While I applaud En Lin Wei's spirited attack on American foreign policy,
it demonstrates a naivete toward the nature of that policy that is
nothing short of fatal to his attempts to insert Pound's Cantos into it.
Rather than "imperialist" motives it is the very social/liberal
institiutions that En Lin Wei sees as an "alternative" to Pound's
political/economic Pantheon that are responsible for the very slaughter
that En Lin Wei lays at the feet of those "imperialist" motives that he
asserts are reflected in the Cantos. This is absurd. So called
"democratic institutions" are a liberal/social mask.(See Edward Bernays,
"Propaganda"1928.) The real politique of the Dulles Brothers, Ed
Lansdale, Richard Helms, Henry Kissinger etal bears no practical
relationship (and Kissinger does not allow for the figurative) and the
conquest literature that appears in the Cantos. That Pound supported
Mussolini's actions in North and East Africa (a demonstrable fact) does
not mean that Pound understood the political nature of those acts and
the Cantos, the poem itself admits to a, well, larger impractical set of
imaginative motives---"to the imperial/ calm."(I can see Jimmy Byrnes
howling with laughter at that one right now.) Otherwise perhaps
Mussolini would have had a little time for the poet besides the sop he
threw him at their brief encounter.
At the time Pound was playing imaginary tennis in his gorilla cage, the
U.S. government was flying Nazi's into the U.S. through Operation
Paperclip (among other operations still secreted from public scrutiny)
just as fast as they could circumvent the International War Crimes Act.
Werner von Braun, who said "I aim for the stars but sometimes I hit
London" was treated like royalty, ensconced at NASA and now children can
see his office when they attend NASA's Texas Space Camp. Walter
Dornberger, who worked Jews to death in slave labor camps at Peenemunde,
was brought to the U.S. and embraced by the military industrial complex.
Hundreds of other Nazi murderers were immediately put on the U.S. and
corporate payrolls. And let's not forget Reinhard Gehlen. All the while
Pound is facing an indictment for treason and railing against the very
government in its hypocrisy (a trait Pound admired?) is bringing in by
the plane load Nazi war criminals that if one is to believe En Lin Wei
were ideological fellow travelers of Pound. But such is not the case.
Where the Nazis had info and expertise to trade for their lives, Pound
had a poem. Big difference. 'Bout 13 years in St. E's worth. The Nazis
like their handlers from the State Department, ONI, DIA, corporate and
OSS/CIA were far more "worldly" than Pound. And Pound's poem contains
little they would have recognized as THEIR WORLD. En Lin Wei would
benefit greatly by learning to make these distinctions. Carl Parcelli
Casillo: Cantos = Great Ideological Document of Fascist Reich
En Lin Wei: Cantos = Blueprint For Americam Imperialism As U.S. Foreign
Policy Makers Implement the Policies of the Han Dynasty
Parcelli: Try NSC 68(or is it 58)


En Lin Wei wrote:
>
> Tim Romano asks about the phrase "seeking an exit."
>
> I think there is much to consider in Carrol Cox's interpretation of the
> meaning of the line.  I must contemplate her interpretation.
>
> When I originally looked at the passage in the context of the discussion of
> Pound's imperialism, I was examining it in relation to the slaughter of
> barbarians, which he appears to endorse.  The soldiers, after the massacre
> of the native North African women, are
>
>       seeking an exit
>   To the high air, to the stratosphere, to the imperial
>   calm, to the empyrean, to the baily of
>       the four towers
>   the NOUS, the ineffable crystal. . .
>        (40/201).
>
> I think Pound is trying to accomplish here what Schiller described as
> creating the aesthetic moment which foreshadows a future utopia.  We move
> from the political act of extending empire, to the "stratosphere" to a state
> of mind, which nonetheless has a political dimension "the imperial calm,"
> and we end in contemplation of the divine mind, NOUS.
>
> The difference between Pound and Schiller in this instance, is that Pound's
> utopia, as is frequently the case, requires acts of imperialistic conquest
> and the slaughter of "barbarians" to be achieved. He often expresses
> approval of such acts performed in the past and the present.
>
> >
> >Tim Romano wrote:
> >
> > > [snip]
> > > I have a clear sense of the ideological foundations of Pound's racism.
> >But
> > > the man does not seem to me to have been capable of this kind of
> > > monstrosity. Has someone assembled convincing evidence that Pound was
> >truly
> > > this inhumane in his race-thinking?
>
> What does it mean to say that Pound was "incapable of this kind of
> monstrosity"?  Which monstrosity?  The monstrosity of slaughtering innocent
> women?   Or, the monstrosity of glorifying, praising, and eulogizing the
> most savage conquerors?  He was capable of the latter, I would maintain, and
> he did so frequently.
>
> Pound's praise of Mussolini, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and many other
> dictatorial figures in Chinese and Western history is well documented.  His
> racist remarks are strewn througout his prose, his poetry, and the
> recordings of his speeches for Radio Rome.
>
> [for some examples see www.geocities.com/weienlin/raceandempire.html]
>
> Ms. Cox writes
>
> >While I am not ordinarily a political proponent of the worse the
> >better, I could see an argument for honoring the *Cantos* the more
> >if one saw *ego, scriptor cantilenae* as indeed this inhumane. Surely,
> >Mussolini in Ethiopia was no more inhumane, and far less hypocritical,
> >than the U.S. in (for example) Haiti up to and including the present.
>
> I agree with this completely. It is a point which could be worked out in
> much more detail.  This issue is potentially far more exlosive than the mere
> argument over whether Pound's poetry is racist or imperialist, or to what
> degree it is.  Pound has no propensity toward self-censorship or moderation.
>   Arguably, his work-- and many of its most virulently imperialistic
> features-- embodies or expresses the cruelest aspects of the contemporary
> American spirit of conquest.
>
> Mussolini was the first to use poison gas to subdue the peoples of Africa.
> Pound gave his whole-hearted support to the effort to conquer Ethiopia
> (Abyssinia).  Nor did he ever repent any of Mussolini's atrocties in Africa
> (as he partially did repent the nazi extermination program).  This is a
> significant fact, and as far as I know, it passes entirely unremarked upon
> in critical studies of Pound.  Why?  I think Carrol Cox has the answer:
>
> >If the *Cantos* is the "American Epic" (i.e., the epic of imperialism),
> >such fundamenal features of the nation as Haiti must at least be in
> >it at least implicitly.
>
> Yes.  As America has continued to commit atrocities in its "semi-colonies,"
> so has American culture and the American critical apparatus been rendered
> ideologically compliant. Critics of Pound can focus on certain aspects of
> his racism, but they cannot encompass such racism and imperialism in its
> totality, largley because America is still fundamentally racist and
> imperialist.
>
> Many of the "implict" features of the Cantos persist in the dominant
> ideology of the United States, and are--for all intents and
> purposes--unquestionable.  Thus, just as Pound could criticize British
> imperialism while supporting Italian imperialism, so does America condemn
> some acts of agression while perpetrating others. When Saddam Hussein
> invades Kuwait killing about 700 people, the US counters by killing tens of
> thousands, destroying the entire infrastructure of Iraq, with the ultimate
> death toll -- to date -- of over one million civilians, half these being
> children under the age of five.  Noriega double crosses George Bush, and he
> orders the military invasion of Panama, resulting in the deaths of over
> 5,000 civilians.  A civil war in Yugoslavia, resulting in the deaths of 2000
> (1400 ethnic Albanians and 600 ethnic Serbs in Kosovo) "compels" NATO to
> intervene.  Result--two thousand Serbs, mostly civilians are killed, and the
> violence continues in Kosovo, with a death toll in Kosovo alone of one
> thousand since NATO forces occupied the region.  These are just a few
> examples.
>
> The analysis of such an issue as "American imperialism" is crucial to our
> attempt to analyze Pound in relation to his own milieu and in relation to
> our own global political environment.  Pound's fascist testament to
> Mussolini--the China Cantos--is, in one sense, merely an exagerated
> reaffrimation of the goals and dreams of all imperialists. ("fascist
> testament" is Pound's phrase, not mine--he sent a copy to Mussolini, and
> dedicated it to the fascist cause).  I think such a view would be consonant
> with Carrol's willingness to look at Hanno passage as one which may be
> deliberately inhumane.  It is perhaps in this sense that I too "honor the
> Cantos", to use your phrase.  I honor Pound's work as the most explicit
> statement of imperialist commitment produced by any poet of high stature
> during the 20th century.
>
> Rather than put it this way though, I might ask:  What does it say about
> American culture, and American ideology, that the most successful--or the
> greatest -- attempt at a universal epic by an American is a fascist
> imperialist epic?  This question is almost unaskable, and I have not seen it
> addressed.
>
> Caroll ends by asking,
>
> >
> >P.S. Did Pound ever refer to Proudhon or indicate he had read him?
> >What I describe above is the core of Proudhonist politics.
> >
>
> I have tried to look this up again, but as of yet, I have no evidence that
> Pound read Proudhon.
>
> Again, I find this suggestion very interesting, because, in a way, I am
> contructing a quasi-Proudhonist interpretation of Pound. I would endorse a
> Proudhonist, or let us say, libertarian socialist, interpretation of the
> Cantos.  I have composed a detailed article on Pound's economic theories, as
> they are related to the confluence of his Confucianism and his fascism.  I
> could post it on the web, if you are interested.
>
> The critical apparatus is quasi-Marxian (but best thought of as libertarian,
> since I oppose the strongly centralized state, unlike Marx, who fell out
> with Bakunin on this issue.  Bakunin, as you may know, was the first major
> historical figure to predict that any state based on Marxist philosophy
> would end up as fully totalitarian and undemocratic).
>
> Pound largely sees history as a battle between three forces--Western
> capitalism, Marxism-Leninism, and Fascism.  He favors the latter, of course.
> What he neglects is the possibility of a system which is neither
> capitalistic, nor centrally planned by a totalitarian bureaucracy: he
> ignores the option of libertarian socialism, the democratic control of
> industry by the workers, and the federation of syndicates, unions, workers
> committees, etc.  This rejection on Pound's part is understandable, since he
> is contemptuous of any form of democracy, economic or political.
>
> More later.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei.
>
> I will try later to reply to some of the other remarks posted on the list by
> different participants.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com