Someone once told Poun that he was a sadist because he made men (as in
mensch) think. I think governments become quite wise when they stop
executing dissidents and thus creating martyrs. We seem to agree on that.
But this country has been far advanced from others at the art of silencing
its critics by denying them access to media or, in extreme cases,
discrediting them by putting them in the "nut house". This practice,
however, has probably seen its better days. It still amuses me that today's
clever attempt to keep a lid on free thought is to pay loud-mouth radio dick
jockies to reduce freedom of speech to a simple question of being allowed to
explicate sexual acts in the venacular over the airways as if that is all
this freedom means. "The triumph of the superficial and apotheosis of the
raw" in Henry James's words.
    "Poetry sucks. I never could understand any of it." belts out Howard
Stern. "HA,HA,HA" counters Robin (Aunt Tom or whatever she is supposed to
be), the sidekick. My wholesome generation had Edgar Bergen and Charlie
McCarthy.

          "But a tawdry cheapness shall outlast our days" Pound predicted.

    Wei, we don't disagree as much as it might seem; but I only fear, to
answer your question, that, yes, "someone might want to put a warning on his
works" or worse. And I fear that in doing so they may see it expedient to
quote their chosen "experts in the field". Would you want to be used as a
tool for such censorship? Would you want your statements taken out of
context and used for such purposes?
    It is best,I think, for us to remember the statement attributed  to
Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it." And Howard Stern can have his opinion too.
    On the question of Pound's support of fascist censorship, I am not so
sure of his open participation as you seem to be although I could understand
his reticence. Voltaire also said, "I am fond of truth, but not at all of
martyrdom." There's never an easy answer is there?
    On the subject of Social Darwinism, it strikes me as how neatly it
replaces Calvinism  granting the same rationalization for beating up someone
weaker than oneself. Hence the phoney debate between science and religion.
And I wonder what kind of latest "salvation" will we peddle to the world of
"expanding markets" while we line our pockets with our filthy lucre.

CM