John Mearsheimer on The Current World Order

It is a fantastic, refreshing perspective on the conflicts going on in the world



I know it is a long conversation (3,5h) I'm only 1,5 h in but boy that guy is smart!!!

John Joseph Mearsheimer (/ˈmɪərʃaɪmər/; born December 14, 1947) is an American political scientist and international relations scholar who belongs to the realist school of thought.[3] He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.
He has been described as the most influential realist of his generation.[4] Mearsheimer is best known for developing the theory of offensive realism, which describes the interaction between great powers as being primarily driven by the rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system.
In accordance with his theory, Mearsheimer believes that China's growing power will likely bring it into conflict with the United States.

wiki

You won't for sure find that kind of honesty in analysing anywhere in the popular media, nevertheless many interesting discussion points.

It's divided into chapters so you can navigate through the video if you ain't got the time to do it in one run.

where Mearsheimer is coming from, in a nutshell:

Main tenets The theory is grounded on five central assumptions similar to the ones that lie at the core of Kenneth Waltz's defensive neorealism. These are:[10][11]

* Great powers are the main actors in world politics and the international system is anarchical
* All states possess some offensive military capability
* States can never be certain of the intentions of other states
* States have survival as their primary goal
* States are rational actors, capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival

Like defensive neorealism, offensive realism posits an anarchic international system in which rational great powers uncertain of other states' intentions and capable of military offensive strive to survive.[12][13] Although initially developed from similar propositions to those of defensive neorealism, Mearsheimer's offensive neorealism advances drastically different predictions regarding great power behaviour in international politics.[14][15]

Mainly, it diverges from defensive neorealism in regards to the accumulation of power a state needs to possess to ensure its security and the issuing of strategy states pursue to meet this satisfactory level of security. Ultimately, Mearsheimer's offensive neorealism draws a much more pessimistic picture of international politics characterised by dangerous inter-state security competition likely leading to conflict and war.[16][17]

wiki2

a reply to: FurPerson

I did read his 2001 book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. But that was years ago, and I don't have the book any more. The part I remember most is the seeking of regional hegemony and the attempting to prevent others from achieving it.

a reply to: FurPerson

Ahh to bad on its on Lex podcast, so thanks for the wiki and break down. I use to like him from the robotics stand, but the more I heard him speak the more he sounded like a shill for the deepstate (AKA unknown entity behind the scenes) and the narratives being pushed. Always downplaying the corruption going on and dismissive of it .

a reply to: FurPerson

I listened to it over the weekend. It was interesting.

a reply to: FurPerson

Ping for later.

Fascinating.

I'm of the thought we need to progress.

a reply to: interupt42

i also don't agree on pretty much anything they say. lol That is not the purpose of 'exploring intelligent views of people familiar with the matter'.

it is still totally worth the time and very thought provoking

a reply to: FurPerson

it is still totally worth the time and very thought provoking

I skipped ahead to the Israel-Palestine section.
I agree 100% with Mearsheimer's position.

1:55 The Israel Lobby, agree 100%
2:04 Netanyahu's "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism" is used to silence criticism of Israel.
2:09 Mearsheimer "It's not in the Israel lobby's interest to have an open discourse about what the Israelis have been doing in Palestine since about 1903."
The charge of antisemitism is the great silencer. 2:10:45

As of 2016, I am now antisemitic according to the U.S. government, due to the official adoption of a definition by the State Department. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am now in the company of a large percentage of anti-Zionist Jews from 1890s right through to today.

The only question is: Will I self censor or not?
Yet to be decided.

In my opinion: Broadening the definition of antisemitism increases rather than reduces actual antisemitism (Judenhass).

a reply to: FullHeathen

lol that's funny. Because what I am reading in your post is: that panders to my bias so 'I agree 100%'

however that doesn't change the fact that you completely ignore the fundamental aspect of his position:
the lobby industry is what rules the US; and not even in the 'Israel lobby' things are what they seem, as it is mostly made up of pro-apocalypse Evangelists.

Because you also ignore the huge major premise Mearsheimer is taking his position from: that in the global arena we have an anarchy with the strongest motivation of every player being 'survival'.

Anti-Zionist views alright cool, sadly there is no alternative to guarantee the survival of Jewish people aside from allowing them to fight for their own protected state that will guarantee said survival.

And as long as you can't provide an alternative solution to that primary need your position is in reallity just pointless virtue signaling.

a reply to: FurPerson

you completely ignore the fundamental aspect of his position:
the lobby industry is what rules the US; and not even in the 'Israel lobby' things are what they seem, as it is mostly made up of pro-apocalypse Evangelists.

Mearsheimer does not ignore the fact that Zionist Christians are a large part of the Israel lobby and neither do I.

Anti-Zionist views alright cool, sadly there is no alternative to guarantee the survival of Jewish people aside from allowing them to fight for their own protected state that will guarantee said survival.

They survived centuries before Zionism even came into existence in the late 1800s. Post WWII, every country is required to protect it's citizens and residents. There was no need to make their own country. Are Jews not protected? Hasn't the U.S. poured much resources into protecting Synagogues and Jewish centers?

I don't believe in any ontological difference in the humanity of Jews and Gentiles. Should I pretend like I do? People with a label. That's all. People in the U.S. have self determination through democratic process. There is no guarantee that each person's label will be a majority opinion. Israel wants a guarantee which no other democracy has. They want to be exceptional in that regard.

I see no reason that I should think that is okay. It's a foreign country. I don't think it's virtue signaling particularly to not approve of the policies of a foreign country. It shouldn't matter to anyone what I think.

And with that, I do believe I am done expressing my opinion.

a reply to: FullHeathen

don't believe in any ontological difference in the humanity of Jews and Gentiles.

that's exactly the problem though because a majority of Muslims and Christians do. So good for you if you can see people are people, alas when you venture out into reality you'll be shocked how lonely we are with that view

I haven’t quite finished the entire video yet (kid interruptions).

But got that it’s a global “King of the Mountain — he who has the most toys wins (power/money/protection).

Def not a World Peace in the classical sense.

best one can hope for is a sort of equilibrium I'd think.
but personally I am a total liberal globalist and still believe that what Mearsheimer calls too one sided, our global institutions, is the only way to ensure some sort of global cooperation.
Would be just really handy if we'd have a common adversary like ALIEN!s... lol

a reply to: Annee

originally posted by: FurPerson
best one can hope for is a sort of equilibrium I'd think.
but personally I am a total liberal globalist and still believe that what Mearsheimer calls too one sided, our global institutions, is the only way to ensure some sort of global cooperation.
Would be just really handy if we'd have a common adversary like ALIEN!s... lol

a reply to: Annee

I lean toward agreeing with him — reluctantly.

The “island test”: I give you an island. You are responsible for everything that happens on your island. All decisions are yours. There’s only one catch. You have no say in who lives on the island. You’re going to have different cultures, different races, different intelligent levels, etc. How are you going to govern your island?

So far everyone’s become a dictator with a gun.

The “Right is Right” group who spout personal freedoms — mean only those they agree with.