Jonathan,
In several of his broadcasts, Pound unabashedly cites Mein Kampf as a source of fact and wisdom.  However, I do believe you've distorted the sense of that broadcast by quoting selectively; and in quoting Hitler but not Pound, you have made the broadcast appear to be anti-Semite in ways that it is NOT. So I'll quote at greater length, while still leaving out more than half of the broadcast--the section about war with Russia. 
 
Pound is interested in drawing attention to current political and economic conditions and to the cultural decay that is a pre-requisite for them. But where Hitler in _Mein Kampf_ blames this decay very broadly on "the Jewish people", Pound focuses more narrowly on "the banking monopoly" and their "plot". 
There's a significant difference in emphasis between blaming an entire race and blaming "bankers, industrialists, capitalists and ...millionaires." Pound says in several broadcasts, "do not start a pogrom." 
 
One might argue that, despite Pound's focusing on this small group of several dozen bankers who have access to government at the highest levels, the effectiveness of his propaganda (to the extent it had any effect on anyone) depended in part upon the unfocused race-hatred in his audience, and that no matter how narrow its focus, his language was therefore incendiary, or at least that he contributed his voice to that effort. Even so, if one is being scrupulous, one is obliged, when tracing anyone's ideas back to Hitler, to explore in detail where the lines of thought diverge.
 
With respect to the Protocols of Zion, Pound writes:
 
"What we know for certain is that they were published two decades ago. That Lord Sydenham wrote a preface to them. That their content has been traced to another sketch said to have appeared in the eighteen forties. The interest in them does not lie in [the] question of their having been, or NOT been concocted by a legislative assembly of Rabbis, democratically elected, or secretly chosen by the Mysterious Order of Seven Branched Antlers or The Bowling Society of Milwaukee. Their interest lies in the type of mind, or the state of mind of their author. That was their interest for the psychologist that day they first appeared. And for the historian two decades later, when the program contained in them has so crushingly gone into effect up to a point, or down to a squalor."
 
The "program" to which Pound refers is a concerted effort to destroy clear meaning of language and to abolish historical perspective:
 
" What is interesting, perhaps most, to the historian is their definite campaign against history altogether, their declared intention to blot out the classics, to blot out the record, and to dazzle men with talk of tomorrow [. . .] I am not concerned with fixing blame retrospectively so much as with judging the present: those who are against the true word, the _protocolaires_."
 
Now, what does Pound mean by the "true word"?  Pound points out how talk of "tomorrow" belongs to the province of the religious man, whose "reward" is postponed. He says he wants to focus on the Present and how it has become as it is. Those who would direct attention away from the historical sense by focusing on Tomorrow's "pie in the sky" are peddling a kind of false religion, an "opium" to the people. Pound is turning the tables here on Communism, alluding of course to the Marxist tenet. So, the phrase "true word" is meant to play against the false religion of the rosy economic future. It is also meant to draw attention to how economists such as Keynes misuse language. 
 
Abuse of the clear word, the clean definition, is one of Pound's recurrent themse throughout the broadcasts, as I've said. In an earlier broadcast, Pound had lambasted the economist for getting things all mixed up; the phrase he cited was "capital in the form of transportation". In this Zion broadcast, he cites Keynes' statement that the high cost of living was due to a lack of labor, "when there were millions of men out of work." Then Pound cites the Protocols to show that their program has indeed come to pass:
 
'We shall surround ourselves government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form, etc. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and the main thing, millionaires, because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures."
 
In England, this decay has given rise to "a communism that is NOT communism. ...communism of the episcopal sort, which they want in England. A Bolshevism that is to leave the archbishops and curates just where they are, each with his living or benefice. A revelation against capital, allegedly against capital, that attacks property and leaves capital setting pretty."
 
In light of these rhetorical twists: Communism as an opiate of the  people...a communism that is not communism...)  the apparently specious logic of "because a forgery, therefore authentic" can be regarded as rhetoric intended by Pound to highlight his subject, the plot to erode clear meaning and clear civic thought. 
 
"It is possible to arouse any interest in verbal precision? Is it possible to persuade more than six or eight people to consider the scope of crossword puzzles and other devices for looking at words for something that is NOT their meaning?"
 
Tim Romano
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jonathan Morse <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 6:05 AM
Subject: Another hypothesis bites the dust
 
 
> One of my spare-time minor fascinations has been radio broadcast 78,
> "Zion," Doob pp. 283-85. This speech begins:
> 
> "If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the Elders of Zion,
> one is frequently met with the reply: Oh, but they are a forgery.
> 
> "Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we have of their
> authenticity. The Jews have worked with forged documents for the past 24
> hundred years, namely ever since they have had any documents whatever."
> 
> But why fascination? Because it's sometimes seemed possible to me that that
> line about forgery being the proof of authenticity is a link forward from
> Pound to Derrida, and that that link in turn might be connectible to the
> chain backward from Pound to Fenollosa.
> 
> Wrong. It appears that all we have here is a bit of influence study. The
> likely source:
> 
>  "To what extent the whole existence of this people [Jews] is based on a
> continuous lie is shown incomparably by *The Protocols of the Wise Men of
> Zion*, so infinitely hated by the Jews.  They are based on a forgery, the
> *Frankfurter Zeitung* moans and screams once every week: the best proof
> that they are authentic.  What many Jews may do unconsciously is here
> consciously exposed.  And that is what matters.  It is completely
> indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the
> important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal
> the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner
> contexts as well as their ultimate final aims."
> 
> That's _Mein Kampf_: p. 307 of the Ralph Manheim translation.* I suppose
> it's possible that by 1943 the idea was in general circulation in the Axis
> world. Oh, why can't we ask Professor Heidegger?
> 
> Jonathan Morse
> 
> * Houghton Mifflin 1943? I've ripped this quote off from Gordon Fisher of
> list H-Antisemitism, but he doesn't specify the edition he used.
> 
>