To borrow a phrase from the Left, people react differently to diversity because their 'lived experiences' of diversity are entirely different in terms of experience, not perspective.
In wealthy communities or tertiary education people will be more similar, regardless of national origin, because the globalhomo class is the same wherever one travels in the world, despite many possessing bicultural backgrounds. For lesser mortals, ingroup is higher. People want to live in their own communities. They don't want to mix, and they are least likely to adapt to the local culture, its customs and values. When one two high ingroup communities live side-by-side, their is always going to be friction.
Those who love diversity are most likely to regularly encounter its most positive form, whilst those who dislike it have probably witnessed someone from another culture shitting in a ditch, his arse hanging out for the world to see (for example). A lack of etiquette over rubbish, parking, the playing of loud foreign music every weekend, are all common lesser complaints. The major complaints are often far worse.
I wholeheartedly agree, and ouais the globohomo class are all the same and don’t seem to see that they are supposed to be different as the leader of Germany should be wholly German for example, just as the leader of France should be French, and so on.
As to the diversity thing, I’ve had to deal with them taking up all the jobs in the countryside where I am, in all the cities, and also shitting everywhere and even had to deal with their negligence in the work place and so on. So that it’s a matter of observing the negative (and the murderous side of them) as you pointed out.
Obviously it's not all migrants, or even most of them, but where crime patterns differ enough by group, people notice more, and it matters to them. Here in the UK, the drinks culture is such that the occasional domestic occurs, and alcohol-related pub/club brawls are not uncommon- but nobody cares about that shit, because people are used to it- it's a part of our culture.
The Left doesn't realise that high ingroup in two separate groups doesn't necessarily lead to outgroup hostility. What guarantees it will exist is the perception of unfairness and the lack of a level playing field, quite apart from the fact that bad incentives and special treatment are guaranteed to generate incompetence through the awareness that subordinates are not held to the same standards by the superordinate class.
They should be aiming for an integration approach. It's not race, it's culture. I've known a lot of people in the older generation of migrants to the UK. We were a success story on migration before the modern era of multiculturalism. The older generation made every effort to fit in and adopt the culture and customs of the West. They were/are basically British with a funny accent. I met an Asian with his family bloke down our boat dyke. He bought my aunt and I cappuccinos and remarked about my 'Make 1984 Fiction Again' T-shirt, mentioning that he had reread it again recently. We had a good discussion about the craziness of political correctness and the lack of free speech in the UK.
Basically, most countries in Europe have mismanaged integration since the mid-nineties. Migration before this period was a lot better.
They weren't the same kind of writer at all, so comparing them is an apples and oranges kind of way. Dostoyevsky spent much of his life financially insecure and outcast, but that allowed him to come to understand his own psychology and that of others; "The Gambler", based on his own experiences, is one of the few literary works that truly explores the psychology behind the people at the world's casinos. Whereas Tolkien grew up in a comparatively stable environment and had a steady job that allowed him to concentrate on his word paintings without thinking about making money off of them- he certainly was not thinking about how many people would be drawn into his world and idolize him later.
Very true, I must admit I relate more to Dost’s life and lifestyle and understand him on a certain level better than I do Tolkien due to being a social outcast and financially poor most of my life.
I only object to the industry and others holding him up as a bludgeon against anyone who doesn’t write just like him. Dostoevsky is a fascinating figure and a tragic and moving one. I still think about his last words.
The trouble is that the industry and academics have twisted him in my eyes as they once tried to do with Tolkien.
Some of your finest essay work yet, my friend. Your words are alight with passionate aplomb, and more importantly, your arguments are made from a position of conviction based in the realities of what's present in the works you're trying to uphold. Despite all the crowing of the naysayers, the merits that exist in the works of men like Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Yoshikawa, Dunsany, Dumas, and more are self evident. Their works are referenced today for a reason; returned to in the here and now for a reason; resonate with men even now for a reason. They are enduring, and it's not just based on the quality of what they wrote, but on the strength of the ideas they present and explore.
Merci, I’m just tired of pretending as well since some time ago. Elliot, Dost, writers like that are held up but the general reading public doesn’t care one iota about them.
And when you try to re-read them it is as Hemingway said it’s not fun or pleasant. It’s something that proves that the great writers of whom you listed are superior. Our cultures keeps referencing, adapting their works and keep turning to them because they’re what builds civilization.
I’m glad you liked this essay. I’m always nervous before I post essays like these.
You are on 🔥 today! I have long been aware, since my early teens, that the literary genre has been subverting traditional beliefs like family, piety, honor, and persevering hard work. While such works are attractive to an immature mind, titillating, and addictive, they leave one empty. The mythic, however, delivers hope and a desire to overcome and succeed against great odds. Literary fiction is good for a nice fire on a cold winter's night.
Agreed, and thanks, I agree and read a lot of this stuff in my early 20s and just could not see what it was that my professors loved so much about it. When I asked ‘why’ they told me I wasn’t a good reader or just ‘stupid’ or ‘ignorant’ and needed to shed my ‘privilege’ or ‘stop being so backwards’.
My preference for Tolkien and other such authors, who wrote of heroism and duty was never understood by them. They considered it ‘lower tier’ fiction when it never seemed quite right to me.
Ironically your last sentence is one that was echoed by a security guard I knew who was better read and better cultivated with film and cinema than the entire cinema and literary departments. I remember spending hours chatting him up and learning from him. I’m glad you like these essays.
A great article. It gives me encouragement that my stories are on the right track. I prefer that my heroes are honorable and have high moral standards. I see no reason to make them weird or weak in an attempt to make them interesting.
Methinks thou does protest too much. Not all the great ideas or stories are contained in a single genre. Elliot speaks to epic journeys of the soul. But thanks for your many insights.
Sure, so you protest too much? It's okay, I get it I spat out a lot of Truth in this article. Elliot speaks to no epic journeys, as her stories lack those unlike say Musashi or the Odyssey. There's no quest into the soul. As to the great ideas or stories non not all are contained within a single genre but the greatest ideas, commentaries on human nature and stories are contained within it. Because it is the longest and most enduring Genre in human history.
I'm glad you liked my many insights into the nature of literature. Good day sir.
To borrow a phrase from the Left, people react differently to diversity because their 'lived experiences' of diversity are entirely different in terms of experience, not perspective.
In wealthy communities or tertiary education people will be more similar, regardless of national origin, because the globalhomo class is the same wherever one travels in the world, despite many possessing bicultural backgrounds. For lesser mortals, ingroup is higher. People want to live in their own communities. They don't want to mix, and they are least likely to adapt to the local culture, its customs and values. When one two high ingroup communities live side-by-side, their is always going to be friction.
Those who love diversity are most likely to regularly encounter its most positive form, whilst those who dislike it have probably witnessed someone from another culture shitting in a ditch, his arse hanging out for the world to see (for example). A lack of etiquette over rubbish, parking, the playing of loud foreign music every weekend, are all common lesser complaints. The major complaints are often far worse.
I wholeheartedly agree, and ouais the globohomo class are all the same and don’t seem to see that they are supposed to be different as the leader of Germany should be wholly German for example, just as the leader of France should be French, and so on.
As to the diversity thing, I’ve had to deal with them taking up all the jobs in the countryside where I am, in all the cities, and also shitting everywhere and even had to deal with their negligence in the work place and so on. So that it’s a matter of observing the negative (and the murderous side of them) as you pointed out.
Obviously it's not all migrants, or even most of them, but where crime patterns differ enough by group, people notice more, and it matters to them. Here in the UK, the drinks culture is such that the occasional domestic occurs, and alcohol-related pub/club brawls are not uncommon- but nobody cares about that shit, because people are used to it- it's a part of our culture.
The Left doesn't realise that high ingroup in two separate groups doesn't necessarily lead to outgroup hostility. What guarantees it will exist is the perception of unfairness and the lack of a level playing field, quite apart from the fact that bad incentives and special treatment are guaranteed to generate incompetence through the awareness that subordinates are not held to the same standards by the superordinate class.
They should be aiming for an integration approach. It's not race, it's culture. I've known a lot of people in the older generation of migrants to the UK. We were a success story on migration before the modern era of multiculturalism. The older generation made every effort to fit in and adopt the culture and customs of the West. They were/are basically British with a funny accent. I met an Asian with his family bloke down our boat dyke. He bought my aunt and I cappuccinos and remarked about my 'Make 1984 Fiction Again' T-shirt, mentioning that he had reread it again recently. We had a good discussion about the craziness of political correctness and the lack of free speech in the UK.
Basically, most countries in Europe have mismanaged integration since the mid-nineties. Migration before this period was a lot better.
Fair assessment.
They weren't the same kind of writer at all, so comparing them is an apples and oranges kind of way. Dostoyevsky spent much of his life financially insecure and outcast, but that allowed him to come to understand his own psychology and that of others; "The Gambler", based on his own experiences, is one of the few literary works that truly explores the psychology behind the people at the world's casinos. Whereas Tolkien grew up in a comparatively stable environment and had a steady job that allowed him to concentrate on his word paintings without thinking about making money off of them- he certainly was not thinking about how many people would be drawn into his world and idolize him later.
Very true, I must admit I relate more to Dost’s life and lifestyle and understand him on a certain level better than I do Tolkien due to being a social outcast and financially poor most of my life.
I only object to the industry and others holding him up as a bludgeon against anyone who doesn’t write just like him. Dostoevsky is a fascinating figure and a tragic and moving one. I still think about his last words.
The trouble is that the industry and academics have twisted him in my eyes as they once tried to do with Tolkien.
To misquote Hans Johst, “When I hear the word ‘literary’ I reach for my revolver.” 😉
Lmao same
Some of your finest essay work yet, my friend. Your words are alight with passionate aplomb, and more importantly, your arguments are made from a position of conviction based in the realities of what's present in the works you're trying to uphold. Despite all the crowing of the naysayers, the merits that exist in the works of men like Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Yoshikawa, Dunsany, Dumas, and more are self evident. Their works are referenced today for a reason; returned to in the here and now for a reason; resonate with men even now for a reason. They are enduring, and it's not just based on the quality of what they wrote, but on the strength of the ideas they present and explore.
Merci, I’m just tired of pretending as well since some time ago. Elliot, Dost, writers like that are held up but the general reading public doesn’t care one iota about them.
And when you try to re-read them it is as Hemingway said it’s not fun or pleasant. It’s something that proves that the great writers of whom you listed are superior. Our cultures keeps referencing, adapting their works and keep turning to them because they’re what builds civilization.
I’m glad you liked this essay. I’m always nervous before I post essays like these.
You are on 🔥 today! I have long been aware, since my early teens, that the literary genre has been subverting traditional beliefs like family, piety, honor, and persevering hard work. While such works are attractive to an immature mind, titillating, and addictive, they leave one empty. The mythic, however, delivers hope and a desire to overcome and succeed against great odds. Literary fiction is good for a nice fire on a cold winter's night.
Agreed, and thanks, I agree and read a lot of this stuff in my early 20s and just could not see what it was that my professors loved so much about it. When I asked ‘why’ they told me I wasn’t a good reader or just ‘stupid’ or ‘ignorant’ and needed to shed my ‘privilege’ or ‘stop being so backwards’.
My preference for Tolkien and other such authors, who wrote of heroism and duty was never understood by them. They considered it ‘lower tier’ fiction when it never seemed quite right to me.
Ironically your last sentence is one that was echoed by a security guard I knew who was better read and better cultivated with film and cinema than the entire cinema and literary departments. I remember spending hours chatting him up and learning from him. I’m glad you like these essays.
A great article. It gives me encouragement that my stories are on the right track. I prefer that my heroes are honorable and have high moral standards. I see no reason to make them weird or weak in an attempt to make them interesting.
Very true, that’s how it should be. The thing is that the dishonourable drunken hedonist gets tiresome after awhile.
Methinks thou does protest too much. Not all the great ideas or stories are contained in a single genre. Elliot speaks to epic journeys of the soul. But thanks for your many insights.
Sure, so you protest too much? It's okay, I get it I spat out a lot of Truth in this article. Elliot speaks to no epic journeys, as her stories lack those unlike say Musashi or the Odyssey. There's no quest into the soul. As to the great ideas or stories non not all are contained within a single genre but the greatest ideas, commentaries on human nature and stories are contained within it. Because it is the longest and most enduring Genre in human history.
I'm glad you liked my many insights into the nature of literature. Good day sir.