Editor’s Note: We have launched the series of Lao Yan’s Commentary on Historical Figures: Those Who Were Exalted and Those Who Were Degraded, to share with you the true history from Lao Yan’s perspective.
This article is the second in a series discussing two people who have been promoted: the two “strategists” and “theorists” who have influenced the United States from its peak to its decline: Henry Kissinger and Samuel Huntington. Huntington’s theory brought the world back to thinking about conflicts between religions, and it is also the fundamental reason why the Palestinian-Israeli and Israel against Islamic countries conflict continues to exist.
尼克松因丑闻下台后，基辛格坐享其成幸运获得 “联中抗苏俄”的“战略家”的名声。中美建交后，中国因搭上了美国全球化的顺风车以及犹太人感恩中国二战时的救助而鼎力支持中国经济发展, 基辛格幸运获得美国对中共外交的后台老板角色。在中国经济实力强大到能挑战美国地位时，基辛格照样秉承“支持中共”而把俄罗斯继续当成“美国第一假想敌”的、在他脑子里恒古不变的国际战略。
Summary: Henry Kissinger and Samuel Huntington are both traitors instead of patriots of the United States. Their intelligence and wisdom are insufficient to assume the status of “political strategist.” Both were given the title without the necessary skills.
I. Huntington’s Theory Contradicts the Spirit of the US Constitution: Pulling the US Back Into the Wars Between Religious Groups in Europe and the Middle East
When the United States was founded, it decided not to participate in the wars between various religious sects in Europe and adopted an “isolationist” strategy to govern the country. The United States is a country with Protestant Christianity as its main faith. However, when the country was founded, it was stipulated that the United States would not be founded on Christianity and advocated freedom of religion. Most importantly, it adhered to the post-Renaissance Reformation principles of replacing divine rights with human rights and God’s law with man’s law. The replacement of the constraints of religious dogma by the liberation of individual freedom through individuality was tantamount to a fundamental abandonment of the law of God. These were written in legal form in various amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
After the founding of the United States and before Huntington, the Muslim world and the United States were at peace. The United States provided a balance between the two Islamic factions, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, and did not force the Islamic world to be an enemy of Christianity in the United States.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Huntington published the book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” which had an enormous and unprecedented impact on the formulation of international strategy by both parties in the United States.
Huntington’s theory was tantamount to returning the world to the old way of thinking about the conflict between religions and the distinction between friend and foe. This made the Islamic world feel the desperation of facing annihilation with outdated weapons and science and made a desperate move.
Huntington’s theory essentially violates the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. He saw Clinton bombing Yugoslavia and siding with the Muslims and feared that the United States would no longer protect Israel in the future. He reminded the American political circles that the main contradiction facing the United States in the future is between Christianity and Islam. The contradictions between countries and the whole world were based on the conflicts between different civilizations. In fact, this was to emphasize that the world will continue the religious conflicts as before the founding of the United States.
This theoretical reinforcement would inevitably lead various religious groups to return to the old path of religious conflict of “fighting for one’s own God,” from the thinking that has been influenced by the secular spirit of “there are no eternal enemies, only eternal interests,” and interests can be “win-win” with the enemy for more than two hundred years.
Only Huntington’s theory made all Islamic sects believe that the Christian United States was an enemy of the entire Muslim world. Whether Huntington thought so or not, once Islamic believers read his theory, they immediately felt that the end was coming because the U.S. military was too powerful compared to the Muslim world. This caused Muslims, including Osama bin Laden, who had sided with the United States against Soviet Russia, to change their weapons and target the United States. After Huntington’s theory was published, bin Laden planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks five years later.
George W. Bush started the war in the Middle East after 9/11. He was just a practitioner of Huntington’s theory. Theorists have a far greater impact on society than practitioners because practitioners have no choice after the public has accepted a theory.
II. Kissinger: Poor political judgment, but can perform detailed tasks well.
After Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal, Kissinger gained a reputation as the “strategist” who “allied China with the Soviet Union,” which was originally created by Nixon.
After China and the US established diplomatic relations in 1972, Kissinger was fortunate to be given the role of behind-the-scenes chief of American diplomacy toward the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Since then, the Chinese economy has boomed, riding on the coattails of American globalization and with the support of the Jews, who were grateful for China’s acceptance of Jewish refugees during World War II. When China’s economic power became strong enough to challenge the U.S. position, Kissinger still adhered to the old international strategy of “supporting the CCP” and continuing to regard Russia as “U.S. imaginary enemy number one.
Kissinger determined the future of China and Russia on the basis that China and Russia both believe in communism and that the people are the same. Since Russia far surpasses China in terms of science, technology, and industrial base, he believed that Russia was still the number one potential competitor of the United States, not knowing that people are the most important factor. In particular, he did not know the vast difference between the people of the Soviet Union and the people of China in terms of hard work, struggle, and sacrifice of life to make money, even though both were under the leadership of the Communist Party.
Kissinger’s intelligence and wisdom are not enough to occupy the position of “political strategist. He was not even confident in the strategy of “alliance with China to resist Soviet Russia” from which he gained the title of political strategist.
翻译者：大智若愚33。（译者借助了Google Translate, DeepL Translator & DeepL Writer 翻译及英文校对工具）
Two People Who Led the United States Astray
Written by Runtao Yan on February 15, 2017
Today I want to talk about the two major “strategists” and “theorists” who influenced the United States from its peak to its decline. One is Henry Kissinger and the other is Samuel Huntington.
(1) The origin of Kissinger’s reputation as an international strategist
Kissinger’s influence on the United States began with the so-called “Nixon’s secret visit to China” from the “triangular relationship between the United States, the Soviet Union, and China” to “pulling China into confrontation and dismantling the Soviet Union.” In fact, the sudden thaw in hostile relations between the United States and China was an advisory proposal made to President Nixon by the Rand Corporation. Nixon accepted the Rand Corporation’s advice. Kissinger later became Nixon’s Secretary of State, but when Nixon visited China, Kissinger was neither the Secretary of State nor the Deputy Secretary of State. He was just the National Security Advisor, that is, an errand boy. However, as National Security Advisor, he participated in the strategic arms limitation negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was Nixon who wanted to ease relations with the Soviet Union. Kissinger initially had little interest in China when he began his work as National Security Advisor in 1969, and the driving force behind the rapprochement with China was Nixon. Because Kissinger actively followed Nixon, then-Secretary of State William P. Rogers believed that U.S. support for China was a big mistake in the long run and did not actively follow Nixon’s footsteps. Although Rogers followed Nixon to China, his role was basically to make things difficult for the Chinese Communist Party. This is completely different from Kissinger, who actively promoted the terms of the negotiations. This was the reason why Nixon later chose Kissinger as Secretary of State. After Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal, he reached the point where he was beaten by others and no longer had the position to speak. Kissinger has been hailed as the architect and international affairs strategist who led the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union and Nixon’s visit to China. However, but only since 1994, after Nixon’s death. Respecting history, Kissinger has indeed advocated for the positive development of relations between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party since Nixon’s visit to China. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kissinger still adhered to the unchanging international strategy of “supporting the Chinese Communist Party” and continued to regard Russia as “the number one imaginary enemy of the United States.
(2) Kissinger’s Judgment
Kissinger started his own consulting firm after he left the position of Secretary of State. When I was in China, I read an article in a newspaper praising Kissinger. There was a paragraph in the content that said he was the most expensive consultant in the world in terms of time. He charged thousands of dollars a minute. I (Runtao Yan, all the same below) have always wondered whether the CCP’s newspapers are true. But after I arrived in the United States, I found that even American politicians admired Kissinger. It made sense for President Reagan to consult with him since they are both Republicans. But it is ridiculous that the presidents of the Democratic Party also treated Kissinger as an international strategist and asked him for advice. Besides the subject matter, in the days before the internet, my only choice was to watch TV in the evening to learn about political news, and I had to listen to Reagan’s speeches all the time, which was boring and annoying, far less interesting than Trump’s Twitter today.
There was a very interesting comparison in the pre-election predictions for all the US presidential elections from Reagan to Trump: I predicted the correct results every time, while Kissinger was just the opposite. He was wrong every time. We should not underestimate this, because predicting the outcome of a presidential election reflects a person’s judgment. I realized Kissinger’s misjudgment when I read in the newspaper that he had taken the initiative to say that he had made a mistake in judgment. I was shocked and speechless. Later, when my friends, classmates, and colleagues talked about my correct judgment, I joked about Kissinger’s own admission of miscalculation as reported in the newspaper.
Why did Kissinger publicly tell the media after the presidential election that he had made a mistake in his pre-election prediction? Obviously, a person who has been Secretary of State, even an unemployed one, will not ruin his reputation and credibility so openly. If he did not say it himself, how could people know what his predictions were in advance? The only explanation is that he gave international strategic advice not only to the president-elect but also to other candidates during the election. The only explanation for why he answered reporters’ questions by saying he thought Hillary would win is twofold: first, Hillary had already consulted with him, and he thought Hillary would win. But if he lies afterwards, Hillary will definitely expose him as a secret agent who cheated money. Another reason was publicly stated by himself during the interview, to publicly apologize to Trump for his misjudgment, so that he could provide consulting services to Trump. When the reporter asked him if he would advise Trump, he said: “Like previous presidents, he should take the initiative to come to me instead of me coming to him. If he comes to me, I will give him advice.”
Let us look at Dr. Kissinger’s judgment about the direction of international affairs. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin led the Russian people, disgusted with communism and yearning for American democracy, into the embrace of the United States. At the time, Kissinger, who was still preoccupied with the idea of “joining China and opposing the Soviet Union and Russia,” could not comprehend this. We probably do not know what his IQ is, but it is a fact that his political judgment and sensitivity are not high. He simply failed to see the essential difference between the Chinese people under the leadership of Mao Zedong and the Russian people under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That is, in 1972 the Chinese people were basically peasants, more than 80% of them, while the Soviet Union had completed urbanization by bankrupting the peasants and forcing them into the cities. The industriousness of the Chinese people to survive and the slave-labor spirit of risking one’s life to find a job in the city is the opposite of the Soviet people. Under Brezhnev, the government paid wages and benefits to the peasants, which resulted in Soviet men preferring to get drunk rather than look for women, and women being so lazy that they did not even bother to have children, even if they could get subsidies. The result of these vast differences is that Russia cannot become an economic competitor to the United States, while once China is provided with employment opportunities, its vast potential explodes. With a population many times that of the United States, it will soon become an industrialized country, surpassing the United States economically, especially in manufacturing. Kissinger had no such political vision.
He determined the future of China and Russia on the basis that China and Russia both believe in communism and that the people are the same. Since Russia far surpasses China in terms of science, technology, and industrial base, he believed that Russia was still the number one potential competitor of the United States, not knowing that humans are the most important factor. In particular, he did not know the vast difference between the people of the Soviet Union and the people of China in terms of hard work, struggle, and sacrifice of life to make money, even though both were under the leadership of the Communist Party.
I am writing this article for netizens, so let us discuss Kissinger’s judgment of China’s domestic affairs. During the power transfer from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, Kissinger had the opportunity to have personal contact with Bo Xilai, Xi Jinping, and even Li Keqiang. He felt that Bo Xilai’s courage and political achievements were far superior to Xi Jinping’s, and he judged that Bo Xilai would win sooner or later. On this basis, he personally went to Chongqing to support Bo Xilai when Bo faced political difficulties. Even Hu Jintao did not go to Chongqing, but Kissinger traveled thousands of miles to make a high-profile trip to Chongqing, which shows his expectation and judgment that Bo Xilai would win sooner or later. If this was not enough to illustrate his poor political judgment, what happened next illustrated the point even more. After Xi Jinping took down Jiang Zemin’s right-hand man, Zhou Yongkang, and the big political officials from the Ministry of Public Security and the oil industry executives, Kissinger personally went to Shanghai to support Jiang Zemin. He believed that the real political power in China was still in the hands of Jiang Zemin, or at least that Jiang Zemin had prevailed in the struggle with Xi Jinping. It was only after the arrest of Xu Caihou, Guo Boxiong and many military generals who were originally in Jiang Zemin’s camp that Kissinger woke up and stopped meeting with Jiang Zemin and went directly to Xi Jinping. Before that, he thought that Xi Jinping would lose the political war against Jiang Zemin.
(3) Where does Kissinger’s persistence come from?
Kissinger’s admirers will defend Runtao Yan’s judgment and argue: that Kissinger’s miscalculation was due to his stubborn personality rather than a lack of political judgment. That is possible. But recent events completely negate the possibility on which this defense is based. Immediately after Trump’s election, he scheduled interviews with reporters. Obviously, he wanted to continue to be an expert and advisor on international affairs in the White House. After he publicly stated that if Trump came to him, he would continue to advise the president on international relations. And what about the facts? Trump did indeed call on Kissinger immediately after taking office. Instead of listening to Kissinger’s “international strategic advice,” Trump assigned Kissinger to go to Russia and ask Putin to join the United States in dealing with China. If Kissinger persisted in his belief in “uniting China and resisting Russia,” he would either persuade Trump to change his mind or disobey Trump’s mission and refuse to go to Russia. In fact, he immediately went to Russia and made a highly publicized announcement that he was Trump’s envoy. This fact shows that he had no confidence in the strategy of “alliance with China against Soviet Russia” and could not withstand Trump’s enlightenment. It was not Kissinger who convinced Trump, but the opposite.
In his early years, Kissinger’s view of “uniting China to fight against the Soviet Union” was set by Nixon. At that time, he was just an enforcer. When Nixon asked him to go to the Soviet Union to negotiate joint reductions in nuclear arsenals, he went and the negotiations were successful; when Nixon asked him to handle the tasks of a secret visit to China, he did a great job. He is essentially a lobbyist, not a strategist. Kissinger may not want to take credit for Nixon’s accomplishments. Most likely, after the Watergate incident disgraced Nixon, people attributed Nixon’s strategic contribution to the “alliance with China to fight against Soviet Russia” to Kissinger. This attracted a lot of admirers for Kissinger, as the public tends to follow the crowd. Once someone is promoted, he is deified by many admirers. Not to mention someone who served as Secretary of State, Han Han, an idiot who failed all seven courses in high school in China, was able to deceive people and be named one of the 100 most influential thinkers in the world by Time Magazine, the most famous magazine in the United States. There is no need for Kissinger to lie to win admirers. It is difficult to get rid of all the admirers, not to mention that he enjoyed being admired.
(4) Samuel Huntington’s judgment is worse than Kissinger’s.
Like Kissinger, Samuel Huntington graduated from Harvard with all three degrees, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate. Huntington received his Ph.D. from Harvard at about the same time as Kissinger. Except for three years at Columbia University, he taught at Harvard all his life. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Huntington published the book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” which had an enormous and unprecedented impact on the formulation of international strategy by both parties in the United States. I could not help but study his “great article” carefully at the time, because newspapers and radio stations were all reporting on his theory. However, there was no Internet at that time, so I had no way to express my concerns. Because at that time, President Bush Sr., who had started a war against Iraq in the Islamic Middle East, had long since resigned, and Clinton did not want to get involved in the war in the Islamic countries of the Middle East. Instead, he started a war on the side of Islam to bomb Yugoslavia to make up for Bush Sr.’s hostility in the Middle East.
Once Huntington’s theory came out, there is no doubt that it frightened Muslims to the point that “if they don’t fight hard, they will die. “It is not that the United States has always sided with Israel, nor that Bush Sr. started the Gulf War, but that Huntington’s theory made Muslims realize the terrifying prospect of the United States wiping out Muslims. Because the United States often oppressed Israel during the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and many countries in the Middle East established peaceful relations with Israel under the mediation of the United States. Many Islamic countries in the Middle East also supported the Gulf War launched by Bush Sr.. Only Huntington’s theory makes all Islamic sects believe that the Christian United States is an enemy of the entire Muslim world. Whether Huntington thinks so or not, once Islamic believers read his theory, they immediately feel that the end is coming because the U.S. military is too powerful compared to the Muslim world. This caused Muslims, including Osama bin Laden, who had sided with the United States against Soviet Russia, to change their weapons and target the United States. After Huntington’s theory was published, bin Laden planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks five years later.
The 9/11 incident completely changed the course of American history. From then on, George W. Bush began bombing and sending ground troops to hunt down Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and eventually overthrew the Saddam regime. The United States has put its foot in the Islamic world of the Middle East and it is difficult to pull it out. Huntington’s theory is tantamount to returning the world to the old way of thinking about the conflict between religions and the distinction between friend and foe. This made the Islamic world feel the desperation of facing annihilation with outdated weapons and science and make a desperate move, which worried some person of insight in the United States and ultimately led to Obama coming to power. In fact, Obama’s middle name is Hussein. The American electorate knows that it wants Obama as president to allay the fears of a fight to the death between religious sects that Huntington’s theory has created in the minds of Muslims. Obama failed to do so, and the Muslims seized the opportunity to spread refugees in Europe and even in the United States. This brought to power the anti-immigrant Trump, who rejected Muslim refugees.
(5) Huntington’s Theory Contradicts the Spirit of the US Constitution
When the United States was founded, it decided not to participate in the wars between various religious sects in Europe and adopted an “isolationist” strategy to govern the country. The United States is a country with Protestant Christianity as its main faith. However, when the country was founded, it was stipulated that the United States would not be founded on Christianity and advocated freedom of religion. Most importantly, it adheres to the post-Renaissance Reformation principles of replacing divine rights with human rights and God’s law with man’s law. The replacement of the constraints of religious dogma by the liberation of individual freedom through individuality is tantamount to a fundamental abandonment of the law of God. These are written in legal form in various amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Huntington’s theory essentially violates the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. He saw Clinton bombing Yugoslavia and siding with the Muslims and feared that the United States would no longer protect Israel in the future. He reminded the American political circles that the main contradiction facing the United States in the future is between Christianity and Islam. The contradictions between countries and the whole world are based on the conflicts between different civilizations. In fact, this is to emphasize that the world will continue the religious conflicts as before the founding of the United States.
This theoretical reinforcement will inevitably lead various religious groups to return to the old path of religious conflict of “fighting for one’s own God,” from the thinking that has been influenced by the secular spirit of “there are no eternal enemies, only eternal interests,” and interests can be “win-win” with the enemy for more than two hundred years.
After more than two hundred years of secularization under the leadership of the United States, even the most stubborn Islamic countries in the Middle East, except for conflicts with Israel, are basically defensive rather than expansionist. Even if there is a conflict with Israel, they see it as a conflict of territorial interests rather than a conflict of religious groups. After the mediation of the United States, Egypt and other Islamic countries have peacefully coexisted with Israel, not to mention that Saudi Arabia is still an ally of the United States. But as soon as Huntington’s theory came out, even the Muslims in Saudi Arabia became afraid, thinking that they were on the verge of Armageddon, and the number of terrorists who wanted to fight the United States increased rapidly. Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States, became a base for terrorists fighting against the United States.
(6) What are the mistakes of the American democrats represented by Huntington?
Taking a step back, if the United States wants to transform the Islamic world, then the strategies and tactics of Huntington and other American democrats are still wrong. The only way to transform the Islamic world to eliminate fundamentalism is secularization, which transformed European Christianity from the dark theocratic society of the Middle Ages to the human rights society after the religious reform. Because at that time, under the rule of Christianity in Europe (there were no Protestant sects at that time, mainly Catholicism, which was different from the Orthodox Church, even though both were Christian), the Pope completely controlled the power of the entire nation, and absolute power led to absolute corruption. In the end, it developed into the tragedy of “killing all the cats, which led to the Black Death and then the extermination of half the population,” and the Pope’s control began to shake, and the religious reform and renaissance movement began. In the Islamic world at that time, different royal families shared power, and the degree of social darkness was much less than in the Middle Ages because there were some checks and balances on power. Because of the enforcement of the principle that everything must be reversed when it reaches its extreme, Christianity has moved toward reform after thousands of years of totalitarianism, while Islam has never had such an opportunity.
So how can we move from fundamentalism to secular religious reform in today’s Islamic world? First of all, we must realize that although the “God” of Islam and the “God” of Christian Judaism are the same person – Jehovah, the content of fundamentalism refers to the “Law of God” in the Christian Old Testament (in other parts of the contemporary Islamic world, the degree of fundamentalism is far less severe than in medieval Christianity), but the path of the Christian Reformation and Renaissance movement, that is, the path to democracy, is not a shortcut to the secularization of Islam. In Runtao Yan’s opinion, this path is wrong. When I first started surfing the Internet more than ten years ago, I wrote an article and mentioned that although Mao Zedong was guilty of heinous crimes, he also made two contributions, one was the emancipation of women in China, and the other was the eradication of countless religions or religious superstitions such as Yiguandao.
The shortcut to religious reform and secularization in the Islamic world in the Middle East is to eliminate the “hereditary royal system” to get out of fundamentalism. Among the countless suicide terrorists who have appeared in Islamic countries over the past half-century, there has never been a royal child. If the children of the royal family also believe in religion, it should happen that the children of the royal family become terrorists because the gene of devotion is turned on. In fact, there was none. The only explanation is that these royal families have known since ancient times that faith leads to devotion, and they will tell their children: You must not really believe! Let the poor believe, and if they believe, they will sacrifice their lives to protect us; but if you believe, whom will you protect? Children are inoculated from childhood by the education of adults, and this is passed on from generation to generation.
Here I formed the 26th Law of Runtao Yan: The descendants of the royal family in the Islamic world will be royal for generations, while the children of the poor will be poor for generations. Because the resources on earth are limited, if the descendants of the poor become royalty, the descendants of the former royalty will not be.
What the royal family promotes for the poor is not the same as what they promote for their own children. If they are the same thing, the status of the children of the royal family and the poor will change. This is a repetition of Chinese history for thousands of years, where “wealth cannot last more than three generations” and “the emperor takes his turn” were common. So, what the royal parents want the poor to believe is not what they will let their children really believe.
The way to eliminate the hereditary royal system must go through a process, otherwise, haste will lead to waste. This process is: a hereditary royal system —-> dictator —-> the democratic rule of law.
Why take the personal dictator step? After a dictator gains power, the greatest threat he faces is that someone will overthrow him in the name of theocracy. And even if he has enough military power to suppress and kill the rebels, he will still feel that the safest way is to force the public to worship him, then he must reduce the people’s worship of God. The best way to do this without interference from democratic countries is to make people rich and use the power of money, that’s to say, always thinking about how to make more money, to get them out of God’s curse. To put it bluntly, secularization means “being blinded by money” and following the principle that “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.”. Without powerful dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi, it would be impossible for secularization to defeat fundamentalism, because the greatest characteristic of religion is that it induces the expression of the fear gene and the devotion gene. It is only when the dictator makes people more afraid than God that the public can turn to think about getting rich rather than religion. That is why there were no fundamentalist terrorists when Saddam and Gaddafi were in power.
After the dictator dies, the next generation will grow up in a secular environment and think about money instead of God every day. Even if the next governor is still a dictator, the road to democracy will be shortened because the power of money will secularize fundamentalism. Under the hereditary royal system, only the royal family has the right to enjoy money and sex. Under the rule of a personal dictator, everyone from the dictator to the poor civilians is secularized and thinks about money. Then people begin to think that the dictator has more money than they have, which gradually drives the demand for democracy. Under the hereditary royal system, people do not think about this issue because they only think about how to live or die for their beliefs.
The Democrats in the United States always want to kill the goose that lays the eggs, going so far as to kill secular dictators and protect the hereditary royal system. The result? Islamic countries like Iraq and Libya, which had already become secular, have once again become the base camp for fundamentalist terrorists. After 9/11, the United States relied on Saudi Arabia, which has a hereditary royal system, to kill Saddam and Gaddafi, who specialized in suppressing terrorists. Ironically, Gaddafi not only led secularization but also initiated women’s liberation. Many of his bodyguards were women.
(7) Why does the United States regard Kissinger and Huntington as “political strategists,” “experts in international affairs” and “wise men”?
Huntington was originally an “angry youth”, and like the “patriots” who put great pressure on Queen Cixi during the late Qing dynasty in China to declare war on the great powers of Britain, the United States, and European countries, he was actually a “traitor”. Kissinger was an industrious and eloquent diplomatic negotiator. If someone gives him a negotiation task with a bottom line and clear objective, he can do a good job. However, Kissinger is not a political strategist who can judge the situation accurately. History is full of mistakes. Both Kissinger and Huntington have the aura of Ivy League schools, having graduated from Harvard with Ph.D. degrees, so they can easily win admirers. Not to mention ordinary people without the aura of Ivy League schools. If they are good at deception or have participated in a major event, with media advocacy, their admirers will pour in.
Han Han, a semi-idiot who failed seven subjects in high school, became an opinion leader with tens of millions of followers after being championed by the media. Eventually, he was named one of the 100 most influential leaders in the world by Time magazine. Just like George W. Bush, the dumbest student who never got an A in his life, he became president for eight years after being promoted by the media. Both cases happened in the era of television media. In times without television, if you replace George W. Bush with a monkey, the media can promote the monkey to be elected president. Trump has social media to thank for his election because social media provided the platform for his advocacy to bypass the traditional media so that the vested interest groups could easily filter out candidates like Trump.
The same goes for the tech elite. Of the countless billionaire CEOs of big tech companies in Silicon Valley, only one thought Trump would get more than 270 votes to become president, but he voted for Trump. None of the hundreds of other big guys thought Trump would get more than 270 votes. Some people say that there are many people who predicted Trump as the winner, but the fact is: these people all voted for Trump, and their judgments were based on their preference, not on rational thinking. No matter who Runtao Yan votes for in an election, it will never affect his accurate prediction of the election result. It’s very difficult to think rationally instead of emotionally.
Conclusion: The IQ and wisdom of these two people are not enough to assume the status of “political strategist”. Both were given the title without the necessary skills.
Additionally, for the past two thousand years, China has basically maintained the first place in the world in terms of total economy, except for the last two hundred years, because China does not have inter-religious killings and dogmatic constraints. The reason why Europe and the United States have surpassed China in the last two to three hundred years is that Europe has come out of the endless wars between religions. The United States has even practiced isolationism and has not gone to war with other religious countries. It has stayed out of religious conflicts with Catholicism and Islam. Until World War II, the US fought against Hitler and Japan.
No individual or country has been able to win the war between religions in the past two thousand years. If the United States participates in the war between religions, China would still be number one in the next two thousand years, because no one can use religion to rule China. Huntington has not only harmed the United States but also the Islamic world. Before Huntington, the Islamic world was on the defensive and dared not confront the scientific, technological, and military powers. It was Huntington’s theory that triggered Muslim sorrowful soldiers to defeat, and they became more courageous as they fought.
It was Huntington and Kissinger who gave China the opportunity to rise peacefully. Once the hard-working, intelligent, and dogmatically free Chinese people complete the legal reform of the capitalist system and get out of the politics of the meat grinder, just look at tiny Singapore as a good example, you will know what will happen. If Europe and the United States continue to fight with the Muslims for hundreds of years, they will have no chance to win. The only way is to secularize Muslims, abandon the fundamentalism of the Old Testament of the Bible, replace divine rights with human rights, replace God’s laws with human laws, and promote women’s liberation and personal freedom. The way to achieve this is to support dictators. Only when a dictator succeeds for the sake of personal worship can the worship of God in the Old Testament be abolished. When all Muslims worship the dictator, the next step will be to replace God’s law with the people’s constitution completely. Prayer cannot be held in public places such as schools. To follow the path of Christian reform, relying on the royal family is a waste of time. Direct democratization is to allow Muslim voters to continue to follow fundamentalism, which is called haste, but not speed. Reason: The life of a dictator is limited, and when he dies, he is immediately reviled by the people. But no matter who is in power, the fundamentalism of religious worship does not change.