(continued from previous post)

Charles wrote:


>     I am trying to get to a workable definition of anti-semitism because I
>also see something "squishy" about the term. There is a difference between
>Pound's assessment of Jews and an unquestionable anti-semitic racist theory
>like Rosenberg's.

I agree with that, as far as it goes.


>But the question of usury is always lurking about. And
>this is the reason I included his statement in my posting. Rosenberg would
>have been entirely  incapable of writing the Pound letter which represents
>more than talk but definite action and sympathy in favor of a Jew.

True enough, perhaps.  Though I do not have access to, nor have I studied
the complete personal letters of the leading Nazis.  Many fascists have been
nice to individual Jews on occasions.  Pound's attitude may be a bit like
the attitude of the patronizing white, who wishes to be able to say, "I have
a friend who is black."  We should weigh all the statements Pound made
against one another.


>You want
>to erase these examples so your preconceived thesis will not be questioned,
>and in this sense you also miss Nietzche's point.

On what basis do you say I want to "erase" anything?  I am strongly against
erasures, in all areas of historical, literary-historical, political, and
social inquiry.  Luckily, on the internet, it is difficult to erase things.


>In the name of "equality"
>you want to be more than equal . . .

Evidence?


>i am sure others could see this in the Nietzche selection,
>but you can not because you are so throughly one of the tarantulas he
>describes.
>     It infuriates you that I and others will not pass the same judgment on
>Pound that you do.

On the contrary.  I want each person to look at the evidence, to arrive at
their own conclusions, based on their own analysis. If you have any evidence
of "fury" please produce it.  I think Tim Romano is correct in his
assessement of my attitude, though as he says, attitude is difficult to
judge on such a forum as this.  Consequently, I assume that every
post--however angry it might SEEM to me--- is in reality a post made in good
faith, without serious anger or personal animus.



>You sound at times like a raving fanatic who wants to
>lead a lynch-mob in the name of some righteous cause.

You should feel free to make that assessment.  Such perceptions differ from
person to person.  Some people might think ANYONE is acting in such a way.
The "lynch mob" assertion, while interesting, and vivid, might need to be
substantiated.  I assume you are speaking metaphorically, and if I am
correct in my assumption, then what you are really saying is simply that you
disagree with me.  Perhaps you could say in more detail, why?  And on what
particular point.  For instance do you disagree with me that the vast
majority of statements on the record which Pound made about Jews betray a
strong anti-semitic attitude which is fairly consistent with Hitler's
attitude.  And if not, why did Pound specifically praise Hitler so often in
the Radio Broadcasts?  This point needs addressing.  Please do not avoid it.

>Perhaps this is why
>you are angered by those whose vision reaches beyond your own and the
>"collective"  for which you think you qualify as spokesman.

I never claimed to speak for, or to be a spokesperson for, any particular
"collective."  Nor am I at all angered.  Rather, I find many of the
responses to my posts stimulating and thought provoking, in the most
positive sense.  That includes your posts, of course.

I only speak for myself.  However, I wonder sometimes if you claim to speak
for the author of Also Sprache Zarathustra.  This would be most curious if
it were the case.  As I understood the work, what Zarathustra exhorted his
listeners to do was NOT repeat his words, or echo his thoughts.  Are you a
spokesperson for Pound or for N. or for someone else?  Perhaps this point
needs clarification.


>Do you go to bed
>with Doob under your pillow as Alexander did with his copy of the "Illiad"
>so upon rising first thing in the morning you can look up another
>anti-semitic quote from Saint Ezra to get you through the day?

As a matter of fact, no.  But when one studies Pound it is hard to avoid
such quotes.  What I wonder is to what extent Pound scholars go out of their
way to avoid them.  You say you have read enough of the radio broadcasts to
get an idea of them.   How much is that?  Each one is different.  Do you
refuse to read them in their entirety because 1)  You are not really
intereted in the full dimensions of Pound's thought, such as it is, 2) You
are apprehensive about discovering the full extent, hitherto perhaps only
dreaded,  of Pound's extreme anti-semitism and pro-Nazi, pro-fascist
sentiments?, or 3)  Some other reason.


>     But in answer to your impertinent question, En Lin Wei, yes I have
>read
>enough of the Radio Broadcasts to know what they say, but I also am aware
>that Pound admitted that he had succumbed to the  "suburban prejudice of
>anti-semitism".


See question above.  Also, why is it impertinent to ask if you have read the
radio broadcasts in their entirety?  I did not wish to force you to answer
it, or to make you feel that I was trying to force you.  If you feel the
question was impertinent (like asking about some deeply held intimate
secret) then you can refuse to answer it.  Perhaps to avoid future
misunderstanding you should tell me what you consider impertinent, or not
impertinent.  Attitudes on such matters are highly personal and culturally
varied.  Please spell out your view on this matter, and I will try to avoid
asking such questions in future as may give offense.

>Does that count as anything to you?

I am not sure.  What does it mean, what should it mean, in light of the
other quotations, to say Pound's prejudices were "suburban"?  Were not
Hitler's prejudices, and the ant-semitism of many other Nazi born from
similar origins?  I wonder what difference it makes.

>
>p.s. History proves that "individual talents" as you concede there are,
>flourish in all sorts of environments and conditions sometimes even best in
>the worst precisely because they are "free" from dogma and have COURAGE.

Pound had courage and a great individual talent.  No one denies that, as far
as I know.  But the cultural and philosophical question here is:

What is the significance of COURAGE and TALENT when when coupled with a
committment to one of the most anti-human, hierarchical, racist, sexist,
elitist, and genocidal philosophicial-social systems ever to exist on the
face of this earth?



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