Henry Kissinger’s Death Leads to Widespread Rejoice on Social Media
During my time at J.P. Morgan, I stumbled upon Henry Kissinger, the man social media is rejoicing abouts death. The banking powerhouse boasts a unique program where they curate winter and summer reading lists for their Private Clients, featuring works penned by prominent figures in the American elite. Engaging with these curated books was both a means of connecting with clients who were avid readers, and a strategy for maintaining client relationships which I found quite advantageous. Through this reading initiative, I became acquainted with a myriad of America’s influential personas such as Ariana Huffington, Sheryl Sandberg, and notably, Henry Kissinger. Although I don’t necessarily align with their philosophies — most of whom were either born into privilege or ascended to the upper echelons early on in their careers — I did find certain perspectives they offered to be intriguing. Kissinger was an exception.
My introduction to Kissinger’s thoughts came via his book “World Order”, a read I delved into solely due to clients’ interests in geopolitical narratives and Kissinger’s notable background in politics and academia. While I harbor a personal interest in geopolitical subjects, I typically shy away from works offering a white male perspective. This stems from my educational experiences in the Lakeland School District, where American and international affairs were predominantly taught from that very lens, a viewpoint that often underpins white male supremacy, a concept I actively disagree with. Going into Kissinger’s book, I anticipated a reinforcement of these familiar narratives, and indeed, I wasn’t surprised by what I found. Kissinger is an adherent to a controversial school of thought known as “Realpolitik,” a doctrine that promotes the idea of political pragmatism over ethical values. This approach centralizes “national interest” which, in a subtextual reading, often translates to the economic prerogatives of the American ruling class. Its emphasis on power and strategic advantage over moral considerations is stark, and it was aspects like these within Kissinger’s work that resonated least with me.
The ideology of Realpolitik underscores practicality and places it above ideals or ethical considerations in geopolitics. Consequently, ethical implications often take a back seat or are entirely disregarded. This approach has been notably associated with figures like Kissinger, who appeared to prioritize victory and power politics over rectifying genuine issues. This is a primary point of contention for those critical of Realpolitik; it poses significant risks by treating global politics as a win-lose scenario because it is a zero-sum game. Gains for one country typically come at another’s loss, which perpetuates cycles of conflict, human rights violations, and warfare at the international level. Realpolitik’s competitive nature also hampers collaborative efforts and ethical governance. It’s underpinned by mentalities that have historically endorsed colonialism and reinforced systems favoring white male dominance.
Given these implications, it’s evident why there’s a lack of support for this ideology among many with the exception of the upper class who value profits over human dignity. Moreover, we’re currently experiencing the sixth mass extinction, a devastating event uniquely attributable to human activities. We are the only species on earth to cause our own extinction. Realpolitik, in focusing on dominance and short-term gains, exacerbates the climate crisis and other environmental challenges. Under this doctrine, the paradigm is ‘winner takes all’, leading to exploitation and continued human misery. This approach only benefits the elite (Top 1%), while the consequences are felt worldwide, contravening any notion of universal human rights or sustainable development.
As someone who prioritizes progressive feminist principles valuing equality and justice over the pursuit of power and wealth, it’s understandable to find such ideologies and behaviors repugnant and grotesque. Despite a personal longstanding aversion, it’s revealing to see the extent of distaste for him by Americans across the political spectrum. While the elite may revere him, disconnecting from humane principles, there’s a noticeable sense of relief among the middle and working classes following his passing. His negative impact on global human rights and involvement in initiating conflicts have led to jubilation in regions affected by these actions; estimates suggest 3–4 million people, particularly in Cambodia, African nations, and Chile. His role in bolstering a genocidal regime in Cambodia mirrors contemporary dynamics, such as the ruling class in the United States reportedly backing contentious genocidal actions by Netanyahu against Palestinians, all to further the American elite’s objectives, including strengthens ties with China. In his publication “On China,” Kissinger self-credits for diplomatic achievements, while concurrently omitting the significant loss of Cambodian lives that facilitated these dealings.
His unlawful and secret bombing of the country, followed by supporting a tyrannical dictator is abhorrent. It is upsetting that this man won a Noble Peace Prize. It makes one wonder how politics makes its way into the Noble Peace Prize Committee — that America’s worst mass murderer won one. Given the plethora of diplomatic tools available in our technologically advanced era that could preclude mass violence, there is speculation concerning his possible relish for his role in these historical tragedies. This individual, an escapee from the Holocaust, is seen as leaving behind a similar destructive legacy to Hitler. I often write about the radicalization pipeline and male insecurity, while I didn’t write about genocide much in my book, “The Pathway Towards Peace: U.S. Human Rights Manifesto,” I do believe genocide by male leaders is often a result of stage 7 radicalization which encompasses mass violence. His insecurities led to his desire for unlimited power and the same mindset that caused him to be a survivor of the Holocaust turned him in to mini-Hitler. Yet, the American elite love him. They love a lot of disgusting men, Jeffery Epstein, Bernie Madoff, and Donald Trump, and Ronald DeSantis are just a few other repugnant men they fawn over.
It’s not just people on social media happy about his death, its also magazines and news outlets discussing his death, polarizing nature and horrifc legacy. I never thought that Henry Kissinger’s death could be such a unifying force for the internet. The general concise seems to be that the world is better off without him. Let us hope that the American ruling class cannot find another monster. May we hope that the ruling class finds a soul in this process.
