THE WORD F λογος Katrin Frisch Pound, Eliot, Lewis, and the Far Right Katrin Frisch The F - Word Pound, Eliot, Lewis, and the Far Right Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ̈ uber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich gesch ̈ utzt. Das Werk steht unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz Namensnennung-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.de). Ausgenommen von der oben genannten Lizenz sind Teile, Abbildungen und sonstiges Drittmaterial, wenn anders gekennzeichnet. Dieses Buch entstand aus einer Dissertation (eingereicht mit dem Titel: The F-Word: Interdependencies of Right-Wing Ideology and Modernist Writing: Pound, Eliot, and Lewis) am Institut f ̈ ur Anglistik/Amerikanistik der Humboldt-Universit ̈ at zu Berlin in Kooperation mit dem King’s College London. Erm ̈ oglicht wurde die Promotion durch ein Promotionsstipendium der Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. Die Ver ̈ offentlichung wurde aus Mitteln des Open-Access-Publikationsfonds der Humboldt-Universit ̈ at zu Berlin gef ̈ ordert. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6669-5015 Covergestaltung: Mike Moses Wunder Gedruckt und Ver ̈ offentlicht durch den Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH 2019 ISBN 978-3-8325-4972-5 Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH Comeniushof, Gubener Str. 47, 10243 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 90 Fax: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 92 INTERNET: https://www.logos-verlag.de T ABLE OF C ONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LOOKING AT THE F-WORD AND BEYOND 11 Right-wing ideology 13 Fascism and Nazism 18 The matter of anti-Semitism 22 The matter of racism 26 A very short history of right-wing ideology 28 Right-wing ideology in literature 36 3. THE POEM AS PROPAGANDA – EZRA POUND 39 ‘Der Jud will Geld’ 47 A ‘stupid suburban prejudice’? 57 ‘MA QVESTO’ 64 ‘His rod hath made god in my belly’ 79 Mere words? – The poem on trial 87 4. T. S. ELIOT – THE CONSERVATIVE COLLABORATOR 95 108 117 124 133 144 ‘I was neither living nor dead’ ‘They wash their feet in soda water’ ‘It’s them pills I took, to bring it off’ ‘I’ll convert you ! I nto a stew!’ ‘The jew is underneath the lot Final thoughts 155 5. NO MEN IN NO MAN’S LAND – WYNDHAM LEWIS 157 ‘I was never real. Am I?’ 168 ‘We are primitive and proud of it!’ 178 ‘You do not believe in the sex-goods you deal in...’ 190 ‘It’s too marvellous he’s Black!’ 198 ‘Oh! I am not progressive’ 209 6. ‘WHICH BOOK RED PILLED YOU?’ – RIGHT-WING RECEPTION 219 Who is the New Far Right 222 Early right-wing reception of Pound and Eliot 227 Contemporary right-wing reception 235 Counter-Currents 235 Kerry Bolton: Artists of the Right 236 Jonathan Bowden 245 The Occidental Quarterly 255 Sezession 259 CasaPound 263 Final thoughts 266 7. DO CIVILIZED PEOPLES EXECUTE THEIR POETS? 269 NOTES 273 BIBLIOGRAPHY 355 i A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes about an equal amount of people to write a book. It all started with a term paper for a seminar on Modernist Po- etry. Stephan Lieske’s feedback and encouragement gave me the confidence to pursue the matter further. My research culminated in a Master’s thesis on Vorticism and the Proto-Fascist Tradition, which was jointly supervised by Prof. Dr Eveline Kilian (Humboldt-University Berlin) and Prof. Dr Max Saunders (King’s College London), who would afterwards also become su- pervisors of my PhD thesis, originally titled The F-Word: Interdependencies of Right-Wing Ideology and Modernist Writing: Pound, Eliot, Lewis , on which this book is based. I have profited from their knowledge, guidance, and expertise. Eveline Kilian’s meticulous readings of my drafts helped me to improve my literary analyses and hone my arguments. I was fortunate to be part of Eveline Kilian’s colloquium, which always offered a supportive space to discuss unfin- ished ideas and raw material. I also want to extend thanks to Dr Jon Day, whose extensive feedback was a great help to me when I revised this PhD thesis in preparation for its publication. I also relied on the generous funding of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, without which I could not have embarked upon this journey. Their scholarship programme also gave me the opportunity to meet like-minded people, some of whom eventually became friends. I am furthermore indebted to the brilliant set of people also known as the cabin crew: Shirley, Julia, Kathrin, Barbara, Rebeca, and Schu. Their sup- port and general awesomeness have made my days lighter and the book in its final state better. I especially want to thank Shirley and Julia for all the work they put into this project. Shirley’s moral support has kept me going, her in- tellectual support helped me grow as an academic. Julia is the most assiduous proofreader I know, who would pore over my text as if it was her own. She also spent countless hours with me talking through my arguments, doubts, and ideas. I am beyond grateful to count them among my closest friends. Many other friends have supported me during the time of my PhD. I want to thank Kai, Katharina, Júlia, and Ina for reading and commenting on individual chapters or passages and for sharing their knowledge with me. Marty, Stephan, Steffi, Diana, Jakob, and Izzy offered advice whenever I needed it, but mostly, they helped me to keep sane. Similarly Trish, Pablo, and Josie made me feel at home when I was living in London: I cherish the many hours we spent together. Writing this thesis has often filled me with dread and self-doubt, so I owe a debt of gratitude to all who reassured me ii that this project was worthwhile to keep going, who sympathetically listened to my rants, and believed in me even when I did not. Special thanks go to Mike, who designed the cover. Finally I want to thank my family, especially my Mum, who always supported me, even if they did not always understand why one would voluntarily spend years analysing right-wing literature. 1. I N TRO D U C TIO N Few concepts have had a more fascinating trajectory than right-wing ideology. Officially born as a political concept in the wake of the French Revolution, it grew with renewed force in the beginning of the twentieth century, reaching its climax in the fascist regimes. The story many democratic Western nations like to tell about themselves is that after the defeat of the Axis forces, right- wing ideology and many of its radical proponents went into hiding. During the Cold War for many Western states the enemy was lurking on the Left. And while in several countries the conservative democratic Right were in charge, they usually distanced themselves from the more radical right-wing elements that dwelled on society’s fringes. Sometimes, these radical elements violently forced their way into the heart of society, as evidenced by racist vio- lence in the U.S. as a reaction against the Civil Rights movement, the British race riots, and specific right-wing motivated attacks such as the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, the Bologna massacre in 1980, the Oktoberfest bomb- ing in 1980, the Norway attacks in 2011, and the Christchurch massacre in 2019 to list only the deadliest. Yet overall, it seemed that radical right-wing ideas had lost their relevance, when suddenly a few years ago the far right made its surprising comeback. Today we have relapsed, some would say, into the politically unstable times of the 1930s. This story is not entirely true. Not only does it leave out the perspective of many marginalised groups, who have continually lived under consistent threat from right-wing forces, it also glosses over the complicity between po- litical mainstream and right-wing ideology and its advocates. The Allied forces in the Second World War may have triumphed over the fascist regimes, but they have not defeated these regimes’ underlying ideology. Right-wing ideolo- gy, even its more radical and extreme forms, did not merely dwell on the margins of societies, but had a powerful influence on political discourse and political practice. What is noteworthy is that very often the far right were used by the political mainstream as ‘imaginary antagonists’, useful tools to sway public opinion and to paint the political mainstream forces in a more positive light. Right-wing ideology is not as marginalised as it is sometimes presented. This holds especially true for the first decade of the 20 th century. While in hindsight fascism is usually considered the evil other, fascist and other ex- treme right-wing ideas circulated widely in all western democratic societies. Looking back at the crucial decades that paved the way for the right-wing dic- tatorships and the Second World War it becomes clear that the unprecedent- ed rise of fascist movements cannot be considered a historic aberration at 2 odds with the progressive developments of Western democracies in the 20 th century, but that it was in fact deeply rooted in those same developments. A realm that illustrates these complicated dynamics is that of Modernist litera- ture. It is especially here that retrospective views ignore the rich reservoir of right-wing ideas in favour of highlighting the stylistic innovations many Mod- ernist artists and movements created. In fact, radical stylistic innovation is of- ten equated or confused with a progressive world-view. This has led to an in- visibility or understatement of the importance of right-wing ideology in and for Modernism: not because the authors concerned are no longer read but because their political allegiances remain – deliberately or not – unmentioned, downplayed or distorted. Yet what cannot be disputed is that almost all West- ern countries boasted a great number of artists, writers, and intellectuals who positioned themselves somewhere on the Right. Listing the many artists and writers of the Right reads like a who-is-who of 20 th century Modernism. In Italy the Futurists wholeheartedly flung them- selves into the camp of the Fascists and advocated for Futurism to become the official state art of Mussolini’s Italy. Many prominent Futurists like F. T. Marinetti, Mario Carli, Carlo Carrà, Bruno Corra, and Mario Sironi among others got actively involved in or supported fascist politics. 1 Yet Futurism’s allegiance to fascism does not seem to have tarnished the legacy of Futurist artists too much. The situation in Germany offers a more complex picture. While ‘official’ National Socialist writers like Josef Magnus Wehner, Hans Zöberlein, Edwin Erich Dwinger and Eberhard Wolfgang Möller wrote to great acclaim during their time, they are virtually unknown in Germany to- day. 2 In contrast, the reception of more prominent writers shows the conflict- ing dynamics of honouring artists and intellectual talent while coming to terms with the politics that might have influenced the works of these authors. Ernst Jünger, whose famous Great War memoir In Stahlgewittern today seems to be a lot more popular in Britain than in Germany, was firmly at home in the circles of the Konservative Revolution in Germany, 3 yet he remained a life-long critic of the National Socialists. Jünger is a good example of why it is important to see the Right, in particular the far right, as a heterogeneous spec- trum if we want to illustrate intra-right-wing allegiances and strife. Today Jünger is still popular on the Right but he is by no means only read by the Right. Another writer, Gottfried Benn is widely known to have had sympa- thies with the ideas of the Konservative Revolution, and initially collaborated with the National Socialists, a stance which he later repudiated. Yet his works remain popular. It even seems that his literature, which feasts on disgust and other deliberately dark and ugly matters is strangely more palatable to many than Jünger’s vitalism and heroism. Less well known seems to be the affinity some leading Expressionists like Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and Emil Nolde had 3 with National Socialist ideology. 4 Although their art was beloved by a number of high - ranking National Socialists, Expressionism was officially classified as entartete Kunst (degenerate art) . For many Expressionist artists this verdict proved disastrous, for some, like Nolde, it was mixed with feelings of disa p- pointment. His (published) writings testify to his allegiance to official race policies and he tried many times – to no avail – to be granted to work as an artist again. This setback proved benefici al after the demise of Nazi Germany, as it helped Nolde to pose as a victim and adversary of National Socialism. 5 The case of Martin Heidegger illustrates the complicated attempts of coming to terms with an influential and respected philosopher who was dee ply e m- broiled in National Socialist ideology. The debate, newly triggered by the pu b- lication of his Schwarze Hefte as well as selected letters, which testify to the deep influence National Socialist ideology had on his thinking and philos o- phy, also reveale d how long Heidegger’s allegiance to National Socialism had been excused and downplayed. 6 A similar case can be made for Paul de Man, the Belgian - born literary critic, whose ‘fascist roots’ only became widely known posthumously, at a time when de Man had m ade a name for himself as a greatly acclaimed theorist in the U.S. 7 Heidegger and de Man perfectly illustrate the complexity of the debate: both were influential for many thin k- ers on the Left and yet they are inextricably linked to the extreme Right. It sh ows that the history of ideas has always been subject to political cross - pollination. 8 Another country that had a strong right - wing intellectual circle was France. 9 Thinkers like Charles Maurras or Georges Sorel, whose Reflections on Violence offered a powerful theoretical underpinning for the creation of fa s- cism, were influential in and outside of France. Moreover, the so - called s e- cond generation of right - wing writers, men like Robert Brasillach, Lucien R e- batet, Pierre Drieu de la Rochelle, a nd Louis - Ferdinand Céline produced works that were read by readers from across the political spectrum. It is noteworthy that French right - wing writers faced the direst consequences for their political allegiance, possibly a testimony to France being torn b y Nazi occupation. Brasillach was sentenced to death, while Drieu de la Rochelle committed suicide in prison to escape his potential execution. Rebatet and Céline left the country to avoid a similar fate. Although they received a trial in absentio they cou ld return to France after some years had elapsed and could spend the rest of their lives there without further prosecution. This short overview is by no means exhaustive. One could list many more countries and writers, from Nobel prize winners like W.B. Ye ats and Knut Hamsun to pi o- neers of popular new genres like H. P. Lovecraft or Henry Williamson. This book will focus on three writers: Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, and Wyndham Le w is. As the ‘Men of 1914’ they stylised themselves as the harbingers of a 4 new Mode rnist art. All three of them were at the forefront of artistic innov a- tion, but crucially also in allegiance with different right - wing ideologies for m- ing in the 20 th century. Both of these facts are seldom disputed. What this book wants to show is how inext ricably bound their artistic creation was with their ideological allegiance. Approaching this topic, one has to confront two popular misconce p- tions. The first very persis tent misconception is that the far r ight lacks an i n- tellectual tradition; their membe rs are often imagined as unintelligent and u n- educated in the general discourse. This usually correlates with the assumption that members of, or p eople with sympathies for, the far r ight stem predom i- nantly from the lower classes. Despite contrary evidence, the image of the aggressive uneducated right - winger endures. This stereotype stands in stark contrast to the many right - wing writers and thinkers, who play a crucial role in the cultural history of the West, and who are also essential elements in an imagin ed counter culture that opposed such fundamental values as democr a- cy, liberalism, and equality. For too long this dilemma of canonising and ho n- ouring those voices, who spoke for the reactionary and authoritarian mov e- ments has not been adequately addressed. Thus , it is no surprise that right - wing Modernist writers have also drawn an explicitly right - wing readership, not only from the conservative Right, bu t also more crucially from the far r ight. The right - wing revival of ‘their’ intellectual tradition is ma de doubly productive for the Right as it legitimates their ideological undertaking and, moreover, it persuasively asserts their place in the creative history o f the Western World. While the far r ight’s claim to respectability seems somewhat outrageous, the core of their argument has some validity: namely the paradox of right - wing artists who are both part and opponents of the imagined traje c- tory of progressive modernity. It is important to stress that the label ‘right - wing’ for the artists me n- tioned above is not a retrospective assignment of value, applied because what they wrote is no longer part of the sayable, i.e. can not be uttered in public without repercussions. Pound, Eliot, and Lewis went beyond merely repr o- ducing the mainstream prejudices of thei r times and actively promoted movements that stood in direct opposition to the general drive towards liberal democracy. T he oft - repeated argument that they lived during a time w hen anti - Semitism and racism were the norm even in democratic societies (which, one could argue, they still are) should not serve as excuse nor as explanation There is a double fallacy in this popular argument. Firstly, a right - wing stat e- ment does not become less right - wing if it is uttered among people who more or less agree with s aid statement. It would be too reductionist to read ‘right - wing’ as relative and to omit more important factors such as power distrib u- tion and discourse formation, which influence who is allowed to say what and 5 which ideas are ostracised or marginalised. Secondly, as Anthony Julius has noted: ‘Even if one conceded that the dominant literary spirit was hostile to Jews [...] it does not follow that anti - Semitism was of a strength to compel adherence’. 10 In the same vein Julius remarks that it begs the question why exactly t hose artists who are celebrated for eschewing convention are, on the level of ideology, excused for being wholly conventional. This also holds true for racism, sexism, classism , and other ideological subsets that degrade an i m- agined – and subsequently real – other. Approaching the politics of writers and artists thus requires great care in assessing their politics within the framework of their respective societies. Pound, Eliot, and Lewis, have all to varying degrees, been subject to studies that explored their ideology. All too often, however, these studies have not tackled the issue adequately. In most cases right - wing ideology is abbreviated to fascism, which produces a distorted evaluation of these wri t- ers’ ideology and of right - wing ideology in genera l. In some studies, using fa s- cism as an analytical category made it possible to exculpate and exclude ce r- tain writers from scrutiny. In fact, using fascism as an analytical category for literary studies poses a number of problems, which will be discussed i n cha p- ter 2. Therefore, this study will use the more inclusive concept of ‘right - wing ideology’ as a spectrum, in which fascism occupies one end but is not the constitutive element. Moreover, when assessing writers’ politics, studies have often relegated t hese into the realm of the biographical, implying that artistic output is autonomous or at least has to be judged differently. This approach was supported and facilitated by critical traditions such as New Criticism, who professed to focus on the materiali ty of language and leave such worldly matters as ideology aside. Yet this supposed ‘ideology - free’ reading of liter a- ture should be approached with caution. In the case of New Criticism it can be demonstrated that those critics at the forefront of the movem ent essentia l- ly agreed with Eliot’s conservative ideology. The inherent right - wing ideology in Eliot’s poetry became an unspoken agreement and did not need to be fu r- ther addressed. The key critical tradition that brought ideology back into the debate cou ld be said to have been the Marxist tradition. As a matter of fact, Pound, Eliot, and Lewis have already come under scrutiny from some of the Mar x- ists’ key theorists. Frederic Jameson has written a seminal study titled Fables of Aggression: Wyndham Lewis: The Modernist as Fascist . Yet the book that seems to carry its damning verdict in the title does in fact exculpate Lewis almost co m- pletely. The title is a ruse and Jameson’s analysis is biased in its understanding of fascism as well as its selection of Lew is’s works. Terry Eagleton in his Crit i- cism and Ideology takes a closer look at Eliot’s The Waste Land. While Eagleton’s analysis is generally shrewd, he further cements the common argument that 6 ‘ the ‘form’ of that poem is in contradiction with its ‘content’’. 11 Both studies are valuable for reinserting ‘ideology’ into literary studies, but they should not be treated as the final word on the topic. First, some studies like Jameson’s seem to suffer from crucial methodological flaws, which distort the a nalysis. Secondly, written from a Marxist perspective these studies approach fascist and right - wing ideology respectively from a very specific ideological angle and this is rarely reflected upon. Since it is impossible, so I would argue, to a p- proach the to pic of ideology in literature from an objective, i.e. ideology - free, standpoint, there is a need for a diverse range of studies on the subject. Ho w- ever, despite the prominence of the writers and the significance of right - wing ideology, especially fascism, the debate seems listless and has continued to lose its drive in recent years. Some of the most productive new approaches to literary studies, such as gender, queer and postcolonial studies have in part passed over these representatives of the ‘white male heterosexual order’. While it is understandable (and undeniably relevant) that these new critical approaches have largely focussed on marginalised, oppressed , and ostracised voices, it is precisely their critical approach that is needed to dissect Eliot’s, Pound’s and Lewis’s ideology along the lines of gender, race, and sexuality, as these three categories are significant in the assessment of (especially right - wing) ideology. Another category that has been constantly overlooked, d e- spite the Marxists’ inves tment in the cause, is that of class. While it is true that class is an important category in Marxist studies, this approach has often pr o- duced a simplified assessment of its role in literature with a focus on Marxist class binaries and capitalism. While t his is not to suggest that the Marxist point is moot, there is an argument to be made that the category of class d e- serves an approach similar to other critical movements such as gender studies. This is particularly relevant for literary works that come out of a tradition and society with very rigid ideas of class and a problematic approach to the lower classes even among its left - wing authors. 12 The category of class has to be, in accordance with other categories, recognised as constructed and at the same ti me its very real ramifications have to be understood and made visible. This prefigures that an intersectional approach would further enhance the debate. This study cannot fill all the gaps that have just been enumerated. What this study is trying to do i s to take the critical approaches and insights of ge n- der, queer, and postcolonial studies, as well as bring in the category of class, and apply them to the works of Pound, Eliot, and Lewis to illustrate the si g- nificance of right - wing ideology for their lit erary creation. Hopefully this will also initiate a new cycle of critical studies on these writers. Additionally, this study argues for a reassessment of the role of right - wing ideology for the Modernist project in general, and these three authors in parti cular. The Modernism of Pound, Eliot, and Lewis did not develop in spite of their rea c- 7 tionary politics, but in harmony with them. Contrary to what Eagleton claims, style and content do not stand in conflict with each other, but augment each other. Moreover , many of the stylistic features of their Modernist writing are directly linked to violent discursive practices such as racial and class appropr i- ation. Crediting the literature these men have produced means coming to terms with the right - wing ideology that influenced them as well as a social context that sanctioned many of these practices and discourses. Looking at the context in which these men wrote also reveals the literary parallels b e- tween Pound’s, Eliot’s, and Lewis’s writings and those of like - minded writers in Britain and on the continent. It would be seriously misguided to ignore the rich reservoir of prejudices, imagery, and concepts that sustained these wri t- ers, while, in turn, the manifold repetition of these elements maintained the reservoir. Th e right - wing elements in the literary works of Pound, Eliot, and Lewis are not accidents that can be ignored or explained away but have to be understood as central to their literary endeavour. Right - wing ideology played a crucial role in these men’s litera ry productions and thus has to be credited, even if reluctantly, as part of the Modernist movement While the first and major part of this book will offer a literary analysis of works by Pound, Eliot , and Lewis, the shorter second part will illuminate a hi therto neglected topic: the rece ption of literature by today’s far r ight. The insufficiency of the academic debate on the topic of right - wing ideology and literature has created a vacuum the Right is eager to fill with their own narr a- tive. Creating a count er - canon, the Right has tried to establish an alternative intellectual history, which features many notable writers and artists, who are included on account of their art as well as their politics. These developments have not yet come under scrutiny of acad emic studies despit e the recent surge of the (far) r ight in the West. This oversight might be due to the still prevai l- ing notion that the far r ight has no intellectual tradition. This would explain why the interdependencies of right - wing movements and pop - cultural ph e- nomena like rock music, the metal scene , and , more recently , meme culture have been studied far more extensively. While the importance of online cu l- ture for the far r ight’s agenda cannot be overstated, the intellec tual arm of the far r ight incr easingly relies on an image of respectability and thus high culture. The evocation of a rich intellectual heritage does not only support the claim to respectability, it also offers an ideal platform to attack liberal elites and their supposed cultural hege mony. By subverting the notion of the Left’s cu l- tural dominance while exploiting the gap left by the inadequate academic r e- sponses to the topic, the far r ight has found an ideal way to enter the di s- course. This study will take a closer look at a number of outlets, movements, and individu als of the far r ight in the U.S., Britain, Germany, and Italy to show how they construct a distinctly right - wing literary tradition. What 8 should be added is that the intent of this study is not to celebrate the cultural lega cy of right - wing ideology. On the contrary, it wants to make visible and problematize the interdependencies of right - wing ideology and cultural pr o- du ction in order to explain the (far) ri ght as a phenomenon deeply rooted in Western history and cultural development. By treating (far) right - wing ideol o- gy seriously as an ideology with an intellectual tradition, this study will pr o- duce a deeper understanding of a phenomenon that has all too often been simplified and distorted instead of analysed and explained. To approach the issue in a meaningful way, this study will proceed as follows. First a detailed theory chapter will address the phenomenon of right - wing ideology. Judging from previous studies on the subject, it is uncommon for a literary study to dwell extensively on issues outside the realm of its usual subject matter. Yet, there is a danger in relying on a silent agreement over ideological terms like ‘right - wing’, ‘fascism’, and others. Crucially for a study on literature, one would lose the precision necessary for a detailed close rea d- ing. Moreover, it would obscure the fact that all of these terms are highly co n- tested. Not only do these terms have differing definitions, but the process of defining a term like ‘right - wing’ or ‘ racism’ is a highly ideological act that can reflect and/or perpetuate certain power dynamics. Addressing the complex i- ties behind the concepts used in this study does not eradicate these problems but it makes the process transparent. Furthermore, related c oncepts such as fascism, Nazism, and anti - Semitism will be given due consideration. ‘Right - wing’ can have different meanings in different contexts; this will be taken into account as well as the historical trajectory of the concept. While I would argue tha t the core of right - wing ideology has been remarkably stable during the last two centuries, it is important not only to assess its specific permutations du r- ing the lifetimes of the three writers analysed here, but also to contextualise right - wing ideology in the power dynamics of its time. What follows are three analysis chapters, each devoted to one author. For each author I have selected one representative main text, which will be supplemented by a range of se c- ondary texts, both literary and other. The ai m of these analyses is not to pick the passages that may cause offence, but to show that a right - wing structure lies beneath the text itself, a structure that informs all of its components, with those offending passages (which are mostly very well known) o nly being the most crass and visible examples. The term ‘right - wing structure’ in this co n- text means a system of meaning - production that relies on and promotes right - wing ideology and which influences content (what is being said?) as well as form (how is i t being said?). My argument that key Modernist texts by Pound, Eliot, and Lewis are based on a right - wing structure implies that they can be read as part of a certain discourse. More crucially this would also mean that some of the stylistic innovations of Modernism can be traced back to a right - 9 wing structure. The Modernism of Pound, Eliot, and Lewis has to be unde r- stood not only as a reaction against older traditional modes of writing but also as a response to the political landscape they found themselves in. Thus, liter a- ture could be used to usher in a new fascist millennium, as in Pound’s case, or defend established hierarchies against societal change, as in Eliot’s case. The fact that this ideological baggage remains potent long past its publication will be the focus of the last part of this book. While an explicit counter - canon set by the Right is certainly not a new phenomenon, there has been an increasing return to specific ‘right - wing classics’ in recent years. This study is taking a closer look at th e reception of Poun d, Eliot, and Lewis by today’s far r ight to assess the role of canonical literature in the ideological discourse. Curiously, although the issue of ‘right - wing Modernism’ would offer a fertile ground to launch an attack against the so - cal led liberal mainstream, writings on the topic are often marked by an inward gaze and offer little antag onistic force. Pr o- duced by the far right for the (far) r ight, these responses serve as ‘internal va l- idators’ both upholding and crea ting a narrative abou t who the far r ight is or wants to be. Looking at right - wing reception of Modernist texts offers a glimpse into the potency of the ideological structure that is so often denied or overlooked by ‘conventional’ academic scholarship. When I began my work o n this project the topic seemed to many inte r- esting but distant . The far r ight, so often back then deemed the lunatic fringe, did not appear to be a threat to the mainstream discourse. After all, a resu r- gence of the far r ight did not fit the self - image of many Western democracies. Nevertheless, in more and more Western countries the Right is on the rise again. The reasons for the resurgence of the (often populist and far) Right have often been sought in the political, economic or social realm. In this way t he right - wing revival is seen as a reaction against multiple transformations that seemingly disturb traditional set - ups. The cultural realm is frequently dismissed as something that ‘merely’ represents and reflects its surroundings. Yet this reductive appr oach overlooks the capability of cultural artefacts to create knowledge, power structures, normalcy, and deviancy. One repeatedly overlooked reason for the (after all not so unsuspected) resurgence of the Right is the fact that right - wing ideas and ideals still occupy a central role in many cultural products that are consumed and revered by the mainstream and establishment of many Western societies. Looking at the interdependencies of right - wing ideology and Modernist writing does not merely reveal the rea c- tionary politics behind the experimental façade (for this fact alone is quite well known) but addresses the impossibility of divorcing the artwork from its inherent ideology. In the case of right - wing Modernism thi s proves to be a boon for the (far) r ight but a dilemma for everyone disagreeing with right - wing politics. Yet in times of the Right’s ascendancy, the response can no 10 longer be evasion of uncomfortable arguments. Likewise though, censoring offending material cannot be an adequate answer to the tas k at hand. Instead what is needed is a nuanced analysis of the role of right - wing ideology in Modernist literature and in turn an evaluation of the role of Modernist liter a- tu re for today’s (far) r ight – without censure but with critical meticulousness – an d this is what this study sets out to do. 11 2. L OOKING AT THE F - W ORD AND B EYOND A book on the politics of Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis , and T.S. Eliot that eschews the term ‘fascism’ and opts instead for the vague ‘right - wing’ seems to be running away from the decades of debate that have discussed the role of fascism in these authors’ lives and works. The titles that have worked on this i ssue have never been shy of using the f - word: ranging from Andrew Hewitt’s Fascist Modernism , to Frederic Jameson’s classic Fables of Aggression: Wyndham Lewis, The Fascist as Modernist , from Paul Morrison’s Poetics of Fascism to Alastair Hamilton’s The Ap peal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, 1919 - 1945 13 This trend can also be observed in publications on the same matter in other countries: from French Literary Fascism to Die Brücke ins Geisterreich: kü n- stlerische Avantgarde zwischen Kulturkritik und Faschismus. While it is undoubtedly true that fascism played a major role in the 20 th century and arguably, has had a bigger impact on the previous century, the people who lived during its times as well as th eir descendants than any other ideology, the obsession with fa s- cism has led to an oversimplification of the debate that is often more interes t- ed in determining whether someone (or something) was/is fascist or not, than to offer a nuanced analysis of the in terplay between Modernism and ideology. In short, the concept of fascism has often been reduced to a binary that fits into our modern discourse on the topic (i.e. to be fascist versus anti - fascist and thus to be bad versus good). Yet this does not only lea d to a simplific a- tion but also to a falsification when the political allegiances of writers and ar t- ists of the first half of the 20 th century are discussed. Paradoxically it seems that especially the central importance of fascism as a political phenomenon undermines its potential as a useful analytical category. This is furthermore exacerbated by the way the term ‘fascism’ has been predominantly used, as Roger Griffin has aptly summarised when he says that ‘the term has predict a- bly been passed on to post - wa r generations as an emotionally charged word of condemnation for any political regime or action perceived as oppressive, authoritarian or elitist’. 14 Fascism can and is nowadays often used to describe anything that is strongly disliked, out of sync with its historical meaning and consequences. Not only extreme right - wing groups and movements are titled fascist but one can also find terms such as ‘left - wing fascism’, ‘Labour fa s- cism’, ‘Israeli fascism’, and, popularised after 9/11 , ‘Islamic fascism’ . The term fascism has, in most circumstances, become a synonym for evil, possibly the greatest evil imaginable, losing its specific meaning. 12 What makes matters even more complicated is that despite the ubiquity of the term there exists little consensus on what fas cism actually is. It is pr e- dominantly capitalist from a Marxist point - of view, while the liberal viewpoint sees it as mainly antidemocratic and authoritarian. Focussing on the ideolog i- cal positions fascism opposes casts it into the role of ‘the political o ther’. This inherent dilemma – that there is no fixed definition of what fascism actually is – should caution (literary) scholars when using the term ‘fascism’ and to make transparent why they are choosing one particular definition over others. But in most studies this is not the case. Stanley Payne lamented that ‘the great m a- jority of the hundreds of authors of works on fascism or individual fascist movements make little or no effort to define the term and simply assume that their readers will understand a nd presumably agree with the approach, wha t- ever that may be’. 15 Yet even on the basis of a carefully researched and r e- flected definition of fascism, the study would relapse into the afore - mentioned binary, i.e. the object of study is either deemed fascist o r not fa s- cist. There are a number of downsides to this, with the most grievous being that it perpetuates a schematic vision of the political field of the 20 th century into fascist versus non - fascist at the expense of understanding the political spectrum as a fluid continuum. A glance at the space of the political spectrum where fascism is located will reveal not only convinced fascists but also allies, collaborators, and bystanders, that did not necessarily see themselves as fa s- cists or can be defined as su ch but – not unimportantly – tolerated, profited from, cheered, and accepted fascism, or, at least, shared common enemies. Therefore instead of focussing on fascism I wish to include its ideological neighbours, even if this means entering taxonomically sli ppery land. The lens through which I want to look at the works of Pound, Lewis and Eliot is the broad spectrum of right - wing ideology. While this will in the end, hopefully, result in a clearer picture of the role of politics in these authors’ works, it wi ll at first make the issue even more complicated. However, by incorporating the whole right - wing spectrum, I can offer a more comprehensive rea