POOR HENRY. HE JUST DOESN′T GET IT.
A NECESSARY INTRODUCTION
"If you want to get your B.A. in Politics, you need to come to my home state of Illinois. If you want to get your Master's degree in Politics, you'd better go to Louisiana. But if you want to get your Ph.D., you're gonna have to go to New Mexico!"
- U.S. Republican Senator and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen --
I have a Ph.D. in politics (University of Florida). More importantly, for four years I was Chief of Staff to the Majority Floor Leader (Democrat) of the New Mexico House of Representatives.
We faced a dire situation: 11 conservative Democrats formed a coalition with Republicans and took control of the 70-member House. Their majority was razor-thin, 36-34. That reality meant that to get anything done we had to form coalitions with coalition members. Several thousand piecies of legislation were introduced every year, and we had to make a decision and take action on them. Trench warfare, in short.
Upshot: I participated in far more coalition-building than Poor Henry, 10-1.
The ultimate takeaway is an ultimate fact of life. In New Mexico′s mean-as-snakes environment, Poor Henry wouldn′t have survived 10 minutes.
* * *
He′s back.
A recent CNN report (May 28, 2022):
"Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has made a blistering attack on former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who suggested on Tuesday that peace negotiations should be aimed at creating borders along the "line of contact" in Donbas as it existed on the eve of the Russian invasion.
Kissinger was speaking by video link to the Davos Forum.
In a video message Wednesday, Zelensky said, "No matter what the Russian state does, there is someone who says: 'let's take into account its interests.' This year in Davos, it was heard again. Despite thousands of Russian missiles hitting Ukraine. Despite tens of thousands of Ukrainians being killed. Despite Bucha and Mariupol, etc. Despite the destroyed cities. And despite the 'filtration camps' built by the Russian state, in which they kill, torture, rape and humiliate like on a conveyor belt.
"Russia has done all this in Europe. But still, in Davos, for example, Mr. Kissinger emerges from the deep past and says that a piece of Ukraine should be given to Russia."In his remarks, Kissinger said of the conflict that: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” apparently suggesting that Ukraine agree to give up much of the Donbas and Crimea.
"Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself," Kissinger said.
Zelensky compared Kissinger's views to appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938.
"It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022 but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos but in what was then Munich," he said. "By the way, in the real year 1938, when Mr. Kissinger's family was fleeing Nazi Germany, he was 15 years old."Zelensky called those who advise that Ukraine give something to Russia, the "'great geo-politicians,' do not always want to see ordinary people. Ordinary Ukrainians. Millions of those who actually live in the territory they are proposing to exchange for the illusion of peace. You always have to see people."
Bravo, President Zelensky; you hit the nail on the head.
Many readers will doubt what I just said. After all, how could a Ukrainian comedian understand world affairs better than a Harvard professor and former Secretary of State?
Answer: it′s easy..
* * *
Let′s cut to the quick of the growing gloom surrounding not only Ukraine but China.
A world war between the United States and China is emerging on the not-so-distant horizon.
If it breaks out, the resulting deaths and destruction will be completely unprecedented in world history. For starters, Imagine New York and Los Angeles, Beijing and Shanghai as flat, black and glowing in the dark, uninhabitable.for thousands of years. The war in Ukraine will look like what it will be: a warmup act.
J′accuse ...! The major cause of the looming world catastrophe is one man: Henry Kissinger.
As Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under President Richard Nixon, Kissinger forged much of the architecture of international relations running and ruining the world today.
I realize any Kissinger-catastrophe association is unacceptable – indeed, inconceivable -- to the vast majority of Americans. Their shock on seeing it here for the first time is the result of decades of propaganda by Washington and the American mass media picturing Kissinger as the world-beater negotiator, a great man, a genius′s genius.
The case for trying Kissinger for crimes against humanity is highly probative. However, our case is of another order...
We charge Henry Kissinger with gross incompetence.
Our basic premise: if you don′t get it right on China, the rest won′t matter.
In that regard, I will reveal here how Kissinger created the core of The Old World Disorder.
I will also reveal the long-kept secret of what motivated him. I promise you an ah-ha! moment of colossal proportions.
I also promise something else. In three minutes you will understand international relations better than Henry Kissinger ever did. His Ukraine statement reveals that what he was and always will be: politically tone-deaf.
* * *
China is surging as an economic, political and military power. It is also becoming increasingly aggressive.
? Beijing menaced America in the South China Sea over China′s transformation of reefs into islands to which China claims sovereignty and is rapidly militarizing. Of the U.S. spy plane incident, the Beijing government-connected Global Times announced in an editorial: "China, despite its unwillingness, is not afraid to fight a war with the US in the region, and is determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.”
? China bullied Singapore over its continuing relations with Taiwan.
? China′s aircraft carrier was roaming the Pacific: "The threat of our enemy is growing day by day. We should always be maintaining our combat alertness," said Taiwan Defense Minister Feng Shih-Kuan.
.
? The list is getting longer.
We show below how the growing combativeness of China is the fruit of the incredible incompetence and malice of Poor Henry.
* * *
The overtime, overdrive American agit-prop machine picturing Kissinger as a great international statesman has associated -- almost as an involuntary reflex -- his name with realpolitik.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Realistic, pragmatic: it is easily shown Kissinger was neither.
Rather, I should say is neither.. .
To the detriment of world peace and stability, the 99-year-old Kissinger continues to meddle in America′s relations with China.
For their part, the Chinese know a useful fool when they see one. They continue to build up Kissinger as America′s Go-To Man for Chinese affairs. Chairman Mao gave the watchword: Kissinger is an "old friend of Chinese people."
You might want to wonder why.
What follows is a warning not only to Americans but also to China; in fact, to everyone except President Zelensky who doesn′t need it..
* * *
You want to see what true realpolitik in international relations looks like?
For over 99% of American readers, it will be the first time.
Forget personalities. Forget hate, vengeance. Forget love, misty water-colored memories. Forget any personal bias or preference. Forget ideology. Realpolitik is the exact opposite of what Kissinger and his coterie in Washington did and are still doing in Davos and elsewhere.
The core of realpolitik in international relations is coalition-building. The growing bellicose China-U.S. relations cannot be understood apart from it.
To understand coalition building requires a type of logic which is unfamiliar to most Americans. That ignorance is readily understandable; it is the upshot of a two-party political system in which coalitions are rarely up front. Such is not the case in countries with multiple political parties, e.g., Ecuador, Norway, South Korea and Spain.
Hence, for Americans to understand what is involved in coalitions, a concise but crucial introduction is required.
Sidebar. You will find a basic introduction to coalition building in William Riker, "The Theory of Political Coalitions," Yale University Press, 1962. Riker employed game theory. I seriously doubt Kissinger read Riker′s book; if he did, he didn′t understand it.
Riker′s basic premise: the coalition which wins is the minimal one required to take control.
An illustrative example. Let′s imagine a five-party system after a general election.
The representation of the parties is as follows:
Party A: 5. Party B: 40. Party C: 26. Party D: 25. Party E: 4. Sum: 100 representatives.
51 are needed to form a majority and win control.
There are three possible winning coalitions:
Parties B and C = 66 representatives. Parties B and D = 65 representatives. Parties C and D = 51 representatives.
If we assume that power will be divided according to strength within the coalition, any party will want the largest relative size within the coalition. The result is that the coalition "Party C and D" will be the winning coalition.
The largest party is thus kept from power.
Two points:
First, I underline something that is counterintuitive:
In a situation of fragmentation of power, it is not necessarily an advantage to be the biggest, most powerful party. If you occupy that position, as does America in Southeast Asia and President Mariano Rajoy did in Spain, you had better know what to do with it ... or else.
And second, political realities modify Riker′s premise. Most importantly, the five-party model shown above assumes the parties are impregnable blocks. In practice, if worked properly, you can usually break off a few members. However, other parties will play the same game, which is why, if you are in the biggest party, you may be in for a shrewd awakening.
Tradition, distrust, family relations, hurt feelings, opposing economic interests, personality conflicts, long-standing feuds, ethnic/racial prejudices and ideological disputes can prevent party leaders from doing the "rational" thing and uniting for control. We will show in a moment an astonishing example of how one man′s personal spite has gravely -- perhaps irredeemably -- jeopardized America′s national self-interest and world peace.
Despite its deficiencies, Riker′s analysis is sound where it counts: it makes you think objectively and creatively. Poor Henry′s latest statement that Ukraine should give up and give land to Putin shows he continues to be incapable of either of them.
Which brings us to our main point:
Here is where Kissinger went catastrophically wrong on China:
Indisputably, the two biggest and most powerful players in Southeast Asia are the United States and China. To lay bare the underlying power dynamics at work, we return to the above model:
Let us assume the U.S. and China are Parties B (40 members) and C (26 members) respectively.
Obviously, if they formed a coalition they would dominate the region. However, there would be no rational reason for the United States to form a coalition with China:
(i) A U.S.-China coalition would result in far more power -- 66% -- than the United States needed to take control of the area.
(ii) Because it had a lot to offer, the price which China would, could, and should demand for making a coalition with the U.S. would be high relative to the price demanded by smaller Southeast Asia nations.
In a word: if China had 26% of the power, it would reasonably demand 26% of the action.
(iii) From a realpolitik standpoint, any China/United States coalition could only be temporary.
Assuming China obtained the high price it wanted, it would be advantageous for it to coalesce with America -- but only as a temporary holding action. The reason is that
(iv) even if the United States paid the 26%-price China demanded, China would still, over time, build its own coalition with smaller nations that would ask far less than the 40% the United States commanded. Indeed, only 25% more and China takes control.
What was said, then, about America coalescing with smaller Asian nations applies equally to China -- perhaps even more so. By uniting with them, Number 2 (China) becomes Number 1.
That is precisely what is happening now. China is practicing realpolitik; the United States is not.
It is time for two definitions:
(i) KISSINGER′S CHINA FOLLY is the United States/China coalition that Kissinger sought and obtained. A TOP SECRET document recently declassified makes clear he was fully aware of what he was doing. He told Chairman Mao, “As between you and us, even if we sometimes criticize each other, we will co-ordinate our actions with you, and we would never participate in a policy to isolate you.”
(ii) The KISSINGER KICKER is the ruinous high price Kissinger made America pay to China for forming that coalition.
Why did Kissinger so desperately want a coalition with China? Why was he willing to pay an absurd price for it? I will provide the answer shortly.
Before continuing, let′s take a closer look at The Kissinger Kicker.
We want this; we want that ... Under Kissinger′s lead, the United States paid the exorbitant 26%-price -- and then some -- China demanded. That the price was indeed exorbitant is seen in the everyday world where Americans live and work. Professor Peter Navarro quantified The Kissinger Kicker′s damage: 57,000 factories gone and 5.5 million jobs lost.
From the standpoint of coalition building, viz., of realpolitik, America should have formed a coalition with Vietnam and other Southeast Asia nations to balance China -- and not with China to form a counterweight to Vietnam.
The historical, political and military foundation was in place for such a coalition. North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh had been a close American ally in World War II against Japan.
In common and common-sense parlance, Kissinger got it ass-backwards.
Why didn′t Kissinger do the right thing -- forge a coalition with other nations to balance China?
Thanks to the de-classification of top secret State Department memos, we now have the answer:
Kissinger′s lack of judgment is rooted in a visceral obsession with revenge for having been outsmarted and outmaneuvered by North Vietnam in the 1968-73 Paris Peace Talks.
Kissinger′s obsession has not gone away. His on-going, obsessive-compulsive trips to China – which China welcomes as helpful for maintaining The Kissinger Kicker -- indicate he continues, many decades after the fact, to sit around all day and hate Vietnam.
* * *
Drugs and alcoholism; destroyed families; suicides; shuttered stores and disappeared factories; financially-broke cities; unemployment checks running out; cyber snooping; stolen videos; imported goods that fall apart: there is no doubt that America is still paying an astronomical price for one man′s malice -- but it may be low compared to what is coming.
? "I advise the US not to make a fool out of themselves in trying to be smart,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang lectured about tensions in the South China Sea.
? Beijing′s state media branded Trump is "as ignorant as a child ... " The insults continue.
Kissinger′s China Folly and The Kissinger Kicker are fueling an implacable Chinese contempt for America. No surprise there. Contempt is as predictable as it is deserved when you don′t know what you are doing but obstinately keep doing it anyway.
To repeat, the origin of that obstinacy is Kissinger′s humiliating defeat at the hands of the North Vietnamese.
Oh really? you say - prove it.
Glad to. According to a declassified, top secret State Department memo, this is what Kissinger told the Government of Thailand in a reunion in 1975:
"We don′t mind Chinese influence in Cambodia to balance North Vietnam. As I told the Chinese when we last met when we were discussing the Vietnamese victory in Indochina, it is possible to have an ideological victory which is a geopolitical defeat. The Chinese did not disagree with me."
Three observations:
(i) Kissinger obviously believed that if Vietnam were isolated geopolitically, his 1973 defeat would be magically transformed into victory. He is neurotically searching, in league with China, an alchemical solution. The Chinese – whose economic development is spurred on by The Kissinger Kicker -- are only too willing to look on benevolently. "Yes, Henry, you′re so right. Yes, Henry, you′re a great man."
(ii) A word in Kissinger′s above quote may have caught your eye: Cambodia.
In 1975-79, the genocidal Pol Pot ruled the country. To show the astonishing lengths to which Kissinger was prepared to go to punish Vietnam for winning the war against the United States, he told the Thailand Government: “I am personally embarrassed by the Vietnam war [sic]. I believe that if you go to war, you go to win and not lose with moderation.
We are aware that the biggest threat in Southeast Asia at the present time is North Vietnam [sic]. Our strategy is to get the Chinese into Laos and Cambodia as a barrier to the Vietnamese… You [the Thailand Government] should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won′t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”
Kissinger wanted to be friends with the “murderous thug” Pol Pot. If Kissinger is ever tried for war crimes, look for the quote you just read to be Exhibit 1.
(iii) "The Chinese did not disagree with me." Here you see the end product of Kissinger′s hatred of Hanoi. He unwittingly sets up the Chinese Government as the ultimate judge and jury of who is right, who is wrong; of what is good, what is bad. That is a perfect example of what Carl Jung called a sacrificium intellectus.
In the end, a personal feeling -- not a realpolitik analysis of objective circumstances -- ultimately lay behind Kissinger′s China Folly.
As for what that feeling was ...
Mao "radiates authority and deep wisdom" Kissinger wrote in a top secret document to President Nixon.
We have all seen that awe of the Orient before, many times: -"Kung Fu," Zen Buddhism, "The Karate Kid," I Ching, Taoism, "Charlie Chan."
What is wrong with Kissinger′s fawning over Mao is what lurks beneath it:
Any extreme always indicates the presence nearby of its opposite, usually in latent form. That presence is what makes the first extreme an extreme -- gives it its energy -- in the first place.
Radiates authority and deep wisdom is an obvious over-compensation.
Over-compensation for what?
You, dear reader, already know.
Scratch the surface and you will find the same old, gut-wrenching, xenophobic Yellow Peril panic.
To repeat, we have seen all of that before. Europe′s idealized Dream Woman of the Middle Ages gave way to the burning of real women as witches. Chinese readers: take note.
Tragically, the story does not end with Kissinger′s puerile longings to get even with North Vietnam for defeating him.
Mark my words; mark them well. If a world war between America and China takes place, Kissinger′s China Folly will finally be recognized for what it is and consigned where it belongs: infamy.
I am not saying that war with China is inevitable. I am saying that as a consequence of one man′s ignorance of basic power relationships and his petty vindictiveness, with every passing day the evitability is less.
* * *
Will President Biden do what Kissinger failed to do -- take a realpolitik approach and construct enduring alliances with Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and yes, Vietnam, to balance China?
No chance.
The White House and Pentagon believe that surrounding China with lily-pad military installations can make up for the lack of enduring alliances. Military emplacements on rock piles in the ocean are a no-fuss-no-muss fix.
In other words: a gimmick.
Sidebar: I suspect somebody in Beijing has an absurdist sense of humor: reef warfare. Their response to America′s militarized islands is to make ... new islands. A tip-of-the-hat to Monty Python.
It is important to point out that if you add up all the populations of the Southeast Asia nations just mentioned, the total (642 million) does not come to even half of the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China. Kissinger sycophants and State Department bureaucrats will smugly assert that, as a consequence, all those nations together aren′t big enough to form a coalition that will balance China. In case you are wondering, adding Japan (126 million), South Korea (51 million) and Taiwan (23 million) still falls far short of equaling China′s population.
Well, if we reduce power to warm body counts as the CIA and NSA are inclined to do, there is one nation in the neighborhood that comes close to equaling China: India with 1.3 billion population. Speaking of coming close, India borders China; territorial disputes are on-going.
We are not talking about tearing China down. No Bad Neighbor policy here. We are talking about building something else up. The White House, CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have yet to learn that the real purpose of competition is not to destroy your opponent; rather, competition helps you improve your performance. That is, of course, assuming you are not corrupt in which case competition will destroy you.
I note in passing that it is a waste of time proclaiming and defaming to the stars above that China is "unfair" or "cheating." All China did -- and is doing this very moment -- in playing Kissinger for a useful fool is what America should have done but did not do: protect its own national self-interest.
* * *
For the United States, what is to be done?
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Stop listening to Kissinger and his sycophants. Stop looking for solutions from the man who created the problem and who enormously profits from it economically.
Tragically, the possibility that Washington will stop digging is somewhere between slim and none:
The military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address will fight tooth-and-nail any switch away from their militarized lily-pads toward serious political coalition-building. To allow that switch would be tantamount to admitting that their strategy was not up to the task of providing for America′s national security.
For exactly the same reason, the Biden Administration will not stop listening to Henry Kissinger. You may see, for domestic political reasons, Biden continue to bark at The Kissinger Kicker and the socio-economic devastation it rendered America. For their part, the Chinese will nod and wink.. Excellent hand-to-hand fighters, they know a perfume left and a powder-puff right when they see one.
* * *
President Nixon famously proclaimed his 1972 visit to China to be "the week that changed the world."
If Kissinger′s China Folly is allowed to stand, Nixon′s words will come back to haunt the world in a way neither he nor anyone else ever imagined.
Assuming, of course, there is somebody left to haunt.
There is a quick and easy way for Joe Biden to show he is serious about countering Poor Henry, his China Folly, and his appeasemenmt of Putin.
Make what is latent manifest.
Make Poor Henry register as an agent of a foreign power.
Edit profile
Intro
Inside agitator
Edit bio
Edit details
Add Hobbies
Add Featured
4,998 friends
?·?Meta ? 2022
What's on your mind?
Live video
Photo/video
Life event
Posts
Filters
Manage Posts
Other Posts
1d?
?·?Shared with Public
POOR HENRY. HE JUST DOESN′T GET IT
An off-theme - but an urgent one.
A NECESSARY INTRODUCTION
"If you want to get your B.A. in Politics, you need to come to my home state of Illinois. If you want to get your Master's degree in Politics, you'd better go to Louisiana. But if you want to get your Ph.D., you're gonna have to go to New Mexico!"
- U.S. Republican Senator and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen --
I have a Ph.D. in politics (University of Florida). More importantly, for four years I was Chief of Staff to the Majority Floor Leader (Democrat) of the New Mexico House of Representatives.
We faced a dire situation: 11 conservative Democrats formed a coalition with Republicans and took control of the 70-member House. Their majority was razor-thin, 36-34. That reality meant that to get anything done we had to form coalitions with coalition members. Several thousand piecies of legislation were introduced every year, and we had to make a decision and take action on them. Trench warfare, in short.
Upshot: I participated in far more coalition-building than Poor Henry, 10-1.
The ultimate takeaway is a fact of life. In New Mexico′s mean-as-snakes environment, Poor Henry wouldn′t have survived 10 minutes.
* * *
He′s back.
Yesterday′s CNN report (May 28, 2022):
"Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has made a blistering attack on former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who suggested on Tuesday that peace negotiations should be aimed at creating borders along the "line of contact" in Donbas as it existed on the eve of the Russian invasion.
Kissinger was speaking by video link to the Davos Forum.
In a video message Wednesday, Zelensky said, "No matter what the Russian state does, there is someone who says: 'let's take into account its interests.' This year in Davos, it was heard again. Despite thousands of Russian missiles hitting Ukraine. Despite tens of thousands of Ukrainians being killed. Despite Bucha and Mariupol, etc. Despite the destroyed cities. And despite the 'filtration camps' built by the Russian state, in which they kill, torture, rape and humiliate like on a conveyor belt.
"Russia has done all this in Europe. But still, in Davos, for example, Mr. Kissinger emerges from the deep past and says that a piece of Ukraine should be given to Russia."In his remarks, Kissinger said of the conflict that: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” apparently suggesting that Ukraine agree to give up much of the Donbas and Crimea.
"Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself," Kissinger said.
Zelensky compared Kissinger's views to appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938.
"It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022 but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos but in what was then Munich," he said. "By the way, in the real year 1938, when Mr. Kissinger's family was fleeing Nazi Germany, he was 15 years old."Zelensky called those who advise that Ukraine give something to Russia, the "'great geo-politicians,' do not always want to see ordinary people. Ordinary Ukrainians. Millions of those who actually live in the territory they are proposing to exchange for the illusion of peace. You always have to see people."
Bravo, President Zelensky; you hit the nail on the head.
Many readers will doubt what I just said. After all, how could a Ukrainian comedian understand world affairs better than a Harvard professor and former Secretary of State?
Answer: it′s easy..
* * *
Let′s cut to the quick of the growing gloom surrounding not only Ukraine but China.
A world war between the United States and China is emerging on the not-so-distant horizon.
If it breaks out, the resulting deaths and destruction will be completely unprecedented in world history. For starters, Imagine New York and Los Angeles, Beijing and Shanghai as flat, black and glowing in the dark, uninhabitable.for thousands of years. The war in Ukraine will look like what it will be: a warmup act.
J′accuse ...! The major cause of the looming world catastrophe is one man: Henry Kissinger.
As Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under President Richard Nixon, Kissinger forged much of the architecture of international relations running and ruining the world today.
I realize any Kissinger-catastrophe association is unacceptable – indeed, inconceivable -- to the vast majority of Americans. Their shock on seeing it here for the first time is the result of decades of propaganda by Washington and the American mass media picturing Kissinger as the world-beater negotiator, a great man, a genius′s genius.
The case for trying Kissinger for crimes against humanity is highly probative. However, our case is of another order...
We charge Henry Kissinger with gross incompetence.
Our basic premise: if you don′t get it right on China, the rest won′t matter.
In that regard, I will reveal here how Kissinger created the core of The Old World Disorder.
I will also reveal the long-kept secret of what motivated him. I promise you an ah-ha! moment of colossal proportions.
I also promise something else. In three minutes you will understand international relations better than Henry Kissinger ever did. His Ukraine statement reveals that what he was and always will be: politically tone-deaf.
* * *
China is surging as an economic, political and military power. It is also becoming increasingly aggressive.
? Beijing menaced America in the South China Sea over China′s transformation of reefs into islands to which China claims sovereignty and is rapidly militarizing. Of the U.S. spy plane incident, the Beijing government-connected Global Times announced in an editorial: "China, despite its unwillingness, is not afraid to fight a war with the US in the region, and is determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.”
? China bullied Singapore over its continuing relations with Taiwan.
? China′s aircraft carrier was roaming the Pacific: "The threat of our enemy is growing day by day. We should always be maintaining our combat alertness," said Taiwan Defense Minister Feng Shih-Kuan.
.
? The list is getting longer.
We show below how the growing combativeness of China is the fruit of the incredible incompetence and malice of Poor Henry.
* * *
The overtime, overdrive American agit-prop machine picturing Kissinger as a great international statesman has associated -- almost as an involuntary reflex -- his name with realpolitik.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Realistic, pragmatic: it is easily shown Kissinger was neither.
Rather, I should say is neither.. .
To the detriment of world peace and stability, the 99-year-old Kissinger continues to meddle in America′s relations with China.
For their part, the Chinese know a useful fool when they see one. They continue to build up Kissinger as America′s Go-To Man for Chinese affairs. Chairman Mao gave the watchword: Kissinger is an "old friend of Chinese people."
You might want to wonder why.
What follows is a warning not only to Americans but also to China; in fact, to everyone except President Zelensky who doesn′t need it..
* * *
You want to see what true realpolitik in international relations looks like?
For over 99% of American readers, it will be the first time.
Forget personalities. Forget hate, vengeance. Forget love, misty water-colored memories. Forget any personal bias or preference. Forget ideology. Realpolitik is the exact opposite of what Kissinger and his coterie in Washington did and are still doing in Davos and elsewhere.
The core of realpolitik in international relations is coalition-building. The growing bellicose China-U.S. relations cannot be understood apart from it.
To understand coalition building requires a type of logic which is unfamiliar to most Americans. That ignorance is readily understandable; it is the upshot of a two-party political system in which coalitions are rarely up front. Such is not the case in countries with multiple political parties, e.g., Ecuador, Norway, South Korea and Spain.
Hence, for Americans to understand what is involved in coalitions, a concise but crucial introduction is required.
Sidebar. You will find a basic introduction to coalition building in William Riker, "The Theory of Political Coalitions," Yale University Press, 1962. Riker employed game theory. I seriously doubt Kissinger read Riker′s book; if he did, he didn′t understand it.
Riker′s basic premise: the coalition which wins is the minimal one required to take control.
An illustrative example. Let′s imagine a five-party system after a general election.
The representation of the parties is as follows:
Party A: 5. Party B: 40. Party C: 26. Party D: 25. Party E: 4. Sum: 100 representatives.
51 are needed to form a majority and win control.
There are three possible winning coalitions:
Parties B and C = 66 representatives. Parties B and D = 65 representatives. Parties C and D = 51 representatives.
If we assume that power will be divided according to strength within the coalition, any party will want the largest relative size within the coalition. The result is that the coalition "Party C and D" will be the winning coalition.
The largest party is thus kept from power.
Two points:
First, I underline something that is counterintuitive:
In a situation of fragmentation of power, it is not necessarily an advantage to be the biggest, most powerful party. If you occupy that position, as does America in Southeast Asia and President Mariano Rajoy did in Spain, you had better know what to do with it ... or else.
And second, political realities modify Riker′s premise. Most importantly, the five-party model shown above assumes the parties are impregnable blocks. In practice, if worked properly, you can usually break off a few members. However, other parties will play the same game, which is why, if you are in the biggest party, you may be in for a shrewd awakening.
Tradition, distrust, family relations, hurt feelings, opposing economic interests, personality conflicts, long-standing feuds, ethnic/racial prejudices and ideological disputes can prevent party leaders from doing the "rational" thing and uniting for control. We will show in a moment an astonishing example of how one man′s personal spite has gravely -- perhaps irredeemably -- jeopardized America′s national self-interest and world peace.
Despite its deficiencies, Riker′s analysis is sound where it counts: it makes you think objectively and creatively. Poor Henry′s latest statement that Ukraine should give up and give land to Putin shows he continues to be incapable of either of them.
Which brings us to our main point:
Here is where Kissinger went catastrophically wrong on China:
Indisputably, the two biggest and most powerful players in Southeast Asia are the United States and China. To lay bare the underlying power dynamics at work, we return to the above model:
Let us assume the U.S. and China are Parties B (40 members) and C (26 members) respectively.
Obviously, if they formed a coalition they would dominate the region. However, there would be no rational reason for the United States to form a coalition with China:
(i) A U.S.-China coalition would result in far more power -- 66% -- than the United States needed to take control of the area.
(ii) Because it had a lot to offer, the price which China would, could, and should demand for making a coalition with the U.S. would be high relative to the price demanded by smaller Southeast Asia nations.
In a word: if China had 26% of the power, it would reasonably demand 26% of the action.
(iii) From a realpolitik standpoint, any China/United States coalition could only be temporary.
Assuming China obtained the high price it wanted, it would be advantageous for it to coalesce with America -- but only as a temporary holding action. The reason is that
(iv) even if the United States paid the 26%-price China demanded, China would still, over time, build its own coalition with smaller nations that would ask far less than the 40% the United States commanded. Indeed, only 25% more and China takes control.
What was said, then, about America coalescing with smaller Asian nations applies equally to China -- perhaps even more so. By uniting with them, Number 2 (China) becomes Number 1.
That is precisely what is happening now. China is practicing realpolitik; the United States is not.
It is time for two definitions:
(i) KISSINGER′S CHINA FOLLY is the United States/China coalition that Kissinger sought and obtained. A TOP SECRET document recently declassified makes clear he was fully aware of what he was doing. He told Chairman Mao, “As between you and us, even if we sometimes criticize each other, we will co-ordinate our actions with you, and we would never participate in a policy to isolate you.”
(ii) The KISSINGER KICKER is the ruinous high price Kissinger made America pay to China for forming that coalition.
Why did Kissinger so desperately want a coalition with China? Why was he willing to pay an absurd price for it? I will provide the answer shortly.
Before continuing, let′s take a closer look at The Kissinger Kicker.
We want this; we want that ... Under Kissinger′s lead, the United States paid the exorbitant 26%-price -- and then some -- China demanded. That the price was indeed exorbitant is seen in the everyday world where Americans live and work. Professor Peter Navarro quantified The Kissinger Kicker′s damage: 57,000 factories gone and 5.5 million jobs lost.
From the standpoint of coalition building, viz., of realpolitik, America should have formed a coalition with Vietnam and other Southeast Asia nations to balance China -- and not with China to form a counterweight to Vietnam.
The historical, political and military foundation was in place for such a coalition. North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh had been a close American ally in World War II against Japan.
In common and common-sense parlance, Kissinger got it ass-backwards.
Why didn′t Kissinger do the right thing -- forge a coalition with other nations to balance China?
Thanks to the de-classification of top secret State Department memos, we now have the answer:
Kissinger′s lack of judgment is rooted in a visceral obsession with revenge for having been outsmarted and outmaneuvered by North Vietnam in the 1968-73 Paris Peace Talks.
Kissinger′s obsession has not gone away. His on-going, obsessive-compulsive trips to China – which China welcomes as helpful for maintaining The Kissinger Kicker -- indicate he continues, many decades after the fact, to sit around all day and hate Vietnam.
* * *
Drugs and alcoholism; destroyed families; suicides; shuttered stores and disappeared factories; financially-broke cities; unemployment checks running out; cyber snooping; stolen videos; imported goods that fall apart: there is no doubt that America is still paying an astronomical price for one man′s malice -- but it may be low compared to what is coming.
? "I advise the US not to make a fool out of themselves in trying to be smart,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang lectured about tensions in the South China Sea.
? Beijing′s state media branded Trump is "as ignorant as a child ... " The insults continue.
Kissinger′s China Folly and The Kissinger Kicker are fueling an implacable Chinese contempt for America. No surprise there. Contempt is as predictable as it is deserved when you don′t know what you are doing but obstinately keep doing it anyway.
To repeat, the origin of that obstinacy is Kissinger′s humiliating defeat at the hands of the North Vietnamese.
Oh really? you say - prove it.
Glad to. According to a declassified, top secret State Department memo, this is what Kissinger told the Government of Thailand in a reunion in 1975:
"We don′t mind Chinese influence in Cambodia to balance North Vietnam. As I told the Chinese when we last met when we were discussing the Vietnamese victory in Indochina, it is possible to have an ideological victory which is a geopolitical defeat. The Chinese did not disagree with me."
Three observations:
(i) Kissinger obviously believed that if Vietnam were isolated geopolitically, his 1973 defeat would be magically transformed into victory. He is neurotically searching, in league with China, an alchemical solution. The Chinese – whose economic development is spurred on by The Kissinger Kicker -- are only too willing to look on benevolently. "Yes, Henry, you′re so right. Yes, Henry, you′re a great man."
(ii) A word in Kissinger′s above quote may have caught your eye: Cambodia.
In 1975-79, the genocidal Pol Pot ruled the country. To show the astonishing lengths to which Kissinger was prepared to go to punish Vietnam for winning the war against the United States, he told the Thailand Government: “I am personally embarrassed by the Vietnam war [sic]. I believe that if you go to war, you go to win and not lose with moderation.
We are aware that the biggest threat in Southeast Asia at the present time is North Vietnam [sic]. Our strategy is to get the Chinese into Laos and Cambodia as a barrier to the Vietnamese… You [the Thailand Government] should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won′t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”
Kissinger wanted to be friends with the “murderous thug” Pol Pot. If Kissinger is ever tried for war crimes, look for the quote you just read to be Exhibit 1.
(iii) "The Chinese did not disagree with me." Here you see the end product of Kissinger′s hatred of Hanoi. He unwittingly sets up the Chinese Government as the ultimate judge and jury of who is right, who is wrong; of what is good, what is bad. That is a perfect example of what Carl Jung called a sacrificium intellectus.
In the end, a personal feeling -- not a realpolitik analysis of objective circumstances -- ultimately lay behind Kissinger′s China Folly.
As for what that feeling was ...
Mao "radiates authority and deep wisdom" Kissinger wrote in a top secret document to President Nixon.
We have all seen that awe of the Orient before, many times: -"Kung Fu," Zen Buddhism, "The Karate Kid," I Ching, Taoism, "Charlie Chan."
What is wrong with Kissinger′s fawning over Mao is what lurks beneath it:
Any extreme always indicates the presence nearby of its opposite, usually in latent form. That presence is what makes the first extreme an extreme -- gives it its energy -- in the first place.
Radiates authority and deep wisdom is an obvious over-compensation.
Over-compensation for what?
You, dear reader, already know.
Scratch the surface and you will find the same old, gut-wrenching, xenophobic Yellow Peril panic.
To repeat, we have seen all of that before. Europe′s idealized Dream Woman of the Middle Ages gave way to the burning of real women as witches. Chinese readers: take note.
Tragically, the story does not end with Kissinger′s puerile longings to get even with North Vietnam for defeating him.
Mark my words; mark them well. If a world war between America and China takes place, Kissinger′s China Folly will finally be recognized for what it is and consigned where it belongs: infamy.
I am not saying that war with China is inevitable. I am saying that as a consequence of one man′s ignorance of basic power relationships and his petty vindictiveness, with every passing day the evitability is less.
* * *
Will President Biden do what Kissinger failed to do -- take a realpolitik approach and construct enduring alliances with Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and yes, Vietnam, to balance China?
No chance.
The White House and Pentagon believe that surrounding China with lily-pad military installations can make up for the lack of enduring alliances. Military emplacements on rock piles in the ocean are a no-fuss-no-muss fix.
In other words: a gimmick.
Sidebar: I suspect somebody in Beijing has an absurdist sense of humor: reef warfare. Their response to America′s militarized islands is to make ... new islands. A tip-of-the-hat to Monty Python.
It is important to point out that if you add up all the populations of the Southeast Asia nations just mentioned, the total (642 million) does not come to even half of the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China. Kissinger sycophants and State Department bureaucrats will smugly assert that, as a consequence, all those nations together aren′t big enough to form a coalition that will balance China. In case you are wondering, adding Japan (126 million), South Korea (51 million) and Taiwan (23 million) still falls far short of equaling China′s population.
Well, if we reduce power to warm body counts as the CIA and NSA are inclined to do, there is one nation in the neighborhood that comes close to equaling China: India with 1.3 billion population. Speaking of coming close, India borders China; territorial disputes are on-going.
We are not talking about tearing China down. No Bad Neighbor policy here. We are talking about building something else up. The White House, CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have yet to learn that the real purpose of competition is not to destroy your opponent; rather, competition helps you improve your performance. That is, of course, assuming you are not corrupt in which case competition will destroy you.
I note in passing that it is a waste of time proclaiming and defaming to the stars above that China is "unfair" or "cheating." All China did -- and is doing this very moment -- in playing Kissinger for a useful fool is what America should have done but did not do: protect its own national self-interest.
* * *
For the United States, what is to be done?
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Stop listening to Kissinger and his sycophants. Stop looking for solutions from the man who created the problem and who enormously profits from it economically.
Tragically, the possibility that Washington will stop digging is somewhere between slim and none:
The military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address will fight tooth-and-nail any switch away from their militarized lily-pads toward serious political coalition-building. To allow that switch would be tantamount to admitting that their strategy was not up to the task of providing for America′s national security.
For exactly the same reason, the Biden Administration will not stop listening to Henry Kissinger. You may see, for domestic political reasons, Biden continue to bark at The Kissinger Kicker and the socio-economic devastation it rendered America. For their part, the Chinese will nod and wink.. Excellent hand-to-hand fighters, they know a perfume left and a powder-puff right when they see one.
* * *
President Nixon famously proclaimed his 1972 visit to China to be "the week that changed the world."
If Kissinger′s China Folly is allowed to stand, Nixon′s words will come back to haunt the world in a way neither he nor anyone else ever imagined.
Assuming, of course, there is somebody left to haunt.
There is a quick and easy way for Joe Biden to show he is serious about countering Poor Henry, his China Folly, and his appeasemenmt of Putin.
Make what is latent manifest.
Make Poor Henry register as an agent of a foreign power.
Images: 1. The fantasy comic book Kissinger sold by the mass media to millions of Americans in the 1970s. 2. The real Henry Kissinger. 3. Henry Kissinger and friend.
Edit profile
Intro
Inside agitator
Edit bio
Edit details
Add Hobbies
Add Featured
4,998 friends
领英推荐
?·?Meta ? 2022
What's on your mind?
Live video
Photo/video
Life event
Posts
Filters
Manage Posts
Other Posts
1d?
?·?Shared with Public
POOR HENRY. HE JUST DOESN′T GET IT
An off-theme - but an urgent one.
A NECESSARY INTRODUCTION
"If you want to get your B.A. in Politics, you need to come to my home state of Illinois. If you want to get your Master's degree in Politics, you'd better go to Louisiana. But if you want to get your Ph.D., you're gonna have to go to New Mexico!"
- U.S. Republican Senator and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen --
I have a Ph.D. in politics (University of Florida). More importantly, for four years I was Chief of Staff to the Majority Floor Leader (Democrat) of the New Mexico House of Representatives.
We faced a dire situation: 11 conservative Democrats formed a coalition with Republicans and took control of the 70-member House. Their majority was razor-thin, 36-34. That reality meant that to get anything done we had to form coalitions with coalition members. Several thousand piecies of legislation were introduced every year, and we had to make a decision and take action on them. Trench warfare, in short.
Upshot: I participated in far more coalition-building than Poor Henry, 10-1.
The ultimate takeaway is a fact of life. In New Mexico′s mean-as-snakes environment, Poor Henry wouldn′t have survived 10 minutes.
* * *
He′s back.
Yesterday′s CNN report (May 28, 2022):
"Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has made a blistering attack on former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who suggested on Tuesday that peace negotiations should be aimed at creating borders along the "line of contact" in Donbas as it existed on the eve of the Russian invasion.
Kissinger was speaking by video link to the Davos Forum.
In a video message Wednesday, Zelensky said, "No matter what the Russian state does, there is someone who says: 'let's take into account its interests.' This year in Davos, it was heard again. Despite thousands of Russian missiles hitting Ukraine. Despite tens of thousands of Ukrainians being killed. Despite Bucha and Mariupol, etc. Despite the destroyed cities. And despite the 'filtration camps' built by the Russian state, in which they kill, torture, rape and humiliate like on a conveyor belt.
"Russia has done all this in Europe. But still, in Davos, for example, Mr. Kissinger emerges from the deep past and says that a piece of Ukraine should be given to Russia."In his remarks, Kissinger said of the conflict that: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” apparently suggesting that Ukraine agree to give up much of the Donbas and Crimea.
"Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself," Kissinger said.
Zelensky compared Kissinger's views to appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938.
"It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022 but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos but in what was then Munich," he said. "By the way, in the real year 1938, when Mr. Kissinger's family was fleeing Nazi Germany, he was 15 years old."Zelensky called those who advise that Ukraine give something to Russia, the "'great geo-politicians,' do not always want to see ordinary people. Ordinary Ukrainians. Millions of those who actually live in the territory they are proposing to exchange for the illusion of peace. You always have to see people."
Bravo, President Zelensky; you hit the nail on the head.
Many readers will doubt what I just said. After all, how could a Ukrainian comedian understand world affairs better than a Harvard professor and former Secretary of State?
Answer: it′s easy..
* * *
Let′s cut to the quick of the growing gloom surrounding not only Ukraine but China.
A world war between the United States and China is emerging on the not-so-distant horizon.
If it breaks out, the resulting deaths and destruction will be completely unprecedented in world history. For starters, Imagine New York and Los Angeles, Beijing and Shanghai as flat, black and glowing in the dark, uninhabitable.for thousands of years. The war in Ukraine will look like what it will be: a warmup act.
J′accuse ...! The major cause of the looming world catastrophe is one man: Henry Kissinger.
As Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under President Richard Nixon, Kissinger forged much of the architecture of international relations running and ruining the world today.
I realize any Kissinger-catastrophe association is unacceptable – indeed, inconceivable -- to the vast majority of Americans. Their shock on seeing it here for the first time is the result of decades of propaganda by Washington and the American mass media picturing Kissinger as the world-beater negotiator, a great man, a genius′s genius.
The case for trying Kissinger for crimes against humanity is highly probative. However, our case is of another order...
We charge Henry Kissinger with gross incompetence.
Our basic premise: if you don′t get it right on China, the rest won′t matter.
In that regard, I will reveal here how Kissinger created the core of The Old World Disorder.
I will also reveal the long-kept secret of what motivated him. I promise you an ah-ha! moment of colossal proportions.
I also promise something else. In three minutes you will understand international relations better than Henry Kissinger ever did. His Ukraine statement reveals that what he was and always will be: politically tone-deaf.
* * *
China is surging as an economic, political and military power. It is also becoming increasingly aggressive.
? Beijing menaced America in the South China Sea over China′s transformation of reefs into islands to which China claims sovereignty and is rapidly militarizing. Of the U.S. spy plane incident, the Beijing government-connected Global Times announced in an editorial: "China, despite its unwillingness, is not afraid to fight a war with the US in the region, and is determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.”
? China bullied Singapore over its continuing relations with Taiwan.
? China′s aircraft carrier was roaming the Pacific: "The threat of our enemy is growing day by day. We should always be maintaining our combat alertness," said Taiwan Defense Minister Feng Shih-Kuan.
.
? The list is getting longer.
We show below how the growing combativeness of China is the fruit of the incredible incompetence and malice of Poor Henry.
* * *
The overtime, overdrive American agit-prop machine picturing Kissinger as a great international statesman has associated -- almost as an involuntary reflex -- his name with realpolitik.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Realistic, pragmatic: it is easily shown Kissinger was neither.
Rather, I should say is neither.. .
To the detriment of world peace and stability, the 99-year-old Kissinger continues to meddle in America′s relations with China.
For their part, the Chinese know a useful fool when they see one. They continue to build up Kissinger as America′s Go-To Man for Chinese affairs. Chairman Mao gave the watchword: Kissinger is an "old friend of Chinese people."
You might want to wonder why.
What follows is a warning not only to Americans but also to China; in fact, to everyone except President Zelensky who doesn′t need it..
* * *
You want to see what true realpolitik in international relations looks like?
For over 99% of American readers, it will be the first time.
Forget personalities. Forget hate, vengeance. Forget love, misty water-colored memories. Forget any personal bias or preference. Forget ideology. Realpolitik is the exact opposite of what Kissinger and his coterie in Washington did and are still doing in Davos and elsewhere.
The core of realpolitik in international relations is coalition-building. The growing bellicose China-U.S. relations cannot be understood apart from it.
To understand coalition building requires a type of logic which is unfamiliar to most Americans. That ignorance is readily understandable; it is the upshot of a two-party political system in which coalitions are rarely up front. Such is not the case in countries with multiple political parties, e.g., Ecuador, Norway, South Korea and Spain.
Hence, for Americans to understand what is involved in coalitions, a concise but crucial introduction is required.
Sidebar. You will find a basic introduction to coalition building in William Riker, "The Theory of Political Coalitions," Yale University Press, 1962. Riker employed game theory. I seriously doubt Kissinger read Riker′s book; if he did, he didn′t understand it.
Riker′s basic premise: the coalition which wins is the minimal one required to take control.
An illustrative example. Let′s imagine a five-party system after a general election.
The representation of the parties is as follows:
Party A: 5. Party B: 40. Party C: 26. Party D: 25. Party E: 4. Sum: 100 representatives.
51 are needed to form a majority and win control.
There are three possible winning coalitions:
Parties B and C = 66 representatives. Parties B and D = 65 representatives. Parties C and D = 51 representatives.
If we assume that power will be divided according to strength within the coalition, any party will want the largest relative size within the coalition. The result is that the coalition "Party C and D" will be the winning coalition.
The largest party is thus kept from power.
Two points:
First, I underline something that is counterintuitive:
In a situation of fragmentation of power, it is not necessarily an advantage to be the biggest, most powerful party. If you occupy that position, as does America in Southeast Asia and President Mariano Rajoy did in Spain, you had better know what to do with it ... or else.
And second, political realities modify Riker′s premise. Most importantly, the five-party model shown above assumes the parties are impregnable blocks. In practice, if worked properly, you can usually break off a few members. However, other parties will play the same game, which is why, if you are in the biggest party, you may be in for a shrewd awakening.
Tradition, distrust, family relations, hurt feelings, opposing economic interests, personality conflicts, long-standing feuds, ethnic/racial prejudices and ideological disputes can prevent party leaders from doing the "rational" thing and uniting for control. We will show in a moment an astonishing example of how one man′s personal spite has gravely -- perhaps irredeemably -- jeopardized America′s national self-interest and world peace.
Despite its deficiencies, Riker′s analysis is sound where it counts: it makes you think objectively and creatively. Poor Henry′s latest statement that Ukraine should give up and give land to Putin shows he continues to be incapable of either of them.
Which brings us to our main point:
Here is where Kissinger went catastrophically wrong on China:
Indisputably, the two biggest and most powerful players in Southeast Asia are the United States and China. To lay bare the underlying power dynamics at work, we return to the above model:
Let us assume the U.S. and China are Parties B (40 members) and C (26 members) respectively.
Obviously, if they formed a coalition they would dominate the region. However, there would be no rational reason for the United States to form a coalition with China:
(i) A U.S.-China coalition would result in far more power -- 66% -- than the United States needed to take control of the area.
(ii) Because it had a lot to offer, the price which China would, could, and should demand for making a coalition with the U.S. would be high relative to the price demanded by smaller Southeast Asia nations.
In a word: if China had 26% of the power, it would reasonably demand 26% of the action.
(iii) From a realpolitik standpoint, any China/United States coalition could only be temporary.
Assuming China obtained the high price it wanted, it would be advantageous for it to coalesce with America -- but only as a temporary holding action. The reason is that
(iv) even if the United States paid the 26%-price China demanded, China would still, over time, build its own coalition with smaller nations that would ask far less than the 40% the United States commanded. Indeed, only 25% more and China takes control.
What was said, then, about America coalescing with smaller Asian nations applies equally to China -- perhaps even more so. By uniting with them, Number 2 (China) becomes Number 1.
That is precisely what is happening now. China is practicing realpolitik; the United States is not.
It is time for two definitions:
(i) KISSINGER′S CHINA FOLLY is the United States/China coalition that Kissinger sought and obtained. A TOP SECRET document recently declassified makes clear he was fully aware of what he was doing. He told Chairman Mao, “As between you and us, even if we sometimes criticize each other, we will co-ordinate our actions with you, and we would never participate in a policy to isolate you.”
(ii) The KISSINGER KICKER is the ruinous high price Kissinger made America pay to China for forming that coalition.
Why did Kissinger so desperately want a coalition with China? Why was he willing to pay an absurd price for it? I will provide the answer shortly.
Before continuing, let′s take a closer look at The Kissinger Kicker.
We want this; we want that ... Under Kissinger′s lead, the United States paid the exorbitant 26%-price -- and then some -- China demanded. That the price was indeed exorbitant is seen in the everyday world where Americans live and work. Professor Peter Navarro quantified The Kissinger Kicker′s damage: 57,000 factories gone and 5.5 million jobs lost.
From the standpoint of coalition building, viz., of realpolitik, America should have formed a coalition with Vietnam and other Southeast Asia nations to balance China -- and not with China to form a counterweight to Vietnam.
The historical, political and military foundation was in place for such a coalition. North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh had been a close American ally in World War II against Japan.
In common and common-sense parlance, Kissinger got it ass-backwards.
Why didn′t Kissinger do the right thing -- forge a coalition with other nations to balance China?
Thanks to the de-classification of top secret State Department memos, we now have the answer:
Kissinger′s lack of judgment is rooted in a visceral obsession with revenge for having been outsmarted and outmaneuvered by North Vietnam in the 1968-73 Paris Peace Talks.
Kissinger′s obsession has not gone away. His on-going, obsessive-compulsive trips to China – which China welcomes as helpful for maintaining The Kissinger Kicker -- indicate he continues, many decades after the fact, to sit around all day and hate Vietnam.
* * *
Drugs and alcoholism; destroyed families; suicides; shuttered stores and disappeared factories; financially-broke cities; unemployment checks running out; cyber snooping; stolen videos; imported goods that fall apart: there is no doubt that America is still paying an astronomical price for one man′s malice -- but it may be low compared to what is coming.
? "I advise the US not to make a fool out of themselves in trying to be smart,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang lectured about tensions in the South China Sea.
? Beijing′s state media branded Trump is "as ignorant as a child ... " The insults continue.
Kissinger′s China Folly and The Kissinger Kicker are fueling an implacable Chinese contempt for America. No surprise there. Contempt is as predictable as it is deserved when you don′t know what you are doing but obstinately keep doing it anyway.
To repeat, the origin of that obstinacy is Kissinger′s humiliating defeat at the hands of the North Vietnamese.
Oh really? you say - prove it.
Glad to. According to a declassified, top secret State Department memo, this is what Kissinger told the Government of Thailand in a reunion in 1975:
"We don′t mind Chinese influence in Cambodia to balance North Vietnam. As I told the Chinese when we last met when we were discussing the Vietnamese victory in Indochina, it is possible to have an ideological victory which is a geopolitical defeat. The Chinese did not disagree with me."
Three observations:
(i) Kissinger obviously believed that if Vietnam were isolated geopolitically, his 1973 defeat would be magically transformed into victory. He is neurotically searching, in league with China, an alchemical solution. The Chinese – whose economic development is spurred on by The Kissinger Kicker -- are only too willing to look on benevolently. "Yes, Henry, you′re so right. Yes, Henry, you′re a great man."
(ii) A word in Kissinger′s above quote may have caught your eye: Cambodia.
In 1975-79, the genocidal Pol Pot ruled the country. To show the astonishing lengths to which Kissinger was prepared to go to punish Vietnam for winning the war against the United States, he told the Thailand Government: “I am personally embarrassed by the Vietnam war [sic]. I believe that if you go to war, you go to win and not lose with moderation.
We are aware that the biggest threat in Southeast Asia at the present time is North Vietnam [sic]. Our strategy is to get the Chinese into Laos and Cambodia as a barrier to the Vietnamese… You [the Thailand Government] should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won′t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”
Kissinger wanted to be friends with the “murderous thug” Pol Pot. If Kissinger is ever tried for war crimes, look for the quote you just read to be Exhibit 1.
(iii) "The Chinese did not disagree with me." Here you see the end product of Kissinger′s hatred of Hanoi. He unwittingly sets up the Chinese Government as the ultimate judge and jury of who is right, who is wrong; of what is good, what is bad. That is a perfect example of what Carl Jung called a sacrificium intellectus.
In the end, a personal feeling -- not a realpolitik analysis of objective circumstances -- ultimately lay behind Kissinger′s China Folly.
As for what that feeling was ...
Mao "radiates authority and deep wisdom" Kissinger wrote in a top secret document to President Nixon.
We have all seen that awe of the Orient before, many times: -"Kung Fu," Zen Buddhism, "The Karate Kid," I Ching, Taoism, "Charlie Chan."
What is wrong with Kissinger′s fawning over Mao is what lurks beneath it:
Any extreme always indicates the presence nearby of its opposite, usually in latent form. That presence is what makes the first extreme an extreme -- gives it its energy -- in the first place.
Radiates authority and deep wisdom is an obvious over-compensation.
Over-compensation for what?
You, dear reader, already know.
Scratch the surface and you will find the same old, gut-wrenching, xenophobic Yellow Peril panic.
To repeat, we have seen all of that before. Europe′s idealized Dream Woman of the Middle Ages gave way to the burning of real women as witches. Chinese readers: take note.
Tragically, the story does not end with Kissinger′s puerile longings to get even with North Vietnam for defeating him.
Mark my words; mark them well. If a world war between America and China takes place, Kissinger′s China Folly will finally be recognized for what it is and consigned where it belongs: infamy.
I am not saying that war with China is inevitable. I am saying that as a consequence of one man′s ignorance of basic power relationships and his petty vindictiveness, with every passing day the evitability is less.
* * *
Will President Biden do what Kissinger failed to do -- take a realpolitik approach and construct enduring alliances with Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and yes, Vietnam, to balance China?
No chance.
The White House and Pentagon believe that surrounding China with lily-pad military installations can make up for the lack of enduring alliances. Military emplacements on rock piles in the ocean are a no-fuss-no-muss fix.
In other words: a gimmick.
Sidebar: I suspect somebody in Beijing has an absurdist sense of humor: reef warfare. Their response to America′s militarized islands is to make ... new islands. A tip-of-the-hat to Monty Python.
It is important to point out that if you add up all the populations of the Southeast Asia nations just mentioned, the total (642 million) does not come to even half of the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China. Kissinger sycophants and State Department bureaucrats will smugly assert that, as a consequence, all those nations together aren′t big enough to form a coalition that will balance China. In case you are wondering, adding Japan (126 million), South Korea (51 million) and Taiwan (23 million) still falls far short of equaling China′s population.
Well, if we reduce power to warm body counts as the CIA and NSA are inclined to do, there is one nation in the neighborhood that comes close to equaling China: India with 1.3 billion population. Speaking of coming close, India borders China; territorial disputes are on-going.
We are not talking about tearing China down. No Bad Neighbor policy here. We are talking about building something else up. The White House, CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have yet to learn that the real purpose of competition is not to destroy your opponent; rather, competition helps you improve your performance. That is, of course, assuming you are not corrupt in which case competition will destroy you.
I note in passing that it is a waste of time proclaiming and defaming to the stars above that China is "unfair" or "cheating." All China did -- and is doing this very moment -- in playing Kissinger for a useful fool is what America should have done but did not do: protect its own national self-interest.
* * *
For the United States, what is to be done?
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Stop listening to Kissinger and his sycophants. Stop looking for solutions from the man who created the problem and who enormously profits from it economically.
Tragically, the possibility that Washington will stop digging is somewhere between slim and none:
The military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address will fight tooth-and-nail any switch away from their militarized lily-pads toward serious political coalition-building. To allow that switch would be tantamount to admitting that their strategy was not up to the task of providing for America′s national security.
For exactly the same reason, the Biden Administration will not stop listening to Henry Kissinger. You may see, for domestic political reasons, Biden continue to bark at The Kissinger Kicker and the socio-economic devastation it rendered America. For their part, the Chinese will nod and wink.. Excellent hand-to-hand fighters, they know a perfume left and a powder-puff right when they see one.
* * *
President Nixon famously proclaimed his 1972 visit to China to be "the week that changed the world."
If Kissinger′s China Folly is allowed to stand, Nixon′s words will come back to haunt the world in a way neither he nor anyone else ever imagined.
Assuming, of course, there is somebody left to haunt.
There is a quick and easy way for Joe Biden to show he is serious about countering Poor Henry, his China Folly, and his appeasemenmt of Putin.
Make what is latent manifest.
Make Poor Henry register as an agent of a foreign power.
Images: 1. The fantasy comic book Kissinger sold by the mass media to millions of Americans in the 1970s. 2. The real Henry Kissinger. 3. Henry Kissinger and friend.
Edit profile
Intro
Inside agitator
Edit bio
Edit details
Add Hobbies
Add Featured
4,998 friends
?·?Meta ? 2022
What's on your mind?
Live video
Photo/video
Life event
Posts
Filters
Manage Posts
Other Posts
1d?
?·?Shared with Public
POOR HENRY. HE JUST DOESN′T GET IT
An off-theme - but an urgent one.
A NECESSARY INTRODUCTION
"If you want to get your B.A. in Politics, you need to come to my home state of Illinois. If you want to get your Master's degree in Politics, you'd better go to Louisiana. But if you want to get your Ph.D., you're gonna have to go to New Mexico!"
- U.S. Republican Senator and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen --
I have a Ph.D. in politics (University of Florida). More importantly, for four years I was Chief of Staff to the Majority Floor Leader (Democrat) of the New Mexico House of Representatives.
We faced a dire situation: 11 conservative Democrats formed a coalition with Republicans and took control of the 70-member House. Their majority was razor-thin, 36-34. That reality meant that to get anything done we had to form coalitions with coalition members. Several thousand piecies of legislation were introduced every year, and we had to make a decision and take action on them. Trench warfare, in short.
Upshot: I participated in far more coalition-building than Poor Henry, 10-1.
The ultimate takeaway is a fact of life. In New Mexico′s mean-as-snakes environment, Poor Henry wouldn′t have survived 10 minutes.
* * *
He′s back.
Yesterday′s CNN report (May 28, 2022):
"Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has made a blistering attack on former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who suggested on Tuesday that peace negotiations should be aimed at creating borders along the "line of contact" in Donbas as it existed on the eve of the Russian invasion.
Kissinger was speaking by video link to the Davos Forum.
In a video message Wednesday, Zelensky said, "No matter what the Russian state does, there is someone who says: 'let's take into account its interests.' This year in Davos, it was heard again. Despite thousands of Russian missiles hitting Ukraine. Despite tens of thousands of Ukrainians being killed. Despite Bucha and Mariupol, etc. Despite the destroyed cities. And despite the 'filtration camps' built by the Russian state, in which they kill, torture, rape and humiliate like on a conveyor belt.
"Russia has done all this in Europe. But still, in Davos, for example, Mr. Kissinger emerges from the deep past and says that a piece of Ukraine should be given to Russia."In his remarks, Kissinger said of the conflict that: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” apparently suggesting that Ukraine agree to give up much of the Donbas and Crimea.
"Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself," Kissinger said.
Zelensky compared Kissinger's views to appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938.
"It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022 but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos but in what was then Munich," he said. "By the way, in the real year 1938, when Mr. Kissinger's family was fleeing Nazi Germany, he was 15 years old."Zelensky called those who advise that Ukraine give something to Russia, the "'great geo-politicians,' do not always want to see ordinary people. Ordinary Ukrainians. Millions of those who actually live in the territory they are proposing to exchange for the illusion of peace. You always have to see people."
Bravo, President Zelensky; you hit the nail on the head.
Many readers will doubt what I just said. After all, how could a Ukrainian comedian understand world affairs better than a Harvard professor and former Secretary of State?
Answer: it′s easy..
* * *
Let′s cut to the quick of the growing gloom surrounding not only Ukraine but China.
A world war between the United States and China is emerging on the not-so-distant horizon.
If it breaks out, the resulting deaths and destruction will be completely unprecedented in world history. For starters, Imagine New York and Los Angeles, Beijing and Shanghai as flat, black and glowing in the dark, uninhabitable.for thousands of years. The war in Ukraine will look like what it will be: a warmup act.
J′accuse ...! The major cause of the looming world catastrophe is one man: Henry Kissinger.
As Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under President Richard Nixon, Kissinger forged much of the architecture of international relations running and ruining the world today.
I realize any Kissinger-catastrophe association is unacceptable – indeed, inconceivable -- to the vast majority of Americans. Their shock on seeing it here for the first time is the result of decades of propaganda by Washington and the American mass media picturing Kissinger as the world-beater negotiator, a great man, a genius′s genius.
The case for trying Kissinger for crimes against humanity is highly probative. However, our case is of another order...
We charge Henry Kissinger with gross incompetence.
Our basic premise: if you don′t get it right on China, the rest won′t matter.
In that regard, I will reveal here how Kissinger created the core of The Old World Disorder.
I will also reveal the long-kept secret of what motivated him. I promise you an ah-ha! moment of colossal proportions.
I also promise something else. In three minutes you will understand international relations better than Henry Kissinger ever did. His Ukraine statement reveals that what he was and always will be: politically tone-deaf.
* * *
China is surging as an economic, political and military power. It is also becoming increasingly aggressive.
? Beijing menaced America in the South China Sea over China′s transformation of reefs into islands to which China claims sovereignty and is rapidly militarizing. Of the U.S. spy plane incident, the Beijing government-connected Global Times announced in an editorial: "China, despite its unwillingness, is not afraid to fight a war with the US in the region, and is determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.”
? China bullied Singapore over its continuing relations with Taiwan.
? China′s aircraft carrier was roaming the Pacific: "The threat of our enemy is growing day by day. We should always be maintaining our combat alertness," said Taiwan Defense Minister Feng Shih-Kuan.
.
? The list is getting longer.
We show below how the growing combativeness of China is the fruit of the incredible incompetence and malice of Poor Henry.
* * *
The overtime, overdrive American agit-prop machine picturing Kissinger as a great international statesman has associated -- almost as an involuntary reflex -- his name with realpolitik.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Realistic, pragmatic: it is easily shown Kissinger was neither.
Rather, I should say is neither.. .
To the detriment of world peace and stability, the 99-year-old Kissinger continues to meddle in America′s relations with China.
For their part, the Chinese know a useful fool when they see one. They continue to build up Kissinger as America′s Go-To Man for Chinese affairs. Chairman Mao gave the watchword: Kissinger is an "old friend of Chinese people."
You might want to wonder why.
What follows is a warning not only to Americans but also to China; in fact, to everyone except President Zelensky who doesn′t need it..
* * *
You want to see what true realpolitik in international relations looks like?
For over 99% of American readers, it will be the first time.
Forget personalities. Forget hate, vengeance. Forget love, misty water-colored memories. Forget any personal bias or preference. Forget ideology. Realpolitik is the exact opposite of what Kissinger and his coterie in Washington did and are still doing in Davos and elsewhere.
The core of realpolitik in international relations is coalition-building. The growing bellicose China-U.S. relations cannot be understood apart from it.
To understand coalition building requires a type of logic which is unfamiliar to most Americans. That ignorance is readily understandable; it is the upshot of a two-party political system in which coalitions are rarely up front. Such is not the case in countries with multiple political parties, e.g., Ecuador, Norway, South Korea and Spain.
Hence, for Americans to understand what is involved in coalitions, a concise but crucial introduction is required.
Sidebar. You will find a basic introduction to coalition building in William Riker, "The Theory of Political Coalitions," Yale University Press, 1962. Riker employed game theory. I seriously doubt Kissinger read Riker′s book; if he did, he didn′t understand it.
Riker′s basic premise: the coalition which wins is the minimal one required to take control.
An illustrative example. Let′s imagine a five-party system after a general election.
The representation of the parties is as follows:
Party A: 5. Party B: 40. Party C: 26. Party D: 25. Party E: 4. Sum: 100 representatives.
51 are needed to form a majority and win control.
There are three possible winning coalitions:
Parties B and C = 66 representatives. Parties B and D = 65 representatives. Parties C and D = 51 representatives.
If we assume that power will be divided according to strength within the coalition, any party will want the largest relative size within the coalition. The result is that the coalition "Party C and D" will be the winning coalition.
The largest party is thus kept from power.
Two points:
First, I underline something that is counterintuitive:
In a situation of fragmentation of power, it is not necessarily an advantage to be the biggest, most powerful party. If you occupy that position, as does America in Southeast Asia and President Mariano Rajoy did in Spain, you had better know what to do with it ... or else.
And second, political realities modify Riker′s premise. Most importantly, the five-party model shown above assumes the parties are impregnable blocks. In practice, if worked properly, you can usually break off a few members. However, other parties will play the same game, which is why, if you are in the biggest party, you may be in for a shrewd awakening.
Tradition, distrust, family relations, hurt feelings, opposing economic interests, personality conflicts, long-standing feuds, ethnic/racial prejudices and ideological disputes can prevent party leaders from doing the "rational" thing and uniting for control. We will show in a moment an astonishing example of how one man′s personal spite has gravely -- perhaps irredeemably -- jeopardized America′s national self-interest and world peace.
Despite its deficiencies, Riker′s analysis is sound where it counts: it makes you think objectively and creatively. Poor Henry′s latest statement that Ukraine should give up and give land to Putin shows he continues to be incapable of either of them.
Which brings us to our main point:
Here is where Kissinger went catastrophically wrong on China:
Indisputably, the two biggest and most powerful players in Southeast Asia are the United States and China. To lay bare the underlying power dynamics at work, we return to the above model:
Let us assume the U.S. and China are Parties B (40 members) and C (26 members) respectively.
Obviously, if they formed a coalition they would dominate the region. However, there would be no rational reason for the United States to form a coalition with China:
(i) A U.S.-China coalition would result in far more power -- 66% -- than the United States needed to take control of the area.
(ii) Because it had a lot to offer, the price which China would, could, and should demand for making a coalition with the U.S. would be high relative to the price demanded by smaller Southeast Asia nations.
In a word: if China had 26% of the power, it would reasonably demand 26% of the action.
(iii) From a realpolitik standpoint, any China/United States coalition could only be temporary.
Assuming China obtained the high price it wanted, it would be advantageous for it to coalesce with America -- but only as a temporary holding action. The reason is that
(iv) even if the United States paid the 26%-price China demanded, China would still, over time, build its own coalition with smaller nations that would ask far less than the 40% the United States commanded. Indeed, only 25% more and China takes control.
What was said, then, about America coalescing with smaller Asian nations applies equally to China -- perhaps even more so. By uniting with them, Number 2 (China) becomes Number 1.
That is precisely what is happening now. China is practicing realpolitik; the United States is not.
It is time for two definitions:
(i) KISSINGER′S CHINA FOLLY is the United States/China coalition that Kissinger sought and obtained. A TOP SECRET document recently declassified makes clear he was fully aware of what he was doing. He told Chairman Mao, “As between you and us, even if we sometimes criticize each other, we will co-ordinate our actions with you, and we would never participate in a policy to isolate you.”
(ii) The KISSINGER KICKER is the ruinous high price Kissinger made America pay to China for forming that coalition.
Why did Kissinger so desperately want a coalition with China? Why was he willing to pay an absurd price for it? I will provide the answer shortly.
Before continuing, let′s take a closer look at The Kissinger Kicker.
We want this; we want that ... Under Kissinger′s lead, the United States paid the exorbitant 26%-price -- and then some -- China demanded. That the price was indeed exorbitant is seen in the everyday world where Americans live and work. Professor Peter Navarro quantified The Kissinger Kicker′s damage: 57,000 factories gone and 5.5 million jobs lost.
From the standpoint of coalition building, viz., of realpolitik, America should have formed a coalition with Vietnam and other Southeast Asia nations to balance China -- and not with China to form a counterweight to Vietnam.
The historical, political and military foundation was in place for such a coalition. North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh had been a close American ally in World War II against Japan.
In common and common-sense parlance, Kissinger got it ass-backwards.
Why didn′t Kissinger do the right thing -- forge a coalition with other nations to balance China?
Thanks to the de-classification of top secret State Department memos, we now have the answer:
Kissinger′s lack of judgment is rooted in a visceral obsession with revenge for having been outsmarted and outmaneuvered by North Vietnam in the 1968-73 Paris Peace Talks.
Kissinger′s obsession has not gone away. His on-going, obsessive-compulsive trips to China – which China welcomes as helpful for maintaining The Kissinger Kicker -- indicate he continues, many decades after the fact, to sit around all day and hate Vietnam.
* * *
Drugs and alcoholism; destroyed families; suicides; shuttered stores and disappeared factories; financially-broke cities; unemployment checks running out; cyber snooping; stolen videos; imported goods that fall apart: there is no doubt that America is still paying an astronomical price for one man′s malice -- but it may be low compared to what is coming.
? "I advise the US not to make a fool out of themselves in trying to be smart,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang lectured about tensions in the South China Sea.
? Beijing′s state media branded Trump is "as ignorant as a child ... " The insults continue.
Kissinger′s China Folly and The Kissinger Kicker are fueling an implacable Chinese contempt for America. No surprise there. Contempt is as predictable as it is deserved when you don′t know what you are doing but obstinately keep doing it anyway.
To repeat, the origin of that obstinacy is Kissinger′s humiliating defeat at the hands of the North Vietnamese.
Oh really? you say - prove it.
Glad to. According to a declassified, top secret State Department memo, this is what Kissinger told the Government of Thailand in a reunion in 1975:
"We don′t mind Chinese influence in Cambodia to balance North Vietnam. As I told the Chinese when we last met when we were discussing the Vietnamese victory in Indochina, it is possible to have an ideological victory which is a geopolitical defeat. The Chinese did not disagree with me."
Three observations:
(i) Kissinger obviously believed that if Vietnam were isolated geopolitically, his 1973 defeat would be magically transformed into victory. He is neurotically searching, in league with China, an alchemical solution. The Chinese – whose economic development is spurred on by The Kissinger Kicker -- are only too willing to look on benevolently. "Yes, Henry, you′re so right. Yes, Henry, you′re a great man."
(ii) A word in Kissinger′s above quote may have caught your eye: Cambodia.
In 1975-79, the genocidal Pol Pot ruled the country. To show the astonishing lengths to which Kissinger was prepared to go to punish Vietnam for winning the war against the United States, he told the Thailand Government: “I am personally embarrassed by the Vietnam war [sic]. I believe that if you go to war, you go to win and not lose with moderation.
We are aware that the biggest threat in Southeast Asia at the present time is North Vietnam [sic]. Our strategy is to get the Chinese into Laos and Cambodia as a barrier to the Vietnamese… You [the Thailand Government] should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won′t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”
Kissinger wanted to be friends with the “murderous thug” Pol Pot. If Kissinger is ever tried for war crimes, look for the quote you just read to be Exhibit 1.
(iii) "The Chinese did not disagree with me." Here you see the end product of Kissinger′s hatred of Hanoi. He unwittingly sets up the Chinese Government as the ultimate judge and jury of who is right, who is wrong; of what is good, what is bad. That is a perfect example of what Carl Jung called a sacrificium intellectus.
In the end, a personal feeling -- not a realpolitik analysis of objective circumstances -- ultimately lay behind Kissinger′s China Folly.
As for what that feeling was ...
Mao "radiates authority and deep wisdom" Kissinger wrote in a top secret document to President Nixon.
We have all seen that awe of the Orient before, many times: -"Kung Fu," Zen Buddhism, "The Karate Kid," I Ching, Taoism, "Charlie Chan."
What is wrong with Kissinger′s fawning over Mao is what lurks beneath it:
Any extreme always indicates the presence nearby of its opposite, usually in latent form. That presence is what makes the first extreme an extreme -- gives it its energy -- in the first place.
Radiates authority and deep wisdom is an obvious over-compensation.
Over-compensation for what?
You, dear reader, already know.
Scratch the surface and you will find the same old, gut-wrenching, xenophobic Yellow Peril panic.
To repeat, we have seen all of that before. Europe′s idealized Dream Woman of the Middle Ages gave way to the burning of real women as witches. Chinese readers: take note.
Tragically, the story does not end with Kissinger′s puerile longings to get even with North Vietnam for defeating him.
Mark my words; mark them well. If a world war between America and China takes place, Kissinger′s China Folly will finally be recognized for what it is and consigned where it belongs: infamy.
I am not saying that war with China is inevitable. I am saying that as a consequence of one man′s ignorance of basic power relationships and his petty vindictiveness, with every passing day the evitability is less.
* * *
Will President Biden do what Kissinger failed to do -- take a realpolitik approach and construct enduring alliances with Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and yes, Vietnam, to balance China?
No chance.
The White House and Pentagon believe that surrounding China with lily-pad military installations can make up for the lack of enduring alliances. Military emplacements on rock piles in the ocean are a no-fuss-no-muss fix.
In other words: a gimmick.
Sidebar: I suspect somebody in Beijing has an absurdist sense of humor: reef warfare. Their response to America′s militarized islands is to make ... new islands. A tip-of-the-hat to Monty Python.
It is important to point out that if you add up all the populations of the Southeast Asia nations just mentioned, the total (642 million) does not come to even half of the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China. Kissinger sycophants and State Department bureaucrats will smugly assert that, as a consequence, all those nations together aren′t big enough to form a coalition that will balance China. In case you are wondering, adding Japan (126 million), South Korea (51 million) and Taiwan (23 million) still falls far short of equaling China′s population.
Well, if we reduce power to warm body counts as the CIA and NSA are inclined to do, there is one nation in the neighborhood that comes close to equaling China: India with 1.3 billion population. Speaking of coming close, India borders China; territorial disputes are on-going.
We are not talking about tearing China down. No Bad Neighbor policy here. We are talking about building something else up. The White House, CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have yet to learn that the real purpose of competition is not to destroy your opponent; rather, competition helps you improve your performance. That is, of course, assuming you are not corrupt in which case competition will destroy you.
I note in passing that it is a waste of time proclaiming and defaming to the stars above that China is "unfair" or "cheating." All China did -- and is doing this very moment -- in playing Kissinger for a useful fool is what America should have done but did not do: protect its own national self-interest.
* * *
For the United States, what is to be done?
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Stop listening to Kissinger and his sycophants. Stop looking for solutions from the man who created the problem and who enormously profits from it economically.
Tragically, the possibility that Washington will stop digging is somewhere between slim and none:
The military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address will fight tooth-and-nail any switch away from their militarized lily-pads toward serious political coalition-building. To allow that switch would be tantamount to admitting that their strategy was not up to the task of providing for America′s national security.
For exactly the same reason, the Biden Administration will not stop listening to Henry Kissinger. You may see, for domestic political reasons, Biden continue to bark at The Kissinger Kicker and the socio-economic devastation it rendered America. For their part, the Chinese will nod and wink.. Excellent hand-to-hand fighters, they know a perfume left and a powder-puff right when they see one.
* * *
President Nixon famously proclaimed his 1972 visit to China to be "the week that changed the world."
If Kissinger′s China Folly is allowed to stand, Nixon′s words will come back to haunt the world in a way neither he nor anyone else ever imagined.
Assuming, of course, there is somebody left to haunt.
There is a quick and easy way for Joe Biden to show he is serious about countering Poor Henry, his China Folly, and his appeasemenmt of Putin.
Make what is latent manifest.
Make Poor Henry register as an agent of a foreign power.
Images: 1. The fantasy comic book Kissinger sold by the mass media to millions of Americans in the 1970s. 2. The real Henry Kissinger. 3. Henry Kissinger and friend.