The Führer had, says André Erissaud, ‘the feeling’—I would say, the certainty—that the Christian religion in particular had little to do with truly transcendent values.[1]
However, the whole of Western civilisation is at the same time ‘recent’ and ‘Christian.’ We must never forget this. That didn’t, however, prevent Hitler from admiring Charlemagne: the Sachsenschlüchter or ‘terminator of the Saxons’ as Alfred Rosenberg, Johann von Leers, Heinrich Himmler and a good number of other great dignitaries saw him.
Instead, Hitler saw in him the conqueror with the immense will to power, and above all the first unifier of the German people: the one who, alone at that time, had the idea of the Reich even if he had used the artificial unity of ‘faith’ to impose it, even if this faith was the Christian faith, a foreign faith. It will be remembered that Adolf Hitler insisted on the dissolving action of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world, and that he called it ‘pre-Bolshevism.’ But it doesn’t matter what this faith was (and still is) if it was the cement of a conquering Germanic Empire and, later, the occasion for the whole flowering of art that we know. Insofar as this art is beautiful it presupposes, in any case, a certain knowledge of what is eternal. The Führer thus accepted with respect, as a German heirloom, a replica of the sword of the Emperor of West.[2]
____________
[1] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir, page 111.
[2] Editor’s note: I have been very critical of American white nationalism on my website, but hardly of German National Socialism. It is time to realise that Hitler and his followers weren’t perfect. To win the war you must know what you are fighting against. Both the most populist National Socialists like Goebbels, and today’s white nationalists, emphasised Jewry. But since the Semitic hydra also includes Christianity, Islam and even what happened to the Romans during the Punic Wars, Nietzsche’s ‘Law against Christianity’ alluded to in footnote #187 must be implemented in what we might start calling Kalki’s Reich.
Rosenberg, von Leers and Himmler were closer to the truth on this point than the Führer himself! But their movement failed because, like Savitri, they didn’t fully understand how infinitely toxic everything related to Judeo-Christianity has been, including its secular offshoots. If they had been genuinely wise they would have seen that the Christians on the other side of the Atlantic were their main foe. This means that all these esoteric and archaeological raids looking for the Aryan Grail, where it was not to be found, were a fool’s errand. The Grail is anti-Christianity or, to put it in more positive terms, the transvaluation of all Judeo-Christian values back to Greco-Roman values.
3 replies on “Savitri quote”
“If they had been genuinely wise they would have seen that the Christians on the other side of the Atlantic were their main foe.” I would argue that the Christian world has two tap roots, Britain and America. Both sucking on the breasts of the City of London banksters. Had Hitler been more worldly-wise, he would have been Machiavellian in his relations with Churchill. One should dispense with his native morals with dealing with foreign immorals.
True: but without American help the Germans had already beaten the English (and perhaps, without fighting on two fronts, they might have beaten Stailn). The United States was—and is—the factor that tipped the balance towards Evil. When I finish reading Dominion I will have to read Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe.
The Führer seems to have been of two minds on this issue, taking into account his cheering for Islam vis-à-vis Charles Martel. All Charlemagne did was build that Reich on a shaky foundation, akin to giving birth to a syphilitic child. What’s worse, it was on the Germanic peoples to shake off Jewry’s yoke after their Roman project had failed.