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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
      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 2 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
        --- 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 3 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
          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 4 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
            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 5 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
              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 6 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                --- 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 7 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                  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 8 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                    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 9 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                      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 10 of 28 , Apr 5, 2009
                        --- 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.