The Islamic confrontation between the different sects was prevented by very strong secular rulers, such as Saddam Hussein, who had a secular government, and Assad in Syria. These were secular, non-Islamic governments that kept the conflict suppressed. So, when you overthrow those governments , you release the conflict.
So, what we see happening on the part of what they are calling ISIS or ISIL is a reforming of borders. Parts of Syria and Iraq are becoming, if the Islamists succeed, a new state. Now, we don't know whether they will be successful or not, but you can see that there is an impetus to create a life separate from the artificial one created for them by colonial imperialistic powers.
One of the reasons that the breakup of Iraq and Syria was not seen as a threat to Israel, was the Israeli and the neoconservative strategists, who reasoned -- oh, this is good, if we break up these states and they are fighting internally, there won't be any organized government to get in Israel's way.
In place of Iraq, there will be these warring factions. In place of Syria -- warring factions, just like in Libya today. And a state that has no central government is no threat to Israel. And, therefore, we favor this destruction of the political entities of these countries, because it releases us from any sort of organized government's opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine. Iraq no longer has a government, it has warring parties, like in Libya, like Washington is establishing in Syria.
So, this is the way the Israelis and the neoconservatives see it. They do not see the destruction of secular Muslim states as a threat, the fools see it as a destruction of a unified country, which would reduce the ability of that country to employ any sort of opposition to Israeli or American purposes.
VOR: But in that case, wouldn't the government and governmental institutions be replaced by something like political and paramilitary organizations, which we now term as extremist groups with which we are dealing now? And wouldn't those entities pose more threat, than individual governments? Or do those people believe that they would be able to control them somehow?
PCR: No, I don't think they think they can control them. And yes, they do pose a threat, because they are not secular. That's what I said. Some of us warned that this would be the outcome. But we were ignored and primarily ignored because the Israelis and the neoconservatives regarded the breakup of these countries as less threatening.
VOR: When you have been describing that neocon ideology with an idea of a global mission, doesn't it seem strikingly similar to something like the Marxist ideology, to the communist ideology?
PCR: Yes, that's exactly what it is. The US is chosen by history. In Marxism, history chooses the proletariat. In the neoconservative ideology, history chose Washington.
VOR: Does that imply that, perhaps, those two ideologies could have a common root?
PCR: No, I don't think they have a common root, but their effect on the world is the same, because it gives the country that expresses that ideology an impetus to run over other countries and to establish itself, because it sees itself as the sole legitimate system. And in that sense, the Marxist and the neoconservative ideologies are the same, but the roots are quite different.
And I think as well, you know, the whole notion of the unipolar world, the American sole superpower, this fits the financial interests very well. I left them out of my three-part foundation that I spoke to you about, but in a way it is a four-part, because of the American financial hegemony that now exists. This financial hegemony is the reason Washington can put sanctions on countries.
If your currency is not the world currency and you don't operate the world payment system, you can't impose sanctions. And so, the power to impose sanctions is also a power for your financial institutions to prevail over the institutions of other countries. So, this ideology that I'm talking about also appeals to Wall Street, to the big banks, because it ensures their hegemony as well.
VOR: But in that case, I start wondering -- was it an intended implication or, perhaps, unintended, again, that whatever the US has been doing for the past ten years or even more has been strengthening China, which the US seems to be identifying as its primary adversary. Now, you've been mentioning the financial system. The Chinese start talking about bringing their own currency into the world market as a new reserve currency. And this has been largely thanks to all those crises, which have been triggered off by the US.
PCR: What the US did that gave China its economic beginning, was to offshore the American manufacturing jobs. Industry and American manufacturing was moved offshore by the capitalists under the pressure of Wall Street in order to lower labor costs, in order to achieve higher earnings for shareholders, for Wall Street and for the managers through bonuses. And so, it was a very shortsighted policy from the standpoint of national interests, but it was in the interest of Wall Street and in the individual interests of the chief executive officers of the corporations.
Once China had the American technology and the American business know-how, it was free of American economic predominance. And now, actually, China has a much more powerful economy, certainly in manufacturing, than the US has.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).