How place and climate affect culture

The older I have become, the more I have noticed that many Finns were originally from some far away country in a different climate or that they have long been very interested in some far away culture and changed to be much like it. Foreigners do not always understand why one should live in he Finnish way when one lives in Finland, but since Finnish traditions have strong grounds as skills instead of being forced upon people without much idea why, the question is quite straightforward: why are just Finnish ways best in Finland?
Each country has it's own situation, it's own place in the world, in which ceryain tactics are best. The climate determines a lot about what is a good way to live, and that determines how much understanding, eyesight, skills at large they have, what kinds of emotional life they have, how active they are, what is so the best way for them to live as a society, for example wortk. Military situation in what comes to other countires determines a lot about what kids of tactics the locals invest in, so it determines alot about for example types of crime and best ways of handling such crimes, the freedoms and obligations of individuals, what the society supports them towards.Temperature determines a loyt about social distance: how much bacteria there usually is from others.

Basics of safety in jobs with position

If you have position, many people direct their wishes to you. So it atters enermously that you can fit them together in a wise way. A good choise for that is bureaucrats' view: meeting the people's needs in wise ways inside an objective picture of the whole.

Upkeeping moral in important places

Important places that serve a large group, like bank and medias, often have also big groups or even masses of people who would like to have such position, and that causes trouble, lots of criminal intentions tempting people. But typically big pressure is easy to handle by ging in in wise ways. It may be that the people's dreams are not wise and not possible, at least not possible for all, but that is just why the giving in has to be made in wise ways, and that is why there need to be just the skilled professionals working there and handling the thing so that the end result is benefical to just about all or even tyo all. Typically people who want something shortsighted want it based on some more narrowgroup's interest and point of viewm so that something which sounds much smaller would satisfy them even better. Often when someone wants just oppose something civilized it is that they are themselves stuck to habitual certain kind of life and the thing that they oppose is outside it's sphere of attention or much more responsible than their own not so skilled position. So they would be satisfied with more narrow life and smaller media that uses their own group's viewpoint to them amd recogozes their own position smakll enough.

It is not always good to aim to know everything

My momn sometime said when there was talk about famous old Finnish artists that the wife Venny Soldan-Brofeldt of a famous Finnish writer Juhani Aho is very important because her name brings to mind roughly the words "who now - soldier, brother/countryman died in war" and many young men are very interested to know who dies in a war and who attacks. But the image in mind one gets from her is not of military strenght but of things gone ashtray: maybe she got the knowledge by allying with enemies, so that it had no military usefulness. Also, many liars would like to have such position, to be a  person with such a name,so that it isn'tr a good source of information.
Generally,all knowledge isn't good to have,since often the price becomes too high. You get to know a lot if you are a kind of copy of the other one, but so you lose your own viewpoint, your own wisdom, your own freedom. Likewise, is you oppose something, it is because ity somehow lessens your possibilities to your kind of life you think, so changing to a copy of the other one does not make your life better but instead smallens the room for such. Such is of course not true when the other culture or supposed enemy or victim of yours is wiser than you and ha´s more wisdomof life, if which you could learn good life, like is the situation of Finns: Finland has wisdom of healthy ways of living and arranging a society, high skillstoo, but that is different frommilitary spying. Spies often like to tell tales tro get money and respect,so they often like to create a big mess like an actor, and do not cure things with the information they offer. If the enemy is less wise than you, you lose a lot of strenght and possibilities for good life in the society in your own country by copying him/her/that culture, and that is typically the pitfal young boys fall into. What they should know is about strenght and wise tactics,and those go via investing in health in everything, in healthy ways of doing things, for example that defending a countrey should be done in ways that are good for a country instead of ruining the country, and that practising ought to handle those things which bring skills and do not ruin the thing in question.
About learning useful Finnish skills http://Finnishskills.blogspot.fi
Finnish ways of being social give typically much more information about others and other cultures, even with less contact, than such throwing oneself at the mercy of others, and Finnish ways of being social and at the smae time looking from the point of view of the sssocietybring much more wisdom and strenght, a better position.
An enemy is not like another enemy, all countries and cultures are different, with the other countries in the same climate it is easiest to symphatize since there is something alike in living conditions. Far away countries and cultures may look tempting but often they lack our culture's basic good sides that are here present in everything, but faraway cultures too may be widely different for example civilized Asian versus complete lack of moral and rationality in Africa.
If the problem is that a young boy does not yet know what is an enemy, why would someone be called an enemy, and yet is aiming to be a soldier commanded to a war, propably he should instead practise skills for life, to be a healthy ibdividual in a healthy society, and to start with to be a pacifist and then only later after having learned about life, cultures, societies, different times,about different times in one's own life and their level of wisdom, maybe then across years he could learn if there is anything that in his opinion needs to be defended against. Bearing all hardship isn't the point since such makes lives miserable, loses the good sides of the modern world, instead healthy ways to grow in trenght and wisdom often bring a good understanding as one ages.

The position of each person in the world

All people do not understand that also social contacts and social life are parts of the world. So what there are rules aboutcorrect behaviour in the world, apply also to all social contacts! Always peopledo not follow that good moral, but that is a problem, a malfunction and not some separate right of them.
There is a right place for each person in the world. In that they affect the world toward good, to a flourishing fair life in what comes to their effect. And they have a good life at that place in the world and in hierargies. Lower they are somewhat dimmed, not affecting as much toward good as they would in their right position. Higher than that their effect just goes ashtray and they meet lots of oppisition, end up in fights.
Also social endeavours are counted in things for which one needs enough skills and moral before they are allowed, for example opposing some professional work may need an understanding of the world and good enough behaviour. On the other hand, so need those professions too but typically even more or then they must stick to being just subordinates of those who understand the world and carry respensibility about the world.

Objective feedback makes the society work like market economy's idea is

Often people give different feedback to different people, to each one something like what the person is like, hiw she or he behaves right then and usually, taking their cunning plans into account too and not believing in lies. In some this causes a rebellion. They would like to redirect the feedback to some person who in their eyes is like that in style or just it's opposite which they often consiuder defenceless or longing for such. But it is important that each person would get feedback just about their own behaviour, values etc, since so they can themselves see what they are creating into the world. One can so also compare the different options and tactics in the society, which makes the society work a little bit like the idea in market economies is. But that means treating each person fairly, not presupposing some rigid hierarchy of likings, dislikings etc.

Correcting if some part of the society is opposite of what is the idea in having it

Sometimes rigid rules are difficult to follow and difficult to put to practise. And so some parts of the society may in practise be quite opposite to what they ought to be, for example the police for crimes instead of opposing them. This is often at least partly a question of the skill level of the people in that profession and of the environment. Very basic things are easier to understand, at least if one has studied them, and so they more often et right. On the other hand more complex advanced things may be so full of dependencies on this and that, that poeple do not get right what is the idea in the goal, and so the task has become impossible or goes in practise wrong. Like for exampe if the police is too rule like, just about all forces in the society pulling to other directions, it is then much more difficult to put to practise than just going through the grounds for basic arrangements in common sense objective conversations that understand about life. But very basic isn't the same as very stupid, since with more skill one can find more common sense like answers.
Another thing to take into account is the motivcation of the workers: what kind of jobs would they be suited to? And what country they long for, which country's ways and values they seek to follow and advance in the environment?

An actor is not in safety

Usually in a society things run quite ordinary routes and if something goes wrong, the people around try to correct things back to normal, back to well. But that demands that they can notice the situation. Often problems are caused by criminals, and so it matters a lot that wehn you are deep in trouble no-one manages to make you look perfectly fine. That is so for roughly honest people without much acting skills, but for actors with high skill the safety net is lacking since they can be pressured to acting that all is well, and so the ordinary safety nets and emergency helps of the society do not come to question, and so an actor can be very miserable, for example a dug addict in addition to other problems. Yet one could always comform to well behaving ways and good will, kind of follow the ways of the rest of the society, if one is an ordinary person and does not want to reveal everything about oneself, but so one would be protected somewhat like one maybe supposes that an actor would be - well, but an actor isn't, since mostly there are quite many criminally inclined and foreign intersts around.

Protecting press

Since the beginning of November last year, has our local countryside town's newspaper's journalists disappeared and replaced by actors who are not interested in the subjects they write about but who are very interested in being in sight and maybe messing how the society is run. As far as I know, such usually does not happen in Finland but maybe happens abroad. I got the idea that the main motivation is being in sight, in important places, replacing valued people. Such seems to happen when ordinary people are not sincere but kind of pretending or acting, so that they are kind of like actors deeds, and so an actor thinks that that is all that the position is about. So it is likely to happen in places where people tend to act a lot. And especially if the contents, the idea in that kind of work and it's motivation are not emphasized. Whoever makes the newspaper ought to be skilled in the things they write about and not a young unexperienced person. They also should have those things in their liuves, be sincerely intewrested in them and not in entirely differemt things in that context. Being famous or in sight is a work to be done with skill, not some position in which to do something else. People value the person in the position for what they learn from him or her. Only mistakes in communication, not real position, come from person without teaching skills being in such position.