Mr. Wei implies that Pound "egged them (Mussolini and Hitler) on in the war.
But I would ask Mr. Wei, did they really pay any attention to him? I'm not
aware that they paid any attention to him except mussolini's "tea with Ezra
Pound". How can  one claim that Pound had any effect on Hitler? However,
Pound was deluding himself if he ever believed that the fascists would be
any kinder to neo-paganism and a poet's Weltanschauung than democracy or
communism had ever been. See the Nazi files on Julius Evola for example,
document AR-126 and AR-83 which is Himmler's summary dismissal of Evola.
They are in the Introduction to "Revolt Against the Modern World".  The fact
is although the "Volkish" movement was exploited by the Nazi and the glory
of Imperial Rome by the Duce, the greatest pacts they made for their
political success were with the Catholic Church, and the Protestants
protested little. In Hitler's case it was in 1933 when the Catholic party
supported the Nazi in the Reichstag putting them in power.
    On the subject of punning "de jure" with "du jour" I did not see the
possibility of that and that would put us in an entirely different soup. But
it is reported that he said "de jure", and it is again our illusive
reporter   JL who gives this as a direct quote from Pound himself. It may
have been in the same correspondence to Hubert Greekmore from which JL took
the other quotes. That's all the facts I can give you. My suspicion is that
Pound did believe in the system of English Common Law for it is the best
system for appealing to reason and fairness and the most democratic allowing
one to be judged by one's peers.

'...Does anyone have the faintest idea what I said?' Obviously, Pound felt
misunderstood by this, but admittedly the qoutation you present looks pretty
bad and rascist. But is it treasonable?  Who or what is Doob?
    As for the difference between "rectifying the people" and "rectifying
democracy", I thought democracy was defined as the "rule of the people". If
one rectifies the people will they not rectify their own rule, grasshopper?
    Finally, in your posting to thank Leon Surette you say you agree fully
and with no reservation with his statement part of which is that Social
Credit is an erroneous solution to problems. I also agree with you and
Surette on the rest of his statement, but question this assumption on Social
Credit. To my knowledge the few experiments in Social Credit had some
limited success. Even Keynes recognised that if money was off the gold
standard that it would need some type of regulation. Is the Federal Reserve
System any more democratic than social credit would be if this was the way
the Congress decided "to coin money and regulate the value thereof"?

                                Best wishes,  Charles