Teddy Roosevelt's infamous "open door policy" and quite a few other
bits of US colonialism of those times.

Besides the US already got paid once for that epsiode. That is where it got the
current contents of Fort Knox, that is in the main the gold that the British got
out of South Africa and Rhodesia under the Empire.


|>>|>>|>Why don't you read "United We Stand"? 
|>>|>>Why don't you read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital?
|>>|>Now, who's accusing whom of hysteria?  This obvious attempt to link
|>>|>Perot with Hitler is characteristic of the Church of the Born-Again
|>>|>Perot Haters.
|>>There are undenyable common elements. The simplistic approach to ecconomics
|>>based on the establishment of a command ecconomy for "a limited period". 
|>>The use of patriotic emblems to hide the core philosophy.
|>
|>Here, Phill omits just what core philosophy he refers to.  In 
|>this manner, he leaves it open the possibility, or perhaps means 
|>to encourage, a subconcious connection between this unspecified 
|>"core philosophy" of Perot, and the commonly held notion of the 
|>core philosophy of Mein Kampf, namely, that of genocide as a 
|>means of obtaining racial purity.

The core philosophy of both groups was power at all costs. There is a
conversation recorded with the leader of the British Fascists, Oswald Mosely in
which he stated "the party needs a hate plank, why not the Jews?" Hitler was a
different matter of course. Perot is an opportunist, not an idealist.

|>In his prior article, Phill admitted his knowledge and use
|>of manipulative oratory techniques which he referred to as 
|>"demogoguery".  While Phill will no doubt use my above
|>paragraph as evidence of paranoia (and likely generalize
|>his condemnation to all Perot supporters), I think it not 
|>unreasonable to expect that he is equally willing and able 
|>to practice similar techniques in the written medium.

Yes I write speaches for politicians. I use the net to see what the likely
objections are to various approaches, what are the difficulties of being
missunderstood etc, etc. However I do not in the process misrepresent my own
position (although one must inevitably have to express someone elses opinion
when writting them a speech since it is their speech not mine).

As you correctly discern I consider Perot to be a dangerous demagogue who is
unscrupulous and manipulative in the persuit of power. I am unscrupulous and
manipulative in the persuit of a set of political ideals such as decent housing
health care and education for all, equally and the creation of a society where
birth does not determine the place one is allowed to take in society.

I however am quite open in admitting my ideals and methodology. I aim to change
the mechanism of politics by demonstrating how it works in the same way that
Gore Vidal does. Since we both have similar backgrounds we are both qualified to
give an opinion in this respect.

|>Earlier in the article which prompted this response, Phill says
|>in response to my query about why he bothers to post:
|>
|>>Because the Perotistas are the worst advertisment for Perot. It is you 
|>>who damage his chances not me. I merely ensure that there are plenty of
|>>opportunities for those who read the net to see how narrow minded, 
|>>deperate and frightened Perot supporters are.
|>
|>Concerning *narrowness of mind*, I do not believe a forum like
|>a USENET political newsgroup to provide sufficient evidence to 
|>make such a decision, especially as generic an indictment as
|>Phill advances here.

I do not use the USEnet as my sole source of information. The medium is very
highly biased, particularly concerning politics to the views of yuppies who
recognise that they have a higher than average earning potential and would like
to minimize the social obligations that it brings. Of course it would be foolish
to take USEnet as being representative. However it is fair to say that to first
order most every view is represented.

If I was writing for US politicians I would tap into various other sources of
information such as private opinion polls etc. however this would merely to be
for matters of detail, determining the order in which to put the points etc.

|>It is a common technique to evoke the spectre of Hitler when one
|>wishes to attack someone.  Such an action is considered by many, 
|>if not most, readers to be an indication of *desperation*, at least
|>when such accusations are made with insufficient explanation.

My original interest was merely to see if there was a posibility of running a
similar campaign in the UK. I have already formed the opinion that it is not
possible in either the UK or the US though.

What I am cheifly worried about now is the possibility of a second Perot
campaign building upon the current political base. I calculate that there is a
possibility of creating a national movement, but only by using a hate plank.
This would possibly allow a coalition of disaffected elements using the KKK
constituency as a base. This was the trick that Hitler pulled off, the NAZI
party existed for quite a long time before he joined.

|>As far as *frightened*, you're right, at least in my case.  I am
|>afraid that if the American public continues to ignore the 
|>destructive policies and actions of our government, our children
|>cannot look forward to a better life.

Precisely, if the US does not change it's policies they will end up with a H
Ross Perot lookalike.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections