Kissinger Warns of Nuclear War,
Did He Bring It On?

We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to.

Aug. 14—These are the words of Henry A. Kissinger in a Wall Street Journal interview published on Aug. 12. The Journal notes:

Mr. Kissinger has understood diplomacy as a balancing act among great powers shadowed by the potential for nuclear catastrophe. The apocalyptic potential of modern weapons technology, in his view, makes sustaining an equilibrium of hostile powers, however uneasy it might be, an overriding imperative of international relations.

When Kissinger warns we are on the brink of nuclear Armageddon, we must take it seriously. But it must be emphasized that it is Kissinger’s view of a “balance of power”—British Imperial geopolitics—which has brought the world to this crisis point, which Helga Zepp-LaRouche has warned is the greatest moment of danger for civilization as a whole in all of history.

When Lyndon LaRouche convinced President Ronald Reagan to propose to the Soviet Union that the scientists of these two superpowers come together to discover a means of using new physical principles—particle beams, laser technology—to create a space-based anti-missile defense capacity, to “make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,” as Reagan put it in his televised address to the nation March 23, 1983, the underlying intention of LaRouche’s proposal was to end this concept of “balance of power.” The fundamental principle of Empire, from the time of Julius Caesar to the British Empire of today, is “divide and conquer.”

Were the U.S. not pitted against Russia and China after World War II, were FDR’s intention followed for these three great nations to be cooperating, not only in the UN Security Council, but in a process of ending colonialism and developing the former colonies into modern agro-industrial nations, then the last 75 years would have been one of global cooperation and great developments rather than endless wars. The U.S.-U.S.S.R. cooperation in space is the example of what “could have been” on Earth if not for the British success in dragging the U.S. into the Cold War, as Churchill pronounced in his 1946 “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Missouri.

Kissinger pleads for a—

kind of balance of power with an acceptance of the legitimacy of sometimes opposing values. Because if you believe that the final outcome of your effort has to be the imposition of your values, then I think equilibrium is not possible.

True enough—the continuous chanting of “our Western values” by the War Party is proof that they do not want peace, especially since the degeneration of “our Western values” confirms what Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed out—that today’s “values” in the West are not the values of earlier generations of Americans.

There is a reason Henry Kissinger was a declared enemy of Lyndon LaRouche and conspired with the FBI to destroy him. He famously bragged in his May 10, 1982 speech at Chatham House/Royal Institute of International Affairs in London:

In my White House incarnation then I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department.

Kissinger’s loyalty has been all along, and is today, to the British System of geopolitics, not the American System as articulated by President John Quincy Adams, that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Kissinger has been a leading instigator of every neocolonial war the U.S. has fought on behalf of the British Empire, from Vietnam to Iraq. He knew the U.S military could lay waste to those countries, as they did, even though the U.S. nonetheless lost every one of those wars. Winning was not the intention; it was destruction, Malthusian depopulation, and economic subservience. Of course, the wars never reached the shores of the United States.

But Russia and China are another story. If there is a war, it will be nuclear, and it will destroy the United States as well as the rest of the world. Neither a geopolitical Balance of Power nor Mutually Assured Destruction will prevent such a war. Only a new security and development architecture for all nations, a New Bretton Woods agreement among all nations to replace the bankrupt dollar-based system, can prevent the onrushing new dark age, or even annihilation.

The situation is dire, but it is also a moment of opportunity, as people increasingly see the danger, and search for solutions. A future which upholds the dignity of all nations, and all people, is both necessary and possible.

If you have not done so already, join the Schiller Institute, subscribe to EIR, and sign the Call for an Ad Hoc Committee for a New Bretton Woods System.