The issue of race prejudice is an enigma in Pound as it is elsewhere. Wei,
you seem convinced that the evidence is conclusive that Pound was a racist.
I do not share this opinion for several reasons.
    For one, the statement he made concerning race prejudice in GK ;

    "Race prejudice is red herring. The tool of the man defeated
intellectually"

indicates the opposite. At least he must have considered himself not a
racist or else he would have had to admit that he was "defeated
intellectually" by his own definition. Regardless it shows he thought this
thing through, and one must wonder if the cry "racist" isn't actually being
used as red herring to lead attention away from valid criticism which may or
may not have racist overtones. Have you ever noticed how much more abusive
any ethnic group can be toward its own members without raising this issue?
    In our hypersensitized times how many innocent or angry remarks are
suddenly blown up into potential pogroms? See Philip Roth's new novel "Human
Stain". But times change slowly, and Irish today "can apply", Jews can own
land, African-Americans whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War can
now vote, etc. etc. I don't think Pound would have objected to any of these
changes; do you?
    Another reason I feel Pound was not a racist, despite the remarks of his
caustic tongue which would lend to the belief that he was, concerns an
incident during the war when Pound was in charge of scheduling performers
for a series of concerts in, I believe, Rapallo. One of those performers he
scheduled was Jewish. How can one explain this if he was a rabid antisemite?
    I think it was usury he saw as the enemy, and he made the association of
it with some Jews and Jewish history, rightfully or wrongfully. But he did
not exonerate the Anglo-Saxon (as in gentile) for taking part in this
system.

    "It is nonsense for the anglo-saxon to revile the jew for beating him at
his own game." GK

Is he saying here that jealousy is the source of antisemitism? Would that be
a tendency in Pound? Perhaps, but not in this instnce.
    The real question lies with Pound's definition of usury. It is not the
one found in the dictionary which defines Usury as excessive interest beyond
legal limits. You either believe it or not; but Pound, I believe, was
sincere in his conviction that a system of interest should work more within
the real parameters of the limited capabilities of the earth to increase and
produce. How could this be a crime to think so? Perhaps in time under the
present system everyone on the face of the earth will have everything they
need and want, and the heroes will be those who got fat and rich trading
paper while providing all this for us all.

CM