I'm trying to convince my mentor do put all his lectures on UA-cam and you're the main example I use. Also David Kipping PhD. Both of y'all have such good models for funding your work.
Nailed it as usual. In college one of our in jokes was always referencing that we won the war. Like, "what are you doing this weekend?" Us: "celebrating our victory in WWII" or "lay off me, we won the war". I'm glad even without fully developed prefrontal cortexes my friends and I had some that clarity.
These lectures on Calvinism are some of the best I’ve heard from you. Going to rewatch this and the American Calvinism one a few times probably. Thank you sir
"American isolationism" is misleading, as it fails to mention the annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the "Banana Wars". Compared to France and Britain, that could qualify as isolationist, but clearly America was already an active colonial power at that point.
Yes, America has been invading territories, overthrowing governments and appropriating resources its entire history. 1776, remember, was fundamentally over western expansion.
A lot of those things you reference to happened after the Wild West era, after the expansion west had been almost completed in some sense as far as establishing railroads across the continent. This is why he mentioned Roosevelt as a turning point because that does mostly line up with things like involvement with Cuba Guam Philippines, etc. most of that happened around 1898. America before then was definitely individualist and frontier focused thus the term isolationist can be thrown around without too much need for explanation
American isolationism is not misleading because it has to do with the “America first” economic policies of the time. America may have begun to colonize other parts of the map, but it was all about americas national interests which isolated them from the international powers at the time. The protectionist trade policies implemented in the early 20th century were isolationist, and the American colonies outside of the US were relatively insignificant at the time. The economic policies of America isolated it from the world.
One thing o noticed about the United States is that it has 3 great periods. Post ww1 and before greet depression, post ww2 and before counter culture movement, and end of history post cold war bush Clinton era before 9/11
I think four other topics must be covered: 1. 60's counterculture, hippies and flower power. 2. 80's cocaine epidemic and decline of inner cities 3. Decline of US industrial power and american working class. 4. Hollywood, advertisement industry and the values promoted by them.
1. and 2. are tied up with Puritanism / Prohibition + authoritarian crony capitalism (gov. working for various industries, ie. Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, Big Prisons) while 3. and 4. are more down to Neoliberal Capitalism = massively bloated privatised state (bureaucracy) serving globalist leaders funded by Globalist capitalists addicted to cheap foreign labour and resources.
This era's narative makes sense when also paired with Hoover's self-made "rugged individual" archetype he was promoting, calvinistic perservence thru the dust bowl, and the advent of consumer credit/installments for economic neccessities. Question: Can you continue the lineage into modern day's 5am hustle #grindset culture? And how to quickly dispell its materialistic grifters? Is there something about the calvanistic idea that personal sacrifice and prosperity signifies moral righteousness?
My comments disappeared twice! So, once more, with feeling if you will forgive me. Another exceptional series. I wanted to note two things. One, folks like Mikhail Gorbachev repeatedly warned the U.S. how unhelpful and naïve a triumphalist, good vs evil narrative would be, and how hollow and dangerous it would appear to everyone else. Then, meanwhile, Wes, please note that Iran is pronounced properly as "Ee-ron" and not "Eye-ran." 👂Ron and not 👁Ran. Merci.
@@coreygossman6243 I understand that language is dynamic, not static. However, the official pronunciation of 'Iran' is (ɪˈrɑːn). Pronouncing it 'the other way' carries a history of political connotations and can signal a lack of knowledge about the subject-which is fine, if that's the impression you wish to give. Meanwhile, while it's true that American English generally does not include words with a rolled 'R,' some rhotic dialects of English-such as those spoken in Scotland, Ireland, and Canada-do feature a rolled 'R.' Take good care now.
@@SiamakNaficy I would suggest that rather than nitpicking "political connotations" in pronunciations, you listen to the content of the speaker. After all, there are "political connotations" to regional accents in general. Do you hold a southerner in contempt for the way he expresses his vowels? Does an Irish accent denote a lack of knowledge to you? If so, you are a bigot. And how true do you pronounce the place names of nations and tongues foreign to yourself? Are your tones accurate when you say Shanghai and Beijing?
@@coreygossman6243 I would generally agree with you re: nitpicking about pronunciations--and I have listened carefully to the speaker (why I was able to hear the way he pronounced it). However, some pronunciations of ethnic/national names carry baggage that it would be good to be aware of--like saying Eye-talian (Italian), Messican (Mexican), or Ay-rab (Arab). Sometimes these are not meant to be offensive or signal anything. But sometimes they are. So being aware of it is likely a good thing if someone is speaking to a general audience. And it's funny you bring up Southern accents. Having spent some time in Texas as a child, I used to have such an accent, and I am keenly aware of how often in media, such an accent is supposed to signal a racist or ignorant person, and I find that deplorable. By the way, it's amazing how quickly that old accent comes back when in the company of friends from the South!
@@SiamakNaficy Sure there is some cultural baggage, but I plainly disagree with the idea of policing pronunciation to cater to small minded prejudice. Clarity should be the concern regarding pronunciation. For instance, recently a push came to pronounce Qatar as Cut-r, to mimic the native way. This leads to reduced clarity as Cuhtahr is the recognized pronunciation and reflects the English spelling.
Question: how does the idea of a Green New Deal intersect with this Calvinist/materialist/individualism? The Green New Deal is explicitly modeled on this period of history. Climate change is often framed in these Good vs Evil religious terms (e.g. apocalypse, personal guilt). On the other hand environmental action can also conflict with the materialism and individualism. Would a Green New Deal have the potential to transform culture, or is it doomed to some kind of failure or mutation?
The globalized production/consumption systems in which we participate are the problem. GND seems like lipstick on the pig, greenwashing political and economic centralization.
One thing I noticed that America has a duality or binary moral issue. Bush said, you are with us or agaisnt us. Americans apply the same concept with social issues like with the woke movement like anti racism is one example that became a popular amongst moral Americans, it's either you are racist or anti racist according to moralist aka mainline white protestants who are socially liberal during the death of George Floyd which was a major event in American history like 9/11 or stock market crashes. Also with duality or binary thier is no middle ground. I think this is called manachesum
I'm from an evangelical strain of calvinism, that lives by a different rubric which can be summed up with the biblical quote 'ye shall know them by their fruits', which gives license to explain away poverty (theyre 'not right' with God), offer justification for self-enrichment (I'm favoured by God), assuage immiseration (Im out of favour with God, but can fix it). Basically anything, from your health to your bank account, is a product of one's personal relationship with God, and one should be judged accordingly by these outward manifestations.
Man, it’s really hitting home that we have everything now and we have no idea what to do next. But there’s still poverty to alleviate and injustices to correct. Why don’t we see those as our next moral mission? Why can we spend a trillion dollars on war overseas while Schools and bridges fall into disrepair at home? Would Calvin not have focused his energies on such obvious blights?
5:20 The South’s complaint about govt overreach was “inaccurate” because they had to centralize to fight a war - lolwut? If this critique holds, no one would ever rebel for freedom because they would be less free during the subsequent war. The hope is more freedom for your children after the war.
The US government was invented to steal land from the indigenous tribes and Mexico as a MANIFEST destiny . With out this land grab wars the empire would not exist
This lecture conviniently omits Putin's Russia attack on Ukraine, which would fit perfectly into the Calvinist paradigm of good versus evil. And yet large parts of US politics are only too happy to let evil prevail, with one well-known politician even praising Putin.
The west reneged on the Minsk accord, conveniently after the us installed yet another puppet regime in Ukraine. You're wrong to blame Russia here. That said, putting is kgb. Both sides of this conflict are being controlled by the world elite,like usual.
I'm trying to convince my mentor do put all his lectures on UA-cam and you're the main example I use. Also David Kipping PhD. Both of y'all have such good models for funding your work.
Nailed it as usual. In college one of our in jokes was always referencing that we won the war. Like, "what are you doing this weekend?" Us: "celebrating our victory in WWII" or "lay off me, we won the war". I'm glad even without fully developed prefrontal cortexes my friends and I had some that clarity.
"Back to Back World War Champs" trucker hat.
I read that “lay me off? We won the war!” Which is accurate. “We* won; now our* rules.”
*the plutocrats for whom the war was fought.
These lectures on Calvinism are some of the best I’ve heard from you. Going to rewatch this and the American Calvinism one a few times probably. Thank you sir
"American isolationism" is misleading, as it fails to mention the annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the "Banana Wars". Compared to France and Britain, that could qualify as isolationist, but clearly America was already an active colonial power at that point.
Yes, America has been invading territories, overthrowing governments and appropriating resources its entire history. 1776, remember, was fundamentally over western expansion.
A lot of those things you reference to happened after the Wild West era, after the expansion west had been almost completed in some sense as far as establishing railroads across the continent. This is why he mentioned Roosevelt as a turning point because that does mostly line up with things like involvement with Cuba Guam Philippines, etc. most of that happened around 1898. America before then was definitely individualist and frontier focused thus the term isolationist can be thrown around without too much need for explanation
American isolationism is not misleading because it has to do with the “America first” economic policies of the time. America may have begun to colonize other parts of the map, but it was all about americas national interests which isolated them from the international powers at the time. The protectionist trade policies implemented in the early 20th century were isolationist, and the American colonies outside of the US were relatively insignificant at the time. The economic policies of America isolated it from the world.
One thing o noticed about the United States is that it has 3 great periods. Post ww1 and before greet depression, post ww2 and before counter culture movement, and end of history post cold war bush Clinton era before 9/11
I think four other topics must be covered:
1. 60's counterculture, hippies and flower power.
2. 80's cocaine epidemic and decline of inner cities
3. Decline of US industrial power and american working class.
4. Hollywood, advertisement industry and the values promoted by them.
Great American Crime Wave, 1960-19990.
1. and 2. are tied up with Puritanism / Prohibition + authoritarian crony capitalism (gov. working for various industries, ie. Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, Big Prisons) while 3. and 4. are more down to Neoliberal Capitalism = massively bloated privatised state (bureaucracy) serving globalist leaders funded by Globalist capitalists addicted to cheap foreign labour and resources.
This era's narative makes sense when also paired with Hoover's self-made "rugged individual" archetype he was promoting, calvinistic perservence thru the dust bowl, and the advent of consumer credit/installments for economic neccessities.
Question: Can you continue the lineage into modern day's 5am hustle #grindset culture? And how to quickly dispell its materialistic grifters? Is there something about the calvanistic idea that personal sacrifice and prosperity signifies moral righteousness?
not for the faint of heart
You got that right.
You are a great teacher
My comments disappeared twice! So, once more, with feeling if you will forgive me.
Another exceptional series. I wanted to note two things. One, folks like Mikhail Gorbachev repeatedly warned the U.S. how unhelpful and naïve a triumphalist, good vs evil narrative would be, and how hollow and dangerous it would appear to everyone else.
Then, meanwhile, Wes, please note that Iran is pronounced properly as "Ee-ron" and not "Eye-ran." 👂Ron and not 👁Ran. Merci.
In the English language both are accepted pronunciations. We don't roll our Rs in our language either.
@@coreygossman6243 I understand that language is dynamic, not static. However, the official pronunciation of 'Iran' is (ɪˈrɑːn). Pronouncing it 'the other way' carries a history of political connotations and can signal a lack of knowledge about the subject-which is fine, if that's the impression you wish to give. Meanwhile, while it's true that American English generally does not include words with a rolled 'R,' some rhotic dialects of English-such as those spoken in Scotland, Ireland, and Canada-do feature a rolled 'R.' Take good care now.
@@SiamakNaficy I would suggest that rather than nitpicking "political connotations" in pronunciations, you listen to the content of the speaker. After all, there are "political connotations" to regional accents in general. Do you hold a southerner in contempt for the way he expresses his vowels? Does an Irish accent denote a lack of knowledge to you? If so, you are a bigot.
And how true do you pronounce the place names of nations and tongues foreign to yourself? Are your tones accurate when you say Shanghai and Beijing?
@@coreygossman6243 I would generally agree with you re: nitpicking about pronunciations--and I have listened carefully to the speaker (why I was able to hear the way he pronounced it). However, some pronunciations of ethnic/national names carry baggage that it would be good to be aware of--like saying Eye-talian (Italian), Messican (Mexican), or Ay-rab (Arab). Sometimes these are not meant to be offensive or signal anything. But sometimes they are. So being aware of it is likely a good thing if someone is speaking to a general audience.
And it's funny you bring up Southern accents. Having spent some time in Texas as a child, I used to have such an accent, and I am keenly aware of how often in media, such an accent is supposed to signal a racist or ignorant person, and I find that deplorable. By the way, it's amazing how quickly that old accent comes back when in the company of friends from the South!
@@SiamakNaficy Sure there is some cultural baggage, but I plainly disagree with the idea of policing pronunciation to cater to small minded prejudice. Clarity should be the concern regarding pronunciation. For instance, recently a push came to pronounce Qatar as Cut-r, to mimic the native way. This leads to reduced clarity as Cuhtahr is the recognized pronunciation and reflects the English spelling.
Question: how does the idea of a Green New Deal intersect with this Calvinist/materialist/individualism? The Green New Deal is explicitly modeled on this period of history. Climate change is often framed in these Good vs Evil religious terms (e.g. apocalypse, personal guilt). On the other hand environmental action can also conflict with the materialism and individualism. Would a Green New Deal have the potential to transform culture, or is it doomed to some kind of failure or mutation?
The globalized production/consumption systems in which we participate are the problem. GND seems like lipstick on the pig, greenwashing political and economic centralization.
One thing I noticed that America has a duality or binary moral issue. Bush said, you are with us or agaisnt us. Americans apply the same concept with social issues like with the woke movement like anti racism is one example that became a popular amongst moral Americans, it's either you are racist or anti racist according to moralist aka mainline white protestants who are socially liberal during the death of George Floyd which was a major event in American history like 9/11 or stock market crashes. Also with duality or binary thier is no middle ground. I think this is called manachesum
I'm from an evangelical strain of calvinism, that lives by a different rubric which can be summed up with the biblical quote 'ye shall know them by their fruits', which gives license to explain away poverty (theyre 'not right' with God), offer justification for self-enrichment (I'm favoured by God), assuage immiseration (Im out of favour with God, but can fix it). Basically anything, from your health to your bank account, is a product of one's personal relationship with God, and one should be judged accordingly by these outward manifestations.
Michelin Star Cooking
Man, it’s really hitting home that we have everything now and we have no idea what to do next. But there’s still poverty to alleviate and injustices to correct. Why don’t we see those as our next moral mission? Why can we spend a trillion dollars on war overseas while Schools and bridges fall into disrepair at home?
Would Calvin not have focused his energies on such obvious blights?
5:20 The South’s complaint about govt overreach was “inaccurate” because they had to centralize to fight a war - lolwut? If this critique holds, no one would ever rebel for freedom because they would be less free during the subsequent war. The hope is more freedom for your children after the war.
I think you are right here
My uncle keeps saying that Seth will rise again. Who is he talking about?
Four laws of the universe:
1-3: Newton's three laws
4: There is nothing like "too much wes cecil"..
Take a drink of water dude my god
Simple folk looking for simple answers.
Bull, the USF
The US government was invented to steal land from the indigenous tribes and Mexico as a MANIFEST destiny . With out this land grab wars the empire would not exist
This lecture conviniently omits Putin's Russia attack on Ukraine, which would fit perfectly into the Calvinist paradigm of good versus evil. And yet large parts of US politics are only too happy to let evil prevail, with one well-known politician even praising Putin.
The west reneged on the Minsk accord, conveniently after the us installed yet another puppet regime in Ukraine. You're wrong to blame Russia here.
That said, putting is kgb. Both sides of this conflict are being controlled by the world elite,like usual.