No doubt all men have something in common, if only the upright posture and articulate language, which other living species do not possess. Every species is characterised by something which all its members have in common, and which the members of other species lack. The flexibility and purr of felines are traits that no other species can claim. We do not dispute that all human races have several features in common, simply because they are human. What we do dispute is that these common traits are more worthy of our attention than are the enormous differences between races (and often between human individuals of the same race), and the features that all living things, including plants, have in common.
In our eyes a Negro or a Jew, or a Levantine without a well-defined race, has neither the same duties nor the same rights as a pure Aryan. They are different; they belong to worlds which, whatever their points of contact may be on the material plane, remain alien to each other. They are different by nature—biologically Others. The acquisition of a ‘common culture’ cannot bring them together, except superficially and artificially, because ‘culture’ is nothing if it has no deep roots in nature.
Our point of view is not new. Already the Laws of Manu assigned to the Brahmin and the Soudra—and the people of each caste—different duties and rights, and very different penalties to the possible murderers of members of different castes. Caste is—and was in ancient India—linked to race. (It is called varna, which means ‘colour’, and also jat, race). Less far from us in time, and in this Europe where the contrasts between races have never been so extreme, the legislation of the Merovingian Franks, like that of the Ostrogoths of Italy, and the other Germans established in conquered countries, provided for the murder of a man of the Nordic race—of a German—penalties out of proportion to those incurred by the murderer of a Gallo-Roman or an Italian, especially if the latter was of servile condition.
No idea that is justified by healthy racism is new.
On the other hand, we do not understand this priority given to ‘man’, whoever he may be, over any subject of another living species, for the sole reason that ‘he is a man’. It is all very well for the followers of man-centred religions to believe in this priority and to take it into account in all the steps of their daily life. For them, this is the object of an article of faith, the logical consequence of a dogma. And faith cannot be discussed.
But that so many thinkers and so many people who, like them, do not belong to any church, who even fight against any so-called revealed religion, have exactly the same attitude and find the last of the human waste more worthy of concern than the healthiest and most beautiful of beasts (or plants); that they deny us the ‘right’ not only to kill without suffering, but even to sterilise defective human beings, when the life of a healthy and strong animal doesn’t count in their eyes, and that they will, without remorse, cut down a beautiful tree whose presence ‘bothers them’, is what shocks us deeply; what revolts us.
All these self-styled independent minds, all these ‘free’ thinkers, are, just as the believers of the man-centred religions and so-called human ‘dignity’, slaves of the prejudices that the West and a large part of the East. They have inherited it from Judaism. If they have rejected the dogmas and mythology of anthropocentric religions, they have retained their values in their entirety. This is as true of the eighteenth-century Deists as it is of our atheistic Communists. [Editor’s Note: The POV of this site about ‘neochristianity’ in a few words! Savitri continues:]
Although most anti-Communist Christians indignantly reject the idea, there is a profound parallelism between Christianity and Marxism. Both are originally Jewish products. Both have received the imprint of a more or less decadent Aryan thought: that of the subtle Hellenistic philosophy, overloaded with allegories and ready to accept the most unexpected syncretisms, in the case of the former—and of that ideology not of the true scientific spirit, which guards against error, but of what I will call ‘scientism’: the propensity to replace faith in traditional ideas by faith that is presented in the name of ‘Science’, in the case of the latter.
And above all, both are centred on the same values: on the cult of man, as the only being created ‘in the image and likeness’ of the god of the Jews, or simply as a being of the same species as the Marxist who glorifies him. The practical result of anthropo-centrism is the same, whatever its source.
12 replies on “Reflections of an Aryan woman, 17”
where’s the source for Savitri Devi’s claim that “the legislation of the Merovingian Franks, like that of the Ostrogoths of Italy, and the other Germans established in conquered countries, provided for the murder of a man of the Nordic race—of a German—penalties out of proportion to those incurred by the murderer of a Gallo-Roman or an Italian.”
The claim is silly.
I ignore the source. The same with Pierce and Kemp’s stories about the race: they don’t cite their sources (nor paper encyclopaedias do).
I have some interest in the Goths and I was not aware of what Savitri wrote. The Goths had no concept of being “Germans” and even less “Nordics” since “Nordic” is a 19th century invention. At the point of the great migrations the Goths already were relatively highly miscegenated compared with the other migrating tribes.
Theodoric for instance used preferably Romans in the state administration.
When a lawsuit occurred between Goths themselves, the case was settled by Gothic law; while disputes between a Goth and a Roman was tried before a court, where a Gothic and Roman judge sat together.
The tensions were caused mainly by religion since Goths were Arians and the “Romans” were Catholics. Theodoric watched carefully that the courts treated members of all faiths, Catholics, Arians, and even Jews alike and fair. Supposedly he said “The benefits of justice should not be denied even for those, who deviate from the faith.” Was Theodoric a cuck?
After his death the Ostrogothic kingdom was led by his daughter, Amalaswintha, who was very pro-Roman and her assassination was the main cause for the invasion of Italy by the Eastern Roman Empire.
That’s what I more or less remember.
Cheers
> ‘At the point of the great migrations the Goths already were relatively highly miscegenated compared with the other migrating tribes’.
You mean with non-whites? Source please.
“The Goths had no concept of being “Germans” and even less “Nordics” since ‘Nordic’ is a 19th century invention.”
If by “invention” you actually mean discovery, then yes, it is a 19th century discovery.
“Supposedly he said ‘The benefits of justice should not be denied even for those, who deviate from the faith.’ Was Theodoric a cuck?”
Absolutely!
“In the first century AD, the Sarmatians began encroaching upon the Roman Empire in alliance with Germanic tribes. In the third century AD, their dominance of the Pontic Steppe was broken by the Germanic Goths. With the Hunnic invasions of the fourth century, many Sarmatians joined the Goths and other Germanic tribes (Vandals) in the settlement of the Western Roman Empire.”
“On the Pontic steppe the Goths quickly adopted several nomadic customs from the Sarmatians.”
“Interpreting Jordanes, Herwig Wolfram estimates that Ermanaric dominated a vast area of the Pontic Steppe stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea as far eastwards as the Ural Mountains, encompassing not only the Greuthungi, but also Baltic Finnic peoples, Slavs (such as the Antes), Rosomoni (Roxolani), Alans, Huns, Sarmatians and probably Aestii (Balts).”
Yesterday, I tried to contact you by e-mail, but I received a failure message:
It’s a fake email. I also did a little IP research and found that your IP is almost identical to the IP of banned commenter AdunaiLeVierte (a.k.a., Adunai).
Who are you? You should know that this site doesn’t admit Sock-puppets, let alone banned commenters.
E-mail providers such as tutanota or ProtonMail can have such issues. It is annoying, but they provide better anonymity. As to the IP, I’m using a proxy, which others might have used as well.
Regarding the Goths, I’ve read Kemp, but it’s clear that the Sarmatians were not pure Nordics, although not as mixed as later Turks.
Are you saying that you are not Adunai?
If memory serves, you said some time ago that Solzhenitsyn was a liar (only Adunai has said such things). If you aren’t Adunai, it is a huge coincidence that that guy, and no one else, was using the same proxy IP that you use—more than once!
P.S. I have just sent an email to your previous address:
[email protected]
Same failure notice.
Actually, you are right, that e-mail has been deleted for inactivity. Oops. I use different e-mails for different services and forgot to log in as I never had an issue with WordPress. I use one of the more popular free proxies.
I don’t remember at all writing about Solzhenitsyn. You did let a few of Adunai’s comments pass, maybe that’s where you saw it?
You’re lying. This is the smoking gun, your non-proxy IP from Ukraine:
Update of September 30: At Adunai’s request, I removed the image with his IP.
Believe what you wish. I won’t be trying to convince you.