I'm reading The Elementary Particles right now and its pretty good. Why do people talk about this ugly bastard like hes some kind of arch-reactionary or fascist or something? I see these from people denouncing him and from /pol/ types trying to claim him as one of theirs. He likes to poke at liberals a bit, but mostly he just seems depressed.
I'm reading The Elementary Particles right now and its pretty good...
Other urls found in this thread:
He writes about how people now are systematically conditioned to be isolated and unfulfilled in life. There's no sense of community, nothing binding us together, nothing beyond ourselves -- we've become a bunch of lonely individuals. I think /pol/ misunderstands him, thinking that because he criticizes the status quo he necessarily agrees with their ridiculous political views.
Because if you speak out against sexual liberation you can only ever be an anti-enlightenment Satan.
It's the biggest ( and maybe only ) victory of the 1960's and thin-skinned boomers can't handle the fact someone offers a convincing critique against their dynamiting of the mores surrounding sexuality and the destruction of the family unit.
/pol assumes ANYBODY criticising the status quo is either a leftist brony or one of them. And they certainly don\t read stuff on Houllebecq level.
>He writes about how people now are systematically conditioned to be isolated and unfulfilled in life.
this only holds for men.
Women have the best life a human have ever had so far. If only men listened to women and accepted that men are a commodity to women, then men would be non resentful.
good sex makes women happy and makes men feel valued
...
...
>not being part of the asexual masterrace
>Why do people talk about this ugly bastard like hes some kind of arch-reactionary or fascist or something?
Because he is one of the few people nowadays who offers a critique of modernity that isn't "YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE MALE!"
That automatically makes him a shitlord in many people's eyes.