Sargon has nearly reasoned his way to understanding something that has confused him for years: how the various European tribes became simply 'white' once they came to America.
As a 40 year old white nobody from Canada, for all my life, until the idiot era we live in now, racial/ethnic differences were for most people just a source of humour. Hell look up some clips from Russel Peters some time. This garbage vitriolic stuff is gross.
And over centuries as well. With many at first not being counted as white or being seen as inferior (Im not speaking of the Irish, Italians, or Poles at least not yet) example before the German immigrants started arriving in large numbers there were remarks by some of the founding fathers how they despised the Germans and wanted to bar them from entering because they were incompatible with the Anglos and were going to poison America and the early American English stock. Or how the Swedes were only useful because they were good housemaids. Others were at first on the list then removed and then added again. The the Irish, Italians, Poles and other Eastern Europeans Eastern Europeans being seen as people of Asia got added. And right now it's the people of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa
@@bradbarnes1839 To create the new nation or tribe of Americans, the Europeans had to shed or sublimate their national identities to that of their new nation. Many, no doubt were eager to escape the parochial rivalries of their homelands and reinvent themselves as something entirely new...why else would they make the perilous crossing to a wilderness? Also, to the natives, the Europeans were simply 'white'. During a raid the fine distinctions of national or regional identity didn't matter. The enemy always has a 'say'. Similar to what's happening now in Britain; the invaders make no distinctions between English, Welsh, Cornish, etc., the locals are just 'white' and attacked on that basis. Sargon may hate it and it may be regressive or even distasteful, but identifying more broadly as 'white' may be necessary in the light of 'current circumstances'.
NO SARGON - you're confusing urban mentality with Protestant society... you visit working farmers (either Catholic or Protestant), they will offer you food - it's the city boys that are a lot more "every man for themself".
My girlfriend and I went to spend the weekend where her parents live, and it's a very small neighborhood near a lake. Everyone looks out for each other and they'll even get each other's groceries and stuff. Such a breath of fresh air to see a true sense of community that still exists.
I'm from Scandinavia, and offering food here is something you mostly do with people you are very familiar with. If someone you don't know comes over, it's customary to offer coffee to them though.
Blame forced diversity for that aka block busting. Those cities use to be like many small towns within the cities as the neighborhoods had a lot more solidarity ,but the politicians started dropping low income housing " for divesirty" but really to lower property values and destroy community solidarity. Then they would buy it up ,relocate the gov. Housing and sell at higher property values.
As an American who lives in the south, if you visit someone’s house (and they have a functional family structure) they will 95% of the time offer you food. We have a neighborhood baked goods exchange going on and no one really organized it. As far as I know everyone who lives around me is Protestant, but I don’t think it’s directly a result of them being Protestant, but that we have a community.
It is in part because they are protestant. Shared values and culture make you care about those around you more. They are closer to the idea of family because they feel familiar more like a person that you grew up with in your family.
This was what it was like at my house growing up in the 90s and 2000s, but in a city in southern Kansas. My step mom would offer all of my friends food if they were over or if one of the neighbors came to ask a question while we were eating dinner. It wasn't uncommon for my parents to give our neighbors servings of our food, just simply by coming over to ask a question.
You don't need a written contract in a tribe. English society was full of English people who knew the rules of play and where they stood with everyone else. No tribe, no cohesion, no caring about others in the local vicinity (NOT a community any longer).
The state (corporation) gains consent by adhesion contracts such as electoral registration etc - I do not register, I do not consent I choose not to be represented by a dead vassal in a legalese fiction, as a living being I abide or endeavour to abide by common law not to intentionally harm others, if a statute covers that then no harm done but if I do no harm or cause no loss why does a statute have rights over and above my rights, it doesn't. The only reason the state can get away with imposing such iniquity is because of the prevalent mind virus that exists in the psyche of people today who think consent is someone elses job - its not. The point of this remark is that a state can only be legitimate if its legal boundaries embody a clear friend-enemy distinction. It implies that every true political community must claim a legally unrestricted Jus ad bellum "right to war”. If the distinction between friend and enemy that constitutes a group's political existence is not drawn by the group itself but by someone else, or if the decision whether to go to war in a concrete situation is no longer taken by the group but by some third party - be it a hegemonic state, an international organization, or an international court - the group no longer exists as an independent political community. That contract is not to bind us but to bind them, those claiming to be an authority of said tribe, especially when there's been no consent.
Something people need to understand is that the United States isn't a country. It's 50 countries that share a language and a lot of cultural elements bound in a Union they can't leave because of the late President Lincoln. It'd be like if Brussels responded to Brexit with an invasion and won.
The thing with this is that I think everyone outside the US gets this on conceptual level, but don't necessarily understand it on the 'real-life' level. They see the US as one big country but don't get that Pennsylvania and New York, while being similar in certain aspects, are different in culture, food and even general methods of thought. They think it more like Provinces then countries. Now this isn't to say that there aren't similarities between them, but just like a dude from Spain and Dude from Turkey aren't the same, a dude from Colorado and a dude from Arisona aren't the same.
@@Mariusweeddeath This is true. I've lived in a few states around the US and even those that share a border can be different in many ways. The laws, the food , the climate and terrain, and even the accents are sometimes very different. Big urban centers are more homogenous but smaller cities and towns are very different from state to state.
To be fair, plenty of Americans forget this as well. US is in essence the same a the EU, with minor variations in technical scope. In practice anymore, it's FAR removed from that. For example, individuals shouldn't ever pay tax to the federal government. States are to collect taxes and pay their share to the feds. Also, senators are to be appointed by state governments, and the Senate is to represent the States, not the People. That's part of the whole point of the bicameral legislature.
@@michaelsorensen7567 Well a large portion of Americans have been duped into thinking they live in a democracy and not a constitutional republic, and we're seeing the issues of the change in thinking. It turns out living in a democracy is just one step away from living in abject chaos and anarchy...or just living in LA.
@@JohnSmith-sb2fp cause you were still in the south. I never could understand the people. The seemed stand offish. No potlucks, no family getogethers. Just everything seemed off. Like I was in a foreign country.
@@timesthree5757 Because in a lot of ways, you were in a different country. Before the civil war and Lincoln effectively trampling over the Constitution it was kind of a given that you were from whatever state you lived in, THEN you were American. Even the phrase "these United States" was common enough that the sentiment was that it was a group of various individual nations working towards a whole rather then one super state ala "The United States"
But the cities define the whole country, particularly these days with mass media. For example, it used to be that pretty much every state had its own accent. Now, most of them speak with a California accent. Like it or not, the influence of the big cities is increasing exponentially
Carl is so sharp and bright at all times. Even if this is most of what he's been doing for several years, it's astounding. If I were on the show, I'd just shut up, flex my (literal) muscles, and let the man speak.
Forgive me if I'm explaining something everyone knows (I seriously don't know how much people know of Appalachian culture outside America), but where I live in Appalachia family get togethers are usually big (especially for Thanksgiving). But it is true most outside the Midwest and the South of the US are like Carl said just very small disconnected families. If I were to guess it is something that came from the necessity of living on the frontier, because I do get the sense that families in New England even during the 1800s were pretty small by contrast to the frontier ones.
Just a thought, afaik lots of the appalachian people are of celtic and highlander decent, meaning Catholic, which would support Carl's talking point. Many also were forced out by English or left because of the English taking their familial cultures with them. Definitely colonising the more hostile areas of the country pre invention of things like the railway and Maxim gun would have meant you needed other things to survive e.g. community.
@@Andrew-pd6ey I can't speak for all of Appalachia, but where I live (southern Ohio) it was historically settled by the Amish (so I suppose not English protestants but still not Catholic), Baptists and Methodists mostly. But yes there were a lot of celts, just mostly but various forms of Protestant Scots and Irish (I village in southern Ohio is actually called "Londonderry" after Londonderry Ireland and has an old Methodist church). I also know the Amish settled heavily in Pennslyvannia's section of Appalachia, so anyway maybe it was Scottish Protestant clanism and maybe German Anabaptists also made up the exception?
@@Andrew-pd6ey But to your point a ton of the Midwest west of Appalachia was completely settled by Catholics. Kansas, Arkansas, Indiana and Iowa was and is filled with Catholics because of the reasons you said.
The problem with the social contract is the assumption that the government has any business dictating what my rights are from birth and I don't even get a say at any point. This is just one of many reasons why the State is inherently illegitimate.
The only reason government should exist is to protect the rights that you have been given by God from other people and from foreign interference. The only reason we have it is because men are not angels- not because the poor exist or pain exists. Never think of it as a solution but rather a necessary evil. Limit that necessary evil as much as possible.
"You never knew whether you were cooking for five or fifteen, must be a nightmare for the people cooking" Nah, you just cook a couple pounds of meat and a few pounds of pasta, expect leftovers, and sometimes the people who show up bring something too.
There's an urban fantasy book series called Dresden Files, where pretty much every fantasy character and story comes in, faeries, vampires, wizards, etc. Harry Dresden, the protagonist, is constantly going on how the rules when dealing with the magical world creatures, faeries and a certain kind of vampire clan in particular, are very different than dealing with modern, non-magical men, and he describes such beings as "old-world". Gifts, bargains, and favors are constantly being swapped, and in the case of faeries, the tricksters that they are, you're going to be getting the raw end of the deal. It's a pretty interesting examination of some of the concepts in this video.
Whenever I go with my friend to visit his grandma (she's Indian), she always offers tea and brings out biscuits and other snacks. To me this is unheard of.
Something that really puts me off of a person is when they say "I hate where I'm from". If you can't make peace with your family, you hometown, or local community it's just a marker of immaturity.
@@JohnSmith-sb2fp Yep, I was raised to hate where I'm from. It was an Atmosphere Song, "say shhh" that reminded me what I like about my small neck of the woods. The grass is green where we plant it.
so by your logic, anyone who hated the previous government in the fifties germany was immature? same for those who did not liked the soviet dictatorship during its existence? same for any who born into a cult, including those that did ritual suicide? or as usual it is not as clear, and sometime there are quite good reason to not like your government, local or national, your family and neighborhood. even if most that say this in the west is strange, as they live in the best possible case for the entire human history, yet they somehow consider it bad and oppressive.
Hard disagree. If a situation for an individual is incredibly bad or so bad that it is fundamentally not reconcilable, then it is impossible to 'make peace'. The idea that such things are the grounds for immaturity is absurd because it flies in the face of circumstance. There isn't some sort of homogenous existence where everyone can make peace. Purely because it requires other people, other groups, other members of family to be willing to do so. You're basically saying just "suck it up" which I view as equally immature as you view the "I hate where I'm from" perspective.
The NHS IS starting to behave more like that. Surgery is often gauged now on how long you are likely to take to recover, how healthy you are. Smoking puts you farther back on the lists, as does obesity because those in poor health are likely to block beds a lot longer afterwards.
Yea in the south, you're expected to offer drinks at the very least if you have a visitor. Carl needs to have an actual southerner on his show to explain at the very least how we are our own thing separate from the rest of the US. Check out James Edwards.
I'm an only child, my parents never see my aunties and uncles and I never see them either. It's a very atomoised and structurally weak model. I will have to care for my parents alone, the state can do it but that's awful. I'd rather try and make a lot of money and buy a big house and have them live with me. I will endeavor to build a big family, I might get to sit around a table with my children (I have none but am under 30) and grandchildren, that's still not 30 people at a dinner table but I can start something that will end up like that, even if I don't live to see those 30 people.
Stuff the 'Social Contract' concept. It's at best unnecessary, at worst mass murderous. Edit: A government cannot give or take rights, it can only protect or violate them.
if we're to scrap the concept of the social contract, might as well get right of "natural rights" as well. Because really, when you boil it down, there's no rights out there in nature, applied to humans or anyone else. All there is, is what your personal sentiments are. And some of those sentiments are so strong that your mind projects it out into the world, and calls it a right.
I controlled my social contract by moving out of California, moving out of a bad neighborhood, retiring away from the big city. I didn't have to negotiate anything with Hobbes or King Charles I.
I think your observation between Protestant vs Catholic in regards to offering food is off. For example, the South of the USA is famous ("Southern hospitality") for being very welcoming and charitable towards vistors, including often lavish meals with no expectation for recompense. Its also VERY Protestant of one stripe or another and historically (it hasn't been a real issue for generations) somewhat hostile to Catholics (who were often northern carpetbaggers and the like). Now, this could just be an exception but I suspect it is not. This seems to me that you have identified what you feel is a correlation but are mistakening it for causation.
That's not accurate. Southern hospitality is a thing. You walk into someone's house and you have them asking if you are hungry. And they are not catholic.
This is true. Everywhere I've been in the US, no matter the religion or background, you will be fed - Especially in the south! Only difference I've seen between Catholics & Protestants is that Catholics have been more showy with their hospitality than other Christians, & I was raised Catholic lol
You shouldn't look at someone offering you food as an insult. It's actually a very kind gesture. Being that they're offering of what they have for you. When they don't have to. Tho I'm from the southern part of America. Just how most people are in small towns
1800’s and early 1900’s rich Americans regularly gave to the needy. Loads of American charity at that time. Also the reverse is the case in America. The South is heavily Protestant. We don’t even sell Alcohol on Sundays. If you visit you will leave with a full belly. The North (Yankeeland) is more Catholic. If you visit you might get something to drink. Also the theory of the social contract started to get steam in the 1960’s. Up until then the US was a sentimental system with restrictions placed on Government. The South still operates this way. Once again a European that will be quick to say American’s are dumb have no idea of our civilization.
I think what's missing here is that no two groups of people in fit into the same social philosophy together. New Yorkers are different than Californians all the way down to East Texans, which are different from West Texans.
Speaking as an East Texan, even I was shocked by the general kindness of West Texans. Most people remark upon visiting Texas about how kind everyone is. I just took it as face value because before that, I lived in East Texas all my life and didn't really have any comparisons. Then I went to West Texas for college, and it was quite a shock, in a good way of course.
and this is true, a traditional (better than sentimental imho) society will not give up its traditional drug. most countries are willing to phase out tobacco, since almost no country exist, where it is the traditional drug. but try to take away alcohol, the traditional drug of most of the world, and you will fail even in the most puritan countries, and just try to think the results in some other ones. the same will be true for other traditional stuff, but with drugs the benefit is quite obvious for everyone.
Economic Opportunities the Boomers Squandered For Everyone. Could not have said it better myself. Also maybe it's my Portuguese Catholic background but Offering guests refreshments is just Good Hospitality. And I'm in California
@@PaulTheHermit77 Depends on the time really, usually a sandwich or some biscuits are offered all the time, but if you're staying over for a mealtime meals are always offered from what I see.
@@grimnir8872 if your at a friend's house during dinner you sit and wait. You might get a biscuit with coffee if your lucky. I never realised how inhospitable we are. But it's nice weather down here. T shirt weather today. No snow. Ever. So I guess we win. ;)
@@PaulTheHermit77 Well in the North showing up DURING a meal is a faux pas because people are done cooking and are now eating so it's just rude, but I've never just had to sit and watch friends eating if the meal was being prepared. It's just good manners.
@@grimnir8872 we would think the guest was rude for not leaving as dinner time approaches! I genuinely thought this was normal. Live and learn I guess. Taught manners by a northerner. Who'd of thought it.
@メイソン yeah I'm kinda tired of hearing friends say they hate it here. If you don't like it , leave. Simple as that. It'll leave the good and patriotic people to regrow the population.
The whole "will offer food" map is so damn low resolution and ignoring context. Even though I live in the catholic "will offer food" part of Europe, when I was a kid, my friends when they came over didn't eat dinner with me when I was called to the dining table. At most they'd get snacks and juice. Because they lived 5-15 minutes of walking from my house and had either already eaten or are gonna be called by their moms to eat dinner at their homes. However, when someone we knew came from out of town or just lived in the other side of the city, my mom would cook for them too. Additionally, when we wisited my mom's friends in Norway they did offer us food.
I suspect Carl is reading the Traditionalists based on his assertions about Protestantism. Guennon felt the height of European culture and tradition/religion was Medieval Catholicism.
It would be interesting to see the Lotus Eaters do a deep dive on the idea of Charity. The ideas of sympathy vs empathy would also be a good related discussion.
By Sargon’s thinking the Dixie South is a sentimental society. Hell, we don’t even refer to ourselves as citizens but as a people. Southerners, Arkansan, hillbilly ect. This means all this BS I blame the Yanks.
Haha lol Carl just gives the Chad, No. "You would think that but No" "But that is what I see" then the Chad "But you don't see that though" Haha I think that's kind of hilarious
It's according to which protestant sect. A few of the sects are responsible for socialism and communism in the states, and have been since its founding. That's something that's never discussed, and the problem is always blamed on another religious group, even though they were late-comers to socialism. When that group arrived, as immigrants, the seeds for the socialists were already in place, which started in Boston and spread to NYC. In NYC, the children of the immigrants, (arriving late 1800s and after), who would do anything to make it big, broke away from the religious beliefs of their parents, and joined in with the socialists already there, along with the mob. That was back in the 1920s, or so. It was only a portion of the immigrants that brought with them the socialism that was spreading across Europe. Hardliner Calvinism, (the Reformed), is really at the roots of much of what we see as being off, (in the evangelical Anglicans, especially, in the 1800s), as well as sects like the Unitarians, Quakers, and the Hutterites, etc. Other protestant sects, when visiting, will demand that you stay for supper, and if you need a place to stay, while there, you're invited to.
The whole society has to be contract, but the communities should be sentiment. Because if your basing your rights on the "good feeling" of the people in charge youre gonna have a hard time.
Anglos create harmonious neighbourhood environments, what’re you talking about? Try popping into a village that’s 100% English and observe how everyone gets on and helps each other out. In my village we water each others plants, walk each others dogs and make sure the elderly are okay. You just like in a multi-racial city that’s completely deracinated from the national spirit of old England.
One thing Carl "the Catholic" its very interesting that protestant nations are not prone to socialist dictatorship the same way the largest family Catholic nations of Southern Europe and Latin America are consistently falling into
Linguistically sentiment is extremely important. A large point of grammar, syntax and semantics, is to help provide sentiment to help provide understanding of what is being communicated. In other words. You have a large loss in communication if you cannot share sentimental understanding with others
You don’t have enough land mass for there to be such cultural differences in your country but no there’s a regional curtesy of feeding and being hospitable towards your guests here in the south. Trust me there isn’t a big catholic population here. It’s just that manners and decency is only alive in what by the shear landmass could be considered their own countries within the United States 5:54
Britain is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world, and always has been. I don't mean the leftist sort of diversity, I mean notable naturally occurring differences. Each county is different and completely unique
You VASTLY underestimate how much culture can vary in a small country. Take Denmark for instance, absolutely tiny country, and yet we have 32 different dialects. (8 or 9 main ones most people can recognize)
South Louisiana is very Catholic, but we’re definitely an exception to the rest of the South. But you’re right in that respect for elders, tradition, and family are still deeply ingrained in Southern culture. People from outside the South sometimes don’t view our manners and politeness as genuine, but it is 99% of the time.
I don't think protestants are as stingy or isolationist as Carl implies. My mother's side of the family is native British and culturally strongly protestant, and we're close knit. My grandmother always offers tea and biscuits, or perhaps a sandwich, to guests. We also make an effort to all get together a few times a year, as we've always done. It's just tricky with my cousins all being adults with their own lives now, and my aunts and uncles being in their 60s and 70s, to say nothing of my 90-year-old grandmother. I may be the exception, but isn't it normal for Brits to have big family gatherings at Christmas and such? Isn't it a stereotype that there are never enough chairs, and the kids get their own "kiddie table" because there isn't enough space for them to sit with the rest? Surely that's not a rare thing.
offering snacks to guests is something literally grandmothers everywhere do, not a feature of any particular culture. When it comes to culture, I do think Carl is correct that protestants are likely the least hospitable culture in the world, especially compared to middle easterners like Iranians. Their hospitality puts any european to shame.
I do think that Protestants are more monastic in personal thought in the way they would like to live their lives. A lot of them would find a lot more value in going out into the middle of nowhere and living alone. Catholics are more community-centric so they would find going out to be isolated forever as neglecting the duty of God to tend to their fellow man as instructed by Christ. This isn't to say that us Catholics don't value individualism or even being alone from time to time, but we understand that we must take part in the world and you need to have more discipline to not become worldly. I think a big Protestant misconception is that the only way to become non worldly is to cut oneself off from the world completely rather than to develop the discipline to be able to live in it without being overcome by it. There is nothing inherently wrong with being Protestant, I just think that Catholics tend to take on the world in a more realistic manner, understanding the flaws of man. We maintain a balance rather than float to one extreme or the other. We fracture less.
I say if it an english tradition to offer guesses a cup of tea with the option of biscuit and other light snacks. I also think it's an unwritten rule if you are making tea for yourself that's it right to ask if anyone else would like one also. I suppose if you making a meal then it is polite to ask if they would like to stay for dinner.. however I dont think I would get up and make something from scratch for a random guess popping over.
Wait you don't offer food to your guests in England? I've lived in a few states and it was rather uncommon to not be offered food whenever I walked into someone's house?
Nope. What Karl said is right. It almost feels like your saying your friend can't feed themselves. They get a coffee/tea / beer or fat doobie but no food. But suggesting ordering takeaway is ok. Your right it is weird.
Is it really relevant that governments talk about citizens and not Americans, English, French, Dutch, etc. in their respective countries? Sure, it might feel good when laws say something like 'Every American/Englishmen/etc. ...' instead of 'Every citizen...', but what would that practically change?
Damn, talk about the relations with neighbors just reminds me of a lot of Polish comedies. So many about just neighbors having to live near each other, be it annoying each other or coming together, just actual human relations that actually matter. Humor probably doesn't translate well to foreigners, but really recommend checking some out like "Sami Swoi" or "U Pana Boga Za Miedza".
@@TheBcoolGuy might be pretty close, yea. Similar living, though think our humor got a tad darker due to the invasions. A lot of our comedy had much more of a somber subtext that had to go past censors.
In the U.S. south, it is basically compulsory to offer a guest food and drink, unless it is an extremely short visit. It would be considered rude not to Also, I doubt we suffer from a “Protestant mindset “ considering a third of all Christians in the United States are Catholic. Over seventy million.
Well, you have society, and then you have community. They are different things. Basic structure of society: Problem: I have to live among a bunch of strangers I don't trust, and they are probably as afraid of me as I am of them. Solution: We meet in a common area and come to an implied agreement: each person minds their own business, unless they are specifically invited into someone else's. Threaten someone else's life, liberty, or property, and you are out of here. Basic structure of community: I live among a bunch of people I have known pretty much my whole life. I trust them, but I also KNOW them--so my trust is limited to that extent. We take care of each other--and that requires us to get into each other's business, regardless of permission/invitation.
Carl is still trying to create a layer of separation between the two things. All societies are social contract societies, social contract explains how negotiation works, you cannot be excluded from this. Sentiment can however, be destroyed by overhead government that much I agree with. But sentiment is based on the social contract itself. Also, that system Carl is suggesting is called 'Nationalism'. A nationalist is someone who has a sentimental connection to his family, life, and society. All of the nationalist literature confirms this.
I think to best summarize the point " a country/nations needs written laws that guard against the whims and passions of the day, but are in turn acknowledged as being enforced in earnest." This is why i believe that a unwritten constitution is, by all means, an absolute failure of a system. Say what you will about the USA having to argue over the same points over and over, its been working more or less, especially with guns lately.
The US constitution exists not to "establish" any rights at all. It is there to acknowledge the rights ordained by God. Placing first and foremost a guard on what exactly the Government can and cannot do. However for roughly 200 years the United States was, and in many places still is, what Sargon calls a "sentimental" society. There are a few, densely populated big cities where this is not the case, but many many more small towns, where large happy families live and work together because we agree it is right to do so. Where most things are settled out of court, and Sunday dinners are quite common. It's not a protestant vs catholic thing either, it's very much an Urban vs Suburban and rural thing.
My problem with the "social contract" is that I've never been presented with any such document, either to read or to sign. I'm responsible for myself, not the rest of you lot.
You may not feel you have a responsibility but your tax bill, the draft, the police's ability to do a "safety check" on your home at any time, etc all demonstrate that the ruling class will impose a responsibility upon you.
@@michaelashby9654 That's what I'm saying. I'm expected to abide by this so called "contract" yet I've never been presented with the terms of this contract, nor asked if I even want to sign on to it.
Explain the difference between government rule and mob rule without the use of the word legal because the word legal is not descriptive it's a suggestive
unfortunately that's not how social groups operate. Much like how the written law isn't really what matters, it's what will be enforced by the people carrying out the law.
That social contract you speak of can only work in terms of limiting a government. It cannot work in terms of the social structure of society. It would be nicer if it did work the way you said but it cannot and will not.
The problem is, as I suspect you all realize, that those who rule us are criminals, thieves, liars and murderers. We get the social arrangements that benefit them, and family is obviously a social group they want eliminated. Your view of the law and social order is based on what you have been subjected to while in slavery. There is no problem making a better world, we just need good people to rule, and they do exist.@@Google_Censored_Commenter
@@ReformedSauron The social contract I am speaking of is there to delimit the power of the state vs the power of the individual. As we have seen from the social engineering we already experience, given enough time, you can argue your way into letting people give you total power. The people of the Talmud are word magic practitioners.
I wish people would stop encouraging others to leave their state if things are going bad. Dont leave your hometown, stay and fix it. Im from New York, and last years elections were pretty wild for a "blue state." Schumer was way closer to losing than he normally would be, and the governorship was an even closer race. Dont ever give up to the doomer worldview, you can fix things if you try hard enough. You owe it to your homeland and the people living there.
I live in NYC too and I get the sentiment, but I'm still leaving. There's something to be said for voting with your feet. After the last few years with the lockdowns and the broken bail reform laws and absurd taxes and corruption here I developed a bad taste for NYC, and everything culminated when my family got heavily affected by violent crime last year. After that, I've had enough. I don't want to prop up these charlatans anymore, I lost any goodwill I ever had for this state. It can sink to the ocean for all I care.
@Batman's Pet Goldfish the people staying are the ones who propped up the current leadership. Everyone who voted for Giuliani moved to Florida and Texas, and I'm joining them. That's what I love about the US. All the states compete with each other for people.
6:44 huh, that sounds an awful like something one of the founding fathers said, something about the American government being inadequate for a non-religious people, I don’t know, something like that 🤷♂️
This would be the splitting hairs episode I guess. Maybe there was a point here but it wasn't conveyed well. Simply slapping labels on things isn't very useful. Both of the things you describe coexist to one degree or another everywhere I've lived.
@@arcuscotangens he liked to hide in alleyways and leap out Infront of women and expose himself. I don't trust a word he said. And he can't even decide what country he's from.
To my mind, the only way the “social contract” idea has validity is that it must be the most simple statement possible. It must be a point that no reasonable person can disagree with. To me, this means it must be simply: We sentient creatures do swear to interact with each other without initiating violence. That’s it. That’s as much as it needs to be, and it need not be any more simple.
That's no good. It's exactly that mentality that prevents people from putting pedophiles in gutters where they belong, resulting in them getting into positions of power because they have no qualms about exploiting people's fear of offending them.
@@Madonnalitta1 This is minutae. Yes, societies will adopt rules against these things. Those rules are not contained in the core concept of the social contract. If you picture a society perhaps a hundred years in the future. A colony in a hollowed out asteroid run by a corporation, or maybe a settlement on Mars or something like that. When you’re essentially starting society over again what’s the first rule? The Golden Rule. Do unto others only as you would have done unto yourself. Humans need this simple rule first and foremost because we must compete for resources, or at least it can be expected that we must. If we don’t establish this rule, the powerful will take and the weaker will perish and the concept of protecting women and babies goes out the window and your society is now just packs of animals. Competing for resources while interacting in every way aside from violently (so we can assure the protection of women and babies) is the base building block of a successful society. If we have that, we can always build it all again. If we loose it and can’t manage to get it back again, we’re boned.
Carl you are pretty far off base. The US is a extremely sentimental society. Our cosmopolitan "worldly" and culturally diverse cities aren't. You also are wrong in your assumption that you can't have both. More specifically our social contract is with our government and between a condition to be in the sentimental society that is still individualistic. If you are putting in the effort and still need help people are going to help. In other words you get to be part of the sentimental society so long as you are a positive contributor or are trying to be. So i suppose our social contract is that if you keep up your end you get to be in a sentimental society. You are very much loving at this from a thousand miles up and seeing a low resolution blur. It isn't so much that we don't have a sentimental attachment as a country but it is that the national level is the lowest sentimental attachment. You see someone from your neighbourhood or your small town in a bar in the next town or anywhere and someone is trying to fight them, you are going to help. If you are away from your state and find out someone from three bar is from the same state you will probably have a drink and talk a bit. Our sentiment goes from the most local. Outwards. I care more about the state's near my home state or states my family is in. The cities have this in only small pockets because so much of the population is transient, they move there in their 20s and leave by their 40s.
Uh, what? Of course Carl knows Europeans are different from the rest of the world. Why do you think he's so opposed to non-european immigration? It's his top issue.
Now in the US more and more children aren't "flying the nest". As adults they are living in their parents' homes often in basements playing video games.
@@lolno3906 yep, my retired parents live at my place with my kids. We pitch in to keep the family above water. The best part is we have enough free time to enjoy each other’s company. A lot of the stress is gone and life moves a little slower. Best decision I ever made.
@@patgray5402so they're comfortable leaching their parents' wage slavery from them till their parents die, and then mine from me till THEY die? And that's a *better* system?! Who does not work, does not eat. Food only grows on trees if they're planted and cared for instead of chopped/burned down. Someone somewhere is doing work, and if you're not doing it for your own self then you owe the person whose labor you're consuming.
I love the way Dan simply just can't say "Black people don't belong to the same culture as whites and therefore this will increase conflict". It would be much easier to say that then make insane comparisons between Chicago and East Palestine, Ohio.
Sargon has nearly reasoned his way to understanding something that has confused him for years: how the various European tribes became simply 'white' once they came to America.
As a 40 year old white nobody from Canada, for all my life, until the idiot era we live in now, racial/ethnic differences were for most people just a source of humour. Hell look up some clips from Russel Peters some time. This garbage vitriolic stuff is gross.
And over centuries as well. With many at first not being counted as white or being seen as inferior (Im not speaking of the Irish, Italians, or Poles at least not yet) example before the German immigrants started arriving in large numbers there were remarks by some of the founding fathers how they despised the Germans and wanted to bar them from entering because they were incompatible with the Anglos and were going to poison America and the early American English stock. Or how the Swedes were only useful because they were good housemaids. Others were at first on the list then removed and then added again.
The the Irish, Italians, Poles and other Eastern Europeans Eastern Europeans being seen as people of Asia got added.
And right now it's the people of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa
They became white to anyone who wasn't white.
Could you expand on this a little? I think you might have an interesting point
@@bradbarnes1839 To create the new nation or tribe of Americans, the Europeans had to shed or sublimate their national identities to that of their new nation. Many, no doubt were eager to escape the parochial rivalries of their homelands and reinvent themselves as something entirely new...why else would they make the perilous crossing to a wilderness? Also, to the natives, the Europeans were simply 'white'. During a raid the fine distinctions of national or regional identity didn't matter. The enemy always has a 'say'. Similar to what's happening now in Britain; the invaders make no distinctions between English, Welsh, Cornish, etc., the locals are just 'white' and attacked on that basis. Sargon may hate it and it may be regressive or even distasteful, but identifying more broadly as 'white' may be necessary in the light of 'current circumstances'.
NO SARGON - you're confusing urban mentality with Protestant society... you visit working farmers (either Catholic or Protestant), they will offer you food - it's the city boys that are a lot more "every man for themself".
My girlfriend and I went to spend the weekend where her parents live, and it's a very small neighborhood near a lake. Everyone looks out for each other and they'll even get each other's groceries and stuff.
Such a breath of fresh air to see a true sense of community that still exists.
I'm from Scandinavia, and offering food here is something you mostly do with people you are very familiar with. If someone you don't know comes over, it's customary to offer coffee to them though.
Blame forced diversity for that aka block busting. Those cities use to be like many small towns within the cities as the neighborhoods had a lot more solidarity ,but the politicians started dropping low income housing " for divesirty" but really to lower property values and destroy community solidarity. Then they would buy it up ,relocate the gov. Housing and sell at higher property values.
Lol
@@RAGErkgk I heard if you offer food in a Scandanavian culture you aren't allowed to murder them at your table.
As an American who lives in the south, if you visit someone’s house (and they have a functional family structure) they will 95% of the time offer you food. We have a neighborhood baked goods exchange going on and no one really organized it. As far as I know everyone who lives around me is Protestant, but I don’t think it’s directly a result of them being Protestant, but that we have a community.
I can confirm they will in the south! From what I can tell it's more tied to the family being strong and together I think.
We're just decent people. City rats, nah.
It is in part because they are protestant. Shared values and culture make you care about those around you more. They are closer to the idea of family because they feel familiar more like a person that you grew up with in your family.
Yep! I really wish they did a deep dive on the American south vs the rest of America regarding culture and such
This was what it was like at my house growing up in the 90s and 2000s, but in a city in southern Kansas. My step mom would offer all of my friends food if they were over or if one of the neighbors came to ask a question while we were eating dinner.
It wasn't uncommon for my parents to give our neighbors servings of our food, just simply by coming over to ask a question.
You don't need a written contract in a tribe. English society was full of English people who knew the rules of play and where they stood with everyone else. No tribe, no cohesion, no caring about others in the local vicinity (NOT a community any longer).
White English People. We deserve our Homelands. Diversity is death.
The state (corporation) gains consent by adhesion contracts such as electoral registration etc - I do not register, I do not consent I choose not to be represented by a dead vassal in a legalese fiction, as a living being I abide or endeavour to abide by common law not to intentionally harm others, if a statute covers that then no harm done but if I do no harm or cause no loss why does a statute have rights over and above my rights, it doesn't. The only reason the state can get away with imposing such iniquity is because of the prevalent mind virus that exists in the psyche of people today who think consent is someone elses job - its not.
The point of this remark is that a state can only be legitimate if its legal boundaries embody a clear friend-enemy distinction. It implies that every true political community must claim a legally unrestricted Jus ad bellum "right to war”. If the distinction between friend and enemy that constitutes a group's political existence is not drawn by the group itself but by someone else, or if the decision whether to go to war in a concrete situation is no longer taken by the group but by some third party - be it a hegemonic state, an international organization, or an international court - the group no longer exists as an independent political community.
That contract is not to bind us but to bind them, those claiming to be an authority of said tribe, especially when there's been no consent.
Families used to be large all over Europe. My grandmother was one of eleven.
My mother is one of thirteen, and I'm 40. Yeah, big families, though probably not anymore.
Something people need to understand is that the United States isn't a country. It's 50 countries that share a language and a lot of cultural elements bound in a Union they can't leave because of the late President Lincoln. It'd be like if Brussels responded to Brexit with an invasion and won.
And then retroactively claimed that the invasion was to end British racism.
The thing with this is that I think everyone outside the US gets this on conceptual level, but don't necessarily understand it on the 'real-life' level.
They see the US as one big country but don't get that Pennsylvania and New York, while being similar in certain aspects, are different in culture, food and even general methods of thought. They think it more like Provinces then countries.
Now this isn't to say that there aren't similarities between them, but just like a dude from Spain and Dude from Turkey aren't the same, a dude from Colorado and a dude from Arisona aren't the same.
@@Mariusweeddeath This is true. I've lived in a few states around the US and even those that share a border can be different in many ways. The laws, the food , the climate and terrain, and even the accents are sometimes very different. Big urban centers are more homogenous but smaller cities and towns are very different from state to state.
To be fair, plenty of Americans forget this as well. US is in essence the same a the EU, with minor variations in technical scope.
In practice anymore, it's FAR removed from that. For example, individuals shouldn't ever pay tax to the federal government. States are to collect taxes and pay their share to the feds. Also, senators are to be appointed by state governments, and the Senate is to represent the States, not the People. That's part of the whole point of the bicameral legislature.
@@michaelsorensen7567 Well a large portion of Americans have been duped into thinking they live in a democracy and not a constitutional republic, and we're seeing the issues of the change in thinking. It turns out living in a democracy is just one step away from living in abject chaos and anarchy...or just living in LA.
I dealt with a major culture-shock, just from moving to a different state as a teen
I moved from Arkansas to Nebraska in my 30’s it was a culture shock. I’m back in Arkansas.
@@timesthree5757 what was different? Nebraska sounds cool. I grew up in florida and moved to north alabama . They seem pretty similar tbh.
@@JohnSmith-sb2fp cause you were still in the south.
I never could understand the people. The seemed stand offish. No potlucks, no family getogethers. Just everything seemed off. Like I was in a foreign country.
@@timesthree5757 Try moving from NJ to GA...
@@timesthree5757 Because in a lot of ways, you were in a different country. Before the civil war and Lincoln effectively trampling over the Constitution it was kind of a given that you were from whatever state you lived in, THEN you were American. Even the phrase "these United States" was common enough that the sentiment was that it was a group of various individual nations working towards a whole rather then one super state ala "The United States"
I’m an American Catholic, my mother is Italian… YOU WILL BE FED - THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.
That's the experience I have with my Italian neighbours. No isn't an option. 😂
Agreed
America exists outside of the cities.
The cities are conquered by the rainbow empire, which is why their flags fly there instead of the American ones.
But the cities define the whole country, particularly these days with mass media. For example, it used to be that pretty much every state had its own accent. Now, most of them speak with a California accent. Like it or not, the influence of the big cities is increasing exponentially
@@filmandfirearms But people are feeling the cities-for example Chicago.
@@Jubilo1 And they are making the places they flee to like the cities they fled
@@filmandfirearms Well that 's true.
Carl is so sharp and bright at all times. Even if this is most of what he's been doing for several years, it's astounding. If I were on the show, I'd just shut up, flex my (literal) muscles, and let the man speak.
Forgive me if I'm explaining something everyone knows (I seriously don't know how much people know of Appalachian culture outside America), but where I live in Appalachia family get togethers are usually big (especially for Thanksgiving). But it is true most outside the Midwest and the South of the US are like Carl said just very small disconnected families. If I were to guess it is something that came from the necessity of living on the frontier, because I do get the sense that families in New England even during the 1800s were pretty small by contrast to the frontier ones.
Just a thought, afaik lots of the appalachian people are of celtic and highlander decent, meaning Catholic, which would support Carl's talking point. Many also were forced out by English or left because of the English taking their familial cultures with them. Definitely colonising the more hostile areas of the country pre invention of things like the railway and Maxim gun would have meant you needed other things to survive e.g. community.
@@Andrew-pd6ey I can't speak for all of Appalachia, but where I live (southern Ohio) it was historically settled by the Amish (so I suppose not English protestants but still not Catholic), Baptists and Methodists mostly.
But yes there were a lot of celts, just mostly but various forms of Protestant Scots and Irish (I village in southern Ohio is actually called "Londonderry" after Londonderry Ireland and has an old Methodist church). I also know the Amish settled heavily in Pennslyvannia's section of Appalachia, so anyway maybe it was Scottish Protestant clanism and maybe German Anabaptists also made up the exception?
@@Andrew-pd6ey But to your point a ton of the Midwest west of Appalachia was completely settled by Catholics. Kansas, Arkansas, Indiana and Iowa was and is filled with Catholics because of the reasons you said.
This has been one of the more fascinating discussions y'all've had
The problem with the social contract is the assumption that the government has any business dictating what my rights are from birth and I don't even get a say at any point.
This is just one of many reasons why the State is inherently illegitimate.
The only reason government should exist is to protect the rights that you have been given by God from other people and from foreign interference.
The only reason we have it is because men are not angels- not because the poor exist or pain exists.
Never think of it as a solution but rather a necessary evil. Limit that necessary evil as much as possible.
"You never knew whether you were cooking for five or fifteen, must be a nightmare for the people cooking"
Nah, you just cook a couple pounds of meat and a few pounds of pasta, expect leftovers, and sometimes the people who show up bring something too.
There's an urban fantasy book series called Dresden Files, where pretty much every fantasy character and story comes in, faeries, vampires, wizards, etc. Harry Dresden, the protagonist, is constantly going on how the rules when dealing with the magical world creatures, faeries and a certain kind of vampire clan in particular, are very different than dealing with modern, non-magical men, and he describes such beings as "old-world". Gifts, bargains, and favors are constantly being swapped, and in the case of faeries, the tricksters that they are, you're going to be getting the raw end of the deal. It's a pretty interesting examination of some of the concepts in this video.
Whenever I go with my friend to visit his grandma (she's Indian), she always offers tea and brings out biscuits and other snacks. To me this is unheard of.
Something that really puts me off of a person is when they say "I hate where I'm from". If you can't make peace with your family, you hometown, or local community it's just a marker of immaturity.
It's literally taught to american kids for decades now. Also, everyone in the media preach the good and bad states to live in.
@@JohnSmith-sb2fp Yep, I was raised to hate where I'm from. It was an Atmosphere Song, "say shhh" that reminded me what I like about my small neck of the woods.
The grass is green where we plant it.
so by your logic, anyone who hated the previous government in the fifties germany was immature? same for those who did not liked the soviet dictatorship during its existence? same for any who born into a cult, including those that did ritual suicide? or as usual it is not as clear, and sometime there are quite good reason to not like your government, local or national, your family and neighborhood. even if most that say this in the west is strange, as they live in the best possible case for the entire human history, yet they somehow consider it bad and oppressive.
Hard disagree. If a situation for an individual is incredibly bad or so bad that it is fundamentally not reconcilable, then it is impossible to 'make peace'. The idea that such things are the grounds for immaturity is absurd because it flies in the face of circumstance. There isn't some sort of homogenous existence where everyone can make peace. Purely because it requires other people, other groups, other members of family to be willing to do so.
You're basically saying just "suck it up" which I view as equally immature as you view the "I hate where I'm from" perspective.
@@adventofknowledge 👍 Spot on
Rousseau. He wrote it. And he used to hide in alleyways, leap out in front of women and wack off... So I don't trust his judgement.
Heh. When Carl said "We don't get ethnic English mobs" I was like, "Wait, what about the Kray twins?" And then Dan mentioned them too.
If you are near anywhere in the american south or midwest you WILL be offered food, unless youre shot for trespassing
The NHS IS starting to behave more like that. Surgery is often gauged now on how long you are likely to take to recover, how healthy you are. Smoking puts you farther back on the lists, as does obesity because those in poor health are likely to block beds a lot longer afterwards.
Finland 1947
-protestant: yes
-blasphemy: illegal
-divorce: illegal
-abortion: unavailable
-sodomy: death
-taxation: 28%
-Mosin-Nagant: legal
-Panzerfaust: illegal
Yea in the south, you're expected to offer drinks at the very least if you have a visitor. Carl needs to have an actual southerner on his show to explain at the very least how we are our own thing separate from the rest of the US. Check out James Edwards.
I'm an only child, my parents never see my aunties and uncles and I never see them either. It's a very atomoised and structurally weak model. I will have to care for my parents alone, the state can do it but that's awful. I'd rather try and make a lot of money and buy a big house and have them live with me.
I will endeavor to build a big family, I might get to sit around a table with my children (I have none but am under 30) and grandchildren, that's still not 30 people at a dinner table but I can start something that will end up like that, even if I don't live to see those 30 people.
Stuff the 'Social Contract' concept.
It's at best unnecessary, at worst mass murderous.
Edit: A government cannot give or take rights, it can only protect or violate them.
Yeah I didn't sign anything
It's a ludicrous concept.
if we're to scrap the concept of the social contract, might as well get right of "natural rights" as well. Because really, when you boil it down, there's no rights out there in nature, applied to humans or anyone else. All there is, is what your personal sentiments are. And some of those sentiments are so strong that your mind projects it out into the world, and calls it a right.
7:31 "We don't get enthic English mobs..." We do get Irish mobs, but not nearly as dominant as the Italians.
I controlled my social contract by moving out of California, moving out of a bad neighborhood, retiring away from the big city. I didn't have to negotiate anything with Hobbes or King Charles I.
I think your observation between Protestant vs Catholic in regards to offering food is off. For example, the South of the USA is famous ("Southern hospitality") for being very welcoming and charitable towards vistors, including often lavish meals with no expectation for recompense. Its also VERY Protestant of one stripe or another and historically (it hasn't been a real issue for generations) somewhat hostile to Catholics (who were often northern carpetbaggers and the like). Now, this could just be an exception but I suspect it is not. This seems to me that you have identified what you feel is a correlation but are mistakening it for causation.
That's not accurate. Southern hospitality is a thing. You walk into someone's house and you have them asking if you are hungry. And they are not catholic.
This is true. Everywhere I've been in the US, no matter the religion or background, you will be fed - Especially in the south! Only difference I've seen between Catholics & Protestants is that Catholics have been more showy with their hospitality than other Christians, & I was raised Catholic lol
America may be different because of Thanksgiving ,.or maybe because you guys have guns so you go out of your way to be extra nice to your neighbour
You shouldn't look at someone offering you food as an insult. It's actually a very kind gesture. Being that they're offering of what they have for you. When they don't have to. Tho I'm from the southern part of America. Just how most people are in small towns
We're just different I think.
@Don Limbargo idk I think it's about the person I've been all over and met alot of kind people. Tho more prevalent here
1800’s and early 1900’s rich Americans regularly gave to the needy. Loads of American charity at that time.
Also the reverse is the case in America. The South is heavily Protestant. We don’t even sell Alcohol on Sundays. If you visit you will leave with a full belly.
The North (Yankeeland) is more Catholic. If you visit you might get something to drink.
Also the theory of the social contract started to get steam in the 1960’s. Up until then the US was a sentimental system with restrictions placed on Government. The South still operates this way.
Once again a European that will be quick to say American’s are dumb have no idea of our civilization.
@@timesthree5757 true no alcohol on Sundays heck wasn't till 10 yrs ago they sold alcohol in my town
Northern England is the same, offering food is a kind gesture, asking for food is a faux pas.
I think what's missing here is that no two groups of people in fit into the same social philosophy together. New Yorkers are different than Californians all the way down to East Texans, which are different from West Texans.
Speaking as an East Texan, even I was shocked by the general kindness of West Texans.
Most people remark upon visiting Texas about how kind everyone is. I just took it as face value because before that, I lived in East Texas all my life and didn't really have any comparisons. Then I went to West Texas for college, and it was quite a shock, in a good way of course.
and this is true, a traditional (better than sentimental imho) society will not give up its traditional drug. most countries are willing to phase out tobacco, since almost no country exist, where it is the traditional drug. but try to take away alcohol, the traditional drug of most of the world, and you will fail even in the most puritan countries, and just try to think the results in some other ones. the same will be true for other traditional stuff, but with drugs the benefit is quite obvious for everyone.
I’ll certainly riot if the government bans caffeine. Tea is my favourite drink, and I will _never_ settle for emasculated decaf.
Economic Opportunities the Boomers Squandered For Everyone.
Could not have said it better myself.
Also maybe it's my Portuguese Catholic background but Offering guests refreshments is just Good Hospitality.
And I'm in California
"They don't offer to feed you" Hard Disagree, in Northern England it's basically standard to offer guests something to eat or drink
What food?
@@PaulTheHermit77 Depends on the time really, usually a sandwich or some biscuits are offered all the time, but if you're staying over for a mealtime meals are always offered from what I see.
@@grimnir8872 if your at a friend's house during dinner you sit and wait. You might get a biscuit with coffee if your lucky. I never realised how inhospitable we are. But it's nice weather down here. T shirt weather today. No snow. Ever. So I guess we win. ;)
@@PaulTheHermit77 Well in the North showing up DURING a meal is a faux pas because people are done cooking and are now eating so it's just rude, but I've never just had to sit and watch friends eating if the meal was being prepared. It's just good manners.
@@grimnir8872 we would think the guest was rude for not leaving as dinner time approaches! I genuinely thought this was normal. Live and learn I guess. Taught manners by a northerner. Who'd of thought it.
Western society is the greatest society.
But if only it had more self-respect.
@メイソン yeah I'm kinda tired of hearing friends say they hate it here. If you don't like it , leave. Simple as that. It'll leave the good and patriotic people to regrow the population.
*was
@@Skyler-Thorson I don’t even live in America 🇺🇸 myself anymore, but I always respected it and still do.
@@flacjacket Still is. Look at everywhere else. Were doing bad but they're doing worst.
The whole "will offer food" map is so damn low resolution and ignoring context. Even though I live in the catholic "will offer food" part of Europe, when I was a kid, my friends when they came over didn't eat dinner with me when I was called to the dining table. At most they'd get snacks and juice.
Because they lived 5-15 minutes of walking from my house and had either already eaten or are gonna be called by their moms to eat dinner at their homes.
However, when someone we knew came from out of town or just lived in the other side of the city, my mom would cook for them too.
Additionally, when we wisited my mom's friends in Norway they did offer us food.
I suspect Carl is reading the Traditionalists based on his assertions about Protestantism. Guennon felt the height of European culture and tradition/religion was Medieval Catholicism.
not being offered food must be a southern england thing, up north, being offered food just seems normal.
It would be interesting to see the Lotus Eaters do a deep dive on the idea of Charity. The ideas of sympathy vs empathy would also be a good related discussion.
Americans used to organize more locally before the Civil war.
By Sargon’s thinking the Dixie South is a sentimental society. Hell, we don’t even refer to ourselves as citizens but as a people.
Southerners, Arkansan, hillbilly ect.
This means all this BS I blame the Yanks.
In my experience protestants will feed you ,Catholics will over feed you! Both will expect you to give back or work to get fed! 😂
Haha lol Carl just gives the Chad, No. "You would think that but No"
"But that is what I see" then the Chad "But you don't see that though"
Haha I think that's kind of hilarious
It's according to which protestant sect. A few of the sects are responsible for socialism and communism in the states, and have been since its founding. That's something that's never discussed, and the problem is always blamed on another religious group, even though they were late-comers to socialism. When that group arrived, as immigrants, the seeds for the socialists were already in place, which started in Boston and spread to NYC. In NYC, the children of the immigrants, (arriving late 1800s and after), who would do anything to make it big, broke away from the religious beliefs of their parents, and joined in with the socialists already there, along with the mob. That was back in the 1920s, or so.
It was only a portion of the immigrants that brought with them the socialism that was spreading across Europe.
Hardliner Calvinism, (the Reformed), is really at the roots of much of what we see as being off, (in the evangelical Anglicans, especially, in the 1800s), as well as sects like the Unitarians, Quakers, and the Hutterites, etc.
Other protestant sects, when visiting, will demand that you stay for supper, and if you need a place to stay, while there, you're invited to.
The whole society has to be contract, but the communities should be sentiment. Because if your basing your rights on the "good feeling" of the people in charge youre gonna have a hard time.
Anglos create harmonious neighbourhood environments, what’re you talking about?
Try popping into a village that’s 100% English and observe how everyone gets on and helps each other out. In my village we water each others plants, walk each others dogs and make sure the elderly are okay. You just like in a multi-racial city that’s completely deracinated from the national spirit of old England.
Then your agreeing with Carl , you still have a society based on sentiment and not one based on social contract
Imo increasing taxes and the nanny state, people tend to be less charitable
One thing Carl "the Catholic" its very interesting that protestant nations are not prone to socialist dictatorship the same way the largest family Catholic nations of Southern Europe and Latin America are consistently falling into
really enjoyed your perspective here.
Linguistically sentiment is extremely important.
A large point of grammar, syntax and semantics, is to help provide sentiment to help provide understanding of what is being communicated.
In other words. You have a large loss in communication if you cannot share sentimental understanding with others
And leftist Newspeak deliberately and explicitly destroys all that
You don’t have enough land mass for there to be such cultural differences in your country but no there’s a regional curtesy of feeding and being hospitable towards your guests here in the south. Trust me there isn’t a big catholic population here. It’s just that manners and decency is only alive in what by the shear landmass could be considered their own countries within the United States 5:54
We have exactly the same, regardless of being tiny in comparison.
Different regions have different customs, just as they do accents.
Britain is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world, and always has been. I don't mean the leftist sort of diversity, I mean notable naturally occurring differences. Each county is different and completely unique
You VASTLY underestimate how much culture can vary in a small country. Take Denmark for instance, absolutely tiny country, and yet we have 32 different dialects. (8 or 9 main ones most people can recognize)
South Louisiana is very Catholic, but we’re definitely an exception to the rest of the South. But you’re right in that respect for elders, tradition, and family are still deeply ingrained in Southern culture. People from outside the South sometimes don’t view our manners and politeness as genuine, but it is 99% of the time.
I don't think protestants are as stingy or isolationist as Carl implies. My mother's side of the family is native British and culturally strongly protestant, and we're close knit. My grandmother always offers tea and biscuits, or perhaps a sandwich, to guests.
We also make an effort to all get together a few times a year, as we've always done. It's just tricky with my cousins all being adults with their own lives now, and my aunts and uncles being in their 60s and 70s, to say nothing of my 90-year-old grandmother.
I may be the exception, but isn't it normal for Brits to have big family gatherings at Christmas and such? Isn't it a stereotype that there are never enough chairs, and the kids get their own "kiddie table" because there isn't enough space for them to sit with the rest? Surely that's not a rare thing.
offering snacks to guests is something literally grandmothers everywhere do, not a feature of any particular culture.
When it comes to culture, I do think Carl is correct that protestants are likely the least hospitable culture in the world, especially compared to middle easterners like Iranians. Their hospitality puts any european to shame.
I do think that Protestants are more monastic in personal thought in the way they would like to live their lives. A lot of them would find a lot more value in going out into the middle of nowhere and living alone.
Catholics are more community-centric so they would find going out to be isolated forever as neglecting the duty of God to tend to their fellow man as instructed by Christ.
This isn't to say that us Catholics don't value individualism or even being alone from time to time, but we understand that we must take part in the world and you need to have more discipline to not become worldly.
I think a big Protestant misconception is that the only way to become non worldly is to cut oneself off from the world completely rather than to develop the discipline to be able to live in it without being overcome by it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being Protestant, I just think that Catholics tend to take on the world in a more realistic manner, understanding the flaws of man. We maintain a balance rather than float to one extreme or the other. We fracture less.
I say if it an english tradition to offer guesses a cup of tea with the option of biscuit and other light snacks. I also think it's an unwritten rule if you are making tea for yourself that's it right to ask if anyone else would like one also.
I suppose if you making a meal then it is polite to ask if they would like to stay for dinner.. however I dont think I would get up and make something from scratch for a random guess popping over.
This is so good.
Wait you don't offer food to your guests in England? I've lived in a few states and it was rather uncommon to not be offered food whenever I walked into someone's house?
Nope. What Karl said is right. It almost feels like your saying your friend can't feed themselves. They get a coffee/tea / beer or fat doobie but no food. But suggesting ordering takeaway is ok. Your right it is weird.
Wait till you find out about the lack of public restrooms in non-Americanized stores and restaurants lol
Not all Italians were in the mob and are very hardworking people.
Is it really relevant that governments talk about citizens and not Americans, English, French, Dutch, etc. in their respective countries? Sure, it might feel good when laws say something like 'Every American/Englishmen/etc. ...' instead of 'Every citizen...', but what would that practically change?
Damn, talk about the relations with neighbors just reminds me of a lot of Polish comedies. So many about just neighbors having to live near each other, be it annoying each other or coming together, just actual human relations that actually matter.
Humor probably doesn't translate well to foreigners, but really recommend checking some out like "Sami Swoi" or "U Pana Boga Za Miedza".
Sounds like English humour. Keeping Up Appearances. There are also many other signs of a sentimental society in programmes like A Touch of Frost.
@@TheBcoolGuy might be pretty close, yea. Similar living, though think our humor got a tad darker due to the invasions.
A lot of our comedy had much more of a somber subtext that had to go past censors.
In the U.S. south, it is basically compulsory to offer a guest food and drink, unless it is an extremely short visit. It would be considered rude not to Also, I doubt we suffer from a “Protestant mindset “ considering a third of all Christians in the United States are Catholic. Over seventy million.
Well, you have society, and then you have community. They are different things.
Basic structure of society:
Problem: I have to live among a bunch of strangers I don't trust, and they are probably as afraid of me as I am of them.
Solution: We meet in a common area and come to an implied agreement: each person minds their own business, unless they are specifically invited into someone else's. Threaten someone else's life, liberty, or property, and you are out of here.
Basic structure of community:
I live among a bunch of people I have known pretty much my whole life. I trust them, but I also KNOW them--so my trust is limited to that extent. We take care of each other--and that requires us to get into each other's business, regardless of permission/invitation.
Carl is still trying to create a layer of separation between the two things. All societies are social contract societies, social contract explains how negotiation works, you cannot be excluded from this. Sentiment can however, be destroyed by overhead government that much I agree with. But sentiment is based on the social contract itself.
Also, that system Carl is suggesting is called 'Nationalism'. A nationalist is someone who has a sentimental connection to his family, life, and society. All of the nationalist literature confirms this.
I think to best summarize the point " a country/nations needs written laws that guard against the whims and passions of the day, but are in turn acknowledged as being enforced in earnest." This is why i believe that a unwritten constitution is, by all means, an absolute failure of a system. Say what you will about the USA having to argue over the same points over and over, its been working more or less, especially with guns lately.
The US constitution exists not to "establish" any rights at all. It is there to acknowledge the rights ordained by God. Placing first and foremost a guard on what exactly the Government can and cannot do.
However for roughly 200 years the United States was, and in many places still is, what Sargon calls a "sentimental" society. There are a few, densely populated big cities where this is not the case, but many many more small towns, where large happy families live and work together because we agree it is right to do so. Where most things are settled out of court, and Sunday dinners are quite common. It's not a protestant vs catholic thing either, it's very much an Urban vs Suburban and rural thing.
My problem with the "social contract" is that I've never been presented with any such document, either to read or to sign. I'm responsible for myself, not the rest of you lot.
Both are true…. Come on now with your legalistic mentality
You may not feel you have a responsibility but your tax bill, the draft, the police's ability to do a "safety check" on your home at any time, etc all demonstrate that the ruling class will impose a responsibility upon you.
Shhh keep to yourself 🤫🤫
@@michaelashby9654 That's what I'm saying. I'm expected to abide by this so called "contract" yet I've never been presented with the terms of this contract, nor asked if I even want to sign on to it.
@@michaelashby9654 Those are laws, not muh social contract.
Explain the difference between government rule and mob rule without the use of the word legal because the word legal is not descriptive it's a suggestive
I believe Dickens coined the term telescopic charity.
Interesting conversation between Sargon and his twin brother
I'd like a written social contract, so they can't change it all the time.
unfortunately that's not how social groups operate. Much like how the written law isn't really what matters, it's what will be enforced by the people carrying out the law.
That social contract you speak of can only work in terms of limiting a government. It cannot work in terms of the social structure of society.
It would be nicer if it did work the way you said but it cannot and will not.
The problem is, as I suspect you all realize, that those who rule us are criminals, thieves, liars and murderers. We get the social arrangements that benefit them, and family is obviously a social group they want eliminated. Your view of the law and social order is based on what you have been subjected to while in slavery. There is no problem making a better world, we just need good people to rule, and they do exist.@@Google_Censored_Commenter
@@ReformedSauron The social contract I am speaking of is there to delimit the power of the state vs the power of the individual.
As we have seen from the social engineering we already experience, given enough time, you can argue your way into letting people give you total power. The people of the Talmud are word magic practitioners.
That point about not offering food in protestant countries is bullshit.
I wish people would stop encouraging others to leave their state if things are going bad. Dont leave your hometown, stay and fix it. Im from New York, and last years elections were pretty wild for a "blue state." Schumer was way closer to losing than he normally would be, and the governorship was an even closer race.
Dont ever give up to the doomer worldview, you can fix things if you try hard enough. You owe it to your homeland and the people living there.
I live in NYC too and I get the sentiment, but I'm still leaving. There's something to be said for voting with your feet. After the last few years with the lockdowns and the broken bail reform laws and absurd taxes and corruption here I developed a bad taste for NYC, and everything culminated when my family got heavily affected by violent crime last year. After that, I've had enough. I don't want to prop up these charlatans anymore, I lost any goodwill I ever had for this state. It can sink to the ocean for all I care.
Watch Louis Rossman's videos on NYC screwing him for years, and tell me why you want your population represented by that government.
@@evillink1 do whatever you feel is right, it just means that it's gonna be harder for the people staying to get the change they need.
@Batman's Pet Goldfish the people staying are the ones who propped up the current leadership. Everyone who voted for Giuliani moved to Florida and Texas, and I'm joining them. That's what I love about the US. All the states compete with each other for people.
@@evillink1 if you say so, I'll stay and see what I can do.
6:44 huh, that sounds an awful like something one of the founding fathers said, something about the American government being inadequate for a non-religious people, I don’t know, something like that 🤷♂️
Yeah, drunk auto-pilot is awesome.
You guys have to read some Lysander Spooner if you haven’t. Great writer on the social contract.
This would be the splitting hairs episode I guess. Maybe there was a point here but it wasn't conveyed well. Simply slapping labels on things isn't very useful. Both of the things you describe coexist to one degree or another everywhere I've lived.
I agree life and the topics discussed are grey not black and white. Almost an infinite example of situations.
10:03
The Krays....Gunnies, Richardsons, Middletons, Dempseys, Warriners. I can think of more
Was France a social-construct-society before the revolution?
They first used the term I think. Rousseau.
@@PaulTheHermit77 Sure, but almost nothing Rousseau came up with mapped to reality.
@@arcuscotangens he liked to hide in alleyways and leap out Infront of women and expose himself. I don't trust a word he said. And he can't even decide what country he's from.
7:39 there were also jewish gangsters. They were known as the kosher nostra.
To my mind, the only way the “social contract” idea has validity is that it must be the most simple statement possible. It must be a point that no reasonable person can disagree with.
To me, this means it must be simply:
We sentient creatures do swear to interact with each other without initiating violence.
That’s it. That’s as much as it needs to be, and it need not be any more simple.
That's no good. It's exactly that mentality that prevents people from putting pedophiles in gutters where they belong, resulting in them getting into positions of power because they have no qualms about exploiting people's fear of offending them.
Every society has it by virtue of being a society.
You know that you don't just get your wanger out everywhere or shout out of your window at 1am.
@@Madonnalitta1 This is minutae. Yes, societies will adopt rules against these things. Those rules are not contained in the core concept of the social contract.
If you picture a society perhaps a hundred years in the future. A colony in a hollowed out asteroid run by a corporation, or maybe a settlement on Mars or something like that. When you’re essentially starting society over again what’s the first rule? The Golden Rule. Do unto others only as you would have done unto yourself. Humans need this simple rule first and foremost because we must compete for resources, or at least it can be expected that we must. If we don’t establish this rule, the powerful will take and the weaker will perish and the concept of protecting women and babies goes out the window and your society is now just packs of animals.
Competing for resources while interacting in every way aside from violently (so we can assure the protection of women and babies) is the base building block of a successful society. If we have that, we can always build it all again. If we loose it and can’t manage to get it back again, we’re boned.
Y’all, it’s worth the $5-$7 to get the premium and here the full hour and forty-five minute conversation.
Support these guys.
The Krays were jewish, not protestant.
Is that a pager Dan has under his sweater?? Come on Dan it's 2023
Carl you are pretty far off base. The US is a extremely sentimental society. Our cosmopolitan "worldly" and culturally diverse cities aren't. You also are wrong in your assumption that you can't have both. More specifically our social contract is with our government and between a condition to be in the sentimental society that is still individualistic. If you are putting in the effort and still need help people are going to help. In other words you get to be part of the sentimental society so long as you are a positive contributor or are trying to be. So i suppose our social contract is that if you keep up your end you get to be in a sentimental society.
You are very much loving at this from a thousand miles up and seeing a low resolution blur. It isn't so much that we don't have a sentimental attachment as a country but it is that the national level is the lowest sentimental attachment. You see someone from your neighbourhood or your small town in a bar in the next town or anywhere and someone is trying to fight them, you are going to help. If you are away from your state and find out someone from three bar is from the same state you will probably have a drink and talk a bit. Our sentiment goes from the most local. Outwards. I care more about the state's near my home state or states my family is in. The cities have this in only small pockets because so much of the population is transient, they move there in their 20s and leave by their 40s.
This an organic form of inclusion that comes with no strings attached that has worked 1,000s of years before Robin DeAngelo and other race grifters.
Carl's refusal to accept that Europeans as a whole are just different from the rest of the world is cringe inducing.
Uh, what? Of course Carl knows Europeans are different from the rest of the world. Why do you think he's so opposed to non-european immigration? It's his top issue.
Now in the US more and more children aren't "flying the nest". As adults they are living in their parents' homes often in basements playing video games.
Contrast that to the 1800’s the children stayed home to contribute to the family’s needs.
Yes how dare they not want to be an indentured wage slave their entire life.
Three generation households were the norm. This flying out of the nest is modern nonsense.
@@lolno3906 yep, my retired parents live at my place with my kids. We pitch in to keep the family above water. The best part is we have enough free time to enjoy each other’s company. A lot of the stress is gone and life moves a little slower. Best decision I ever made.
@@patgray5402so they're comfortable leaching their parents' wage slavery from them till their parents die, and then mine from me till THEY die? And that's a *better* system?!
Who does not work, does not eat. Food only grows on trees if they're planted and cared for instead of chopped/burned down. Someone somewhere is doing work, and if you're not doing it for your own self then you owe the person whose labor you're consuming.
AY UP LOTUS EATERS
le sob
May I see that 'social contract' you prattle about?
First 😂
I love the way Dan simply just can't say "Black people don't belong to the same culture as whites and therefore this will increase conflict". It would be much easier to say that then make insane comparisons between Chicago and East Palestine, Ohio.