Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack or Download the mp4 / Download the mp3

---

Originally posted November 1, 2009, as “Episode 106 – Meet Henry Kissinger”

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome, my friends, to Episode 106 of The Corbett Report: “Meet Henry Kissinger.”

Oh, Henry Kissinger! You mean that lovable scamp from Season 5, Episode 10 of The Simpsons, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling.”

(Cartoon Character) C. MONTGOMERY BURNS: Thank you so much for visiting our plant, Dr. Kissinger.

 

(Cartoon Character) HENRY KISSINGER: It was fun.

 

(Cartoon Character) WHO IS THIS?: We’ll let you know if your glasses turn up.

 

SOURCE: Henry Kissinger The Simpsons

No, not that Henry Kissinger. This one.

HENRY KISSINGER: The problem of the Bush presidency will be the emergence of a new international order.

 

CHARLIE ROSE: Within the next four years, we will see the emergence of a new international order.

 

KISSINGER: The beginning. The beginning.

 

SOURCE: Henry Kissinger on Charlie Rose 2005

CHARLIE ROSE: Are we at one of those moments in history in which there is the necessity for a New World Order? A, because of what’s taken place in the Middle East, the rise of different kinds of groups, and B, what’s happened in Asia—meaning that there has been a shift from the West to the East.

 

HENRY KISSINGER: There’s a need for a new world order, but it has different characteristics in different parts of the world.

 

SOURCE: Henry Kissinger on Charlie Rose 2007

HENRY KISSINGER: I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when really a New World Order can be created. It’s a great opportunity. It isn’t such [?] just [?] a crisis.

 

SOURCE: Henry Kissinger (HQ) Obama and The New World Order 1/5/09

Yes, exactly as was the case when we started to scratch the veneer of perpetual Washington insiders Zbigniew Brzezinski and Donald Rumsfeld in previous episodes of this podcast, we find that no, it does not take much scratching of the veneer of Henry Kissinger to reveal, yes, the new world order.

And in Henry Kissinger’s case, it’s actually quite simple once you start to put the pieces together of his public statements, policies, and various wheelings and dealings, that, yes, in fact, his version of the New World Order is very much, on its face, one that is ruled by and for the interests of a very select few in the name of global order and security.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, someone of the political baggage and history of Henry A. Kissinger brings with him a lot of baggage and a lot of preconceptions and misconceptions about his public record. There are certain things that, of course, many members of the audience will already know about Henry Kissinger, and, of course, many people will have already seen some of the . . . even the mainstream media attacks on Henry Kissinger.

But let’s start to get an idea of his real record and some of the things that he really accomplished by turning to a book from 1976 by Gary Allen, the author of books such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and The Rockefeller File—both, of course, essential books in coming to an understanding of the New World Order. And he also wrote a book entitled Kissinger, all about Henry Kissinger and his accomplishments as of 1976.

So, quoting from Gary Allen’s Kissinger:

Who, after all, is Henry Kissinger?

 

He is not, to begin with, Henry Kissinger. He was born Heinz Alfred Kissinger on May 27, 1923, in Fuerth, Germany, the son of Louis Kissinger, a schoolteacher and rabbi, and the former Paula Stern.

 

Like many Jewish families feeling the rising impact of Naziism, the Kissinger family fled Germany to the United States in 1938.

 

Already a skilled debater when he arrived in America at the age of 15, Heinz—now Henry—did well in rhetoric and other fields as a high school student in New York City. When he graduated with honors, he said that his highest ambition was to be an accountant.

 

But fate in the form of World War II intervened.

 

Drafted into the U.S. Army in 1943—a process which also made him an American citizen—the young Kissinger was “discovered” by a fellow German refugee, Dr. Fritz Kraemer. Kraemer served in American military intelligence and got Kissinger promoted into the 970th counter-intelligence detachment.

 

When hostilities ceased, Kissinger’s special position enabled him to become the virtual dictator of a German town, where he commandeered a villa and began living in the grand manner.

 

He administered an entire district and, as a civil service employee, received the then-considerable salary of $10,000 per year.

 

Henry ruled his quasi-fiefdom until April 1946, when he was transferred to the European command Intelligence School. It was during this period as intelligence-gatherer and interrogator, one defecting communist double-agent has claimed, that Kissinger himself was recruited by the KGB and given the code name Bor.

 

After leaving the Army, Kissinger enrolled at Harvard University, majoring in government and securing four scholarships. It can be argued that Heinz, or Henry, had already been tapped by important people as a man with a future.

 

Competition for admission to Harvard is always super stiff. But in 1946, with all the veterans trying to squeeze in, it was incredible. Yet, little Heinz, the refugee, not only gained admission but had his education paid in full by multiple scholarships.

 

Harvard was the turning point in Kissinger’s life.

 

Assuming, of course, that a more sinister turning point had not already occurred in his Army intelligence days in post-war Germany, through a working relationship with Soviet agents.

 

With the help of a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship for Political Theory, the bright young ex-intelligence officer graduated from Harvard in 1950. But Kissinger did not stop there. He received his MA in 1952 and a doctorate in 1954.

 

His dream of becoming an accountant was obviously fading faster than bookings for a return voyage on the Titanic.

 

Somehow, somewhere, something happened to Herr Kissinger along the academic way.

 

First came the grant from the Rockefellers. Then, while he was working on his Master’s, Kissinger was made executive director of the Harvard International Seminar—a student exchange program which was later found to be financed by the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

While working toward his doctorate, he was employed on numerous occasions as a consultant for various government agencies. Kissinger apparently made a favorable impression on those members of the Eastern Liberal Establishment who look for the reliable bright young men. With the support of his mentor, Professor William Elliott, a well-connected Establishmentarian, Henry was ushered into that repository of power and prestige, the elusive, secretive Council on Foreign Relations—perhaps the nation’s most important and influential organization.

 

At the same time, he also became affiliated with the Rockefeller Brothers Trust Fund. For a young German immigrant still hampered by a heavy accent, Kissinger had obviously arrived. If the House of Rockefeller approved him, who could say him nein?

 

Kissinger got into the governmental advisory business under Democratic President John F. Kennedy. He served as a special consultant to JFK during the Berlin crisis and also was appointed to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

 

The services Kissinger had begun for Kennedy were continued for his successor. Henry represented the Johnson Administration on three secret missions to Vietnam, two of them to North Vietnam. But while serving these two Democratic presidents, Henry was also the key foreign policy advisor to Republican Nelson Rockefeller.

 

In fact, it was even reported that Kissinger, who never had a good word to say about Richard Nixon prior to his appointment by him, wept openly when Nelson Rockefeller lost his 1968 bid to garner the Republican nomination for President.

 

According to an account by United Press International, Kissinger was “reluctant” to accept Nixon’s “surprise offer” of a presidential appointment. Rockefeller, K’s employer for ten years, made up his mind for him, according to UPI, when he told Henry that if he did not accept it, “never talk to me again.”

 

Later, during a party celebrating Henry Kissinger’s 50th birthday, Rocky toasted his longtime employee, saying that he’d been associated with him in three Presidential campaigns and “We succeeded in the third. Henry went to the White House.”

 

Henry’s sadness at leaving the direct employment of Rockefeller—a position that had seen his salary jump from $500 a month in July 1958 to a much more comfortable $4,000 a month a mere ten years later—was no doubt partially assuaged by Nelson’s parting token of appreciation: a check for $50,000.

 

Rockefeller later explained that he wanted to do something to help out “a poor guy faced with tremendous obligations.” Of course, if any other billionaire businessman did it, we would call it bribery. With Rockefeller, it’s simply a nice gesture.

 

Keep in mind that the Rockefellers own properties and do business in some 125 separate nations, including the Soviet Union and Red China. Every decision Kissinger would make in Washington was a potential conflict of interest involving his sponsor and benefactor, Rockefeller.

 

Yet, even in the wake of Watergate, when the “gift” was revealed at Rocky’s Vice Presidential confirmation hearings, the story caused no more splash than a leaf falling from a tree. The TV anchormen did not even mention it.

 

In tracing Henry’s meteoric rise from obscurity to international acclaim, we see that his magic slippers had the Rockefeller label. From Henry’s membership in the Rockefeller CFR while a professor at Harvard, to his association with a host of Rockefeller-connected activities, to his appointment in Washington, even to his second marriage, the Rockefeller power, prestige, and influence were paving the way for him.

Well, I always encourage my listeners to check things for themselves and never to trust merely one source on such a contentious issue, so why trust the crazy, raving conspiracy theorist Gary Allen when we could trust, for example, The Toledo Blade? And due to the miracles of the age of Google, which truly is digitizing the sum of all human knowledge in something akin to the Library of Alexandria, which is at once wondrous and horrifying, but we may as well use it while we can, we can now search news.google.com to find an online reproduction of The Toledo Blade from December 9, 1980, which is only partially blocked out in some key passages. And we can read an interesting article which ran under the headline, “Kissinger A Rockefeller Agent?”

And that reads in part, quote:

Those who know the man say he does nothing gratuitously, all is programmed to advance his objectives. More than a few wary watchers suspect Mr. Kissinger is a Trojan Horse planted by the Rockefeller interests inside the nation’s highest councils.

 

In the mid-1950s, he directed a series of foreign-policy studies for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

And then there is one sentence blocked out. Continuing:

During Nelson Rockefeller’s quest for the presidency in 1968, newsmen seeking his foreign policy views would be told, “Go see Henry.”

 

Later, Mr. Kissinger held back from entering Richard Nixon’s administration until it was clear that Mr. Rockefeller would not be asked to join the cabinet. Even after Mr. Kissinger became a power in Washington he remained deferential to Mr. Rockefeller.

 

Associates recall, for instance, that Mr. Kissinger usually returned Mr. Rockefeller’s calls ahead of the Presidents. In 1973 Mr. Rockefeller said of Mr. Kissinger: “He’s never let me down, and he’s never let the country down.”

 

Their relationship was such that Mr. Rockefeller announced Mr. Kissinger’s engagement to Nancy Maginnes and provided a plane for their honeymoon trip.

 

Mr. Kissinger, meanwhile, brought David Rockefeller, chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, into the State Department as an advisor. When the Republicans were turned out in 1976, Mr. Rockefeller named Mr. Kissinger chairman of the Chase Manhattan’s international advisory committee.

 

In a series of columns four years ago, I identified the late Shah of Iran as the leading drum-beater for a gigantic oil price increase. His megalomaniacal confidence that the United States would tolerate it rested on the delightful relationship he had developed with Henry Kissinger.

 

Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger sought to build up the shah as the protector of American interests in the Persian Gulf area, rather than face the difficulties of having the United States look after those interests more directly.

 

They quietly agreed that the shah should be allowed to raise more oil revenue to bankroll the vast responsibilities they were encouraging him to undertake.

 

It was at least an intriguing coincidence that the shah’s stupendous oil profits were channeled largely through the Chase Manhattan Bank. The shah insisted “that all letters of credit for the purchase of oil go through Chase Manhattan,” an Iranian oil official told me.

I think the relationship between David Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller, and Henry A. Kissinger needs not be detailed in too much more detail. Of course, I would suggest that you go and do some of that research for yourself. But at any rate, given that a lot of Henry Kissinger’s work in the 1950s and ’60s was explicitly funded and endorsed by the Rockefellers or the Rockefeller-founded-and-funded CFR, what exactly was Henry A. Kissinger advocating during that period?

MIKE WALLACE: How do you regard our conduct in regard to the Algerian situation of the past few years?

 

HENRY KISSINGER: I think the Algerian situation is an extremely complicated and difficult one. In general, we should stand for the freedom of people. In general, we should oppose colonial regimes. On the other hand, we should come up with ideas which an independent Algeria cannot survive as a purely independent state.

 

The great paradox of this period is that on the one hand you have a drive towards more and more sovereign states. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a purely independent state anymore.

 

The thing that has always attracted me, therefore, would be that we could advocate a North African Federation, which would be tied together economically and for other development projects, and that Algeria would find its place as part of that, rather than as a purely independent state.

 

SOURCE: The Mike Wallace Interview — Henry Kissinger | July 13, 1958

Oh, I see. A chance to reorder the grand chessboard by undermining the idea of national sovereignty and proposing ever-greater unions between what was once sovereign states. Oh, what a wonderful idea. And certainly we could see how that would lead to a wonderful and harmonious New World Order of interdependency under a global non-democratic system.

And for those who think that might have been an isolated part of Henry Kissinger’s thinking in the time, or since then, and his thinking about the New World Order, it most certainly was not.

And another indication of that style of thinking made itself apparent in his third book, The Troubled Partnership, which was released in 1965 and in which he advocated: “A united Europe with federal super-national institutions as the precondition for an Atlantic partnership or regional government.”

Hmm, I see. So in the 1960s, he was arguing for a European Union.

And we do know that he is a director of the American Friends of Bilderberg and is a yearly attendee of the Bilderberg Group.

And we do know that some of the founding documents of the Bilderberg Group, as revealed by the BBC, indicate that there was a concerted effort ever since the group’s founding in the 1950s to create a European Union.

And we do know the former EU commissioner, Etienne Davignon, admitted to the EU Observer in March of this year that the Bilderberg Group had in fact been essential in the formation of the euro.

But one would have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist to suggest that there is a small group of elite who are actually puppeteering world events to bring about a type of world government.

A crazy conspiracy theorist like David J. Rothkopf, the former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, who wrote a book last year called Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, which argues that there are 6,000 elitists in the world who wield international authority through their various groups and spheres of influence, and who are, in fact, shaping the world into a new global order.

And, of course, David Rothkopf of Kissinger & Associates thinks this is a wonderful idea because, of course, the superclass can wield their supranational authority and dictatorial powers for the good of mankind, right?

Well, perhaps I get ahead of myself. At any rate, returning to Henry Kissinger and his early years and accomplishments, well, of course, a lot is now known about his ignoble role during the Nixon years and his crimes against humanity and the war crimes for which he is still wanted in many jurisdictions around the world—and the reason why he cannot travel to many countries around the world, because he would be instantly arrested and indicted for war crimes, including, of course, his participation in the 9/11 coup in Chile in 1973 that saw the death of democratically elected Chilean President Salvador Allende.

And, of course, that was something in which Henry Kissinger was deeply implicated. One of the most egregious crimes that Henry Kissinger committed in this era, but one for which he is never brought to task by anyone in the controlled corporate media or anyone in the controlled political paradigm, is, of course, his penning of NSSM 200.

In December of 1974, the U.S. government made Third World population reduction a central national security issue. The operation plan, titled “National Security Study Memorandum 200,” was simply a regurgitation of the British Commission on Population created by King George VI of England in 1944, which openly stated that populous Third World nations posed a threat to the international elite’s monopoly of global power.

 

The Kissinger-authored U.S. plan targeted 13 key countries where massive population reduction was called for. Kissinger recommended that IMF and World Bank loans be given on condition that nations initiate aggressive population control programs, such as sterilization. Kissinger also recommended that food be used as a weapon and that instigating wars was also a helpful tool in reducing population.

And the completely illegal bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

ELIZABETH BECKER: Once the Paris Peace Accords were signed in December of ’72, that ended the American direct involvement in Vietnam.

 

MAN’S VOICE: But to preserve peace with honor, Nixon and Kissinger decided to defend the anti-communist regime in Cambodia. It was to be a secret mission: air strikes against communist forces directed by the American Embassy in Phnom Penh.

 

BECKER: It made free the American Air Force. They could not bomb in Laos, they could not bomb in Vietnam. So that began the incredible bombing of Cambodia. And this is when the number of bombs dropped equaled the amount of bombs dropped on Japan during World War II.

 

SAME MALE NARRATOR: Elizabeth Becker covered the war in Cambodia from 1972 to 1974.

 

BECKER: We would be able to hear the conversation between the American pilot in the air and the American Embassy, which was illegally directing the airstrikes. We couldn’t understand why there were so many civilian casualties in this war. Why were they hitting all these civilians and villages. It was every nightmare of how you fight a war.

 

NARRATOR: From 1969 to 1973, more than 500,000 Cambodians died. By 1974, the bombing had disrupted the nation’s agricultural system, and a famine ensued. Over 2 million refugees poured into overcrowded cities.

 

ANOTHER MALE FACE: American policy in those years towards Cambodia helped create the conditions, perhaps the only conditions, in which the Khmer Rouge came to power.

 

NARRATOR: The Khmer Rouge drew strength from the chaos of the country. When they seized power in 1975, they forced populations of entire cities back to the countryside. Then they began a policy of exterminating their enemies in execution grounds that came to be known as killing fields. By 1979, another three million Cambodians had lost their lives.

 

MALE: No one knew what the Khmer Rouge were going to do. It’s quite wrong to blame the United States for the murderousness of the Khmer Rouge. That’s a disgracefully dishonest thing to try to do. But the carelessness with which the United States treated Cambodia as a sideshow to Vietnam did lead to disaster to Cambodia.

 

NEW MAN’S FACE: Congress authorized money for bombs in South Vietnam and they went into Cambodia. There’s a criminal act for you. You know, lying. And therefore, I think anybody who died in Cambodia, you could argue criminally that they were guilty of murder one. People did. Nobody authorized them to bomb Cambodia.

 

BECKER: There was no American war in Cambodia before President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger.

 

KISSINGER: That is totally incorrect. I think we inherited a tragedy, we attended to and succeeded in extricating America with honor from this tragedy.

 

BECKER: Oh, we inherited it. No, you did not inherit it. You created . . . you were the designers of the Cambodian policy.

 

SOURCE: The Trials of Henry Kissinger (2002)

That was a clip from The Trials of Henry Kissinger, a 2002 documentary that very ably documents and details the various war crimes of the unindicted war criminal Henry A. Kissinger.

And it is of course based on a bestselling book by well-known writer and political commentator Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. And, of course, Hitchens is absolutely spot-on with his very penetrating critiques of Henry Kissinger and his very open portrayal of Kissinger as a war criminal who needs to be brought to trial for his disgusting conduct during his period [of] influence in the White House.

But, oh, Christopher Hitchens, how right you are about Henry Kissinger on this issue and how utterly, stunningly, bafflingly wrong you are about 9/11. But, of course, you know all about 9/11 and Henry Kissinger, don’t you, Mr. Hitchens?

CBS NEWS ANCHOR DAN RATHER: President Bush signed legislation today creating an independent commission to investigate the September 11th attack on America. The president named a supporter, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, to head the panel.

 

US REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA): He has a penchant for secrecy, which is not what’s needed here. There are questions about his role in Vietnam, his role in the coup in Chile.

 

NARRATOR: Several family members approached Kissinger and requested a meeting at his office in New York. Prior to the meeting, Kristen Breitweiser conducted a thorough investigation of Kissinger’s potential conflicts of interest.

 

9/11 WIDOW PATTY CASAZZA: Probably much to the chagrin of some of the people in the room, Lorie [Van Auken] asked some very pointed questions. “Would you have any Saudi American clients that you would like to tell us about?” And he was very uncomfortable, kind of twisting and turning on the couch. And then she asked whether he had any clients by the name of bin Laden. And he just about fell off his couch.

 

CNN’s CONNIE CHUNG: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stepped down from the position Friday.

 

9/11 WIDOW MONICA GABRIELLE: We thought the meeting went well.

 

SOURCE: Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families — A scene from Press For Truth

That’s right. Henry A. Kissinger was the man who was originally appointed to head the 9/11 Commission by George W. Bush when he finally caved into political pressure from The Jersey Girls and other 9/11 victims’ family members to have an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 tragedy.

And keep in mind that Commission was not set up for a full 18 months after 9/11 itself—absolutely and completely unprecedented with any commission of its kind in United States history. But of course the administration has nothing to hide, right?

Well, interestingly enough, even Christopher Hitchens doesn’t believe that. And I’ll include a link to a video, which we really must see, where Christopher Hitchens is confronted by this fact about the 9/11 Commission on CSPAN [September 2, 2007]. And he goes on to take credit himself for having gotten Henry Kissinger to decline the position as head of the 9/11 Commission. Because, as Hitchens puts it, he was the one who pointed out that Kissinger would have to reveal his clients if he accepted this position. And Hitchens even goes on to state that any time a president appoints Henry Kissinger to head a commission, that is an out-and-out admission that they are appointing a cover-up commission, and then stunningly, bafflingly, goes on to defend the 9/11 Commission and its findings. Indeed.

At any rate, what George W. Bush’s curious appointment of Henry A. Kissinger as cover-up . . . I mean as commission chairman for the 9/11 Commission investigation should tell us is that, indeed, the past, as we have stressed many times before in this podcast, does live on through the present and into the future and often quite literally lives on with the same cast of characters playing an influential role in decade after decade after decade, through administration after administration after administration.

And of course Henry Kissinger is absolutely no different. So perhaps it should not have come as much of a surprise, although apparently it did, when in 2006, veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame revealed that—surprise surprise—yes, lurking behind the Bush presidency and advising Bush on the modern Vietnam all along was, of course, Heinz Kissinger.

MIKE WALLACE (narrating): Cheney stunned Woodward by revealing that a frequent advisor to the Bush White House is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who served Presidents Nixon and Ford during the Vietnam War.

 

BOB WOODWARD: He’s back. In fact, Henry Kissinger is almost like a member of the family. If he’s in town, he can call up, and if the President’s free, he’ll see him.

 

WALLACE (narrating): Woodward recorded his on-the-record interview with Cheney, and here’s what the Vice President said about Henry Kissinger’s clout.

 

DICK CHENEY: Of the outside people that I talk to in this job I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than just about anybody else. He just comes by I guess at least once a month and I sit down with him.

 

WOODWARD: And the same with the President.

 

CHENEY: Yes. Absolutely.

 

WOODWARD: President Bush is . . .

 

CHENEY: . . . a big fan of his.

 

WOODWARD: Now, what’s Kissinger’s advice? In Iraq, he declared very simply, victory is the only meaningful exit strategy. This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again, because in his view, the problem in Vietnam is we lost our will, that we didn’t stick to it.

 

WALLACE (interviewing): So Henry Kissinger is telling George W. Bush, stick to it. Stay the course.

 

WOODWARD: That’s right. It’s right out of the Kissinger playbook.

 

SOURCE: 60 Minutes’ Mike Wallace interviews Bob Woodward about his book, State of Denial

Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy. Yes, you can’t make this up. Henry Kissinger is indeed once again fighting the Vietnam War, this time in Iraq. Or at least he was during the presidency of George W. Bush.

But now we know that, of course, the puppeteer-in-chief has fallen to the position of Zbigniew Brzezinski. And, of course, we examined that in some detail back in Episode 63 of this podcast.

And we know that, indeed, the direction of the Obama administration has changed slightly from the Bush administration insofar as the focus, at least as far as the media and the hype is concerned, is less on Iraq and more on Afghanistan and Pakistan. So of course that front is now becoming the major theater of operations for the U.S. armed services.

But it hardly needs to be stressed that this does not represent a fundamental change in the agenda of creating a New World Order. It simply represents a dichotomy within the New World Order itself about how best to achieve the goal of a complete world dictatorship ruled by and for the interests of a tiny elite.

And in case that needs to be fleshed out in any more detail, I will include a link to a very, very interesting interview that took place in June of 2007, conducted by Charlie Rose and featuring Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft—all, of course, former national security advisors, and all of them, including Charlie Rose, Bilderberg members.

And yes, to put that into perspective for people out there who may not really grasp the significance of that: There are 125 or so people in the entire world who are invited to the annual Bilderberg conference. And of those 125, this interview features three of those attendees being interviewed by another of those attendees.

And their conversation obviously centers on global geopolitics and the way in which the American Empire should act in order to ensure its supremacy for another century.

So, I think people can see at face value exactly what type of New World Order we’re talking about. And yes, you can hear Bilderberger Charlie Rose starting the conversation by asking them what type of New World Order is coming into view. At any rate, it’s a fascinating conversation in numerous respects, not only because Brent Scowcroft says that people are becoming politicized through information technology, which gives them access to things beyond their own community, and for the first time people are really becoming nationally and even internationally politically aware and involved—and he equates that to terrorism and says it’s a bad thing—but it’s also interesting because of a faux debate between Kissinger and Brzezinski about the way in which to proceed in global geopolitics, with Brzezinski saying that it’s not good to get involved in quagmires like Iraq and Iran, whereas Kissinger says that once you’re committed to such a theater of operations, you have to maintain the course until victory is achieved.

It’s an interesting faux debate—and I do stress the fact that it’s quite phony, because of course these are two representatives basically arguing for different strategies to attain the exact same goal. Ultimately they’re on the same team, but it’s like they’re competing for the job of team captain or really assistant captain or chief benchwarmer or whatever position they really occupy in the actual global elite superstructure.

But just to give a little bit of backing to that, let’s listen to this very short clip which makes it quite apparent that in fact the whole thing is a charade and admittedly a charade.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: And I think we are really facing as a country a real risk of becoming bogged down in this larger spectrum of the global Balkans. And if we get bogged down, two things will happen. First of all, we’re going to be largely alone. Most of the world will not be with us. A few client states, but that’s all. And secondly, our global power will gradually be dissipated. Our global standing will be undermined. So we do face a very serious strategic historical challenge, which we need to think through, and regarding which we need to draw some lessons and be willing to change course.

 

CHARLIE ROSE: Okay, . . . but the lessons are what?

 

BRZEZINSKI: The lessons are that acting alone in a world that’s alive and politically stirring is to condemn oneself to isolation and probably protracted warfare of a kind that can be dissipating. The kind of problem that we face in Iraq is a little bit the kind of problem that Israel face in dealing with Hezbollah. [As] the theater of conflict enlarges, it’s going to become more and more absorbing and more and more costly.

 

KISSINGER: The question is, what does one mean by “getting bogged down”? We are there now, and consequences flow from that. In principle, one can say one shouldn’t act alone, but once one is in the situation in which we are in Iraq we cannot simply solve it by saying we should not get bogged down. Zbig and I have been putting on a performance on weekly television, and so we have the script fairly well rehearsed.

 

SOURCE: Future of American Foreign Policy on Charlie Rose (2007)

The dichotomy in strategies represented by the two arms of the New World Order, fronted by people like Brzezinski and Kissinger, was best represented in this year’s Iranian elections, which we saw pumped up and hyped by the Soros-funded and backed Twitter revolution that almost took place in Iran. That was documented in my previous article, Destabilization 2.0, which I would suggest people go back and read or reread.

[Also read] my conversation with Paul Craig Roberts to see how that entire phenomenon was really constructed as part of Soros’ Open Democracy movement. And of course Brzezinski is nothing more nor less than Soros’ puppet, in the same way Kissinger is Rockefeller’s puppet. Again, these are merely two arms of the same agenda.

When that Iranian Twitter revolution failed to overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime, Kissinger was already in there pumping up the war rhetoric.

KISSINGER: I am sure that Americans would favor the emergence from the present situation of a truly popularly based government. And it is very appropriate for the President to make clear that that is what he favors. Now, if it turns out that it is not possible for a government to emerge in Iran that can deal with itself as a nation rather than as a cause, and if then we have a different situation, then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside. But if I understand the president correctly, he does not want to do this as a visible intervention in the current crisis.

 

SOURCE: Kissinger calls for Iran attack if color revolution fails

Yes, Henry Kissinger, who is really the messenger for the Rockefellers, who really do own the United States, threatening Iran with military action, which of course is then backed up by the President of Change, Obama, and the American administration, which goes into overdrive to hype the Iran war rhetoric.

Once again things seem to be cooling down in that area, but of course it’s always on the table and always on the back burner. And yes we will see history continue to repeat with the same characters, the same crew, fronting the same people, and fronting for the same interests and agendas over and over and over again until we wake up, stand up, and stop falling for these false dichotomies that we’re placed into. The question is not between whether we want global hegemony through military power and dominance or a global hegemony achieved through Machiavellian geostrategy. The choice is really between liberty and tyranny, between the people taking control of the political structures and systems and stopping the centralization of power in these nondemocratic global institutions, and of course, the alternative, which everyone on the other side of the issue, whether it be Kissinger or Brzezinski or Scowcroft or whoever it is represents, and that is the ideology of globalism and the global hegemony of the financial oligarchs.

Lest it needs to be put into perspective why it is important to attack even the puppets in the frontmen of the real ruling elite, like a Kissinger or a Scowcroft or Brzezinski, let’s turn to the current national security advisor to the Obama Change administration and the someone who is in a position to have real influence in the world we are living in, James L. Jones, who at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy on February 8th, 2009, said:

Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations! As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.

 

SOURCE: Remarks by National Security Adviser James L. Jones at Munich Conference

The point is to expose and bring down this chain of command. It’s time for the people to stop being ruled by the Rockefellers and the Soroses and those with money. And how do we do that?

Well, exactly as Brent Scowcroft suggests in that Charlie Rose interview: It is through the very information technology which is enabling us to become interconnected and aware on an international political scale that we will affect the change that we want to see in this world through movements like We Are Change.

So, I leave you today with We Are Change’s confrontation of Heinz Kissinger. And let this be a message to the ruling elite that the masses are awakening and we will resist the New World Order.

WE ARE CHANGE REPORTER 1: Do you still feel that the Third World population is the major concern—the explosion—or is terrorism? Has [terrorism] surpassed [the population explosion] now?

 

KISSINGER: The two are connected.

 

REPORTER 1: The two are connected?

 

REPORTER 2: Can you tell me what the New World Order is? What do you mean by the New World Order?

 

REPORTER 1: It’s bound to fail.

 

REPORTER 2: Can you tell us about the North American Union, sir?

 

REPORTER 1: National sovereignty will prevail.

 

SOURCE: We Are Change Colorado confronts Kissinger