---------
1.   Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Subject: Re: Reading Pound's Radio Broadcasts
>
>Wei,
>Please re-read what I wrote.    You are distorting things by ignoring
>qualifying clauses.
>
There is no deliberate attempt to distort on my part.  You must recall that
in a forum such as this, even in an article or a book, it may be difficult
to get one’s complete point across.

>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."
>
I acknowledge that this may occur.  But I wondered how it might be relevant
in light of the discussions we have had on the subject thus far.  So far, I
think we agree that your observation should make us cautious, as scholars,
but that we cannot conceive yet how, in practical terms, our interpretations
might be altered.

>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.

I myself pointed out that Pound advocated a “pogrom at the top” a few weeks
ago.  Perhaps you missed that (I do not fault you for that, of course.  None
of us can, or will want to,  keep track of everthing on this list).  You are
the first to address the pogrom issue, since I mentioned it in a post
containing a list of Pound’s antisemitic quotes.

So I will pose the question for you:  Is it really significant that Pound
wanted a “pogrom from the top.”  Pound says we should look at the true
meanings of words.  What does Pogrom mean?  “An organized ande often
officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, esp one
conducted against the Jews”.   Whether such a pogrom is from the top, or the
bottom, it is racist in the extreme, as well as being incendiary, an
incitement to murder of a GROUP of people based on their race, don’t you
think?


>He goes on to say, in that regard, that the Jewish bankers are the
>Jewish people's problem.

Do you take him at his word on this?  He also said, while in Italy, that he
approved of the 1942-43 rules which denied all Jews the right to serve in
the government.  If Jewish bankers were the only problem, and if they were
only the Jews problem, then why did Pound (a non-Jew) spend so much time
speaking about Jews; why did he support the sacking of all Jews in gov’t
positions in Italy (most of them non-bankers); and why does he use the
racial epithets (kike, yid, etc) so indiscriminately, and so often?

>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".

We agree here, and I in turn will admit, that apparent rabidity of Pound’s
anti-semitism is, on occasion, undermined by some of Pound’s advocacy on the
part of individual Jewish artists, as Charles Moyer pointed out.  But the
question for the scholar and reader is: to what degree does the frequency of
Pound’s anti-semitic expressions affect our view of his overall outlook and
vision of the world.

>
>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.
>
>

Understood and appreciated.

------
On the Vanguard issue:

2.  JB wrote:
><<
>  <<are you suggesting that there haven't been political,
>  economic, literary, & historical vanguards that have been exactly that?>>
>
[I responded]:

Each vanguard in history must be judged, I believe, on the basis of its
>  concrete acheivements.  >>
>
JB replied :
>
>this is not a response to my question

Why not?  My response was fairly detailed and specific with regard to the
theory of vanguards.  But you seem determined to reply to posts without any
gesture in the direction of anwering the key question which I have asked
several times.  That question is:

What is YOUR idea of an exemplary vanguard, or an exemplary democratic
movement?


JB also wrote:
>
>don't you mean "would Pound have supported the Chinese government or would
>he
>have backed the slogan writers on Madison Avenue?"
>
>jb....

I don’t mind your rephrasing the question that way.  What would be your
answer to the question, bearing in mind that their interests appear to
coincide on this point?

Recall that Pound never objected to the unholy alliance between private
industry and fascist government in Italy and Germany.  Nor did he ever
criticize the German and Italian arms industries at all during world war two
(which was in sharp contrast to his criticisms of the arms industry during
the first world war).  How do you account for this?  I respectfully request
you address these questions.


---------
3.  Charles Moyer gives us this quote from the Tao te Ching.

>
>     "All are clear. I, alone, am clouded."
>                                           Lao  Tzu
>

This is truly one of the most astonishing and one of the greatest of Lao
Tzu’s quotes.  I think it has certain  equivalents in the later Pound, in
the Drafts and Fragments, and in certain private remarks.
----------
4.   Alexander Schmitz <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>    tempus loquendi, tempus tacendi
>
>                               XXXI/153

On this point, as to the significance of the maxim “there is a time to
speak, a time to be silent” I wonder whether Alexander Schmitz believes that
Pound observed this slogan.  During his radio broadcasts, for instance?  The
issue on this list is POUND, is it not?

When should Pound have spoken, and when should have he been silent?  More
importantly though, what should he have spoken about, and what should he
have been silent about?  I wonder how Pound would be viewed if whenever his
mind conceived the word “kike” or “yid” he would have decided to remain
silent?

Of course, on the internet there is neither speech, nor is there silence (on
listservs, at least).  There are only written words.  The phrase  “tempus
loquendi, tempus tacendi”, as it refers to “speech” and to “silence” can
only have reference, in the area of Pound studies, to Pound’s spoken words,
oui ou non?

Salut et fraternite,

Wei


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