Penned by the IAA Librarian.
The 29th of November marked a high-profile day for us here at the IAA UK headquarters. It was the day that Henry Kissinger died. You see, dear reader, Kissinger had been the subject of intensive research here at the IAA. Behind just about every political “conspiracy theory” there was always some sort of link—however direct or vague—to Kissinger. Even the mainstream normies, like atheist liberal Christopher Hitchens, knew that wherever there was a rotten pie, there was a Mr. Kissinger shaped finger-hole in its crust.
When Editor-in-Chief McNukes asked me, your trusty librarian, to write this article, I went about my usual research. But after a few weeks, something dawned on me. I had actually spent the last two years reading extensively about Kissinger, watching documentaries on him, listening to decades worth of his interviews, and I still felt as though I knew absolutely nothing about him. I almost went to Mr. McNukes, shamefully, cap in hand with my confession. But then it also dawned on me—the mysterious allure of Kissinger is what makes him so unique. I have hereafter concluded that there are, in fact, two Kissingers: the ‘Kissinger of Theory’ and the ‘Kissinger of Action’. But before we delve into these, what are some of the basic facts about the mere flesh of the man?
‘Heinz’ Henry Kissinger was born in Furth, Germany, on the 27th May 1923. Kissinger's early life was shaped by the political upheaval of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. This turbulence is worth bearing in mind, as political instability would go on to play a huge role in Kissinger's political thought. His family, being Jews, fled the persecution of the Nazi regime, emigrating to the USA in 1938, where they settled down in New York City. Kissinger struggled at first with the language barrier, but soon enough his academic ability shone through, impressing all of his high school teachers.
It was as a student at Harvard University that Kissinger would begin his lifelong obsession with internationalism and foreign affairs. His doctoral thesis was titled “A World Restored” (which would later be published as a book), which sought to understand how long-term geopolitical peace could be achieved through the lens of a post-Napoleon Europe. After graduating with his PhD, Kissinger would work as a consultant at several minor firms. But in 1969, having caught the eye of the political elite, President Nixon appointed him as National Security Advisor, giving Kissinger powerful influence over US foreign policy.
A few years later, in 1973, Kissinger would be appointed as Secretary of State under Nixon, crowning himself as arguably the most powerful figure (after the President) in the White House. From his position, Kissinger would seek to influence geopolitics, focusing especially on creating better diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union. Kissinger and Nixon were also responsible for the secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which resulted in Kissinger being accused of war crimes, even to this day.
By 1974, Kissinger had become so influential and important to the American elite that he remained as Secretary of State under Gerald Ford, following Nixon’s resignation. In 1975, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in negotiating the Vietnam War ceasefire. Then, for decades after he officially left the White House, Kissinger would remain perhaps the most influential figure within the modern elite, pulling strings on international projects with the Bilderberg Group, David Rockefeller, numerous international leaders, the WEF, and many more.
But how did all this come about? How did a German-Jewish refugee with bad English grow to be the lifeblood of the globalist elite? To understand this, we must first look at Henry Kissinger the political theorist.
The Kissinger of Theory
When coming to understand Kissinger’s actions, we must first understand his thought process. Kissinger wrote multiple books, including a ground-breaking PhD thesis, so he was primarily a man of thought. His actions, however bloody or destructive, were never accidental. But first, what was the philosophy of Henry Kissinger?
The heartbeat of Kissinger’s philosophy when it came to international relations was ‘realism’. Realism, as a philosophy, argues that states/governments/groups (in the context of foreign relations) are the primary actors in the international arena, and their decisions and behaviours are first and foremost guided by their own selfish desires and interests. In this sense, Kissinger was very openly influenced by philosophers like Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, viewing foreign relations through the lens of power dynamics, competition, and survival.
In the introduction to this piece, I also mentioned Kissinger’s family history of fleeing persecution. His childhood was a roller-coaster of danger and fear, and Henry clearly remembered this in his philosophy. Kissinger ultimately sought to balance power, arguing that international stability relied entirely on the concept that no single nation or alliance can become globally dominant. Much like many Hegelians, Kissinger viewed the history of international relations as being a struggle for balance. But why would Kissinger, someone at the heart of Uncle Sam’s military and governmental complex, pursue a foreign policy that seeks to actively weaken the US’s international authority?
Mainstream opinion loves to give the illusion that Uncle Sam has always only cared about its quasi-empire. But when we analyse Kissinger’s actions, this isn’t really true. One important example to analyse here is Kissinger’s role in Cold War diplomacy, where he sought to engage both the United States and the Soviet Union in a strategic balance to prevent either side from gaining unchecked influence. Again, we see notions of the Hegelian dialectic at work here. But more importantly, once we couple this diplomatic approach with Kissinger’s philosophy, we realise that Kissinger was certainly not patriotically defending the US virtues of ‘Liberalism and democracy’. Instead, what we see is Kissinger playing off Western social democracy and Fabianism vs Soviet Communism. The reason why the WEF pongs of Fabianism and social democratic utilitarianism is precisely because of this reason: it is a balanced synthesis of the Soviet might and muscle (one-world government, authoritarian dictatorship, etc.) and the democratic technocracy of Fabianism (bureaucracy, hyper-democracy, managerialism, etc.).
The way this balance is achieved is through statecraft and diplomacy. Yet again paradoxically, Kissinger believed that pure pragmatism brings about utopia (at least when it comes to foreign relations). Kissinger once said that “diplomacy is the art of restraining power”, and as a result of this philosophy he spent lots of time engaging with governments and leaders that were polar opposites to the politics and way of life Kissinger was supposedly sworn to protect. This is something Kissinger has in common with David Rockefeller, who alongside Kissinger, spent lots of time cosying up to the Communist Chinese and the deposed Iranian monarchy. Like a true Machiavellian, Kissinger cared not about principle or moral consistency, but the utilisation of power. In one breath he would condemn monarchy as a ‘disgrace to liberal democracy’, but in the next, he would do all he could to aid the discarded Iranian monarchy. Because of this, Kissinger believed in the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context of other nations in the practice of diplomacy. A sort of pragmatic moral relativism that could be used to wield power and influence, without being tied down by ideological constraints.
Kissinger’s philosophy might be viewed as something like a hybrid between Machiavellianism and Hegelianism. He believed in power and sought out the best techniques he could to wield it effectively and efficiently. But perhaps above all else, there was a dialectical undertone to his thought. Kissinger believed in synthesis and balance, and we see the rotten fruits of that in modern ‘liberalism’ today. He believed in a globalised world that was united only by its elites who, like him, could play the game of power and control. Yet still, they could leave people with the illusion of democracy and freedom. We now live in a world of Kissinger’s synthesis, crushed between the hammer of Western Fabianism and Soviet Communism. We are simultaneously free and enslaved, democratic and technocratic, capitalist and socialist, small state and big state, precisely because this was the paradox that the likes of Kissinger had designed for us.
The Kissinger of Action
Now that we have established Kissinger’s theory, let’s now look at his practice. Kissinger was a man of action, gaining a tough reputation as a political spearhead who achieved his goals in international affairs no matter what the cost. He was not afraid of military action, and was trigger-happy if he viewed the long-term outcomes as being potentially favourable for the goal of international power balances. The result of this attitude would be multiple war crimes for which he would never be tried.
The most famous war crime of Kissinger’s would be his and Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia during the Vietnam War—Operation Freedom Deal. As National Security Advisor, Kissinger was at the heart of planning and delivering this bombing operation, which aimed to disrupt North Vietnamese supply lines and sanctuaries in Cambodia, with the vision of choking off the Communist stronghold in the region. The secret bombings, which began in 1969 and ended in 1973, resulted in approximately 100,000 civilian casualties (including many children) and contributed massively to the destabilisation of Cambodia, helping to bring about the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
Kissinger also played his hand in the form of international coups. In 1973, Kissinger was heavily involved in toppling the elected government of Chile and its President Salvador Allende, who was committed to the Marxist cause. Kissinger and the US decided to back Augusto Pinochet in a coup to oust the Marxist President… and we all know how that ended up for Chile. Declassified transcripts of conversations between Kissinger and Nixon revealed a determination to oust Allende's government, with Kissinger saying that “we will not let Chile go down the drain”. Democracy overturned and all of that blood spilled, just so Kissinger could oust a Marxist President and protect capitalist interests at home and abroad.
In 1975 when Indonesia invaded East Timor, and inflicted upon its people a brutal and bloody regime, it was also reported that Henry Kissinger had encouraged the Indonesian President, Suharto, to go ahead with the invasion, stating US support for him and his nation. The US even gave weapons to Indonesia for the invasion. The reason, yet again, for Kissinger’s support was that East Timor had been sympathetic to communism, and its geopolitical location was of great interest to Kissinger and the US. Again, Kissinger was willing to use military might to balance power and create political vacuums.
In these actions we see the realist ‘realpolitik’ of Henry Kissinger. It was a pursuit really not of US interests, but rather of global stability. In a weird way, even though his ideology is all wrong, you can almost understand why Kissinger would pursue this. The problem, like we can see above, is that Kissinger’s realpolitik had no limits. He believed in achieving his goal (of global stability and balance) by any means possible, even bombing civilians and ousting the democratically elected leaders of foreign countries. But how did Kissinger sleep at night? What justified these actions in his own mind?
To understand this, we must couple Kissinger’s realist foreign policy with the usual liberal ‘utilitarianism’ that has now become so prevalent. For Kissinger, it is clear that he makes decisions with the long-term goal of producing stability for ‘as many people as possible’. When Kissinger decided to bomb Cambodia, he did not care so much about the loss of innocent life because he viewed the action as necessary for stability in the region for countless ‘future people’. Kissinger’s utilitarian obsession is what happens when morality is stripped of virtue. When human life becomes subject to the will of politicians and not the will of God, even murderous actions can be justified, so long as they stick to a utilitarian checklist of ‘long-term goods’ for future generations. Kissinger traded noble self-sacrifice in order to play the armchair general that sacrificed the lives of others. Whether he was actually successful in realising this utopian long-term vision, we have yet to see… It is true that to a large extent he achieved his goal of increasing globalisation, but regions like the Middle-East are still a long way away from having balanced power relations and peace.
What Next?
Henry Kissinger is now dead at 100. So what next?
Kissinger may be dead and gone, but his legacy in foreign policy will continue to loom over us for many years to come. For decades, we will see Kissinger’s realpolitik approach dominate foreign affairs, particularly when it comes to the US’s foreign policy. Whether it is Israel, China, Russia-Ukraine, Iran, or India, we will see the application of Kissinger’s realpolitik approach span across the years and across the mainstream political divides. Globalists will preach at us about their supposed morality, whilst simultaneously dipping their hands into the cookie jar alongside murderous leaders and terrorists. But in their own minds, having adopted Kissinger’s logic, this is moral. If their short-term brutality brings about the realization of a globalised, ‘balanced’, and well-managed utopia, then that is a sacrifice they are willing to make. But watch out… It is your life that they are willing to sacrifice, never their own…
Kissinger’s Machiavellian-Hegelianism may be the spirit that moves the geopolitical elites, and the specter that haunts us, the common people, for many generations to come.