I agree with much of what En Lin Wei says in this post, but only because
he does not speak to the issue. The only reason he can deliver such
posts is because he accepts Pound's conflation of Confucious/ Mencius,
Mussolini, National Socialism, ancient imperial regimes of many stripes
as being the standard for fascism. Then, taking Pound's indiosyncratic
formulations, in a feat of (a)mazing intellectual gymnastics and
personal bile, he portions out Pound's version of these varied elements
as those most descriptive to their historical nature. He/she proceeds
with no sense of irony or understanding of how other people hear such
things.
This is also because, according to En Lin Wei "We have to distinguish
between different types of imperialism here." But all the "distinctions"
En Lin Wen recognizes are set by Pound. So Pound's notions of Fascism
fit into Pound's notions of fascism. When En Lin Wei introduces
historical buttresses for his argument, he/she is utterly blind to how
tendentious and bullshit a fit his criticism is to Pound's poetry.

As for my criticism of the Han Dynasty. It is involved with my critique
of the epistemology of science and involves the standardization of
weights and measures under the Ch'in. My poem which contains much of
this material is unpublished. However, a more recent refinement of the
ideas without recourse to the Han or Ch'in, is available at
wedelsol.com/FLASHPOINT. It is called Deconstructing the Demiurge: Tale
of the Tribe and unlike some recent Poundian scholarship does not rely
on canards.
--
--
ÐÏ à¡± á