AN ASSAULT ON OUR FREEDOMS

If anybody still doubts the increasingly undemocratic assault on our rights an anouncement today in the papers would surely disabuse them of these doubts.

We have become inured to the stealthy attacks on our free speech, which I as a child was told was the cornerstone of our freedoms. But we have now to be careful what we say in case we offend people who we did not invite here and should not in my opinion be here in case we are accused of "racism". This latter is the most serious crime of all.

In effect stating that you have more affinity with those of your own ethnicity and object to the colonisation of our land has to be said very carefully or you could end up in court

A court you may say would give you justice.
The evidence weighed by 12 true men, your peers would guarantee justice, wouldn't it?

Well up to now it would, but now it is proposed to do away with juries in many cases and have the verdict decided by a a solitary magistrate or "learned"(don't make me laugh) lawyer.

Why?

To save money they say.
Well if that were the case perhaps the legal proffession should cut theur fees.

You can be sure that those chosen to adjudicate will be chosen to ensure the correct PC views and thus the correct verdict.

But what about those who do not hold views considered by the government as correct or "acceptible". They would be found guilty and punished.

We have had the jury system for hundreds of years and it has provided a degree of protection for the ordinary man, his freedoms of action and speech. Admittedly not all verdicts passed by juries are correct, but not all judgements made by judges are correct, hence the number of cases when at appeal cases were overturned and the judgement deemed to be faulty (I note judges can not be sued for incompetence as can other proffessionals).

Yes speed up the legal process by all means. Make it cheaper by cutting legal and judges fees, but not at the expense of justice.

I do not trust the state to be impartial in all cases as history has shown this leads to dictatorship.

We can only have confidence in the law and justice system when we are judged by our peers. That is our guarantor and we must hold on to this.

Or do we allow ourselves to be conned into Mandelson's "POST DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY"

It is worth spenting £30 million to avoid this.

MANY GAVE A LOT MORE 70 YEARS AGO.

NEW MAN-MADE STRAIN OF FLU, OR MAN - MADE BIO WEAPON ?

FRANKENSTEIN CREATES A NEW MONSTER

WEAPONIZED FLU

"The virologist who created a potentially dangerous, mutant strain of the deadly bird flu virus has agreed to omit methodology details from his published reports on the new strain. The decision came after the U.S. government warned Tuesday that published details of the experiment could be used to create a biological warfare weapon.

Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, said he created the contagious form of the deadly H5N1 bird flu strain "easily" by mutating a few genes within the strain. Officials feared the virus could kill millions if it were unleashed.

The study results were to be published in the U.S. journal Science, but in an unprecedented move, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, an independent committee that advises the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, recommended against full publication after it determined the risks outweighed the benefit.

"Due to the importance of the findings to the public health and research communities, the NSABB recommended that the general conclusions highlighting the novel outcome be published, but that the manuscripts not include the methodological and other details that could enable replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm," the committee said in a statement Tuesday.

A dutch scientist, Ron Fouchier, created mutations of the H5N1 virus in a lab saying it will be helpful in treating the disease and creating vaccines.

"The researchers have reservations about this recommendation but will observe it," the Erasmus Medical Center said Wednesday in a statement.

Fouchier said that he hoped his research would assist in developing better vaccines and treatments for influenza in the future. He conducted his research on ferrets, whose immune response to influenza is similar to that of humans.

"We know which mutation to watch for in the case of an outbreak, and we can then stop the outbreak before it is too late," Fouchier said in a statement Tuesday on the medical center's website. "Furthermore, the finding will help in the timely development of vaccinations and medication."

The Erasmus Medical Center press office and the National Institutes of Health, which funded the research, said in statements that the researchers are currently working on a new report that complies with the feds' recommendations before it is published in scientific journals.

Since it appeared in 1996, H5N1 has killed hundreds of millions of birds, but transmission to humans has been rare. There have been about 600 confirmed cases of infections in people, most who worked directly with poultry. While rare, it is a deadly human disease. About 60 percent of those who had confirmed cases of the virus died.

Up until now, experts believed that the strain was transmissible from person-to-person only through very close contact, but Fouchier mutated the strain, creating an airborne virus that could be easily transmitted through coughs and sneezes.

In a written statement, Science's editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts said that the journal was taking the NSABB's request for an abbreviated version of Fouchier's research "very seriously."

While Alberts said that the journal strongly supported the work of the NSABB, Alberts and the journal's editors have "concerns about withholding potentially important public-health information from responsible influenza researchers. Many scientists within the influenza community have a bona fide need to know the details of this research in order to protect the public, especially if they currently are working with related strains of the virus."

Read PT 2. HERE - (Click on the link below)

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/dutch-scientist-agrees-omit-details-killer-bird-flu/story?id=15204649&page=2

By MIKAELA CONLEY (@mikaelaconley)

Dec. 21, 2011

SOCALISM TODAY

Inside the intriguing world of Tony Blair Incorporated

It is easy to walk past the anonymous, Georgian townhouse in central London without giving it a second glance. But the five-storey building on Grosvenor Square, close to the American embassy, is home to a multi-million pound industry with tentacles that reach across the globe.

"The Grosvenor Square headquarters of Tony Blair's myriad companies and charities. The former prime minister's extensive foreign travel means he is rarely there

The house acts as headquarters to Blair Inc, the unofficial name which Tony Blair’s activities have earned. It is from here that the former prime minister, among other things, makes his money.

Interactive graphic: Tony Blair's extensive foreign travel mapped

Financial experts claim that his widespread portfolio of companies and properties have thrust him into the upper echelons of Britain’s super-rich. His fortune – hard to judge because of the secrecy that surrounds his various enterprises – could now be in the millions of pounds, possibly enough to push his name for the first time on to Britain’s unofficial rich list. Mr Blair, who with his wife Cherie owns seven properties, is probably among the 2,000 wealthiest people in Britain.

One City accountant, who has examined Mr Blair’s companies’ accounts, said: “His total wealth is difficult to know but I would estimate it is in the range of £30 million to £40 million.”

Mr Blair’s spokesman denies the former prime minister’s wealth is “anything remotely approaching” that amount."

Read the rest here - Just click on the link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9015294/Inside-the-intriguing-world-of-Tony-Blair-Incorporated.html

Now Tony BLIAR being the good little Socialist that he and his wife are must be desperate to hand over most of their cash to good causes, help Britains poor, homeless, sick and injured.

I'm just wondering when these SOCIALISTS are going to something SOCIABLE.

The real story here is that Tony and Cherie BLIAR are TRAITORS who have been made extremely wealthy for their TRAITOROUS BETRAYAL of the INDIGENOUS people of this island we call home.

When the time comes, and it surely must come, BLIAR and his wide-mouthed frog of a wife will be stripped of ALL assests and wealth, given a fair trial and then HANGED BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD.

This go's for every Socialist (Communist/Marxist) lib/lab/con MPs.

We will not forget what they have done and will bide our time and then we, the INDIGENOUS POPULATION, will have our revenge for the BETRAYAL of our people, our ancestors and our childrens and grandchildrens futures.

DO THEY CARE ABOUT US?

The protests over the proposed new railway from London to Birmingham typify the "nimbysm" of the people living along the route. It is also a problem for Cameron and his Tories that many of his supporters, including his father in law are up in arms as is Baron Rothschild.
This latter person will be subjected to a railway within a mile of his country seat which to him is unacceptable. Poor man, my heart bleeds for him.

It is hard for people who have their houses destroyed for such a scheme as inevitably some will be but this has happened all over the country with the building of new towns and motorways and people have had to put up with it.

The difference is that those previously affected have not been as well heeled and lacked the political clout of those now threatened.

It seems OK to build over countryside in semi urban areas where there is a scarcity of open space but not in the broad acres inhabited by well heeled Tories.
Their view will be disturbed and no doubt newts and other supposedly endangered species threatened they will say.
Hundreds of millions of pounds will be expended as a sop to these well heeled people in tunnelling to avoid spoiling their views.

The above may seem that I do not hold the countryside dear. I do especially as a farmer and am well aware of the impact of transport networks on local environments. I live 100 yards from the M6 which bisects my farm and the noise is noticeable at times, but you get used to it and shielded by greenery as it now is the impact is minimal.

If the only reason for building a new railway was the speed of getting to London I would be against it.
My main reason for supporting the venture is that when continued to Manchester and especially Liverpool these cities would be rejuvenated.
Liverpool could become a gateway to Europe and a thriving port once more
In addition many much needed jobs in construction would be created and having been compl;eted the line would be a permanent part of our national infrastructure for many years, unlike the Olympic Games or the "Dome". We would reap the benefits for years and help redress the balance between the affluent South and the neglected North.

Of course many of those complaining are not concerned with the prospects of the northern regions or employment in general, insulated as they are by city office jobs and great wealth.
Many live in the country in second homes and are there only at weekends and do not want their rural idyll disturbed so they can escape the environment in which so many others live.

But how do they travel to their rural retreats? By car along a motorway which will have affected the regions through which it passes just as much as a railway, or even by rail where the same argument applies.

Unless they avoid rail and motorway travel they should at least have the insight that their mode of transport affects others, but then when have these types ever considered others, let alone the national interest?

CAN YOU FIND ANY COMPARISON WITH THE FOLLOWING DEFENITION OF FASCISM AND THE BRITAIN OF TODAY ?

Michael Mann is an historical sociologist and Professor of Sociology at UCLA. In his book Fascists (Cambridge University Press, 2004) he provides the following definition:

“Fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism.” (Mann, op. cit., p. 13)

Definition of terms:

· Transcendence: Belief that the state can transcend social conflict and blend all social classes into a harmonious whole. Belief in the power of political ideology to transcend human nature and produce a better world.

· Cleansing (ethnic): Favoring one or more ethnic or racial groups over others, either by granting special privileges or imposing disabilities; deportation of ethnic minorities, or worse.

· Cleansing (political): Silencing the political opposition so that the transcendent aims of fascism can be realized. Restricting the freedom of speech, outlawing opposition parties, imprisoning political opponents (or worse) and indoctrinating youth in fascist principles.

· Statism: Promoting a high degree of state intervention in personal, social, or economic matters. Belief that the state can accomplish anything.

· Paramilitarism: “Grass roots”, populist squadrism aimed at coercing opponents and obtaining popular approbation by acting as a supplementary police force.

2. Robert O. Paxton

Robert Paxton is an American historian and emeritus professor of history at Columbia University. In his book The Anatomy of Fascism (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004) he develops the following definition:

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external explansion.” (Paxton, op. cit., p. 218)

3. R.J.B. Bosworth

Bosworth is professor of history at the University of Western Australia and has been a Visiting Fellow at Columbia, Cambridge, Oxford, and Trento Universities. In his book Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 (Penguin Press, 2006) he reviews the definitions of Mann and Paxton, with some approbation and some criticism. Regarding Paxton he points out, for example, that the Italian Fascist regime, once in power, left the court system largely intact, provided a good measure of due process, never established anything close to a gulag, and accommodated the church – hardly things that indicate it was “without ethical or legal restraints”. Regarding Mann, he disputes the notion that Italian Fascism “killed democracy” by observing (rightly) that pre-Fascist Italy was not a democracy anyway, and questions the importance of ideological “transcendence”. Bosworth avoids a succinct definition of Fascism for reasons he himself summarizes as follows:

“…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined). To be still more succinct, as Mussolini told Franco in October 1936, what the Spaniard should aim at was a regime that was simultaneously ‘authoritarian’, ‘social’, and ‘popular’. That amalgam, the Duce advised, was the basis of universal fascism.” (Bosworth, op. cit., p. 564.)

4. Conflation

a. Elements deemed essential by all authors

All three authors agree that statism, nationalism , unity, authoritarianism, and vigor are essential elements of fascism.

b. Elements deemed non-essential by all authors

All three authors spend some time discussing things commonly thought to characterize fascism but which do not. They note that such things as parades and street violence were common features of mass movements at the time, and not distinctively fascist. They also note that the role of anti-Semitism in the rise of fascist movements was minor. In the Italian case, it played no role at all in the early days, and indeed many Jews were party members. And then of course there was Mussolini’s Jewish mistress Margherita Sarfatti. In Germany, anti-Semitism was intentionally downplayed by the Nazis during their ascendant phase because many voters found it offensive.

c. Areas of disagreement.

Bosworth is not wholly satisfied with the definitions offered by Mann and Paxton, as previously noted. Mann differs from Paxton and Bosworth on various points, two notable ones being:

i. Charismatic leadership. Mann tends to assign this attribute lesser weight because his analysis includes fascist movements (in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Spain, and Greece) where charismatic leadership was not an essential element.

ii. Violence. Unlike Bosworth and Paxton, Mann is a sociologist and takes a more thoughtful approach in analyzing the use of violence in fascist movements. For Mann, violence is something that states do to maintain order; they do it with military and police forces, prisons, and the gallows. It is the use of paramilitary violence, not violence per se, that Mann finds to be an essential attribute of ascendant fascism. Once fascists have control of the state, they tend to enforce the state’s monopoly on violence and suppress the irregular violence of the squadristi (Black Shirts, Brown Shirts, etc.). Mann has the better of the argument here.

5. Synthesis and Extension: The Ultimate Definition of Fascism

After reviewing the works of these and many other authors, together with sundry primary historical and sociological sources, I think the following definition best captures the etiology and ontology of fascism.

“Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.” (Chuck Anesi, 2008)

Cause and Effect Diagram for European Fascism

a. Middle Class. In the United States, the term “middle class” as used here includes the high prole, lower middle, middle, and part of the upper middle classes. Americans generally think themselves one class higher than they actually are. To paraphrase Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution, the lower classes have their peasant revolts, the upper classes have their palace coups, but the middle classes make revolutions.

b. Economic Instability. Economic instability played a prominent role in the rise of fascism wherever it was successful, and was more perilous to the middle classes than to the lower classes (who had little to lose) or the upper classes (who were insulated from its effects). Demographic analyses of fascist party membership (Mann, op. cit.) shows quite clearly that members were on the whole younger and better educated than population means – precisely those who would be most likely to have their opportunities blocked by economic instability.

c. Polarization and Deadlock. In all cases where fascism was successful, its rise was preceded by a period of political polarization and parliamentary deadlock. In Italy, forming a stable parliamentary majority had proved impossible since 1919, and making Mussolini Prime Minister in October 1922 offered a convenient way to break the deadlock. The celebrated “March on Rome” could have been easily resisted by the government (and in fact most fascists on their way to Rome were prevented from reaching it by police forces), but it offered a handy excuse for Victor Emmanuel II to invite Mussolini into the government. In Germany, it had been impossible to form a parliamentary majority from March 1930 until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor; Hindenburg had been ruling with emergency powers article 48 of the German constitution until the appointment of Hitler as chancellor in January 1933 allowed formation of a conservative majority government. Ironically, the failure of leftists to compromise and work with centrists was a major enabler for the rise of fascism in both Italy and Germany.

d. Abandonment of Traditional Ideologies. To paraphrase Thomas (not Michael) Mann, World War I fired the mine beneath the Magic Mountain of pre-war Europe when the Enlightenment heritage of individual rights, progress, and equality collapsed into unprecedented carnage. The war left the victors exhausted and demoralized, the losers angry and resentful, and everyone wondering what went wrong.

The victors applied a policy of self-determination to reduce the level of ethnic strife by rationalizing borders and creating homelands for the various “races” (speech and culture groups) of Europe. This scheme failed to reduce tensions for four reasons. (1) regional heterogeneity made it impossible to create ethnically pure states; (2) the desire to weaken the former Central Powers led to violations of the policy — placement of large German populations in the new nations of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and large Hungarian populations in Romania and Czechoslovakia; (3) the policy was at odds with the natural desire of the victors for territorial booty, and failed to reward Italy with any significant territorial gain (the South Tyrol not being significant in the Italian view); and (4) the policy promoted aggressive nationalism.

The war was also followed by sharp though brief economic recessions and, in some countries, by hyperinflation.

Given all this, it is not hard to see why many authors have seen World War I as the primary “cause” of fascism. Enlightenment liberalism had failed to prevent a huge blood bath, created a peace that nobody was happy with, and wrecked the economy. New ideas, many thought, were needed.

e. Approbation of Police and Military Forces. The police and military forces are responsible for execising the state’s monopoly on violence to maintain order and defend the state. They are highly organized and skillful at what they do, and respect competence and efficiency. They will not long respect a government that is incompetent and inefficient.

Fascists did not “seize power” through any credible threat of violence. Once in office, they proceeded to consolidate and expand their power through technically legal means.

f. Poorly-defined. Fascist ideology was vague and protean. This is a source of endless frustration to those who expect to find a coherent definition of fascism in the the writings of party “philosophers”. But it reflects nothing more than fascism’s pragmatic approach to attaining its goals and its unwillingness to be bound (like its predecessors) to failed dogmas. Like all popular movements, fascism tried to encapsulate ideology in terse slogans – “Believe, Obey, Fight”, “Strength through joy”, “Work makes you free.”

g. Emotionally appealing. It is commonly observed that fascism was more a matter of the gut than of the head. Clearly those who joined fascist parties often did so from shrewd self-interest, but the same could be said of those who join any party. It was the emotional appeal of fascism – the notion that through sheer hope and force of will difficult and long-standing problems could easily be resolved – that set it apart. Triumph of the Will. This idea of course was not new and is still popular. The New Age doctrine of “Manifesting” holds that ideas firmly held will become reality. This doctrine appears in many forms – e.g. “The Power of Positive Thinking”, “The Law of Attraction”, “Change You can Believe in”. In its weak form it holds merely that positive thinking is more likely to achieve a result than negative thinking. Generally this form is harmless and often productive. In its strong form, it holds that positive thinking will in fact produce the intended result. In this form it is indistinguishable from magic.

h. Soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.

i. National unity. This was a fixed core goal of fascism. It held that social conflict could be transcended through service to the nation-state as the embodiment of the will of the people. With all serving the same master, internal conflict would disappear and the people (with certain out-groups excluded of course) would achieve their destiny.

ii. Immediate and direct resolution of problems. This is often confounded with violence. Practically however it had more to do with cutting through red tape and taking shortcuts. Sometimes this involved squadrist violence, and sometimes it did not. It is important to realize that excessive bureaucratization and ineffective justice systems played a role in the rise of fascism. An example will be helpful.

(a) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. Fascist thugs beat up shopkeeper.

(b) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He has bribed the police and nothing happens.

(c) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He has bribed the judge and his case is dismissed.

(d) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. The police arrest him, and he is promptly fined and imprisoned.

(e) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He is cited and the case drags on for a year, ultimately disposed of with a plea to a lesser charge or a deferred prosecution agreement.

A person interested in doing substantial justice with proper safeguards for individual rights would choose scenario (d) as the most desirable. But if scenario (d) is not working, is scenario (a) worse than the remaining choices? At least with scenario (a) substantial justice is done. And these were the kinds of choices that fascists had to make. Direct action did achieve immediate results and contributed greatly to the popularity of fascism in its ascendant stages.

iii. Intolerance for dissent. It would be trivial to observe that since the fascist model required individuals to serve the nation-state as the embodiment of the popular will, and subordinate their interests to it, dissent would be unthinkable for any true believer. A stronger reason for suppressing dissent can be found in the emotional characteristics of fascism. Accepting that ideas firmly held become reality, a dissenter imperiled the collective spell, and dissent was seen as a species of malefic witchcraft.

B. Amateur Definitions of Fascism

Brief reference must be made to definitions of fascism offered in popular works intended for the mass market. These “definitions” are typically lists of attributes deemed to be essential characteristics of fascism. Invariably these lists contain attributes that are often found in non-fascist states, and the authors fail to distinguish fascism from simple authoritarianism, if indeed they even understand that distinction. Examples of authors offering these trivial analyses include Naomi Wolf, Lawrence Britt, Umberto Eco, and others. (I very much like Umberto Eco’s fiction but he is definitely not an analytical thinker.)

II. Avoiding Fascism

A. Maintain Order

Ensure that the people are secure in possession of their lives, liberty, and property. Locke had this one right. And as Jefferson observed, a government that does not ensure these things should be overthrown. Until a government can ensure a high degree of public order it has no business doing anything else. Pursuit of other objectives, however worthy, while public order is lacking will bring the government into contempt and require the people to seek security from vigilante and squadrist organizations. At that point the government is seen as a useless hindrance and fascism is imminent.

The major impediment to maintaining public order in the United States at this time (2008) is the judiciary, which has introduced so much procedural due process that bringing simple cases to trial can take months or years. A re-assessment of these archaic and inefficient procedures would be beneficial, and needs to be undertaken before a crisis exposes their weakness.

B. Compromise

Gandhi said that in his law practice he “strained every nerve to bring about a compromise,” and that “The true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.” (Mohandas Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, ch. 14). Gandhi saw compromise as a spiritual necessity.

The role of maximalism in the rise of fascism has been noted previously. The failure of left, right, and center to compromise and form coalitions weakened the governments of Italy, Germany, Austria, and other countries, promoting the rise of fascism.

Compromise requires intellectual honesty, a faculty often lacking on the right and left. It is necessary for the wise to broker compromises and “strain every nerve” to achieve them.

C. Remember that Law is Violence, and Use it Sparingly

Amateur commentators on fascism (Wolf, Britt, Eco et al.) fail to see that fascists did most of their work using the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence with nearly universal popular approbation. This included passing laws that controlled the most trivial aspects of human behavior, backed up by the traditional apparatus of police, courts, and prisons. In many cases considerable procedural due process existed, most notably in Italy, where the judicial machinery was largely untouched. But of course procedural due process used to enforce an unjust law does not yield justice.

The point here is this: if you think you are better than a fascist because you are passing laws to control people’s behavior in trivial and oppressive ways, instead of beating people up, well, you are wrong. The fascists did exactly the same thing. In fact, you are worse than a fascist, because you are too cowardly to do the dirty work yourself, and want to leave it to the police and the courts.

So unless you would be willing personally to use physical violence to enforce a law, knowing that you might be severely injured or killed while doing so, you have no business making such a law, and will only bring contempt upon yourself and the legislature if you do so. This of course is one reason the U.S. House and Senate are held in such low esteem – they are seen, with some accuracy, as a collection of ignorant, cowardly windbags hiding behind the state’s monopoly on violence. (This may seem harsh, but no reasonable person viewing the Congress of the United States in 2009 could possibly disagree with it.)

III. Fascist FAQ

A. Scope
This section addresses various questions received in emails, usually from readers who have read amateur definitions of fascism.

B. Didn’t Mussolini say Fascism was “rule by corporations”?

Yes, but he did not mean BUSINESS corporations, and he meant rule by means of corporations.

One means to achieving the fascist goal of transcendent unity was corporatism. In Italian Fascism, this involved a vertical reorganization of society into syndicates or “corporations” that grouped people by their field of endeavor, rejecting horizontal distinctions of management and labor. The initial organization, following the Rocco Law of 1926, “established syndicates of industry, agriculture, commerce, maritime and air transport, land and inland waterway transit and banking, with intellectuals and artisans being grouped in a seventh syndicate of their own.” (Bosworth, op.cit., 226)

Thus, when Mussolini referred to a “corporate state”, he meant organizing management and labor into syndicates under the thumb of the Duce. This was rule by means of corporations — an expedient but certainly not a defining characteristic of fascism.

No more need be said of this. Wikipedia has a decent concise article on Corporatism that will clarify proper usage of the term.

This confusion is not new. I remember when I was an undergraduate many years ago a student used the term “corporate state” in class, referring to some vague idea of a state in which business corporations run the show, and the professor, being an Oxford man, thought he was talking about Fascist corporatism. The confusion was soon resolved. But we are likely to see more of this now that the American education system has given up teaching history, philosophy, mathematics and so forth in favor of diversity studies and post-modernist literary criticism.

C. Can fascism be defined as radical anti-communism?

I guess, if you want to define Bolshevism as “radical anti-capitalism”. Seem like pretty impoverished definitions to me.

D. Why is your style irregular in its capitalization of “fascism”?
When used in reference to Italian Fascism the word is a proper noun. Otherwise it is not.

Muhammad Ali , Tells The Truth - 1971

AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH.

SCRAP VALUE?

Imagine if massive new deposits of high grade iron ore, copper aluminium and tin were found in this country, there would be massive investments in new mines and the price of these metals would fall drastically.

Well there are massive resources of these metals in Britain, scrap which is sent to China as raw materials for their expanding industries. In effect this trade is the result of globalisation and is a reduction of our resource base.
Also exported are precious metals such as cobalt, much used in the electronics industries.

I believe we should ban the export of scrap metal and store it until the demand is there at home.
Many would say it would depress the price of scrap, and make recycling less profitable to local authorities and at first glance it would.
But thought through the savings would be immense.

No more thefts of manhole covers, cables or lead from roofs, nor even war memorials especially if dealers were under local authority control. No more electricity power cuts or train delays.
It is estimated that theft of metals costs the economy a billion per year.

If we could use genuine scrap to produce goods here industries would be rejuvenated and jobs created saving money now paid out in unemployment benefit.

I do not trust the present fiat money system which creates money out of thin air and lends it at high interest. This money does not really exist, but metals do.
They are raw materials for the manufacture of goods, as was shown in WW2 when all metal was recycled for reuse here and played a vital role in the war effort.

If we keep selling these resources and getting lines of biniary figures on a computer we are getting nothing in reality in return.

As a country we should start conserving "things" as opposed to money for when the value of "money" reaches its true worth, nothing, things will still have a value.

As a country we should not do as we did with North Sea Oil and sell it off cheap and now buy it dear.

I said it at the time and have been proved correct.

OUR COUNTRY SHOULD HOLD ON TO ITS TANGIBLE ASSETS, including scrap.

Everything else will be proved to be worthless.