|
Henry Kissinger: This Man Is On The
Other Side Reprinted with permission from American Opinion, June 1975
William P. Hoar, a 1967 graduate of Bowdoin College, is a
feature columnist and Contributing Editor for The Review Of The News, where his "The Right Answers"
is published regularly. He is an American
Opinion Editorial Assistant. William Hoar's independent travels have
taken him across North America and ranged from the Arctic Circle to North
Africa and behind the Iron Curtain. Henry Alfred Kissinger, often pictured by cartoonists in a
Superman suit, habitually bites his fingernails. And he has good reason.
Americans are at last beginning to realize that the U.S. Secretary of State,
and his policies, are anything but pro-American. That conclusion is buttressed by considerable evidence,
not the least of which was his successful plan intentionally to abandon South
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to Communist takeover. During his tenure as
National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger has also
arranged to recognize the "legitimacy" of the Berlin Wall and of
permanent Communist occupation of East Germany. Working behind the scenes he
engineered the ouster of Free China from the United Nations, managing to be
in Peking during the fateful U.N. vote. He has even attempted, despite
overwhelming Congressional and public opposition, to give away the U.S.-owned
Panama Canal to a Marxist dictator. And when the U.S.S.R (which maintains military bases in
Cuba) grew tired of subsidizing Castro, Kissinger initiated
"reconciliation" with Communist Cuba and proposes to help the
Soviets bear their burden there. He supported a boycott of anti-Communist
Rhodesia to make America dependent on the Soviets for vital defense supplies,
even as he arranged shipment of our latest technology to Communist
dictatorships from Peking to Moscow, and waived bit/ions of dollars owed us
by the Soviet Union. According to his friend, Soviet Ambassador Anatoly
Dobrynin, Henry Kissinger is so completely trusted by Moscow that he
negotiated in the Middle East on behalf of the Soviets as well as the United
States. Yet he has so alienated both Turkey and Greece as to shake our
alliances and threaten us with loss of our military bases in those countries.
One U.S. air base in Greece is already scheduled to be closed, and Greece has
withdrawn from the military arm of N.A.T.O. Kissinger has even underwritten
the Communist-dominated military dictatorship in Portugal, now a Trojan horse
within the N.A.T.O. alliance, despite the heavy and obvious interference
there of the Soviet K.G.B. And, of course, through his SALT agreements, Henry
Kissinger has guaranteed the Soviets a strategic military superiority and
deprived us of an effective anti-missile system to protect us from nuclear
attack, even as he arranged to strengthen Soviet military capacity through
massive credits at giveaway rates of interest. In view of such a record one is not surprised to find that
Henry A. Kissinger was years ago identified as a K.G.B. undercover agent,
code-named Bor, assigned to a Soviet spy ring called ODRA. Our intelligence
agencies were briefed on this as long ago as 1961 by an important
anti-Communist who had for years operated behind the Iron Curtain at a high
level of Communist intelligence and personally saw Kissinger’s K.G.B.
dossier. The source of this information supplied data resulting in the
exposure and arrest of scores of other K.G.B. agents planted high in the
Governments of Britain, Sweden, France, Germany, and Israel. He was formally
voted the thanks of the American people in a special Congressional
Resolution. Yet his detailed revelations about Kissinger have been buried.
And Henry A. Kissinger, who worked with the Reds in Germany after World War
II, now runs the U.S. intelligence network from above.* In fact, aside from his important functions as Secretary
of State and head of the National Security Council, Kissinger also chairs the
Intelligence Committee (which sets policy for the Central Intelligence
Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, etc.); the
Defense Program Review Committee; the Washington Special Action Group; the
Verification Panel in the White House; all covert intelligence operations under
the control of the "40 Committee"; and, the Net Assessment Group.
Bluntly put, there is not only a fox in the chicken coop but he has been put
in charge of security on the farm. Before Henry Kissinger began to play at intelligence games
his highest ambition was to be an accountant in New York City. But that
wouldn't do for an agent Bor. Sent to Harvard for training, he was soon being
moved through the Eastern Establishment by the Rockefellers and the Council
on Foreign Relations until he was advising Presidents in both major parties.
The Rockefellers had arranged a $28,000 grant for him. The C.I.A. had funded
his International Seminar at Harvard, where he founded Confluence magazine-which came under Defense Department scrutiny
for its pro-Communist bias. He had been made a Director of Special Studies
for both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The conspiratorial and elitist C.F.R., says Kissinger biographer and friend
Stephen Graubard, had given "confidence and encouragement to an awkward
and lonely individual...." (Kissinger:
Portrait Of A Mind, New York, Norton, 1973.) It was in 1957 that the C.F.R. arranged for Kissinger to
write Nuclear Weapons And Foreign
Policy, a volume declaring that "all-out war has . . . ceased to be
a meaningful instrument of policy." His ideas on limited war appealed to
"Liberals" anxious to involve us in the brewing war in Vietnam, but
Conservatives were reassured that the author believed any Soviet version of
"peace" meant the triumph of Communism throughout the world, and
that Moscow saw "peaceful coexistence" as the "best means to
subvert the existing structure by means other than all-out war." The
Soviet leaders, wrote Kissinger, "have advanced variations of the same disarmament
proposals since the mid-20's." In fact, Dr. Kissinger noted the
popularity of anti-Communism and declared that "it is futile to deal
with a revolutionary power by 'ordinary' diplomatic methods." Stephen
Graubard points out that Henry Kissinger later decided that one could deal
with the Reds because Peking and Moscow had in his eyes ceased to be
"revolutionary" states. In any event, despite its turgid prose, Kissinger's first
book for the C.F.R. was promoted heavily, made the best-seller lists, and was
a Book-of-the-Month selection. The man identified as agent Bor was up with
the big boys now, and was soon attending meetings with Communists at the
Pugwash Conferences, funded by Cyrus Eaton, the millionaire former secretary
to John D. Rockefeller who has long supported Communist interests. Ralph
Blumenfeld reports that "Kissinger used to lobby strenuously each year
at the Pugwash Conferences of scientists and philosophers, urging East
European officials to get their intellectuals" to his International
Seminar at Harvard. (Henry Kissinger:
The Private And Public Story, New York, Signet, 1974.) By the mid-Sixties, Dr. Kissinger was wafting another
volume for the Council on Foreign Relations, this one entitled The Troubled Partnership, which called
for a merger of our country with the socialist nations of Europe as part of
what he called the Grand Design. "In moving from alliance to
community," wrote the man who would become Secretary of State, "the
United States will not long be able to evade the issue of how much of its
freedom of action it is prepared to give up." There was also a related
appeal to surrender our sovereignty because of threatening Communism, which
was at the time on one of its periodic "peace offensives." Feigning
anxiety, Kissinger correctly noted: "On each occasion [since the
Bolshevik Revolution] the period of relaxation ended when an opportunity for
Communism presented itself." So we should give up sovereignty before it
is taken away from us. Most of The Troubled Partnership argued for what amounts
to the end of the United States as an independent power. "No final
solution," wrote the refugee from Nazi Germany, "is possible so
long as the [Atlantic] Alliance remains composed of sovereign states."
An end to the sovereignty of the United States of America was to be part of
the Grand Design, a point made repeatedly by the Harvard professor: ... institutions based on present concepts of national
sovereignty are not enough The West requires a larger goal: the constitution
of an Atlantic Commonwealth.... Clearly, it will not come quickly; many
intermediate stages must be traversed before it can be reached. It is not too
early, however, to prepare ourselves for this step beyond the nation-state. One of these "intermediate stages" is now being
reached in Western Europe. And, according to U.S. News & World Report for May 5, 1975, Dr. Kissinger
"is saying in private that 'all of Europe will go Marxist within 10
years.' " His "concern" over this likelihood is purest
tartuffery. Kissinger knows very well that Atlantic Union, which he has long
supported as a "Liberal" goal, is meant to be a Marxist partnership
leading toward merger with the Soviets. It is an objective that Henry
Kissinger has for decades shared with Nelson Rockefeller, whom he served as
policy advisor, receiving fifty thousand dollars from the New York governor
as a token of gratitude when Henry went to work for President Nixon. Kissinger was said to have wept in disappointment when
Nelson Rockefeller was denied the Republican nomination in 1968, but despite
his open contempt for Nixon, Kissinger joined his White House staff to help
with the Grand Design. Even after the Soviet tanks rolled into
Czecho-Slovakia in 1968 to impose the Brezhnev Doctrine with blood and iron,
"Kissinger remained committed to the ideas he had developed for
Rockefeller," declares Stephen Graubard, a fellow member of the C.F.R.
"His concern was with a 'creative world order'; that presupposed
improved Soviet-American relations." One consequence of this was the
surrender of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Henry Kissinger's Vietnam "solution" was no
surprise. Pentagon Papernapper Daniel Ellsberg, of the C.F.R., has declared:
"Kissinger had an attitude in 1968 that made him look far more liberal
than anyone in government. Literally no public figure had come out for
unilateral military withdrawal. Kissinger was saying fairly early that what
you wanted was a facade or delay before the Communists took over."
(David Landau, Kissinger: The Uses Of
Power, New York, Crowell, 1972.) In fact, it was Henry Kissinger's belief as far back as
1957 that, in modem limited wars, we must explain our strategy to the other
side lest they become suspicious that we will escalate the conflict and win.
Perhaps this was the reason that in 1970 Kissinger reportedly informed the
Soviets of the impending invasion of Communist "sanctuaries" in
Cambodia. Henry was at the time partying in the Soviet Embassy at a
celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Russian dictator
V.I. Lenin even as our boys were being betrayed to the Communists in the
Cambodian and Vietnamese jungles. Nothing interferes with Henry's quest for a
New World Order. Not even treason. In negotiating the sellout of South Vietnam, Dr. Kissinger
explained that "Hanoi cannot be asked to leave" the Vietcong
"to the mercy of Saigon." So he arranged to leave Saigon to the
merciless Vietcong, forcing our allies to accept hundreds of thousands of
North Vietnamese troops in their territory. Former White House speechwriter
William Safire has described Kissinger's comments while attempting to
surrender Saigon. "The big question is,' Henry said, 'does the other
side want to settle for anything less than total victory? Their demands are
absurd: they want us to withdraw and on the way out to overthrow the Saigon
Government.' He brooded about that a minute. 'If we ever decide to withdraw,
it'll be up to them to overthrow the Saigon Government -- not us.'" (Before The Fall, New York, Doubleday,
1975.) Eventually, of course, South Vietnam was told there could
be a quick surrender or a slow surrender. The South Vietnamese attempted to
delay their destruction as long as possible. Marvin and Bernard Kalb have
related how Kissinger's aide Alexander Haig (C.F.R.) "arrived in Saigon
with a presidential ultimatum: if Thieu persisted in holding out against an
agreement, the United States would sign a separate peace with North Vietnam,
and all military and economic aid to South Vietnam would be cut off."
(Kissinger, Boston, Little, Brown, 1974.) So President Thieu took Kissinger's
word that Peking and Moscow would curtail their supplies to Hanoi. What
followed was Dr. Kissinger's "decent interval," with the result
that Saigon has been renamed Ho chi Minh City. And yet Henry Kissinger is still contending that détente
is "an imperative." He has told the Anglo-American Insiders of the
Pilgrims Society: "In a world shadowed by the danger of nuclear
holocaust there is no rational alternative to the pursuit of relaxation of
tensions." Time magazine picked up on the theme in April, noting:
"What's more, in spite of the recent gains by revolutionary forces
around the world, Soviet leaders themselves were showing no signs of losing
interest in East-West détente." Why should they? We provided them with
credit terms better than those afforded American citizens, cut-rate grain,
the largest truck plant in the world, sophisticated computers, the
wherewithal for development of M.I.R.V. missiles, and status as the world's
most powerful military force. And all of this was done by the same Henry Kissinger
who has written that "peaceful coexistence," or détente or whatever
the current euphemism, is a Communist "tactical device to overthrow the
West at minimum risk." So Dr. Kissinger knows very well that helping the Reds now
will lead to more aggression later. It is their standard practice, as he
pointed out in American Foreign Policy: There have been at least f ve periods of peaceful
coexistence since the Bolshevik seizure of power, one in each decade of the
Soviet state. Each was hailed in the West as ushering in a new era of
reconciliation and as signifying the long-awaited final change in Soviet
purposes. Each ended with a new period of intransigence.... Make no mistake, the Secretary of State knows what he is
doing. But he does it anyway. And the Kissinger surrender policies are moving
ahead as fast as he can move them. Before the fall of Saigon, according to U.S. News & World Report for April
28, 1975: ". . . the Ford Administration was considering a proposal to
cancel the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan to open the way for a new
agreement with Communist China during the President's visit to Peking later
this year. The proposal has been dropped because, to quote a ranking
Administration official, 'we can hardly sell two allies down the river in a single
year.' " You might have trouble getting a bet on that in Cambodia
right now, where all anti-Communist officers, down to second lieutenant, are
being liquidated along with their wives. Much has been made of the "difference" between
the remarks of President Ford and Henry Kissinger concerning the roles of
Peking and Moscow in overthrowing South Vietnam. Ford didn't blame them;
Kissinger said "we shall not forget who supplied the arms ...."
Yet, even in his "tough" criticism, Henry could not bring himself
to mention the U.S.S.R or Red China by name. And, as reported in the Los Angeles Times: "In his
criticism of Moscow and Peking, Kissinger was careful to state that the US
policy of détente with both capitals is still in effect." What is a
little mass slaughter between future partners in the New World Order? Labor leader George Meany of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is not
among those who are deluding themselves about the planned New World Order.
Meany warns: "Everywhere communism is on the march. Everywhere the West
is in retreat. Such are the fruits, the bitter fruits, of détente."
Another not blinded by Kissinger's policies is Dr. Robert Morris, who has
just updated his excellent 1955 book, No
Wonder We Are Losing (Plano, Texas, University of Plano Press), to
include the debacle wrought by Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense and
Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State. Dr. Morris writes of the Kissinger
reaction in the face of Communist imperialism: . . . incredible as it seems, our response to this
implacable thrust has been to make our preeminent effort in foreign policy
the strengthening of world Communism in economic, agricultural and industrial
spheres, where it is still weak and poorly structured And we do this even
while Brezhnev, after the fashion of Hitler and Mein Kampf, keeps telling us that the present situation of
"détente" calls for an "intensification" of the world
struggle and more rather than fewer "confrontations." Despite such rising criticism, Henry Kissinger persists in
pushing the Grand Design - a plan to insure us of the "peace" of
the woeful Gulag Archipelago. United Press International reported in April:
"Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said Thursday Americans must 'pay
the price of our setbacks in Indochina' by striving even harder to lead a new
world order." In truth, if Henry Kissinger has his way, we are not going
to "lead" the New World Order in anything but sacrifice and
appeasement. As Phyllis Schlafly and Admiral Chester Ward observe in Kissinger On The Couch (New Rochelle,
Arlington House, 1975): "Only one of the two can survive; the Kissinger
policy or the United States of America." Kissinger is using détente and
the SALT agreements to at once strengthen the Soviet Union and mentally and
physically disarm the United States. Schlafly and Ward found the evidence is
"clear that 'sufficiency' did not mean equality, or even near-equality,
but was a flexible term to cover a level that is substantially inferior to
the Soviet Union." Based upon their 846 pages of careful documentation
the authors (who long had a reputation for opposing conspiracy theories out
of hand) conclude: It is therefore established that [Robert] McNamara, [Paul]
Nitze, and Kissinger are all conspirators who secretly plotted to disarm the
United States unilaterally; and who were so ruthless and dishonest that they
brought the United States down from what Henry Kissinger admitted was
"overwhelming" strategic superiority in 1962, to a
Kissinger-admitted Soviet advantage in missile throw-weight of 4-to-1 against
us, which translates into a 10-to-1 to 20-to-1 superiority over us in
missile-deliverable explosive power. Nor has Kissinger ignored the role of economic pressure in
furthering his Grand Design for the New World Order. Here the plan is not
only to loot America on credit but to depress America's standard of living to
make possible a Great Merger with the less-developed nations under Communist
control. We discussed Kissinger's international food and energy programs at
length in American Opinion for
March 1975. Since then, he has announced global, designs for the oil market
involving "recycling" of money and a guaranteed minimum price for
petroleum-producing countries now facing a glutted market. Columnist Eliot
Janeway has noted of the price-floor proposal: The spectacle of America offering to guarantee a minimum
price for oil as a reward for petropiracy conjures up visions of a gunman
being begged not to bind and gag his victim until the latter could write him
a life-insurance policy. The recycling system is compared by Janeway to that
imposed on the Germans after Versailles, under which Germany was stripped of
her wealth, then lent money on her debt (by the U.S.) to be collected in
Britain and France. We paid both winners and losers. In time the results -
the planned consequences -were runaway inflation, depression,
totalitarianism, and war. And every effort is being made by conspirators in
our government to keep America from again becoming independent of foreign
fuel by pushing ahead with development of our coal and nuclear capacities
while virtually stifling development of new oil and gas reserves. Syndicated columnist Paul Scott reports: "The
world-minded Kissinger hopes to use his proposal for an 'oil price floor' and
offer 'to sell a large chunk of America' to the major oil producers to
convince them to formalize their support for the 'new world order.'" It
is sort of a perpetual hijacking plan whereby we pay tribute continually to
the major petroleum interests,** who are guaranteed a minimum price
regardless of supply or demand; they are offered "security" and a
piece of the action here in return for their petrodollars; Americans are
assured only of a high price for fuel and that the wealth of all but our
tax-protected Insiders will be "redistributed" to those with low
incomes, domestically and abroad. International bankers would of course have a field day
tending to such a daisy-chain. But the objective is not mere looting for
profit. It is much more sinister. Paul Scott warns: "In Kissinger's
opinion the merging of the standards of living is necessary to create the
climate in industrial nations like the U.S. and West Germany for support for
the formation of a loosely-knit world government. His plan provides for the
eventual merging of the Communist and free world systems in the 1980s."
That, after all, is the Grand Design. Henry Kissinger is supported in managing all of this by an
able staff of conspirators who, like him, have ties to both the Communists
and the Establishment Insiders. Kissinger brazenly admits approving a number
of security risks over the objections of worried officials. The security
dossiers of U.S. Ambassadors he sent to anti-Communist Chile and the Republic
of China, for instance, contain reports linking both men to the underground
Communist apparatus. Our Ambassador to Portugal boasts to the Comrades with
whom he is working that America is not a capitalist nation, but well on the
way to being a Socialist Welfare State, a development he finds to his liking.
Boris Klosson, Kissinger's top man at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
(SALT), has not only been identified as a K.G.B. contact but arranged the
return of Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald from Moscow despite his known K.G.B.
connections- The subsequent assassination of President John Kennedy was coordinated,
according to an important defector in Britain, Oleg Adolfovich Lyalin, by the
K.G.B.*** Another top Kissinger appointee, Helmut Sonnenfeldt (who
was a major culprit in helping the Soviets to pull off the Great Grain
Robbery), was caught passing Top Secret information to a foreign power and
the F.B.I. recommended prosecution under the espionage statutes. When the
House Internal Security Committee took notice of this and other suspicious
Kissinger appointees, and began to look into substantiation of the report
that Kissinger is himself a K.G.B. agent, the Committee was abolished in a
back-room coup by pro-Communist Congressmen. Then there is Defense Secretary James Schlesinger,
Kissinger's college classmate and a protégé of Kissinger's man Daniel Ellsberg,
whose short tenure as boss of the C.l.A. resulted in the ouster of hundreds
of "old-fashioned" anti-Communists unhappy about bunking in with
the Reds. Incredibly enough, the Defense Secretary was recently quoted as
declaring: "Since a position of strength failed to achieve all the
objectives that the United States might set, perhaps we should substitute a
position of weakness. It is an interesting thought...." And you wonder
why we are losing? One of his former confidantes, Danielle Hunebelle, has
written that Henry Kissinger "was not a dyed-in-the-wool nationalist and
did not believe in America's absolute superiority." Which is hardly
news, in view of Kissinger's disarmament of the U.S. military and his
repeated calls for surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the New World Order. What
is surprising is the arrogance of the man identified as Soviet agent Bor. For
Kissinger offhandedly boasted to Miss Hunebelle that he could perform the
same service in the Soviet Union, "but in the Kremlin I'd be more influenced
by Marxism." This is our modern Vicar of Bray- with the patriotic
principles of a parasite looking for a host. "Power is the ultimate
aphrodisiac," says Henry Alfred Kissinger. The man's audacity is awesome. He announced recently in
the White House: "At times, I believe we have better relations with the
Russians and [Red] Chinese than Congress." Radical as the Congress is,
that is probably so. Clark Mollenhoff reports that, angry over Soviet
duplicity in matters of trade and emigration, even Senator Adlai Stevenson
III has "charged that Kissinger 'misled the Congress' into believing
there were assurances from top Soviet leaders when he knew there were none.
'Then, instead of defending the U.S., Secretary Kissinger blamed Congress and
defended the Russians,' Stevenson said. The State Department explanation that
Kissinger simply 'forgot' to tell Congress was incredible to both
conservatives and liberals in the Senate and House. If it was a deliberate
deception it was difficult to exaggerate its importance, for it involved the
rights of millions of people and billions in trade agreements." The point is that when in trouble Kissinger lies, and the
"Liberal" press lets him get by with it. Former Presidential aide
William Safire, now on the staff of the New York Times and certainly no
Right-winger, notes of Kissinger that "intrigue was second nature to
him." Consider the case of his role in initiating the infamous White
House wire taps. In Before The Fall,
Safire comments on the controversial taps over which Kissinger threatened to
resign if not quickly "cleared" by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee: The reason why it is logical to assume that the wiretap
program had Dr. Kissinger's enthusiastic support, and why his subsequent
protestation of distaste rings false, is the operation of the "dead
key." All telephone calls to Henry Kissinger, except those few from girl
friends, were monitored by a relay of stenographers in his outer office.
President Nixon knew his calls were being taken down verbatim whenever he spoke
to his national security advisor.... Henry Kissinger was deft in beguiling
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but he cannot escape history's
judgment of the way he watered the roots of Watergate. But possible perjury by the Secretary of State didn't
bother Joseph Kraft of the Washington
Post, who declared: "While he may have lied, the untruths are
matters of little consequence when weighed against his service to the
state." Kraft, who is a member of the C.F.R., went on record as a
hypocrite to protect Henry. And the telephone of Joseph Kraft was one of
those Henry had tapped. As C.B.S. commentator Jeffrey St. John told a press
convention last year: "He has managed to manipulate the press until you
reporters have become mere shoeshine boys for Kissinger in Washington." A Washington journalist told the New York Post: "He [Kissinger] has the problems of anyone
who trades in misrepresentation and duplicity. He can't let people compare
notes and find his lies." According to a former National Security Council
aide: "He's so pathological he could probably pass a lie [detector]
test." He lies to everyone, say former associates. Perhaps Henry A.
Kissinger's middle initial really stands for Ananias. Whatever the cause or motivation, the result of
Kissinger's lying to defend his pro-Communist policies has been disaster. He
has gone so far, report Admiral Chester Ward and Phyllis Schlafly, as to
provide Moscow and Peking with "a commitment by the United States not to oppose Communist ideology and not to oppose expansion of communism.
That is not speculation or hypothesis. It is embodied in the Declaration of
Principles that Henry Kissinger talked Richard Nixon into signing at the
Moscow Summit of '72." And that declaration, signed by Nixon and the
boss of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, formally announced the
official goal as disarmament in favor of a new international order: The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. regard as the ultimate
objective of their efforts the achievement of general and complete
disarmament and the establishment of an effective system of international
security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United
Nations. According to Aviation
Week & Space Technology, the Soviets are already breaking the SALT
agreements. The result is that, by the design of the Secretary of State, we
are being unilaterally disarmed in the face of a massive Soviet buildup even
as everything possible is being done to keep the American people from
discovering what is happening. The so-called SALT agreements approved by
"our" Secretary of State are in fact Soviet plans, drawn up in the
Kremlin, meant to deny us protection from attack. And the Soviets know, as
does everyone else who has taken the trouble to read Kissinger's 1957 book, Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy,
that Mr. Kissinger doesn't believe in massive retaliation after a sneak
attack. If the Communists attacked us first, knocking out half our
retaliatory force, Kissinger wrote: "Considered purely rationally, there
would be little sense in American retaliation." Yet, under the
Kissinger-Schlesinger policy, we are committed to a policy of ignoring
advance warning and withholding response to any nuclear attack until our
cities or military installations are actually hit. It is clearly a setup to make
credible any necessary Soviet nuclear blackmail should Americans grow
restless about being goose-stepped into the New World Order. The idea of our
having a strategic superiority of force doesn't ft the plans of those who
seek what Walt Rostow called "an end to nationhood." As we are moved toward World Government, Marvin Kalb and
brother Bernard write that Kissinger "will deal with the devil, if
necessary, to come Up with the right agreement." He is said to prefer
"injustice" to "disorder"; and, though there would be
great injustice, there would certainly be a great deal of order in a world
slave state. Under the New World Order, an international elite would run the
rest of humanity like robots, and claim to be doing us a favor. Fortunately, Kissinger is now in trouble with both
"Liberals" and Conservatives. Newsday
and New York magazine have called
for his resignation, as have a number of Conservative leaders. In the wake of
his Vietnam sellout, Congressman Lawrence McDonald has demanded that
Kissinger return his Nobel Peace Prize. Former U.S. Ambassador William Pawley
declares: "He scares me to death." And even John Roche, former head
of the Americans for Democratic Action, is concerned-noting that every matter
of American interest Kissinger gets "involved in suddenly becomes
ambiguous." Senator Jesse Helms, who voted against Kissinger's
nomination as Secretary of State, is among those who are infuriated over
Henry Kissinger's plan to bypass the Congress and turn over de facto
sovereignty of our vital Panama Canal to the local dictatorship. The
Republican Senator angrily asks: What is Mr. Kissinger up to? What meat does this
self-appointed Caesar eat? This Senator is sick and tired of it. Let the
press heap upon this man all the flattery and all the praise, but I want to
know where his successes are. Henry Kissinger is like the emperor who has no
clothes. Only one little boy stood and said, "I don 't see any clothes.
" And I do not see the successes of Henry Kissinger. In the matter to which I am referring, clearly the
proposed actions... are in direct opposition of the expressed opinions of a
sizable bloc of Members of this body. I believe that any effort that the
executive branch may take to arrogate to itself the rights provided in the
Constitution to the Senate and the House of Representatives could lead to one
of the most serious constitutional crises which our country has faced in the
20th century. I doubt very much that a majority of our colleagues in this
Senate would tolerate such an arrogation of power by the executive branch,
depriving Congress of its constitutional rights in a matter involving
sovereignty over territories of the United States. No doubt Henry Kissinger was greatly amused. The New York Times Magazine of October 28,
1973, quotes him as remarking: "The illegal we do immediately. The
unconstitutional takes a little longer." These who take Kissinger's
"jokes" lightly do so at their own risk. In early April, New Hampshire's Governor Meldrim Thomson
delivered an angry speech before the California Republican Assembly calling
Henry Kissinger the "cunning architect of America's planned
destruction" and declaring that he should be discharged immediately. Governor Thomson was on target with his observation that
"Kissinger, the protégé and beneficiary of the largess of Vice President
Rockefeller, stands for everything that George Washington abhorred and warned
against - compromise, duplicity with foreign nations, and unpreparedness for
a war of survival. America will never be safe as long as Kissinger is Secretary
of State." Yet Kissinger's plans for a New World Order are moving
ahead. A proposal was recently presented to the Council on Foreign Relations
by the head of the international Trilateral Commission to center
"energetic supra-departmental integration of our global policy" in
the office of Vice President Rockefeller. Henry Kissinger and the C.F.R.
Insiders are much too close to their goal for comfort. William Safire reports that Henry and top Communists
frequently joke about secret police tactics and slave camps in Siberia. It is
no laughing matter when Kissinger is consulting regularly with Ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin, the top K.G.B. officer in the United States and first
member of the Soviet politburo to maintain residence outside of the Soviet Union.
Comrade Dobrynin has even presented the man identified as K.G.B. agent Bor
with a photo of a bulldog, which Kissinger hung on his White House wall. The
top K.G.B. officer inscribed the photo: "Henry, don't be too serious.
Take it easy. Relax. Anatol." But Henry Kissinger cannot relax. To be
exposed is to be destroyed. So he plays at secrecy, telling reporters:
"No, I won't tell you what I am. I’ll never tell anyone." One understands why. But to understand is not enough. To
know what Henry Kissinger is up to, and to fail actively to seek his
immediate resignation, is not tacit acquiescence in error but countenance of
treason. Henry Kissinger was identified in 1961 by a top
anti-Communist operative who had risen to the rank of colonel-general in
Communist intelligence as a member of a secret R.G.B. ring, known a, ODRA,
that was in place inside U.S. Army intelligence. Kissinger had been working
with the Communists in post-war Germany under the code name of Bor. Although
his highest previous ambition had been to become an accountant he was moved
on to Harvard where his K.G.B. file showed him to be maintaining contact with
the C.I.A. The man identified as agent Bor was soon provided with a $28,000
Rockefeller grant, his seminar was financed by the C.I.A., he was made a
director of studies for both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the
Rockefellers' secretive Council on Foreign Relations. The C.F.R. published
his books, he acted as personal advisor to Nelson Rockefeller, and he was
maneuvered into place under President Nixon as chief of national security and
Secretary of State. Trusted by the Communists and by the Establishment
Insiders, Kissinger proceeded to support Communist interests in the name of
détente, to disarm the United States in the face of a Soviet arms buildup,
and to arrange a massive looting of the American economy on credit. All this,
he claimed, was in the interest of achieving a New World Order. * Details of
Kissinger's activities as agent Bor can be found in Frank Capell's long
intelligence monograph, Henry
Kissinger: Soviet Agent (The Herald Of Freedom, Zarephath, New jersey,
1974, 53.00). As it happens, the investigative staff of the House Internal
Security Committee was documenting Capell's charges when the Committee was
suddenly abolished. And Saudi Arabia's anti-Communist King Faisal had ordered
copies of Mr. Capell's book a scant three weeks before his assassination by a
radicalized nephew, said to be "into Marxism" According to Dublin's
authoritative Special Office Brief,
the nephew visited the assassination section of the KG.B. in East Germany
before the shooting. **As we go
to press, Exxon has just replaced General Motors atop Fortune magazine's list
of the five hundred most powerful U.S. corporations. But the real question
is: Will Rockefeller replace Ford? ***Lyalin was the informant whose exposure a few years ago led to the deportation of 105 KG.B. agents from Britain. Dublin’s Special Office Brief reports: "The U.S. Government (under Kissinger's particular influence) has kept both the Kennedy and Faisal assassination details connected with Department V of the KGB secret. It has been argued that the truth would upset détente. " |
|
|
