I have discussed and expounded the retroviral neoconservative thinking penetrating the heart of Whitehall in several blogs now. I have also discussed elsewhere the practical interplay between Zionists, neocons, corporations and the government. The immoral, deep-rooted neoconservative impact on fiscal policies from a philosophic perspective is a discussion which has thus far eluded me.
With David Cameron continually assuring the good people of Britain that “we” need to stick to an economic plan that “works”, despite the many failures of the current strategy, not to mention scathing criticism of the “trickledown economics” from a leading think-tank, the Conservative party, beneath the shallow, exoteric rhetoric continues to unveil its higher priority: corporations. Peeling back recent happenings reveals the distinct duplicitous traits of neoconservatism, thus allowing me to touch upon the “con” in neocon tactics in the economic context.
Influencing Voting Through Deception
The political dirt of buying influence is well known: some peerages are granted to individuals who in turn scratch the back of the parties when required. Ultimately, party donors and said peers can exert influence on legislation which may ultimately benefit them, or rather, their coffers. The cash for honours scandal of 2006/7 comes to mind.
With elections nigh, Cameron’s party has been using its peerage and donor connections to the full in what seems like a corrupt attempt to “influence” voters through deception.
The Torygraph earlier in the month published a letter signed by more than 100 of the country’s senior businessmen. They slammed Labour whilst lauding Tory economic policies and praising neocons David Cameron and George Osborne. Their policies, the letter expressed, had been important in showing that the UK is “open for business”, whilst supporting job creation. Far from being an independent endeavour of concerned businesses, the Tory co-chair Andrew Feldman is said to have played a key role in organising the letter. Moreover, 32 business leaders among the signatories are those who have donated more than £9 million to the Conservatives.
A later letter, articulating the same, but signed by 5,000 business owners, was also published by the Torygraph. This letter was “orchestrated” by Karen Brady of the Apprentice fame, and the Conservative party’s small business ambassador. She was made peer of the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords last year along with another major Tory donor. The scandal reaches its zenith with the Guardian revealing that the letter had been set up with the blessings of the Conservative campaign headquarters -facts not pointed out in the Telegraph publication of the letter.
The result of this incestuous relationship between corporations and Parliament seems to not dawn on papers like the Telegraph or the public for that matter. This is an affront to democracy, where deceit coupled with money is being used to influence and mislead the public. Where is the public outcry? Indeed where, is Richard Mawrey QC, who ruled against former Mayor Lutfur Rahman for using bribery to procure votes? Regardless of the contrived validity of such a claim, the focus on the “corrupt Muslim” whilst ignoring the esoteric congealed slime accumulating in the upper echelons of Government establishes a blatant perception of Muslim minority discrimination, whilst reinforcing the notion of downplaying “white crime”. In true neocon fashion, there is one (Machiavellian) corrupt law for the elite, another for “vulgar masses”.
The neocon David Brooks in the context of the market crash wrote,
“If you start thinking about our faulty perceptions, the first thing you realize is that markets are not perfectly efficient, people are not always good guardians of their own self-interest and there might be limited circumstances when government could usefully slant the decision-making architecture.”
This “slanting of the decision-making architecture” seems to have occurred in Britain through the fusion of corporations and government along with an unhealthy dose of undemocratic behaviour.
The policies being pushed by the Tories through such dirty tactics have had societally catastrophic (and neocon agenda-driving) consequences.
The business endorsements of Cameron are expected. Since the banks crashing, Britain’s billionaires have seen their net worth more than double, with the richest 1,000 families now controlling a total of £547 billion. The inequality gap as such has increased with the richest 1,000 families having more money than the poorest 40% of British households combined. According to reports, the annual increase is enough to pay for the nation’s council tax bills for a year, provide nearly two million living-wage jobs for a year or 1 million jobs paid at the average full-time wage of £27,195.
These are a shocking set of metrics. The rate at which Britain’s “poor” have recovered compared to the elite few is telling of Cameron’s policies. Britain is certainly open for business, and there are more jobs, but the economic progress as a society has distinctly been lop-sided. The resultant impact of this entire undemocratic, “corporatocratic” set up is the preservation of an establishment, thoroughly financed on the breaking backs of the slave-like lower socio-economic class. Wage slumps and a starving Britain are the neocon attainments as democracy is floated on the trade market.
If anything, it is the ideal neoconservative set up. Beneath the façade of democracy lies Mussolini’s fascism: the merging of corporation and state. This is unsurprising; Leo Strauss, the founding “godfather” of neoconservatism, finds sanctuary “only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles”.
Indeed the core reason for this synergy between neoconservatism and fascism lies in the maintenance of a “guiding elite”, who can steer the destiny of the second-class masses to what neocons deem “good”. As neocon “godfather” Irving Kristol wrote, without the “wisdom of the elite” the common “could not possibly know what they really wanted or what would really yield them ‘true happiness’”.  What the neocons deem “good”, in a vicious circle, is manifestly the maintenance of financial inequality to the benefit of the corporations.
Clearly, Cameron and his corporate allies see themselves as the “guiding elite” exhibiting double-speak in economic policy articulation and Machiavellian tactics in influencing votes. The combination of these two neocon traits ultimately pursues the neocon ideal of a Heideggarian closed society, where a small group of elitists “shape” it to their conformance.
As Shadia Drury fittingly states,
“…the neoconservative enthusiasm for capitalism is not a concession to liberal individualism, but quite the contrary. It is corporate capitalism that the neoconservatives champion – and corporate capitalism is compatible with conservative and Straussian vision of society because it requires authority, discipline, conformity, and hierarchy.”
 Kristol, I, Two Cheers for Capitalism, New York: Basic Books, 1978, p.59
 Drury, S.B. The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005, p.xxv