(continued from previous post)


You ask,

>
>If neither the celebrant nor the congregation understand the "abracadbra"
>how is there a barrier between them?
>

The barrier exists in the FACT that there is a social construct, THE MASS,
which can be administered only by a priesthood appointed from the top down.
The barrier exists by virtue of the use of ANY abracadabra.  I believe in
the Bible, Christ says, where any three pray in my name, I am present.  The
abracadabra, whether in Greek, in Latin, or in any language, signifies that
the priest has a SPECIAL function.  That he is somehow empowered to bring
god down in a way that “ordinary” person cannot.   Understanding the nuances
of Latin is not the issue; the social construct is what divides.


>You might think of Pound's
>language here as an earlier form of ranting against those who feel entitled
>to express an opinion on a subject solely on the grounds that they are
>"consumers" or "taxpayers".  Do you know what I mean?

Isn’t this the essence of the anti-democratic frame of mind?  People ARE
entitled to express their opinion on the sole ground that they are citizens
in a representative democracy.   Pound does not appear to believe this.
Pound believes that HE HIMSELF is entitled to express an opinion because he
is uniquely qualified to make judgements on any topic, whether economic,
social, political, or religious.  Yet if his views prevailed, all of Europe
and America would have fascist and not democratic forms of government.

>
>We can agree that Pound was in many respects an elitist.
>

Yes we can agree on that, I believe.  Would you be willing to go so far as
to say that Pound was more eltitist, more anti-semitic, more
anti-democratic, more classist than any other significant man of letters in
the English speaking world?  If not, who would take the prize?

>You ask whether I find "elitism" disturbing. Not
>really, provided it does not infringe upon anyone's inalienable rights. >


I am not sure what the above statement means.

Are all these statements roughly equivalent:

I do not find [elitism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [communism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [fascism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [nazism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [sexism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [racism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [imperialism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.
I do not find [cannibalism] disturbing, provided it does not infringe upon
anyone's inalienable rights.

In other words, no belief system is disturbing provided it does not . . . .
?

>I
>have more trouble, as I said, with levelling, such as civil service rules
>which inculcate mediocrity by failing to promote and reward excellence,  or
>revolutions which kill off anyone who can read.
>

Why MORE trouble?
I agree that civil service rules which inculcate mediocrity are not
desireable.  But what does that have to do with levelling?  Levelling to my
mind signifies an evening out, so that people are elected to particular
posts, not on the basis of their wealth, inherited position, supposed
intellectual or educational endowment, or other arbitrary criteria.

>
>The system should have checks and balances against both
>aristocratic and mob rule.

Where does mob rule appear to be a problem?  I don't see why people in the
US would even concern themselves with the issue of mob rule?  The last time
anything close to mob rule occurred in the US was during the Vietnam war,
and as far as I know, the "mob" never ruled anything during that time.  The
mob "so-called"  [really they were people just exercising their
contitutional right to peaceably assemble] just helped compell entrenched
goverments to grant civil rights and to end the war.  As far as checks on
the "aristocratic privilege", I cannot see how the US system puts any
serious check on the plutocrats.

>It should establish a somewhat hobbled executive,
>and a slightly activist judiciary when individual rights and protection
>from
>the State are at issue.
>

I hope this isn't a description of the current US system. An executive who
can wage war in the Balkans at the drop of a hat, violate the NATO charter,
and the UN Charter, bomb Iraq on a daily basis hardly seems like a hobbled
executive.   Though maybe you have some other system in mind.

Regards,

Wei

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com