[Topics]
Anthony M. Ludovici was a shallow idiot with a little bit of insight.
While I reject Ludovici’s crude and tacky “love for life”—especially since
he ridiculously calls himself a
“Nietzschean” (Nietzsche hated life)—,
even he rejects beasts like the “gamers” and “PUAs” who
have nothing else in life to do than, to use their, as always, vulgar expression,
“rack up their notch counts”.
I quote from Ludovici’s
Woman: A Vindication (Chapter I):
[…] To most people there appear to be but two opposite extremes:
the attitude of the lecherous reprobate who makes decent women ashamed
of being women; and the attitude of the Puritan who, in his heart of
hearts, feels that if only he could have been at the Almighty’s elbow
at the time of the Creation, he would have respectfully suggested a
somewhat more “drawing-room” method of propagating the species.
To neither of these attitudes has this book, or the spirit of it,
even the remotest relation. The acknowledgment that Mortal Life is
desirable, and that consequently its indispensable correlative Sex is
desirable, can be made by a man in full possession of a healthy control
over his passions, in a state of complete mastery over his appetites,
and endowed with the most fastidious taste as to. where normal desire and
its gratification end, and where excess begins. Extremes belong only to
the uncultured, to the hogs of life. It is they who make everything
appear disgusting, simply because they are unable to approach a single
aspect of life with that amount of understanding and reverence which is due
to all things connected with the sacred task of making mankind and his
existence an honour and not a curse to the universe.
To accept the proposition that Mortal Life is desirable and to commit
one’s self by so doing to its inevitable rider that Sex is desirable, may
lead one very far, as this book will show; but, if it lead one to a
tastelessly pornographic or licentious attitude towards the most fundamental
instinct of life, then one is of a nature that has no right to Mortal Life,
much less, therefore, to its indispensable correlative Sex.
Without wishing to labour this point, but with a keen sense of the
host of misunderstandings and prejudices that will cling like barnacles to a
book of this kind, unless I make my position unmistakably clear from the
start, let me put the case a little differently by the use of another
instinct of Mortal Life. Let me say, to accept the proposition, Mortal Life
is desirable, is to commit one’s self to its inevitable rider that eating and
drinking are desirable. […]
(Emphasis mine; he then continues to write about gluttony and so on.)
Surely, Ludovici is rather shallow; too shallow to understand that the way man
“propagates the species”, to use Ludovici’s crude expression, was not via sex
from the beginning — I wrote about this
elsewhere. Apparently, he is so stupid
as to think that Eve would have had suffered menstruation with blood running down
her legs — in Garden Eden …
That he takes the stand of the common man on the street—life seen as a
blessing without question; sex simply seen as good—and then praises himself
as some kind of “fearless” thinker is laughable. The “online” Right is
philosophically way too shallow to be taken seriously in this regard.
He also “worships” the “universe”, which is downright stupidity. That he
dismisses Weininger because he committed suicide is cheap; Kierkegaard’s
view on sexuality was not that far removed, and he did not kill himself.
People nowadays have sex for fun and don’t even care much about life.
His mental gymnastics of trying to defend his indefensible position of
accepting, even “loving” life and at the same time rejecting God and
eternity is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
That physical attraction is shallow but plays a major role in sex
does not interest a “thinker” as shallow as Ludovici; he also waves
away Schopenhauer’s writings on pain and suffering — because he himself,
Ludovici, did not suffer. I am sure he would not lie on the battlefields
of Europe, aged twenty, with his extremities torn apart, and repeat
his trite trash that followed my quote above. More importantly, no one
cares about us if you remove God, hardly are there even many who care
about high culture. Further, our planet and solar system will die, too.
What will remain? Nothingness. Wow.
Life-loving atheist “logic” fails again.
It also demonstrates, once again, that deep insight and artistic
or philosophical greatness cannot be achieved without suffering.
Ludovici was a hedonist; Spengler even is a lot more readable,
especially his private notes which, as far as I know, have not yet
been translated.
After all, the Book of Job is not unknown, it may be one of the
best known even among unbelievers. And our life will end anyway at some
point; all that “pollyanna” types like Ludovici do is to delay the
inevitable. The suicide simply takes it into his own hands, choosing
a shortcut towards death.
Still, it shows us how much we have lost; even shallow thinkers weren’t
as shallow as the creeps we men of good taste have to deal with
nowadays.
Creeps who even call themselves—with a straight face, no less!—“alpha”,
“sigma”, “cad”, “intelligent” and so on. And then they live or lived
lives worse than animals, becoming beasts …
What a pigsty this world is …
His contemporary Chesterton, despite his theology being pretty shallow, held
a much deeper view on sexuality. If
this topic were not as serious as it is, one could laugh about how shallow
most people even on the so-called “Right” are. A pretty horrible situation
we’re in, actually.
Interestingly enough, in his unreadable autobiography, Ludovici puts
down Chesterton a lot, even likening him to an alcoholic (and glutton,
of course). Not a man worthy of much consideration.
In his autobiography, Ludovici wrote that with Chesterton we may have an
author who will be forgotten soon. Now I am not much of a reader of Chesterton
and think his claim that suicide is the worst sin—worse than raping and
torturing children?—pretty inane. But it is clear that he is still being read,
they even turned Father Brown into a TV series. I guess one reason
certainly is Chesterton’s faith in Christ and the fact that such a mind
must be, at least in a certain sense, more mature than a Ludovici.
Ludovici died in 1971, basically forgotten already if not for his
writings on race and the sexes. At best worth glossing over because
our times are intellectually devoid of any substance in this regard.
His writings on eugenics may prove interesting, given that this
topic cannot even be discussed today and that the few online
resources which do usually focus only on IQ, unlike Ludovici, who
also takes into account mental and physical health, as well as
aesthetics.
I don’t think I need to mention that his talk about “rights” is nonsensical,
given that he was an atheist; and who cares about some Serbian going on
about some vague “right” to sex (sic) when people nowadays simply copulate
like beasts, not caring about either themselves or the society they are
wrecking.
Further, there is no need, and such a claim is highly risible anyway, to
“intellectually” decide that sex is desirable because one subjectively
sees mortal life as desirable. Sexuality is a strong drive, and the
Puritans he irrationally hates so much don’t claim not to have a sex
drive, they mostly saw what a destructive force it is. I guess most did
not have a deeper understanding, like, say, Andy Nowicki’s presents in
his writings (cf. his
Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker).
One reason saints are revered so much—leaving aside the problem of
swindlers—certainly has to do with knowing that they at least seemed
to have risen above the lowly animal nature most are slaves to. Which
includes the sex drive.
It is not noble to satisfy one’s animalistic urges once they arise.
This also applies to so-called “alpha males” who are using another
“hot chick” to relieve themselves every time they burn with lust
(which seems to be all the time for the men I have in mind.)
That’s why no one cares, or should not care, what such guys say;
one may just as well put a bullet through one’s head instead of
following any “life advice” such wrecks force down our throats.
Gómez Dávila, another rather deep thinker who, unlike Ludovici,
won’t be forgotten so easily because he took God and suffering
seriously:
An atheist is respectable as long as he does not teach that the dignity
of man is the basis of ethics and that love for humanity is the true
religion.
The believer is superior to the nonbeliever because unbelief is a
solution whereas faith is a problem.
I would not live for even a fraction of a second if I stopped feeling
the protection of God’s existence.
God is the term with which we notify the universe that it is not
everything.
Even the farthest right of any right always seems too far to the left
for me.
Modern man treats the universe like a lunatic treats an idiot.