Professor Mearsheimer, it is becoming frightening how right you are. Each year I revisit your lecture on Ukraine from 2014, and I think, well this sounds so reasonable, logic, why don’t they listen to him.
I agree Professor Mearsheimer is not in command of a major army, he has no nuclear weapon, but he is speaking the truth .
It seems your untiring approach, gentle, patient, logical, realistic way is finally bringing some results.
It’s almost like actual US foreign affairs people are listening to what you say.
Walter Rathenau, himself a jew, surely knew why he described his racial comrades in Germany as “an Asiatic horde on the sands of the Mark.”
God, who is holy to all peoples, who is infallible and unreachable, is described in the Talmud as a creature who is like a human, capable of error, changeable, unjust, dishonest, revengeful, and terrible, calling down troubles on himself. The talmud gives jew permission to do anything he likes to Gentiles, without any punishment.
He may cheat Gentiles, hurt them, rob them, he may rape Gentile women and children, in short, do anything he wants, for according to the talmud, a non-jew is not a human being, but an animal “who is of the same flesh as a donkey.” On the other hand, the cheating of one jew by another, or of his women or children, is harming or attacking God himself, for the jews are royal children.
In the Schulchan aruch, the real jewish law book, these things are affirmed and intensified. This book, too, is essentially concerned with how and in what ways Gentiles can be harmed, how they are to be treated, and especially how the “children of God,” the “royal children,” or as the jew Rathenau put it, the “Asiatic horde,” can bring their plans for world domination closer to reality.
When one remembers that these writings are put in the hands of fifteen-year-old jewish boys and girls and in part must be even memorized by them, even the last people’s comrade will understand that between us and the jewish element there is an unbridgeable chasm of racial differences, both in nature and character.
Trade war is war, not just an analogy with war. Trump is a trade warmonger.
I think Trump sees war in the old Bismarckian sense of realpolitik. He sees war as a means to an end, to be used as an extension of politics.
Trump isn't a liberal and it was liberals in the French Revolution who invented total war. Biden represented that total war tradition inherent in liberalism.
Liberal warfare is total because liberalism is transformative. Conservative warfare is realist because conservatism is performative.
Conservatives use war to make a point, they are acting out established roles aka status quo. Liberals use war to make a change, they are advancing progressive aims aka regime change.
Trump doesn't care about regime change, he does business with any regime as long as they don't threaten his own regime. But I don't think that makes him less of a warmonger than liberals like Biden. He just prefers to conduct war through the market rather than the military.
Liberals have a Napoleon complex. Trump has an Oedipus complex. Trump wants other regimes to remain other regimes, precisely because he wants his own regime to remain his own. Liberals want everyone to be the same height. Conservatives want the biggest penis among a range of penises.
But at the end of the day, they both want to screw the world for their own pleasure. Being a warmonger is like being a whoremonger. It's not a matter of degree but of taste.
I've overdone the metaphors, but you get the gist.
Because many people watch Piers Morgan show, who do not know the facts, about Gaza or Ukraine because they received their information from mainstream British media, who are in complete Gleichschaltung, russophobic and pro-zionist. Exposing these views as unrealistic because they are founded on lies, incorrect information, failed assessments is of great help to normal viewers.
I doubt it helps more than it hurts, but I guess maybe a few people see and hear enough to decide to look further. (The “hurt” being the fact that people like Mearsheimer and others add to Morgan’s popularity and so help him spread his BS.)
I did not care for this interview in regard to Israel and Palestine and felt the genocide Israel implemented became a backstory, as to what happens next with little to any discussion of retribution for Israel's crime of genocide. How are the Palestinians to live in North Gaza when Israel didn't even leave their dead to reside in peace, and the newly dead no doubt still lie under it's rubble. What bothers me is the indifference of the Israeli's to what their country was doing and our complicity in this carnage. If Israel is not made to own up to what it has done, nothing will change.
Professor Mearsheimer, you claim that there is no evidence in Putin's public speeches that he was going to annex the territory of Ukraine, with the exception of Donbass. But then how to interpret this quote from the address dated 02/24/2022?
"Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right to make a free choice."
Mostly Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, America first vs focusing on foreign countries, etc. Piers kept trying to pigeonhole him on these issues to avoid discussing them in a larger context.
Professor Mearsheimer, it is becoming frightening how right you are. Each year I revisit your lecture on Ukraine from 2014, and I think, well this sounds so reasonable, logic, why don’t they listen to him.
I agree Professor Mearsheimer is not in command of a major army, he has no nuclear weapon, but he is speaking the truth .
It seems your untiring approach, gentle, patient, logical, realistic way is finally bringing some results.
It’s almost like actual US foreign affairs people are listening to what you say.
Piers Morgan? Goddamn, anyone can get that bully pulpit in InBred UnUnited Queendom.
And so we just have more Yanqui's like John supporting this human stain.
Christ, listen in:
https://youtu.be/KEUElq-T5TI?si=e1iNORi4W5G8SBmv
Piers, the Zionist:
Walter Rathenau, himself a jew, surely knew why he described his racial comrades in Germany as “an Asiatic horde on the sands of the Mark.”
God, who is holy to all peoples, who is infallible and unreachable, is described in the Talmud as a creature who is like a human, capable of error, changeable, unjust, dishonest, revengeful, and terrible, calling down troubles on himself. The talmud gives jew permission to do anything he likes to Gentiles, without any punishment.
He may cheat Gentiles, hurt them, rob them, he may rape Gentile women and children, in short, do anything he wants, for according to the talmud, a non-jew is not a human being, but an animal “who is of the same flesh as a donkey.” On the other hand, the cheating of one jew by another, or of his women or children, is harming or attacking God himself, for the jews are royal children.
In the Schulchan aruch, the real jewish law book, these things are affirmed and intensified. This book, too, is essentially concerned with how and in what ways Gentiles can be harmed, how they are to be treated, and especially how the “children of God,” the “royal children,” or as the jew Rathenau put it, the “Asiatic horde,” can bring their plans for world domination closer to reality.
When one remembers that these writings are put in the hands of fifteen-year-old jewish boys and girls and in part must be even memorized by them, even the last people’s comrade will understand that between us and the jewish element there is an unbridgeable chasm of racial differences, both in nature and character.
Trade war is war, not just an analogy with war. Trump is a trade warmonger.
I think Trump sees war in the old Bismarckian sense of realpolitik. He sees war as a means to an end, to be used as an extension of politics.
Trump isn't a liberal and it was liberals in the French Revolution who invented total war. Biden represented that total war tradition inherent in liberalism.
Liberal warfare is total because liberalism is transformative. Conservative warfare is realist because conservatism is performative.
Conservatives use war to make a point, they are acting out established roles aka status quo. Liberals use war to make a change, they are advancing progressive aims aka regime change.
Trump doesn't care about regime change, he does business with any regime as long as they don't threaten his own regime. But I don't think that makes him less of a warmonger than liberals like Biden. He just prefers to conduct war through the market rather than the military.
Liberals have a Napoleon complex. Trump has an Oedipus complex. Trump wants other regimes to remain other regimes, precisely because he wants his own regime to remain his own. Liberals want everyone to be the same height. Conservatives want the biggest penis among a range of penises.
But at the end of the day, they both want to screw the world for their own pleasure. Being a warmonger is like being a whoremonger. It's not a matter of degree but of taste.
I've overdone the metaphors, but you get the gist.
I just can't stand listening to this humanoid with an accounting firm name.
I don’t see why anybody wastes the time talking to Piers Morgan. You could find intelligent opposition.
Because many people watch Piers Morgan show, who do not know the facts, about Gaza or Ukraine because they received their information from mainstream British media, who are in complete Gleichschaltung, russophobic and pro-zionist. Exposing these views as unrealistic because they are founded on lies, incorrect information, failed assessments is of great help to normal viewers.
I doubt it helps more than it hurts, but I guess maybe a few people see and hear enough to decide to look further. (The “hurt” being the fact that people like Mearsheimer and others add to Morgan’s popularity and so help him spread his BS.)
Why does the esteemed professor squander his precious time with a certified imbecile , who is no longer regarded seriously by anyone?
For the man ,this is routine , not to be regarded with any seriousness. I cesses watching him for the above reason, and many more will do so.
I did not care for this interview in regard to Israel and Palestine and felt the genocide Israel implemented became a backstory, as to what happens next with little to any discussion of retribution for Israel's crime of genocide. How are the Palestinians to live in North Gaza when Israel didn't even leave their dead to reside in peace, and the newly dead no doubt still lie under it's rubble. What bothers me is the indifference of the Israeli's to what their country was doing and our complicity in this carnage. If Israel is not made to own up to what it has done, nothing will change.
Great show! Prof Mearscheimer you were educating Piers Morgan and he appreciated it.
He did? How could you tell?
Professor Mearsheimer, you claim that there is no evidence in Putin's public speeches that he was going to annex the territory of Ukraine, with the exception of Donbass. But then how to interpret this quote from the address dated 02/24/2022?
"Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right to make a free choice."
Just something to keep in mind when watching Piers Morgan:
a) He has definitely forgotten everything he was told in his last interview.
b) Thinks that giving also the oppressor a platform means "uncensored."
c) Scapegoats the most unhinged voices (f.e: Ye & Bilzerian) to ridicule real and important movements.
Ugh, listened to Piers debate Tucker yesterday. Hard to stomach it. Let people talk.
What did they debate?
Mostly Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, America first vs focusing on foreign countries, etc. Piers kept trying to pigeonhole him on these issues to avoid discussing them in a larger context.
I'll find it. I like Tucker Carlson, but Pier's M. Is a turn off, since he adopts a rather arrogant attitude with little feeling.