It takes a nation to protect the nation
The Power Elite is a book written by the sociologist, C. Wright Mills, in 1956. In it Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities. The structural basis of The Power Elite is that, following World War II, the United States was the leading country in military and economic terms. According to Mills, the Power Elite are those that occupy the dominant positions, in the dominant institutions (military, economic and political) of a dominant country, and their decisions (or lack of decisions) have enormous consequences, not only for the U.S. population but, "the underlying populations of the world." Mills outlines the historical structural trends that led to the ascension of the power elite as involving a concentration of economic power and the cultural apparatus in the hands of a few, the emergence of a permanent war economy in the U.S. during and after WW2, the emergence of a bureaucratically standardized and conditioned (controlled) mass society and a political vacuum that was filled by economic and military elites. Due to the interchangeability of top positions within these three institutions, the members of the power elite develop class consciousness and a community of interests guided by a militarized culture, or what Mills described as the military metaphysic.
The book is something of a counterpart of Mills' 1951 work, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, which examines the then-growing role of middle managers in American society. A main inspiration for the book was Franz Leopold Neumann's bookBehemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state like Germany. Behemoth had a major impact on Mills and he claimed that Behemoth had given him the "tools to grasp and analyse the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy".
Sociologist Christopher B. Doob maintains that C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite is limited in terms of elitist activity in society. "Mills provided little detail about the contemporary elites' activities. For instance, he never mentioned either the Council on Foreign Relations or the Committee on Economic Development, two elite-dominated, policy-making organizations that were already prominent players in his time. In addition, through no fault of his own, Mills described an era when it was still possible to analyze the power elite by focusing only on the United States. The subsequent expansion of globalization has made his theory appearanachronistic."  However, Doob does appraise Mills' work in The Power Elite, stating Mills was a "pioneer, propelling his power-elite theory into a pluralism-dominated academic world, where his novel ideas, according to G. William Domhoff, "caused a firestorm in academic and political circles, leading to innumerable reviews in scholarly journals and the popular press, most of them negative." Over time, however, The Power Elite has become a classic, recognized as "the first full-scale study of the structure and distribution of power in the United States," using the complete set of theoretical and research tools then available. Both Domhoff's andThomas Dye's theories have built upon Mill's conclusions, providing more detail about such issues as the make-up of the ruling group and the process by which policies are established and implemented. Their more contemporary works simply recent information about this powerful group's role in society." 
Mussolini - son of a schoolteacher and a socialist, family wealthier than average in their town. As he grew up he was a violent bully and no respecter of authority, and a womaniser who visited brothels. He fled Italy rather than do national service.A long way from the idea of a "reactionary" who respects authority & traditional morality and courage and national service. Whilst avoiding military service, he worked as a labourer, and became one of the most vocal socialists in their trade union. His "radical views put him at the far-left of the party and among the few advocating all-out revolution". He was against all traditional authority, as his socialist father taught him to be.
He sounds like any number of the Leftist journalists in Britain.
His first relationship he didn't marry his girlfriend, but just moved in with her. You can see why in his early days he was the darling of the European and American Left. He learned through journalism that he could lie and the gullible readership would believe anything, but would also very quickly forget his lies, so he could freely contradict himself. (This is probably the crucial lesson for Leftists in the 20th century). He was appointed editor of the largest socialist newspaper, and he then quadrupled the readership.
It's clear, the Leftist elite are only in support of populism (and the people) while the people support the same ideals as the Leftist elite. As a fascist (with socialist policies) he used violence the same way that communists and socialists did, but used it against his sibling-leftists. The Leftists only oppose dicatatorship, when it's not their kind of dictatorship.
Mussolini had his principal opponent assassinated (just like Pim Fortuyn was assassinated).
All parties were made illegal, opposition was made illegal. No-one could work in a government job unless they were members of the fascist party. (This is just like the way the communist party behaved in Russia).
He buys the support of the church (just like LibLabCon buy support of muslims).
Mussolini had photo-ops showing him as a man of the people (just as Clegg does today). Mussolini was supported by Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud, and Gandhi.
Journalists/photographers who were critical of Mussolini were expelled from Italy. (Just like Geller & Spencer being forbidden entry to Britain).
When the young Hitler wrote to Mussolini asking for a signed photo, Mussolini refused. [One has to wonder: was Hitler drawn to national socialism because he saw how this combination of ideology + violence had brought Mussolini to power and kept him there?]
Hitler refused to meet Churchill in 1932 (Hitler was apparently uninterested and forgot the meeting arranged by Churchill). Yet in 1934, Hitler flew to Italy to meet Mussolini. A month later, when Hitler assassinated the German Chancellor, it was Mussolini who responded with military aggression and contempt for Hitler. What did Britain do?
Mussolini ordered children from 8 up to adults of 32 to do military training! (Sounds like the way muslims behave, teaching children to be soldiers).
The documentary ends on a bizarre note - saying that fascism is on the rise in Italy, and counterposing this to the (undoubtedly preferable) situation of having communists in government.
Very interesting. In Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia, he killed ½million Africans, often with nerve gas. Result from the media: a resounding silence, just like with modern day Christians and Buddhists being massacred by Muslims, because at that time, Africans weren't a fashionable cause.
The ending of the documentary is not just bizarre, its idiotic. After spending 1.5 hours showing us how "the road to hell is paved with good intentions (the fascists began with a purely socialist manifesto), and that the danger never comes from the place or direction that you expect it; they then ignored the rise in fascistic undercurrents being driven by the Left and by transnational organisations like the EU, and instead fretted about a tiny "neo-fascist" party, openly identifying as such, in Italy.
It made me wonder what was the point of the documentary, if the makers themselves aren't capable of drawing the deep lessons from it. With stupidity this deep, Fascism will return, and once again it will be done with the best possible intentions, and once again, it will come cloaked under a different name.
The media collectively covered up for Obama & Hilary Clinton over Benghazi (but especially the "right-wing", "business-friendly" CNN - see http://www.politicususa.com/2012/05/30/cnn-moves-right-loses-viewer...).
In that first link above, Victor Hanson notes how during the 2 years of the Watergate scandal, the media covered up for Nixon too. Also in that first link, is this link to this story of how an Emmy-winning journalist has pointed out that CNN is blatantly censoring stories to support the Obama narrative. http://barracudabrigade.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/cnn-busted-paid-by-o...
“My main point was to note the stunning irony of being told on MSNBC – of all places – that a journalist ‘crosses the line’ by expressing opinions and having political agendas,” he continued. To reinforce this point, he linked to a Poynter analysis of MSNBC’s election coverage which found that the network ran zero positive pieces about Mitt Romney in the last week of the campaign and a Pew Research Center report which found the network was harder on Romney than Fox News was of Obama.
EU is strangling life out of democracy ; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10546394/Europe...
A good piece from the Telegraph. I wonder how many people will be bothered to read it.
The EU is run by people who are voted for by people we vote for. So they will always say they represent the People. Saying I didn't vote for that is a waste of time in todays democratic Europe.
The other problem is the amount of people who demand that the Government take charge of everything for them. Nothing happens with out some one demands the government do something about it.
People seem to have forgotten the old saying... If you want something doing properly, Do it your self...
The only gripe I have with the article is the presumption that to not want Europe (Brussels) running your life makes you Right wing, or Far right wing?
EU democracy is on the edge of the abyss ; http://www.thecommentator.com/article/921/european_democracy_is_on_...
Vorabutra has also been disgusted by the Western media grossly underestimating protest attendance figures despite several rallies attracting millions. Reuters reported that a November 24 protest attracted only about 100,000 anti-government protesters while The Nation, a major news site in Thailand, put the figure at over one million. Eventually learning their lesson, opposition organizers decided to capture helicopter footage of a rally that took place on December 22. Vorabutra said this near irrefutable evidence was handed over to experts who then pegged the size of the crowd at no less than 4.3 million. YetReuters and The New York Times reported the number of protesters at the very same rally to be in the "tens of thousands."... how does one account for the overall dearth of curiosity? Cartalucci suggests that members of the Western corporate media complex have squarely placed themselves on the side of Wall Street and London's "monied elite" as opposed to performing their role as impartial informer
With their combination of welfare policies + big business, the Thaksin regime could be seen as a fascist regime (his party is called "Thai Rak Thai", which means "Thailand for the Thais"). We've seen the same thing happen in Poland and the Ukraine, where the supposedly impartial western media grossly underestimate the numbers on demonstrations, or don't even report the demonstrations at all.
The blind faith placed in Philby by his old service despite compelling evidence of his treachery is disclosed in documents prepared in 1963 for Harold Macmillan, the prime minister, after Philby’s defection to the Soviet Union from Beirut in January of that year.
To muslims, it's the self-sacrificing suicide-bombers who are the super-heroes. But not to the Liberal corporations who dominate the American comic book industry.
The Quisling Liberals promote muslims as (very unislamic) super-heroes. If the OIC was to pay a modern day Lord Haw Haw to promote islam, they couldn't do a better job of misleading gullible young westerners than these Liberal corporations are doing.
Contrary to a common notion, bourgeois revolutions are not really about freedoms or high principles at all: they are about class interests, about an emerging class craving for the power previously held by a now decrepit class, like the French revolution was all about the high bourgeoisie taking over the power of the corrupt, debt-ridden aristocracy. Of course these bourgeois movements will mask their purpose in idealistic declarations of principles and natural rights, because in the short run the implementation of such principles sets the bourgeoisie free of aristocratic privilege. But then the familiar western pattern emerges: once these principles have served their purpose, they are discarded. This is one of the reasons why a free society and capitalism have never been consistently defended in the nineteenth century: they simply served the temporary interests of a social class.