CLOSING DEBATE: GLOBAL VS. NATIONAL Bernard-Henri Lévy, Philosopher, Filmmaker and Activist vs. Stephen Bannon, Former White House Chief Strategist, United States
Levy is totally out , he can only function among his own ,where everyone is taking in the same way, munching on the same thought, using slogans only.. Levy's type don't think on their own , every thought is collective and no one deviates from the script.
The problem with Bernard Henri Levi is that he confuses a logical argument with Romantic poetry😁😁😁 The guy doesn't hit a target even if it's hanging from his nose.
Wrong. Bannon doesn't know what he's talking about. Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
@@canteluna Well, my comment is based solely on this debate. Not upon any opinion reflecting my political bias. Bernard not only exhibited a shameful lack of debate capacity but, even worse -a great deal of hypocrisy. He pretended to be more sensible to human problems than his opponent (and not only in this case, but against Dugin too), and to be above any ideological identification when is very clear which interests he represents. Just taking one example of his stupid behavior in this debate, what on earth he had to bring into his arguments the fact that Trump humiliated Bannon and his supposed "pity" of him because of it... Has that any thing to do with the theme at issue? And of course, he was lying about his sympathy.
@@apocalipsereich6997 You're rotten-cherry-picking. What I care about, and what anyone with good faith should care about, is the world view, the facts and lies presented by each debater. Dismissing Levi's entire position because you didn't like his style of debate has nothing to do with the substance of his position. You're either not listening to the substance or you should admit that your bias is toward a man who is clueless - but I admit, he sounds confident and knowledgeable. However, Bannon is a liar and not only are his views incorrect but they are dangerous to anyone who takes them at face value. Read any respected expert on geopolitics and you will hear Bannon's views contradicted. Bannon is a grifter who makes a living from spouting right wing propaganda that ignorant people want to hear.
@@canteluna Again, I'm just fact checking two arguments standing for two world views in a debate. And YES! One can "dismiss the entire position in a debate" based on the performance, because, to begin with: that's the objective of a debate - to proof the soundness of a given opinion, argument, world view, ideology... So why not to take it like a good measure of the veracity of those positions? If you are not on the Bannon political shore, that's OK. But that doesn't mean you overlook the errors of Bernard... And there were legions! Besides, what is so special about his world view? He represents interests just as Bannon does.
I came here from dugin-levi discussion. The french man was accusing dugin for taking part on the side of government when Russia invaded ukrain. Here he accuses le pen for not standing by the french government in conflicts in Syria and Libya. What a double standart.
Not really. How is that a double standard, when clearly the Russian government is pro agression and exclusion while it is le Pen who is pro agression and exclusion in France.
@@thesilkpainter so france deciding theyre gonna attack a sovereign nation and have a regime change is totally fine, but if anybody disagrees theyre somehow "pro aggression"? that bernard guy is an obvious clown and thinks if you dont agree with him youre anti democratic and unpatriotic.
@@canteluna if its not double standard, its an absurd expectation that he wants a russian national/nationalist to share his geopolitical views and goals... that would be like if dugin asked him to condemn french presidents attack on soverign nations of syria and libya, but then in another debate questions the patriotism of any russain whos critical of the conflict in ukraine and calls them foreign agents.
Get someone more serious than Levy. I'm interested in listening to your speakers but Levy's childish emotional appeals and uninspired insults makes every debate he's in unworthy of our time.
Wrong. Bannon is the liar here. Deride Levi all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
@@canteluna omg, you are obsessed!! Steve Bannon lives in your head rent free!! You are everywhere and keep repeating the same, the same!! Your have impressive education!!
I'm glad that my son is finding out and hearing about Globalists, for the first time in his life, thanks to Steve Bannon with Vox, in Spain. Otherwise he never understood what I was talking about. Thanks to Steve Bannon for that.
‘Bannon made some great points that were never even addressed by Levy-“ the party of Davos supported by slave labor” - powerful claim by Bannon and completely ignored by Levy
Not sure it was intentional. A lively debate and too many important points to address for the time there was. That said, I would have like to hear far more on that issue.
I can't hear the intellectual side of Bernard-Henri levy. All he has to offer is to ask why the U.S. - Trump - can't be nicer. Thats all he has. He may never get it. People understand a strong voice. They will wake up to it. It has exposed much that has been hidden. Bannon is pretty good.
Democracy is not a bureaucratic process or institution. Democracy is the power of the people to act as a coherent mass which defies the Open Society, Davos, Bilderberg so-called champions of democracy.
Levy is not a moralist. Probably you are. Levy knows how to point out the darkest part of Bannon. And Bannon is a really dark personality. Bannon is uncomfortable and shows himself very weak. His speech is inarticulate. He can only be self confident if the audience thinks exactly like him. A dangerous personality.
@@aristochat3 No, he doesn't strike. But he's like a fucking crazy chick who wants you to go around picking a fight with any random bloke that looks at her wrong, except the ones who are actually a danger to her.
Someone in possession of the facts has no use for personal attacks and appeals emotionalism. This pitiful performance by the Frenchman casts much doubt on his intellectual capability.
Wrong. It's impossible to know how much Russian lies about Clinton effected the election - my own guess is probably not so much. But it is also just as unfalsifiable for Bannon to claim that Hilary's loss was because she didn't go to Michigan and Wisconsin - I don't think it would have mattered. The Hilary brand has been in the toilet since before she ran against Obama. It is NOT a conspiracy to say that Russia interfered in the election, they did. It was proven by the Mueller report. And it is laughably rich for Bannon to talk about accepting loss in an election when he is one of the biggest LIARS in regard to Trump losing. Anyone who takes Bannon seriously is a dupe. He is a charlatan and a grifter. I could kick his ass in a debate. Don't believe me, debate me in a proxy debate. You be Bannon I'll be (a more informed version of) Levi.
Who is the author that he mentions Steve Bannon likes at 49.40 minutes? Achar Remoras, and Jean Raspail? I can’t transcribe the the first guy very well.
Talk about false advertising. I thought this was supposed to be a debate about global vs. national, not the Bernard-Henri Levy lazy ad hominem slur show. How disappointing.
Wrong. Bannon doesn't know what he's talking about. Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
they're both intellectual frauds in the sense that they are pugilists for a cause rather than seekers of truth. I agree more with Levy, but I'd much rather hang out with Bannon
@@ChannelMath Levy is an ideologue and so doesn't seem to see his own biases. One can ignore such a character. Bannon, on the other hand, wants to burn the system down and there is no limit to the depths of depravity to which he'll sink to in order to achieve his end. Even now, he's pumping out the piss for loser, Kari Lake (how I hope Trump picks her or MTG for a running mate!). Bannon demands we reckon with him, and I hope the justice department will do just that. Btw, when you're hanging out with Bannon, do the world a favor and slip some arsenic into his koolaid.
This is a French typical ...misplaced traditional..arrogant .. .patronising ..style...all clear with a cosmetically pronounced French accent... Steve is dealing with Informed Facts Bernard is a special aventurier and self appointed political guru ..
Not a French typical at all, he is an agent of Israel, he's got nothing of a French, and it's a French telling you that. This guy is a shame for our country
Too bad you idiots are all concerned with style instead of substance. Bannon is a charlatan, a liar, a dissembler. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd flush Bannon down the toilet where he belongs.
@@canteluna I think that's exactly what he is. Rather unconvincingly, he delivers the standard, pro-globalist rhetoric but then avoids having to defend it by speaking way too much, while saying little. His logical fallacies alone would lose him a school debating competition. He's a Globalist Functionary.
@@KCavan Personally, I wouldn't put up Levy as a speaker for the global order, I would put up Peter Zeihan or Kevin Rudd who are extremely knowledgeable, and not histrionic and would wipe the floor with the charlatan Bannon. Before dismissing "globalists" as elitist evil-doers, as Bannon does, you should learn what globalism actually is and how we all benefit from it. if you want to debate the subject I'm available.
I've seen this Levy guy debating Aleksandr Dugin, recently. He dodged around shamelessly then, too. If at first you don't succeed, accuse the other guy of being racist. Pathetic. And to cite Buzzfeed as a credible source. What a clown.
this levy guy comes from the john lennon era give peace a chance another way to say do peace our way or war will follow a great debate about the catastrophe of globalism thanks bannon god bless u
B H Levy hates Trump because he pulled American troops from Syria among other media spewed lies. Syria, Turkey and the Kurds have been fighting each other for over 1000 years, why should America spill their precious blood on foreign wars? He wants America to waste themselves for all of Europe's troubles. Our troops come home with no legs and arms, burned bodies, finally Trump is putting American troops first. Let Europe fight their own wars, enough of this, since when is America the world's army?
@Todd the Toddler Europe is against Trump removing troops from Iraq and other countries, Europe is against Trump's America first initiative. Trump hasn't entered any new war of any kind. The problem in the States is the media and loons like antifa and blm. And by the way everything I said was 100% right, just because you happen to disagree with me doesn't make what I said stupid.
Mr Bannon is one of my heroes .... I never take that word lightly..he will never get the credit he deserves, much less have the terrible lies spewed about him dispelled.
Bannon is a charlatan and a grifter exploiting your ignorance. Don't like Levi, fine, look up geopolitics. Peter Zeihan, Ian Bremmer, Kevin Gallagher, Kevin Rudd....
I dont think that would be too interesting. They each would just do their own thing since they won't feel attacked. Peterson disagrees with the other two on geopolitics, but his focus on the individual would fail to connect to the other two
Bernard is such a let down honestly. Dude looked to be a serious thinker on his wikipedia profile and on curated images on google. But after watching a dozen of his debates, dude appears more a charlatan ....eapecially compared to his peers like Thomas Sowell.
Wrong. Bannon doesn't know what he's talking about. Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
Bannon makes two very strong critiques of globalism: 1. that the privilege of the developed nations rests on the backs, of developing nations such as china. He makes the analogy to slavery (correctly I believe). 2. That we have an economic system which is structured to implode and to be bailed out by the average taxpayers, which basically forces average people to give their money away to the financial elite. What he does not explain is how nationalism effectively addresses these issues. Would we not have the same issues but on a smaller scale with nationalist economies? With all its faults, (and I think that Global Bank and the IMF have on many occasions undone democracy, increased corruption, unsighted environmental havoc, and invited in cruel forms of power) I do think that globalisms major triumph is that it has made world war bad business. When our economies depend on each other we are less likely to toss bombs around and invade others turf. Though, I doubt the solution to these problems will come from globalism or nationalism. I see, alternatively, a growing experience of 'easfullness' accumulating in the world on the margins. A returning to the simplicity of being a human on a planet with neighbors. A living virtue of symbiosis (with one's self, with others and with the environment one stands). New economies are born out of new paradigms. Neither of these men have anything decent or worthwhile they are offering. But I sense a more wise way of existing is possible. What does it look like to live in a wise society?
YOU “Bannon makes two very strong critiques of globalism: 1. that the privilege of the developed nations rests on the backs, of developing nations such as china. He makes the analogy to slavery (correctly I believe).” ME This comment, like virtually everything coming out of Bannon’s mouth is either a lie or a point of view not rooted in facts. This particular comment shows an ignorance that would disqualify Bannon from serving tea to REAL geopolitical experts. The global economy - which Bannon claims he despises, yet shows he doesn’t understand - is one that has been demonstrably good for everyone ON THE WHOLE if your objective is to have the highest possible standard of living in all nations of the world - relative to each other - and relative peace. Like all populists, Bannon doesn’t seem to understand the post WW2 Bretton Woods US-led global order that eventually allowed global trade (that IS what globalism means despite populists’ ignorant conspiratorial definition). He must know this and if so, he is just being a charlatan and grifter trying to exploit the ignorance of populists for his own gain. The global order has resulted in a division of labor that has been highly beneficial for the most part throughout the various world’s nations. To say otherwise, to say that developed countries are profiting off of them is like saying that a poor person with no trained skill is being exploited by some company employing him. The “developing” nations do not have the economic power to develop their economies in the first place OR THEY WOULD, and claiming or implying that they are not more wealthy due to exploitation or “enslavement” by the US or other powerful countries is almost certainly BULLSHIT (unless you’re talking about non democratic countries whose leaders are not accountable to voters). Mexico, for example, is a necessary economic partner for the US that allows them to do manufacturing that is no longer done in the US and thereby building their economy, as the US tends mostly toward higher, value added design of products (e.g. silicon valley). (BTW China is NOT a developing nation - but if they don’t turn their economy around soon they might become one again). This topic requires a much more in depth covering, but my generalizing will suffice to rebut your/Bannon’s position. YOU 2. “That we have an economic system which is structured to implode and to be bailed out by the average taxpayers, which basically forces average people to give their money away to the financial elite.” ME This is a completely naive or disingenuous analysis of the bailout and, having worked for Goldman Sachs, Bannon likely knows this and is preying upon the populist sentiments of those who don’t understand how the global economy works. There is plenty of criticism to levy against the way the bailout was handled but the system is NOT structured in a way to implode. The 08 crisis was due to the system FAILING to abide by its own structure (the ratings companies lied about the value of derivatives and allowed sub prime mortgages mostly). Their were whistle blowers who were ignored. And people were not held accountable who should have but to dismiss the crisis as a failure of structure is a lie and Bannon knows it. It’s like blaming the constitution and the structure of the US government with its checks and balances designed to enable democracy and the functioning of the liberal republic when a dishonest, illiberal administration takes power, as Trump did, with Bannon’s help. The structure, as good as it is, still requires honest actors. YOU “What he does not explain is how nationalism effectively addresses these issues. Would we not have the same issues but on a smaller scale with nationalist economies?” ME No. The problems would be much worse. Understand that the “nation state” is mostly a misnomer when used/defined by populists like Bannon. The nation states in Europe did not exist until recently, and even then they are mostly fortified within the EU (Norway has its own oil economy and can take advantage of other EU perks that allow its relative autonomy). Prior to WW1 Europe consisted of empires and so its economies depended on its colonies. Between WW1 and WW2 the empires were falling apart and after WW2 virtually all of the European empires were ended - the colonies suing for independence. But that was ok because the post war Bretton Woods agreement enabled virtually every country in the world to participate in the global economy with the US, through out navy, guaranteeing peaceful oceans for goods to be transported more cheaply than ever. Without this order - i.e. America first, Brexit, France First, etc - the economic alliances begin to weaken and be redefined as irnporant populists, whose high standard of living has completely depended on the old order, begin to ASSert national “independence” whining that the globalists are denying them true democracy and forcing immigration on them (again, not understanding how crucial immigration is and has been to their standard of living). YOU “With all its faults, (and I think that Global Bank and the IMF have on many occasions undone democracy, increased corruption, unsighted environmental havoc, and invited in cruel forms of power)” ME This is too serious an allegation not to supply examples. And part of the problem with this line of thinking or believing is that it is not falsifiable in the sense that we can never know what would have happened if what happened did not happen. I am not claiming there is no corruption or missteps in these institutions but the better question is were/are they more useful and beneficial than not? And if your answer is not, then the burden is on you to make a case for why. Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, left wing anti globalists have tried to make the case. Personally I am not persuaded. I have read too much from the pro-globalist side to find their arguments persuasive unless you want to claim that it would be better if nations returned to the old order, in which case you really are in a might-makes-right world (as Russia is attempting to reassert in regard to Ukraine understanding that the old order is not as united as it used to be and that, demographically, they are in a now or never moment to reassert a kind of war we haven’t seen in Europe since WW2 - pre order). YOU ”I do think that globalisms major triumph is that it has made world war bad business. When our economies depend on each other we are less likely to toss bombs around and invade others turf. Though, I doubt the solution to these problems will come from globalism or nationalism.” ME No. The first part of your comment is correct. Economic unions are bad for business and to forge a global dependence - as was the case with the post war Bretton Woods agreement - the world was lacking in war as it ever had been - especially in Europe. Russia - and unfortunately Ukraine - are about to find out the hard way that resorting to war will not only harm the global system, but will make their own economies much weaker. YOU “I see, alternatively, a growing experience of 'easfullness' accumulating in the world on the margins. A returning to the simplicity of being a human on a planet with neighbors.” ME People can’t afford to be this naïve. Certainly Ukrainians are not. Moldova, Poland, the people of the Baltic countries are not living under this pipedream (not to mention those in Georgia and Chechnia and Afghanistan). YOU “New economies are born out of new paradigms.” ME What do you mean? Even India, which does have an evolving value-added high tech sector, cannot build its economy based on that alone. It is going to take a process of building it up, by offering cheap labor (what Bannon dangerously calls ‘slave labor” I guess he prefers people starving to death) and developing all sectors of their economy. Remember, all an economy is is supply and demand. Sounds simple. It’s not. YOU “Neither of these men have anything decent or worthwhile they are offering.” ME Bannon certainly does not, he is a charlatan and a grifter, attempting to exploit the ignorance of those who know less than he does about how the global economy actually works. All he cares about is being the beneficiary of someone in power to enrich himself. He is despicable. Like Levi or not, nothing I heard him say was a lie. He is simply a messenger for a point of view that is losing favor - unfortunately. Because when economies falter people are too quick to blame the wrong thing or people. What we had worked and it worked for as many as it could. It was far from perfect but perfect is NOT an option. Just like democratic republics. Highly unlikely and not perfect but get rid of it and … you’re fucked. Back to tribes, empires, might-makes-right.
They are both cheap demagogues. Bannon just happens to be in the right here. It's like Dugin making Lévy feel insightful and honest. Lévy here just doesn't want to pick up the tab of having his country's interests protected, and he has no idea how many of his "friends" are his enemies. And he doesn't understand that he can't babysit the whole fucking world, or get america to do it. He seems to forget that both FDR and Wilson were 5th columns, imperialism was always controlled demolition of the west.
Anyone serious does not taken Bannon to be a serious intellect. I could wipe the floor with him. Bannon chooses to debate weak opponents. Love to see him go against Peter Zeihan.
One guy is articulately going over geopolitical strategies, while the other struggles to define what it means to be friends, and the latest tweets of Donald Trump.
Bannon just can’t accept being called out. That’s part of what separates him from true intellectuals. He rushes in, without really studying, then gets his back up when his missteps mistakes are pointed out. The mark of an anti-intellectual is the love of saying, of misunderstanding how debate is conducted, and so they go on the attack. Their talking points don’t hold up, and instead of shamefully realizing they’re ill-prepared in the presence of serious scholars-those who have studied might and day throughout their careers-verbal attack is their reaction to their own failure. Example: Bannon says he’s anti white supremacy. That is a huge contradiction due to the company he keeps and the white supremacy his Breitbart articles frequently convey. I will give Bannon this much: he is right about the costs 😅f the world being paid by those least able to afford to pay. Here’s the contradiction: so why is he hanging with Trump who decreased taxes in the wealthy like all the other Republicans? That’s why I left the GOP years ago. HOW CAN I respect a man who perpirts to he for the people but hangs with deeply rooted haters of the people?
Why does BHL assume “the Iranians” are “supposed to be our enemies?” Who is “our” people who hold this grudge against “the Iranians?” I would understand if he made a distinction between the Iranian government and its people, but that distinction doesn’t seem to matter too much to him.
Really tragic figure this Levy.In serious discussions he behaves like an actor on the stage. You can disagree with him but he represents a way of thinking. Levy represents nothing.I have seen a discussion between Levy and Dugin.The same bitter aftertaste. A philosoph product of MMS.
Really tragic comment. All question begging and you make a non-sequitur logic in attempting to dismiss a point of view by claiming it to be representative of MSM. Don't you Greeks study Aristotle anymore?
I have to give it to BHL. His uninhibited attitude is out of this word. Pity he can’t choke on it. A French comedian described BHL as a sculpture made from poop.
@@canteluna I am not sure you do know Bernard Henri Levy. I would bet that if you do a thorough search and you see his involvement in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Syria, lybia, Maidan-Ukraine, you would find Bannon to be a cuddly bear. What is evil in BHL is his humanitarianism, which can be summarised as: I kill out of love.
@@K24- I am not defending Levy's entire world view or that of the "globalists", only that globalism, with all its faults, is far preferable than the insanity that Bannon is arguing for. Read any respectable expert on geopolitics and you will hear Bannon's views resoundingly trashed as ignorant and dangerous. If Bannon actually believes his own blather, it is because he isn't informed. I doubt that is the case, very likely he is taking advantage of confused populists and telling them what they want to hear so that he gets recognition/fame and $$$. Bannon would not dare debate someone like Peter Zeihan or Kevin Rudd.
@@canteluna I don’t know much about Bannon apart from bits and pieces from here and there. Thus I can’t comment on his views. As for globalism versus “sovereignism”, I tend to loath ideology out of principle, because more often than not, political ideologies benefit to sociopaths. For knowing BHL sufficiently I put him in this category.
@@K24- Yes. The problem with ideologies is that they tend to be rigid and people end up defending them and those who support them rather than looking at them objectively. I wouldn't go as far as to claim sociopaths have ideologies because sociopaths usually believe in nothing but whether Hitler, for example, was a true believer in his own ideology or not, he certainly was a sociopath, at least in the sense that, like Putin, killing masses of human beings doesn't bother him because human beings are viewed as a mere means to his end.
@@ALeaud lol it’s sure been going well for you lately! I mean look at Europe, Florida, and the Supreme Court. Just wait till you see the election results in November, this is gonna be fun! Oh, and say hi to Chesa when you see him next, lol!
@@danielasmus447 It won't matter. We've managed to push virtually all right-leaning parties into the center. The GOP is full of gays now. And next it'll be full of trans people as well. What are you going to do? Make being trans illegal? Go for it lol. In a few years you'll be saying "Well, being trans is okay but being trans when under 12 isn't!" and then 5 years later you'll change that position too. You can't stop us, kid. I know you think you can, but you can't. The future is ours, not yours. We are forcing the entire political discourse to the left. Just look at the things DeSantis is now saying - he's already caving into the centrist wing of his party. The future belongs to us, not you. You will lose. Your electoral victories are meaningless. If you want to enforce your agenda you'll need to do it with Jan 6 style events which will 99.99% of the time end in you getting arrested.
Perhaps but globalism is responsible for the standard of living for everyone in the world, especially in the West. Dismantle the post WW2 Bretton Woods order - which we are thanks to ignorant populists - and you will see a lower standard of living which people like Bannon and Trump will manage to exploit.
"Russia is not our mortal enemy" is an interesting sentence, in early 2022. No surprise that Putin felt he had a free reign in Ukraine with that sort of thinking pervasive amongst Republicans and Carlsons of this world. Add that he "is a genius", according to a reality show ex-president, and recent geopolitical events become inevitable.
Idk about putin anymore. We may be getting swervrd brother. Hard to gather. I dont have a political bias i dont want biden in the whitehouse or trump. Both sides against the middle as it feels they seem incompitent in different ways and appeal in others to some. Is that by design, idk anymore. God bless you brother
"we need nation states of Europe to be united, not a United States of Europe" I wonder where Bannon would have stood during the American Civil war. Maybe his next sentence contains a clue: "Italy just has a certain way of doing things"
Bannon said it best “America is not Europe’s protectorate.” At least not under Trump or any another America 1st administration in the future. “America 1st doesn’t mean isolationist,” at the same time, it also doesn’t mean Europe is entitled to a free ride on American coat tails or a free lunch on the American tax payers dime while US citizens risk life and limb, giving their blood, sweat and tears to become indentured servants--slaves to the agenda of the globalist oligarchs and their wet dreams of a NWO.
I wish Bannon was more skilled at debate. Bernard does the pearl clutching shtick about the holocaust- never a mention of dead babies. More babies died at Planned parenthood's hands than in the holocaust, but if your mind cannot even notice that abortions end lives, of course you can act indignant
Levy could be better, he drops many good points of Bannon. But with the populist movements he is 100% right. If Bannon would really fight Putin, China, Erdogan, he could not support the populists parties...............
its baseless to repel the ideologies of other peoples. everyone has the right to stick and change his inclination to any ideology. all wars have an invisible agenda covered by all pretexts proclaimed openly.
It is too easy to debate a liberal. It is a shame that the only debates happens with right wing reactionaries. Socialism, marxism are beyond these two views
Marxism is over. Some humanitarian instincts of Socialism are reusable but they're the ones the Oligarchs will not allow. Change your gender if you like but don't join a union.
The liberation of the Chinese working class from the yoke of the communist oligarchy was undoubtedly the number one task for Bannon. At the time of Russian military communism, the highest goal of the Bolsheviks was similar - liberation of the world proletariat from the yoke of capitalism. Two years later, this revolutionary task was narrowed down to something obviously more important. To sell Naomi Wolf's book about the huge number of miscarriages in the US military and discoloration of mother's breast milk due to vaccinations. Indeed, the world has never seen such a sharp drop in goals. Bannon is really greater illusionist than Harry Houdini.
Levy can not even realize that he is talking into a non functioning microphone, not to mention knowing how to turn it on. Yeh, this is the guy that should tell us how the world should function. When he debated Alexander Dugin, he lost, even though he was given plenty of time to have the last word.
I agree the USSR played a major part in saving Europe during the 2nd world war , but that does not underrate the US impact in Normandy ,by which I mean June 6 th and the following months
At 29:39, Lévy throws the debate away. Ironically, criticizing Trump, he plays trumpist politics. It's really sad, because Lévy was supposed to be the intellectual, and Bannon the demagogue. But the roles are changed. And the debate becomes a cheap show.
When someone starts using hands and dramatic voice, as if acting, I stop trusting and listening!! Steve Bannon is the man I will listen!! Bernard , come live in US and then start your philosophy!! Why did France abandon Armenia during the war in 2020???
You decide who to listen to based on body language. I decide who to listen to based on facts and world view. You are left with a charlatan and grifter. I can make educated decisions.
@@canteluna ha, ha, ha!! Educated decisions!! Were you moving your hands in the air and shaking your head dramatically???I am well educated and English is my 3rd language!! Did you think I care about your choices?? Lol
@@go5124 Nice to meet an educated person here (judging from 99% of the comments, Steve Bannon's audience are IGNORANT). Why don't we debate the issues and you can show off your educated views.
@@canteluna me debating the issues with you it’s like talking to a hypocrite!!! And I am not crazy like that!! I am with Steve Bannon all the way!! You are with Levy, be my guest!! Shake your head and shake your hands, you can even stomp your feet!! In the meantime pretend you are so educated that can debate issues with everyone!!!
@@go5124 Excuses, excuses. You can't point out ANY comment I've made that is hypocritical. I don't say things I can't back up, unlike you. I am not with Levy, I am with facts and evidence. That means I am anti-Bannon.
He looks homeless but he makes good points. What's interesting to me is that he makes the same critiques of the current system as any socialist/communist/leftie would do
@@OrwellsHousecat it's because the progressive left and the nationalist populist share the same worldview in terms of identifying the problems. Where they differ is in the solutions they propose.
Europe for Europeans? Really? How old are you? Under 40? You must be referring to the recent EU the EU which only exists due to the US led post WW2 order. BTW How do you like Russia "uniting" Ukraine?
@@canteluna Russia isnt uniting Ukraine, Russia is denazifying Ukraine. The EU was designed in 1941 by Wehrmacht high rank officers. US-post-war-order is just the continuation of WW2. The USA is cancer of humanity.
Viewing this debate in May 2022 I can only say how grateful I am. It is with relief that I hear two men on 'opposite sides' actually come together to talk, and without ill will. Passion, yes. Interesting and timely for me because I am rethinking my own views in light of the war in Ukraine, which has only recently taught me that Bernard Henri Levy is correct on Putin and Russia. Too many of us in the West -myself included until a couple of months ago - know nothing about Russia, the imperial dreams, and the lot of fascist, bizarre and apocalyptic hatred of the West in the country's highest places. The Frenchman is right that those right wing parties in Europe and to some degree in the US, as they support Putin, are undermining their countries from within. I am glad to see that we can still debate and hear each other's thoughts, and that these 'opposite sides ' they represent are both on the same side of democracy and the Western civilization we love. We must work together.
I think it is fascinating, in June on 2022, to watch this ... for so many reasons. First, I think those who demonize Bannon look past the fact that a lot of what he says rings true: The bankers and lawyers at Davos all knew about the slave labor and detentions in Xianjiang, The Tibetan genocide, the tightening of the noose in Hong Kong. But they stood up and cheered anyway. And the same bankers and brokers and lawyers facilitated an international economic system, half slave and half free, which tends to hollow out the western democracies, economically. But Bannon doesn't give a shit about Xianjang or Tibet or, for that matter , about Flint Michigan either. Putin has proved Levi right about Russia and Bannon's preposterous notion that somehow Russia could be brought back into the fold of Western Civilization in order to take on the Yellow menace ...just too revealing, in retrospect. I can only imagine the depth of Levi's sorrow when Bannon was cuffed and perp walked off his Chinese billionaire friend's yacht!
You are giving credit to Bannon where none is due. He is a complete charlatan and grifter. He exists to exploit the ignorance of those who know less than he does about geopolitics. Seek out Peter Zeihan, Ian Bremmer, Kevin Gallagher, Kevin Rudd...
Not forgetting the epithet of "genius" given by Trump to qualify Putin. Republicans like Bannon (and Cruz, and Graham and ... - endless list) dishonour their country.
@@canteluna Вы понимаете, что ваше первое предложение противоречит второму? 🤣Это ведь как раз глобалисты НЕЗАКОННО пытаются устроить России экономическую изоляцию, грозятся "наказать" ее, НЕЗАКОННО действуя с позиции "мирового полицейского" (которым их никто не назначал) - это и есть действия ВРАГА. Только беспозвоночные могут принимать "наказания" из рук совершенно посторонней страны, у которой на наказания нет ни малейшего ПРАВА, и думать, что так и надо... Это как если бы к вам пришел сосед, велел вам снять штаны, сказал, что будет вас пороть, потому что ему не нравится как вы себя ведете, и вы бы сняли штаны и подставили зад, думая, что он "не враг" и желает вам добра...
@@klarachiamarsi5935 Неправильно, глупо. Россия нарушает не только международное право и геноцид, но и, что более важно, простую порядочность. Любой, кто пытается рационализировать геноцид, - кусок дерьма, не стоящий моего времени. Иди лизни Путину жопу.
@@klarachiamarsi5935 Россия дала миру первое коммунистическое государство и терроризировала весь мир, заставив Восточную Европу поддаться своей гнусной и продажной идеологии. Теперь Путин, как и Сталин до него, пытается совершить массовое убийство (войну), чтобы возвысить место России в мире, что она может сделать только с помощью войны, а не с помощью изобретательности, культуры и государственного управления. Путин - карлик с комплексом Кинг-Конга.
To put Levy against anybody on the Right is to almost disqualify the Liberal voice. Levy is crap. He is a bad representative. His actions in Libya make him, like Dugin, another intellectual who plays with other peoples lives.
Bannon has a lot misconceptions about "the nation state" which did not exist in nearly all of the world until after the world of empire and is held together ONLY by global trade, NOT some romantic notion of blood and soil national character - that's what his national populism is based on - look who it appeals to, almost exclusively, the so-called white nationalists. Without globalism we recklessly return to ideology, the myth of the stand-alone nation state and trade disputes the likes of which we've never seen. Let's see how long Britain lasts outside the EU. What's happening to them now? They are submitting to the US economic power calling the shots.
It's idiccy to deny tribalism. Nationalism is just a more modern way to organize the common interests of big tribes. Ever heard of white flight? Libs are prone to that too. Globalists are a tribe too. Globalists, who are so open-minded, prefer to hang out with other globalists and try to avoid hanging around with the "close-minded" commoners. Personally, I can get a long with immigrants here in Sweden, but I prefer to socialize with fellow swedes in almost all matters. I firmly want Swedes to dominate Sweden. That what is accused of being "white supremacy", if we're honest about it, is most often completely natural and moral. Of course I want white people to dominate white countries. Every nation and tribe has the right to control its own destiny and not be controlled and suppressed by others. Your parasitic ideology has always been a threat against the natural order and goodness.
@@gulanhem9495 “It's idiccy to deny tribalism.” No one is denying it, only warning against it.
“Nationalism is just a more modern way to organize the common interests of big tribes.” Wrong. Nationalism exists to exclude some “tribes” from “the nation”. Nationalism would not be necessary without exclusion, except in regard to one nation and another. No tribe owns the nation or has a right to exclude others, not under rule of law. “Ever heard of white flight? Libs are prone to that too.” What about it? Mobility is a common feature of modernity. The term “white flight” is a racialized one that implies white skinned people leaving an area that had been predominantly white. “Globalists are a tribe too.” Everyone is a globalist (reluctant or willing) because international trade - which is what allows nations to be prosperous - is ubiquitous. Ever head of the Bretton Woods agreement? Unlikely, or you wouldn’t express such ignorant attitudes about globalism. “Globalists, who are so open-minded, prefer to hang out with other globalists and try to avoid hanging around with the "close-minded" commoners.” I don’t blame anyone who avoids the closed-minded. But liberalism is all about free association. Tribalism is the opposite. “Personally, I can get a long with immigrants here in Sweden, but I prefer to socialize with fellow swedes in almost all matters. I firmly want Swedes to dominate Sweden.” No one is stopping you. A “free country”, one NOT organized by tribes allows free association, not so with a tribal society. Ever heard of how gangs organize by turfs? Ever heard of how human beings lived prior to modernity? Patrilinealism. Patronage. Extended-Family-owned kinships of land. No mobility. Of course you Swedes were “Vikings” (which means pirating). So, you didn’t stay home with your tribe, you went thieving, taking what didn’t belong to you and if you had the might to do it, you could get away with it because there were no international laws or courts that were recognized. What you ignorantly call “globalism” is simply international law that keeps nations relatively free from conflict and war. Understand empirical European history? Have any idea how goods used to move through from nation to nation without international law? Obviously not or you wouldn’t be denigrating globalism. The US took on the role of enforcing global shipping lanes after WW2 so that all nations could import and export without extortion or violence. That's Bretton Woods. “That what is accused of being "white supremacy", if we're honest about it, is most often completely natural and moral.” Wrong. Human beings are naturally competitive and seek cooperation, so what is “natural” isn't easily stated. But racial supremacy, although it is common throughout history, is ugly and not necessary. All you have to do to realize it is to consider yourself in the minority position. Racial superiority is ignorance born out of confirmation bias. One can be proud of one’s heritage without going the extreme to claim superiority, which is unnecessarily confrontational. We all are who we are due to chance and legacy. Be proud, not superior. The same goes at the individual level. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, no one wants to be around someone who claims to be superior to the others. Those people are shunned in natural environments, which explains the backlash to white supremacists by people like me. “Of course I want white people to dominate white countries” Domination is a matter of sound economic policy (e.g. globalism) and culture (which thrives in exchange without others, not in isolation), not a privilege based on skin color. It sounds like you want to rest on the laurels of Western culture. But you don’t understand how Western culture became dominant if you think it was skin color or superior posturing. You want the West to dominate, then adopt its values which are found in the institutions that have created liberalism. Melanin is irrelevant to cultural thriving. What matters is the luck of geography and then having a government intelligent enough to exploit its human and natural resources wisely. Tribalism gets you nowhere. It is a doomed concept of the small-minded who don’t understand how the world works and yet have the arrogance to believe they can force their ignorance on others. “Every nation and tribe has the right to control its own destiny and not be controlled and suppressed by others.” Right? Perhaps but rights are meaningless without institutions to protect them. Tribes are NATURALLY in conflict because they don’t have institutions - at least not impersonal ones that function within the rule of law. This is why tribes have constantly been in conflict throughout human history. No international law (ie no globalism). The entire point of tribes is exclusion. The reason white supremacy is rearing its ugly head now is because whites simply aren’t reproducing fast enough to maintain economic growth (ie standard of living). Want Sweden dominated by Swedes? Have more “SWEDISH” babies and limit immigration. But if you limit immigration without making more babies your economy will decline and thus your standard of living and more importantly, so will your geopolitical standing in the world. Everything you take for granted about your rights is only a matter of geopolitical standing. Russia is invading Ukraine now for this very reason. Ukrainians can whine all they want about their rights, but without geopolitical standing they are vulnerable. Putin knows the Russian population is in decline and this is his last opportunity to invade with a demographic advantage. “Your parasitic ideology has always been a threat against the natural order and goodness.” You don’t know my ideology, let alone understand it. I am a liberal conservative (or a conservative liberal) and a realist. My only ideology is to maintain the liberal world order because doing so will mean the highest level of standard of living and cultural exchange, not to mention personal freedoms. The “natural order” (if you want to call it that) is the problem. I thought Swedes were better educated than you appear to be. Maybe you’re young and educated by the “woke” generation and didn’t learn anything useful. You need to stop listening to self-serving charlatans like Bannon and listen to experts in geopolitics. Peter Zeihan is very good. You can learn a lot from him. Something useful. All Bannon has to offer is a means to make you more angry and aggrieved, that's what he depends on to make his living. Also, I am not a leftist or part of the multicultural left who blame and denigrate white people, but I am also not a white supremacist because I know too much to fall into that pit of self pity and ignorance. I am a fan of Douglas Murray’s work. I mostly agree with the thesis of his book called The Strange Death of Europe (although it is lacking a comprehensive understanding of geopolitics). He is smart, knowledgeable and balanced in his approach to immigration policy and has a traditional view of national character that I like and respect. You nationalists should be the allies of people like me in fighting the WOKE. That is the true battle, not the false enemy of globalism. Bannon is merely fear mongering to keep the ignorant looking in the wrong direction. Bannon is NOT a "commoner" he is an elite who rails against the elite - i.e. a hypocrite. Who gets a presidential pardon for fraud (biling supporters out of millions to build a wall that never got built)? Only the elite, the well connected, not people like me and you. I understand the concerns that EU nation states have with the bureaucracy in Brussels and the apparent lack of sovereignty in individual nations. But charlatans like Bannon have ZERO clue about how geopolitics works and are simply snake-oil salesman who are selling confused, angry white men like you a panacea - worse, not only do they not offer a cure, what they offer will make matters worse, while they line their own pockets because that is the real scam. Those like Trump and Bannon seek power in government precisely so they can avoid accountability to the people because cult members do not hold their leaders accountable, far from it. Read Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order. This book will explain pretty much all you need to know about why the liberal nation state is necessary to maintain personal freedom (ask the people living under fascism in Spain and Portugal how they liked it - the lure of nationalism will lead you nowhere any freedom loving person wants to be because once you give power to the leaders of your “tribe” you cannot hold them accountable and they will do what ALL leaders of totalitarian governments do, repress your freedoms and keep you impoverished. You think you have something to bitch about in globalism, wait til the fascists take over).
@@gulanhem9495 “It's idiccy to deny tribalism.” No one is denying it, only warning against it. It is a dangerous way to organize society because tribalism demands loyalty to the tribe, not to principles. “Nationalism is just a more modern way to organize the common interests of big tribes.” Wrong. Nationalism exists to exclude some “tribes” from “the nation”. Nationalism would not be necessary without exclusion, except in regard to one nation and another. “Ever heard of white flight? Libs are prone to that too.” What about it? Mobility is a common feature of modernity. The term “white flight” is a racialized one that implies white skinned people leaving an area that had been predominantly white. “Globalists are a tribe too.” Everyone is a globalist because international trade - which is what allows nations to be prosperous - is ubiquitous. Ever head of the Bretton Woods agreement? Unlikely, or you wouldn’t express such ignorant attitudes about globalism. “Globalists, who are so open-minded, prefer to hang out with other globalists and try to avoid hanging around with the "close-minded" commoners.” I don’t blame anyone who avoids the closed-minded. “Personally, I can get a long with immigrants here in Sweden, but I prefer to socialize with fellow swedes in almost all matters. I firmly want Swedes to dominate Sweden.” No one is stopping you. A “free country”, one NOT organized by tribes allows free association, not so with a tribal society. Ever heard of how gangs organize by turfs? Every heard of how human beings lived prior to modernity? Patrilinealism. Family owned kinship land. Of course you Swedes were “Vikings” (which means pirating). So, you didn’t stay home with your tribe, you went thieving, taking what didn’t belong to you and if you had the might to do it, you could get away with it because there were no international laws or courts that were recognized. What you ignorantly call “globalism” is simply international law. Have any idea how goods used to move through from nation to nation without international law? Obviously not or you wouldn’t be denigrating globalism. The US took on the role of enforcing global shipping lanes after WW2 so that all nations could import and export without extortion or violence. “That what is accused of being "white supremacy", if we're honest about it, is most often completely natural and moral.” No. There is nothing “natural” about racial supremacy although it is common throughout history. But it is mere ignorance born out of confirmation bias. One can be proud of one’s heritage without going the extra length to claim in superior. We all are who we are due to chance and legacy. “Of course I want white people to dominate white countries” Domination is a matter of sound economic policy (e.g. globalism) and culture (which thrives in exchange without others, not in isolation), not a privilege based on skin color. It sounds like you want to rest on the laurels of Western culture. But you don’t understand how Western culture became dominant if you think it was skin color that made a difference. Melanin is irrelevant to cultural thriving. What matters is the luck of geography and then a government intelligent enough to exploit its human and natural resources. Tribalism gets you nowhere. It is a doomed concept of the small-minded who don’t understand how the world works and yet have the arrogance to believe they can force their ignorance on others. “Every nation and tribe has the right to control its own destiny and not be controlled and suppressed by others.” Tribes are NATURALLY in conflict because they don’t have institutions - at least not impersonal ones - that function within the rule of law. The entire point of tribes is exclusion and conformity. The reason white supremacy is rearing its ugly head now is because whites simply aren’t reproducing fast enough to maintain the economic order necessary to maintain economic growth (ie standard of living) and feel threatened by losing their privilege. Want Sweden dominated by Swedes, have more “Swedish” babies and limit immigration. But if you limit immigration without making more babies your economy will decline and thus your standard of living and more importantly, so will your geopolitical standing in the world. Russia is invading Ukraine now for this very reason. Putin knows the Russian population is in decline and this is his last opportunity to invade with the demographic advantage. “Your parasitic ideology has always been a threat against the natural order and goodness.” You don’t know my ideology. I am a liberal conservative (or a conservative liberal) and a realist. My only ideology is to maintain the liberal nation state because doing so will maintain the highest level of standard of living and cultural exchange, not to mention personal freedoms. I'm a student of history and I am aware of what life is like for individuals when they do not govern themselves through institutions. The “natural order” (if you want to call it that) is the problem. I thought Swedes were better educated than you appear to be. Maybe you’re young and educated by the “woke” generation and didn’t learn anything useful. You need to stop listening to self-serving charlatans like Bannon who are using you for their own personal ends. Bannon and Trump and all these people are ELITES. People like you and I don't get pardoned for crimes, people like Bannon and Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, etc. do because the entire point of tribes is loyalty to the leader and that means there is no mechanism for accountability. Also, I am not a leftist or part of the multicultural left who blame and denigrate white people, I find that despicable, but I am also not a white supremacist. I believe in the liberal nation state as THE best form of government compared to the others extant. Want to be proud of the West, rule of law and liberal republican government is something to be proud of. Not because it was created by whites but just because it is a great way to live if you value having a voice in how you are governed. I am a fan of Douglas Murray’s work. I mostly agree with the thesis of his book called The Strange Death of Europe (although it is lacking a comprehensive understanding of geopolitics). He is not a white supremacist but shares your concerns about the immigration problem and preserving the culture of Europe. What nationalists are attempting to preserve is the national socialism of Hitler and Mussolini. And if you don't think you need totalitarian means to force this on a population then you are sleepwalking through history. You nationalists should drop your supremacist views, they will not lead anywhere good or decent, and become allies of people like me in fighting against the WOKE Marxist left. That is the true battle, not the false enemy of globalism. I understand the concerns that EU nation states have with the bureaucracy in Brussels and the apparent lack of sovereignty in individual nations, but charlatans like Bannon have ZERO clue about why liberal order is necessary for geopolitical standing in the world (look at the non liberal countries, China and Russia and Saudi Arabia, their power is all made possible by the liberal order even though they themselves are not liberal nations). Understand what Bretton Woods is, how it created the global order that we ALL benefit from. This is the agreement made at the end of WW2 where the US guaranteed to security for global trade. Global trade is globalism. Globalism has existed for hundreds of years but was fraught with violence and conflict because of the lack of international law. And international law and order are the basis for globalism, which allows goods to move between borders without conflict. Anyone ignorant of that fact has no right to shoot their mouth off about globalism because they are ignorant to the point of being dangerous to themselves and others. Read Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order. This book will explain pretty much all you need to know about why the liberal nation state is necessary to maintain personal freedom (ask the people living under fascism in Spain and Portugal how they liked it - the lure of nationalism will lead you nowhere any freedom loving person wants to be because once you give power to the leaders of your “tribe” you cannot hold them accountable and they will do what ALL leaders of totalitarian governments do, repress your freedoms and keep you impoverished. You think you have something to bitch about in globalism, wait til the fascists take over). Also, read the books by Peter Zeihan. He is a brilliant scholar of geopolitics. Read his new book, out later this month: The End of the World is Just the Beginning. Reading and comprehending these two books will make you much more informed about how the world works than charlatans like Bannon.
if whats youre saying is true there would be like 7 or 8 countries in europe today: germany, italy, france, england, russia, turkey and spain. the fact that there are 45 different countries means these nations were created outta necessity as people with common identity and similar: language, culture, history, traditions... decided to get together and live on their own territory and make their own decisions. the problem with neo liberal globalization is that its about politics as much as it is about free economy. bigger/more developed nations put pressure and conditions on smaller/less developed nations which is a new form of imperialism.
@@sebastiancovac7879 YOU “if whats youre saying is true there would be like 7 or 8 countries in europe today: germany, italy, france, england, russia, turkey and spain. ME Good point, but as you know, these ARE the geopolitical powers of Europe upon which the economies and security of other nations are dependent.(more below) YOU “the fact that there are 45 different countries means these nations were created outta necessity as people with common identity and similar: language, culture, history, traditions... decided to get together and live on their own territory and make their own decisions.” ME It appears that way, but my position (and that of virtually any geopolitics expert) is that the only reason small countries in Europe can exist as they do is mostly due to the Bretton Woods agreement made at the end of WW2 (where the US guaranteed shipping for world trade). Prior to this agreement, countries in Europe were more or less part of an empire and empires tended to trade within the empire. And, as you know, countries within Europe were often involved in conflicts and wars. The imperial system began breaking down after WW1 but was, for all intents and purposes, ended after WW2 and the EU was created mainly as an economic bloc. In the Bretton Woods global order - sometimes known as the “guns for butter” order - the US essentially paid countries around the world to be on our side against China and particularly Russia in the cold war (while China was an enemy, it benefitted from Breton Woods allowing Mao to change economic course in 1972 and enabling it to eventually become the economic power it became - totally impossible without Breton Woods/the US-led world order). YOU “the problem with neo liberal globalization is that its about politics as much as it is about free economy. bigger/more developed nations put pressure and conditions on smaller/less developed nations which is a new form of imperialism.” ME I agree with you except that this is nothing new. As I’m sure you know, the map of Europe has changed quite a bit since the Roman Empire. Small nations will always need to align with larger ones to ensure their existence. In the old order of might-makes-right this was the case, which is why smaller nations were part of empires, even the discontiguous colonies that had resources and geographical advantages for the empire. Bannon is a charlatan and a grifter. He knows (or should know) the facts I’ve stated but is exploiting the recent populist sentiment - among masses who are apparently ignorant of geopolitics - for his own benefit. The US order has been breaking down since the “end” of the cold war and people of the US have been demanding their politicians focus less on foreign policy and more on domestic issues, mostly culture wars, given that relative peace had been won. Same thing in Europe and the UK, which resulted in Brexit (how’s that working out for them?). France and many of the former Eastern bloc countries are also attempting to be less globalist in their economic policy. This is what clowns like Bannon are proposing and it will be a disaster - but disaster can be very profitable for charlatans and illiberals such as Trump. The anti-globalists have zero understanding that it was globalism that allowed their high standard of living (as well as demographics being in their favor). They think things are bad now, they are going to get much worse. The beginning of the end is underway - unless a miracle occurs and people vote in globalist leaders to maintain their economic positions. See: Peter Zeihan’s The Absent Superpower: The Shale Revolution and a World Without America Kevin Gallagher’s The Case for a New Bretton Woods Ian Bremmer’s Every Nation For Itself Ray Dalio’s Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why nations Succeed and Fail (I wouldn’t entirely recommend this because I think he’s wrong about China growing power)
Bernard is a terrible debater, “I’m sorry but…” “I feel this”, “I feel that”, his arguments are all logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, sarcasm, mis quotes, his position is weak and his smarmy and snarky attitude is insulting.
Levy is just an amateur mind flying high. At moments ridiculous, really (specially the way he connects general to specific - ts just pompous mind given show space).
BHL its the biggest interruptor of all times and at the end complains 🤔
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it."
---George Orwell
Thankfully socialists like Orwell are growing in number today after decades of stagnation
Like Hitler right. Lmao dumb meaningless orwellianisms.
@@danilthorstensson8902 Like in Russia walking into their death of 50 million...Socialism is suicidal.
George Orwell never wrote or said that. It’s contemporary writer from the American Thinker who did, you can easily look it up!
orwell lmfao
Is Levy supposed to be an intellectual?
Only as long as he defends Globalism, as soon as he stops he will be an "idiot" to the same Globalist's. That's how this works.
He's an emotionalle
He tells himself he is
@@donnasherwood283 my 5 year old son is Spiderman! 🕷️🕸️🕷️
Only intelectuals can be this dumb.
@27:10 what about the dead babies? all he can do is cry about the women and the jews
Levy is very unimpressive. He is full of insults and name calling, the same as his debate with Dugin.
Dugin is the goat. I can't believe him and Zizek haven't had any conversations tgt
@@aminmoghadam9632 Dugin is an idiot and an Islamic apologist.
Name-calling ? I don’t think we saw the same footage, Lévy did not use any names against his opponents.
I agree.
@@aminmoghadam9632 And now his fascist daughter is dead lol
Levy is so out his league here it's not even funny.
theyre both shills for israel...this is all Belt-and-Road project material
@@rickacton7540 how so?
@@amanshoraka6447 "how"? what do you mean "how"?
@@rickacton7540 obvious
Levy is totally out , he can only function among his own ,where everyone is taking in the same way, munching on the same thought, using slogans only..
Levy's type don't think on their own , every thought is collective and no one deviates from the script.
Bannon looks authentic. Levy is a clown.
The problem with Bernard Henri Levi is that he confuses a logical argument with Romantic poetry😁😁😁
The guy doesn't hit a target even if it's hanging from his nose.
Wrong. Bannon doesn't know what he's talking about. Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
@@canteluna Well, my comment is based solely on this debate. Not upon any opinion reflecting my political bias. Bernard not only exhibited a shameful lack of debate capacity but, even worse -a great deal of hypocrisy. He pretended to be more sensible to human problems than his opponent (and not only in this case, but against Dugin too), and to be above any ideological identification when is very clear which interests he represents.
Just taking one example of his stupid behavior in this debate, what on earth he had to bring into his arguments the fact that Trump humiliated Bannon and his supposed "pity" of him because of it... Has that any thing to do with the theme at issue? And of course, he was lying about his sympathy.
@@apocalipsereich6997 You're rotten-cherry-picking. What I care about, and what anyone with good faith should care about, is the world view, the facts and lies presented by each debater. Dismissing Levi's entire position because you didn't like his style of debate has nothing to do with the substance of his position. You're either not listening to the substance or you should admit that your bias is toward a man who is clueless - but I admit, he sounds confident and knowledgeable. However, Bannon is a liar and not only are his views incorrect but they are dangerous to anyone who takes them at face value. Read any respected expert on geopolitics and you will hear Bannon's views contradicted. Bannon is a grifter who makes a living from spouting right wing propaganda that ignorant people want to hear.
@@canteluna Again, I'm just fact checking two arguments standing for two world views in a debate. And YES! One can "dismiss the entire position in a debate" based on the performance, because, to begin with: that's the objective of a debate - to proof the soundness of a given opinion, argument, world view, ideology... So why not to take it like a good measure of the veracity of those positions?
If you are not on the Bannon political shore, that's OK. But that doesn't mean you overlook the errors of Bernard... And there were legions!
Besides, what is so special about his world view? He represents interests just as Bannon does.
@@apocalipsereich6997 It's obviously up to you if you want to dismiss content due to style. But do tell where BHL is wrong in his thesis.
Levy is a representative of a desperate and dying ruling class
Yes. They know their time under the spotlight is over.
Let's hope
Idiotic ASSertions like yours are why the West is in such big trouble.
I came here from dugin-levi discussion. The french man was accusing dugin for taking part on the side of government when Russia invaded ukrain. Here he accuses le pen for not standing by the french government in conflicts in Syria and Libya. What a double standart.
Yeah, watched a lot of the Nexxus videos. Constant Trump bashing. Because we are all racists. Obviously.
Not really. How is that a double standard, when clearly the Russian government is pro agression and exclusion while it is le Pen who is pro agression and exclusion in France.
@@thesilkpainter so france deciding theyre gonna attack a sovereign nation and have a regime change is totally fine, but if anybody disagrees theyre somehow "pro aggression"?
that bernard guy is an obvious clown and thinks if you dont agree with him youre anti democratic and unpatriotic.
It isn't a double standard. You're conflating a one-size-fits-all principle with what should be a case-by-case approach to geopolitics.
@@canteluna if its not double standard, its an absurd expectation that he wants a russian national/nationalist to share his geopolitical views and goals...
that would be like if dugin asked him to condemn french presidents attack on soverign nations of syria and libya, but then in another debate questions the patriotism of any russain whos critical of the conflict in ukraine and calls them foreign agents.
BHL the court philosopher apologist for neoliberalism.
And Bannon is too. He doesn't give a damn about working folks and the terror of globalism.
Get someone more serious than Levy. I'm interested in listening to your speakers but Levy's childish emotional appeals and uninspired insults makes every debate he's in unworthy of our time.
Agree 100
How about me? I could wipe the floor with Bannon. I'll debate anyone here.
Levy, what a dishonest actor.
Wrong. Bannon is the liar here. Deride Levi all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
Prove it.
@@canteluna omg, you are obsessed!! Steve Bannon lives in your head rent free!! You are everywhere and keep repeating the same, the same!! Your have impressive education!!
@@go5124 A lot of misinformation exists in everyone's head - they pay for it, I don't.
BANNON YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB!!!!!!! MAYBE YOU SHOULD DO MORE OF THIS!!!!!!!!
One of my heroes ... he will never get the recognition and credit for what he has done for this country..President Trump never would of won...
I'm glad that my son is finding out and hearing about Globalists, for the first time in his life, thanks to Steve Bannon with Vox, in Spain. Otherwise he never understood what I was talking about. Thanks to Steve Bannon for that.
Yeah he did a great job losing the House the Senate and the Presidency. Well done Steve! Keep talking your idiocy
Bannon is a more informed and articulate version of Trump, but like Trump, he throws out so much bullshit that it is hard to correct it all.
‘Bannon made some great points that were never even addressed by Levy-“ the party of Davos supported by slave labor” - powerful claim by Bannon and completely ignored by Levy
Sorry but Bannon does not feel comfortable from the beginning to the end. The truth is that we can say poor Steve, not more than that.
Not sure it was intentional. A lively debate and too many important points to address for the time there was. That said, I would have like to hear far more on that issue.
@Luis Rz lol you’re clearly delusional. And probably have a lot of internet friends 🤣
Do you know the definition of anachronism?
Bannon is a liar, charlatan. He exists to exploit your ignorance.
The arrogance of BHLevy and the intelligence of Steve Bannon
The informed and passionate Levi vs Bannon, the dissembler and grifter.
Babies’ lives matter, crazy Bernard. You premise that they do not is dead wrong. 👶🏻👶🏻👶🏻👶🏽👦🏽👶🏽👶🏽
I can't hear the intellectual side of Bernard-Henri levy. All he has to offer is to ask why the U.S. - Trump - can't be nicer. Thats all he has. He may never get it.
People understand a strong voice. They will wake up to it. It has exposed much that has been hidden.
Bannon is pretty good.
levy says he wants the US to be nice, then 5 seconds later says we need to confront China, Syria, etc etc lolol
Quite a lot of facist comments on this democracy forum
@@olivierfouassier6495 and all the defender of “democracy” has is moral outrage
Democracy is not a bureaucratic process or institution. Democracy is the power of the people to act as a coherent mass which defies the Open Society, Davos, Bilderberg so-called champions of democracy.
Levy loves to hurl attacks and accusations while at the same time asserting that he is a moralist and humanitarian instead of providing any insight.
Levy is not a moralist. Probably you are. Levy knows how to point out the darkest part of Bannon. And Bannon is a really dark personality. Bannon is uncomfortable and shows himself very weak. His speech is inarticulate. He can only be self confident if the audience thinks exactly like him. A dangerous personality.
@@lrzezak Don't be afraid son, come join the dark side
@@ihatepunkers1243 Thanks, enjoy yourself!
The short form is: he cries out while he strikes you.
@@aristochat3 No, he doesn't strike. But he's like a fucking crazy chick who wants you to go around picking a fight with any random bloke that looks at her wrong, except the ones who are actually a danger to her.
Someone in possession of the facts has no use for personal attacks and appeals emotionalism. This pitiful performance by the Frenchman casts much doubt on his intellectual capability.
Well put.
Bullshit. typical stereotypic geopolitics
Someone who lies as much as Steve Bannon should not be handed a fucking microphone.
@@JohnWilliams-channel wahhhh wahhhh
@@bulzome664 Hey, I am immune to his bullshit. I can't vouch for the rest of you idiots.
@52:20 Bernard accuses Bannon of being a conspiracy theorist then he throws out his own conspiracies
Wrong. It's impossible to know how much Russian lies about Clinton effected the election - my own guess is probably not so much. But it is also just as unfalsifiable for Bannon to claim that Hilary's loss was because she didn't go to Michigan and Wisconsin - I don't think it would have mattered. The Hilary brand has been in the toilet since before she ran against Obama.
It is NOT a conspiracy to say that Russia interfered in the election, they did. It was proven by the Mueller report.
And it is laughably rich for Bannon to talk about accepting loss in an election when he is one of the biggest LIARS in regard to Trump losing. Anyone who takes Bannon seriously is a dupe. He is a charlatan and a grifter. I could kick his ass in a debate. Don't believe me, debate me in a proxy debate. You be Bannon I'll be (a more informed version of) Levi.
@@canteluna What Russian lies? As if the Clintons are not corrupt?
Who is the author that he mentions Steve Bannon likes at 49.40 minutes? Achar Remoras, and Jean Raspail? I can’t transcribe the the first guy very well.
Bernard is a nasty, weak discourse opponent. Gets personally and tries to insult. Frenchman's inability to argue, to fight, even verbally...
At least he doesn't lie. Bannon exists to exploit your ignorance.
He is Jewish, not French !!!
Talk about false advertising. I thought this was supposed to be a debate about global vs. national, not the Bernard-Henri Levy lazy ad hominem slur show. How disappointing.
You weren't listening. But I'll debate you.
Steve Bannon actually intelligent and practical compared to a emotional intellectual. He doesn’t want to argue the facts the French guy.
Bannon thinks diversity is weakness. That's why he is spreading fascist disinformation.
Wrong. Bannon doesn't know what he's talking about. Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
they're both intellectual frauds in the sense that they are pugilists for a cause rather than seekers of truth. I agree more with Levy, but I'd much rather hang out with Bannon
@@ChannelMath Levy is an ideologue and so doesn't seem to see his own biases. One can ignore such a character. Bannon, on the other hand, wants to burn the system down and there is no limit to the depths of depravity to which he'll sink to in order to achieve his end. Even now, he's pumping out the piss for loser, Kari Lake (how I hope Trump picks her or MTG for a running mate!). Bannon demands we reckon with him, and I hope the justice department will do just that. Btw, when you're hanging out with Bannon, do the world a favor and slip some arsenic into his koolaid.
@@JohnWilliams-channel globalist shill
Emotions over facts.
the elegant french cant debate a single fact and propose a single idea
This is a French typical ...misplaced traditional..arrogant ..
.patronising ..style...all clear with a cosmetically pronounced French accent...
Steve is dealing with Informed Facts Bernard is a special aventurier and self appointed political guru ..
Not a French typical at all, he is an agent of Israel, he's got nothing of a French, and it's a French telling you that. This guy is a shame for our country
Too bad you idiots are all concerned with style instead of substance. Bannon is a charlatan, a liar, a dissembler. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd flush Bannon down the toilet where he belongs.
There's that French pompousness the world has come to loathe 😂😂
Hold on! We hate him too!
Word salad from BHL. As usual. But he wears his uniform , a must, lol.
r
I'll debate you.
Me? 'bou wha? Lol
@@bramblebop1904 Just the response I would expect from a Bannon devotee.
Oh
Why don't we have this discussion today! Let's see if levy has the same opinion!
of course he does
Great acting Levy - Oscar worthy.
Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
@@canteluna I think that's exactly what he is. Rather unconvincingly, he delivers the standard, pro-globalist rhetoric but then avoids having to defend it by speaking way too much, while saying little. His logical fallacies alone would lose him a school debating competition. He's a Globalist Functionary.
@@KCavan Personally, I wouldn't put up Levy as a speaker for the global order, I would put up Peter Zeihan or Kevin Rudd who are extremely knowledgeable, and not histrionic and would wipe the floor with the charlatan Bannon.
Before dismissing "globalists" as elitist evil-doers, as Bannon does, you should learn what globalism actually is and how we all benefit from it.
if you want to debate the subject I'm available.
I've seen this Levy guy debating Aleksandr Dugin, recently. He dodged around shamelessly then, too. If at first you don't succeed, accuse the other guy of being racist. Pathetic. And to cite Buzzfeed as a credible source. What a clown.
Absolutely for Steve Bannon. Bernard fell in my eyes.
this levy guy comes from the john lennon era give peace a chance another way to say do peace our way or war will follow a great debate about the catastrophe of globalism thanks bannon god bless u
B H Levy hates Trump because he pulled American troops from Syria among other media spewed lies. Syria, Turkey and the Kurds have been fighting each other for over 1000 years, why should America spill their precious blood on foreign wars? He wants America to waste themselves for all of Europe's troubles. Our troops come home with no legs and arms, burned bodies, finally Trump is putting American troops first. Let Europe fight their own wars, enough of this, since when is America the world's army?
@Todd the Toddler Europe is against Trump removing troops from Iraq and other countries, Europe is against Trump's America first initiative. Trump hasn't entered any new war of any kind. The problem in the States is the media and loons like antifa and blm. And by the way everything I said was 100% right, just because you happen to disagree with me doesn't make what I said stupid.
@Todd the Toddler I know a whole lot, unlike you. And I don't care what you think
Mr Bannon is one of my heroes .... I never take that word lightly..he will never get the credit he deserves, much less have the terrible lies spewed about him dispelled.
Bannon is a charlatan and a grifter exploiting your ignorance. Don't like Levi, fine, look up geopolitics. Peter Zeihan, Ian Bremmer, Kevin Gallagher, Kevin Rudd....
Typical socialist/ communist European point of view.
bernard Henri levy perched on that stool like any minute he'll break into the David Bowie routine for Dance Magic Dance
Levi constantly gestures into the private zone of others. I find that unseemly.
Hoooolouuucaaaast, all the time
That would be interesting to see *Steve Bannon* and *Aleksandr Dugin* and *Jordan Peterson* on the same stage.
Peterson would destroy the other two frauds with his hands tied.
Ahh the Fascist Triumvirate
Won't see that ever at this point
I dont think that would be too interesting. They each would just do their own thing since they won't feel attacked. Peterson disagrees with the other two on geopolitics, but his focus on the individual would fail to connect to the other two
Bannon and Dugin are the same?
THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE AND NO ONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!
They both say this, as does everyone.
Whose version you agree with?
Bernard is such a let down honestly. Dude looked to be a serious thinker on his wikipedia profile and on curated images on google. But after watching a dozen of his debates, dude appears more a charlatan ....eapecially compared to his peers like Thomas Sowell.
So Levy defines Democracy? Who is he? How pathetic!
Sad to see the abandonment of the Kurds. brandon leaves Afghanistan like a coward.
The Frog doesn't have my vision, i agree with Bannon on nation states in Europe without American hegemony.
Then, like Bannon, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Levy is just using emotion in his voice and appealing to peoples feelings, and tropes.
Wrong. Bannon doesn't know what he's talking about. Deride Levi's style all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
@@canteluna hahaha. Keep lying pal.
@@Lurch685 If you could show I am wrong you would. You can't so you don't.
@@canteluna look dude just because you don’t understand what Bannon is saying doesn’t mean I’m obligated to walk you through it.
@@Lurch685 What you really mean is that you know even less than Bannon.
Bannon makes two very strong critiques of globalism: 1. that the privilege of the developed nations rests on the backs, of developing nations such as china. He makes the analogy to slavery (correctly I believe). 2. That we have an economic system which is structured to implode and to be bailed out by the average taxpayers, which basically forces average people to give their money away to the financial elite. What he does not explain is how nationalism effectively addresses these issues. Would we not have the same issues but on a smaller scale with nationalist economies? With all its faults, (and I think that Global Bank and the IMF have on many occasions undone democracy, increased corruption, unsighted environmental havoc, and invited in cruel forms of power) I do think that globalisms major triumph is that it has made world war bad business. When our economies depend on each other we are less likely to toss bombs around and invade others turf. Though, I doubt the solution to these problems will come from globalism or nationalism. I see, alternatively, a growing experience of 'easfullness' accumulating in the world on the margins. A returning to the simplicity of being a human on a planet with neighbors. A living virtue of symbiosis (with one's self, with others and with the environment one stands). New economies are born out of new paradigms. Neither of these men have anything decent or worthwhile they are offering. But I sense a more wise way of existing is possible. What does it look like to live in a wise society?
China is a developing nation????
Remember communism?
@@pryazhnikov sounds like it was terrible
Interesting indeed
YOU “Bannon makes two very strong critiques of globalism: 1. that the privilege of the developed nations rests on the backs, of developing nations such as china. He makes the analogy to slavery (correctly I believe).”
ME This comment, like virtually everything coming out of Bannon’s mouth is either a lie or a point of view not rooted in facts. This particular comment shows an ignorance that would disqualify Bannon from serving tea to REAL geopolitical experts. The global economy - which Bannon claims he despises, yet shows he doesn’t understand - is one that has been demonstrably good for everyone ON THE WHOLE if your objective is to have the highest possible standard of living in all nations of the world - relative to each other - and relative peace.
Like all populists, Bannon doesn’t seem to understand the post WW2 Bretton Woods US-led global order that eventually allowed global trade (that IS what globalism means despite populists’ ignorant conspiratorial definition). He must know this and if so, he is just being a charlatan and grifter trying to exploit the ignorance of populists for his own gain.
The global order has resulted in a division of labor that has been highly beneficial for the most part throughout the various world’s nations. To say otherwise, to say that developed countries are profiting off of them is like saying that a poor person with no trained skill is being exploited by some company employing him. The “developing” nations do not have the economic power to develop their economies in the first place OR THEY WOULD, and claiming or implying that they are not more wealthy due to exploitation or “enslavement” by the US or other powerful countries is almost certainly BULLSHIT (unless you’re talking about non democratic countries whose leaders are not accountable to voters).
Mexico, for example, is a necessary economic partner for the US that allows them to do manufacturing that is no longer done in the US and thereby building their economy, as the US tends mostly toward higher, value added design of products (e.g. silicon valley). (BTW China is NOT a developing nation - but if they don’t turn their economy around soon they might become one again).
This topic requires a much more in depth covering, but my generalizing will suffice to rebut your/Bannon’s position.
YOU 2. “That we have an economic system which is structured to implode and to be bailed out by the average taxpayers, which basically forces average people to give their money away to the financial elite.”
ME This is a completely naive or disingenuous analysis of the bailout and, having worked for Goldman Sachs, Bannon likely knows this and is preying upon the populist sentiments of those who don’t understand how the global economy works.
There is plenty of criticism to levy against the way the bailout was handled but the system is NOT structured in a way to implode. The 08 crisis was due to the system FAILING to abide by its own structure (the ratings companies lied about the value of derivatives and allowed sub prime mortgages mostly). Their were whistle blowers who were ignored. And people were not held accountable who should have but to dismiss the crisis as a failure of structure is a lie and Bannon knows it. It’s like blaming the constitution and the structure of the US government with its checks and balances designed to enable democracy and the functioning of the liberal republic when a dishonest, illiberal administration takes power, as Trump did, with Bannon’s help. The structure, as good as it is, still requires honest actors.
YOU “What he does not explain is how nationalism effectively addresses these issues. Would we not have the same issues but on a smaller scale with nationalist economies?”
ME No. The problems would be much worse. Understand that the “nation state” is mostly a misnomer when used/defined by populists like Bannon. The nation states in Europe did not exist until recently, and even then they are mostly fortified within the EU (Norway has its own oil economy and can take advantage of other EU perks that allow its relative autonomy). Prior to WW1 Europe consisted of empires and so its economies depended on its colonies. Between WW1 and WW2 the empires were falling apart and after WW2 virtually all of the European empires were ended - the colonies suing for independence. But that was ok because the post war Bretton Woods agreement enabled virtually every country in the world to participate in the global economy with the US, through out navy, guaranteeing peaceful oceans for goods to be transported more cheaply than ever. Without this order - i.e. America first, Brexit, France First, etc - the economic alliances begin to weaken and be redefined as irnporant populists, whose high standard of living has completely depended on the old order, begin to ASSert national “independence” whining that the globalists are denying them true democracy and forcing immigration on them (again, not understanding how crucial immigration is and has been to their standard of living).
YOU “With all its faults, (and I think that Global Bank and the IMF have on many occasions undone democracy, increased corruption, unsighted environmental havoc, and invited in cruel forms of power)”
ME This is too serious an allegation not to supply examples. And part of the problem with this line of thinking or believing is that it is not falsifiable in the sense that we can never know what would have happened if what happened did not happen. I am not claiming there is no corruption or missteps in these institutions but the better question is were/are they more useful and beneficial than not? And if your answer is not, then the burden is on you to make a case for why. Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, left wing anti globalists have tried to make the case. Personally I am not persuaded. I have read too much from the pro-globalist side to find their arguments persuasive unless you want to claim that it would be better if nations returned to the old order, in which case you really are in a might-makes-right world (as Russia is attempting to reassert in regard to Ukraine understanding that the old order is not as united as it used to be and that, demographically, they are in a now or never moment to reassert a kind of war we haven’t seen in Europe since WW2 - pre order).
YOU ”I do think that globalisms major triumph is that it has made world war bad business. When our economies depend on each other we are less likely to toss bombs around and invade others turf. Though, I doubt the solution to these problems will come from globalism or nationalism.”
ME No. The first part of your comment is correct. Economic unions are bad for business and to forge a global dependence - as was the case with the post war Bretton Woods agreement - the world was lacking in war as it ever had been - especially in Europe. Russia - and unfortunately Ukraine - are about to find out the hard way that resorting to war will not only harm the global system, but will make their own economies much weaker.
YOU “I see, alternatively, a growing experience of 'easfullness' accumulating in the world on the margins. A returning to the simplicity of being a human on a planet with neighbors.”
ME People can’t afford to be this naïve. Certainly Ukrainians are not. Moldova, Poland, the people of the Baltic countries are not living under this pipedream (not to mention those in Georgia and Chechnia and Afghanistan).
YOU “New economies are born out of new paradigms.”
ME What do you mean? Even India, which does have an evolving value-added high tech sector, cannot build its economy based on that alone. It is going to take a process of building it up, by offering cheap labor (what Bannon dangerously calls ‘slave labor” I guess he prefers people starving to death) and developing all sectors of their economy. Remember, all an economy is is supply and demand. Sounds simple. It’s not.
YOU “Neither of these men have anything decent or worthwhile they are offering.”
ME Bannon certainly does not, he is a charlatan and a grifter, attempting to exploit the ignorance of those who know less than he does about how the global economy actually works. All he cares about is being the beneficiary of someone in power to enrich himself. He is despicable. Like Levi or not, nothing I heard him say was a lie. He is simply a messenger for a point of view that is losing favor - unfortunately. Because when economies falter people are too quick to blame the wrong thing or people. What we had worked and it worked for as many as it could. It was far from perfect but perfect is NOT an option. Just like democratic republics. Highly unlikely and not perfect but get rid of it and … you’re fucked. Back to tribes, empires, might-makes-right.
What a debate, Bernard Henry Lévy spoke like a cheap demagogue and Stephen Bannon like a statesman. “The facts ma’m, stick to the facts….”
They are both cheap demagogues. Bannon just happens to be in the right here.
It's like Dugin making Lévy feel insightful and honest.
Lévy here just doesn't want to pick up the tab of having his country's interests protected, and he has no idea how many of his "friends" are his enemies.
And he doesn't understand that he can't babysit the whole fucking world, or get america to do it.
He seems to forget that both FDR and Wilson were 5th columns, imperialism was always controlled demolition of the west.
You can have him as a statesman :-)
Except Bannon doesn't argue with facts. He is a dissembler, a liar and charlatan exploiting the ignorance of people like you.
Good start but in the middle BHL starts to drive the debate towards Milo videos and DT tweets. And he calls himself a philosopher?
He's a sophist and poetic apologist for war & murder
BHL studied humanities and his English is still mediocre. Enough said.
THIS WHY THEY HAVE DEBATES IN SCHOOL !!!!!!!!!!
Bernard: not much substance as usual
At least he doesn't lie, like Bannon.
No one on the political left takes BHL seriously or, outside of older continental circles, even knows who he is.
Yeah... its almost like a set-up!!!!
Anyone serious does not taken Bannon to be a serious intellect. I could wipe the floor with him. Bannon chooses to debate weak opponents. Love to see him go against Peter Zeihan.
One guy is articulately going over geopolitical strategies, while the other struggles to define what it means to be friends, and the latest tweets of Donald Trump.
Bannon knows nothing about geopolitics. His expertise is in exploiting the ignorance of populist morons who know even less than he does.
@@canteluna shill
@@relaxingsounds1386 Debate me, asshole, or crawl back into your mama's basement.
Levy to jail!!!
If that's the smartest intellectual for the globalists, we're all good.
Where is the traditional pie in Bernar's face?
Didi mocó mixed with napoleon bonaparte is a good lawyer
Bannon just can’t accept being called out. That’s part of what separates him from true intellectuals. He rushes in, without really studying, then gets his back up when his missteps mistakes are pointed out. The mark of an anti-intellectual is the love of saying, of misunderstanding how debate is conducted, and so they go on the attack. Their talking points don’t hold up, and instead of shamefully realizing they’re ill-prepared in the presence of serious scholars-those who have studied might and day throughout their careers-verbal attack is their reaction to their own failure. Example: Bannon says he’s anti white supremacy. That is a huge contradiction due to the company he keeps and the white supremacy his Breitbart articles frequently convey. I will give Bannon this much: he is right about the costs 😅f the world being paid by those least able to afford to pay. Here’s the contradiction: so why is he hanging with Trump who decreased taxes in the wealthy like all the other Republicans? That’s why I left the GOP years ago. HOW CAN I respect a man who perpirts to he for the people but hangs with deeply rooted haters of the people?
Levy is France most underrated actor
Bernard-Henri Lévy....GRANBUFFFFFFFON
Why does BHL assume “the Iranians” are “supposed to be our enemies?” Who is “our” people who hold this grudge against “the Iranians?” I would understand if he made a distinction between the Iranian government and its people, but that distinction doesn’t seem to matter too much to him.
Really tragic figure this Levy.In serious discussions he behaves like an actor on the stage. You can disagree with him but he represents a way of thinking. Levy represents nothing.I have seen a discussion between Levy and Dugin.The same bitter aftertaste. A philosoph product of MMS.
Really tragic comment. All question begging and you make a non-sequitur logic in attempting to dismiss a point of view by claiming it to be representative of MSM. Don't you Greeks study Aristotle anymore?
"part of democracy is accepting when you get your ass kicked" That sure didn't hold up well in 2020.
what about 2016? double standard.
2000 Mules
Sorry, we can't hear you over the steele dossier and the "fortifying" of the election.
@@andres_campos D'Souza is even more of a fraud than these two!
I have to give it to BHL. His uninhibited attitude is out of this word. Pity he can’t choke on it. A French comedian described BHL as a sculpture made from poop.
Deride Levi all you like, but he isn't a charlatan or grifter attempting to mislead ignorant people for his own benefit - as Bannon is doing.
@@canteluna I am not sure you do know Bernard Henri Levy. I would bet that if you do a thorough search and you see his involvement in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Syria, lybia, Maidan-Ukraine, you would find Bannon to be a cuddly bear. What is evil in BHL is his humanitarianism, which can be summarised as: I kill out of love.
@@K24- I am not defending Levy's entire world view or that of the "globalists", only that globalism, with all its faults, is far preferable than the insanity that Bannon is arguing for. Read any respectable expert on geopolitics and you will hear Bannon's views resoundingly trashed as ignorant and dangerous. If Bannon actually believes his own blather, it is because he isn't informed. I doubt that is the case, very likely he is taking advantage of confused populists and telling them what they want to hear so that he gets recognition/fame and $$$. Bannon would not dare debate someone like Peter Zeihan or Kevin Rudd.
@@canteluna I don’t know much about Bannon apart from bits and pieces from here and there. Thus I can’t comment on his views. As for globalism versus “sovereignism”, I tend to loath ideology out of principle, because more often than not, political ideologies benefit to sociopaths. For knowing BHL sufficiently I put him in this category.
@@K24- Yes. The problem with ideologies is that they tend to be rigid and people end up defending them and those who support them rather than looking at them objectively.
I wouldn't go as far as to claim sociopaths have ideologies because sociopaths usually believe in nothing but whether Hitler, for example, was a true believer in his own ideology or not, he certainly was a sociopath, at least in the sense that, like Putin, killing masses of human beings doesn't bother him because human beings are viewed as a mere means to his end.
"Part of democracy is accepting when you get your ass kicked" - Steve Bannon This didn't age well for the dollar store intellectual.
Are you referring to the rigged election of 2020? Gotta love mail in voting
Game isn’t over yet 😁
@@danielasmus447 It’s over. Social liberalism is inevitable.
@@ALeaud lol it’s sure been going well for you lately! I mean look at Europe, Florida, and the Supreme Court. Just wait till you see the election results in November, this is gonna be fun! Oh, and say hi to Chesa when you see him next, lol!
@@danielasmus447 It won't matter. We've managed to push virtually all right-leaning parties into the center. The GOP is full of gays now. And next it'll be full of trans people as well. What are you going to do? Make being trans illegal? Go for it lol. In a few years you'll be saying "Well, being trans is okay but being trans when under 12 isn't!" and then 5 years later you'll change that position too.
You can't stop us, kid. I know you think you can, but you can't. The future is ours, not yours. We are forcing the entire political discourse to the left. Just look at the things DeSantis is now saying - he's already caving into the centrist wing of his party.
The future belongs to us, not you. You will lose. Your electoral victories are meaningless. If you want to enforce your agenda you'll need to do it with Jan 6 style events which will 99.99% of the time end in you getting arrested.
Lévy is an evangelist for global liberalism. Everything he says is predictable, a boring "intellectual" if you can even call him that.
Perhaps but globalism is responsible for the standard of living for everyone in the world, especially in the West. Dismantle the post WW2 Bretton Woods order - which we are thanks to ignorant populists - and you will see a lower standard of living which people like Bannon and Trump will manage to exploit.
"Russia is not our mortal enemy" is an interesting sentence, in early 2022. No surprise that Putin felt he had a free reign in Ukraine with that sort of thinking pervasive amongst Republicans and Carlsons of this world. Add that he "is a genius", according to a reality show ex-president, and recent geopolitical events become inevitable.
Idk about putin anymore. We may be getting swervrd brother. Hard to gather. I dont have a political bias i dont want biden in the whitehouse or trump. Both sides against the middle as it feels they seem incompitent in different ways and appeal in others to some. Is that by design, idk anymore. God bless you brother
Its amazing Putin felt he had free reign when America was busy overthrowing a democratically elected Ukraine in 2014
Yep
But he invaded Ukraine when? Under Biden. Not Trump.
"we need nation states of Europe to be united, not a United States of Europe" I wonder where Bannon would have stood during the American Civil war. Maybe his next sentence contains a clue: "Italy just has a certain way of doing things"
Bannon said it best “America is not Europe’s protectorate.” At least not under Trump or any another America 1st administration in the future. “America 1st doesn’t mean isolationist,” at the same time, it also doesn’t mean Europe is entitled to a free ride on American coat tails or a free lunch on the American tax payers dime while US citizens risk life and limb, giving their blood, sweat and tears to become indentured servants--slaves to the agenda of the globalist oligarchs and their wet dreams of a NWO.
I wish Bannon was more skilled at debate. Bernard does the pearl clutching shtick about the holocaust- never a mention of dead babies. More babies died at Planned parenthood's hands than in the holocaust, but if your mind cannot even notice that abortions end lives, of course you can act indignant
Important concepts for you : what makes a person? what is consciousness? what is suffering? what is a gradiant? ... good luck, you will need it.
Glad the moderator could stay neutral in this debate (sarcasm)
Levy could be better, he drops many good points of Bannon. But with the populist movements he is 100% right. If Bannon would really fight Putin, China, Erdogan, he could not support the populists parties...............
?
its baseless to repel the ideologies of other peoples. everyone has the right to stick and change his inclination to any ideology. all wars have an invisible agenda covered by all pretexts proclaimed openly.
It is too easy to debate a liberal. It is a shame that the only debates happens with right wing reactionaries. Socialism, marxism are beyond these two views
Marxism is over. Some humanitarian instincts of Socialism are reusable but they're the ones the Oligarchs will not allow. Change your gender if you like but don't join a union.
@@KCavan i am not into id pol as i think no marxist should be. marx critique of capitalism is still very powerful to go beyond capitalism
38:43 the audience clapping made this lopsided squabble a worthwhile watch
"New philosopher" gets schooled.
In politics the mirror shows 2 faces.
The liberation of the Chinese working class from the yoke of the communist oligarchy was undoubtedly the number one task for Bannon.
At the time of Russian military communism, the highest goal of the Bolsheviks was similar - liberation of the world proletariat from the yoke of capitalism.
Two years later, this revolutionary task was narrowed down to something obviously more important. To sell Naomi Wolf's book about the huge number of miscarriages in the US military and discoloration of mother's breast milk due to vaccinations.
Indeed, the world has never seen such a sharp drop in goals. Bannon is really greater illusionist than Harry Houdini.
What an insane take
@@thelobster7277 Bannon is not Houdini though. And this way he would NEVER take Vienna.
Levy can not even realize that he is talking into a non functioning microphone, not to mention knowing how to turn it on. Yeh, this is the guy that should tell us how the world should function. When he debated Alexander Dugin, he lost, even though he was given plenty of time to have the last word.
During the debate he interrupted Dugin just after three words, disgusting.
Wrong
Propopanda at its finest.
America’s impact in Normandie is one of the most overrated things ever
I am British and have to disagree ,on June 6th 1944 it ‘ s impact made the difference between winning or loosing
@@lorrainegoley9112 USSR saved Europe.. whether we like it or not
I agree the USSR played a major part in saving Europe during the 2nd world war , but that does not underrate the US impact in Normandy ,by which I mean June 6 th and the following months
At 29:39, Lévy throws the debate away. Ironically, criticizing Trump, he plays trumpist politics. It's really sad, because Lévy was supposed to be the intellectual, and Bannon the demagogue. But the roles are changed. And the debate becomes a cheap show.
Why is democratie losing if the US bails on all these wonderful players like Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc?
Because if you aren't kneeling on their necks they'd progress and get ahead
That’s exactly what is happening now
And the beginning starts from Ukraine
When someone starts using hands and dramatic voice, as if acting, I stop trusting and listening!! Steve Bannon is the man I will listen!! Bernard , come live in US and then start your philosophy!! Why did France abandon Armenia during the war in 2020???
You decide who to listen to based on body language. I decide who to listen to based on facts and world view. You are left with a charlatan and grifter. I can make educated decisions.
@@canteluna ha, ha, ha!! Educated decisions!! Were you moving your hands in the air and shaking your head dramatically???I am well educated and English is my 3rd language!! Did you think I care about your choices?? Lol
@@go5124 Nice to meet an educated person here (judging from 99% of the comments, Steve Bannon's audience are IGNORANT). Why don't we debate the issues and you can show off your educated views.
@@canteluna me debating the issues with you it’s like talking to a hypocrite!!! And I am not crazy like that!! I am with Steve Bannon all the way!! You are with Levy, be my guest!! Shake your head and shake your hands, you can even stomp your feet!! In the meantime pretend you are so educated that can debate issues with everyone!!!
@@go5124 Excuses, excuses. You can't point out ANY comment I've made that is hypocritical. I don't say things I can't back up, unlike you.
I am not with Levy, I am with facts and evidence. That means I am anti-Bannon.
Levi ist a philosophe ??🤣🤣🤣 l like and understand V. Poutine !!
Dude what the fuck is this. If this man is the best of France I don't think we should have liberated them.
wow bannon doesnt look like he downed a bottle the night before for once.
He gave up booze in his forties. You should tarry with his arguments.
He looks homeless but he makes good points.
What's interesting to me is that he makes the same critiques of the current system as any socialist/communist/leftie would do
@@OrwellsHousecat it's because the progressive left and the nationalist populist share the same worldview in terms of identifying the problems. Where they differ is in the solutions they propose.
@@holden6104 I agree! I wish others would recognise that too.
@@holden6104 exactly. I think there are a few minor improvements we could agree on, but we'll never come together
14:23 "The Cuban missile crisis in North Korea, the Vietnam war in Afghanistan, the Bay of Pigs in Venezuela". Say what?
You didn't understand he is mentioning 6 different things not 3?
@@WiseOwl_1408 Well I listened four times as I assumed that... But he clearly says "in" every time.
Poland&Russia always united! EUROPE4EUROPEANS
Dream on baby!
Europe for Europeans? Really? How old are you? Under 40? You must be referring to the recent EU the EU which only exists due to the US led post WW2 order.
BTW How do you like Russia "uniting" Ukraine?
@@canteluna Russia isnt uniting Ukraine, Russia is denazifying Ukraine. The EU was designed in 1941 by Wehrmacht high rank officers. US-post-war-order is just the continuation of WW2. The USA is cancer of humanity.
@@canteluna Z
USA should be vaporized.
Viewing this debate in May 2022 I can only say how grateful I am. It is with relief that I hear two men on 'opposite sides' actually come together to talk, and without ill will. Passion, yes. Interesting and timely for me because I am rethinking my own views in light of the war in Ukraine, which has only recently taught me that Bernard Henri Levy is correct on Putin and Russia. Too many of us in the West -myself included until a couple of months ago - know nothing about Russia, the imperial dreams, and the lot of fascist, bizarre and apocalyptic hatred of the West in the country's highest places. The Frenchman is right that those right wing parties in Europe and to some degree in the US, as they support Putin, are undermining their countries from within. I am glad to see that we can still debate and hear each other's thoughts, and that these 'opposite sides ' they represent are both on the same side of democracy and the Western civilization we love. We must work together.
I think it is fascinating, in June on 2022, to watch this ... for so many reasons. First, I think those who demonize Bannon look past the fact that a lot of what he says rings true: The bankers and lawyers at Davos all knew about the slave labor and detentions in Xianjiang, The Tibetan genocide, the tightening of the noose in Hong Kong. But they stood up and cheered anyway. And the same bankers and brokers and lawyers facilitated an international economic system, half slave and half free, which tends to hollow out the western democracies, economically. But Bannon doesn't give a shit about Xianjang or Tibet or, for that matter , about Flint Michigan either. Putin has proved Levi right about Russia and Bannon's preposterous notion that somehow Russia could be brought back into the fold of Western Civilization in order to take on the Yellow menace ...just too revealing, in retrospect. I can only imagine the depth of Levi's sorrow when Bannon was cuffed and perp walked off his Chinese billionaire friend's yacht!
You are giving credit to Bannon where none is due. He is a complete charlatan and grifter. He exists to exploit the ignorance of those who know less than he does about geopolitics. Seek out Peter Zeihan, Ian Bremmer, Kevin Gallagher, Kevin Rudd...
Fun to watch this 2 years later. Russia not the biggest enemy? I'd love to hear him say that again now.
I’ll say it for him. They’re a distant 10th.
Yeah because Russia attacking a country that we are not even allied with means they are enemy #1 right? Idiot.
It is Biden’s fault that Russia is our biggest enemy … Trump tried to create peace with Russia …
To who is the question you should ask.
Not forgetting the epithet of "genius" given by Trump to qualify Putin. Republicans like Bannon (and Cruz, and Graham and ... - endless list) dishonour their country.
Shame on BHL speaking english like that
BHL go back to school!!
Юрий Стоянов: анекдот про глобалиста
Россияне скоро узнают, что глобализм не был врагом. Россияне скоро столкнутся с проблемой экономической изоляции.
@@canteluna через сколько примерно?
@@canteluna Вы понимаете, что ваше первое предложение противоречит второму? 🤣Это ведь как раз глобалисты НЕЗАКОННО пытаются устроить России экономическую изоляцию, грозятся "наказать" ее, НЕЗАКОННО действуя с позиции "мирового полицейского" (которым их никто не назначал) - это и есть действия ВРАГА. Только беспозвоночные могут принимать "наказания" из рук совершенно посторонней страны, у которой на наказания нет ни малейшего ПРАВА, и думать, что так и надо...
Это как если бы к вам пришел сосед, велел вам снять штаны, сказал, что будет вас пороть, потому что ему не нравится как вы себя ведете, и вы бы сняли штаны и подставили зад, думая, что он "не враг" и желает вам добра...
@@klarachiamarsi5935 Неправильно, глупо. Россия нарушает не только международное право и геноцид, но и, что более важно, простую порядочность. Любой, кто пытается рационализировать геноцид, - кусок дерьма, не стоящий моего времени. Иди лизни Путину жопу.
@@klarachiamarsi5935 Россия дала миру первое коммунистическое государство и терроризировала весь мир, заставив Восточную Европу поддаться своей гнусной и продажной идеологии. Теперь Путин, как и Сталин до него, пытается совершить массовое убийство (войну), чтобы возвысить место России в мире, что она может сделать только с помощью войны, а не с помощью изобретательности, культуры и государственного управления. Путин - карлик с комплексом Кинг-Конга.
I have lost respect for Bernard Levy today. He shows knowledge of a reader of CNN or Buzzfeed. Shocked by his level of disinformation.
To put Levy against anybody on the Right is to almost disqualify the Liberal voice. Levy is crap. He is a bad representative. His actions in Libya make him, like Dugin, another intellectual who plays with other peoples lives.
Levy behaves like a real ahole here. And when he argues, he does it from feelings, not from facts.
Bannon has a lot misconceptions about "the nation state" which did not exist in nearly all of the world until after the world of empire and is held together ONLY by global trade, NOT some romantic notion of blood and soil national character - that's what his national populism is based on - look who it appeals to, almost exclusively, the so-called white nationalists. Without globalism we recklessly return to ideology, the myth of the stand-alone nation state and trade disputes the likes of which we've never seen. Let's see how long Britain lasts outside the EU. What's happening to them now? They are submitting to the US economic power calling the shots.
It's idiccy to deny tribalism. Nationalism is just a more modern way to organize the common interests of big tribes.
Ever heard of white flight? Libs are prone to that too. Globalists are a tribe too. Globalists, who are so open-minded, prefer to hang out with other globalists and try to avoid hanging around with the "close-minded" commoners.
Personally, I can get a long with immigrants here in Sweden, but I prefer to socialize with fellow swedes in almost all matters. I firmly want Swedes to dominate Sweden. That what is accused of being "white supremacy", if we're honest about it, is most often completely natural and moral.
Of course I want white people to dominate white countries. Every nation and tribe has the right to control its own destiny and not be controlled and suppressed by others.
Your parasitic ideology has always been a threat against the natural order and goodness.
@@gulanhem9495 “It's idiccy to deny tribalism.”
No one is denying it, only warning against it.
“Nationalism is just a more modern way to organize the common interests of big tribes.”
Wrong. Nationalism exists to exclude some “tribes” from “the nation”. Nationalism would not be necessary without exclusion, except in regard to one nation and another. No tribe owns the nation or has a right to exclude others, not under rule of law.
“Ever heard of white flight? Libs are prone to that too.”
What about it? Mobility is a common feature of modernity. The term “white flight” is a racialized one that implies white skinned people leaving an area that had been predominantly white.
“Globalists are a tribe too.”
Everyone is a globalist (reluctant or willing) because international trade - which is what allows nations to be prosperous - is ubiquitous. Ever head of the Bretton Woods agreement? Unlikely, or you wouldn’t express such ignorant attitudes about globalism.
“Globalists, who are so open-minded, prefer to hang out with other globalists and try to avoid hanging around with the "close-minded" commoners.”
I don’t blame anyone who avoids the closed-minded. But liberalism is all about free association. Tribalism is the opposite.
“Personally, I can get a long with immigrants here in Sweden, but I prefer to socialize with fellow swedes in almost all matters. I firmly want Swedes to dominate Sweden.”
No one is stopping you. A “free country”, one NOT organized by tribes allows free association, not so with a tribal society. Ever heard of how gangs organize by turfs? Ever heard of how human beings lived prior to modernity? Patrilinealism. Patronage. Extended-Family-owned kinships of land. No mobility. Of course you Swedes were “Vikings” (which means pirating). So, you didn’t stay home with your tribe, you went thieving, taking what didn’t belong to you and if you had the might to do it, you could get away with it because there were no international laws or courts that were recognized. What you ignorantly call “globalism” is simply international law that keeps nations relatively free from conflict and war. Understand empirical European history? Have any idea how goods used to move through from nation to nation without international law? Obviously not or you wouldn’t be denigrating globalism. The US took on the role of enforcing global shipping lanes after WW2 so that all nations could import and export without extortion or violence. That's Bretton Woods.
“That what is accused of being "white supremacy", if we're honest about it, is most often completely natural and moral.”
Wrong. Human beings are naturally competitive and seek cooperation, so what is “natural” isn't easily stated. But racial supremacy, although it is common throughout history, is ugly and not necessary. All you have to do to realize it is to consider yourself in the minority position. Racial superiority is ignorance born out of confirmation bias. One can be proud of one’s heritage without going the extreme to claim superiority, which is unnecessarily confrontational. We all are who we are due to chance and legacy. Be proud, not superior. The same goes at the individual level. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, no one wants to be around someone who claims to be superior to the others. Those people are shunned in natural environments, which explains the backlash to white supremacists by people like me.
“Of course I want white people to dominate white countries”
Domination is a matter of sound economic policy (e.g. globalism) and culture (which thrives in exchange without others, not in isolation), not a privilege based on skin color. It sounds like you want to rest on the laurels of Western culture. But you don’t understand how Western culture became dominant if you think it was skin color or superior posturing. You want the West to dominate, then adopt its values which are found in the institutions that have created liberalism. Melanin is irrelevant to cultural thriving. What matters is the luck of geography and then having a government intelligent enough to exploit its human and natural resources wisely. Tribalism gets you nowhere. It is a doomed concept of the small-minded who don’t understand how the world works and yet have the arrogance to believe they can force their ignorance on others.
“Every nation and tribe has the right to control its own destiny and not be controlled and suppressed by others.”
Right? Perhaps but rights are meaningless without institutions to protect them. Tribes are NATURALLY in conflict because they don’t have institutions - at least not impersonal ones that function within the rule of law. This is why tribes have constantly been in conflict throughout human history. No international law (ie no globalism).
The entire point of tribes is exclusion. The reason white supremacy is rearing its ugly head now is because whites simply aren’t reproducing fast enough to maintain economic growth (ie standard of living). Want Sweden dominated by Swedes? Have more “SWEDISH” babies and limit immigration. But if you limit immigration without making more babies your economy will decline and thus your standard of living and more importantly, so will your geopolitical standing in the world. Everything you take for granted about your rights is only a matter of geopolitical standing. Russia is invading Ukraine now for this very reason. Ukrainians can whine all they want about their rights, but without geopolitical standing they are vulnerable.
Putin knows the Russian population is in decline and this is his last opportunity to invade with a demographic advantage.
“Your parasitic ideology has always been a threat against the natural order and goodness.”
You don’t know my ideology, let alone understand it. I am a liberal conservative (or a conservative liberal) and a realist. My only ideology is to maintain the liberal world order because doing so will mean the highest level of standard of living and cultural exchange, not to mention personal freedoms.
The “natural order” (if you want to call it that) is the problem. I thought Swedes were better educated than you appear to be. Maybe you’re young and educated by the “woke” generation and didn’t learn anything useful. You need to stop listening to self-serving charlatans like Bannon and listen to experts in geopolitics. Peter Zeihan is very good. You can learn a lot from him. Something useful. All Bannon has to offer is a means to make you more angry and aggrieved, that's what he depends on to make his living.
Also, I am not a leftist or part of the multicultural left who blame and denigrate white people, but I am also not a white supremacist because I know too much to fall into that pit of self pity and ignorance.
I am a fan of Douglas Murray’s work. I mostly agree with the thesis of his book called The Strange Death of Europe (although it is lacking a comprehensive understanding of geopolitics). He is smart, knowledgeable and balanced in his approach to immigration policy and has a traditional view of national character that I like and respect.
You nationalists should be the allies of people like me in fighting the WOKE. That is the true battle, not the false enemy of globalism. Bannon is merely fear mongering to keep the ignorant looking in the wrong direction. Bannon is NOT a "commoner" he is an elite who rails against the elite - i.e. a hypocrite. Who gets a presidential pardon for fraud (biling supporters out of millions to build a wall that never got built)? Only the elite, the well connected, not people like me and you.
I understand the concerns that EU nation states have with the bureaucracy in Brussels and the apparent lack of sovereignty in individual nations. But charlatans like Bannon have ZERO clue about how geopolitics works and are simply snake-oil salesman who are selling confused, angry white men like you a panacea - worse, not only do they not offer a cure, what they offer will make matters worse, while they line their own pockets because that is the real scam. Those like Trump and Bannon seek power in government precisely so they can avoid accountability to the people because cult members do not hold their leaders accountable, far from it.
Read Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order. This book will explain pretty much all you need to know about why the liberal nation state is necessary to maintain personal freedom (ask the people living under fascism in Spain and Portugal how they liked it - the lure of nationalism will lead you nowhere any freedom loving person wants to be because once you give power to the leaders of your “tribe” you cannot hold them accountable and they will do what ALL leaders of totalitarian governments do, repress your freedoms and keep you impoverished. You think you have something to bitch about in globalism, wait til the fascists take over).
@@gulanhem9495 “It's idiccy to deny tribalism.”
No one is denying it, only warning against it. It is a dangerous way to organize society because tribalism demands loyalty to the tribe, not to principles.
“Nationalism is just a more modern way to organize the common interests of big tribes.”
Wrong. Nationalism exists to exclude some “tribes” from “the nation”. Nationalism would not be necessary without exclusion, except in regard to one nation and another.
“Ever heard of white flight? Libs are prone to that too.”
What about it? Mobility is a common feature of modernity. The term “white flight” is a racialized one that implies white skinned people leaving an area that had been predominantly white.
“Globalists are a tribe too.”
Everyone is a globalist because international trade - which is what allows nations to be prosperous - is ubiquitous. Ever head of the Bretton Woods agreement? Unlikely, or you wouldn’t express such ignorant attitudes about globalism.
“Globalists, who are so open-minded, prefer to hang out with other globalists and try to avoid hanging around with the "close-minded" commoners.”
I don’t blame anyone who avoids the closed-minded.
“Personally, I can get a long with immigrants here in Sweden, but I prefer to socialize with fellow swedes in almost all matters. I firmly want Swedes to dominate Sweden.”
No one is stopping you. A “free country”, one NOT organized by tribes allows free association, not so with a tribal society. Ever heard of how gangs organize by turfs? Every heard of how human beings lived prior to modernity? Patrilinealism. Family owned kinship land. Of course you Swedes were “Vikings” (which means pirating). So, you didn’t stay home with your tribe, you went thieving, taking what didn’t belong to you and if you had the might to do it, you could get away with it because there were no international laws or courts that were recognized. What you ignorantly call “globalism” is simply international law. Have any idea how goods used to move through from nation to nation without international law? Obviously not or you wouldn’t be denigrating globalism. The US took on the role of enforcing global shipping lanes after WW2 so that all nations could import and export without extortion or violence.
“That what is accused of being "white supremacy", if we're honest about it, is most often completely natural and moral.”
No. There is nothing “natural” about racial supremacy although it is common throughout history. But it is mere ignorance born out of confirmation bias. One can be proud of one’s heritage without going the extra length to claim in superior. We all are who we are due to chance and legacy.
“Of course I want white people to dominate white countries”
Domination is a matter of sound economic policy (e.g. globalism) and culture (which thrives in exchange without others, not in isolation), not a privilege based on skin color. It sounds like you want to rest on the laurels of Western culture. But you don’t understand how Western culture became dominant if you think it was skin color that made a difference. Melanin is irrelevant to cultural thriving. What matters is the luck of geography and then a government intelligent enough to exploit its human and natural resources. Tribalism gets you nowhere. It is a doomed concept of the small-minded who don’t understand how the world works and yet have the arrogance to believe they can force their ignorance on others.
“Every nation and tribe has the right to control its own destiny and not be controlled and suppressed by others.”
Tribes are NATURALLY in conflict because they don’t have institutions - at least not impersonal ones - that function within the rule of law. The entire point of tribes is exclusion and conformity. The reason white supremacy is rearing its ugly head now is because whites simply aren’t reproducing fast enough to maintain the economic order necessary to maintain economic growth (ie standard of living) and feel threatened by losing their privilege. Want Sweden dominated by Swedes, have more “Swedish” babies and limit immigration. But if you limit immigration without making more babies your economy will decline and thus your standard of living and more importantly, so will your geopolitical standing in the world. Russia is invading Ukraine now for this very reason. Putin knows the Russian population is in decline and this is his last opportunity to invade with the demographic advantage.
“Your parasitic ideology has always been a threat against the natural order and goodness.”
You don’t know my ideology. I am a liberal conservative (or a conservative liberal) and a realist. My only ideology is to maintain the liberal nation state because doing so will maintain the highest level of standard of living and cultural exchange, not to mention personal freedoms. I'm a student of history and I am aware of what life is like for individuals when they do not govern themselves through institutions.
The “natural order” (if you want to call it that) is the problem. I thought Swedes were better educated than you appear to be. Maybe you’re young and educated by the “woke” generation and didn’t learn anything useful. You need to stop listening to self-serving charlatans like Bannon who are using you for their own personal ends. Bannon and Trump and all these people are ELITES. People like you and I don't get pardoned for crimes, people like Bannon and Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, etc. do because the entire point of tribes is loyalty to the leader and that means there is no mechanism for accountability.
Also, I am not a leftist or part of the multicultural left who blame and denigrate white people, I find that despicable, but I am also not a white supremacist. I believe in the liberal nation state as THE best form of government compared to the others extant. Want to be proud of the West, rule of law and liberal republican government is something to be proud of. Not because it was created by whites but just because it is a great way to live if you value having a voice in how you are governed.
I am a fan of Douglas Murray’s work. I mostly agree with the thesis of his book called The Strange Death of Europe (although it is lacking a comprehensive understanding of geopolitics). He is not a white supremacist but shares your concerns about the immigration problem and preserving the culture of Europe. What nationalists are attempting to preserve is the national socialism of Hitler and Mussolini. And if you don't think you need totalitarian means to force this on a population then you are sleepwalking through history.
You nationalists should drop your supremacist views, they will not lead anywhere good or decent, and become allies of people like me in fighting against the WOKE Marxist left. That is the true battle, not the false enemy of globalism. I understand the concerns that EU nation states have with the bureaucracy in Brussels and the apparent lack of sovereignty in individual nations, but charlatans like Bannon have ZERO clue about why liberal order is necessary for geopolitical standing in the world (look at the non liberal countries, China and Russia and Saudi Arabia, their power is all made possible by the liberal order even though they themselves are not liberal nations). Understand what Bretton Woods is, how it created the global order that we ALL benefit from. This is the agreement made at the end of WW2 where the US guaranteed to security for global trade. Global trade is globalism. Globalism has existed for hundreds of years but was fraught with violence and conflict because of the lack of international law. And international law and order are the basis for globalism, which allows goods to move between borders without conflict. Anyone ignorant of that fact has no right to shoot their mouth off about globalism because they are ignorant to the point of being dangerous to themselves and others.
Read Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order. This book will explain pretty much all you need to know about why the liberal nation state is necessary to maintain personal freedom (ask the people living under fascism in Spain and Portugal how they liked it - the lure of nationalism will lead you nowhere any freedom loving person wants to be because once you give power to the leaders of your “tribe” you cannot hold them accountable and they will do what ALL leaders of totalitarian governments do, repress your freedoms and keep you impoverished. You think you have something to bitch about in globalism, wait til the fascists take over). Also, read the books by Peter Zeihan. He is a brilliant scholar of geopolitics. Read his new book, out later this month: The End of the World is Just the Beginning. Reading and comprehending these two books will make you much more informed about how the world works than charlatans like Bannon.
if whats youre saying is true there would be like 7 or 8 countries in europe today: germany, italy, france, england, russia, turkey and spain. the fact that there are 45 different countries means these nations were created outta necessity as people with common identity and similar: language, culture, history, traditions... decided to get together and live on their own territory and make their own decisions.
the problem with neo liberal globalization is that its about politics as much as it is about free economy. bigger/more developed nations put pressure and conditions on smaller/less developed nations which is a new form of imperialism.
@@sebastiancovac7879 YOU “if whats youre saying is true there would be like 7 or 8 countries in europe today: germany, italy, france, england, russia, turkey and spain.
ME Good point, but as you know, these ARE the geopolitical powers of Europe upon which the economies and security of other nations are dependent.(more below)
YOU “the fact that there are 45 different countries means these nations were created outta necessity as people with common identity and similar: language, culture, history, traditions... decided to get together and live on their own territory and make their own decisions.”
ME It appears that way, but my position (and that of virtually any geopolitics expert) is that the only reason small countries in Europe can exist as they do is mostly due to the Bretton Woods agreement made at the end of WW2 (where the US guaranteed shipping for world trade). Prior to this agreement, countries in Europe were more or less part of an empire and empires tended to trade within the empire. And, as you know, countries within Europe were often involved in conflicts and wars.
The imperial system began breaking down after WW1 but was, for all intents and purposes, ended after WW2 and the EU was created mainly as an economic bloc. In the Bretton Woods global order - sometimes known as the “guns for butter” order - the US essentially paid countries around the world to be on our side against China and particularly Russia in the cold war (while China was an enemy, it benefitted from Breton Woods allowing Mao to change economic course in 1972 and enabling it to eventually become the economic power it became - totally impossible without Breton Woods/the US-led world order).
YOU “the problem with neo liberal globalization is that its about politics as much as it is about free economy. bigger/more developed nations put pressure and conditions on smaller/less developed nations which is a new form of imperialism.”
ME I agree with you except that this is nothing new. As I’m sure you know, the map of Europe has changed quite a bit since the Roman Empire. Small nations will always need to align with larger ones to ensure their existence. In the old order of might-makes-right this was the case, which is why smaller nations were part of empires, even the discontiguous colonies that had resources and geographical advantages for the empire.
Bannon is a charlatan and a grifter. He knows (or should know) the facts I’ve stated but is exploiting the recent populist sentiment - among masses who are apparently ignorant of geopolitics - for his own benefit.
The US order has been breaking down since the “end” of the cold war and people of the US have been demanding their politicians focus less on foreign policy and more on domestic issues, mostly culture wars, given that relative peace had been won. Same thing in Europe and the UK, which resulted in Brexit (how’s that working out for them?). France and many of the former Eastern bloc countries are also attempting to be less globalist in their economic policy. This is what clowns like Bannon are proposing and it will be a disaster - but disaster can be very profitable for charlatans and illiberals such as Trump. The anti-globalists have zero understanding that it was globalism that allowed their high standard of living (as well as demographics being in their favor). They think things are bad now, they are going to get much worse. The beginning of the end is underway - unless a miracle occurs and people vote in globalist leaders to maintain their economic positions.
See:
Peter Zeihan’s The Absent Superpower: The Shale Revolution and a World Without America
Kevin Gallagher’s The Case for a New Bretton Woods
Ian Bremmer’s Every Nation For Itself
Ray Dalio’s Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why nations Succeed and Fail (I wouldn’t entirely recommend this because I think he’s wrong about China growing power)
Bernard is a terrible debater, “I’m sorry but…” “I feel this”, “I feel that”, his arguments are all logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, sarcasm, mis quotes, his position is weak and his smarmy and snarky attitude is insulting.
You’llet over it
Levy is just an amateur mind flying high. At moments ridiculous, really (specially the way he connects general to specific - ts just pompous mind given show space).