Wei,
Please re-read what I wrote.    You are distorting things by ignoring
qualifying clauses.

I wrote, as a kind of general admonition:

"Our ignorance of the chronology of composition   .... might well cause us
to reconsider specific statements of the kind which seek
to put a "spin" on statements found in a broadcast, by putting them into the
context of contemporary events _as they were unfolding_ or as news of them
would or could have been reaching Pound."

You did the same thing recently to Pound ("Pound's Auntie..."):

".... his attempts to exhort listeners to a new
anti-Jewish 'pogrom'  "

What Pound advises is to have the pogrom "at the top".  It will be more
"effective" he says.  In the passage in question, Pound is ranting against
powerful Jewish international banking interests, not against the Jewish
people as a people; he even describes the latter as the victim of the
former.  He goes on to say, in that regard, that the Jewish bankers are the
Jewish people's problem.
Now, Pound's attempt to distinguish between banking interests and the
man-in-the-street is certainly undermined by his use of indiscriminate
racist slurs such as "kike".   Such grapeshot rhetoric tends to cause
"collateral damage".  An angry mob is hardly a team of crack assassins, is
it?  Even so, it was a distortion not to include Pound's qualifying remark,
"at the top".

Your M.O. is to _strip away_ qualifying, complicating detail.
Tim Romano

P.S. If you have read the broadcasts for yourself, and have not gotten them
second-hand, then I respectfully withdraw my allusion-in-ready to the Monty
Python "bar-key, kipper, Kuwait, Keeble Bollege Oxford" routine.


You wrote:
>
> If neither the date of composition, nor the date of these broadcasts would
> affect our interpretation of Pound's vies, I wonder why you brought the
> matter up?
>
> Perhaps it relate to some larger issue you want to bring up?
>