Another factor is that for many people it is their job to be hospitable, there has never been this industrial abundance of paid politeness. We spend trillions on etiquette in the developed world, can we honestly claim that good manners cost nothing?
And I'm of the opinion that central heating changes everything. All of social progress was a struggle to survive the harsh winters, take that winter away and we default on the African origin - society feels abundant like the jungle but nobody really trusts anybody like in the jungle, surivival as easy as reaching up and plucking a banana unless of course you're eaten by a lion.
There are places in the world where people are easily your friend and then easily not, now other places require better social skills and intelligence in the colder countries you find the icebreaker and the lasting friendship. Evolution in cold weather follows high quality, low-quantity principles it won't easily feel hospitable but by coming together you create your own warmth. It requires higher trust and the invention of fire but we get further because it wasn't easy.
It mustn’t be an easy decision to make but it is the woman’s decision. In ancient times of scarcity she was the one to decide which of her babies she bashed in with a rock so that the others got to eat.
True but the phrase “stay safe out there” springs to mind. Tight gun laws, tight borders and a high crime detection rate with all of these there remains a limit in how safe you can make the public you can’t treat everywhere just like your own home the space will never be that safe. Girls on a night out they need to walk home together, you need to tell people where you’re going and with who.
And the more diverse you make the place the less individual it becomes. In an homogenous country the colour of your skin doesn’t matter and people tend to “get” you more than identify you. Being familiar is what makes you appreciate the little things that make up who you really are.
We see what’s individual when we have more in common, yes. Identical twins notice the difference between themselves but identical Asian twins would be impossible for me.
The tendency of the modern right is to congratulate yourself for things beyond your control. Every man is an island unto himself and you owe nobody anything.
And for left that tendency is to evade responsibility for the things within your control. It’s never my fault or your fault but the fault of some nebulous third party.
The question to ask yourself is do you feel lucky?
If you consider yourself blessed you won’t bite the hand that feeds you and you will be on the right. You appreciate things as they are too much to change them.
The left develops from a sense of victomhood and is only ever successful when we can mostly all agree that you’re not imagining it and that you matter.
I can see this in me. As a millennial I do not feel lucky and of course I’m rather pissed off over the situation we inherit today. The leftism is stronger in me when I talk about generational theft.
But as a National it’s different and I tack to the right. Millennial or not I feel lucky to be British and know the world gives me more than my fair share, as a man of the west I’ve no interest in sharing all my advantage with the third world. There’s more to it than protecting my advantage I believe in principle that sharing does not work between greatly dissimilar People’s but nevertheless I won’t bite the hand that feeds me.
Which is why unlucky generations find themselves voting for social democrats where the lucky ones vote Thatcher.
At the end of a hard adulthood the tendency is to have a cup of tea and invent the NHS. However at the end of post-war prosperity a period where a little effort went a long way the opposite is the case. Life was so cosy that society lost all sense of coming together in a crisis and that’s why they voted cutthroat. Those who experience cosy vote cutthroat in later life. Now isn’t that ironic?
Australia and New Zealand did fairly well out of neoliberalism where Britain and America for this reason of population density and the established nation.
Australia and New Zealand are sparsely populated frontier-like countries where the small population stands on the shoulders of raw materials. The leg-up and head start is so massive and the chance of standing on someone else’s toes all the less and this is perfect conditions for free markets. Wherever it’s extremely difficult to lose even when you’re not that good capitalism will prevail. Socialism is for losers and if you make enough talented people a loser then you get a revolution.
And I would say that both order and wealth feature more in European politics due to population density.
In America however she was historically underpopulated relative to its bounty and size. How to make the resources/opportunities go around everybody was less of an issue in the context of underpopulation you don’t need government as much.
Capitalism in the land of the milk and honey has a libertarian/anarchist bent where here in Europe the right means order.
Marxism is working class liberalism the idea that the smallest man is completely capable of becoming a proper grown up with no structure in society or incentive to try in life. You’d simply work to better yourself and the good of humanity like in Star Trek.
But it varies from place to place. Britain’s rednecks - the north of England - are the most right-wing culturally but we are socialists. The most rugged part of the country doesn’t like capitalism in contrast to America because of how cosy capitalism has been in America(at least historically).
There is no whole country and Brexit may amount to nothing more than something which damages the ideology of the ruling class. It’s hard to shape a plan out of generally pissed off, UKIP always was the nagging woman in the EU earhole will something actually happen before the rest of Europe is completely outraged by immigration? Probably not.
Prophet to a small cult like Charles Manson. I very much doubt you’d ever get a prophet who leads millions upon millions of people, Mohammed would be diagnosed autistic or mentally ill by modern society.
What we will get is more meditating and cultiness, the second religiousness isn’t like the first and has more to do with subjectivity and personality leaders. Rationality has been and gone and what the second religiousness doesn’t rekindle is the awe and grandeur of the first religion, it’s not deeply believed in.
It depends. Is the task at hand or people around you more responsive to reason or confidence?
Religion inspires confidence, endurance and fanaticism at the expense of the things that are really there. In the womanly tasks religion is even more vital, wherever emotion is more the clincher it is there that religion rules.
My contention is that in lieu of a rugged environment men are inventing burdens and ways to be reckless or selfish.
Industry develops more and less consistently but people do not. I’m not sure that humanity can tolerate a long peace suffice is to say there’s an uneasy relationship between man and technics, we seem to engineer away our own purpose.
The biggest difference between civilisation and the caves is cooperation and I believe that’s more of an issue for men than women. To live in relative peace and comfort is more weird for him than her, policemen and national borders or insurance and rifles doing for men what men formerly did for themselves.
The British redcoat wasn’t as manly as the Zulu and I believe progress/wealth refines a type of femininity in people you can’t truly avoid except by going back to the caves. But it’s all a matter of timing, the speed we develop of creature comforts and insurance has to work with the gradual refinement human raw material. To suddenly become comfortable creates a crisis of masculinity.
What I do believe is that with every civilisational advance man is worse off in a way. Brawn and its mental equivalent(resolve)being less and less rewarded as time goes on, I don’t believe the world of modern industry is favourable to men and I think it’s men kicking out against this creeping redundancy. Civilised is another word for domesticated, it’s favourable to her indoors the person of safety and small dreams.
Not really. I’ve spent a lot my life clamouring for alone time in the company of people who don’t leave you alone. Give me a chance to self-exile and I’ll take it in fact that’s what you’re witnessing now.
At the end of the day I'll always blame globalism a bit. It's cheap and easy to travel when it should be something you do carefully, people are not all that enlightened and it's cruel really to give them all these possibilities at low prices.
There’s no earthly way of knowing Which direction they are going! There’s no knowing where they’re rowing, Or which way they river’s flowing! Not a speck of light is showing, So the danger must be growing, For the rowers keep on rowing, And they’re certainly not showing Any signs that they are slowing…
The truth is that working doesn't get you anywhere in this world and I mean that literally. Income isn't where the money is, in the good old days we made a problem out of overpaying berks but today the opposite is the case.
It's a strange time we live in where youth all wishes it was born 30/40/50 years earlier. Jilted and driven to distraction, they prefer the idea of being lost over knowing where they are which is up to their necks in it.
ChesneyChrist Forum Posts (7,144)
RE: Hospitality
Another factor is that for many people it is their job to be hospitable, there has never been this industrial abundance of paid politeness. We spend trillions on etiquette in the developed world, can we honestly claim that good manners cost nothing?