Henry Kissinger Is Positioning the World for War
When the Godfather of Modern Globalism acts like he's concerned about war breaking out, it's not because he's really concerned. He's posturing. What do the globalist elites have planned next?
There are few authors who are as ideologically polarizing as Caitlin Johnstone. I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with her half the time and adamantly disagreeing with her the other half. In the article below, I believe she has allowed her hatred for American interventionism to make her miss the real message from Henry Kissinger in a recent interview he did with WSJ.
Throughout the article, Kissinger expresses his concern that the United States is being too reckless with its handling of Ukraine-Russia and Taiwan-China. He says he believes "we are at the edge of war with Russia and China" and it's really our fault. But the Godfather of Globalism is fully aware of the truth that it's his cronies among the globalist elites who have guided both the east and west to this precipice. We are exactly where they want us at this stage of The Great Reset.
What Johnstone perceives as a warning by the 99-year-old Kissinger is, in my humble opinion, another step towards programming the world to expect war to break out between the U.S. and either China, Russia, or both. He's clearly normalizing the concept. This isn't really a warning from the man who has never been opposed to destabilization abroad. He's not being less hawkish than the Biden-Harris regime. His "warning" is meant to keep the conversation at top of mind in a time when Ukraine is less of a focus than it was just a month ago.
Kissinger fully expects war of some sort, whether it's kinetic or something else. They've been plotting this course for decades. We're already in a full-blown economic war with all sides maneuvering to not only improve their own status, but to destroy the opposition. Cooperation for mutual benefit is no longer on the table.
Then, there's the possibility of a cyberwar, which I see as more likely than the nations going nuclear. But before you wipe the sweat off your brow, keep in mind that a cyberwar would be absolutely devastating and could push this nation and others into total societal collapse that could cause a catastrophic implosion. With that said, a protracted cyberwar will allow the powers-that-be to "build back better" more easily than in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Both are destructive, but only one doesn't result in radioactive contamination for centuries.
What Johnstone misses in the interview is the nuance of propaganda. The most cunning manipulators — and Kissinger is among the top globalist manipulators alive today — will almost never say what they truly mean when speaking publicly. Interviews such as this are not designed to reach the White House and get them to have a steadier hand. Real discussions like that are not done in public. What Kissinger is doing is planting more seeds of concern among the American people. We seem to have put Ukraine and Taiwan on the mental backburner and that doesn't sit well for Kissinger or his globalist cronies.
This isn't about American empire expansion, which is Johnstone's favorite topic of discussion. The United States is in no position to be expanding anything. This is about a puppet regime in the White House doing the bidding of Kissinger's cronies. They are trying to weaken the United States and western dominance so they can achieve their long-standing goal of ten regional governments equally powered and submissive to the one-world government apparatus. Kissinger is fearmongering for effect to keep us expectant of a war ahead.
With all that said, here's Johnstone's article. While I disagree with her conclusions, her analysis is worth reading. You can always leave a comment about which one of us you believe is correct... or maybe we're both wrong.
Modern US Warmongering Is Scaring Henry Kissinger
In a new interview with The Wall Street Journal, immortal Hague fugitive Henry Kissinger says the US is acting in a crazy and irrational way that has brought it to the edge of war with Russia and China:
Mr. Kissinger sees today’s world as verging on a dangerous disequilibrium. “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” he says. Could the U.S. manage the two adversaries by triangulating between them, as during the Nixon years? He offers no simple prescription. “You can’t just now say we’re going to split them off and turn them against each other. All you can do is not to accelerate the tensions and to create options, and for that you have to have some purpose.”
On the question of Taiwan, Mr. Kissinger worries that the U.S. and China are maneuvering toward a crisis, and he counsels steadiness on Washington’s part. “The policy that was carried out by both parties has produced and allowed the progress of Taiwan into an autonomous democratic entity and has preserved peace between China and the U.S. for 50 years,” he says. “One should be very careful, therefore, in measures that seem to change the basic structure.”
Mr. Kissinger courted controversy earlier this year by suggesting that incautious policies on the part of the U.S. and NATO may have touched off the crisis in Ukraine. He sees no choice but to take Vladimir Putin’s stated security concerns seriously and believes that it was a mistake for NATO to signal to Ukraine that it might eventually join the alliance: “I thought that Poland—all the traditional Western countries that have been part of Western history—were logical members of NATO,” he says. But Ukraine, in his view, is a collection of territories once appended to Russia, which Russians see as their own, even though “some Ukrainians” do not. Stability would be better served by its acting as a buffer between Russia and the West: “I was in favor of the full independence of Ukraine, but I thought its best role was something like Finland.”
I don’t know about you, but to me this warning is much, much more ominous coming from a bloodsoaked swamp monster than it would be from some anti-imperialist peace activist who was speaking from outside the belly of the imperial machine. This man is a literal war criminal who, as a leading empire manager, helped to unleash unfathomable horrors all around the world the consequences of which are still being felt today.
And as far as you can tell from his own comments, he remains completely unreformed.
“Looking back over his long and often controversial career, however, he is not given to self-criticism,” The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Secor writes.
“I do not torture myself with things we might have done differently,” Kissinger tells her.
So Kissinger remains an unapologetic warmongering psychopath. But if he hasn’t changed as a person, what has? Why is he now cautioning against US aggression and warning that the empire has taken things too far?
Well, if Kissinger hasn’t changed, we can only surmise that it is the US empire itself that has changed. Its behavior is now so insane and illogical that it is making a 99 year-old Henry Kissinger nervous.
Which, if you really think about it, is one of the scariest things you could possibly imagine.
The empire’s departure from the Henry Kissinger iteration of murderous madness to its new form of insanity appears to have begun around the turn of the century, when the influx of neoconservatives into the White House combined with the jingoism which followed 9/11 to usher in an era of interventionism and military expansionism of such brazenness and recklessness that many from the old guard balked.
Kissinger was supportive of the 2003 Iraq invasion, but well before it began he was already saying that he had serious misgivings about the lack of clear thinking and forward planning he was seeing on that front. The neoconservative goal of US planetary hegemony at any cost which led to that invasion (and the planning of many more) has since become the mainstream Beltway consensus perspective on US foreign policy, and it is responsible for the escalations that Kissinger is now warning about.
“The PNAC plan envisions a strategic confrontation with China, and a still greater permanent military presence in every corner of the world,” wrote Michael Parenti in his 2004 book Superpatriotism. “The objective is not just power for its own sake but power to control the world’s natural resources and markets, power to privatize and deregulate the economies of every nation in the world, and power to hoist upon the backs of peoples everywhere — including North America — the blessings of an untrammeled global ‘free market.’ The end goal is to ensure not merely the supremacy of global capitalism as such, but the supremacy of American global capitalism by preventing the emergence of any other potentially competing superpower.”
By “PNAC plan” Parenti means the plans of the neoconservatives behind the notorious Project for the New American Century think tank, whose unipolarist militaristic agendas they explicitly advocated.
Henry Kissinger is warning about the dangers of US warmongering not because he has gotten saner, but because the US war machine has gotten crazier. That we are now hurtling toward confrontations that don’t appear rational to someone who has spent the majority of his life watching the mechanics of empire from inside its inner chambers should concern us all. When you are talking about brinkmanship between major world powers, especially nuclear brinkmanship, the last thing you need is for one of the parties involved to be acting erratically and nonsensically.
We need de-escalation and detente, and we need it yesterday. If you’re too hawkish for Henry Kissinger, you’re too motherfucking hawkish.
About Caitlin Johnstone
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, buying an issue of my monthly zine, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.
As we continue to fight the globalists, we ask those who have the means to contribute what you can. Please consider a generous donation or purchasing a premium subscription.
Thanks for highlighting Caitlin's work. She is indeed polarizing, and makes no apology for it. I've enjoyed her work for years, now, and appreciate her unapologetic antipathy for all things U.S. empire and for war in general. To her credit, she knows which lane she is in and stays in it, despite readers asking (sometimes demanding) that she write about other topics.
An article for the ages!