[log in to unmask] wrote:

<Wei wrote:

<< Also I think it should go without saying that a fascist government is
more
repressive and moreauthoritarian than the form of government which
currently exists in the US, Western Europe, and Scandinavia. >>

<as I pointed out to you once before, take a little sojourn down to
Guatemala
<and see what they think about the above.>

I have been to various parts of Latin America:  Colombia, Peru, Brazil,
Yucatan, and Venezuela and Costa Rica. I lived in South America for two
years and have written a published article on the history of Guatemala.
[None of this makes me an expert, I know.]

I think we agree that what the US did in Guatemala [overthrowing Arbenz, a
democratically elected leader; backing decades of dictatorship; providing
arms which were used to kill about 200,000 Mayan peasants, etc.] was
thoroughly atrocious.  But it seems to illustrate the point I was making,
namely that fascist governments [like the ones the US backed in Guatemala
and Chile ] are inferior to the "democratic" ones such as Costa Rica.  Costa
Rica has a system of government which is superior to any other in the
region, and which is more democratic than the US in some respects,
especially as regards a mandated guarantee that all political parties should
have equal time even in the private media.  This is not to say that Costa
Rica has realized the ideals of democracy, nor that it is free from
victimization by the World Bank, the IMF, and US neo-colonialist policy.
Frankly, I prefered the Nicaraguan cooperativist, mixed economic model,
until the US bombed and terrorized it into oblivion.

<and even though you have done your
damnedest to cast Pound Hitler, he wasn't -- and he wasn't against the
little folk as you insist he was, and he wasn't against decency.>

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "decency".  I do not mean to
imply that I would disagree with your idea of decency.  On the contrary, I
would be likely to find many aspects of it congenial, based on what you
sorts of objections you make to US policy.

While it is clear what you OBJECT TO in my posts, and in certain aspects of
US foreign policy, I am still unclear as to what you are FOR.  Is there any
thinker, activist, intellectual, political group, political party, or
historical figure you admire (besides Ezra Pound)?

Incidentally, I would be interested to know what evidence exists to show
that IN HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS, in his poetry, in his written work, Pound
showed he was for a system which favored the "little folk."

Also I should note that I have not tried to cast Pound as Hitler; I have
shown Pound to be what I believe (and what I think you recognize) he was,
namely, a SUPPORTER of Hitler, and an enthusiastic one at that.

<he was a miserable
bastard in many respects, >

Here you go much further than I ever do.  I would never say Pound was a
"miserable bastard."  I would say, and have said, that his WRITTEN WORK is
imbued with the fascist ideology, with hierarchical and elitist notions,
which more properly belong to written works conceived by a feudal mentality
than by a civilized thinker living in the twentieth century.

<but no good is served by exaggerating his faults,
or by trying to make him culpable for the crimes of the Nazis because he
said he admired Hitler, or Mussolini -- all Pound did was run his mouth.>

We agree on this statement---

POUND WAS NOT CULPABLE OF THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY MUSSOLINI AND HITLER.

Where we appear to disagree is on the cultural and social implications of
Pound's works, which is a separate issue.

<he
didn't do anything nearly as bad as a typical foreign service officer in,
say, Guatemala, or any CIA case officer in the Middle East.>

Yes. Absolutely correct, in my view.  Here is why I admire aspects of your
stance.  You are willing to see the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, and its
often genocidal nature, in a clear-headed way.  Pound did not personally
organize atrocities, he did not commit murders, he did not recruit people to
overthrow governments.  In this sense you are perfectly right, and I agree
with you.

But the cultural implications of his work, the IDEALS, which his work
attempts to champion--- this is an entirely different matter.

<if you want to
continue insisting that Pound was inherently evil >

I have never in my life argued that ANYONE is inherently evil.  I do not
even believe in the concept inherent evil. I simply say that Pound
propagated many ideas which I believe to be evil.  Fascism is one of those
ideas.

<-- and don't say that you
don't want to because the sum total of what you've written says exactly
that>

That is your interpretation of what I have said.  But wait one minute.  How
can you possible draw any conclusion about the "sum total" of what I have
written. You do not even know the sum total of what I have written, on
Pound, or on various other subjects.  I think you may have a preconceived
idea of what my words may mean.

As regards the meaning of your words, I have to say that I do not have a
complete concept of their significance, in part because you have not said
what you are FOR.

I posted a list of political parties recently.  I asked whether you thought
any of them had a program, or was pursuing a general course of action, which
might move the US or the world in the right direction.  I would respectfully
request that you answer that question.

<I passed that threshold decades ago, and I'm certainly not alone in this
achievement. as a matter of fact it's been my intent not to engage you in
any critical discourse>

I do not believe that there is any intellectual threshold which enables one
to assert an absolute "acheivement" in any purely philosophical or literary
critical, artistic , or metaphysical sphere.  If you have reached such a
level (assuming such a level exists) perhaps you should explain how one
qualifies, in either the area of Pound studies, or in the areas of
socio-political discourse and philosophical inquiry.  As regards your
"intent," maybe you should state what that precisely is.  For it seems that
you are trying to "engage" me, in some fashion, if not necessarily in the
area of critical discourse.

<because it seems to me -- and overwhelmingly at that -- that you're
not sincere, a point I made to you in a private communication>

Perhaps you should explain the point of that communication.  What purpose is
to be served in telling someone that they are insincere in a private (or
public) communication?  If you want to talk about Pound, and about Pound's
work, or about my posts regarding Pound, I fail to see why you do not want
to do so on an open channel, where all can see and evaluate your argument.
To do otherwise might be to needlessly personalize what is supposed to be an
objective discussion.

[Furthermore, I wonder if you called me one name "insincere" and I called
you another, and then you called me another name, and so on---would that
really be useful?  Is it not best to stick to the issues?  I admit that some
of my arguments and ideas might SEEM insincere to you.  But there may be
some arguments which I have presented which are both vaild and sound.  To
dismiss all my points simply because you think that I as a person MIGHT be
guilty of acts of insincerity says nothing at all about the particular
arguments.  It's the old logical fallacy:  Francis Bacon's scientific
philosophy is unsound because while chancellor he took bribes.  That is but
one illlustration of the fallaciousness of the ad hominem argument.  Your
claim about my sincerity is not pertinent to the arguments under
discussion.]

<that you
subsequently made public.>

You never explained why that communication should not have been made public.
  There was nothing in it of "private" nature.  It was merely an expression
of your disagreement with the way I was discussing Pound, something which we
all do in public.  Furthermore, I explained to you that unless you ask me to
keep a message private, or unless a message contains something which is of
an intimate and personal nature (such as confessions about one's sex life,
or individual life issues) I would feel no compunction in putting it on the
list.  The only thing you talked about in your message was my attitude
toward Pound.  That is hardly a private matter.

<when I objected to this, you apologized, and
claimed it was perhaps a cultural mistake>

My apology was made in this spirit:  Perhaps you misunderstood me, and I
misunderstood you.  We clearly have different ways of viewing the
information you put in your message (which may stem from cultural or
personal differences). You have still not made your point of view clear on
this matter.  Why is it wrong, in your view to post a message ABOUT POUND
AND INTERPRETING POUND on the list, when it is sent privately to one
individual?

<but then you did the same thing
with a private communication from Carlo Parcelli>

I think he should speak for himself.  If he thinks I did him wrong, let him
say so, and say why.  As far as I am aware, he has not made any statement
about that issue.  Perhaps I missed it.  When I stated publicly that I would
feel free to post any non-personal message about Pound, he was a full
participant in the discussions.  It was not unreasonable to assume he was
aware of my attitude.  Back channel poster beware!


<an action that only confirmed for me that my suspicion regarding your
sincerity is right on target.>

This may be the gist of your complaint:  You do not want to discuss Pound at
all, or the issues I bring up.  So instead you want to divert attention from
the real issues, and instead make ad hominem attacks.

Perhaps this really involves differing concepts of "sincerity".  If so, and
you want your position to stand, you need to say why you believe it is
"unethical" to do post a non-personal back channel message dealing solely
with the issue of Pound interpretation.  Also you must explain why it is
"insincere" to apologize and admit the possibility of cultural OR PERSONAL
understanding.  There is no way I can know what your understanding is unless
you explain it.  My understanding continues to be different from yours (and
perhaps from Carlo's).  An apology does not necessarily indicate an absolute
admission of wrong doing.  It can express regret at the misunderstanding,
and be an invitation towards reconciliation.   So far, I do not recall that
you have made any effort to apologize, or have even considered the
possibility that you might have regreted any aspect of our miscommunication.
Perhaps you have, and perhaps you do have some regrets.  I do not know.

Let us hope that we can get passed the merely personal issues to the
discussion of the broader and more universal questions.

Unless you feel that addressing the personal issue (respecting our differing
views we on how to communicate ABOUT EZRA POUND)is really more pressing.

Yours respectfully, in either case,

Wei


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