From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Expose famous historical figures who hated Jews
Date: 12 Dec 92 09:28:38 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1gaquhINNhtu@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.141833.2098@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
> Let me start by distinguishing two questions: Ezra Pound as anti-semite,
> and Ezra Pound as traitor. Of the first there can be no doubt. Here is a
> sample:
> 
> "The Semitic poison is in the Semite tempered by the Semite's wobble
> from one excess to another... If you believe that a whole race should be
> punished for the sins of some of its members, I admit that the expulsion
> of the two million Jews in New York would not be an excessive punishment
> for the harm done by Jewish finance to the English race in America."
> 
> British Union Quarterly [this was a British Fascist publication] vol 2,
> pp. 36-48. Cited in E. FUller Torrey "The Roots of Treason" p. 143.

No one has questioned Pound's antisemitism.  Pound was called a traitor
which is part of the issue; the remainder is his treatment at the hands
of the US government.

> cited by Torrey p 155
> 
> Moving on to the treason question,
>>Pound did not spend his time making pro-Hitler broadcasts from his
>>Italian radio platform.  He spent it making anti-Roosevelt/Churchill
>>talks which are probably on file at your local library and make interesting
>>reading for the history buff.  His talks started well before U.S. 
>>involvement in World War II and in general consisted of dire warnings to
>>the U.S. that the Roosevelt/Churchill partnership and policies would
>>result in American involvement in the conflict.
> 
> The broadcasts began in Jan 1941. They were simultaneously
> anti-Churchill and Roosevelt (whom he considered pawns of the Jews) and
> in favor of the Axis powers.

Note that the United States was not at war with Italy in Jan 1941.

> 
>>When the U.S. declared war on Italy, Pound went to the train station
>>with other American citizens who were leaving Italy.  American embassy
>>officials, however, refused to honor his passport and he had no choice
>>but to remain in Italy.
> 
> Torrey: "Contrary to claims made by Pound and his supporters in later
> years, there is no contemporaneous evidence that he considered leaving
> following Pearl Harbor." On the contrary, he told an American
> correspondent that he believed in Fascism and wished to defend it
> [Ibid.].

Why should we believe Torrey over other biographers, some of whom were
personally acquainted with Pound?
 
>>The Italians tolerated his talks for which he
>>received the nominal sum of $20 per talk even though his talks were not
>>supportive of Italian/German military ventures but were anti-Rooseveltian
>>as mentioned.  
> 
> Like the line that German bombers could not find American troops
> because "visibility of black troops is very low after dark." (Torrey, p.  167)

I don't quite follow your statement.  Although I don't claim any
expertise on Pound, I have read several of his wartime speeches and
did not find them supportive of the Axis powers in any sense other
than being anti-Roosevelt, anti-war, anti-federal reserve system.
 
> These broadcasts continued on and off for years; he continued to work as
> either a writer or broadcaster up until the month of Axis surrender.
> 
>>When the Allies conquered Italy in 1943 he was taken into custody and
>>charged with treason.
> 
> Actually, he was indicted for treason in 1943 in absentia. He was not
> captured until 1945.
> 
>>He had lived in Italy long enough to have applied
>>for and received Italian citizenship as a legal remedy to his problems
>>but he refused to do so maintaining that he was guilty of treason.
> 
> This is true (I assume a "not" has been dropped from the last sentence),
> or at least not in conflict with Torrey. It says nothing to answer the
> charge that by retaining his US citizenship--which as you admite he
> could have renounced--and then working for a country with which the US
> was at war, he had committed treason. (Incidentally, his American-born
> superior at one of the Fascist radio stations did renounce his
> citizenship.)
> 
> I must admit I couldn't find a pro-Hitler speech, or even a pro-anything
> speech. The excerpts in Torrey's book are most full of rabid denunciations
> of Jews and their alleged pawns, Roosevelt and Churchill.

Pound did make occasional anti-semitic remarks and some of them were
at a very low level.  Maybe you couldn't find "a pro-anything" in
Torrey's excerpts but many of Pound's speeches were pro-art and pro-
U.S. Constitution which he discussed at great length.  His insights
were often profound and his discussions of economic problems that the
U.S. was destined for can be characterized as "eerily correct."  He
spoke of the dangers inherent in the federal reserve system and had
we listened we might have been spared the serious economic crisis we
are now facing.  Who even knew or cared what the federal reserve was
when he made these remarks?
 
>>He wanted to stand trial for treason.  Instead he was put into a hellhole
>>of a mental institution near Washington D.C. as the government knew it
>>could not successfully prosecute him for treason (as a reading of his
>>wartime talks clearly shows).
> 
> Actually, I's say the government had an awesome case. You don't think
> working as a propoganda
> broadcaster for a country with which we were officially
> enemies in a declared war constitues treason?
   
I stand by my statement that he wanted the trial.  Note that an indictment
for treason is not the same thing as a conviction for treason.  He was
in the government's hands for thirteen years and was as sane as most of
the people on this net.  He was never tried as apparently numerous
lawyers in the justice department disagreed with your "awesome case"
theory.  Eventually the indictment was dropped.

He was no propaganda broadcaster in any usual sense of the word as a reading
of his speeches would indicate.  Cantos and speeches about the federal
reserve hardly qualify as propaganda.  

What does constitute treason anyway?  When I went in the Navy many years
ago, I took an oath that I would defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic.  The oath was not that I would defend my
country, right or wrong.  Although I have serious argument with Pound's
affection for Il Duce and his fascination with certain fascist ideas,
I don't question his sincerity or consider him any puppet of the Italian
regime.  He was obviously his own man.  He was also not alone in his
initial fascination with Mussolini.  Certain British Prime Ministers
made glowing remarks about the dictator and the improvement he had
brought to Italy (see Shirer's 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich')
during the thirties and many in British politics seemed surprised when
he sided with Germany when the war clouds gathered.  Certainly Pound
felt that Roosevelt had misused his constitutional powers.

With respect to treason, are we guilty of such an act today as U.S.
troops go off to [fight?,occupy?] Somalia if we speak out against
such action.  With respect to the Constitution, it is treasonous not
to speak out against the action [depending on the limits of our
understanding].  Was it treasonous to speak out against the Gulf War
which was sanctioned by Congress?

What Pound did he did in the open and with courage he was willing to
pay the price of his convictions, however wrong they may have been.
He was never found guilty of treason yet many regard him as a traitor.
An interesting contrast is Pollard who has been discussed recently
on this newsgroup.  What he did, he did covertly as a sneak-thief
and shipped classified information to a foreign power by the truck
load.  Yet he was found guilty of espionage and not even charged with
treason and there are those who plead for his early release from
circumstances much better than those to which Pound was subjected.

> 
>>along with his influence on Keats, T.S. Eliot, Hemmingway and a multitude
>>of others, he was no doubt one of the greatest poets of the era.
> 
> Well, that's not really relevant to the legal question!

[Keats? Try Yeats. Sorry.]  It is relevant to more than the legal
question.  Pound was not some disc jockey picked up off the street
to make propaganda speeches.  His was a first class literary mind,
perhaps one of the best of the century.  What is highly relevant
at this juncture is the whole point of this discussion that involves
finding warts and blemishes on men of great accomplishment.  What
perversity is at work that must tear down genius?  Perhaps it
is simply the age old jealousy of men of lesser accomplishment
who demand such destruction to build themselves up.
> 
> Incidentally, Mr. Gaut, since you spoke so warmly about those speeches,
> are you, like Pound, a believer in the Jewish plot to take over the
> world as outline in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
> 
> andy

You were doing well until this last pathetic remark.  You offered
some logic and interesting biographical viewpoints that help make
these net discussions of value.  Then this personal abuse.  Too much.
Merry Christmas. 
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13230 talk.politics.misc:64526