Kissinger’s Adoration of the 1815 Congress of Vienna: A Master Key into Universal History
The Roots of Color Revolutions
The incredibly shrinking Henry Kissinger is known for many things, but a revolutionary is not one of them. Over the years of service to the empire, the career geopolitician has been consistent in his unfailing commitment to
1) destroy the Westphalian system of sovereign nation states,
2) promote population control across the developing sector,
3) advocate limited nuclear war (in opposition to the more popular visions of total nuclear war advocated by Cold Warriors) and
4) selectively overthrow troublesome governments as a co-architect of color revolutions.
The unifying theme throughout has been Kissinger’s total commitment to stability. No matter what chaotic means chosen to advance his agenda, you can be sure that Kissinger does it all for a near religious commitment to “order” and stability.
Although too often overlooked, Henry Kissinger’s 1st published work in 1957 A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822, offers us the greatest insight into the broader historical forces which young Kissinger understood and which won him entry into the most trusted inner echelons of the oligarchy. It also offers us a sort of master key into unravelling some major historical paradoxes that will assist us in making great sense out of our present age plagued by color revolution and war.
In previous articles, I advanced several concepts which I will add to in this current story.
That the American Revolution was a global rather than local phenomenon which involved players from across Europe as well as India and Morocco who not only made the republican revolution a success but intended to bring that success back to their own countries as part of a broader emancipation of humanity from systems of hereditary elites.
That the French Revolution was intended to be the first expression of that process outside of America before British Intelligence transformed it into a Jacobin terror that killed all of the qualified republican leaders.
That the National Endowment of Democracy which is behind today’s color revolutions was created as a Trilateral Commission scheme under the guidance of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski– two men not known for their “democratic sympathies”.
In this report, I wish to pick up from where we left off with the British sabotage of the French revolution and the 20 year reign of destruction of Europe led by the Rothschild-funded asset of chaos Napoleon Bonaparte who was finally put down on June 18, 1815.
In A World Restored, Kissinger identifies the 1815 Congress of Vienna as the greatest lesson for statesmen of all ages.
Why? Because it entailed the restoration of order by the European elite after a process of chaos unleashed by the 1776 revolution in America. In Kissinger’s worldview, justice and freedom have no existence. “Evil” does exist, but only as that which causes “dis-equilibrium”. The hereditary elite of 1815 were obviously more than a little nervous living in a world that had lost its equilibrium. The revolutionary fervor of 1776 and its international spread, demonstrated that the absolute power claimed by the Zeusian gods of Olympus was little more than an illusion which could be taken away if the people organized themselves appropriately.
In his thesis, Kissinger wrote how Britain’s Lord Robert Castlereagh and Prince Clemens von Metternich led in the most brilliant restructuring of political structures in the wake of Napoleon’s defeat which supposedly brought peace to Europe for nearly 100 years.. but nothing could be further from the truth.
The Congress of Vienna and the Roots of Color Revolutions
When one looks closely at the Congress of Vienna, the “restoration of order” valued by Kissinger was premised upon the attempted killing of creativity and love of freedom by imposing a political, cultural dictatorship on the bodies, minds and souls of all of Europe.
How was this done?
After several months of booze-soaked orgies which saw representatives, emperor, prince and minister of every government of Europe debauch themselves in spy-infested salons and parties under the guidance of Prince von Metternich and Lord Castlereagh, several treaties resulted.
The restoration of monarchical France.
The creation of the Holy Alliance under the control of Metternich which comprised an alliance of Austria, Prussia, Russia and for a time Britain and France.
The Carlsbad Decrees that featured a comprehensive cultural dictatorship which was considered the most important weapon against “revolutionary” ideas that needed to be wiped off the face of the earth.
The Carlsbad Decrees imposed a strict dictatorship over thoughts themselves whereby inquisitors loyal to the Holy Alliance were placed in every university with absolute power to fire professors and expel students who were accused of republican ideals. Anyone who was expelled or fired from a university was prevented from working or studying in any other university in Europe which is why America saw a surge of republican immigrants during this period. All newspapers had to submit their works to official censors who edited all papers until they were deemed acceptable to the elite and all books were subject to censors with thousands of poets and philosophers deemed unprintable. Anyone seeking to read the writings of Friedrich Schiller, Thomas Paine, or Benjamin Franklin would be out of luck.
Metternich’s leading advisor (and enemy of Friedrich Schiller) Friedrich von Schlegel stated that “the true nursery of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary school, for France and the rest of Europe, has been North American. Thence the evil has spread over many other lands, either by natural contagion, or by arbitrary communication.” Thus for the destructive principles of republicanism to become undone, America itself would have to be destroyed from within as would the ideas which inspired it everywhere they arose.
Of course, the suffocation of the natural sentiments for freedom and creativity resulted in a backlash which should have been expected by Metternich and his ilk.
Lafayette’s 2nd Chance
By 1830, this backlash manifested itself around the person of the aging revolutionary the Marquis Lafayette, who at 19, became a leading figure in the American revolution, and at 32 nearly became President of France, though ultimately lived through much of the French Revolution in a Hapsburg dungeon as an enemy of the oligarchy after the revolution was hijacked and converted into a color revolution by the British Foreign Office.
From 1824-1830, Lafayette, operating as head of the European branch of the Society of the Cincinnati, was organizing an international counter revolution to the Congress of Vienna and Holy Alliance. Much of his organizing for this little known historical movement entailed a months long sojourn to America where the war hero campaigned for the presidency of John Quincy Adams (who narrowly defeated the Wall Street candidates of his day in 1824), and organized American support for a new European revolution that was to begin in France in 1830.
The plan was simple: The French population was ready to revolt against the abuses of the new king and Lafayette was positioned to take control. Once he was declared the President of France and the errors of the Jacobin bloodbath of 1789-94 was corrected, then republican movements were ready declare independence in Poland, followed by movements in Germany, Spain and beyond. But it had to first work in France.
From 1828-1830, some of the greatest intellects of America found themselves in France working to advance this cause. Some of the most notable figures working closely with Lafayette were James Fenimore Cooper, American inventor, artist and spy Samuel B. Morse, Edgar Poe, West Point leader General Sylvanus Thayer, and America’s ambassador to Spain Washington Irving.
Lafayette’s Failure to Break with the Hereditary Principle
Professor Pierre Beaudry in his ground breaking study Lafayette and the Hereditary Principle (2008) quotes France’s great Foreign Minister and historian Gabriel Hanotaux who described the paradox of France of 1798 and 1830:
“The question is always the fight between the two principles: the hereditary principle and the revolutionary principle. It is the dispute of the two Frances, the quarrel of the two flags which lingers on, and which renders impotent all government system, unless it is stopped once and for all.”
When the time came for Lafayette to declare himself President of the French republic on July 31 1830, thousands of Parisian citizens shouted his name in front of City Hall after days of rioting. However, at the last minute, Lafayette failed to capture the moment and gave into the false promises of Philippe Egalite’s son (the Duke of Orleans) who agreed to become a “republican King of France” and make Lafayette the head of the National Guard and defender of the people. Waiting until the last minute, Lafayette decided tragically to go to the balcony with Louis Philippe at his side. In front of thousands of onlookers, Lafayette ignored the popular calls to become president and instead embraced the monarch and within minutes France had a new king under Louis Philippe I.
Gabriel Hanotaux reported on the dialogue between Lafayette and the soon-to-be monarch moments before the embrace:
“You know,” said to him Lafayette, “that I am a republican and that I consider the Constitution of the United States as the most perfect that ever existed.”
– “I think as you do,” replied the Duke of Orleans, “It is impossible to have lived two years in the United States and not be of that opinion; but, do you believe that, in the situation that France is in, and following public opinion, it would be right to adopt it?”
– “No,” replied Lafayette, “what the French people need today, is a popular monarchy, surrounded by republican institutions, completely republican .”
– That is precisely what I intend to do,” said the prince.”
Within months, the Marquis Lafayette had been fired from his position as head of the National Guard. The republican movement of Poland was annihilated as none of the support needed to advance their revolution was given by a monarchist France and the surviving revolutionaries made their way to France after the failed October uprising to find temporary protection under Lafayette. Lafayette was horrified as he watched the new king enmesh France into a deep alliance with Britain while expanding its colonial policy abroad.
Lafayette died in 1834 after watching King Louis Philippe turn on the people and become the same tyrant which the revolution of 1789 sought to end. In spite of his death, the fervor for freedom from monarchism couldn’t be stifled directly. Instead, a technique was honed called neo-Jacobinism which used anarchism to direct the rage of the masses towards breaking all structures identified as “the establishment” while in reality keeping said establishment in place. Today’s color revolutions are merely 21st century versions of this 19th century technique.
Lord Palmerston who ran Britain’s Foreign Office and worked closely with the Holy Alliance, used a vast array of assets throughout the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s to direct the polarized energy of disenfranchised youth towards the greatest degrees of chaos possible under the heading of the Young Europe Movement.
Jesuits, Confederates and Transcendentalists Undermine America
Working closely with Italian Grand Master Freemason Giuseppe Mazzini, Young Italy, Young Germany, Young Russia, Young Bosnia, Young Ireland movements were created. A Young America Movement grew in the United States under the guidance of Ralph Waldo Emerson (himself under the direction of British Intelligence’s Thomas Carlyle) and the new movement of New England Transcendentalists which Edgar Poe fought against tooth and nail.
Throughout this process, the inventor Samuel Morse wrote an invaluable book entitled Foreign Conspiracies Against the Liberties of the United States (1841) by describing Prince Metternich’s Holy Alliance and it’s deployment of Jesuits throughout the Americas to undo the American revolution when he said “the latter come from the same quarter, in the shape of hundreds of Jesuits and priests; a class of men notorious for their intrigue and political arts, and who have a complete military organization through the United States.”
While the Young America Transcendentalists in the north grew in influence promoting a new self-centered mysticism antagonistic to the principles of America’s constitution, Jesuit infiltration spread throughout all layers of influence in the Americas. A third branch of warfare was deployed as Giuseppe Mazzini coordinated a Confederate general by the name of Albert Pike who was to go onto lead the southern session movement alongside British Foreign Office asset Jefferson Davis which nearly put an end to the American experiment in 1861. Under Mazzini’s direction, Pike revamped the Scottish Rite and created the KKK, both of which were instrumental in undermining America’s constitutional traditions from within.
So when Sir Henry Kissinger comes out promoting democratic revolutions against dictatorships on the one hand, and anti-revolutionary movements like the Congress of Vienna of 1815 on the other hand, rest assured that there is no contradiction. The world which such technocratic zombies like Kissinger and the hives of Rhodes Scholars which he represents live in define “stability and equilibrium” as the greatest goods in politics. They inversely believe that all creative change that reduces “predictability” are evils to be wiped out at all costs, and thus such movements as the Belt and Road Initiative, just like the American Revolution of 1776 and its international expressions, must be destroyed… even at the cost of risking nuclear war.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow, BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation.
Years ago, after president Xi announced the “BRI” l commented that the US will unleash nuclear war before ‘allowing’ Eurasian socio-economic integration; unfortunately…
The ‘Congress of Vienna’ embraced the ‘monarchal’(?) political system, or better known as: Feudalism, to continue dominating European (western) socio- economic policy and government.