The thoroughly predictable culmination of the socialist starvation of once-prosperous Venezuela has produced the totalitarian power of Maduro. What usually comes next is
suppression of all dissent and suppression of
suspected dissent, as has been done by Erdogan in Turkey in the past few years.
The next forecast is for civil war, as with the Red Army vs. the White Army in Russia as a result of Bolshevik seizure and Lenin's dictatorship.
Following that will likely be the suppression of certain rebellious sub-cultures, including genocide as necessary for maintaining Maduro's power.
If the civil war fails to dislodge Maduro, a long-term terrorist dictatorship will have seized Venezuela, as happened in China, Cuba, and Russia.
This brings to mind the difference between Neo-Conservatism and Alt-Right principles, a difference which is difficult to reconcile. The difference is this: the Alt-Right feels that there is no compunction for the USA to interfere in the business of Venezuela; the Neo-Cons feel compelled to stop the abuse of innocent people from abuse by totalitarians.
This dichotomy/dilemma has two clearly compelling horns which are contradictory.
First horn: if USA is an intact and independent nation, then it clearly is not part of the national interests of that nation to interfere in other nations' affairs.
Or is it?
Second Horn: if dictatorial seizures are allowed to occur without challenge, where exactly will that stop? Is it not conceivable that it actually is in the interest of the nation of the USA to influence other nations into non-totalitarian governments?
Back to the First Horn: The USA cannot address every totalitarian government on the planet. And the UN is formed by and beholden to totalitarians, and UN peace-keepers include rapists and disease-spreading pagans and human abusers.
And back to the Second Horn: Allowing totalitarianism to spread unabated could bring the world to its knees, as Socialist Progressives acquire ever more real estate and suppress ever more innocent peoples. This is actually the same as the previously stated Second Horn, only with more drastic consequences.
The Alt-Right is where my predilections lie; however, in this case I must choose to accept the validity and urgency of the second horn of the dilemma.
Here's why: The conquest of the major dark forces of WWII left the west, specifically the USA, in the position of patrolling the entire globe, providing protection for free-er states, and intimidation for the remaining dark forces. That might be uncomfortable, yet it is the fact which drove the second half of the 20th century and as a consequence helped the USSR collapse and many of its subject states to acquire freedom. I cannot see abandoning that completely, despite the failures of the forays into the middle east. The subsequent rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of abandoning our legacy responsibilities.
Perhaps that makes me a Neo-Con. While I hope not, I understand that these infernal labels represent the Right's attempts at tribalism-in-reverse by declaring classes which define the various types of "Right-ness", versus those which are not. And that part of the Right is actually a reaction to the Left's perpetual Marxist identity politics, but it is as reprehensible as the Left and their principles. There should be no gradations of adherence to the US Constitution, both its principles and its intent.
Policy under the Constitution should be determined primarily by pragmatism and secondarily by morality under the classical principles of western culture (be it white or not). While those principles might be debatable in minutiae, they are fundamentally Christian in their grounding.
We did not ask for world policing, and world policing is abhorrent and against all the foresight of the founders. BUT it was foisted upon us; it is necessary; when we abandon it, it is disastrous.
