Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 480 Location: the beano
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 10:16 pm Post subject: Kissingers Genocide Project in the UK
Whilst not all Housing Associations treat their tenants badly, many certainly do.
Swan Housing Association in particular, treats its tenants as if they are living in an open prison. Swan H.A have secured a deal with energy firm E.ON to supply all the electricity for a particular estate they manage. The flats are all electric, ie there is no gas supply. The tenants have NO choice over their electricity supplier. It is fixed with E.On. The electric bills are sky high, and often cost over £140 a month just for a single person. This exorbitant energy price is causing misery and poverty for many tenants on low incomes or benefits and Swan H.A do not care of course. Neither do they care about protecting vulnerable tenants suffering constant daily anti-social behaviour especially at night, causing many to feel like nervous wrecks.
Yet another example of how authorities in the UK are creating misery, poverty, and hastening peoples deaths on purpose, in line with Kissingers genocide policy.
We need decent affordable public housing, and a re-nationalised energy provision. _________________ "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king
As sensational as it sounds, there are credible accusations that Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, ordered the murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. Can such allegations about the urbane and world wise Kissinger be true?
Daniel Estulin, a reporter whose career is devoted to exposing the Bilderberg Group, related in his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, that John Coleman, a former intelligence operative, reported that the murder of Moro happened under orders of the Bilderberg Group, of which Henry Kissinger is a long standing member.
The justification for murder was that Moro opposed the Club of Rome’s prescriptions for population reduction and de-industrialization of Italy. Additionally, the Bildebergers needed an unstable Italy for their plans to destabilize the Middle East.The Club of Rome is a compatriot of the Bilderberg Group.
Moro and his bodyguards were kidnapped by the Red Brigade in Spring 1978 after which they were all brutally murdered.
During the trial in 1982, Gorrado Guerzoni, a friend of Moro’s, testified that Moro had been threatened by an RIIA (Royal Institute for International Affairs) official while he was still Secretary of State. Red Brigade members who were called to testify confirmed that senior US officials were involved in the plot to murder Moro. Moro’s widow also testified that her husband’s life had been threatened by a “high ranking United States political figure.”
The widow testified that the official told her husband, “Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it.” Guerzoni identified that the identity of the thug was Henry Kissinger.
The astonishing testimony was broadcast all over Europe but, as in the case of the explosive civil suit brought by the King family against Lloyd Jowers, the domestic American press was silent as a mouse. But we have explained how the CIA controls the American press so the result was not unusual.
We know from other research that Henry Kissinger is a darker figure than is commonly thought. We believe that the allegations of three witnesses substantiate the allegation that Kissinger ordered or relayed the orders to murder Moro. However, unlike the Warren Commission, we would be interested in evidence challenging the allegation.
For the third time, Luke Rudkowski confronts Henry Kissinger about his crimes against humanity and the Bilderberg group. Luke also asked him about the comment he is on record saying "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." This took place at the Intrepid Freedom Gala where Henry Kissinger was receiving a reward for "freedom and democracy."
Watch behind the scenes footage and see how this confrontation was able to take place:
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
You're the Doctor of my dreams
With your crinkly hair and your glassy stare
And your machiavellian schemes
I know they say that you are very vain
And short and fat and pushy but at least you're not insane
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
And wishing you were here
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
You're so chubby and so neat
With your funny clothes and your squishy nose
You're like a German parakeet
All right so people say that you don't care
But you've got nicer legs than Hitler
And bigger tits than Cher
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
And wishing you were here
Credits: Idle, Eric (Songwriter); EMI VIRGIN MUSIC, LTD (Publisher)
There is a 90-year-old “war criminal” helping to frame the foreign policy of the Obama administration. Perhaps a little surprising. Until, of course, you realise that the old boy in question is Henry Kissinger, and he has been advising the White House on a subject he knows well – the Russians.
That the Americans are actively co-operating with Putin on the Syrian crisis and the eradication of Assad’s chemical weapons is as startling a development as it is a welcome one, and Kissinger, we are told, has been guiding thinking behind the scenes. Asked recently in public whether America and Russia can enjoy a fresh bout of the sort of détente with Russia he famously pioneered in the early 1970s, Kissinger replied that “it will be extremely difficult, but if they can it will be beneficial to all. Russia will gain prestige, Obama will be vindicated and Assad will be removed, and that would be the best possible outcome.” Sharp as ever, then.
Although recent developments are nowhere on the scale of the strategic arms limitations talks and treaties between the US and the Soviet Union driven by Kissinger four decades ago – the first thawing in the Cold War and the first meaningful limits placed on the nuclear arms race – it is a hopeful development. It is also one that suggests that the two superpowers are relearning the merits of another doctrine Kissinger was associated with – “realpolitik”, the recognition that where raw national interests can be made to converge through diplomacy, then lasting good can emerge.
Its apogee was the Paris Peace Accord of 1973. This, formally, ended the Vietnam War, which President Nixon and Kissinger had concluded was unwinnable. Kissinger achieved the signal honour of jointly gaining the Nobel Peace Prize for that achievement. His North Korean counterpart, Le Duc Tho, declined the award, indicating that the accords didn’t represent real peace at all – an accurate view. The American humourist Tom Lehrer quipped that Kissinger’s award represented the “death of satire”. But it did allow the US to start to extricate itself from its agony.
It had also been Kissinger who paved the way for Nixon’s visit to China in 1972. America had treated Beijing as a pariah ever since the Communists won power in 1949; now Nixon opened up diplomatic channels and laid the foundations for China to rejoin the world community, with all the momentous consequences we see all around us today.
For Kissinger’s critics, though, the Kissinger realpolitik has yielded much that was little short of evil. Christopher Hitchens, in 2001, claimed to have amassed sufficient evidence to secure prosecutions for “war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offences against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture”. This is somewhat more than hyperbole; the experience of General Pinochet has made the travels of Dr Kissinger a little more risky.
The charge sheet is extremely long, even considering the eight eventful years Kissinger was running US foreign policy: he and the CIA helped orchestrate the coup against the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, and his murder in 1973; he and Nixon invaded neutral Cambodia in 1970; they indiscriminately bombed civilians in that long war; connived in the Indonesians’ brutal repression in East Timor; left the Kurds to their fate at the hands of Saddam as early as 1972; the list goes on. “War criminal” and Nobel Peace Prize holder; the unique genius of Henry Kissinger.
Among the American political establishment, there is no doubt, he is held in awe, reverence even. His 90th birthday celebrations earlier this year were a glittering affair, attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, James Baker, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Susan Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Bloomberg, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, David Petraeus, Barbara Walters, Wendi Deng, plus Tina Brown and Harold Evans. Senator McCain summed it up: “His legacy is the stewardship of our nation in the most difficult of times and his continued important voice on national security policies. He is a man who has a unique place in the world. I know of no individual who is more respected in the world than Henry Kissinger.”
Kissinger is a sort of talisman, not for the sort of foreign policy America would like to have, and sometimes attempts – the idealism of a Woodrow Wilson or a Jimmy Carter – but the kind that they believe America has to have, hard-headed and realistic. Kissinger’s doctoral thesis – “Peace, Legitimacy and the Equilibrium” – was on the policies of Metternich and Castlereagh. These two practised great-power politics in a way Kissinger was to emulate – engagement with great powers of the time to win a stable balance of power. Then, Europe; in Henry’s time, the world. Kissinger was supremely good at that; subsequent holders of the office have been less successful.
Kissinger also has an abiding appeal because he is so emblematic of the American dream. This is not so much despite his German-Jewish background, but because of it. He was born Heinz Alfred Kissinger in Bavaria in 1923, about 100 miles from where an upstart Adolf Hitler was attempting his “beer-hall putsch”. According to the US constitution, Henry could never have been President, but he could still do everything but. His family fled Nazi persecution in 1938 – as a child in New York he would cross the street if he saw a group of kids coming towards him, having been beaten up so many times back home.
The family settled in New York, and he lived out the American dream. “When you think of my life, who could have possibly have imagined that I’d wind up as Secretary of State of the greatest country in the world?” he once said. “I mean, when I couldn’t even go to German schools… When I think I was a delivery boy in New York.” That thick Germanic accent, in a voice so earthy you could grow spuds in it, is a reminder of the dream. The only trace of his Bavarian origins, bar the accent, is a lifelong affection for the Fürth football team, from his hometown.
Young Henry – he’d dropped the “Heinz” – soon began to shine academically; his progress to Harvard interrupted by wartime service: He spent 1945 hunting down members of the Gestapo. By the 1950s he had begun his long march into the upper echelons of academia.
Despite his long intimate association with Richard Nixon, Kissinger in fact goes back so far as to have been a consultant to the National Security Council under President Kennedy, though he did not last long in post after he said “I wouldn’t recognise the Baluchistan problem if it hit me in the face” during an official visit to Pakistan. (Oddly, for such a diplomat, Kissinger cannot resist himself; Bangladesh dismissed as a “basket case”, and “it’s a pity they can’t both lose” about the Iran-Iraq war).
Henry and Dick first met at an elegant New York cocktail party hosted by Clare Boothe Luce, playwright, politician and one-time US ambassador to Italy, in 1967, at her home on Fifth Avenue. Nixon had been impressed by Kissinger’s analysis of superpower politics, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, and told him so. Kissinger, was not so impressed with Nixon: “not fit to be president”. Nonetheless, Kissinger was chosen to run Nixon’s foreign policy, and so was a remarkable partnership formed; it ended with Nixon’s resignation in 1974. The night before Nixon quit, Kissinger joined him in a tearful session; “Henry,” he said, “you are not a very orthodox Jew, and I am not an orthodox Quaker, but we need to pray.”
With a reputation as a ladies’ man, Kissinger has been married twice. His first marriage, to Ann Fleischer, was stormy, and ended in divorce, after 15 years, in 1964 (his two children are from that union). Ten years later his aphrodisiacs worked on the striking Nancy, with whom he is still together. In between there were reportedly many girlfriends.
According to some this “swinger” image was a conscious effort to humanise him and secure pictures in the society gossip columns. Kissinger said “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac… They are women attracted only to my power. But what happens when my power is gone? They’re not going to sit around playing chess with me.” Oddly, they still are, and he is still a player in the great game.
A Life In Brief
Born: Heinz Alfred Kissinger, May 21 1923, Fürth, Bavaria, Germany.
Family: Son of a schoolteacher and a homemaker. Kissinger has one younger brother, Walter. He first married Ann Fleischer. They divorced in 1964. The couple had two children, Elizabeth and David. He is now married to Nancy Maginnes.
Education: City College of New York and Harvard University (MA & PhD).
Career: After returning to the US from his Second World War deployment, Kissinger enrolled into Harvard, planning to become an academic. He became a faculty member in the Department of Government, receiving tenure in 1959. His 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy became a landmark text book. He went on to serve as the National Security Adviser in the Nixon administration. In 1973, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his Vietnam War ceasefire agreement with Le Duc Tho. He was appointed chair of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America and then of the President’s Foreign Intelligence under Reagan and Bush. His memoirs have been highly regarded, with the first of the trilogy, The White House Years, winning the National Book Award for History in 1980. He also written over 13 books on foreign policy.
He says: “We can’t be the world’s policeman but we can be the world’s last resort.”
Many papers picked up La Stampa's allegation, which was vigourously denied by the Vatican, that 'Pope Benedict XVI has invited Henry Kissinger the 83-year-old former adviser to Richard Nixon to be a political consultant and Kissinger has accepted..'; but there is no rebuttal that the Pope gave him a private audience.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the report was true, but that as soon as it became known, it was denied.
After all, the Vatican just 'adores' War Criminals; look at it's welcome of Tony Bliar; it's failure to censure Mussolini or Hitler; Pinochet's private priest. Cesspits of the world, Unite!
(Oh, I forgot Bill Casey's great friendship with the Vatican). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
HILLARY CLINTON PRAISES HENRY KISSINGER'S FORTHCOMING BOOK:
'BRINGING WORLD ORDER FROM WORLD CHAOS'
http://t.co/tCeBQdrAYt
Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote:
Postmodern analysis from ol' Henry's gofers
The Council on Foreign Relations / Economist 'contextualisation' of ISIS
Rolled out by Murdoch
For subscribers only of course...
So this is the way the world ends, in your deluded world where money buys respectability, eh Henry?
As jihadist lawlessness blazes from central Africa to the Middle East, the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia is a last reminder of an order in which national interest trumped ideology. Henry Kissinger explores what the West must do to put out the fires
Henry Kissinger Published: 30 August 2014
Comment (0) Print
Syria presents the West with a grave dilemma over whom to back. Although the Assad regime has attacked its own citizens with airstrikes on cities including Aleppo, lending support to opposition forces might ultimately prove even more dangerous Photograph: Khaled Khatib
In the spring of 1947 Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian watchmaker, schoolteacher and widely read self-taught religious activist, addressed a critique of Egyptian institutions to King Farouk. It offered an Islamic alternative to the secular state.
In studiedly polite yet sweeping language al-Banna outlined the principles and aspirations of the Egyptian Society of Muslim Brothers (known colloquially as the Muslim Brotherhood), the organisation he had founded in 1928 to combat what he saw as the degrading effects of foreign influence and secular ways of life.
The West, al-Banna asserted, “which was brilliant by virtue of its scientific perfection for a long time . . . is now bankrupt and in decline. Its foundations are crumbling and its institutions and guiding principles are falling apart.” Though he did not use the terms, al-Banna was arguing that what is known as the “Westphalian” world order had lost both its legitimacy and its power.
No truly global.....
_________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
By Jessica Puckett
Sep 28, 2014 3:15pm
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supports Bill O’Reilly’s idea of a global anti-terrorism mercenary force, the Fox News host told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
“I was with Henry Kissinger last night,” O’Reilly said Sunday on “This Week.” “And he told me my idea of a worldwide anti-terror force paid for by the coalition of nations under the supervision of Congress — Kissinger has endorsed that for years.”
“Bill O’Reilly and Henry Kissinger on a mercenary force?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“Simpatico,” O’Reilly said. He also predicted that a mercenary force would eventually happen, though not under President Obama.
ABC News has reached out to Kissinger for comment.
O’Reilly also said he believes the subject his new book, Gen. George Patton, would handle terrorist threats differently than President Obama if he had the chance.
“If George Patton were alive today, he would be saying to President Obama, ‘Give me the Third. I’ll go into Syria, and I’ll wipe ‘em all out,’” O’Reilly said.
The star of Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor” also said he believes Patton’s sudden death was an assassination by the Soviets, possibly assisted by the American OSS — the predecessor to the CIA. OSS did, as O’Reilly notes, cooperate with Soviet intelligence during the Second World War. This theory is the topic of O’Reilly’s book, “Killing Patton.”
“I think Stalin killed him,” O’Reilly told Stephanopoulos. “Patton was going to go back to the United States and condemn Stalin and the Soviet Union…and Stalin wanted him dead, and I think Stalin got him dead.”
Patton’s death is widely believed to have resulted from injuries from a car accident that happened while he was on a hunting trip in Mannheim, Germany. But O’Reilly in “Killing Patton” notes that some U.S. sources had pointed to a Soviet plot to kill the general. Immediately after the accident, despite having suffered quadriplegia, the general was improving, and doctors expected that he would survive.
O’Reilly told Stephanopoulos that the general was laughing with hospital nurses and drinking cognac and then died suddenly. He said that under Stalin, the Soviet Union had been hard at work on untraceable poisons.
Medical records obtained by ABC News — records also cited in “Killing Patton” — show that the afternoon of his death, the general “told nurse several times that he was going to die.” His doctors at the time found “Pulmonary embol[ism] and Right Heart Failure.”
Col. Thomas Frank, an Army historian and Chief of the Department of Medicine at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, told ABC News that the general’s death is consistent with pulmonary embolism following the paralysis caused by the car accident.
Patton’s death remains the subject of debate, in part because Patton’s wife requested that no autopsy be performed, and at least some of the records of subsequent investigations into his death have disappeared.
“What are the odds of that happening to a four-star general?” O’Reilly asked.
Stephanopoulos and O’Reilly also discussed whether Patton could have been poisoned with guards outside his hospital room 24/7; O’Reilly maintained that the guards were there primarily to fend off reporters.
O’Reilly is hoping that his book will provoke the Army to reopen the investigation into the death of one of America’s greatest military heroes, and said that modern science could determine whether his theory is right or wrong.
“Stalin had a factory that produced traceless poisons back then,” he said. “But now, with our advanced technology, we could see if there was something in Patton’s remains.”
Conspiracy theories aside, O’Reilly says there is no one like Patton today.
“General Patton interested me because he was the last no-spin general,” O’Reilly said. “[And it] got him killed.” _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:22 pm Post subject:
Got a lovely reply on email...
WAR criminal & accused child abuser Kissinger & Murdoch/O'Reilly want their own goon squad? How about that. Maybe elements of Bush's privatized Praetorian Guard (Blackwater, Xe, now Academi) can be persuaded to form the core of the group.
As for the assassination of Patton, just as Kennedy, it's the WINNERS that get to write the history.
Our job as truth seekers, researchers and investigators is to make sure that the future turns a duplicitous, treacherous and predatory system that prefers win-lose into a system that mirrors God's kingdom and promotes a win-win setup.
That would be God's Ideal, and my preference too.
May God assist in making it so.
JO
TonyGosling wrote:
Henry's little plan going very well here in the UK
Five million Brits struggle to afford food
Mon May 6, 2013 10:15AM GMT
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/06/302087/5m-brits-struggle-to-a fford-food/
One in five British families have been forced to borrow money or use savings to pay for food in April, British consumer group Which? says.
According to the group, around five million British families needed to use credit cards or savings to cover their food costs with 80 percent of them saying they are worried about food prices.
The study by Which? found that 55 percent of such families plan to reduce spending on food in the coming months while others feel they cannot cut back any further as they are already at the end of their rope.
The consumer group added that 31 percent, mainly women aged between 30 to 49 years old, had even cut back into spending on essentials last month.
The group also said that most of those struggling to feed their families are aged 30-49 with children with almost half of such families earning £21,000 or lower annually.
Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said in reaction to the findings that they were shocking adding “I didn't realize so many people can't afford to cover their monthly food bill”.
As a 21-year-old Nazi hunter in the final months of the war, the US statesman wrote letters to his German parents that reveal a startling mix of ruthlessness and compassion. In his new biography the historian Niall Ferguson traces the harrowing experiences that shaped the great peacemaker
Niall Ferguson Published: 20 September 2015
The ruined town of Bensheim, where Kissinger, who had quickly been made a ‘special agent’, was ordered to weed out committed Nazis
The 84th Infantry Division of the US army crossed the English Channel from Southampton on November 1 and 2, 1944, five months after D-Day. As they clambered from the landing craft at Omaha Beach, the young Americans looked with fascination at the relics of the battle for Normandy.
Within three weeks they had caught up with the advancing allied forces on the Dutch-German border. On November 25, just over six years since his family had fled Nazi persecution, a 21-year-old Henry Kissinger found himself once again on German soil.
It felt like a moment of triumph. Late that night Kissinger wrote a hasty but exultant note to his parents in New York: “It is very late and I haven’t much time, but I must write a letter, just so that I can affix to it the legend ‘Somewhere in Germany’.
The sparring during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over whether Henry Kissinger is an elder statesman or a pariah has laid bare a major foreign policy divide within the Democratic Party.
Clinton and Sanders stand on opposite sides of that divide. One represents the hawkish Washington foreign policy establishment, which reveres and in some cases actually works for Kissinger. The other represents the marginalized non-interventionists, who can’t possibly forgive someone with the blood of millions of brown people on his hands.
Kissinger is an amazing and appropriate lens through which to see what’s at stake in the choice between Clinton and Sanders. But that only works, of course, if you understand who Kissinger is which surely many of today’s voters don’t.
Some may only dimly recall that Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the Vietnam War (comedian Tom Lehrer famously said the award made political satire obsolete), and that he played a central role in President Nixon’s opening of relations with China.
But Kissinger is reviled by many left-leaning observers of foreign policy. They consider him an amoral egotist who enabled dictators, extended the Vietnam War, laid the path to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, stage-managed a genocide in East Timor, overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government in Chile, and encouraged Nixon to wiretap his political adversaries.
First, let’s review what happened at the debate. Here’s the video, followed by the transcript:
SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the last debate and I believe in her book very good book, by the way in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.
(APPLAUSE)
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is.
SANDERS: Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger. That’s for sure.
CLINTON: That’s fine. That’s fine.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
So if we want to pick and choose and I certainly do people I listen to, people I don’t listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it’s a big, complicated world out there.
SANDERS: It is.
CLINTON: And, yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: I find I mean, it’s just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That’s what he talked about, the great threat of China.
And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you’re right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.
(APPLAUSE)
And now, some background about Kissinger.
Greg Grandin, a history professor at New York University, just published a timely book called Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman. In an article in The Nation last week, “Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace,” he offered this pithy summary:
Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the U.S.’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it inKissinger’s Shadow!
A full tally hasn’t been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger’s actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. Pull but one string from the current tangle of today’s multiple foreign policy crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between 1968 and 1977. Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That’s Kissinger. Blowback from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies? Again, Kissinger. An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check, Kissinger. Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger. The impasse in Israel-Palestine? Kissinger. Radicalization of Iran? “An act of folly” was how veteran diplomat George Ball described Kissinger’s relationship to the Shah. Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.
The late essayist Christopher Hitchins examined Kissinger’s war crimes in his 2001 book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. He listed the key elements of his case:
1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.
2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.
3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation Chile with which the United States was not at war.
4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.
5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor
6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C.
Kissinger’s role in the genocide that took place in East Timor is less well-known than the one he enabled in Indochina. Author Charles Glass wrote about that episode in 2011:
On December 6, 1975, Kissinger and Gerald Ford met President Suharto in Indonesia and promised to increase arms supplies to sustain Indonesian suppression of the former Portuguese colony. Kissinger, quoted verbatim in U.S. Embassy cables of that war council, insisted that American weapons for the Indonesian Army’s invasion could be finessed: “It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self-defense or is a foreign operation.”
Since no one in East Timor had attacked or intended to attack Indonesia, Suharto could hardly plead self-defense. But Kissinger would make the case for him. All he asked was that Suharto delay the invasion a few hours until he and Ford had left Jakarta. He presumably relied on the American public’s inability to connect the Jakarta conference with the invasion so long as he and Ford were back in Washington when the killing began. As far as the American media went, he was right. The Indonesian Army invaded on the anniversary of a previous day of infamy, December 7, massacring about a third of the population. The press, apart from five Australian journalists whom the Indonesian Army slaughtered, ignored the invasion and subsequent occupation. Well done, Henry.
By the time Suharto was overthrown in 1998, Kissinger had gone private charging vast fees to advise people like Suharto on methods for marketing their crimes. He also kept posing as an elder statesman whose views were sought (and often paid for) by a media that enabled his penchant for self-publicity. He was a patriot whose love of country stopped short of taking part in the 9/11 Commission if it meant disclosing how much the Saudi royal family paid him for his counsel.
The continuing role Kissinger plays in modern foreign policy is perfectly illustrated by Hillary Clinton, his longtime fan and friend. Just recently, in November, she reviewed Kissinger’s latest book, World Order, for theWashington Post. There’s a summary of that here.
Clinton called it “vintage Kissinger, with his singular combination of breadth and acuity along with his knack for connecting headlines to trend lines.” She wrote that “his analysis, despite some differences over specific policies, largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration’s effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century.”
And she said he came off as “surprisingly idealistic. Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the source of legitimacy, not governments alone.”
A key passage:
Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.
The difference between the two views of Kissinger is not simply of academic or historical interest. How a presidential candidate feels about him is a clear sign of her or his worldview and indicates the kind of decisions she or he will make in office – and, perhaps even more importantly, suggests the kind of staffers she or he will appoint to key positions of authority in areas of diplomacy, defense, national security, and intelligence.
Sanders has not made clear who he is turning to for foreign policy advice, if anyone. (What’s your dream foreign policy team? Email me atfroomkin@theintercept.com.)
But Clinton is clearly picking from the usual suspects the “securocrats in waiting” who make up the Washington, D.C., foreign policy establishment.
They work at places like Albright Stonebridge, the powerhouse global consulting firm led by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, a staunch Clinton backer. They work at places like Beacon Global Strategies, which is providing high-profile foreign policy guidance to Clinton as well as to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. And they work at places like Kissinger Associates. In fact, Bob Hormats, who was a Goldman Sachs vice chairman before serving as Clinton’s undersecretary of state, is now advising Clinton’s campaign even while serving as the vice chairman of Kissinger Associates.
Despite the wildly bellicose and human rights-averse rhetoric from the leading Republican presidential candidates, they’re picking from essentially the same pool as well.
A few weeks ago, I talked to Chas Freeman, the former diplomat I once called a “one-man destroyer of groupthink,” whose non-interventionism and even-handed approach to the Middle East was so un-Kissingeresque that his surprising appointment to President Obama’s National Intelligence Council in 2009 lasted all of a few days.
He marveled at the lack of any “honest brokers” in the D.C. foreign policy establishment. “We have a foreign policy elite in this country that’s off its meds, basically,” he said.
“There’s no debate because everybody’s interventionist, everybody’s militaristic.” They all are pretty much in the thrall of neoconservatism, he said. You can see them “speckled all over the Republican side” and “also in the Clinton group.”
Henry Kissinger is thus a litmus test for foreign policy. But don’t count on the mainstream media to help you understand that.
Imagine two types of people: those who would schmooze with Kissinger at a cocktail party, and those who would spit in his eye. The elite Washington media is almost without exception in that first category. In fact, they’d probably have anyone who spit in Kissinger’s eye arrested.
Since they only see one side, they don’t want to get into it. And there was a little indicator at Thursday night’s debate, hosted by PBS, of just how eagerly the elite political media welcomes an honest exploration of the subject.
Just as Sanders raised the issue of Kissinger’s legacy in Vietnam, either Gwen Ifill or Judy Woodruff both of whom are very conventional, establishment, Washington cocktail-party celebrities was caught audibly muttering, “Oh, God.”
Top photo: Hillary Clinton smiles as Henry Kissinger presents her with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington in May 2013.
Soros globalist wing of Wall St and expansionist US/NATO foreign policy are at an impasse.
Bankrupt and militarily impotent they are relying on their protectorate the world over to do their bidding.
So Kissinger must be representing the Trump wing of the ruling class now, not Bush if what is written below is real...
Henry Kissinger came to Moscow to discuss new financial system with Putin. Russia as global player
On February 3, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a meeting with Henry Kissinger, a US diplomat, former national security advisor and US Secretary of State. February 12, 2016 is said to be the date for an epoch-making meeting between the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Krill and the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis.
Pravda.Ru talked about the historical significance of these two fateful meetings to member of the advisory board of the Center for Strategic Environment, member of the Russian-Iranian Council for Public Affairs, Alexander Sobyanin.
"What was the point of Henry Kissinger's visit to Moscow? Rumor has it that the meeting was devoted to global strategic objectives."
"Of course, it was an important visit because Kissinger is an outstanding figure in the American politics. The Bushes come and go, but people like Henry Kissinger stay. Such visits never happen for personal reasons. Such evens always happen for the sake of global and complicated issues, such as issues of Russian-American actions in the world, wars, global markets and revolutions. As a rule, the sides clearly describe their intentions and positions during such meetings - they do not negotiate."
"What could Henry Kissinger discuss with President Putin?"
"Most likely, it was the meeting about the Middle East. Russia, oil prices and Ukraine - these questions do not require Kissinger's presence in Moscow. In the Middle East, we can now eyewitness the establishment of the balance of all global forces.
"Putin and Kissinger met before in 2013. Kissinger remains in a very good shape intellectually. In his interviews, he always appears very reasonable and thoughtful. Henry Kissinger represents a certain group of the US political elite that includes the Bush clan. The world is rapidly moving towards the destruction of the current financial system. In these circumstances, those who own budgets of entire nations are looking for opportunities to save their money so that this money works when the current financial system disappears and a new financial system emerges. It should be understood that while the whole world and, unfortunately, Russia is involved in conflicts and political games, the Americans believe that it is them who set the rules of these games. They are also elaborating the rules for the time when the global domination of the US dollar ends.
"The US is now trying to change the world to the post-dollar world. Obviously, the world will no longer be global. With Putin, the Americans intend to establish tandem cooperation, despite the extremely aggressive political rhetoric against Russia. The US and Russia still cooperate on vital issues in most sensitive areas, including war, oil, investment, technology, etc. A variety of economic associations are being created now, and the Americans want to be leaders everywhere: BRICS, the Transatlantic Partnership, etc. They are working on all this very actively.
"In this battle, due to the fact that the US debt is snowballing, rescuing the US economy is impossible even if the whole Middle East is set on fire, we can see the two clans fighting to death - the Bushes and the Clintons. In this sense, the upcoming elections in the US will probably be the last, because America may change to become an absolutely different nation. In this battle, Madame Clinton is stronger.
"Henry Kissinger, who is currently in the Bush clan, came to Moscow to see what Russia finds more attractive - Clinton's new global world order, or a more nationally-oriented position of the Bush clan. Clearly, the new world order according to the Clintons and all sorts of societies such as the Soros Foundation are less acceptable for Russia. Henry Kissinger came to Russia at the time of the brutal struggle between two groups of bankers. The loser will have to deal with tens of trillions of dollars of US debt. While America is sinking to the bottom with its overwhelming debt, it needs to destroy someone inside to make them responsible for all those debts.
"Russia is a small, but an extremely important player on the world stage. We have not participated and will never participate in their domestic events, but it was Russia that became a key factor for the appearance of the United States and the Federal Reserve.
"Now is the epochal moment when Russia can determine the fate of the United States. It is only the US elite who can talk about it, and Henry Kissinger is a person, who represents the US elite.
"The Bush clan needs Russia's money, Russia's armed forces, Russia's political support to defeat the Clintons to subsequently destroy the entire group of bankers and making them responsible for the US national debt. For their part, they are ready to give Russia a weighty support in different areas."
"There is an opinion that Henry Kissinger came to support Putin after Owen's report. Some say that Kissinger is not the ruler of history, but rather a negotiator."
"I have read such opinions too. Henry Kissinger has a right to negotiate, to make decisions on the spot, but he is not a sherpa. Actually, what does it mean - "to support Putin?" Is Putin weak or what? In Russia, there is no anti-Putin sentiment among the elite, the people and the security forces. Why support the one who has all types of support already? Look at what happened after Putin's Munich speech. Does a person, who delivers a speech like that need media or some other form of support?"
"On February 12, 2016 the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill is to meet Pope Francis in Cuba. This is an unprecedented event. Why do top players - the United States, the Vatican, Germany, France - suddenly begin to seek mutual understanding with Russia?"
"This is definitely a landmark event that has its nuances, such as, for example, the fact that the Vatican Bank suffered from the attack of US banks. The Catholic financial system needs to ensure its security, and Russia can help them. The most important thing in the forthcoming meeting in Cuba is the meeting between the two Churches. The leaders of the Churches will speak about the need to renounce proselytism, ecumenism for the sake of understanding and union against the backdrop of two major threats.
"It goes about the loss of religious meaning in human life and aggressive movements in Islam. The most important goal is to bring faith back to people's lives. In recent history, there was a precedent, when in 2010, a delegation of the Roman Catholic Church, on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, gifted relics of St. Andrew to the Metropolitan District of the Russian Orthodox Church in Kazakhstan."
- See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/12-02-2016/133329-kissinge r_putin-0/#sthash.RwMdnyii.dpuf
Soros globalist wing of Wall St and expansionist US/NATO foreign policy are at an impasse.
Bankrupt and militarily impotent they are relying on their protectorate the world over to do their bidding.
So Kissinger must be representing the Trump wing of the ruling class now, not Bush if what is written below is real...
Henry Kissinger came to Moscow to discuss new financial system with Putin. Russia as global player
On February 3, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a meeting with Henry Kissinger, a US diplomat, former national security advisor and US Secretary of State. February 12, 2016 is said to be the date for an epoch-making meeting between the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Krill and the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis...
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:49 am Post subject:
Subject: Why didn't Chilcot interview Henry Kissinger about his illegal invasion of Iraq?
Please forward to media, anti-war campaigning & legal contacts
Ladies and gentlemen,
As if we needed a reminder of what Bush and Blair immense crimes in beginning the Balkanisation of the Middle East, Sunday's Baghdad bomb killed 250 innocent people.
Iraq sees worst bombing since invasion with 250 deaths
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36720720
So who was behnd it? The evidence was there in the public domain in 2002, a year before Bush and Blair invaded Iraq.
Bilderberg Plotting To Bushwhack Iraq
The super-secret Bilderberg gang wants a new war to generate immense profits and spend the world out of recession. And they just might get it.
Exclusive to American Free Press - By James P. Tucker Jr. - 7th April 2002
http://www.bilderberg.org/2002.htm#Bushwhack http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg_plotting_to_bushwack_iraq.html
...public outrage over the 9-11 attacks and the new “war on terrorism” make a new war on Iraq, with the intent of destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein and seizing Iraqi oil, politically palatable to Americans. If Americans back a new war, they reason, a reluctant Europe will be dragged along.
Bilderberg’s hand was first tipped March 24 when Jim Hoagland, a Bilderberg regular, called for and predicted all-out war on Iraq in a commentary in The Washington Post. Every Post publisher—now it is Donald Graham—has at tended these secret meetings since the elite first called itself Bilderberg in 1954. Hoagland is also a Bilderberg regular....
I and others have repeated it often enough on global satellite TV interviews
But somehow John Chilcot missed the fact that Henry Kissinger was advocating for the invasion of Iraq at the Chantilly Bilderberg conference in May 2002, almost a year before the Invasion
Like he forgot to interview first sea lord at the time Admiral Lord West
Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld were all at the Chantilly Bilderberg meeting in 2002, sitting down with Jean-Louis Gergorin, Executive Vice President for Strategic Coordination for Europe's biggest arms manufacturer EADS, former CIA director John Deutch and others.
http://www.bilderberg.org/2002.htm#07Jun02
Yet not a single person on that list of 120 was ever interviewed by John Chilcot. If Nuremberg were any measure of justice today quite clearly George Bush and Tony Blair should be in jail by now, but what about those who organised, financed and profited from the illegal invasion of Iraq which has left around a million innocent people dead?
So what was the strategy behind Bush and Blair's crime?
The 1982 Yinon plan was drawn up with a view to break Iraq, Syria and the wider region up into failed states and ensure Israeli regional superiority
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
The Infamous "Oded Yinon Plan". Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-m iddle-east/5324815
As for the Vatican and the Nazis setting Bilderberg up in the first place, and thoughts about the next war crimes they are planning, do please see my series of interviews recorded in Dresden last month
Bilderberg exposed in Dresden 6. Anglo-American Tyranny, Manfred Petritsch: Alles Schall und Rauch
When Germans say Nazis weren't defeated but built aggressive post-war financial empire it's time to pay attention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pka6P6JE3nk
The lies are not so surprising after those of the 9/11 attacks the previous year (caution, some swearing)
By Geoff Earle, Deputy U.s. Political Editor For Mailonline.com 15:02, 06 Dec 2016, updated 18:14, 06 Dec 2016
Henry Kissinger helped craft the U.S. 'One China' policy with the People's Republic of China during the Nixon and Ford administrations
He met with President-elect Donald Trump during and after the campaign
On Friday, Kissinger met with Chinese President Xi Jinpeng in Beijing
Trump set off a diplomatic imbroglio when his transition announced that he had spoken by phone with the leader of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen
Kissinger and Trump are to meet at Trump Tower today
President-elect Donald Trump is set to meet with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped craft the ambiguous U.S. 'One China' policy – after Trump set off a diplomatic storm by holding a phone call with the head of Taiwan.
The two men are set to meet today at Trump Tower, Trump's transition confirmed Monday.
Kissinger met with Chinese President Xi Jinpeng in Beijing on Friday, in a trip taken in some circles as an effort to reassure China, after a campaign where Trump's blistering rhetoric about the country's trade and currency policies were a constant feature.
Trump and Kissinger met previously during the election campaign, speaking in May at Kissinger's home. They also met in November soon after Trump won the election.
Trump ignored a question about the meeting during brief comments to reporters on Tuesday.
President-elect Donald Trump is set to meet with former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, pictured here at 10 Downing Street, on Tuesday
President-elect Donald Trump is set to meet with former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, pictured here at 10 Downing Street, on Tuesday
'President-elect Trump and Dr. Kissinger have known each other for years and had a great meeting,' Trump's transition said at the time. 'They discussed China, Russia, Iran, the EU and other events and issues around the world.'
Trump on Friday spoke with Taiwanese President Tsai lng-wen, setting off a diplomatic firestorm in the U.S., even as China's initial reaction was muted.
The Chinese have reacted with outrage in the past at efforts to provide additional recognition for the government in Taiwan, which China regards as a breakaway part of its historic territory.
The Trump transition said the call was a 'courtesy,' and Trump tweeted afterward that it was Tsai who had called him.
The Washington Post reported that the call wasn't an early stumble by a foreign policy novice, but rather had been something that was considered for weeks in advance by advisors.
DON'T PANIC: Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger (L) meets China's President Xi Jinping at the Great Halll of the People on December 2 in Beijing
DON'T PANIC: Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger (L) meets China's President Xi Jinping at the Great Halll of the People on December 2 in Beijing
Kissinger is coming to Trump Tower just days after President-elect Trump's call to the leader of Taiwan
Kissinger is coming to Trump Tower just days after President-elect Trump's call to the leader of Taiwan
Trump spoke by phone Friday with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen
Trump spoke by phone Friday with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen
Kissinger helped craft the delicate U.S. policy toward China in the 1970s under Presidents Nixon and Ford
Kissinger helped craft the delicate U.S. policy toward China in the 1970s under Presidents Nixon and Ford
The White House sought to reassure China following Trump's call, the White House said Monday.
White House National Security officials had been in contact two times over the weekend with officials in Beijing, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, to reassure them that the 'One China' policy remains intact.
The calls were to 'reiterate and clarify the continued commitment of the United States to our longstanding China policy,' Earnest said.
'The Chinese government in Beijing placed an enormous priority on this situation, and it's a sensitive matter,' Earnest said of the phone call on Monday. 'Some of the progress that we have made in our relationship with China could be undermined by this issue flaring up.'
'One phone call does not mean a policy shift,' Tsai told USA TODAY in comments reported Monday. 'We all see the value of stability in the region.'
The call was the first from a U.S. president or president-elect with a Taiwanese president since the onset of the 'One China' policy after President Jimmy Carter switched U.S. recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979.
Trump met Monday with Ronald Reagan's national security advisor, Robert Carl 'Bud' McFarlane.
Vice president-elect Mike Pence said Sunday that the incident was overblown.
'She reached out to the president-elect and he took the call from the democratically elected leader of Taiwan,' he said on Meet The Press. 'I think most Americans, and frankly most leaders around the world, know this for what it was.'
Former secretary of state Kissinger, now 92, was President Nixon's national security advisor in 1972 when he made his historic trip to China.
Chinese gave 'stern representations' following the call, Reuters reported.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the comments had gone to the 'relevant side' in the U.S.
'The whole world knows about the Chinese government's position on the Taiwan issue. I think President-elect Trump and his team are also clear,' Lu said at a briefing. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The Nobel Peace Prize committee last month stunned many observers by choosing Henry Kissingerthe former secretary of state behind the secret American bombing of Cambodia and who supportedArgentina’s “dirty wars,” among other thingsto speak at a forum on “The United States and World Peace after the Presidential Election.”
In response, on Tuesday the progressive groups RootsAction and Nobel Peace Prize Watch issued a petition demanding that Norwegian officials arrest Kissinger.
“The Nobel Committee has arranged for well-known war mastermind Henry Kissinger to speak as an honored guest at a forum that is part of the Nobel Peace Prize events,” the petition states. “Several of Kissinger’s crimes come under treaties that make it mandatory for Norway to prosecute. Kissinger is complicit or a main actor in many violations of the Genocide Convention and of the Geneva Conventions.”
Nobel Peace Prize Watch lays out Kissinger’s actions (pdf) in great detail, making the case that Norway is obligated under international law to arrest the former secretary of state.
Kissinger was infamously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his role in the Vietnam wara decision that comedian Tom Lehrer said “made political satire obsolete.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter, is also scheduled to speak at the Oslo forum, which will take place on December 11. Jan Oberg of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research condemned the Nobel committee’s decision to honor the two former U.S. officials:
These two experts on warfare and interventionism willOrwellian stylespeak about “The United States and World Peace after the Presidential Election.”
This is the country that, since 1980, has intervened violently in Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosova/Serbia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, i.e. 14 Muslim countries. It has some 630 base facilities in 130+ countries. It has its U.S. Special Forces (SOF) in 133 countries.
It has used nuclear weapons without apology and owns the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The U.S. stands for about 40 percent of the world’s military expenditures, is the world’s leading arms exporter and has killed more people than anybody else since 1945. It’s the master of (imprecise) drone strikes. It presently supports Saudi Arabia’s bestial war on Yemen and conducts a military build-up in Asia and the Pacific planning, as it seems, for what looks like a future confrontation with China. And not with terribly positive results in its Middle East policies since 1945.
So with all these credentials, please tell us about world peace!
And Nobel Peace Prize Watch further argues: “Millions of people, victims and survivors, will question or be seriously offended if Norway goes through with praise and honors to a person in the top ranks of the history of callous international state criminality. The suffering ordered or managed by Kissinger has led to increasing insecurity and violence for which all citizens of the world pay a high price.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142L1TjLmRI _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013. robertvbridge@yahoo.com
Published time: 2 Dec, 2017 - Get short URL
Who Is Jared Kushner: Trump loyalist or Kissinger protege?
Never before in the annals of US politics has a top presidential adviser had more of an inside track for influencing the White House than Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. Will this turn out to be a problem for Trump in the future?
Name any major event over the course of Trump's first year in office and you will undoubtedly find the doleful face of Jared Kushner lurking somewhere in the crowd, gazing on with rapt attention (or is it somber satisfaction?), a bit like an apprentice trapped in the floodlights of ultimate power.
Beyond the question of Jared's omnipresence is his apparent knack for political survival. Although Trump tends to go through officials as rapidly as tweets, Jared has managed thus far to ride out the storm. Yet firing Jared – husband of Trump's daughter, Ivanka – would be more than your average political decision, which is probably why Trump should never have dabbled in nepotism to begin with. Or perhaps Jared Kushner remains in his top-level position not because he is the son-in-law of Donald Trump, or because he is so politically astute (thus far it would seem he is not), but precisely because some high-ranking people in the establishment want him there.
Whatever the case may be, it is notable that while Trump's main allies – guys like Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus (all of whom were loathed by the establishment folks, incidentally) – fell to the wayside one after another, Kushner is one of the only top officials left over from the original Trump lineup. And his popularity among the establishment elite appears untarnished.
Reminiscent of the day when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without ever negotiating a single peace deal, Time magazine recently named Jared Kushner among its '100 Most Influential People'. And it was none other than Henry Kissinger, 94, the fiercely criticized former US statesman, who penned the blurb that accompanied Jared's honorable mention.
Kissinger, expert practitioner of the "strategic lie", says he first met Kushner "about 18 months ago, when he introduced himself after a foreign policy lecture I had given." The very next line suggests that Kissinger is lurking in the shadows of the Trump administration. "We have sporadically exchanged views since."
Really? That brief comment should have triggered some alarms. What exactly does Kissinger mean by "sporadically," and what is it that he and Jared chat about? Somehow I doubt the weather. And is Trump aware of the content of these "sporadic" conversations, or is he content to get the Cliff Notes courtesy of Kushner?
Considering Henry Kissinger's extremely checkered past – for starters, he convinced Nixon to bomb Cambodia and Laos, and replace the democratically elected government of Chile with a brutal military dictatorship – these are no idle questions. And as it turns out, there is already some whiff of mischief in the air that directly involves Jared Kushner, and, indirectly or otherwise, Henry Kissinger.
The Art of The Dumb
To date, President Trump has made two critical decisions that, for many analysts, defied all logic and even common sense. In fact, they were disastrous. The first involved the firing of Michael Flynn less than a month after he was named national security adviser. The stated reason for that decision was due to conversations Flynn had with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak a month before Trump formally took office. However, Flynn was doing nothing more 'subversive' than attempting to tamp down Russia's understandable fury at being treated so brusquely by the Obama administration.
Amy Siskind
@Amy_Siskind
In the tidal wave of Russophobia that swept through Washington following Hillary Clinton's dramatic defeat, Barack Obama – after originally acknowledging the election to have been fair – suddenly changed his tune. Apparently somebody had a talk with him, and on December 29, based on the groundless claims of Russian tampering the elections, Obama expelled 35 Russian embassy staff, as well as imposing sanctions – all just days before the New Year.
It was in the course of this dramatic diplomatic meltdown between the world's two nuclear powers that Flynn and Kislyak spoke on the telephone on several occasions in an effort to repair the damage (It should be noted that Jared Kushner also participated in an earlier meeting at Trump Tower with Michael Flynn and Sergey Kislyak. The purpose of that meeting was to “establish a line of communication” between the soon-to-be Trump administration and the Kremlin, the White House told the New York Times). All things considered, it was the honorable thing to do. Others, of course, saw things differently. Yet Flynn got the sack, while Kushner continues in his post relatively unscathed.
When the wolves in the Democratic Party came a knocking, Trump probably thought he could satisfy those who were hell-bent on sabotaging US-Russia relations by sacrificing Flynn like an easily disposable pawn. The maverick of Manhattan seems to have gambled wrong. Trump now reportedly"regrets" firing Flynn, who he says got a "very bad deal" from the media.
This week, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. However, the talks occurred while Trump was President-elect, and as the Obama administration was working overtime to sabotage any hope the Trump administration might have had in building a working relationship with the Russians, indeed, as Trump had pledge to do on the campaign trail. So the question as to why the FBI was even questioning Flynn about such contacts remains unknown.
At the same time, ABC News put out the fake news that Flynn was ordered by Donald Trump to make contact with the Russians during the election campaign. ABC News later “clarified” that the report was about Trump giving the order as President-elect.
The second even more mysterious ‘mistake’ involved the firing of James Comey, the FBI Director who was in the process of investigating claims of collusion between Trump and Russia in the course of the 2016 presidential election. It did not take a political genius to understand that firing Comey while he was investigating those claims would only serve to fortify that very myth – and worse, appear as an attempt at a Trump cover-up. The US president, understandably at wits end over the never-ending witch-hunt, now seemed guilty of attempting to get rid of the nosy Comey. What he got instead was just more barbarians at the gate.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, yet another dedicated Trump loyalist who got served a pink slip, told Charlie Rose in an interview that President Trump's decision to fire James Comey was "the biggest mistake in modern political history."
So who gave Trump such horrible advice? Some Washington insiders are pointing to Kushner.
According to a report in Vanity Fair, "Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment." That comment was allegedly based on a phone call between Bannon and Trump. In another conversation, political analyst Roger Stone supposedly told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, and Trump agreed.
“Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg told the magazine. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.”
However, Nunberg's judgment is only true if we assume that Kushner is really dedicated to faithfully serving Donald Trump, but is just awful at his job. Or, alternatively, if he is instead accepting the demands and advice being given to him from people like Henry Kissinger, representatives of the establishment. In that case, it could be argued he is doing a remarkable job.
Welcome back, Henry Kissinger
Keeping in mind Mark Twain's observation that "history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme," it was impossible to miss the historical coincidence of Kissinger appearing next to Donald Trump in May shortly after the latter unceremoniously canned Comey. Why was it a coincidence?
Because decades earlier, Henry Kissinger, while serving under Richard Nixon as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, played a major role in the so-called 'Saturday Night Massacre,' which saw Nixon fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was attempting to retrieve telephone recordings connected to the case.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
What followed from that disastrous decision was Nixon being eventually forced to resign in disgrace, a political calamity that some experts say could eventually happen to Trump if 'Russiagate' gets any more out of control.
"The unexpected firing of a high-profile investigator looking into potential political malfeasance connected to the White House, followed by a visit by Henry Kissinger to the Oval Office. No, this is not October 1973,"began an ABC News report detailing Kissinger's strangely timed invitation to the White House.
Trump said the meeting with Kissinger focused on Russia, Syria and "various other matters," calling Kissinger a "friend for a long time."
Coincidence or otherwise, Kissinger was one of Nixon's closest confidants and also met with him after the Saturday Night Massacre.
"I don't think we can read too much into that, but it would be interesting if they were consulting him on troubleshooting, in which case, Kissinger wouldn't be the first person I would turn to," David Greenberg, a professor of history and journalism and media studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey, told ABC News.
In any case, if it really was Jared Kushner who advised Trump to dump both Flynn and Comey, as many analysts suggest, then the sudden appearance of geopolitical guru Kissinger in the White House shortly afterwards is peculiar to say the least.
1001 Arabian arrests
Just recently, we may have witnessed, albeit from second-hand accounts, Jared Kushner taking his first steps as a Kissinger geopolitical protégé.
On November 3, Saudi Arabia placed a call to Lebanon's then Prime Minister Saad Hariri, demanding that he pay a visit to Riyadh. Hariri wasted no time at all, reportedly flying to Saudi Arabia without his regular staff. The next day, Hariri did something completely out of the ordinary: In a televised appearance, from the Saudi capital, he announced that he was resigning from his post as prime minister.
Western media greatly played down the fact that Hariri made his announcement on foreign soil, not least of all Saudi soil, while giving extra attention to Hariri's explanation for his sudden retirement: Iran and Hezbollah, which just helped Syria liberate itself from ISIS terrorists.
“Wherever Iran settles, it sows discord, devastation and destruction, proven by its interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries,” he said in his prepared statement. He also said he feared for his life.
That evening, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrested 11 Saudi princes, 4 government officials and dozens of businessmen, while also claiming that Saudi Arabia had intercepted a ballistic missile launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen. The blame for that unconfirmed event naturally went to Iran as well.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Hariri’s resignation was a ploy to “create tension in Lebanon and the region.”
“Hariri’s resignation was done with planning by Donald Trump, the president of America, and Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), the crown prince of Saudi Arabia,”said Hussein Sheikh al-Islam, adviser to Iran’s supreme leader.
However, Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif took the blame game one step further, pointing to Jared Kushner as the cause of the spectacle.
“Visits by Kushner & Lebanese PM led to [Saad] Hariri’s bizarre resignation while abroad,” Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted. “Of course, Iran is accused of interference.”
Today, Hariri, following a whirlwind tour that took him to Paris following his stay in Riyadh is back in Lebanon where he remains the Prime Minister.
YouTube @YouTube
Indeed, Kushner paid a visit to Saudi Arabia in October as part of a four-day trip that also included stops in Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
The Washington Post provided some scant details on Kushner's secretive meeting with MbS: "MBS is emboldened by strong support from President Trump and his inner circle... It was probably no accident that last month, Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, made a personal visit to Riyadh. The two princes are said to have stayed up until nearly 4 a.m. several nights, swapping stories and planning strategy."
Meanwhile, Israel's interest in what transpires between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon is also of no small concern, given its wariness of Iranian moves in the region, as noted by The Spectator: "The Jewish state is hardly a natural ally for Saudi Arabia, but they have long shared a common enemy: Iran. Both fear the latter is exploiting the opening created by the fall of Isis, and the triumph of the Assad regime in Syria, to dominate the region..."
The question, however, comes down to what role Jared Kushner has been playing in all of this, and to what end? Is he loyally and dutifully serving the interests of Donald Trump, while - at the same time - being quietly groomed as the next Henry Kissinger, possibly and eventually moving seamlessly between consecutive administrations, as Kissinger did when he survived the downfall of Nixon and went on to serve under Gerald Ford?
Or is Jared Kushner, despite being the son-in-law and top adviser of Donald Trump, heeding the demands of a different master?
This article first appeared in the online journal Strategic Cultural Foundation
Some of the blood on Henry Kissinger's hands is at last seeping through to the pages of the international press. The Italian newsmagazine Panorama has finally pub lished what the European Labor Party and this news service asserted four years ago-that Henry Kissinger was the man behind the 1978 kidnapping and murder of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. Within days after Panorama identified Kissinger as the "symbol" of the conspirators who brought about Moro's death at the hands of Red Brigades terrorists, Kissinger's name surfaced last month in Italian court testimony as a member of the Comite Monte Carlo, a super-secret freemasonic lodge set up by Grand Master Licio Gelli. Gelli was, once upon a time, a torturer for Mussolini's secret police. More recently, he became the organizer of the Propaganda-2 (P-2) Lodge outlawed by the Italian government for plotting a fascist coup. Gelli's and Kissinger's Monte Carlo lodge has now been identified as behind the terrorist bombing of the Bologna train station which claimed the lives of more than 80 people on Aug. 2,1980, among its other crimes. You are about to learn what has become common knowledge to citizens of the Italian republic, but is banned from news media in the U.S.A.-two document ed homocidal episodes in the career of Henry Kissinger. The Moro case In 1978, former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, then the elected leader of the Christian Democracy (DC), Italy's largest political party, was trying to stabilize what had become a very shaky Italian repUblican system (40 governments in 35 years) by effecting a government 34 International enjoying the support of both the DC and Italy's second largest party, the Communists, who are supported by a plurality of Italian workers. Under this plan, called by Moro a national unity government, more than three decades of instability and "class war" in Italian political life were to be brought to an end. Leading sections of the Communist Party, including its General Secretary, Enrico Berlinguer, were agreed on this perspective. (Berlinguer called it the "historic compromise.") Then Moro, the architect of the plan, was kidnapped by the Red Brigades, and after being held for 52 days during which the Socialist Party and others carried out "negotiations" with the terrorists over the opposition of the government, Moro was killed and his bloody remains left in the trunk of a car in Rome. During the trial of Aldo Moro's terrorist captors and assassins, Moro's widow Eleonora testified. "Both my husband and other persons told me," said Eleonora Moro, "that from 1975 on, Moro had been told that his attempt to have all the Italian political forces collabo rating at a governmental level was not appreciated. He was warned not to pursue this poliy .... Otherwise he would pay dearly for his stubbornness." Previously, on April 13, in an interview in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Eleonora Moro stressed that these threats came from an important international personality. "I am trying to remember how the threat was formulated," she said. "You must stop pursuing your political plan to establish a political collaboration among all the political forces of your country. You either stop it now or you will pay dearly for it. You must decide how you wish to take this advice." EIR August 17, 1982
_________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
THE US-China trade war could lead to a "catastrophic outcome" that "will be worse than world wars", according to a former US secretary of state.
By LÉONIE CHAO-FONG
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sat, Nov 16, 2019 | UPDATED: 16:48, Sat, Nov 16, 2019
Henry Kissinger said the "future of the world" depended on the US and China resolving their differences. He warned competition between the world's two largest economies was "permanent" and that they had to "get used to" the "rivalry" or risk disastrous consequences.
China 'long-term strategic competitor' to US says Mark Esper
Play Video
Mr Kissinger was the diplomatic driving force behind then US President Richard Nixon's groundbreaking visit to China in 1972.
Known in Beijing as "an old friend of the Chinese people", he also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and senior cabinet officials ahead of the G20 meeting between President Donald Trump and Mr Xi last year.
Speaking in New York on Thursday, the 96-year-old veteran said the relationship between the US and China began as a strategic one under mutual pressure from the Soviet Union.
PROMOTED STORY
The One Thing Windows Users Should Do Before Turning Off Their Computer
(SecuritySavers.org)
He told his audience: “There were differences at the beginning of the relationship.
"Nevertheless, we’ve learned to live with each other for many decades."
RELATED ARTICLES
Pound USD rate steady as hopes for US-Sino trade deal increase
South China Sea: Washington to confront Beijing on tensions at talks
Mr Kissinger argued that there were fundamental differences between the American and Chinese way of negotiations, so the US needed to change their mindset with a rising China.
“It is no longer possible to think that one side can dominate the other.
"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.
He added: “Competition is permanent.”
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned a ‘catastrophic’ conflict between China and US (Image: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The former US secretary of state said conflicts were "inevitable" given the history between the superpowers, however failure to mend relations would be extremely dangerous.
He said: “There may not be a complete agreement.
"What is imperative is that both countries understand that a permanent conflict between them cannot be won.
"There will be a catastrophic outcome if it leads to permanent conflict."
The result would be "worse than the world wars that ruined European civilisation", he warned.
READ MORE: How Putin was the big winner from US-China trade-war
Henry Alfred Kissinger
Mr Kissinger said US-China trade war could lead to a 'catastrophic outcome' (Image: Ma Delin/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)
“We are in a difficult period now.
"I am confident the leaders on both sides will realise the future of the world depends on the two sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties.
Mr Kissinger's comments came as trade war talks between Washington and Beijing rumble on.
Tensions have been simmering for some time, but boiled over when President Trump hiked tariffs and trade barriers after the US grew restless over unfair trade methods from Beijing.
Washington complaints included theft of trade secrets, theft of intellectual property and forced transfer of US technology to China.
The subsequent economic impact on both has been huge, particularly on China as it looks to propel itself into dominance.
President Xi blamed Mr Trump for political hostility that has gripped the two countries.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 6 Apr, 2020 21:00
Henry Kissinger, eminence grise of imperial US foreign policy, has warned in an op-ed that no government – even his beloved hegemon – can defeat Covid-19 alone, implying that the New World Order he’s always preached must follow.
If the US doesn’t couple its efforts to rebuild its own economy with the first steps toward creating a global government, humanity is doomed, Kissinger wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Also on rt.com Why don’t we get rid of families and cash? Soros-funded progressive globalists using Covid-19 to push own ‘technocratic solutions’
“No country, not even the US, can in a purely national effort overcome the virus,” Kissinger warned. “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.
Kissinger laments that the pandemic has led to the return of a “walled city” model of nationalist governance, suggesting that “exploration at the frontiers of science” alone can save humanity from disease in his vision of a globalist utopia. But developing cures takes time, and the notion that countries should be discouraged from protecting themselves in the interim is suicidal. If anything, one of the reasons Italy, Spain, and France were hit so hard by coronavirus was the EU’s dysfunctional insistence on open borders amid the pandemic.
“Global trade and movement of people” are all well and good, but the pandemic has exposed the weaknesses of the globalist system like never before. It will take years for nations to rebuild, and repeating their mistakes is not something they can afford to do.
While serving as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser under presidents Nixon and Ford, Kissinger played a starring role in bombing campaigns against Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos and oversaw regime-change operations that placed brutal dictators in power in Argentina and Chile, as well as supporting state-sanctioned repression in Indonesia. A notorious report he penned for the Ford administration called for dramatic reductions in population growth across developing nations. One might think, given his record, that he’d be on the side of the virus.
But the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is here presenting himself as an experienced statesman who deeply cares about the future of humanity, calling on the US to “draw lessons from the development of the Marshall Plan and the Manhattan Project.” Sure, revisiting the Marshall Plan makes sense – there are no doubt insights to be gained from revisiting the rebuilding of Europe’s shattered post-war economies, especially since some of the countries hit hardest by the epidemic are in Europe.
Also on rt.com 'Big mistake': Italy blasts European Commission chief, says Europe needs 'great Marshall Plan' to battle pandemic crisis
But the Manhattan Project? How does a top-secret, international doomsday project that produced weapons with unparalleled killing potential have any bearing on the coronavirus crisis?
Listening to Kissinger, it must be said, is what got the US into its current situation – believing itself exceptional, distrusting all world powers who do not swear abject fealty to it, repeating the same failed policies to the point of parody. A looming presence in the George W. Bush administration, Kissinger advised the country to plunge headfirst into the ever-expanding War on Terror, penning an editorial in the days following 9/11 that called for taking on “any government that shelters groups capable of this kind of attack.” Following such guidance has bankrupted the US and turned it into a banana republic, printing money frantically while its roads and bridges crumble, its citizens struggle to keep a roof over their heads, and the international community looks on, mouths agape, as its government continues to lecture them about human rights.
Kissinger concludes his jeremiad with a warning that “failure [to safeguard the principles of the liberal world order] could set the world on fire.” If, as he himself writes, the “purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people: security, order, economic well-being, and justice,” those principles collapsed long ago. The US’ first step, post-pandemic, should be to put out the fires set by Kissinger and those like him who seek to cloak empire in the rhetoric of liberal democracy.
The U.S. must protect its citizens from disease while starting the urgent work of planning for a new epoch.
The surreal atmosphere of the Covid-19 pandemic calls to mind how I felt as a young man in the 84th Infantry Division during the Battle of the Bulge. Now, as in late 1944, there is a sense of inchoate danger, aimed not at any particular person, but striking randomly and with devastation. But there is an important difference between that faraway time and ours. American endurance then was fortified by an ultimate national purpose. Now, in a divided country, efficient and farsighted government is necessary to overcome obstacles unprecedented in magnitude and global scope. 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.
The coronavirus has struck with unprecedented scale and ferocity. Its spread is exponential: U.S. cases are doubling every fifth day. At this writing, there is no cure. Medical supplies are insufficient to cope with the widening waves of cases. Intensive-care units are on the verge, and beyond, of being overwhelmed. Testing is inadequate to the task of identifying the extent of infection, much less reversing its spread. A successful vaccine could be 12 to 18 months away.
The U.S. administration has done a solid job in avoiding immediate catastrophe. The ultimate test will be whether the virus’s spread can be arrested and then reversed in a manner and at a scale that maintains public confidence in Americans’ ability to govern themselves. The crisis effort, however vast and necessary, must not crowd out the urgent task of launching a parallel enterprise for the transition to the post-coronavirus order.
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.
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. We need to develop new techniques and technologies for infection control and commensurate vaccines across large populations. Cities, states and regions must consistently prepare to protect their people from pandemics through stockpiling, cooperative planning and exploration at the frontiers of science.
Second, strive to heal the wounds to the world economy. Global leaders have learned important lessons from the 2008 financial crisis. The current economic crisis is more complex: The contraction unleashed by the coronavirus is, in its speed and global scale, unlike anything ever known in history. And necessary public-health measures such as social distancing and closing schools and businesses are contributing to the economic pain. Programs should also seek to ameliorate the effects of impending chaos on the world’s most vulnerable populations.
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.
The world’s democracies need to defend and sustain their Enlightenment values. A global retreat from balancing power with legitimacy will cause the social contract to disintegrate both domestically and internationally. Yet this millennial issue of legitimacy and power cannot be settled simultaneously with the effort to overcome the Covid-19 plague. Restraint is necessary on all sides—in both domestic politics and international diplomacy. Priorities must be established.
We went on from the Battle of the Bulge into a world of growing prosperity and enhanced human dignity. Now, we live an epochal period. The historic challenge for leaders is to manage the crisis while building the future. Failure could set the world on fire.
Mr. Kissinger served as secretary of state and national security adviser in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” George Orwell
Can we agree that there are two types of Covid-19?
The first type, is Covid-19 ,”The Virus”, which is a fairly mild infection that most people don’t even realize they’ve contracted. They remain either asymptomatic or have slight flu-like symptoms that go away after a week or so. A tiny sliver of the population– that are mainly-older, vulnerable people with underlying health conditions– can develop complications, become seriously ill and die. But, according to most analysis, the chances of dying from Covid are roughly between 1 in every 200 to 1 in every 1,000 people. (CDC-IFR- 0.26%) In other words, Covid is not the Spanish Flu, not the Black Plague and the Genocidal Planetary Killer Virus it was cracked up to be. It kills more people than the annual influenza, but not significantly more.
The second type of Covid-19, is Covid “The Political Contrivance” or, rather, CODENAME: Operation Virus Identification 20 19. This iteration of the Covid phenom relates to the manner in which a modestly-lethal respiratory pathogen has been inflated into a perennial public health crisis in order to implement economic and societal changes that would otherwise be impossible. This is the political side of Covid, which is much more difficult to define since it relates to the ambiguous agenda of powerful elites who are using the infection to conceal their real intentions. Many critics believe that Covid is a vehicle the Davos Crowd is using to launch their authoritarian New World Order. Others think it has more to do with Climate Change, that is, rather than build consensus among the world leaders for mandatory carbon reductions, global mandarins have simply imposed lockdowns that sharply reduce economic activity across-the-board. This, in fact, has lowered emissions significantly, but at great cost to most of humanity. Covid restrictions have triggered a sharp uptick in suicides, clinical depression, child abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse. The list goes on and on. Also, it has left economies everywhere in a shambles, increasing unemployment and homelessness exponentially, while setting the stage for massive famines in undeveloped countries around the world. Even so, key players in the Covid crisis– like mastermind Bill Gates– continue to marvel at impact these onerous restrictions have had on emissions. Take a look at this excerpt from a recent post at the Microsoft founder’s blog:
“You may have seen projections that, because economic activity has slowed down so much, the world will emit fewer greenhouse gases this year than last year. Although these projections are certainly true, their importance for the fight against climate change has been overstated.
Analysts disagree about how much emissions will go down this year, but the International Energy Agency puts the reduction around 8 percent. In real terms, that means we will release the equivalent of around 47 billion tons of carbon, instead of 51 billion.
That’s a meaningful reduction, and we would be in great shape if we could continue that rate of decrease every year. Unfortunately, we can’t.
Consider what it’s taking to achieve this 8 percent reduction. More than 600,000 people have died, and tens of millions are out of work. This April, car traffic was half what it was in April 2019. For months, air traffic virtually came to a halt.
To put it mildly, this is not a situation that anyone would want to continue. And yet we are still on track to emit 92 percent as much carbon as we did last year. What’s remarkable is not how much emissions will go down because of the pandemic, but how little.
In addition, these reductions are being achieved at, literally, the greatest possible cost.
To see why, let’s look at what it costs to avert a single ton of greenhouse gases. This figure—the cost per ton of carbon averted—is a tool that economists use to compare the expense of different carbon-reduction strategies. For example, if you have a technology that costs $1 million, and using it lets you avert the release of 10,000 tons of gas, you’re paying $100 per ton of carbon averted. In reality, $100 per ton would still be pretty expensive. But many economists think this price reflects the true cost of greenhouse gases to society, and it also happens to be a memorable round number that makes a good benchmark for discussions.
Now let’s treat the shutdown caused by COVID-19 as if it were a carbon-reduction strategy. Has closing off major parts of the economy avoided emissions at anything close to $100 per ton?
No. In the United States, according to data from the Rhodium Group, it comes to between $3,200 and $5,400 per ton. In the European Union, it’s roughly the same amount. In other words, the shutdown is reducing emissions at a cost between 32 and 54 times the $100 per ton that economists consider a reasonable price.
If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time. The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.” (“COVID-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse“, Gates Notes)
Isn’t it curious that Gates has spent so much time calculating the impact lockdowns have had on carbon emissions? And look at how precise his calculations are. These are not “back of the envelop” type computations, but a serious bit of number-crunching. He even takes the number of people who have died of Covid worldwide (600,000) and painstakingly compares it to the projected “global mortality rates” (“on an annualized basis”) of people who will die from “increases in global temperatures”.
Does it seem to you that Gates might have more than a passing interest in these estimations?? Does it look like he might be more than just a neutral observer impartially perusing the data?
Let me pose a theory here: In my opinion, Gates’ interest in these matters is not merely speculative curiosity. He and his fellow elites are conducting an elaborate science experiment in which we– mere mortals– are the lab rats. They are deliberately using the Covid-scare to conceal their real objective which is to prove beyond a doubt that curtailing emissions by shutting down vast swathes of the global economy will NOT stave off catastrophic climate change.
So, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that I’m right. Let’s assume that other elites read Gates report and agree with its conclusions. Then what?
This is where it gets interesting, because Gates doesn’t really answer that question, but his silence gives him away.
Let me explain: Gates says, “The relatively small decline in emissions this year makes one thing clear: We cannot get to zero emissions simply—or even mostly—by flying and driving less.”
Okay, so we cannot stop climate change by doing what we are doing now.
Then Gates says: “Let science and innovation lead the way….Any comprehensive response to climate change will have to tap into many different disciplines…. we’ll need biology, chemistry, physics, political science, economics, engineering, and other sciences.”
Right again, we’ll follow the science.
Gates then says: “It will take decades to develop and deploy all the clean-energy inventions we need.”
Okay, so we have to move fast to avoid tragedy.
Finally, Gates says: “Health advocates said for years that a pandemic was virtually inevitable. The world did not do enough to prepare, and now we are trying to make up for lost time. This is a cautionary tale for climate change, and it points us toward a better approach.”
Got that? So, on the one hand, Gates is saying ‘We must act fast and follow the science’, and on the other he is saying, ‘Shutting down the economy alone isn’t going to work.’
WTF? If it’s not going to work, then why bother? Why is Gates sending a mixed message?
Ahh, but there’s the rub. It’s not a mixed message and it is not a contradiction. What Gates is doing is leading the reader to draw the same conclusion that he has, (wink, wink) that is, if reducing economic activity isn’t going to work, then we have to find an entirely different solution, like reducing the size of the population. Isn’t that the only logical conclusion?
Yes, it is. So, the Great Lab Experiment of 2020 (Covid) has alot to do with population control; thinning the herd so our exalted Davos Overlords can ensure their blue-blooded offspring will have mild temps when they winter-over on their private islands in the Caribbean. But population control is just a small part of a much more ambitious plan to restructure the global economy, vaccinate everyone on the planet and dispose of those niggling civil liberties to which Americans have become so attached.
The elitist strategy has been dubbed the “Great Reset” which refers to the World Economic Forum’s Covid Action Platform, a program that aims at restructuring “economic and social foundations” in a way that best suits the interests of “stakeholder” capitalists. Here’s a clip from their press release:
“COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.
To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism…
The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream. In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office….
Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need. That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones. And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.” (“The World Economic Forum’s Covid Action Platform“, WEF)
If it sounds like our illustrious leaders want to remake society from the ground-up, it’s because that’s exactly what they have in mind. And they’re not even trying to hide their real intentions. They say quite bluntly: “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
That sounds alot like marching orders to me and, indeed, that’s exactly what they are; orders.
But how do they intend to affect these dramatic and revolutionary changes?
Why Covid, of course. They’re going to use Covid to make fundamental changes to the existing system, including accelerating privatization (“stakeholder capitalism”), merging governments into a unified global regime, intensifying the elements of social control (via mass electronic surveillance, intrusive contact tracing, security checkpoints, lockdowns, internal passports, biometric IDs etc) and taking whatever steps are required to introduce a tyrannical Brave New World.
It’s all there in black and white, they’re not even trying to hide it. In their own words, the “Great Reset” depends on the Covid Action Platform, right? In order to “build a better society” we need to “make radical changes to our lifestyles” including reductions in “frequent air travel to working in an office”. So just forget that trip to Italy next year Mr. and Mrs. WorkerBee. Ain’t gonna happen. Bill Gates says, “No.” And get used to working from home, too, because we don’t want your dog-eared Capri spewing carbon into our pristine-blue skies.
The statement also makes clear that the obliteration of millions of jobs and small businesses was not an accidental casualty of the Covid lockdowns, but the planned demolition of business and workers these Mucky-mucks consider ‘non-essential’.
And as far as who will participate in this new blueprint for Capitalist Valhalla? Well, everyone of course. According to the authors: “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”
There it is from the horse’s mouth: The glorious Biosecurity Slave State is emerging right before our very eyes and we just thought we were in another Great Depression rounded off with a pandemic.
So, when we talk about Covid the “Political Contrivance”, we’re actually referring to the vehicle that elites have settled on to transition the country from its present condition to a full-blown “lock-down” police state. Covid is the smokescreen that’s being used to conceal the maneuverings of filthy-rich powerbrokers who want to implement their Grand Plan for humanity. So, if everything feels chaotic and upside-down at the present time, don’t be alarmed; it’s all by design. The more muddled and turbulent the world becomes, the easier it is to get people to submit to moronic activities like wearing a diaper on your mouth every time you leave the house or standing 6 feet apart at the grocery store so invisible pathogens don’t climb up your pant-leg and bite you. Psychologists know that –in a topsy-turvy world where uncertainty prevails — people are more apt to follow the directives of affable blockheads, like Tony Fauci, even though they may be abandoning their last-claim to personal freedom in the process.
Looking back to April of 2020, we probably should have anticipated where all this was headed, after all, Mr. NWO himself, Henry Kissinger, announced what to expect in an op-ed he posted in the Wall Street Journal. Here’s what he said:
“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…”(NOTE– Is Kissinger clairvoyant? How did he know the “world would never be the same again”?)
“Enlightenment thinkers (argued) that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people… 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.” (NOTE– In other words: Globalism is good, Nationalism is bad. The same refrain we’ve heard for the last 30 years.)
While the assault on human health (from Covid) will—hopefully—be temporary, the political and economic upheaval it has unleashed could last for generations. (NOTE–Another peek into Henry’s crystal ball, eh?) 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.” (“The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter the World Order”, Wall Street Journal)
As Kissinger clearly states, globalization is still alive and well among the Davos heavyweights who now see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put their plan into action. Parts of Australia and New Zealand are already under de-facto martial law while PM Boris Johnson is adding another 2,000 cops in London to enforce his goofy Covid mandates. Everywhere in the western world, freedom is collapsing faster than a corrugated lean-to in a Kansas tornado. Meanwhile in panic-stricken America, fainthearted proles continue to hide behind their sofas waiting for the faux-plague to pass. Do they even see the train-wreck just ahead? Author Gary D. Barnett summed it up like this:
“At this moment in time we are standing on a precipice with the state attempting to push us over the edge. Once over that edge, there will be no coming back. This is why if the people fight back in mass, and withhold all support from the governing demons, we can awaken from this nightmare, and regain normalcy.” (“The State’s Covid Response Is a Cancer for the Freedom of Humanity”, Gary D. Barnett, Lew Rockwell)
FRIDAY, APR 09, 2021 - 11:00 PM
Authored by Paul Antonopoulos via GlobalResearch.ca,
With the White House continually provoking tensions against Russia and China, the doyen of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, dramatically warned Washington last week to either agree to a new international system or continue pushing tensions that are leading to a situation similar to the eve of World War One.
In a recent Chatham House webinar with former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 97-year-old Kissinger called on the U.S. to create a balance with existing global forces, adding
“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.”
The veteran diplomat urged the U.S. to understand that not every issue has “final solutions” and warned
“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.”
However, the idea that the U.S. should stop imposing its will on everyone else will not be easily accepted in Washington. This is attested by the sharp rhetoric and personal insults that U.S. President Joe Biden continually levels against his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
High-ranking Chinese official Yang Jiechi told U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on March 18 in Alaska that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.” Then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi boldly said days later on March 22 during their meeting in Beijing that they “jointly safeguard multilateralism, maintain the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law, while firmly opposing unilateral sanctions as well as interference in other countries’ internal affairs.”
Kissinger’s career is washed in blood when we remember his backing of Pakistan during Bangladesh’s War of Independence despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people and mass rape; orchestrated a military coup in Chile to remove democratically elected Allende in favor of the Pinochet dictatorship; tacitly supported Indonesia’s mass killing of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese; and, blessed Turkey’s invasion of northern Cyprus that led to 200,000 Greek refugees without a right of return – among many other things.
However, his most recent statement about the U.S. and the international system is actually a mature proposal that would be beneficial for world peace if the Biden administration accepts his advice that the global order is changing. It is unlikely that Washington is ready to unilaterally end its hard and soft power aggression as it falsely believes it can maintain a unipolar order.
It is always difficult for Great Powers to accept that the world has changed, especially when it is to their detriment. The behavior of the Biden administration, which deliberately uses threatening and inappropriate rhetoric, demonstrates that it will not rationally accept a multipolar world system, especially since Russophobia and Sinophobia are on the rise.
Personal insults against Putin and Xi are an expression of American impotence, especially when we consider that the U.S. historically did not engage in this kind of rhetoric when it was at the zenith of its power. The U.S. is no longer the world’s sole superpower and its rivals are no longer accepting such aggression, which is exactly why the Chinese delegation that went to Alaska last month clearly stated that it does not accept any language of force.
An additional problem for the U.S. is whether its allies will strain their relations with China and Russia, and whether they will accept being pushed into conflicts with them. There are indications that the most important European countries will resist U.S. demands. This is evidenced by the Nord Stream 2 issue where American attempts to prevent its construction are being met with resistance from important European Union countries despite the endless complaints from minnows like Lithuania and Poland.
Robert Gates, former director of the CIA and U.S. Secretary of Defense, admitted in a recent interview with the Washington Post that sanctions against Russia do not any good for the U.S. In The National Interest, Robert Kaplan describes Russia as a “problem from hell” because it cannot be subdued. Kaplan offered reasons why it is necessary for Russia to “move away from its one-sided alliance with China” and find balance with the U.S.
Washington’s misguided policy of aggression to maintain a unipolar world order worked in the favor of China and Russia, especially in accelerating their cooperation. The West can no longer suppress China’s economic power or Russia’s military power. Military strategists in the West are aware that the Russo-Sino cooperation cannot be compensated by anything.
One of the men identified by Goleniewski in the early 1960s as a soviet agent was an unknown professor at Harvard named Henry A. Kissinger. Here is the incredible account, as related by American Opinion contributing editor Alan Stang in the march 1976 issue of that magazine:
In the days following World War II, the Soviets had organized an ODRA spy ring in Poland. Its main purpose was to penetrate British and American military intelligence. ODRA was directed by a Soviet general named Zelanznikoff; its local chief was a Colonel Kujun.
In 1954, Kujun was ordered to Moscow to explain the mysterious murder of a female Soviet courier and the disappearance of important material, including 480,000in intelligence funds. Fearing he would be shot, Kujun tried to commit suicide but instead wound up in a hospital run by the GZI, the Polish equivalent of the Russian KGB.
The GZI chief, a Colonel Wozniesienski, interrogated Kujun at length. He stored the results of his investigation in his safe. Wozniesienski was later replaced by a Colonel Skulbaszewski, who himself was replaced in 1956 by Goleniewski. the "Polish" agent told Stang he inherited Skulbaszewski's office, files, and safe -- the latter containing some 1500 pages of documents.
About twenty pages of these documents were in Russian, in Wozniesienski's handwriting. They dealt with the interrogation of Colonel Kujun in 1954 and included a list of the true names, as well as the code names, of ODRA' principal agents in Europe
One such spy was Ernst Bosenhard, who had been employed as a clerk at the U.S. Intelligence Headquarters in Oberammergau, Germany. Bosenhard had sent untold numbers of top-secret documents on to Moscow before he was arrested and convicted of espionage in 1951.
Another name on Wozniesienski's OKRA list was the agent "Bor", who had worked with Bosenhard in Oberammergau. A 1954 update indicated that "Bor" had returned to the United States, was presently at Harvard University, and was secretly working with the Central Intelligence Agency.
According to the list, "Bor's" real name was Sgt. Henry A. Kissinger.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:24 pm Post subject:
Fritz Gustav Anton Kraemer (1908-2003), who was based with the Counter Intelligence Corps in Oberammergau in late 1945 - late 1947, was a friend and mentor to Kissinger
Kissinger and Kraemer
Henry Kissinger was born in Fürth (near Nurem- berg, Germany) in 1923 and settled in America in 1938. He joined the US Army in 1944, served in Germany and was de-mobilised in 1946.
After studying at Harvard, Kissinger became a consultant to the US Army Operations Research Office in 1951 and in 1952 he was appointed to the Psychological Strategy Board of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whilst retaining his reserve com- mission as a Lt Col in Military Intelligence. He was Professor of Government at Harvard (1969-1971) and in 1968 he became President Nixon's National Security Advisor and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 and became US Secretary of State until 1977. He was particularly active in diplomatic negotiations (détente) with the Soviet Union and discussions with Mao Zedong led to the US recognition of China in 1972. He also took a leading role in peace negotiations between Israel and Arab world in 1973-1975 in what became known as Shuttle Diplomacy. He is a widely-published author on international affairs and remains the 'father figure' of foreign relations in the US.
Fritz Gustav Anton Kraemer (1908-2003), who was based with the Counter Intelligence Corps in Oberammergau in late 1945 - late 1947, was a friend and mentor to Kissinger. Kraemer, born into and upper-Middle Class Protestant family, was shocked by the rise of National Socialism in Germany.... He moved to Rome in 1933, where he obtained a Doctorate in Political Science and worked for the Comparative Law Institute of the League of Nations.
In 1939 he fled to the US and was drafted into the US Army as a private soldier. He was 'talent spotted' along with Kissinger in Louisiana and they both served with the 84th Division, though in separate intelli- gence units. In Oberammergau he re-established his friendship with Kissinger where they both worked on de-Nazification programmes and then on the task of identifying and analyzing Soviet influence in Western Europe. Kraemer served as Senior Civilian Advisor to the US Army Chief of Staff, including Gen Alexander Haig (who served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe - SACEUR from 1974 - 1979) and was re- garded as a mentor of James R. Schlesinger and Donald Rumsfeld, who both became US Defence Secretaries.
TonyGosling wrote:
Regarding Kissinger you might be interested in two books exposing him as an agent of Soviet influence.
One of the men identified by Goleniewski in the early 1960s as a soviet agent was an unknown professor at Harvard named Henry A. Kissinger. Here is the incredible account, as related by American Opinion contributing editor Alan Stang in the march 1976 issue of that magazine:
In the days following World War II, the Soviets had organized an ODRA spy ring in Poland. Its main purpose was to penetrate British and American military intelligence. ODRA was directed by a Soviet general named Zelanznikoff; its local chief was a Colonel Kujun.
In 1954, Kujun was ordered to Moscow to explain the mysterious murder of a female Soviet courier and the disappearance of important material, including 480,000in intelligence funds. Fearing he would be shot, Kujun tried to commit suicide but instead wound up in a hospital run by the GZI, the Polish equivalent of the Russian KGB.
The GZI chief, a Colonel Wozniesienski, interrogated Kujun at length. He stored the results of his investigation in his safe. Wozniesienski was later replaced by a Colonel Skulbaszewski, who himself was replaced in 1956 by Goleniewski. the "Polish" agent told Stang he inherited Skulbaszewski's office, files, and safe -- the latter containing some 1500 pages of documents.
About twenty pages of these documents were in Russian, in Wozniesienski's handwriting. They dealt with the interrogation of Colonel Kujun in 1954 and included a list of the true names, as well as the code names, of ODRA' principal agents in Europe
One such spy was Ernst Bosenhard, who had been employed as a clerk at the U.S. Intelligence Headquarters in Oberammergau, Germany. Bosenhard had sent untold numbers of top-secret documents on to Moscow before he was arrested and convicted of espionage in 1951.
Another name on Wozniesienski's OKRA list was the agent "Bor", who had worked with Bosenhard in Oberammergau. A 1954 update indicated that "Bor" had returned to the United States, was presently at Harvard University, and was secretly working with the Central Intelligence Agency.
According to the list, "Bor's" real name was Sgt. Henry A. Kissinger.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
