Dan, I admit a difference between not advocating genocide and advocating genocide. And with regard to my hypothesis regarding Pound's motives for wanting to dismiss Jews from the civil service: I offered the explanation that Pound thought Jews to be, as a people, ideologically unfit to govern. I am attempting to explicate these ideas; I am not championing them nor am I trying to "minimize" anything. I could turn the tables and accuse you of "minimizing" with your fecal metaphor. The gulag's minimalism is anti-civilization. Tim Romano > It seems that TR is making "distinctions without a difference." > Whether Pound wanted to remove only Jewish bankers, or all Jews, > it's still disgusting racism. And to keep Jews out of the Italian > gov't because they are presumed to be communists--again, a double > smear, completely racist. The very idea that Jewish bankers were > a significant part of the bank evil is historically nonsense: the > vast majority of major banks operating between the wars were run > by gentiles. Haven't we all seen too many Pound scholars trying > hard, like TR, to minimize this evil side of Pound? Why don't > they learn to simply accept the fact that all of us, including > every great man, is at least a little smeared with shit? > > ==DP > > At 08:15 AM 7/21/00 -0400, you wrote: > >[WEI] > I myself pointed out that Pound advocated a "pogrom at the top" a > >few weeks > >> ago. Perhaps you missed that ... > > > >No, I saw it. I believe it is one's obligation, when engaged in a public > >damnation of a dead poet for crimes against humanity, not to develop > >_shorthand_ ways of referring to the matters under discussion which might > >prejudice the outcome. > > > > > >[WEI]> So I will pose the question for you: Is it really significant that > >Pound > >> wanted a "pogrom from the top." Pound says we should look at the true > >> meanings of words. What does Pogrom mean? "An organized ande often > >> officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, esp one > >> conducted against the Jews". Whether such a pogrom is from the top, or > >the > >> bottom, it is racist in the extreme, as well as being incendiary, an > >> incitement to murder of a GROUP of people based on their race, don't you > >> think? > > > >Yes, there is a a real significance, in my view, between "pogrom" and > >"pogrom at the top". If I thought that Pound had intended the pogrom to > >refer to the Jewish people as a whole, then I would have a very different > >view of him than I do. Moreover, does he not suggest, in fact, that there > >might even be a more humane way of conducting this "pogrom" -- by putting > >the Jewish financiers in prison on an island somewhere? He is using the > >word "pogrom" figuratively, for rhetorical purposes. His rhetoric, as I > >wrote, does tend to work against his finer distinctions. In hindsight, we > >understand the wider context of this rhetoric better than Pound did. > > > > > > > >[TR] He goes on to say, in that regard, that the Jewish bankers are the > > Jewish people's problem. > > > >[WEI] Do you take him at his word on this? > > > >Yes and no. To the extent that the phrase "their problem" means "a problem > >they must solve, whether ot not it is of their own making," I would agree > >with Pound in one sense, and disagree with him in another. The perception > >that the world was being sent to hell in a handbasket as a result of the > >manipulations by a small cabal of international Jewish financiers was > >"their" problem, in the sense that the diffuse hatred against Jews in > >general that arose therefrom is a problem FOR THEM. The perception and > >hatred were not of their making, and in that sense, were NOT their problem. > >While it was certainly in their own interests as a people to solve that > >problem, as a dispersed, minority polity, they were unable to do so. Today > >there is Israel. > > > > > >[WEI] >He also said, while in Italy, that he > >> approved of the 1942-43 rules which denied all Jews the right to serve in > >> the government. If Jewish bankers were the only problem, and if they were > >> only the Jews problem, then why did Pound (a non-Jew) spend so much time > >> speaking about Jews; why did he support the sacking of all Jews in gov't > >> positions in Italy (most of them non-bankers); and why does he use the > >> racial epithets (kike, yid, etc) so indiscriminately, and so often? > >> > > > >I have understood Pound's desire to remove all Jews from civil service in > >the context of his anti-communism. Pound wants a sweeping ideological purge. > >I refer you to his frequent remarks about the Old Testatment, the hebrew > >scriptures, being the record of a semi-barbaric tribe of herdsmen, > >unsuitable, as a moral doctrine, for a modern civilized society. Pound saw > >the worldview of contemporary Jews as amenable to communism. Yes, the > >anti-Jewish slurs are designed for rabble-rousing, to use resentment and > >hatred as an engine of social and political change....but ideological > >change, not genocide. > > > >Regards > >Tim Romano > > > HOME: > Dan Pearlman > 102 Blackstone Blvd. #5 > Providence, RI 02906 > Tel.: 401 453-3027 > email: [log in to unmask] > Fax: (253) 681-8518 > http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/ > > OFFICE > Department of English > University of Rhode Island > Kingston, RI 02881 > Tel.: 401 874-4659 > >