[Dr. Thorne]

Henry - You are very old, you gruesome, murdering swine. May your elitist/globalist vision die with you.

[C210N]

A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance...

And now, it is the Land of Free. Note, that's NOT Land OF THE Free, but Land of Free - ie, Land of Gibbsmedat!

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Henry Kissinger the anti-Christ like ambassador of lets all join hands an sing kumbayah while we tell the rest of you bozos how to live
Sayonara ya old fossil of the cold war. You would have thought you would have learned something from the Nazi’s
Freegards
LEX

[what's up]

Bookmark

[huldah1776]

Bmp4L8R

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

[GBA]

The Assembly of a New World Order starts the fourth quarter of the longest running game in history.

My bet's on the good guys.

Go Trinity!!!

[Ohioan]

Kissinger certainly does not reflect an American viewpoint. He may have had some foreign policy successes, but this article shows a complete indifference to the whole concept of Liberty, as the Founders understood it, and risked everything to achieve it.

While he is not as obviously seditious as such people as the late Norman Cousins (Surrender By Subterfuge), his pursuit of the delusional idea of a world order, leads to the same humanist insanity. The idea that it is idealistic will appeal to those who think in the clouds; but in the real world, it is the furthest thing from any altruistic pursuit.

William Flax

[Carry_Okie]

What a vacuous jerk off.

At the same time, parts of the Middle East southwestern US have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias drug gangs and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

At the rate Zero is going one could soon say that about the US.

[Elsie]

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition.

Many?

I see only WAR as the big change agent.

Someone wins, another loses.

The winner imposes their will on the loser.

Game over ('til the next time.)

---

Some folks might claim that religion changes things; but history shows it's the WARS that 'religion' supports that does the changing.

[rmlew]

Rather open aren’t they? And why shouldn’t they be? Our elites are almost all members of the transnational class with similar ideologies. This is true in academia, business, the media, the arts, and politics.

[Billthedrill]

A fascinating piece, actually. I find myself agreeing with nearly every one of Kissinger's questions and disagreeing with nearly all of the answers. In the first place, he appears to have a specific idea of what he means by world order that is differentiated from the sort of regional order that he cites here. Precisely why this should transcend the latter and what benefits it would confer is left so vague that I suspect it to be an assumption, or worse, an article of faith, not a conclusion.

Certainly not absence of conflict. The globalization of economy, such as it is, is not an example of any sort of order that is not typified by fierce, cutthroat competition, which is, if I understand his aspirations correctly, a very defective model for global political comity. That sort of conflict in the political and military arenas was the signature defect of the Great Powers geopolitical model, and it ended rather unhappily for anything that might be described as "order" unless it be the order of the dead. And, in practice, you can only have the one in the absence of the other.

I respectfully suggest that World Order has had its best shot and come up ridiculously short. Kissinger himself admits as much:

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event.

Two points here: first, that there will be very little in the way of elaboration of long-range strategy with the stated aims of the participants so directly in conflict. And second, that the "social media" criticism is spot-on - the UN is the worst example, but it is present in the EU as well - this is, in effect, a government of the international political class, by the international political class, and for the international political class. It has the relationship to its constituencies that a bloated leech does to its host, with the additional illusion on the part of the leech that it is driving. That turns out to be an expensive illusion, but the leech doesn't mind.

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 inspiration.

Clearly the different interpretations of "participatory governance" are going to be a real problem here. It would take little effort to gain a consensus of opinion in any number of Islamic states that the ultimate goal for such a World Order should be the downfall of participatory government and its replacement with Shari'a. One man, one vote, one time. That isn't exactly what Kissinger has in mind but it's not going to go away.

I suggest that the very concept of World Order has reached its limit and that it has failed, and that it was never much more than a collection of happy abstractions to begin with. What we really need is a model of order that does not lead those pursuing peace to need to bow to those pursuing power. That is, unfortunately, not a characteristic of this New World Order.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

These are the questions in which I find myself in full concurrence with Henry Kissinger, and I think that their answers need to be couched in terms of an unbending dedication to human freedom that is, on many levels, antithetical to the concept of world order.

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course.

These are not merely "seemingly" contradictory. There is no model of order that can reconcile a celebration of universal principles (begging the question of whether these actually exist at all) and the reality of differing histories, aspirations, and aims on the part of the constituent parts. American cannot both be "exceptional" and bow to the exigences of a new order. Nor can Great Britain, China, or Iran. It is simply this: a New World Order that can maintain a semblance of peace while simultaneously respecting the aims of constituent parts whose aspirations include domination of the others is a fatal illusion.