Long View of History Includes Today
In ‘World Order,’ Henry Kissinger Sums Up His Philosophy – NY Times Books
Given the multiplying foreign policy emergencies in the headlines, from the advance of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to the face-off between Russia and Ukraine, the subject of Henry Kissinger’s new book, “World Order,” could not be more timely……continued
HEINZ KISSINGER- CHARLIE ROSE 9/10/14 WORLD ORDER and GENOCIDE APOLOGIST
The Black Hand of ISIS made an appearance on PBS psyop Charlie Rose last evening. The Kiss was very willing to discuss ISIS and World Order and the continuation of historical events leading to a new world order by diplomacy. To understand world order diplomacy, one only needs to review the history of one Heinz Kissinger. At 91 years old he begins his apologist type praise of all things NWO. Hell awaits Heinz, for the bell tolls for thee.
ISIS = 811 911×2 HK = 811
Please note the real Black Hand and connect all his new proteges.
The idea that history is tragic does not come naturally to Americans
“The tragedy of Wilsonianism,” Mr. Kissinger writes, “is that it bequeathed to the twentieth century’s decisive power an elevated foreign policy doctrine unmoored from a sense of history or geopolitics.” It is hard to argue with the claim he makes here that Americans find it easier to see foreign policy as a teleological struggle for justice than as a “permanent endeavor for contingent aims.” The idea that history is tragic does not come naturally to Americans.
Mr. Kissinger, nonetheless, lavishes praise on the most reckless Wilsonian of them all,George W. Bush, claiming that “his objectives and dedication” in Iraq “honored his country even when in some cases they proved unattainable within the American political cycle.” President Bush and his chief advisers were Kissingerian realists right up to Sept. 11, 2001; the terrorist attacks persuaded them that Westphalian agnosticism was a dead letter. Since events had shown America to be terribly vulnerable to ideologies that incubated in failed and repressive states, as the president said in his second inaugural, it was plain that “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.” Noninterference, that is, was not only morally suspect—as it has always been—but strategically unaffordable.