Book Launch: The Great Delusion

The CSIS Transnational Threats Project cordially invites you to a book launch event for John J. Mearsheimer’s newly released The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Yale University Press). A limited number of copies of The Great Delusion will be sold at the event, and Dr. Mearsheimer will sign them following the discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to our channel: cs.is/2dCfTve
CSIS is the world's #1 defense and national security think tank. Visit www.csis.org to find more of our work as we bring bipartisan solutions to the world's greatest challenges.
Check out the rest of our videos here: cs.is/2dolqpj
Follow CSIS on Twitter: / csis
On Facebook: / csis.org
And on Instagram: / csis

[@chrisocony]

Mearsheimer is totally badass!

[@sels56-36]

honest badass

[@olgaltey3278]

i wonder what you think now....after 3 years about Mearsheimer)

[@darrellroberson4401]

You started off your comment with great observation. But, you lost me when stating "We Don't Force Democracy" - who is we 🤔

[@chrisocony]

@@olgaltey3278 Me? I like him. He's unique. He is not all knowing, admits his theory will be wrong from time to time, but he is very clear and concise and informative, generally.

[@arnoldattard1146]

I often ask myself why is it that with such clever academics, North America has so many dumb politicians and civil servants?

[@asasbs1411]

be easier said than done

[@davidnevett5880]

Because of people like you, HAIL UKRAINE FREE

[@arnoldattard1146]

@@davidnevett5880 "Hail what'??? Seem to have heard that before!

[@davidnevett5880]

@@arnoldattard1146 you think mearshimmler is a clever academician? He is a hitlerian nostalgic, so dumb that he doesn't realize that his admired putin is getting his butt wiped

[@davidnevett5880]

American politicians and civil servants have only lately become a little dumb, and yet they smarter than the rest, but up to now, if you know a bit of History they have proven to be amazingly smart and wise

[@zeflute4586]

54:12 "I think from an American point of view it's idiocy from a strategic point of view to drive the Russians into the arms of the Chinese"🤣 John... little did you know... how u have overated the wit of the Americans🤣

[@AlinNemet]

yep, famous last words 🤣

[@condotiero860]

Was is it us? or was it really the russians? For decades, intellectuals and pundits have drooled over the idea of a russian ally against the red tide. At some point you cut your losses, Russia dont want none.

[@Iv4Bez]

but why? What will it change?

[@abdullahfaraj9803]

Great professor explained a lot to me about the world .

[@urbanmovingsystems01]

konomokokkmonomokomomomomomomommomomom

[@americanpatriot5671]

Excellent discussion.

[@nikhilhooda7234]

Maddelin Albright-we are the indispensable nation. We stand taller, we see further.

[@cliffgaither]

The U.S. Policy that killed 500,000.00 + Iraqi Children ::: "We feel the policy is worth it". --- Madeleine Albright ---

[@ishrendon6435]

She failed also lol

[@tonysu8860]

Madelyn Albright was raised in repressive East Germany. She worked hard to make sure as few people as possible would have to live that same experience. RIP a fine lady.

[@nahrubish]

Liberalism and nationalism in this matter is connected to the wealth of the country. In rich country, they will try something new that is how liberalism born. Nationalism is needed because resources are limited and the country really needs to focus on things are matter

[@tonysu8860]

You might want to consider that liberalism provides the idea of an individual having the right to create something for himself that isn't easily taken away, and if the individual is successful often enough becomes wealthy. National wealth doesn't start with nationalism, it's the other way around that many countries started out getting wealthy by trading with others.

[@nahrubish]

@@tonysu8860 it is too general to consider to say liberalism that generate wealth. I don't consider it in my statement My point of view is based on history. USSR and China were poor after the war compared to US selling weapons to both warring parties was rich. Poor countries have not much option since resources are limited so they need to consolidate those resources. On the other hand, US was rich. They didn't even know what to do with those wealth. Thus, they preferred to let capital flowed to people. Let people found themselves to make wealth. More brains are better

[@akp167]

It is actually a great book for those of you who plan to get it

[@niranjanshankar8131]

Stephen Walt is also good, though I still agree with liberal interventionists on some issues

[@PeepalPawan]

Jump to 23:51

[@listener523]

You the real MVP.

[@garysymons3930]

At 59;20 I liked John's explanation of the womans rights issue in Afganistan, and he opts for non interference, where others might have evaded the question . It is very similer to imposing democrasy through the barrel of a gun , it does not work , and on 9/11 the gun was pointing at the head of the USA .

[@turbolevo8703]

You can’t even spell democracy!

[@jeffm3283]

Absolutely deranged

[@tonysu8860]

OK, John Mearsheimer wants to make an exception for Women's Rights. Let's ask the same question about slavery. Does the answer change? Then racial persecution. Then gender persecution. Then social class and economic persecution. Then just about any other classification and category of people you can think of, should exceptions be made? Where does this stop?

[@J.R.Graham]

Great true story,book title-"Cowboy Mafia ":

[@92100mark]

Realists consider it is necessary to take the Russian outlook in perspective. This seems somewhat obvious and I fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise. But, why do Realists consider that the outlook from Kyiv, Warsaw, Bucharest, Talinn, Riga, Vilnius, Tbilissi should not be taken into consideration? I don't hear the argument except for the fact that Russia has the capacity to exercise nuclear threat. So it seems to me that Realism boils down to interpreting International Relations as essentially nuclear deterrence. But that is typically modelled as prisoner's dilemma where communication holds as much importance than the "objective" or "realistic" balance of power.

[@amalaa9752]

Settlement agreement couldn't in Jordan why

[@politicallyunreliable4985]

I really wish more people had a grasp of history and a willingness to listen to these talks. Most people think this is tantamount to InfoWars.com.

[@koala10ish]

Why is democratization of a nation favors the US?

[@politicallyunreliable4985]

@@koala10ish Willful/lazy ignorance will rear its ugly head no matter the form of government.

[@koala10ish]

@@politicallyunreliable4985 what do you mean?

[@koala10ish]

@@politicallyunreliable4985 What do you mean?

[@politicallyunreliable4985]

@@koala10ish Meaning: Many of the most average of people think this is just some guy spouting off on the internet without the "reality" of being broadcast on "real news". Generally, the folks I'm talking about (the middle-ground voter base) don't get that that the news "experts" aren't.

[@drcalvinlee]

Sobering discussions.

[@bmblb5835]

Liberty Democracy: The rich pissing on the poor . . .with that trickle down effect.

[@tonysu8860]

Really? Compare any liberal democracy with your choice autocracy and tell me the poor of which is worse or better.

[@pasquinomarforio]

"The foreign policy establishment's foreign policy is bankrupt. " You guys had one job...

[@itssanti]

Lets acknowlege how humble Mersheimer is.

[@amalaa9752]

Bugging of navy array is of course the blockade of settlement

[@Bojanglesz89]

I think he meant to say nationalism at 9:23

[@NikhileshSurve]

I think you're right.

[@amalaa9752]

Settlement agreement doesn't in german cantonment

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you ; International Realities does not support the interference of other countries internal foreign affairs, much as we may extend Ideals of democracy and self determination, ultimately the governance of a country remains it's sovereignty. We spread democracy without the use of Force, open dialogue and compromise to some extent. At home liberalism and nationalism are our strengths, enhancing Freedom and Civility across states. All people are created equal with inalienable rights endowed by their creator to life, liberty and pursuit of Happiness. Excellent Discussion thank you.

[@darrellroberson4401]

You lost me when you said "We don't force Democracy". Q: who is We

[@koala10ish]

Why is democratization of a nation favors the US?

[@tonysu8860]

What? You do understand that everything John Mearsheimer expressed in this video is fundamentally opposed to everything you value, right?

[@amalaa9752]

Pelican bay not having cake manufacturing for the foreign policy

[@nikhilhooda7234]

Liberalism at home versus liberalism as a FP

[@amalaa9752]

Teaching tools and settlement construction

[@treeinafield5022]

1:02:40 Maybe instigating Russia to invade Ukraine was the plan all along.

[@shahirramjee626]

👏👏👏🇿🇦

[@carmeldowley9207]

Oh if you only knew that those 2 adversaries {of the US) have joined against the US.

[@amalaa9752]

Goerdan Germany should answer economic war x defence war

[@amalaa9752]

Settlement x war of roads

[@amalaa9752]

Settlement agreement in italian cantonment

[@amalaa9752]

Settlement agreement in pelican bay

[@NikhileshSurve]

53:33 I'm not american/westerner but even I could see that that's exactly what Trump was aiming by not being anti Russia & being tough in China throughout his primaries campaign & then the general election.

[@NikhileshSurve]

@It`s okay. Russia Russia Russia… everyone is a Russian asset.

[@sparrowparas7156]

Since 1444 b.c. it's been 3,500 grinding, horrific, monstrous years of the great white delusion.

[@thomassmith-yu8tz]

If it lasts that long can it really be a delusion? Also, where I live (and many other places in the west) life is not horrific, nor monstrous. However, being tolerant of whiners can be grinding. 🙂

[@calengr1]

1:33:55 3 grand strategies ......R often disagree

[@nikhilhooda7234]

1.Nato expn, color rev 2.bush doctrine 3.china policy.

[@coucharmynews5091]

Watch every day new and exclusive videos about the situation in the world on the COUCH ARMY channel

[@gliang9406]

One small critique. On the nature of the US liberal hegemony foreign policy, Mearsheimer sugarcoated it as benign. As a life-time offensive realist, he should show the truth in a naked way.

[@amalaa9752]

Not gate is war between Pakistan x Afghanistan

[@amalaa9752]

Settlement construction in Vietnam

[@juhyokang2571]

Ok

[@netizencapet]

What Mearsheimer doesn't sufficiently appreciate is the role of domestic elites and micro fractional interests in steering state actions in ways often at variance with the survival interests or benefit of those states. His facile analysis of the Bush Doctrine, not entertaining the possibility of duplicity and deception for PR's sake is almost shocking. If only "all of us" believed in the bill of rights, etc. Most leaders from both parties exhibit a very mixed enthusiasm. The outrageous notion that the US has supported democracy in its hegemonic external activities is simply not supported by the historical record since 1955 or so. Even after its criminal invasion of Iraq, the US insisted on an indirect representative model that robbed the majority of the electorate of seats in parliament. De-Baathification extended far further than simply banning persecution of Kurds or banning monoparty models..in that sense it was blatantly anti-democratic. From Honduras to Western Sahara, to Saudi Arabia, the USA props up brutal dictators and topples elected leaders across the world today, not just throughout the Cold War. It suppresses popular voting initiatives - such as a minimum wage hike in Haiti - with illegal interferences in the democratic processes of other nations, as Wikileaks and so much else has revealed. Why does Mearsheimer therefore state this patently false claim??? Measheimer is a likable person who supports the right values. However, his characterization of US external action as the outworking of genuinely good intentions (under the banner "Liberal Hegemony"), rather than the flimsy PR of elite and microfactional concerns masquerading over massacre for their own gain is maddening. Though Saudi Arabia's internal policies and governmental structure are far less liberal or democratic than those of Iran and Venezuela, corrupt as those nations may be, the US backs the terrorist-backing, war-mongering kingdom with the largest proven petroleum reserves and sanctions the 2nd and 3rd largest holders respectively. This is now the policy of BOTH political parties: how does that square with the silly notion of "Liberal Hegemony"? That the US sanctions the oil and economy of Iran, Venezuela and Russia ** simultaneously ** shortly after unilaterally toppling Libya and Iraq, and decimating their oil output in the process cannot be explained by Mearsheimer, because he takes PR policy briefings at face value rather than properly appraising the role of deception in political discourse…despite the title of his celebrated book on the subject. After the Iraq war, the US ensured Iraq's postwar pipeline to the Mediterranean (it competed with Saudi Arabia's pipeline to the Red Sea) was destroyed by funding Wahabi terrorists to blow it up in Syria (a country likewise more liberal, for all its prewar Stongman sins, than Saudi Arabia, by leaps and bounds). So much for the attempt to bolster democracy and survival of the newly installed republic against the large absolute monarchy to its south. King Salman (the elder) was against the 2nd Iraq war in name only...it is all part of a grand strategy to dominate OPEC and hold the switch on the global barrel price. The kingdom spends enormous sums on influencing elites abroad, no more so than in the US, where it has invested some 800 billion dollars as of last year, not including the lavish lobbying efforts of Prince Bandar. The 6 illiberal actions of the US mentioned above -- all of which are diametrically opposed to US economic and security interests, and all of which spanned an equal number of years of Republican and Democratic presidencies since 2000 -- are easily explained, however, by a not-so-sophisticated look at elite interests and micro-factional networks -- namely that of the Neocons, their links with key players in the US energy industry, notably Chevron, and Saudi Arabia. These have held sway for much of the Obama administration as well (except at the very end), and - despite his rhetoric - greatly informed the Trump administration (who unleashed more bombs on Iraq than even Obama) and continue unabated during the Biden years. They benefit the domestic and foreign policy prerogatives of one nation only: Saudi Arabia. Perhaps by staring the facts in the face, Mearsheimer can "get Real" and step out of his own "Grand Delusion".

[@originalandrewmark]

Well thought out response to Mockingbird droppings. Peace and prosperity be unto you for your sincerity

[@jdg7327]

Because he is a Realist? And like he said, Realism, domestic politics doesn't matter much at all. If anyone who is in the "Grand Delusion" here. You might want to look at a mirror instead.

[@netizencapet]

@@jdg7327 Did you even read the comment you're commenting on? You give no support for your statement, which doesn't exactly qualify as an argument. My (rather simple) point is that Mearsheimer's summary is non-realist and evidence allergic: leaders, acting in pursuit of their own or a small faction's interests, often act against the survival interest of their own states. While this is obvious to the point of pain, Mearsheimer consistently disagrees with that point. Mearsheimer simplistically takes the foreign policy PR statements of the Bush and Obama administrations at face value, instead of seeing through flimsy alibis that purport to "seek to spread democracy" for what they are: naked power grabs not even for the United States but for particular lobying interests of Saudi Arabia or specific energy and arms firms. While perfectly clear in my original comment, these interpretations of Mearsheimer fly in the face of the historical record and are hence anti-realist.

[@jdg7327]

@@netizencapet The support you are looking for is exactly is in the term, Realist. You are misguided about context, usage, and meaning of the terminology. By definition, a Realist does not care about - Domestic Policies, whoever sits on the throne and whatever is said on the throne, it doesn't matter. What matters is the results. Second meanings, nuances, hidden agendas and whatnot. It doesn't matter. What taken, at face value, is the result, of whatever policies you are talking about. - Realist opposes Liberal Hegemony, by definition. Because Liberal Hegemony, or Liberalism is at its core Idealist. Ideally the world will be a much more better place if there's no wars and everybody is busy eating their cakes. But no, that's not the reality. And all this rhetoric about the USA being hypocrite of the spreading of democracy when it topples nation-states here is the result of unrestrained Liberalism and contrary to a Realist. I don't know why the hell you are deluded but Mearsheimer's arguments perfectly lays out the mess the US is in. If you want to continue with rhetorical delusions then go suit yourself. Aint gonna be in that...

[@tonysu8860]

Boy has this comment got John Mearsheimer wrong. Mearsheimer criticizes the US but his Realism justifies every wrong you list... Realism says that the Polar power has the right and obligation to do whatever it wants to dominate and take from the weak.

[@isabellaliu8409]

By your definition and the way that you praise the previous administration excluded trump , claiming that he is more tribalism.in fact it was starting from Obama administration, the America politics emphasise more in tribes especially by race, identity and skin of Color’s than ever before!

[@hassanrajput9576]

6:27

[@AlexandruSuditoiu]

Great argument, but don't let John Mearsheimer near a glass.

[@calengr1]

65:30 Latvian lib hegemony ...selective practice eg none in. Saudi Arabia; M acknowledges the selective enforcement

[@koala10ish]

Why is democratization of a nation favors the US?

[@amalaa9752]

Academics not gate

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

23:01 min ... Interesting ... it says 5 replies, but there are 6. It says 4 replies. There are 8 replies.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

24:44 min ...

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

I'm really tired, exhausted and in pain ...

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

"5. And since peace depends in large measure on inhibiting the differences ... " ... 'never split the difference'? "9. We also promise to one another that in going to the appointed election, and being at the place, and upon returning to home, we shall do no violence to the people or amongst ourselves, whatsoever. 10. All of these things we promise to one another, and for our descendants, to be enduringly preserved, and kept ... " "among the leading candidates to the vacant throne was the son of the French king, Henry (de Valois) ... " "were to remain binding indefinitely, rather than only during the interregnum and Henry’s reign." polishfreedom document the-warsaw-confederation "The Polish History Museum in Warsaw has created this English-language website (...) above all for university lecturers, students, and history buffs as a means to present ... " "The Confederation of Warsaw of 28th of January 1573: Religious tolerance guaranteed I United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural “Certainly, the wording and substance of the declaration of the Confederation of Warsaw of 28th January 1573 were extraordinary with regards to prevailing conditions elsewhere in Europe; and they governed the principles of religious life in the Republic for over two hundred years.” (Norman Davies)'." '2016 Selden Society lecture - Emeritus Professor Wilfrid Prest on Sir William Blackstone' (Supreme Court Library Queensland ... Australia) "Sir William Blackstone (1723-80) wrote the most famous and influential treatise on Anglo-American-Australian common law-the four volume Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69)-but he was also a major figure in 18th century public, academic and cultural life." ... translations ... 35:45 min ... American. 43:14 min ... French, German, Polish, Russian. 45:02 min... Japanese. 48:31 min ... Adelaide, Toronto, Iowa. ......................... Blackstone Ratio? .... Blackstone ratio or Blackstone's principle: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. From (written in) a comment section elsewhere: (yes, an Aussie in Australia). In remembrance, of who we are, for where we've come from, and for where we are going, as a democracy, because this is Australia, and with respect, we are Australians, and because: Anzacs or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for the erosion of democracy and the separation of powers between the legislature(parliament), executive(administration and enforcement), and judiciary(due process), would they; and, Stolen generation(s) or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for a sort of generation stolen to be happening on current generations, would they; and so too, WWII survivors or their offspring wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for current generations to either end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination, or to be told all generations the same and then all individually tested and told where their differences make them best placed to be positioned for the betterment, sake and showcase of all being the same, would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, etc. Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Going to start a new thread ... similar but also different.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

One of yours? kzbin.info/www/bejne/epCwqZKbbdlqpLc

[@TheFMBBCBM]

Brasil Deus pátria família liberdade Bolsonaro o melhor presidente do Brasil e do mundo inteiro!

[@anonymike8280]

Excuse my crudity, but shouldn't we start by trying make the United States look like the United States?

[@brianarps8756]

Mearsheimer is the man with one eye in the kingdom of the blind. He appears to be a visionary dialing back on American extremism but he falls well short off a coherent foreign philosophy for the next 20 years. The US does not have a foreign policy, instead it has 27. The state and defense departments each have their own policy. As does the presidency, the Pentagon and the administration. The Generals. GE, GM, etc have their own too. Every event and circumstance provokes a cat fight with unpredictable results. Neither, China, Russia, Brazil or India suffers such a system. When Lavrov or Wang Ye speak you can know what Russia and China think. With Blinken, not so much. This makes the US appear duplicitous, and hard to work with. It must change, and soon or the US will continue to bleed away its authority.

[@ihatesignupsgrrrrrrr]

Don't forget the CIA! They are a prime example of American extremism.

[@anonymike8280]

The United States is duplicitous and hard to work. You don't need to survey the world to find that out. Just ask the people who actually live here.

[@amalaa9752]

Vietnam war is not a advocacy war

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

... 9 replies. Says 6 replies. Are the other replies not acceptable? For what reason? By whose or what wisdom? Where? Which level or type of education and or understanding? Don't remember things being like this in the past. It is frustrating in multiple sense of the word. John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating ).

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Short version: Significance of the US Constitution: in the US; outside the US. Significance of other parts of the world having their own constitution: to that part of the world; to the US. Significance of a Constitution in cohesion, flexibility, peace, competition, being kept accountable: from an internal point of view; from an external point of view. Examples: - an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" - framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. -"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, ... "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention." - if EU invested in coming up with their own Constitution. - the ability to converse with others based on their own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (your) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. - the ability to converse with others based on your own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (our) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. Crimea doesn't sort of look like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth? .................... Example: Part of a conversation on fb: A reply: Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science! , "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science!" ... that came from? The reply: Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere. Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it! People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples! A reply: Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish! "end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination" , that hasn't happened in history? ... how do people spread killer viruses? A reply: "Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!" , not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs? , almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist? ... also, seems a bit authoritarian. ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) and, ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter V: The States Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion") "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Australian Parliament House, website) (While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... )

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

A conversation, from where a part of a conversation on fb is in the example above: Comment deleted? ... ... (on yt:various) A conversation on fb: From (written in) a comment section elsewhere: (yes, an Aussie in Australia). In remembrance, of who we are, for where we've come from, and for where we are going, as a democracy, because this is Australia, and with respect, we are Australians, and because: Anzacs or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for the erosion of democracy and the separation of powers between the legislature(parliament), executive(administration and enforcement), and judiciary(due process), would they; and, Stolen generation(s) or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for a sort of generation stolen to be happening on current generations, would they; and so too, WWII survivors or their offspring wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for current generations to either end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination, or to be told all generations the same and then all individually tested and told where their differences make them best placed to be positioned for the betterment, sake and showcase of all being the same, would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, etc. Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia How can procedural fairness be maintained and how is 'silence' achievable in court, if unable to secure representation and without giving up the legal presumption that, as an adult, you can make your own decisions from choices? Life is full of unexpected surprises. If, "people are entitled to the best defence they can get, these days, that usually means the best defence they can afford", does that mean that if the best defence a person can get isn't very good, then, their entitlement is limited to a defence that isn't very good? Is that then not a judgement, a determination that a person who does not know any better, is entitled to defence that isn't very good? AIso, does that mean there is a correlation between quality of defence and quantity of the monetary value sought for time, i.e. rate, and proportional to total monetary quantity available over time? If so, the amount sought for defence would be representational of quality, and for the purposes of defence, it would not then matter if a person is eligible for legal aid, as a fixed total amount available for a given rate would not be competitive with an amount available over an indetermined amount of time greater than could be afforded by legal aid at the same rate. A reply: Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science! , "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science!" ... that came from? The reply: Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere. Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it! People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples! A reply: Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish! "end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination" , that hasn't happened in history? ... how do people spread killer viruses? A reply: "Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!" , not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs? , almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist? ... also, seems a bit authoritarian. Today, in this modern era, it would seem to be about keeping covid, a virus, a foreign entity, out of the body, yet, there are those injected with a foreign entity; those who are infected by a foreign entity; those who naturally were infected with a foreign entity; and those who are not infected. It seems, that as long as some insist all must be injected to be vaccinated, and with ongoing regular booster shots (or else!), that there are again, two classes of citizens: citizens paying to be infected with an injection, to be given a first-class status, with all the rest, citizens infected and not infected, being given a second-class status. Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) Stanford University Lecture 17. Professor Robert Sapolsky 1:29:00 min ... "one of those dark horrible chapters in the history of science, another realm of legally enforced psycho surgery ... " 1:30:29 min ... "people subjected ... because, they were argumentative, because they as teenagers didn't listen to their parents, they didn't listen to their teachers, thousands of cases of these ... " If it is valid, as it seems it is suggested, that just about everyone needs to be vaccinated, for the good of others, or, it is not unacceptable to use as a singular criteria, of some sort of success to do with covid, in insisting most if not all be vaccinated, how is it then not valid to have a lockdown, without regard to context, of just about everyone, for the good of others, or, it not unacceptable to use that same or a singular criteria for lockdowns, in general? It seems like: All are as if in a 'preventative detention' not for punshmiment, but for fear of being humans with immune systems vulnerable to re-offending indefinitely with infections and transmission of COVID, under a control order necessitating getting a 'jab' in the arm, vaccinated, prohibiting associations, visiting certain places, activities, ownerships, etc; or, All are as if slaves awaiting to receive a vaccine ticket ' jab', in the arm, to be contractually bound by terms and conditions on accepting that vaccine ticket to freedom, but not indefinitely, and not unlike personal'property on a lease that cannot be held indefinitely, needing to renew regularly; and, It does not seem unreasonable under those circumstances to foresee potential doors opening for opportunities of ease for coercion, undue influence, exploitation, blackmail, harassment in supply of consumer goods and services, sale of a vaccine as if a body part by a destitute person, etc.? It may sound like, when it comes to COVID the issue is a question of vaccination, one of education, in science, statistics and seriousness of outcome, or convictions, however, it seems like the issue is confusion around duty of care and causation. It looks like the consensus is, that the extent to which being vaccinated eliminates transmission, is uncertain, therefore, a civic duty argument for being vaccinated to minimise transmission, to eliminate causation as a factor with certainty, seems moot, and as a precautionary burden, not the most pragmatic. If on the other hand, the idea of vaccination is to provide, at a lower intensity, an immune response to give a memory for the body on how to deal with a virus if it should encounter it again, then, perhaps, it is that the government ought to have a duty of care to make vaccinations available and accessible, with and through educational information, however, it sounds like it is as if the body has no memory if there is a variation of the virus, and, there are new variations of the virus each season, then, on balancing competing beneficial outcomes, it may not be of social utility to expect that COVID vaccinations ought to be available, taken or made to be taken, by all? A reply: "Eleonora Formato None of that has anything to do with the medical stuff that I was responding to you about. Nothing at all!" , nothing at all?

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Yin and Yang? ... ☯️ TCM ... five elements ... sheng and ko? ... 13:10 min ... (Sorry, I'm not sure I'm listening properly.) It sounds like a possible discussion about an imbalance in power, either by a result of control, an excess in relation to either a deficiency, neutrality, or another excess yet that is deficient by contrast, or, by a result of nurturing, a deficiency in relation to either an excess, neutrality, or another deficiency yet that is in excess by contrast? "John Mearsheimer: Great power politics on Ukraine" (CGTN)

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Some perspective, perhaps, or not? Minimum distance between Britain and Europe: 20 miles (32 km) ... ? Minimum distance between Taiwan and China: 81 miles (130 km) ... ? How did Germany go with taking over Britain in WWII? From a yin/yang perspective (this might not be correct): How much effort would be needed to 'take Taiwan', how much would it weaken China, and, how much hostility would it bring to China (direct or indirect: destructive), say compared with making a decision that, even though Taiwan is important, China is in a position to not need to take over Taiwan, with China being strong enough to be a nurturing ally, and, the goodwill that would bring to China? How much effort would it take China (with US support) to, say, "liberate" North Korea, over land, a place that relatively is seen as extremly deficient in maintaing humans-rights when compared to China, and so, in that context, would South Korea prefer, to border North Korea or to border China, and, while some may question motives, how much goodwill would be brought to China, if (with US support) North Korea were liberated and instead of being kept by China, North Korea allowed to heal with South Korea? How much effort would it take China to find a solution to an expanding desert and possible dehydration, rehabilitating the desert with edible grasses and trees, while providing an opportunity to take pressure off of some of the cities, providing opportunities for improved health, livibility, ... e.t.c. ... Example: "Town planners on a 'crusade' against TB could help us to redesign our cities post-COVID - ABC News" www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-25/what-planning-lessons-during-tb-outbreak-teach-us-about-covid19/100348914

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Then again ... just maybe ... ? "The fundamental things apply As time goes by" "On that you can rely No matter what the future brings As time goes by" "It's still the same old story A fight for love and glory A case of do or die The world will always welcome lovers As time goes by" Lyrics, "As Time Goes By", song by Dooley Wilson. Who knows ... ?

[@amalaa9752]

Defence war in farmers

[@nikhilhooda7234]

If china was hooked on capitalism, include it in institutions like WTO, eventually democratize it. Make it behave like a responsible power. In face getting US bogged in GWOT allowed China to rise

[@chuanhongkoh5002]

。。：

[@anonymike8280]

If I knew what GWOT meant, I might even agree with you.

[@relating]

Before ordering the deaths of tens of thousands Ukrainians and before putting the lives in danger of many his generals; Putin had to defy and trample on the Authority of Christ by defining as terrorists in 2016 that needed to go to jail those who obeyed Jesus' instructions in Matthew 19:18-20 to go everywhere make new disciples that would love God with all their mind, soul, heart and strength, and to love other people as they love themselves according to Matthew 22:37-39; moreover, to be Jesus' disciples they had practice the following: “Do to others what you want them to do to you (Matthew 7:12 NCV). Now because Putin had dared to defy Jesus' authority, Vladimir Putin must be in constant hiding because within Russia and Ukraine those nations are having many new citizens that would follow the authority of the devil by trying to do to Putin the same things Putin wants to be done on others but that he does not want others to do on him. We really pray that Jesus' instructions could be followed in Ukraine and in Russia so many humans’ killings stop being a reality in those nations. 🤦‍♂

[@adalbertthomalla4887]

Who has the power in a state? Mearsheimer Realism should take reality of targets and methods of capital elite into account. America has lost Vietnam? Are you sure? The military industry has won this war. Same with Irak, same with Afghanistan, same with Ukraine.

[@amalaa9752]

Why academics bugs

[@amalaa9752]

Italian cantonments x american apartheid in political strata

[@qiandeng1296]

When asked the critical question of what would improve relations between Russia and US, it amazes me the answer jumped to the threat of China. Guess what happens after China is gone...? These US men still on the merry go around of 19th century and cold war. They took too much after their British cousins, play balance of power and divide and rule to keep themselves on top. That eventually resulted in 2 world wars and finally ended with the distingeration of British Empire due to the wars. Humanity cannot afford to go anywhere near down that route again in 21st century with all the new challenges it faces on global levels. Time is for new pioneers to bypass the nationalistic blocks that divides so energy can be devoted to incoming problems whole humanity faces, fall into the old divide and fail the incoming challenges its very possible none could have a future. That aside, indeed a very fun and interesting intellectual exercise in its own right. Its contemporary usefulness stops there.

[@amalaa9752]

Not gate in afghanistan

[@michaelnjensen]

This didn't age well :D

[@tonysu8860]

IMO Realism was defective from the moment it was conceived and is supported only by those who don't believe in liberal democracy which means that they don't believe in the values the USA was founded on.

[@Shadowless_Kick]

What the old man sitting in the middle said about China, Taiwan and “democracy” is wrong. Taiwan is part of China just like Texas is a part of the US. Chinese people have the wisdom and rights to choose a system that is the most suitable to their culture, current situation and vision. They will reform if necessary, but not having to follow West’s blueprints. As a matter of fact, China has made ten times more economical and political changes under the same ruling party than the US under 6~7 presidents in the past 40 years 😅

[@Shadowless_Kick]

@It`s okay. Taiwan is not a nation recognized by the UN, its constitution claims the whole China as its territory. And it is not always feasible for any province/state to gain independence as long as the majority local people want to, otherwise, there would have not been the US Civil War. About "hurt and bother" mentioned in your comment, often times it is out of China's control if some countries want and like to be bothered, just like a top student may bother some sour grapes around him without even noticing. China has not had a war for 43 years since 1979, based on what do these west strategists assume that it has intention to hurt others?

[@tonysu8860]

@It`s okay. But John Mearsheimer disagrees with you. Mearsheimer's Realism says that China's autocratic CCP rule has the right to bully and take what it wants forcefully if necessary but that is only until another, bigger bully might step in and force China to do what the bigger bully wants. In John Mearsheimer's world, lesser powers have no rights at all when a more powerful power imposes.

[@supahsmashbro]

@Tony Su John Mearsheimer is a colonizer through and through. He wants America to continue to dominate the world, no doubt about it. Although he's not wrong that it's an unsatisfactory reality of the world. That said Taiwan is actually a part of China so I wouldn't equate it to a country. I think there are a lot of mentally colonized, self loathing, white/west worshiping Taiwanese CUCKS out there, excuse my language, too.

[@gxl5548]

Now 7 minutes in.. his dichotomy between liberalism and nationalism is just asinine.. It's like he never read Locke at all. You can be a liberal believing in human rights, a social animal and a nationalist all at the same time. Read Locke if you want to know how that works, John here apparently still has not done his deep reading.

[@ER1CwC]

Julien Sorel I see where you are coming from, but I don’t think that’s quite right in regards to Locke. You’re right that Locke believes that human beings have individual rights and that they are nonetheless social beings, but he also certainly believed that human beings are naturally pre-political. The notion that people must form a social contract in order to create political society for the purposes of better protecting their rights is at odds (or at least in tension) with the frequent nationalist claim that human beings are largely organized into different pre-political, cultural groupings and that those groupings should be able to positively express themselves by having their own states. In other words, who falls within the boundaries of a given nation state is much more arbitrary or contingent for a Lockean liberal than for a nationalist. But I think you are right that you can be a liberal, a social animal, and a nationalist all at once. “Liberal nationalists” try to do this. But I think that even they would concede that the conceptual foundation of their perspective is pluralistic and that its various component parts are necessarily in tension with one another.

[@gxl5548]

@@ER1CwC Are you claiming that Locke thought that human beings are not social and that they have not always lived in human groups? If so then I think this is a serious misreading of him, he's not so simple. He never claims the individual precedes social groups in a historical sense. The claim is that even though they always have existed in a particular group, under an absolute monarch, it was without their consent and was therefore illegitimate. He has a strict procedural set of rules on how governments can become legitimate through humans giving their consent. It's like this; humans can join the group of their choice in which they give up their will to the majority at which time the majority of that body then "determines the rest" ie the institutions of their next government. This is his framework for legitimate government pure and simple majoritarian proceduralism. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is likely that most people will choose to form a government with people like themselves ethnically-culturally-linguistically, of whom they are already surrounded by, and this is exactly how Locke thought about it. It's all there in the 2nd treatise. People may also choose to consent to a pluralist group if they choose to as well, there is nothing logically preventing this from also being legitimate according to Locke. For him, what matters most is the procedure in order to limit illegitimate authority

[@ER1CwC]

Julien Sorel Julien Sorel No I’m not claiming that Locke thought that people are not social, and I agree with everything that you are saying in this second post. I was trying to make two points. First, there is a distinction between being a social animal and a political animal. For Locke, human beings are the former, but not the latter. (At least that’s how I read him.) I am on board with what you are implying, that the whole state of nature/social contract is more of a mechanism for determining legitimacy than it is a historical fact. But I think it matters that, for Locke, it is coherent to even think that a state of nature could exist. I don’t think it is a coherent thought for anyone who thinks that people are also naturally political, not just social. Second, you’re absolutely right that Locke outlines a set of rules to determine when people have given their consent and when a state and/or a government can be considered legitimate, but that’s not the nationalist claim. The frequent nationalist claim is that there exist pre-political nations who have a collective right to express themselves politically via statehood. So nationalist legitimacy is not a matter of whether a state is worthy of people’s consent, but rather a matter of whether a group of people with (allegedly) a shared culture, history, language, (perhaps) ethnicity, etc. can form a body politic if they wish. Which is why nations can end up doing illiberal and anti-democratic things and still claim to be legitimate and whine about not being able to practice self-determination when Mearshimer’s liberal hegemonists intervene try to stop them. I don’t see this in Locke. You’re right that people will probably end up joining politically with those whom they are surrounded by. But that’s not the same as saying that a particular national group has a positive right to statehood. (Now, liberal nationalists deviate a bit from this nationalist understanding of legitimacy; they think that legitimacy partly requires that nations do not do egregiously illiberal or anti-democratic things. Still, they largely begin with premise that these pre-political groups have a right to express themselves, and the liberal democracy requirement is more of an add-on conceptually speaking.) I think we basically agree when it comes to Locke.

[@gxl5548]

@@ER1CwC Thank you for the response, I appreciate the detailed and astute comments being made here and yes, I think we agree to a great extent on Locke. Locke does indeed suggest that his theory of contract could have potentially occurred in the past and even points to historical cases that he believed possibly represented that, yet it was not a necessity to provide historical proof, which we both seem to agree on. Could you explain a little more the distinction you are making between being a social animal and a political animal? In my original comment, I was trying to underline the inadequacy of Mersheimer’s definition of “Liberalism” and “Nationalism”, around minutes 7:00 to 11:00. He presents the common misunderstanding about Lockean theory, as being a-social and also seems unaware of the Lockean “procedural majoritarian” move that I have just attempted to outline briefly in my second comment to you, which we’ve agreed on. To the latter point, he claims that nationalists believe that “we are first and foremost social animals”, which we have also both agreed is an essential part of Lockean political theory. So, his foundational distinction here seems to miss the mark, does it not? I think where we may disagree is over the possibility for nationalism within the Lockean legitimacy framework. My claim is that a country can theoretically be both fully Lockean-liberal and at the same time nationalist. Here I don’t necessarily mean that it will be the typical nationalist claim, which you referred to above, or that it seeks legitimacy on the basis of its nationalism (although I think it could in certain circumstances). I mean it in the sense that National identity could hypothetically be used as a requirement for being able to join a particular political society when an individual is moving from individual rights to majority rule, at the moment of consent. The question is: who is “the people”? It’s not difficult to imagine that some national identity requirements for entry could become quite exclusive even within the Lockean theoretical framework. There’s nothing that necessarily prevents this exclusivity in Locke. He leaves it all to the individuals themselves to decide the political grouping worthy of giving consent to. I’m not saying Locke himself, necessarily makes the argument for nationalism, although it was implicit given his historical context in England at the time, but I am saying that nothing in his theory precludes grouping on the basis of particular already existing group identities.

[@ER1CwC]

Julien Sorel Julien Sorel Julien Sorel Ah I see what you are saying now, re Mearshimer’s distinction. On second thought, you’re probably right. First, towards the middle of this discussion, he starts to talk about combinations of liberalism, nationalism, and realism. This part of the discussion seemed rather odd to me. But what he seemed to mean by nationalism is the sense that one’s country is the best or that one prioritizes one’s country over others. So nationalism for him seems to be the emotional reservoir that motivates people to care about their state’s Westphalian rights; nationalism is what helps make realism a more plausible theory of IR than liberal internationalism. I.e., liberal hegemony backfires because (1) it challenges states’ right to self-determination and because (2) people care about that right vis-a-vis their nationalistic attachments. I’m not sure that’s a great definition of nationalism! Second, yes he seems to take the contractatian part of Locke for the whole of Locke - which, as you rightfully point out, is an incomplete view of Locke at best. I think it’s incorrect for him to say that liberalism is not social and that nationalism is. But I do think it’s more plausible to say that (Lockean) liberalism privileges the protection of the individual from tyranny first and foremost and that the legitimacy of political arrangements hinges on whether those arrangements respect that commitment; whereas nationalism privileges the political expression/right of self-determination of the national community and (depending on which brand of nationalism one endorses) may or may not conform to the contours of liberal democracy. So, it’s possible for a liberal to begin from what we can call the moral individualism premise in Locke and reason support for Mearshimer’s liberal hegemony or, alternatively, the post-national patriotism of someone like Habermas. (As an aside, I took an Intro to IR class years ago that portrayed Locke in the way Mearshimer portrays him here. So perhaps this incomplete reading of Locke as a contractarian individualist is standard among IR folks.) Which brings me to your other points. First, regarding the distinction between social beings and political beings, I think that social beings are naturally capable of cooperation, friendship, creating norms, etc., but political beings necessarily find themselves in a polis. I’m thinking of Aristotle in Politics I, where he writes that human beings will find themselves in a polis because only so can they “live well” - not merely live lives of adequate material self-sufficiency. This is different than Locke. Although people ultimately do largely find themselves historically-speaking in political communities, it’s at least logically possible in Locke’s scheme for people to live perfectly commodious and social lives outside of a polis. In other words, decision to form/enter a political community is a practical decision, and the political community itself is somewhat artificial. (Evidently, this ties back to his theory of natural, pre-political rights, which is largely a modern way of thinking about things...) Second, what you say about the possibility of national identity within a Lockean politics is persuasive. But I still think that the legitimacy of such an arrangement would hinge on the ability of the people/nation to respect individual rights. Say that there are some ethnic minorities or sub-state minority nations within the polity in question, and the majority nation systemically infringes on their rights. I think it’s hard for a Lockean to maintain that such an arrangement is legitimate. Of course, Locke the man is not the same as Locke the theory, so given that the man was not free of his various prejudices, he would probably disagree with me here (theory of toleration notwithstanding)! But I think that his theory can be at least be read in this way or taken in this direction.

[@MaxBorges888]

Sounds like propagandist think tankers. Beautiful words for defining their side (Liberalism sounds close to Liberty, who don't want that?). So the foe is not Communism any more, it is Nationalism now? But in practice, this "Liberalism" is really Unbound Capitalism, concentration of wealth and power. Liberalism was the ideology of the French Revolution, it created Communism due to the concentration of wealth. Lots of assassinations and wars after, they want to start it all over again. If you are really dialectic, find a synthesis, don't insist on the thesis.

[@item6931]

"The Great Delusion - an Autobiography"- "Special Authoritarian Apologist Operation" J Mearsheimer

[@tnorrish]

This dude would get cancelled today 😞

[@chriszzw30]

John is one big great deluded chap, that's for sure 👍

[@blackwind743]

I feel like this guy is simplifying things down to binary thinking too much as humans tend to do. It is the same mistake that has led many people I speak to today to come to the conclusion that you can't have a democratic republic because they believe they are two different things. His binary thinking is a little less obviously wrong but there is still too much oversimplification. Perhaps I need to read the book. 😄

[@zavani2]

His simplicity - and outstanding and dynamic presentation - separates the chaff from the kernel and the wood from the trees in Great Power theory. It's compelling but I wonder how he'd separate patriotism and nationalism and whether patriotism is best served in multilateral, that is, cooperative instittutions while nationalism finds its strength in great powers balance of power posturing and potential conflict.

[@rafedkarim4595]

We need democracy in Russia now.

[@chfgbp6098]

Lol. All mouth and no trousers. Still begging for uncle sam to save you? That s going really well in iraq Afghanistan libya syria Ukraine.

[@supahsmashbro]

Yeah, if you turn into a colony of the US they'll be glad to turn you into a democracy. You'll probably even rate higher than them on a democratic index because they're one of the least democratic democracies, and somehow less democratic than non-democracies. Lol.

[@xxxnamkhaxxx]

John Mearsheimer knows a thing or two about China but nix about the Middle East. Please. I can't listen to him any longer.

[@pradipamahadeva8051]

We are not deluded. Sorry mate!

[@BrettHar123]

I don't think he saying we are. It's not a delusion that the British Empire and later the American Empire have been responsible for all the major wars and revolutions in the last 250 years.