Theme: Civilization

  • What Are Some Cultural Differences Between Canadians And Americans?

    AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.  

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers. 

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples.  Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from  Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force. 

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest.  Little conflict over territory.  No conflict over sovereignty. 

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict.  Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable.  The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those  class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well.  Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference.  People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess.  They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy,  France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china,  conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason.  They can afford to. They are able to.  Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cultural-differences-between-Canadians-and-Americans

  • What Are Some Cultural Differences Between Canadians And Americans?

    AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.  

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers. 

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples.  Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from  Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force. 

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest.  Little conflict over territory.  No conflict over sovereignty. 

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict.  Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable.  The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those  class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well.  Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference.  People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess.  They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy,  France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china,  conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason.  They can afford to. They are able to.  Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cultural-differences-between-Canadians-and-Americans

  • Is Multiculturalism Good For Independent Thinkers Who Don’t See Themselves As Part Of Any Group In A Multiculural City/society?

    SHORT TERM LUXURY FOR LONG TERM EXPENSE

    Multiculturalism is permissible as a short term luxury that increases consumption by servicing a multitude of consumers, without requiring that consumers pay the cost of adapting to the norms of the host culture.  For this reason, both the sellers and the consumers obtain what they want at a discount. Unfortunately the discount is short term, as multiculturalism decreases trust, and increases political friction,  both of which increase transaction costs.  This is why, over the long term, multiculturalism occurs at the expense of the high trust society’s norms that made the wealth possible, that made the temporary luxury of multiculturalism possible.

    So no, multiculturalism is a a form of overconsumption. We may like it but it’s not ‘good’ by any measure. It is in fact, one of the surest ways to lead to conflict and civil war.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-multiculturalism-good-for-independent-thinkers-who-dont-see-themselves-as-part-of-any-group-in-a-multiculural-city-society

  • Is Multiculturalism Good For Independent Thinkers Who Don’t See Themselves As Part Of Any Group In A Multiculural City/society?

    SHORT TERM LUXURY FOR LONG TERM EXPENSE

    Multiculturalism is permissible as a short term luxury that increases consumption by servicing a multitude of consumers, without requiring that consumers pay the cost of adapting to the norms of the host culture.  For this reason, both the sellers and the consumers obtain what they want at a discount. Unfortunately the discount is short term, as multiculturalism decreases trust, and increases political friction,  both of which increase transaction costs.  This is why, over the long term, multiculturalism occurs at the expense of the high trust society’s norms that made the wealth possible, that made the temporary luxury of multiculturalism possible.

    So no, multiculturalism is a a form of overconsumption. We may like it but it’s not ‘good’ by any measure. It is in fact, one of the surest ways to lead to conflict and civil war.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-multiculturalism-good-for-independent-thinkers-who-dont-see-themselves-as-part-of-any-group-in-a-multiculural-city-society

  • If your civilization cannot produce material commons then you are less moral tha

    If your civilization cannot produce material commons then you are less moral than those that can. This argument is inescapable. you are, by the more moral culture’s standards ‘an immoral people’.

    Locusts. It’s not an opinion. It’s just fact.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-10 06:45:00 UTC

  • WE WERE WRONG AND MANKIND IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST US FOR OUR SINS. You kn

    WE WERE WRONG AND MANKIND IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST US FOR OUR SINS.

    You know, I’m chiseling away at correcting the enlightenment. I didn’t realize that’s what I was doing, but thats what, under the chisel, lies inside the stone, ready to emerge.

    – Fallacy of the Anglo Enlightenment – universalism and the aristocracy of everybody – the people of the island. (the navy)

    – The fallacies of the German enlightenment – the verbalist religion of german philosophers – the people of the land. (the armies)

    – The fallacies of the Jewish enlightenment – the new mysticism of verbal pseudoscience – the people without land (the priests)

    – The resistance of the Chinese to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of power, tribe and family.

    – The resistance of the muslims to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of the priesthood, tribe and family.

    The enlightenment authors used science to obtain power in an organized attack on the church and monarchy. But the result was that we let loose the barbarians not only in our own culture, but in every culture as well.

    Reproduction Reigns. The family reigns. The tribe Reigns. Universalism is suicide.

    ALL OTHER CULTURES ARE RIGHT TO RESIST US. WE WERE WRONG. AND THEY ARE DESTROYING US FOR IT. WE WERE WRONG. WE ARE STILL WRONG. AND WE ARE DYING BECAUSE WE ARE WRONG.

    We either tell the truth, and demand the truth in exchange, under penalty of violence, or we die.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-10 04:32:00 UTC

  • Family History – Colonial New Haven Connecticut. —“Abraham quickly established

    Family History – Colonial New Haven Connecticut.

    —“Abraham quickly established himself as a well-respected citizen. In 1644, although he was perhaps just twenty-five years old, he was appointed the chief executive officer of the New Haven colony. Not only did Abraham deal with issues of concern to his fellow colonists (land, trade, public defense), he also had dealings with the Indians. His participation in New Haven civic affairs was notable as well – according to one historian when an individual of that day was prominent in public affairs it was guaranteed that he was of the highest moral character and an asset to his community.

    His wife Jane died and in 1663 he married Abigail Moss, the daughter of John Moss. He and John Moss would later participate in the founding of Wallingford, Connecticut. It is believed that Abraham was the first white man to explore the land beyond the Quinnipac River. Wallingford was incorporate as a town on May 12, 1670.

    Again, Abraham plunged into the civic affairs of his town, appointed to almost every position available in the town over the next twenty years until his death in 1690 – including treasurer, surveyor of highways and selectman. In 1673 he was appointed sergeant of the “first traine band” and thereafter bore that title. On February 15, 1675 he was appointed to a committee which would found the town’s first Congregational church.

    Records indicate that Abraham served his community continuously until just before his death on August 11, 1690. His grave stone is still standing and quite interesting – a stone about four inches thick and perhaps a foot high and wide, which has his initials, age and date of death etched on it.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-08 10:41:00 UTC

  • (personal) (Weird intuitions department: If I want to be with my people, say, on

    (personal)

    (Weird intuitions department: If I want to be with my people, say, on a holiday or festival, I want to be in a protestant church, that uses as much historically narrative (secular) as possible. If I want to have a conversation with my concept of god, I want a catholic church and the priests – the sense of the sacred. And yeah. I talk to god all the time. It’s my concept of god have you. And in your mind, that might not qualify as God at all – probably wouldn’t. But I talk to my god all the time. It works for me. In practice my sentiment fits best with the CofE – the compromise church of my ancestors. And I might rather that I had a pantheon to choose from, so that I could ask the spirit of Alexander one thing, the deity Artemis another, and one of the ‘saints’ something else. But the one that I have to work with will usually do the trick.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-07 11:15:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : WEIRDNESS I thought it was just nonsense, but yes, they

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : WEIRDNESS

    I thought it was just nonsense, but yes, they run prostitutes out of one of the best coffee shops in town.

    It took me a long time to tell the difference between ordinary ukrainian fashion and prostitute-dress but you CAN tell the difference after a while. lol

    In Bellevue, the over 40 crowd is hounded by older and rather sophisticated working girls at one of the steak restaurants. (I got a lot of flack last time I said this in public) but it’s both common knowledge and really obvious. And there is something sort of ‘ok’ about servicing the over-40 crowed in bars in steak restaurants. It’s not like it’s a family thing.

    But at this rather elegant coffee shop, which is a decidedly family affair, with little blonde children all over the place, the whole working girl thing just seems both out of place and terribly ‘uncool’. Especially in a country where it’s not exactly an uncommon or disreputable profession.

    As usual, I was just sitting in this particular street side cafe/coffee shop, trying to figure out the business model, because they dont turn high enough checks, I just assumed that it was labor costs. Now I understand that they have multiple profit centers running out of that location. And the high profit business subsidizes the lower profit business.

    When Roman told me I though he was just kidding. But then over the course of the day, the ‘mismatch’ between ‘dates’ became obvious. And the inability of the men to dress themselves explains why they must pay for what is readily available for free.

    Just… weird.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-07 01:19:00 UTC

  • How Could The Conflict Between Israel And Its Neighbors Be Solved To The Satisfaction Of All Parties Involved?

    History, not of just the middle east, but of the entire world,  says it cannot.

    https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-conflict-between-Israel-and-its-neighbors-be-solved-to-the-satisfaction-of-all-parties-involved