You Won't Believe How PROGRESSIVES (!) Now Try To Sell You More War | Dr. Christopher Mott
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июл 2024
- Warmongering raises its ugly face in every corner of the US and Europe these days. And the progressive movement is no different. Here is an example of well educated, well established progressive liberal academics making the argument for even more US interventionism around the world. Most outrageously, they do so in the name of "fighting imperialism", accusing those who would want to use diplomacy and statesmanship in International relations and don't want the US Empire to span around the world, of hypocrisy. Shameless.
To help with this task I got again Dr. Christopher Mott with me. Chris is a scholar at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of St Andrews and he is the author of the book “The Formless Empire: A Short History of Diplomacy and Warfare in Central Asia.”
Chris Mott's written response to the discussed article: geotrickster.com/2024/06/29/a...
A warmonger is a warmonger. All other labels or extensions are just masquerades.
Lenin wrote about that in "2Utopias"
“The liberal bourgeoisie in general, and the liberal-bourgeois intelligentsia in particular, cannot but strive for liberty and legality, since without these the domination of the bourgeoisie is incomplete, is neither undivided nor guaranteed. But the bourgeoisie is more afraid of the movement of the masses than of reaction. Hence the striking, incredible weakness of the liberals in politics, their absolute impotence. Hence the endless series of equivocations, falsehoods, hypocrisies and cowardly evasions in the entire policy of the liberals, who have to play at democracy to win the support of the masses but at the same time are deeply anti-democratic, deeply hostile to the movement of the masses, to their initiative, their way of “storming heaven”, as Marx once described one of the mass movements in Europe in the last century.”
- V.I. Lenin, “Two Utopias”
The weaponising of human rights n democracy is the trademark of the country that has committed the worst genocide n human rights violation in recorded history.
The international rules based order is formulated by the country that constantly violated every rule and order. The US makes the rules and force others to obey but when it no longer suits them, they change the rules.
Lies n hypocrisy at its finest display
Lenin wrote this in a time and place where liberalism still had to contend with the remnants of feudal monarchism. Today, there are few places in the world that feudal monarchism has a foothold (if anywhere). IDK if Lenin is particularly relevant in 2024 when attempting to understand the bourgeoisie of 2024. And I'm a Marxist. It seems to me that historical materialists need to start working on updating our understanding of actually-existing bourgeois liberalism and not the liberalism of 100+ years ago.
@@Polit_Burro What differences are you referring to?
@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 Liberals (especially in Russia) were not even free from the threat of tsarist absolutism (totalitarianism) and were in no way the driving force in Russian politics at that time when he wrote this. Remember that the Duma could be (and was often) dissolved when the Tsar just decided to do so - so I'm saying simply that relying on the forumulas of a era that is long gone may not be the best way forward today.
@@Polit_Burro I agree that relying on formulas of a long gone era has limited value but the positions, tactics and motivations of the bourgeoisie do not seem much different to me.
I have seen a couple commenters lately complain that using Marx's framework today is worse than useless, it is counter productive.
I disagree, I think his framework stands today. He wrote a long long time ago and the details today have changed but the conflicts remain very much as they were back then and are perhaps even more stark.
I appreciate your good faith reply. Thank you.
Increasing the members of the UN Security is a red herring . There should be no security council .
Well said. Just as there should be no House of Lords and no Senate. Well said.
The German greens became a colonial party, under American militarisme: they are a colonial moviment in Germany now
If anyone or any political movement has ideological conviction, it could be religious, economic, social, or even something as benign as climate - US will hijack/co-opt it use it for American foreign policy objectives. They have used leftists, far right, centrists, Islamists, to climate change activist movements for their objectives. I realized it when I saw them ally with PKK Communists in North Syria, after having fought the Cold War so intensly.
we call them "camo greens" as they are green like the military uniforms
Donbass people suffering death squads for eight years doesn't really reflect badly on Russian policy, it reflects badly on Ukrainian internal policy. Having a million refugees enter your country telling you what's happening to people just over the border simply because they are of your ethnicity will eventually have your people demand redress.
Most analysts never give the Russian population agency in Russia's foreign policy.
These people don't want their values to govern, they just want their narcissistic self-gratification.
They don't have any values.
Thanks for your good work, Pascal. Much appreciated.
Example: Samantha Power Head of AID Known for her stand on humanitrian foreign policy under Hillary Clinton. Power is in a quandary over Israeli destruction of Palestinian Gaza!!!
Given the political turmoil among the three Western members of the UN Security Council (U.S. UK and France), the international community can thank it's lucky stars that the two Eastern members (China and Russia) continue to be of sound political mind, stable governance and most importantly; having remained independent of U.S. military occupation and coercion.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more!
German greens have twisted themselves into a completely arse faced version of a green party.
Perhaps make this a permanent agenda item: ask others to contribute to a discussion of this subject as it relates to liberalism, neoconservativism, neoliberalism, human rights. Ben Norton, Jeffrey Sachs, anyone you have interviewed and beyond. Thank you both.
Years ago I identified the problem.
It's the the buisness model of growth all the time
Exactly…
Capitalism is based on the idea of endless growth in a closed finite system. In biology we call this cancer.
Our current system is based on the idea of endless growth in a closed finite world, in biology we call this cancer.
Capitalism is based on the idea of infinite growth on a limited planet with limited resources. In biology there's a certain word for that...
@@DrDanQ92 In the early days of Capitalism, there were intellectuals who foresaw the long term problem of greed in the system and there were discussions about how Capitalists would act in their long term survival by ensuring they contribute to the overall good of society. (The common good). That gave rise to Philanthropy and things were basically progressing well but the rise of the Neo-liberals put an end to that by glorifying Capitalist Greed.
Makes perfect sense, since Putin is sold as the new mid century moustache man.
There's little progressive about so-called progressives.
“Progressive” - like “woke” - is identity branding. People who wanted to distinguish themselves from establishment ‘liberal’ Democrats in the late ‘90’s and early 2000’s referred to themselves as ‘progressives.’ Just like ‘woke’ (which has anything to do with anybody but minorities) the term was, of course, adopted by the mainstream of Democratic and left-leaning (including Bernie type of socialist democrat) voter.
So, using here as ‘progressives should get comfortable with [imperial colonialist hyper-aggression]’ - is a marketing technique aimed at their followers. This is how they roll.
Finally a civilised site
On Politicians Yes!
While campaigning Tellem (Electorate) what they want to hear and upon election????
STICK IT TO THEM WITH NO FEAR You HEAR?
Thank you for the great talk.
“You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.” ― Carl Gustav Jung
List* of the countries bombed and/or invaded by the U.S from 1950 to 2020:
Korea 1950-53
El Salvador 1980s
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958 Laos 1964-73
Grenada 1983
Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015-
Iran 1987
Korea 1950-53
Kuwait 1991
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986, 2011-
Nicaragua 1980s
Pakistan 2003, 2006- Palestine 2010
Panama 1989
Peru 1965
Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-
Sudan 1998
Syria 2014-
Vietnam 1961-73
Yemen 2002, 2009-
Yugoslavia 1999
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once remarked.
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal,"
And U.S. has proven him right. Time and again, the U.S. has showed that it is not a reliable ally in global affairs.
In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available,
48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ) USA.
In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC.
In America, In 2022, there were 133,294 reported r@pe cases in the United States. Every 68 seconds another American is sexually assaulted. 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed r@pe in her lifetime.
Over 70 million adults in U.S. are obese (35 million men and 35 million women). 99 million are overweight (45 million women and 54 million men). NHANES 2016 statistics showed that about 39.6% of American adults were obese.
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 19.7 million American adults (aged 12 and older) battled a substance use disorder in 2017.
Almost 74% of adults suffering from a substance use disorder in 2017 struggled with an alcohol use disorder. 1 out of every 8 adults struggled with both alcohol and drug use disorders simultaneously. In 2017, 8.5 million American adults suffered from both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder, or co-occurring disorders.
Drug abuse and addiction cost American society more than $740 billion annually in lost workplace productivity, healthcare expenses, and crime-related costs
“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same
as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”
― Vladimir Lenin
Problem with "Woke" and "Progressive" they've become a bad word and synonymous as NeoLib/Cons ...
Yes, by design. The establishment must not only control the narrative, but the scope of permissable thought. To defang such words and recoup them for Western imperialism is pure evil masquerading as reasonable discourse.
2 VAGUE TERMS WHICH MEANS VERY LITTLE
co-optation works like that.
Let's consider that "Neolib" is more an economic expression, while "Neocon" is more like an ideologic sect.
The main reason why domestic and foreign policy is different, is that in the former case your government has full jurisdiction to do whatever your nation feels ought to be done. You have the right to do the thing you think should happen. In foreign policy, you only have the right to your own country’s interests, but you do not have jurisdiction over another sovereign country, who may think differently about what they think should happen, and they get to think that just like you get to think as you do.
Jurisdiction is the difference between the two. For democracies, they obtain jurisdiction by winning the domestic election. Winning your domestic election doesn’t grant you jurisdiction over *other* countries, only your own.
The level of hypocrisy would be off the charts if they come from a place of personal values. Can't succeed at home so let's try somewhere else.
I think it's good to recall that in the early 20th century, fascism was likewise a progressive faction
Indeed… Both totalitarianism and anarchism idealistically exist on both sides of the socialist-liberalist spectrum. Says more about humanity itself, traits of ours we keep externalising…
No, it wasn't. Fascists killed socialists and union members. You have no idea what you are talking about. And no, Nazis were NOT socialists, duh!
LOL No, it wasn't "progressive".
@@musiqtee LOL Yeah, nothingi says "totalitarianism" quite like an anti-statist ideology, right guise?
You sound like Arendt - or any other apologist for American imperalism. At least you sure have internalized the slanders, lies, and slurs ("totalitarianism") of the bouregoisie.
@@Polit_Burro Wow… Could you please look up some of my other comments - please?
Or, does it help if I “flag” 4 + years active membership of DiEM25 and PI…?
No wonder we struggle on the left…😅
In the 19th century in Britain, this was known as Muscular Liberalism, it was championed by Gladstone and led to a sharp deterioration in Britains position in Europe, as the pontifical Gladstone attack every, as he saw it every autocratic government in Europe. The parallels with the west are inescapable. Lucky for Britain this disaster of a policy was reversed by the next Tory government. Unfortunately for the west as it stands now, reversing course will not be so easy, as literally the whole of the EU has followed the Americans off the cliff.
I still have no idea what happened to the German Greens... We used to admire them here in the US.
The imperialist/right wing establishment (media, academia, politics etc) started mislabelling neoliberalism as “the left” or “progressive” a long time ago. This benefits them in multiple ways, including making their ideologies seem less extreme/right wing in comparison.
As a greens supporter in Australia, I used to admire the German greens too. Now they have effectively become the very war mongering and authoritarian force they once opposed. So far the greens in Australia have not succumbed or been infiltrated to a significant degree. I worry that the progressive "war is good" argument may eventually take them though.
The state of the top two parties being identical in th UK might give the greens in the uk a foot on the ladder tomorrow 4th July general election
They transmutated into neocons as they got closer to power .... a bit like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings.
The sad part is Jill Stein here in the U.S. is still great but she's only going to get 1% of the vote. Well, I'll vote for her again.
The watermelon party. Green on the outside, communist totalitarian on the inside.
Naked self interest dressed up as egalitarian sacrifice.
English Liberalism is aristocratic, messianic, condescending (claiming supremacy), and colonial. It has been soothing the normies with legends of Robin Hood.
The one who gave this away for me, was Carl Benjamin of UKIP, when he explained what a dedicated liberalist he is and why.
in my circle we call this "intersectional imperialism"
check out the BBC News article - The 1920s British air bombing campaign in Iraq
this brought the issue of the Kurds on the global table.
we must not forget that.
Some of the classic Left say this happened because the uprisings actually meant that the Kurds were interested in Marxism and wanted to have a nation and the hydrocarbon nationalized for the benefit of the population.
It is bizarre when the Neocons are coopting progressive politicians and movements. Given that everyone knows what they have done all the time to countries that have natural resources and energy sources on their territories.
Thank you
"progressive/liberal" are all very vague terms, which is why they use itin their essay looking to support usa empire.
So NON-retrenchment is also "liberal intervention" which means American taxpayers' money being used to intervene in foreign affairs on the supposed side of the "good" while we have people going bankrupt from medical debt, losing their homes and living under (crumbling) bridges . . . is a good thing?
No matter what excuse you call it, it's always the same thing once you have power. That's why people get into politics - to bend other people to their will. The only people who are safe to have electoral or bureaucratic power are the people who don't want it. We thought that it would work that way here in America but it was one of the Founders blind spots. Once they got power, they were corrupted by it like anybody else and now it's become the end as well as the means.
@@neilreynolds3858-
Yeah, and supposedly a few of those Founding Fathers were against political parties. But even then, I don't know how much of a difference the absence of official political parties would make regarding imperialism, corruption.
As a brazillian, it was a coup. It followed the 2016 and 2018 successfull coup and electoral manipulation.
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States - over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was *not avoided* (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power.
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
Lets face it .. To put it simply..They are just making an excuse.. I had a terrible ex boyfriend who cheated on me repeatedly. And when i demanded answer why he continuosly cheated on me.. He would deny deny deny. after much pressure he'll add. " i didnt cheat on you but if i did.. its because YOU made me do it. " That kind of bad excuse.. Or another one of those stoopid excuse like u'd give in school.. My "DOg ate my homework " excuse.
Thanks!
Just look at what they did to North America & the people who lived here... They've had effective control over Latin America for 200 years and look at the conditions for people there...???
Mr. Mott, you seem to forget that the Ukraine conflict started in 2014 with an American imperialist regime change adventure of with a regime change operation in Maidan.
Afghanistan, 20 years of war, 20 years of continually record breaking opium production.
Approximately 46% of the population in Afghanistan is in 2023 under 15 years of age, and 74% of all Afghans live in rural areas. The average woman gives birth to five children during her entire life, the highest fertility rate outside of Africa... Remember, Afghanistan was invaded by US in 2001 ...
Now that taliban are back, the country has peace after 45 or so years. Women right to education is Afghan women's fight and no one else's.
or rather, Afghan people.
let them be at peace, become able to provide the bare necessities, increase diplomatic and trade links with them, and as they come into more and more contact with Chinese, other Asians, other Muslim nations, where women not only have education but are sometimes the most educated, and the culture conversations will happen, that women’s education is Afghan too, and *without* having to become Western or secular.
@@nurainiarsad7395
You still want to impose 'western' values, only by sly and crafty underhand means. You still _tacitly_ support western cultural imperialism and therefore can be seen as a 'fellow traveller' of western imperialism who will stand aside and let others do the dirty work of cultural subversion for you.
@@nurainiarsad7395 What is wrong with you! Afghanistan is one of the most backward and violent places in the world. It has nothing to do who invaded what where and when. It is a culture that never left the medieval age. It is a cesspool of horror and despair. It is not just Afghanistan but the entire region. This is why the "autonomous" regions of Pakistan are essentially ungovernable. Look at history and the world. What is the most depressing place in the United States? It is not the inner cities, but Appalachia. Appalachia is a remote, isolated, mountainous, region of limited economic value. It was no wonder that the Highlander Scots who first immigrated to it, found the region so comforting. I suggest you should pick up a copy of Guns, Germs, and Steel, if you are going to make comments on culture. Else, if you still believe Afghanistan is such a great place, encourage your daughters to move there.
Where can I find the book mentioned, NEVER AGAIN WAR (without us)?
I pay a lot of attention to left and progressive discourse, but I never heard of those scholars. So I assume they are not progressives but, as is noted, just liberals preaching a mildly rebranded version of liberal internationalism.
A permanent agenda item? Thank you Pascal.
I just want to say that this is not a new phenomenon.
The Second Internationale split in the 1910s exactly for this reason: the social-democrats supported Britain, France and Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary on the basis that these "democratic" countries (lol, Russia democratic? oh well) were better, "more progressive" than the autocracies of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The communists disagreed and considered that the duty of socialists was to fight against their own capitalist regimes, sign peace and make the revolution, then created the Comintern. That's why by the way the Bolsheviks signed the unequal peace of Brest-Litovsk, because they considered that international peace and national revolution were better, while the sniveling social-democrats decided to work with the ruling capitalist class to further nationalism, capitalism and imperialism.
I suggest, one of the nuclear power-states has to leave the UNSC for a whole year, if this state provoked the most massive casualties under civilian people in comparison in the past year. Simple as that.
... more precise, no exclusive VETO-rights for those nuclear power state in UNSC during the upcoming next year.
The evolution of political views that occurs in proximity to power, grants from government and private foundations etc. is simply opportunism. Opportunism plus rationalization leads to "genuine convictions" of sort. The question the opportunistic progressives do not want to face is this: what noble, progressive goals the decayed West can achieve when it intervenes, can it provide modicum of prosperity and positive social change?
On economic issues, the West is not doing too well domestically, and while transition to services (including financial) and away from manufacturing and agriculture (in employment sense) plus "free market in utilities" etc. is not overly toxic domestically, it is disastrous in countries that should be developing, like Iraq and Afghanistan under American control. Perhaps a progressive proconsul in Iraq would do better than a neocon, but I did not see a sufficiently detailed constructive critique.
On social issues, the intervening power must select local forces for mutual support. In Afghanistan, these were "mujahadeens" that were Islamist of a little bit more liberal variety than Taliban, but immensely more corrupt. So fewer burqas and more chadors etc., but nowhere as liberal as Iran and Pakistan. In Iraq, it was a total mess because local political forces were bitterly split between those who loathed Westerners and those who hated them (obviously, there were regional and sectarian issues). In Haiti, USA found the most corrupt possible supporters.
Apart from local helpers, intervention relies on contractors, businesses and NGOs. Both easily get corrupted and/or ineffectual.
Lastly, in USA, progressives may propose to alter details of an intervention, which may be heeded or not, but they are far from the actual power. Thus even if they do hard thinking about improving the interventions, e.g. less corruption, more productive investments, refraining from torture and similar abuses, they would probably achieve little.
VG, but I wish you would ask your guest to speak closer to the microphone!
This video was far too charitable to the "crusader-progressives." You can't talk about how as they near power, they become more hawkish, without also mentioning the influence of the military-industrial complex for instance- and that consideration then reveals the rot in the system- it's thoroughly corrupted, blood money is inherent to the political system now (personally I'd argue it always was as the US is a settler-genocidal state, but it has only gotten far worse). Similarly, you can't talk about "massacres of Ukranians" without noting that- for a decade- massacres WERE taking place. Of Ukranians- Ukranians of Russian descent and other ethnic minorities, and of pro-Russian Ukranians; massacres which the US backed to the hilt. Russia clearly has no such genocidal intent in comparison.
The correlation of neocon "progressives'" goals with creating new "Israels"- an "Israel" for Kurds, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Tigrays, Sikhs, Tamils, etc... of balkanizing the entire non-western world, even if the majority of the targeted ethnic minorities do not support such goals- is not just wholly hypocritical (will they provide the same justice to the genuinely disenfranchised minorities across the west, whose stolen land they live on, and who to this day suffer genocides? The Anglosphere is not just hypocritical, but is calling out the splinter, if even that, in other countries' eyes while ignoring the massive log wedged in their own- and the Europeans are just as hypocritical- will France free the Kanaky? The Tahitians? The Basques, Corsicans, Bretons, or Occitanians?), but in practice for these regions where the ethnic minorities are no more indigenous than the majorities- for instance, the Kurds are not the only indigenous peoples to their region; neither are the Uyghurs, the Sikhs, the Tamils, Tibetans, Tigrays, etc... and certainly not the Ukranians- Russians are just as indigenous to much of Ukraine- the neocon practice of "creating Israels," is like with the project of Israel itself- explicitly genocidal in character.
I struggle to understand their motives
The base still believes in green transformation and agenda. While the elites are educated and influenced by American universities, think tanks, grands, WEF . The pro US state of minds are also heavily driven by ideology and the belief of moral superiority which is mind boggling. I used to vote for them for years. 😢
They want to use American interventionism to push their agenda on the parts of the world that don't want them. Power corrupts.
Their motives - as i perceive it - are compelling into submission. And they try to cover their absolutistic claim to power by "values". If it were just about "values", they would act differently.
Can we get an episode covering Armenia’s departure from the CSTO? Probably the biggest pro-neutrality move in a while!
Pro west is hardly neutral
LOL found the Pentabot.....
PROPAGANDA
Guest speak clearly plz😅 or new mic
there is a denoising app and too many cannot handle it well.
but it is more important to get the full acoustic picture for intellegible speech, than the beauty of clean audio.
There is no such thing as a Jeffery Sachs liberal. All you have to do is look at his channel. He says the same thing in his podcast. He gets a couple hundred comments which about 70% are troll bots saying, "From Ethiopia, bless Dr. Sachs." Calling anyone a Jeffery Sachs liberal is like saying there is a Scott Ritter conservative. They are not even interesting because they do not even have anything new to say. Their podcasts are so devoid of fact they are literally time independent. They could have been generated last year and you would never know.
Two people discussing warmongering propaganda as though it were a legitimate proposal.
不错，有中文版