John Gray Part II: Welcome to the era of tragic realism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- Freddie Sayers meets John Gray in part two of a two-part interview.
Watch Part I: • John Gray Part I: Reve...
Read the accompanying Part I article: unherd.com/2022/10/the-reveng...
Listen to the podcast: shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-wi...
Follow UnHerd on social media:
Twitter: / unherd
Facebook: / unherd
Instagram: / unherd
TikTok: / unherdtv
// TIMECODES //
00:00 - 01:09 - Introduction
01:09 - 06:37 - Philosopher John Gray’s take on wider European politics
06:37 - 18:02 - The European Union is a deeply flawed End of History project
18:02 - 24:40 - Has the West made tensions over Ukraine and Taiwan worse?
24:40 - 28:32 - Would Putin use a nuclear weapon?
28:32 - 43:17 - What does the future hold for the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
43:17 - 58:34 - Will America and China go to war over Taiwan?
58:34 - 01:04:43 - What does John Gray’s ‘tragic realism’ mean for the UK and other medium-size countries?
01:04:43 - 01:15:47 - How can you strengthen the state without infringing on people’s freedoms?
01:15:47 - 01:18:15 - Concluding thoughts
#UnHerd #JohnGray #Realism
"From the totalitarian point of view, history is something to be created rather than learned." George Orwell
😼
Can you give an example of a state that didn't create history in significant ways?
@@watching99134 I think Orwell was aware that history is a creation, at least I would hope so. It is the intention that matters. We all fabricate our histories to some extent, but it is the intention of the fabrication and the degree that matters. I think you know that though.
@@watching99134 Frankly, the western history of academic historical studies and methodology is the by and far the most truthful way of understanding history where students must learn analysis of discourse, textual criticism, type of source, intended reciever of text (the audience so to speak), the writer's position and interests in the matter the source deals with etc., what the writer and his audience know/didn't know about the world around them and factor these things together to a, hopefully, more complete understanding of the subject at hand all the while knowing full-well that they do not have a complete picture of what happened because the events cannot be recreated, only understood in hindsight with all the possibilities and limitations that the sources give. In my view, no, not every state tries to "create" a history.
In the west, we spend large amounts of resources to train people, even down to layman level, in the techniques above even at high-school level. It does not work fantastically always, as most students are inattentive, but the intention to train them in critical thinking is at the very least there in the west. This is what really sets us apart from the rest of the world, frankly.
Using the methods of academic historical analysis, we have gained tremendous amounts of historical knowledge this way, also less flattering things about our own history (which has turned into self-flaggelation in some academic circles) and is probably the heretofore best antidote against totalitarianism humankind has developed thus far. Because it tears kings and lords both down from the pedistal that some will seek to place their idols on.
I started noting the lies and inconsistencies in what he was saying but there were literally too many. About 7-12 per minute
He can't think outside the Liberal paradigm himself.
seems like a person who is in a state of Fractal Wrongness to me.
what a load of rubbish he is spewing... and the interviewer is sucking that nonsense right up!
He is an academic so you can't expect much, most of them are worse
Can you list any of them?
I'm sure that most people who have followed this discussion from the first part will find plenty of debatable points and question some details of John Gray's analysis, but as a starting point for a wider discussion regarding the future and Britain's place within it, this has been a most useful interview. It would be unreasonable to expect Professor Gray to carry a crystal ball, but he should be commended for having the bravery to put forward his views on where we're headed and enunciating those thoughts in a clear and comprehensible manner. Thanks Unherd.
Agree. I know one part of what Professor Gray says very well and I know a little bit about the rest of the topics and countries. It is unsettling to realize that on the topic I know well, Mr. Gray got it wrong. Still, what a large view he has. He should be commended for trying to synthesize such huge amounts of knowledge. Thanks to Unherd and Professor Gray.
Of course - pitched at a certain audience. But wonderful to see issues one might be tracking emerging in the mainstream. The denouement of Covid appears to have raised more antenna (at least that's my unproven corelation) :).
@@kakbodine965 Which part do you think he got wrong?
@@andreimustata5922 The part where he asserted the Capitol Hill protest on 1/6/17 was directed at killing people, for a start. It's the sort of determined idiocy that calls into question every word he says and every judgment he offers.
And let me not get started on what he chooses to call "civil society".
@@andreimustata5922 That economically we are worse now than in 2008
The Swedish Democrats are not extreme right wing as such, that's an exaggeration. Their policies are a mix, the only area they could be seen to be right wing is their policy concerning immigration. Which isn't exactly a surprise, concerning the current situation in Sweden.
Mainstream politics 30 years ago is the extreme far right politics of today...
left and right wing in Europe are opposite to the Americsn definition. The dems are right here.
@@piccalillies I've never seen the Democrats being defined as right wing/conservative.
@@piccalillies we are moving on from the Left v Right paradigm.
@@evolassunglasses4673 - I would agree. It does seem like the right versus left dynamic is rapidly changing into something else. It’s nothing like the ways things were. I’m 44. So, I’ve been politically conscious since about the mid 1990’s.
He says the EU is 'dysfunctional' because the nation state members have diverging views/interests.
However he fails to mention just how frighteningly authoritarian the EU is and how it's becoming more so.
He entirely fails to acknowledge that the authoritarian approach to pushing progressive agendas, could just as easily be used to push other agendas if the right/conservatives took over - but that could only happen if EU got out from under the USA.
The EU has also played a major role in starting and escalating the war in Ukraine at the behest of the USA.
Authoritarian pushing progressive agendas is just as bad
@@jimbocho660 so how much does it pay being a ruzzian shill?
good benefits? nice holiday package i hope!?
Do you prefer more the functional state of the Europe that started 2 World Wars? Keep in mind that this was the reason EU was created. So far it seems to me it worked well. It is beyond me how you could look at a bureaucratic institution that has hard time making decisions because they have to be unanimous and call it "frighteningly authoritarian".
@@andreimustata5922
Two things
1) you say the purpose of the EU is to prevent another world war. Well, you might not have noticed, but they're doing precisely the opposite of that (Ukraine)
2) EU has explicitly said that they wish to demolish the power of states to have any independent identity or power over what happens in their state, their foreign policy, their fiscal policy, their social policy, their immigration policy, their cultural policy, their crime policy, what they can grow or eat or heat. If you don't see the issue with that then perhaps you don't see the issue with any sort of imperialism, in which case you'd have probably loved the first half of last century
Part 1 excellent, i think. This episode was like listening to a drunken grandfather at christmas
Agreed. He doesn't know much about Russia at all and so should refrain from commenting on it.
The constant umming and erring doesn't help. I have always found him hard to listen to.
He just another circle jerk expert.
JG "The European Union is over."
UH "What should Britain do?"
JG "Go back working with Europe."
--
JG "The Green Deal is dead."
UH "What should Britain do?"
JG "Working on alternative forms of energy supplies."
--
This is ridiculous.
Is English your second language?
@@jimbocho660 It is.
America works with Europe but has no intention of joining the EU. Is this confusing to you?
@@kreek22 Why should it?
@@stefanhetzel Why should Britain?
“Today’s censorship doesn’t come from the government, it comes from civil society” - very profound point
It comes from the billiare oligarchs that run the west
It is not profound. It is an untruth.
Civil media networks are infiltrated by G. Why would Americans censor trump after voting for him. Deep State at work. Hilaries criminal network.
Accepting his definition of "civil society” indicates mental damage.
In the U.S., Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the FBI "advised" him to censor the major scandal leading up to the 2020 election--the Hunter Biden laptop story. It is generally admitted that this election, which was very close, would have produced a different result had the FBI and other intel agencies not intervened in this way. Gray is a liar on this point and on many others.
The more I listened to this speaker the more my confidence in him waned. When he came out with a patently untrue assertion I had had enough. He said that the Jan 6th 'mob' aimed to kill people. If that was so then, as far as mobs go, they exposed their incompetence by failing to kill a single person. Surely it wouldn't have been difficult. Oh, that's right, they all forgot to take a single gun between them. (By the way, well done Freddie for hardly mentioning the 'far right' or fascists' in this broadcast.)
theres not really any point in listening to ANYONE in the mainstream. Where do they get there information from? Honestly
Yes he lost my credibility with his failure to understand what happened.
Theres literally a picture of a gallows they assembled lol some people even shouted it about pence and pelosi - whether or not anyone was literally intent on doing it is another thing, but you cant suggest people are pulling the rhetoric out of their arse.
Yes, indeed. There was only one person shot to death on January 6th, and she was an unarmed protester, a veteran no less, breaking into the Capitol building through a window. In Gray's mind, she is just so much chopped liver.
This channel still interviews people only inside the Liberal paradigm. It's ultimately very narrow. The Liberal paradigm is the problem.
A most frustrating discussion. Gray said he thought that the Ukrainian situation was existential for Russia (a view I share. To avoid any ambiguity, I accept that the Russians believe it's an existential issue. Accordingly Russia cannot lose. It must prevail).
The obvious question to ask then was: is the Ukraine an existential issue for the West?
If it is, then we should all start praying and hope we go in the first wave of thermonuclear strikes.
If it is not, why in God's name are we sending weapons and prolonging the slaughter and the eventual utter destruction of Ukraine?
My own view is that the West has made this an existential crisis for the West. Triffic!!!! It didn’t need to be that way. After all, it started off as a civil war between different Slavic factions - one with European tendencies and one with Russian tendencies - but the West just had to go and poke its nose in. Now thanks to sanctions which have utterly backfired on the West, and Putin (quite rightly from his perspective) promoting a new more equitable multipolar world order the West is now staring at a very uncertain and unceremonious ditching of the US hegemony. And that I fear is something they may not know how to cope with or back down on. As Obama said, never underestimate the power of Biden to screw things up.
The NeoCons want to destabilise Russia at all costs. They are just using Ukraine and will eventually dump it.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 Putin used the excuse of NATO expansion (partly justified) for his own expansionist aims to reclame his old empire. But after the disastrous full-scale invasion this year and battlefield failure he has put his federation into an existential crisis. NATO is using his miscalculation to destroy the Russian economy and military as it aids Ukraine. Planned all along? Maybe. Which will bring NATO influence right up to the expanding western border of China.
Also planned.
And very dangerous.
Really this war could go in any direction now.
@X vonPocalypse I don't know. Russia?
@X vonPocalypse Really!!
Proof? Reasons?
Perhaps Prof Jeffrey Sachs can join next time with his clear view on current events. Looking forward to part 3.
Part 3?
Prof.Alexandr Dugin for part 4
Two Liberals
Wouldn’t that be rather dull
@@seanmoran2743 😆 maybe…
He is just same as the rest of western „experts“
He’s not though is he. Most in the West still believe in progress.
Every time he says technocratic take a drink.
👍🏽
of what, hemlock? 😂
hiccough!
I'm kinda dumbfounded. In Part 1 I was glued to the conversation and played it a few times feeling like I found treasure. He was saying things about Britain, brexit, EU and globalisation etc as well as telling us about various factions I'd never heard of.
But in part 2 he's talking utter twaddle and I know this because I've heard a very wide variety of views on the subject.
This makes me reconsider Part 1,.and this channel.
Exactly what i was thinking....
My thoughts exactly, part 1 has some very interesting takes, part 2 is ignorant, and dangerous, nonsense
He has good knowledge about the situation in UK, not so much about the rest of the world.
Which part exactly you found to be "utter twaddle"? He seemed to me to have the complex position one gets after listening careful to all the perspectives.
@@andreimustata5922 Pretty much all of it. His commentary fits the West propaganda model around 100%, which is diametrically opposed to the known facts by a similar degree.
Ask yourself why the majority of the world IS NOT in agreement with this position, The West is actually isolating itself.
"Which part exactly you found to be "utter twaddle"? He seemed to me to have the complex position one gets after listening careful to all the perspectives." IF this is your sincere view then you seriously need to expand your horizons
France and Germany created the EU for really their own purposes and framed the rules to favour their own economies which was very sensible of them. The French in particular wanted to keep all their tiny, inefficient,unprofitable and lovely family farms and the whole lifestyle that goes with it. British farmers were encouraged to adopt the American ideal of ever larger farms,and greater productivity and efficiency. So everyone goes to France,falls in love with the slow pace of life and lifestyle,wants to live there but the days when you could buy an old barn for pennies is gone I think. All the french know their economic system isn't working so they vote for a politician who promises to make changes but when faced with the changes they do what the french have always done,get out there and riot. I think the French have got it right to value their heritage and locale and people.
"I think the French have got it right to value their heritage and locale and people." If this were true, France would not be rapidly Muslimizing and Africanizing. But, they are. The simple extrapolation of this trend has already been made in a very good novel called "Submission" by Michel Houellebecq. In short, France becomes Muslim and its mixed race ruling class learn to love the benefits it offers to powerful men--like polygamy.
This guy is all over the place! What the f is he on?😯
He's been drinking his own koolaid
He's stuck inside the Liberal paradigm and has no solutions.
@@prussianblus maybe that's why they split it up into two parts
Homie's high on delusions of grand, world-shaking intellect...
He has an education. Beyond your level.
This guest repeatedly talked over your measured interjections/questions Freddie. I feel that your deference prevented you from persevering. This is a shame because there are of course flaws in Gray's view.
There's a pattern to Freddies' deference 😉
Agreed - I really enjoyed the interview despite this, but when he spoke over the questions it suggested a certain "I like the sound of my own voice".
The end of the "End of History" is here.
I like it. 👍
@@RustyCohle How's it going, Rust?
Bet JG cannot sharpen a drill bit, we give these thinkers too much credit.
I am very disappointed with John's description of the Jan 6th. The Capital was not 'stormed'. To a considerable extent, the doors were opened for them. And there was no intent to kill.
I agree that comment really stood out to me. Those who entered the Capitol were not armed, they were just a mob and indeed they often had the barriers removed and allowed to enter. Jan 6th was Pelosi's plan.
Why let the truth get in the way of a horror story.
Given how blatantly and casually he lied about that is a measure of the credibility of the rest of his talk
If you think Jan 6 was a storm on the Capitol discredits the entire conversation. If you have ever seen the capital or taken a tour, you would know that those building belong to the people, they are not closed to citizens.
There is no such source of information which is only right or wrong. Intellect is necessary to separate what is right from what is wrong from all sources.
@@OrwellsHousecat It's instructive to hear what gatekeeper academics in basically the employ of the IC have to say. Russians are exceptionally immune to this brand of mesmerizing bs.
For lefties right is always extreme but. In reality it’s the extreme left that dominates.
S and M. Swapping roles, periodically.
well, one conclusion that could be drawn from what was said about Ukraine is that Wests refusal to seriously make deal with Putin before February 23rd is very likely to bring collapse of the current world order. Order that had been underpinning prosperity if the West.
The cancel culture is quite logical from the perspective of Foucault's power concept. The most effective state control is operated when the people are submitting, not to overt power, but by internalizing conviction, being educated, to do it "for their own good". The Covid event was so clear, that someone like Foucault wouldn't even need deep analysis for it. All the power dynamics was playing out in plain view, but still working like magic.
Foucault may be a more entertaining writer to some people, but I don't think he adds anything consequential to the understanding of propaganda or mind control regimes. It was covered well enough by his predecessors, such as Zamyatin, Lippman, Bernays, Huxley, Orwell. And Rene Girard covers the scapegoat games seen on social media.
"the paper tiger that is EU"
This explains why farmers voted to leave. one i know who voted to leave told me there was no chance milk that travelled 72 hours from Romania by truck could have passed the bacterial test while local farmers were inspected to the oblivion and u need to deem everything from the EU equivalent to the UK
Very interesting guy this John Gray - hadn't heard of him before. I truly enjoyed the last episode - looking forward to this one. Thanks for all the superb content that you provide completely for free at UnHerd.
He has loads of great books. Check out Straw Dogs
@@kurisensei was going to write the same
Also Black Mass
@@kurisensei I get the impression he's mellowed a bit recently. About 15 to 20 years ago he was pretty harsh and hard in his opinions - don't get me wrong, his opinions were always interesting, but it was difficult to stomach some of the stark and unvarnished things he used to write about back then. He's a bit easier to listen to, or read, today.
@@ajs41 yes, Straw Dogs was pretty shocking for me. I don't believe he's changed his opinions since then, he just talks about myriad things
@@sirhumphreyappleby6498 no he doesn't. Excellent question though. Personally, I appreciate that he thinks carefully before speaking
Informative and thought provoking as always. Thank you.
Freddie, Thank you for being a beacon of intelligent and truth seeking conversation. I've watched many of you Unherd interviews.
In my search for respectful and clear minded conversation on the "what" and the "so what" of what is going on in the world... And affecting us all... I have found few sane voices.
My other beacons are Peter Robinson and, most recently, Lex Fridman.
I would love to listen to the three of you get together to discuss the importance of having the conversations you do, and what role such conversations can have on the course of events.
@@sirhumphreyappleby6498 If Chad didn't hear it the first time it will always wash though his ears and out his nose without any intervening obstruction.
@@sirhumphreyappleby6498 In fairness, he was speaking well of the interviewer. He did not mention the the lying old Leftist, grimold Gray.
@@gandydancer9710 well now. That's quite an assumption of Chad's character. Perhaps he did hear it, and gave credit where credit is due. But perhaps he has been busy.
Perhaps he is far more open minded than folks who stab character insults at people they know only though comment sections.
...I'll watch the show on Sweden.
I'll also take any recommendations for the most open minded discussion on the major polarizing issues of our time. ...clear thinking, adult dialogue, respectful disagreement.... Those types of program. The few I mentioned are the few I've found so far. Freddie seems to fit the bill, but I'll listen more discerningly from now on.
I'm interested in educating myself and thinking for myself, not bouncing around in echo chambers.
I invite challenges to my perception, but I have no time for slinging insults.
@@chadclark5113 If you don't like what people extrapolate from your comments write better comments. If you can't find anything critical to say about this conversation then, as I said, your brain wasn't engaged and the resultant comment was a waste of your time to write and of everyone else's time to read.
See, e.g., Gray's 47:30 "...Capitol Hill being stormed by a mob which aimed to kill people." You didn't find this idiotic nonsense jarring? Then what's wrong with you? (There was no sign that it jarred Sayers, which says something not good about HIM which I have indeed noticed on prior occasions.)
I no longer have any use for the oleaginous flack Peter Robinson, btw. His guests can be interesting, but the internet has arrived and his kind of dumbed-down Establishment pabulum, typical of what passed for the Right on yesterday's PBS, is totally obsolete. You can easily do better.
Lex Fridman is a joke.
It always amuses me how very smart people manage to read between the lines. To get into someone’s head and articulate what the other person thinks. It’s ok just to speculate. It becomes way more dangerous when people go to war based on such ‘mind reading’.
Note to self: If ever I am interviewed at LSE, I must remember that the answers to all questions are written on the ceiling . . . .
And in the bottom of a well-filled toilet bowl
The comment section is a nice microcosm of the whole internet: "I really liked the parts where he supported what I already believe, and I really disliked the parts where he didn't support what I already believe. Please never contradict my worldview again."
The internet and social media are just a giant confirmation bias machine. No wonder everyone is getting more and more polarized - it's basically a function of the internet. People naturally tend towards information that supports their pre-existing beliefs. Everyone now wants their personalized, almost neurotic, worldview validated at every moment.
The conversation was interesting. Some of the guest's opinions seemed dubious (to put it nicely), but let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Everyone has dubious opinions about a lot of things, and I include myself here. We take the good and leave the bad, as always.
👍🏻
It seems almost tragic that such a nuanced discussion produced such a comment section. May I inquire which opinions you found dubious? In most cases even if I didn't agree with John Gray I could see what made him take these positions.
@Rob Tye I am not sure if you realised that my post was not addressed to you but to the original post. I read The Statemen long ago but I don't think that I could do it justice by discussing it today. With regard to the " New Statemen" I assume it is suppose to be the place were a philosopher expresses his position on political matters. I assume that for any philosopher a dialog written by Plato is more than " a fascist book".
When you say that it is a fascistic book you imply that it was chosen because it is fascistic. When something is chosen as a symbol it can be chosen because of many reasons. A book by Plato is more than a fascistic book because Plato is synonym to philosopher in the western world. The name may mean, as I suggested, how a philosopher today thinks about politics. Judging John Gray by the name of the publication in which he writes is no more than judging a book by its cover.
@Rob Tye Francis Bacon is at the start of scientific thought more than philosophy. In truth philosophy was never the strong point of Britain. Philosophers are not to be followed but understood. Plato did a lot for the development of the way we think but this doesn't mean that one should take his advice more than one should take the advice from the bible for the way we act today.
"Or you'd have your bank account frozen"
Like in Canada?
Oh lovely thank you! Something to look forward to later! : - )
Have a great weekend all!
Lol, ok. For 2nds I usually don't clap, but I'll make an exception this time.
👏👏👏👏👏👏 Almost
@@erdemoz2187 Thank you, thank you!!!!
@@just_another32 Have a great Halloween
@@erdemoz2187 Thanks I will, and you! Don't eat too many treats!
This guy is the English version of bernard henri levy.
Most people won't know what you mean. But, yes.
@@kreek22 thanks. People who watch this channel might know him, seeing as that's where I found out about him in the first place
I found this to be one of your best. Thank-you
Reading the comments there seems to be a consensus that Part 1 was good but 2 not so good. Gray seems to betray a partisan attitude and pushes Western propaganda. Everything he said about corrupt politics in Russia could be said about the West and its Corporations. Invading Iraq was barbaric for example. There are no good guys in world politics, in my opinion. Still, an interesting interview and just proves there are no easy solutions.
Americans didn`t treat Iraqis as badly as Russians treat Ukrainians.
How could you possibly know that?
@@xxvxxv5588 Death being the worst treatment, the body count in Ukraine remains today much lower than the accumulated body count from the American invasion/occupation. Also: the Americans had far less justification for their invasion, which was based on a flagrant lie.
@@kreek22 The war in Ukraine will continue for a long time and the number of deaths will increase. While the Russians want assimilate and Russifiy local Ukrainians, the US had a certain level of tolerance for the Arab (or Kurdish) and Islamic identity of Iraqis, without trying to Americanize them and turn certain territories into 51 US states.
@@xxvxxv5588 In other words, the Russians want Ukraine to rejoin the Russian Empire, of which they were a part for centuries. The Americans seek to Americanize the entire world. For example, permitting women to vote was never a Muslim idea, it was a Western idea. Now, Iraqi women vote. Some day, if America's elite has its way, Iraqi children will have the same right to remove their breasts and genitals as American children now have. Then the Iraqis will wish they had been Russified to the max.
It sounded a bit pro-UN. Interesting points but got me a bit concerned with some of his skewed views of what it seemed soft Western propaganda.
Edward Heath was a classic example of fetishizing the German model & was a huge motivating factor getting us into the European project
I think he loved the French model just as much as the German one.
I'm sorry, but to describe the New Statesman as a 'niche of freedom' is just absurd. I enjoy John Gray's writing in the New Statesman - he is the only writer there worth reading - but that claim is ridiculous.
John has proved my point by saying that the liberals claim that 'Mao "wasn't that bad'. You would not be allowed to criticise Mao in the New Statesman.
Like many people I was not as taken with Part 2 as I was with Part 1. The middle part drifted into various topics that didn't really have a clear theme but I thought the final third where there was a more "philosophical" tone introduced and we returned to the situation in Britain was excellent and made me grateful I stuck around to the end.
Of course like so many others have already pointed out the Jan 6th comment was bizarre and false but I choose to take each argument on it's merits rather than discount everything because of one silly thing he said, and the last two sections were worth the hour.
He is consistently an apologist for the Left. Sometimes he lies for them (Jan 6, censorship purely driven by civil society), sometimes he shifts emphasis for them (mentioning extremists exist on the Right, not mentioning that they exist on the Left). He deploys all sorts of rhetorical strategies--all in the same direction.
35:05 - Putin didn't say "there is no Ukranian cultural nation", he said that there were no such country, as Ukraine, before 1991.
The ongoing Tragedy in Ukraine is a bit more complex than what’s fleetingly mentioned
For that topic and American Foreign Policy in general I highly recommend
Col Douglas Macgregor Retired
Amongst all the “tragic realism” there was at least one laugh as John described Russia as a klepto-theocracy!
Thankyou for the conversation, to John Gray and Freddie.
Did Mr Gray say a single positive thing about Russia? A single critical thing about the US global hegemon/NATO-EU-UK/Collective West?
John Gray speaks like a man with one eye. That eye is myopic.
Best to all, John
Mr Gray critiques out-of-touch intellectuals in Part 1, then performs one in Part 2. No mean feat.
Excellent synopsis!
Nicely put.
How so?
I've had my sights on DeSantis as the worlds best hope for a return to global sanity, since mid 2020. Seems I was right, he was mentioned 4 time. 🤞
He stood up for his people when they needed some clear thoughts on covid. Very impressed with him
Neither DeSantis nor Trump... unfortunately they both bow down to Israel and Zionism in America...not only they bow down, but they are also very very pro Zionism!!! Until now, to me the politician that would best represent the will of the American people is Kari Lake!!
Please get John Gray to talk about the WEF
I thought he spoke very eloquently on a complicated geo politics, tragic realism is definitely something all parties could do with getting on board with , rather than this ideological world view and MMT Theory . A good dose of reality is what us needed in markets , governments , institutions and policy ideas .
In the first part, it was clear, at one moment early on in the interview, that Prof Gray voted to remain in the EU. Somehow that puts everything he said and thought out loud, into a particular tone, for me. He clearly did NOT know why those who voted to leave the EU, did so. He had his idea, and has not considered that it could be mistaken. Still, at least in this second part, near the end, he stated that he thinks Brexit has been beneficial to the UK, and that we should maintain it. Phew! That, at least, mitigates some of his other interesting perceptions.
Well done Freddie, as always, for your excellent interview skills.
Amazing interview Freddy. Please can I request that you get Peter Zeihan on the channel. I would to see someone push back and probe his incredibly articulate, confident but sometimes seemingly overconfident assertions on world events.
🙌
A Lot of what P. Zeihan said is either not accurate or misleading and at times false, you believe him at your own peril.
Mr Grey is without doubt an erudite thinker and philosopher. That said, it makes his Neo-con Russophobia even less comprehensible..
Please interview Mearsheimer.
Watching this from 10 months later. He was correct in every sense with how Russian and Chinese inner politics work. He knows how to read between the lines
"Stormed by a mob looking to kill people"? That's not my take on Jan 6th. For starters none of them were armed, plus the Capital Hill security mostly let them in after which they were easily and quite happily expelled.
I assume that taken the mob at their word: "Hang Mike Pence" is not something that you are inclined of doing.
@@andreimustata5922 I don't need to assume that you are a moron when you are so eager to provide proof.
@@gandydancer9710 Did I touch a nerve? In all these comments one thing is clear. 90% of people watched this interview because they wanted to get validation for their position. So, when John Gary attacks the elites, they are taken in, but when he has harsh words for the other side as well, he suddenly becomes untruthful. Freddie is a decent interviewer trying hard to open up a deeper dialog. I am sure that if he ever looks at the comments for his interview it must be very depressive.
@@andreimustata5922 LOL! Yeah, I saw a comment by Sayers on his... journalist Mike T?-somebody interview... anticipating that he would get railed in the commenting section. That he would deserve it didn't occur to him.
Just stop with the "You mad, bro?" act. It's puerile.
Grey offered little in the way of facts about anything and he totally discredited his own opinions with the "they intended to kill people" comment, so there is no reason for anyone to react with anything OTHER than "I agree with that" or "I don't agree with that". That of course DOESN'T accurately translate into "people watched this interview because they wanted to get validation for their position." There is no reason to believe no one HOPED for more than that except that you are so out of step with others here that you are led to project the worst on them.
"...when John Gary attacks the elites, they are taken in..."
Nice of you to so illuminate your loyalties.
@@gandydancer9710 I shouldn't expect from an interview with a philosopher new facts. He is not a reporter. If the only answer for this type of discussion is just: I agree with this or I don't agree with this, it is clear that no dialog is possible. You seem to be shopping for validation not trying to understand other people perspectives.
I didn't say that his attack on elites was not warranted (he actually made some very good points) so I have no idea what this says about my "loyalties".
This is a poor quality ramble compared to Part 1, and he makes a fool of himself with his Jan 6TH comment.
He's completely stuck inside the Liberal paradigm.
Is this the guy who wrote the books about Men are from Mars, etc?
I realize that people are not reasonable and neither nation is liberal. That said, splitting the eastern coast of the Black Sea at the Dnieper River seems reasonable. I know Kherson and Odessa are Russian speaking but this, with a promise of Ukranian nuetrality could appease the Russians. The Ukrainians have no country without American support so they are not the ones making the deal in reality. Ukranian liberalization politically could also influence Russia to similarly liberalize. If nothing else returning to a trade relationship is vital for European stability. Germany and Russia getting along can be a good thing and incremental reform is always the favorable path for stability.
The West also needs to return to our ideals. The "trans" hysteria especially towards children is rightfully frightening to the Russians and much of the world. If we lead by example of what a truly liberal society can be then that is the best thing we can do for the world.
Cheers, from the West Coast of the USA.
@SJL I consider myself as a liberal and growing up in the Soviet Union totalitarianism (which I hated and can say that Putin's authoritarianism is colossally milder despite all its ugliness) had the West as a model. But what I see now - cancelling culture 'trans' hysteria as you justly write, self- and other form of censorship, mob flashmobs on the social media when peoples' lives and careers go to waste without proper investigation remind me in some ways my childhood under totalitarian regime. I (and many other Russian liberals) don't want "Westernization" like this
Russia should get no part of Ukraine.
The American ruling class is making a very aggressive case against "liberalization" of any country. In fact, it's making a case, using such horrors as the trans medical atrocity, for ending liberalism where it currently holds sway.
Thanks for the video .
And, hopefully if there will be a capable, responsible, sane administration in the USA......
Would destitution of Zellensky bring talks for peace possible?
More supported he is by Nato less popular he is in Ukraine.
I think that he was not so well supported before the war while now he seems well supported in Ukraine. You seem to get this analysis 100% wrong so far.
In philosophy one must self reflect , this gentleman is missing that point.
Remind me of the speech of EU commissioner saying " Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is jungle" , which is a complete rubbish statement.
I still don’t understand how centre-right populist parties are labeled as fascists. To unironically compare a bunch of milquetoast christians to fascists or national socialist’s is moronic.
Q: Aren't the Remainers and Eurotechnocrats the same kind of people who said "Thank you USA" when Nordstream was destroyed and who rule out a diplomatic settlement with Russia? How can these be the same people who think the German model of dependence on Russian energy was the one to emulate? I suppose they don't think war and economic depression is something they need worry about. They'll just restart the project once things blow over (literally).
I wish there were more nonpartisan public intellectuals like Gray, not directed by the need to self-brand
Fascinating presentation.
He says that The end of history in Europe could only come about if Russia had become more Liberal. There belies his blind inaccurate bias. The other alternative, one which arguably the population would indeed be in favour of if their choices had any influence on the rulers, would be that Europe could become a little more like Russia.
Liberalism is rotting the West away.
There is a thought Gray is incapable of having. It is a thought that might even be, in some obscure way, anti-Jewish. The elite intend for Europe to be an open pit mine for transnational capitalism, the ore being European talent. To permit coherent nation states to survive would interfere in this project. Hence: submission to free trade for elite benefit and sufficient third world immigration to induce a permanent sense of guilt concerning disparities of natural talent.
John has the very unpleasant tendency to interrupt Freddy, whenever he feels Freddy is about to ask a question that would force him to be clear and admit that the only morally viable option for the west would be to de-escalate the conflict.
I would question his argument that France could not leave because of being in the Euro and that it would cause devaluation and loss of the value of savings. Several things wrong with this unsupported assertion: 1. What level a new Franc would be set at - it might appreciate if set too cheap but might be stable if set at fair value. 2. Why not establish a new Franc at parity with the Euro and run in parallel for some months or even years, then transition to free floating at a suitable future time. This would be similar to the shift from fixed exchange rates to managed and then free floating rates that has been done in many countries over the decades.
Last century Britain and Australia changed to decimal currency without too much chaos
Makes some good points but there's nothing "semi-mystical" about the presence of NATO soldiers in the Baltics and Poland (from the Russian perspective).
(He's right about the limitations of the rational model for nation-states but how does that explain Putin's eager willingness to work with the West after 9/11 until 2008? Did he suddenly become mystical as a result of the aging process?)
How about the minimum tragedy of the intellectuals and technocrats admit their failures and stupidity of vision and apply themselves to what the 'lower' masses have long been asking for which is now belatedly conceded to have been to correct vision all along.
Think global, act local aka charity starts at home and despite denials deserving and undeserving cases and natural allegiances based upon old bonds are moral positions and pragmatic ones.
Tragic realism, what a downer. Dude, cheer the hell up. Go outside and feed the squirrels. That and a little sunshine does the trick for me.
Let me guess. It all works out OK in the end.
Sometimes people need to understand that "we the people can contextualise the world as well.
2:05 Sweden's SD is basically old school Social democrats, i.e. how that party was in the 1950s and 60s before Palme and before postmodernism. So SD is the *least* "right wing" of the parties in the new government. Just look at their practical opinions, actions and party programme. It's very close to S, and pretty far from old M.
Exactly, but they oppose the demographic destruction of Sweden. And such opposition greatly offends the ruling class of the Anglo-American world. By ending Sweden and all other European nations, the people of Europe are opened up to the depredations of international capitalism and no longer have the coherent organization to resist it in any degree.
The most profound thing I heard in the last year
Mr. Gray’s vision is distorted because he doesn’t see the destructive actions of American policy in Europe, and he doesn’t see the vassalage of UK and France to American madness. It’s depressing to see the analytical ineptitude of “deep thinkers” like Mr. Gray. Sorry, I can’t hear the rest of Mr. Gray’s “educated” misconceptions.
I'm glad to see more and more people are noticing the problem of Washington's influence in European politics.
After a quite interesting Part I, this was frustratingly disappointing. Mr. Gray bought too much into western propaganda and doesn't see the world situation as clearly as he does when it comes to the UK.
He's completely stuck inside the Liberal paradigm. No solutions.
The man can't speak the language. Extremely frustrating. Stopped my listening within one minute.
Maybe the realist choice theory is overly simplistic but his view doesn't offer anything usable, outside being excessively pessimistic.
I am skeptical of anyone who refers to conservative politicians as always FAR-right.
Enlarged state is not the solution. It creates fragility and has high cost. We need to free industries of red tape and allow free markets to take off and reverse the current trends. State should have minimal budget - lower tax - and people to create resilient businesses that employ.
For a very thoughtful man, but he seems to lack some knoweldge on Ukraine, he seems to think it was enivitavble that Russia would invade & occupy. The 8 year Nato provacatins and humiliation of Russian speakers, Putins security demands at the end of 2021, or the draft April peace agreemnet that was stopped ny Boris, only a very patient leader would have sat on their hands 7 years post Minsk agreement. I think on this issue he may be lost the Guardian / New Statesman bubble.
Excellent interview and interesting thoughts. Enjoyed it way more than part 1.
John should be more wary of the state. The state can indeed be a vehicle for good, but it can also be a vehicle for great evil. Soviet-style nationalisation, for example, would be a huge strategic mistake. There is a great moral battle to be won on the world stage between the forces of authoritarian tyranny and the forces of liberty. Socialism has been tried and failed too many times, and to concede on socialism is essentially to concede on democracy and individual choice. If John was a true populist then he would trust the wisdom of the crowd over the wisdom of so-called "realist" technocrats. I agree that war with China should be avoided, but not at all costs. If they make a move to blockade Taiwan then the G7 nations should respond resolutely and see how China likes being blockaded. The Cold War wasn't won through compromise and accepting Soviet rule over Eastern Europe, Afghanistan etc... It was won through uncompromising grit and determination. If only today we had politicians with half the resolve of Thatcher and Reagan.
All these talks a practice in redundancy it all leads back for same place we started at
It’s a case of we would rather countries be client of US rather than Russia. Should we just be frank about this?
I didn't agree with him about free speech - he seemed to say that because restrictions weren't driven by government that it was a good thing??
But agree with him about the need for PR
Nationalizing energy companies. What could possibly go wrong? Too many to mention..
u r truly 🔥
Thanks
Great interview. Thank you! btw Freddie, you must try and interview Nassim Taleb (if he accepts)
I think the world is suffering from an over-intellectualism. A world driven by desire. I like John Gray a lot personally, but I somehow wish there were less IR thinkers like him around. The world might be a better place you never know.
It does sound a bit out of sorts for a humanist. Seems like it's "Rounds for the house," for everyone but the Russians and the unborn.. The former don't deserve them, and the latter won't need them!
Great conversation. Struggling to understand why many in this thread find Gray's analysis as misguided. Think he's totally on the money surrounding Putin's mystical view of Russia and its destiny, Xi's non-liberal rationalism and what Britain's political makeup should look like for real stability (protecting the most vunerable from market forces & avoiding a reversion to the causes of Brexit etc in the first place).
Bravo Freddie and Unherd for organising this intellectual tour de force!
The Ukraine-Russian border is 500km from Moscow. There is your Putin semi-mystical drive.
56:00 Calling Liz Truss a representative of populism (let alone a product of Putin, even partially) is truly bizzare. Is Gray serious there or was he just explaining the media's narrative on Truss?
He is completely insane. Mystical?
The idea of Holy Rus
Part 1 I enjoyed. Part 2 revealed Mr. Gray as a standard-issue Russo-phobe.
54:43 "...he [Putin] did say ...a world without the Russian realm is not worth living in"
I have searched for but cannot find this quote. I did however find what Gray may have been referring to:
Putin gave an inteview to Russian television anchor Vladimir Soloviev for his film "World Order - 2018". During this interview Putin was talking about Russia’s nuclear doctrine. He said:
"...After all, our application plans, I hope that this will never happen, but the theoretical application plans are the so-called counter-retaliatory strike. What does it mean? This means that the decision to use nuclear weapons can only be made if our early warning system not only recorded the launch of missiles, but also gave an accurate forecast, flight trajectory and time of the fall of warheads on the territory of the Russian Federation. This is called a counter-retaliatory strike. That is, if someone decides to destroy Russia, then we have a legal right to respond. Yes, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe, for the world there will be a global catastrophe. But still, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state, then I want to ask myself the question, why do we need such a world where there is no Russia?”
Typically, western media plucked the final part out of context and turned what was a warning into a threat. Until I am shown evidence to the contrary, I believe that Gray not only omits context but also misquotes Putin.
I am sorry, but if this guy is a philosopher, he isn't the good one. A high school student cannot afford so many logical fallacies and ignorance.
please give examples!
@@just_another32 His discussion of European political parties is misleading and his mention of the Jan. 6 Election Protest contained an important lie.
Totally wrong on Russian Ukraine policy, actually ignorant on the subject. Nothing to say about USA blowing up Nordstream Pipeline. Bumped out at 19 min.
Yet, the deeper most humans gravitate towards drugs and magical thinking.
What's up?
As regards Ukraine, the US and Britain (NOT NATO) are legally responsible for its security.
At the break-up of the USSR, an agreement was made by Blaire and Clinton that on the return of the massive inventory of nuclear weapons held in Ukraine would be sent to Russia and that the US and UK together with Russia would guarantee Ukraine's independence and security.
I believe that Taiwan has a change of Prime Minister ( since this ? ) and the new PM is rather more amenable to China.