Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Anthony Ludovici

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Fri May 01, 2015 12:45 pm

About Roses among Thorns and Black Sheep
and under which circumstances physiognomy, the apparent,
proves to be a more certain guide;

Ludovici wrote:
In the choice of a mate, therefore, we must act on the assumption that appearance counts for a very great deal, that it is a language that can be read with a certain amount of accuracy, and yields reliable information concerning the invisible qualities behind the visible facade.
But it is of the utmost importance in applying this conclusion in our daily lives, always to bear in mind the consequences of the two rules laid down on pages 60, 71, 72 supra, which may now be paraphrased as follows:—
(1) That in an individual who is like the other members of his or her stock, whose stock does not show much variation, and who is therefore not improbably the outcome of inbreeding, appearance is a very certain guide to character and disposition.
(2) That in an individual who is unlike the other members of his or her stock, whose stock shows marked variation, and who is therefore not improbably grossly cross-bred, appearance is not such a very certain and reliable guide to character and disposition.
The latter rule holds good more particularly when the individual in question is either above or below his stock in appearance.
For example, if in a stock consisting or variously ugly or repulsive people one member is very attractive (a setting we can sum up briefly and graphically by the idea of a Rose among Thorns) a good appearance, because it may conceal all the undesirable qualities of the rest of the stock in a latent form, is not to be trusted. Ergo, all Roses among Thorns should be classed rather below the plane which their beauty and character appear to suggest. And since this situation appears in numberless modern novels, it is important to maintain the knowledgeable and critical attitude to the type, because the whole Rose-among-Thorns situation is one which can be misunderstood only in an atmosphere saturated with Socratic and Christian values.
On the other hand, in a stock of good-looking and desirable people, if one member is exceptionally unattractive (which is the case of the Black Sheep), his or her unattractive appearance in this situation may obviously conceal, in a latent form, all the desirable qualities visible in the rest of the stock. Ergo, all Black Sheep should be classed rather above the plane their appearance and character seem to suggest.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Drome



Gender : Male Cancer Posts : 86
Join date : 2015-02-19
Age : 30
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Fri May 01, 2015 1:38 pm

Anfang wrote:
Some guidelines about man's appearance...

Ludovici wrote:
We have seen regarding human appearance:—
(a) That it is most important and reveals a good deal about the individual and his value, both physically and mentally. .

A video on Ludovici attacking Socrates further. He seems to be correct, though its the very first time I hear someone have a take like that on Socrates and his ideas.
I wish I could find a thread on this forum discussing Socrates, Plato and their relation to the pre-socratics.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Fri May 01, 2015 2:20 pm

That video is based on Chapter 1 of the book 'Enemies of Women - The Origins in Outline of Anglo-Saxon Feminism'.

"From the bottom of our hearts we, who wish woman well, warn her to be on her guard against the Feminists; for she has no deadlier foe than they." — Dr. Fritz Wittels

Socrates is for the self-proclaimed soulful.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Sun May 03, 2015 5:14 pm

Ludovici wrote:
Whatever insincere highbrows like Socrates and some of the Christian Fathers may have had to say in defence of human ugliness, the people, the common folk, in their instinctive wisdom, have everywhere regarded it as ominous, and observed the invariable habit of depicting their bad men and evil spirits as ugly, and their good men and benign spirits as beautiful. Even now, after two thousand years of Christianity, it is only in middle-class drawing-rooms, saturated with Christian and Puritanical sophistry, that beauty is suspected as a mask for wickedness, and ugliness as a mask for divinity. The people still think that wicked and dangerous people must be ugly and that good and desirable people must be good-looking.
The very fact that the ugly have, until Socratic and Christian times, been at a disadvantage, is perhaps best proved by the Socratic and Christian transvaluations themselves. For there would have been no need of the Socratic bluff about man's invisible side being his most valuable side, had not ugly Socrates and all those like him wished to save their self-esteem.

…I think by now people suspect the opposite, the ugly one must be good on the inside while the beautiful is ugly within. ('Privileged' by nature and inversions like that).


Hoaxes...

Ludovici wrote:
Naturally, therefore, the plain, the ugly and the deformed, must, almost from the beginning of human consciousness, have found themselves at a disadvantage; and it is not surprising that, at some time or other, an ugly man's insurrection or revolt should have occurred, with the object of changing the situation to the advantage of the ugly. Socrates, with his hoax about the superiority of the invisible side of man, performed the revolutionary feat, and Christianity, by interpreting Socratic values to the mob, made the revolt popular.
The uglification of humanity then began in all earnestness, owing to the fact that the rapid elimination of the ugly, hitherto effected by the difficulty they found in mating, to all intents and purposes ceased; and we have now reached a stage of development when plainness, or actual ugliness, is so common that a beautiful woman and a handsome man are phenomena sufficiently rare to be talked about.
It is not, however, only the Christian and Socratic hoax about the superiority of the soul that has promoted ugliness, but also the very definite hostility to life which is implicit in Socratic and Christian values. As I have shown above (pp. 31–32 ante), the Christian regards beauty as dangerous because it is a lure to life and the pleasures of life. A beautiful woman, like a fine man, stimulates the instincts of procreation. Now this is, of course, very wicked, according to Christian notions, seeing that sexual intercourse was the original sin of mankind. The consequence is that, wherever Christianity has prevailed, ugly people have been favoured and regarded as particularly safe and holy, because in them there was no emphatic lure to sin, to life, to procreation. Inevitably, therefore, Christianity was bound to imagine its own highest man, Christ, as ugly, and, as we shall see, it did not scruple to do this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Sun May 03, 2015 5:18 pm

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?

Ludovici wrote:
For the sake of the reader who is fresh to the study of the æsthetic values "ugly" and "beautiful," as they relate to humanity, particularly in mating, it ought, however, to be pointed out that when used inter-racially these words have not only no necessarily aesthetic significance, but also no necessarily morbid or other implication. When a fair young Parisian lady, confronted by a negro waiter, exclaims: "Dieu qu'il est laid!" or when a fair Cockney girl, meeting with a Chinaman, mutters under her breath, "Christ! what a clock!" it is surely obvious that the word "ugly" (implied in the second remark) can have no æsthetic or morbid implication. It is merely the instinctive reaction of one race to the ideal of another, a reaction by which that ideal is rejected.
It is only when races grow unhealthy, sophisticated, lose their taste, and allow their sound instincts to be corrupted, that the word "ugly" can be used inter-racially (from the mating standpoint) to imply a recognition of morbidity. Otherwise the word used inter-racially means in extenso merely this: "You may be sound and all right as a negro or a Chinaman; but to me you are repulsive and therefore to be rejected."
As we shall see in a moment, every race postulates its own highest examples as the standard of absolute beauty. A race, uncorrupted and sound must, therefore, pronounce the word "ugly" in regard to all other racial standards of beauty (and this it does and always has done), otherwise its mating judgments would amount, in practice, to bringing about the evanescence of its own race — an end which, as we have seen, no healthy race desires.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Sun May 03, 2015 5:28 pm

Ploughboy….

Ludovici wrote:
Consequently, it is only within the same race that "ugly" should have implications of psycho-physical abnormality and morbidity. Though this too requires some explanation; because "ugly" even within the same race, often acquires peculiar connotations unconnected with morbidity.
For instance, in a mild, urban and rather effeminate culture, the word "ugly" is often carelessly used to reject a person whose only stigma is that his or her face is more severe, more stern, more ferocious, or more sensual than the average face in the community, without, however, manifesting any signs of that congenital disproportion, disharmony or asymmetry which indicates biological inferiority, and from which ill-health or a faulty constitution, combined with mental instability, may be inferred.
I have come across so many examples of this that it seems to be worth while to dwell on the matter a moment. "Ugly" used in this way cannot have any implications of morbidity. It is simply an offensive comment on someone unlike the person making it, and is a further indication of the instinctive tendency of like to mate with like.
Ferocity, severity, sternness, or sensuality, are no more necessarily "ugly" than lack of these qualities in a face, provided they are not accompanied by the disproportion and disharmony above described. Evidences of great passion in a person's features also often provoke the comment "ugly" in smug, middle-class folk, whose passions have all been bred out. I have actually come across a mother who, confronted with a picture of unusual passion in the features of one of her daughters (possibly the only one to have collected up in her person all the passion of the rather passionless stock), described this one daughter as "ugly" and the rest as pretty.

Here again, "ugly" can have no necessarily morbid connotation. It is simply an ignorant manner of commenting on a personal appearance, which promises to reintroduce into a smug, safety-first home the disturbing element of a great passion.
In the same manner, the inter-class and inter-caste use of the word "ugly" need not necessarily have any morbid implication. When an aristocratic woman calls a coarse ploughboy or a blowsy dairy-maid "ugly," and the latter gazing at the aristocrat and her children, pronounces the same word, it need not have any condemnatory value from the æsthetic or health point of view. What happens is this — the aristocrat, thinking subjectively, says "that ploughboy and that dairy-maid do not comply with my standard of beauty, therefore they are ugly." And the other class thinks the same.

and blowsy… hehe
hahaha….

...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2479
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 24
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Sun May 03, 2015 7:20 pm

Ludovici wrote:
and we have now reached a stage of development when plainness, or actual ugliness, is so common that a beautiful woman and a handsome man are phenomena sufficiently rare to be talked about.

I can only imagine, or perceive from an old painting, the beautiful expression of the many faces as just ‘being beautiful’, healthy. When I think back to Moscow, a big city, a concept which in the West stands for ‘a mass gathering of vile degenerates’ (ugly), I remember a lot of healthy faces and bodies passing by; I am aware that once their economic-comfort and the same amount of propaganda we endure, strikes them as well, that a lot will take the path of least resistance eventually. But still, the contrast, the only fat women were those older grumpy ones behind a pay desk who I can forgive for such. A half-breed negro (the product of a Ghanaian father who left them and a Dutch mother) who owns a dance-shop in Rotterdam has a woman from Ural who he hires, he told me after he talked about her and Russian women in general participating in ballet, that they are such ‘’disciplined women because they are a very pure race’’ and that the West has sunken into racial degeneracy reflected by our women’s impulsiveness.
His words still echo in me the more I think about the contrast in Moscow; when I see a Western woman I cannot help but think (and see) that her skin is as greasy as the food she swallows regularly, those I observed in Moscow were very strict with their eating manners (thus they might eat a little more not in public), what they ate (healthy), when and how much. Here they swallow and eat shamelessly like a sea gull on a garbage dump, impulsively, but so do the men; then I am at the gym and listen to what others are saying to each other, a reasonable muscular man is planning with his buddy to go the KFC afterwards… How hypocritical. And each time when I am in a public transportation vehicle and hear the opening sound of ‘’’ktsshhh’’, I hope that it is anything but Energy Drink, but my hope is hopeless, such an all devouring sweet smell, it spreads throughout the bus and they drink it as if it were water. The ugly people here are as the food and drinks they shamelessly consume; how you consume the food and in what way you have consideration with the people next to you (table manners), reflects overall societal standards and inter-action - about which I have to think a little more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1343
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : Nova Universalis

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Mon May 04, 2015 2:50 pm

OhFortunae wrote:
Ludovici wrote:
and we have now reached a stage of development when plainness, or actual ugliness, is so common that a beautiful woman and a handsome man are phenomena sufficiently rare to be talked about.

I can only imagine, or perceive from an old painting, the beautiful expression of the many faces as just ‘being beautiful’, healthy. When I think back to Moscow, a big city, a concept which in the West stands for ‘a mass gathering of vile degenerates’ (ugly), I remember a lot of healthy faces and bodies passing by; I am aware that once their economic-comfort and the same amount of propaganda we endure, strikes them as well, that a lot will take the path of least resistance eventually. But still, the contrast, the only fat women were those older grumpy ones behind a pay desk who I can forgive for such. A half-breed negro (the product of a Ghanaian father who left them and a Dutch mother) who owns a dance-shop in Rotterdam has a woman from Ural who he hires, he told me after he talked about her and Russian women in general participating in ballet, that they are such ‘’disciplined women because they are a very pure race’’ and that the West has sunken into racial degeneracy reflected by our women’s impulsiveness.
His words still echo in me the more I think about the contrast in Moscow; when I see a Western woman I cannot help but think (and see) that her skin is as greasy as the food she swallows regularly, those I observed in Moscow were very strict with their eating manners (thus they might eat a little more not in public), what they ate (healthy), when and how much. Here they swallow and eat shamelessly like a sea gull on a garbage dump, impulsively, but so do the men; then I am at the gym and listen to what others are saying to each other, a reasonable muscular man is planning with his buddy to go the KFC afterwards… How hypocritical. And each time when I am in a public transportation vehicle and hear the opening sound of ‘’’ktsshhh’’, I hope that it is anything but Energy Drink, but my hope is hopeless, such an all devouring sweet smell, it spreads throughout the bus and they drink it as if it were water. The ugly people here are as the food and drinks they shamelessly consume; how you consume the food and in what way you have consideration with the people next to you (table manners), reflects overall societal standards and inter-action - about which I have to think a little more.

What contrast? What a contrast; nothing stark.
A "pure race" with generations upon generations of Asiatic admixing and migration.
There's this escapist mentality/fantasy, which is recurrently assayed among westerners, partially because of a one-sided displeasure with the West, but with their own lives at the crux: that there is hope elsewhere, where there is none. "The White Savior - Russia."
Offer opprobrium of Russia and you're a Russophobe and western imperialist; condone them and you're a Russophile commie.

I'll let you in on a secret: modernity is universal: the women in EE and Russia are influenced by the same factors as those in the West, to what degree and in what manner is variable, with it often emerging worse or less than the West (this being a critical topic on its own stage - environmental determinism versus heredity).

For every Russian individual you profess to be upright, I'll present you a hundred alcoholic, druggie teenagers and twenty-year-olds who spend every waking hour on social media and costly dedication to keeping up with their virtual personae and the group fashion.
They are also not exempt from social ineptitude. For instance, if it weren't for the necessity of procession in surviving Russian Winter, then they would have little cultural bonds. What they adhere to in terms of relationships is just as cursory as elsewhere.

Finally, are these effete men with some undefined fetish not men? They must go to EE to find a woman, implicating that 1) the latter are easy or easier 2) they will be succored with something fundamentally different?
Are these westerners not desperate suckers, and appear as suckers, and thereby attract the women from which they are running?
How about those cucks who pack shop and marry some Russian woman with children and an abusive loser ex-husband. Now there's a contrast.

What are the differences? They are paltry in number, but are they significant enough to delineate a prospective schism out of which to build anew?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2479
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 24
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Mon May 04, 2015 3:37 pm

I understand all of your points very well (the Russian women are sexually straight forward); but the Russian races (not just White Slavonic but also Finnish and Baltic tribes) have in general no mongoloid admixture at all, as is proven by researches presented in the book Raciology by Avdeyev.

Those cucks are nothing in comparison with those old White farts going to Thailand and get themselves a Thai prostitute with an kid included not even resembling their outer appearance; or those cucks who have their woman fucked by nignogs - but that would be another subject.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Mon May 04, 2015 4:58 pm

Russian women eat very little, calorie wise, and since the food in Russia is usually quite fatty, they eat very small volumes. It's a social norm in many parts of the country, similar to how they tell men in western countries to 'man-up', they tell their girls to stay thin, so that they have a better chance of attracting the right kind of man.
That's literally what they will say, not any other kind of pretense.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1343
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : Nova Universalis

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Mon May 04, 2015 5:51 pm

Anfang wrote:
Russian women eat very little, calorie wise, and since the food in Russia is usually quite fatty, they eat very small volumes. It's a social norm in many parts of the country, similar to how they tell men in western countries to 'man-up', they tell their girls to stay thin, so that they have a better chance of attracting the right kind of man.
That's literally what they will say, not any other kind of pretense.
Tenable observations which sufficiently explain the phenomena there.

Case in point, I know these two best friends: one (a vegetarian) has a boyfriend and has put on some significant weight since, while the other, single, hardly eats at all.

I would add, just for supportive consideration, that the dishes are pretty bland. My mom joked the other day to give these raccoons Russian food so as to prevent them from coming back.
Then there is the prevalence of alcoholism there: alcoholics generally have a proclivity towards eating less.
Also, mode of transportation is a determining element and the activity level and season in accord with it.

It is after all a country of massive group think and when a fad kicks in, such as exercise, then most will dabble in it.

On the other end, vegetarianism is gaining some common ground there, where these subscribers tend to over consume on Starbucks lattes and sweets.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Mon May 04, 2015 6:34 pm

Russian women marry very early compared to Western Europe, often still in the teens. But they also get divorced in their twenties. There is a strong social pressure for women to stay fit. Usually it's other women who are telling them to toe that line - it's also a social status thing for women.

Why that is, I haven't thought about it but it's not necessarily a socio-economic incentive. These days social rules are often not in the best interests of people who follow them. Though i'm not saying that this is or is not the case with thin Russian women.

I don't know about the alcohol part. Alcohol usually contains quite a lot of calories and slows down fat-burning. I've heard that cocaine makes people feel less hunger.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Thu May 14, 2015 6:15 am

Is he ugly or just not my kind?
Is he beautiful or just following the current fashions?

Ludovici in Choice of a Mate, Ch. 4 wrote:
A good proportion of the alleged "ugly" people of history, who were nevertheless estimable or desirable, probably fall under this head; that is to say, they were classed as ugly by their friends, enemies and biographers, probably because they either departed from a class ideal, without being necessarily morbid or disharmonious beings, or else departed from an ideal of a whole Age by being too fierce, too sensual, too hard or too soft. Lorenzo the Magnificent certainly comes under this head now as did probably Du Guesclin in his day. On the other hand, a really ugly and repulsive man, like Leo X, receives an embellished exterior from his biographers because of the high favour he enjoyed during his lifetime. A more recent, and presumably less-biased writer, however, is able to describe him as follows: "Leo X was of middle height, with a large head, a reddish complexion, and projecting eyes; he was so short-sighted as to be always obliged to use glasses . . . suffered much from a disease that made it unpleasant to approach him . . . and was very corpulent and unable to endure any prolonged fatigue."

Weininger, today, would sell red pills like mad in every book store...

Ludovici wrote:
When, therefore, Caroline Schlegel, in one of her letters, hastily concludes from Sophie's love of Mirabeau that "what women love in men is certainly not beauty," she is writing nonsense. If, as a rule, women fail to be sexually stimulated by the so-called "barber's model" sort of man, it is not because they are insusceptible to masculine beauty, but because such beauty as the barber's model possesses is frequently effeminate, and more rugged and more stern features in the male are often and quite erroneously regarded by an effeminate age as "ugly." To argue from this, however, that women are not concerned with congenital male beauty, denoting biological superiority, is fallacious*.

* See p. 35 supra. Schopenhauer too thought women indifferent to male looks, but adds, "they never love an unmanly man" (W.W.V., II, Chap. 44). Weininger, who raided Schopenhauer's works and stole from him his theory of the complete male (M.) and complete female (F.) necessary for "true sexual union" (cf. S.C, p. 29, with W.W.V. . II, Chap. 44), also believed women were not attracted by male beauty. Regarding Weininger's lack of originality, see G.K., I, pp. 484–485, where Hirschfeld says Weininger stole his theory from him (Hirschfeld). But Schopenhauer preceded them both.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Thu May 14, 2015 6:19 am

Ludovici wrote:
Balzac says: "In order to incur the least possible amount of misery in marriage, the twofold prerequisite of success is that the woman should be very gentle and tolerably ugly."
The great novelist and psychologist is evidently thinking, like a typical Frenchman, chiefly of the dangers of cuckoldom. But, for once, Balzac reveals a lack of penetration. He seems not to have known of the theory of compensation in psychology, of the consequences of resentment, and of inferiority feelings. He did not sufficiently appreciate the fact that the ugly person, by being constantly aware, in spite of Socratic and Christian sophistry, of his or her inferiority, tries constantly to compensate for the defect, and this compensation takes any form and may be, and frequently is, at the expense of the immediate human circle.
        "Since I am so ugly," said Du Guesclin, "it behoves that I be bold."
        This is typical.
        The inferiority feelings of the ugly person also make him or her resentful, and resentful people are torn by conflicts. They long to "pay some one out" for what they resent, and their attachment to, and dependence upon, those about them often makes it difficult for them to do so. Like the kitten whose tail is pinched by accident, and who turns to bite the guiltless soft cushion at its side, so the resentful person will, if possible, annoy or ill-treat those closest to him or her, simply because they happen to be sentient creatures at hand, and "someone must suffer for what I am suffering."
If the sentient creatures near at hand happen to be powerful and the resentful person is dependent on them, then someone outside the intimate circle will be selected as a victim, as the "cause" of the resentful person's misery.

Now this makes ugly people difficult to live with, quite apart from the fact that their congenital ugliness in itself, as we have seen, presupposes mental discord and emotional conflict, hence instability of some kind. They are people not only at war with the world, but also at war with themselves. And Balzac was perfectly aware of the danger of living with people at war with themselves. "It is impossible," he says, "for a creature perpetually at war with itself, or in conflict with life, to leave others in peace, and not to envy their happiness." His dictum on marriage with a woman tolerably ugly may thus be regarded as a shallow lapse, and it is flatly contradicted by that other equally great psychologist, Heinrich Heine, who said: "Women are indeed dangerous; but I must say that the beautiful are not nearly as dangerous as the ugly ones."

Spiritually too, therefore, the congenitally ugly are to be avoided in mating, and all those who appear to hold views against this rule by saying, as so many modern people do, "He, or she, is frightfully ugly, but so charming "are really guilty of a confusion of thought. Having found somebody ugly, who happens to be charming, and being too lazy or ignorant to discover whether this person's alleged "ugliness" is anything more than a matter of fashion, class difference, or a difference of feeling about sternness, ferocity, passion or sensuality in a face, they too readily use the condemnatory value "ugly," as if it connoted biological inferiority, and then make a remark which seems to conflict with the rule that "ugly people are undesirable." The remark does not, however, conflict with any such rule. It is merely a frivolous abuse of a useful word. The particle "but" in the remark reveals the fundamentally sound instinct of the speaker. The word "ugly" is, therefore, simply misapplied, and if the person speaking had been wiser, the remark would have been suppressed and some such thought as the following would have taken its place:—
"At first sight that person struck me as ugly, and therefore undesirable. Closer scrutiny revealed that the ugliness was due simply to an uncustomary amount of severity, passion, sensuality, or what not, in his or her face. Now none of these things are necessarily 'ugly,' i.e. biologically inferior, consequently I ought not to have been surprised to find him or her really a charming or desirable person."

I read somewhere once - "The beautiful woman, the most dangerous creature..."
More like the contra-dicting woman, the most dangerous creature.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2102
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Thu May 14, 2015 6:23 am

"So beautiful, but so stupid"
Ironically not because of the beauty itself but because of the relatively ugly social circle surrounding it.

Ludovici wrote:
For the last two thousand years and more, living in a human environment growing every century more and more predominantly ugly, the beautiful in Europe have often found things too easy, too smooth. Trading on the profound and ineradicable instinct in mankind, present even in the ugly, though frequently stifled by them, that beauty is a visible sign of general desirability, the fair and the handsome have found in their own appearance a too easily acquired passport into the hearts and good opinion of the majority — a passport not striven for, not paid for and not begged for. Their path has always been strewn with roses, and this tends to make some of them careless about everything except appearance. These elements among the good-looking, by neglecting to cultivate what the ugly cultivate, by allowing to rust what the ugly polish, and by losing what the ugly find, procure for the handsome and the fair a bad name.
When once human life had become a hard struggle, particularly of wits, many of the beautiful were thus handicapped; because, leaning on their beauty, they frequently neglected other, particularly intellectual weapons. Hence the common remark, "So beautiful but so stupid!" which leads scores of superficial people in every European circle to believe that a connexion exists between beauty and stupidity.
But, truth to tell, there is an inconsistency here; for a beautiful face must have good proportions, and since good proportions mean that a face has its quota of breadth and height in the brow (the usual morphological counterpart of a normal intellect), a beautiful face cannot be a stupid face.
The beautiful person thus probably starts with an advantage in brains over the ugly person; but whereas many beauties yield to the temptation to be idle and easy-going, the ugly person, spurred on, as we have seen, by his sense of inferiority, often overtakes and passes the beauty intellectually, just as the tortoise beats the hare.
Of course, it may and often does happen that a superficial person calls "beautiful" or "handsome" a face which is not well-proportioned or harmonious, and has only a few of the "properties" of beauty — a fair skin, curly hair, good eyes, or what not. In such cases, it may well be that this "pseudo-beauty" is a hopeless fool. But the mistake is not with the theory advanced in this book, but with the superficial person who uses the epithet "beautiful" indiscriminately.
The connexion of beauty with immorality, or wickedness, or slyness, or falsity, as for instance, in Shakespeare's "But there is never a fair woman has a true face," has, of course, no foundation whatsoever, and is merely part of the consistent slander leveled at the beautiful in our Christian culture.

When we appreciate what beauty is — namely, harmony, sound proportions, and the health that these guarantee — it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is the best endowment a human being can receive. And if in our plain and generally ugly communities, a beautiful person finds himself or herself so much the cynosure of all eyes as sometimes to get a swelled head and to neglect other parts of his or her excellent equipment, this is not an argument against the possession of beauty, but against our modern communities, too full of ugly and therefore biologically inferior or degenerate people.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Fri May 15, 2015 12:49 pm

Sorry for abandoning this thread. I've been offline for a while.

I'll reupload the ebooks and join the discussion soon. I've read all of Ludovici's books once or twice since starting this thread so I'll have much to contribute.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Fri May 15, 2015 12:53 pm

No, what happened is you were seduced by some other carrot and stick, and you recently discovered, it was revealed to you, how flaccid one was and how tasteless was the other, and here you are, as if nothing happened.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Fri May 15, 2015 12:56 pm

Glad to be back.
Back to top Go down
Drome



Gender : Male Cancer Posts : 86
Join date : 2015-02-19
Age : 30
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:48 pm

Laconophile wrote:
Who else is familiar with him? I can't recommend him highly enough. He's probably my favorite philosopher.

His 'Who is to be Master of the World?' should be read by everyone who thinks they understand Nietzsche.


I have started reading him on your, and the others in this thread, suggestion.


He is quotable, for sure, but this struck out most with me as I had never understood it - and even gotten explained to me how wrong Nietzsche was on evolution:


Ludovici , Who shall be master wrote:
"Mankind does not manifest a development to the better, the stronger, or the higher in the manner in which it has at present believed. 'Progress' is merely a modern idea, i.e. a false idea. The European of the present day is, in worth, far below the European of the Renaissance; onward development (progress, as it is understood to-day) is by no means, by any necessity, elevating, enhancing, strengthening." *         The law that "the fittest" survive in a given environment, does not by any means imply that the stronger or the better will survive, and our authorities for this apparently heterodox doctrine are no less than Prof. Huxley and Herbert Spencer, † I say "heterodox doctrine," because I am speaking popularly, and because I know that a very large number of people (the         * C.W., p. 243, ¶ 4.         † See also George J. Romanes' paper on "Darwin's Latest Critics," Nineteenth Century, May 1890. - p. 91 - late Dr James Martineau was among them), who have not gone below the surface of the Evolution Hypothesis, believe most fervently that the survival of the fittest must mean the survival of the better and stronger. But perhaps it would be as well to make the matter quite clear by referring to Herbert Spencer's and Huxley's actual words.         The former tells us in Vol. I. p. 379 of his Collected Essays, where he is replying to an attack made by Dr Martineau, upon the hypothesis of General Evolution:—         ". . . The law is not the survival of the 'better' or the 'stronger,' if we give to those words anything like their ordinary meaning. It is the survival of those which are constitutionally fittest to thrive under the conditions in which they are placed; and very often that which, humanly speaking, is inferiority, causes the survival. Superiority, whether in size, strength, activity or sagacity is, other things equal, at the cost of diminished fertility; and where the life led by a species does not demand these higher attributes, the species profits by decrease of them, and accompanying increase of fertility. This is the reason why there occur so many cases of retrograde metamorphosis — this is the reason why parasites, internal and external, are so commonly degraded forms of higher types. Survival of the 'better' does not cover these cases, though survival of the 'fittest' does; and, as I am responsible for the phrase, I suppose I am competent to say the word 'fittest' was chosen for this reason. When it is remembered that these cases outnumber all others — it will be seen that - p. 92 - the expression 'survivorship of the better' is wholly inappropriate."



Ludovici wrote:
Now what implied fact is common to the three passages I have just quoted from Nietzsche, Spencer and Huxley respectively? Nietzsche says:—         "Progress is by no means, by any necessity, elevating, enhancing, strengthening." Spencer says, "the survival of the fittest under the conditions in which they are placed, does not by any means necessarily signify that the better and the stronger will survive," and Huxley tells us, we look in vain to the struggle for existence, and the consequent survival of the fittest, to help us towards perfection.         Is it not quite clear from these three statements that the environment is the determining factor? If the environment is best met by mean, emasculated, puny and rickety beings, it follows that those men will be the         " See the Romanes Lecture, "Evolution and Ethics," by T. H. Huxley, Ed. 1903, p. 32. - p. 93 - fittest to survive who are mean, emasculated, puny and rickety.         The parasites in all their loathsomeness, we are told, are examples of the survival of the fittest, but were not those creatures much nobler, from which they were derived, and who unlike them were overcome in the struggle for existence? Is this point quite clear? Is it quite understood, that we may be the "fittest" and yet still degenerate, provided our environment be such that only degenerate beings may survive in it?



Well, then, it was understood over 100 years ago the importance of avoiding degeneracy in the population, and why it occured. The solution might also be given, by promoting the Superman, and working towards that goal. And the arguments are sound, so sound, in my opinion, I dont know why they are not always used and are fundamental. I remember from my school years that ,literally, the opposite was taught.

This alone gives new meaning to what a state ought to be doing...


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:39 pm

Drome wrote:
He is quotable, for sure, but this struck out most with me as I had never understood it - and even gotten explained to me how wrong Nietzsche was on evolution:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:23 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Anthony Ludovici

Back to top Go down
 
Anthony Ludovici
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
 Similar topics
-
» Anthony Ludovici
» TIDBITS OF ANTHONY DE MELLO
» End Time Events Explained. Anthony Patch and Michael, The Meeting of the Minds.
» REVISING REALITY - Anthony Patch, Doug Woodward, Josh Peck, Gonz Shimura - Hosted by Derek Gilbert
» L.A. MARZULLI - REPORT UPDATE: UFO PROPULSION SYSTEM WITH ANTHONY PATCH; 03.24.17

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: LYCEUM-
Jump to: