Ectoplasm

[David Casseres]

>Subject:     Re: Ectoplasm
>Sent:        2/18/97 19:30
>Received:    2/18/97 20:01
>From:        davemarc, davemarc at panix.com
>To:          Pynchlist, pynchon-l at waste.org

I wrote
>> Note that I am not talking about the nations that fought Nazism.  I am
>>talking about Them, the transnational interests that have been manipulating
>>events around the world, sometimes effectively and sometimes less so, since
>>Oh, let's say the Industrial Revolution, though we might also say the
>>Renaissance (there's that Ambrosian Bank, right?).  The fight against
>>Nazism was conducted desperately, often heroically, by ordinary foax who
>>would have died a lot less if They had been willing to oppose Nazism a few
>>years earlier, instead of quietly encouraging it.

...a-and a lot of other stuff about how They have to share the blame for 
Nazism.

davemarc sez
>Just let me say this about Them.  I realize it's kinda fun to drop
>references to Them around here and there, but sometimes it sounds a bit as
>if it's understood here as more of a literal truth than a figurative one. 
>I guess I haven't been persuaded that it's not more than a evocative
>literary gesture.  (Don't know if my point's clear, here.  I'm sorry if
>it's muddled....)

To me, the historical activities of transnational financial/power/control 
interests are entirely literal.

>... there's the sad fact
>that the Nazis' evil was, as far as most of the world could see, not so
>different from many other evils all over the place.

But I think the question is, why was that all that "most of the world 
could see," when all the information was available to tell everyone that 
Nazism was in fact something of another order than common or garden 
variety tyranny?

>I think a missing explanation has to do with the intervention/isolation
>debate.  Roosevelt's goal was to unify a US where there seemed to be enough
>isolationist and pro-German sentiment that going full-blast in an
>anti-German campaign would undermine his country's unity, undermine its
>strength.

I think that sentiment was heavily manipulated.

>Again, in a literal sense I have trouble with these references to They.  I
>honestly don't see any sense in bringing Them into a historical discussion.

And again, I am seriously convinced that They are a very literal part of 
history.




Cheers,
David