Houellebecq was actually an altRight writer.
Hear me out:
>hates boomers and hippies
>hates nonwhites and muslims
>pessimistic about the future of the West
>degenerate himself like H. Thompson, but aware that its wrong
>humoristic, edgy criticisms
>masculine in a certain way (swag, in your face rebel attitude)
>100% reactionary
is he?
Other urls found in this thread:
theparisreview.org
galliawatch.blogspot.bg
ourworldindata.org
sciencedirect.com
twitter.com
He's just a reactionary. Alt-right usually has some STEMfag trash in it, which Houellebecq doesn't like that much.
No shit. He's been the unofficial poster boy for the altright the past few years. I live in a pretty fucking altright-like country and his books were stocked at newspaper stands when the migrant crisis was at its peak.
If I hear him cited by yet another eastern-European, someone will hang. Most likely me, but still.
>Houellebecq was actually an altRight writer
>masculine
epic
If anything Submission ad Possibilities of an Island are pieces of new sincerity. The authorial voice is a flat affect, his self loathing is evident, his loss of faith profound. His spiritual awakening is utterly materialistic, and he is very cynical and clear in communicating with the reader.
The alt-right, whatever its function as a necessary reaction to critical theory and post-structuralism applied legislatively by the left, is not a sincere movement.
>hates nonwhites and muslims
>masculine
% reactionary
Comte isn't STEMfag trash?
>people who think 'meme magic' is funny, praise Lord Kek, watch anime, engage in circlejerks, and whine like children all day
>masculine
>humoristic
makes you think
Not really. Alt right requires discussion of the jewish problem and no one would know Houellebecq's name if he broached that subject seriously.
breh
theparisreview.org
INTERVIEWER
What attracts you to science fiction?
HOUELLEBECQ
I think sometimes I need a break from reality. In my own writing, I think of myself as a realist who exaggerates a little. But one thing definitely influenced me in The Call of Cthulhuby H.P. Lovecraft: his use of different points of view. Having a diary entry, then a scientist’s log, followed by the testimony of the local idiot. You can see that influence in The Elementary Particles, where I go from discussions of animal biology, to realism, to sociology. If not for science fiction, my biggest influences would all belong to the nineteenth century.
INTERVIEWER
You are a fan of the nineteenth-century social reformers, especially Auguste Comte, the founder of Positivism.
HOUELLEBECQ
Most people find Comte unreadable because he repeats himself to the point of madness. And medically speaking, he certainly wasn’t far from insanity. As far as I know, he is the only philosopher who tried to commit suicide. He threw himself into the Seine because of a broken heart. They pulled him out and he spent six months in a sanitorium. And this was the father of Positivism, which is considered to be the height of rationalism.
...
And I am a curmudgeonly pain in the ass because I refuse to diverge from the scientific method or to believe there is a truth beyond science.
you must separate the creator from his work.
what he writes doesn´t refelct his personal oopinion.
>The alt right is a the kekistani crowd
Topkek, they can't even handle the White Sharia memes. Secularists and egalitarians from /r/Veeky Forums who came to /pol/ for edgy humor aren't alt right.
Comte is surely not taken as a good person in Houellebecq books and his philosophy is just delusional and bad even if it was right.
Such a good author and such a shit fanbase. Same as Murakami and Cortázar.
He's definitely a far rightist of sorts, but I wouldn't really call him "reactionary" or even "conservative" in the proper sense. He just doesn't give a shit about taboos and ideology and is willing to call a spade a spade (if you honestly think mass third world immigration is good, you're a fucking retard). IIRC, he and his wife are swingers, and he's often said that while he agrees that a lot of things were better in the past (pre-sexual revolution), he doesn't think you can go back. More than anything, I would characterize him as a Schopenhauerian pessimist, and this is a far better lens through which to understand his ideas than a narrowly political one. I believe he's said that he considers Brave New World a utopia and has always identified with Nietzsche's Last Man. This is pretty much where I'm at.
>humour
humour is uniquly masculine phenomennon. its a defense mechanism towards nihilism, a form of stoicim really
>he and his wife are swingers, and he's often said that while he agrees that a lot of things were better in the past (pre-sexual revolution), he doesn't think you can go back
similar to people like Evola/Sam Hyde, knows his degeneracy and hates himself for it.
AltRight is a weird state, its entirely undefined, it knows what it is not, but not entirely what it is since it doesnt belive in Jesus Christ the true Saviour.
that makes AltRight a pretty Nietzschean movement.
>If I hear him cited by yet another eastern-European, someone will hang.
well shit, Im an east-european...sort of.
>Alt right requires discussion of the jewish problem
yeah, but by "taste" he feels altright - edgy, rebelious, hates postmodern state of teh west...
He's sort of alt-right, but not really. For example, his "Soumission" was very nicely marketed as an anti-Islam work, but in reality it focused on the theme that he's been harping on for decades: the moral and spiritual decay of the intellectual class in the western world.
A more straightforwardly "alt-right" author would be Raspail with his "Camp of the Saints".
This.
>altright
>STEM
the only pretence of scientism you will find in the alt-right is racial realism, which is almost always approached unscientifically.
Houellebecq is an individualist bohemiene, is character is closer to the ones of Baudelaire and Bataille more than anything else. He is certainly a reactionary, and he is certainly elitist, but this sentiment comes from somewhere else (mainly his self-identification with the class of bourgeoise genius bohemien French writers and poets of the second part of the XIX century and the very first part of the XX century.
To call him alt-right is to delete any trace of nuance from his character.
>similar to people like Evola/Sam Hyde, knows his degeneracy and hates himself for it.
This is something that the dissident right will have to acknowledge if it hopes to survive. The "degeneracy" that /pol/ types resist--Jewish cultural influence, deviant sexualities, addiction to mass media and Hollywood for information--is very much a part of who they are, whether they recognize it or not. I don't think that they are as prepared to give up the fruits of liberalism as they pretend, or if they even can.
>the moral and spiritual decay of the intellectual class in the western world
hatred toward the mainstream intellectual class is a common theme in the alt Right. pre altRight writers like Sowell (Intelelctuals and society) and other right wing libertarians touched on that also.
Raspail is offcourse on the team.
>the only pretence of scientism you will find in the alt-right is racial realism, which is almost always approached unscientifically.
The STEM fetischisting faggotry is pronounced in altRight, but its probably only a reaction towards current intellectual class on humanities and soc science since plenty of us are into tradTM living etc.
Apple style technoFuturistic optimism is rejected.
>race
I fail to see, how is racial approach unscientific, maybe it might be too much into technocratic scientism(Richard Lynn) transhumanism (Jason Jorjani) , but I dont know what is actually unscientific about acknoledging race.
>but aware that its wrong
Nothing wrong about it unless you're hurting others.
> the only pretence of scientism you will find in the alt-right is racial realism, which is almost always approached unscientifically.
What? The people who use statistics to show differences between races are not the ones who deserve fingers pointed at them; the utopian universalists ignoring those statistics and trying to make people believe everyone is equal are in the wrong here.
>is very much a part of who they are, whether they recognize it or not. I don't think that they are as prepared to give up the fruits of liberalism as they pretend, or if they even can.
spot on.
There is a strong cognitive dissonance - rationally, Christian moral (particually sexual moral) is superior, but many of altRightist are Post-modern deviants themselves...and so was H Thompson.
Thompson liked the rebel character too much to put his rejection of progessivism to its logical conclussion and become an authentic traditionalist, with altright its similar.
Never the less, part of altRight are genuine christians like myself (I assume you are not), which I hope well "hold back this day". I do understand and respect authentic nihilists more than humanist progressives.
>Thinking that liberals have the brain power to entertain statistical discrepancies
They can't even get past the fact that the existence of outliers does not disprove the existence of modality
Houellebecq is lookismcore, not le alt right shit (fairly obvious considering he hates America and The West)
>Statistics to show differences between races
Do you see what is wrong here?
>A more straightforwardly "alt-right" author would be Raspail with his "Camp of the Saints".
Raspail was actually pretty eastaboo, he liked traditional cultures of all kinds as long as they stayed there. American alt-right actually thinks in the terms of white race, exactly because they are american and have no distinct white culture like us in Europe.
The google manifesto from last month was done by a disgusting STEMfag that has never read a philosophy book. I personally think any scientism should be eradicated from any new right-wing movements. We should adopt Horkheimer as our philosopher regarding the Poppers and Dawkins.
Nagle please.
Wew, you're singing my tune. Seems I've wasted a lot of minutes lately explaining how outliers don't matter and why that white-presenting black acquaintance who seems cool is not representative of the general population.
STEM = Spiritual homosexual
I also believe that any new radical movement must necessarily be Heideggerian
>does not know how research in genetics work
>does not know what the Flynn effect is, nor what epigenetics
>muh infographic
I don't want to open this can of worm, but what you are calling science are just speculations made by untrained auto-didacts. You might trust and believe in them, but at no point the scientific method is used in those infographics.
Truth being told, genetics is an extremely complex field, always evolving (it's a recent one too, don't forget it!), and as such most of the informations you can find on the internet are either manifactured, misinterpreted or (this is the most common case) outdated. This happens on all fronts, it's not a problem inherent of the alt-right,
>I fail to see, how is racial approach unscientific
I haven't made any such absolutist claim: I was merely talking about what is the usual alt-right approach to STEM subjects, which is usually race realism explained through unscientific infographics that could not hold any degree of scrutiny in a peer-reviewed journal, which is the main prerequisite of any scientific claim.
>The google manifesto from last month was done by a disgusting STEMfag that has never read a philosophy book.
That Google employee was not an alt-righter, nor has he mentioned race. His manifesto was about free speech in corporate spaces.
I didn't know he was an eastaboo, since in his book he included the Chinese in his depiction of the "coloured masses"; hordes of them overran the Soviet Union. Also, his depiction of the Indian embassy worker who stays with the white heroes until their final demise suggests that he's only acceptable because he culturally totally different from his racial peers.
>American alt-right actually thinks in the terms of white race,
They think of white brotherhood versus killing each other endless amounts of wars while other races outpace us in birth rates due to our support. Americans still have differences between Germans, Scandis, English, Irish, Italians, etc. Although it isn't as prominent as in Europe.
Unfortunately there are a lot of white mongrels like me (half Irish half German) so yes, we do tend to think in terms of "white".
Also in terms of scientism,I'll give a nice quote by Georges Sorel
There is nothing wrong there. People are different and behavioral statistics prove how that is so.
>americans
>white
Georges Sorel on reality
>He dismissed science as "a system of idealised entities: atoms, electric charges, mass, energy and the like – fictions compounded out of observed uniformities... deliberately adapted to mathematical treatment that enable men to identify some of the furniture of the universe, and to predict and... control parts of it." [1; 301] He regarded science more as "an achievement of the creative imagination, not an accurate reproduction of the structure of reality, not a map, still less a picture, of what there was. Outside of this set of formulas, of imaginary entities and mathematical relationships in terms of which the system was constructed, there was ‘natural’ nature – the real thing…" [1; 302] He regarded such a view as "an odious insult to human dignity, a mockery of the proper ends of men", [1; 300] and ultimately constructed by "fanatical pedants", [1; 303] out of "abstractions into which men escape to avoid facing the chaos of reality." [1; 302]
>France
>White
Pic related shows the percent at which children born in France have sickle cell anemia, a physical mutation present only in Africans.
>Britain
>White
London is less than half white and had a Muslim mayor. You're just as fucked as us, buddy.
I agree, people are different. But "statistics to show differences between races" is just stupid bullshit that ignores a lot of social issues.
Don't understand why people keep debating this when Goethe proved that science is just narrative/dialogue way back in 1792
Sorry, I'm Finnish.
There is almost not a single reactionary since de Maistre that doesn't respect other cultures.
>galliawatch.blogspot.bg
>- Are you a racist?
>- No, not at all! You can't spend your life traveling the world, be a member of the Society of French Explorers, meet I don't know how many endangered populations, and be a racist. That would be hard, it seems to me. When it came out in 1972 the book shocked people tremendously, and for a reason. There was a period, notably during the seven-year term of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing when a veritable intellectual terrorism was employed against right-wing writers
Racism towards other cultures is actually an Enlightenment sentiment that the anglo cucks and their disgusting imperialism have left us all to pay for.
Oh you mean those "social issues" that continually try to blame whites for black dysfunctionality? Don't come in here talking about science if you're going to regurgitate these tropes. Whites don't care about these social factors, we are proving insurmountable evolutionary difference to encourage eventual separation.
>Do you see what is wrong here?
No. A century long reasearch from anthropology, psychology, soc and crimonology all tell the same unlike progressive egalitarianism.
>The google manifesto from last month was done by a disgusting STEMfag that has never read a philosophy book.
SJW FAGGOT
How does that put the BigNoseCoder in wrong there? Basically telling that the king is naked and sex differences are a reality.
>which is usually race realism explained through unscientific infographics that could not hold any degree of scrutiny in a peer-reviewed journal
(((peer reviewed journal)))
lets not pretend race isnt a taboo in BillNyescienceTM shall we? Popper was right.
More importantly, it ignores every possible epigenetical factor, and elements such as schooling, well-being and nutrition, which accounts for half of our IQ.
>Finngolian calling other people not white
You're on thin ice, Mr mongol.
>>masculine in a certain way
lol
Behaviorism is retarded and manipulative. And so are statistics, which can be manipulated like voodoo to fill up newspaper space with idiotic research like "coffee is making your younger"and in the next issue you'd have "coffee is giving you cancer". Leave statistics idiot, you're playing a losing game with the leftists and the rationalist liberals with it.
I know. But my puukko is sharp. Always.
Exactly.
>(((peer reviewed journal)))
We are talking about genetics, not your feelings.
You should check on the IQ growth in the European population in the last 500 years. You are ignoring these fsctors, which are real, only because you don't feel they are right. Well, using your logic Germans would have been considered subhumans 500 years ago, while now they are above average.
Pic related, but on a shorter timeframe.
>SJW FAGGOT
Quite the opposite really. You are working in the same paradigm with SJWs with your science and statistics. Real right-wing change will come from people with a more idealist/spiritual understanding of reality.
>Every discrepancy between races is egpigenetic
Except we know for sure fact that MAO-A varies genetically and that's a moronic assumption?
>Every discrepancy between races is environmental/due to a conspiracy theory of institutional racism
No
>Houellebecq is altRight
>hates nonwhites and muslims
You obviously can't read.
So fucking what? It's not the job of white people to uplift everyone else. We have a right to our own nations and it's not our concern what other groups may or may not be capable of. People are different. That's a fact. Statistics are one way to show that, and you are not proving otherwise here.
>it ignores every possible epigenetical factor, and elements such as schooling, well-being and nutrition, which accounts for half of our IQ.
this is bullshit, all these factors are easily proved bogus by controlling it via statistics or by group tracking by generation. Proved numourous times over a century long period since Piaget.
>>>masculine in a certain way
>lol
Yeah, sort of melodramatic almost comically heroic pose he takes. Traditional masculine behaviour
>You should check on the IQ growth in the European population in the last 500 years.
yeah it has risen, so has the black IQ as Flynn explained. The question you avoid to push our bs is how much.
>THERE IS NO RACE THERE IS ONLY THE HUMAN RACE
>CURRENT YEAR
>Real right-wing change will come from people with a more idealist/spiritual understanding of reality.
you dont have to be a STEM Comte style technocratic autist to see that science isnt inheretly bad
This has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The initial point was how close are altrighters to STEM fields. Nobody here has said anything about what white people ought to do.
Chill out.
Btw, where is this graph from?
People present IQ differences, you rush in with muh Flynn Effect. Why? You want to leave open the possibility that non-white groups may be able to catch up. Your agenda is plain here.
>We have a right to our own nations
So who the fuck is taking your nation away from you?
The people who have been inviting in millions of non-whites.
>this is bullshit, all these factors are easily proved bogus by controlling it via statistics or by group tracking by generation. Proved numourous times over a century long period since Piaget.
Piaget was a continental philosopher and psychologist who was acquainted only with the very first step in genetic research (he died only 12 years after the discovery of DNA).
>THERE IS NO RACE THERE IS ONLY THE HUMAN RACE
>CURRENT YEAR
I have not said any such thing. Can you read?
Seriously, I have made literally zero assumptions and zero prescriptions: why the fuck do you guys still manage to get so triggered? Is it that hard for you to debate in a civil manner?
Here it is
ourworldindata.org
Too bad I haven't said any such thing. You are like those feminists who question werher equations are chauvinists or feminist. In your case the idea of epigenetics is enough to disgruntle you.
And your nation is not your nation because there are non-whites in it? If the only fucking thing that makes your nation is the colour of your skin, then it deserves to be taken away from "you".
>humour is uniquly masculine phenomennon. its a defense mechanism towards nihilism, a form of stoicim really
I was gonna make a contemptuous post but I read the rest of your post and I'm more laughing at you and amused by you than wanting to offend you
The illiteracy shows. Read a history book, sperg.
>You want to leave open the possibility that non-white groups may be able to catch up
Well, all the best to them if they can, I couldnt mind it as an east euro sort of whitey, but to say that IQ doesnt have a strong hereditary component is just mental gymnastics.
IQ is very primitive, its more about processing speed, recalling numbers etc., nothing entirely fascinating and complex like culture or creativity but its still important.
>So who the fuck is taking your nation away from you?
niggers&sandnigggers&jews desu.
nation=lat. natus=by birth. all nations are ethnostates essentialy.
>Piaget was a continental philosopher and psychologist who was acquainted only with the very first step in genetic research
lapsus, I meant Binet. and? what is your point. Binet hasnt even researched race diff. Genetic research only enhanced race diff in IQ reserch (to the level of censorship allowed offcourse).
there was some crazy Jap that developed an IQ test based on blood sample that predicts 60% of your intelligence
>I was gonna make a contemptuous post but I read the rest of your post and I'm more laughing at you and amused by you than wanting to offend you
buy yourself some knitted clothing.
"Nation" is literally another word for race. Natio, the Latin word nation is derived from, means "tribe."
An institution, such as a nation, is only strong and meaningful if it rejects everything that is not itself. If any foreigner can join the institution and there are no requirements for membership, then being a member of said nation means nothing and the nation collapses under its own weakness and lack of definition
In the past people demanded a certain degree of assimilation and respect from immigrants. But now we demand nothing, and it is debatable whether those who force their way in (against the will of the people according to virtually every major survey in the Western world) actually add anything of benefit to the original peoples and their culture
>there was some crazy Jap that developed an IQ test based on blood sample that predicts 60% of your intelligence
The Flynn's effect accounts for about a but more than half of your IQ being inherently genetic.
>I'm not willing to overcome my retarded tribal istincts
>I'll behave as a caveman with guns and electronic devices
Is it wrong if people don't want to dumb down their entire existence in the same way you're dumbing down yours?
>Natio, the Latin word nation is derived from, means "tribe."
even more latin vb. nativus = born, nation=by birth
>The Flynn's effect accounts for about a but more than half of your IQ
Hereditary effect of IQ is at least 60%.
Flynn is about 10-20 points but the catch is that it brings IQ down in the long run, since most of the improvement is in lower IQ tiers (and genetics dont change unlike environment), Victorians were actually more IQ than current whites.
>retarded tribal istincts
what is retarded about it?
>inb4 - low IQ people are more tribal
yes they are. does that allow you to make a logical fallacy?
>So fucking what? It's not the job of white people to uplift everyone else.
It is actually.
I dont mind being a faustian as long as it doesnt backfire, wait a sec...
I strongly appreciate individuality and the urge to reject herd instincts, but... The fact is simply that if your entire tribe embraces individualism, you as an individual are forever subject to the will of other tribes who are not so willing to give up their "caveman" instincts
Individuality really only works if everybody chooses it, and even then it is often only a superficial sense of individuality, wherein people unconsciously join-up with foreign tribes for a culture and sense of community and purpose without realizing it
And as much as I like individuality, I am not sure I prize it enough to live my life in submission to hostile powers. It might be better to cautiously align yourself with a tribe that shares your general precepts and promotes a culture and history you respect
>t. brown-skin squatter.
Your people come to our countries because they contain what you could never build. But it's not our job to host you and you're going to have to go back.
>Roux de Poux that hates roody poos
pottery
We all know this.
Shame this thread got so side-tracked with autist sperging about genetics, but yeah this is basically /thread.
There is also, the brilliant reason he chose to focus Submission on Huysmans (a rebours)...huysmans work was itself almost a mirror of what Houellebecq did in submission. In a rebours, the main character continually searches in vain for ever more exquisite forms of sensory pleasure, but it only leads to an ever more endless pit of nothingness...in real life after this novel, Huysman converted to catholicism and lived in an abbey.
There is a marvelous parallel going on here with submission, which explains a culture (modern france) where the 'liberated' working women dress up like whores to go to work, high heels, short skirts, but after they come home they dress like slobs and are too worn out and depressed for sex. A culture completely ripe for fundamental revolutionary spiritual change.
If anything, Houellebecq is closer to a traditionalist than fitting along some fake/gay left-right spectrum.