Houellebecq general

[Anonymous No.19661983]

Where's my Houellebros at?

[Anonymous No.19661987]

>>19661983
What happened to his face

[Anonymous No.19662003]

>>19661983
I challenge you to read the contemporary authors Houellebecq reads. I challenge you to read Despentes and Dustan. Do it. Get out of the incel echo chamber.

[Anonymous No.19662024]

>>19661983
Has he had plastic surgery, cause he used to look really scary?

[Anonymous No.19662038]

>>19661983
I read Atomised recently. I can't imagine a more nihilistic, hopeless novel, though I can't say I'm too well read. What made it worse was that there were tangible flickers and moments of beauty only to be ripped away. Something banal and horrible about that.

Also I get that parts were meant to be funny but I didn't really find it funny at all. Especially near the end. There are other books that hit the same points Atomised does like American Psycho that were still funny at points; though i suppose AP is more of a satire than Atomised.

The last few novels I've read include no longer human and less than zero. I've inadvertently read too much despondent depressing shit, some kind of Freudian slip. Need to read some life affirming stuff I think.

>>19662003
Googled both and they sound pretty gay. If you're not joking then why should I read those authors specifically and what works in particular.

>>19661987
This is actually one of the more normal pictures of his face.

[Anonymous No.19662065]

>>19662038
>If you're not joking then why should I read those authors specifically and what works in particular.

Because Houellebecq writes about the incel type, he doesn't write about queer and racialized people, and you're a human being living on this planet alongside queer and racialized people? Reading shouldn't be about self-validation it should be about challenging yourself and opening up your mind.

[Anonymous No.19662066]

>>19662003
Thanks anon I had read about Despentes but neglected to follow up. And G Duston collection just out from semiotext(e). Look forward to reading them.

[Anonymous No.19662072]

[Anonymous No.19662082]

>>19662066
Nice! I'll be waiting for a thread then

[Anonymous No.19662090]

[Anonymous No.19662093]

[Anonymous No.19662113]

>>19662065
I'm not adverse to reading about those types of people, but from a surface level skim it seems both the authors you recommended are on a similar theme to houellebecq except on the other side of the coin i.e. they are describing the same decadent culture except they think it's good? Or liberating in some way or something.

Idk if I wanna read that.

That being said, I supposed I am biased in some way. To queers at least, not racialised people. All they seem to make art about is pushing boundaries and being transgressive for the sake of it; art about their plight is interesting to me but I feel that is hard to come by. What is more common is some BS narcissistic crap about "exploring gender".

[Anonymous No.19662139]

>>19661983
https://youtu.be/e6fnkTOlAqI

[Anonymous No.19662175]

>>19662113
>it seems both the authors you recommended are on a similar theme to houellebecq except on the other side of the coin i.e. they are describing the same decadent culture except they think it's good?

With such a simplistic, black and white view of literature I'm surprised you can even read. Literally how the fuck can you appreciate an author if all you can infer from his books are that HE, THE WRITER, not even his characters, think "decadent culture is bad"? How the hell do you go about life approaching things in such stupidly reductive fashion? What if I told you reading Houellebecq made me a feminist? Am I just reading him wrong? lmao

[Anonymous No.19662290]

>>19662175
Well it's obviously a little bit more than that lol. I just didn't type all my thoughts on what the book was about in that post because it wasn't entirely relevant to my point. Although for the sake of it, I think one generalisation you COULD make of Houellebecq if you had to is that, generally, "decadent" culture is "bad". Again, there's a lot more to it than that, obviously. But that's kinda the point.

Why would you being a feminist because of reading houellebecq make you wrong?

[Anonymous No.19662291]

>>19662139
KEK

[Anonymous No.19662334]

>>19662290
I really think you misunderstand Houellebecq, or at least that you're trying to seek self-validation is his books which is a little pathetic. You need to be able to discern between narrative discourse and auctorial discourse. Houellebecq's literary role models are pillars of french decadence, namely Huysmans and Baudelaire. Calling him reactionary would therefore be quite in bad faith. He's very much part of this french tradition of believing in the autotelic nature of literature, and he abhors political reductionism. That's his schtick, if you will. Why do you think he likes Despentes and Dustan? He's a writer, for Christ's sake, he's entitled to more depth than what little you give him.

[Anonymous No.19662348]

How the fuck he went from this >>19662024 to this >>19661983? I've never seen anyone improve so much, not even with facial surgery.

[Anonymous No.19662354]

>>19662290
>>19662334
He's said in the past that he isn't trying to change anything, he's merely depicting things as they are, which sort of lends a bit of credibility to both of your guys's points.
>>19662290
In theory, would a modern day progressive find his novels pleasant and affirming?

[Anonymous No.19662361]

>>19662348
OP's pic is an older picture.

[Anonymous No.19662366]

>>19662348
Is OP pic is older, anon

[Anonymous No.19662367]

>>19662175
>What if I told you reading Houellebecq made me a feminist?
I will stamp that quote on t shirts and I will make millions in france.

[Anonymous No.19662374]

>>19662354
Except all his novels are psychological odysseys, so saying "this is the way things are" only means "this is the way some people think things are". He's a dandy, he never says anything that doesn't also mean its opposite. Anyone who has a little bit of knowledge about the french tradition he is trying to reactualize would agree with what I wrote here >>19662334

[Anonymous No.19662378]

>>19662367
As long as you send me royalties baby

[Anonymous No.19662391]

>>19662374
>this is the way some people think things are
this is relativist nonsense. He depicts was is usually a plausible, grounded reality with plausible characters. Serotonin, for example, has a protagonist who is dealing with the side-effects of an SSRI. Being left bereft of sex drive and love, he finds his life without purpose, cycles through his sexual and romantic encounters from the past, then kills himself. This isn't really something to be parsed as being "the way things are," but the premise that losing your ability to have sexual attraction or to experience love could severely undermine a person's sense of purpose is very much the way things are.

[Anonymous No.19662410]

>>19662391
Who's saying his characters' lives don't illustrate plausible or realistic causality? This doesn't mean his books are illustrations of auctorial political stances, nor does it mean his characters' worldviews have any authority over anyone else's. Houellebecq IS the ultimate relativist, you dumb fuck. He's absolutely amoral in the practice of his art, as was Baudelaire, his role model. Why do you think he would call Dustan a great writer otherwise? You're just not educated on this.

[Anonymous No.19662442]

>>19662410
>This doesn't mean his books are illustrations of auctorial political stances, nor does it mean his characters' worldviews have any authority over anyone else's
I'm not saying anything like that at all. I'm saying the opposite: that his characters aren't manifestations of any sort of superficial political stance, and that just because the tone of his novels is generally regarded as bleak and depressive doesn't mean that he is saying life is bleak and depressive, or that bleakness and depression are good and rational.
>Houellebecq is the ultimate relativist
You said:
>saying "this is the way things are" only means "this is the way some people think things are"
This is a completely fatuous and empty observation, especially when talking about art or literature. That's why I called it relativistic nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19662491]

>>19662442
>This is a completely fatuous and empty observation, especially when talking about art or literature. That's why I called it relativistic nonsense.
Kindly elaborate because this to me only sounds like you have no idea what Houellebecq's literary affiliations are. Unless you thought I was saying Houellebecq disagrees with his characters' worldviews, which I wasn't at all. I'm simply saying he's part of a literary tradition that has been known for its sole conviction of transforming reality into aesthetically pleasing artefacts without cause or reason. This doesn't mean they're meaningless or without truth. It's a very fine nuance. It only means truths are found, sometimes contradictory, like threads forming a broader pattern that is the text. That is what Houellebecq always says when asked about the political implications of his novels: "they're only novels", nothing else. This is also why he disregards any critique that isn't made by peers and that don't concern his craft.

[Anonymous No.19662550]

>>19662491
You replied to my initial post, which generally agreed with you and disagreed with the other guy you were talking to, with an empty statement that added nothing to the conversation. You projected some absolutism onto my post because you have an absolutist view of your own.
Now you're doubling down on some thesis that you can superimpose a literary tradition, which you've generously defined for us, on the author's work and therefore how others might interpret or regard it. Yeah, the other dumbass you were talking to was probably reading political stances into the real-world author instead of leaving them within the work, but you are doing something equally retarded in trying to elevate the novel above the realm of readers taking something from it, with or without the author's intention.
You're coming off as a pedantic twit who just started his MFA and now thinks he's qualified to straighten people out about things.

[Anonymous No.19662555]

>>19662090
>>19662072
>>19661983
Who is this handsome young man?!

[Anonymous No.19662582]

>>19662550
First of all, Houellebecq is vocal about which literary tradition he wants to be a part of. Your ignorance is not my pedantry.
Also
>you are doing something equally retarded in trying to elevate the novel above the realm of readers taking something from it, with or without the author's intention.
I've said precisely the opposite in the exact post you're replying to. >truths are found, sometimes contradictory, like threads forming a broader pattern that is the text.
Time to go to bed, anon. Your egregious tone won't make up for your inability to read.
(I also think it's time for ME to get some sleep, the Captchas are fucking me up right now)

[Anonymous No.19662584]

"I'm a loser, what they call a worst-selling writer, a washout... I've completely missed out on my fate as an author. I've written twenty-six totally useless books: nobody has read them, or very few people. Flop after flop. People only know me by hearsay. I work by word of mouth; but often the mouth is sewn shut and ears are blocked... Most booksellers bury me as if I were nuclear waste!
I published my first book twenty years ago and, since then, every time I publish a new one, it's as if I were publishing my first one, since the previous one was ignored. As long as I’m the author, it's doomed to instant negation.
On the cover, there's always something that bothers me: my name. It's magical, you just have to say my name and everything closes. My name is the anti-Sesame. "Shut up, Sesame!” The instruction regarding me is: shush. I am not to be mentioned, I am not to be discussed. It's just not done, it's incongruous. My name is a dirty word.
A Martian, or even a mere foreigner, coming to France and looking at the press of the last two decades, could not imagine that I have written so many books. When one of my books happens to be lying around, the critics badmouth it so much, if they say anything at all, that they make it invisible. My books are harder to open than oysters.
Mind! I'm not complaining... It's not scandalous that I'm not celebrated unanimously every day everywhere as the greatest French writer; what's scandalous is that the public isn't informed when a book of mine has just come out, that's all.
Nowadays, only those who have nothing to say have the right to express themselves. The "public" has been living for sixty years in a state of guilt maintained by the cops of Democracy. Hammered all day long by propaganda that makes them believe that all art is now impossible, "the people" only ask for one thing: that their morale be drained as quickly as possible, in every field. Cinema, theatre, music...
In literature, the more the writer flatters the reader’s base, dull and dismal tendencies by patting on his crooked back, the more the reader will absolutely want to read it, run to buy thousands of copies and pass them on to others like talismans of brotherly mediocrity. Houellebecq himself had explained it well to me:
‘If you want to have readers, put yourself on their level! Make yourself a character as flat, fuzzy, mediocre, ugly and shameful as the readers. That's the secret, Marc-Édouard. You want too much to lift the reader off the ground, to carry him into the heavens of your mad love of life and men!... It makes the reader feel inferior, it humiliates him, and so he neglects you, he rejects you, and then he ends up despising and hating you...’
Michel was right. A bestselling writer is always right."

Marc-Édouard Nabe, foreword to the 2006 reprint of this first book.
Automatic translation on DeepL, slightly touched up.

[Anonymous No.19662586]

>>19662582
Case in point, I can't properly green text anymore.

[Anonymous No.19662590]

>>19662582
>I'm simply saying he's part of a literary tradition that...[produces] aesthetically pleasing artefacts without cause or reason
You are implying that this disqualifies how readers might interpret the book, including whether the book "has a message" or not. And as I already said, this often happens DESPITE or WITHOUT the author's intention. What part of this don't you understand? Or were you just invoking the author's self-selected literary tradition for fun?

[Anonymous No.19662596]

>>19662584
"To think that we both lived at 103, rue de la Convention, Michel and I. Each in one building, facing each other. We had the same address! The name has changed since then. If he still lived there, Houellebecq would be at ‘14, rue Oscar-Roty’. We don't really know who this Oscar Roty was... He is the guy who engraved the elegant sower lady, dancing in her dress in the fields at sunset, on the one-franc coins. If you look closely at the coin, you will even see his signature: O. Roty. I kept one as a souvenir. It is undoubtedly with an Oscar Roty coin that Destiny decided on our fate: “Heads, Michel will be successful. Tails, Marc-Édouard...”
Nothing has changed here, Michel. The courtyard is still sad and grey, sometimes beige. With a little more greenery and fewer pigeons. From my place, I look at your window. Your ex-window. I am on the first floor, you were on the fifth. You were already looking down on me! A couple has now taken over your flat, a couple like those you hate so much in your books. The balcony is empty, and the light goes out early, not like back in your days! Remember, Michel, we played at who would turn off his lamp the latest before going to sleep... How could I have imagined that all I was writing then (thousands of pages) would be useless, whereas you, in the evening, when you came back home, would think of one or two sentences to write down on the weekend, and that it would be enough to make you "the greatest contemporary writer"?
You must have envied me a little at the time, I'm sure... An artist's dream life! Staying at home writing all day. Just had to interrupt myself to pick up Alexandre from kindergarten. Well, he's just entered high school, my son! He’s at the one next to Square Saint-Lambert, you know. This year, first French lesson, first topic, guess what it’s about: you! Yes! You, Michel! "Describe what Michel Houellebecq inspires in you.” Alexandre wanted me to write his essay for him... No way, all he needs to do is tell his own memories! ‘No, Dad," he said, "the teacher will never believe me. They’ll call me a phony!”

[Anonymous No.19662600]

>>19662590
I see no contradiction between what I've said there and what you're pointing out. I was specifically, explicitly (and clearly) talking about interpreting auctorial intentions. I've said it multiple times. You're arguing in terribly bad faith.

[Anonymous No.19662604]

>>19662596
This child has such modesty! You know Alexandre... How is your son? I saw that some bastard 'biographers' went digging into your private life to try and smear your success. There’s no danger of that happening to me, because I've already told everything in my published diaries. I know that you have never favored autobiography. Yet Chateaubriand, whom you adore, didn't do anything else... There’s a contradiction. We should have discussed it a bit more when you were here. In the end, you were shy, I think. You thought I was a writer who had made it to the top, whereas today you can see that I still haven't left the bottom! You may even have some esteem for my stupid position: writing everything that happens to me. I still have your dedicated book of poems that you left in my mailbox: "To Marc-Édouard Nabe, to distract (without interrupting) him from his monumental work. Warm regards, Michel Houellebecq.”
My “monumental work"... You're kind, but you must have been laughing when you saw me through your window building my own pyramid and ending up locked up in it, like a mummy. Because it's well over for me.
Excuse me, Michel, I'm talking to you from another world; you're left such problems behind you. Good for you. This kind of worry no longer concerns you. To be read or not to be read, that's not your question any more... But I'm obliged to ask myself that question, over and over.
I still have poor Yorrick's skull in my palm, and I feel like it's my own skull that I'm looking at, my eyes in my sockets!

[Anonymous No.19662645]

>>19662600
Yes, but you're repeatedly asserting that the author's intentions may overrule what others might take from the work, as if the author's intent of being part of a literary tradition where everything is done with no purpose other than to create a stand-alone piece of art with no message precludes the piece of work from having a a very explicit message to readers, including a meaning other than as a piece of mere artistry. This is wrong because literature has often become things much different than what the author intended when producing it.
>I was specifically...talking about auctorial intentions
...yes, and the author's intentions don't determine what a book becomes or how it's regarded, so Houellebecq's own declaration that he's trying to make an apolitical, amoral piece of art doesn't mean that his work is apolitical or amoral. The readership generally gets to determine that arguably more than the author.
And my other concern was how rude you were out the gate with the other guy, despite being someone willing to use the word auctorial no fewer than three times in one thread without a hint of irony. Anyway, what's the subject of your masters?

[Anonymous No.19662652]

>>19662645
And before you reply, here is the post in question when you did that:
>>19662290 anon says:
>I think one generalisation you COULD make of Houellebecq if you had to is that, generally, "decadent" culture is "bad". Again, there's a lot more to it than that, obviously. But that's kinda the point.
>>19662334 you say in reply:
>or at least that you're trying to seek self-validation is his books which is a little pathetic

[Anonymous No.19662689]

>>19662645
>Houellebecq's own declaration that he's trying to make an apolitical, amoral piece of art doesn't mean that his work is apolitical or amoral.
But it does. Someone finding moral value in one of Houellebecq's books doesn't make the books moral, it makes them polysemic artefacts, which is the nature of artefacts according to french autotelism, which is what I've been saying for a while now. We don't disagree on this at all.
Also, yes, seeking self-validation through books is pathetic, especially if you're close-minded enough to only read what you think is susceptible to comfort you in your echo chamber, which was my initial point. Why would you think that means you *can't find* self-validation in a book? Those were never my words.

[Anonymous No.19662705]

>>19662689
>Someone finding moral value in one of Houellebecq's books doesn't make the books moral,
But an author stating that his work is amoral makes the book amoral?
>...it makes them polysemic artefacts, which is the nature of artefacts according to french autotelism, which is what I've been saying for a while now.
This is precisely the time of pedantic distinction that I'm referring to.

[Anonymous No.19662712]

>>19662689
What I'm saying also applies to other authors, of course. You could absolutely find incel self-validating narratives in Despentes' work, especially if you're a woman incel (they do exist), so discarding Despentes because she's a feminist makes no sense in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19662766]

>>19662705
>But an author stating that his work is amoral makes the book amoral?
This is Houellebecq's perspective, at least, for whom books are intrinsically amoral artefacts. I would argue the possibility of projecting contradictory morals and narratives on books corroborates Houellebecq's perspective. The rest is just basic french autotelism, somewhat rooted in comtian positivism in the sense that it rejects any overhanging political or moral narrative, any root principle that should organize the rest of the elements in a meaningful system of causality. If you find "decadence is bad" as a "message" (that is your term) expressed in Houellebecq's work, you are explicitly refering to auctorial intention (as there is no message without a messenger, of course), and infering the root principle of a critique of decadence, which is extremely reductive and, frankly, just dumb, as it, again, infers an intention. I don't know why you think all this is pedantic, it's just factually the tradition Houellebecq is evoking and remobilizing.

[Anonymous No.19662790]

>>19662766
>decadence is bad
That was the other guy's words.
>that is Houellebecq's perspective, at least
Yes, which is nice but doesn't magically allow works of literature to exist in a vacuum of the author's design or intention, which is the hinge of our dispute.

[Anonymous No.19662791]

>>19662766
Also, Houellebecq would probably argue people who read books to seek moral validation are clueless twats. That's also my initial point. I think one should read books to find something else than themselves in it. Your insistence on framing this as a childish "but readers can do this if they want to" debate is funny in a dreadful way.

[Anonymous No.19662798]

>>19662791
You read books after you've experienced life, not before. Or rather they only truly come alive in the latter stage.

[Anonymous No.19662809]

>>19662791
That's a misunderstanding of my point, and for the record I am not the guy you were initially debating with. My first post is here >>19662354
My point is that just because an author declares that he's attempting to contribute to a specific artistic school of thought or theory, doesn't preclude a work of art having meaning because of its effect on readers. You say that Houellebecq's declaration that he's trying to make an apolitical, amoral piece of art means that the art must necessarily be apolitical or amoral. I'm telling you that such a declaration is meaningless and does not have ultimate bearing on how the piece of art exists in reality.
Let's say Dostoevsky declared in public that he wrote BK for the sole purpose of paying off his debts, and not to make any sort of political, moral, or philosophical statement. Does that make BK an amoral, apolitical piece of art?

[Anonymous No.19662818]

>>19662790
>which is nice but doesn't magically allow works of literature to exist in a vacuum of the author's design or intention, which is the hinge of our dispute.
No, we don't even disagree on that, actually. I've been saying repeatedly that books being amoral doesn't mean readers can't find moral narratives in them, just that reducing a book to one grand narrative is dumb precisely because it's reductive. If you're engaging with novels for self-validation you should probably read essays. And I'm not even talking from an houellebecqian point of view, this is just the dialogic essence of the modern novel.

[Anonymous No.19662848]

>>19662809
>just because an author declares that he's attempting to contribute to a specific artistic school of thought or theory, doesn't preclude a work of art having meaning because of its effect on readers.
A book has *meanings*, precisely, that are found/actualized through reading, I 100% agree. Which is why it has no meaning, as in not one meaning in particular, one grand narrative or intentional message. At least, books that are of any value don't (I guess Mein Kampf is pretty one-dimensional in its construction of meaning). Saying otherwise, especially about a novel, is political recuperation, which you seem to be talking about, and I (and Houellebecq) find that dumb, reductive, and nonsensical from a literary point of view. Why is it so hard for you to accept that books also exist within literary traditions that people recognize and acknowledge? Why is that so wrong?

[Anonymous No.19662852]

>>19662818
If readers generally find moral narratives in a work, the book can't be said to be amoral in any meaningful sense.
>reducing a book to one grand narrative is dumb
neither me nor the other guy did or suggested anything like that, so what are you talking about?
>engaging with novels for self-validation
Can't speak for the other guy on that matter, but I haven't be proposing that either. You're going off the rails here.

[Anonymous No.19662856]

>>19662848
But the definition of "amoral" means without morals, not morally balanced or neutral. Similarly, if a book is "without meaning or message," it containing meanings and messages, at least to the majority of readers, means it isn't without meaning or message, regardless of the author's intentions.

[Anonymous No.19662888]

>>19662852
Maybe I don't know who I'm talking to anymore, but it is you who seem to have forgotten the broader context of this conversation.
Also, didn't you write the moronic:
>the author's intent of being part of a literary tradition where everything is done with no purpose other than to create a stand-alone piece of art with no message precludes the piece of work from having a a very explicit message to readers
?
If you did, I don't even think you're qualified to have this conversation. I'm saying this half-seriously and half-jestingly. That anyone would suggest one "explicit message" is contained within modern novels is absolutely ludicrous, and contradicts everything else you've been saying, namely that books are resignified through subjective readings. Or was that someone else?

[Anonymous No.19662907]

>>19662856
Actually, "amoral" simply means (and etymologically so) "outside of the realm/order of morals". If one reader finds morals in a book, it is he who puts it there. But it is the reading that is morally charged, not the book. Which is also why contradictory morals can be found in pretty much any modern novel.

[Anonymous No.19662912]

Everyone should read Aurélien Bellanger instead

[Anonymous No.19662913]

>>19662856
Also, I've been here for hours and I'm getting really tired. Bottom line is: political recuperation of novels is cringe, reductive and fundamentally ignorant.
Thanks for listening.

[Anonymous No.19662925]

>>19662913
Cheers mate

[Anonymous No.19662947]

>>19662912
No one needs to read this normalfag with his dead outdated naturalistic prose. Houellebecq is bad enough when it comes to that, but at least he's got something awkward and personal that makes him readable.
Aurélien Bellanger, jesus, how can you get through 2 pages of his stuff without sleeping?

[Anonymous No.19662948]

>>19662065
>racialized people
Explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.19662949]

>>19662948
Probably people who identified with their own race. That poster thinks that's bad when we're in the middle of a racial conflict. He's an enlightened centrist.

[Anonymous No.19662954]

>>19662949
"Racialized people" generally means people who are seen as victims of racism, ie non-Whites in the West usually

[Anonymous No.19662958]

>>19662954
Well it's time for whites to get racialized because non-whites are not getting deradicalized anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.19662959]

>>19662949
No, it's more America-centric sterile shitlibism, in which they believe the world's history, or social reality itself, mirrors the tiny trajectory of America. In which there are supposedly 'non-racial' white people on one side of a duality and then PoC whose 'race is added onto them by cultural stereotypes' or some such worldsalad.

In fact, 'mirroring America's history' is probably too generous. They believe the structure of reality and all of human history reflects the currently in-vogue, fashionable interpretation of America's history.

[Anonymous No.19662966]

>>19662959
Whatever faggot. The die is cast. It's non-whites vs whites all over the West, and we're just biding our time at the moment.

[Anonymous No.19662973]

>>19662958
Why don't you ask yourself the reason why non-whites may me radicalized? Ever wondered what the Whites have done that may cause that?

[Anonymous No.19662976]

>>19662973
Because I already know: Jews radicalized them (you).

[Anonymous No.19662995]

>>19662947
Give us an excerpt of his writing, please.
>>19662973
They would have a very strong point if, after western white actively integrated non-whites into their culture, the non-whites didn't ultimately become a financial and intellectual drain on the system. That's what happened. All the paper-thin talking points about "ooh, exotic food and clothing" were hollow and what western europe got was a staggering increase in rape, knife crime, religious sectarianism, and divisive politics.

[Anonymous No.19662996]

>>19662976
Give you a few key words, brainlet: imperialism, colonialism, interference. Now go do your reading and shut up for at least a year.

[Anonymous No.19662999]

>>19662996
Blah blah. Your time is up subhuman.

[Anonymous No.19663007]

>>19662996
How come non-whites statistically commit more violent crime than whites in almost every jurisdiction?

[Anonymous No.19663015]

>>19662995
>the non-whites didn't ultimately become a financial and intellectual drain on the system

The Whites are doing very well at sinking intellectually without the help of non-Whites. What do you think, that by getting rid of Muslims (10% of its population) France is going to become once again the land of great thinkers, Christianity, literature and art?

You remind me of those of complain that Blacks and Arabs are making French culture disappear whilst the #1 culprit for that is the French themselves. It is also the French who have invaded, pillaged, colonized and exploited North African countries before abandoning them to their inner conflicts and then calling their ex-colonized people over to the continent to serve as cheap workforce in the 60s & 70s before complaining that there were too many of them around.
Dude, you can try and twists things however you like, just look at plain historical facts and you'll see that whatever problem the non-Whites are supposed to be in Europe or the US is just a problem that Whites have created for themselves.

[Anonymous No.19663018]

>>19662996
>imperialism, colonialism, interference.
>whites bad
Do your reading and get deradicalized

[Anonymous No.19663028]

>>19663015
>It is also the French who have invaded, pillaged, colonized and exploited North African countries before abandoning them to their inner conflicts
>BAWW WHY DO YOU LET US WALLOW IN OUR SHIT SAVE US WHITE MAN
This is the power of non-white brain. Your countries were shit before the white man arrived, it returned to shit when the white man left.

[Anonymous No.19663031]

>>19663015
Not necessarily, but you can't deny the statistics. it would certainly push the average IQ in the right direction.
And yes, the French can be blamed for their intellectual dissolution. Not because they intentionally became dumber, though there may be a case for that, but because their egalitarianism reached such an absurd tenor that they invited intellectually stunted humans to populate their land, shifting the demographics to such a significant degree that the national average IQ literally dropped several points in one generation. Answer to that, please.

[Anonymous No.19663032]

>>19663007
It's called sociology, moron.
You're statistically more likely to commit crime if you grow up in poor shitty suburbs, because your opportunities to house and feed yourself decently are more limited. Now, who mostly lives in poor shitty suburbs? Non-Whites. Why? Look into the history of immigration and workforce policy of the country and you'll know why. Above post >>19663015 explains it pretty clearly as far as France is concerned.

[Anonymous No.19663035]

>>19663015
also, answer this:
>>19663007

[Anonymous No.19663037]

>>19663032
>It's called sociology, moron.
Sociology doesn't explain pic related.

[Anonymous No.19663039]

>>19663018
I never said "only white people do wrong in history" so I stopped reading your retarded meme at the first panel. Btw we're not talking about planetary history you dumbfuck, but about the present which is a result of the recent past. As if talking about mongols in the 10th century of something had any relevance.

[Anonymous No.19663042]

>>19663032
>you're more likely to commit crime if you grew up in poor shitty suburbs
The statistics don't redeem that assertion, though. Wealthy blacks in the US, for example, commit more violent crimes per capita than poor whites.
>your opportunities to house and feed yourself are limited
Can you explain how african and arab migrants in Sweden and Germany commit sex crimes at a rate many times higher than the white native population of their respective countries, despite having thing ability to feed and house themselves drastically improved overnight?

[Anonymous No.19663043]

>>19663039
>your image disproved my whites bad propaganda so I stopped reading it
Whites did what everyone else did throughout history. You're complaining about human nature because you're grasping at straws to explain your inferiority to the white man without taking any accountability.

[Anonymous No.19663047]

>>19661983
Is that actually him? Jesus what happened that turned him into a gremlin looking mf nowadays

[Anonymous No.19663055]

>>19663037
Sociology makes most of your pseud-science chart pointless and irrelevant. Why does a Black guy growing up if a wealthy Black family doesn't end up in a gang dealing drugs and shooting people, whilst the poor Black man does? Same fucking reason as if they were white. It's sociological.

Now, when it comes to inter-religion conflicts you have to look at the geopolitics of it. Talking about muslims or whites are christians as if they were essences and not elements subject to a time and a given situation is stupid.
The major conflicts of our time between race and religion (what morons here call The West vs its enemies) are political, they're the results of politics the West has implemented and of the way it has wielded its power.
When you kick a hornet's nest you don't complain that hornests sting you, unless you're truly a dangerous imbecile.

[Anonymous No.19663059]

>>19663055
>I'll ignore all the academic articles going against my dogma and pose instead a hypothetical scenario
You really are a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.19663071]

>>19663043
> You're complaining about human nature

Pointing out that when you invade people these people are not going to like you is not complaining about human nature, it's just having a brain.

> Whites did what everyone else did throughout history.

So what? Does that mean they were right? Understand me, because white westerners have caused damages with their colonialism and imperialism doesn't mean the people they fucked over were saints. Arabs are assholes, yeah, so are the Chinese, the Sudanese, anyone. But only saying that is not saying anything when talking about the present world. You need to look at a given situation to see who's causing the shit to happen in the first place. If you want to understand muslim terrorism then you can't pretend that wahatver the US did in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't matter. You can't pretend that what the NATO coalition has done in Syria doesn't matter. Etc. But do you even know about these things, or are just eager to promote your stupid racist theories because you shit yourself when you see a Arab down the road?

[Anonymous No.19663080]

>>19662973
Wow, it couldn't be the passive absorption of elite narratives as delivered through media could it?
And the explicit censorship of conflicting narratives?
No, you figured it out all by yourself.

[Anonymous No.19663090]

>>19663032
Those working-class areas of Paris and London decayed dramatically subsequent to non-white mass immigration. They were always poor and kind of dangerous, now they are literally hotspots of tribal warfare.

[Anonymous No.19663097]

>>19663071
>But do you even know about these things, or are just eager to promote your stupid racist theories because you shit yourself when you see a Arab down the road?
Everyone knows about these things you subhuman retard. Do you think Europeans wanted to go to the Middle East? Ask Brits and Tony Blair. People were against all these wars. Our countries are ZOG-controlled, that's a fact. Europeans never voted for wars in the middle east, Europeans never voted for immigrants, yet you faggots are forced upon us. Now you think we won't defend ourselves against your invasions? Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.19663106]

>>19663080
No good hiding behind falsely clever lingo.

Why don't we get to some facts. What has the US been up to over the last 20 years in the Middle-East? What is Al-Qaeda and what were Bin-Laden's motives for doing 9/11?
What is Israel? How was it created? What are its historic and diplomatic ties to the US and European countries?
What's ISIS and what are they about? Who's Bashar el-Assad? What's been going in Syria since 2011?

All these complicated situations have lead to instances of terrorism. you have to pick it all apart to understand how we come to bombings and rising tensions between whites and muslims. Posting little racist charts do nothing towards that, you bunch are just autistic seethers.
I bet you go on about "muslims" vs the west without knowing shit about conflicts.

[Anonymous No.19663110]

>>19663071
>Iraq or Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5s_VEmZd0
When are non-whites going to name the jew instead of blaming whites for everything?

[Anonymous No.19663116]

>>19663097
>People were against all these wars.

Sure thing, buster. I even hear that the average American citizen was not too excited about kicking Saddam's ass in 2003. Too bad a few puppet-masters behind the scene got it to happen anyway.

[Anonymous No.19663135]

>>19663116
You don't know what you're talking about
>A 47-nation global survey of public opinion conducted in June 2007 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to the NATO military operations in Afghanistan. Only Israel and Kenya citizens were in favor of the war.
>Tony Blair lied to the British public: Blair argued that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed an active weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, but no stockpiles of WMDs or an active WMD program were ever found in Iraq. The Iraq War became increasingly unpopular among the British public, and he was criticised by opponents and (in 2016) the Iraq Inquiry for waging an unjustified and unnecessary invasion. He was in office when the 7/7 bombings took place (2005) and introduced a range of anti-terror legislation. His legacy remains controversial, not least because of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Despite his electoral successes and reforms, he has also been criticised for his relationship with the media, centralisation of executive powers, and aspects of his social and economic policies.
>Anti-War protests were widespread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_war_in_Afghanistan

[Anonymous No.19663147]

[Anonymous No.19663361]

Another Houellebecq thread ruined by an ignorant non-white.

[Anonymous No.19663366]

>>19663106
>No good hiding behind falsely clever lingo.
My choice of words were not complicated. I stated clearly what the situation is, and that situation is that you have fallen, utterly and completely for:

> What has the US been up to over the last 20 years in the Middle-East? What is Al-Qaeda and what were Bin-Laden's motives for doing 9/11?
What is Israel? How was it created? What are its historic and diplomatic ties to the US and European countries?
What's ISIS and what are they about? Who's Bashar el-Assad? What's been going in Syria since 2011?

Are those events supposed to be some kind of revelation? Almost all of us are tuned in to the wider geopolitical games that these events signify. And yet, bizarrely, you are completely bought-in to the flipside. Cheap anti-whiteism which is spammed by every (so-called) white institution, by the same countries and organizations behind what you just outlined. And you presumably believe that the uncritical regurgitation of those narratives represents some kind of resistance.

[Anonymous No.19663384]

>his mom was a massive whore
Really makes you think