is the great aphrodisiac.
—Henry Kissinger, "The New York Times"
Kissinger- Statesman or Satanic Prophet?
By Tom Lamb
The following is a snippet taken out of the book "Beyond The Mark" by a Scottish Kiwi Brother (correction - Jewish Scottish Kiwi Brother) George Anderson (not related to Pamela by the way). This book would be the best expos'e I've read in regards to the Chip Implant/Big Brother thingie! You can view our friends (George & Eileen) new site at http://poroti.freeservers.com
Once upon a time, there was a great man known to the world as Doctor Henry Alfred Kissinger. Originally named Heinz, he was born on the 27th May 1923 in the predominantly Catholic town of Furth, Bavaria to orthodox Jewish parents. He grew up under an expanding Nazi regime and escaped to America in 1938. Towards the end of the war he returned to Germany as an American Intelligence Officer. Later at Harvard he studied for a PhD. His marriage in 1949 to Anne Fleisher produced a son and a daughter; and was dissolved in 1964. Ten years later he married Nancy Maginnes. His jet-plane diplomacy in the Middle East won him a joint Nobel Peace prize while serving as USA's Secretary of State. And then...
"You never hear about Kissinger these days".
Who says that?
Everyone says that. Unless they subscribe to "Bulletin" or "Newsweek" and happen to notice a heavy-looking article under the professor's by-line every year or so.
Why does a man like that fade away?
Answer: he doesn't.
Sure, there isn't much in the New Zealand media about him. Either we enjoy heavy censorship - it happens - or we have what Kissinger himself describes as an "island mentality".
Overseas news isn't news unless it directly affects our Kiwi society. Okay, maybe that's a generalisation. But count the number of non-NZ-related items on a news broadcast and surprise yourself.
And try twiddling the shortwave knob of your ghetto blaster. Then count the number of times "Dr. Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State" gets a mention.
The world's greatest diplomat isn't ready for retirement yet.
Note the title the overseas media give him. Former US Secretary of State. For goodness' sake - that dates back twelve-plus years. What handle does he have now?
None. He doesn't need one.
At Harvard he made a point of meeting everyone who was somebody. We don't mean celebrities; that's not his style. More importantly, he met everyone who was going to be somebody.
It's not easy, but he did it.
And within two years of getting his doctorate (...doctorates are pretty commonplace in the US of A, remember...) he was adviser to the President.
(In Kissinger's case, it's what he knows and who he knows; which is why he is quoted as saying to one Foreign Minister: "Sign the treaty and I give you this", significantly tapping his personal notebook of phone numbers.)
To understand the power and potential of the man, you need to do some solid reading. Your local library can get the books free from the National Library if you ask. Just bear in mind that neither Kissinger nor his commentators write in Women's Weekly (...or Anderson...) style. But, rightly or wrongly, they say something.
Begin with the thesis that earned the professor his doctorate. It's in most libraries, surprisingly, under the snappy title "A World Restored: Castlereagh, Metternich and the Restoration of Peace" (pub. Gollancz 1964) Keep the words "Restored" and "Restoration" in your mind: restoration has a significance we'll deal with later. And, for the moment, remember that Kissinger also won the Sumner Prize for "the best dissertation...dealing with any means...tending towards the prevention of war and the establishment of universal peace."
"A World Restored" looks at the efforts, successes and defeats of Austrian Prince Metternich to stabilise Europe while Napoleon was marching all over the map. (Now, don't you wish you'd been listening in the history class?)
Quite a few significant points leap out. 1. Generals don't keep peace; statesmen do. 2. Peace is a delicate balance of treaties that give everybody an advantage; nobody gains if there are losers. 3. Revolutionaries never want to negotiate, whatever they say. They desire conquest for conquests' sake. They have to be destroyed, at any cost. 4. By the time something happens, it is too late to act. A statesman must be a prophet, anticipating and acting before the event.
Those are our paraphrasings. A couple of other thoughts also emerge.
There are "island mentalities" and "continental mentalities". Austria, surrounded by land, was in effect threatened by each and every soldier marching towards her. And needed to react positively, no matter how far away those tramping feet might be. Hence the fear of Napoleon, treaties notwithstanding.
Britain, surrounded by water, wasn't greatly bothered what happened until boatloads of the enemy were actually sailing across the channel. And Britain's pressure for everyone to take a "wait and see" attitude was threatening Austria's safety. (There's a parallel with Chamberlain at Munich.)
Now - if you're following the implication of these comments, you'll see they relate to a situation greater than US involvement in Vietnam and Cambodia, greater than scraps between Israel and Syria.
Kissinger is presenting a blueprint for, first, a united and stable Europe; second, "a world restored" to peace by interlocking agreements where everyone benefits. Where revolutionaries (because they will not negotiate) are put down by the use of intense and localised force.
If the remarks about statesmen and prophets, a few paragraphs back, strike you as untypically mystic for a man like Kissinger - know that all who write about Kissinger are intensely aware that he is no local politician, shortsightedly pursuing the stubborn dogmas of his political party. He is a philosopher-historian, peering over the narrow boundaries of laws and customs, manipulating, balancing and anticipating. Always anticipating.
This mystic element appears - incongruously - in a book by CIA political analyst Peter Dickson ("Kissinger and the Meaning of History" p.73; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978):
"Kissinger no longer believes in the Judeo-Christian conception of history as a spiritual progression toward the Kingdom of God. Nor does he appear to believe in the Greek idea of the universe as a rationally ordered cosmos. His existentialist philosophy of history instead considers life as completely imminent - possessing no transcendent meaning and having no final destination. History is an unending process devoid of any ultimate value or purpose. It is chaos, the infinite abyss that Metternich and the eighteenth-century rationalists failed to acknowledge. If history has any meaning, it is whatever meaning men choose to give their lives as Kissinger suggested in one of his later writings." [Our emphasis.]
Kissinger (doctorate thesis p322) wrote:
"Lacking in Metternich is the attribute which has enabled the spirit to contemplate an abyss, not with the detachment of a scientist, but as a challenge to overcome - or perish in the process." [Our emphasis]
On p329 he added, "The statesman is therefore like one of the heroes in classical drama who has had a vision of the future but who cannot transmit it directly to his fellow-men and who cannot validate its 'truth'. Nations learn only by experience; they 'know' only when it is too late to act. But statesmen must act as if their intuition were already experience, as if their aspiration were truth. It is for this reason that statesmen often share the fate of prophets".
And he concluded a speech "The Reality of Interdependence" significantly:
"If we act with large spirit, history could record this as a time of great creativity, and the last quarter of this century could be remembered as that period when mankind fashioned the first truly global community."
Already, Dr. Henry Kissinger's fine-tuning of world affairs is outworking some ten years on. Israel's veto (as we write these words) of the PLO at peace talks is the outworking of a secret "Memorandum of Understanding" passed to the Israelis by the doctor on the 20th December 1973.
His shuttle diplomacy has laid foundations. His solo seminars, given one-to-one for any head of state who would listen, are paying off in terms of rulers understanding that there is more to governing than mere rhetoric for the voters.
In 1976, Edward Sheehan wrote (p230 of "The Arabs, Israel and Kissinger"):
"Most probably [Arafat] will not deal his most potent card - explicit recognition of Israel's right to exist - until he is explicitly assured by the United States that it will work for the creation of a Palestinian state on the west bank and in Gaza."
Now follow this sequence...
December 1988 (Herald): "Arafat asked Israel yesterday to come to Geneva to work with him for peace in the Middle East, but... the United States said he had not clearly met its conditions for a dialogue."
December 1988 (Advocate): "Pope John Paul told PLO chairman Yasser Arafat today that Israelis and Palestinians had an 'identical, fundamental right' to their own land but they must shun reprisals and terrorism."
May 1989 (Herald): "Yasser Arafat made a gesture for peace in the Middle East yesterday by declaring that the original Palestine Liberation Organisation charter calling for the destruction of Israel was null and void."
This is why Yasser Arafat is now saying that the PLO acknowledges Israel's right to exist - and he renounces terrorism. You see, it isn't a question of "getting people to trust him". Under the Kissinger approach, if Arafat is a revolutionary, nothing will satisfy him and he must be put down, regardless of any so-called "rightness" of his cause; if he is not a revolutionary, he can be negotiated with, and treaties made to his advantage.
If the Kissinger-Pope-Arafat link sounds odd - ponder this...
Mohammed Yasser Arafat, born 24th August 1929 is "of course" a Moslem. But what kind of Moslem?
Moslems are required to pray five times a day. Arafat's special assistant, Um Jihad, says: "Usually he gathers the five time a day into one". It is, frankly, an inconvenience to the PLO chairman.
Has he no religious associations? In the 560-page pro- palestinian book "Arafat" by Alan Hart (Indiana University Press, 1989) time and time again we learn of Arafat's meeting with a close friend - Catholic Priest Father Ibrahim Iyad. The author's observations on this strange relationship are scattered through the book. "Arafat turned to Father Iyad for moral support." "He did not finally make up his mind until he had talked with Father Iyad." "Father Iyad had been giving Arafat his blessing." "The two men [Arafat and his second-in- command Wazir] visited Father Ibrahim Iyad."
The author ponders: "Why Arafat chose a Catholic priest to be his spiritual adviser is a mystery".
Is it? Certainly it makes sense of Arafat's obeying the Pope's instructions in December 1988.
(And - this is written later - it makes sense of his attending midnight mass in Bethlehem in December 1996.)
Israel has a tricky task, working a mind-switch on the voters, deconditioning them from the kneejerk PLO-is-nasty reaction. The process is being performed with care. Already the "Jerusalem Post" uses (in its English edition; we get it air-mail) the Hebrew word "intifada" to describe acts of terrorism or the terrorists themselves.
By contrast, the term "PLO" is now only used in the context of negotiation. This re-establishes thought patterns and attitudes.
For example, the closing paragraph of the "Jerusalem Post's" editorial for Thursday, 27th April 1989 reads:
"King Hussein does not want the intifada to cross the river onto his home ground. In this, at least, with considerable cooperation from Israel and, it must be said, the PLO, he is succeeding."
Peace is orchestrated, the Kissinger way.
Why else would East Germany - the communist bit - suddenly announce that they recognise Israel diplomatically and want to start paying reparations for their war crimes against the Jews?
Why has Russia begun releasing countless thousands of Jews, previously denied exit visas? Why did Russia allow the Judaic Studies Centre to open in Moscow?
The plan for the restoration of world peace is working.
After all - who wins in an all-out nuclear war? It's little consolation for the last surviving Chief of General Staff, 5kms down in a shelter hewn from solid granite, to know that he has conquered a world made dark, cold and unliveable by a perpetual pall of radioactive dust.
So even the most power-hungry must exercise a certain finesse. Or perish in the destruction of their prize.
But Kissinger is confident. Again to quote Sheehan (p202):
"Dr. Kissinger pronounced words to this effect: 'I arranged detente with Russia. I opened the door to China. I brought peace to Vietnam. I want to bring peace to the Middle East. I hate failure. I have not failed. I shall not fail'. If we juxtapose the immense egoism of the pronouncement, this conviction of Kissinger's that he could manage reality with the veracity of Professor Hoffman's diagnosis [that he plays several roles at once], we may glimpse the essence of Kissinger's method in the Middle East."
p212 "[Israelis] - like so many others the world over - follow the indefatigable Secretary of State, who is of Jewish origin, with wonder. His methods fire the imagination. The impression he creates is one of global authority."
Remember the Wall? Berlin used to have a wall. And then, surprise, surprise, down it came, just like that. Dr. Henry Kissinger said in September 1988: "It is possible to envisage a plan to reunite Europe... This is not a negotiation that would lend itself to formal diplomacy... Its initial phase must be highly confidential." He has for years been laying the foundations for the "spontaneous" events of the past months. But (as they say) read on for details of how some aspects have been somewhat contrived...
Remember Cromwell? Before our time - but that benign British dictator and his men destroyed any number of Catholic "art treasures" that offended their Protestantism. It's understandable. But in Russia at the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, those hard-line atheists didn't destroy the ikons, images, baubles, bangles and beads to any great extent. They put 'em on show in museums. Funny, that. And according to the glossy, well-presented literature the Russian Embassy have sent us - they've now given back these "art treasures" to the church. And nine churches a day are being reopened. Just as if religion was always intended to be restored as part of a bigger plan...
"And what is Kissinger doing now?" you may wonder.
Until the Russian leadership crisis in August 1991, shuttling between Gorbachev and Bush, often enough, organising summit meetings.
But he has also widened his activities.
Only a child imagines that monarchs and governments hold all the reins.
Sprawling multi-national conglomerates can be empires more wealthy, more powerful, more capable of upsetting the economy than many conventional states.
The moguls who guide their gigantic business kingdoms also need to be orchestrated. Wooed in a language they understand, so that they, too, will act in harmony in the world.
Henry Alfred Kissinger has become Kissinger Associates.
Fees reportedly start at $US100,000 key money and climb sharply. Clients get "oral briefings, telephone access to Dr. Kissinger and Associates... and as many as four annual talks with the oracle"; according to a report in the Herald on the 10th April 1989. Plus introductions to a powerful network of Kissinger friends around the world.
Clients include Volvo, Coca-Cola, Union Carbide, H.J.Heinz.
Big business is learning that there is more to achieving success in this wide and wicked world than employing a bunch of salespeople trained in positive thinking.
Big business is learning who pulls the strings. Why they are being pulled. How to have a few pulled in their favour.
As long as they cooperate. Tip-toeing where they might have trampled. Fitting the overall pattern. Helping to restore peace in the world.
A recap on a few facts, then a conjecture.
Fact: Kissinger does visit, teach and negotiate with rulers and governments. That's common knowledge.
Fact: Kissinger does visit, teach and negotiate with business empires. Maybe not everyone knows about it, but Kissinger Associates was founded in 1982 and has been openly discussed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Conjecture: Kissinger would be likely to deal with big, power-wielding religious groups.
Conjecture like we say. You're going to have to watch points in the future. See what connections you can make. But here are a few thoughts in that direction.
First, an "argument from silence"...
Some logicians are suspicious of any argument that relies on lack of evidence. However, the argument is worth considering if evidence ought to be there. (For instance, while the absence of bundles of files and documents in someone's bed-sitter mayn't mean a thing, the absence of files in a city office suggests a scared executive's been doing overtime on the shredder.)
There is an unusual absence of any link between Henry Kissinger and the Catholic Church. There is no sign of hostility, just as absence of contact.
Think about it. Consider the vast influence of the Vatican. Consider Kissinger's use of top people. Whether he likes them or not; whether he accepts their philosophies or not.
There's no link. Even his doctorate thesis, written concerning a time when Napoleon was as big a problem to the Pope as to any temporal ruler, the bare half-dozen references to the pontiff in 320 pages are totally lacking in the wealth of detail found elsewhere.
Now, it's worth noting a clever bit of timing that relates to the current Pope...
Carol Wojytla is now Pope JPII. During the don't blink you'll miss it reign of Pope John Paul I (33 days, then they murdered him) he was a second-in-command Polish cardinal. However - during those 33 days he found enough time to sign and send "a strong appeal to the Polish government to allow the Church access to the media." Guess what the first religious TV broadcast in Poland was? Carol Wojytla's own coronation as Pope. Lucky bit of timing? Or was it orchestrated. The facts are from his authorised biog by Lord Longford.
Try another jack-up...
In the first edition of this book, we wrote early in 1989: "Watch Albania. Hardline, independent Communist. It'll go all democratic. And who will go there in a blaze of humility? None other than Mother Teresa. An Albanian, remember. She's been set up for this. No, we're not knocking her - but there are any number of selfless, devoted nuns in the world who have her capacity for dedication. How come she gets the publicity? Answer: she's Albanian."
And of course in March 1991 she did just that, entering Albania, starting one of her famous homes for the destitute, handing out the wafers in a hastily reconsecrated cath with full media coverage, worldwide.
There are a lot of clever folk out there.
But, back to Kissinger and the Vatican Connection.
We've already mentioned Peter Dickson's "Kissinger and the Meaning of History", and said the author works for the CIA. Throughout that book, the author is at pains to paint Kissinger as a "Protestant". Not broadly Christian. Specifically "Protestant".
His "Protestant notion of inwardness" (p39), "strong Protestant tinge" (p40), "Protestant notion of inner spirituality" (p40), "fascination with the Protestant notion of spiritual inwardness" (p41), "the role the Protestant- Idealist tradition played in his cultural formation" (p49), "Kissinger belongs to the high cultural tradition of philosophical Protestantism" (p86).
The author has even felt the need to devote an individual heading to Kissinger's so-called "Protestantism" in the index. And whenever Kissinger's studies lead him to a Protestant writer, that fact is pounced on, commented on - and featured in the index.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. That's Shakespeare.
Was the CIA spreading a little disinformation, d'you think? Why the elaborate need to push the Protestant (always capitalised, note) angle? With never a fact to back it.
One fact that does get overlooked by our CIA author is that one of Kissinger's favourite stamping grounds - Georgetown University, where since 1977 he has been Professor of Diplomacy in its School of Foreign Service, and Counsellor to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies - is that that particular establishment is a Jesuit university.
(For the record - the Jesuits are the secret service of the Vatican, and in the course of history have been banned from just about every major country on earth!)
In David Mitchell's "The Jesuits: a History" (Macdonald Futura, 1980) a thumbnail sketch of Georgetown University is drawn. Founded in 1793 by the Jesuit Bishop of Baltimore (p210), it allowed the renowned Jesuit Edward Boyd Barrett to conduct "a short course in heavily vetted psychology" (247- 248), figured in a "long success-story feature on the Jesuits in America" by "Life" magazine (p274), and boasted that the first Medical Ethics Scholar of the Kennedy Foundation was Fr. George Shoup, SJ, surgeon at the university hospital (p294).
Was the CIA agent unaware of this? Scarcely. He devotes nearly a page of condensed type in the appendix (pp 178-179) to a learned discussion between himself and the doctor - after a private seminar held at Georgetown University itself.
The Protestant label is simply whitewash.
So the expensive Dr. Kissinger is retained by Jesuits to educate Jesuits and others of their choice. A stronger Catholic link would be harder to imagine.
And - just remember - rumours abound that Kissinger is a Freemason. Not only is he said to belong to the Monte Carlo lodge but also to the infamous P2 - the Vatican's own lodge If so, this is a straightforward link with all top level Vatican policy-making.
A further point...
When Kissinger negotiates, teaches, advises, he does so in a way his audience can understand. He speaks their language, as it were. He wouldn't press the trade advantages of coals to Newcastle or pork chops to Tel Aviv.
So if he approached religious leaders he would adapt his concept of "A World Restored" to carry religious overtones.
Is there any evidence of Restorationism being taught in the church today?
In case you didn't know, religion has its fads and fashions that come and go like fashions in the rag trade. Currently, many diverse religious groups and individual churches are teaching that the world is going to get better and better because of the way God is going to work through them. They push hard for a strong political control on citizens. They use the label "Reconstructionism", "Restorationism", "Kingdom Now" and similar to describe their idea of enforcing world peace by religious means.
It is what the Vatican has said for centuries. It is the Kissinger theme tune re-scored for clergy and congregation.
Maybe you'll think that it's just an unlucky coincidence that Kissinger and many clergy have coined the same catchphrases. What if it's not a coincidence? If the groups that these folk represent have the cash and clout they claim, it would be worth a world leader's while to find someone who understood the language of diplomacy and the language of the church sufficiently well to "bring a teaching" couched in charismatic terms, embodying Kissinger's policies.
In these ecumenical days there would be no lack of top Jesuits in Kissinger's notebook to do the task.
Would Kissinger arrange this? A man who worked alongside him admitted: "The religious leader who thinks he is influencing the government may suddenly discover he's the one being manipulated - for the politician's gain. As one whose job it was to woo religious leaders for the Nixon White House, I can testify that they are no more immune than anyone else to the blandishments of power." (Charles Colson,"Loving God", Marshalls, 1983, p168)
If a Kissinger co-worker used to manipulate ministers, is it perhaps possible that the good doctor uses the technique himself?
Now - even if there is no human link whatever between Kissinger's policies and the new church teachings on Restorationism...
The principles and the methods are identical.
Restorationism teaches that the evils in society can be stemmed if good men and women take over the reins of control and insist on a Christian morality being restored. This, they claim, will be a manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth, ready to greet the Lord when he returns.
It is nice; it is unscriptural; it is humanist.
God brings in the Kingdom of God, not man. All the Christian laws there are (the proponents of the system mean Old Testament laws, but are afraid to say so because they involve bringing back the death penalty) may construct a very moral problem-free society (may, we said) but the result is still a humanistic empire, not the rulership of God.
Calvin did pretty well with his city-state at Geneva. There were hiccups - ask Servetus, the bloke Calvin burned - but on the whole it all functioned.
You could duplicate the results today. Bring in a Christian political party, or at least a significant number of Christian MPs. Just don't confuse the results with the Kingdom of God.
Now - if the aims and methods of some religious pressure groups and the aims and methods of Kissinger are one and the same...
...whether or not there is any "secret deal" between them...
...the inspiration and the source will be the same for both of them. So take care. Because, as Peter Dickson comments in "Kissinger and the Meaning of History" p43: "For Kissinger, God died in Auschwitz".
Don't be misled by the language of idealism. "Freedom", "liberty", "justice", "human rights" are used by all sides. There's another word, too.
If there are no winners in a large-scale nuclear war, what weapon remains for world conquest?
Scripture warns us of this.
"Wars and rumours of wars" (Matt. 24.6) is a sign that "the end is not yet". But "when they say 'Peace and safety', then comes sudden destruction" (1 Thess. 5.3). It's a successful means of deception. "He shall destroy many through peace" (Dan. 8.25). Because peace seems so good.
Which is why Jesus (who is, after all, the Prince of Peace) made it clear that he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. His approach is never smooth, plausible, non- threatening. Whatever benefits his rulership may offer, they specifically involve a dramatic change in us. Personally.
Maybe you've heard the phrase "born again"? It was overworked by US President Jimmy Carter and a handful of film stars some years ago.
Pity. Because it's a pretty good description of a dramatic change that God can make in us, in you, if we take the trouble of getting to know Him.
Forget the aloof, stained-glass image of God that your friendly local church projects. Jesus lived here for the simple purpose of saying: "Hey! God's alive and well and wants to meet you. He's my Dad and wants you in the family, too. No, it doesn't cost anything; I'm the way to Him. And whatever your problem - including bad personal problems, He's got the answers. It's not a matter of giving up this and that. God can change you."
That's what being "born again" is all about. It's radical. Because it's God and you - direct. Not second-hand through some religious organisation.
And it doesn't matter how many mistakes you make. He's got all the time in the world.
And by dealing with you on a one-to-One basis, the results are lasting. And get us ready for the return of the King. Jesus.
Are you Y3K OK? http://radicalpilgrim.da.ru
BACK TO THE TITLE PAGE