I would like to be directed to the evidence of Pound's "blood-dripping" racism, as you put it. So far, I've found nothing to indicate that Pound the wartime counter-propagandist approved (or was even aware) of anything remotely resembling Ethnic Cleansing or genocide. Or perhaps you meant something else by "blood-dripping"? 
 
Tim Romano
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jonathan Morse <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Getting things all mixed up
 
 
> At 09:16 PM 11/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >You seem to be implying that Pound's pro-Fascist politics, over a period
> of decades, is the result of an inferiority complex stemming from his not
> have been awarded the Ph.D. by University of Pennsylvania? Even though he
> was a poet of international renown?
> 
> Not the rejection by Penn, Tim! The rejection by the International Jewish
> Conspiracy!
> 
> Oops, I'm betraying company secrets.
> 
> >That those politics had little or nothing to do with his sense of civic
> purpose and his having lived through the first world war, and his seeing
> what was happening in the US and Britain and Germany and Italy during the
> period of the Great Depression? His watching as the US moved away from its
> position of neutrality towards a war footing?
> 
> Anybody who can apply the word "politics" to Pound's idees fixes of the
> 1940s is using the word only in a Humptydumptyan sense.
> 
> >Pound's use of "etc" suggested to me that he was more interested in
> getting to the next sentence after making his point, than in quoting the
> rest of that sentence. What is your point? That if Pound were truly
> interested in clear language, he would have quoted the entire sentence?
> 
> I'm at a loss here, because I haven't read the Protocols. The quotation
> marks in the transcript indicate that the sentence containing the
> abbreviation "etc." was quoted verbatim, and my point is that it's a pretty
> stupid sentence. But of course that isn't Pound's punctuation, it's the
> FCC's.
> 
> >My point was that Pound's emphasis is on a conspiracy to undermine the
> ability of the nation to follow politics crucial to its survival, and that
> this conspiracy involved the undermining of the clarity of the written word
> especially in matters relating to economics; he asks:
> >
> >"Was there a deliberate plot? That is what should concern you. WAS there a
> plot? How long had it been in existence? Does it continue, with its
> Lehmans, Morgenthaus, Baruchs?...With Mr. Willie Wiseman, late of the
> British secret service, ensconced in Kuhn, Loeb and Co., to direct and rule
> you?"
> >
> >Though one may hear echoes of Mein Kampf in this broadcast, Pound here
> lays the blame upon a small and powerful clique of international
> capitalists with access to power at the highest levels, not on "the Jewish
> people" as a whole..
> 
> These days, actually, one hears echoes of Pat Buchanan. What was Pound's
> nice word for the state of mind? Ah yes: "suburban."
> 
> But oh well. One difference between Pound and Buchanan is that Pound was --
> is, while the English language lasts -- a great poet. Another difference is
> that it's hard to know what Buchanan actually believes, while there's no
> question that Pound believed in the blood-dripping stupidities of racism.
> That's what makes his oeuvre tragic -- and I mean "tragic" in a narrow
> Aristotelian way. The magnitude of the fall from greatness implies the
> magnitude of the greatness. But to try to read Pound's "politics" with an
> eye out for happy endings and constructive criticism strikes me as
> analogous to telling Oedipus, "Here, take this Prozac and you'll feel
> better. And by the way, I know a man who makes wonderful glass eyes. . . ."
> 
> Jonathan Morse
> 
>