Wei,
What I was trying to point out to you, was that you seemed to be talking
about two things simultaneously, and conflating them in your mind:.
Pound's motives, and the tactics of the Axis alliance.

Your points in the previous posting (I wasn't referring to all of  your
ideas in all prior postings) had to do with Pound's mind and motives ("he
suspected....his next thought....for the sake of Axis solidarity"). As you
have made clear to me in your current clarification, you are indeed
referring to Pound (if obliquely) in your concluding paragraph:

"Each member of the Axis, it seems, had its assigned task.  Japan's was to
extend the Empire in
Asia in order to preserve the teachings of Confucius.  Italy's was to
perfect the fascist social
system and confer the benefits on its colonies in Africa.  Germany's role:
to perfect the "breed" and show how racial purity was important in Empire
building.  Japanese Confucianism, Italian social reform and German eugenics
were united only by the collective imperial drive."  [WEI]

That is, the implied subject of this paragraph is Pound's thinking: how he
envisioned the alliance, the complex of associations in his mind. But the
language you use ("each member of the Axis...had its assigned task") turns
Pound into an Axis Fuehrer, does it not? It makes him out to be, if only
metaphorically, in charge of the show. That is one kind of legerdemain.

Another kind is this:

> Pound was not ONLY concerned about the imperial drive for power.  I never
> said that he was.  His interest in the Axis powers was not ONLY rooted in
> this interest to see Japan and Italy and Germany succeed in their imperial
> conquests.  I never said this was the case either.

> During the war, the ONLY unifying factor for Pound's
>admiration for Italy, Germany, and Japan was the drive for imperial
> conquest.

You write of these nations as if it they had an _instinctive_ desire to
conquer, similar to the urge to procreate. You call it  "the drive" for
imperial conquest. Once again, this is to conflate individual human motives
with political strategies, AS IF THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME THING.

There must have been a reason for wanting to extend the empire beyond a
"drive"? What about the balance of power in a world where there were other
imperial powers to contend with?  Why think of these empires as bull  hippos
in rut?

> We see similar pattern in Pound's hero worship as expressed in the China
> Cantos.  Pound expresses admiration for Qin Shiuangdi (the first emperor),
> Genghis Khan, and the Founder of the T'ang Dynasty.  Why?  The first was a
> Legalist, the second was a shamanist, or quasi Buddhist, and third was a
> Confucianist?  What did they all have in common?  Only one thing:  they
were
> all effective conquerors and expanders of empire.

Again, I think you should focus some attention on what the benefits of
strong central power as Pound perceived them.  This is what you continue to
leave out.  What does the consolidation of empire DEFEND against? What
forces corrode?  What good things does empire bring? _ As Pound envisioned
them_.  Empire, in and of itself, is not THE GOOD THING for Pound, in my
view.   You may think he was terribly misguided in thinking these things,
but you haven't really addressed them; empire repeatedly shows up as a kind
of bogeyman in what you have written so far, something we can point at and
then all shudder together. There is more to be said on this subject before
you get to  blood lust and Pound's psychosexual issues.

With respect to the notions of 'directed-will' versus 'passive antennae':
you ascribe the latter to Pound's late poetry.  I don't think it is as
simple as that. The two principles coexist throughout.  The clearest
statement of the artists-as-reflector ("it doesn't matter what he thinks he
is doing...") occurs, in fact, in a broadcast where Pound is praising
cummings's EIMI.

Tim Romano