On 19 August 2026, I did a a lengthy interview with Ian Proud on his popular podcast, “The Peacemonger.” We discussed my 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities.
Since we are American, I am free to define my best definition of patriotism: to be responsible for those close at hand, while not harming those further away. As Twain put it, “Why should loving my own country have to mean hating someone else’s?”
In order to remedy the things you’ve consistently and accurately pointed out requires good leadership. I agree with Howard Zinn when he said that real change comes from the bottom up, but not only do we not have enough time to make the required changes, unfortunately, people are idiots.
I think what I’ve put forth is the best way to try to navigate the next few years and beyond so as to make things as good as they can be for humans.
That’s why I’m running for President in 2028. And when I win, I will make sure that Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, Katie Halper, Cenk Uygur, Anna Kasparian, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Chas Freeman, Trita Parsi, Daniel Davis, Douglas MacGregor, many in Code Pink, many in Democracy Now, all of Judge Napolitano’s guests, Larry Johnson, many from the Electronic Intifada, Stephen Walt, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Pape, (Robert Monroe will be the Director of Culture), and others will be in my cabinet.
My presidential platform is outlined in my course, which is summarized in my two short films, viewable on my YouTube channel, kevinflynn2639.
The only way to turn the US’s aircraft carrier around and get it sailing in a much better direction is through the political process — and the only person who can pull that off is the President of the United States.
Just as the predictions of all of those mentioned above have consistently come true, so have mine. We are at a critical juncture. If we don’t play our cards right now, it’s curtains.
I predicted, some 30 years ago, that countries like China (and other smaller countries) would leapfrog the United States military by using high-technology methods such as drones.
I’d also seek the advice of experts like Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark, and Yoshua Bengio as to how to align AI.
It’s my thought that my course is the best heuristic for aligning AI, but I’d seek the advice of people more familiar with the actual mechanics of how AI works in order to make that determination.
Believe it or not, AI alignment is our biggest existential threat.
My “course” represents my platform, and it examines the roots of the problems we’ve created for ourselves. It determines the best way to solve these problems.
There is nothing wrong with talking about the problems. But what’s needed is an analysis of why they’ve occurred and, more importantly, how to steer our way out of them and set a course for a better tomorrow.
No matter who you vote for in this terrorist police state run by corrupt oligarchs you will get the same corrupt government. You sure think a lot of yourself if you think you can change anything or if you think you have any chance of actually running. You are under a serious delusion. I actually said NO because I don't vote anyway. There is more integrity in not voting than voting for the lesser of two evils.
Unfortunately you’re probably right. And unfortunately what you’ve said is in some ways hard to argue with. But if that’s what you think why do you bother reading about this stuff or engaging in it at all?
Yes, it seems to reason that people would resist intrusion from outside powers, but generally would accept philosophical views of human rights.
The idea that neoliberalism (which basically is a capitalist policy representing corporate and financial interests) is a human rights project is a faulty definition of the term and the major flaw in Professor Mersheimer’s analysis. This is not to say world politics does not operate according to his theory of Offensive Realism, only that the term “liberalism” is wrongly defined. The dominant hegemonic power, the U.S. does not act on behalf of Human Rights, it acts for the most part, diplomatically and militarily, on behalf of corporate/financial interests, and its own imagined prestige.
Victor Orban opposes a LOT more aspects of liberalism than immigration and he certainly is not a democrat (small d). He opposed institutions that check executive power, including the judiciary, and the media. He howled out democracy and elections by gaming them to allow him to expand and retain power. Prof. Mearsheimer's claim the Orban's governing ideology is "illiberal democracy" might be the term Orban uses, but it is totally false and misleading. And his views of "national identity" are racist and imply a certain ugly historical eugenics. Mearsheimer's foreign policy views are solid, but this analysis is beneath him.
Mysteriously, he did not resist the results of a democratic election with the EU thumb firmly on the scale against him. Or not so mysterious, if you don’t believe Brussels propaganda. Liberal has become a dirtied word that is profoundly illiberal in its censorious actions and abandonment of responsibility to ordinary citizens.
How does Mearsheimer explain the fact that many "nations" that currently exist were, as Hitler once quipped, "created by administrators with rulers". Many of those "nations" have no real national identity in the classic sense, e.g. culture, religion, language, shared history, etc. I so many nations are fabrications of war treaties, etc, how can they have the motive force of real nationalism?
I'm a huge fan of of Professor Meisheimer, but I must push back, and hard, on the claims that Biden was in favor of open borders and that liberalism and universal human rights necessarily leads to a policy of open borders. I push back on empirical, policy, and theoretical grounds. I suggest that Prof. Mearsheimer defend these views in far more depth than he outlined on this podcast. Perhaps a debate with someone like Prof. Sachs or Norman Finkelstein would be enlightening.
When a president achieves low immigration during a strong job market then we will have a secure border…all presidents can have a seemingly secure border during a weak job market like we have now.
He has had a debate with Prof Sachs. Still on YouTube. Both brilliant but come from different schools of economic and geo political thought. I love both of them.
The word liberal is too fluid to mean anything. What was once a virtue, is now a vice. Now liberal is like being catholic, you just have to claim to be liberal when needed. There is nothing liberal about democrats, liberal is the opposite of Christian, or Jew.
Respectfully, there is such a thing as liberal nationalism. It involves the invocation of the "founding fathers", "manifest destiny", "spreading democracy", and "the arc of history bending towards justice".
The key thinker is Robert N. Bellah, especially his 1967 essay Civil Religion in America.
Also look to Benedict Anderson in his observation that nationalism operates as imagined community.
In order to remedy the things you’ve consistently and accurately pointed out requires good leadership. I agree with Howard Zinn when he said that real change comes from the bottom up, but not only do we not have enough time to make the required changes, unfortunately, people are idiots.
I think what I’ve put forth is the best way to try to navigate the next few years and beyond so as to make things as good as they can be for humans.
That’s why I’m running for President in 2028. And when I win, I will make sure that Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, Katie Halper, Cenk Uygur, Anna Kasparian, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Chas Freeman, Trita Parsi, Daniel Davis, Douglas MacGregor, many in Code Pink, many in Democracy Now, all of Judge Napolitano’s guests, Larry Johnson, many from the Electronic Intifada, Stephen Walt, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Pape, (Robert Monroe will be the Director of Culture), and others will be in my cabinet.
My presidential platform is outlined in my course, which is summarized in my two short films, viewable on my YouTube channel, kevinflynn2639.
The only way to turn the US’s aircraft carrier around and get it sailing in a much better direction is through the political process — and the only person who can pull that off is the President of the United States.
Just as the predictions of all of those mentioned above have consistently come true, so have mine. We are at a critical juncture. If we don’t play our cards right now, it’s curtains.
I predicted, some 30 years ago, that countries like China (and other smaller countries) would leapfrog the United States military by using high-technology methods such as drones.
I’d also seek the advice of experts like Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark, and Yoshua Bengio as to how to align AI.
It’s my thought that my course is the best heuristic for aligning AI, but I’d seek the advice of people more familiar with the actual mechanics of how AI works in order to make that determination.
Believe it or not, AI alignment is our biggest existential threat.
My “course” represents my platform, and it examines the roots of the problems we’ve created for ourselves. It determines the best way to solve these problems.
There is nothing wrong with talking about the problems. But what’s needed is an analysis of why they’ve occurred and, more importantly, how to steer our way out of them and set a course for a better tomorrow.
The introduction examines the extremes. Give up and throw in the towel like George Carlin suggested. Or try to write the best history you can as Isaac Asimov suggested. In order to try to figure out how to frame the argument you need to understand what a theory is in the way Mearsheimer defines it.
That’s the introduction.
The first class was is framed as though your planning a road trip. If you’re planning a road trip the first thing you need to do is to determine your destination.
Please let me know if anyone out there would like to support my effort to run for President of the United States. I’m a generalist, but my general views on what we need to accomplish are exactly spot on. I have developed a platform that makes perfect sense. So if anyone is either interested in what I have to say or is interested in helping me, I’m all ears.
My foreign policy would generally follow the points of view of John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Daniel Davis, and Douglas Macgregor. My domestic policy would generally follow what Andrew Yang has to say. My policy on AI would generally follow what Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark, and Yoshua Bengio have to say.
My platform has been developed to a fairly precise degree of specificity, and it can be summed up by what I call the “Nice Formula” — S = I x E / N, where S equals sustainability, I equals interdependence, E equals empathy, and N equals narcissism (and noise).
Since we are American, I am free to define my best definition of patriotism: to be responsible for those close at hand, while not harming those further away. As Twain put it, “Why should loving my own country have to mean hating someone else’s?”
What’s the source of that one?
In order to remedy the things you’ve consistently and accurately pointed out requires good leadership. I agree with Howard Zinn when he said that real change comes from the bottom up, but not only do we not have enough time to make the required changes, unfortunately, people are idiots.
I think what I’ve put forth is the best way to try to navigate the next few years and beyond so as to make things as good as they can be for humans.
That’s why I’m running for President in 2028. And when I win, I will make sure that Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, Katie Halper, Cenk Uygur, Anna Kasparian, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Chas Freeman, Trita Parsi, Daniel Davis, Douglas MacGregor, many in Code Pink, many in Democracy Now, all of Judge Napolitano’s guests, Larry Johnson, many from the Electronic Intifada, Stephen Walt, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Pape, (Robert Monroe will be the Director of Culture), and others will be in my cabinet.
My presidential platform is outlined in my course, which is summarized in my two short films, viewable on my YouTube channel, kevinflynn2639.
The only way to turn the US’s aircraft carrier around and get it sailing in a much better direction is through the political process — and the only person who can pull that off is the President of the United States.
Just as the predictions of all of those mentioned above have consistently come true, so have mine. We are at a critical juncture. If we don’t play our cards right now, it’s curtains.
I predicted, some 30 years ago, that countries like China (and other smaller countries) would leapfrog the United States military by using high-technology methods such as drones.
I’d also seek the advice of experts like Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark, and Yoshua Bengio as to how to align AI.
It’s my thought that my course is the best heuristic for aligning AI, but I’d seek the advice of people more familiar with the actual mechanics of how AI works in order to make that determination.
Believe it or not, AI alignment is our biggest existential threat.
My “course” represents my platform, and it examines the roots of the problems we’ve created for ourselves. It determines the best way to solve these problems.
There is nothing wrong with talking about the problems. But what’s needed is an analysis of why they’ve occurred and, more importantly, how to steer our way out of them and set a course for a better tomorrow.
Won’t you help me in this quest?
no
Well — Then you end up with people like Biden or worse yet — The Donald running the show.
No matter who you vote for in this terrorist police state run by corrupt oligarchs you will get the same corrupt government. You sure think a lot of yourself if you think you can change anything or if you think you have any chance of actually running. You are under a serious delusion. I actually said NO because I don't vote anyway. There is more integrity in not voting than voting for the lesser of two evils.
Unfortunately you’re probably right. And unfortunately what you’ve said is in some ways hard to argue with. But if that’s what you think why do you bother reading about this stuff or engaging in it at all?
Yes, it seems to reason that people would resist intrusion from outside powers, but generally would accept philosophical views of human rights.
The idea that neoliberalism (which basically is a capitalist policy representing corporate and financial interests) is a human rights project is a faulty definition of the term and the major flaw in Professor Mersheimer’s analysis. This is not to say world politics does not operate according to his theory of Offensive Realism, only that the term “liberalism” is wrongly defined. The dominant hegemonic power, the U.S. does not act on behalf of Human Rights, it acts for the most part, diplomatically and militarily, on behalf of corporate/financial interests, and its own imagined prestige.
Not if you call people idiots
Victor Orban opposes a LOT more aspects of liberalism than immigration and he certainly is not a democrat (small d). He opposed institutions that check executive power, including the judiciary, and the media. He howled out democracy and elections by gaming them to allow him to expand and retain power. Prof. Mearsheimer's claim the Orban's governing ideology is "illiberal democracy" might be the term Orban uses, but it is totally false and misleading. And his views of "national identity" are racist and imply a certain ugly historical eugenics. Mearsheimer's foreign policy views are solid, but this analysis is beneath him.
Mysteriously, he did not resist the results of a democratic election with the EU thumb firmly on the scale against him. Or not so mysterious, if you don’t believe Brussels propaganda. Liberal has become a dirtied word that is profoundly illiberal in its censorious actions and abandonment of responsibility to ordinary citizens.
How does Mearsheimer explain the fact that many "nations" that currently exist were, as Hitler once quipped, "created by administrators with rulers". Many of those "nations" have no real national identity in the classic sense, e.g. culture, religion, language, shared history, etc. I so many nations are fabrications of war treaties, etc, how can they have the motive force of real nationalism?
I'm a huge fan of of Professor Meisheimer, but I must push back, and hard, on the claims that Biden was in favor of open borders and that liberalism and universal human rights necessarily leads to a policy of open borders. I push back on empirical, policy, and theoretical grounds. I suggest that Prof. Mearsheimer defend these views in far more depth than he outlined on this podcast. Perhaps a debate with someone like Prof. Sachs or Norman Finkelstein would be enlightening.
When a president achieves low immigration during a strong job market then we will have a secure border…all presidents can have a seemingly secure border during a weak job market like we have now.
I withdraw this comment, which was written before I heard his last comments.
He has had a debate with Prof Sachs. Still on YouTube. Both brilliant but come from different schools of economic and geo political thought. I love both of them.
Me too. Can you provide a link?
The word liberal is too fluid to mean anything. What was once a virtue, is now a vice. Now liberal is like being catholic, you just have to claim to be liberal when needed. There is nothing liberal about democrats, liberal is the opposite of Christian, or Jew.
The use here is classic liberalism: open markets, universal human rights, rule of law.
Respectfully, there is such a thing as liberal nationalism. It involves the invocation of the "founding fathers", "manifest destiny", "spreading democracy", and "the arc of history bending towards justice".
The key thinker is Robert N. Bellah, especially his 1967 essay Civil Religion in America.
Also look to Benedict Anderson in his observation that nationalism operates as imagined community.
In order to remedy the things you’ve consistently and accurately pointed out requires good leadership. I agree with Howard Zinn when he said that real change comes from the bottom up, but not only do we not have enough time to make the required changes, unfortunately, people are idiots.
I think what I’ve put forth is the best way to try to navigate the next few years and beyond so as to make things as good as they can be for humans.
That’s why I’m running for President in 2028. And when I win, I will make sure that Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, Katie Halper, Cenk Uygur, Anna Kasparian, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Chas Freeman, Trita Parsi, Daniel Davis, Douglas MacGregor, many in Code Pink, many in Democracy Now, all of Judge Napolitano’s guests, Larry Johnson, many from the Electronic Intifada, Stephen Walt, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Pape, (Robert Monroe will be the Director of Culture), and others will be in my cabinet.
My presidential platform is outlined in my course, which is summarized in my two short films, viewable on my YouTube channel, kevinflynn2639.
The only way to turn the US’s aircraft carrier around and get it sailing in a much better direction is through the political process — and the only person who can pull that off is the President of the United States.
Just as the predictions of all of those mentioned above have consistently come true, so have mine. We are at a critical juncture. If we don’t play our cards right now, it’s curtains.
I predicted, some 30 years ago, that countries like China (and other smaller countries) would leapfrog the United States military by using high-technology methods such as drones.
I’d also seek the advice of experts like Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark, and Yoshua Bengio as to how to align AI.
It’s my thought that my course is the best heuristic for aligning AI, but I’d seek the advice of people more familiar with the actual mechanics of how AI works in order to make that determination.
Believe it or not, AI alignment is our biggest existential threat.
My “course” represents my platform, and it examines the roots of the problems we’ve created for ourselves. It determines the best way to solve these problems.
There is nothing wrong with talking about the problems. But what’s needed is an analysis of why they’ve occurred and, more importantly, how to steer our way out of them and set a course for a better tomorrow.
Won’t you help me in this quest?
Still no
The introduction examines the extremes. Give up and throw in the towel like George Carlin suggested. Or try to write the best history you can as Isaac Asimov suggested. In order to try to figure out how to frame the argument you need to understand what a theory is in the way Mearsheimer defines it.
That’s the introduction.
The first class was is framed as though your planning a road trip. If you’re planning a road trip the first thing you need to do is to determine your destination.
You are a typical politician...can't take no for an answer. I don't think you get what planet you're on. Let alone what country.
BTW: Most people are not idiots just the ones that still vote.
Please let me know if anyone out there would like to support my effort to run for President of the United States. I’m a generalist, but my general views on what we need to accomplish are exactly spot on. I have developed a platform that makes perfect sense. So if anyone is either interested in what I have to say or is interested in helping me, I’m all ears.
My foreign policy would generally follow the points of view of John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Daniel Davis, and Douglas Macgregor. My domestic policy would generally follow what Andrew Yang has to say. My policy on AI would generally follow what Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark, and Yoshua Bengio have to say.
My platform has been developed to a fairly precise degree of specificity, and it can be summed up by what I call the “Nice Formula” — S = I x E / N, where S equals sustainability, I equals interdependence, E equals empathy, and N equals narcissism (and noise).