Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'

Expand Messages
  • mary.josie59
    Louise, You mentioned Kristallnacht and thugs. I mentioned scapegoats as a possible contemporary connection. You brought up goats and antiquity. Atonement is
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise,

      You mentioned Kristallnacht and thugs. I mentioned scapegoats as a possible contemporary connection. You brought up goats and antiquity. Atonement is an ancient concept as well. Amid this minor swirl of semantics/semiotics might lie the existential ideas of victim/victimizer and the treacherous notions of personal revolution and crafting an individual response to the deeply ingrained but literary 'cliches' of stereotyping and scapegoating. The words do seem silly, but the philosophical rub lies not in wordplay but in the freedom and responsibility conundrum of existentialism. The myths and metaphors for immortality have in modern societies lost their ability to bind a people to purpose. If they excite or inspire the individual, it is probably only an interest to share in those circles. I don't understand what immortality is a metaphor--for.

      Mary



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > It's deeply ingrained, it would seem, in human nature. J.G Frazer's great opus, "The Golden Bough", abounds in examples. What about the behaviour of children, though? The frequent false claim, "It wasn't me!" sometimes becomes, "It wasn't me, it was him [or her]!" I don't know. Have I understood you correctly? Are you referring only to the kind of blame which is accompanied by some notion of atonement? In general, I am just feeling extremely frustrated by the lack of definition in our discussions. Stereotyping and scapegoating are tired political cliches, and I wish we could find some philosophical finesse in this matter.
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I never understood how any individual or group of individuals can be blamed or atone for the misdemenours of others.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > If I may say so, Mary, a most gnomic and yet unNietzschean sort of reflection. But then, why not? You are someone who thinks in your own right. I have never really understood what this scapegoating lark was all about. Has there been a communal misdemeanour, for which some poor beast must suffer in the wilderness? Louise
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Scapegoats come in many colors.
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have spent quite some time pondering and writing down thoughts arising about any possible connection between petty crime in Britain and the persecutions of 1930s Germany, and have come to the conclusion that not only is there no comparison worth making, but that any kind of comment about social problems from a 'white liberal perspective' is probably a waste of time. At least in my own case and under current conditions. Thus, for the present, vanishing to air ... like Aleister Crowley.
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • louise
      Mary, Thank you for this response. I shall do what I can to find a clear path through confusing territory. My initial references were to links between
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Mary,

        Thank you for this response. I shall do what I can to find a clear path through confusing territory. My initial references were to links between political activism and vandalism, nothing at all to do with 'Kristallnacht', but Wil sidetracked me on to such reflections.
        I have indeed brought up antiquity. Hmm, goats? Did I? In regard to personal revolution, I do not think anything so picturesque figures in my own living, but I give ready assent to the notion of individual response. Society, like democracy, is a dream, but the individual is real, wherever the battle is waged, and there must be many an invisible battle close by us when we walk in the streets.

        Immortality, a formidable concept. I associate it with doctrines of the personal and individual soul, which is not an area of discussion I wish to get into at present.

        No, my thoughts have been turning to 'Will to Power', to those remarks of Nietzsche himself, about the delight of thinking. It is right there, as soon as desired, the permission and experience of really thinking, every free moment. Mostly, though, other emotions than joy intervene, I find, or sometimes it is just hard, plodding work. Undertaken in the cause of life, the individual, which means, after all, the indivisible, the irreducible. Nothing else, I suppose, could possibly be immortal. Is the connection with eternity seen here - that the quality of experiences in time may intersect some more vital dimension? I used to think that was merely an aesthetic conceit. Now I'm much more unsure. Oh well, my third paragraph takes issue with my second. Or rather develops a reluctance into a foray. I think I am finding that your own clarities stimulate response without blinding me first, or inflicting any impairment. For one in my situation, this is a very great good.

        Louise

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
        >
        > Louise,
        >
        > You mentioned Kristallnacht and thugs. I mentioned scapegoats as a possible contemporary connection. You brought up goats and antiquity. Atonement is an ancient concept as well. Amid this minor swirl of semantics/semiotics might lie the existential ideas of victim/victimizer and the treacherous notions of personal revolution and crafting an individual response to the deeply ingrained but literary 'cliches' of stereotyping and scapegoating. The words do seem silly, but the philosophical rub lies not in wordplay but in the freedom and responsibility conundrum of existentialism. The myths and metaphors for immortality have in modern societies lost their ability to bind a people to purpose. If they excite or inspire the individual, it is probably only an interest to share in those circles. I don't understand what immortality is a metaphor--for.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mary,
        > >
        > > It's deeply ingrained, it would seem, in human nature. J.G Frazer's great opus, "The Golden Bough", abounds in examples. What about the behaviour of children, though? The frequent false claim, "It wasn't me!" sometimes becomes, "It wasn't me, it was him [or her]!" I don't know. Have I understood you correctly? Are you referring only to the kind of blame which is accompanied by some notion of atonement? In general, I am just feeling extremely frustrated by the lack of definition in our discussions. Stereotyping and scapegoating are tired political cliches, and I wish we could find some philosophical finesse in this matter.
        > >
        > > Louise
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I never understood how any individual or group of individuals can be blamed or atone for the misdemenours of others.
        > > >
        > > > Mary
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > If I may say so, Mary, a most gnomic and yet unNietzschean sort of reflection. But then, why not? You are someone who thinks in your own right. I have never really understood what this scapegoating lark was all about. Has there been a communal misdemeanour, for which some poor beast must suffer in the wilderness? Louise
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Scapegoats come in many colors.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I have spent quite some time pondering and writing down thoughts arising about any possible connection between petty crime in Britain and the persecutions of 1930s Germany, and have come to the conclusion that not only is there no comparison worth making, but that any kind of comment about social problems from a 'white liberal perspective' is probably a waste of time. At least in my own case and under current conditions. Thus, for the present, vanishing to air ... like Aleister Crowley.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • eupraxis@aol.com
        Louise, My apologies. Really. I keep forgetting that you are out of your mind and thus have no capacity for irony, sarcasm or double entendre. So, I will
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Louise,

          My apologies. Really. I keep forgetting that you are out of your mind and thus have no capacity for irony, sarcasm or double entendre. So, I will finally solve the mystery of the kristolnacht reference.

          You had written (47578), "I assert my peaceful militancy in the cause of making a clearing, where nature can be observed and described, and the deeper implications laid out and discussed." Now I think a reason for your lack of ability for adequately understanding layered meaning, like that exploited in sarcasm, is that you write things that are masks – that is, you expose yourself only far enough to deny that expose. Such I think may be the case here. I am sure that this be demonstrated in due course if you respond to this post. I am sure that you will. You cannot help yourself but to do so.

          In any case, since your racist views are well-known, as well as your occasional fantasies of mono-ethnicity in the UK, not to mention your delusions of persecution, which over the years have been explained by such things as your endangered white race, your innocent remarks to the darkies in the street where you live, and so on, I felt the inclination to remark, in response to the above statement by yourself, "Peaceful militancy? Ha! Brigands in the night. [Those would be the so-called peaceful militants or, by implication, your fantasy saviors.] About as peaceful as kristolnacht."

          Now, I do realize that you were speaking figuratively about shutting up our political dialogue. See? That=2
          0is where that dual sense comes in which hides as it exposes your real intent, in your case it is mostly what Freud called a parapraxis. So -- shutting off the leftist criticism + the background of reactionary racist politics that always rears its ugly head = a philosophical kristolnacht.

          This 'latent meaning' is apparent in nearly everything that you write lately. It is even in this post to Mary, where you say, " ... the individual is real, wherever the battle is waged, and there must be many an invisible battle close by us when we walk in the streets." Really? What battle? Against whom? Well, against all of those who inveigh against your sense of being an individual, of course. And we all k now who THEY are, don't we?

          I hope that helps.

          Wil









          -----Original Message-----
          From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 2:55 pm
          Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'


























          Mary,



          Thank you for this response. I shall do what I can to find a clear path through confusing territory. My initial references were to links between political activism and vandalism, nothing at all to do with 'Kristallnacht', but Wil sidetracked me on to such reflections.

          I have indeed brought up antiquity. Hmm, goats? Did I? In regard to personal revolution, I do not think anything so picturesque figures in my own living, but I give read
          y assent to the notion of individual response. Society, like democracy, is a dream, but the individual is real, wherever the battle is waged, and there must be many an invisible battle close by us when we walk in the streets.



          Immortality, a formidable concept. I associate it with doctrines of the personal and individual soul, which is not an area of discussion I wish to get into at present.



          No, my thoughts have been turning to 'Will to Power', to those remarks of Nietzsche himself, about the delight of thinking. It is right there, as soon as desired, the permission and experience of really thinking, every free moment. Mostly, though, other emotions than joy intervene, I find, or sometimes it is just hard, plodding work. Undertaken in the cause of life, the individual, which means, after all, the indivisible, the irreducible. Nothing else, I suppose, could possibly be immortal. Is the connection with eternity seen here - that the quality of experiences in time may intersect some more vital dimension? I used to think that was merely an aesthetic conceit. Now I'm much more unsure. Oh well, my third paragraph takes issue with my second. Or rather develops a reluctance into a foray. I think I am finding that your own clarities stimulate response without blinding me first, or inflicting any impairment. For one in my situation, this is a very great good.



          Louise



          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:

          >

          > Louise,

          > 0A
          > You mentioned Kristallnacht and thugs. I mentioned scapegoats as a possible contemporary connection. You brought up goats and antiquity. Atonement is an ancient concept as well. Amid this minor swirl of semantics/semiotics might lie the existential ideas of victim/victimizer and the treacherous notions of personal revolution and crafting an individual response to the deeply ingrained but literary 'cliches' of stereotyping and scapegoating. The words do seem silly, but the philosophical rub lies not in wordplay but in the freedom and responsibility conundrum of existentialism. The myths and metaphors for immortality have in modern societies lost their ability to bind a people to purpose. If they excite or inspire the individual, it is probably only an interest to share in those circles. I don't understand what immortality is a metaphor--for.

          >

          > Mary

          >

          >

          >

          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:

          > >

          > > Mary,

          > >

          > > It's deeply ingrained, it would seem, in human nature. J.G Frazer's great opus, "The Golden Bough", abounds in examples. What about the behaviour of children, though? The frequent false claim, "It wasn't me!" sometimes becomes, "It wasn't me, it was him [or her]!" I don't know. Have I understood you correctly? Are you referring only to the kind of blame which is accompanied by some notion of atonement? In general, I am just feeling extremely frustrated by the lack of definition in our discussions. Stereotyping and scapegoating are
          tired political cliches, and I wish we could find some philosophical finesse in this matter.

          > >

          > > Louise

          > >

          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:

          > > >

          > > > I never understood how any individual or group of individuals can be blamed or atone for the misdemenours of others.

          > > >

          > > > Mary

          > > >

          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:

          > > > >

          > > > > If I may say so, Mary, a most gnomic and yet unNietzschean sort of reflection. But then, why not? You are someone who thinks in your own right. I have never really understood what this scapegoating lark was all about. Has there been a communal misdemeanour, for which some poor beast must suffer in the wilderness? Louise

          > > > >

          > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:

          > > > > >

          > > > > > Scapegoats come in many colors.

          > > > > >

          > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:

          > > > > > >

          > > > > > > I have spent quite some time pondering and writing down thoughts arising about any possible connection between petty crime in Britain and the persecutions of 1930s Germany, and have come to the conclusion that not only is there no comparison worth making, but that any kind of comment about social problems from a 'white liberal perspective' is probably a waste of time. At least in my own case and under current c
          onditions. Thus, for the present, vanishing to air ... like Aleister Crowley.

          > > > > > >

          > > > > >

          > > > >

          > > >

          > >

          >


























          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • louise
          Wil, If you really believe that I am out of my mind, it is rather irresponsible to try to reason with me. I am extremely annoyed at how rude you have been
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Wil,

            If you really believe that I am out of my mind, it is rather irresponsible to try to reason with me. I am extremely annoyed at how rude you have been generally, and think that a cooling-off period at the very least is demanded of us both. Sarcasm is cruel. You may not love England, but I do. Your caricatures only harden my feeling against your brutalistic brand of psychiatry.

            Louise

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
            >
            >
            > Louise,
            >
            > My apologies. Really. I keep forgetting that you are out of your mind and thus have no capacity for irony, sarcasm or double entendre. So, I will finally solve the mystery of the kristolnacht reference.
            >
            > You had written (47578), "I assert my peaceful militancy in the cause of making a clearing, where nature can be observed and described, and the deeper implications laid out and discussed." Now I think a reason for your lack of ability for adequately understanding layered meaning, like that exploited in sarcasm, is that you write things that are masks â€" that is, you expose yourself only far enough to deny that expose. Such I think may be the case here. I am sure that this be demonstrated in due course if you respond to this post. I am sure that you will. You cannot help yourself but to do so.
            >
            > In any case, since your racist views are well-known, as well as your occasional fantasies of mono-ethnicity in the UK, not to mention your delusions of persecution, which over the years have been explained by such things as your endangered white race, your innocent remarks to the darkies in the street where you live, and so on, I felt the inclination to remark, in response to the above statement by yourself, "Peaceful militancy? Ha! Brigands in the night. [Those would be the so-called peaceful militants or, by implication, your fantasy saviors.] About as peaceful as kristolnacht."
            >
            > Now, I do realize that you were speaking figuratively about shutting up our political dialogue. See? That=2
            > 0is where that dual sense comes in which hides as it exposes your real intent, in your case it is mostly what Freud called a parapraxis. So -- shutting off the leftist criticism + the background of reactionary racist politics that always rears its ugly head = a philosophical kristolnacht.
            >
            > This 'latent meaning' is apparent in nearly everything that you write lately. It is even in this post to Mary, where you say, " ... the individual is real, wherever the battle is waged, and there must be many an invisible battle close by us when we walk in the streets." Really? What battle? Against whom? Well, against all of those who inveigh against your sense of being an individual, of course. And we all k now who THEY are, don't we?
            >
            > I hope that helps.
            >
            > Wil
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 2:55 pm
            > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Mary,
            >
            >
            >
            > Thank you for this response. I shall do what I can to find a clear path through confusing territory. My initial references were to links between political activism and vandalism, nothing at all to do with 'Kristallnacht', but Wil sidetracked me on to such reflections.
            >
            > I have indeed brought up antiquity. Hmm, goats? Did I? In regard to personal revolution, I do not think anything so picturesque figures in my own living, but I give read
            > y assent to the notion of individual response. Society, like democracy, is a dream, but the individual is real, wherever the battle is waged, and there must be many an invisible battle close by us when we walk in the streets.
            >
            >
            >
            > Immortality, a formidable concept. I associate it with doctrines of the personal and individual soul, which is not an area of discussion I wish to get into at present.
            >
            >
            >
            > No, my thoughts have been turning to 'Will to Power', to those remarks of Nietzsche himself, about the delight of thinking. It is right there, as soon as desired, the permission and experience of really thinking, every free moment. Mostly, though, other emotions than joy intervene, I find, or sometimes it is just hard, plodding work. Undertaken in the cause of life, the individual, which means, after all, the indivisible, the irreducible. Nothing else, I suppose, could possibly be immortal. Is the connection with eternity seen here - that the quality of experiences in time may intersect some more vital dimension? I used to think that was merely an aesthetic conceit. Now I'm much more unsure. Oh well, my third paragraph takes issue with my second. Or rather develops a reluctance into a foray. I think I am finding that your own clarities stimulate response without blinding me first, or inflicting any impairment. For one in my situation, this is a very great good.
            >
            >
            >
            > Louise
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
            >
            > >
            >
            > > Louise,
            >
            > > 0A
            > > You mentioned Kristallnacht and thugs. I mentioned scapegoats as a possible contemporary connection. You brought up goats and antiquity. Atonement is an ancient concept as well. Amid this minor swirl of semantics/semiotics might lie the existential ideas of victim/victimizer and the treacherous notions of personal revolution and crafting an individual response to the deeply ingrained but literary 'cliches' of stereotyping and scapegoating. The words do seem silly, but the philosophical rub lies not in wordplay but in the freedom and responsibility conundrum of existentialism. The myths and metaphors for immortality have in modern societies lost their ability to bind a people to purpose. If they excite or inspire the individual, it is probably only an interest to share in those circles. I don't understand what immortality is a metaphor--for.
            >
            > >
            >
            > > Mary
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
            >
            > > >
            >
            > > > Mary,
            >
            > > >
            >
            > > > It's deeply ingrained, it would seem, in human nature. J.G Frazer's great opus, "The Golden Bough", abounds in examples. What about the behaviour of children, though? The frequent false claim, "It wasn't me!" sometimes becomes, "It wasn't me, it was him [or her]!" I don't know. Have I understood you correctly? Are you referring only to the kind of blame which is accompanied by some notion of atonement? In general, I am just feeling extremely frustrated by the lack of definition in our discussions. Stereotyping and scapegoating are
            > tired political cliches, and I wish we could find some philosophical finesse in this matter.
            >
            > > >
            >
            > > > Louise
            >
            > > >
            >
            > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
            >
            > > > >
            >
            > > > > I never understood how any individual or group of individuals can be blamed or atone for the misdemenours of others.
            >
            > > > >
            >
            > > > > Mary
            >
            > > > >
            >
            > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
            >
            > > > > >
            >
            > > > > > If I may say so, Mary, a most gnomic and yet unNietzschean sort of reflection. But then, why not? You are someone who thinks in your own right. I have never really understood what this scapegoating lark was all about. Has there been a communal misdemeanour, for which some poor beast must suffer in the wilderness? Louise
            >
            > > > > >
            >
            > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
            >
            > > > > > >
            >
            > > > > > > Scapegoats come in many colors.
            >
            > > > > > >
            >
            > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
            >
            > > > > > > >
            >
            > > > > > > > I have spent quite some time pondering and writing down thoughts arising about any possible connection between petty crime in Britain and the persecutions of 1930s Germany, and have come to the conclusion that not only is there no comparison worth making, but that any kind of comment about social problems from a 'white liberal perspective' is probably a waste of time. At least in my own case and under current c
            > onditions. Thus, for the present, vanishing to air ... like Aleister Crowley.
            >
            > > > > > > >
            >
            > > > > > >
            >
            > > > > >
            >
            > > > >
            >
            > > >
            >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • jimstuart51
            Wil, I think some of your recent posts to Louise have been unjustifiably harsh and unhelpful. Like you I profoundly disagree with Louise s racist views and her
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Wil,

              I think some of your recent posts to Louise have been unjustifiably harsh and unhelpful.

              Like you I profoundly disagree with Louise's racist views and her political proposals, most notably for the repatriation of non-white citizens of the United Kingdom. I have written on this list my reasons for finding this political proposal not only ethically unacceptable but also practically impossible to implement.

              Having said that, I have no recollection of Louise ever having advocated unlawful force or violence against the non-white citizens of the UK. For this reason, I think it unjustifiable for you to link her talk of `peaceful militancy' with the violence of Kristallnacht. I associated her phrase more with the idea of `non-violent direct action' which many socialists, environmentalists and pacifists have used to good effect over the years both in the UK and the US.

              Further, whilst Louise chooses to describe herself as a schizophrenic, I do not feel that this justifies any of the rest of us describing her as `out of her mind' or `mad'.

              I also see no reason for linking her schizophrenia (if, indeed, it would be correct be say that she suffers from schizophrenia) with her racist views. I am sure you do not want to say that everybody who has racist views is clinically insane.

              I am not against making harsh criticisms of others on the forum – harsh criticisms are often justified, and in retrospect I acknowledge that I have, on occasion, deserved harsh criticism on this list.

              I have recently criticized Bill on this forum for describing the unemployed in the US as `worthless scum' who deserve to be executed. (I note that nobody else saw fit to criticize Bill for his ethical and political views on this issue.)

              My own view is that it is best to reserve criticism for what a person actually says, and in making the criticism, treat the other as a rational individual, who is sane enough to evaluate the criticism and has the capability to change their mind in a fully rational and self-conscious way if they acknowledge the validity of the criticism.

              Jim
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              Jim, Perhaps I was unduly harsh. But I do think that Louise uses her illness as a shield against criticism. As far as the phrases out of her mind or mad
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim,

                Perhaps I was unduly harsh.

                But I do think that Louise uses her illness as a shield against criticism. As far as the phrases "out of her mind" or "mad" go, yes, the first was a jab, but Louise continually proclaims herself as mad, as either suffering from or enjoying her madness. Further, her ideas are often mad as hell, so unless we agree to let all of that pass for all contributors here as well, I see no reason for any special treatment any longer. But it is not just the illness that bothers me; it is the exploitation of it to shield her from her incessant racist-paranoid views that bothers me.

                In point of fact, Louise's posts have been ramping up these issues for a while now, starting with her advocacy approximately last November of neo-Nazi-like literature and things by extreme nationalists like Tyndall. Consider the following (45683):

                "From long experience at the list, and my general knowledge concerning the average ignorance of the American people concerning social and political matters overseas, it might be a good time to provide a little information which is in any case hardly known and considered even in Britain. This is a time in which the British National Party is once again in the news headlines. Those of you who recall that I have access to a racial nationalist library, including an archive of the magazine, 'Spearhead', will possibly remember also that I sought to make clear the honourable character and wise political judgment of its editor, John Tyndall, who died=2
                0in 2005. He was the original founder of the BNP in 1982, and led the party until displaced by Nick Griffin in 1999. Mr. Tyndall also led the National Front, which achieved considerable popular support in the 1970s, before the coming to political office of Mrs. Thatcher. Even today, the mainstream media routinely refer to the BNP, past and present, as 'Neo-Nazi', or 'fascist', misleading labels when applied to the party under the leadership of either man. In fact, it seems to me like a form of highly casual slander, or libel, in regard to matters of great moment. So my decision at this point is to transcribe part of an article written by Nick Griffin in 1982, and answered by John Tyndall in his own magazine. I will present these passages in my next post."

                If you are unfamiliar with the names and periodicals mentioned above, you should spend a few moment and Google them.

                You write, "I also see no reason for linking her schizophrenia (if, indeed, it would be correct be say that she suffers from schizophrenia) with her racist views. I am sure you do not want to say that everybody who has racist views is clinically insane."

                Well, if such a person demonstrates obvious symptoms, such as delusions of persecution and the rest, as well as being self-avowedly "mad", I would proffer that claim. But even if these views are coming from a mere bigot, otherwise as same as anyone else, such bigotry would at the least be evidence of an intolerable ignorance and arrogance that I would in any case=2
                0attack each and every time I heard it.

                I do not have any patience left with this sort of thing. If one is a self-proclaimed mad person and paranoid, and one has no ability or desire to mediate one's obvious symptoms, what in the world is that person doing in a philosophy group?

                Still, I will respect your intervention here.

                Wil








                -----Original Message-----
                From: jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 7:36 am
                Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'


























                Wil,



                I think some of your recent posts to Louise have been unjustifiably harsh and unhelpful.



                Like you I profoundly disagree with Louise's racist views and her political proposals, most notably for the repatriation of non-white citizens of the United Kingdom. I have written on this list my reasons for finding this political proposal not only ethically unacceptable but also practically impossible to implement.



                Having said that, I have no recollection of Louise ever having advocated unlawful force or violence against the non-white citizens of the UK. For this reason, I think it unjustifiable for you to link her talk of `peaceful militancy' with the violence of Kristallnacht. I associated her phrase more with the idea of `non-violent direct action' which many socialists, environmentalists and pacifists have used to good effect over the years both in the UK and the US.


                0AFurther, whilst Louise chooses to describe herself as a schizophrenic, I do not feel that this justifies any of the rest of us describing her as `out of her mind' or `mad'.



                I also see no reason for linking her schizophrenia (if, indeed, it would be correct be say that she suffers from schizophrenia) with her racist views. I am sure you do not want to say that everybody who has racist views is clinically insane.



                I am not against making harsh criticisms of others on the forum – harsh criticisms are often justified, and in retrospect I acknowledge that I have, on occasion, deserved harsh criticism on this list.



                I have recently criticized Bill on this forum for describing the unemployed in the US as `worthless scum' who deserve to be executed. (I note that nobody else saw fit to criticize Bill for his ethical and political views on this issue.)



                My own view is that it is best to reserve criticism for what a person actually says, and in making the criticism, treat the other as a rational individual, who is sane enough to evaluate the criticism and has the capability to change their mind in a fully rational and self-conscious way if they acknowledge the validity of the criticism.



                Jim























                =0
                A


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • jimstuart51
                Wil, Thank you for your reply. You suggest that if I am unfamiliar with the political careers of John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, then I can find out about them
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wil,

                  Thank you for your reply.

                  You suggest that if I am unfamiliar with the political careers of John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, then I can find out about them on the internet.

                  Well, I already know all about them and the chequered histories of the National Front and the British National Party.

                  In 1976, I was just eighteen and able to vote for the first time. I remember attending election meetings of all the main parties, as well as a meeting organised by the National Front – in a smallish room above a pub in Harrogate.

                  Tindall's right-hand man at the time – Martin Webster – was the main speaker. At the time one of my school group – yes, I was still at school – was very enthusiastic for the NF with its agenda of repatriation. One of our school teachers was also know for her open support of the NF.

                  Fortunately I was not persuaded by my racist school acquaintance, who I came increasing to realize was a sinister character.

                  I think my hatred of all things racist is as strong as yours – certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.

                  My criticisms of your recent posts were more subtle: I think you unjustly accused Louise of endorsing racist violence; I criticized you for linking Louise's racism with her schizophrenia; and I criticized you for suggesting that she was `out of her mind'.

                  Jim
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  Jim, No, I understand you. You were quite right to intervene. Wil ... From: jimstuart51 To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, 5 Apr
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim,

                    No, I understand you. You were quite right to intervene.

                    Wil







                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 1:51 pm
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'


























                    Wil,



                    Thank you for your reply.



                    You suggest that if I am unfamiliar with the political careers of John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, then I can find out about them on the internet.



                    Well, I already know all about them and the chequered histories of the National Front and the British National Party.



                    In 1976, I was just eighteen and able to vote for the first time. I remember attending election meetings of all the main parties, as well as a meeting organised by the National Front – in a smallish room above a pub in Harrogate.



                    Tindall's right-hand man at the time – Martin Webster – was the main speaker. At the time one of my school group – yes, I was still at school – was very enthusiastic for the NF with its agenda of repatriation. One of our school teachers was also know for her open support of the NF.



                    Fortunately I was not persuaded by my racist school acquaintance, who I came increasing to realize was a sinister character.



                    I think my hatred of all things racist is as strong as yours – certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Lo
                    uise for her racist views.



                    My criticisms of your recent posts were more subtle: I think you unjustly accused Louise of endorsing racist violence; I criticized you for linking Louise's racism with her schizophrenia; and I criticized you for suggesting that she was `out of her mind'.



                    Jim


























                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • louise
                    ... Jim, I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin]. My own view is that you don t
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Wil,
                      >
                      > Thank you for your reply.
                      >
                      > You suggest that if I am unfamiliar with the political careers of John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, then I can find out about them on the internet.
                      >
                      > Well, I already know all about them and the chequered histories of the National Front and the British National Party.
                      >
                      > In 1976, I was just eighteen and able to vote for the first time. I remember attending election meetings of all the main parties, as well as a meeting organised by the National Front – in a smallish room above a pub in Harrogate.
                      >
                      > Tindall's right-hand man at the time – Martin Webster – was the main speaker. At the time one of my school group – yes, I was still at school – was very enthusiastic for the NF with its agenda of repatriation. One of our school teachers was also know for her open support of the NF.
                      >
                      > Fortunately I was not persuaded by my racist school acquaintance, who I came increasing to realize was a sinister character.
                      >
                      > I think my hatred of all things racist is as strong as yours – certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.
                      >
                      > My criticisms of your recent posts were more subtle: I think you unjustly accused Louise of endorsing racist violence; I criticized you for linking Louise's racism with her schizophrenia; and I criticized you for suggesting that she was `out of her mind'.
                      >
                      > Jim
                      >
                      Jim,

                      I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.

                      Louise
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      Jim & Louise, I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jim & Louise,

                        I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.

                        Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."

                        Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed. This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.
                        ---
                        "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."

                        Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.
                        ---
                        "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."

                        Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.
                        ---
                        "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."

                        Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious. This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.
                        ---
                        "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."

                        Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.

                        Wil







                        >

                        Jim,



                        I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.



                        Louise


























                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • louise
                        ... Dear Uncle Wil, If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below: [W.]
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Jim & Louise,
                          >
                          > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.

                          Dear Uncle Wil,

                          If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:

                          [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."

                          [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.

                          [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.

                          [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.

                          [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.

                          [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."

                          [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.

                          [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.

                          [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."

                          [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.

                          [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?

                          [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."

                          [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.

                          [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:

                          [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'

                          [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.

                          [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?

                          [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."

                          [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.

                          [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.

                          > Wil
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > Jim,
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Louise
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • jimstuart51
                          Louise, In your post 47680, you write: What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Louise,

                            In your post 47680, you write:

                            "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."

                            Like Wil, I am surprised that you have written this about my post 47672.

                            Re-reading my own post, I can only conclude that your accusation of hatred on my part follows from this part-sentence: "I think my hatred of all things racist is as strong as yours …"

                            I think it is important to distinguish between hatred of people and hatred of ideas. I do not think I hate anyone, not you, not Bill, not even the man my partner is sleeping with.

                            However, I do hate certain ideas, such as bullying, control freakery, sexism, totalitarianism and racism. I don't see anything wrong with hating ideas.

                            Surely you hate certain ideas – bullying, socialism, atheism, etc.

                            I am capable of hating some of an individual's ideas, without hating the person. Aren't you capable of this too?

                            In itself, expressing hatred of certain ideas does not seem inappropriate on an existentialist list. Is Bill wrong to express his hatred of Catholicism? Surely not!

                            I am sorry the exchange of posts today has become so bitter. I feel myself responsible having written my original post 44660 criticizing Wil, which continued the thread between you and Wil which may have quietly come to an end.


                            Jim
                          • louise
                            Jim, Thank you for this clarification. Yes, I tend to hate certain ideas and behaviours, and forbid myself personal hatred. My health has been very poor of
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim,

                              Thank you for this clarification. Yes, I tend to hate certain ideas and behaviours, and forbid myself personal hatred. My health has been very poor of late, however, because there are many people in the community who are neither liberals nor Christians, and whose hatred I seem to be strongly affected by. It is certainly confusing my state of mind very frequently.

                              Louise

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Louise,
                              >
                              > In your post 47680, you write:
                              >
                              > "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."
                              >
                              > Like Wil, I am surprised that you have written this about my post 47672.
                              >
                              > Re-reading my own post, I can only conclude that your accusation of hatred on my part follows from this part-sentence: "I think my hatred of all things racist is as strong as yours …"
                              >
                              > I think it is important to distinguish between hatred of people and hatred of ideas. I do not think I hate anyone, not you, not Bill, not even the man my partner is sleeping with.
                              >
                              > However, I do hate certain ideas, such as bullying, control freakery, sexism, totalitarianism and racism. I don't see anything wrong with hating ideas.
                              >
                              > Surely you hate certain ideas – bullying, socialism, atheism, etc.
                              >
                              > I am capable of hating some of an individual's ideas, without hating the person. Aren't you capable of this too?
                              >
                              > In itself, expressing hatred of certain ideas does not seem inappropriate on an existentialist list. Is Bill wrong to express his hatred of Catholicism? Surely not!
                              >
                              > I am sorry the exchange of posts today has become so bitter. I feel myself responsible having written my original post 44660 criticizing Wil, which continued the thread between you and Wil which may have quietly come to an end.
                              >
                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                              Lousie, ... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Lousie,

                                "... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist."

                                Response: So you are saying that Jim's prejudice against prejudice renders him unable to have a cogent idea of racist politics. How convenient! In any case, Jim has already responded to the hatred thing.
                                ---
                                "This argument may be too philosophical for you [oh PLEASE!], I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death."

                                Response: And what are these esoteric matters of life and death?
                                ---
                                "As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad."

                                Response: But that does not mean the reverse would be true, namely: if one is mad, one can be considered a Greek philosopher.
                                ---

                                Wil







                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 5:44 pm
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'


























                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                >

                                > Jim & Louise,

                                >

                                > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.



                                Dear Uncle Wil,



                                If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:



                                [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."



                                [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.



                                [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.



                                [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.



                                [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.



                                [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."



                                [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.



                                [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.



                                [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."



                                [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.



                                [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?



                                [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."



                                [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.



                                [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:



                                [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'



                                [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.



                                [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?



                                [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."



                                [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.



                                [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.



                                > Wil

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                > >

                                >

                                > Jim,

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                > Louise

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                >


























                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • louise
                                ... No, it is very inconvenient to be unable to make clear what ought to be obvious. It is your prejudice that racism is prejudice. If you were to have an
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Lousie,
                                  >
                                  > "... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist."
                                  >
                                  > Response: So you are saying that Jim's prejudice against prejudice renders him unable to have a cogent idea of racist politics. How convenient! In any case, Jim has already responded to the hatred thing.

                                  No, it is very inconvenient to be unable to make clear what ought to be obvious. It is your prejudice that racism is prejudice. If you were to have an open mind about the question, we could discuss it. I am still waiting.

                                  > ---
                                  > "This argument may be too philosophical for you [oh PLEASE!], I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death."
                                  >
                                  > Response: And what are these esoteric matters of life and death?

                                  They are not esoteric. The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable apprehension. Having read the literature for more than twenty-five years, I have encountered much that is prophetic.

                                  > ---
                                  > "As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad."
                                  >
                                  > Response: But that does not mean the reverse would be true, namely: if one is mad, one can be considered a Greek philosopher.

                                  Very true. I prefer these rational discussions to the slide into conditions of instability which may well be called mad. There is a poetry, however, and an innocence, to any schizophrenia which is left unmolested by political or other social pressures. I have failed to keep out of the way of what was dangerous for me. The poetry has not entirely deserted me, though. Rilke, you know, did not want to meet Freud and be psycho-analysed, as he thought his angels would be cast out together with his demons. I believe it was Salome who suggested a consultation. L.
                                  > ---
                                  >
                                  > Wil
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 5:44 pm
                                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > Jim & Louise,
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Dear Uncle Wil,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Wil
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > Jim,
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > Louise
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                  Louise, The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable apprehension.
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Louise,



                                    "The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the
                                    survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable
                                    apprehension."



                                    Response: But you mean a peaceful war, with "peaceful warriors", no? I mean if it is reasonable and all?



                                    Wil





                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 6:21 pm
                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'


























                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                    >

                                    > Lousie,

                                    >

                                    > "... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist."

                                    >

                                    > Response: So you are saying that Jim's prejudice against prejudice renders him unable to have a cogent idea of racist politics. How convenient! In any case, Jim has already responded to the hatred thing.



                                    No, it is very inconvenient to be unable to make clear what ought to be obvious. It is your prejudice that racism is prejudice. If you were to have an open mind about the question, we could discuss it. I am still waiting.



                                    > ---

                                    > "This argument may be too philosophical for you [oh PLEASE!], I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death."

                                    >

                                    > Response: And what are these esoteric matters of life and death?



                                    They are not esoteric. The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable apprehension. Having read the literature for more than twenty-five years, I have encountered much that is prophetic.



                                    > ---

                                    > "As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad."

                                    >

                                    > Response: But that does not mean the reverse would be true, namely: if one is mad, one can be considered a Greek philosopher.



                                    Very true. I prefer these rational discussions to the slide into conditions of instability which may well be called mad. There is a poetry, however, and an innocence, to any schizophrenia which is left unmolested by political or other social pressures. I have failed to keep out of the way of what was dangerous for me. The poetry has not entirely deserted me, though. Rilke, you know, did not want to meet Freud and be psycho-analysed, as he thought his angels would be cast out together with his demons. I believe it was Salome who suggested a consultation. L.

                                    > ---

                                    >

                                    > Wil

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > -----Original Message-----

                                    > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>

                                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                    > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 5:44 pm

                                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > Jim & Louise,

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > Dear Uncle Wil,

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > > Wil

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > Jim,

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > Louise

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                    >

                                    > >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                    >


























                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • louise
                                    Wil, Your way of asking the question completely confuses the issue. What is a peaceful war ? That is oxymoronic, to be sure. This is all about domains of
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Wil,

                                      Your way of asking the question completely confuses the issue. What is a 'peaceful war'? That is oxymoronic, to be sure. This is all about domains of meaning. I did write a piece myself, called 'The Peaceful Soldier', I think, and sent it to the list a few years back. It was creative writing. What racial nationalists are engaged in is serious political struggle. If democratic means are closed off for them, some of them may take up arms. It is difficult for me to define my faith, but the feeling of anguish inside me, at the thought of my racial kin becoming extinguished from the earth, is part of who I am. The divine mystery that I sense is not a politically-correct anthropomorphic tyrant who forbids my natural peaceful racist thoughts. Myself, I am engaged in a spiritual quest. This is not incompatible with arguing for free speech in respect of those who are politically active, no matter what their spiritual orientation. I do detest slander, and racial nationalists are slandered a great deal.

                                      Louise

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Louise,
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > "The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the
                                      > survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable
                                      > apprehension."
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Response: But you mean a peaceful war, with "peaceful warriors", no? I mean if it is reasonable and all?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Wil
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 6:21 pm
                                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Lousie,
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > "... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Response: So you are saying that Jim's prejudice against prejudice renders him unable to have a cogent idea of racist politics. How convenient! In any case, Jim has already responded to the hatred thing.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > No, it is very inconvenient to be unable to make clear what ought to be obvious. It is your prejudice that racism is prejudice. If you were to have an open mind about the question, we could discuss it. I am still waiting.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > ---
                                      >
                                      > > "This argument may be too philosophical for you [oh PLEASE!], I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Response: And what are these esoteric matters of life and death?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > They are not esoteric. The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable apprehension. Having read the literature for more than twenty-five years, I have encountered much that is prophetic.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > ---
                                      >
                                      > > "As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Response: But that does not mean the reverse would be true, namely: if one is mad, one can be considered a Greek philosopher.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Very true. I prefer these rational discussions to the slide into conditions of instability which may well be called mad. There is a poetry, however, and an innocence, to any schizophrenia which is left unmolested by political or other social pressures. I have failed to keep out of the way of what was dangerous for me. The poetry has not entirely deserted me, though. Rilke, you know, did not want to meet Freud and be psycho-analysed, as he thought his angels would be cast out together with his demons. I believe it was Salome who suggested a consultation. L.
                                      >
                                      > > ---
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Wil
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      >
                                      > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
                                      >
                                      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 5:44 pm
                                      >
                                      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Jim & Louise,
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Dear Uncle Wil,
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Wil
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Jim,
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Louise
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      Louise, Remember the peaceful militancy thing from the past few days? One person s peaceful militancy is another s peaceful war? No? Never mind, I am worn out.
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Louise,

                                        Remember the peaceful militancy thing from the past few days? One person's peaceful militancy is another's peaceful war? No? Never mind, I am worn out.

                                        "What racial nationalists are engaged in is serious political struggle."

                                        Response: Where? What struggle? For power or for racial hegemony?
                                        ---
                                        "If democratic means are closed off for them, some of them may take up arms."

                                        Response: To what end?
                                        ---
                                        "It is difficult for me to define my faith, but the feeling of anguish inside me, at the thought of my racial kin becoming extinguished from the earth, is part of who I am."

                                        Response: Who are those racial kin. Italians? Slavs? Russians? Irish folks or Scotts? Members of another as yet unknown genome?
                                        ---
                                        "The divine mystery that I sense is not a politically-correct anthropomorphic tyrant who forbids my natural peaceful racist thoughts."

                                        Response: Goes without saying. ...
                                        ---
                                        "Myself, I am engaged in a spiritual quest. This is not incompatible with arguing for free speech in respect of those who are politically active, no matter what their spiritual orientation."

                                        Response: Sure, like Heidegger!
                                        ---
                                        "I do detest slander, and racial nationalists are slandered a great deal."

                                        Response: Hey, if you have to detest something...

                                        Wil








                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 6:52 pm
                                        Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'


























                                        Wil,



                                        Your way of asking the question completely confuses the issue. What is a 'peaceful war'? That is oxymoronic, to be sure. This is all about domains of meaning. I did write a piece myself, called 'The Peaceful Soldier', I think, and sent it to the list a few years back. It was creative writing. What racial nationalists are engaged in is serious political struggle. If democratic means are closed off for them, some of them may take up arms. It is difficult for me to define my faith, but the feeling of anguish inside me, at the thought of my racial kin becoming extinguished from the earth, is part of who I am. The divine mystery that I sense is not a politically-correct anthropomorphic tyrant who forbids my natural peaceful racist thoughts. Myself, I am engaged in a spiritual quest. This is not incompatible with arguing for free speech in respect of those who are politically active, no matter what their spiritual orientation. I do detest slander, and racial nationalists are slandered a great deal.



                                        Louise



                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                        >

                                        > Louise,

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > "The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the

                                        > survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable

                                        > apprehension."

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > Response: But you mean a peaceful war, with "peaceful warriors", no? I mean if it is reasonable and all?

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > Wil

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > -----Original Message-----

                                        > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>

                                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                        > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 6:21 pm

                                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > Lousie,

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > "... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > Response: So you are saying that Jim's prejudice against prejudice renders him unable to have a cogent idea of racist politics. How convenient! In any case, Jim has already responded to the hatred thing.

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > No, it is very inconvenient to be unable to make clear what ought to be obvious. It is your prejudice that racism is prejudice. If you were to have an open mind about the question, we could discuss it. I am still waiting.

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > > ---

                                        >

                                        > > "This argument may be too philosophical for you [oh PLEASE!], I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > Response: And what are these esoteric matters of life and death?

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > They are not esoteric. The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable apprehension. Having read the literature for more than twenty-five years, I have encountered much that is prophetic.

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > > ---

                                        >

                                        > > "As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > Response: But that does not mean the reverse would be true, namely: if one is mad, one can be considered a Greek philosopher.

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > Very true. I prefer these rational discussions to the slide into conditions of instability which may well be called mad. There is a poetry, however, and an innocence, to any schizophrenia which is left unmolested by political or other social pressures. I have failed to keep out of the way of what was dangerous for me. The poetry has not entirely deserted me, though. Rilke, you know, did not want to meet Freud and be psycho-analysed, as he thought his angels would be cast out together with his demons. I believe it was Salome who suggested a consultation. L.

                                        >

                                        > > ---

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > Wil

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > -----Original Message-----

                                        >

                                        > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>

                                        >

                                        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                        >

                                        > > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 5:44 pm

                                        >

                                        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > Jim & Louise,

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > Dear Uncle Wil,

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > Wil

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > Jim,

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > Louise

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                        >

                                        > >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        >

                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                        >


























                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • louise
                                        ... No, I don t remember, and I too am worn out. This is my final post for the evening. In fact, I am concerned in case I have seriously lost insight into
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Louise,
                                          >
                                          > Remember the peaceful militancy thing from the past few days? One person's peaceful militancy is another's peaceful war? No? Never mind, I am worn out.

                                          No, I don't remember, and I too am worn out. This is my final post for the evening. In fact, I am concerned in case I have seriously lost insight into context. My wish is to write from a philosophical viewpoint. You enquire about Heidegger. The association with Nazism sickens me to the stomach. I feel disgusted by the way I am manipulated. There is no point in writing anything further until a better perspective arrives. L.

                                          > "What racial nationalists are engaged in is serious political struggle."
                                          >
                                          > Response: Where? What struggle? For power or for racial hegemony?
                                          > ---
                                          > "If democratic means are closed off for them, some of them may take up arms."
                                          >
                                          > Response: To what end?
                                          > ---
                                          > "It is difficult for me to define my faith, but the feeling of anguish inside me, at the thought of my racial kin becoming extinguished from the earth, is part of who I am."
                                          >
                                          > Response: Who are those racial kin. Italians? Slavs? Russians? Irish folks or Scotts? Members of another as yet unknown genome?
                                          > ---
                                          > "The divine mystery that I sense is not a politically-correct anthropomorphic tyrant who forbids my natural peaceful racist thoughts."
                                          >
                                          > Response: Goes without saying. ...
                                          > ---
                                          > "Myself, I am engaged in a spiritual quest. This is not incompatible with arguing for free speech in respect of those who are politically active, no matter what their spiritual orientation."
                                          >
                                          > Response: Sure, like Heidegger!
                                          > ---
                                          > "I do detest slander, and racial nationalists are slandered a great deal."
                                          >
                                          > Response: Hey, if you have to detest something...
                                          >
                                          > Wil
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 6:52 pm
                                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Wil,
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Your way of asking the question completely confuses the issue. What is a 'peaceful war'? That is oxymoronic, to be sure. This is all about domains of meaning. I did write a piece myself, called 'The Peaceful Soldier', I think, and sent it to the list a few years back. It was creative writing. What racial nationalists are engaged in is serious political struggle. If democratic means are closed off for them, some of them may take up arms. It is difficult for me to define my faith, but the feeling of anguish inside me, at the thought of my racial kin becoming extinguished from the earth, is part of who I am. The divine mystery that I sense is not a politically-correct anthropomorphic tyrant who forbids my natural peaceful racist thoughts. Myself, I am engaged in a spiritual quest. This is not incompatible with arguing for free speech in respect of those who are politically active, no matter what their spiritual orientation. I do detest slander, and racial nationalists are slandered a great deal.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Louise
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Louise,
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > "The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the
                                          >
                                          > > survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable
                                          >
                                          > > apprehension."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Response: But you mean a peaceful war, with "peaceful warriors", no? I mean if it is reasonable and all?
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Wil
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > -----Original Message-----
                                          >
                                          > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
                                          >
                                          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 6:21 pm
                                          >
                                          > > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Lousie,
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > "... I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Response: So you are saying that Jim's prejudice against prejudice renders him unable to have a cogent idea of racist politics. How convenient! In any case, Jim has already responded to the hatred thing.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > No, it is very inconvenient to be unable to make clear what ought to be obvious. It is your prejudice that racism is prejudice. If you were to have an open mind about the question, we could discuss it. I am still waiting.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > ---
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > "This argument may be too philosophical for you [oh PLEASE!], I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Response: And what are these esoteric matters of life and death?
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > They are not esoteric. The racial nationalists believe that they are fighting a war for the survival of the European races, and I think this is a reasonable apprehension. Having read the literature for more than twenty-five years, I have encountered much that is prophetic.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > ---
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > "As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Response: But that does not mean the reverse would be true, namely: if one is mad, one can be considered a Greek philosopher.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Very true. I prefer these rational discussions to the slide into conditions of instability which may well be called mad. There is a poetry, however, and an innocence, to any schizophrenia which is left unmolested by political or other social pressures. I have failed to keep out of the way of what was dangerous for me. The poetry has not entirely deserted me, though. Rilke, you know, did not want to meet Freud and be psycho-analysed, as he thought his angels would be cast out together with his demons. I believe it was Salome who suggested a consultation. L.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > ---
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Wil
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > -----Original Message-----
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Sent: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 5:44 pm
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: With reference to 'Kristallnacht'
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Jim & Louise,
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > I am sorry, but I have to take issue with the logic, or illogic, of this kind of post. We can all get on together much more amicably, if we just stick to a basic consistency of writing. This shouldn't be hard to do.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Dear Uncle Wil,
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > If only it were so easy. Maybe we could get out the cookie jar first. Anyway, I shall intersperse my responses in the text below:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] Louise writes: "I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] Response: This sentence parses as 1) Jim is lying or telling an untruth; 2) because [or "in view of the fact" (sic)] that he doesn't know anything relevant [regarding race?] to an existentialist list; and because he is dishonest and uninformed.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] Wrong. I do not believe Jim is lying or telling an untruth. He is certainly uninformed, because he has neither access nor motive for gaining access, to the information that really matters, having already told us how much he hates all things racist. This argument may be too philosophical for you, I suppose, the drawing of distinctions which are in existential application matters of life and death. As Kierkegaard once remarked, if anyone tried in modern times, to live like a Greek philosopher, that person would be considered mad.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] This could have been better said by, 'Jim doesn't know what he is talking about either about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin, or about racism and nationalism as existentialist concepts. Not only would this be better put, it would also hook most of us with bated breath for the explanation. Sadly, one doesn't follow.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] An explanation will follow, I promise you, as soon as I am fit to make one. Within the coming week, I hope.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [Wil, quoting me] "The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] Response: If you state the facts, they will be indelibly part of the post record. No matter what treatment you subsequently experience, those facts as written will remain "unsuppressed", unless CSW has suddenly been given to expunging the record, which I doubt.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] In regard to suppression, I am talking about the effect on my memory, when my courteously-worded comments are met with scorn or sarcasm or intemperate accusation.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] "Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] Response: Your exotic use of "liberalism" notwithstanding, yeah, that seems to be the case. Was that a counter-argument? If so, I do not follow the insinuation.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] Counter-argument to what, exactly?
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] "What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] Response: A delusion. Nowhere in that post does Jim demonstrate or suggest anything like hatred, or even anything pugnacious.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] Not a delusion. You have failed to read what is in front of you. I quote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [Jim] 'I think my hatred for all things racist is as strong as yours - certainly I did not intend to dissuade you from criticizing Louise for her racist views.'
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] This seems to be one more paranoid exaggeration. And who does he supposedly hate? White people? You? Show us the hatred, please.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] I would appreciate clarification from Jim. What does this hatred involve?
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] "It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [W.] Response: Not even a Jesuit could parse that concatenation of complaints and excuses in the above rant. In any event, not a single 'fact' has been adduced against what Jim actually had written. Not a single sentence was critiqued; not a single demonstration of Jim's deceit proffered.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [L.] It is not a rant. The statements are very quiet. Jim has not been deceitful. A Jesuit would not have a motive for trying to explain something so complex. I have hardly begun. As a woman dedicated to philosophical thought and seriously intimidated by feminism, whilst not at all disliking other women in general, I face a tough task.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Wil
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Jim,
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > I would just like to say that firstly I disbelieve you, that you 'know all about them [John Tyndall and Nick Griffin].' My own view is that you don't know anything much about them which is relevant to this discussion, in view of the fact that we are supposed to be an existential philosophy list, with some regard to honest argument and an informed view about available facts. The facts I knew have been distorted and suppressed by my treatment at this list. This still continues. Secondly, when I arrived at the list, I soon became astonished at the political slant in discussions. My liberalism rapidly evolved into a strongly emphasised liberal nationalism, and has only subsequently developed into an unapologetic racial nationalist liberalism in the last fortnight, approximately. What I have discovered about the nature of hatred in ordinary people, and in this post, Jim, you exemplify it clearly yourself, has decisively altered my course. It is certainly not just a matter of race. The impact of politics and science on the age-old difference between the sexes, and on the ways in which criminal behaviour may flourish, affect me so much that there is often nothing to say. The truth is too shocking to reach consciousness.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Louise
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.