/lit/ - Literature

>Eugenicist
>Concerned with physical aesthetics
>Life-affirming
>Obsessed with health
>Obsessed with Nietzschean morality
>Admired Nazi Germany

After his forcing upon us on this board I belligerently wanted to see what the /pol/tards obsession with this particular thinker was about.

Most of his works are expectedly anti-democratic, anti-feminist with a traditionalist stance emphasising the importance of heredity etc. His arguments are mostly intellectually founded, he was a staunch anti-Christian probably due to his obsession with Nietzsche. He decided that he had shifted from a position of Atheism to Agnosticism following a famous debate between two thinkers at the beginning of the 20th century, which he read the typescript of. My inspection of him was all well and good until I found his last proper book, 'Religion for Infidels'. I found some commentary suggesting it was his Magnum Opus, but I genuinely think he may have been a bit senile or suffering from slight alzheimers when he wrote it. In the first chapter he states:
>If, therefore, the reader will pay me the compliment of closely following every step in my argument and will refrain from skipping, I trust he will feel able to concede that the theory of religion here offered, covering as it does most of the major facts of life, including the more unpleasant, without resorting to the lame shifts that too often mar the cosmologies of the world's great religions, may, owing to its logical consistency and plausibility, seem worthy of consideration.

He explains that people of the West need to create a 'rational religion', which constantly keeps up with science, and this is his attempt of creating such a religion. The last chapter goes into how praying actually works, it's fucking crazy. Anyway, the full book is available here, and I'd like people who are actually knowledgeable in philosophy and biology to let me know if it's complete bullshit or not.
http://www.anthonymludovici.com/ri_pre.htm

>>7174073
>Hopefully we shall one day also achieve a pure European race and culture.

I know where Ludovici got his views from now.

>>7167430
That makes me so fucking angry. The tightness of the grip which the Jews and their goy friends have over the West and by extension the world is infuriating and monumentally dispiriting; I hate falsifiers of history more than anything else. It's the same case with post-war Jewish translator and 'scholar' Walter Kaufmann, and it exists at all levels of academia. Some people in this thread are tasting their first flavours of truth. There are people out there - millions of people - for whom 'Hitler' is synonymous with 'evil', 'racist' too is for them synonymous with evil, anything inverse of those two things is therefore 'good'. That is the extent of their philosophical grounding, people like Will Self who's invited to appear on the BBC's Nietzsche Documentary 'Human, All Too Human', as if he understands Nietzsche's philosophising and is qualified to comment on it, and yet when he appears on Question Time he spouts platitudinous and childish remarks about the benefits of multiculturalism (multiracialism exclusively imposed on Europeans and European diaspora) and uses non-words like 'homophobic' and 'racist' (a word devised by a pernicious Jew in the '40s).

Providing an insight into the non-Hollywood version of Hitler is useful because it helps to free people from their trance and intellectual adherence to the orthodox and domineering leftist view which permeates at all levels of discussion other than the radical-right, (which is one of the few things which it cannot absorb). I don't doubt that Hitler became a very nasty man in many respects, just as he was exceedingly polite in many respects (read 'HItler's War' by David Irving for a more accurate historical account of Hitler during and just before the War), I am simply urging people to look beyond the accepted and all-pervading thought control which is a symptom of the contemporary liberal dispensation. Go beyond good and evil.

Kershaw won't be rated in a century's time. Neither will Kaufmann, Derrida, Klossowski, Butler, Foucault, Deleuze nor other similar human trash. The Second World War occurred too recently, we are still too blinded to have formulated an accurate account of it. Irving is hated today, he will be revered tomorrow. The same goes for Hitler (who will be placed among Napoleon and Alexander) as well as Ludovici, Evola and others.

I'm going to keep telling you that Kaufmann is a pernicious post-war Jewish scholar until all of his translations are burnt.

Kaufmann and Hollingdale are terrible translators, stop posting their translations as representative of Nietzsche's philosophising.

Walter Kaufmann:
A pernicious Jewish scholar that built his career on preparing Nietzsche for liberal digestion, that is, sanitizing, de-contextualizing, disassociation of Nietzsche from the most obvious ramification of the man's teaching (National Socialism), incorrectly presenting Nietzsche as a wisdom writer and then tellingly doing absolutely nothing about the fraudulent platitudinization of Nietzsche by liberal 'critical-theorists' like Derrida, Klossowski, Butler, Foucault, Deleuze and similar garbage. Kaufmann's translations are useful, just so long as the reader pays absolutely no attention to his notes.

Anthony M. Ludovici:
Ludovici is better because his English comes from a period in which there was still a natural artistic life in the language and because his mind is better suited for comprehending Nietzsche. He has a better grasp of Nietzsche's comments about 'aristocracy' because the man was, unlike Hollingdale and the post-war Jew Kaufmann, not naturally opposed to all of previous history. With Kaufmann and Hollingdale, 'aristocracy' becomes a kind of platitude that can be relativized by any Other on the basis of their present political situation. By this thinking liberals become 'aristocrats' because the tea-party resents Obama's dissolution of American sovereignty, so they're just resenters and 'resentment' also becomes a peculiarly free-floating truism that can be adopted by anyone to slander anyone else, always in the name of 'objectivity' (impartiality), which is a fraud because by doing so their morality is not understood as particular to their nature but something coming from beyond--from God! They deliberately drop the Nietzsche distinction between Power and Weakness. In contrast Ludovici correctly understands the historical continuity between Christianity, Liberalism and Obama.

>Anthony M. Ludovici:

Ludovici is better because his English comes from a period in which there was still a natural artistic life in the language and because his mind is better suited for comprehending Nietzsche. He has a better grasp of Nietzsche's comments about 'aristocracy' because the man was, unlike Hollingdale and the post-war Jew Kaufmann, not naturally opposed to all of previous history. With Kaufmann and Hollingdale, 'aristocracy' becomes a kind of platitude that can be relativized by any Other on the basis of their present political situation. By this thinking liberals become 'aristocrats' because the tea-party resents Obama's dissolution of American sovereignty, so they're just resenters and 'resentment' also becomes a peculiarly free-floating truism that can be adopted by anyone to slander anyone else, always in the name of 'objectivity' (impartiality), which is a fraud because by doing so their morality is not understood as particular to their nature but something coming from beyond--from God! They deliberately drop the Nietzsche distinction between Power and Weakness. In contrast Ludovici correctly understands the historical continuity between Christianity, Liberalism and Obama.

>>6594404
Indeed.

Name one tangible benefit to reading literature.

>>6493686
http://www.anthonymludovici.com/mw_int.htm

>Who is to be Master of the World?
>An Introduction to the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

>by Anthony M. Ludovici

>With Introduction by Dr Oscar Levy
>Author of "The Revival of Aristocracy," etc.

>T. N. Foulis
>Edinburgh
>1909

Can't go much wrong with good ol' Ludovici.

Chomsky isn't an essentialist, he flat out refuses to accept the biological reality of race and all the certitudes which that leads to, and should thus be disregarded.

>Woman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not prefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she never knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. . . . If in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is material success alone that is regarded as the highest value, and if money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due to the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other point of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does particularly in England and America, there you will find the worship of cash the principal religion of the community. . . . To-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives. Everything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided that money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is he who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in a sumptous Rolls-Royce. . . . Wives who have passionately loved their husbands will learn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy turn in their fortunes they become material failures. . . . Individually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue refinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice refinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end, and as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why the notion 'Lady' is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most palpable fiction. No 'lady' has ever existed or will ever exist.

>>6400533

Capitalism led to pussification. It's true:

“Woman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not prefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she never knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. . . . If in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is material success alone that is regarded as the highest value, and if money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due to the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other point of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does particularly in England and America, there you will find the worship of cash the principal religion of the community. . . . To-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives. Everything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided that money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is he who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in a sumptous Rolls-Royce. . . . Wives who have passionately loved their husbands will learn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy turn in their fortunes they become material failures. . . . Individually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue refinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice refinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end, and as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why the notion 'Lady' is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most palpable fiction. No 'lady' has ever existed or will ever exist.”
- Anthony M. Ludovici

>"Hitler and the Nazis misused Nietzsche's philosophy!"

If I ever hear this I instantly know that the person is an absolute moron and probably has a sub-130 IQ.

>Woman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not prefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she never knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. . . . If in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is material success alone that is regarded as the highest value, and if money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due to the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other point of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does particularly in England and America, there you will find the worship of cash the principal religion of the community. . . . To-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives. Everything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided that money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is he who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in a sumptous Rolls-Royce. . . . Wives who have passionately loved their husbands will learn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy turn in their fortunes they become material failures. . . . Individually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue refinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice refinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end, and as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why the notion 'Lady' is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most palpable fiction. No 'lady' has ever existed or will ever exist

>Woman has no primary interest in a great or artistic man, she does not prefer him to a successful and rich soap-boiler, and what is more, she never knows he is great until the world acknowledges him as such. . . . If in the Europe of to-day, and in all countries like Europe, it is material success alone that is regarded as the highest value, and if money is the principal hall-mark of power and prestige, it is due to the ascendancy of women in our midst. Women cannot take any other point of view, and where their influence tends to prevail, as it does particularly in England and America, there you will find the worship of cash the principal religion of the community. . . .

>To-day this vulgarity can be detected in every aspect of our lives. Everything, every consideration of refinement, is overlooked, provided that money be present. And the man who kills most female hearts is he who can throw a rich fur round his capture and whirl her off in a sumptous Rolls-Royce. . . . Wives who have passionately loved their husbands will learn to dislike and despise them intensely if owing to some unhappy turn in their fortunes they become material failures. . . . Individually this vulgarity ramifies in woman as an inability to pursue refinement, unassisted or undirected; as a readiness to sacrifice refinement or else the fruits of cultivation, to any other sordid end, and as an inaccessibility to the finer nuances of thought. That is why the notion 'Lady' is such absurd nonsense. It is the grossest and most palpable fiction. No 'lady' has ever existed or will ever exist.

duly noted
moral arbiter
damp squib

>>4921587
>No Ludovici

http://anthonymludovici.com/texts.htm