A picture from the exhibition - 'Twiggy in 1966' at the National Portrait Gal...

First |
Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next
| Last

They call me 'Twiggy'

Barry Lategan

A picture from the exhibition - 'Twiggy in 1966' at the National Portrait Gallery

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
- YahooBuzz
- Bebo
- Mixx
- Independent Minds
Print
Email

« Back to They call me 'Twiggy'

Comments

( Leave a comment )

Thanks Clem

kevinwell wrote:

Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 12:23 am (UTC)

Having been born in the 1960's, I do not recall much about Twiggy other than how matchstick slim she always appeared as a model and the fact that she was one of the more prominent cultural 'faces' of the 1960's in the UK. One thing is for certain, she sure looked a lot better in her later years, long after the modelling was at an end. I expect the 1960's may well represent the last noteworthy, in a positive sense, decade in the UK, in many respects, in terms of civil order, culture, national pride, etc.
We are now very much in the grip of a society that, in many respects, is no longer worth a bowl of spit as evidenced this week by events in both east & south London in respect of the Townsend & Smith murders, both of which have Black Culture written all over them, Knives, Gangs, Lawlessness, etc.
This in addition to the subsequent arrival in the UK on mass of a separate group of people, many of whom have loyalties that lie elsewhere on the planet. So who is responsible for this abysmal state of affairs?
There are only two candidates in my opinion, Adolf Hitler and Clem Attlee, Hitler being responsible for the outbreak of World War II or Attlee & his government who got the great inward flood from abroad underway in the late 1940's. My nod goes to Attlee, hence the subject title.
Of course, subsequent governments to Attlee's in the 1950's and beyond continued his administrations policy of encouraging prospective 'cheap labour' from abroad to move to the UK, therefore it may seem a little unfair to put the whole thing on Attlee's head. However, as it was Attlee who got the ball rolling, therefore I am of the view that he should be considered the 'father' of modern multi racial Britain. So, thanks a bunch Clem, I hope you are now in a very hot & uncomfortable place along with your main contemporaries in this regard.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Thanks Clem [thank Ehrenberg]

errol888flynn wrote:

Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 05:49 am (UTC)

It is the faces we never (or seldom) see, acting in the background, who are the real culprits kevinwell. Clem Attlee may have signed the paper, but you can bet your shiny GBP 50.00 note that it wasn't his idea. Never forget, hardcore Communists (+ many naive idealists who never gained any real understanding what Communism really is) were running rampant during & immediately after the war years.

One of the quacks most responsible for the multiculturalization of Britain (aka, the deliberate destruction of our national character) is Israel Ehrenberg who was born in the East End of London, 28 June 1905. As a young man, he changed his name to "Montague Francis Ashley Montagu" (with that sweet-sounding mouthful, he must have thought himself special). After moving to USA, he changed his name again to Ashley Montagu.

His personal prejudices basically shaped all the United Nations policies vis-a-vis race & gender held since. Officially, he was the rapporteur, in 1950, of the UNESCO statement The Race Question, but everyone who has studied the period knows he was also its lead author.

In 1942, Ehrenberg's book, "Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race" was published. Perhaps in retrospect, we should re-name his work: "Man's Most Dangerous Book: The Fallacy of Ehrenberg."

This jerk is responsible for such nut-job quotes as: "The family unit is the institution for the systematic production of mental illness" - said to Johnny Carson during a book-promoting appearance of the latest edition of his book 'The Natural Superiority of Women.' [Wikipedia]

But, that is what Communists like Ehrenberg have always wanted more than anything else ... the destruction of the family via the diminution of the role of men and fathers.

The so-called "Race Question" is a UNESCO statement issued on 18 July 1950. Look it up, carefully study the wording, and identify the Communist ideology running through it.

For example, the UNESCO statement advocated that: "National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits. Because serious errors of this kind are habitually committed when the term "race" is used in popular parlance, it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term "race" altogether and speak of 'ethnic groups'."

You can easily pick this apart; it is so full of childish thinking one becomes embarrassed to realize this is the kind of emotional pap our current world has been constructed upon.

The whole point of the UNESCO statement (Ehrenberg's thesis) was to invent something that would be the mirror image of anything followed by the Nazi's. That was its only purpose, to discredit absolutely everything the Nazi's embraced, even when it was scientifically true. We have been living in an artificially constructed environment ever since.

You should know that for many decades after World War II, the composer Wagner was reviled by many so-called British intellectuals simply because Hitler had admired Wagner. I believe the record sales of Beethoven suffered for many years for the same reason.

The word "race" is certainly over-used, but that should be no cause for alarm. Fortunately, I am widely travelled, and encountering racial differences has made it all worthwhile. If we were all the same, then what would be the point of seeking out other cultures and distant places? ... there wouldn't be any!

If racial differences do not exist, then why are Olympic 100 metre races always dominated by blacks? Why were most of the world's most important scientific developments discovered by Germans? Why do most Indian women have delicate ankles? I could go on to state the obvious, but why bother? People should be making the effort themselves. We all know racial differences exist, just as racial similarities exist. Make love to a girl from South India then to a girl from Holland ... you'll laugh at how we ever took clowns like Ehrenberg seriously.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: Thanks Clem [thank Ehrenberg]

kevinwell wrote:

Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 02:33 am (UTC)

Yes, I am in no doubt as to the validity of what you write, errol888flynn. However unfortunately, for the most part, the activities of the likes of those operating mostly in the background, like this Ehrenberg/Montagu character, do not become apparent until long after the fact. Having looked up this UNESCO Race Question statement from 1950, a lot of it does read like a lot of nonsensical propaganda. Of course, in 1950 the world was still in the recovery stage in the aftermath of World War II, so such events were a very low, if even existing, priority for most citizens.
I agree that if everyone was the same or similar then it would be a dull world indeed. Sadly, the immigration policies of post war governments in the UK have not so much created an underclass ( as one has probably always existed anyway ) it has in fact created what would more accurately be described as an under-underclass, which I would suggest is in no ones interest, yet amazingly this process seems to have speeded up again over recent years under the Blair/Brown regimes.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

1960s

oomigoolies wrote:

Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 05:40 am (UTC)

Ah, my Twiggy and my Hornby long ago...

And she still looks gorgeous.

AND she's never had any side on her at all. A funny, articulate easy going London girl who is just so very nice to listen to. For all her fame she remains one of us.

I shall deffo be visiting the NPG.

Link | Reply | Thread

twigy heralded the desre for thiness

mind_ful wrote:

Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)

Sadly, the introduction of 'Twiggy' meant the end of womenly icons of a healthy size 14,such as marylin monroe, and the subsequent associaton of thinness with desirability. Even the name 'Triggy' suggests a skinny, child-like, 'little girl' image that has dogged females everywhere ever since.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: twigy heralded the desre for thiness

errol888flynn wrote:

Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 07:32 am (UTC)

If I am reading you correctly mind_ful, what your comment seems to be suggesting -- correctly I might add -- is the ease with which groups of people can be herded into thinking in ways, or believing in ideas, that are irrational, stupid, and/or self-destructive. It is remarkable how many new fashion magazines & boutiques started up on the back of the Jewess, Mary Quant's androgynous ideas. It was a revolutionary wave to exploit the gullible.

The move towards androgyny also had a political angle, as the 1960s also witnessed the birth of radical (2nd wave) Feminism. This came to a boil in the USA first, and did not arrive in Britain until 1972, but it was still largely a 1960s movement. During the 1960s, unisex underwear was introduced (do you remember that?) where young men were expected to fit their 'tackle' into a space barely big enough for women's pubic hair. Never underestimate the political angle mind_ful, as the 1960s was when Britain started to go to rot. During that decade of social revolution, everything was being questioned, challenged, or overturned (for the noblest intentions of course!).

By 1969, in Britain at least, the whole point of young women's fashion was to give full focus to her upper thighs and clitoris. Micro-miniskirts were so short, absolutely nothing was left to the imagination; so much so that vaginal deodorant was introduced and became a best seller. This extremism, begun by Mary Quant, destroyed what being female truly means, and removed from men any need to address normally vital issues such as a woman's personality, character, and morality. Then suddenly, after about 2 years of micro-mini obsession, the plug was pulled, and in came the Maxi dress. That radical switchover happened simply because the Maxi-dress coincided with the arrival of Radical Feminism (social politics again).

Of course, we cannot blame Lesley Hornby for the androgynous look. She was born in 1949. Note that between 1945 and 1948, millions of Europeans had died from malnutrition or from diseases born of malnutrition. Food rationing in Britain did not end until 4th July 1954, when the young "Twiggy" was about to enter Primary School. She may have been genetically inclined to slimness but that was surely exacerbated by the age she grew up in. Most other top English models of that decade were very slender, and for similar reasons.

Well over half of all Britons who reached their teen years during the 1960s displayed signs of mild malnutrition, in particular from a low average intake of protein. The tight fitting, skinny fashions of the 1960s celebrated that reality by making it virtuous and chic. British males of this period were notoriously thin: their shoulders and arms typically puny. Look back via the photographs (e.g., pop album record sleeves, etc) to check for yourself, if you don't believe me.

It is ironic that all the English Rose fashion models of the 1960s --- there were several --- have all aged well. Today, they all remain physically desirable even as they each enter their sixth decade. Quite remarkable. As for "Twiggy", in my humble opinion, she blossomed into a truly beautiful woman after passing her 30th birthday (it might have happened a few years earlier, but I wasn't watching). By the time she had reached her mid 30s, Twiggy had developed a magnificently curvaceous figure that was almost perfect. I would go so far as to say Lesley Hornby had a far better (sexier) body when aged 35 than most girls of today have at 20 years.

And finally, I am not so sure your assumption of a "healthy size 14" is correct. When I was young enough to date young single girls in Britain, both the normal and sexiest size by far was size 12. Any girl over size 12 was considered getting on for being fat. The young women of today (generally speaking) are a disgrace because not only do they swallow the wrong things into their stomachs, but they also swallow the wrong things into their heads. The English Rose is now a Bramble Bush, if not a Poison Ivy.

The situation is not beyond repair, but more of us need to at least get the historical facts correct. It might help to drop all attachments to those myriad junk & self-destructive influences typically authored in New York City & its environs.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Good on yer girl!

fourpie wrote:

Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)

Well done Twiggy, you are a ray of light in the gloom to so many of us.

Link | Reply | Thread

60's

hanibalecter wrote:

Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)

Happy days, cruelly cut short for me not long after.

Link | Reply | Thread

How did you get from From Twiggy to Hitler in one sentence?

mowfalmighty wrote:

Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)

kevinwell and errol888flynn
Well Ive heard some flimsy pretexts for a rascist rant in my time but you two take the biscuit. Just as well the article wasnt about Naomi Campbell eh.
Fucking hell.
I must say I had to laugh at the bit about 'make love to a girl from south India and a girl from holland'. Obviously what you meant to say was. 'try wanking over a picture of a girl from south india and a girl from holland.'
So do you have them all spread out on the toilet floor or do you like to flick back and forth........
Or hang on...wait a min.....Its all becoming clear now.....Fat sweaty bigot takes sex tour to Amsterdam last year and liked 'Jenny Foreigner' so much he go to Bangkok year after..... 'sucky fucky five dollah.' where next ? Cuba for 2010..ARRIIBAAAHHHH! You lucky lucky senoritas!

Dear oh dear oh dear. If you saddos are the last protectors of our 'proud' british heritage then were all doomed (thank fuck).

Link | Reply | Thread