From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Expose famous historical figures who hated Jews
Date: 13 Dec 1992 02:08:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: maelstrom.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec12.092839.2162@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

I wrote

>> 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?
 
Torrey was too; he was a doctor at St. E's. Here are some reasons which
occur to me: is there any record that Pound attempted to go to
Switzerland, Vichy France, or Spain? I doubt it. Moreover, his
broadcasts continued even after the USA entered the war. I fail to see
why Pound would have needed *American* as opposed to Italian permission
to do so.

Of course, Pound continued to broadcast after Dec 1941.

>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.

You seem to believe that it is not treasonous to be employed by the
government of Italy, with whom we were in a declared war, as long as he
denounced the American government but didn't say good things about
Mussolini? That strikes me as very weak legal ground. Indeed, I would
think that one could, while not employed by an enemy power, speak well
of Mussolini with much less cause for alarm.

Incidentally, having only excerpts of Pound's speeches, I can't tell if
he ever said good things about Adolf and Bennie. He certainly admired
Fascism.
 
>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?

As opposed to the art and economic system of Auschwitz.
 
>>>He wanted to stand trial for treason.

Fuller's thesis appears to be that Pound did not realize how likely he
was to be convicted, even sentenced to death, and that's why many
intellectuals worked to get him off the hook with an insanity defense.

Several other less conspicuous Americans who also worked for Axis
propaganda were indicted at the same time.

>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.

Maybe by then they figured he had suffered enough.....

>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.  

I disagree. Speeches decrying the President as the tool of the Jews, not
propaganda?!

>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.

That's because treason involves adhering to ENEMIES of the United
States. If the US and Israel were at war, then Pollard would ALSO have
been guilty of treason, on top of espionage. (I oppose the Pollard
early-release idea, BTW.) Treason is not just working for a foreign
power, but an ENEMY power.

>> 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"?

>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. 

My curiosity on this subject was piqued by your evident agreement with
Pound on economic questions, the Federal Reserve, etc. Pound saw those
institutions as Jew-controlled. Evidently you differ from him in this
respect, but not on their perniciousness.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy