The image of the “molehill” is a very interesting one.  People look at the
molehill and sometimes think that the tiny hill is all there is to consider,
when underneath there exists a complex series of tunnels, leading in
numerous directions, interconnected, perhaps with the tunnels of other moles
. . .

The image is apropos.  The molehill exists on the surface.   But what is
underneath (perhaps--- dare I say it?--- in the unconscious) is more
interesting.  But like what is underneath, people miss it, or choose to
ignore it; or ----AND THIS IS EVEN MORE COMMON,--- they are aware of it, but
they choose consciously to ignore it.

I have proposed a modest suggestion, a mere hint at what MIGHT lie
underneath Pound’s conscious advocacy of fascism.  So far, a few list
members have rejected it, but without supplying an alternative theory of the
Pound’s psychic makeup which could be used to explain this, or any other
aspect of Pound’s theory.  Those who do reject it may want to lend futher
credibility to their positions by fleshing out their opinions.

In the meantime, I propose people look at the following quote, which is very
revealing about Pound’s attitudes concerning Mussolini and Douglas (found in
the Selected Prose)

“Douglas proposed to bring up the TOTAL purchasing
power of the whole people by a per capita issue of tickets PROPORTIONAL to
available goods.
Mussolini and Hitler waste very little time
PROPOSING.  They started and DO distribute BOTH
tickets and actual goods on various graduated scales
according to the virtues and activities of Italians and
Germans.

Douglas may object that this is not "democratic"
(that is egalitarian).  BUT for the monetary scientist
the result is the same. . . .
Ten or more years ago I said that Mussolini had achieved more than Douglas
because Douglas has presented his ideas as a greed system, not as a will
system. . . .   (SP, 294).”


Such a quote may appear to fall in the same category as the radio
broadcasts.   But it will not do, I think, to just dismiss such quotes
because they are unpleasant--- they are ( because of their frequency, and
length) integral to Pound’s thought.


Richard Edwards wrote:

>There seems to me to be a lot of sense in Kevin Kiely's views about the
>Rome
>broadcasts. They are not texts for close reading.

To say they are NOT texts for close readings means what precisely?  That we
do not wish to read them?  That they are badly written?  That they show us a
side of Pound which we should simply ignore?



>They represent a part of
>the Pound story which is in a sense tragic, in another sense appallingly
>banal.

Tragic in what sense?  Banal in what sense?  Banal perhaps in the sense of
Hannah Arendt, who said that the evil of fascism was, like all truly
horrific evils, thoroughly banal?

There are many definitions of tragedy, from the Aristotle’s to Bradley’s,
from Hegel’s to Schopenhauer’s.  I find it difficult to say in what sense
Pound’s advocacy of fascism was tragic (misguided perhaps, or even
unfortunate, but tragic?)


>Pound's delight in Mussolini's supposed knowledge of and insight into
>the Cantos - "MA QVESTO said the Boss, e divertente / catching the point
>before the aesthetes had got there" - is simply *stupid*. Even Lord Haw Haw
>seems to have found Pound's rants impossibly boring (I'm referring to the
>bit in Carpenter's biography describing the Pound/Haw Haw correspondence).
>

Perhaps the same number of people find the Adams Cantos just as boring.  But
there is more than boredom in Pound’s fascist progaganda.  It was one of the
main activities he pursued in his conscious life, and it cannot be said to
be wholly (or even mostly) disconnected with his artistic life.


>Poor Pound. I wish he hadn't gone down that route.>

You and I and everyone who cares for the culture of the English speaking
world.  But wishing he had not gone  that route will not help us explain his
work.  I don’t see how you can simply dismiss it.

The Latin American writer Borges said ( in relation to the history of
oppression on his continent):

El pasado es indestructible.  Tarde u temprano vuelvan las cosas.  Y uno de
las cosas que vuelve es un proyecto de abolir el pasado.

[The past is indestructable.  Sooner or later, things turn up again.  And
one of the things that turns up is a project to destroy the past].

If students and scholars of Pound simply say, Pound’s fascism was
foolishness, or banality, or say that we wish he hadn’t been a fascist,
would that not be a disservice to literary history?  Would it not be a
disservice  to history itself, and to the proper understanding of the role
which the horrors of fascism played in the 20th century?



kevinkkiely <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >As the list-member who claims to have interjected the Hitler/Joan of Arc
> >quote from Pound into the list's mail, who now wishes to comment on/to
>Lin
> >Wei

> >1. Pound quotes Pirandello's being anti-Freud while commenting on
>Cocteau,
> >so perhaps there is no use in applying Freud to Pound?

Perhaps.  I am not sure how the Pirandello quote about Freud relates to this
discussion.  But could not the use of the Pirandello quote signify a very
precise NEED for Freudian analysis?

Jung is quoted by
> >Pound in his introduction to a selection from the Cantos, so perhaps
> >putting
> >Pound through Jung's sieve is valid?

Valid or invalid, would you consider proposing an alternative reading for
Pound’s conscious and determined commitment to fascism?

> >2. You really made a mountain out of a molehill re Pound's feisty comment
> >"Hitler was a Jeanne d'Arc, a saint. He was a martyr."

The issue is not simply this quote, but the entire tendency.



>Pound's broadcasting
> >was driven primarily by his personal reaction to the war & his adulation
>of
> >Mussolini (having had an audience with him in 1933) and prior to that
> >having
> >written some 'fan letters' to Il Duce including advice re economics etc.
> >
> >The fact that Pound believed that both Axis dictators (Hit & Muss)
>actually
> >had any interest in Confucius is daftness on his part.

This may seem “daft” on the surface.  What is definitely not daft is the
belief, strongly held by Pound, that Confucianism (as a political ideology),
Fascism, and Nazism are thoroughly compatible.

Look carefully, if you will at the way Pound himself interweaves his study
of Confucianism and Chinese imperial history with his support for Mussolini
and his Axis partners.

(continued in next post)
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com