Kissinger

[Anonymous No.22118772]

Any books and secondary sources about him and his foreign policy? Why does he cause so much seethe?

[Anonymous No.22118983]

>>22118772
Psychopaths always make normies seethe. Highly competent psychopaths are almost unbearable for the normie.

[Anonymous No.22118991]

>>22118772
Why are there so so many neocon threads today. Is /lit/ neocon now? Did I miss something?

[Anonymous No.22119060]

>>22118772
Read his books. Diplomacy is kino.

[Anonymous No.22119092]

>>22118772
Hitchens i guess

[Anonymous No.22119158]

>>22118772
read a world restored by him pretty fun read about metternichs restoration of european political balance after napoleon
book can also be read as a treatise on international diplomacy by kissinger

[Anonymous No.22119177]

>>22118772
>Why does he cause so much seethe?
He excelled at his job.

[Anonymous No.22119178]

Few remember Henry when he was in his swingin 70s era

[Anonymous No.22119181]

>>22118772
>Why does he cause so much seethe?
Kissinger's tenure in high office (1969-1977) coincided with the period in which the American public was most politically active. He was singled out as the figure of American imperialism and constantly bashed for it. What you see today is still the result of that. The fact that he was a jew aloof of jewish issues also means he couldn't benefit from the jewish armor against criticism.
In fact, he was a hypercompetent cold warrior who extracted the U.S. from a very stupid war and did several other "beneficial" things, such as paving the way for the end of Rhodesian white rule and the dismantling of the Portuguese colonial empire (which ultimately fell under its own weight).
He held U.S. horses and didn't engage in open confrontation with the Soviet Union, but took advantage of the rift between the Soviet Union and China to start relations with the latter.

Only leftists actually hate him. Liberals only hate him because that's what you do. If Kissinger was the advisor to a democrat president, he would've been considered a saint genius who helped the U.S. and the world avoid the worst consequences of the Cold War.

[Anonymous No.22119184]

realpolitik without any morality whatsoever is so back baby, they ain't ready

[Anonymous No.22119187]

>>22118772
>Why does he cause so much seethe?
Probably all the murders and instigating of wars.

Look into Lyndon LaRouche
Greatest foreign policy mind of today is Mearsheimer, though he’s not so much a counter to Kissinger.

[Anonymous No.22119189]

One man, stands alone

[Anonymous No.22119196]

[Anonymous No.22119206]

>In a long conversation that stretched past midnight at Mao's residence on February 17, 1973, he referred to the dismal trade between the two countries, saying China was a 'very poor country' and 'what we have in excess is women'.

>He first suggested sending 'thousands' of women, but as an afterthought proposed '10 million', drawing laughter at the meeting, also attended by premier Zhou Enlai .

>Dr Kissinger, who was president Richard Nixon's national security adviser at the time, told Mao that the US had no 'quotas' or 'tariffs' for Chinese women, drawing more laughter.

>Dr Kissinger then tried to highlight to Mao the threat posed by the Soviet Union and other global concerns of the era.

>But Mao dragged the talks back to the topic of Chinese women.
'Let them go to your place. They will create disasters. That way you can lessen our burdens,' he said. 'Do you want our Chinese women? We can give you 10 million.'

[Anonymous No.22119212]

>>22119206
kek

[Anonymous No.22119213]

>>22119206
holy fucking KEK

[Anonymous No.22119218]

A lot of people are butthurt about him opening up China. Understandable.

[Anonymous No.22119376]

>>22118772

[Anonymous No.22119717]

>>22118772
Kissinger causes two groups of people to seethe. The first are liberal internationalists like Biden who believe in a grand struggle for the spreading of liberal democracy, America's homegrown brand of totalitarianism, across the whole world, by ballot, coup or bullet. Kissinger on the other hand is a realist, more concerned with maintaining international stability and preventing war, which involves recognizing that other people in other countries have a different perspective and interests to our own. Liberals naturally think they are right, everybody else is wrong. The second group Kissinger pisses off is the Chomskyite left. These people love to decry American imperialism, oppose interventionism, blame every problem in the world on "neoliberals" (their favourite scapegoats), despite the fact that if they were in power their foreign policy would be even more fanatically imperialist and delusional than the liberals. Instead of Afghanistan and Iraq, they'd have invaded Saudi Arabia or something.
tl;dr Kissinger is competant and ruthless, some don't like the fact he's compentant, some don't like his ruthlessness and some hate him for both.

[Anonymous No.22119752]

Americans are unable to conceive of a foreign policy based on limited self interest and realistic goals. They prefer to think of America as the good guys in a superhero movie, a teleological underdog that must defeat all odds because good always triumphs over evil or something.

This applies for both left and right wing criticism of Kissinger. Except for based conspiracy theorists who don't like his role on the 9/11 commission and antisemitism that hate him for being Jewish.

[Anonymous No.22119758]

>Bi-National Research Foundations

[Anonymous No.22119765]

>>22118772
Kissinger has an interesting worthwhile perspective of the world and maintaining the order, especially in an era where atomic war was a pressing concern. Highly recommend anyone interested in politics with an IQ over 115 read Diplomacy. On China, Leadership, and World Order are decent too.

Another person that makes people seethe like this is Fukuyama.

[Anonymous No.22119766]

>>22119181
>hypercompetent cold warrior
Who briefs the British embassy before Nixon and confabulates the tendentious basis of the Sino-Soviet Split as authentic and not a conscious bit of theater after observing Western over eagerness to support Tito vs. Stalin when they were dueling assassination attempts.

[Anonymous No.22119810]

>>22119206
mao was crazy

[Anonymous No.22119820]

>>22119765
Too bad Fukuyama is retarded. I saw him speak in 2016 and it was embarrassing nonsense. His whole career is defending muh end of history liberalism.

[Anonymous No.22120207]

>>22119766
>briefs the British embassy before Nixon
nothing wrong with that, in itself.
>the Sino-Soviet Split as authentic and not a conscious bit of blablabla
delusional. the sino-soviet split had pretty real consequences for soviet-chinese cooperation at the time. was that also just theather? and what about the consequences: the opening of channels of communication and relations with China?
Was it Khruschev's 4D chess to have the PLC accepted as the successor of China in the UN?

[Anonymous No.22120209]

>>22120207
*PRC

[Anonymous No.22120214]

>>22118772
>Why does he cause so much seethe?
Many people died as a result of his policies.

[Anonymous No.22120223]

>>22120214

[Anonymous No.22120227]

>>22118772
it is said kissinger has been able to extend his life beyond natural lenght by imbibing the blood of palestinian children.

[Anonymous No.22120255]

>>22120214
Many people lived as a result of his policies as well. Let's not forget this was the Cold War.

[Anonymous No.22120268]

>>22120227
Based, does this work if you're a Gentile?

[Anonymous No.22120291]

>Why does he cause so much seethe?
Anthony Bourdain fans

[Anonymous No.22120298]

>>22119181
Dumb take
- alienated India (most important partner in South Asia)
- prolonged the Vietnam war in the lead up to Nixon's election
- Backed several government coups in South America
- Detente with both China and the USSR, which in an of itself will always benefit the weaker party

[Anonymous No.22120329]

>>22119181
>Only leftists actually hate him.
That wasn't remotely true at the time, and it's only true today to the extent that people forget. Reagan ran as much against Kissinger in 1976 as he ran against Ford. His "hypercompetent" detente saw Angola and Vietnam fall, and it forced us into a position where we were gladhanding Chairman Mao, giving away a Panama Canal that 6000 Americans died to build, and going from a policy of acknowledging Soviet control over Eastern Europe to a policy of legitimating it with the Helsinki Accords.

He was no more and no less than another guy in a long line of dime store Machiavellian technocrats who jack themselves off about how necessary it is for them the manipulate the American people into doing the "smart" thing, what they want to do be damned. But the smart thing invariably ends up looking kinda dumb in retrospect. He wrote off America as a declining empire whose only recourse was cynical great-power politics way too early. His plays sapped American life and heritage of their meaning, part of a long process which today has left us in the position where you can't today talk about "liberty" with Jeffersonian reverence without sounding phony.

[Anonymous No.22120331]

>>22120329
Goddammit. You wrote my post better than me.
FUCK

[Anonymous No.22120340]

>>22119206
based. just two kings unfiltered

[Anonymous No.22120501]

>>22120329
>His plays sapped American life and heritage of their meaning
sniff sniff

[Anonymous No.22120979]

>>22120298
>- Backed several government coups in South America
Nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.22121029]

>>22118772
Sex symbol.

[Anonymous No.22121073]

>>22119060
>>22119177
>>22119181
>>22119184
>>22119189
>>22120255
>>22120979
all these "america fuck yeah" anons will conveniently ignore the fact that he was a jew

[Anonymous No.22121079]

>>22121073
Nixon said he was one of the good ones because he helped the US jew other countries.

[Anonymous No.22121103]

>>22121073
>"And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

[Anonymous No.22121105]

>>22121103
That makes him a self-hating jew, but a jew nonetheless

[Anonymous No.22121111]

>>22121105
next you'll be telling me steven spielberg is a jew

[Anonymous No.22121114]

>>22121111
Yes, he is. People who enjoy Jaws and still act like jewish people are demons are hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.22121192]

>>22118772
>Why does he cause so much seethe?
Kissinger wrote opposing morally incoherent states which had policies of mass death. Kissinger advocated for a morally incoherent state which had policies of mass death.
Liberals detest hypocrisy.

Kissinger opposed the interests of proletarian revolution.
Tankies and actual working class communists would like the image or actuality of proletarian revolution.

Kissinger still lives, he can be tried.

[Anonymous No.22121198]

>>22119196
KEK

[Anonymous No.22121214]

>>22121192
>Liberals detest hypocrisy
LOL. It's their stock in trade.

[Anonymous No.22121248]

>>22119376
>>22121073
>>22121103
>>22121105
>>22121111
>>22121114
Why can't goys compete? He basically pulled the dumb goys of the Nixon administration around like puppets.

[Anonymous No.22121412]

>>22121073
His 12 inch circumcised dong mogs you, you lit /pol/cuck

[Anonymous No.22121425]

>>22118772
Kissinger was the modern day Talleyrand. He simply had no qualms about doing whatever he felt was necessary. The only person Kissinger ever feared was Rumsfeld.

[Anonymous No.22121633]

>>22120214
True for any geopolitical decision ever made.

[Anonymous No.22121702]

>>22121103
Gas chambers were in occupied Poland thoughever

[Anonymous No.22121731]

>>22120979
NTA but of everything in the US's recent-ish history, its interventions in Latin America are the worst and most indefensible. From a geopolitical standpoint, it brought us no benefit and only served to further fuck up an inherently fucked-up region, generating an ongoing demographic crisis where we're struggling to absorb so many migrants from the region. From an ethical standpoint it was just abhorrent. I can overlook one or the other of those, but do both and you're just a doofus.

[Anonymous No.22121808]

>>22118991
HK isn't a neocon

[Anonymous No.22121844]

>>22121808
kek in view of utterances such as this one it's kind of funny that the Holocaust plays a huge role in American foreign policy, basically giving it a blank check to intervene anywhere where nebulous "human rights" might be in peril. when I visited America for the first time I was astonished by the close proximity of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to the Capitol, White House etc. signaling that the Holocaust religion is taken more seriously than Christianity in America

[Anonymous No.22121854]

>>22118772
Kissinger was right about everything

[Anonymous No.22122178]

Here's a picture of Kurt Vonnegut hanging out with his son-in-law (Geraldo) and Henry Kissinger.

[Anonymous No.22122308]

>>22120979
The issue is that it didn't really do anything for American policy. The US took a reputation hit internationally, the South American states (save maybe Brazil) weren't all that relevant, and the Soviets already had retreated from sponsoring Communist movements in South America (causing the Cuban - Soviet split)

[Anonymous No.22122313]

>>22122308
>the problem went away all on its own
Kek.

[Anonymous No.22122441]

>>22122313
What's so fucking funny you fucking parade float!

[Anonymous No.22122576]

>>22122441
>US foreign policy is successful
>THAT HAPPENED ON ITS OWN
>US foreign policy is unsuccessful
>AS ALWAYS--THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD BE SENDING FOOD RELIEF DIRECTED AT TRANSEXUAL NIGERIANS!

[Anonymous No.22123014]

>>22122441
OH!
I'm a fucking janitor now! You don't talk to me like that!

[Anonymous No.22123171]

>>22122576
>strawman
Okay
>>22123014
based sopranos enjoyer

[Anonymous No.22123207]

>>22123171
>gets made fun of
>STRAWMAN!
Retard.

[Anonymous No.22123249]

>>22120329
t. middle schooler

[Anonymous No.22123257]

>>22121192
>Liberals detest hypocrisy.
If only they had the integrity to immediately unalive themselves from self-hatred. The only thing titans like Kissinger are guilty of is cleaning up the geopolitical messes left over by insane libs. Life isn’t supposed to be coherent, but it could be a lot more peaceful if we were honest about the nature of conflict and self-interest.

[Anonymous No.22123270]

>>22121425
>The only person Kissinger ever feared was Rumsfeld.
Redpill me on Kissinger vs Rumsfeld. I thought Rumsfeld was a relatively low profile guy during the Nixon administration. Were they really at odds with each other, even later during Ford?

[Anonymous No.22123271]

He will be rehabilitated big time over the next few years. Everyone becomes a neocon in the end.

[Anonymous No.22123375]

>>22123270
Kissinger didn't hate Rumsfeld. He respected him big time. Rumsfeld was behind the infamous Halloween Massacre during Gerald Ford's administration. Rumsfeld was ruthless during his prime, hence Kissinger's respect and fear

[Anonymous No.22123410]

>>22119178
That was a whole thing. I think he used them as some kinda cover.

>>22119187
>Look into Lyndon LaRouche
His followers used to stalk Kissinger around back in the day, calling him a faggot "who slept with boys in the Carlyle Hotel." Nancy Kissinger once grabbed a LaRouchite girl who accosted them in an airport by the throat and threatened to punch her lights out. "Is Nancy Kissinger gonna have to choke a bitch?"

>Greatest foreign policy mind of today is Mearsheimer, though he’s not so much a counter to Kissinger.
Mearsheimer is a realist like Kissinger, but I think the difference is that Kissinger believes in liberal exceptionalism as a Machiavellian "noble lie" while in reality he's a realist inside, while Mearsheimer is just a straight-up realist with no filter and simply explains behavior. He describes himself as a structuralist. He has said the Chinese like him, he thinks, because he explains American behavior as ruthless great power, which is how the Chinese tend to see it.

>>22119184
>realpolitik without any morality whatsoever is so back baby, they ain't ready
It is back, and they ain't ready, so the U.S. uses liberal idealism as a "noble lie."

>>22119717
>The first are liberal internationalists like Biden who believe in a grand struggle for the spreading of liberal democracy
I think Biden is fairly realist in actual fact. The grand struggle for spreading liberal democracy is like a mask. Kissinger supports arming Ukraine and bringing it into NATO but I think his argument is it should be done because of a change in the situation, I don't know if he would've thought that way before the war.

>Kissinger on the other hand is a realist, more concerned with maintaining international stability and preventing war, which involves recognizing that other people in other countries have a different perspective and interests to our own.
Yes, and underlying that is maintaining a balance of power, because imbalances in power are sources of conflict. Ideology or individual leaders don't really matter. The liberal theory holds that ideology is important to preserve peace, so the more liberal democracies, the more peaceful the world will be (although it also creates the theoretical basis to wage war to create more liberal democracies). But Mearsheimer, again, would argue the U.S. can often behave in a realist way while saying it's doing it for ideologies reasons.

>>22121808
>HK isn't a neocon
It's also interesting he said that even after losing relatives in the Holocaust and seeing concentration camps up close while he was in the army (military intelligence attached to an infantry division, he spoke German and interrogated prisoners). Same division as my grandfather who also told me about the camps.

[Anonymous No.22123455]

>>22119717
>The second group Kissinger pisses off is the Chomskyite left. These people love to decry American imperialism, oppose interventionism, blame every problem in the world on "neoliberals" (their favourite scapegoats), despite the fact that if they were in power their foreign policy would be even more fanatically imperialist and delusional than the liberals.
Chomsky has actually (weirdly) agreed with Kissinger about some things recently. But Chomsky sees the U.S. as being driven mainly by business interests, kinda like a mafia, with the American state functioning as an executive committee for American corporations (this includes the military-industrial complex) and primarily driven by profit, although willing to override the parochial interests of particular sectors of industry that are driven by short-term profit to secure the long-term interests of the group.

In this view, the system inevitably leads to wars, because it leads to a growing gap between the "haves" and "have-nots." In other words, inequality is the source of conflict. The "have-nots" may become disruptive, and therefore must be controlled, in the interests of what is called "stability," meaning subordination to the masters of the world, the corporations which the U.S. military serves and protects. That requires means of violence, and having "assumed, out of self-interest, responsibility for the welfare of the world capitalist system," the U.S. must be far in the lead and prevent other countries from challenging its economic dominance, including by means of violence, if necessary.

[Anonymous No.22123937]

>Any people [Jews] who have been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.
-HK

[Anonymous No.22124038]

>>22123207
Yes, you have no argument. Cope, seethe, dilate.

[Anonymous No.22124088]

>>22121731
US interventions in Latin America have been the only ones in recent history that ended up going OK. haiti '94? DR '65? grenada? panama? we went in fast, we got out fast, things didn't get appreciably worse. best you can hope for with these sort of things.

>it brought us no benefit and only served to further fuck up an inherently fucked-up region
and letting allende turn chile into another cuba would have been so much better

>generating an ongoing demographic crisis where we're struggling to absorb so many migrants from the region
being poorer than the united states is not a demographic crisis, and you're going to have economic migration from latin america as long as latin america is poorer than the US. whether american politicians want to control the border is another matter entirely. if you really think that guatemala never recovered from a coup 70 years ago or that mexico never recovered from some marines taking a summer vacation in vera cruz in 1914 then that's their fault, not ours.

and i don't say this as a fan of kissinger, or even as someone who thinks mucking around in latin america is a good idea. but the idea that we've done any great damage to ourselves or to them with our foreign policy in the western hemisphere is silly. all the great disasters have happened on the other side of the planet.

[Anonymous No.22124101]

>>22124038
My argument is that you're a retard who thinks all the positive geopolitical outcomes happened on their own while focusing on any negative outcomes as if they were entirely the fault of the US. Retards like you think maintain the cognitive dissonance of believing the US plays on God mode when it loses (and has nothing to do with positive outcomes). It's the standard leftoid version of history.

[Anonymous No.22124102]

>>22124038
P.S. It's also the standard cope from Europeans with Napoleon complexes.

[Anonymous No.22124171]

>>22124101
Ah, so it is in fact a strawman. I never said any of that, did I?
Fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.22124186]

>>22124088
The U.S. did screw Latin America, but not in an obvious way, but with the "Volcker shock" in the early 1980s in which the Fed raised interest rates to 20% and made it very expensive for those countries to pay for imports, and as they had been taking on a lot of dollar debt, these countries starting defaulting left and right. Then the IMF told them: sell off your industry, public ownership of utilities, oil, minerals, etc. Mexico defaulted in the 1980s. Basically this part of the world stopped developing. Oil prices collapsed which also tanked the Venezuelan economy and that led to the rise of Hugo Chavez later on.

But what happened in the United States was similar.

[Anonymous No.22124294]

>>22121214
>>Liberals detest hypocrisy
>LOL. It's their stock in trade.
You act as if self-detestation isn't common human conduct?

>>22123257
>If only they had the integrity to immediately unalive themselves from self-hatred.
Then how will workers militia shoot them?

[Anonymous No.22124492]

>>22118772
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMN00XcjYrU

Hitchens wrote a peice on him

[Anonymous No.22124525]

>>22120214
I don't particularly like Kissinger, but I am very much in favor of people dying.