Here at MiH we’ve cited Prof. John Mearsheimer frequently for his views, initially, on the American war on Russia. Prof. Mearsheimer has long been a critic of US policy toward Russia as well as the Middle East. In that second respect, more recently we have cited Prof. Mearsheimer on the Palestine issue, to which he has devoted an enormous amount of energy (including his well known book, with Stephen Walt,
I have reached the conclusion that the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire, now engaged in genocide against its own citizens while it wages war against the rest of the world, is the New Communism.
Let's say Arnaud Bertrand and Clinton Fernandes are right, that "the key characteristic of the 'rules-based international order' relates to the actual structure of the American...social and economic system, which seeks to enforce an order where the whole world is open to the penetration and control of their ...national moneyed class..,Which is why the order is about hegemony, and not about security, and why the former so often comes at the expense of the latter."
Well then, who is this 'national moneyed class' that is committed to global hegemony? Today its political representative is the Uniparty, of course. The same Uniparty that brings together Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham and Joe Biden. And Liz Cheney and Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton. They may differ on exactly how to spend the printing press dollars both sides authorize, but they are absolutely joined at the hip in preserving the global 'rules based order' which they must believe insures their continuing wealth and power.
So where does this leave Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters...and implicitly most of us readers here...clearly not part of the Uniparty?
Interestingly, a fairly obscure writer named Carl Ogelsby described the rise of the Uniparty in terms of a merger across political parties of two opposing American elites which he called the 'Yankees' and the 'Cowboys' who came together under Ronald Reagan. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing since Reagan, but Ogelsby's theory seems to still hold water.
Here's a link to a recent article by Pam Ho (about whom I know nothing) explaining the split between the Uniparty and Trump in terms of the Cowboy and Yankee factions of the American moneyed classes. I suspect Arnaud Bertrand would agree.
Interesting, for sure. Not sure I buy into it entirely. I like that she points out the connection between liberals and libertarians in the Uniparty. I'd like to know more about who she thinks were Trump's very wealthy backers, the Neo Cowboys.
I didn't know about Mearsheimer and Realism. The statement "...all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else" is in fact a gross denial of reality. No. #1, all states and cultures are different from one another and are always changing; No. #2, the situations which face each state are complex and dynamic, and the state's actions will be conditioned by a subjective view of those situations and of the potential impact of the responsive actions to them; #3, the motivations of the states are dependent on who has power within them and that can change drastically at any time - as an example, a Trump admin vs. a Biden admin. Is the Biden admin really interested in survival and security of the U.S.? Could have fooled me.
It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their thinking. And where they are. My sense of Mearsheimer’s discussions of these things, without extensive review, is that he gives a lot of weight to what he thinks is the perspective of other nations. When discussing Russia he brings up their perspective as communicated by Putin over the years. Perhaps I misunderstand Realism: is it an effort to understand the history, culture, and beliefs of other nations in an effort to see how all of this affects their goals when it comes to foreign affairs?
History certainly supports this modified realist view of what and why western powers vs other civilisations do what they do. China seeks soft power and influence globally by building infrastructure under the Belt & Road initiative. The US, UK and their vassal states like Australia prefer to launch wars, threaten sanctions, foment dissent, initiate coups, and destroy competing infrastructure (e.g. Obama bombing Gaddafi’s Great Man Made River project which would have brought fresh water to much of Africa, supercharged their farming industry and thus threatened US agriculture).
What is it 3 Palestinian prisoners to 1 Israeli hostage (including foreign workers)? Police hostages increases to 5 to 1. Military / Sr Military hostages increase to 25 to 1. American hostages (10) probably 100 to 1.
Iran or Turkey is most likely providing guidance to Hamas. If so, releases continue I expect Zhou to “buy / broker” their release with $$$$. Seems to fit their M.O. based on past experience.
Interesting read and assessment by Bertrand. I don't always favor his analysis of things but seems he provides a critique (as well as Fernandez's book) that should be required reading in some circles shared by Neocons. I think it makes sense and can understand how J.M.'s "macro / one size fits all" views need to be sliced and filtered more. Appreciate the post.
I have reached the conclusion that the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire, now engaged in genocide against its own citizens while it wages war against the rest of the world, is the New Communism.
https://www.claritypress.com/product/our-country-then-and-now/
Another neocon success to close out 2023:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/24/germany-and-us-want-zelensky-to-make-peace-with-moscow/
Are we all Neo-Cowboys here?
Let's say Arnaud Bertrand and Clinton Fernandes are right, that "the key characteristic of the 'rules-based international order' relates to the actual structure of the American...social and economic system, which seeks to enforce an order where the whole world is open to the penetration and control of their ...national moneyed class..,Which is why the order is about hegemony, and not about security, and why the former so often comes at the expense of the latter."
Well then, who is this 'national moneyed class' that is committed to global hegemony? Today its political representative is the Uniparty, of course. The same Uniparty that brings together Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham and Joe Biden. And Liz Cheney and Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton. They may differ on exactly how to spend the printing press dollars both sides authorize, but they are absolutely joined at the hip in preserving the global 'rules based order' which they must believe insures their continuing wealth and power.
So where does this leave Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters...and implicitly most of us readers here...clearly not part of the Uniparty?
Interestingly, a fairly obscure writer named Carl Ogelsby described the rise of the Uniparty in terms of a merger across political parties of two opposing American elites which he called the 'Yankees' and the 'Cowboys' who came together under Ronald Reagan. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing since Reagan, but Ogelsby's theory seems to still hold water.
Here's a link to a recent article by Pam Ho (about whom I know nothing) explaining the split between the Uniparty and Trump in terms of the Cowboy and Yankee factions of the American moneyed classes. I suspect Arnaud Bertrand would agree.
https://pamho.medium.com/the-uniparty-and-cowboy-war-1689568759ae
Interesting, for sure. Not sure I buy into it entirely. I like that she points out the connection between liberals and libertarians in the Uniparty. I'd like to know more about who she thinks were Trump's very wealthy backers, the Neo Cowboys.
Perhaps these guys?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-trump-campaign.asp
Tx. I'll have to study that.
I didn't know about Mearsheimer and Realism. The statement "...all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else" is in fact a gross denial of reality. No. #1, all states and cultures are different from one another and are always changing; No. #2, the situations which face each state are complex and dynamic, and the state's actions will be conditioned by a subjective view of those situations and of the potential impact of the responsive actions to them; #3, the motivations of the states are dependent on who has power within them and that can change drastically at any time - as an example, a Trump admin vs. a Biden admin. Is the Biden admin really interested in survival and security of the U.S.? Could have fooled me.
It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their thinking. And where they are. My sense of Mearsheimer’s discussions of these things, without extensive review, is that he gives a lot of weight to what he thinks is the perspective of other nations. When discussing Russia he brings up their perspective as communicated by Putin over the years. Perhaps I misunderstand Realism: is it an effort to understand the history, culture, and beliefs of other nations in an effort to see how all of this affects their goals when it comes to foreign affairs?
History certainly supports this modified realist view of what and why western powers vs other civilisations do what they do. China seeks soft power and influence globally by building infrastructure under the Belt & Road initiative. The US, UK and their vassal states like Australia prefer to launch wars, threaten sanctions, foment dissent, initiate coups, and destroy competing infrastructure (e.g. Obama bombing Gaddafi’s Great Man Made River project which would have brought fresh water to much of Africa, supercharged their farming industry and thus threatened US agriculture).
More evidence of neocon success
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/where-are-the-americans.php
Whatever happened to the Americans who couldn't get out of Afghanistan? Why should "Biden" care any more about those in Gaza than they did about them?
What is it 3 Palestinian prisoners to 1 Israeli hostage (including foreign workers)? Police hostages increases to 5 to 1. Military / Sr Military hostages increase to 25 to 1. American hostages (10) probably 100 to 1.
Iran or Turkey is most likely providing guidance to Hamas. If so, releases continue I expect Zhou to “buy / broker” their release with $$$$. Seems to fit their M.O. based on past experience.
Interesting read and assessment by Bertrand. I don't always favor his analysis of things but seems he provides a critique (as well as Fernandez's book) that should be required reading in some circles shared by Neocons. I think it makes sense and can understand how J.M.'s "macro / one size fits all" views need to be sliced and filtered more. Appreciate the post.
Yes - the Author of reality.