Want to see Konstantin Kisin live for an exciting event? Click here: www.cis.org.au/events/upcoming-events/

@Internetbutthurt

3 ай бұрын

Kisin is a moron. No thanks. If you are promoting him, im unsubbing.

@robhaythorne4464

3 ай бұрын

Nice click bait.

@GaryAskwith1in5

3 ай бұрын

What is the date when this interview took place? I’m sure I’ve seen it before.

@europa_bambaataa

3 ай бұрын

no

It is actually: Global imperialism versus nationalism

@stuartwray6175

3 ай бұрын

Both Nationalism and Liberalism can be Imperialist.

@AnarchyEnsues

3 ай бұрын

It's about international Zionism vs nationalism.

@MartinMartinm

3 ай бұрын

Global imperialism is the liberal foreign policy that he is talking about ffs.

@hamidhamidi3134

3 ай бұрын

​@MartinMartinm no it is not. It is Imperialism which has been around long before liberalism. US started the Vietnam war to protect the French colonial rule and has been busy in the middle east to prevent any regional power from emerging. There is not a single example of liberal intervention. All have been about global dominance.

@MartinMartinm

3 ай бұрын

@hamidhamidi3134 the USA, literally went to Vietnam to try and spread their "liberal democracy" during the Cold War. It worked in Korea for them, but obviously not Vietnam. The USA spreading their hegemony is global imperialism. The Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Chileans, eastern Europeans, etc, certainly weren't "liberal" before.

One of the best Mearsheimer interviews on the internet. Thank you so much!

Mearsheimer is a brilliant man, and one has to thank God that he is doing all these shows.

@mibli2935

3 ай бұрын

He is deeply immoral man, I am not sure about his brilliance. His support and excuses for Putin barbarity makes him immoral person.

@ZweiZwolf

3 ай бұрын

Except that nobody is actually listening to him to do what he suggests because it'd actually be a disaster for the USA. For example, he frequently says to only focus on China; however that means the US gives up on their public commitments to Ukraine and Israel. If the US goes back on those commitments, then who would trust the US going forward?

@thesleightofdan

3 ай бұрын

This man has balls of steel

@mibli2935

3 ай бұрын

@@thesleightofdan His head is made with the same material too. And his heart. And his soul. In short - he is equal to his idol Putin.

@hamidhamidi3134

3 ай бұрын

But he is wrong. His assumptions are totally made up. Why didn't the US didn't interven for human rights in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar etc ? Iraq, Syria, Lybia etc were all friends of the Soviets, so the US intervened and wrecked them. Afghanistan was a simple case of revenge against world trade centre attack.

It is self-contradictory to force any other nation to adopt Liberalism because the defining feature of Liberalism is INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 2:10

@OrwellsHousecat

3 ай бұрын

🎯

@RuneDrageon

3 ай бұрын

Correct, but it would be a different thing to tempt others to follow suit.

@hasinurrahman6317

3 ай бұрын

That's where American exceptionalism comes 😅 US can make rules, break rules and rules don't apply to US.

@OrwellsHousecat

3 ай бұрын

@@hasinurrahman6317 sovereign is he who makes the exception

@PoliticalSci

3 ай бұрын

It’s more like individual freedom….

stop interrupting the speaker its so annoying

@rodrigomohr1277

3 ай бұрын

Indeed!

@scottbuchanan9426

3 ай бұрын

@@rodrigomohr1277Yes, I noticed that as well. Rob was a bit too quick to jump in before John had finished his thought or comment.

@mc-lb9dk

Ай бұрын

especially when having a speech impediment

The host keeps interrupting, it ruins the flow of Mr. Mearshiemer’s discussion

@mariavm9178

3 ай бұрын

Exactly! This host was annoying. He kept interrupting Prof. Mearsheimer every time he was about to say something interesting.

@elizabethostaszewski346

2 ай бұрын

Exactly !!! It is so irritating !!!

Mr Mearsheimer mentioned that liberalism in the first place appeared as an answer to challenges faced by European societies. Religious wars, economic transformations etc. But other societies have different histories and cultures and even climate: the belief that individual is more important than the society is not universal. Asian cultures usually tend to give much more importance to family and community, and if you are liberal you should accept that they are entitled to their views. This 'liberal crusade' is based on exceptionalism and belief that your views are more valuable - exactly like colonialism and, actually, nazism, were based on this European/Western sense of superiority. It is just better hidden and more subtle now

@peterthegreat996

3 ай бұрын

American conservatives are like Asians then . The key difference between American WASP society and pretty much the rest of the world is- nuclear family vs extended family. It’s not that some Asian cultures devalue the individual , rather, they prioritize the extended family over the nuclear family. .

@DOFT.mp4

3 ай бұрын

There are fundamental human rights in Liberalism. Although I agree that other countries should be left to their own devices, this does not mean those countries can violate fundamental human rights and it also does not mean we are forced to ally or trade with them. What you risk running up against is the paradox of intolerance. We cannot tolerate intolerance for then we are run over by the intolerant.

@q___m2158

3 ай бұрын

@@DOFT.mp4 The question is - who defines what is a fundamental human right? Early liberals were not concerned with the rights of ''uncivilized'' indigenous people in America, Australia or Africa or children's rights. Now some western activists think that changing a teenager's gender is a fundamental right. The problem starts when you think that you can decide for people from any country, historical and religious background what is right and what is wrong for them. And then in ends in chaos after military interventions supposedly aimed at protecting human rights. Right for life is the most basic of all, and millions of people died as a result of those crusades

@DOFT.mp4

3 ай бұрын

@@q___m2158 These are troubling questions, but you can't simply acknowledge its difficulty only to give up and say it's all free reign. We can start with the Universal Declaration of Human rights by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1984. There are obvious human rights that we can take action on today. For example, "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

@q___m2158

3 ай бұрын

@@DOFT.mp4 True. UN is a collective body, those rights were agreed upon and ratified by most countries. But international system is still anarchic, no supreme court or world policeman or the means to impose the decision on a powerful state. The problem starts when powerful states become judges and jury and also control the world media. States based on liberal values have some systems of checks and balances inside. Theoretically even a disadvantaged person with bad reputation can count on fair treatment. But international system is different. Fair trial and even presumption of innocence don't work with some counties that are accused and considered guilty basing on some accusations (like WMD or human rights violations) and, on the other hand are not even applied to some other countries. Palestine today is one example - UN agencies cry about massive violations of rights to life and security, but has no means to impose any decision upon the sides

I see the comments here on the host interrupting. I’ve enjoyed watching this as a conversation, I like to see people I like or admire in equal conversations and it was stimulating to hear him answer to multiple questions. Thank you for the video!

Love listening to John Mearsheimer! Thank you!

@fastinbulvis2223

Ай бұрын

Agreed! Except for what he says here at 10:25. I wish it was true. But it isn't.

@k54dhKJFGiht

Ай бұрын

Perhaps, but seeing how Liberalism by itself is not working out so well (particularly from a US perspective), should we not at least consider the point that he is making?@@fastinbulvis2223

👏 Thank you

As a Canadian resident and historian I can state that Canada did not want to separate from Britian. Britain pushed us to get our own constitution in 1982.

@indi_prime

3 ай бұрын

That really does speak the English liberal temperament itself. No you will be like my favourite liberal son who freed himself, pack your bags! (Also the policy of the modern state, free yourself by getting the fuck out or fighting to take it over and finally end its own doom prophecy)

What a brilliant and insightful definition of liberalism at the top of this interview. I'm more and more growing in appreciation of it in its classical form. What we see of it now is a degraded version of a fine ideal.

@epicphailure88

3 ай бұрын

Classical liberalism is even worse than modern liberalism. The founding fathers were a perfect example of the contradictions of Liberalism.

@joepaluka9031

3 ай бұрын

Have you read any of Von Mises books? He really gives an amazing account of classic liberalism.

@joepaluka9031

3 ай бұрын

​@epicphailure88 please expand, I am interested to know where you are going?

@danielulisesalberdi7319

3 ай бұрын

Strange that you have a St. Thomas Aquinas photo, given that Classical Liberalism was born out of an abandonment of scholasticism.

@xDELFYonceagain

3 ай бұрын

@@joepaluka9031 This seems like a good recommendation. I hadn't heard of him, I'd recently discovered a Professor Stephen Hicks writings on liberalism, but i'll look into Mises.

Too bad the interviewer can’t listen to more than ¾ of an idea before launching into the next shallow interruption. John was incredibly patient with him.

great conversation.

The host should interrupt less.

@chosk80

3 ай бұрын

Talk too freaking fast and is all over the place at some point or another.

@anton1713

3 ай бұрын

I think he did very well. You can watch lots of videos of Mearsheimer talking uninterrupted for a long time.

Noble intentions my arse, it's used as a pretext for imperialism

18:45 crusader impulse in liberalism 21:00 intervention worked out terribly

@OrwellsHousecat

3 ай бұрын

🎯

@mogts

3 ай бұрын

These people are not that different to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The liberal holy wars for democracy and capitalism from their point of view. State terrorism from my point of view.

@paulkillinger5915

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, Obama liked to refer to our ancestors as "Crusaders".. And then spent his 8 years in office doing THE SAME THING himself!

A good way to think about that distinction at the end is on the home front interactions are largely between individuals (the domain of liberalism), but internationally (hint: nationally) the interactions are not between individuals but nation states (nationalism) which are the most powerful actors.

John does very good explanations, when the host lets him finish what he is saying....

@hansrudolf

3 ай бұрын

Disagree, made for a lively conversation.

How can you ignore the Billions of Dollars of war profiteering and say US interventions were "well intended"? It is an insult to the victims.

@paulkillinger5915

3 ай бұрын

By some measures we've spent as much as $8 TRILLION on these military misadventures in the last 30 years alone!

kzread.info/dash/bejne/lnitvJqnZLDHqbQ.html If do not think that US ever wanted to “rescue” Afghan women. (Maybe it is just used as pretext, and some people believe it.) That is because if they where seriously concerned for Afghan women, they would welcome USSR’s intervention in Afghanistan. So, it is not that the US is concerned about “rights”, they are just concerned about who is determining those “rights”, i.e. it has to be the US.

@Maat-ka-Ra

3 ай бұрын

women's rights within the context of liberalism. USSR was not a liberal state. western but particularly US liberals understand themselves as the pinacle of humanity, every other nation, culture, state, group does it worse than them in their view & has to be reeducated, if necessary with military force. they are blind on the eye which could see the harm they are doing. one could indeed argue, intentionally.

Casual conversation on critical issues. Lucky are those that sit in classrooms with these two individuals. Bravo.

@paulkillinger5915

3 ай бұрын

Yes, I've been extremely fortunate in having discovered Dr. John's "classroom" as the result of our initiating the Ukrainian war.

Philosophy is beautiful

It is a little bit distracting when the host keeps interrupting Mearsheimer's speech. He should give more room to his guest to speak his mind.

Liberal Democracy begins at home. You discuss and try to agree but in the end if you cannot, the head of the family has to decide. At the same time we have an outer door and some outsiders are welcome to visit us for a while. We don't let the outsiders run our family and we don't force ourself on other families. Same with nations. 😊

Thank you, CIS, for introducing me to John Mearsheimer. Brilliant political thinker to say the least.

Yes, I totally agree with professor Mearshheimer that if each country focus on doing a better kind of governance inside , then it will lead by example

I had to check my playback speed after hearing the host. Great talk though.

@TL-fe9si

3 ай бұрын

He is the fastest host I came across at his age. LOL

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer Da Best💯✌️♥️

The pain gets to be a bit much after awhile

Great listening!

I always get an education when Prof. Mearsheimer speaks.

Last time I check, Israel is Jewish state and kingdom of Saudi Arabia is monarch and guess what USA is fine with it. USA uses liberal democracy as a cover to wedge war, not impose it. Professor needs to review his view!

Very good. I’ll have a look for Konstantin.

He's a great analyst - & called the Ukraine debacle a decade in advance. However the idea that the US is motivated by the desire to spread liberal democracy seems very wrong to me. If you look at every such intervention, it is has been in a place where money could be made by the US corporations that bankroll the politicians who start the wars. Democracy is a handy figleaf, but little more if you look at the record. To confirm this thesis, you need only look at what the US actually did on intervening. E.g. in Iraq, it immediately occupied the Oil Ministry & took over the oil infrastructure - & cancelled the planned elections.

@wholebodysneeze

3 ай бұрын

I don't see why these need to be mutually exclusive. If there is a "crusader impulse" to the liberalist-nationalist approach, there is no reason why this cannot be steered by corporate interests. Given the power of lobbies in the US, it is no surprise to me that this tendency played out in areas where there was not only a perceived need for regime change, but also money to be made through the control of infrastructure. More speculatively, the additional resources and power gained through a profitable intervention can strengthen the cause for subsequent interventions elsewhere. Quite the spiral...

What actually glue people together? Is it the boundaries of a state, or is it common values and pursuit? Though I agree with mearsheimer that individuals are carved out of society, I don't his later argument convincing at the second part. To me, Common values and pursuit are far more attractive than common background or race or country of origin.

@jimmyjones8676

3 ай бұрын

More attractive but a lot less stable over time.

@MartinMartinm

3 ай бұрын

Many things can glue people together. Family structure, community, religion, marriages, genetics, ideology, economics, etc, etc.

@hitthedeck4115

3 ай бұрын

It can be all of those combined. Perhaps like the Americans, our national identity as Indonesians is "imagined" (as Mearsheimer said), or sometimes also called as civic nationalism.

@dhoyongjeong5006

3 ай бұрын

You are in for a great surprise how diverse those "common values and pursuits" are in different nations and regions.

Interviewer is so annoying and fast constantly interrupting John

Mearsheimer for president 2024! Send him petitions to urge him to run. ❤

I really wonder why they consider judaism as a race or a nationality. It is essentially a religion or a religious faith that could apply to various ethnic and national backgrounds. Could Mr. Mearsheimer kindly elaborate because this misconception has a lot to do with the ongoing crisis in the Middle East about whether the jews have a basic right to have a state of their own with no regard to the basic rights of non-jews. Why do they insist on a jewish state and they still insist that they are a democrasy. Does it make any logical sense to you?

@MrJekken

3 ай бұрын

its an ethnic group. Its why you can have 'atheist jews' and not have a contradiction

@johnc3525

2 ай бұрын

@@MrJekkenIt's also a religion. It's why you can convert to Judaism.

@johnc3525

2 ай бұрын

Because religions are made up and they made a rule trying the religion to the ethnicity. You are Jewish if your mother is Jewish. No other religion has this rule.

5:30 *_Liberalism_* and *_rights_* depend upon burn-rate. Resource-conservation limits both.

This Syrian American approves of mearscheimer’s message

If a society and/or culture cannot agree on first principles, then there are NO first principles.

We saw in the 1848 German Revolutions that the revolutionaries were not able to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. They wanted a united Germany but also a more democratic one. But the German Kings were able to divide the liberals along national lines, especially Austrians against Hungarian rebels. I do think in a few cases, they are reconcilable eg the NATO campaign in Kosovo in 1998.

Liberalism: "People disagree about basic principles". It's the concept of anarchy.

#1 Liberalism within oneself , Like a classical American triality of self and our founding. Many tribes making a union of one nation defined by borders. These individuals have liberal power not the state. #2 1900s structuralism Physical prescriptions of Liberalism outside ones body Liberal power granted to government and no one has a nation or a right but the state. .

Greetings from Bolivia 🇧🇴

If you should not dictate your neighbour about how to live, which is the case in those liberal countries, you definitely should not try to dictate other nations about how to live. As a non-liberal, non-westerner, I grealty respect Professor Mearsheimer, because he is one of the few liberals who actually respect this very simple moral rule. Unfortuntaely, however, this simple foundation is really lost in the foreign policy of liberal nations, most notably the United States.

On rights & truth @ around 5:30 - I think I can save Mearsheimer's original argument here from having to be qualified in this case - rights are not truths they are tools. They are a technology.

Mearsheimer is a dreamer.

What a great talk. Every sentence out of John's mouth is an informative gem.

Thank you for this brilliantly engaging, clear, and concise analytical thesis.

Tommy: and one more time to survive our country, you choose what? Realism vs Constructivism Nationalism.

For more detailed discussion of a nation see Ludwig Von Mises book "Omnipotent Government"

18:19 What happened there?

31:55 Mearsheimer says he doesn’t like a liberal foreign policy, but he wants to allow other nation states to figure out their own domestic policies. So it seems he actually likes a liberal foreign policy. What he doesn’t like is more accurately described as the neo-liberal foreign policy: imposing liberal values by illiberal means (violence / war).

John really enjoyed this one.

@Mman.

3 ай бұрын

He’s always like that, such an affable man.

The interruption of the speaker was so annoying let him finish off his analysis

This is really great! John's argument very much seems to me like some version of the cultural relativism debate. I agree with him that the US should not intervene even though such a view invites the criticism that non-intervention means complicity in oppression of whosever individual rights are violated. I don't know how he would get out of this. But I am glad he made the distinction with genocide even though in the real world genocide may be taking place without the outside world really finding out about it till it's too late. Or getting bogged down in a protracted debate about whether genocide is really taking place or not. Take Israel and Gaza. Is what the Israelis are doing over there genocide? Could the fact of genocide actually be a matter of opinion? I'd say yes. Same with the Armenian genocide. And it goes back to John's great point that we humans can't agree on first principles. Each likes to stick to their own truth. People used to resolve such radical differences with wars. Or we'll just have to learn to live with each other - but especially with RADICAL DIFFERENCE! This is where I think most of us just fail.

Mearsheimer has a few points, but I don't share his pessimistic view of humans, nor his "theory of everything" approach to International Relations.

There is a truth It depends on What's in common sense ethical practices neighbours different and tradedishion value represents respected

One of the great minds who sees the world clearly with feet firmly on the ground.

Tell it like it is.

Interesting point about the Nazis being the only industrialized country to pull out of the depression. But always remember the Soviet Union did not even enter depression. Its gross national income grew 500% between 1928 and 1940.

@jimmyjones8676

3 ай бұрын

Could you even call the 1920's Soviet Union industrialised?

@AnarchyEnsues

3 ай бұрын

National socialism has been the most lied about political system, because our oligarchs would be kicked out of power.

@midnike8783

3 ай бұрын

@@jimmyjones8676 What else can you call a country that can build ships, steam locomotives, automobiles and airplanes on its own?

@joebhoy182

3 ай бұрын

@jimmyjones8676 I was going to respond but see your question has already been answered.

@jakw97

3 ай бұрын

You can't compare England or other industislised countys in 1929 to Russia. They had nothing but poverty really

Is there a battle between libertarianism and nationalism? It's good to let people do what they want as long as it isn't detremental to you. Living in a resilient environment minimises detrement, and part of that is a strong country. People in other countries should all have resilient ones as well. National borders are a 'firebreak' against the spread of trouble. People like to live in houses, not everyone all in one hangar.

Interestingly, Mearsheimer’s political realism is actually more idealistic than the neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism that fuels the western expansionism. Because he believes that if every society can decide it’s own rules (except from committing genocide), and western societies could lead by example, then the world would turn out for the better in the end. The idealism is that the people of other countries would willingly, and without external intervention, follow their example. But the neolibs/neocons are not so optimistic/idealistic: they believe external intervention is needed to bring about that change, because people living under effective oppressive regimes don’t stand a chance without it. So you could say they are the real «realists» of foreign policy.

Liberal (capitalism) vs National (Subordinated capitalism? Neo-feudal mercantilism?)

@rageburst

3 ай бұрын

Liberalism is an ideology that believes that inalienable human rights belong to all individuals, and this transcends borders. Thus liberals think everyone is entitled to the same rights across the globe. Progressive liberalism brings this a step further and thinks that it's okay to use state force to do mass social engineering to forcefully spread itself while libertarianism eschews state force thinking that government should be minimized to protect civil liberties. Nationalism basically represents the population you belong to sharing the same set of beliefs practiced by that group (culture) to find success. Nationalism is basically the strongest force since people will act in the interest of the state/tribe/group and will tend to trust the current leaders believing those leaders will act in their interest. Nationalism may align with liberal or realist interests, which becomes a force that may facilitate either one. Since USA tends to have a largely liberal body politic, it will try to take advantage of nationalism to enact liberal goals. Example is the Second Gulf War that did not serve US interests, and was meant more to spread liberal democracy in the Middle-East. Capitalism is a tenet of liberalism, which believes nation-states with heavy economic interdependence won't attack each other since it would kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

@chosk80

3 ай бұрын

Liberalism has nothing to do with capitalism. I am not sure what you are thinking of .

@rageburst

3 ай бұрын

@@chosk80 well to give you an example, we pursued a policy of engagement with China. The idea would be to get it hooked on capitalism and that it would gradually become more like a liberal democracy. That plan did not work out. It was a liberal agenda to create that economic interdependence to turn China eventually into a liberal democracy. China, as a result, embraced capitalism, but didn't quite embrace the liberal democracy part.

@rageburst

3 ай бұрын

I want to add that liberalism isnt necessarily good or bad. We experience a thriving multi-ethnic society where everyone is treated with a degree of civil liberties. However, it is insufficient and lacking when applied to foreign policy because it tends to disregard the balance of power and how power plays into strategic logic. Capitalism is also not a good or bad thing. The free market is what affords us so much privilege because the free market determines what is best for all as opposed to a select few.

@cee5429

3 ай бұрын

To clarify, I am asking Does Mearsheimer here describe a liberal financial-capitalist faction vs a nationalist industrial-capitalist faction? My understanding was: Liberal faction of elite... want to keep their private ownership claims of worldwide assets valid by maintaining inviolability of private property. More nationalist faction of (American) elite... would rather maintain real or perceived supremacy "against other nations," and would include: national or racial supremacists, financially naive or non-financialized industrialists ie farmers-miners-manufacturers-military traditional aristocracy, not bankers-insurance-cosmopolitan liberal financiers. Litmus test: West retains many assets within former colonies and current financial framework. To politically default on relatively small property rights obligations to Russia will terminate legal, pragmatic, & moral inviolability of the larger Western claims in non-West countries. The wealthy vs the gung-ho war industrialists. The liberals profit by manipulating both sides to war, while the nationalists identify with one or another participant. In good times an empire can force vassals to take necessary risks, so no existential conflict between liberals and nationalists. However as State loses empire, liberal faction maintains their wealth and loyalty untied to nationalist ideology or loyalty, while nationalist faction cannot or does not maintain wealth & power independent of declines or advances in America's internal standards of living or external competitiveness in a dominance of hierarchy. I don't know whether I'm wrong, he is euphemizing his language or if he is wrong.

Feet resting upon WHO'S FOOTSTOOL? Who's Who? Students shared "i" AM and shared Feet resting upon WHO'S FOOTSTOOL? Resting upon HUMILITY.

Multiculturalism has major challenges....Integration and social cohesion works....Interculturalism might lead to understanding...

I simply disagree based on the results we see in the countries that adopted and the clear failure of Liberalism. "A utopian dream" Having said that, I invite individuals to correct me if I'm wrong as I'm interested in the truth.

18:18 jumpscare cmon guys

Very rare insights indeed. Nationalism flourishes for great petiod of time when demographic strength is unparalleled and resources are aplenty, this is not so in all and every situation. (Human societies are greatly vulnerable to natural disasters and epidemics, all the regular rules are turned upside down in correlation to the magnitude of a crisis). Liberals need to be open and flexible in order to address deficiencies. Liberal thinking can be shark like, it will offer little but take big from another, this hard negotiation erodes long term trust, you got to arrive at mutually beneficial equation. However, Nationalism is pragmatic when the other partners do not have big virtues, you take a tough call, you may not want a deal at all if it can imbalance your entire organization and future stability. A grand country could suggest liberal order to others but may be in truth focused on building a grand empire or a grand alliance, it is a nationalst or group promoter with unusual ability to influence lesser countries. For a healthy liberalism to arrive, there needs to be numerous parallel platforms, unhealthy liberalism, which involves the establishing of clients by a significant leader is not ideal but is a realistic order.

This construction is less informed than Individualism vs. Collectivism. That's where the real struggle is. How the collective responds, "liberal/ expansive or "nationalist/protective" is of interest to the collective ruling clique and its victims. How the collective contests with/diminishes the individual is what we individuals suffer.

Nationalism has to go out all over the world

It’s global jewery vs nationalism

Great ! 🇺🇸🔯✝️☮️

nationalism for state, liberalism for divine central authority unity

Humans are obviously “social,” but that framing performs an important censorship by omission, which is that humans are more specifically tribal in nature - a biological phenomenon grounded in ethnocentrism - and fully expressed in America as white supremacy, and white Christian nationalism. In addition, traditional “nationalism” is another name for such legacy “human tribalism,” despite the issues of secularism and citizenship reinterpreting the traditional tribal constitution of nationalism. At no point however, did this nativist/nationalist tribal identity and influence suddenly evaporate due to any dilution by immigration. Nor did ideological citizenship suddenly cancel out the biological undergirding of hegemonic white Christian nationalist American tribalism. Traditional tribalism expressed as nationalism continues to undergird and influence every aspect of “citizenship-based society,” specifically throughout the ruling class, oligarchy, plutocracy, and authoritarian apparatus, including nativist populism. This legacy tribal influence exists and persists, despite all of the competing counter-narratives, which span Enlightenment philosophy, The American Experiment, Liberalism, Capitalism, Postmodernism, Socialism, and Marxism. Anyone whom defends these institutions will nearly detonate if you contaminate their Enlightenment sanctity with the subject of biological determinism. Nevertheless, all the most primitive regions of the brain light-up when tribal concepts are introduced, and the study of “Authoritarian Personality” (tribal instincts) identifies expressions that directly reinforce the taxonomy of tribal dynamics. Meanwhile, all of the modern Enlightenment manifestations require conformity with “tabula rasa” human state of nature theory, asserting sacrosanct individualism, reason, and rational choices that can conveniently choose any of the above choices, while never suffering from the primitive encoding of instinctive tribal influence. Such assertions however, are a form of species exceptionalism. Equivalent expressions are the initial reactionary rejection of Darwinism, the hubris of much philosophical intellectualism, including blaming the individual for what reduces to the sins of a tribal species. Consequently, all of these offending Enlightenment ideologies suffer from false first principles, false framing, and horrendous perpetual hypocrisy that eventually tears itself apart through ethnocentric ruling class abuses inflicted upon the multiracial multicultural working class, including through indebted micro-militarism (currently against black and brown people in the Global South, including the entire Eastern hemisphere). Historically identified as Lifecycle Empire. Understanding the phenomenon of tribalism is tremendously important. This study identifies biological causality and human instincts (an entire taxonomy of tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics), which existence and qualities undermines rationalism, Liberalism, and individualism, including explains national exceptionalism, demonizing out-groups, and coveting expansionist ideology, not to mention people repeating the same idiosyncratic behaviors in every state on every continent throughout history. Human tribalism identifies a ubiquitous synthesis of characteristics, which are threefold: 1) ethnocentrism, 2) monotheism, and 3) ultra-nationalism, to constitute a unique exceptionalistic self-interested identity. These characteristics respectively represent: 1) racial supremacy, racism, xenophobia, and demonization; 2) any prevailing binding belief system, which can include religion, spirituality, animism, pantheism, or ideology; and 3) territoriality, where territory is highly integrated with natural resources, sacred spaces, and secure occupation. This tribal synthesis of characteristics - representative of white supremacy - is reproduced throughout the elite spectrum as vanguards of authentic moral legitimate tribal identity. The tribal synthesis is embedded in religion, law, politics, economics, and armed services. Culturally speaking, a significant element of nationalist populism declare their fealty to this tribal synthesis as a non-negotiable, including conviction to defend it with their lives. Significantly, approximately 25-30% of such tribal like-mindedness is sufficient to achieve cultural hegemony, and control a social narrative. Possibly more significantly, despite representing a fractional “opulent minority,” ruling class oligarchy demonstrates ability to control the narrative through the force multipliers of capitalism, social engineering, and the state monopoly on violence. These tribal characteristics manifest through the familiar expressions of national exceptionalism, national innocence, and national mythology; populations paying irrational reactionary fealty to church-state authority; the demonization and suppression of out-groups; and supremacist expansionist ideologies. America prosecutes three expansionist ideologies: capitalism; Universalist Liberal hegemony; and white Christian supremacy - the authoritarian instincts and pathologies involved are regressive and disturbing. It is true that human tribalism can be expressed on a more peaceable spectrum during access to plentiful resources, and through different modes of production. Nonetheless, historical expressions are plagued by violence, and modern expressions developed during agrarianism and technology demonstrate evolutionary arms race escalation and anarchistic endangerment that must be dealt with as they currently exist, where the true causality reduces to biology, not money. Money however, namely capitalism, is a primary tool of ruling class instruments. In that regard, the legacy church-state system - whether through secular, theocratic, or military dictatorship expression - each demonstrates the authoritarian institutional hierarchy of militarism, religion, politics, economics, and culture, where each institution is required to perform an authoritarian function for the self-interested state, and should be considered an institutional projection of human tribalism. It is certain that Liberalism is not the best system. Liberalism gets human state of nature theory wrong, and an entire litany of culpabilities follow. Liberalism processes individualism unnaturally throughout several exploitative yet foundational institutions, where the pathology of individualism becomes disproportionately sick. In addition, because Liberalism never correctly determines the truth of existence, it thereby perpetuates its own false raison d'être in perpetuity. In this manner, Liberalism condemns humanity to negative circular logic and the causality of a stunting doom-loop, which actually prevents achieving enlightenment, despite such enlightenment revealing the grim reality that humanity is in point of fact tribal and instinctive in nature. Liberalism, and many expressions of individual freedoms, provides sanctuary for everything regressive and reactionary, which sustains all of the potential required to resist progressive change, undermine democracy, and impose moralizing right-wing economics. The “postmodernism” of Liberalism diminishes society into cultural factionalism, where cultural issues replace preserving awareness regarding economics that benefit the general welfare. Relatedly, Liberalism enables economic freedom to constitute weaponized individual liberty, which allows individualism to function in unsustainable abstraction from systems-based accountability. Liberalism does not withstand the scrutiny of environmental sustainability protocols, which requires Universalist coordination with physics-governed environmental determinism. Liberalism occupied the mantle of responsibility while presiding over Anthropocene Homo sapiens failing miserably. Liberalism does not successfully negotiate Plato’s battle between democracy and oligarchy, where liberalism, including through liberal economics, has enabled oligarchy to prevail over democracy. If during business as usual, the status quo, and prevailing wisdom, Homo sapiens premature extinction presents a quandary, one might consider the merits of a contrarian thesis. In addition, considering the legacy agents that have historically ruled the human condition - exceptionalistic tribal identity reproducing the tribal synthesis, rule by capital, and oligarchy with toxic pathology and ideology - none of these agents are something that deserve repeating. So, what would be a better system? To begin with, one that admits the ugly tribal truth, and through such cognitive objectification, achieves the ability to transcend this Paleo-regressive determinism. Subsequently, the phenomenon’s of white supremacy, the tribal synthesis expressed throughout the ruling class, oligarchy, plutocracy, national security state, and nationalist populism, including the self-interested state competing in the interstate system, could all be collectively superannuated to the annals of history. An alternative civilization could be erected upon cognitive-based progressive cultural evolution organizing itself in relationship to attaining environmental sustainability. And Plato’s antagonism between oligarchy and democracy could find resolution that favors democracy through choosing systems-based egalitarian economics and Ecosocialism.

Liberalism seems to have critically failed with looking after the commons; ecology and sustainability. Also failed on social justice and equity, and world peace. What can rectify this ?

@s.v.discussion8665

2 ай бұрын

Liberalism is pure evil.

I'm surprised Prof Mearsheimer agreed to sit down again with CIS, which really should change its name to Centre of Imperial Promotion, after the Professors visit and disgraceful event that was an embarrassment to Australia because of the ignorance and subservience on display which John at least found amusing.

jOHNS LIVING IN DREAMLAND HERE. the reason there was group cohesion between the first migrants was definitely due to core values but was a huge part due to race. Europeans are a race no matter the branches between them and find some commonality that goes beyond idealism. Hes just too American and simplistic to understand this.

Agreed with humans being social animals, but unable to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. And how can there be any disagreement regarding unalienable rights amongst Americans and Asians? Why is it wrong if Americans wants the rights of Afghans too being protected like those of them?

@dhoyongjeong5006

3 ай бұрын

The inalienable rights are not universal. Since I am from South Korea, an Asian country, and I will assume that you are American, since you refer to Americans. And because I assume you're American, I will understand your "inalienable rights" as referring to the US Constitutoin. The bill of rights in the US constitution, most notably the 2nd amendment, is NOT an inalienable rights in South Korea, although it is in the United States. The 1st Amendment of the US constitiution, the freedom of speech, is also NOT the most absolute right in South Korea, and many other nations. Speech is subject to legal limitations. The 6th Amendment, trial by jury notably, is NOT an inalienable rights in South Korea, either. In fact, there are many naitons that do not even require a jury trial at all. If you want other examples, even the UN Declaration of Human Rights is neither universal nor inalienable. Arab muslim nations have their own version of such a thing, called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, which does not recognize freedom of religion (in direct contrast with the 1st Amendment of the US Consittution), because those muslim nations believe that Islam is the only true religion, and none other is. Learn the vast scope of diversity and difference in history, religion, and culture in each nation and region. You will be surprised.

Students, Heirs, and our Beautiful what is HUMILITY? Not for Thee but unto all. Who is that? Sitting upon the lowest seat LASTS. Now students remind and comes with comfort...! Gathering what remains for the harvest is to gather all the Fruits can be kept! Upon HIS VINEYARD! Candle Sticks Nations! Some will say who is that? Walking in the midst of the CANDLE STICKS NATIONS. ANGELS WHO PERSEVERE HEARD THE "WORD"! KNOW THY PLACE IN FRONT!

I think that one can be a liberal and still believe in the validity of the "Prime Directive" - hello Trekkies! ;-)

BTW I AGREE with like 75% of Mearsheimer ideas. just not down with the Ukraine argument.

I don’t liberalism here in the west either for the exact same reasons!

The same battle was made in WW2. You have to know your history to understand what I mean. Which none of you do.

L 1:55 L defined ; individual > State;

Obviously, he is using a 70 or 80-year-old definition of liberalism. That’s more like classic liberalism not what we see today in America as what’s called liberalism. He should make that distinction in the very beginning. Because most of what he describes as a liberal in the beginning sounds like most conservatives today. It’s almost like they have flipped.

@Gabrielle4870

Ай бұрын

That's why the conversation started with Mearsheimer defining liberalism. Liberalism in the US and Australia today has nothing to do with the original doctrine. In Australia you don't find liberalism in the Liberal Party - they ought to rename that party!

Relativistic Realism? First Principles are the easist to come to, ontologically, and epistemologically. Organic Intelligence leads the way, or Nature's Imperative, qua determinism. Kant's ethics.

Individualism means something specific, which John doesnt seem to acknowledge.

Interviewer must think world is insufferable slow.

@mikexhotmail

3 ай бұрын

LOL

Respected Sir, Appreciate your thoughts but need your feedback on some questions. 1) To achieve Liberalism on the planet isn't difficult but those who want to implement did or doing blunders. ( in history we called them WAR LORDS) ,but today any fancy names , how someone justify killing of millions people in last 124 years only. World War 1,2 . Killing of Africans in African soil, European ( still today in Ukraine) Asia ( Afghanistan, Iraq , Syria etc etc) and Ghaza, Burma. Every continent watched GENOCIDE. Someone/ some governments should be made responsible today or nobody has the courage to ask these questions. Millions are dying today due to hunger. Economic disparity is at its highest level in history. Economic growth or Billionaire cannot be seen in Isolation and at what price. Poverty in Africa/ South Asia/ South America isn't point of discussion.

While liberal and nationalist are busy fighting it out, socialism is taking off, all the way to victory

Nacionalismo! Vai Russia! Vai BRIC.

There is need to distinguish between nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is loyalty to an ethnic group, its language, its culture, its history. Patriotism is loyalty to a country and its political institutions, symbols, etc.

Tommy: 29:20 They can't co exist if about business. I'm different with you.

Was the German people pre WW2 encourgaged to vote in a dictator who took Germany to war? Why would the German people do that, one wonders. Perhaps it was extreme nationalism along with desperation as to the state of Germany following WW1. Same with Japan, why go to war against the USA. What drove Japan to go to war against the USA after it invaded Nanchuria etc.....Oil and survival perhaps? The same question must be asked today, as to why Russia invaded Ukraine....Why would Russia invade a country of 50 million people with a ground force of only 100000.? According to Putin it was an exercise to prevent Ukraine arming and becoming a member of NATO..... That is, in Putin's mind, it was for survival. So Nations under threat of survival are liable to go to war.? Imagine if Hitler had the nuclear bomb....... Putin has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. So if it is about survival of the Russian state, does anybody doubt that Putin will use nuclear weapons? The reaction of the West, which is obviously doing it's best to destroy Russia, using economic sanctions and supplying Ukraine with more and more weapons is obvious....No sign of peace only attacking and prodding the "bear" This is a very dangerous time and this military exercise by the Nato only heightens the threat. One mistake is all that is required to set off a chain reaction....

liberalism is evangelicalism in another time

I wish we kept our ‘liberal’ leaders. For some reason (or maybe fear of left might gain power) we did end up with dictators.