It also should be remembered that the aforementioned "totalitarian"
regimes are done for and were relatively short lived, whereas the US,
though its been in the slaughter business now for over two hundred
years, is still in its infancy and accelerating its malignancy at a
breathtaking rate. CP

Bill Wagner wrote:
>
> The one word I do not see mentioned in all of the political discussion is
> Totalitarian.
> The Hitler & Mussolini regimes were totalitarian dictatorships, and bore the
> same relationship to Fascism as Stalin's regime did to Communism.  It was
> used as the foundation of the propaganda machine that convinced the people
> in those states that they were living under a system of government that was
> dedicated in one form or another to their well-being.  All were in fact
> systems run by a handful of thugs who ruled by brute force and terror.
>
> I for one greatly prefer our current US form of Imperialism for despite it's
> many faults.
>
> Bill Wagner
>
> l
> .Gancie/C.Parcelli" wrote:
>
> > I agree with much of what En Lin Wei says in this post, but only because
> > he does not speak to the issue. The only reason he can deliver such
> > posts is because he accepts Pound's conflation of Confucious/ Mencius,
> > Mussolini, National Socialism, ancient imperial regimes of many stripes
> > as being the standard for fascism. Then, taking Pound's indiosyncratic
> > formulations, in a feat of (a)mazing intellectual gymnastics and
> > personal bile, he portions out Pound's version of these varied elements
> > as those most descriptive to their historical nature. He/she proceeds
> > with no sense of irony or understanding of how other people hear such
> > things.
> > This is also because, according to En Lin Wei "We have to distinguish
> > between different types of imperialism here." But all the "distinctions"
> > En Lin Wen recognizes are set by Pound. So Pound's notions of Fascism
> > fit into Pound's notions of fascism. When En Lin Wei introduces
> > historical buttresses for his argument, he/she is utterly blind to how
> > tendentious and bullshit a fit his criticism is to Pound's poetry.
> >
> > As for my criticism of the Han Dynasty. It is involved with my critique
> > of the epistemology of science and involves the standardization of
> > weights and measures under the Ch'in. My poem which contains much of
> > this material is unpublished. However, a more recent refinement of the
> > ideas without recourse to the Han or Ch'in, is available at
> > wedelsol.com/FLASHPOINT. It is called Deconstructing the Demiurge: Tale
> > of the Tribe and unlike some recent Poundian scholarship does not rely
> > on canards.
> > --
> > --
> > ÐÏ à¡± á

--
ÐÏ à¡± á