Posts Tagged ‘michel houellebecq’

Houellebecq On The Emptiness Of “Careers”

Saturday, May 20th, 2017

This one has been making the rounds, but, it serves as an observation that modern life leaves nothing for the future especially in careers:

Children existed solely to inherit a man’s trade, his moral code and his property. This was taken for granted among the aristocracy, but merchants, craftsmen and peasants also bought into the idea, so it became the norm at every level of society. That’s all gone now: I work for someone else, I rent my apartment from someone else, there’s nothing for my son to inherit. I have no craft to teach him, I haven’t a clue what he might do when he’s older. By the time he grows up, the rules I lived by will have no value—he will live in another universe. If a man accepts the fact that everything must change, then he accepts that life is reduced to nothing more than the sum of his own experience; past and future generations mean nothing to him. That’s how we live now. For a man to bring a child into the world now is meaningless.

Jobs make you into a robot. Aristocracy makes each person have a place without being equal. One does not work at all, but the other mostly works. Even when it fails, it is better off that its alternative in the long term.

Instead, we get the standard human behavior: a compromise, more aimed at reducing risk to the present tense than creating something positive in the future tense.

Jobs are jails. Democracy is slavery. Socialism is control. Until we overthrow these things that “seem” good but are actually toxic, we are doomed to live among our own failures.

Western Religion (And Religious Westernism)

Monday, January 2nd, 2017

Among us now come many who have staked all of their hopes on a single tool to fix a complex situation, for example, religion. Many especially among our most learned and thoughtful believe that society must begin again with religion as the tool that makes this happen, but they would produce the worst of possible results, much as happened when Hitler treated race the same way: as a tool.

Our time is ruled by social popularity, democratic voting and consumer-based industry. We are accustomed to creating tools, whether physical or institutional, that shape people around us by forcing all of them through a filter. In this filter, they must either obey the dogma or face some kind of sanctions, although those seem only to fall on the good taxpayers and not those who make lives of crime.

The problem with tools is that they not only fail to contain meaning, or knowledge of goals (“ends”), but that they actively displace meaning. Your mind only has so much space of focus, and if all of the focus goes into methods (“means”) instead of ends, then the reasoning behind doing things is lost. This allows fools to compete with the wise by emulating them, and the audience cannot tell the difference.

Of those people who want religion to save the West — fundamentalists, evangelicals, some traditionalists and pentacostals — the analysis remains consistent because it has been so for the past two hundred years. They talk a good deal about morality, and how they will set an example, which turns out to mean they will go to their church, drop out of society at large, earn money and pay taxes.

In short, they will not fight the enemy, but will enrich themselves, and in the meantime, be the good stupid little sheep that any parasitic system needs. If you want to know why people are fleeing churches, it is that the Christian conservatives act like morons, and the rest of the flock is too busy trying to be hip, young and liberal so they can get some of those donations, but it never works for long.

People who are trying to use religion to save the West have made religion into a political organ. They want to use it like a tool to filter people and force us all to obey what becomes a de facto ideology. In other words, they make religion into liberalism by attempting to use it as a force against liberalism.

A more sensible vision, as offered on this site, is that we will not have a single over-arching theory as liberals do. Even conservatism itself has two general planks, time-proven methods and transcendental goals. Religion is part of this, possibly an inseparable part, but it is not the core. The core is a desire to be realistic and from that, to choose what is best for ourselves and recognize that the rest of humanity will not. That leads to something like our four pillars, varied methods shaped around the goal of excellence through realism and self-discipline.

In other words, our basic outlook has to be evolutionary. We rise because we target excellence, but most of the world will always be a human wasteland because most people are dishonest because they are solipsistic, in the eternal weakness of humankind. Our big brains become mental bubbles in which we live while life passes by outside, and we waste our time on garbage instead of making greatness of our days.

Every part of life demands greatness. Even the simplest acts of craftsmanship, agriculture and day-to-day leadership can be improved qualitatively as an infinite dimension. There is always room to be go further, but it is not through a change in methods, but through refinement of our understanding, self-discipline, aesthetics and other inner skills.

We do not know what the future holds for us, but it seems likely that there will be a rebirth of Western religion. This will occur through a desire to restore the West by finding reality, and will emerge from our focus on what is real, which includes religion but is not limited to it. Religion in fact can serve as a proxy, a game or a legal puzzle, for understanding this reality. The tool then becomes the master, and the master the slave.

This religion may even be a revitalized Christianity. Writers like J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Paul Woodruff and T.S. Eliot have given us a vision of what that might be like, with Tolkien and Woodruff leading the pack. But more likely, the strength of Christianity — its communication through fable and laws — will be its downfall. In our new complex era, we need something more.

Another writer, Michel Houellebecq, expresses something else: admiration for Christianity, but recognition that its vitality has faded, and so it needs to be restarted and renewed, if not remade in our image. We do not need a Western religion; we need a religious Westernism, a belief in ourselves in our goodness that includes the will to find God in all things, but not through the tired manipulations of the flagging church.

It is likely that the Western religion will be like our original pagan faiths, unwritten and in fact, not formalized. It will not be used as a tool, where the religion is the means of changing our motivation, but will be discovered as part of daily life. The ancients might have said to us that they did not have religion, only an awareness of an order within the patterns of life, and that this transparency allowed them to avoid turning it into a dogma, an ideology and a tool.

Our original religion comes from nature and is based in the idea that nature reflects a more complex order than man, because man must fit into this order. We study patterns and from them, can make some conclusions which are firmer than any material objects in their prevalence in our lives. For example, we notice that life seems to strive for beauty, balance, harmony and purpose, always refining itself toward greater complexity which is a form of simplicity with many layers, not lots of unconnected detail in the modern “complex” way that is really ornamentation.

To the ancients, religion was inseparable from any other form of knowledge. They knew that the natural world was everything, but that it had layers which are not visible to the living, and it has spaces to which the non-living pass, but that these are battlegrounds not of good versus evil but order versus randomness, with evil being an agent of that randomness because it is moral selfishness, or hubris.

Their beliefs were logical and rigorously ordered, not symbolic as the Asiatic religions were, and they were not backward like the process of using religion as a political tool. Instead, they sought to put each thing in its place, and then improve everything qualitatively according to the order found in nature. This is a more mature faith than what we have now, and the only type of belief that can aid us in our task of restoration.

The Alt Right Before The Alt Right

Friday, November 11th, 2016


Before Richard Spencer and Colin Liddell started Alternative Right in 2009, there were a number of movements trying to carry forward the best of the far-right without the “Hollywood Nazi” trappings that white nationalist groups had adopted.

In particular, they wanted to get back to a sense of roots conservatism without failing like mainstream conservatism, but also add parts of conservatism that had been overlooked, notably an emphasis on existential well-being and environmental preservation.

This happened in the hazy days of the 1990s, when a number of convergent factors arose:

  • Black metal. Explicitly nationalistic and Nietzschean in morals, black metal rejected universalist morality and pacifism. It endorsed instead harsh Darwinism, a warlike outlook, and a distrust of the crowd and its pursuit of trends.

  • Ted Kaczynski. The unabomber wrote an articulate manifesto in which he picked apart the psychology of Leftism and demonstrated that it would never achieve its ends, only succeed in destroying social order without saving the planet from human overgrowth.

  • Tim McVeigh. Terrified by government abuse of its citizens at Ruby Ridge and in Waco, McVeigh parked a rented truck full of homebrew explosives outside a government building and blew the front off of it, killing 183 people.

  • Michel Houellebecq. The author of Whatever criticized modern jobs as meaningless wastes of time, modern sexuality as abusive and lonely, and generally pointed out that the society created by teh 1968 generation was a subtle hell on earth in which everyone is lonely, alienated and uneasy.

During that era, a number of voices emerged that paved the path to the Alt Right, which seems to be a mixture of nationalism, anti-democracy, environmental concern, desire for Evolan traditionalism, anti-egalitarianism and human biodiversity (HBD).

First were Burzum and Darkthrone, two black metal bands who took the lead in expressing politically incorrect sentiments. Darkthrone branded one album with the slogan “Norsk Arisk Black Metal” (Norse Aryan Black Metal) and Burzum creator Christian “Varg” Vikernes made a number of un-PC statements, and continues to do so despite legal threats at his blog Thulean Perspective.


USENET produced a variety of impolitic trolls including the famous and alt.flame.[African-Americans] group, whose legacy lives on here. These later developed into hacker/troll groups such as the GNAA, who combined old Nazi propaganda, un-PC language and relentless trolling and subversion of mainstream trend-followers into an art form.

Also emerging from USENET and the pre-web days of g-files, the organization to which this author belonged, the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) wrote about nationalism, anti-democracy, human biological differences and restoration of civilization from the late 1980s onward. In particular, this group wished for an alternative to white nationalism:

While we support Nationalism and the Indo-European tribes, the members of this site have nothing to do with neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, or White Power groups. And this isn’t because of social taboo: we agree with said groups on many things, most fundamentally that Indo-Europeans (“Caucasians”,”whites”) have the right to establish nations where no other races are welcome as residents. This is nationalism, by its very definition (nation = a people), and in my belief it should be extended to every ethnic group, from Basque to Eskimo.

However, speaking both for myself and other members of this site, that’s where the resemblance ends; “White Nationalists” and others who are basically hate groups in disguise piss me off because they’re incorrect in their philosophical assumptions and method. It’s well and good to stand up for your tribe, but don’t expect me to embrace everything that looks white and lump it all together into one ethnic group. That’s insane talk, and when it’s coupled with hatred for other races, you can count me out.

Other missives of note: here, here, here, here and here.

This group held a high degree of influence over the early web by being its nexus of forbidden topics that did not slide into the emotionally-charged, symbolically-driven rhetoric of ideological groups. It was followed by its successor, CORRUPT, which eventually became one of the clearest anti-democratic voices on the web with its “End Democracy” campaign in the mid-2000s.


In addition to that, a group which shared membership with the above arose in 1997 called the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSG). This group aimed for a softer version of Nazism in terms of method, but harder in principle such as its environmental and nationalistic focus. It achieved brief unfortunate fame in 2005 when school shooter Jeff Weise was revealed have been an active long-time poster on its forums. He is remembered fondly by those who were there.

The group advocated a type of philosophical Nazism that clashed with the emotionally-driven narrative of white nationalist groups:

Our vulnerability lies in the fundamental weakness of control: that it is mathematically untenable because each level of control requires a meta-level of controllers, meaning that an ideal society would be paradoxical, as it would always require more members than it could have. The mistrust we use to bond ourselves in capitalist society, creating needs for protection and isolation addressable only through economic power requiring further bonding to the control structure of the system, is what ensures that we desire control; it also, however, means that those we enthrone as controllers are the same that we distrust in any other capacity. This illusion feeds off itself, until we are entirely isolated from our world by a shield of alienation which we use to justify our selfishness.

Thus we find ourselves searching for an universally applicable binding which will unify our desires, needs, and fears to a collective will; in history this has been provided by war, famine, disease or other natural disasters. As mentioned in the literature of history this has been called Leviathan, after the awesome and terrifying creatures of mythical lore that unified cities against their assaults, and it has been a prevalent theme among extreme political entities that demand absolute allegiance to a state. What if, however, Leviathan were a virtual entity in another method of interpretation – much as “God” of primitive Judeo-Christian religions could be interpreted as a metaphor for existence, Leviathan could be interpreted as a subconscious objective shared by society, rather than the society itself?

While these early efforts were not mentioned by presidential candidates, they introduced millions to the set of ideas that now comprise the Alt Right: the notion that genetics determines our destiny, that homogeneity works better than diversity, and that equality is not just wrong but insane and leading us to doom. They propagated information about the difference between ethnic groups and the failures of Leftism in application. And they paved the way for further explorations of the essential Realist Right to come.

The Nobel Joke Prize Honors Bob Dylan

Thursday, October 13th, 2016


I actually like a few Bob Dylan songs. This one always made me hum along.

IMHO, Dylan was a talented man. IMHO, he did not produce literature. Therefore, the Nobel Committee has further debauched itself by awarding Mr. DYlan, an American Folk Musician, a Nobel Prize for Literature.

Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature on Thursday for work that the Swedish Academy described as “having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition.” He is the first American to win the prize since Toni Morrison in 1993, and a groundbreaking choice by the Nobel committee to select the first literature laureate whose career has primarily been as a musician.

Like the New York Mets hiring former NFL QB Tim Tebow to play baseball, The Nobel Committee has gone against the purpose of their activity. They had before them 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami as an option. It has actual words. Veritable pages with paragraphs and everything. They clearly weren’t going in for plot, story arc or characterization. Soumission by Houellebecq was never under serious consideration.

We know these Nobel committees are staffed by a pack of prats. The Nobel Foundation is basically a converged institution that virtue signals so that it is allowed continued existence. We all remember what a knee-slapper they pulled by awarding Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. They have yet to offer Hillary Rodham Clinton a Nobel Sweetness Prize. They haven’t quite worked up the nerve.

Their credibility, my friend, is blowing in the wind. It’s not the only thing here that blows. Like any other converged institution infested by the SJW sarcoma, it is now a joke with no ongoing existential purpose. It is the converged Nobel Joke Prize.

Submission, by Michel Houellebecq

Tuesday, September 13th, 2016


In theory, Submission centers around the takeover of France by Islam through the democratic process. Peeling a layer deeper, it contrasts the principles that make Islam successful with the comparatively self-destructive principles of the West. At its core, it addresses the question of whether we in the West can believe in anything, including both God and ourselves.

The plot follows a middle-aged professor in France in the weeks leading over to an Islamic takeover of the country. His life is a modern tale of lust, excess and a striking lack of fulfillment. As a result, he serves as the perfect Houellebecian protagonist: constantly stunned, always on the periphery, and going through the motions of ordinary life from a simple lack of any idea otherwise.

In the process, the protagonist uncovers a secret identity of Islam as a new imperial power, and the West as dying from its rejection of biologically-realistic policies in favor of neurotically-obsessive intent policing in order to uphold its obviously miserable and failing egalitarian order.

“Rare are the builders of empire,” Rediger mused. “It is a difficult thing to hold nations together, when they’re separated by religion and language, and to unite them in a common political project. Aside from the Roman Empire, only the Ottomans really managed it on a smaller scale. Napoleon could have done it. His handling of the Israelite question was remarkable, and during his Egyptian expedition he showed that he could deal with Islam, too.” (237-38)

Like many of the best books from Houellebecq, this latest tome searches for causes beneath the obvious political, social and managerial dysfunction. His interest is not what is going wrong, but why it is going wrong, and he spins it in Submission through a parallel plot that compares the existential despair of an academic, the migration from naturalism to religious conversion of writer J.K. Huysmans a century before.

This book does not suggest answers, but attempts to correctly identify its parts and leaves us with the resulting questions. Would we want to live under Napoleonic rule, or the Ottoman Empire, and are we falling like Rome? The hint given is that Islam is simultaneously successful because of its Machiavellian focus on power and practicality, and itself heading into the doom that awaited all of those empires.

Only religion, the article tried to show, could create a total relationship between individuals. Think of an X-Y graph, Rediger, wrote, with individuals (points) linked according to their personal relationships: it is impossible to construct a graph in which each individual is linked to every other. The only solution is to create a higher plane, containing one point called God, to which all of the individuals can be linked — and linked to one another, through this intermediary. (224)

Much as with the sense of empire, Houellebecq’s protagonist Françoise finds himself uninspired by religion. He tries, repeatedly, to induce in himself the Catholicism that has guided France in the past and delighted his hero Huysmans, but instead finds himself missing the step before that step, which is the will to believe.

The above cited article purports to represent the thinking of Réné Guénon, and points to the split between European and Muslim consciousness silhouetted in this book: Muslim consciousness is practical, where the European needs an inner animating spirit toward the transcendental in order to enjoy life. Françoise is a case in point; he survives by practicality, but finds himself wishing he were dead.

The story follows Francois in his middle age as he lives a rootless life: teaching easy classes to nihilistically bored and career-minded students, having a series of sexual relationships with students, and in the distinctive style of Houellebecq, purchasing and analyzing consumer goods including exotic TV dinners and YouPorn. His life is complete and yet empty in a way he cannot articulate but reveals to us, the readers hovering over the details of his existence, through his actions and most importantly, his lack of genuine affect in response to what should be emotional events like the loss of a lover or job.

Houellebecq has developed a style all of his own; one might call it “reciprocalism” because it takes the big issue in any situation and contrasts it with the small issue, which appears larger because it is more immediate. For example, whether France is falling to revolution or not, dinner must be made; the health insurance must be paid; the car needs gas and the career needs advancing. Through this, the author shows us how modernity inverts all motivations to be mere reactions to impositions on material convenience, using humor and bittersweet sardonicism together.

“And I don’t guess you’re really an atheist, either. True atheists are rare.”

“You think? On the contrary, I’d have said that most people in the Western world are atheists.”

“Only on the surface, it seems to me. The only true atheists I’ve ever met were people in revolt. It wasn’t enough for them to coldly deny the existence of God — they had to refuse it, like Bakunin: ‘Even if God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.’ They were atheists like Kirilov in The Possessed. They rejected God because they wanted to put man in his place. They were humanists, with lofty ideas about human liberty, human dignity. I don’t suppose you recognize yourself in this description.”

No, in fact, I didn’t; even the word humanism made me wantt o vomit, but that might have been the canapés. I’d overdone it on the canapés. I took another glass of the Meursalt to settle my stomach. (204)

Through his struggles to adopt Catholicism, the protagonist discovers a truth uncovered by Immanuel Kant: since every effect has a cause, if one desires to be religious, one must first have the intent and openness to it. This serves as an analogy to the West, which appears unwilling to desire to save itself, and instead finds itself lapsing back into pragmatism including physical comfort, which includes the lusts, alcohol use and luxury TV dinners that Françoise uses to fill the void.

Submission ranks as one of the greatest books of the modern era. Like Elementary Particles, an earlier work by Houellebecq, it raises the question of how a civilization resurrects itself, and identifies the question as lodged within the human soul. When people want excellence, and the good and beautiful and true, they can choose methods or interpretations of that such as religion, but absent that, they remain indecisive.

In the case of Françoise, the question becomes one of how to deny pragmatism and the popular notions of what is convenient in order to elect to rise to a higher plane. The Muslim takeover of France occurs through democracy and is encouraged by government and citizens alike; the people are inert, following the parameters of their jobs, but not the demands of civilization. And so it posits to the West a question: do we want to not just survive, but live?

The importance of boredom

Saturday, March 12th, 2016


Michel Houellebecq says that in order to write, one must first become bored, and then in that emptiness of mind can create. This calls into question the creative process, which is not as random as egalitarian society likes to think, although that makes it much more egalitarian, but consists of noticing the operations of the world and drawing parallels between them.

For example, a great piece of music mimics the storms of the Western sky; a great novel describes the inner lives of people as conditioned by events around them; a great piece of software reconceptualizes a common task using tools from other domains. This is creativity: a practical, studied and reasoned science with art emerging to fill in the gaps of the unknown.

But to reach this state, we must shut off all the voices. The critics in our lives; the fears of insufficiency or everyday events; the worries about our aptitude or abilities. Then we must shut out all the tendencies, clichés of the mind, which complete our thoughts for us by going down paths we have traveled before. Only then is the mind empty like the night sky.

Is it coincidence that modern society attempts to spam every instant of our consciousness? We are inundated in propaganda, news, social chatter, advertising and neurotic theories masquerading as “self-help.” The people around us spin in busy cycles of fears and desires, shuttling between the two in an attempt to create warmth in their souls of activity and purpose.

Of course it is not: of all things, this society fears the silence. In the silence, the world makes sense, and through that, we see the options for pleasure and goodness in life, not mere reactivity to what is going on in the social (and political and economic) world around us. When we explore the inner world, we come to know reality, and through it, we know what is good.

That goodness is not accessible to all. Out of a hundred people, all but one are congenitally unable to achieve it, whether through lack of biological native intelligence or fault of moral character and personality such that they could see a thought with depth through to its conclusion, instead of generating a quantity of tangential observations. The silence is the cold that most fear, and yet it is only through going to that cold that we find warmth again.

The fatal flaw of the dissident Right

Monday, February 22nd, 2016


Any change in thought faces an in-built hurdle: escaping the previous thought enough. For all that we on the dissident Right have achieved, we still face the inescapable difficulty of making sure that our thinking is not infected by that of the Left (and its parent philosophy, Crowdism) which is dominant in this age.

Nothing better illustrates this than the recent kerfuffle over sex/realism writer Roosh V, who found himself under attack from some in the altright for not being white. In response, he pens:

If an internet movement is decentralized and based on open admission from outsiders who can steer its direction, particularly women and homosexuals, it will fail. That doesn’t mean it won’t have an effect upon society, but it will fall very rapidly after its peak. The alt right likely peaked with introducing the term cuckservative in terms of mainstream influence. Their initial viral hits concealed problems that may have been there all along, and which I myself missed. The fact that diehard anti-SJW’s and anti-feminists who don’t have the approved Nordic lily whiteness are viciously attacked by the alt right mob with SJW help shows that they’re long gone in terms of strategic effectiveness.

I worry not about women and homosexuals for the same reason I worry not about non-whites joining the dissident Right. Some of our best advocates have always been not white, from Malcolm X through Paul Gottfried and Laurence Auster, not to mention all of the near-whites of Southern, Eastern or Irish European extraction.

The question remains and has always been: do they understand what we are going on about? If they do, let them in, because they have the rarest of abilities which is to see the legitimacy and realism of our point of view. If they do not, even if heterosexual, Nordic and male, letting them in amounts to entryism and will destroy us.

Our challenge on the Right is that of every majority called on to defend itself. We do not have a cause like the Left, which styles itself as the victim of inequality and therefore creates a new religious-style morality based on only equality being good. Like the point of a knife, that is a focused and simply explained belief with an inherent demand.

The majority faces a more complex task: it must defend its way of life and its satisfaction with it. How can we be happy when others are suffering, somewhere? The answer is that we found something that works, and as we have deviated from that, our fortunes have fallen, and that we must assert both (1) self-interest in pursuing what works for us and (2) the supremacy of our method in the long-term, even if we could serve up the seed corn to stop suffering now.

We are not defending what is now; we are arguing for Restoration, or the return of what worked for us. We have been under assault by insane Leftism for a thousand years and it has ruined our society. If anyone has rights, we have a right to break away from the method used by The Rest that will end in misery, and to instead achieve for ourselves a better life. If only to prove it can be done and show how, we should do this; however, those who fear they cannot do the same will always oppose us, because our success makes them look bad, in their view.

What is restoration? A conversation between Auster and Mencius Moldbug reveals a wonderful snippet:

Restoration is an anti-entropic process. A little restoration does not lead to a lot of restoration. It is an intrinsically futile act—a candle that soon goes out. Rather, if order is to be restored, it must be restored entirely in one step. A house can be ruined incrementally. It cannot be renovated incrementally.

We do not defend anything; we fight for a different world. We strive for a world of beauty, justice, honor, excellence, ascendancy, reverence and truth. We want to burn all that exists now and replace it with something far better. Our self-interest takes the form of a desire to exceed what is now and achieve greatness. Nothing else will do.

Right-wing movements have never been able to coordinate like Leftists mostly because of a lack of agreement on what we find wrong and what we desire. We are not ideological zombies like the Left, but this makes us less effective. This is why the Right grows through dissident movements that organically bring ideas to the table and give them symbols so that others can see something new to aspire to.

And that is what the altright needs: aspiration. We need to realize in our heart of hearts that this world is an unforgivable Hell and a sin against all that is good, and that we can have a Restoration. We can do better and we cannot inch toward it. We must leap from the top window of this Tower of Babel and soar. We are the future. As a wise man once said, “the next thousand years are ours.”

I have lived for too long in darkened corridors attempting to pretend that the small amount of leaking light constitutes a hope. I have spent too long restraining my desire to set it all ablaze. I have wasted too many years in an atheistic, materialistic and self-destroying frame of mind. I am ready for war. This is the mindset we need on the dissident Right.

As one writer who has contributed more than anything to the Right wing renewal had to say, modern life is unconscionable and yet everyone is too cucked to speak up and scream:

I hadn’t seen any novel make the statement that entering the workforce was like entering the grave. That from then on, nothing happens and you have to pretend to be interested in your work. And, furthermore, that some people have a sex life and others don’t just because some are more attractive than others. I wanted to acknowledge that if people don’t have a sex life, it’s not for some moral reason, it’s just because they’re ugly. Once you’ve said it, it sounds obvious, but I wanted to say it.

We are all dead men walking so long as we remain on this path. We know how it ends and we cannot respect ourselves if this is what we leave to our descendants. This evokes the Roosh controversy, because it shows us men clawing at an invisible enemy on their backs. The real purge is within: we must purge ourselves of hopelessness and helplessness, admit we have seen the Hell that is coming, and strike out in honesty to Restore goodness.

Anything else is just spitting in the wind, entertaining ourselves by being internet rebels while the battlefield languishes. Anything else puts us below the lowest homosexual Other casual sex participant because we, unlike others, know toward what we march. Victory or death. There is no other way.

The revolt against blindness

Friday, November 6th, 2015


A question that lingers around all of us on the alt-right is, “So what are you against, exactly? And what are you for, exactly?”

Another way to phrase this is: (1) what’s wrong now and (2) what will replace it and (implicitly) what are its tangible advantages?

From (of all places!) The New York Times, talking about the “dystopian” nature of the new Michel Houellebecq book:

When I say “dystopian,” the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or “Eurabia” what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.

I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory.

If I had to point to a foundation for postmodern reactionaries (“neoreactionaries”) it would be Houellebecq, through his influence in Louis-Ferdinand Céline. They pointed out in simple terms that not only is modern society Hell, but that it is a pointless hell that achieves nothing, and it is not unique in history but a typical decay-stage of a civilization heading downward. They point to a lack of transcendent purpose and common sense realism as the root of our decline.

Most people cannot handle what they write because not only is it biting, funny and satirical, but it also presents a simple equation: we know what we are doing wrong, so stop doing it and go the opposite direction. Turn our wheels from Hell to Heaven, in other words, because these writers believe in goodness, beauty, truth, decency and above all else, human happiness and thriving. But we will not find those through individualistic democracy, diversity, liberalism and consumerism, they say.

It is our individualism — the pursuit of the individual above all else, which requires abolishing social standards, values and heritage which imply a Darwinian ranking to each individual — that leads us into a blindness. This blindness has us avoid seeing how the modern time is Hell and how it is just going to get worse because we are going down the exact same path, just intensified.

Movements, you want movements? The Red Pill focuses on honest talk about the differences between sexes; Neoreactionaries point out the failure of Crowdist (individualists in groups) leadership; the New Right shows how dysgenics, consumerism and multiculturalism are destroying us; the Alternative Right shows the absurdity of a lack of social order and our participation in sacred fictions and virtue signaling. All of these point to the same thing: everything is broken. We are using universal methods — like individualism/equality and signaling/altruism — where we need to look at realistic common sense results, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Democracy hasn’t saved us from tyranny, but transferred it to a new form where it is invisible to us, and this tyranny is tyrannical precisely because it is destroying us by putting our people into existential hell, which makes them hate society and want to destroy not only themselves, but others and nature.

Take a peek at this burst of profundity regarding the gap between what we really want and need, and what we settle for in the sexual/romantic arena:

I was casually scrolling through Twitter one night and came across the most accurate post that I have come across in the four years I’ve been on the site: “Being a hopeless romantic in a hookup culture is a special kind of hell.” If this doesn’t deserve a hundred retweets, favorites, Instagram posts, and Facebook shares, then I don’t know what does.

Everyone wants the fairytale. Whether they want to admit it or not is their choice, but ultimately, everyone wants that one person who they can ride off into the sunset with. I wanted that, but things do not always go as planned.

Fairy tales are not mere fiction; they are aspirational fiction. Every princess wants a prince, and every man wants to be a brave noble warrior. Every kingdom wants to be good, and it wants a good king. Every person wants their life to mean more than trading hours of pushing paper for enough money to live outside the ghetto.

In my view, the neoreactionaries starting with Houellebecq did something unique and powerful: provided a toolbox for the non-liberal to explain why liberal logic leads to Hell. We are inundated in liberal justifications for their actions, and the propaganda toward equality/individualism within them, but few of us have any counter-arguments. This is why majorities are always defenseless: we don’t know why we do what we do because it is non-ideological; it simply works, and it cannot be broken down into the polarizing vectors of ideology like our opposition can. So we hear their arguments, fail to offer resistance that explains around these arguments and invalidates them, and thus by inertia, compromise and herd appeal the nonsense wins out over fully working existing methods.

What is aiding us now is that the Narrative is failing. Not just in one area, but across the board. Take, for example, this vicious insight into why both our news and our modern heroes are fake:

The wonderful heart-warming story of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing startup, is almost as fantastic as Valeant’s accounting. Her fear of needles led her to drop out of Stanford at 19 to commercialize a blood test that relied on a finger prick instead of drawing blood from a vein. She became the youngest person ever to be given the Horatio Alger Award and was appointed to the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School. Time magazine named her to its list of the world’s 100 most-influential people. Her closely held company was recently valued at $9 billion, making her a multibillionaire.

That’s a wonderful story. At least it was until it turned out that the blood test didn’t perform as expected.

…My apologies for once again beating the drum on ignoring the narrative and focusing on the data, but it seems that every six months or so this subject returns with a vengeance. If you feel like catching up with my past tirades on the failures of narratives, see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

It isn’t just stocks. A story can be used to justify almost anything, be it a portfolio position or an ideology. Just ignore the facts and data, and hold on tight for the ride.

This is what we are waking up to in the modern time: everything we have been told is lies, based on the interval between telling a lie and see it turn out to be the opposite. This is true of democracy and liberalism as well, which made promises centuries ago which are only now showing that they were indeed the foulest of lies, used to justify the legitimacy of the oldest of human failings: greed, power-lust, control and an impulse to destroy.

Houellebecq identifies himself as “anti-liberal,” but because liberalism is the newcomer and everything else is based on what has worked in the past, anti-liberal is the same thing as looking at conservatism. That broad umbrella, with its dual planks of common sense realism and transcendental aims, contains the core of what has worked for all successful societies during 6,000 years of human history. It is only in turning away from it that we have guaranteed not only our doom, but our life sentence in Hell while we wait for the end.

Where did the “diversity=genocide” meme come from?

Thursday, June 4th, 2015


The left rages as usual, but this time they have found a quality target: the DIVERSITY = WHITE GENOCIDE meme has enraged them, probably for the same reason people usually get upset, which is that it contains enough truth to hit a nerve. The left has fired back with accusations that this is a far-right meme.

But where did it originate? Preliminary research suggests it was either trending back in 2007 or was invented by Ann Coulter in her column titled “Bush’s America: Roach Motel”:

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

Why is it that the best defenders of majority interests are white and near-white women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Pamela Geller? They have seen what life will be like for women and families if the white male patriarchy and its associated cult of wisdom and powerful leadership fades. There will be no future, and they are willing to step out in front and say that.

Over the last seventy years, the “far right” has done nothing but rage around with its own drama and then self-destruct, providing convenient headlines for all who hate the idea of majority-white nations to champion. In fact, there has not been a better tool for the left than the cruel, violent, thoughtless and one-note far-right. If I were the propaganda chairman of the Communist party, I’d send them all bonuses. Each time the far right appears, the majority of mainstream Americans edges left as it recoils in horror.

Instead the reform against progress has been driven by writers like Michel Houellebecq and Ann Coulter, thinkers chipping away at the myth of equality like Stephen Pinker and Robert Putnam, and sociologists hammering away at liberal ideas like Charles Murray and Tom Wolfe. The growth of the diversity=genocide meme shows just how far we have come, since many things can be said now which would have brought flashing red and blue lights back in the 90s, and the methods that have taken us to success.

The Map and the Territory by Michel Houellebecq

Monday, February 27th, 2012

The Map and the Territory
by Michel Houellebecq
269 pages, Alfred A. Knopf, $16

In The English Patient, Michael Ondaatje uses the map as a postmodern device, a type of meta-plot to a novel that then contorts the character-related plot around its metaphor. This is what distinguishes postmodern novels: the metaphor leads the characters, instead of the other way around.

However in The Map and the Territory, Houellebecq — a more mature and yet more emotionally coherent writer — shows us instances of maps, symbols, sensations and notions replacing actual experience. His point makes itself as his characters scramble to keep up with the metaphor, revealing that beneath all of the formalism and bluster of the human experience, there is a human experience we cannot communicate in public and it is lost to us when we let the public view of experience (the map) replace our actual knowledge of life (the territory).

Writing in the grand tradition of French literary provocateurs like Louis-Ferdinand Céline and Gustave Flaubert in that in order to explore pleasure, he first explores misery, and then like Socrates finishing his dialogue, points toward the empty space indicated by the limits of all that has been discussed. Houellebecq crafts an uneven storyline in which sudden leaps occur through the impulsiveness of the characters, but this saves us his readers from extensive exposition of an ultimately unimportant nature, and delivers us instead on a wild ride that more resembles a descent into madness than the urbane novel of modern sophistication that his writings initially pretend to be. Where the postmodern novel is about an idea, Houellbecq’s novels are about characters reacting to an idea which is incomplete. They are tormented by what is promised but not evident.

This might categorize his work as “black comedy,” or narratives where awful things are described as absurdist and amusing. However, an underlying sense of emotion guides this process, such that the dark humor is a layer of surface on top of an emotional narrative. This does not fit into the modern literature rubric which like the work of Ondaatje combines the “workshop school” with the emotional demands of commercial television and the need for the work to have a semi-technical metaphor; in the workshop school, the writer develops a situation and fills in generic characters who are defined by their reactions, and the film-style emotional ending closes out the book rather abruptly, while metaphor gets layered over the top as a kind of narrative describing the narrative. Houellebecq takes another approach, which is to work from an idea outward to characters and then to put them in a situation that reveals their inner worlds and not just their knee-jerk reactions. The result will seem uneducated to the half-educated modern reader with his heady expectations, but unlike a typical book is not linear, but like an unfolding flower.

For the enfant terrible of postmodern literature, Houellebecq is at his mellowest on this book. The hyperbole is mostly tuned down, replaced with a kind of surreality to events that should reveal an underlying confusion but instead gesture an emptiness. Without giving away too much of the plot, this book can be described as the survey of a photographer who is fascinated by the objects of meaning in life: tools, professions and maps. Each of these implies a certain degree of purpose and selectivity, yet in the artist’s life as well as those of the other characters, what is demonstrated is generally mere reactivity, or finding life as it comes and tossing back a visual approximation of a response to it. Through these he builds a theme of the book, which is the confusion of the tool or labor with the meaning that is conveyed by the sacrifice made for it, a theme echoed in the protagonist Jed Martin’s labors as an artist.

It was then, unfolding the map, while standing by the cellophane-wrapped sandwiches, that he had his second great aesthetic revelation. This map was sublime. Overcome, he began to tremble in front of the food display. Never had he contemplated an object as magnificent, as rich in emotion and meaning, as this 1/150,000-scale Michelin map of the Creuse and the Haute-Vienne. The essence of modernity, of scientific and technical apprehension of the world, was here combined with the essence of animal life. The drawing was complex and beautiful, absolutely clear, using only a small palette of colors. But in each of the hamlets and villages, represented according to their importance, you felt the thrill, the appeal, of human lives, of dozens and hundreds of souls — some destined for damnation, others for eternal life. (18)

Like Scott Fitzgerald before him, Houellebecq receives criticism for the compassionate and yet disinterested way he portrays the collapse of society around him. People stand revealed for what they are, in the overlap of stereotypes and archetypes that most people use as cloaks of personality, and the result is a lifelike impression of modern life. It does not need judgment: like most things Houellebecq, a projection is made an an absence is noticed, like negative space used in a painting of a landscape at night. The empty spaces are both lack and possibility, since they await these characters to wake up and fill them with something meaningful, a light or life.

Translator Gavin Bowd maintains the unique rhythms of Houellebecq’s prose, which is Gallic to its core and in its pacing, but seems “English-aware” such that it seems alert to what will happen in translation. Unlike previous Houellebecq novels, The Map and the Territory replaces much of the quirky and fragmentary prose with solid paragraphs that rise and fall like sand dunes viewed from an airplane. The rhythms are designed to be easy and hypnotic, such that the author can introduce us to new strange worlds and then leave in our minds the barest seed from which revelation will spring. These seeds occur in each quadrant of the novel and are layered with addtional meaning, leading to a spring forth of impressions that are not stated. This allows the postmodern metaphor of the novel to remain mysterious and yet achieve clarity.

For two minutes he went through the owner’s manual of the Samsung ZRT-AV2, nodding his head as if each of the lines confirmed his dark predictions. “Ah, yes,” he finally said, handing it back. “It’s a beautiful product, a modern product that you can love. But you must know that in a year, or two at most, it will be replaced by some new product with supposedly improved features.

“We too are products,” he went on, “cultural products. We too will become obsolete. The functioning of the system is identical – with the differences that, in general, there is no obvious technical or functional improvement; all that remains is the demand for novelty in its pure state.” (105)

Like many of the books we review here, Houellbecq’s latest is not intelligent in the sense of adapting to its surroundings and profiting from them, as he easily could by writing a Barbara Kingsolver or Jodi Piccoult style novel: an enigmatic setting, fractured characters defined by their need, and a bittersweet story with an uplifting and yet moral (or politically correct) ending. While in this book Houellebecq provokes obvious scared cows and taboo gateskeepers less than ever before, the cynical view of modern society as based on lies touches every aspect of the world he portrays, and so little must be said. This is not an intelligent book; it is a genius one, and not for its “intellect” so much as its honesty, and its willingness to speak of the portion of our lives we cannot put on a map, which is the yearning of our souls for purposefulness and meaning in the midst of a modern wasteland.

Recommended Reading