Want to see Konstantin Kisin live for an exciting event? Click here: www.cis.org.au/events/upcoming-events/

It is actually: Global imperialism versus nationalism

One of the best Mearsheimer interviews on the internet. Thank you so much!

Mearsheimer is a brilliant man, and one has to thank God that he is doing all these shows.

It is self-contradictory to force any other nation to adopt Liberalism because the defining feature of Liberalism is INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 2:10

stop interrupting the speaker its so annoying

The host keeps interrupting, it ruins the flow of Mr. Mearshiemer’s discussion

Mr Mearsheimer mentioned that liberalism in the first place appeared as an answer to challenges faced by European societies. Religious wars, economic transformations etc. But other societies have different histories and cultures and even climate: the belief that individual is more important than the society is not universal. Asian cultures usually tend to give much more importance to family and community, and if you are liberal you should accept that they are entitled to their views. This 'liberal crusade' is based on exceptionalism and belief that your views are more valuable - exactly like colonialism and, actually, nazism, were based on this European/Western sense of superiority. It is just better hidden and more subtle now

I see the comments here on the host interrupting. I’ve enjoyed watching this as a conversation, I like to see people I like or admire in equal conversations and it was stimulating to hear him answer to multiple questions. Thank you for the video!

Love listening to John Mearsheimer! Thank you!

👏 Thank you

As a Canadian resident and historian I can state that Canada did not want to separate from Britian. Britain pushed us to get our own constitution in 1982.

What a brilliant and insightful definition of liberalism at the top of this interview. I'm more and more growing in appreciation of it in its classical form. What we see of it now is a degraded version of a fine ideal.

Too bad the interviewer can’t listen to more than ¾ of an idea before launching into the next shallow interruption. John was incredibly patient with him.

great conversation.

The host should interrupt less.

Noble intentions my arse, it's used as a pretext for imperialism

18:45 crusader impulse in liberalism 21:00 intervention worked out terribly

A good way to think about that distinction at the end is on the home front interactions are largely between individuals (the domain of liberalism), but internationally (hint: nationally) the interactions are not between individuals but nation states (nationalism) which are the most powerful actors.

John does very good explanations, when the host lets him finish what he is saying....

How can you ignore the Billions of Dollars of war profiteering and say US interventions were "well intended"? It is an insult to the victims.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqqpjZufmbPFqYU.html If do not think that US ever wanted to “rescue” Afghan women. (Maybe it is just used as pretext, and some people believe it.) That is because if they where seriously concerned for Afghan women, they would welcome USSR’s intervention in Afghanistan. So, it is not that the US is concerned about “rights”, they are just concerned about who is determining those “rights”, i.e. it has to be the US.

Casual conversation on critical issues. Lucky are those that sit in classrooms with these two individuals. Bravo.

Philosophy is beautiful

It is a little bit distracting when the host keeps interrupting Mearsheimer's speech. He should give more room to his guest to speak his mind.

Liberal Democracy begins at home. You discuss and try to agree but in the end if you cannot, the head of the family has to decide. At the same time we have an outer door and some outsiders are welcome to visit us for a while. We don't let the outsiders run our family and we don't force ourself on other families. Same with nations. 😊

Thank you, CIS, for introducing me to John Mearsheimer. Brilliant political thinker to say the least.

Yes, I totally agree with professor Mearshheimer that if each country focus on doing a better kind of governance inside , then it will lead by example

I had to check my playback speed after hearing the host. Great talk though.

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer Da Best💯✌️♥️

The pain gets to be a bit much after awhile

Great listening!

I always get an education when Prof. Mearsheimer speaks.

Last time I check, Israel is Jewish state and kingdom of Saudi Arabia is monarch and guess what USA is fine with it. USA uses liberal democracy as a cover to wedge war, not impose it. Professor needs to review his view!

Very good. I’ll have a look for Konstantin.

He's a great analyst - & called the Ukraine debacle a decade in advance. However the idea that the US is motivated by the desire to spread liberal democracy seems very wrong to me. If you look at every such intervention, it is has been in a place where money could be made by the US corporations that bankroll the politicians who start the wars. Democracy is a handy figleaf, but little more if you look at the record. To confirm this thesis, you need only look at what the US actually did on intervening. E.g. in Iraq, it immediately occupied the Oil Ministry & took over the oil infrastructure - & cancelled the planned elections.

What actually glue people together? Is it the boundaries of a state, or is it common values and pursuit? Though I agree with mearsheimer that individuals are carved out of society, I don't his later argument convincing at the second part. To me, Common values and pursuit are far more attractive than common background or race or country of origin.

Interviewer is so annoying and fast constantly interrupting John

Mearsheimer for president 2024! Send him petitions to urge him to run. ❤

I really wonder why they consider judaism as a race or a nationality. It is essentially a religion or a religious faith that could apply to various ethnic and national backgrounds. Could Mr. Mearsheimer kindly elaborate because this misconception has a lot to do with the ongoing crisis in the Middle East about whether the jews have a basic right to have a state of their own with no regard to the basic rights of non-jews. Why do they insist on a jewish state and they still insist that they are a democrasy. Does it make any logical sense to you?

5:30 *_Liberalism_* and *_rights_* depend upon burn-rate. Resource-conservation limits both.

This Syrian American approves of mearscheimer’s message

If a society and/or culture cannot agree on first principles, then there are NO first principles.

We saw in the 1848 German Revolutions that the revolutionaries were not able to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. They wanted a united Germany but also a more democratic one. But the German Kings were able to divide the liberals along national lines, especially Austrians against Hungarian rebels. I do think in a few cases, they are reconcilable eg the NATO campaign in Kosovo in 1998.

Liberalism: "People disagree about basic principles". It's the concept of anarchy.

#1 Liberalism within oneself , Like a classical American triality of self and our founding. Many tribes making a union of one nation defined by borders. These individuals have liberal power not the state. #2 1900s structuralism Physical prescriptions of Liberalism outside ones body Liberal power granted to government and no one has a nation or a right but the state. .

Greetings from Bolivia 🇧🇴

If you should not dictate your neighbour about how to live, which is the case in those liberal countries, you definitely should not try to dictate other nations about how to live. As a non-liberal, non-westerner, I grealty respect Professor Mearsheimer, because he is one of the few liberals who actually respect this very simple moral rule. Unfortuntaely, however, this simple foundation is really lost in the foreign policy of liberal nations, most notably the United States.

On rights & truth @ around 5:30 - I think I can save Mearsheimer's original argument here from having to be qualified in this case - rights are not truths they are tools. They are a technology.

Mearsheimer is a dreamer.

What a great talk. Every sentence out of John's mouth is an informative gem.

Thank you for this brilliantly engaging, clear, and concise analytical thesis.

Tommy: and one more time to survive our country, you choose what? Realism vs Constructivism Nationalism.

For more detailed discussion of a nation see Ludwig Von Mises book "Omnipotent Government"

18:19 What happened there?

31:55 Mearsheimer says he doesn’t like a liberal foreign policy, but he wants to allow other nation states to figure out their own domestic policies. So it seems he actually likes a liberal foreign policy. What he doesn’t like is more accurately described as the neo-liberal foreign policy: imposing liberal values by illiberal means (violence / war).

John really enjoyed this one.

The interruption of the speaker was so annoying let him finish off his analysis

This is really great! John's argument very much seems to me like some version of the cultural relativism debate. I agree with him that the US should not intervene even though such a view invites the criticism that non-intervention means complicity in oppression of whosever individual rights are violated. I don't know how he would get out of this. But I am glad he made the distinction with genocide even though in the real world genocide may be taking place without the outside world really finding out about it till it's too late. Or getting bogged down in a protracted debate about whether genocide is really taking place or not. Take Israel and Gaza. Is what the Israelis are doing over there genocide? Could the fact of genocide actually be a matter of opinion? I'd say yes. Same with the Armenian genocide. And it goes back to John's great point that we humans can't agree on first principles. Each likes to stick to their own truth. People used to resolve such radical differences with wars. Or we'll just have to learn to live with each other - but especially with RADICAL DIFFERENCE! This is where I think most of us just fail.

Mearsheimer has a few points, but I don't share his pessimistic view of humans, nor his "theory of everything" approach to International Relations.

There is a truth It depends on What's in common sense ethical practices neighbours different and tradedishion value represents respected

One of the great minds who sees the world clearly with feet firmly on the ground.

Tell it like it is.

Interesting point about the Nazis being the only industrialized country to pull out of the depression. But always remember the Soviet Union did not even enter depression. Its gross national income grew 500% between 1928 and 1940.

Is there a battle between libertarianism and nationalism? It's good to let people do what they want as long as it isn't detremental to you. Living in a resilient environment minimises detrement, and part of that is a strong country. People in other countries should all have resilient ones as well. National borders are a 'firebreak' against the spread of trouble. People like to live in houses, not everyone all in one hangar.

Interestingly, Mearsheimer’s political realism is actually more idealistic than the neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism that fuels the western expansionism. Because he believes that if every society can decide it’s own rules (except from committing genocide), and western societies could lead by example, then the world would turn out for the better in the end. The idealism is that the people of other countries would willingly, and without external intervention, follow their example. But the neolibs/neocons are not so optimistic/idealistic: they believe external intervention is needed to bring about that change, because people living under effective oppressive regimes don’t stand a chance without it. So you could say they are the real «realists» of foreign policy.

Liberal (capitalism) vs National (Subordinated capitalism? Neo-feudal mercantilism?)

Feet resting upon WHO'S FOOTSTOOL? Who's Who? Students shared "i" AM and shared Feet resting upon WHO'S FOOTSTOOL? Resting upon HUMILITY.

Multiculturalism has major challenges....Integration and social cohesion works....Interculturalism might lead to understanding...

I simply disagree based on the results we see in the countries that adopted and the clear failure of Liberalism. "A utopian dream" Having said that, I invite individuals to correct me if I'm wrong as I'm interested in the truth.

18:18 jumpscare cmon guys

Very rare insights indeed. Nationalism flourishes for great petiod of time when demographic strength is unparalleled and resources are aplenty, this is not so in all and every situation. (Human societies are greatly vulnerable to natural disasters and epidemics, all the regular rules are turned upside down in correlation to the magnitude of a crisis). Liberals need to be open and flexible in order to address deficiencies. Liberal thinking can be shark like, it will offer little but take big from another, this hard negotiation erodes long term trust, you got to arrive at mutually beneficial equation. However, Nationalism is pragmatic when the other partners do not have big virtues, you take a tough call, you may not want a deal at all if it can imbalance your entire organization and future stability. A grand country could suggest liberal order to others but may be in truth focused on building a grand empire or a grand alliance, it is a nationalst or group promoter with unusual ability to influence lesser countries. For a healthy liberalism to arrive, there needs to be numerous parallel platforms, unhealthy liberalism, which involves the establishing of clients by a significant leader is not ideal but is a realistic order.

This construction is less informed than Individualism vs. Collectivism. That's where the real struggle is. How the collective responds, "liberal/ expansive or "nationalist/protective" is of interest to the collective ruling clique and its victims. How the collective contests with/diminishes the individual is what we individuals suffer.

Nationalism has to go out all over the world

It’s global jewery vs nationalism

Great ! 🇺🇸🔯✝️☮️

nationalism for state, liberalism for divine central authority unity

Humans are obviously “social,” but that framing performs an important censorship by omission, which is that humans are more specifically tribal in nature - a biological phenomenon grounded in ethnocentrism - and fully expressed in America as white supremacy, and white Christian nationalism. In addition, traditional “nationalism” is another name for such legacy “human tribalism,” despite the issues of secularism and citizenship reinterpreting the traditional tribal constitution of nationalism. At no point however, did this nativist/nationalist tribal identity and influence suddenly evaporate due to any dilution by immigration. Nor did ideological citizenship suddenly cancel out the biological undergirding of hegemonic white Christian nationalist American tribalism. Traditional tribalism expressed as nationalism continues to undergird and influence every aspect of “citizenship-based society,” specifically throughout the ruling class, oligarchy, plutocracy, and authoritarian apparatus, including nativist populism. This legacy tribal influence exists and persists, despite all of the competing counter-narratives, which span Enlightenment philosophy, The American Experiment, Liberalism, Capitalism, Postmodernism, Socialism, and Marxism. Anyone whom defends these institutions will nearly detonate if you contaminate their Enlightenment sanctity with the subject of biological determinism. Nevertheless, all the most primitive regions of the brain light-up when tribal concepts are introduced, and the study of “Authoritarian Personality” (tribal instincts) identifies expressions that directly reinforce the taxonomy of tribal dynamics. Meanwhile, all of the modern Enlightenment manifestations require conformity with “tabula rasa” human state of nature theory, asserting sacrosanct individualism, reason, and rational choices that can conveniently choose any of the above choices, while never suffering from the primitive encoding of instinctive tribal influence. Such assertions however, are a form of species exceptionalism. Equivalent expressions are the initial reactionary rejection of Darwinism, the hubris of much philosophical intellectualism, including blaming the individual for what reduces to the sins of a tribal species. Consequently, all of these offending Enlightenment ideologies suffer from false first principles, false framing, and horrendous perpetual hypocrisy that eventually tears itself apart through ethnocentric ruling class abuses inflicted upon the multiracial multicultural working class, including through indebted micro-militarism (currently against black and brown people in the Global South, including the entire Eastern hemisphere). Historically identified as Lifecycle Empire. Understanding the phenomenon of tribalism is tremendously important. This study identifies biological causality and human instincts (an entire taxonomy of tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics), which existence and qualities undermines rationalism, Liberalism, and individualism, including explains national exceptionalism, demonizing out-groups, and coveting expansionist ideology, not to mention people repeating the same idiosyncratic behaviors in every state on every continent throughout history. Human tribalism identifies a ubiquitous synthesis of characteristics, which are threefold: 1) ethnocentrism, 2) monotheism, and 3) ultra-nationalism, to constitute a unique exceptionalistic self-interested identity. These characteristics respectively represent: 1) racial supremacy, racism, xenophobia, and demonization; 2) any prevailing binding belief system, which can include religion, spirituality, animism, pantheism, or ideology; and 3) territoriality, where territory is highly integrated with natural resources, sacred spaces, and secure occupation. This tribal synthesis of characteristics - representative of white supremacy - is reproduced throughout the elite spectrum as vanguards of authentic moral legitimate tribal identity. The tribal synthesis is embedded in religion, law, politics, economics, and armed services. Culturally speaking, a significant element of nationalist populism declare their fealty to this tribal synthesis as a non-negotiable, including conviction to defend it with their lives. Significantly, approximately 25-30% of such tribal like-mindedness is sufficient to achieve cultural hegemony, and control a social narrative. Possibly more significantly, despite representing a fractional “opulent minority,” ruling class oligarchy demonstrates ability to control the narrative through the force multipliers of capitalism, social engineering, and the state monopoly on violence. These tribal characteristics manifest through the familiar expressions of national exceptionalism, national innocence, and national mythology; populations paying irrational reactionary fealty to church-state authority; the demonization and suppression of out-groups; and supremacist expansionist ideologies. America prosecutes three expansionist ideologies: capitalism; Universalist Liberal hegemony; and white Christian supremacy - the authoritarian instincts and pathologies involved are regressive and disturbing. It is true that human tribalism can be expressed on a more peaceable spectrum during access to plentiful resources, and through different modes of production. Nonetheless, historical expressions are plagued by violence, and modern expressions developed during agrarianism and technology demonstrate evolutionary arms race escalation and anarchistic endangerment that must be dealt with as they currently exist, where the true causality reduces to biology, not money. Money however, namely capitalism, is a primary tool of ruling class instruments. In that regard, the legacy church-state system - whether through secular, theocratic, or military dictatorship expression - each demonstrates the authoritarian institutional hierarchy of militarism, religion, politics, economics, and culture, where each institution is required to perform an authoritarian function for the self-interested state, and should be considered an institutional projection of human tribalism. It is certain that Liberalism is not the best system. Liberalism gets human state of nature theory wrong, and an entire litany of culpabilities follow. Liberalism processes individualism unnaturally throughout several exploitative yet foundational institutions, where the pathology of individualism becomes disproportionately sick. In addition, because Liberalism never correctly determines the truth of existence, it thereby perpetuates its own false raison d'être in perpetuity. In this manner, Liberalism condemns humanity to negative circular logic and the causality of a stunting doom-loop, which actually prevents achieving enlightenment, despite such enlightenment revealing the grim reality that humanity is in point of fact tribal and instinctive in nature. Liberalism, and many expressions of individual freedoms, provides sanctuary for everything regressive and reactionary, which sustains all of the potential required to resist progressive change, undermine democracy, and impose moralizing right-wing economics. The “postmodernism” of Liberalism diminishes society into cultural factionalism, where cultural issues replace preserving awareness regarding economics that benefit the general welfare. Relatedly, Liberalism enables economic freedom to constitute weaponized individual liberty, which allows individualism to function in unsustainable abstraction from systems-based accountability. Liberalism does not withstand the scrutiny of environmental sustainability protocols, which requires Universalist coordination with physics-governed environmental determinism. Liberalism occupied the mantle of responsibility while presiding over Anthropocene Homo sapiens failing miserably. Liberalism does not successfully negotiate Plato’s battle between democracy and oligarchy, where liberalism, including through liberal economics, has enabled oligarchy to prevail over democracy. If during business as usual, the status quo, and prevailing wisdom, Homo sapiens premature extinction presents a quandary, one might consider the merits of a contrarian thesis. In addition, considering the legacy agents that have historically ruled the human condition - exceptionalistic tribal identity reproducing the tribal synthesis, rule by capital, and oligarchy with toxic pathology and ideology - none of these agents are something that deserve repeating. So, what would be a better system? To begin with, one that admits the ugly tribal truth, and through such cognitive objectification, achieves the ability to transcend this Paleo-regressive determinism. Subsequently, the phenomenon’s of white supremacy, the tribal synthesis expressed throughout the ruling class, oligarchy, plutocracy, national security state, and nationalist populism, including the self-interested state competing in the interstate system, could all be collectively superannuated to the annals of history. An alternative civilization could be erected upon cognitive-based progressive cultural evolution organizing itself in relationship to attaining environmental sustainability. And Plato’s antagonism between oligarchy and democracy could find resolution that favors democracy through choosing systems-based egalitarian economics and Ecosocialism.

Liberalism seems to have critically failed with looking after the commons; ecology and sustainability. Also failed on social justice and equity, and world peace. What can rectify this ?

I'm surprised Prof Mearsheimer agreed to sit down again with CIS, which really should change its name to Centre of Imperial Promotion, after the Professors visit and disgraceful event that was an embarrassment to Australia because of the ignorance and subservience on display which John at least found amusing.

jOHNS LIVING IN DREAMLAND HERE. the reason there was group cohesion between the first migrants was definitely due to core values but was a huge part due to race. Europeans are a race no matter the branches between them and find some commonality that goes beyond idealism. Hes just too American and simplistic to understand this.

Agreed with humans being social animals, but unable to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. And how can there be any disagreement regarding unalienable rights amongst Americans and Asians? Why is it wrong if Americans wants the rights of Afghans too being protected like those of them?

Students, Heirs, and our Beautiful what is HUMILITY? Not for Thee but unto all. Who is that? Sitting upon the lowest seat LASTS. Now students remind and comes with comfort...! Gathering what remains for the harvest is to gather all the Fruits can be kept! Upon HIS VINEYARD! Candle Sticks Nations! Some will say who is that? Walking in the midst of the CANDLE STICKS NATIONS. ANGELS WHO PERSEVERE HEARD THE "WORD"! KNOW THY PLACE IN FRONT!

I think that one can be a liberal and still believe in the validity of the "Prime Directive" - hello Trekkies! ;-)

BTW I AGREE with like 75% of Mearsheimer ideas. just not down with the Ukraine argument.

I don’t liberalism here in the west either for the exact same reasons!

The same battle was made in WW2. You have to know your history to understand what I mean. Which none of you do.

L 1:55 L defined ; individual > State;

Obviously, he is using a 70 or 80-year-old definition of liberalism. That’s more like classic liberalism not what we see today in America as what’s called liberalism. He should make that distinction in the very beginning. Because most of what he describes as a liberal in the beginning sounds like most conservatives today. It’s almost like they have flipped.

Relativistic Realism? First Principles are the easist to come to, ontologically, and epistemologically. Organic Intelligence leads the way, or Nature's Imperative, qua determinism. Kant's ethics.

Individualism means something specific, which John doesnt seem to acknowledge.

Interviewer must think world is insufferable slow.

Respected Sir, Appreciate your thoughts but need your feedback on some questions. 1) To achieve Liberalism on the planet isn't difficult but those who want to implement did or doing blunders. ( in history we called them WAR LORDS) ,but today any fancy names , how someone justify killing of millions people in last 124 years only. World War 1,2 . Killing of Africans in African soil, European ( still today in Ukraine) Asia ( Afghanistan, Iraq , Syria etc etc) and Ghaza, Burma. Every continent watched GENOCIDE. Someone/ some governments should be made responsible today or nobody has the courage to ask these questions. Millions are dying today due to hunger. Economic disparity is at its highest level in history. Economic growth or Billionaire cannot be seen in Isolation and at what price. Poverty in Africa/ South Asia/ South America isn't point of discussion.

While liberal and nationalist are busy fighting it out, socialism is taking off, all the way to victory

Nacionalismo! Vai Russia! Vai BRIC.

There is need to distinguish between nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is loyalty to an ethnic group, its language, its culture, its history. Patriotism is loyalty to a country and its political institutions, symbols, etc.

Tommy: 29:20 They can't co exist if about business. I'm different with you.

Was the German people pre WW2 encourgaged to vote in a dictator who took Germany to war? Why would the German people do that, one wonders. Perhaps it was extreme nationalism along with desperation as to the state of Germany following WW1. Same with Japan, why go to war against the USA. What drove Japan to go to war against the USA after it invaded Nanchuria etc.....Oil and survival perhaps? The same question must be asked today, as to why Russia invaded Ukraine....Why would Russia invade a country of 50 million people with a ground force of only 100000.? According to Putin it was an exercise to prevent Ukraine arming and becoming a member of NATO..... That is, in Putin's mind, it was for survival. So Nations under threat of survival are liable to go to war.? Imagine if Hitler had the nuclear bomb....... Putin has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. So if it is about survival of the Russian state, does anybody doubt that Putin will use nuclear weapons? The reaction of the West, which is obviously doing it's best to destroy Russia, using economic sanctions and supplying Ukraine with more and more weapons is obvious....No sign of peace only attacking and prodding the "bear" This is a very dangerous time and this military exercise by the Nato only heightens the threat. One mistake is all that is required to set off a chain reaction....

liberalism is evangelicalism in another time

I wish we kept our ‘liberal’ leaders. For some reason (or maybe fear of left might gain power) we did end up with dictators.