On 11 July 2024, I talked with Judge Napolitano on his podcast — “Judging Freedom” — about Ukraine’s dire situation on the battlefield and its bleak political future.
John Mearsheimer will go down in History as one of the few western thinkers who had the courage and the wisdom to expose the west's ignorance and stupidity.
It's why his opinions are so appreciated around the world.
In the cold war era of vietnam and other calamities, there was George Kennan. Now we have John Mearsheimer. I fear Johns world is much more calamitous and dangerous than Georges ever was though. Amongst all those Pseudo= "experts" and MIC and state dept funded "think tanks" John stands alone on the summit of rationality and reason. He does not equivocate, he does not excuse and he does not retreat a single inch. I can count on one hand the thinkers I respect as much as I do John
He gets things right, absolutely, but he doesn't have the power to change the on going tragedy and horror that will continue, and perhaps be the end of us all. You would think that any sane person would adopt the same perspective on these issues as Mearsheimer, but no, since he speaks for only a minority in and out of power. Too bad!
Indeed, the elites just seem so hardened and frozen in the ice of their own indifference about the reality of the world.
It seems no one has the ability to look past the context of their own selfish partisan needs and wants. Leaders of the west have not been this extraordinarily weak, selfish and incompetent since the monarchs of the 19th century.
I think that it's important to understand that John Mearsheimer does not strive to expose the west's ignorance and stupidity. Instead, he applies his realist theories related to "great power geopolitics" and then reports outcomes, root causes and the like without bias. It just so happens that in today's world, the west, especially the US, is behaving in unprecedented ways. This behavior scares Professor Mearsheimer, as it scares Putin and Xi. Dealing with rational "competitors", even "enemies", is a difficult business, but when your "competitors" and "enemies" begin acting in irrational and unbalanced ways, pushing towards the abyss of world war, it's more than worrying. Rational leaders expect their counterparts to adopt policies and take actions to benefit their sovereign nations. The US and the western nations do NOT do so. You also have to keep in mind that since it's clear that Joe Biden is not running things in the US, there is a shadow government, and as the decision whether to replace Biden as a candidate is debated, it becomes clear who runs the shadow government. How many times have you seen headlines in the past week about "donors" who are going to withhold their support from Biden. The arrogance is unbelievable; it's in the face of the US public, who, as usual, accept the propaganda on their screens.
John Mearsheimer certainly does not strive to expose the West's ignorance and stupidity.
It just so happens that his views do allow us to see it.
One thing that has stood out for me and many others is the west's Hypocrisy and how delusional they are. I think they actually believe what comes out of their mouths.
Thank you, Doctor M. for keeping your eye on the two dangerous wars and crimes perpetrated by and supported by the USA with weapons and "advisors". Is this the best use of American dollars while Americans are suffering ever raising cost of living, lack of housing and mitigation of already dangerous climate crisis. Also i agree with a great percentage of American's belief that our continuous promotion of these and other wars is immoral and unethical. We will not be celebrated in future history if there is any history or future at all.
Bonnie I agree with much of what you say, but living in America, and talking to my fellow Americans has taught me one thing, most don't know what the hell is going on, and are almost totally brain washed by the media. During our Middles Eastern wars I was an active participant against all of them, even knowing most American's didn't give them a second thought, or supported them and adopted the lies spun by people like Bush, Cheney, Obama, or their favorite TV channel, or news outlet who were complicit in selling them.
John needs to reconsider his international relations theory in terms of 'realism' in postmodern Baudrillardrian terms of narrative hyperrealism: whereby those who think they wield 'power' cannot actually make any realistic appraisal of any given situation as they are too ideologically rooted in the echo chambers of their own propaganda which renders reality far too inconvenient for them to ever bothering to research to begin with.
Not according to the MSM. I take it you’re Canadian and buy into the same US, Canadian, UK Etc. globalism as Mearsheimer does. Its not working out. The imperialist West is losing the rest of the world and that really pisses you off doesn’t it.
I strongly disagree that Professor Mearsheimer has bought into "the US, Canadian, UK globalism". He applies his international relations theory indiscriminately. Of course as an American who served in the military, he DOES tend to side more with American interests, but he is quick to point out that he sees the policies and actions of the current US government as being antithetical to US interests. Your original comment is interesting, but there is some confusion about who you refer to when you say things like "those who think they wield power", "they are too ideologically rooted..." and "their own propaganda" Are you referring to western politicians here, or the puppet masters standing in the shadows, the "donors" and "media controllers" who actually create narratives?
Firstly, I think Mearsheimer fits within the historical definition of globalism very neatly.
“The modern concept of globalism arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States.[19] In their position of unprecedented power, planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which in economic terms meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. This was the period when its global power was at its peak: the United States was the greatest economic power the world had known, with the greatest military machine in history.[20] In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.”
This modern definition of globalism obviously went into overdrive following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and it squarely fits within the parameters of US Neoconservative philosophy. So, what I mean by those who think they wield power within these strict geopolitical terms and aims, I am thinking about Mearsheimer and all US Neocons [did you not notice he comes from the home of Neocons: the University of Chicago by the way?]. JM differs from the Neocons in one very important way in that whilst they are ALL Zionists he is not, but generally his philosophy fits quite comfortably within the parameters of Neocon globalist thought.
After the cold war when the US could have chosen an approach to pursue a US version of China's current co-operative belt and road initiative and helped lift the global south out of poverty by building infrastructure and helping them industrialize, they chose instead to follow a Machiavellian and Nietzschean path of evil following the teachings of Leo Strauss from the UoC, his student Paul Wolfowitz and the Wolfowitz doctrine of 1992 and the subsequent Project for a New American Century which directly developed from the doctrine. This is essentially all just more justifications and excuses for more US/Western imperialism and colonialism as it has developed since 1945 in the US and one can also incorporate Michael Hudson’s account of US finance imperialism as it developed in the same period in his book Super-Imperialism which charts how the $ came to global dominance as reserve currency post 1918.
All of these were designed to pursue and maintain a massively idealized notion of US 'power' domination which has led to the deaths of millions worldwide and millions and millions more in refugees fleeing to Europe and elsewhere. This phantom ''POWER' has not served US 'interests' and has not served Europe's or the West's 'interests'. These Machiavellian miscalculations have been nothing but a catastrophe for the whole world and have led to all manner of bizarre effects and side-effects which I cannot go into here.
So the question here is: is Mearsheimer a ‘realist’ in the sense that he claims or is he just another US super-power idealist who is occasionally obliged to admit to power’s failures when they cannot be simply brushed aside? If I look at the history of power than I can only see it as a history of power’s perpetual failures as a form of general historical abuse and that its very rare successes are largely accidental in nature. This has occurred simply because power’s absurd propositions are always based upon hubristic and arrogant assumptions which are themselves based in turn upon heavily reductive and simplistic models of how the world actually functions and this is true from geopolitical ambitions to economic or social ambitions, aims and intentions.
My argument here is that historically, it would been have been far better to analyse and acknowledge the essential limitations that consistently restrain any idealized power in order to rub power’s nose in its perpetual failures and bring it to its realistic senses. This would essentially deconstruct the integrity of power and force those who propose to ‘wield’ it to take a far more circumspect view as to what is genuinely desirable and achievable and what is not. JM cannot do this in so much as he is so ideologically committed to a heavily idealized view of how power and super-powers function and that despite acknowledging occasional power failures, contradictions and contra-indicators along the way he always returns to the idealized notion of power without ever putting its functioning into radical question in terms of its general mal-functioning.
If the US had taken such a deconstructed view and been rationally and realistically circumspect and about the potentials and scope of its ambitions then post 1991 we could really have had a co-operative world-wide peace dividend which we can arguably suggest is currently taking place in Russia’s and China’s approach to BRICS and the global south. China and Russia do not have over 800 military bases around the world and they do not try and project any hard power in the military or financial sense other than the fact that China and Russia possess enough nuclear weapons in order to neutralize US power ambitions within the traditional framework of ‘détente’.
There are many different directions I could move on to from this point. In terms of my original short paragraph the most relevant would be to say that if you accept my historical critique of the limitations and essential mal-functioning of power [and by no means do you have to] then I would further complicate my analysis by introducing the negative effects that the systemic integration of propaganda into the day to day business of Western governance has had since 1980 and the shift from materialist and measurable industrial capitalism to immaterialist and immeasurable Neoliberal finance capitalism [Michael Hudson has done the best realistic work on that topic].
What do I mean by ‘propaganda’? In short I mean any governmental attempt by government, corporation and the media establishment etc. to distort reality and that this has inevitably led as Baudrillard observes to the Western elite and media living in a distorted, corrupted and delusional bubble of hyperreality as a disinformational echo chamber of their own largely unconscious making. By propaganda I do not mean it in extremis such as posters of German soldiers bayonetting babies at the start of WW1 or Hamas decapitating babies and generally raping Israeli women in 2023. I mean propaganda in the far broader sense as laid out by Edward Bernays in his 1933 book ‘Propaganda’ which explains it not only in terms of the blatant lies of war propaganda but also the more subtle forms of public relations, marketing and advertising. He also provides within the first few pages a definition of the deep state you refer to so it will be worth a read to you. I provide the link to a PDF below. I will try and write part 2 tomorrow. If you think everything I say is worthless then please let me know as I will be thankful in so much as I need not waste my time any further.
I imagine my comment was 'confusing' in so much as I restricted it to one very short paragraph when we are dealing with exponentially complex ideas in all of this. Nonetheless, I will address your concerns at length and get back to you to give you a fuller understanding of precisely what I mean and how I have come to think the way I do. Have a little patience, this will likely take a day or two.
Dear Muse, you might have inspired me. Thanks for your supportive comment. I realize that it was a very enigmatic short paragraph that required some thinking to process. I have put in part 1 of a more detailed explanation to Paul Malfara' s response if you are interested.
Prof. Mearsheimer often acknowledges that states don't follow his framework, specifically where PACs have power (eg Israel lobby). Would that be an example of a Baudrillardrian propagandistic echo chamber?
Once you have done that forget the term 'The Postmodern Critique' and substitute Michael Hudson's critique of the transition from materialist realistic industrial capitalism to Buardillard's critique of immaterialist hyperreal Neoliberal finance capitalism with all of its failings and then realize that the American Psycho in question is not Patrick Bateman the lead character in the film as an individual but moreover that he is merely a symbolic representation of a psychopathic US neoliberal, neoconservative foreign policy and the damage that has done to the world.
The damage inflicted by the Zionist entity on the Palestinian population is immeasurable, in the long term it will also be for the US. The parasitic Zionist lobby has poisoned American politics to its roots.
One would hope that those who are in positions of ultimate power would rise above their selfish, perceived self interested interests and do that which is obviously on the right side of history but all too often they’re driven by their narcissism, more formally known as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Unfortunately NPD is a fixed personality disorder which basically means that there’s not much in the way of therapy that will help these poor souls. This is all spelled out in my “course” which is a one stop shop as to how we should best try to manage our affairs so that our actions will give us the best chance at avoiding catastrophe.
I was a clinical counselor for a number of years combined with a background in marine biology which I taught, so narcissism isn't something new to me in the clinical setting, or in my own personal life. What is your background in this area?
My ex-wife is a covert narcissist and she engaged in parental alienation. As a result of this I read just about everything there is to read about both narcissism and parental alienation. Parental alienation is always perpetrated by a narcissist. In my “course” I identify where we should try to get to as both individuals and as a species, which is what I refer to as “nice”. “Nice” in a nutshell is a combination of what the Dalai Lama describes as compassion coupled with the Harvard study on happiness which has proven that social interaction and meaningful relationships is what makes people happy. What we want to avoid is allowing narcissists to run the show and that “class” in my “course” reviews the work of M. Scott Peck, Frank Yoemans, Brian Klaas and Jason Stanley. There’s more to my course but what’s interesting is that in the current presidential race we have the choice between a covert narcissist and an overt narcissist, both of whom are not good.
Brilliant! Thank you Professor Mearsheimer and thank you Judge for bringing him onto your program. If only every American could hear this honest analysis.
Note also - 'Prime Minister Keir Starmer recommits to £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030/31 and for as long as needed.' (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-stand-with-ukraine-for-as-long-as-it-takes-pm-to-tell-nato). Apparently there is no money here in the UK to spend on hospitals, schools, the Police, roads & rail infrastructure, but there is room in the budget to making an indefinite commitment to give £3 billion a year to Ukraine. Presumably missiles? The 'British Army has just 157 Challenger 2 tanks available for operations. The paper fleet of 227 vehicles has been reduced due to cannibalisation of platforms for spares, raising further concerns over the size of the UK’s land forces.' (https://www.army-technology.com/news/british-army-has-just-157-challenger-2-tanks-available-for-operations/). So, it appears that money is being spent on Ukraine but not on Britain's armed forces. The new Labour Government is not contributing anything to UNWRA. Gaza & Lebanon were as I understand it not even discussed at the recent NATO meeting. I asked one of my contacts on LinkedIn who attended & is a cultural heritage professional whether 'any question had been raised about protecting/preventing the destruction of Cultural Heritage in Lebanon' - which Israel have threatened to bomb back to the stone age. I have as yet to receive an an answer. I suspect that Gaza & Lebanon were not on the agenda? This is odd if NATO sees itself as being a global force capable of projecting power to Asia, as Gaza & Lebanon are on NATO's door-step & Cyprus is a full member of the EU. So, what are the strategic objectives of NATO & their political masters. More pertinently, who is pulling the strings of NATO's political masters?
I calculate that the death exchange ratio = 250,000 Palestinians divided by 455.60 Israelis (excluding the unknown number of IDF soldiers killed in Gaza & the unknown number of Israelis killed by the IDF in Gaza since October 2023). This yields a ratio of 548 Palestinian lives for 1 Israeli life, i.e. a ratio of 1:548. So, as a SLC, the entire population of Gaza will theoretically be dead in 6.3 years, i.e. sometime in 2030. Statistically, on this SLC, the entire population of Gaza will cease to exist before 2030. That is because the SLC must be adjusted to take account of the fact that the percentage of the population killed increases every month as the total number of survivors of the holocaust decreases. Other factors may also result in a sudden increase in deaths e.g. from starvation. For the calculation see my blog '250,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over 9 month (12.07.2024)’ on the 'International Humanitarian Law' page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.
In my humble opinion John Mearsheimer has the international relations part of the puzzle figured out to a “T”. He’s nailed it. But that’s only about 25% of what we’re up against as a species. The other 75% is what’s known as the metacrisis. And with the advent of artificial intelligence all of our problems are going to be increased and magnified. The pace at which they’re coming at us will also be increased. So that’s why, just as we need the theory of offensive realism to simplify and explain IR, we need a bigger more comprehensive, all encompassing theory or “course” to help us to be able to simplify to entire constellation of problems we’re facing so that we can try to wrap our minds around it all. And if that “course” also helps us to come up with a comprehensive plan which makes for a viable way to solve all of those problems wouldn’t that be great! And that’s what my “course” does.
(There are some additional comments regarding my “course” further down in the discussion)…
Why are we as a collective allowing and furthering such bloodshed in Ukraine....what other political factions are pushing us to push further? Yo Machi V Man,,,,,what does thou Throne have to say to Such out of the current arena commentary.......
I hope to be able to share my “course” with all of you when it’s complete. What we as a species should be trying to achieve is to make what has been proven to make people happy. What has proven to make people happy is compassion, social interaction and meaningful relationships. That should be our goal. That should be our destination. What we want to avoid is nastiness and allowing narcissists to run the show. That’s what we should be trying to avoid. The religions that so many people have bought into that are based on superstition should be replaced by my “course” which is based on rationality, reasonableness and trying to strive for that which makes us happy rather than that which is nasty. And so, without writing a dissertation, my “course” serves as an excellent political platform. It serves as an excellent non-religious religion. And it also serves as a very good basis for an operating system for artificial intelligence. With the use of my “course” as a basis upon which to make a cogent, coherent argument I would be more than glad to debate anyone on any subject.
Israel has only responded to attacks by terrorists or when missiles are launched at its civilians. The charge of genocide is unfounded, given that the Palestinian population has grown exponentially over the decades. The only attempt at genocide occurred on October 7 when Hamas terrorists and Gazan civilians, with enthusiasm, went on an unbounded killing spree, targeting women, babies, and families asleep, among others.
The Hannibal Directive is an IDF protocol to prevent its soldiers from being kidnapped, even if it means risking its own soldiers' lives.
For seven decades Israel has tried to make peace with the Palestinians with each having its own state. For seven decades they have been rejected. The plight of the Palestinian people is directly due to the horrific treatment they face from their corrupt terrorist leaders.
John Mearsheimer will go down in History as one of the few western thinkers who had the courage and the wisdom to expose the west's ignorance and stupidity.
It's why his opinions are so appreciated around the world.
In the cold war era of vietnam and other calamities, there was George Kennan. Now we have John Mearsheimer. I fear Johns world is much more calamitous and dangerous than Georges ever was though. Amongst all those Pseudo= "experts" and MIC and state dept funded "think tanks" John stands alone on the summit of rationality and reason. He does not equivocate, he does not excuse and he does not retreat a single inch. I can count on one hand the thinkers I respect as much as I do John
He gets things right, absolutely, but he doesn't have the power to change the on going tragedy and horror that will continue, and perhaps be the end of us all. You would think that any sane person would adopt the same perspective on these issues as Mearsheimer, but no, since he speaks for only a minority in and out of power. Too bad!
Indeed, the elites just seem so hardened and frozen in the ice of their own indifference about the reality of the world.
It seems no one has the ability to look past the context of their own selfish partisan needs and wants. Leaders of the west have not been this extraordinarily weak, selfish and incompetent since the monarchs of the 19th century.
Unfortunately at the rate we’re going rather than taking his good advice it will only go down in history. Which is a tragedy.
I think that it's important to understand that John Mearsheimer does not strive to expose the west's ignorance and stupidity. Instead, he applies his realist theories related to "great power geopolitics" and then reports outcomes, root causes and the like without bias. It just so happens that in today's world, the west, especially the US, is behaving in unprecedented ways. This behavior scares Professor Mearsheimer, as it scares Putin and Xi. Dealing with rational "competitors", even "enemies", is a difficult business, but when your "competitors" and "enemies" begin acting in irrational and unbalanced ways, pushing towards the abyss of world war, it's more than worrying. Rational leaders expect their counterparts to adopt policies and take actions to benefit their sovereign nations. The US and the western nations do NOT do so. You also have to keep in mind that since it's clear that Joe Biden is not running things in the US, there is a shadow government, and as the decision whether to replace Biden as a candidate is debated, it becomes clear who runs the shadow government. How many times have you seen headlines in the past week about "donors" who are going to withhold their support from Biden. The arrogance is unbelievable; it's in the face of the US public, who, as usual, accept the propaganda on their screens.
I agree with you Paul for the most part on that.
John Mearsheimer certainly does not strive to expose the West's ignorance and stupidity.
It just so happens that his views do allow us to see it.
One thing that has stood out for me and many others is the west's Hypocrisy and how delusional they are. I think they actually believe what comes out of their mouths.
Thank you, Doctor M. for keeping your eye on the two dangerous wars and crimes perpetrated by and supported by the USA with weapons and "advisors". Is this the best use of American dollars while Americans are suffering ever raising cost of living, lack of housing and mitigation of already dangerous climate crisis. Also i agree with a great percentage of American's belief that our continuous promotion of these and other wars is immoral and unethical. We will not be celebrated in future history if there is any history or future at all.
Bonnie I agree with much of what you say, but living in America, and talking to my fellow Americans has taught me one thing, most don't know what the hell is going on, and are almost totally brain washed by the media. During our Middles Eastern wars I was an active participant against all of them, even knowing most American's didn't give them a second thought, or supported them and adopted the lies spun by people like Bush, Cheney, Obama, or their favorite TV channel, or news outlet who were complicit in selling them.
Well said.
John needs to reconsider his international relations theory in terms of 'realism' in postmodern Baudrillardrian terms of narrative hyperrealism: whereby those who think they wield 'power' cannot actually make any realistic appraisal of any given situation as they are too ideologically rooted in the echo chambers of their own propaganda which renders reality far too inconvenient for them to ever bothering to research to begin with.
The question is: Who knows who Mr. Simon Hodges is anyway?
On the other hand........John Mearsheimer has a much valued world reputation.
Not according to the MSM. I take it you’re Canadian and buy into the same US, Canadian, UK Etc. globalism as Mearsheimer does. Its not working out. The imperialist West is losing the rest of the world and that really pisses you off doesn’t it.
I strongly disagree that Professor Mearsheimer has bought into "the US, Canadian, UK globalism". He applies his international relations theory indiscriminately. Of course as an American who served in the military, he DOES tend to side more with American interests, but he is quick to point out that he sees the policies and actions of the current US government as being antithetical to US interests. Your original comment is interesting, but there is some confusion about who you refer to when you say things like "those who think they wield power", "they are too ideologically rooted..." and "their own propaganda" Are you referring to western politicians here, or the puppet masters standing in the shadows, the "donors" and "media controllers" who actually create narratives?
My reply part 1.
Firstly, I think Mearsheimer fits within the historical definition of globalism very neatly.
“The modern concept of globalism arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States.[19] In their position of unprecedented power, planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which in economic terms meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. This was the period when its global power was at its peak: the United States was the greatest economic power the world had known, with the greatest military machine in history.[20] In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
This modern definition of globalism obviously went into overdrive following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and it squarely fits within the parameters of US Neoconservative philosophy. So, what I mean by those who think they wield power within these strict geopolitical terms and aims, I am thinking about Mearsheimer and all US Neocons [did you not notice he comes from the home of Neocons: the University of Chicago by the way?]. JM differs from the Neocons in one very important way in that whilst they are ALL Zionists he is not, but generally his philosophy fits quite comfortably within the parameters of Neocon globalist thought.
After the cold war when the US could have chosen an approach to pursue a US version of China's current co-operative belt and road initiative and helped lift the global south out of poverty by building infrastructure and helping them industrialize, they chose instead to follow a Machiavellian and Nietzschean path of evil following the teachings of Leo Strauss from the UoC, his student Paul Wolfowitz and the Wolfowitz doctrine of 1992 and the subsequent Project for a New American Century which directly developed from the doctrine. This is essentially all just more justifications and excuses for more US/Western imperialism and colonialism as it has developed since 1945 in the US and one can also incorporate Michael Hudson’s account of US finance imperialism as it developed in the same period in his book Super-Imperialism which charts how the $ came to global dominance as reserve currency post 1918.
All of these were designed to pursue and maintain a massively idealized notion of US 'power' domination which has led to the deaths of millions worldwide and millions and millions more in refugees fleeing to Europe and elsewhere. This phantom ''POWER' has not served US 'interests' and has not served Europe's or the West's 'interests'. These Machiavellian miscalculations have been nothing but a catastrophe for the whole world and have led to all manner of bizarre effects and side-effects which I cannot go into here.
So the question here is: is Mearsheimer a ‘realist’ in the sense that he claims or is he just another US super-power idealist who is occasionally obliged to admit to power’s failures when they cannot be simply brushed aside? If I look at the history of power than I can only see it as a history of power’s perpetual failures as a form of general historical abuse and that its very rare successes are largely accidental in nature. This has occurred simply because power’s absurd propositions are always based upon hubristic and arrogant assumptions which are themselves based in turn upon heavily reductive and simplistic models of how the world actually functions and this is true from geopolitical ambitions to economic or social ambitions, aims and intentions.
My argument here is that historically, it would been have been far better to analyse and acknowledge the essential limitations that consistently restrain any idealized power in order to rub power’s nose in its perpetual failures and bring it to its realistic senses. This would essentially deconstruct the integrity of power and force those who propose to ‘wield’ it to take a far more circumspect view as to what is genuinely desirable and achievable and what is not. JM cannot do this in so much as he is so ideologically committed to a heavily idealized view of how power and super-powers function and that despite acknowledging occasional power failures, contradictions and contra-indicators along the way he always returns to the idealized notion of power without ever putting its functioning into radical question in terms of its general mal-functioning.
If the US had taken such a deconstructed view and been rationally and realistically circumspect and about the potentials and scope of its ambitions then post 1991 we could really have had a co-operative world-wide peace dividend which we can arguably suggest is currently taking place in Russia’s and China’s approach to BRICS and the global south. China and Russia do not have over 800 military bases around the world and they do not try and project any hard power in the military or financial sense other than the fact that China and Russia possess enough nuclear weapons in order to neutralize US power ambitions within the traditional framework of ‘détente’.
There are many different directions I could move on to from this point. In terms of my original short paragraph the most relevant would be to say that if you accept my historical critique of the limitations and essential mal-functioning of power [and by no means do you have to] then I would further complicate my analysis by introducing the negative effects that the systemic integration of propaganda into the day to day business of Western governance has had since 1980 and the shift from materialist and measurable industrial capitalism to immaterialist and immeasurable Neoliberal finance capitalism [Michael Hudson has done the best realistic work on that topic].
What do I mean by ‘propaganda’? In short I mean any governmental attempt by government, corporation and the media establishment etc. to distort reality and that this has inevitably led as Baudrillard observes to the Western elite and media living in a distorted, corrupted and delusional bubble of hyperreality as a disinformational echo chamber of their own largely unconscious making. By propaganda I do not mean it in extremis such as posters of German soldiers bayonetting babies at the start of WW1 or Hamas decapitating babies and generally raping Israeli women in 2023. I mean propaganda in the far broader sense as laid out by Edward Bernays in his 1933 book ‘Propaganda’ which explains it not only in terms of the blatant lies of war propaganda but also the more subtle forms of public relations, marketing and advertising. He also provides within the first few pages a definition of the deep state you refer to so it will be worth a read to you. I provide the link to a PDF below. I will try and write part 2 tomorrow. If you think everything I say is worthless then please let me know as I will be thankful in so much as I need not waste my time any further.
https://ia802306.us.archive.org/16/items/bernays-edward-l.-propaganda-1928-1936_202107/Bernays%2C%20Edward%20L.%20-%20Propaganda%20%5B1928%5D%5B1936%5D.pdf
Thanks for your comment Paul.
I imagine my comment was 'confusing' in so much as I restricted it to one very short paragraph when we are dealing with exponentially complex ideas in all of this. Nonetheless, I will address your concerns at length and get back to you to give you a fuller understanding of precisely what I mean and how I have come to think the way I do. Have a little patience, this will likely take a day or two.
John speaks the truth!
Wow!! that was deep,,,,,I think Astute....and it took me a while to comprehend.....maybe that's the problem....not sticking to FACTS
Dear Muse, you might have inspired me. Thanks for your supportive comment. I realize that it was a very enigmatic short paragraph that required some thinking to process. I have put in part 1 of a more detailed explanation to Paul Malfara' s response if you are interested.
Prof. Mearsheimer often acknowledges that states don't follow his framework, specifically where PACs have power (eg Israel lobby). Would that be an example of a Baudrillardrian propagandistic echo chamber?
Hi Luke
Watch this video about a Baudrillardrian analysis of the film 'American Psycho'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJfurfb5_kw
Once you have done that forget the term 'The Postmodern Critique' and substitute Michael Hudson's critique of the transition from materialist realistic industrial capitalism to Buardillard's critique of immaterialist hyperreal Neoliberal finance capitalism with all of its failings and then realize that the American Psycho in question is not Patrick Bateman the lead character in the film as an individual but moreover that he is merely a symbolic representation of a psychopathic US neoliberal, neoconservative foreign policy and the damage that has done to the world.
The damage inflicted by the Zionist entity on the Palestinian population is immeasurable, in the long term it will also be for the US. The parasitic Zionist lobby has poisoned American politics to its roots.
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is the root cause of all of these problems.
I do think that many who seek power, acquire power, will sell their souls to keep it.
OF course.
One would hope that those who are in positions of ultimate power would rise above their selfish, perceived self interested interests and do that which is obviously on the right side of history but all too often they’re driven by their narcissism, more formally known as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Unfortunately NPD is a fixed personality disorder which basically means that there’s not much in the way of therapy that will help these poor souls. This is all spelled out in my “course” which is a one stop shop as to how we should best try to manage our affairs so that our actions will give us the best chance at avoiding catastrophe.
I was a clinical counselor for a number of years combined with a background in marine biology which I taught, so narcissism isn't something new to me in the clinical setting, or in my own personal life. What is your background in this area?
My ex-wife is a covert narcissist and she engaged in parental alienation. As a result of this I read just about everything there is to read about both narcissism and parental alienation. Parental alienation is always perpetrated by a narcissist. In my “course” I identify where we should try to get to as both individuals and as a species, which is what I refer to as “nice”. “Nice” in a nutshell is a combination of what the Dalai Lama describes as compassion coupled with the Harvard study on happiness which has proven that social interaction and meaningful relationships is what makes people happy. What we want to avoid is allowing narcissists to run the show and that “class” in my “course” reviews the work of M. Scott Peck, Frank Yoemans, Brian Klaas and Jason Stanley. There’s more to my course but what’s interesting is that in the current presidential race we have the choice between a covert narcissist and an overt narcissist, both of whom are not good.
Especially when it drives megalomania, as it has American presidents post-JFK.
🎶🎼 I heard a Boomer cry… it was the night NATO died… 🎶🎶 lala la la lah lah…🎶🎼
Does Dr. Mearsheimer actually post here, or just recycle videos from other channels on which he appears?
Brilliant! Thank you Professor Mearsheimer and thank you Judge for bringing him onto your program. If only every American could hear this honest analysis.
Mr mearsheimer should appear more often on western media outlets!
Note also - 'Prime Minister Keir Starmer recommits to £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030/31 and for as long as needed.' (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-stand-with-ukraine-for-as-long-as-it-takes-pm-to-tell-nato). Apparently there is no money here in the UK to spend on hospitals, schools, the Police, roads & rail infrastructure, but there is room in the budget to making an indefinite commitment to give £3 billion a year to Ukraine. Presumably missiles? The 'British Army has just 157 Challenger 2 tanks available for operations. The paper fleet of 227 vehicles has been reduced due to cannibalisation of platforms for spares, raising further concerns over the size of the UK’s land forces.' (https://www.army-technology.com/news/british-army-has-just-157-challenger-2-tanks-available-for-operations/). So, it appears that money is being spent on Ukraine but not on Britain's armed forces. The new Labour Government is not contributing anything to UNWRA. Gaza & Lebanon were as I understand it not even discussed at the recent NATO meeting. I asked one of my contacts on LinkedIn who attended & is a cultural heritage professional whether 'any question had been raised about protecting/preventing the destruction of Cultural Heritage in Lebanon' - which Israel have threatened to bomb back to the stone age. I have as yet to receive an an answer. I suspect that Gaza & Lebanon were not on the agenda? This is odd if NATO sees itself as being a global force capable of projecting power to Asia, as Gaza & Lebanon are on NATO's door-step & Cyprus is a full member of the EU. So, what are the strategic objectives of NATO & their political masters. More pertinently, who is pulling the strings of NATO's political masters?
I calculate that the death exchange ratio = 250,000 Palestinians divided by 455.60 Israelis (excluding the unknown number of IDF soldiers killed in Gaza & the unknown number of Israelis killed by the IDF in Gaza since October 2023). This yields a ratio of 548 Palestinian lives for 1 Israeli life, i.e. a ratio of 1:548. So, as a SLC, the entire population of Gaza will theoretically be dead in 6.3 years, i.e. sometime in 2030. Statistically, on this SLC, the entire population of Gaza will cease to exist before 2030. That is because the SLC must be adjusted to take account of the fact that the percentage of the population killed increases every month as the total number of survivors of the holocaust decreases. Other factors may also result in a sudden increase in deaths e.g. from starvation. For the calculation see my blog '250,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over 9 month (12.07.2024)’ on the 'International Humanitarian Law' page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.
Jordan Peterson was also right in 2022:
‘Naïve’ to think Russia will lose war, says Dr Jordan Peterson (Sep 22, 2022)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia
In my humble opinion John Mearsheimer has the international relations part of the puzzle figured out to a “T”. He’s nailed it. But that’s only about 25% of what we’re up against as a species. The other 75% is what’s known as the metacrisis. And with the advent of artificial intelligence all of our problems are going to be increased and magnified. The pace at which they’re coming at us will also be increased. So that’s why, just as we need the theory of offensive realism to simplify and explain IR, we need a bigger more comprehensive, all encompassing theory or “course” to help us to be able to simplify to entire constellation of problems we’re facing so that we can try to wrap our minds around it all. And if that “course” also helps us to come up with a comprehensive plan which makes for a viable way to solve all of those problems wouldn’t that be great! And that’s what my “course” does.
(There are some additional comments regarding my “course” further down in the discussion)…
Why are we as a collective allowing and furthering such bloodshed in Ukraine....what other political factions are pushing us to push further? Yo Machi V Man,,,,,what does thou Throne have to say to Such out of the current arena commentary.......
I hope to be able to share my “course” with all of you when it’s complete. What we as a species should be trying to achieve is to make what has been proven to make people happy. What has proven to make people happy is compassion, social interaction and meaningful relationships. That should be our goal. That should be our destination. What we want to avoid is nastiness and allowing narcissists to run the show. That’s what we should be trying to avoid. The religions that so many people have bought into that are based on superstition should be replaced by my “course” which is based on rationality, reasonableness and trying to strive for that which makes us happy rather than that which is nasty. And so, without writing a dissertation, my “course” serves as an excellent political platform. It serves as an excellent non-religious religion. And it also serves as a very good basis for an operating system for artificial intelligence. With the use of my “course” as a basis upon which to make a cogent, coherent argument I would be more than glad to debate anyone on any subject.
Israel has only responded to attacks by terrorists or when missiles are launched at its civilians. The charge of genocide is unfounded, given that the Palestinian population has grown exponentially over the decades. The only attempt at genocide occurred on October 7 when Hamas terrorists and Gazan civilians, with enthusiasm, went on an unbounded killing spree, targeting women, babies, and families asleep, among others.
The Hannibal Directive is an IDF protocol to prevent its soldiers from being kidnapped, even if it means risking its own soldiers' lives.
For seven decades Israel has tried to make peace with the Palestinians with each having its own state. For seven decades they have been rejected. The plight of the Palestinian people is directly due to the horrific treatment they face from their corrupt terrorist leaders.