/lit/ - Literature

another french wank who thinks total self destruction is le super vogue

who cares

that is disgusting. makes sense he'd write shit /r9k/ books

>>5836547
It doesn't look voluntary.

>>5836553
"The terrible predicament of a beautiful girl is that only an experienced womanizer, someone cynical and without scruple, feels up to the challenge. More often than not, she will lose her virginity to some filthy lowlife in what proves to be the first step in an irrevocable decline.”

PRAY FOR HOUELLEBECQ

He's french, so it's natural.

>>5836741
He's the Céline of our times.

>>5836715
Fascinating.

>>5836755
>He's the Céline of our times.

>>5836763
Do you disagree?

>>5836757
“It is interesting to note that the "sexual revolution" was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word "household" suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day.”

>>5836541
That's for a role. He's loaded with makeup and that's not his hair.

“Every time I heard that a Palestinian terrorist, or a Palestinian child or a pregnant Palestinian woman, had been gunned down in the Gaza Strip, I felt a quiver of enthusiasm at the thought of one less Muslim”

>>5836805

Yikes

>>5836805
He's honest

>>5836805
he's like a human pepe

>>5836790
what does that even mean

>>5836805
"Islam could only have been born in a stupid desert, among filthy Bedouins who had nothing better to do — pardon me — than bugger their camels"

>>5836805
#becqt

>>5836541
After reading a number of his books this past year--thanks, /lit/--I can say it totally makes sense. It's unfortunate that he's wrecking his body, but it seems like an inevitable end.

RIP Houellebecq. Please finish a few more books before you drop.

>>5836842
>>5836805
Everynight, I cry myself to sleep for not having written these lines.

>>5836852
Where would I start if I'm new to his work?

>>5836861
Les particules élémentaires
La possibilité d'une île
La carte et le territoire

are all good

>>5836867
Do you miss out on a lot when reading him translated? These quotes itt seem to hold up well at least, or are good in their own right.

>>5836861
I read Whatever first. Good stuff. Then I read Platform. Damn good stuff. Then I read The Elementary Particles. Probably his best.

I have The Map and the Territory on my wish list for next year because there's always next year.

>>5836819

Just another right-wing cliche about how the left wants to destroy the family. Scruton calls it "okiophobia". Pope Francis recently said the devil wants to destroy the family. Republicans say "entitlements" destroy the nuclear family. Jesus pretty much said he would destroy the family, but he gets pass cause he's Jesus.

>>5836883
I don't think so; his prose isn't that particular for a translation to really lose something out there.

>>5836921
Non-Americans refer to capitalism when they say liberalism, not leftism.

>>5836921
He's saying quite the opposite, and you're quite retarded.

>>5836867

bullshit start with "whatever"

>>5836921
>>5836929
Yes. You are being american. Confusing social liberalism and economic liberalism.

>>5836921
Why would someone want to destroy the family. It's the most important thing there is.

>>5836790

it makes sense then why the boomers became the ultimate capitalists and hippies members of the establishment.

>>5837005
That largely depends on your family.

>>5837005
€€€

THANK YOU MICHEL

>>5836842
The lines about Islam being particularily cruel because of it's extreme interpretation of monotheism was actually pretty interesting. Platform was overall not very interesting though.

so is this guy like some kind of philosopher prole-king?

>>5836986
Anyone who uses terms like "economic liberalism" and misuses "social liberalism" like you did is definitely politically illiterate himself, regardless of wheter or not he's american

>>5836857
I'm sure you wouldn't take you, or anybody, a lot of effort to think of something as cutting-edge and politically incorrect as that so there's nothing to cry about

Those lines, they are all very consistent with the prevailing anti-muslim sentiments on the west aren't they. It's similar to Hitchens' speech about how happy he'd be if a country like Iran and everybody who lived in it disappeared from the map, or Harris and his dreams of a nuclear strike against the islamic world. It reminds me of an young atheist daring god to strike him dead "if he really exists" or something. I know it's meant to be a slap on the face of the politically correct establishment, but when I picture the reaction I'm not even capable of imagining shock or outrage. I know it's there, but I can't. I can only picture people aftewards staring blankly and asking them "you okay now? got that off your chest?"

>>5837245
>the politically correct establishment
the politically correct establishment vacillates between a fear of islam and a love of it as an alternative to traditional western values. this is why most mainstream media is loathe to touch it as too often that requires taking some decisive stance.

>>5837245
also i'd say that while you're right that it doesn't take much to think up clever ways of shitting on islam, (much like christianity,) islam has followers that actually retaliate for those views (threats/attacks.) I don't think harris or hitchens were preening over their statements; i think they them because they knew the very act was subversive in the face of a faith that won't tolerate those actions.

>>5836755
He looks more like the Justine of our times, though.

I'm that skinny and I limit the bad things that go inside of me. I'm fucked

>>5836776
We just ignore anyone who posts anime pictures, their opinions are worth shit.

>>5836755
lol
no he's not. Céline create a new style of writing "sa petite musique" like he said.
Houellbecq doesn't.

He writes and acts as though he doesn't give a single fuck. That's what I like about him. There's no pretense or appeal for popularity.

>52 replies in and no 'Houellebecq girl' joke yet
Come on

>>5836843
underrated post

>>5837005
Patriarchy.

>>5836556
the nose never lies

>>5836927
b-but le tenses! le je suis courant!

>>5836541
Is this like the literary equivalent of Cricket from It's Always Sunny?

>>5836541

>reading Houellebecq
>X sucks
>X sucks too
>X is the worst
>Y is ok

How can anyone like this constant complaining?

>>5836790
This is a really, really good quote. I can't tell how accurate it is without doing some research, but it just makes you wish you were the one that thought of it and could drop on conversations about sex and sexism

>>5838027
It's intelligent complaining.

>>5836541
Holy shit is this the guy whose books I read?

>>5837976
why so fast? what's he doing to his body :(

>>5836541
yeah i'm thinking he's gonna die soon.

>>5837976
That's what success did to him i guess.

>>5838161
>what's he doing to his body
A whole lot of drinking, obviously.
UUUUAAAAAAAGH THE FRENCH

>>5838161
Im not sure if the 2004 is truly the 2004 (I just googled him + 2004 and pick a referential pic), but most probably its not very indiferrent

>>5838161
chain smoking and probably drinking a lot. i bet he eats like shit as well, he doesn't look like the cooking type.

>people age
wowitsfuckingnothing

>>5838419
>looking like a 75 year old wreck when actually 58
>normal and okay

>>5838161
>>5837976
See
>>5836797

>>5838209
champagne

>>5837282
Goddamn, I couldn't finish that book.

>>5838451
he had cancer or something that almost kill him 2-3 years ago. That why he looks so old and lost his teeth.

>>5838161
Meth is a helluva drug.

>>5837616
>>5837623
>>5837624

damn...

>>5837005
How is it the most important thing?

>>5836541
wow that picture. yes, I am worried

>>5836892
>Then I read Platform
there's one blurb in the first pages of my copy thats says something like, "there were times I felt like throwing this book across the room but I kept on reading"
I agree lol, Houellebecq is based

>>5836805
>>5836808
>>5836813
>>5836816
>>5836842
>>5836843
>>5836857

If he said that about Jews he'd never be able to publish again.

He would be shot dead.

>>5837616
>>5837623
>>5837624
While I agree this seems similar to the 'nice guy' copout of blaming your own problems on influences beyond your control.

>>5840383
Thanks for this insightful post.

>>5840491

Influences beyond your control do exist.

Just read some of his essays.

I don't dislike him too much, but I really think it's true he's just another frog intellectual who thinks referencing to "vulgar American culture" makes you stand out as a man of good taste and nihilism is still the superb edge.

Something about frogs and the theatrics of being an intellectual.

Dude's also a wife swapper.

>>5840491

That's his whole point.
'Nice guys' are on the 'evolutionary' disadvantage in this society and you can't just go "WELL FUCK THOSE LOSERS THEN :D" without showing you're somewhat complicit in perpetuating today's social and economic system.

I don't know if his own life is sexless. As I don't care about the messenger that much in this.

>>5840491
>women dont owe you sex, you mysoginist! Stop blaming society for your own failures!
>the government doesn't owe you a job, you communist! Stop blaming society for your own failures!

>>5838027
It's called "being French"

>>5840491
This is the sexual equivalent of saying "if people don't like being poor why don't they work harder?"

>>5837616
>>5837623
>>5837624
This is some insightful shit.

>>5840708
But why don't they work harder?

>>5840846
lolbertarian pls

>>5840708
While I don't really care if poor people had a decent standard of living, I'd rather incompetent autists not reproduce. Life might be a right, but reproduction isn't nor should it be.

>>5840913
They may not be autists, but incompetent dumb violent fools tend to breed the most of all.

>>5840921
That's correct. If a poor, ugly, wretched half-wit can get laid and you can't, then there's something wrong with you.

And by the way, if you're poor, then it probably IS your fault. While some people have massive advantages, in this age of grants and public education, anyone can go through college or get vocational training if they are sufficiently motivated.

>>5840491
>This sounds similar to something said by people who people I like say I shouldn't like [negative cognitive association: "nice guy"] therefore it's wrong.

>>5836776

>>5836790
Early Communists e.g. Kollontai, Lukacs said exactly the same thing, except replace "communism" with "reactionary values" and "market" with "state".

>>5840952
They argued that the household is reactionary?

>>5837005
Not as important as the paradise of the working man, comrade! The family is the primary means of transmission of retrograde, reactionary ideals from one generation to the next.

>>5840966
Like forcing your kids to go to church?

>>5840708
>>5840647
The thing is that sex isn't like wealth, you can't give out quantities of it (despite what porn might lead you to believe). I don't think that sex in itself (regardless of conditions such as sexual attractiveness) is prized that highly because if it was, it would undermine the very problem that it is trying to solve: everyone would have hambeast sex and nobody would be put in the permavirgin position so as to need "bare sex".

tl;dr Permavirgins would exist regardless of sexual communism (or whatever it'd be called, to make it sound secular).

Why are the French so delightful?

>>5840959
As far as I can tell, this started with Friedrich Engels' Origin of the Family.
"With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not."
Engels, 1884

"The state does not need the family, because the domestic economy is no longer profitable: the family distracts the worker from more useful and productive labour. The members of the family do not need the family either, because the task of bringing up the children which was formerly theirs is passing more and more into the hands of the collective. "
Alexandra Kollontai, 1921

"

The place of the family as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be occupied, according to plans, by a finished system of social care and accommodation: maternity houses, creches, kindergartens, school and hospitals, sanatoria, athletic organisations, film theatres, etc.
The complete absorption of the housekeeping functions of the family by institutions of the socialist society, uniting all generations in solidarity and mutual aid, was to bring women, and thereby to the loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-old fetters."
Trotsky, 1936

>>5841024
Or, to add, maybe he was talking about having a partner as being the important part. But in that case he's almost advocating for a nuclear family using Christian values and yet showing how ridiculous the concept of monogamy can be at the same time. Cool, but probably not what he was trying to do.

>>5841024
>The thing is that sex isn't like wealth, you can't give out quantities of it
Yes you can. In fact sex deprivation is a common female economical sanction within relationships.

>>5836790
I disagree. It was to displace the individual and bring him further into the collective. Sex is now a pseudo-collective bargaining act. Not that unions have more power, but that collectivism has turned into something grotesque.

>>5840926
im not disagreeing with you in the last analysis but if you either went through or tried to teach in a poor area youd know the idea of 'public education' is at best a joke, at worst a tragedy.

you seem to believe schools are of uniform quality across all the US, or whatever countries you are living. even before doing any research, i think it should be obvious to occur to you that a condition of equal quality in public education in the US would be implausible. the money comes from taxation of the district.

schools in poor neighborhoods cant offer the services nor employ the same talent as wealthy neighborhoods.

>>5841062
Not my point, the thing is that "pure sex" is not a thing such as "pure wealth" (money). To get slightly technical, desire is about drive more than pleasure (a side effect of any sexual act, but not the reward triggered itself - if it was, masturbation > sex any day of the week) and this makes it difficult to talk in terms of sex when we try to speak about satisfaction or happiness and thus we use vague terms such as "love".

>>5841123
Where does prostitution fit in your theory?

>>5841123
Money isn't a thing either, it's a medium of exchange. You're being semantic, but I feel that your point is that sex is "more complicated than that, and involves complicated emotions and things that nobody can map down to a simple system like economics".

I would like this to be the case, but as I grow older it seems less likely and peoples' behavior seems more obvious. But to explain Houellebecq's point maybe, there are lots of things in human existence that are complicated, multifaceted and involve lots of emotions and ideals. Capitalism as a system of organization has the tendency of stripping those complexities away and assimilating them into itself. Every human interaction becomes some kind of exchange of commodity in a free market. After the initial capitalist revolution, sex was still controlled by arbitrary laws that were based on tradition and not on principles of freedom. When these restrictions are stripped away, in a society which is otherwise capitalist, sexual relations become another facet of capitalist exchange.

The very abstract ideas of "love" that you purport are part of the old system of religion and idealism that were the support structure for the restrictions placed on sexuality. By freeing ourselves from these restrictions, we're necessarily going to be doing away with those ideals.

>>5841116
>im not disagreeing with you in the last analysis but if you either went through or tried to teach in a poor area youd know the idea of 'public education' is at best a joke, at worst a tragedy.
True, but you don't need to be a patrician to not be poor. Just getting a high enough grade to go to college or vocational school isn't that hard, even if you wouldn't exactly be scholarship material.

Becoming rich is not easy, and if you're born poor it's practically impossible, but making enough money to not be poor and to retire upon is possible for anyone who is sufficiently motivated to do so, there's just a fuck ton of programs to help these days, 'I was born poor' is no longer and excuse.' I won't deny it makes it significantly harder, but unless you have a crippling mental deficiency (in which case you'd qualify for plenty of state support), it's very doable to get out of poverty, and how it's done is no big secret, everyone knows it.

>>5840719
lol its like you plebs don't visit r9k at all

>>5836556
>long nasty hair
>cigarettes
>disgusting grungey clothes

Those are all choices

>>5836541
>huelebbq
literally

w h o
h
o

world health organization

#WHO
H
O

>>5841349
Not with mental illness.

You need to be French to realize how much of a fraud Houellebecq is.

He even got convicted of copyright infrigment for pasting entire paragraphs from wikipedia in a recent book.

>>5841405
That's pretty funny and admirable.

>>5836790

I read this last night and I've been thinking about it all day. It's a brilliant bit of thinking.

I think there's a great deal of truth to it, and I wonder where we go as a society from here.

For my part, I think there must be a radical change in marriage. Marriage was a disaster in the past: domination, oppression, dehumanization, bad for women; it made them property like.

The only rational reason for marriage I can think of is as a potent tonic for lifelong loneliness, needed by some more than others.

Marriage must be reconstructed and reasserted as a mutually beneficial endeavor which furthers the humanity and joy experienced by both men and women. This sort of relationship occurs but haphazardly; most people don't think of marriage as some profound and lifelong instance of mutual humanization. Or maybe they do. I'm not sure.

Possessiveness is the enemy of love and all good things.

What do you all think?

>>5841510

>Thinking

That's where you got it wrong, you nihilistic faggot.

>>5841405
How can someone own the copyright for text on Wikipedia when it's basically a collection of external sources?

>>5841580

Maybe the lawsuit mentioned plagiarism instead. Fuck if I know, too lazy to look up the case.

>>5841510
>Marriage was a disaster in the past

Really? It seemed to work pretty well until very recently.

>>5841405
There's other more controversial things that have happened to Houellebecq, such as when his own mother sued him for libel.

>>5841144
I wasn't saying that sex cannot be bought, just that it has no fixed rate as one form of currency might have. Said otherwise, some prostitutes are more expensive than others because they are more attractive and/or more skilled.

>>5841586
If you mean people go on, yeah. People also go on before there was widespread healthcare coverage.

>>5838027
if you don't think we're getting fucked who cares about making it better?

>>5837616
"sex was another form of segregation"
You can buy sex with money. There's only one true form of segregation : money. Everything else is an inferior form of segregation becouse you can achieve them if you have money.

There is a social illusion that both are equal forms of segregation though. I was walking down the street and I saw an old friend, and he asked me if I had finally find a job and a girlfriend.

i hate doing this but still....
ITT: FEDORA THE THREAD

looking at him makes me want to quit smoking and I usually don't give a fuck about the consequences

>>5841210

Nice post

>>5841405
Lolno

He admitted that he did this (I assume a lot of older writers did the same with scientific journals etc) and even mentioned wikipedia as a dedication in his book

>>5842177
So this doesn't make it plagiarism exactly how? If you copy/paste from someone, but don't cite, but just casually mention the source in your dedications without actually showing how much you took it's plagiarism

Has anyone seen the film "The Kidnapping of Michel Houellebecq"?

>>5842237
>The Kidnapping of Michel Houellebecq
Unfortunately, no. Has it even been released on bluray yet?

>>5842276
it has been released on pirate the popcorn

>>5842288
I hope it leaks to a public tracker soon...

So I start with Whatever, right?

>>5841405
Copyright infringement should be done away with, and so should bitching about plagiarism.

>>5842466
Even with the most used "copyleft" licenses like CC you still have to list your sources, if he would have openly stated "these two pages are from Wikipedia" I would have no problem with it. Passing it off as your own work is just lame.

>>5842460
Start with anything you like. I think Map and the Territory is the best one, but it's also quite different from the stuff that made him famous.

>>5842460

Yes.

Whatever-->Platform-->Map and Territory --> Atomized (if you want)

>>5842471
he wasn't passing it off as his own work. the style is a clear departure from his writing in the rest of the book. its intertextuality. akin to rauschenberg using a newspaper clipping in a painting. or house of leaves which seems to have embedded different non-fiction documents. for the record i think its gimmicky, but at least understand it.

>>5836541
The fuck is happening to him?

Greatest living French author.

But is he a manlet?
Seems likely...

>>5845123
I really think that 'Whatever' may be the best novel of the past 20 years.

Who cares what he looks like? He is a brilliant writer. A body is merely a vessel for ones consciousness, ones true self. Although I'm not saying he would be as great of a writer or even a writer at all had he been born looking like this
>pic related

>>5845777
Discussing a person's looks in relation to their writing ability is fucking redundant

>>5845777
those are some nice lips

>>5845810

I don't think you get what I'm saying..
Look at the qputes from hollowback earlier in this thread.
"Some men have a great sex life while others masterbait alone"
if hollowback was born really handsome do you think he would ever come to make that insight? His writing would surley be more positive. No one wants to read the life of a male model who has lots of sex.

>>5845835
i'd watch a video of it and it'd probably be better than anything badback could write

>>5845864
Wouldn't be as bad as your taste in literature though

>>5836541
Looks like he found the same fountain of youth as Frank Miller.

It's already been pointed out in this thread, but he has makeup and a costume on to make him look really old and shitty because he was playing a part in a movie (a role based off of himself, iirc). As far as I know, he hasn't actually aged that much.

>>5845777
That's the kind of shit ugly people say

>>5845835
What insight? He'd be Elliott Rodger if he were an American. The whole capitalism is to blame for men's contemporary sexual prospects is ahistorical. A minority of men have had more access to sex than the majority of men for most of history. Some recent anthropology showed that women have contributed more of their DNA to humanity than men.

Hell, look at ISIS, pure rape and pillage, nearly disconnected from capitalism. Yet, you have a bunch of dudes killing all males and taking women as sex slaves. That's some fairly traditional pre-capitalist behavior. At least in some capitalist countries you have access to prostitution without the obligation to marry and support a wife. I see the appeal of his thought, but it's a bit too delusional even for a permavirgin like me.

Hating women is normal. Women are horrible people, the only people who are worse are men

>>5845965
>women have contributed more of their DNA to humanity than men
did they breed amongst lesbians

>>5845965
>What insight? He'd be Elliott Rodger if he were an American.

This thread is full of utter fucking mongoloids like you who take away that the thesis of Houllebecq's work is >tfwnogf.

>>5845965
>The whole capitalism is to blame for men's contemporary sexual prospects is ahistorical.

Spoken exactly like someone who wasn't read him or doesn't understand.

The one thing i can say for houellebecq is that at least he is nowhere near as awful as palahniuk, and has some sort of interesting ideas

>>5845970
Something about higher Y-chromosome variation compared to mitochondrial DNA. The higher variation suggests less males passed on their DNA.

>>5845980
What is his thesis as you see it? You can be brief.

>>5845983
Every thread I have seen on lit about this guy doesn't really give me an incentive to read him. Great muslims suck, muh europa, great the sexual economy sucks, muh dick. People are calling this "insight".

>>5846036
>Every thread I have seen on lit about this guy doesn't really give me an incentive to read him.

If you haven't even read him then just shut the fuck up.

Because that's what's leading to your retarded criticisms like 'hurrdurr this guy is just a French Elliot Rodger who doesn't like Islam'

It's no wonder you're so out of the loop in regards to his material when you come to conclusions based off fucking gifs on the internet.

>>5837005
The best and most succinct indictment of the family comes super early on in Lolita, where Humbert describes the "vicious vigilance" of Annabel's (the sweetheart of a childhood summer at the beach) family prevents them from consummating their relationship. Annabel goes on to die of some sickness medicine has since made a punchline of, I think typhus, and cue an elaborate tragedy where Humbert turns into a pedophile in his arrested development, macks up to a woman and marries her because her daughter reminds him of Annabel, she dies running into the street after she finds out what's going on but before she can tell anyone, he embarks on the dad of all incest sagas (Oedipus is the great^n granddad) running her all over America in a car, raping and parenting and bribing and intimidating her until she flees to an even more fucked playwright, who she flees to a an utterly diminished life of domesticity with a mechanic and dies at, IIRC, 17, in labor.

"Vicious vigilance:" the family is surveillance, coercion, regulation, dependence, unchosen obligation, foreclosure of possibility and pleasure, everything free, modern people consider vice in their gut, because they/we know like an instinct that "virtue compelled becomes vice," and that many of the traditional virtues weren't virtues at all, just mechanisms of compulsion. (Chastity, for one.)

>>5846085
Surveillance, coercion, regulation, dependence, unchosen obligations etc exists whether in the family or outside of it.

If it's not done by your parents, it will be done by the Stasi.

>>5846059
I'm basing this on his quoted material I've seen posted here and other threads. They are indicative of a certain tendency in his writing.
Otherwise, why would they be posted?

"Every time I heard that a Palestinian terrorist, or a Palestinian child or a pregnant Palestinian woman, had been gunned down in the Gaza Strip, I felt a quiver of enthusiasm at the thought of one less Muslim"

That is Elliot Rodger tier stuff there. I've read some small excerpts of his writing it seemed like the same so-called insightful stuff. The guy seems to like provocation for the sake of provocation. He should write for the Daily Caller or Glenn Beck's site if they don't do the whole outrage economy thing in France.

>>5840966
>>5841043

I don't get why leftists hate a solid family unit.
Have you seen the kids who come out of single parent families or any other type of 'non-traditional' unit? They're fucked up beyond repair.

>yeah but in communism it'll work, I promise

>>5846126
If you'd read him you'd know that quote was by character whose loved one had been killed by muslim terrorists, you uninformed faggot.

Which of his books is best?

>>5841355
10/10

>>5841210
>Capitalism as a system of organization has the tendency of stripping those complexities away and assimilating them into itself. Every human interaction becomes some kind of exchange of commodity in a free market. After the initial capitalist revolution, sex was still controlled by arbitrary laws that were based on tradition and not on principles of freedom. When these restrictions are stripped away, in a society which is otherwise capitalist, sexual relations become another facet of capitalist exchange.
That last sentence is a nice way of explaining the ambivalence of capitalism. Makes me think of Deleuze & Guattari (deterritorialisation from an origin and reterritorialisation as a commodity), or Bourdieu (different types of capital that can be translated each into another).

>>5836556
>It doesn't look voluntary.
You mean masked men are tying him down and literally forcing him to inject drugs? My, what an interesting story you tell!

>>5846444
So what you're saying is that you're autistic by free choice?

>>5846290
>They're fucked up beyond repair.
Protip, that's exactly why they want to destroy the family.

>>5846463
>So what you're saying is that you're autistic by free choice?
You're clinically retarded, so I'm wasting my time, but here's a little logic exercise for you:
a) Autists are born autistic.
b) Addicts aren't born addicted to drugs, they become addicts after deliberately and willfully spending an inordinate amount of time and money making themselves into addicts.

>>5846472
You're making a false opposition between pre-birth and after-birth influence. We're not born with speaking our native language yet we don't freely choose it either.

>>5845965

That's not his point, though. It's not that economic liberalism directly causes sexual liberalism, it is that they are analogous. The removal of traditional and cultural institutions such as marriage perform similar roles to a kind of sexual social-democracy- they limit the anarchy of a pure free-for-all in the market of desire and pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of people will have a minimum of sexual relations.

Just as when we see all economic controls removed human nature is laid bare and some people amass massive fortunes whilst others are left in the gutter, some people in modern society will have an interesting sexual life and others will have none

>>5846491
>We're not born with speaking our native language yet we don't freely choose it either.
We're forced (in a very literal way) to learn to speak our native language by our parents, numbnuts.

>>5846518
Yeah, that's my point. So if you're going to make distinction between voluntary and involuntary behavior it's not going to have anything to do with whether you were born with something or not.

>>5846498
why his head so small

>>5846444
He's a psychiatric patient, anon.

>>5840647
>>5840647

sex is not like wealth in that it is not a zero-sum game. there is only so much available wealth in the world, as it is a commodity. sex is not a commodity, it is merely an activity, and is therefore limitless.

>>5841264

this is naively optimistic and completely tone deaf to the current economy, besides. there are hardly even pensions anymore.

>>5847057
>fiat money
>real

>>5847097

if wealth is not "real" then how does wealth beget wealth? what do you think our financial systems are based upon? how do you think they work?

>>5847109
>what do you think our financial systems are based upon?
100% pure ideology, my friend.

>>5847057
>Implying you can fuck faster than the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe print up trillions of dollars

>>5847109
moving numbers around

He is full of spooks
Totally spook-riddled, he should pray to SANKT MAX

>>5847057
Wrong. It consumes at a minimum time and calories which means that it has some degree of scarcity. I'd wager it's even very significant.

I'd extend his battlefield, if you know what I mean.

>>5847192
This. Money is less limited than sex.

>tfw getting my hollaback in the mail tomorrow

>>5846121
Violence/coercion might be inevitable, but we can't know yet. I'd wager they very much are as transitory events and are very much not as part off the basis of a relationship.

The rest aren't. Dependence of a kind, sure, but nothing like the kind the unilateral kind the contemporary family fosters.

Regardless, why is a Stasi the only alternative? Couldn't we try after some others?

>>5846290
>out of single parent families or any other type of 'non-traditional' unit? They're fucked up beyond repair.

God, do I really need to refer you to Larkin, hardly a leftist?

Everyone is fucked up and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Sometimes non-traditional families produce more fucked up kids, sometimes traditional families produce more fucked up kids, it's not terribly pertinent because:

1) fucked-up-ness is always contextual, which no is not the same thing as saying it's subjective
2) newsflash, if you paid any attention at all you'd realize we want to move past current "non-traditional" families, too.

>>5848867
>Sometimes non-traditional families produce more fucked up kids, sometimes traditional families produce more fucked up kids
in a perfectly even ratio

>>5836541
i hope he lives until the singularity

>>5848867

>mental illness is subjective
>everyone is sick

Ok man. Whatever suits you to rationalize your automutilation.

#pray4houellebecq

>>5849951
>which no is not the same thing as saying it's subjective

Reading comprehension, man.

>>5848867

>guy who writes this post grows up in white upper middle income two parent household
>thinks orcenomics and the orclear family are just as good

>>5845777
That guy looks like shit.

>>5836921
Except he's talking about the loss of the family as a victory for capitalism. So if he's right-wing, he's on the anti-capitalist right. Which is the cool kind of right-wing.

>>5848867
>he actually thinks the number of parents doesn't make a difference

There's statistical evidence, liberal.

>>5850955
And he's only 56. He looks 80-something. And poor. Like he's missing most of his teeth.

>>5836921

Scruton, crouton. Agree Left wants family but a global homogenized family and not the small family-units that could disrupt their ideology.

Houellebecq warns about the 60s freelove libtard that had kids but neglected them while living some egotistical lovedrugfest

Houellebecq has terminal cancer.

The only known cure is these dubs

>>5853577
HOUELLEBECQ HAS BEEN SAVED. GOD PRAISE THESE DUBS.

>>5853577
You saved him, thanks budd

>>5846126

He's butthurt about Muslims because one of them banged his mom. Really all of the themes in his books stem from mommy issues. Don't read too far into it.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/07/fiction.familyandrelationships

>>5845123

>several living French authors are Nobel laureates

>Houellebecq the pretentious manlet is the best one

0/10

>>5853622
>He's butthurt about Muslims because one of them banged his mom.
Ha, perfect.
>tfw he will never be analyzed by Zizek

>>5851205
it's so far to the right that it comes all the way back around and becomes left.

anyway basically he's just a liberal who hates women for not sleeping with him. we get a million of those on this website (and that's why people seem to be responding well to his stupid quote)

"its lik he red my mind"

>>5853622
>Really all of the themes in his books stem from mommy issues.

dead on

>>5853577
merci mon frere

>>5854232
This was very obvious in The Elementary Particles, but it was still really well done.

What does his wife look like?

>>5856330
Probably better than yours

>>5836541
No, but he looks like my kind of guy.

I'd have smoked a joint with him if I'd ever met him.

>>5855458
lel looks like the guy from No Country for Old Men on meth