3 ms·

> Cancelling Pound would be no great loss for humanity. It would be a loss, and not just because his poetry would be lost. The point is elaborated in a good, r

> Cancelling Pound would be no great loss for humanity. It would be a loss, and not just because his poetry would be lost. The point is elaborated in a good, recent article on the attempt to cancel Pound in 1946: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/02/27/auden-on-no-platforming-pound/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/02/27/auden-on-no-platfor....

082349872349872 6y ago
I think it would be a loss, because up until today I had thought broad-mindedness was sufficient protection against fascism. In Pound we have someone who railed against provincialism and secondary sources in early work, yet wound up broadcasting pro-fascist propaganda for Mussolini. ABC of Reading (ch 3. p 42): > "One has to divide the readers who want to be experts from those who do not, and divide, as it were, those who want to see the world from those who merely want to know WHAT PART OF IT THEY LIVE IN." > "When it comes to the question of poetry, a great many people don't even want to know that their own country does not occupy ALL the available surface of the planet. The idea seems in some way to insult them." I at least will study him, to figure out how he wound up there. It appears it may have been via antisemitism, through the christian/muslim anti-interest tradition. It may have been because he thought fascists rewarded artists better than democracies. It may have been other paths. I don't know yet. (I still think self-deprecating humour may be an antidote: fascists are Serious People doing Serious Things, and I haven't been aware of any thick anthologies of famous fascist comedies. But after today I'm no longer so sure they don't exist.)
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Now halfway through ...Kulchur and not sure I'll do more than skim the rest. While ABC had structure, Kulchur is reminiscent of a series of blog posts put into print. The proximal cause of his support for Fascism is obvious, on p.249: > "Mussolini has told his people that poetry is a necessity to the state, and Carlo Delcroix is convinced that poets ought to "occupy themselves with these matters", namely credit, the nature of money, monetary issue etc." and p.250: > "Civilization becomes admirable when people begin to prefer a little of the best to a great deal of the pasty." In between he's been a goldbug, railed against "international finance" (which, given his glowing reviews of Charles Coughlin, admiration of the medieval Church, and pining for the use of latin, not in the mass, but in academic publishing, all suggest he's never very far away from antisemitic dog whistles with his rants on usury), is convinced that radio has reshaped politics because it allows the sheeple to learn reality instead of the fake news, notes that the only knowledgable writers on economics are the non-economists (which goes well with his snark on LSE, less well with his rants against "cranks"), considers that the British Empire is decadent (and the US not much better: although they stayed out of the League of Nations, with Pound's approval, they've put Susan B. Anthony on a stamp, to his great disapproval), suggests that taxation is theft, and complains that neither US nor UK academia (people who chatter rather than do) are receptive to free inquiry by independent researchers, etc. all of which may be more distal causes. In short, s/radio/social media/, give him Oakleys and an F-450[1], and he'd be right at home in 2020. [1] we can imagine him in the cab (safely away from Dorothy, Marcella, and Olga?), stroking his goatee while telling us "[w]hat ultimately counts is the level of civilization. No decent man tortures prisoners. No clean man wd. tolerate the advertising atrocities between here and Genova. No man free of mental lice wd. tolerate the bank racket or the taxing system."
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Oops, he was the opposite of a goldbug. He wanted off the gold standard, presumably with silver or BTC or some alternative...

082349872349872 6y ago

I think it would be a loss, because up until today I had thought broad-mindedness was sufficient protection against fascism. In Pound we have someone who railed against provincialism and secondary sources in early work, yet wound up broadcasting pro-fascist propaganda for Mussolini. ABC of Reading (ch 3. p 42): > "One has to divide the readers who want to be experts from those who do not, and divide, as it were, those who want to see the world from those who merely want to know WHAT PART OF IT THEY LIVE IN." > "When it comes to the question of poetry, a great many people don't even want to know that their own country does not occupy ALL the available surface of the planet. The idea seems in some way to insult them." I at least will study him, to figure out how he wound up there. It appears it may have been via antisemitism, through the christian/muslim anti-interest tradition. It may have been because he thought fascists rewarded artists better than democracies. It may have been other paths. I don't know yet. (I still think self-deprecating humour may be an antidote: fascists are Serious People doing Serious Things, and I haven't been aware of any thick anthologies of famous fascist comedies. But after today I'm no longer so sure they don't exist.)

082349872349872 6y ago
Now halfway through ...Kulchur and not sure I'll do more than skim the rest. While ABC had structure, Kulchur is reminiscent of a series of blog posts put into print. The proximal cause of his support for Fascism is obvious, on p.249: > "Mussolini has told his people that poetry is a necessity to the state, and Carlo Delcroix is convinced that poets ought to "occupy themselves with these matters", namely credit, the nature of money, monetary issue etc." and p.250: > "Civilization becomes admirable when people begin to prefer a little of the best to a great deal of the pasty." In between he's been a goldbug, railed against "international finance" (which, given his glowing reviews of Charles Coughlin, admiration of the medieval Church, and pining for the use of latin, not in the mass, but in academic publishing, all suggest he's never very far away from antisemitic dog whistles with his rants on usury), is convinced that radio has reshaped politics because it allows the sheeple to learn reality instead of the fake news, notes that the only knowledgable writers on economics are the non-economists (which goes well with his snark on LSE, less well with his rants against "cranks"), considers that the British Empire is decadent (and the US not much better: although they stayed out of the League of Nations, with Pound's approval, they've put Susan B. Anthony on a stamp, to his great disapproval), suggests that taxation is theft, and complains that neither US nor UK academia (people who chatter rather than do) are receptive to free inquiry by independent researchers, etc. all of which may be more distal causes. In short, s/radio/social media/, give him Oakleys and an F-450[1], and he'd be right at home in 2020. [1] we can imagine him in the cab (safely away from Dorothy, Marcella, and Olga?), stroking his goatee while telling us "[w]hat ultimately counts is the level of civilization. No decent man tortures prisoners. No clean man wd. tolerate the advertising atrocities between here and Genova. No man free of mental lice wd. tolerate the bank racket or the taxing system."
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Oops, he was the opposite of a goldbug. He wanted off the gold standard, presumably with silver or BTC or some alternative...