Scott Mayers

And,...Rue, Note that my 'heritage' is of parents who ARE of "Christianity" but I have zero relation to that belief and so don't refer nor should call myself a "Christian"; If someone defends themselves as a "Jew" or "Zionist", this would be like me calling myself a "Christian" inappropriately. So if one want to dissociate themselves from being religiously nor genetically biased who even have roots of Judaism or Semitic roots, then you would rightfully be non-Jew, regardless of these factors. For "Zionism", this is a particular belief of having a Nation of dominance to favor "Jews" of ethnic origin (genetic and religious).

No, the likely reason others may not read is because they prefer shorter responses without the depth. No, I am not any 'revisionist' and believe the opposite is true....that you support the propaganda (either intentionally or not) BECAUSE if favors you selfishly. You ignore your own acts. As to ANYTHING about Germany and WWII, the way we get any history is often non-translated, demonstrates his 'fury' (= ander) using their term for 'leader', "Furor", to rhetorically associate him in kind. You ASSERT a negative: that the National Socialists did NOT derive their ideas from other philosophies to purposely isolate them from ANY kind of reasoning that might remotely appear rational out of fear others will see the same in the very Zionistic ideals the Nazis borrowed their hatred from. I am equally disdainful of ANY Nationalisms, whether it be of some "whiteness" or "Canadianness" or whatever. I also followed that initial response above with a useful comparison to the Elephants to attempt to remove our potential biases of being X or non-X by looking at another species all together. I notice you don't care to even try this. It would at least be more productive to use cross-species analogies to show how we each behave by placing us all into the same class. You are the one trying to be divisive because you are believing in Nationalism as some universally agreed to belief that needs no questioning. My point is that Zionism == Nationalism and it is HYPOCRITICAL to deny you relate in sync and own a part of this if and where you support the State of Israel to be a distinctly Jewish place with acts that highly discriminate against the Palestinians you displaced and imprison just as the ghettos Hitler placed the Jews in. You equally hold the same biases as those you hate and need to STOP the cycle of abuse.

I CERTAINLY did NOT quote nor reference anything specific, period. My own background involves much philosophy and I was speaking of what I've gleaned of a broad background. I can't respond to your linked source below without reading but know already that this is likely going to try to dissociate Nazis from ANY source of intellectual evolution. This is done on purpose as its own propaganda to make "Nazis" own 'Nationalism' appear as absurd as possible. The very fact that we historically do not translate the Germans terms to English hide a lot of what is true. Like I said, I didn't link anything. But to this, as I anticipated, you are purposely (or adopting the propaganda our society has passed on) dissociating any reasonable-possible rationale of the Nazis. The DID adopt the culture of their times and the recent influence of those like Nietzsche. It is not 'owned' by Nietzshe any more than Darwin 'owns' others poor interpretations beyond there intended efforts. The National Socialism was a co-evolutionary ideal that the Communists also originated theirs from: Anarchy,...a belief that some society could exist which requires no management (government) to enforce people's moral conduct. They believed that people either intrinsically have a 'good' nature (and inversely a 'non-evil'one) OR that if the 'good-natured' ones that DO exist should be selected for. These two differences made National Socialism distinctively different to Communism. To Communists, they believed people are intrinsically and naturally 'good' if we just set up the initial environment itself to support it before removing government force. By contrast, the National Socialists did believe in humanity to have 'good' but was selective to ones ethnicity (culture AND genetics combined). Both err in that EACH of us are both 'good' and 'evil' and cannot exist in any time without a management system (government) to assure it. Darwin's contribution suggested to people that the ACT of SELECTION is 'natural' and so is NOT something we should nor could defeat. To Nietzsche contribution, the idea that the winners IN FACT with respect to nature require accepting that success ALWAYS goes to those who command their WILL by utilizing ANY means. That is, the Nazis adopted the belief that regardless of 'right' or 'wrong' the reality is that only those who ACT with clear conviction to some "Nationality", ignoring compassion for people as a whole, defines what it 'Right' or 'Wrong'. That society requires inventing heroes, even where none may actually 'exist' (or be absolute to Nature itself), is necessary if ONLY BECAUSE THOSE WHO DO believe in heroes (Supreme Gods and the people's relation to them in favor of them) succeed. ...that if no heroes exist, we require inventing them, etc. The comparison is justified but you fall for the propaganda intent to hide how others use the same Nationalism that derived the Nazis but don't want us to discover this. The Nazis interpreted Jews to be successful because of their Nationalism and WHY they decided to embrace it. But... I underlined what I now see grants you justice for your own reasons to hide the Nazi rationale. A "Zionist" IS a "National Socialist" == "Nazi". You prefer to hide this because you WANT to keep your discriminatory and racist stance against Non-Jews by hiding the intellectual associations you share. The error that Hitler and their party did was to overtly act discriminatively. I am Completely ANTI-Nationionalist! I understand the accidental nature of us as humans AND animals to have evolved us to favor this, but believe that our intelligence can supersede this. But you are only doing what Hitler did too if you continue to hide that you are secretly hating some sub-set of people, placing them in camps, and annihilating them. In some way, you are being worse because your 'Holocaust' against the Muslim is to torture them by preventing them from eating, blocking them from access to their needs, and pretending your acts are in 'defense' or their hatred, when it is your OWN!! Begin by first recognizing that YOU DO NOT REPRESENT ALL JEWS, as you accuse me of collectively associating you as. Hitler CLEARLY advocated, (and in obvious error), that he WAS purposely advocating propaganda against Jews. It was unlikely that he cared one way or the other to whether Jews were actually inferior or superior or neither but clearly advocated supporting the delusion that this is so. False on the first paragraph. But if you intellectually 'believed' in your superiority, wouldn't the wiser thing to do would be to feign the opposite anyways with obscurity? I have NO doubt a lot of misinterpretation occurs on ALL sides with regards to history. Judaism is itself misinterpreted to be uniquely their own story when they have only borrowed it from others removing references to what or where it clearly demonstrated the real roots. "Chosen" wasn't even the original intent and one to which latter Jews also placed into interpretation, not just the Christians afterward. I was explaining how and why others justified their disdain against the Jews BECAUSE the Jews ALSO, as humans, DID have disdain for non-Jews in kind. It is of human-nature that about half of them intrinsically believe in Nationalism and thus 'hatred' to define their own unusual 'love' of their own inversely. Zionism IS SO religious! The term is identical in meaning to "Nationalism" but confers no specific boundaries (as in Patriotism). The function is to associate all those of Jewish AND those of that group who intrinsically believe they ARE a distinct people apart from others who are entitled to some special treatment. It is 'religious' even without Judaism when one believes their Nationality has remote significance even without a formal religion but to their SPECIFIC ancestry. I am 'red-headed' (lately called, "ginger"). But while I might relate to certain physical features, I have no other reason to defend the nature of Red-heads as some intrinsic culture and group with specific thoughts in common. You, as a Zionist, believe that you ARE a people, no matter how you try to redefine it. It would be as if I believed that I own the culture of the Vikings because I have roots genetically and/or culturally to them! Unlike you, I don't try to collect other red-heads together, demand we have a state, and go to where I think my ancestors 'owned' and then believe I should take over any of those traditional lands and purify my 'state' to be strictly red-headed favoring!

I ONLY speak for myself even if I was completely alone in my opinion! First off, I am atheist!! So my argument on Christianity here is about their initial philosophical origins. They adopted Judaism to be INCLUSIVE to ALL people rather than to the selective in-group identification that Judaism was founded upon. That is, the "chosen people" were assumed of a genetic variety of peoples, NOT arbitrary choices of people to join in their group. You HAD to be literally related to these intrinsically 'superior' special people to qualify as being Hebrew, as if merely being born of Jewish decent qualified them as favorable. I made no such assertion nor believe your own interpretation of me. Let's just merely begin with the word 'anti-semetic' here. Why is 'anti-X' assumed somehow sufficiently evil where 'X' stands only for one type or subgroup of humans? In fact, ONLY if 'X' stands universally for all people (or, as my Elephant example was to demonstrate, ALL living things), does a FAIR interpretation of what is wrong about discrimination count. You can't accuse people of being anti-Semitic if it is alright to be anti-Other and remain non-hypocritical. I used the Elephant's reaction to harm PEOPLE to demonstrate how we as humans arrogantly assume we are somehow intrinsically 'good' and find it ODD that those Elephants are attacking us (like they are 'anti-Humanists') I did this in the second post above to try to show how we can redress the problem by showing that neither Elephants nor Humans have any intrinsic hatred except for where one or the other suffers relatively in some way. The harms that the Elephants do against humans are not intentionally 'evil' nor are the humans. Elephants live in isolation and segregation just as some people OPT to do. Where Elephants HAVE to live in relative segregation, different human groups do NOT. So where they DO voluntarily do so, this to me is the problem, whether it be Jews or other sub-groups of humans. Again, you falsely read into me and inversely make false universal declarations. "Ethnicity" IS a function of Nationalistic arrogance to FAVOR those genetically AND culturally. That is, "ethnicity" is NOT just one's selective right to CHOOSE what or how they behave. Those who believe in "ethnicity" believe that one's culture AND genetics are correlated. It is NOT universal that people believe in ethnic definitions, and this is your own arrogant stereotype of ALL people. I also do not think the Jews were nor are the only ones. This is where you or other err in complete stupidity. The term "Jew" originally meant 'wander' and derived from the same root to describe a temporal stream or river that only flows in times of good times but dries up in bad ones [a Wadi]. The original 'Jew' was as much derogatory as it was virtuous and implied those who were transient (homeless or unbound to fixed land-ownership). I could go into quite the historical depths on this. But the reference to which this discussion is about is to the problems of the Middle East to which presently, the Israeli Jew who favors Zionism, are THE cause of all problems there due to their own NATIONALIST beliefs in their supremacy by their God to a 'right' to bulldoze over non-Jews of the territory they are declaring. The irony, however, is to note that "Jew" here references their lack of original landed ownership. (The 'promised land' too, was not Palestine, but Egypt, of which they were migrating peoples from Assyria who overtook Egypt, ruled for a while, then FAILED!) They were also not 'a people'. But NOW those who assert their 'ethnicity' as being Jewish, DO believe in what has come down to us through history as from inherently 'God-favored' beings and IS genetically derived. If this were not the case, Jews would not be predominantly 'Semitic'!! I am 'anti-Zionist' here with the meaning, "those who believe they ARE a specific people AND who believe they have a universal right by virtue of a supreme command of nature/god, to act with utter arrogance to steal lands occupied by others with equal zeal to violate the Palestinians before them as an 'ethnicity' intrinsically intent to defeat them!"

You guys missed the elephant I brought into the post? ...Or is everyone here equally anti-elephantist?

Isn't that more about media ethics, then? Or...it's more like... VIDEO LINK CLICK HERE

Rue or others interpreting hatred of one sort or another against the Jews, Read my above comment as it applies to this issue and WHY I believe we have only an accelerated hatred that exists when or where ANYONE strongly supports a FAVOR for one's own with exclusion to others. If it helps, ask yourself how Elephants recently are reacting with such aggression: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0603_050603_elephants_2.html I recommend we draw an analogy of us as humans in contrast to other animals to fairly interpret what is going on here. We, as humans, do not think we have 'earned' the terroristic attacks by these 'Elephant Nationalists'. But who is to blame? Surely, not all of us, and in fact, the majority, are NOT AGAINST Elephants. Yet our own survival contradicts the concern to have equal compassion to FAVOR Elephants. We don't think we should 'tolerate' their "terroristic" assaults on innocent 'women and children' of the towns these rogue elephants are lashing out against. But is this simply due to humanity as a whole? Do we not at least place the BLAME upon those who most directly have purpose to harm or neglect the Elephants, if we should even care?

Huh? This YEAR has just hardly begun! But regardless, I can't see any entertainment as anything beyond(say) reflecting the people's feelings. I can agree entertainers should not be targeted but the argument to associate shootings of cops to have been shot by more X than Y inevitable. Should X = Y to be 'fair'? That is, should we demand more non-whites to begin shooting cops to provide an anti-proof of this accusation?

The DIFFERENCE between what most understand of what is "Jewish" as opposed to "Christianity", is that there is a usual prerequisite for those who are of Jewish decent to BE self-segregating and specifically selective of their own BASED on GENETIC ANCESTORY! Religions like Christianity are evolved to be universally applicable and why it doesn't receive the same kind of bias. It is about the PRACTICE people witness indirectly, whether fair or not, to which the identity of Jews have as much 'earned' the bias of their PRIDE as a select PEOPLE to which others are bothered about. Hitler's (or, more accurately, the German National Socialists even prior to his dominance), devised their philosophy on Nationalism primarily because they interpreted the reality of standing for an ideal without the emotional impact of culture/race/identity was futile. This was derived from those like Nietzsche, who though non-religious, argued that humans who ARE most religious and segregate themselves distinctly apart, with themes of hero-worship and pride of their 'own', will ALWAYS steal ANY prominence in realistic power by practice. That is, regardless of one's appeal to logic or 'fairness' of people as a whole, the ones who maintain dominance in power anywhere ARE those who command a strict religious OR cultural bias to favor their own nationality of their ancestry. So, to be 'fair', the Nazis (and Hitler) actually ADMIRED the Jews and sought to embrace the very qualities they at least believed made them so prominent and powerful, regardless of their relatively small population by contrast. As such, their only intent to utterly destroy the "Eternal Jew" was because they believed their 'eternal' supremacy to survive. AND, this contrasted with what they wanted to embrace of them in an opposing way. They felt that the reason for the economic and social fallout of the Germans was due to the very opposite LACK of National unity that the Jews, even to this day, many embrace. I disagree with Nationalism in any form, period. It is THIS factor alone which still divides people everywhere. To me, it isn't the "Jewish" nature but a human one. The Jews who embrace the Nationality to the extremes, of which is most prominent to those believing in Zionism and their arrogant belief that they are SUPREME by virtue of some God, is what makes Israel, NOT THE "JEWS" by ancestry, the problem here. Israel is ACTING as the very Nazis they pretend to oppose. The biggest difference is to HOW they are capable of doing it. Hitler tried the 'blunt' or direct approach in his means to formulate Nationalism; Israel's means is to appeal to tactics indirectly by using more subtle approaches to attempt to APPEAR innocent while being covertly AGGRESSIVE and hateful! It is NOT about Judaism nor those of Judaic roots that are naturally at fault....it is to those who EMBRACE themselves with the PRIDE to favor their own, and opposite to those OUTSIDE their segregated communities, to which provides the concern here. It happens to other groups too who embrace their IDENTITY with similar strength because while it may seem normal to HIGHLY FAVOR some IN-GROUP, the very ACT of advocating and supporting for one's own interest with disrespect of the same for others, IS a form of hidden violence against the OUT-GROUP. If you favor to the extreme some particular child you have, it HAS to be at the expense of some other child you have that you neglect to pay attention to, ignore, or allow to starve to death. AND, when that neglected child in the extremely NON-favored position is isolated and starved by merely being left out of eating at the dinner table, they can only hold out for so long before they react in ways that APPEAR overtly most AGGRESSIVE or most HORRIFIC (a "Terrorist"). This is the same with other issues, like Feminism today, which acts as extreme ADVOCATES who FAVOR attention to Women-only justice AND often at the expense of Men as a whole class. Another, for instance, would be how the GAY community ADVOCATES for pride often stereotyping homosexual extremes that do NOT universally apply to the majority of people. It is Nationalism which is the most prominent form of abuse and why those who embrace such extremes in the Middle-East are at fault. The Israelis (Zionists, in particular) are the sole fault of the opposing Muslim extremes that exist. And they are reacting with extreme because they are being easily neglected and literally being bullied by the mere power and wealth of the dominant Israeli Jews who dismiss them as mere ants to be stepped on expecting them not to complain! The compliance of the U.S. is to the clear financial, political, military, and social supports granted to these Israelis by them in such strength in contrast to their own hypocritical declarations of compassion they constitute of their own, at the neglect of outsiders, in a similar way. If you have a neighborhood bully who might naturally be equal to you but have some other neighbor who supplants them with guns over your clubs, you too would be reasonably suspect of the U.S. for their compliance.

Tim mentioned the fact they use flash memory. Technically, this does not matter. It WOULD matter depending on whether this solid-state drive is distinctly separate. In this way, it may be possible to bypass. Because the flash memory is less sustained long-term when erased by read-writes or wiping, the present tech often skips complete erasure: it only 'deletes' its table-of-context entry for where the data is located in memory. Thus, this may be a more reasonable means to allow access. What they could then do is to assure that if the case is opened that it somehow disengages the functionality in some part of that memory unless the whole drive is replaced. I believe this would have been thought of but the government probably wants to find a means to have PRESENT access or an ability to 'spy' prior to any seizure of the device. This makes them more suspect with good reason. Note on Operating Systems: Those like Microsoft and especially, Apple, recognized the significance of creating a 'gateway' program we now call an operating system, not simply for its capacity to be useful as a way to make computers easier to use, but to command the security FLAGS which act as switches to allow the computer to act or block access by programs. The idea was to capitalize on making such a program as it takes complete control of these flags and thus makes all other programs require meeting the demands of the proprietary nature of this gateway program. That is, all programs MUST run first THROUGH the OS in order to operate. In this way, Apple was able to capitalize on this through creating a completely proprietary system requiring all other applications running on it to comply with it for licencing as they made their product most attractive. Bill Gates thought this way too but only recently (with the new Win 10) has his company now reached this level. But both, while appearing to favor our 'privacy' concerns, actually benefit by the power they have to access our privacy. Their interests are for business though. The government's interests just want 'in' on this access too. I don't like either extreme. The government can and DO act for economic reasons too. Back doors are inevitable. The government can also skip the OS by dealing with the hardware interests working with all computing devices to assure they have command of the BIOS (a pre-operating system to initiate the main chip's initial startup data and run all the other electronics in it. This IS being (and has been) done. I think the concern with Apple is that they have been so proprietary that while they may possibly outsource to Intel, they set the design to disable the BIOS changes and may have the OS a part of this. So unlike other computers where the government already can likely command our BIOS through those chip makers, Apple is most secure. That is, even if Tim Cook claims concerns of others turning away from Apple, all other devices are already insecure by default to government intervention (spying). This makes Apple a little more unique than other companies. I'd like to hear from other companies like Microsoft to respond to this!! [i'm being sarcastic....it would only make everyone begin to look at them for their own worse security flaws.]

Haven't caught up yet to comment on the main issue but saw this. I checked out a design on quantum computing a few months ago when someone raised it with me and noticed that the tech in it is a relative 'cheat'. The induction created by the loops allowing for a trinary operation in their setup requires it to be large enough to prevent that 'decoherence'. The size of it still reduces its overall effectiveness because of this and I don't see it possible to make it smaller without this problem given ANY materials we have. The very nature of particles even understood with QM to be able to have its superposition quality renders this impossible unless you could effectively prevent that from occurring. This is because it acts as induction does (action at least to some distance away) and would require some super-quantum NEW elemental particle to wall in (resist & impede) the effects of it. The most they can do to aid in reducing this is for superconductivity at low temperatures. I'm with cybercoma on the issue of privacy here. A good indepth discussion on this is Stefan Molyneux's "The Truth about Donald Trump's Apple Boycott | Tim Cook, Privacy and Terrorism" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9gN5F4mGfo] ...if this hasn't already been raised.

I question what you mean by the presumed "wedge" here specifically. Mulcaire DID stand for a campaign in a similar way. I believe that he lacked sufficient appeal to those beyond the stereotypical stances of the NDP without anything 'new'. AND, even in rallies, he had optional signs that merely said, "Stop Harper", to appeal to the non-committed and certain stance AGAINST Harper. Trudeau won by default of his optimism. Also, the campaign 'against' him by the Conservatives was appearing to present themselves as LIKING Trudeau, but merely thinking of him as too young, with a "maybe" he's reasonable. So if any party lacked wedging here, it was the Conservatives. Mulcaire and Harper both had extreme antipathy towards each other in fear of one or the other to take power without noticing a concern for the Liberal Party. Our Liberal Party often wins by merely being rather 'fuzzy' in position. They somewhat appear to appeal to the 'conservative' ideals AND 'liberal left' ones (NDP-liberal, that is), and so win by accident. The Conservatives and Liberals here are the only viable parties likely to succeed because even within the supposed "social democratic" ideals of the NDP, they have evolved to be more representative of Multiple conservative groups that merely associate with social democratic ideals for the fact they represent the minority but plural interests of the same kind of conservative thinking of the particular major supporters. It makes it hard for the disenfranchised and NON-plural individuals who actually support the sincere "social democratic" ideals because our system treats culture as the defining factors of differences and NOT the actual economic classes as significant. This is my own problem with the NDP. They'd appeal to many others too, but the way they clearly support distinct non-economic groups in sync with the others except for which particular groups they favor, they come across as equally 'conservative'. To resolve, if it could be done, the left-wing ideology here must abandon favor to specific interests relating to supporting segregated interests in sync with the regular conservatives. Ironically, here in the West, the only party who at least gives lip-service to this in some part is the very Conservatives. Also, all parties argue for defending a "middle-class" with disrespect to the working poor and worse to the non-working poor who are unaffiliated with either Unions (above average-waged and working people) or to some strong minority groups often associated with religion, race, or ethnicity in opposing resentment against the unaffiliated. So it leaves the majority of even the 'poor', as a class, who also may happen to vote, unable to trust the loyalty of the NDP should they be empowered. All groups still penalize the non-affiliated but at least, even if in error, the Conservatives and Liberals at least BELIEVE that we all intrinsically differ only because of economic factors. They only tend to favor the poorer classes who are non-affiliated by default of the fact that much of them are only genetically akin to their own group affiliations. I am 'favored', for instance, by the more right-wing conservative politics being a white European male based on their own bias to favor them of their own in-groups. None of the parties support the individual as the most significant minority though. Nor is the individual even considered a 'minority' as we are forcefully classified as belonging to some distinct and rightfully inherent group. Though we are 'free' to not participate in these particular distinct groups according to our race, ethnicity, or religion, our Constitution places these classifications with priority when making laws and thus discriminates against those in need who don't cooperatively accept their arrogant beliefs of a right to 'heritage'. If any party could represent this, it would be the NDP. But their own funding supports come from the dominant groups who favor segregated laws privileging race, ethnicity, and religion. So you only assure that the appeal to the NDP will either be from the Nationalists as groups who are disempowered and not the larger variety of people constituting that class who might support them. This IS why the NDP lost. And for those groups who ARE sincerely on the left, they too would still not find anything in the NDP that they couldn't get already from the Liberals, at minimum.

I am not a fan of the 'optimist' is all I'm saying, not your intentional good wishes or appreciation spoken. It's more of a general comment on the nature of the philosophy of "optimism" itself.

I don't mean to put a damper on any of your positive expressions here, but although I 'get' good cheers and well wishes, these kinds of 'optimistic' views speak more of one's fortune by accident as one looks back on them and not so much to what is real. It's not to say you shouldn't be appreciative as you are for what your environment has given you, just that you don't interpret your own fortunes as proof that all others have the same environments and fortune. I think the best kind of way to demonstrate appreciation optimistically is to recognize this truth and try to pass it forward, especially to those who actually lack the same optimism. [Okay, yeah,... I was kinda hoping for a present under the tree from you guys! But I assure you that Canada isn't so golly gosh darned all happy-go-lucky with an apple pie and smiles everywhere. P.S. I don't actually have a tree; But I DO have a backpack! ]

Yes, Noam Chomsky comes to mind with me too. Certainly, in a great part. Your wording though is not how I would describe it as the "special privileges" are not merely to what most might think of as merely affirmative action for the minority who is in disadvantage. It is ANY special privileges granted which ARE derived by the very present privileged who only utilize the idea of Multiculturalism to conserve their own by agreeing to conspire with select other groups of which they have the power to accept AS official 'minorities'. It is those in the privileged classes who, while likely feeling 'guilt' of their fortunes, inappropriately assert that ALL of their own class 'owns' what created the very problems against those other minorities. It is a means to both 'apologize' BUT do so in a way that KEEPS their belief in segregated privileged status in a way that distributes the burden to their equal arrogant belief that ALL of us of their same 'race' or origin are equal to blame. I have red hair, for instance. Now imagine that for some reason I was somehow very fortunate and powerful enough to take over some island where an aboriginal population there lost to my own expanded fortune where I might have taken advantage of them in some way. I might not be 'typical' of red-heads and so don't represent anything intrinsic to the red hair. I might 'favor' other red-heads who come later and perhaps could believe WE ALL think alike. While some of these other red-heads who come may accept a favor from my established power, they themselves may be in an equal condition as the local aboriginals. To later 'fix' the problem, I might come to sense a risk to my power. I realize that I may have been particularly guilty to this new condition of the aboriginal population (as some 'future' generation, say). Instead of ME or my progeny giving up the wealth back to the Aboriginals, I might think, 'why not give these people what they want before they blow up?'. To this, I might agree to give them special status laws, BUT because I may still BELIEVE in my 'red-headed' superiority, I would negotiate with the local Aboriginal descendants that I'll grant them the laws as long as they too recognize MY red-head culture and associated religion to be recognized. However, instead of further risking my own loss, I would choose to assert the stereotype that it was ALL red-heads who came here who benefited at the loss to the Aboriginals. While untrue, this belief would certainly be agreed to by the Aboriginals. Thus I distribute the 'debt' I or other red-heads who DO believe in our supremacy, to spread it upon the whole of the red-headed population regardless of whether they too agree to my own stereotype of who red-heads are or not. Thus I still conserve my wealth AND the loss goes to those sucker red-heads I am not related to nor care for anyways. Its a WIN-WIN for me as I have conned the Aboriginals into merely joining in on my own racist thinking, make them perceive ME as their 'friend' (even though I wasn't) and redirect the Aboriginals to look at those other red-heads in the population who would no doubt stand up and complain of the unfairness and mistreatment they receive for such acts. I don't want to go into too much further depth on this example and hope that you can at least follow the idea I'm getting at. The winners are still the same people you are concerned about too (the corporation, as one main factor) as I in the above fantasy island, had represented the wealth class who could afford investment in the companies. I mentioned the psychological effect, "Bystander Effect" [see the Wikipedia page on that], in which I believe this is what happens in the same way but with 'groups' instead. The cultures/minorities all think only of their own interests and ignore others outside of their direct interest in the same way as a bystander in a crowd ignores someone who appears injured. Each thinks that they have their own concerns to deal with and since there is a large enough presence of other 'groups', people believe that such injured person would be saved, certainly by someone of their own 'group', as they would reason, if not by another. But this doesn't occur. So anyone external to the official minorities are being abused indirectly in a way that no one would claim 'ownership' to regardless. This is NOT merely of any one race or ethnicity either. The group-affiliated of each culture equally discriminates against all who do not belong to one of their groups, even if those they are penalizing are of the same genetic family but where they WON'T join in with them in sharing the same beliefs and behaviors. You used the "chosen people" example, which I think is appropriate. This is the "Nationalism" I'm generally classifying all the same kind of thinking under. Often, it is these very thinkers who 'own' the cause of the stereotypes but opt to keep them internally where they are derogatory to outsiders while insisting that outsiders redress them with only virtuous stereotypes instead, under the guise of culture or 'pride'. I think you understand me but had to add the above because I don't believe your resolution follows. Since the 'cause' as I see it, including what becomes inherent in corporate abuses, is always of those who most embrace Nationalism, it is Nationalism which IS the problem. You might question whether corporations have any particular Nationalism. I don't believe it is something intrinsic to 'corporate' ideals to be Nationalist. However, I assure you that those who ARE Nationalist will always act as a force more powerful in their capacity to raise capital over and above the individual without any national, cultural, ethnic associations. As such, it will be these who are most likely behind those companies with better strength. Also, since the strong Nationalists highly favor what they perceive as their own AND optimize the Bystander Effect with respect to ALL outsiders, it is the Nationalists behind such particular corporations who are the very ones representing the abuses you believe are at the root of bad or unfair business arrangements. Thus supporting a distinct culture anywhere in LAW is only feeding the very fuel to assure the abuses remain. To me, I AM a Canadian Aboriginal. I 'own' the culture of all the people here as much as to everywhere on this Earth. To me 'culture' is all of ours. But we have no need to conserve any of them except as to a shared link to all of our pasts, not simply those who have the closest genetic or inherent link. Notice, I use the word, 'inheritance', a lot here. I also extend the same concern to more than simply genetic ones, but to the very ideas of one passing down fortunes (a type of environmental inheritance). This is as much my own distaste for the extremes of wealth that we don't limit. How is it appropriate that we allow a Billionaire to exist? I'm not for "communism" in an opposing way but to a balance where we limit rights to 'inherit', whether genetic OR environmental of all kinds. A Nationalist, to me, are any people who embrace some form or right to inheritance of some kind to an extreme by some individual or group, based on either some genetic or environmental significance they believe is granted them by Nature or some god(s).

That's cool. I notice your signature, "I love to see a girl go out and grab the world by the lapels." I agree to the sentiment but from personal experience of one friend I knew in the past, this literally can be a 'bitch'. She had a severe reactionary impulse to partially choke herself using her lapels of her shirt (and always would wear a button blouse that enabled her to do this) due to real insecurities caused by an abusive childhood and eventual mental disorder. I tried to help her and it seemed to be a comfort to the point that she'd begun to relax enough not to do it voluntarily. However, nearly everyone else I knew around my crowd at the time had disapproved of her in such disgrace for her insecurity, ...especially a sister and other female friends...that she only reverted to it with more strength. And get this too: some of that 'crowd' of mine had their own personal experiences of discrimination to which I couldn't understand why they behaved as bad as they did! Especially, but not only, my sister, which disgusted me considering what she'd represented by others as a strong (but young at the time) woman embracing uncharacteristic qualities of the just the kind Maya Angelou is speaking of here!

I can't speak for what you may have said. It's as much about context. I have nothing disrespectful towards bush_cheney2004 in the least. I was just concerned why she's here representing America as a patriot but yet unusual to what I understand of the American patriot. They would unlikely adapt to the Canadian standard voluntarily, though it is NOT impossible, of course. You could also live in the U.S. as a Snowbird and have compassion for both countries. It might explain her choice. But there IS a difference to your use of "white" Canadian if it was interpreted as potentially racist. [i prefer no censorship though.]

You still haven't answered my question. I'm trying to determine if you are FOR our system, FOR the American system (via the First Amendment), or to some interpretation that you believe is both ....OR neither. I cannot determine from your language, for instance, whether you believe in a government to have the right to make laws involving religion, culture, ethnicity. (?) You appear in defiance of my view in some way but I cannot tell to which parts of my view you have any real contentious concerns against. Please enlighten me. The spelling thing is not a forum flaw. It is your preference of spelling based on your background early education. From it, you appear to be British/Commonwealth origin, not American!! Even in Canada, for the most part, many Westerners use the American spelling (and pronunciation) too. No offence, but something's unsettling about your preference while simultaneously appearing as a sincere patriot American.

I'm unclear of what you are specifically arguing in the last line of the first paragraph above AND to whatever you are interpreting that I stand for. Are you FOR our Canadian system? Are you FOR religion, culture, and ethnic laws to be permitted in Constitutional protections? You do not seem to actually BE American but seem to be arguing as a Canadian who 'thinks' they know the American ideal. Why, for instance, are you more often here rather than on some American political site? I even notice you spell in Canadian. (I already have my own excuse for my own preference for the American spelling as I had my initial school years in Virginia.)

That's fine. My point still stands. We need AT LEAST a type of Constitution that eliminates any allowances of government to make laws that favor ANY cult regardless. I favor the First Amendment in this light even though I don't believe it went far enough. Our own Constitution in Canada was made (1982) by the very interests of religious groups, cults, and ethnic nationalists to prevent the non-affiliated of these to be disempowered with permanence and avoid the conflicts of interpretation that the American government has had to deal with through time. It is the very means of interpretation of those challenging your own country's individuals by similar nationalists among you who keep religion, ethnicity, and race, a real problem. They just are a tad more able to defeat any extremes from prevailing with permanence. Here we reversed our means Constitutionally to address contingencies by our clause to overrule our Charter of Rights. But this is only allowed momentarily. The norm should be, as it is with all things, a non-theistic, non-ethnic, non-racist, and non-cultural bias, just as we are all born defaulted to being atheistic (absent of belief) until it is imposed upon us. This is what we need. The very link you provided on the "In God We Trust" indicated that the political interest was to defeat the non-theistic ideals. It is they, and NOT the First Amendment which has and still is leading people to be divisive. I'd propose an even stricter Constitution that removes any right of any culture, ethnicity, race, etc, from being privileged in law up front.

You are way off here. See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html for this in depth. Our preamble is: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" The 'nationalism' of America is of the whole of all its people and is more properly referenced as "patriotism" as this signifies this with clarity and doesn't discriminate against its members. "Nationalism" by all other countries except Americans means one's ethnic/genetic origins. With respect to the world at large, yes, America is 'nationalistic' though, and why others find them so threatening. When you have a whole country act as a nation, this this makes them powerful indeed. The same can be said of a country like Saudi Arabia or Israel. The difference is that they are more purist as a whole as they eliminate anyone whose 'nationality' isn't of their single kind. Edit note: I would thus describe Israel and Saudi Arabia as properly "Nationalistic" since they are both a whole AND of one culture by definition culturally. They only 'differ' with respect to our British commonwealth countries in that they are MONO-culturalist as opposed to MULTI-culturalists. Both to me are problematic as they DEFINE their country with respect to preserving at least one or more cults. America is sincerely diverse and their patriotism, while certainly misplaced by some who prefer to see a Mono- or multi- cultural ideal, are merely demonstrating pride in their constitution, not any particular cults within it.

I'm Nihilistic intelligently but am still not this way emotionally. But I am merely 'fortunate' for the emotional factor that gives me the compassion still. But I too often get interpreted as being 'cynical' too. However, my cynicism is more like the original cynicism of the Greeks where it was practiced (or intended to be so) as an intellectual means to question politics and other social structures WITHOUT emotions getting in the way. Because of this, I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic of EVERYONE and it is often interpreted as derogatory as the modern term, "cynic", implies now. It is too hard for most who are naturally more emotionally-lead to perceive one questioning things as an affront on them as a person, especially on these online forums discussing these issues. I share your concerns emotionally but believe that nature itself still rules over this on large scales. The reason I'm skeptical of our system is because the logic of placing culture, religion, or ethnicity above the individual OR the whole in politics only strengthens the problems in all areas, including the economic ones you believe are acting "nihilistically". This is because I believe what is driving even those within corporate structures are still based on cultural conservatism in some way. The best example of this to me is the State of Israel. They act as the strongest group that utilizes their own internal belief in their 'culture', ethnicity, and religion, to remove their compassion for outsiders making it most easy to favor the idea of International corporate behaviors that lend themselves to abuses, especially upon outsiders. If you have only a love for your own kind, then the way you deal with outsiders will be preferentially 'nihilistic' upon those outsiders. That is, you don't have to 'hate' outsiders overtly when you have strong nationalism for your own, but this is the inevitable means to foster it anyways. A strong love for your 'own' uniquely IS logically what causes hatred because we are limited to a fixed set of resources available. The more stronger your in-group, the better power you gain of resources. This is what is 'logically' driving people to think we SHOULD enhance things like cultural segregationist ideas. This is cyclic because all that occurs as everyone adapts this mentality is equally as selfish as the corporate mentality you think is a problem. However, to actually fix the problems requires attending directly to economic policies and NOT to culture with priority to escape these cycles. Corporations themselves actually DID begin as a means to find balanced fairness in some ways to fund large communal projects in a way that doesn't indiscriminately favor one group against another. But what has happened is that we've extended these original ideas to enable special interest groups based on their culture to capitalize upon this through making the laws lenient enough to allow cultural groups to actually utilize the corporation to empower their nationalistic group interests. And this is done through politics by favoring the extremes. If you are of the culture that is most beneficial in such present capital, you become more right-wing 'conservative'; if you are of the culture (or collection of cultures) that lack the capital, then you favor the left-wing 'conservative' ideals. Since the extremes perceive, with good reason, that strengthening cultures is what enables them to gain the collective power to compete capitalistically (to 'own'), these extremes are what places culture as the prime interest for creating laws that favor the segregationist ideas that lead to things like "Multiculturalism" rather than a mere "Interculturalism" (voluntary associations). Can you see the dilemma here? Since it is always inevitable that at least some culture will always exist who believes in utilizing any means to benefit themselves as a distinct group, it will always assure that for whatever laws that tries to 'correct' imbalances of economic powers of people as individuals, they will always still favor at least another group favoring cultural integrity on the other extreme. The individuals not associated with any particular culture will be the next targeted losers simply for not having the numbers of those with common interests to form a 'group' with as much force as those who are most religiously committed to them by default of their belief in cultural significance. The only 'hope' we have to at least minimize one culture/ethnicity/religion from continuing these cycles to make one culture impose hardships upon others is to remove any fixed laws that favor cultures, ethnicity, race, etc, from being put in place. This what the Americans have done with their first Amendment clause, as a good evolutionary start. I think that it doesn't go far enough because they have still had problems because of even the nature of people to voluntarily associate in cultures regardless. We already have witnessed that even in the American system, it is the cultural purists among them who are causing the problems. It was nationalists among them that demanded their government place the "In God We Trust" motto on their coinage, and revising their anthems to implant "God" in this way too. These seemingly trivial additions actually go against their First Amendment clause by merely making the term 'God' be undefined but with its imposing and clear undertones that infer religion as significant. To me, it is ironic that Judaism and Christianity have evolved to what they are now because by going through their scriptures with scrutiny, you can discover even a secular history within them that hints the original writings were discussing some of these politics back then that made them even question their own motives and actions. Genesis seemed to end on the recognition by the 'Jews' to have made an error in their role to have created the very curse against them as a 'people' for capitalizing upon the economic vulnerability of the Egyptians. I don't believe that even the idea of a "Jew" was of a particular 'people' at that time UNTIL the Egyptians perceived the causes of their demise as 'owned' by the transients, where 'Jew' was a generalized word for this for all wanderers, including immigrants from anywhere who capitalized on the losses of the 'indigenous' then there. Ironically, by interpreting natural causes of economic problems as being FROM the differences in lifestyle (ie, 'culture'), the settled populations original to the land were displaced by the transients but interpreted the lifestyles as intrinsic to one's race or ethnicity, and not merely on their natural conditions. That is, the 'transients' were of many different races or ethnicities, just as the settled peoples in cities were. But those among both extremes reinterpreted the sincere 'causes' of their economic faults by targeting genetic (phenotypical) traits that were most easy to recognize in common (or largest plurality) of the other. And it was these very stereotypes that also forced each of the strongest ones being stereotyped to embrace it rather than defeat it. So a purging of those among these extremes who appeared as the other actually strengthened the extremes who were stereotyped based on apparent genetic markers. And they always WIN on both sides. How does this compare here and now in Canada? The extremes here are the 'white Anglo-Saxon/Europeans' as the transients and the 'native populations'. Note that I don't actually believe these groups on the extremes are appropriate to stereotype. I'm one of the 'outcast' of the present favor of the 'transient' genetically stereotyped who is cast out by our native population because I supposedly 'own' the heritage of the 'white Anglo-Saxon/European' as being the qualifying factor that the extremes who DO favor 'cultural' segregation as the appropriate defining factors and cause of economic problems. I am equally discriminated by the present 'white Anglo-Saxon/Europeans' who also believe in their own culture as 'owning' their fortune because of it. But who loses here except for the disenfranchised belonging to either extremes? There will always be some apparent genetic group in more power and a set of groups with lessor powers, where the 'group' interests will defeat the individuals among them who don't associate voluntarily to the stereotypes they each create and impose upon us all as individuals. And by the powers of the 'group' interests on all sides who demand cultural segregation to preserve their 'own', we will always remain in this trap to favor culture over the individuals who don't comply. The only difference that I see in our politics here in Canada between parties are to which cultural groups they represent. Our "Conservatives" are of the largest plurality of the 'transient' population who benefited through the 'protestant and non-Catholic' variety. The "Liberals" are the 'transient' AND now relatively 'traditional' settlers of that group who established this country, namely, the 'catholic Anglican (English) and Roman (French-Quebec)' varieties. And the "NDP"favors the SET of cultures in direct apparent conflict with those of the present established wealth BUT actually still agree to the very stereotyping of that establishment. ALL parties here do not represent the individual even while they pay lip-service to these in one way or the other. They are ALL 'conservatives' in that they intrinsically perceive culture, race, and ethnicity, as the sincere means to be empowered and ALL are against the progress of the contemporary voluntary associations between individuals who stray outside of these confined classifications and receive the most discrimination. The 'mixed' people in between all groups will receive the same disgust by the purists who believe in cultural conservation. An African American who is wealthy is as much discriminated against by the economic class they belong to because of the purists among them who ARE associated by identifying themselves according to their cultural identities with pride. The Caucasian American who is poor is also discriminated against by their own economic class as they are presumed by the purists in their own class as representing what they believe is favored in the other class along the same lines. While the 'wealthy' ones, however, who are 'outcast' at least are not suffering the economic problems, it will be the 'poor' ones who will be most motivated to ACT. Yet, when or where they do, it is often of the type of behavior we associate with 'terrorism' or 'criminal' as they act out of desperation in ways that the established wealthy can through more 'legitimized' or accepted ways. And then the behaviors of these STILL only act to justify the very stereotypes that created these people's reactions upon the whole of the apparent stereotyped classes of the privileged conservatives. I'll stick with this for now because I am sure to get flack again for writing another 'book' in a forum post. But I'm thinking that at least you and some of the others will approve who DO want to invest in trying to solve such problems without resort to oversimplification.

I'm guessing this is more about convenience you are referring to (like how to skip notices given you have to scroll through matter you find bothersome on a 2 inch cell phone screen.] We already have the natural capacity to opt out of those we find distasteful without a need for an app for that. I am only worried that should we enhance means to censure material better, we could miss significant and relevant news by things we DO need to pay attention to.

I respect your ideas here as I too share a lot of them philosophically. Politics with regards to ownership (Capitalism or Communism, as extremes) is hard to determine precisely how to deal with that could be satisfactory to all. But I assure you that the concept of ownership beyond what one can literally carry is an inevitable quality of all living things that settle in more localized areas. It is also not a product of even the Judaeo-Christian religion either. In fact, from Genesis, the whole identity of the Middle Eastern ideology (of most religions there) was about transitioning from a tribal to a settled lifestyle. In this sense, the depth of these early periods of settlement was carefully thought over as the transient peoples in this area competed with those claiming land as a right to one's own. Religion is often only a political means to assert some authority of what they 'own' by placing the ultimate arbiter of natural authority in a remote unreachable entity. Our Queen represents the 'portal' to the English authority of 'ownership' privileges granted by a God in this way. This is because outside of any religious context, not even morality to any degree matters and thus requires arbitrary force to keep people willing to obey laws. Our American Indigenous people are NOT immune to this and it had occurred with equal problems in the Central Americas as they were just going through their pyramid phase which is the first phase to transitioning to agriculture and settlement. To assert our Canadian Indigenous ancestors even had the degree to need real estate claims other than their contemporary needs to be free wherever they happen to be at in the moment makes any claim to a right to such kind of 'ownership' invalid as it was NOT something intrinsic to their culture. Today's children of these ancestors thus do not have the inherent right of 'culture' to own fixed lands based on them. Yes, the government has the power to command BECAUSE we have Mutlicultural ideals that were derived from the same thinking that also 'favors' specific cultures now and to which you inversely also agree to. That is, if you have a concern that the government imposes hardships upon select peoples, it requires divorcing the right of Constitutional protections for ANY culture, religion, or ethnicity in law. The justification for other societies in the world to dismiss the Tribal Aboriginal claims is because they do not consistently represent 'ownership' in the same ways. To grant a Tribal society the right to their original idea of 'ownership' would require that any Aboriginal should have a right to completely dismiss the 'ownership' that has evolved to include fixed lands, not merely routes. If you had to be literally sincere to the Indigenous 'culture' they had before modern society, we'd have to allow any Native to wander in your own home and help themselves to what they need where they feel they need it AND to whatever force they need to get it without penalty in 'our' modern laws. They should be allowed to hunt anywhere and would have to include a right to indiscriminately 'hunt' people even, should this be required. This is absurd and why modern 'ownership' ideals still compete with supposed contracts (Treaties) made in some blurred and misunderstood way. "Reserves" were a kind of means to reserve their 'routes' in tribal lifestyle where they did not intend to represent a fixed ownership. This blurring of agreements made thus cannot be appropriately reconciled. It DOES require the 'First Nations' to adapt to 'ownership' as the rest of the world does OR to die out. It is absolutely incompatible to allow a pre-civilized lifestyle to coexist with a civilized one ['civil' here means settled organization as opposed to the tribal hunt-gather chaos of our natural animal lifestyles before such formal organizing.] I know you didn't say this but nor does anyone overtly. However, it is implicitly assumed because in our society, we are not allowed to 'own' a chosen culture with the same protection. That is, if I was adopted by an Aboriginal family, I would NOT have the same rights granted to Aboriginals. This can only imply that our genetic heritage is how Multiculturalism interprets this idea Constitutionally. Likewise, if an Aboriginal is adopted to a non-Aboriginal family, they are capable of making a claim to be an inheritor of the First Nation status. This interpretation is still false. All our own ancestors everywhere believed nature had superiority over us....and we all still do! Abuses to our environment was equally a natural function to the Indigenous ancestors. Here in North America, they effectively wiped out horses, as a mere example. Just because their societies back then lacked the kinds of environmental abuses we have today does not make them any more wiser. Our present abuses are about mass psychology, like the "Bystander Effect" where being independently insignificant in greater populations make us less concerned about the environment as a whole as we feel unnecessary to deal with. These problems CAN be addressed politically. We'd have to address how, for instance, we grant the right of incorporation laws for business, not cultures. This is one interpretation. I have personally been invested in learning of source scriptures as I believe they all have hints that these originally were more secular in origin and related to environmental concerns. Genesis evolved as a story that ended on the 'Jew' to have recognized that even their own initial 'good' intent to help out the Egyptians was also as selfishly in error and destructive. This is why they interpreted themselves as being punished by God (as Nature). There is too much ground on this to bother introducing here. But I have elsewhere. [i have two theories (conjectures) about religion that I believe explains it in a rational evolutionary sense.] You cannot interpret the "Be fruitful and multiply" as to be about 'subduing' it in the derogatory nature you have inferred. This was equally what even North American Indigenous believed too. The land and reality by many regardless of where you were evolved in social development interprets the Earth as intended to be exploited for their needs. Scott. P.S. Like I said, I appreciate your thinking and ideals. Yet I also recognize, being an atheist and somewhat nihilistic, that no matter what we might present as 'fair' to each other is not even remotely a concern about nature regardless. Bacteria, as 'nature', will equally keep be unconcerned about nature as a whole as they will outproduce and exploit their environment without concern to the fact their very act also can defeat them. The world, in effect, doesn't even NEED ANY living thing to exist. We only impose meaning to life with respect to our own selfish desire to impose this upon Nature too, in an ignorant and arrogant fashion. Those in business who often compete against environmental issues are as much non-religiously sound in light of a nihilist interpretation. To them, unless there IS some God, what does it matter to even be concerned about some future society when we could exploit it now. It may not appeal to us. But this is more about our own way we have assigned morality based on our own experiences only.

Returning to or retaining traditional values does not mean native people must return to their former lifestyles before the arrival of the Europeans. That would be the equivalent to working an empty mine. Even if it were desirable it is not an option. I disagree with your interpretation here. Culture will obviously evolve naturally (voluntarily). My concern is to having our constitution enable our governments to command culture non-voluntarily by their power to make law that favors specific cultural groups as if they were distinct beings apart from the rest of the population. Also, since these laws act to preserve traditions, they enhance a form of 'purity' to be imposed even on the select favored groups. Intermarriage or other cross-cultural progressive ideas would NOT be welcome in the fold. False. There is nothing biologically inherent about the North American Indigenous HUMANS to be somehow uniquely tied to the land while us 'Old World' humans are somehow assumed not to be. This is absurd. I already recognize that there is/was high variation in the original populations here. Now if you still insist this, then you are admitting that we have no hope. If those of us of the Old World (ancestrally) are inversely doomed to be somehow unattached to this same Earth with the same ideals that you grant the N.A. Natives, then you'd either have to simply accept this genetic factor just another rational to retain any of 'our' unEarthly natures. Why should European descendants interpret themselves as inferiors rather than embrace the same Nationalism(s) that our Multicultural system is enabling on others? Nationalism breeds Nationalism in a never-ending cycle. As to your other extra points, whether our Aboriginal community is supporting something that we or others share, it is still inappropriate to address these concerns as being of 'Aboriginally' owned. They and all of us would approve better if such organizations address environmental concerns without prefacing them with proprietary titles that indicate some innate authority these special people somehow naturally own. Absurd counterexample: what if we proposed the a world environmental organization we'll call, the "Nazi Environmental Movement"? How well do you think this would go over? And don't think this so absurd if you accept the idea that the Indigenous have some special wisdom and authority over the Earth that we somehow lack. I am from this Earth too. And this land is MY LAND too! I know of no other.