An assessment of kissinger that was non-trivial and insightful would take me mor

An assessment of kissinger that was non-trivial and insightful would take me more time than I have at the moment. I would say that at the time, his diplomatic skill was extremely useful. I would say conversely, that in retrospect, he advanced the feminine-Jewish-abrahamic presumption of self-good and power to use it: an overconfidence not in the western mind. His moral pragmatism especially in his extraction of morality from legitimacy, was seminal in creating the impression of an immoral american empire – in fact I would argue he’s the demarcation that ended the anglo moral imperative in international relations; he was part of the postwar destruction of western ethics, particularly anglo ethics, and a progenitor of the neocon movement to accumulate and expand power – popwer upon which the postmodern, cultural marxist, feminist, and now woke movements used as a ‘transport’ system.
If you ask me instead how he handled various crisis during the cold war, I think his intellectual fortitude, tendency to work alone and take initiative, and ‘want of power’ was useful in containing the soviets and the chinese.
We won so to speak, but every time we win we lose a bit too.. Germany should have won WWI and WWII. We we should have helped theg ermans defeat the soviets. And america and the anglosphere should have maintained our naval tradition of world trade and order. And america our insularity. Even with china we won just to lose. So, our ‘power’ to create trade was a gift to mankind. Yet our strategic power, absent our moral past foundations… that’s not a good thing.

Reply addressees: @AmirBrandon7290