Rose-colored Specs ?

When one reads Henry Kissinger’s World Order, one gets the oppression of rose-colored glasses—not that Mr. Kissinger was always wearing them while writing (except respecting America and world order), but that they are imposed upon his readers without apparent scruples or apology. As an insider, he must surely know that his focus on “American” morals, idealism, and exceptionalism neglects most of the story. The tragedy of unacknowledged U.S. history is the multitude of crimes and misdemeanors against founding principles; but HK studiously avoids the dark-side of American tyranny and international sabotage. He quotes former presidents whose idealistic words often belied their covert actions. If only we could juxtapose all those quotes with the global images that preceded or followed them.¹

Chapter 7 is entitled:

“Acting for all Mankind”: The United States and Its Concept of Order

In this chapter, the rose-tint deepens to an embarrassing blush. The hagiography² of past presidents (words without images) is astonishing—as are the many egoist references to American principles, such as:

John Foster Dulles … described American foreign policy as a kind of global volunteer effort guided by principles totally different from any other historic state’s approach (pp. 287-288).

With nearly every president insisting that America had universal principles while other countries merely had national interests, the United States has risked extremes of overextension and disillusioned withdrawal (p. 279).

HK seems so spellbound by his idealized America, it makes one wonder if the same applies to his World Order; and thus makes one shudder at the thought of what greater part he might also be excising about the dark-side of WO. If he can’t bring himself to acknowledge the dark-dark side of “American Order,” can we trust him to reveal the ins-and-outs of WO?

At times, one hears the echo of narcissism and wounded pride wafting between the lines of World Order. Poor US. We have proselytized our virtues, values, and principles for well-over two-hundred years; we have demonstrated our exceptionalism and superior policies; we have given our best and our brightest, all in the name of raising the world to a higher plane of “humane” rights and prosperity, and for what? Too often for naught—because those “old” states across the ponds are so caught in their never-ending spirals of balance-of-power, competition, nationalism, status-mongering, fanaticism, mistrust, etc., etc., such that even the newer (giant) kid on the block can’t break them of that great chain of being tyrannical, egoistic, imperialistic, and ungrateful.

Except, as is troublingly evident, Mr. Kissinger neglects to remind US that the giant kid on the block has been running amuck for more than a century: lying, extorting, covert-ing, coup-ing, drug-running, kidnapping, torturing, terrorizing, killing.³

And for those who have just gone ballistic at these “accusations,” please get a grip on your intellect. The evidence is everywhere⁴—not because muckrakers hate America, but because they love what she once stood for—what she still pretends to stand for. And they hate that she has become one of those déjà vu “hypocritical nations” that Old Testament Isaiah denounced.⁵

Not only is America multi-faced, she is also hypersensitive and spellbound by her own promise and perceived destiny. If the truth could be seen, she has become a Dorian Gray.⁶ So, in World Order, Mr. Kissinger parades us through a White House museum of carefully selected memorabilia draped-round with ten-thousand flags (while the super-“men in black” line the staircase leading to the attic⁶).

As we exit the museum—past the permanent shadows on the fireplace mantel⁷—we are handed a tissue and a tract. The tissue is to weep for the blindness of the nations who have thus far resisted our vision, virtues, and policies. The tract is the concluding chapter of WO, summarizing for the masses how the American promise can still be morphed into global governance—a global order of “democracy” (hint, hint: corporatism⁸).

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our aspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages (p. 372).

Fine-sounding phrases, but where have we heard those before?—from the lips of past presidents?—or forming the complaint of a wandering prophet 2,700 years ago? How might old Isaiah reframe the complaint if he were speaking as voice for the beleaguered Constitution? Would the voice say:

This people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me?

And what might Mr. K.’s “needed” intermediary stages entail to get everyone on-side the WO? Could #1 on the Georgia Guidestones⁹ give us a clue? That could certainly solve the problem of the nasty muckrakers, not to mention those born-again communists, those intransigent religionists and fanatics of every stripe, and all those down-and-outers of every “nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”

Yes, World Order is a book of some insights, but the rose-tint and the radical excision of more than half the historical truths of the body-politic is beyond troubling—especially when one considers the admiration Mr. K. has for the “principles” of statesmanship allegedly set forth by Machiavelli.¹⁰

--------------------------------------/
1. Consider this small sampling of facts and patterns of American “values” worth studying and remembering: Native American and African-American treatment, past and present; Hawaii 1893; Cuba 1898; Philippines 1899; Nicaragua 1909; Honduras 1912; Japanese & Japanese-American internment 1940s; Iran 1953; Guatemala 1954; South Vietnam 1963; Cambodia 1970; Chile 1973; Indonesia/East Timor 1975; Grenada 1983; Panama 1959-89; Afghanistan 1980s to present; Iraq 1960s to present; hundreds of SOFAs and military bases worldwide; economic sabotage; etc., etc., etc.
NOW juxtaposed with statements from Mr. Kissinger’s World Order:
● Before the ayatollahs’ revolution, the West’s interaction with Iran had been cordial and cooperative on both sides, based on a perceived parallelism of national interests. (p. 158)
● President McKinley: “The American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory, but for humanity’s sake.” (quoted at p. 246)
● President Theodore Roosevelt: “All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries, stable, orderly, and prosperous.” (quoted at p. 250)
● [Section heading} Woodrow Wilson: America as the World’s Conscience (p. 256)
● Imbued by America’s historic sense of moral mission, Wilson proclaimed that America had intervened not to restore the European balance of power but to “make the world safe for democracy.” (p. 256, see also 258)
● Woodrow Wilson: “Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest.” (quoted at p. 259)
● All twelve postwar presidents have passionately affirmed an exceptional role for America in the world. Each has treated it as axiomatic that the Unites States was embarked on an unselfish quest for the resolution of conflicts and the equality of all nations, in which the ultimate benchmark for success would be world peace and universal harmony. (p. 276)
● ... American idealism and exceptionalism were the driving forces behind the building of a new international order. (p. 277)
● With nearly every president insisting that America had universal principles while other countries merely had national interests, the United States has risked extremes of overextension and disillusioned withdrawal. (p. 279)
● America has been searching its soul about the moral worth of its efforts to a degree for which it is difficult to find historical parallels. Either America n objectives have been unfulfillable, or America did not pursue a strategy compatible with reaching these objectives. (p. 279)
● In this context, the United States assumed leadership of the global effort to contain Soviet expansionism—but as a primarily moral, not geopolitical, endeavor. … as a moral crusade for the free world. ¶ … to advance the general interests of humanity. (p. 287)
● The preservation of American credibility in defense of allies and the global system of order—a role the United States had performed for two decades—remained an integral part of Nixon’s calculations. (p. 300)
● America as a shining city on a hill was not a metaphor for [Ronald] Reagan; it actually existed for him because he willed it to exist. (p. 311) / … Reagan believed the [Cold War] conflict was likely to end with the realization by the adversary of the superiority of American principles. (p. 312)
● … the perennial American hope for a rules-based international order (p. 315)
● In Prague in November 1990, [George H. W.] Bush invoked a “commonwealth of freedom,” which would be governed by the rule of law; … “a moral community united in its dedication to free ideals.” … [to] “forge for all nations a new world order far more stable and secure than any we have known.” ¶ “Our overriding purpose must be to expand and strengthen the world’s community of market-based democracies.” (pp. 315-316)
● Bill Clinton: “The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. (p. 324)
● … the tragedy of a county whose people have been prepared for more than half a century to send its sons and daughters to remote corners of the world in defense of freedom but whose political system has not been able to muster the same unified and persistent purpose. (p. 326)
● … no other major power has brought to its strategic efforts such deeply felt aspirations for human betterment. (p. 328)
● On the way to the first truly global world order, the great human achievement of technology must be fused with enhanced powers of humane, transcendent, and moral judgment. (p. 360)
● America—as the modern world’s decisive articulation of the human quest for freedom, and an indispensable geopolitical force for the vindication of humane values—must retain its sense of direction. (p. 373)
2. Hagiography: “adulatory writing about another person; biography [histography?] that idealizes its subject.”
3. A second chance to consider footnote 1: that small sampling of facts and patterns of American “values” worth studying and remembering: Native American and African-American treatment, past and present; Hawaii 1893; Cuba 1898; Philippines 1899; Nicaragua 1909; Honduras 1912; Japanese & Japanese-American internment 1940s; Iran 1953; Guatemala 1954; South Vietnam 1963; Cambodia 1970; Chile 1973; Indonesia/East Timor 1975; Grenada 1983; Panama 1959-89; Afghanistan 1980s to present; Iraq 1960s to present; hundreds of SOFAs and military bases worldwide; economic sabotage; etc., etc., etc.
4. Read and listen to (YouTube) the facts and warning voices of Chris Hedges, Chalmers Johnson, Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Klein, Stephen Kinzer, Noam Chomsky, etc., etc., etc.
5. Old Testament | Isaiah 10:6
6. “The Picture of Dorian Gray is an 1891 philosophical novel by writer and playwright Oscar Wilde. First published as a serial story in the July 1890 issue of Lippincott's Monthly Magazine. Summary: Dorian Gray is the subject of a full-length portrait in oil by Basil Hallward, an artist who is impressed and infatuated by Dorian's beauty; he believes that Dorian’s beauty is responsible for the new mode in his art as a painter. Through Basil, Dorian meets Lord Henry Wotton, and he soon is enthralled by the aristocrat's hedonistic worldview: that beauty and sensual fulfilment are the only things worth pursuing in life. / Understanding that his beauty will fade, Dorian expresses the desire to sell his soul, to ensure that the picture, rather than he, will age and fade. The wish is granted, and Dorian pursues a libertine life of varied and amoral experiences; all the while his portrait [hidden in the attic] ages and records every soul-corrupting sin.” From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray
7. “Shadow on the mantel” parallel: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-portrait-contains-lewinsky-in-joke-artist-says-1.2979416 “Bill Clinton portrait contains Lewinsky in-joke, artist says: / A Philadelphia artist has disclosed that his museum portrait of former President Bill Clinton contains a shadow reference to Monica Lewinsky's infamous blue dress. / Nelson Shanks told the Philadelphia Daily News that a shadow beside Clinton is a literal reference to the dress and a symbolic nod to the shadow the affair cast on his presidency. / "If you look at the left-hand side of it there's a mantel in the Oval Office, and I put a shadow coming into the painting," Shanks told the newspaper.
[So like this other shadow on the mantel, America’s sins never seem to make it into the picture or enduring consciousness of her citizens.]
8. George H.W. Bush: “Our overriding purpose must be to expand and strengthen the world’s community of market-based democracies.” (p. 316)
Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies, and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries. (p. 362)
The global economic impetus is on removing obstacles to the flow of goods and capital. (p. 368)
[So, are American values and policies to be the mother-lode of WO where global capitalism will finally trump communism? where nations will no longer compete, leaving all that to the “invisible hand” of the corporate capitalists?]
9. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
The Georgia Guidestones is a granite monument erected in 1980 in Elbert County, Georgia, in the United States. A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight modern languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

A shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient language scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs.
[Again, several fine-sounding phrases, but what are the images to accompany their implementation? Is this “American Stonehenge” the model of the “American Order” planned for the world? Is WO in charge? And if not, how does WO plan to get its “agreed-upon rules” past this “cast-in-stone” crowd?]
10. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/02/niccolo-mockiavelli.html

Whitewash?

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four,¹ which, in the contortions and déjà vus of history, may bring us to Henry Kissinger and his latest book, published September 2014. Kissinger’s name, presiding over the bold and simple title, World Order, presents upon a pristine, white cover.

This year also marks the 225th year since the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation (1789; first session, First Congress).

So what, you may ask, is the connection between these facts?

It’s hard to know for sure, but let’s consider:  “We the People” and World Order.

Millions believe that the United States Constitution was and (still) is the best hope and promise of preserving freedom and opportunity in the world.² If they are right, (and even if they’re not), the U.S. has always advertized itself as the beacon of democratic values; so perhaps we should carefully read Mr. Kissinger’s World Order and ask at every page: What does this book mean for the hope and promise of the U.S. Constitution?

But first, let us acknowledge that Mr. Kissinger undoubtedly reveals some insightful and important things in his World Order for there are huge global problems that only seem to be getting worse. However, in reading World Order, let us also be aware of the grand illusion / delusion that manifests in the very first pages of his book.

Without any apparent cognitive dissonance, he writes:

“… an American consensus—an inexorably expanding cooperative order of states observing common rules and norms, embracing liberal economic systems, forswearing territorial conquest, respecting national sovereignty, and adopting participatory and democratic systems of governance. American presidents of both parties have continued to urge other governments, often with great vehemence and eloquence, to embrace the preservation and enhancement of human rights.” (pp. 1-2)

“In the American view of world order, peace and balance would occur naturally, and ancient enmities would be set aside—once other nations were given the same principled say in their own governance that Americans had in theirs. The task of foreign policy was thus not so much the pursuit of a specifically American interest as the cultivation of shared principles. In time, the United States would become the indispensable defender of the order Europe designed. Yet even as the United States lent its weight to the effort, an ambivalence endured—for the American vision rested not on an embrace of the European balance-of-power system but on the achievement of peace through the spread of democratic principles.” (p. 6)

“The United States has alternated between defending the Westphalian system and castigating its premises of balance of power and noninterference in domestic affairs as immoral and outmoded, and sometimes both at once. It continues to assert the universal relevance of its values in building a peaceful world order and reserves the right to support them globally.” (p. 8)

These head-spinning words are so un-tethered to the real (forgotten / ignored / hidden) history of U.S. involvement in other nations, it staggers credulity. Not to mention what the U.S. government, its corporate bosses and banks, and other hidden handlers are presently foisting upon U.S. citizens. When one reads the many voices of warning and exposés, it becomes apparent that Kissinger’s book may just be the latest whitewash in a long laundry list of offenses against the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights.

When one considers:

▪ his words: “Our age is insistently, at times almost desperately, in pursuit of a concept of world order.” (p. 2)

▪ his awareness that “The modern era announced itself when enterprising societies sought glory and wealth by exploring the oceans and whatever lay beyond them.” (pp. 17-18)

▪ his observation that “A man of the cloth steeped in court intrigue, Richelieu was well adapted to a period of religious upheaval and crumbling established structures.” (p. 21)

▪ his view that Machiavelli’s, The Prince is “a work on statesmanship” and that it “systematically analyzed the requirements of power and survival”³;

shouldn’t these give us pause—if not paranoia?

Is this book just one more trial balloon to further normalize the “idea” of (One) World Order? Though perhaps, it will never get below two or even three because, as we all know from experience and history—war and the threat of war can go a long way to achieving ways, ends, and mean$.

What would George Orwell say about this latest World Order? Perhaps he would lament: “Lucky—but unlucky you. My timing was only slightly off.”

---------------------/
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
2. Many believe it; particularly those of faith, and especially Mormons, referencing their scripture: Doctrine and Covenants | Section 101:77-80 ~ According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. Doctrine and Covenants | Section 98:4-10 ~ And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
3. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/ID/2416333338/ (being the words of Mr. Kissinger at min. 1:10-1:27 of the CBC “Ideas” (Paul Kennedy) program entitled, “Machiavelli: The Prince of Paradox,” broadcast 6 November 2013 in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the writing of The Prince. See also: http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/02/niccolo-mockiavelli.html

Niccolò [Mock]iavelli ?

(These thoughts were sparked while listening to CBC Radio, “Ideas” (Paul Kennedy) “Machiavelli: The Prince of Paradox,” broadcast 6 November 2013 in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the writing of The Prince.¹

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Satire: “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”

So, was Niccolò Machiavelli² being satirical (or not) when he wrote The Prince?

Perhaps context and history can give us some clues.

1. Machiavelli chose not to publish The Prince during his life; and there is no evidence that it was ever given to its addressee: the “Magnificent Lorenzo, son of Piero de’ Medici.”

2. This Magnificent Lorenzo was the son of a usurping family that presided over Machiavelli’s torture before his time of exile in which he wrote The Prince.

3. Machiavelli lived in a time of vanity and violence, pride and paranoia. Come to think of it—which Machiavelli probably did in the many hours of his self-described communion with history—this Medici period of vanity and violence, pride and paranoia was just another long stretch of never-ending, historical déjà vu.

4. A review of the “long-term security” and “survival” of so-called “statesmen.”

5. Reading Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal (1729)³ in the same sitting as The Prince (1513).  

So, for the sake of those who believe The Prince is “a work on statesmanship” and that it “systematically analyze[s] the requirements of power and survival” (being the words of Mr. Henry Kissinger at min. 1:10-1:27 of the “Ideas” broadcast ), let’s look at an abbreviated sample of power and survival:⁴

Assassinated	Executed	Other Ends
Sennacherib (681 BCE)	King Saul (while fleeing, circa 1007 BCE)	Cyrus the Great (slain in battle, 528 BCE)
Xerxes I (465 BCE)	Robespierre (1794 CE)	Alexander the Great (poisoned? at age 33, 323 BCE)
Pompey the Great (48 BCE)	Mussolini (1945)	Nero (suicide, 68 CE)
Julius Caesar (44 BCE)	Vidkun Quisling (1945)	Napoleon (dies in exile, 1821)
Caligula (41 CE)	Hideki Tojo (1948)	Hitler (suicide, 1945)
Emperor Dominian (96 CE)	Ceausescu (1989)	Pol Pot (dies while under house arrest, 1998)
Kaiser Wilhelm II (1914)	Saddam Hussein (2006)	Idi Amin (dies in exile, 2003)
Nicholas II of Russia (1918)	Gadhafi (2011)	Pinochet (last years under house arrest, 2006)

Created with the HTML Table Generator

So, perhaps the “requirements of power and survival” need a little less delusion (by Kissinger and friends) and a little more systematic analysis.

Of course, some “Princes” do manage to survive their tenure of (tyrannical) power by the practice of so-called “judicious” excesses, yet how often are they plagued with continual paranoia, if not outright madness? Thus, in the light of history (which often unfolds in the dark), is it not stupefying to view The Prince as some formula for secure statesmanship?

But, even if Machiavelli were not mocking the Magnificent Lorenzo (et ilk), I submit that the facts of history do. Tyrannical rulers seem more susceptible to being deposed than “democratic” ones, and manifest as much, if not greater, paranoia.

So, let’s line-up the dead “statesmen / Princes” of history and ask:

Are we naive, delusional, and / or fools-worthy-of-mockery to believe there is power and security in the prescriptions of The Prince?

-----------
1. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/ID/2416333338/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations ; http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/ ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinations