Last month, the Argentinian Memory Museum (ESMA) in Buenos Aires was nominated for inclusion in the list of World Heritage Sites, to be approved by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

ESMA, which stands on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, was formerly used by the Jorge Videla dictatorship which lasted from 1976 to 1981, as a torture and detention centre, and the place where opponents of the dictatorship were drugged, tied and prepared for the death flights. The practice of disappearing political opponents by throwing them off helicopters into the ocean, and which started during the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, was adopted by Videla as the most efficient means of covering the tracks of the state’s extrajudicial killings. It is estimated that 30,000 people were disappeared during Videla’s rule.

It was through the documents released by the U.S. in 2017, that the death flights were established as having been used not only as a means of disappearance, but also murder, given that some victims were still alive when they were disposed of by the dictatorship. The U.S. was also a supplier of aircraft and helicopters for the Videla dictatorship, and had full knowledge of its methods of disappearance.

Out of 5,000 people detained at ESMA, only just over 100 survived. To mark the International Day of the Disappeared, the street where ESMA stands was renamed “SON 30000” to mark the number of victims killed and disappeared by the Videla dictatorship.

The National Security Archive’s (NSA) recently posted details of the U.S. declassification of Argentina related documents on its website, providing insight in the process taking place behind the scenes. Documents detailing the process show how the Clinton Administration initiated the declassification which eventually led to the release of 4,700 documents to the Argentinian government in 2002. The further U.S. declassification of documents related to the Argentinian dictatorship started with a formal request from the Argentinian government to the Obama Administration and which the Trump Administration subsequently upheld.

One declassified document which stipulates the conditions of how searches should be conducted, partially states, “Agency staff conducting searches should err on the side of inclusiveness and provide all documents pertaining to human rights abuses related to Argentina.” The same document also called upon agencies to reveal as much relevant information as possible but to refrain from declassifying information that jeopardises national security. Out of 918 records reviewed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 124 documents were released in full, 691 were redacted, and 103 documents remain classified.

Another document published by the NSA reveals the names of victims of the dictatorship, as well as U.S. officials, Argentinian generals and politicians, military and police units involved in the dictatorship atrocities. This document is of paramount importance as it contextualises and adds detail to the often-generalised information pertaining to the dictatorship era, and goes a long way in establishing both the identities of victims and aggressors – a crucial point in terms of Argentina’s collective memory.

What the U.S. perpetrated in Argentina is in some ways a continuation of what U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger instigated in Chile. In 1975, the year prior to which Videla took power in Argentina, Kissinger met with Chile’s Foreign Minister Patricio Carvajal. “I read the briefing paper for this meeting and it was nothing but Human Rights,” Kissinger mocked. “The State Department is made up of people who have a vocation for the ministry. Because there are not enough churches for them, they went into the Department of State.”

As Argentina continues to set the record straight over its dictatorship memory, the UNESCO nomination should prompt a reckoning of the damage international diplomacy has wreaked over countries that deviated from the imperialist agenda which also sustains the UN.

Klaus Schwab, the architect of the World Economic Forum (f. 1971), a leading, if not the leading, influencer and funder for what will set the course for world economic policy outside of government, has been the cause of much concern and suspicion since his announcement of “The Great Reset” agenda at the 50^th annual meeting of the WEF in June 2020.

The Great Reset initiative is a somewhat vague call for the need for global stakeholders to coordinate a simultaneous “management” of the effects of COVID-19 on the global economy, which they have eerily named as “pandenomics.” This, we are told will be the new normal, the new reality that we will have to adjust ourselves to for the foreseeable future.

It should be known that at nearly its inception, the World Economic Forum had aligned itself with the Club of Rome, a think tank with an elite membership, founded in 1968, to address the problems of mankind. It was concluded by the Club of Rome in their extremely influential “Limits to Growth,” published in 1972, that such problems could not be solved on their own terms and that all were interrelated. In 1991, Club of Rome co-founder Sir Alexander King stated in the “The First Global Revolution” (an assessment of the first 30 years of the Club of Rome) that:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [emphasis added]

It is no surprise that with such a conclusion, part of the solution prescribed was the need for population control.

However, what forms of population control was Klaus Schwab in particular thinking of?

In the late 1960s, Schwab attended Harvard and among his teachers was Sir Henry Kissinger, whom he has described as among the top figures who have most influenced his thinking over the course of his life.

[Henry Kissinger and his former pupil, Klaus Schwab, welcome former- UK PM Ted Heath at the 1980 WEF annual meeting. Source: World Economic Forum]

To get a better idea of the kinds of influences Sir Henry Kissinger had on young Klaus Schwab, we should take a look at Kissinger’s infamous NSSM-200 report: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, otherwise known as “The Kissinger Report,” published in 1974. This report, declassified in 1989, was instrumental in transforming US foreign policy from pro-development/pro-industry to the promotion of under-development through totalitarian methods in support of population control. Kissinger states in the report:

“… if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s …[Financial] assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth … Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy … Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control … There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed ..” [emphasis added]

For Kissinger, the US foreign policy orientation was mistaken on its emphasis of ending hunger by providing the means of industrial and scientific development to poor nations, according to Kissinger, such an initiative would only lead to further global disequilibrium as the new middle classes would consume more, and waste strategic resources.

In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population” (1799), he wrote:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” [emphasis added]

As a staunch Malthusian, Kissinger believed that “nature” had provided the means to cull the herd, and by using economic policies that utilised the courting of the plague, famine and so forth, they were simply enforcing a natural hierarchy which was required for global stability.

In addition to this extremely worrisome ideology that is only a stone’s throw away from eugenics, there has also been a great deal of disturbance over the 2016 World Economic Forum video that goes through their 8 “predictions” for how the world will change by 2030, with the slogan “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

It is this slogan in particular that has probably caused the most panic amongst the average person questioning what the outcome of the Great Reset will truly look like. It has also caused much confusion as to who or what is at the root in shaping this very eerie, Orwellian prediction of the future?

Many have come to think that this root is the Communist Party of China. However, whatever your thoughts may be on the Chinese government and the intentions of President Xi, the roots of the Great Reset agenda can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when an American, former Trotskyist who later joined the OSS, followed by the CIA, and went on to become the founding father of neo-conservatism, James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.”

In fact, it was the ideologies of Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.

The Strange Case and Many Faces of James Burnham

“[James Burnham is] the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the original proselytizer, in America, of the theory of ‘totalitarianism.’”

– Christopher Hitchens, “For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports”

It is understandably the source of some confusion as to how a former high level Trotskyist became the founder of the neo-conservative movement; with the Trotskyists calling him a traitor to his kind, and the neo-conservatives describing it as an almost road to Damascus conversion in ideology.

However, the truth of the matter is that it is neither.

That is, James Burnham never changed his beliefs and convictions at any point during his journey through Trotskyism, OSS/CIA intelligence to neo-conservatism, although he may have back-stabbed many along the way, and this two-part series will go through why this is the case.

James Burnham was born in 1905 in Chicago, Illinois, raised as a Roman Catholic, later rejecting Catholicism while studying at Princeton and professing atheism for the rest of his life until shortly before his death whereby he reportedly returned to the church. (1) He would graduate from Princeton followed by the Balliol College, Oxford University and in 1929 would become a professor in philosophy at the New York University.

It was during this period that Burnham met Sidney Hook, who was also a professor in philosophy at the New York University, and who professed to have converted Burnham to Marxism in his autobiography. In 1933, along with Sidney Hook, Burnham helped to organize the socialist organization, the American Workers Party (AWP).

It would not be long before Burnham found Trotsky’s use of “dialectical materialism” to explain the interplay between the human and the historical forces in his “History of the Russian Revolution” to be brilliant. As founder of the Red Army, Trotsky had dedicated his life to the spread of a worldwide Communist revolution, to which Stalin opposed in the form of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” ideology. In this ideology, Trotskyists were tactically trained to be militant experts at infighting, infiltration and disruption.

Among these tactics was “entryism,” in which an organisation encourages its members to join another, often larger organization, in an attempt to take over said organization or convert a large portion of its membership with its own ideology and directive.

The most well-known example of this technique was named the French Turn, when French Trotskyists in 1934 infiltrated the Section Francaise de l’International Ouvriere (SFIO, French Socialist Party) with the intention of winning over the more militant elements to their side.

That same year, Trotskyists in the Communist League of America (CLA) did a French turn on the American Workers Party, in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief adviser.

Burnham would continue the tactics of infiltrating and subverting other leftist parties and in 1935 attempted to do a French Turn on the much larger Socialist Party (SP), however, by 1937, the Trotskyists were expelled from the Socialist Party which led to the formation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at the end of the year. He would resign from the SWP in April 1940, and form the Workers Party only to resign less than two months later.

Burnham remained a “Trotskyist intellectual” from 1934 until 1940, using militant Trotskyist tactics against competing Marxist movements by turning their loyalties and ransacking their best talent. Although Burnham worked six years for the Trotskyists, as the new decade began, he renounced both Trotsky and “the ‘philosophy of Marxism’ dialectical materialism” altogether.

Perhaps Burnham was aware that the walls were closing in on Trotsky, and that it would only be a matter of six months from Burnham’s first renouncement that Trotsky would be assassinated by August 1940, at his compound outside Mexico City.

In February 1940 Burnham wrote “Science and Style: A Reply to Comrade Trotsky,” in which he broke with dialectical materialism, stressing the importance of the work of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s approach:

“Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.” [emphasis added]

He summed up his feelings in a letter of resignation from the Workers Party on May 21, 1940:

“I reject, as you know, the “philosophy of Marxism,” dialectical materialism. …

The general Marxian theory of “universal history”, to the extent that it has any empirical content, seems to me disproved by modern historical and anthropological investigation.

Marxian economics seems to me for the most part either false or obsolete or meaningless in application to contemporary economic phenomena. Those aspects of Marxian economics which retain validity do not seem to me to justify the theoretical structure of the economics.

Not only do I believe it meaningless to say that “socialism is inevitable” and false that socialism is “the only alternative to capitalism”; I consider that on the basis of the evidence now available to us a new form of exploitive society (which I call “managerial society”) is not only possible but is a more probable outcome of the present than socialism. …

On no ideological, theoretic or political ground, then, can I recognize, or do I feel, any bond or allegiance to the Workers Party (or to any other Marxist party). That is simply the case, and I can no longer pretend about it, either to myself or to others.” [emphasis added]

In 1941, Burnham would publish “The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World,” bringing him fame and fortune, listed by Henry Luce’s Life magazine as one of the top 100 outstanding books of 1924-1944. (2)

The Managerial Revolution

“We cannot understand the revolution by restricting our analysis to the war [WWII]; we must understand the war as a phase in the development of the revolution.”

– James Burnham “The Managerial Revolution”

In Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution,” he makes the case that if socialism were possible, it would have occurred as an outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, but what happened instead was neither a reversion back to a capitalist system nor a transition to a socialist system, but rather a formation of a new organizational structure made up of an elite managerial class, the type of society he believed was in the process of replacing capitalism on a world scale.

He goes on to make the case that as seen with the transition from a feudal to a capitalist state being inevitable, so too will the transition from a capitalist to managerial state occur. And that ownership rights of production capabilities will no longer be owned by individuals but rather the state or institutions, he writes:

“Effective class domination and privilege does, it is true, require control over the instruments of production; but this need not be exercised through individual private property rights. It can be done through what might be called corporate rights, possessed not by individuals as such but by institutions: as was the case conspicuously with many societies in which a priestly class was dominant…”

Burnham proceeds to write:

“If, in a managerial society, no individuals are to hold comparable property rights, how can any group of individuals constitute a ruling class?

The answer is comparatively simple and, as already noted, not without historical analogues. The managers will exercise their control over the instruments of production and gain preference in the distribution of the products, not directly, through property rights vested in them as individuals, but indirectly, through their control of the state which in turn will own and control the instruments of production. The state – that is, the institutions which comprise the state – will, if we wish to put it that way, be the ‘property’ of the managers. And that will be quite enough to place them in the position of the ruling class.”

Burnham concedes that the ideologies required to facilitate this transition have not yet been fully worked out but goes on to say that they can be approximated:

“from several different but similar directions, by, for example: Leninism-Stalinism; fascism-nazism; and, at a more primitive level, by New Dealism and such less influential [at the time] American ideologies as ‘technocracy’. This, then, is the skeleton of the theory, expressed in the language of the struggle for power.”

This is to be sure, a rather confusing paragraph but becomes clearer when we understand it from the specific viewpoint of Burnham. As Burnham sees it, all these different avenues are methods in which to achieve his vision of a managerial society because each form stresses the importance of the state as the central coordinating power, and that such a state will be governed by his “managers”. Burnham considers the different moral implications in each scenario irrelevant, as he makes clear early on in his book, he has chosen to detach himself from such questions.

Burnham goes to explain that the support of the masses is necessary for the success of any revolution, this is why the masses must be led to believe that they will benefit from such a revolution, when in fact it is only to replace one ruling class with another and nothing changes for the underdog. He explains that this is the case with the dream of a socialist state, that the universal equality promised by socialism is just a fairy tale told to the people so that they fight for the establishment of a new ruling class, then they are told that achieving a socialist state will take many decades, and that essentially, a managerial system must be put in place in the meantime.

Burnham makes the case that this is what happened in both Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia:

“Nevertheless, it may still turn out that the new form of economy will be called ‘socialist.’ In those nations – Russia and Germany – which have advanced furthest toward the new [managerial] economy, ‘socialism’ or ‘national socialism’ is the term ordinarily used. The motivation for this terminology is not, naturally, the wish for scientific clarity but just the opposite. The word ‘socialism’ is used for ideological purposes in order to manipulate the favourable mass emotions attached to the historic socialist ideal of a free, classless, and international society and to hide the fact that the managerial economy is in actuality the basis for a new kind of exploiting, class society.”

Burnham continues:

“Those Nations – [Bolshevik] Russia, [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy – which have advanced furthest toward the managerial social structure are all of them, at present, totalitarian dictatorships…what distinguishes totalitarian dictatorship is the number of facets of life subject to the impact of the dictatorial rule. It is not merely political actions, in the narrower sense, that are involved; nearly every side of life, business and art and science and education and religion and recreation and morality are not merely influenced by but directly subjected to the totalitarian regime.

It should be noted that a totalitarian type of dictatorship would not have been possible in any age previous to our own. Totalitarianism presupposes the development of modern technology, especially of rapid communication and transportation. Without these latter, no government, no matter what its intentions, would have had at its disposal the physical means for coordinating so intimately so many of the aspects of life. Without rapid transportation and communication it was comparatively easy for men to keep many of their lives, out of reach of the government. This is no longer possible, or possible only to a much smaller degree, when governments today make deliberate use of the possibilities of modern technology.”

Orwell’s Second Thoughts on Burnham

Burnham would go on to state in his “The Managerial Revolution” that the Russian Revolution, WWI and its aftermath, the Versailles Treaty gave final proof that capitalist world politics could no longer work and had come to an end. He described WWI as the last war of the capitalists and WWII as the first, but not last war, of the managerial society. Burnham made it clear that many more wars would have to be fought after WWII before a managerial society could finally fully take hold.

This ongoing war would lead to the destruction of sovereign nation states, such that only a small number of great nations would survive, culminating into the nuclei of three “super-states”, which Burnham predicted would be centered around the United States, Germany and Japan. He goes on to predict that these super-states will never be able to conquer the other and will be engaged in permanent war until some unforeseeable time. He predicts that Russia would be broken in two, with the west being incorporated into the German sphere and the east into the Japanese sphere. (Note that this book was published in 1941, such that Burnham was clearly of the view that Nazi Germany and fascist Japan would be the victors of WWII.)

Burnham states that “sovereignty will be restricted to the few super-states.”

In fact, he goes so far as to state early on in his book that the managerial revolution is not a prediction of something that will occur in the future, it is something that has already begun and is in fact, in its final stages of becoming, that it has already successfully implemented itself worldwide and that the battle is essentially over.

The National Review, founded by James Burnham and William F. Buckley (more on this in part two), would like to put the veneer that although Orwell was critical of Burnham’s views that he was ultimately creatively inspired to write about it in his “1984” novel. Yes, inspired is one way to put it, or more aptly put, that he was horrified by Burnham’s vision and wrote his novel as a stark warning as to what would ultimately be the outcome of such monstrous theorizations, which he would to this day organise the zeitgeist of thought to be suspicious of anything resembling his neologisms such as “Big Brother”, “Thought Police”, “Two Minutes Hate”, “Room 101”, “memory hole”, “Newspeak”, “doublethink”, “unperson”,”thoughtcrime”, and “groupthink”.

George Orwell, (real name Eric Arthur Blair), first published his “Second Thoughts on James Burnham” in May 1946. The novel “1984” would be published in 1949.

In his essay he dissects Burnham’s proposed ideology that he outlines in his “The Managerial Revolution” and “The Machiavellians” subtitled “Defenders of Freedom.”

Orwell writes:

“It is clear that Burnham is fascinated by the spectacle of power, and that his sympathies were with Germany so long as Germany appeared to be winning the war…curiously enough, when one examines the predictions which Burnham has based on his general theory, one finds that in so far as they are verifiable, they have been falsified…It will be seen that Burnham’s predictions have not merely, when they were verifiable, turned out to be wrong, but that they have sometimes contradicted one another in a sensational way…Political predictions are usually wrong, because they are usually based on wish-thinking…Often the revealing factor is the date at which they are made…It will be seen that at each point Burnham is predicting a continuation of the thing that is happening…the tendency to do this is not simply a bad habit, like inaccuracy or exaggeration…It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice…

Power worship blurs political judgement because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. If the Japanese have conquered south Asia, then they will keep south Asia for ever, if the Germans have captured Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo…The rise and fall of empires, the disappearance of cultures and religions, are expected to happen with earthquake suddenness, and processes which have barely started are talked about as though they were already at an end. Burnham’s writings are full of apocalyptic visions…Within the space of five years Burnham foretold the domination of Russia by Germany and of Germany by Russia. In each case he was obeying the same instinct: the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible.”

Interestingly, and happily we hear, George Orwell does not take Burnham’s predictions of a managerial revolution as set in stone, but rather, has shown itself within a short period of time to be a little too full of wishful thinking and bent on worshipping the power of the moment. However, this does not mean we must not take heed to the orchestrations of such mad men.

In Part two of this series, I will discuss Burnham’s entry into the OSS then CIA, how he became the founder of the neo-conservative movement and what are the implications for today’s world, especially concerning the Great Reset initiative.

The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

(1) Priscilla Buckley, “James Burnham 1905–1987.” National Review, July 11, 1987, p. 35.
(2) Canby, Henry Seidel. “The 100 Outstanding Books of 1924–1944”. Life, 14 August 1944. Chosen in collaboration with the magazine’s editors.

To this day, many people are still unclear as to the nefarious role that Hungarian mega speculator-turned philanthropist-turned color revolutionary George Soros has played in international affairs over the past 40 years. Sadly, many of those who have woken to the systematic carnage created by the elderly sociopath tend to make the mistake of either 1) assuming that the man has run an international conspiracy to rid the world of nation states all by himself or 2) believe him to be a stooge for the “evil Chinese Communist Party” which seeks to overthrow the western Christian-based order.

A recent short video which opened Mike Lindell’s recent Cyber security symposium was brought to my attention recently which encapsulated this belief and has been amplified across nearly all conservative press over the recent year. The trope has taken many forms and has been spread widely among a certain category of conservative-minded citizens of western nations who recognize that a disturbing global behavior-modification program is afoot which threatens to uproot thousands of years of traditional values.

The problem with those who acknowledge the existence of conspiracies to dismantle nation states and enslave much of the world population is not that they are wrong to be paranoid, or even that a color revolution just transpired within the USA itself. However, by deflecting attention away from the causal hand of British intelligence which has been at the heart of nearly every major historic manipulation suffered by the USA from 1776-present, China has been made to appear as some shadowy global supervillain using their Soros-affiliated assets managing the western deep state in the pursuit of global hegemony and the overthrow of “Christian values”.

The fact is that China is not only the first nation to successfully identify and purge Soros’ evil while the rest of the world was sleepwalking into a post-nation state order over 30 years ago, but remains one of the most invaluable pathways for a world of cooperation which western nations must join with if they are to liberate themselves from the oncoming dark age.

To restate the point: While other countries were busy letting Soros’ armadas of Open Society foundations infiltrate them at every level, China had the wits to see the evil agenda for what it was and when a color revolution was attempted at Tiananmen Square by those same agencies which were ushering in a new age rape of the Soviet Union and dismantling of western representative democracy, China lost no time to remove Soros’ right hand man in China in 1989 who had managed to reach the apex of political power as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and heir apparent to the ageing Deng Xiaoping.

Soros’ man was named Zhao Ziyang and during the 1980s, western press had already become accustomed to calling him “China’s Gorbachev”.

Here he is being honored by Reagan in 1984.

A few words about Zhao

Zhao Ziyang was still a teenager when the Long March had occurred in 1934-35, but soon found himself rising within the CPC administration becoming a party leader of Guangdong Province in 1951 and managing a broad program of torturing peasants who were suspected of hoarding food during the great famine of 1958-61. Certain forces with influence seemed to appreciate that sort of thing at the time and his star rose even higher becoming Guangdong’s Party Secretary. But a couple of years into the Cultural Revolution Ziyang found his luck run dry, as he became the subject of attacks by Red Guards working for four years in a mechanics factory in Hunan. Upon his surprising rehabilitation in 1972, Ziyang again found his star rising as he was made First Secretary and Revolutionary Committee Chair in 1973. In 1975, he was appointed Party Secretary of Sichuan Province, where his penchant for de-regulation and market-driven economics were put to use in reforming agricultural policy during the early years of the opening up under Deng Xiaoping.

Zhao’s star rose incredibly fast during this period. By 1977, he was made Politburo Member, finding himself acting as Premier of the State Council from 1980 to 1987 followed by a stint as Secretary General of the CPC until his dishonorable ouster in 1989.

Today we have become accustomed to hear creepy transhumanists like Klaus Schwab and other technocrats giddily praise the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the merging of humans and machines, Artificial Intelligence’s “inevitable” replacement of human thought and the automation revolution which will supposedly render most of human labor redundant under a new “useless class”. However these ideas are not new and were alive and vibrant in the mind of Zhao Ziyang, who was profoundly influenced by transhumanists like Alvin Toffler (author of Future Shock and the Third Wave) whose concepts of a post-industrial new age in many ways serves as a bible for the Great Reset agenda now underway.

Speaking at an October 9, 1983 conference in Beijing, Zhao said:

“Whether we call it the Fourth Industrial Revolution or call it the Third Wave, [these writers] all believe that Western countries in the 1950s and 1960s reached a high degree of industrialization and are now moving to an information society.… At the end of this century and the beginning of the next century, or within a few decades, there will be a new kind of situation in which breakthroughs in new technology that are happening now or will happen soon will be used for production and for society. This will bring a new leap in social productivity and thus a corresponding set of new changes in social life. This trend is worthy of our attention and must be carefully studied, based on our actual situation, in order to determine the next ten to twenty years of our long-range planning.… For us and for the future of the Four Modernizations, this is both an opportunity and a challenge.”

The Battle for the Four Modernizations

The policy known as the Four Modernizations referred to by Zhao above was first formulated by China’s great nation builder Zhou Enlai in 1963 as a multigenerational outline designed to guide China’s emergence into the new millennium as modern technologically advanced nation. Zhou Enlai’s plan hinged on an over-all economic and industrial revolution driven by breakthroughs in 1) Industrial productivity, 2) Agricultural productivity, 3) Defense and 4) Scientific/technological progress.

By the time Zhou died in 1976, followed soon thereafter by Mao Zedong, it became increasingly clear that the Gang of Four that had attempted to reset thousands of years of history within the decade of 1966-76 would not remain in power for long and Zhou’s program increasingly became the driving force of China’s long term development strategy. With Zhou’s close ally Deng Xiaoping taking the helm of the Communist Party in 1978 (after jailing the Gang of Four), conferences among the Central Committee of the CPC were convened to make the Four Modernizations a reality with Deng stating:

“We should select several thousand of our most qualified personnel within the scientific and technological establishment and create conditions that will allow them to devote their undivided attention to research. Those who have financial difficulties should be given allowances and subsidies… we must create within the party an atmosphere of respect for knowledge and respect for trained personnel. The erroneous attitude of not respecting intellectuals must be opposed. All work. Be it mental or manual, is labor.”

Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai in 1963

Deng’s choice to uplift the Marxist concept of labor from merely material forces to embrace creative mental labor was brilliant and pointed China in a new and vibrant direction that would allow the Asian giant to emerge as an economic powerhouse within a few generations. However, whenever matters of scientific creativity and non-linear projections into the future are discussed, there is often much space for debate and interpretation as to what philosophies and pathways will best advance those non-linear objectives. It is here that ideologues of the new Malthusian revival then sweeping the western world came into play, and a life-or-death battle between open vs closed system theories of governance took place.

Kissinger’s Slave Labor Vision for China

Henry Kissinger’s program to open up China that began in earnest in 1971 at the height of the Cultural Revolution was premised on an ideological commitment to a post-nation state world order.

Kissinger and Mao in 1972 with Zhou Enlai in the middle

In Kissinger’s mind (and fellow Trilateral Commission members who took control of U.S. policy as modern Helmsmen over the dead bodies of JFK and his brother), the Chinese which largely found themselves in the First Industrial Revolution (of agriculturally-driven peoples) in 1971 should remain in a static condition as poor and uneducated workers in order to serve as zones of cheap labor to produce goods purely for export to western consumer markets. Those western consumer markets would not need those industries they once enjoyed which were now being exported under Kissinger’s program since the west had achieved its supposed “limits to growth” under the industrial paradigm (which Futurist Alvin Toffler labelled the “Second Wave”). Under the new age of “post-industrialism” (Toffler’s Third Wave), humanity was expected to have “evolved” into an information-driven society.

Describing his thesis in 1978, Toffler spoke of the emergence of the Third Wave and obsolescence of industrial civilization saying:

“This era is now screeching to a halt. Industrial civilization is now in a state of terminal crisis, and a new, radically different civilization is emerging to take its place on the world stage … We are swiftly entering a new, more sophisticated state of evolutionary development based on far more advanced yet more appropriate technologies than any known so far. This leap to a new phase of history is bringing with it new energy patterns, new geopolitical arrangements, new social institutions, new communications and information networks, new belief systems, symbols, and cultural assumptions… Thus it must generate wholly new political structures and processes. I fail to see how it is possible for us to have a technological revolution, a social revolution, an information revolution, moral, sexual, and epistemological revolutions, and not a political revolution as well …. In this sense the breakdown of government as we have known it-which is to say representative government… is chiefly a consequence of obsolescence. Simply put, the political technology of the industrial age is no longer appropriate technology for the new civilization taking form around us. Our politics are obsolete.” 

Kissinger’s role as a neo-Malthusian was known to all, as his infamous National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200) of 1974 had already transformed American foreign policy from pro-development to pro-population reduction with the assumption that the computer models used in the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (1972) were somehow based in reality despite their total rejection of creative reason and technological progress.

Among the top remedies to population growth, NSSM-200 listed birth control and the withholding of food. Kissinger asked: “is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”

Kissinger’s report didn’t mince words: “The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States…. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth.”

Kissinger, Toffler and other devotees of the Club of Rome had no shortage of followers among the new breed of statecraft emerging in Deng Xiaoping’s China. These neo-Malthusians who preferred to look at humanity from the filter of mathematics and computer modelling wasted no time in infiltrating as many positions of influence as possible in the State Council and attempted to coopt the Four Modernizations towards anti-human ends.

Toffler’s Third Wave Crashes into China’s Shores

All of these figures would be centered around the powerful figure of Zhao Ziyang who was their constant protector and facilitator throughout the 1980s.

One influential Malthusian who is given credit as architect of China’s One Child Policy and close collaborator of Zhao is Song Jian, a missile scientist who was trained in Norbert Wiener’s Cybernetics theory while studying in Russia in the 1950s. After attending the 7^th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control in Finland in 1979, Song was introduced to the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth. According to researcher Robert Zubrin, Song immediately translated the book into Chinese without attribution to the original authors, and immediately used its linear models to compute the trend in population, pollution and resource loss over the course of a century concluding that China’s optimal population (aka: “Carrying Capacity”) to be on the order of 650-700 million (nearly 300 million fewer than the total population of his own time). These Club of Rome ideas spread like fire and were soon adopted as Chinese policy resulting in one of the worst instances of decades-long infanticide in history with a population reproduction rate that has not even begun to recover 40 years later (despite the wise removal of one child limits in 2016 and two child limits this year).

As Cambridge researcher Julian Gewertz noted in his 2019 study ‘Futurists of Beijing’, working as head of China’s State Science and Technology Commission, Song interfaced closely with Zhao to keep China’s science policy thinking tied to Club of Rome systems thinking.

Another figure who was instrumental in bringing Alvin Toffler’s ideas to China was a senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences named Dong Leshan who spent months touring the USA where he met with the futurist. Describing his tour in 1981, Dong wrote: “Everyone I met and with whom I discussed American intellectual trends talked about [Toffler’s] book The Third Wave”

Dong immediately organized the ‘Chinese Society of Future Studies’ to formally invite Toffler for his first trip to China months later whereby Toffler wrote to Dong requesting “meetings and interviews with your leading political figures and with persons responsible for long-term planning”. At the top of the list was Zhao Ziyang.

In March 1983, a Chinese publishing house called Sanlien translated the first Chinese edition of Toffler’s Third Wave and a scandal immediately arose, since its ideas were admittedly antithetical to Marxism on every level. The mystical idea of social evolution outlined by Toffler, was merely a reformed eugenics masquerading under the guise of Transhumanism which posited that not ideas or intentions but rather blind a-moral forces were propelling human civilization towards higher states of complexity. These blind fatalistic “forces” were devoid of human intention and were moving our species inevitably through waves of development which included socio-political dynamics assigned to each wave (i.e.: First Wave = agricultural / feudal / pre-national, Second Wave =  industrial / democratic / national, Third Wave = information / technocratic-feudal / post-nation state.)

The major insight offered by Toffler and his Chinese followers during this period was that China (and other underdeveloped nations) could skip the second wave of dirty industrialization and leap straight from the first to the third wave.

In 1983, Zhao stated: “Toffler’s Third Wave has a similar view. He believes that today’s Third World countries may not have fully experienced the ‘Second Wave’ of development, but that they can take an entirely new route to achieve a ‘Third Wave’ civilization.”

All China required were “special economic zones” on the coasts for the purpose of importing raw and semi-finished material from abroad, clusters of low-wage labor intensive, low tech factories to transform those materials into finished goods in order to then be shipped back out to the consumer markets in the first world abroad. Money acquired by these means could be invested into third wave science programs with a focus on genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and information systems which were Zhao’s three priorities for China’s future. All considerations of large-scale development driven by great projects and concrete goals that could shape science priorities were banned in the minds of “bottom up” free market theories promoted by Zhao, Kissinger and Toffler.

Historian Michael Billington has noted that the Trilateral Commission directly organized a conference in Beijing in 1981 in order to keep China locked into this feudal model writing:

“In May 1981, David Rockefeller chaired an international conference of the Trilateral Commission held in Beijing. At that meeting, Chase Manhattan Bank’s chief, William C. Butcher, told the Xinhua news agency that China’s reform would only succeed if they rejected large industry or great development projects in favor of labor-intensive production. Heavy industry and infrastructure, he said, “take two great things, a great deal of energy and a great deal of money, neither of which are abundant in China.”

Another of Toffler’s heresies which led to a brief banning of his book in 1984 was the idea that politics should be severed from economics. In Toffler’s mystical worldview, the “force” of technological progress was of an evolutionary variety that could only be held back when human intentions meddled with it via political agendas and moral considerations. Zhao spent years arguing with the Politburo that economics be “liberated” from politics earning him the ire of statesmen recognizing the evil that was infusing itself into China.

Friedman Steps into China

Milton Friedman was among the first grouping of western economists invited to tour and lecture to the Chinese elite in 1979 meeting repeatedly with Zhao Ziyang on all voyages. After his 1988 China tour, Friedman described his two hour meeting with Zhao saying: “We have a good impression of this person and his wisdom. He has profound knowledge of economic problems and is determined to enlarge the scope of the market. He is willing to experiment and learn and listen to the suggestions and opinions of other people.”

Never one to reject fascism as the necessary enforcer of wage cutting, privatizations and “pro-market” reforms needed to subdue a population into accepting liberty over socialism (as seen in his support for Pinochet’s Chile), Friedman made a point that the Chinese Communist Party must be maintained as an absolute central power saying: “At the same time, he [Zhao] has, if possible to safeguard the supreme authority of the communist party. Wonderful skill is needed for him to do so.”

I make this point here and now because it is incredibly important for westerners to understand that the support that sociopaths like Friedman, Soros, or Kissinger have given to the Communist Party from time to time has always been contingent upon their commitment to bring the party under the control of an anti-human, anti-nation state priesthoods of Zhao-like puppet technocrats. To the degree that centralized power like that held by the CPC is run by true philosopher kings committed to the Confucian ‘Mandate of Heaven’ (aka: ‘Tian Ming’), then China’s CPC becomes a nightmare for utopian globalists.

George Soros and Zhao Ziyang

In 1986, Zhao sponsored the first of two new Soros-run think tanks with the “Fund for the Reform and Opening Up of China” using a million dollar grant by the speculator, followed by the Institute for Economic and Structural Reform (IESR) co-run by Zhao’s close advisor Chen Yizi. The IESR interfaced closely with the National Endowment for the Democracy (aka: CIA) that set up two offices in China in 1988.

In his post-humously published autobiography, Zhao had written that during this time he had wish that “China should adopt a free press, freedom to organize, and independent judiciary and a multiparty parliamentary democracy”… Additionally, following the Glasnost/Perestroika model which was gearing up to rip apart the Russian economy under a post-history era, Zhao stated that he was then calling for “the privatization of state owned enterprises, the separation of the Party and the State and general market economic reforms”.

In a 1989 interview, Soros described the greatness of Gorbachev but pointed to his one criticism of economic incompetence saying: “in China, by contrast, the Communist Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang is an accomplished economist, with a think tank of brilliant young minds at his disposal.”

Soros, Friedman and Toffler had every reason to be on cloud nine during the 1988-89 period. The painstaking work of many decades was finally coming to fruition as the western nations had been largely cleansed of pro-industrial statesmen who were resistant to the idea of a post-nation state New World Order. A few troublesome figures like Deutschebank’s anti-Malthusian Chairman Alfred Herrhausen and American economist Lyndon LaRouche were still causing problems, but solutions were soon found to put them out of Kissinger’s misery. (1)

Not only were the western nations largely captured by a supranational technocracy, but finally Communist nations on the other side of the iron curtain were also melting in the furnaces of this same technocratic elite forging a ‘new order’. The Berlin Wall was trembling and the Soviet Union was on the cusp of collapse.

Despite all of this “success”, something inside of Asia was pushing back against the priests of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and that “something” had to be de-toothed.

Tiananmen Square’s Color Revolution Fail

It was here that the CIA’s James Lilley (Ambassador to China), the National Endowment for Democracy, and George Soros deployed all of their resources to activate a full-blown color revolution on June 4, 1989 with student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square bursting into violence.

With the active participation of modern color revolutionary Gene Sharp who was on the ground in Beijing for nine days during the protests, and an abundance of CIA-driven propaganda pumped through Radio Free America in Asia, training, funding and even the arming of violent reactionaries among the student groups with Molotov cocktails and guns, a chaos operation was put into motion that was anything but a peaceful protest. Many of the assets coordinated and deployed by CIA front groups in China included vicious student anarchists whose efforts led to the murder of dozens of PLA soldiers whose charred carcasses can make anyone’s stomach turn 30 years later. When the coup failed, and the government-led massacre couldn’t be induced by provocateurs, all of the energy of global perception management were deployed to give the illusion that a massacre had transpired which has created a “holocaust”-like mythos to this very day.

When the bloodbath failed to be sparked, with only 200-300 deaths (many of which being PLA soldiers), the plan was aborted and the most radical provocateurs beholden to the Soros operation were carried off to safer grounds in the USA and Canada under an MI6/CIA operation titled “Operation Yellowbird”. With the vast assistance of Hong Kong triads, these anarchists were snuck out of China where many received luxurious rewards and scholarships at Ivy league universities in the USA forming what the Washington Post’s Gavin Hewitt described as “the nucleus of a democracy movement in exile”.

Much has been written on the truth of Tiananmen Square’s events in 1989, and for any honest person evaluating the evidence presented on the topic (such as here, or here, or here), the case should be considered closed.

Soros is Purged and Zhou Enlai’s Vision Restored

In many ways, Tiananmen Square served as a sort of blessing in disguise for China, as the true evil that Zhao, Soros, and the Malthusian puss that had infected China’s power structures was made visible for all to see. Zhao’s “heroic” role as a “man-of-the-people opposed to the government’s crackdown on the peaceful students” did not go as planned. Instead of being celebrated as the pro-freedom fighter which his controllers wished him to be, the protest ended with very little bloodshed and his role as usurper of China was exposed.

The Chinese Communist Party lost no time in shutting down all of Soros’ operations, banishing the speculator for life, and removing Zhao from all positions of authority where he was placed under house arrest for the rest until his death in 2005. Zhao’s close ally Chen Yizi only avoided arrest by escaping to the USA to play a longer-term role in Soros’ apparatus along with hundreds of other shills and traitors.

Zhao Ziyang and his Soros-tied aide Chen Yizi speaking to crowds at Tiananmen Square

Today, China has become a driving force for progress in defense of the sovereign nation state as a foundational stone of the Greater Eurasian Partnership and broader multipolar order premised on the UN Charter. Due to China’s ability to defend her economic sovereignty, maintain top down planning capabilities of a strong central government, national banking and bank separation of commercial vs investment activities, China has been able to create a system of growth that is antithetical to everything which Toffler, Soros, Schwab, Kissinger and the Club of Rome ideologues believe to be humanity’s fixed destiny. In total defiance of the Third Wave ideologues that promoted the idea that China could become a “post-industrial” system run by mind-less Artificial Intelligence, and genetically engineered humans, with only horizontal democracy from below and a scientific priesthood managing the techno-feudal system from above, the BRI/New Silk Road has given a moral and intellectual principle to genuine long term trajectories that shape the best of China’s young minds. The motive principle of creative reason, constant scientific progress, and moral righteousness that serves as the bedrock of Tian Ming have made the Belt and Road the perfect expression of Zhou Enlai’s Four Modernizations vision.

Let there be no mistake, there are many surface similarities between the closed system thinking of cybernetics that animated the theories of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Third Wave vs the open system thinking that animates China’s New Silk Road.

Both approaches to “systems management” involve strong centralized power, and both are guided by “scientific planning” of the political economy.

It is only when we look at such factors as intention, morality, and respect for creative reason that striking differences come to light.

While Confucian traditions that seek to lift people out poverty, promote win-win cooperation, increase human rights, and enhance modes of creative expression governs post-Soros China, these factors are totally lacking in the closed Malthusian system that strives to impose entropy, mathematical equilibrium and absolute control onto humanity.

Where one uses computer modelling as a tool to serve the aims of the nation to achieve non-linear breakthroughs in science and technology in order which in turn overcome the ever-variable “limits to growth” of our relative carrying capacities, the Malthusian system seeks to cage all national planning to computer models that dictate fixed limits to growth.

Where one sees stability as fundamental and change as a secondary feature of the system, the other sees creative change as primary and states of stability as the secondary feature.

Said in his own words, Xi Jinping described this process in the following terms: “Coordinated development is the unity of balanced development and imbalanced development. The process from balance to imbalance and then to rebalance is the basic law of development. Balance is relative while imbalance is absolute. Emphasizing coordinated development is not pursuing equalitarianism, but giving more importance to equal opportunities and balanced resource allocation.”

In an earlier speech, Xi implicitly denounced the Third Wave ideology of Toffler and developed this concept even further:

“We must consider innovation as the primary driving force of growth and the core in this whole undertaking, and human resources as the primary source to support development. We should promote innovation in theory, systems, science and technology, and culture, and make innovation the dominant theme in the work of the Party, and government, and everyday activity in society… In the 16th century, human society entered an unprecedented period of active innovation. Achievements in scientific innovation over the past five centuries have exceeded the sum total of several previous millennia… Each and every scientific and industrial revolution has profoundly changed the outlook and pattern of world development… Since the second Industrial Revolution, the U.S. has maintained global hegemony because it has always been the leader and the largest beneficiary of scientific and industrial progress.”

So the next time you find yourself entertaining the notion that China is the cause of your problems, take a step back and ask yourself why Soros isn’t allowed into their country, even though he is running yours.

The author can be reached on his Substack  

Notes

(1) While Herrhausen was assassinated in 1989, LaRouche was railroaded into prison months earlier and his international organizations shut down with Robert Mueller playing a role he would reproduce three decades later as a leading inquisitor of RussiaGate.

Henry Kissinger, 97, Henry the K. for those he keeps close, is either a Delphic oracle-style strategic thinker or a certified war criminal for those kept not so close.

He now seems to have been taking time off his usual Divide and Rule stock in trade – advising the combo behind POTUS, a.k.a. Crash Test Dummy – to emit some realpolitik pearls of wisdom.

At a recent forum in Arizona, referring to the festering, larger than life Sino-American clash, Henry the K. said, “It’s the biggest problem for America; it’s the biggest problem for the world. Because if we can’t solve that, then the risk is that all over the world a kind of cold war will develop between China and the United States.”

In realpolitik terms, this “kind of Cold War” is already on; across the Beltway, China is unanimously regarded as the premier U.S. national security threat.

Kissinger added U.S. policy toward China must be a mix of stressing U.S. “principles” to demand China’s respect and dialogue to find areas of cooperation: “I’m not saying that diplomacy will always lead to beneficial results…This is the complex task we have… Nobody has succeeded in doing it completely.”

Henry the K. actually must have lost the – diplomatic – plot. What Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are now involved in, full time, is to demonstrate – mostly to the Global South – how the American-enforced “rules-based international order” has absolutely nothing to do with international law and the respect of national sovereignty.

At first I had archived these Henry the K. platitudes out of sight. But then someone who used to hold a stellar position at the top of the U.S. Deep State showed he had been paying close attention.

This personality – let’s call him Mr. S. – has been one of my invaluable, trustworthy sources since the early 2000s. Mutual confidence was always key. I asked him if I could publish selected passages of his analysis, not naming names. Consent was given – ruefully. So fasten your seat belts.

Dancin’ with Mr. S.

Mr. S., in a quite intriguing fashion, seems to be expressing the collective views of a number of extremely qualified people. Right from the start, he points out how Henry the K.’s observations explain today’s Russia-China-Iran triangle.

The first point that we make is that it was not Kissinger who created policy for Nixon, but the Deep State. Kissinger was just a messenger boy.  In the 1972 situation the Deep State wanted to get out of Vietnam, which policy was put in place as containment of communist China and Russia.  We were there based on the domino theory.

He goes on:

The Deep State wanted to achieve a number of objectives in approaching Chairman Mao, who was antagonized by Russia. It wanted to ally in 1972 with China against Russia. That made Vietnam meaningless, for China would become the containing party of Russia and Vietnam no longer meant anything. We wanted to balance China against Russia.  Now, China was not a major power in 1972 but it could drain Russia, forcing it to place 400,000 troops on their border.  And our Deep State policy worked. We in the Deep State had thought it through, and not Kissinger. 400,000 troops on the Chinese border was a drain on their budget, as later Afghanistan became with over 100,000 troops, and the Warsaw Pact had another 600,000 troops.

And that brings us into Afghanistan:

The Deep State wanted to start a Vietnam for Russia in Afghanistan in 1979.  I was among those against it, as this would needlessly use the Afghani people as cannon fodder and that was unfair. I was overruled. Here Brzezinski was playing Kissinger; another overrated nothing who just carried messages.

The Deep State also decided to crash the oil price, as that would economically weaken Russia. And that worked in 1985, driving the price to eight dollars a barrel, which ate up half the Russian budget. Then, we basically gave permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as a ploy to send in our advanced army to knock him out and demonstrate our superiority to the world in weaponry, which very much demoralized the Russians and put the fear of God into Islamic oil.  Then we created the Star Wars fiction.  Russia to our surprise lost their nerve and collapsed.

Mr. S. defines all of the above as “wonderful” in his opinion, as “communism went out and Christianity came in”:

We then wanted to welcome Russia into the community of Christian nations, but the Deep State wanted to dismember them. That was  stupid, as they would balance against China at least from their Mackinder point of view. It was naive on my part to hope to a return of Christianity, as the West was moving rapidly toward total moral disintegration.

In the meantime, our ally China continues to grow as we were not finished with the dismemberment of Russia and the advisors we sent to Russia destroyed the whole economy in the 1990s against my objections. The 78-day Belgrade bombing finally woke Russia up and they started a massive re-militarization as it was obvious that the intention was in the end to bomb Moscow into the ground. So defensive missiles became essential. Thus, the S-300, S-400, S-500 and soon S-600s.

The Deep State had been warned by me at our meetings on how bombing Belgrade in 1999 would cause Russia to remilitarize and I lost the argument. Belgrade was bombed for 78 days versus the vengeance bombing of Hitler for two days.  And China continues to grow.

Why balance of power doesn’t work

And that bring us to a new era – that started in practice with the Chinese announcement of the New Silk Roads in 2013 and Maidan in Kiev in 2014:

China wakes up to all of this in that they begin to realize that they have been just used, and that the U.S. fleet controls their trade routes, and decides to approach Russia in 2014 just about the time of their witnessing the Maidan overthrow of Ukraine.  This overthrow was organized by the Deep State when they started to understand that they had lost the arms race, and did not even know what was happening. 

The Deep State wanted to draw Russia into a Vietnam again in the Ukraine to drain them and crash the oil price again, which they did.  Beijing studied this and saw the light. If Russia is overthrown, the West will control all their natural resources, which they see themselves needing as they grew into a giant economy larger than the U.S.  And Beijing starts to open up a warm relationship with Moscow seeking to obtain land based natural resources as oil and natural gas from Russia to avoid the seas for natural resources as much as they can. In the meantime, Beijing massively accelerates its building of submarines carrying missiles capable of destroying the U.S. fleets.

So where does Kissinger in Arizona fit in?

Now, Kissinger reflects the Deep State angst on the Russia-Chinese relationship and wants this split up for dear life. This is interestingly covered here by Kissinger. He does not want to tell the truth about balance of power realities. He describes them as “our values”, when the U.S. has no values left but anarchy, looting, and burning down hundreds of cities. Biden hopes to buy all these disenfranchised masses as money printing goes wild.

So we are back to Kissinger shocked at the new Russian-Chinese alliance. They must be separated.

Now, I do not agree with the balance of power intriguers in that morality or noble values should govern international relations, and not power. The U.S. has been following balance of power dreams since 1900 and now it faces economic ruin. These ideas do not work.  There is no reason the U.S. cannot be a friend of Russia and China and the differences can be worked out. But you cannot get to first base as balance of power considerations dominate everything. That is the tragedy of our time.

When someone speaks Russian, they are opened up to a new competing version of history and reality. For Russian speakers with at least even a passive interest in politics it is very likely that they have heard the expression “the end of history”. This is in reference to Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History and the Last Man that claimed that with the victory of Liberalism in the Cold War, the tale of humanity in the political and ideological sense had come to an end. However, the rise of China, the birth of political concepts not yet thought of in 1992 like “Illiberalism”, and the Democrat-led Cold War 2.0 with a non-Communist Moscow, have turned this strong statement of Western triumph into an ironic jab for Russians to use while meme making. But now one of the key players who was partially responsible for “the end of history” has just declared that history is back on. And not only that he also thinks that this is now for the best interests of all.

It seems hard to really believe, but Henry Kissinger, the “Flawed Architect of American Foreign Policy” has publicly stated what looks to be the grand waiving of a white flag over the idea of maintaining a Monopolar Order. His words were…

“if you imagine that the world commits itself to an endless competition based on the dominance of whoever is superior at the moment, then a breakdown of the order is inevitable. And the consequences of a breakdown would be catastrophic.”

Image: Who could have expected that winning the Cold War would later cause so many problems for America’s future?

These statements are connected with the rise of China as a threat or counterbalance to the American order through global dominance that was described in Fukuyama’s famous book. This “let’s agree to disagree” or “can’t we just all get along” sort of logic is very strange coming from the quintessential Cold Warrior. The other now famous recent Kissinger quote is as follows…

“if we don’t get to an understanding with China on that point, then we will be in a pre-World War One-type situation in which there are perennial conflicts that get solved on an immediate basis but one of them gets out of control at some point.”

WWI has very often been used as an argument for the Monopolar World Order that is familiar to us who are alive at the moment. With there being only one world policeman, the big bad global hegemon, then there is no way for another World War to come to pass. Essentially, if there is only one real actor then said actor will not punch themself in the face out of boredom or by accident. This seems like a great plan when at an upper-middle class barbeque in Illinois, but for the rest of the world who doesn’t want to simply exist as non-actors in the service of a Pax Americana that has been high on America and low on Pax, this doesn’t exactly sound particularly thrilling.

Here Kissinger does not seem to be using this typical, “if Multipolarity, then WWI all over again” algorithm, but instead he acknowledges that China is already an actor with the ability to bring in partners, allowing a web of alliances to grow leading to a 1914 catastrophy. This implies that history is very much alive and that in his opinion there are at least two actors in it.

Perhaps Kissinger now regrets opening up China to American markets.

Furthermore, the “entangling alliances” of the like seen in WWI were between various powers who worked out deals, not just two Superpowers and their vassals as we saw during the Cold War. Meaning, the implication is that there are many actors at present, which again is strange coming from someone who is partially responsible for the Monopolar World Order.

Although all human beings misspeak or at times choose poor comparisons, it is hard to believe Kissinger would be so sloppy as to throw out these words without much concern for their greater context. After living a long life of very careful positioning of every phrase that came out of his mouth Kissinger is a pro who is expected to hit the numbers of any jersey on any three-step drop.

Perhaps, he could have been playing to the audience, or was trying to send some sort of false or confusing message to spark certain writers into grabbing at quotes that sound appealing to them. Maybe his words were consciously disingenuous, but this really does not seem to be the case. Very often especially in more comfortable surroundings even politicians can be shockingly straight forward at least in the undertone of what they have to say. Too often the Alternative Media falls into the trap of searching for 3D chess, where it simply isn’t, and this is one of those cases. He probably honestly meant these very non-traditional views of the state of international affairs.

We cannot exclude the fact that next week, Kissinger may say something contradictory but hearing this from someone with his background seems to be an acknowledgment that Multipolarity is the new reality that needs to be accepted and dealt with accordingly from a Washington perspective. This is a big deal. If he is thinking this way and beginning to use this type of rhetoric then it begs the question as to how many people within the Beltway may actually see things in a similar fashion and how close are they to reaching a critical mass in numbers?

From the day of Allende’s inauguration as president, U.S. President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, schemed with the CIA to overthrown Allende, who was perceived as a democratically-elected threat and a possible influence in the region and in Europe.

Two main scenarios were drawn up by Kissinger – establishing a “modus vivendi” with Allende’s government, while backing the opposition parties until the next election to influence voter change, or a military coup, which was the CIA’s preferred tactic. For the U.S., which used democracy propaganda to justify its intervention in Latin America and across the world, there was nothing amiss with destroying Chile’s long democratic tradition by backing a military-coup, ostensibly in the name of democracy.

A declassified document detailing a memorandum of conversation, dated November 6, 1970, illustrates Kissinger’s insistence on using overt hostility against Allende’s government. His least favourite tactic is the modus vivendi, for fear that Allende “will consolidate hi position and then move against us.”

The Under-Secretary of State John Irwin supports Kissinger’s argument by insisting that the U.S. should play to the Chilean opposition in order to bring about Allende’s downfall. “We should be hostile only if we can be sure it will have a significant effect on the internal forces there in a way that will hurt Allende and prevent his consolidation. This means we may have to do things we would not want to do.”

Of particular note is U.S. President Richard Nixon’s mention of the military, in contrast to “the others”, meaning the intellectuals of Chilean society, who he says “are not subject to our influence.” The plan to boost the military complex in Latin America while destabilising Allende’s government economically. Brazil and Argentina are mentioned as potential U.S. allies in the region – two countries which would be part of Operation Condor – the U.S.-backed regional collaboration in Latin America which sought to eliminate “Marxist subversion” and which adopted Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet’s tactics of kidnappings, torture, murder and disappearance.

This emphasis on the military also ties into the briefing by the CIA Director Richard Helms, who notes opposition to Allende’s socialism among military officers. “There were some important elements in both the military and political establishments which perceived that Allende should not be allowed to bring a Marxist regime into office,” the declassified document states.

Both Kissinger and the CIA’s influence were instrumental in the coup that ravaged Chile. Notably, Kissinger’s rhetoric on how Chile could influence politics beyond Latin America and thus alter the U.S.’s standing in the world played an important part in Nixon’s decision-making; the latter having been more favourable to the modus vivendi tactic. Kissinger’s ties to the CIA, however, proved more influential. Declassified documents published in 2014 also show that the CIA had been plotting against Allende before his electoral triumph, with Kissinger requesting precise action plans to thwart the election result.

Playing down Pinochet’s brutality was Kissinger’s way of normalising the U.S. backing of the military coup. “I think we should understand our policy – that however unpleasant they act, this government is better for us than Allende was.” In 1976, Kissinger described Pinochet as being victimised by the left. Of the thousands tortured and disappeared, in which the U.S. played a direct part through the CIA and the notorious School of the Americas (SOA), now known as WHINSEC, not a word was uttered. It was only after the assassination of Orlando Letelier in Washington that the U.S. reconsidered its overt support for the dictatorship – its legacy still affecting Chile to date.

– Willy Brandt (German Federal Chancellor, right before he stepped down in 1974)

Believe it or not, but the dystopic view that democracy is dead is by no measure a new idea. However, what might disturb you is where this design, in its contemporary form, really germinated from.

The idea that democracy is in a crisis and needs to be replaced with a new form of “governance” did not originate from the outcries of an oppressed people demanding their rights to a decent life. We are not presently seeing an organic, grassroots process in reforming how government, that is, democracy will be “improved” upon. Rather, what we are seeing is a controlled disintegration of the very thing we think we are trying to uphold, and this destruction has been in the works for over 45 years.

It is no coincidence that Samuel P. Huntington is very fond of the Willy Brandt quote “prophesising” the end of democracy (which was used at the beginning of both his books ‘The Crisis of Democracy’ and ‘Disaffected Democracies’), that is after all his purpose in life…to see to it that that prophecy comes true.

In this paper I will go through how the Henry Kissinger crew successfully purged the last significant remnants of decency within the CIA and reshaped the government structure into the Deep State that we see it grotesquely throbbing as today. In this story, we will see how those prominent figureheads who prophesise the “end of democracy” have been the very orchestrators of its destruction.

The First Purge of American Intelligence: The Dismantling of the OSS

On March 4th 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would be elected President of the United States, which would become a twelve year presidency, ending only due to his passing away. Roosevelt was an anti-imperialist who actively, and successfully, organised towards abolishing imperialism throughout the world.

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was established by Roosevelt on June 13th 1942, under the direction of William J. Donovan, as a wartime intelligence agency. Its purpose was to collect and analyze strategic information required by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to conduct special operations not assigned to other agencies.

Contrary to how we think of American foreign intelligence today, the raison d’être of the OSS was to genuinely win the war (WWII) quickly and with the least amount of loss.

However, FDR would pass away on April 12th 1945, and the OSS would be dismantled a mere five months after FDR’s passing and two weeks after the official end of WWII.

On Sept 20th 1945, Truman infamously ordered the shutdown of the OSS, referring to it as a potential Gestapo , however, not with the intention to disband all foreign intelligence capabilities. The OSS would be replaced under the new banner of CIA, on Sept 18th 1947, and more importantly as a contingent to the National Security Council which was created on the same day. Refer to my paper on this.

Many respectable and patriotic intelligence officers of repute, who were loyal to FDR’s vision, were also thrown out of the intelligence community with the disbanding of the OSS.

In August 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb, several years before the 1953 date forecast by the CIA. As a response, the Joint Intelligence Committee submitted an estimate of the nature of the nuclear threat from the Soviets. JIC-502 claimed that once the Soviets had 200 atomic bombs, they could launch a surprise attack and defeat the U.S.

These assertions were made without analysis of Soviet capabilities to actually deliver the weapons, let alone produce them at that rate. The estimates did not even attempt to analyze Soviet strategic intentions.

JIC-502, titled “Implications of Soviet Possession of Atomic Weapons” and drafted Jan 20th 1950, turned out not to be an intelligence report at all but rather a sales pitch, claiming that a nuclear-armed Soviet Union had introduced the notion that “a tremendous military advantage would be gained by the power that struck first and succeeded in carrying through an effective surprise attack.”

It was JIC-502 which would be the first to put forward a justification for the preventive first strike concept, supported by a massive military buildup under the pretence of pre-emptive war.

NSC-68 would be drafted the same year, declaring that the U.S. was in the moral equivalent of war with the Soviet Union and called for a massive military buildup to be completed by 1954 dubbed the “year of maximum danger”, the year JIC-502 claimed the Soviets would achieve military superiority and be able to launch war against the U.S. This proposed military buildup would increase the defense budget from $10 billion to $40 billion from 1950-53.

During this same period another security doctrine was drafted, titled “NSC-75: A Report to the NSC by the Executive Secretary on British Military Commitments”. The report concluded that if the British Empire collapsed, and Britain could no longer carry out these deployments, in defending the “free world” against the Soviets, the U.S. would not be able to carry out its current foreign policy, including NSC-68.

It was thus concluded in the report that it would be more cost-effective to aid Britain in saving its Empire!

If you were ever wondering why the CIA was constantly found paired with British Intelligence, starting from its very inception, in a series of coups in countries they had no reason to be in, now you know why.

The U.S. had gone from an explicit mission to end imperialism worldwide under Roosevelt, to actively supporting and upholding British colonies and vassal states under Truman!

This was all done under the pretence of protecting the “free world” from the evil boogeymen Soviets, whom Churchill decided to be labelled such in his Iron Curtain Speech. And thus, the interests of the British Empire were safeguarded by an abiding American stooge, as long as the narrative that all Russians were villains was believed.

Interestingly, the CIA was not on board with the pre-emptive war strategy, as defined by JIC-502. In February 1950 the CIA responded in ORE 91-49, stating:

“It is always possible…that the USSR would initiate a war if it should estimate that a Western attack was impending. [However], It is not yet possible to estimate with any precision the effects of Soviet possession of the Atomic Bomb upon the probability of war. The implications of atomic warfare, either militarily or psychologically, have not yet been fully appraised.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the CIA was stating that JIC-502’s frantic lunacy in demanding a military buildup and first strike capability against the Soviets was groundless. That there was no data to support such a claim, and thus such a response would be a reckless and dangerous one.

It became evident to those who wished to push through these permanent war policies that the CIA was going to need “stronger” leadership.

At least, this was the argument made by the Dulles-Jackson-Correa Report which called for a strong CIA Director in the wake of the Cold War. Though Walter Bedell Smith, who would become CIA Director from 1950-53, did much to reorganise the CIA away from the pre-emptive war mongering, it was ultimately Allen Dulles who would take the CIA throne.

It should not come as a surprise that Dulles had himself in mind the whole time when he was talking about the stuff that was needed for a “strong” CIA Director… however, he was not referring to a strong mind, but rather a strong stomach.

Dulles would act as Director of the CIA from 1953-61, until he was fired by President Kennedy (along with the Deputy Director and Deputy Director for Plans), all three were caught essentially committing treason during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, refer to my paper on this.

McCone would replace Dulles as CIA Director and would attempt to clear the CIA of its Dulles loyalists in the Bay of Pigs incident; unfortunately it would not be enough.

During Dulles’ term as CIA Director, he did nothing less than entrench America’s role in exacting permanent warfare across the world against “communist insurgents”, with the never-ending Indochina wars lasting for over 35 years.

Though Bedell Smith would only be CIA Director for three years, he would succeed, along with Donovan (founder of the OSS) to create the most strategically important departments within the CIA: the Office of National Estimates (ONE).

Smith sought potential candidates for this new branch from those who had been thrown out of the intelligence community when Truman disbanded the OSS. Many of these “retired” intelligence officers had served in the OSS’ original Research and Analysis Branch; including William Langer and Sherman Kent who both played crucial roles in the running of ONE. Both Langer and Kent were reputable historians.

It was recognised that there was a crisis in competent intelligence gathering and analysis that would in turn be used to shape reckless war mongering policies such as JIC-502, NSC-68 and NSC-75. As Kent would state, there were those in the CIA who were “seeking power through sacrificing the truth.”

The formation of ONE was to be a major pushback on this type of groupthink within the intelligence community.

Kent would comment on the issue of the agency’s security screening (McCarthyism was in full swing at the time) stating:

“When an intelligence staff has been screened through [too finely], its members will be as alike as tiles on a bathroom floor – and about as capable of meaningful and original thought.”

In summary, since the death of FDR there was a somewhat open battle between members of the intelligence community, which could be categorised as FDR loyalists vs Churchill loyalists (1). Although there was an attempt to expunge the most notable intelligence officers who remained anti-imperial, Bedell Smith was successful in bringing these men back in, under the reorganised department ONE, who would in turn be a form of sane leadership within the CIA.

Unfortunately, the NSC did not share these views and there would be a second purge of the last remnants of true American patriots.

The Second Purge of American Intelligence: The Deep State is Born

From the moment Kissinger assumed the post of National Security Advisor to Nixon, he set out to centralize all intelligence estimates, diplomatic initiatives, and covert operations over figuratively and sometimes literal dead bodies of members of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Department and Congress.

According to John Ranelagh in his book The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA:

“Very early in the Nixon administration, it became clear that the President wanted Henry Kissinger to run intelligence for him and that the NSC staff in the White House under Kissinger would control the intelligence community. This was the beginning of a shift of power away from the CIA to a new center: the growing NSC staff.”

Kissinger would use the Watergate scandal, where the CIA was caught by Congress directly implicated in treasonous activities, as the impetus needed to form a new CIA, a secret branch away from the scrutiny of Congress.

In 1978, Kissinger would launch the Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act, which essentially worked to “clean house” of the intelligence community.

In 1982, under the direction of Kissinger, President Reagan would sign NSDD 77 under Cold War duress, which would launch Project Democracy, a sardonic name for a Trojan Horse.

NSDD 77 allowed Project Democracy the reins over “covert action on a broad scale” as well as overt public actions later to be associated with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The directive ordered the CIA to stay out of both the overt and covert part of Project Democracy, thus giving free reign to the Kissingerian “NSC apparatus”.

Almost one year later, the uninformed and naïve Congress passed the NED Act in Oct 1983, and effectively signed off on wrapping duct tape around their heads.

The structure of the NED essentially functions as a private CIA political operations arm of an invisible, secret government beyond accountability and beyond the reach of the law.

Those who still had a degree of humanity as members of the intelligence community, and had survived the Kissinger purge, were simply kept in the dark about the cloak and dagger operations of the secret government branch.

As for the department ONE, they would be disbanded in 1973 (the year Kissinger became Secretary of State) and replaced with a “group of experts” that would later form the National Intelligence Council in 1979. This would be the last purge of sane patriotic leadership within the intelligence community, left to the hyenas and jackals to run from thenceforth.

In a 1991 interview, then NED President David Ignatius arrogantly stated “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA…The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection”.

The Real “Crisis of Democracy”

The Trilateral Commission was founded in the wake of Watergate and oil crisis of 1973. It was formed under the pretence of addressing the “crisis of democracy” and calling for a reshaping of political systems in order to form a more “stable” international order and “cooperative” relations among regions.

Its formation would be organised by Britain’s hand in America, the Council on Foreign Relations, (aka: the offspring of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the leading think tank for the British Crown).

Project Democracy would originate out of a Trilateral Commission meeting on May 31st, 1975 in Kyoto Japan, where the Trilateral Commission’s “Task Force on the Governability of Democracies” findings were delivered. The project was overseen by Trilateral Commission Director Zbigniew Brzezinski and its members James Schlesinger (former CIA Director) and Samuel P. Huntington.

It would mark the beginning of the end, introducing the policy, or more aptly “ideology”, for the need to instigate a “controlled disintegration of society.”

The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental body, its members include elected and non-elected officials scattered throughout the world, ironically coming together to discuss how to address the “crisis of democracy” in the most undemocratic process possible. It is an organisation meant to uphold the “interests” of its members, regardless of who the people voted in.

You see, by the 1970s democracy was obviously broken, and someone had to put things back in order, right?

This elite grouping of people decided that this approach would be the best for all democracies and just like that, it was brought into official policy across the western hemisphere.

On Nov 9th, 1978, Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker (Federal Reserve Chairman from 1979-1987) would affirm at a lecture delivered at Warwick University in England: “A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s.” This is also the ideology that has shaped Milton Friedman’s “Shock Therapy”.

By the time of Jimmy Carter’s Administration, the majority of the government was being run by members of the Trilateral Commission. But who runs the Trilateral Commission?

Well, keeping in mind that this whole operation is run as an “open conspiracy”, in May 1981, Henry Kissinger who replaced Brzezinski as the head of the Trilateral Commission gave a speech at Chatham House describing his term as Secretary of State:

“[The British] became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations…In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American Department…It was symptomatic.” (emphasis added).

In his speech, Kissinger outlined the conflicting ideologies between Churchill and Roosevelt, and concluded with his support for the British worldview as the more superior of the two.

Looks like the Churchill loyalists have won.

Controlled Disintegration: And We All Fall Down

In 1975 the CFR launched a public study of global policy titled the 1980’s Project. The general theme was “controlled disintegration” of the world economy, and the report did not attempt to hide the famine, social chaos, and death its policy would bring upon most of the world’s population.

The study explained that the world financial and economic system needed a complete overhaul according to which key sectors such as energy, credit allocation and food would be placed under the direction of a single global administration. The objective of this reorganization would be the replacement of nation states.

However, before this could occur, nation states would have to falter, or at least give off the impression of faltering.

The failure of the nation state is not a natural phenomenon but rather is the outcome of a fascist coup; involving a banker’s dictatorship, economic looting and permanent warfare (the Cold War never ended) to hinder national industrial growth.

Among the most effective strategies towards this end has been color revolutions, which just so happens to be the NED’s specialty practice and has included, to name a few, the nations of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Iraq, Lebanon, Burma, Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Ukraine and the ongoing Hong Kong protests.

Wherever this strategy has unfolded, the target state is told by the international community that it has no right to intervene and is told to stand by as its nation is ransacked by locusts and its government ‘reorganised’.

With the final purge of American intelligence and the formation of a secret government, rendering anything resembling a democratic process obsolete, unless someone can restart the engine fast, we will soon be confronted by Willy Brandt’s prophecy of finding ourselves rudderless, under a surrounding sea of dictatorship.

Notes

(1) Speaking to his son during WWII, FDR said: “You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

Some people blog, Henry Kissinger writes and his take on the consequences of the Covid-19 virus are certainly worth analysis. Kissinger as a major insider for generations of American power speaks with a voice that reflects a certain perspective on things from deep within the Beltway that those on the outside cannot entirely see or understand. But we are free to try, because one of the most solidly connected men in the world, in his mid 90s, has decided to speak out on what is to be done after the Coronavirus situation calms down. Let’s take a look at his words and see if we can read the tea leaves.

The overall message of Kissinger’s piece seems to be an appeal to the pre-crisis status quo as the plan for the post crisis world. He wrote…

Sustaining the public trust is crucial to social solidarity, to the relation of societies with each other, and to international peace and stability.

Nations cohere and flourish on the belief that their institutions can foresee calamity, arrest its impact and restore stability. When the Covid-19 pandemic is over, many countries’ institutions will be perceived as having failed. Whether this judgment is objectively fair is irrelevant. The reality is the world will never be the same after the coronavirus. To argue now about the past only makes it harder to do what has to be done.

It seems as though Kissinger agrees with those like myself that the Coronavirus and its Anti-Globalization effects could be a game changer. Where we disagree is that Ole Henry sees this as a terrible thing indeed.If there is a mass perception that the previous status quo was a failure, it will be the catalyst to choose a different path or at the very least question it.

Just a few months ago the idea that borders would be closed and human movement would be restricted seemed impossible, as it would surely sink the global economy. True we are in an obvious economic downturn, but America is not starving to death despite migrant labor being trapped on one side of the border or the other. Yes some goods are still coming cheap from China, but a quarantined America seems far from falling due to being cut off from two dollar T-shirt supplies. A Globalized Liberal World Order that Kissinger seems to have been working towards almost his entire adult life finally has a counterargument being shoved in the faces of the masses and the elites of the entire world.

Leaders are dealing with the crisis on a largely national basis, but the virus’s society-dissolving effects do not recognize borders. While the assault on human health will – hopefully – be temporary, the political and economic upheaval it has unleashed could last for generations. No country, not even the U.S., can in a purely national effort overcome the virus. Addressing the necessities of the moment must ultimately be coupled with a global collaborative vision and program. If we cannot do both in tandem, we will face the worst of each.

Although one could argue that Globalization has lead to the Coronavirus problem, Kissinger insists that only a big sloppy bucket of more Globalization is the answer. Furthermore, this raises questions. Why exactly can’t the United States deal with this problem? From the discovery of the germ theory of medicine up until the end of the Cold War a non-Globalized world was very capable of vastly extending human life and developing medical wonders Medieval peasants could only dream of. Interestingly in the very next paragraph Kissinger seems to contradict himself…

Drawing lessons from the development of the Marshall Plan and the Manhattan Project, the U.S. is obliged to undertake a major effort in three domains. First, shore up global resilience to infectious disease. Triumphs of medical science like the polio vaccine and the eradication of smallpox, or the emerging statistical-technical marvel of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence, have lulled us into a dangerous complacency.

As is often the case when people talk about an international community they actually mean the West/America. This coded language is very visible when one pushes for global solutions to be done unilaterally by one preferred “exceptional” state. Picking the Marshall Plan and Manhattan Projects as lessons of history is somewhat ironic given that both of them benefitted only U.S. interests at the expense of two Japanese cities and the now multi-generational occupation of Europe.

After going on to say his obvious and reasonable second point, that leadership the world over needs to focus on making international economies recover quickly, he slips into a very odd third assignment to tackle after the Coronavirus dives down.

Third, safeguard the principles of the liberal world order. The founding legend of modern government is a walled city protected by powerful rulers, sometimes despotic, other times benevolent, yet always strong enough to protect the people from an external enemy. Enlightenment thinkers reframed this concept, arguing that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people: security, order, economic well-being, and justice. Individuals cannot secure these things on their own. The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.

So in Kissinger’s first two points he lays out two different crises caused by the Covid-19 Pandemic – The need to internationally prepare for further plagues with the U.S. at the helm and the need to restore economy(ies) globally. So by that logic does that mean that the “Liberal World Order” itself is in a state of crisis?

This would seem to be the real reason why Kissinger chose to send his views to the Wall Street Journal. He seems very concerned that at the end of his lengthy, adventurous and influential life it may have been all for naught. As stated above the plague is providing a massive counter argument to the necessity of Globalization, at least in the way that many of the Neo-Liberal school would see it.

If I were a betting man I would put $100 dollars on Kissinger writing this piece out of his own fears that his life was futile. His words are in a way like a self-penned eulogy and an appeal for others to save the order that he has built. Even after winning the Cold War, opening up China and becoming the posterboy for realpolitik diplomacy achieving more than 99.99% of the human population ever will, the facts still remain that…

The Enlightenment is on the way out, last believers of it are getting older and will be gone forever in two generations. Its values will become something of a legacy belief system like Protestant churches in an Atheistic EU.

The world is not going to be Globalized around a Washington DC “papacy” and it looks like the Multipolar vision will win out slowly over time.

Kissinger’s so-called “anachronisms” will continue to grow as the citizenry of the world sees that we can live in a world with borders and separate cultures not revolving around the United States. The Liberal World Order is being challenged and it is failing to properly answer for itself.

Kissinger was a key player in building this Liberal World Order so at the end of the road we should not be surprised that he is lamenting its seemingly inevitable loss. That is the real message he is trying to send as he marches closer to infinity every waking morning.

The furor over a new law passed by the US this week regarding Hong Kong and undermining Beijing’s authority underlines Kissinger’s warning.

If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished.

Speaking publicly in New York on November 14, the veteran diplomat urged the US and China to resolve their ongoing economic tensions cooperatively and mutually, adding: “It is no longer possible to think that one side can dominate the other.”

A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: “So those countries that used to be exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a rival.”

In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts that the US is somehow “exceptional”, a “uni-power” and the “indispensable nation”. This consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of “full-spectrum dominance”. Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos.

Kissinger’s frank assessment is a breath of fresh air amid the stale and impossibly arrogant self-regard held by too many American politicians who view their nation as an unparalleled power which brooks no other.

The seasoned statesman, who is 96-years-old and retains an admirable acumen for international politics, ended his remarks on an optimistic note by saying: “I am confident the leaders on both sides [US and China] will realize the future of the world depends on the two sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties.”

Aptly, Kissinger’s caution about danger of conflict was reiterated separately by veteran journalist John Pilger, who warned in an exclusive interview for Strategic Culture Foundation this week that, presumed “American exceptionalism is driving the world to war.”

Henry Kissinger is indeed a controversial figure. Many US scholars regard him as one of the most outstanding Secretaries of State during the post-Second World War period. He served in the Nixon and Ford administrations during the 1970s and went on to write tomes about geopolitics and international relations. Against that, his reputation was badly tarnished by the US war in Vietnam and the horrendous civilian death toll from relentless aerial bombing across Indochina, believed to have been countenanced by Kissinger.

Kissinger has also been accused of supporting the military coup in Chile in 1973 against elected President Allende, and for backing the dirty war by Argentina’s fascist generals during the 1970s against workers and leftists.

To his credit, however, Kissinger was and is a practitioner of “realpolitik” which views international relations through a pragmatic lens. Another realpolitik US state planner was the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who died in 2017 at the age of 89. Both advocated a policy of detente with the Soviet Union and China.

President Richard Nixon’s groundbreaking visit to China in 1972 is credited to the advice given by Kissinger who was then National Security Advisor to the White House.

That same year, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, also under the guidance of Kissinger on the American side. The US would later withdrew from the treaty in 2002, a move which has presaged a long deterioration in bilateral relations between the US and Russia to the present day.

For all their faults, at least people like Kissinger and Brzezinski were motivated by practical goal-orientated policy. They were willing to engage with adversaries to find some modus vivendi. Such an attitude is too often missing in recent Washington administrations which seem to be guided by an ideology of unipolar dominance by the US over the rest of the world. The current Washington consensus is one of hyper-ideological unrealism and hubris, which leads to a zero-sum mentality of antagonism towards China and Russia.

At times, President Donald Trump appears to subscribe to realpolitik pragmatism. At other times, he swings to the hyper-ideological mentality as expressed by his Vice President Mike Pence, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mike Esper. The latter has labeled China as the US’s “greatest long-term threat”.

This week President Trump signed into law “The Human Rights and Democracy Bill”, which will impose sanctions on China over alleged repression in its Hong Kong territory. Beijing has reacted furiously to the legislation, condemning it as a violation of its sovereignty.

This is exactly the kind of baleful move that Kissinger warned against in order to avoid a further poisoning in bilateral relations already tense from the past 16 months of US-China trade war.

One discerns the difference between Kissinger and more recent US politicians: the former has copious historical knowledge and appreciation of other cultures. His shrewd, wily, maybe even Machiavellian streak, informs Kissinger to acknowledge and respect other powers in a complex world. That is contrasted with the puritanical banality and ignorance manifest in Trump’s administration and in the Congress.

Greeting Kissinger last Friday, November 22, during a visit to Beijing, President Xi Jinping thanked him for his historic contribution in normalizing US-China relations during 1970s.

“At present, Sino-US relations are at a critical juncture facing some difficulties and challenges,” said Xi, calling on the two countries to deepen communication on strategic issues. It was an echo of the realpolitik views Kissinger had enunciated the week before.

While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: “The two sides should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world, respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction.”

Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US trade strife with China and Washington’s relentless demonization of Russia.

This “exceptional” ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and ultimately is a path to the abyss.

Henry Kissinger gets it. It’s a pity America’s present crop of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect.