In the horrific aftermath of the recent atrocities at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the news –unbeknown to all but the magazine’s sixty-thousand subscribers – that Michel Houellebecq was on the cover of the current issue quickly spread around the world.
To those who have followed Houellebecq’s writing career (he is France’s foremost contemporary novelist by some distance) this was hardly a surprise. After all, Houellebecq is a man who once described Islam as “the stupidest religion” in an interview and was sued by a civil rights group for hate speech (he won on grounds of freedom of speech) and whose book Platform contains the following lines:
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.
Nevertheless, there was perhaps some slight surprise that the old provocateur had done it again. Now aged 56, Houellebecq had finally seemed to mellow with his last book The Map and the Territory, which won the Prix Goncourt in 2010, France’s top literary award. Houellebecq, it seemed, had at last been admitted into the fold of respectability.
But then given that his new novel Soumission (Submission in English) imagines a France in the near future led by a Muslim president and subject to Sharia Law, such surprise was misplaced.
Houellebecq and Charlie Hebdo
There was some speculation at the time that the Houellebecq cover had proved an irritant sufficient to motivate the Paris killings. Of course, this proved to be unfounded – after all, the Kouachi brothers had planned their attack for some time, and wouldn’t have known the subject matter of upcoming issues.
Although publication of the book in France wasn’t cancelled, as some thought it might be, nevertheless Houellebecq cancelled all promotion for it and went underground. His friend Bernard Maris, economist and Charlie Hebdo contributor, had been among those killed. When he resurfaced some days later, shaken, his first words were “Je Suis Charlie.”
Reading Houellebecq’s past comments and hearing Submission’s synopsis it would be forgivable to assume that he is a rabid Islamophobe whose thinking lacks all subtlety—an ignorant rabble-rouser. But nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s Adam Gopnik of the New Yorker in a recent article on his work:
The other striking thing about Houellebecq is how literary he is—the first hundred or so pages of “Submission” depend on a complicated analysis of the work of the nineteenth-century writer J. K. Huysmans, best known as a novelist of Decadence and the Church, and for his influence on other French writers. This is, at least, an inadvertent compliment to the continued literary culture of France: no American satiric novelist, not Tom Wolfe or Christopher Buckley, could hope to hold a mass audience with hundreds of pages on the follies typically encountered in the university study of Hart Crane, or on how best to conceptualize his relationship with Wallace Stevens.
In fact, Houellebecq is a literary artist of the highest order – he is a satirist in the grand tradition of Orwell and Huxley, taking current social trends and extrapolating them, then looking with horror at what we have become, and what we could become in the near future.
Sexual Marketplace
Heartiste recently tweeted that while Houellebecq is currently having his historical “moment,” what he should really be remembered for is his analysis of the sexual marketplace. This is from his first novel “Whatever”:
It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…………
Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.
Houellebecq, who began his creative life as a poet, is behind the humour a deeply sad writer whose work accurately pinpoints the deep inadequacies in contemporary society. He also neatly skewers the concerns of the manosphere in elegant but devastating aphorisms such as the following, from The Possibility of an Island:
Show men endless images of beautiful models and actresses and singers, show them endless images of beautiful, slim, women engaging in sex with enthusiasm, tell them that a world of uncommitted and marriageless sex is the norm — then, for reasons they don’t understand, slam the door in their face.This is not a prescription for long term stability.
Houellebecq looking well, yesterday.
The charge laid against Submission is of course that it is Islamophobic. But is it? An English translation won’t be available until late summer, but early indications suggest that it is not. Gopnik again:
The spectre of an Islamic re-reconquest is therefore mixed with admiration for its discipline and purpose. The Muslim warriors are taken to be antimaterialists inspired by an austere ideal—the very idea of submission to authority that we have lost. In the back-and-forth of fantasies of conquest and submission between panicked Catholics and renascent Muslims, Islam plays an ambiguous role, as both the feared besieger and the admirable Other.
The novel, set in 2022, concerns a middle-aged protagonist called Francois, an academic who is obsessed equally with the work of J.K. Huysmans and sex with young co-eds. When a deal between the left and a popular Muslim party is brokered to prevent the far right from coming to power, the coalition wins the election.
They agree that the socialists will look after finance and foreign affairs, while the Muslims will handle education and social issue. This leads quickly to the introduction of Sharia Law: women are required to wear modest clothes in public, schools are segregated by gender, with girls taught cooking and trained to be wives and mothers, very limited opportunities for higher education. Regular prayer and study of the Koran are also implemented. Polygamy becomes the norm. Left with little choice by the new state, Francois converts to Islam.
Islamophobic
Where many were expecting an excoriating, dystopian account of life under the harsh new regime, it would appear that in fact society stabilizes and things get better in France. With feminism reigned in, traditional values re-established and polygamy encouraged, Francois, it would appear, rather enjoys the new state of affairs.
Far from being Islamophobic, the implication of the novel seems to be that debased western society with its deeply-flawed sexual marketplace would actually be improved by aspects of the faith’s prescripts. It is clear from an interview that Houellebecq recently gave to the Paris Review that his attitudes to Islam have shifted in recent times:
The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought, now that I’ve reread it—or rather, read it. The most obvious conclusion is that the jihadists are bad Muslims. Obviously, as with all religious texts, there is room for interpretation, but an honest reading will conclude that a holy war of aggression is not generally sanctioned, prayer alone is valid. So you might say I’ve changed my opinion. That’s why I don’t feel that I’m writing out of fear [of assimilation into Islam]. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will.
But this is not a book that will please everyone:
We haven’t spoken much about women. Once again you will attract criticism on that front.
Certainly a feminist is not likely to love this book. But I can’t do anything about that.
The English edition is slated for release in September — without a doubt it will be the most significant fiction release of 2015, both for its commentary on Islam and feminism. I for one can’t wait.
To find out how to operate efficiently in the sexual marketplace and meet beautiful women click here
Read More: What “Public Enemies” Taught Me About Pack Mentality
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.
RoK is going retarded.
Why don’t you just stick to gaming women, where you can help so many young men out there, and leave the politics alone. It’s not your strongest field of expertise.
It’s an excerpt from Houllebecq’s book “Platform”, dumbass
He went full retard.
I know that, don’t be an idiot. The point is that RoK endorses this author, his book and the statement about Palestina. That’s retarded.
It’s an opinion of a character in this book though. Would you stop watching Game of Thrones because King Joffrey is a dick?
It’s not just an opinion of a character, Houellebecq’s view on Islam and the arabs are the same.
That’s debateable and this article in no way endorses the views of the fictitious character quoted.
That’s good to know but it is not clear from the way it’s originally presented.
And because you don’t share that opinion, it makes him “retarded” …?
This is common format for any book review. It is blatantly stated by Mr. Francis, “whose book Platform contains the following lines:”
Followed by an excerpted portion that included quotation marks. How else could it be more obvious?
I think it is clear. Where does it imply the article endorses Houellebecq’s character’s views?
Loftboy! I was happy to see your avatar. We need a sequel to your classic article from last year.
Block quotes aren’t for everyone I suppose.
Different perspectives aren’t for everyone. He is one of those that is only interest in his narrative.
Maybe a one-year anniversary article is in order. I don’t usually look at the comments section, but when I do, it becomes apparent that my article fell on deaf ears.
Some of these men could solve all their problems if they would just STOP BEING SUCH FUCKING FAGGOTS.
The most effective awakening is often a rude one.
I said from the beginning–and still say–that your article was a true masterpiece. I retweet it every few months. It is probably the one manosphere piece that needs to be read and re-read by everyone.
Please do a sequel to this article. We need it.
Why do you always go full retard, man?
kuz MGTOW = WIMPS bra
“ROK is going retarded”.. I don’t agree. “Game” and “Feminism” has been covered to death. PUA sites do nothing but game and “women bad men good” articles. You have to cover politics. Feminism is a political movement which is destroying men.
Correct – eventually this has to move into the political arena. This is also where feminism will start to take sites like this more seriously. Currently they can just label it as a bunch of bigots and misogynists getting together and whining about how they can’t handle strong and empowered women.
What do all adult terrorists have in common?
They were all children who were raised to be terrorists.
I respectfully must disagree, the Grand Poobah Muhammad PBUH (pigs be upon him) himself was raised to be a goat-herder or a goat-fucker, whatever, but as they say “the rest is history”.
Massive reading comprehension fail. Go whine about it somewhere else. Banned.
Hey everybody, I found the butthurt mudslime! He right here ^^ !
Its a quote from the book illustrating a position Houllebeq seems now to have substantially adjusted
I found this to be a good overview of the book, and the writer. The whole point of the piece is to show a transformation of a man engaging Islam and the relationship to modern feminism. Perfect for ROK. I really enjoy the varied subjects and writers here. Good Job Troy.
Why do leftists recoil at the thought of brown people being put in charge of a western country and call it Islamophobia? Isn’t that the end result of multiculturalism in which a strong ethnocentric culture and religion will come to dominate a weaker and less coherent one in the ideological marketplace? Isn’t that what they want? How curious…
Michel Houellebecq was born on the French island of La Réunion, near Madagascar, in 1958. As his official Web site states, his bohemian parents, an anesthesiologist and a mountain guide, “soon lost all interest in his existence.” He has no pictures of himself as a child. After a brief stay with his maternal grandparents in Algeria, he was raised from the age of six by his paternal grandmother in northern France. After a period of unemployment and depression, which led to several stays in psychiatric units, Houellebecq found a job working tech support at the French National Assembly. (The members of parliament were “very sweet,” he says.)
Obviously a nut case.
It takes one to know one 🙂
Sounds kinda of a cool background to me. All good novelists , artists have checkered pasts and wacky upbringings.
With feminism reigned in, traditional values re-established and polygamy encouraged, Francois, it would appear, rather enjoys the new state of affairs.
Polygamy? Yet again, I don’t understand the love affair some writers here have with polygamy. If there were four females to every male, that would be one thing, but polygamy would only cause a massive sausagefest and large numbers of young men causing trouble.
You know, like the Islamic world.
They imagine themselves with multiple wives. The reality is they’d almost certainly be the guys stuck with “dancing boys” and/or animals (the correct Islamic way of course).
The wealthy would have four legal wives and even more temporary wives and sex slaves (grab some non Islamic girls, or buy them). This leaves few women for even the above average guys (thus the constant pressure for Islam to spread outwards and seize other people’s women). If you’re “lucky,” then you can marry one of your brother’s daughters, or a double first cousin, or something.
And then there is the long-term negative genetic consequences of multi-generational consanguineous marriages.
If you’re “lucky,” then you can marry one of your brother’s daughters, or a double first cousin, or something.
That seems to be the usual way out for the average Muslim beta. And since the average Muslim beta accounts for the majority of men in those societies, you then get low IQs and excessive clannishness due to the inbreeding.
Remember when those Canadian soldiers got in trouble for talking about ‘boy love Tuesday’ when they got back from Afghanistan? Pre-marital sex with women was forbidden (and the Taliban made sure of it) but sodomizing young boys was ok. So every Tuesday young boys showed up at the Afghan police/military compound and sold themselves to the Afghani officers. One of those things our ‘allies’ thought was normal that the guys were not supposed to discuss back home.
That’s the thing while such a scenario would appeal to those within
the Manosphere who yearn for a return to traditionalism (regardless of what
system it is), aside from the veneer of traditionalism the state of men who belong to the bottom 80% would be little different to what men already experience in the secular West and in many ways men would be far worse off.
That is in comparison to women who despite of their lack of equal rights would still benefit by virtue of their artificially scarce status as a result of polygamy (4 wives, plus mistresses, sex slaves, temporary marriages, etc) as well as a widening sex gap (via female infanticide and honor killings), the latter which along with further exacerbating the scarcity of women is also designed to reduce women-starved lower-status men (such as Elliot Rodgers and James Holmes) into becoming death-worshiping tools of jihad.
Like Socialists with other people’s money, islamists are happy until they have run out of non-muslims wealth / technology / women / booty / etc hence explaining why islam never made the most of its so-called “Golden Age” when they appropriated the ideas and technology of the peoples they conquered.
Its a good point.
I think what a lot of nostalgic minded people confuse is that the traditionalism of the West in the past century did not happen in a vacuum. It was not necessarily the traditional mindedness of the people that led to a better life but rather the overall economic conditions. To me they seem correlated.
When you allow women financial independence it just shows how little they care for men.
In divorces where the woman has a college degree, fucking 90% are female initiated.
The only reason a girl is into you in the first place is strength, resources and protection. If she has her own she doesn’t have to pretend to want you.
That is the core of the red pill – women don’t like you near as much as you like them
Feminism is largely correlated with improved standards of living. As it exists in the west it is a first world movement. When you are just scraping by you are not thinking about feminism or manosphere things.
That’s because it’s a poison deliberately injected into the veins of healthy nations.
Would you call a lot of western nations healthy at this point in time? They weren’t even all that healthy when feminism started to rear its head.
“That is the core of the red pill – women don’t like you near as much as you like them”
Pure Gold. Once a heterosexual can understand this is the same day he begins his life of independence, wealth (materialism), and true riches (wisdom, happiness, free will).
I had a conversation with my dad over an article i read on here, and i said to him, “You know, i think men are more romantic than women”. He slowly turned his head with his eyebrows raised and nodded toward me. It’s a scary truth, guys. Although Hollywood illustrates the woman as all-loving creatures who must teach men how to love; the truth is we are the true Romantics. We are spontaneous, caring, and warm. Women care about one person: Numero Uno. I love this site. Nowhere have i learned more. And never have I learned so much about myself. As long as this site stays strong I have faith in the modern world.
The conclusion to be drawn… don’t marry an educated woman.
lol! The way that no woman has ever described me!
Maybe i stretched my attributes.. what i was trying to say is i go out of my way for a woman i love; while they go through the motions of a notion they believe to be “love”. Keep it short: We love, they try to love.
However, educated women are smarter and less likely to divorce. Better kids, better family.
I will certainly marry an educated woman.
Women are supposed to care about themselves first, because that selfishness historically assured resources for her offspring. The problem now is that 1). The state acts as daddy and 2). A lot of women are childless. So the me-first attitude doesn’t really work anymore. Women say men haven’t adapted to the modern world (i.e. “The End of Men”), but it’s they who haven’t. If they’re going to take men’s jobs and roles, they need to have the benevolence men have historically had.
Once upon a (not so long ago) time, yes, women were more romantic than men in that it was they who wanted the trappings of family life since they had fewer options and no Big Government to fill the void where her own earning capacity lacked.
But now that they have an economic safety net via their own career or (more commonly) support from the state via court ordered payments by the ex or flat out giveaways like welfare, men are perceived as little more than sperm donors and occasional dildos. The modern western woman has zero sense of commitment nowadays – so much for the BS about romance.
…hope they like cats.
Depends what you mean by educated. There’s a lot of people out there with worthless degrees from crappy colleges that don’t have the practical skills of an 8th grader from 75 years ago.
Got any stats for the “less likely to divorce” platitude?
A little paper is here: http://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/130910
It is a generally accepted idea. Probably less significant than I had thought.
I also found out that sharing chores makes you 50 percent more likely to divorce:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/divorce-rates-couples-who_n_1923623.html
And wives working is related to divorce risk:
“Scientists have worked out that for every 1 per cent increase in the risk of marital breakdown, they put in an extra twelve minutes a week.”
found her—-> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2232318/Is-wife-working-late-It-sign-marriage-trouble.html
way healthier then now
There you go then – if she’s educated, especially at the professional level, she’s surely going to care about her career more than her family, increasing risk of divorce. If not, she winds up with an expensive set of student loans you wind up paying off while she stays home to raise the kids.
Kind of makes more financial sense to avoid the ones with that kind of baggage and cut to the chase of those interested in being a wife and mom first.
Economics usually correlates to the political system. The more affluent the more liberal/hedonistic.
I believe there is an article here (perhaps the one you referenced) about men being the romantics.
There is a movie called “Roger Dodger” from 2002 it has a monologue/rant that Roger does talking about the “end of man” it is a good movie but that monologue is worth a watch. I am now going to watch it again.
Education doesn’t equal smarts, and smarts aren’t the most important virtue in raising children, it’s selflessness and the ability to love.
Id say that’s true for feminism, but in regards to manosphere things a lot of people seem to have become more receptive AFTER getting a good scraping.
Only a wealthy man would get to experience polygamy. Wives are expensive.
There’s always been inequality in the sexual market place. there are plenty of women that men would never consider marrying at any point in history. Susan Boyle would be still in her cave if not for the TV show. it’s the reality of the situation. Some men would rather get sucked off by another man than an ugly woman and really i don’t have a problem with that. What i do have an issue with is then telling all these guys to embrace a whole lifestyle trend because of the social perks that seem to come from the social unity amongst the gay community whereas if you are a straight white male you are continually being mentally water boarded. it’s a struggle for survival and its lose lose. You succeed people will call it to be privilege. you fail and people see that to be some universal karma justice. Straight white males are the only social group lacking a solid union. Until we fight back we will be whipped over.
You fight back by improving yourself and embracing one very important rule:
Zero. Fucks. Given.
Many of the women that drove the sexual revolution were interested in liberating themselves of monogamy, at an atavistic instinctual level that was that they could access the high quality DNA and resources of an alpha male, the spread risk. That implies a tacit assumption of polygamy. The feminists think they may be able to control it, they probably won’t.
Of course many feminists are primarily indoctrinated leftists.
One woman is enough trouble….
Hahah I was thinking the same thing. But they can beat and kill women… we don’t.
No. One woman is more trouble than three or four. Three of four women quarrel and argument between them, all the day, every day, and they expect the husband to be peacekeeper – that’s funny and empowering.
One woman concentrate all her efforts to exploit her husband.
Polygamy has more cons than pros if you think about it rationally.
unless your pimp hand is strong.
Pretty much. It works well for pimps but not the majority of men. since the sex ratio in most countries is 50/50.
then that means you dont need it to be that strong just enough to keep the one in line.
keep in mind in virtually every country espically amonf youths there are more males then females
If polygamy was strongly discouraged, a strong pimp had wouldn’t be as necessary. Betas still reproduced without knowledge of game to the tune of 7 billion peeps worldwide.
Thats possible. Like old arrange marriage societies. But I think we are already living a polygamous society considering a few alphas get most of the females without tying the knot. Sometimes even fathering some offspring.
Pimps marry their hoes?
Gotta love the pretension of those who think certainty can be arrived at just like that. Not realizing how complex an issue is and thus easily arriving at a simple absolute answer is truly a sign of a mediocre mind.
edit: typo
You’re damn right!
Yeah, imagine what divorce would be like.
I think they’d all turn on her. Also, there’s none of this taking the kid and a stack of bread when you go with them. That’s HIS child and HIS money. Still… There’s a lot of really messed up stuff in that religion.
Except many women are choosing the sex of their child and goes which preference is coming out on top. female. Given that you cannot choose gender based purely on sex( tautology i know). you can however say that it is because of higher rates of say autism which affect men. However no one is aborting females because of diabetes. So in the future there may well be a lop sided society one where women greatly outnumber men however unlikely.
Dumb women. If autism was completely eradicated (which would be to their liking), say goodbye to artistic, technological, and scientific geniuses.
You know, guys like Nikola Tesla and Mozart.
Actually, autism is caused by advanced maternal age, i.e., betas settling for used up old whores rather than going for younger hotter things.
Wrong. Check out the latest research. Autism is strongly correlated with advanced paternal age. Maternal age is still associated with Down’s and other cognitive disorders.
The factors involved in autism are many and complex. Every day, I hear about a new “cause”.
Correlation does not imply causation.
It would have more to do with advanced age of the mother (just because old women mostly marry old men, doesn’t mean men are responsible). For generations, older men married and mated with younger women and mostly, healthy children were born.
True. Just saying that new research is also implicating advanced paternal age.
I recently went on a date with a girl who is a MPH/MSW student (aka SJW). She told me there is research that posit older men are susceptible (like older women) to fathering children with autism. Needless to say, I cut the date short minutes after her ridiculous comment.
I’ve looked at this “latest research”, and you’re wrong. Maternal age is the biggest factor. Paternal age is a weak factor, possibly even spurious since older women are more likely to get knocked up by older men than younger men.
This is true. But put them together and the larger issue is that older PEOPLE should not be having kids, esp. through technology. There is a reason a 19-year-old gets pregnant instantly. It’s what nature wants.
autism manifests differently in females due to social norms and whatot for females
Polygamy isn’t the norm in a muslim society. Not everyone can have multiple wives.
One of the reasons there are so many frustrated men – some men have a lot, but a lot of men have very little – not even one wife.
In the arab world, the average dowry is something like $20,000. That’s also one reason.
That’s a decent amount of money – you can see the reasons.
Yea but if the west goes Sharia, the average earning French convert would be able to import a dozen teenage wives who’d jump at the chance to get out of sand-land.
The limit is 4 wives.
Pussy-first Manospherians like Troy Francis have *no business* writing about politics.
Muh dick! Muh dick!
Lol, who the fuck can take these guys seriously? Polygamy goes against the rules of rudimentary math and basic logic. For every guy who has four girls, there are three guys with no girls.
How hard can this shit be to figure out? Too hard for the author, apparently.
The orientalism is strong with this one. It seems like many here will jump on the first, inituitive explanation for why much of the Islamic world is fucked up, not bother to fact check, and proclaim it as if it were established truth.
There’s certainly no shortage of troublemaking young men in many parts of the Middle East (the parts of the Islamic world outside the Middle East, not so much, but some people act as if they are synonymous), but that has mostly to do with economic issues preventing them from getting married and settling down, not with the top men making women unavailable for everyone else. Do you even have a clue about the actual rate of polygamy in any Islamic societies?
You’re wrong.
Economic issues preventing young men from marrying are irrelevant. Otherwise, Western countries would have the exact same problem, and they don’t.
Meanwhile, the most screwed-up Muslim countries have — surprise! — the highest rates of polygamy and cousin marriage. Where they’ve gotten rid of that crap (Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia to an extent), or where they have oil wealth to hire large numbers of foreign guest workers (Gulf Arab states) they’re much more stable.
Western young men aren’t prevented from marrying by economic issues, since their countries are much more prosperous across the board, and because marriage doesn’t impose provider expectations on them to anywhere close to the same degree that marriage imposes them on young men in Islamic countries. Also, Western young men have multiple alternative sexual outlets that young men in Islamic countries largely lack.
I ask again, do you actually have any clue about the actual rate of polygamy in Islamic societies? Any scatter plot data on polygamy rate versus some metric of country screwed-up-ness?
Western young men aren’t prevented from marrying by economic issues, since their countries are much more prosperous across the board,
You don’t have a clue about unemployment and underemployment among 20-somethings. Or student debt, for that matter. Or how Obamacare works.
Also, Western young men have multiple alternative sexual outlets that young men in Islamic countries largely lack.
They do have outlets, such as goats, sheep, each other, and female sex tourists.
I ask again, do you actually have any clue about the actual rate of polygamy in Islamic societies? Any scatter plot data on polygamy rate versus some metric of country screwed-up-ness?
I just frigging told you: Polygamous societies are shitholes, except where oil production has a palliative effect. But since you demand hard evidence:
Human development index: here
Polygamy: here
OPEC: here
That comment was a joke.
Men always have provider expectations placed on them, since it is their natural role. Even a female doctor will want a man who “feels like” a provider. People can’t seem to get around this reality.
The exception is the black community, where gender roles are fucked up to the max, and the women are batshit. Guess what? The black family is also fucked, and black dudes have learned to not care.
Yes because in the West there are no young men causing trouble.
If we had no blacks, Muslims, and Amerindian “Latinos” living here, there wouldn’t be.
I find your stupidity baffling.
Likewise.
Stop being childish. You know full well the history of Europe, Muslims or no is as bloodsoaked as any other part of the world. It doesn’t take Islam for men of any age to act up.
We’re not talking about the 1600s, dude. We’re talking about right now. And yes, right now, there is a vast difference, and if you don’t see it, you should try removing your head from the sand.
The most destructive war in human history occurred in the Twentieth Century mostly fought in Europe by grown white men. Let’s not also forget the little wars fought by the USSR and USA in Europe throughout the same century. Let’s not forget football hooliganism. Lets not forget the right wing murders by white men on white men. I could go on for days…
Point is Islam should be far down your list of worries.
Crap that states — states, not private individuals — do doesn’t count. And football hooliganism? Seriously? A complete non-factor.
I see that I have taken you far too seriously. My apologies.
You idiot, I brought up crap what states / governments do because that’s just about the only time Europeans do cause trouble.
Give me a break Bob. I’ve read quite a few of your posts on this site and I think you are very smart (patronizing I know) but you can’t say that young western men make as much trouble as (some) young Middle Eastern men.
Of course we have shootings etc, but parts of the Middle East are in total anarchy. Young men strapping explosives to their chests and driving through checkpoints. Young men burning pre-teen girls alive. Young men taking sex slaves. If you think that is just ISIS, take a look at the percentages of Muslims who agree with ISIS. Even though they are in the minority, they number in the millions. You can’t tell me that American’s gun violence is the same as multiple wars in the Middle East. Even in relatively secular and peaceful countries like Lebanon they can’t seem to go a few years without intermittent violence where young men grab rifles and heavy weapons and blast them into buildings while screaming Allahu Akbar.
Human history is filled with bloodshed and in that regard the west is no different from the Islamic world. But we are talking about today. It is not fair to mention WW2 in the context of 2016. Violence in the west is the exception while violence in the Islamic world in 2016 is the rule.
You are disagreeing with claims I never made. I never claimed that American gun violence was the same as multiple wars in the Middle East…. wars many of which the US/UK started and participated in…?
OK what percentage of young Muslim men are doing suicide bombings? Vanishingly small. Are more Muslim men causing trouble than young Western men? I don’t know but did you hear about the trouble during the Euro 2016 football competition? As bad if not worse than Cologne. Young white men running though the streets of France beating people so bad they wound up in hospital with permanent injuries or death.
What do you mean about “agree with ISIS”? Some pop survey that applies to 1.6 billion people? Are you aware that ISIS was (initially) a CIA op? That said what exactly does ISIS stand for?
I don’t consider you patronizing. I took your comment in the spirit it was intended. Thanks.
In terms of percentage of male population in the same 18-39 age group, I think not.
Only elite men would be able to afford to maintain more than one wife. It’s results would have a eugenic effect. There are also much more men than women at the lower end of the IQ scale just as there are more men at the top of The IQ scale. That some men are unable to find a mate is unfortunate for them but if your able and willing to manage more than one woman, why not.
The Islamic world has proven that polygamy is dysgenic. The elite men marry large numbers of women, spread their genes around, and cause a stagnation in the gene pool, while most men in the middle are forced to settle for a female cousin.
And the author’s comments on the Koran run contrary to what I have read, and this was with commentary from a middle east muslim for a middle east muslim aduience (for the real scoop). It seemed clear to me that the jihadis are not quoting the Koran idly
Have you seen Muslim countries?
You are going to be looking down the edge of a blade slicing your throat.
This article is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize the fear of Islam.
So Houellebecq won’t fight Islam. So best to find some rationalization to submit to your new masters early, and gather a bunch of cackling hens?
Islam is not about peace. You have bought into the lie.
Once their Taqqiya wins you over, they will rule over you.
Interesting and incredibly devious on his part. Arguably, feminism has been the most powerful political force in the last half-century (or RoK/RP wouldn’t need to exist). What happens if you get feminists all torqued up at the possible future hinted at in this book, then point and go, “The bad men are that way”? Unstoppable force meets immovable object indeed.
Ummm… The feminists will start trying to sleep with the bad men….
Islam does do a lot of stuff right: making sure that kids see their father foremost.
But Islamic societies are emotion driven theocratic hellholes. And it’s not just the Koran, the evangelical nature of the religion requires that there exist religious authorities to prevent the religion being hijacked for the latest social cause.
I look forward to reading Hollabecq’s novel when it is translated to English. He’s among the greater living novelists today.
It is sad to see that publicity for this book got tanked by the massacre.
It is even more sad to see cowardly leftists either try to say that massacres are something that can be solved with #hastags, or, worse, say that the cartoonists had it coming.
I plan to read this.
Halfway through the article I wondered if it could be pre-ordered. Maybe if the interest was enough we would not have to wait until September.
Yes I’m hoping they bring it forward.
Why all the way in September though? Long release date for a foreign writer who is not exactly obscure.
Looking forward to your review
Foresight is not at all common amongst multiculturalists so we need illustrative stories to get the idea across. Hopefully it’s a good read in English.
This scenario would magazines like Cosmo and fashion houses out of business.
Sounds awesome!
I’m at a point where I so despise feminists so much that I will sit back and let Islam roll right over them.
Since they have no qualms about destroying a man just for disagreeing with him, well then, I have no qualms watching their lives get destroyed.
I won’t go to the stonings. I don’t agree with that sort of thing and I try to maintain a sense of justice. But I won’t be the one trying to stop them.
It’ll be funny when being a feminist and owning a gun (and hitting up every tactical school for training) all become synonymous. Right now it’s the cunt patrol joining up with gun control but just seeing that tune get thrown in full reverse without even stopping is going to be *fun*.
Maybe if there were “real men” they could stop Islam, but… well the feminists got rid of real men. But hey, maybe that non-threatening 110lb metrosexual guy from the third cubicle down who you felt comfortable with because he never demanded anything from you and was really good at ordering a latte might be able to fight off the Islamists? Better ask him now.
men who think that islam is the saviour are completely misguided. lets use the Charlie Hedbo attack at a reference point. how many females did the male shooters kill?
They were quoted to say” “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam,”
the religion that is going to be the reference point for growing western traditionalism shows that is doesn’t hold women accountable for their role in attacking the prophet yet holds men accountable and openly invites these women into the region and therefore salvation. I’m going back to my norse gods
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/i-hid-under-a-desk-how-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-unfolded/article22364210/
Charlie Hedbo “attack” was bullshit.
I feel the same way most of the time, they will absolutely steamroll the feminist agenda. I know a lot of people don’t think violence solves anything but let’s be honest, it does. Do you think Muslims would be getting their way (food, schools, censorship, prayer calls, etc.) in Europe if they didn’t threaten the civilization around them with violence? Of course not. They’d be like any other group, ignored for the most part. Do I encourage violence? No. But I am saying that violence is the only reason that their issues are being remotely listened too.
If they expect me to ever pick up an AR-15 or an M4 and fight for the cuntocracy, they’ve got another thing coming. Honestly these feminist/leftist types are such pussies they accept and take all the violence no questions asked, unless of course the violence is from straight, white men. Then they bitch up a storm. But let’s see socialist Sarah with her women’s studies degree and Marxist Max with his degree in sociology pick up a gun and fight for their rights. I’m waiting.
As has been discussed in other comment sections most feminists rush to the defense of Islam. One of my cousins is a feminist an lists fighting Islamaphobia as one of her causes. She’s not the only one, they are in for a huge rude awakening when Muslims gain control of the West which they eventually will. Feminists are so brainwashed by their hatred of white male Christians that they can’t see Islam represents the opposite of everything these SJW feminists claim they fight for.
Really? I read an interview with the man which made me think he was more sympathetic to Islam.
I must have inferred wrongly
He has changed his views a bit over time. Note also – heavy smoker, heavy drinker and does drugs – there is a good reason he looks that bad in the photo .
Really enjoyed this review. Read Atomised and Platform in the 90s and found his work brilliant (sometimes beyond brilliant) but invariably depressing, so to hear that he’s come back with something this hard-hitting is great. Atomised (not sure about ‘whatever’) is probably the first time I’d ever read an author describing the decline of men, and in platform, where the main character spends most of his time trying to get sex from a couple of part time german lesbians remains one of the best -if somewhat depressing – depictions of how men can ‘enjoy the decline’.
I haven’t read Possibility of an Island but that quote is a fantastic indictment of everything that is foul about this society:
“Show men endless images of beautiful models and actresses and singers, show them endless images of beautiful, slim, women engaging in sex with enthusiasm, tell them that a world of uncommitted and marriageless sex is the norm — then, for reasons they don’t understand, slam the door in their face.This is not a prescription for long term stability.
Thing about Houllebeq is one could never imagine him happy or satisfied. There is clearly some part of the guy who longs for the ‘order’ that alien Islam could offer – the absolute obverse of the kind of sorrowful decadence his characters always indulge in. I’ll have to wait to read the book to find out but it sounds like this is equal parts dystopia and utopia, equal parts fear and longing.
Maybe there are some parts of Islam that can be modelled even while islamification is resisted
Do yourself a favour and pick up a copy of Possibility Of An Island. If you enjoyed his other work you will also enjoy that book.
I like the sound of it, so I might well do that
Possibility of an Island is great — probably my favorite
I’ll check it out
France has a long history of being an incubator for racial leftistism. Pretty much every communist dictator of the last century was educated in France. The country cannot be saved from the invaders that seek to destroy it . The leadership is too feckless, the people too complacent, keeping to their own business instead of alerting the authorities or taking action.
But as an American, I would have to ask: “What am I defending if I fight Islam?”
It’s a question that MUST be asked because if I am to kill or be killed or maimed “in defense against…”, then what am I putting my life on the line for?
Right now the only answer I can come up with is:
– feminism based on the debasement and destruction of men
– gay parades but open carry of a legally owned gun is forbidden or gets you killed.
– medical research into sex changes but if you got a severed spine or lose your legs or eyes you are still fucked.
– and on that note: whackjob parents sexualizing children in devious ways in such manner that they become “policy” instead of said parents getting locked up.
– progressive taxation whereby in Islam an “infidel” is only taxed 10 percent.
– our corrupt state courts whereby non Muslims get their own court system
– “Democracy” whereby who outvotes who determines who gets to be the have and who gets to be the have-not
See I’m having a hard time getting motivated here. Perhaps the radicalization of Islam is a covert plan to make them so intolerable that we end up having to fight them lest we end up beheaded for not having a proper beard or something. Islam has been around a long time you see but I can’t help noticing that only after the USA/CIA gets involved with a region in the middle east that all of the sudden here comes these guys with the beards and pickup trucks screaming and stoning/beheading/executing people. There’s a pattern here.
“only after the USA/CIA gets involved with a region in the middle east that all of the sudden here comes these guys with the beards and pickup trucks screaming and stoning/beheading/executing people”
You’re not supposed to notice that
“only after the USA/CIA gets involved with a region in the middle east that all of the sudden here comes these guys with the beards and pickup trucks screaming and stoning/beheading/executing people”
Islam was raiding European/American shipping and taking slaves from the European coastal villages until this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
That was the begining of Islam being on its best behavior because of the sheer power difference between us and them:
Now, we’re seeing raw Islam again, because they see weakness. For whatever reason various groups and people like Obama seem to be purposely funding/arming “radical” aka authentic Islam, all the while claiming that this Islam isn’t Islam (because Islam is the “religion of peace”).
But, the curse of Islam (the religion of the self admitted children of Ismael) goes all the way back to Genesis 16:12:
“And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”
Islam is (almost) everywhere and everywhere at war with everyone else: Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, pagans, atheists, black/white/asian/cartoon pigs….
There’s no point in sugar-coating Islam, but in the past its often proven adaptable and even tolerant when under the control of moderate or secular rulers, rather than the scourge of everything decent and civilized it is now. The West seems to have moved heaven and earth to bring out its very worst potential. Western leaders share responsibility for this
Talk about catch 22 or pick your poison, one thing that is certain is women looking to back the strong house like they did during the fall of Rome where they cavorted with the victorious barbarians tribes amidst the ruins.
“What am I defending if I fight Islam?”
Wow… this question and your subsequent analysis really hit me like a ton of bricks. I abhor extremists of any type and I would hate to trade one evil (feminism) for another (Islam). Still the question has merit, is our society really worth fighting for?
The only thing that would allow me to answer the question for myself is knowing how my freedoms would be affected. I may abhor feminism and I may not be able to have a family or any real semblance of a traditional life, but America still has far more freedom for the individual than an Islamic country, but then as feminism becomes more and more tyrannical and backed by freedom eroding socialist policies, the question becomes, as a Man, will I have those freedoms that I enjoy for much longer? What are my rights and freedoms going to be ten, twenty, thirty years from now?
It is an incredibly disturbing line of thought that in the long run Islam may allow Men more freedoms and rights than our current cultural climate. I would sincerely hope that another solution presents itself before having to make such a Faustian choice!
– progressive taxation whereby in Islam an “infidel” is only taxed 10 percent. –
That is actually according to the whim of whoever is the Caliph or your local Muslim ruler. Also, don’t forget that the honor of you and your family is basically a fair game to all Muslims whom you come in contact with. Being infidels under Muslim rule is no fun, just ask the Yazidis.
Yea. They say “They enemy of my enemy is my friend”. But in the battle between islam vs. Liberalism, it’s kind of “The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy… hopefully they kill each other”.
Sometimes I think I should just go “Allah Ackhbar” and import a half dozen teenage wives to do my bidding or face my wrath.
it also has a long history of wierd nationalism (bonapartism) and anti-semitism (dreyfus affair) that crosses the left-right divide. That may well be re-surfacing in the wake of charlie hebdo etc
There’s a surge of philosemitism as well. Shabbos goy troops are being assigned to guard Jewish institutions all over Europe.
The whole dreyfusards and anti-dreyfusard divide has evolved. Except now Bernard Henry Levy is Zola, and the J’Accuse is directed at Mohammedanism
I’m reading one of Houellebecq’s other novels, Platform. Very red pill.
Yes, but most muslims are still mud people. They are Barbarians, the Others. Doesn’t matter if their doctrine works, possibly even better than ours. We can’t allow ourselves to become subjects in our own countries.
It may “work” quantitatively, but certainly not qualitatively.
Not ‘mud people’. The technically correct term is ‘rock apes’. Yes, they are barbarians.
I’ve seen the term “Desert Irish,” (think of the IRA bombings) which is a bit dated but not enough for me not to laugh.
Homo lithopithicus?
I am fluent in French, and let’s just say I have more than a passing familiarity with all flavors of Islam. I ordered this book immediately.
Does ROK want a review from someone who can actually read it ?
I wouldn’t mind a review.
Why not submit one?
Can’t read French.
“Houellebecq looking well, yesterday” – classic. Made me laugh the first time round as well.
Don’t let that stop you old boy!
You’re either up late or you’re Australian.
Or maybe neither.
I gotta ask, even though you probably won’t respond. Englishbob – Pale Rider or you are actually English and named Bob.
Being the man of mystery, I knew you would not reply. Anyway, I’m going to watch Pale Rider now.
Ended up watching Deliverance instead.
Why not submit one? I plan to review fully when the English version is out but if someone does so from the French even better
Oui, bien sur !
“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.”
The author is the real deal, but if you substituted “Jew” for Palestinian, we would not be having this conversation. Same could be said for the whole Charlie H. “free speech” celebration–a legendary illustration drew something that somebody said was “anti-semitic” and the a Jewish Defense League member threatened to shoot him, and the editor of Charlie told the legend to apologize or be fired. The legend said he’s rather cut his own balls off. The comparison was apt, and he was fired.
Glenn Greenwald, from Intercept, did a piece on that. Very provocative. He’s jewish and homosexual and he’s already in hiding from the US government, so I guess that gives him some freedom of movement
Greenwald’s great. But, yes.
You realize your JDL friends are terrorists, yes?
I don’t really understand that. Snowden too?
the secual market place quote is from the book elementary larticles/ the atomic .
Thanks for the reference Troy.
As I said before, Islam is Alpha and is AMOGing every other beta shit way of life out there. Only time will tell.
muslims sub-humans are so beta that you need to flee to the west in order to feed your worthless children. Whitey could execute a holocaust upon you they’d make Hitler green with envy simply by kicking you off of the dole. Your rat children would starve in the street.
“muslims sub-humans are so beta…”
Yes and you are a perfect example of a Muslim’s sub-human for all to see.
Bow down and submit my sub-human slave !
Some filthy Arab Khanzeer of about 7 or 8 years old- probably a Refugee from Iraq or Syria– begged me for nickels in Istanbul last summer.
I laughed at it as I sat eating my kebab. ‘En sh’allah, kalb’.
Ha ha. Yes you made your Master laugh once more. You have earned a new pair of underwear courtesy of our new Islamic charity for desperate non-Muslim court jesters.
How many shit colored muslims will die because of the attacks in Paris? I’ll obviously enjoy hearing of the drone strikes but the funniest will be the shit colored women and children who are killed by their own when their visa and asylum applications are denied.
Guess how I know what ‘Khanzeer’ means.
The little niggers in Iraq used to beg for MREs. I’d open up the MREs, remove the candy and take out the pork chops, ham slice or pork sausages. I’d write “Khanzeer” on them in large font in Arabic. I’d also tell the starving nigger what it was.
Did they eat dinner at the cost of their soul?
Man you just a red neck. Gtfo.
I paid an old arab woman $1 to chase the nigger children away from my HMMWV with her walking stick while I laughed.
Do you still have a job back home in the good ol’ U S of A ?
Yup. Now I work in an industry that makes the weapons used to kill subhuman muslims.
– muslims sub-humans are so beta that you need to flee to the west in order to feed your worthless children. –
They are actually come to the West to conquer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-VVa2x_w4
– Whitey could execute a holocaust upon you they’d make Hitler green with envy simply by kicking you off of the dole. Your rat children would starve in the street. –
Won’t happen, as long as Whites continue to be bleeding hearts and don’t possess the resolution of their predecessors like, say, that French dude named Charles Martel then we can all keep holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
I’ve read it in French in less than a week, just during my daily commute. I found it a good read, very easy to read, a page-turner. The book is very funny, people stared at me in the subway as I was laughing out loud while reading it.
In terms of writing style, the author is having fun, and sometimes you can notice in some descriptions of consumer items that he just copy-pasted the advertisement of the product and inserted it in his text. Other than that the writing style is simple and easy to read. The story mirrors somewhat the real-life story of Huysmans, a nineteenth century writer of which the narrator is an expert, who ended up converting to Christianity. I admit it made me want to read Huysmans.
You should be aware that the book’s real target is not so much islam as the French cultural and political “elite”. He shows the elite for what they are : cowards who are ready to sell their soul for a few dollars, or more accurately, for two wives, one hot 15 year-old for bed and one 40 year-old for the kitchen…
He also criticizes the masses, the common people of western countries, for being so apathetic. There is almost no reaction from the people when the islamic republic is being established.
As the book moves forward, it’s a drive-by shooting of the feminist and boomer ideology, he makes a convincing case of how all the sexual liberation and destruction of traditional family has not made people more happy, just more lonely.
I heard people say that Houellebecq could have made a 600-page book, at this point in his career he could get away with anything, but instead chose to keep his message short, simple, and to the point, so as to reach as many people as possible. I believe that’s true. I read the book as a pirated pdf on my smartphone, but after reading it I bought the hard cover version here in France to lend it to friends, who since then have lend it to other friends to spread the message.
Thanks, great review.
Huysman’s A Rebours is one of my favourite novels – in English translation, of course! I may review it for ROK at some point.
The tale of the ‘Scorpion and the Frog’ has become the tail of the shitskin and the West.
Liberalism imported these shit colored theists into the US and the EU. The shit colored theist brought their ultra-conservative values with them and now the shit colored theists destroys liberalism. It’s fitting.
It’s not their fault they’re brown. It is their fault they’re Muslim. And it’s the fault of our elites for inviting them in.
Paraphrasing Mark Steyn – I’m a social conservative anyway, when the Muslims take over I’ll just grow my beard out and take an extra wife….. The irony in all this is that if, when, the Muslims do take over it will be liberals, feminists, homosexuals and all deviant variants of them all that will pay the heaviest price.
I have a lot more respect for the chaste, feminine lady in the hijab than I do for the pierced, tatted up western slut puking beer and cum outside the club.
This reminds me of Jews. For years (even decades possibly), Jews have been know to encourage immigration and make movements to oppose “racism” and be heavily involved in social justice issues. Yet today in France, they are afraid for the lives. Muslims have extreme hatred for Jews and would readily kill them all if given the chance. Some French Jews are talking about leaving France to escape the violence. They are basically the first casualty of the left-sponsored immigration of muslims that they supported themselves.
The irony isn’t lost on me. It’s not just multiculturalism that Jews have thrust upon us but radical feminism as well. I can’t decide who’s a greater menace to society; Jews or Muslims.
It’s particularly ironic though when they leave France for Israel for such reasons. How does the number of Jews killed by Islamic extremists, or by aggrieved Arabs, compare between France and Israel? Even on a per capita per annum basis, the numbers clearly show France to be the safer place for Jews.
But I guess actual cold hard actuarial numbers on likelihood of death are irrelevant compared to the warm fuzzies from being in a Jewish state armed to the teeth.
Funny how Mark Steyn thinks that to “take an extra wife” is such a trivial matter. Apparently he thinks that under an Islamic social paradigm, men can just grab and wife up women just like that on a whim.
He’s a humourist.
Ah yes, the classical cop-out, to claim it was just meant in humor. Convenient that, you can say anything you want and propagate whatever ideas you want, and if anyone calls you out, you can just dismiss them for not getting a joke.
No really, he is. Try reading some of his stuff.
Doesn’t matter whether he is, it’s still a debate cop-out for the same reason.
While France being ruled by islamists in 7 years is probably an exaggeration, the message in this book is still strong. There is really a danger and people need to fight back to reverse the trend of islamization. Muslims never respect their host countries and always try to impose their views on others and make threats, even if they are a tiny minority.
He admitted in a recent interview that he sped-up the process for drama. But he still believes it’s a possibility. But more like 2040-50 than 2022. I’ll be an old man in 2050, but I will have a hearty laugh if a country like France is under Islamic rule. I hope all the western sluts at my age at that time are dealt with accordingly in such a system. A final fuck-you so to speak.
Seems to me that the myriad problems posed by diversity can simply be solved by limiting immigration. Would any of you care what Islam was like if there weren’t so many Muslims in Europe? To each their own. It’s the multiculturalist left that has encouraged this travesty, and most of those people are whites. Keep your eyes on the real enemy first.
and most of those people are whites Jews.
I fixed it for you.
Are you sure it is most? You’re talking the academic New Left? Jews are what % ?
I meant proportionately.
I’d care more about what Jews are up to if I believed white people gave much of shit about white people.
the jews you refer to are white.
The left ain’t shit. The left would radically change the government and the economic system beyond anything remotely discussed by so-called liberals. Anyway, the thing is insofar as leftists or “leftists” MSNBC, HuffPo, NYT, NPR, pc pussies on the Megaphone successfully push their identity politics and multiculturalism on the general population (I like that term, makes us sound like inmates, which we more and more in fact are, in this panopticon) it is because business wants it, corporations want it. It makes as much if not more sense to be pissed off at rich people that don’t give a flying fuck about anybody and certainly not their countries which at this point this global parasite class are traitors to. BUSINESS > new kiddie leftie pussies. The “elite” scum want you and me working harder for less, they want Jose and his 50 family members here taking blue collar jobs and Sanjay and Dingbang Sumyungguy in cubicle farms and labs.
The left deliberately creates conflict as it see the inevitable clashes that follow as working to move ‘progress’ forward.
>With feminism reigned in, traditional values re-established
And by “traditional values” is meant “men are expendable and women are pedestalized”.
Thanks but no thanks.
>and polygamy encouraged
….and hence rape of young boys and gayification and male loneliness.
http://i.imgbox.com/m5twS2Fw.jpg
It must be said that Houellebecq at least has a lot more intellectual integrity than most of the commenters here. As much as he might dislike aspects of Islam, he doesn’t let that get in the way of seeing Islamic societies as some of the few remaining societies that adhere to the kind of patriarchal gender paradigm that many red-pillers are convinced are a necessity for the continuation of civilization. The same cannot be said about most actual, self-proclaimed red-pillers.
Yes, that’s right. There’s a certain irony to it.
Islamophobic. Ha. Unlike liberals, I don’t fear Islam.
You’re wrong. Liberals don’t fear Islam at all, even though they really should.
“Far from being Islamophobic, the implication of the novel seems to be that debased western society with its deeply-flawed sexual marketplace would actually be improved by aspects of the faith’s prescripts.”
The whole “broken clock” analogy could be applied to any faith system. But my country was built on a Judeo-Christian foundation, and my studies suggest that Christ was a lot more personable than Mohammed ever was.
“The Enlightenment is Dead” A recent quote from an Interview he gave. I couldn’t agree more. A Noble idea turned to poison. Something will replace it, probably something spiritual. Maybe Islam, at least in the West.
From what I have read here, this man is like a bad doctor – one who gets the diagnosis right, but at the same time prescribes the wrong treatment and ends up killing the patient. We don’t need Islam in Europe – our problems came from within, and so should the solutions to our problems. A foreign belief system will only, as it already has, destabilize the continent further.
Nonetheless, I might look for the book once a translation to my main language is released.
Looks like a good book.
Unfortunately, it is written in French. Kind’ve worthless that way.
I’ll wait for the English version.
“In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place.” That’s exactly what France has now and sure, every worker (those able to find jobs at all) finds their place – at the bottom of the economic heap. With laws against “unfair” dismissal, employers in France and elsewhere answer this by hiring as few people as possible. If that’s what mandated, state defined equality brings, you’re welcome to it.
I am getting to the point where I think some things might be worth trying, if for no other reason than it would make feminists very, very upset. I enjoy telling them that “there are some things about Islam that we should embrace” and then watching them tie themselves in knots trying to find some way to rail against straight white men. It probably makes me a sadist to enjoy that so much, but there it is.
The sadist in me almost wants to see sharia law enforced in America. The feminists, the true believers (roughly 1% of all feminists), would be exterminated within days. The remaining 99% would scurry back to Western men begging for refuge.
“Why should I help?” should be the reply.
The realist in me, and for now the driving voice, understands the above scenario eventually spells extinction. At that point MGTOW becomes a fight for survival and no longer an alternative lifestyle choice.
See:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Please wake up America. We are 5-7yrs behind France and Europe. Our govt’s immigration policies are making this a certainty. There will be no assimilation, there will be no peaceful agreement, there will be no happy multicultural ending. Islam does not negotiate its doctrine.
I will read this book when it gets stateside but i doubt it will offer any solutions. Just a looking glass for a probable future.
I’m Muslim, and found this article interesting. Also note: The Sexual Marketplace, when free, is exactly why we see some (still limited) marriages/partnerships between (typically ugly and/or fat) white women and black men, and why we see black women and Asian men at the bottom, without LTR partners. Before integration, the lower tier of the white women pool were unmarriageable, and black men had to breed with black women. It’s no coincidence that from 1967 to today, we have seen a progression in numbers of more and more typically fat and/or ugly white women taking “first rate” (or so) black men, away from black women–with a few exceptions. Those same white women were NEVER going to be selected by white men. Yes, with a few exceptions, you almost always see a white woman with a higher SMV Black guy. Black women are thus relegated to nothing but cum dumpsters. In Islam, they would be eventually paired with ANY available man.
It seems to me in this books scenarios, there would just be a lot more men masturbating because there would be a much more wider gap between the haves and the have nots. A regular Joe would never get laid. just mho
I just read an article that he wrote where he regrets to have said that Islam was the stupidest religion. However I think that he really believes it.
I have to give ISIS credit, they are not swayed by modern consumerism.