I nominate this for one of the sickest burns of all time.
“The Cubans say there is no evil that lasts a hundred years, and Kissinger is making a run to prove them wrong,” Grandin told Rolling Stone not long before Kissinger died.
I nominate this for one of the sickest burns of all time.
I am reminded of Anthony Bourdain's comments about Kissinger from his book A Cook's Tour: Global Adventures in Extreme Cuisines:
I am reminded of Anthony Bourdain's comments about Kissinger from his book A Cook's Tour: Global Adventures in Extreme Cuisines:
Once you've been to Cambodia, you'll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia - the fruits of his genius for statesmanship - and you will never understand why he's not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević. While Henry continues to nibble nori rolls and remaki at A-list parties, Cambodia, the neutral nation he secretly and illegally bombed, invaded, undermined, and then threw to the dogs, is still trying to raise itself up on its one remaining leg.
This is why I roll my eyes when people insist we not speak ill of the dead or that it's wrong to celebrate someone's death. Henry Kissinger was a disgustingly vile war criminal and the only bad...
This is why I roll my eyes when people insist we not speak ill of the dead or that it's wrong to celebrate someone's death. Henry Kissinger was a disgustingly vile war criminal and the only bad thing about his death is that it didn't happen sooner. Nobody should be obligated to hide their feelings about his death due to some faux-respect for the dead.
My wife told me he died this morning while I was still half-asleep and my response was "I want to believe in hell so that he's there".
I generally believe it because most of the slights brought upon the dead are relatively petty drama. Oh, this genius is dead but he was really rude at this one conference. Or had a journal that...
I generally believe it because most of the slights brought upon the dead are relatively petty drama. Oh, this genius is dead but he was really rude at this one conference. Or had a journal that was discredited. Or cheated on his wife. They seem like frivolous factors in the grand scheme of things and not legacy defining actions.
This is certainly a legacy defining action, though.
Washington Post obituary In an effort to keep this post not locked or deleted, let’s try and avoid low-effort comments, regardless of one’s feelings on Kissinger.
I will say, it’s fascinating how he is disliked by nearly every part of the political spectrum, save particular flavors of foreign policy realists. Liberals and lefties don’t like him due to his...
I will say, it’s fascinating how he is disliked by nearly every part of the political spectrum, save particular flavors of foreign policy realists. Liberals and lefties don’t like him due to his interventionism, many on the right don’t like him due to his “Inside the Beltway” status, and the far-right doesn’t like him because he’s Jewish.
Realism in this context refers to a particular school of international relations thought. Kissinger’s particular brand of foreign policy took inspiration from some lines of realist thought.
Realism in this context refers to a particular school of international relations thought. Kissinger’s particular brand of foreign policy took inspiration from some lines of realist thought.
Basically, that states are only interested in self-preservation and security interests; not having underlying ideological views; and that the world is anarchic in the IR realm. One might view the...
Basically, that states are only interested in self-preservation and security interests; not having underlying ideological views; and that the world is anarchic in the IR realm. One might view the Nixon thaw with China as a prime example, China and the U.S. had a mutual interest in combatting the Soviets, in spite of the stark ideological differences.
Henry Kissinger has been credited with formally introducing the policy of Realpolitik to the White House as Secretary of State to Richard Nixon. n that context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner, rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics such as Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China despite American opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment...
Kissinger himself said that he had never used the term Realpolitik and stated that it is used by both liberal and realist foreign policy thinkers to label, criticize and facilitate a choosing of sides. Kissinger had looked at what he implemented while he served as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor not in the confines of making Realpolitik a standard policy, but within the terms of being a statesman...
Kissinger went on to say that the role of the statesman is "the ability to recognize the real relationship of forces and to make this knowledge serve his ends."
In that context, one can see how Realpolitik principles can influence American policy but not as standard policy. The reach and influence of Realpolitik is found instead in pragmatic and flexible policy that changes to the needs of the situation. ... Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, remarked in an article in The New York Times that everyone wanted to break it down into contrasts of idealist and realist, but "if you had to put him in a category, he's probably more realpolitik, like Bush... You’ve got to be cold-blooded about the self-interests of your nation."
Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies.
I don’t have the time to write out a full response right now, @Drewbahr, but realism is the academic/theoretical framework, while the Realpolitik that @EgoEimi discusses here is the practical...
I don’t have the time to write out a full response right now, @Drewbahr, but realism is the academic/theoretical framework, while the Realpolitik that @EgoEimi discusses here is the practical implementation of a similar line of thinking. Realism is one of the older schools of IR thinking, and so it has split off into many different schools, as well as been criticized, analyzed, and dissected to death and back, but understanding realism is a good start to any attempt to learn more about modern academic IR thinking.
Wikipedia will provide more detail, but realism in this context is a framework which roughly posits this: on a global scale, there is no central authority handing down laws. This is different from...
Wikipedia will provide more detail, but realism in this context is a framework which roughly posits this: on a global scale, there is no central authority handing down laws. This is different from a national scale, say, in that at that scale there is a central authority to impose order, namely the state. Any international laws, treaties, or agreements are the results of states which are acting in their own self interest to achieve security and political goals. In this framework conflict is more or less unavoidable as a result of that global power vacuum, and military power is just another tool at the disposal of the state to assert their interests globally. I think the “realist” nomenclature is a reflection of the idea here that “realistically” all states will act in their own self interest, as opposed to some idealist view positing global cooperation, unless that cooperation also advances the participating states’ interests.
Not in general, the meaning above should only be taken in the context of international relations. I am sure self-descriptions as a "realist" mean different things to different people. In my...
Not in general, the meaning above should only be taken in the context of international relations. I am sure self-descriptions as a "realist" mean different things to different people. In my experience a common thread is an acceptance of certain things as "hard truths" or brute facts about the world which in other ideologies/frameworks might not be considered inescapable.
Yup, the Wikipedia disambiguation page for 'realism' returns about 60 or so different articles for movements and philosophies that describe themselves as 'realist'. When someone says they're a...
Yup, the Wikipedia disambiguation page for 'realism' returns about 60 or so different articles for movements and philosophies that describe themselves as 'realist'. When someone says they're a realist, they usually just mean they're realistic or pragmatic (though not necessarily a pragmatist).
Have you read Machiavelli's book the Prince? Are you familiar with utilitarian or consequentialist ethics? According to Realism, nation states do what they can if they are powerful and what they...
Have you read Machiavelli's book the Prince?
Are you familiar with utilitarian or consequentialist ethics?
According to Realism, nation states do what they can if they are powerful and what they must if they are weak.
An effective realist leader preserves and enhances the power and influence and alliances of the nation.
Personally I believe human rights law has importance and value aside from reputation and geopolitical strategy. Kissinger did not
Someone I’ve always wanted to study given the absurd amount of unsourced opinions on him I’ve read and heard over the years. Anyone got a good recommendation?
Someone I’ve always wanted to study given the absurd amount of unsourced opinions on him I’ve read and heard over the years.
I’m very confused by your link and recommendation. The thread you link repeatedly mentions (or links to a comment that mentions) hitchens book as THE thing that set up the modern view of Kissinger...
I’m very confused by your link and recommendation.
The thread you link repeatedly mentions (or links to a comment that mentions) hitchens book as THE thing that set up the modern view of Kissinger as if it’s a reliable and unbiased source.
I have no idea if it is or isn’t but am kinda confused given your warning of avoiding the book.
Edit: ok the second thread linked in there didn’t mention hitchens but I’m still curious
Hitchens’ book strongly influenced the popular perception of Kissinger. But Hitchens is neither a historian nor an attorney (the book is written in a prosecutorial format, and Historians have...
Hitchens’ book strongly influenced the popular perception of Kissinger. But Hitchens is neither a historian nor an attorney (the book is written in a prosecutorial format, and Historians have criticized this and some of his other books).
To give a comparative example, Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel was a very popular book that caused many people to view environment as having an overwhelming impact on societal development, but most historians and anthropologists don’t agree with that, and do not like that book either.
The Wikipedia page on the book doesn't say all that much really. But looks like the book was lauded by some and criticized by others - one of whom may be a teeny tiny slightly little bit biased...
The Wikipedia page on the book doesn't say all that much really. But looks like the book was lauded by some and criticized by others - one of whom may be a teeny tiny slightly little bit biased (Kissinger's biographer)
I think they sum it up well in the introductory paragraph: We can all internally debate whether Kissinger was, in fact, evil... but examining it as they have highlights how systemic evil can (and...
I think they sum it up well in the introductory paragraph:
In this edited collection, Jacobin follows Kissinger’s trajectory across the globe, across Central and South America, Africa and the Middle East, Europe and Southeast Asia — not because he was evil incarnate, but because he, more than any other public figure, illustrates the links between capitalism, empire, and the feedback loop of endless conflict that plagues us today.
We can all internally debate whether Kissinger was, in fact, evil... but examining it as they have highlights how systemic evil can (and does) flourish. How people, even those whom are obviously villainous, do not see themselves as the villain. Kissinger probably thought himself a hero, doing well what an evil system provides and encourages.
RollingStone: Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America’s Ruling Class, Finally Dies
I nominate this for one of the sickest burns of all time.
Thank you for posting this! Very long but also a great read explaining the history and his legacy.
Thanks for this article.
I am reminded of Anthony Bourdain's comments about Kissinger from his book A Cook's Tour: Global Adventures in Extreme Cuisines:
This is why I roll my eyes when people insist we not speak ill of the dead or that it's wrong to celebrate someone's death. Henry Kissinger was a disgustingly vile war criminal and the only bad thing about his death is that it didn't happen sooner. Nobody should be obligated to hide their feelings about his death due to some faux-respect for the dead.
My wife told me he died this morning while I was still half-asleep and my response was "I want to believe in hell so that he's there".
I generally believe it because most of the slights brought upon the dead are relatively petty drama. Oh, this genius is dead but he was really rude at this one conference. Or had a journal that was discredited. Or cheated on his wife. They seem like frivolous factors in the grand scheme of things and not legacy defining actions.
This is certainly a legacy defining action, though.
the Behind the Bastards podcast had a 6-part series on Kissinger last year, with Dave and Gareth from The Dollop as guests:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-kissinger-94160733/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-kissinger-94268769/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-three-kissinger-94482857/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-four-kissinger-94576769/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-five-kissinger-94813303/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-six-kissinger-94899290/
Thanks for the listening material for the weekend!
Washington Post obituary
In an effort to keep this post not locked or deleted, let’s try and avoid low-effort comments, regardless of one’s feelings on Kissinger.
I will say, it’s fascinating how he is disliked by nearly every part of the political spectrum, save particular flavors of foreign policy realists. Liberals and lefties don’t like him due to his interventionism, many on the right don’t like him due to his “Inside the Beltway” status, and the far-right doesn’t like him because he’s Jewish.
"realists"?
I personally dislike the man because of his countless war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Realism in this context refers to a particular school of international relations thought. Kissinger’s particular brand of foreign policy took inspiration from some lines of realist thought.
And what is realist thought in this context? I'm genuinely curious.
Basically, that states are only interested in self-preservation and security interests; not having underlying ideological views; and that the world is anarchic in the IR realm. One might view the Nixon thaw with China as a prime example, China and the U.S. had a mutual interest in combatting the Soviets, in spite of the stark ideological differences.
Related is the concept of Realpolitik
I don’t have the time to write out a full response right now, @Drewbahr, but realism is the academic/theoretical framework, while the Realpolitik that @EgoEimi discusses here is the practical implementation of a similar line of thinking. Realism is one of the older schools of IR thinking, and so it has split off into many different schools, as well as been criticized, analyzed, and dissected to death and back, but understanding realism is a good start to any attempt to learn more about modern academic IR thinking.
Wikipedia will provide more detail, but realism in this context is a framework which roughly posits this: on a global scale, there is no central authority handing down laws. This is different from a national scale, say, in that at that scale there is a central authority to impose order, namely the state. Any international laws, treaties, or agreements are the results of states which are acting in their own self interest to achieve security and political goals. In this framework conflict is more or less unavoidable as a result of that global power vacuum, and military power is just another tool at the disposal of the state to assert their interests globally. I think the “realist” nomenclature is a reflection of the idea here that “realistically” all states will act in their own self interest, as opposed to some idealist view positing global cooperation, unless that cooperation also advances the participating states’ interests.
Is this the real meaning when someone says they are a realist?
Not in general, the meaning above should only be taken in the context of international relations. I am sure self-descriptions as a "realist" mean different things to different people. In my experience a common thread is an acceptance of certain things as "hard truths" or brute facts about the world which in other ideologies/frameworks might not be considered inescapable.
Yup, the Wikipedia disambiguation page for 'realism' returns about 60 or so different articles for movements and philosophies that describe themselves as 'realist'. When someone says they're a realist, they usually just mean they're realistic or pragmatic (though not necessarily a pragmatist).
The wikipedia page gives a good overview of the different branches of realist thought.
Have you read Machiavelli's book the Prince?
Are you familiar with utilitarian or consequentialist ethics?
According to Realism, nation states do what they can if they are powerful and what they must if they are weak.
An effective realist leader preserves and enhances the power and influence and alliances of the nation.
Personally I believe human rights law has importance and value aside from reputation and geopolitical strategy. Kissinger did not
My takeaway: Live your life so that people do not cheer when you die.
Someone I’ve always wanted to study given the absurd amount of unsourced opinions on him I’ve read and heard over the years.
Anyone got a good recommendation?
This r/AskHistorians thread gives some good info, and links to other threads with presumably more sources. Just avoid Hitchens’ book on the subject.
I’m very confused by your link and recommendation.
The thread you link repeatedly mentions (or links to a comment that mentions) hitchens book as THE thing that set up the modern view of Kissinger as if it’s a reliable and unbiased source.
I have no idea if it is or isn’t but am kinda confused given your warning of avoiding the book.
Edit: ok the second thread linked in there didn’t mention hitchens but I’m still curious
Hitchens’ book strongly influenced the popular perception of Kissinger. But Hitchens is neither a historian nor an attorney (the book is written in a prosecutorial format, and Historians have criticized this and some of his other books).
To give a comparative example, Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel was a very popular book that caused many people to view environment as having an overwhelming impact on societal development, but most historians and anthropologists don’t agree with that, and do not like that book either.
The Wikipedia page on the book doesn't say all that much really. But looks like the book was lauded by some and criticized by others - one of whom may be a teeny tiny slightly little bit biased (Kissinger's biographer)
I think they sum it up well in the introductory paragraph:
We can all internally debate whether Kissinger was, in fact, evil... but examining it as they have highlights how systemic evil can (and does) flourish. How people, even those whom are obviously villainous, do not see themselves as the villain. Kissinger probably thought himself a hero, doing well what an evil system provides and encourages.
That link was dead for me. Working:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeGhyAD_DM
Your link worked for me and vord's did not. I'm in Canada.
I think I have a party to go to.
I wonder if something similar to this is going to happen
Bye, Felicia.