by Anthony Ludovici
Counter Currents, 368 Pages
Reviewed by Rémi Tremblay
Counter-Currents recently published Confessions of an Anti-Feminist, an autobiography of the unique British novelist Anthony Ludovici (1882-1971). It is not, as I had at first assumed, a reprint or a subsequent edition, but rather the very first time this book has been published.
At Ludovici’s death, only two manuscripts existed, and it was by luck that one of these ended up in Nick Griffin’s hands, who then gave it to Counter-Currents.
Ludovici had mentioned in his will that he wanted his final work published, and had allocated a large sum of money to ensure this. But the book seems to have been too politically incorrect for most publishers. But perhaps that was true of his entire work. Even though he was a prolific writer of both novels and essays, he was mostly forgotten towards the end of his long life, and is rarely mentioned nowadays.
But even if you do not have any prior knowledge of the man nor his work, this autobiography is still a very good read and gives much food for thought.
The man himself is fascinating: he was the personal secretary of the sculptor Auguste Renoir, translated Nietzsche, and was an art critic and a respected novelist. He was also a friend of the well-known Catholic thinker G. K. Chesterton, met most of the Third Reich’s leaders, and was a member of, among other groups, the Right Club, founded by Captain Archibald Ramsay, a membership that caused him to appear on the list of potentially disloyal subjects during WWII.
All these experiences allowed him to have a unique standpoint to observe and analyze the major changes occurring in the 20th century.
Despite some ill-intentioned gossips, Ludovici never was a Nazi, or a fan of the Third Reich. All through his life he was constantly attacked, as he always preferred to follow his own principles, rather than bleating in harmony with the flock by professing to adopt the dominant ideas of the day.
Firstly, he was a Nietzschean, opposed to both Christianity and democracy, believing in an aristocracy, in which people of higher quality, guided by higher virtues, would govern. He was not defending the nobility of his time, as some who have never read him said, but instead an ideal aristocracy, free from the profiteers and those who lacked the qualities required to fulfil their role. According to him, this idealized aristocracy offered an alternative to democracy, which always led to "anarchy, chaos and national decline."
He believed that only the incompetent and the mentally dishonest could believe in democracy, as everyone else, except the saints, would merely try to use it to pursue their own selfish interests rather than the general interests of the people and society. Democracy is the reign of everyone for himself, the cult of individualism.
In Confessions, Ludovici reflects on his life and its main events, and also presents many insights into his political and social thought. During his life, he was the constant target of virulent critics, most of whom never bothered to read him, basing their judgements instead on what they had heard about the man and his work. His autobiography is not intended to offer apologies for what he said and did, but is rather an attempt to clarify some of his earlier work. Unrepentant, he concludes his book with the following statement:
Indeed, most of his analyses have retrospectively proven to be true.
The first major idea defended by Ludovici is that the decline of a society can first be observed by its lack of honesty. Half a century later, what could be added to that statement other than it is truer today that it was back then? Political correctness is based on the assumption that not every truth must be said or acknowledged, and that it is better to get along with others by avoiding some statements that, despite being true, could be considered "offensive" by some.
A society that despises truth like this can never solve its problems, as the first step on the path to recovery is always to name the problem accurately and honestly.
Observing the society around him with the detachment of a bird flying high over it, he became aware that its morality was constantly changing, and that things that were deemed positive in the past had become negative and vice versa. According to him, this was proof that the West lacked a definite moral core, and instead had a plastic, ever-changing morality.
As examples, he notes that immigration and racial integration were starting to be seen in positive terms, and careers not considered fit for women were now being seen as ideal for them.
What would he say of our own time, in which quotas and forced equality are not only perceived as good, but essential?
The conclusion he draws from this "moral flux" is of crucial importance for anyone involved in a struggle such as ours: It is that notions of good and evil are limited in time and can quickly change. What is now considered reprehensible could become tomorrow’s moral standard. It is thus our duty to ensure that the changes go in the right direction.
Ludovici’s stand on eugenics and the importance of choosing one’s mate, along with his views on the "Jewish influence" to which he attributed the "vulgarization" of society, brought him many critics and enemies, but never as many as his attacks on feminism. Hence the title of the book.
But he is far from being what many accused him of, a misogynist. After all, hatred for feminism is not synonymous with hatred of women. In fact, he considered himself to be a "philogynic" and mentions that his mother and sister Lily played a major role in his personal development. Afterwards, his most loyal friendships were shared with women, and his marriage was a very happy one. His anti-feminism therefore was not of the "incel" variety, based on frustration or hatred, but originated from a calm analysis and his studies in human psychology.
It was then a truism that differences between men and women were innate and were not only confined to the realm of physiology but also included deep psychological differences. Ludovici's views echoed this common view. He believed that women have traits that are closer to the characteristics of children than men do, and one of the results of this is that too often pleasure is placed above the "principle of reality."
He also explained the well-known meme of female fickleness and lack of consistency by tying it to the fact that they are guided by feelings and emotions more than by rationality.
Because of the nature of these female qualities, he believed that the feminization of society always tended ultimately to chaos. His equation was simple, maybe too simple: due to the transition from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal one, juvenile delinquency was increasing because there was a lack of masculine discipline at home. He supports this point by referring to an example given by Aristotle, namely that the fall of Sparta was caused by the growing influence of women in that society.
But should women be blamed for feminism and its domination over society? Ludovici categorically rejects this. When fathers will be fathers once more and regain their authority over their families, and when men will make virility a virtue again, then feminism will naturally lose ground. If feminism is prevailing, it is man’s own fault, Ludovici believed. Ultimately it was the man’s responsibility and duty to assert his role as the head of the family.
At Ludovici’s death, only two manuscripts existed, and it was by luck that one of these ended up in Nick Griffin’s hands, who then gave it to Counter-Currents.
Ludovici had mentioned in his will that he wanted his final work published, and had allocated a large sum of money to ensure this. But the book seems to have been too politically incorrect for most publishers. But perhaps that was true of his entire work. Even though he was a prolific writer of both novels and essays, he was mostly forgotten towards the end of his long life, and is rarely mentioned nowadays.
But even if you do not have any prior knowledge of the man nor his work, this autobiography is still a very good read and gives much food for thought.
 |
| Ludovici as a captain of artillery in WWI. |
All these experiences allowed him to have a unique standpoint to observe and analyze the major changes occurring in the 20th century.
Despite some ill-intentioned gossips, Ludovici never was a Nazi, or a fan of the Third Reich. All through his life he was constantly attacked, as he always preferred to follow his own principles, rather than bleating in harmony with the flock by professing to adopt the dominant ideas of the day.
Firstly, he was a Nietzschean, opposed to both Christianity and democracy, believing in an aristocracy, in which people of higher quality, guided by higher virtues, would govern. He was not defending the nobility of his time, as some who have never read him said, but instead an ideal aristocracy, free from the profiteers and those who lacked the qualities required to fulfil their role. According to him, this idealized aristocracy offered an alternative to democracy, which always led to "anarchy, chaos and national decline."
He believed that only the incompetent and the mentally dishonest could believe in democracy, as everyone else, except the saints, would merely try to use it to pursue their own selfish interests rather than the general interests of the people and society. Democracy is the reign of everyone for himself, the cult of individualism.
In Confessions, Ludovici reflects on his life and its main events, and also presents many insights into his political and social thought. During his life, he was the constant target of virulent critics, most of whom never bothered to read him, basing their judgements instead on what they had heard about the man and his work. His autobiography is not intended to offer apologies for what he said and did, but is rather an attempt to clarify some of his earlier work. Unrepentant, he concludes his book with the following statement:
"I prefer to be known by posterity as a writer of accurate and prophetic vision, rather than a time-server and stooge of philistinism who acquired ephemeral fame by toeing the conventional line marked out by his least enlightened contemporaries."
Indeed, most of his analyses have retrospectively proven to be true.
The first major idea defended by Ludovici is that the decline of a society can first be observed by its lack of honesty. Half a century later, what could be added to that statement other than it is truer today that it was back then? Political correctness is based on the assumption that not every truth must be said or acknowledged, and that it is better to get along with others by avoiding some statements that, despite being true, could be considered "offensive" by some.
A society that despises truth like this can never solve its problems, as the first step on the path to recovery is always to name the problem accurately and honestly.
 |
| Following WWI women started to become increasingly ascendant in society. |
As examples, he notes that immigration and racial integration were starting to be seen in positive terms, and careers not considered fit for women were now being seen as ideal for them.
What would he say of our own time, in which quotas and forced equality are not only perceived as good, but essential?
The conclusion he draws from this "moral flux" is of crucial importance for anyone involved in a struggle such as ours: It is that notions of good and evil are limited in time and can quickly change. What is now considered reprehensible could become tomorrow’s moral standard. It is thus our duty to ensure that the changes go in the right direction.
Ludovici’s stand on eugenics and the importance of choosing one’s mate, along with his views on the "Jewish influence" to which he attributed the "vulgarization" of society, brought him many critics and enemies, but never as many as his attacks on feminism. Hence the title of the book.
But he is far from being what many accused him of, a misogynist. After all, hatred for feminism is not synonymous with hatred of women. In fact, he considered himself to be a "philogynic" and mentions that his mother and sister Lily played a major role in his personal development. Afterwards, his most loyal friendships were shared with women, and his marriage was a very happy one. His anti-feminism therefore was not of the "incel" variety, based on frustration or hatred, but originated from a calm analysis and his studies in human psychology.
It was then a truism that differences between men and women were innate and were not only confined to the realm of physiology but also included deep psychological differences. Ludovici's views echoed this common view. He believed that women have traits that are closer to the characteristics of children than men do, and one of the results of this is that too often pleasure is placed above the "principle of reality."
He also explained the well-known meme of female fickleness and lack of consistency by tying it to the fact that they are guided by feelings and emotions more than by rationality.
Because of the nature of these female qualities, he believed that the feminization of society always tended ultimately to chaos. His equation was simple, maybe too simple: due to the transition from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal one, juvenile delinquency was increasing because there was a lack of masculine discipline at home. He supports this point by referring to an example given by Aristotle, namely that the fall of Sparta was caused by the growing influence of women in that society.
But should women be blamed for feminism and its domination over society? Ludovici categorically rejects this. When fathers will be fathers once more and regain their authority over their families, and when men will make virility a virtue again, then feminism will naturally lose ground. If feminism is prevailing, it is man’s own fault, Ludovici believed. Ultimately it was the man’s responsibility and duty to assert his role as the head of the family.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.