Now, I.R. is distinct from what you might call international history. International

history is, I think, defined very well by sort of

a favorite figure of mine from the 18th century, Friedrich Schiller, who articulated that sort of

its statement of purpose, which said the international historian must select from the stream of

events those that exercise an essential unmistak, and easily comprehensible influence on the present

shape of the world and the situation of the contemporary generation. This is, I think, a basically

worthwhile pursuit. International relations sort of is a parody of this discipline. It's the dubious

science of taking these efforts to explain why events happen and treating them like, well,

a hard science with sort of

very set down and universalizable theories. I'll go through some of the basics. I'm going to get

to the paper in a few minutes. I just want to talk about the discipline a little bit in general.

So realist, quote unquote, realist theories. And I say this with the capital R. I'm not saying they're more

realistic than others. It's just this is what they call themselves because they all have brain

worms. Realist theories suggest that states basically interact in such a way where they're

paranoid about one another because the entire international sphere is about survival of the fittest.

So the core contention of international relations that sort of makes it different

from international history other than just its sort of reliance on theory is that it conceives

of this sphere called the international that is distinct from others, you know, national

individual and so on. And the international system is is distinct from others, you know, national individual and so on.

And the international system is particularly distinct because unlike any other realm of human

existence, it's anarchic. Now, it doesn't mean it's chaotic, but it means that a group of

basically like objects, so states, are interacting with one another, largely making up the

...