And manipulative. Wouldn't the other side call themselves the "realists". By naming yourself the realist you are showing your biases, as well as displaying an attempt to manipulate people into seeing your side of the argument as the real and correct side

@@la7era1u54 By "realist" he's contrasting himself with the idealist. The idealist says "Flowers, candy, and universal love for everyone! Yay!" And the realist says "Hey wait those things cost money, we don't have enough, and people just don't work that way." We need both given the circumstance.

the guy might be well spoken but he's lost in abstract ideas and couldn't make a fire or know how to wipe his own ass in the woods when it came down to it! as far as I can tell the guy is part of the problem that humanity is facing today. he's not contributing to any real solution that the average human being is facing. it's just hogwash!

And Lex still can't understand him lol

@@pyros4333 what's there to understand ... the guy is just lost in terminology, intellectualizing ... as if he's lost touch with reality, moving only in abstract thoughts that have no practical application.

Lex*

you can say aLexA

for sheeple like you

almost no charge? I guess I bought the phone and cell service (my method) but I was gonna do that anyway. this is certainly no charge to me. Thanks Lex❤️

Yup, I feel like I'm in an international politics class.

LOL

Hell yeah

He forgot how democracy can turn into a dictatorship, see Hitler or even Lenin, and then we know what happened. Same with idealistic unregulated capitalism, competition will be won by some company which results in a monopoly or oligopoly and then there's no competition any more, it degenerates into imperialism over time which is questionably almost as bad as socialism.

Live long and prosper. Spock.

History may not repeat but it sure does rhyme. Those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it like our 'leaders'.

It's funny he didn't even bother to argue about the institution theory, as we all know UN is a joke😂.

I really think we (well I don't) do not know much about the economic interdependencies between European countries pre-WWI or even to what granularity of detail is needed to make such an opinion. Furthermore, this a simplistic-one sentence statement that completely underpins a one-sentence statement about one type of geopolitical liberalism. I mean given the context of a KZfaq interview, Mearsheimer is totally fine with this 50,000-ft level, elementary assertion. That doesn't mean any of this --> we learned anything or any of this is profound, or even true. I think that is what we all have to keep in mind. It's an introductory (for me) STEP-ONE into this discipline. That's what I think everyone should remember (IMHO), it doesn't mean anything in it of itself and has no applicability because it's too simplistic to be meaningful. But that's not Mearsheimer job to remind us, and although he may (or may not) be blowing smoke up our collective asses (because he's wrong or similar, not because of ill intent), he does a really great job phrasing things as propositions, and expressing uncertainty in what he is saying. I appreciate that. It, in this instance, is a sign of honest communication and good-faith engagement.

@@walterwang2011 it's actually amazing the kinds of superstitions that the world modern & it's institutions believe. The guest is correct.

​@@walterwang2011Probably a destructive force in the world. Possibly straight up evil.

Try enlightening someone that thinks that it's good to undermine democratically elected officials because government usually does bad stuff@bill855

Or with Trump.

well said

We studied Mearschiemer and Fukuyama at my liberal arts school. Had to take a class called Introduction to International Relations Theory, though.

ha ha cute

You're in a great place my friend. Very balanced approach and navigating the middle is a teaching bestowed to us by our prophet. Never go extreme in any direction. The next step i suggest is to look into islam. For someone who is clearly intelligent i think it will resonate with you And youre always welcome to cone back here and pop me a question! Take care

When you have kids you realize you have to pick a side. Society has rules because we are bound to each other through mutual acceptance for what we know of as the accepted societal rules . Just like in your house , you have rules… if someone comes in and violates them … what will you do? Passively stand there and accept it ? That’s weakness someone will end up taking your home

@@gxqx797what’s denoted as “extreme” is relative . Currently the left is so left even center right is “far right” . People who think they are virtue signaling decency by not having a opinion are not engaging in moderating their own fate

@@TheMightyWalkI’d like to think I’m non aligned because really in the current demographic of things I’m from England so it doesn’t effect me so I live my life normally carrying on not supporting either side but more just dwelling on the fact that more senseless death is happening.. but others around me seem to insert themselves into something they didn’t have any regard for before any of this is mind baffling really..

@@TheMightyWalkI suppose certain individuals feel important when they get rid of that individuality and replace it for religion or to a group for belonging… idk maybe I’m rambling nonsense

You skipped Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen…

thast what i am wondering too.

Take biased "intellectuals" on western payroll such as Fukuyama and Harari seriously at your own peril!

​@@SusanHopkinsonConveniently because this is the way all civilian brains work within an empire😂 can easily point out world atrocities if they're not themselves at all involved😊

So long as the tribe has any power, there will be permanent war. What does the American military do other than follow the commands of the tribe?

He always does this it’s so infuriating! Rather simple shit too

Hes not summerizing for you, he’s predicting what the guest is implying (its extreme) and whatever the guest makes it a point to refute means that the other aspects of his question is along the right lines

Lex is an idiot

Perhaps a little annoying, but Lex' strength is that he isnt adversarial, but instead, seeking knowledge. Lex is exceptionally smart, but his greatest strength, in my opinion, is acting stupid.

I prefer him over Joe Rogen. At least Lex is better about selecting guests. Sometimes I think Rogen’s guests are nut jobs or self professed “experts”, that just stoke conspiracy or spread misinformation

He is an academic by profession.

self-proclaiming realist who sounds like theoretical physicist: i did not know much about Putin, but i know what he is thinking. 🤷‍♂️

@@suslikfromcarussian bot from ca how ironic

@@Guccifer808 sorry from NC 🤪 why Russian and not Ukrainian bot 🤔

WWII? I must have missed something.

Sounds about right…

Only makes sense

Before this comment is removed or buried, I want Lex to know that I think that within all countries the will of the people to democratically elect their leaders is a good thing.

​@@Flintknappingtips😂

@@shafsteryellow why are you laughing? I don’t expect my comment to make morning. Why laugh at it?

Ppl living in less “democratic” societies argue, that it is pillaging and unfair trade that made possible to finance political circus that is democracy. As soon as amount of resources dwindles, so does the democracy. Seems we are witnessing this process in western countries right now.

​@hrissan are u saying that those lesser " republics" are a bit more equal?

keep in mind that what you are hearing is his _opinion_, his views are archaic and not fit for today's politics.

Lol if ur learning from this clown. Gl Amount of nonsense and lies coming out from his mouth about Ukraine conflict is staggering.

Fun fact, Western Plutocracies call themselves democracies too 😅

@@SusanHopkinson at this point, it's more like a corportocarcy.

Great observation!

Democracies don't "fight" other democracies. They instigate coups instead. For the good of democracy ofcourse...

​@davidmontgomery1442Also, China and the USSR fought actual battles during the Cold War

Which further assumes that in order to help absolve the world of bad actors, we need a different approach to bring them back into the game of society without pushing them further into their negatively compounding behaviors and confirmation biases? Maybe?

But then it gets to what defines a winner in a popularity contest, which gets into the argument that the contest is only a mirror of the collective ideal in people who ultimately decide who becomes voted in as "best-choice" candidate. So it is only as altruistic as the people within

Man, I'd throw a banquet just to be able to listen to Mr.Mearsheimer

"Fear knocked on the door. Faith opened the door and no one was there."

The older I get the more I realize that this may be the single biggest factor. It’s the difference between self sufficient producers and dependent consumer states.

Well, the USA is a democracy--presidents wouldn't have wisdom if the electorates don't.

@@howardkong8927 well.. they call is "democracy" but its even wikipedia says its "Flawed democracy"

Yer panties still in a bind?😂😂😂 You see something new, but still have to regress to where it hurts. Does Trump still live in your brain rent free 😂😂😂

What are the other options?

@@chananjamajiji5412 More than two. Mearsheimer admits in this interview that realism has at least two divisions.

There are a bunch of other ones, but they're not the most popular. There's Marxism, constructivism, and even feminism. They're all valid ways of understanding the world, but some are more valid than others especially based on how well they apply to the historical database, and how solid the causal logic is. Realism is pretty simple, which is why its logic has less "complications," contradictions, or slippery slopes than other theories. However, even within realism, there are multiple flavors (human nature, structural offensive/defensive). You'll find most realists place a lot of importance on history as a way to validate the theory as both descriptive and prescriptive.

Those two remain (by far) the most powerful empirically explanatory ones, which is why Mearsheimer explained them. The others are what you might call revisionist theories. And it’s not a “logical fallacy.” It comes closest to the “either/or” fallacy, but Mearsheimer is merely breaking down a field he knows well in its complexity, given the time constraints, to provide what he thinks are the dominant perspectives. He never says they are the only ones! The other options, which now penetrate and in my view adulterate the radical university’s (by that I mean virtually all) abdication of IR foundations, are mainly rhetorical sophistry and do not, as the liberalism-realism debate did, either welcome or elevate from debate over the historical evidence. They merely assert a rather shallow (e.g., Marxist) theory and demand you accede to it. Like postmodernism, there’s no desire to build a body of knowledge. It’s just a bullying of convention and radical-ratcheting rhetorical sophistry. Hard-core historians often criticize classical IR theorists like Mearsheimer for their loose or simplistic interpretations of history. But the “new” IR theorists abandon any serious interpretation. They just assert it, and denigrate rather than build on those who studied the issue before them using ad hominem and unsupportable assertions. So academic inquiry in the social sciences has devolved, sadly. So has its rhetorical civility. Just my two cents.

@@tommyrq180 I totally agree that the social sciences are becoming a cesspool for divisive woke ideologies that do the reverse of what they purport to fight against. I've never seen men so vilified; women needing to compete with former male narcissists in sports; children/confused gays forced to take gender-affirming drugs/surgery; reduction of law enforcement and law enforcement funding; people barely maintaining the population size required to maintain civilization to help fight climate change; etc. There's also an overarching war between centralization and decentralization that will hopefully bring back the good times in due time, but we're living in tumultuous times.

❤

It is important to atleast try to avoid your own self bias

I got your realist hangin

It is, but that is not the main factor. Consider a situation where you have a market bubble of Tulip flowers. Then the idea that "Tulip flowers would crash in price" is a self-fulfilling view point. Everyone believes that the flower would decrease in price, so they would be urged to sell it fast, which lowers its price. But you cannot say that this view point **caused** the price crash of Tulip flowers. The unstable state of a bubbled market was the **cause**. The view point is merely something that set it off. If a system can be set off by a single view point, then it's the system, not the view point, that is causing the problem. Same goes for offensive realism. The view point can indeed create the self-fulfillment you have just said. But that is not the **cause** of offensive realism. The anachy between the countries is the cause--it is this structure that sets up the unstable state of the world. The view point of offensive realism is merely setting it off.

Capitalism and Democracy can never be true playmates. There is an antagonism evident within the function of each. But fascism is Capitalism and government coming together in defiance of democracy. For obvious reasons.

My problem with this thinking is the fundamental idea that this all ultimately zero sum. I think that's false.

@@roarblast7332 Eash iteration humanity has evolved to be stronger.

Politics by other means.

In my opinion, the so-called liberal democracy is just an excuse and tool for early-developing countries to colonize or economically colonize late-developing countries. Many examples have occurred in history, including the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I believe there will be more examples in the future to prove this point. In the final analysis, everything is for profit, and all rhetoric is just decoration in the face of profit.

The whole theory is just cope and propaganda

Those who try to change human nature, always fail. It's biology my man.

Xenocide do you mean?

Socialism in comparison doesn't wage wars. Don't be silly. Capitalism is a method, not the structure he's talking about. The structure might mold around financing structures, sure. But it's ultimately because the structure has the monopoly on violence, and extracts and justifies the resources to enable it that aggression happens. In any case it happens whether there's capitalism or not, so the common denominator is the structure, the State.

China uses capitalism. Lots of states benefit from capitalism and they don't wage war. Singapore for instance. I think you need to dig deeper on history to understand why states wage war. You might want to look at the realist perspective.

@rageburst China is at wars with the USA through other means. They engage in proxy conflicts, criminal activities,boarder disputes and more. Just look at the India China boarder, the south china sea disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam and other states. How they supply fentanyl to the USA through Mexican cartels.

His core theory is survival and prosperity for the sustainable future. When you don’t have an overwhelming power on the international stage you want to be the overwhelming power to protect your own interests.