I want to extend warm thanks to Charles Moyer for the generous spirit of his
remarks on the issue of Pound and censorship.

I think we see things eye to eye on this.  I am very sympathetic to your
feeling that censorship is always a danger, and I agree with your
interpretation of the Henry James quote, and the attendant fears regarding
the debasement of culture.  I believe I could say the same about the first
Voltaire quote ("I defend your right . . . .").  Regarding the second
Voltaire quote ("I am fond of truth, but not of martyrdom"), I appreciate
the complexity inherent in such a position, but application to Pound's
circumstances and Voltaire's would lead me to interpret that quote a little
differently.  But we need not go there right now.

Salut,

Wei

PS.  On the topic of Pound's alleged "social darwinism" permit me a brief
observation.

People who argue that Pound's racism has its origin in Darwinism need to
provide evidence which is more than broadly cultural, and therefore
circumstancial.  No Pound quotes have been produced on the subject yet.  In
the Cantos we have the line:

The mythological exterior lies on the moss in the forest
and questions him about Darwin  (29/144).

Pound said he thought very little of Darwin on a number of occasions.

If there is some reason to construct a reason or explanation for Pound's
racism, then it must be done with reference to specifics in Pound's words, I
think.  Look at the racist quotes and determine something from contextual
clues.  Pound said he liked the racial theory propounded by Hitler in Mein
Kampf (which he read in Italian translation).  Of course, his racism has its
roots in an earlier time.  Evidence from Carpenter's rather lengthy
biography roots the racism in Pound's early childhood environment, the
prevalent anti-semitic, anti-black, and anti-immigrant sentiments which
existed in his neighborhood.  The attitudes do seem absorbed and ingrained,
rather than reasoned out, or even rationalized.

Charles Moyer wrote:

<<Subject: Who demonizes ideas?

Someone once told Pound that he was a sadist because he made men (as in
mensch) think. I think governments become quite wise when they stop
executing dissidents and thus creating martyrs. We seem to agree on that.
But this country has been far advanced from others at the art of silencing
its critics by denying them access to media or, in extreme cases,
discrediting them by putting them in the "nut house". This practice,
however, has probably seen its better days. It still amuses me that today's
clever attempt to keep a lid on free thought is to pay loud-mouth radio dick
jockies to reduce freedom of speech to a simple question of being allowed to
explicate sexual acts in the venacular over the airways as if that is all
this freedom means. "The triumph of the superficial and apotheosis of the
raw" in Henry James's words.
    "Poetry sucks. I never could understand any of it." belts out Howard
Stern. "HA,HA,HA" counters Robin (Aunt Tom or whatever she is supposed to
be), the sidekick. My wholesome generation had Edgar Bergen and Charlie
McCarthy.

          "But a tawdry cheapness shall outlast our days" Pound predicted.

    Wei, we don't disagree as much as it might seem; but I only fear, to
answer your question, that, yes, "someone might want to put a warning on his
works" or worse. And I fear that in doing so they may see it expedient to
quote their chosen "experts in the field". Would you want to be used as a
tool for such censorship? Would you want your statements taken out of
context and used for such purposes?
    It is best,I think, for us to remember the statement attributed  to
Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it." And Howard Stern can have his opinion too.
    On the question of Pound's support of fascist censorship, I am not so
sure of his open participation as you seem to be although I could understand
his reticence. Voltaire also said, "I am fond of truth, but not at all of
martyrdom." There's never an easy answer is there?
    On the subject of Social Darwinism, it strikes me as how neatly it
replaces Calvinism  granting the same rationalization for beating up someone
weaker than oneself. Hence the phoney debate between science and religion.
And I wonder what kind of latest "salvation" will we peddle to the world of
"expanding markets" while we line our pockets with our filthy lucre.

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