Through InternationalMan.com,
International Man: Who precisely are neoconservatives – where did this movement come from, which they believe fundamentalally, and why does their ideology seem so relentlessly focused on promoting war and global intervention?
Doug Casey: Most neoconservatives come from socialists or staunch leftists. But neoconservatives are smarter than average tenure in that they can see that socialism was a failure – it did not work anywhere. So what they did was they adopted a conservative economical policy while preserving all the another pitfalls of socialism.
Neoconservatives are commonly worshipers of the state. They don't believe in rules as a substance of principle. It can be said that the fundamental thinker of neoconservatives is Niccolò Machiavelli, who in his book "Prince" promoted the thought that everything that works and accomplishes the goal of the ruler should be done – that reasoning in terms of good, evil or morality brings the other effect to the intended.
Many neoconservatives identify themselves as supporters of Wilson. Woodrow Wilson was 1 of the worst presidents, liable among others for income tax, the national Reserve, U.S. participation in planet War I and an effort to "make the planet safe for democracy".
International Man: The neoconservative program seems to be intellectually rooted in characters specified as Leo Strauss and even Trotsky. How do we explain the increase in this ideological mix in what many inactive call "conservative" movement?
Doug Casey: They seem conservative only due to the fact that they considered it useful to adopt a seemingly free marketplace economical policy. This has its roots in the long-term confusion between capitalists and fascists.
Socialists believe in state ownership of means of production – factories, farms, mines and so on. However, capitalists believe in the private ownership of the means of production as well as private control of them. Fascists – incidentally, the word was coined by Mussolini – besides believe, or at least tolerate, the private property of the means of production. That's why they're easy confused with capitalists. But fascists believe in complete state control over the means of production, leaving ownership in private hands.
This is why there is so much confusion between capitalism and fascism in the eyes of the public. The key difference is the control and strong partnership between the private and public sectors. This importantly increases the ability of company owners to enrich themselves at the expense of an average employee.
In fact, all neoconservatives are fascists – in all respect. You worship, as in Fascist Germany and Italy, where the manufacture was privately owned, but entirely related to the State's interests. Almost all planet economies are fascist; There are no purely capitalist or socialist countries. We truly should call neoconservative fascists.
They besides have an aggressive abroad policy, from which fascists are known. They are fascists in all respect, including their support for crucial social programmes for the population.
International Man: Despite the past of costly failures – from endless wars to the increasing power of the government – why do neoconservatives inactive have specified influence? Why does anyone in Washington or the media inactive take them seriously?
Doug Casey: I would say that this is due to their open belief that the state should have a central impact on society. That government should be the dominant force in the country, not family, religion, business or another civilian institutions. Now people agree. It is understandable that everyone wants the older brother to kiss all their problems and make them better. The average man who wants something for nothing, free dinner, is morally weak. And he's intellectually confused by the statistical propaganda.
If you make a powerful country that promises not only to take care of you, but besides to "win" with another countries, many people will react. Many people treat you the same way football fans treat their favourite teams: "we" will win against "they". It is easy to make hoi polloi hum and breathe like chimps against any fabricated enemy.
Intellectuals have coined arguments that satisfy this kind of mass psychology and people agree to it. They like the thought of being protected and being part of a powerful winning team.
I personally met many well-known neoconservatives. Among them were Charles Krauthamer, Bill Bennett and Paul Wolfowitz. They appear to be intellectual and rather civilized. But they all advance completely Satanic and destructive ideas. The fascist strategy we have treats them very well. They became much richer than they could be in socialism or capitalism.
International Man: Trump and his envoy, Steve Witkoff, late named neoconservatives by name.
Posts like Douglas Murray suggested that the word "neoconservative" was a fresh word for "n". Mark Levin even went to describe his usage as anti-Semitic.
Why do any neoconservatives usage racism charges to silence legitimate and crucial discussions?
Doug Casey: A large way to silence today's discussion is to call your opponent a racist. This has any basis for dealing with neoconservatives, due to the fact that the vast majority of them – like the vast majority of intellectuals in general – are Jews. Neoconservatives are besides instinctively pro-Israeli. Last time I listened to Mark Levin, who gave a tirade on this subject on his show; He practically foamed his lips out of anger.
It is unusual that people consider it racist to stereotype any group and condemn it as something bad. It's not. Stereotypes make due to the fact that they reflect reality. Members of stereotypical groups frequently like to pretend that we are all equal, and their group is the same as everyone else. But the fact is, feather birds fly together.
It is unfortunate that almost all leading neoconservative intellectuals are Jews.
International Man: Neoconservatives have long been pushing for the U.S. war against Iran. What would be the geopolitical consequences if they succeeded, and how could specified a war affect planet markets, energy prices and economical stability?
Doug Casey: It would be a immense mistake for the United States to attack Iran, it seems, to plan to do so. They decision B-52 and B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, which is within a short distance of Iran, while Trump beats himself in the chest and threatens war. This is simply a mistake due to the fact that Iran is simply a reasonably advanced society with about 92 million people; it hunts a fat animal, not like the countries with which the United States has been losing to for 75 years. But besides due to the fact that all attack from the outside always unites the interior population. This would unite them against the United States and further strengthen the Mahometian ideologists who are presently in power.
It would besides be a mistake, due to the fact that it would be immoral – not that anyone would care. The Iranians never attacked the US. I think the planet is tired of the fact that the United States of America promiscuously bomb anyone it wants. In fact, almost all muslim terrorism in the past 30 or 40 years has come from Sunni. The Iranians are Shiite. They do not get along well with Sunni people – just as Irish Catholics never got along with Irish Protestants, whether Protestants and Catholics in Europe never got along at all at a time erstwhile religion played an crucial role.
It's suspicious, since Trump has become so close to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, which are ruled by Sunni. It makes sense that they would usage the U.S. as a cat's paw to bargain Iranian oil. Just as Israel would like to usage the US as a means to destruct its enemy. It appears that the U.S. and Trump are being utilized to follow the orders of the Arabs and Israelis. Although the Iranians are in no way threatening us.
If this had happened, the Iranians would have been in a perfect position to close the Strait of Ormuz, through which about 40% of planet oil exports flow – about 21 million barrels per day. By the way, no of them go to the United States. It's truly not our problem.
The smart thing for the US is simply to leave Iran alone. If they have problems with their neighbours – Saudi Arabia, especially Israel – let them solve them among themselves.
Since Iran is simply a theocracy, making many economical decisions based on religion alternatively than economics, the current government will yet fall and the country will change its orientation. The last thing we request is to carry individual else's water and launch a possibly disastrous war in which the United States has absolutely nothing to gain but much to lose.
* * Oh, * *
As Doug Casey explains, the neoconservative program is not only reckless, but profoundly linked to the increasing economical and geopolitical instability we are dealing with today. The consequences of their action may be caused by a crisis we have not seen in decades. Read our peculiar message: A guide to endurance and improvement during the economical collapse — the key origin of information for those who want not only to defend themselves but besides to take the lead erstwhile the strategy breaks down. Click here to download it now.
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.zerohedge.com/
