JB said,
>We should take him at his word because we have no cause to do otherwise:
>for
>one thing, he said it over and over. you seem to believe that there is no
>honesty in his claim, whereas I think that Pound was as honest as they
>come.
Pound, in case you don't know it, was a very sincere person, and very
consistent in what he believed; what he wasn't, was a liar. if he says he
>admired Jefferson, then he did. if he said he believed in the
>constitution,
>then he did.
>
Pound said he believed in "Fascism."
Here is one piece of evidence, in case people missed it, it is worth
reposting:
As to what Pound "believed, "one American journalist records,
The day of Pearl Harbor, Pound unexpectedly came
to our house and told us the war between the United
States and Italy was inevitable but that he intended
to stay on. [I] told him that he would be a traitor if he
did so, and now was the time for him to pipe down about
the alleged glories of Fascism. "BUT I BELIEVE IN FASCISM,"
said Pound, giving the Fascist salute, "and I want to
defend it . . .
(Reynolds and Eleanor Packard, Balcony Empire,
Chatto & Windus, 1943, 179).
So, I want to pose the question directly to JB.
I don't think it can be a simple matter of finding one quote to prove that
Pound believed in the Constitution or in Fascism. One has to look at the
broad picture. Now, if one wants to truly understand Pound's political
philosophy, one should read the complete Radio Rome Speeches. Have you done
that? One should read his essays on Confucius' political philosophy, his
essays on Mussolini (like Jefferson and/or Mussolini) and his translations
of Odon Por's fascist economic works into English. Have you read all these
works? If you read these works (in CONJUCTION with the poetry, and not
simply the prose, or the poetry alone) you might be hard put to argue that
Pound believed in the Constitution.
Now lets look at some of your points one by one, from the above paragraph.
>We should take him at his word because we have no cause to do otherwise.
Yes we do have cause to believe otherwise, because of his other words. If
it is the case that he said "I believe in Fascism", and "I believe in the TA
HIO" (the authoritarian Confucian socio-ethical document, which Pound
HIMSELF said was identical in its basic message with Hitler's principles
program for world order), and if he also said "I believe in the
Constitution" we have some cause (if not to doubt his word) at least to find
out what he meant by such assertions.
>for
>one thing, he said it over and over.
He said many things over and over. But I have yet to see someone produce a
quote, in a context, and with an explanation to the effect that Pound
believes in the Constitution, (in its basic principles of law being made by
an elective legislature, a President subject to the people throught
democratic elections, and subject to removal by the legislature, if
necessary by impeachment; and other aspects of that document, say, a belief
in the bill of rights).
>you seem to believe that there is no
>honesty in his claim, whereas I think that Pound was as honest as they
>come.
We could debate ad nauseum about whether Pound was honest, dishonest,
hypocritical, consistent, democratic or elitist. But we need to look at his
statements. Please put a few on the table for us to look at, if you want to
prove something about him. To say he is honest (or dishonest) without proof
is no argument. Besides which, we are not so much in whether he was
"honest" (which requires a highly subjective evaluation), but in whether
the texts at our disposal reveal a belief in the Constitution or not? And
if he said he DiD believe in the Constitution ( which I doubt), what
precisely did he believe about the Constitution, what did he "like about
it", what did he approve of in it, what did he endorse, and most
importantly, WHY? (He certainly explained in great detail why he liked
fascism and Mussolini and why he liked Confucius and Confucian philosophy).
>Pound, in case you don't know it, was a very sincere person, and very
>consistent in what he believed; what he wasn't, was a liar.
I am not calling him a liar. I just want to know what, if anything he said
about the Constitution that can help us proceed.
>if he says he
>admired Jefferson, then he did.
But why did he like Jefferson, and what did he like about him? I recall a
very revealing quote in the book, Jefferson and/or Mussolini. Well, we
should acknowledge at the very first that the book is more about Mussolini
than it is about Jefferson. It contains endorsements such as these, which
hardly reflect a belief in Constitutions or democracy:
Mussolini has steadily refused to be called
anything save "Leader" (Duce) or "Head of Govern-
ment," the term dictator has been applied by foreign
envy, as the Tories were called cattle stealers. It
does not represent the Duce's fundamental concep-
tion of his role.
His authority comes, as Erigena proclaimed,
"from right reason" and from the general fascist
conception that he is more likely to be right than
anyone else.
(JM, 110)
Pound's belief in the rule of "one man" was consistent. Even Thomas
Jefferson was, in the poet's view, a benevolent dictator, since he
supposedly governed by "means of conversation with his more intelligent
friends," almost as if there were no Congress, no Supreme Court or even an
electorate. That is the extent of Pound's admiration for Jefferson, I fear.
Pound never expresses any endorsement, as far as I know for, the
principles of representative goverment, or of the Constitution, as a check
on the power of the executive, or the rights of the individual vis-a-vis the
state, subjects which concerned Jefferson deeply
>if he said he believed in the constitution,
>then he did.
>
Well, I have admitted that he was impressed by "article 8" which gave the
powers of coinage to the Congress. But if the Congress can be overriden by
acts of the executive---- as Hitler and Mussolini acted (and Pound had only
approval for their dissolution of, and usurpation of legislative power.
Mussolini's 'authority comes . . . "from right reason" and from the general
fascist conception that he is more likely to be right than anyone else',
after all.)--- then what good, in such circumstances, is an alleged
"belief" in the Constitution?
So, to conclude, if you want to prove that Pound believed in the
Constitution, you need to provide more evidence. Good luck.
Regards,
Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
