I have to agree with all the criticisms which Joe Brennan has leveled at
you. There does appear to be a cadre of academics who now seek
professional advantage by writing "tell-all" critical studies with
virtually no authentic and meaningful insights and elidings that would
make the American official press proud.

I also agree with Mr. Brennan that you despise Pound. This is certainly
the sense I get. It seem to me that you exhibit the same qualities as
many in the scientific community that can divorce their work for the
military industrial complex from general moral and ethical concerns.
Certainly, I see Casillo's book as immoral and unethical.

And you do appear dogmatic. And I think Brennan's characterization of
you as 'hysterical' is at least more accurate than my 'deluional'
assessment of you and applies to a number of others on this list. I've
tried to address the very real consequences of your's, and Casillo's and
Gill's performances and publications via back channel and have been
ignored. What? Are they too good for me. You act as though you are too
good for Pound. Why do bother except out of for self-interest?    Carlo
Parcelli

En Lin Wei wrote:
>
> I would like to begin with a statement of my agreement with points made by
> several participants on the subject of US imperialism.
>
> Joe Brennan says,
>
> >if I was from a Central American country -- particularly from Guatemala or
> >Nicaragua -- I'd be hard-pressed to see the difference.  but I can see why
> >one might prefer the US brand of Imperialism, the horror of which, like its
> >British counterpart, are visited on other countries to the economic
> >advantage
> >of US citizens.
>
> I think that the attempt to compare imperialisms is wrought with great
> difficulty, precisely because a Guatemalan Mayan peasant's view of the issue
> would differ sharply from a Polish worker's view.  The former, having
> suffered deaths of 200,000 of his compatriots-- at the hands of US backed
> regimes run by US trained soldiers-- would be among the harshest critics of
> US imperialism.  The latter would tend to view America as the great savior.
>
> Bill Wagner has written:
>
> >
> >The one word I do not see mentioned in all of the political discussion is
> >Totalitarian.
> >
>
> I have mentioned the word "totalitarian" twice.  Pound uses the phrase, I
> pointed it out, when he champions a new curriculum containing Confucian
> classics as part of the "totalitarian synthesis".
>
> Bill Wagner is right to emphasize the importance of this word.  He goes on
> to say:
>
> >The Hitler & Mussolini regimes were totalitarian dictatorships, and bore
> >the
> >same relationship to Fascism as Stalin's regime did to Communism.  It was
> >used as the foundation of the propaganda machine that convinced the people
> >in those states that they were living under a system of government that was
> >dedicated in one form or another to their well-being.  All were in fact
> >systems run by a handful of thugs who ruled by brute force and terror.
> >
>
> I agree regarding the definition of fascism and its relation to the fascist
> state; however, communism is more complicated.   There are many types of
> Communism.  There is council communism, and democratic communism, and there
> are many other varieties in addition to Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, as
> followed in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.  There is
> basically only one type of fascism:  dedication to following the will of the
> Supreme Leader( the Duce, or the Fuhrer).
>
> [For those who don't know:]
>
> Council communism as described by Kropotkin is workers' ACTUAL democratic
> control of the means of economic production.  In that system the control of
> industry is exercised by democratically ELECTED representives of the workers
> in each enterprise, and in each industry.  (It existed in Spain as so-called
> "anarcho-communism", and was widespread in 1936-1937).  The Indian province
> of Kerala (in the Southwest part of the Deccan) has  been governed through
> most of its democratic history by democratically elected communists ("blue",
> as opposed to "red" communists).  Kerala has the highest life expectancy,
> highest literacy, and lowest infant mortality in all in India; and nearly
> the highest in Asia, next to Japan and Singapore.  The Communist Party of
> France still has a strong presence in the country, and is now in the
> government of the "gauche plurielle" with the socialists; having abandoned
> their  Stalinist rhetoric and reorganized, the leaders of the PCF, such as
> Robert Hue, are a new breed, working to renovate the movement in support for
> working class interests.
>
> > >
> > > I for one greatly prefer our current US form of Imperialism for despite
> >it's
> > > many faults.
> > >
>
> Why in this day and age need we prefer ANY form of imperialism.  And if you
> prefer US imperialism, what does that mean?  You prefer it to what?  To
> Hitlerian or Stalinist "Soviet Social Imperialism"?  Not much of a choice,
> is it?   I think I prefer Swiss or Costa Rican imperialism.  The point
> being, as long as huge supernations exist, such as the US and China and
> Russia, imperialism will always exist.
>
> As Carl Parcelli said,
>
> >
> >It also should be remembered that the aforementioned "totalitarian"
> >regimes are done for and were relatively short lived, whereas the US,
> >though its been in the slaughter business now for over two hundred
> >years, is still in its infancy and accelerating its malignancy at a
> >breathtaking rate.
> >
>
> I could not agree more.
>
> Moving on to the subject of Pound's imperialism, I would like to respond to
> some of Joe Brenan's comments about my interpretation of the Cantos.
>
> He said,
> >
> >For some time now I've harbored the suspicion that there is a cadre of
> >Poundian critics whose purpose in commenting on the life (mainly) and the
> >work (hardly ever) of the complicated author known as Ezra Pound is to
> >discredit not only Pound the person, but the entire breadth and width of
> >his
> >poetry.
>
> The issue might not be that one critic or another has come to the work with
> such and such a purpose.  You have to consider the possibility that some of
> these critics (belonging to the alleged "cadre") actually came to the work
> of Pound initially with a very favorable view.  Such was my case.  As to
> whether one's purpose is to discredit the poetry, you have to ask whether or
> not there is much in Pound's work,  an overwhelming amount of material
> perhaps, which  serves to discredit or undermine the authors stated
> intentions.  Can it be possible that the work discredits itself?
>
> >now comes the hysterical deconstructions of one En Lin Wei, who, it
> >seems, can find nothing of merit in Pound's work, nothing but racism,
> >anti-Semitism, fascism and raw hatred.
>
> I have never said that I find *nothing" of merit in his work but racsim,
> anti-semitism, etc.  Look at my writing on the subject, if you like, and
> find one statement which remotely resembles that caricature of my view.  I
> have said that Pound's work is seriously marred by the features you mention
> (and by several others: imperialism, classism, elitisim, and sexism, for
> instance).
>
> [You can read some of it online at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html ]
>
> >for Wei, every nuance of Pound is
> >nothing but a confirmation these isms, with the implication that those who
> >do
> >find merit in Pound's work are either ignorant or stupid.  Am I the only
> >one
> >who thinks it funny that such a critic should indulge in the same dogmatic
> >blindness that he accuses Pound of?
> >
>
> How can you make such an assertion about my views just from a brief glance
> at some posts, or even from a detailed reading of my work?  I would not
> presume to accuse you having any fault or defect, such as "blindness",
> simply because I did not agree with you.  I do not know you and you do not
> know me.  Nor have I ever said that "those who find merit in Pound are
> ignorant or stupid."  On the contrary, anyone who can read Pound and
> construct a view of that work cannot be accused of being stupid or ignorant.
>
> As to whether I am dogmatic, can you, in all honesty assert I am dogmatic?
> On what basis?  Is it because the view I put forward is stated strongly?
> What about the substance of the arguments?
>
> >it may be that the progrom against Pound is having its effect.  how else
> >can
> >one explain Carrol Cox's startling conclusion that, even though he has
> >(apparently) enjoyed reading the Cantos for more than 45 years, he could
> >not,
> >"under current social/political conditions ... in honesty recommend to a
> >young person that they devote much time to it."  what a telling remark!
>
> I am in complete sympathy with Carrol Cox's statement.  It is a highly
> personal one, I believe, not put forward as an attack on the person of
> Pound, or as an attack on those who read Pound.
>
> (continued)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com