Bobby,
    Did not Pound him self decide it was "avarice" after all, mistaking the
symptom as the cause? Nicht wahr?
    Jews too can imply self-criticism although that is usually projected as
"self-hating" by the maximilist readers of BAR. But imagine that applied to
Geeezus, See John 1:47 (No "dolos"). Again Guernon's gullible and guileful?
Not to say that all goyim are fryers.
    And hasn't it been pointed out that Islam is nothing more than a
Christian heresy? A few megatons ought to fix that. Is our brave young
hungry caterpillar Pres. not driven by his messianic role for the rapture of
dominionism as his guru "Dr." Tony Evans has convinced him that he will one
day in gloriousmetamorphosis wear a beautiful set of angelic butterfly wings
in the New Jerusalem sitting with a conwerted and "saved" Ariel by his side
both anointed in Texas Tea?
    And you could be right. WW3 might be just 1/2  a war.

Chas

p.s. Frobenius for Spengler, but your Emerson/Pound contrast is supportable
amid the neo-Emerson clatter.

----------
>From: bob scheetz <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Emerson- Pound
>Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2003, 10:35 PM
>

> Michael,
>      if i may, ...
>      I'd tend to see emerson-pound a study in contrast.  Pound, for all the
> "make it new" virtuosity, was thoroughly a slave to Tradition, no?  An
> esthete, no idealist, who read history to re-mythopoetise, ...roman-ticize,
> not transcendentalise, ...after the fashion of his pre-rafaelite nostalgia,
> not kant, hegel, spengler.  Emerson, otoh, was passionate to chuck It all,
> ...was on the way to foucault, no?
>
> ...as for the criminality/ignorance of Pound's reading the causes of WW1/2,
> ...seeing the role of the zionist race-state in provoking the immanent
> obscenity against islam, don't there sometime arise a twinge of doubt that
> the simple, "anti-semite,"  covers the matter?
>
> yours,
> bob