web analytics

Category: Democracy

Categories
Democracy Deranged altruism Egalitarianism Neanderthalism Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 96

 

Chapter XII: A call for the end

And thou, divine Death, where everything returns and disappears,
Receive your children into your starry bosom,
Free us from Time, Number and Space,
And give us back the rest that life has disturbed.

Leconte de Lisle. (‘Dies Irae’: Poèmes Antiques).

It is worth repeating, and insisting on, that along with the great cats, the masterpieces of Creation, the elephants and other noble herbivores, and the holy forests themselves, the pullulation of man threatens with death (slow, but certain) the most beautiful and gifted of the human races, especially that which interests us above all others: our Aryan race.

This is inevitable, unless intervention in the opposite direction, and in time, is directed by legislators and supported, if necessary, by force. It is inevitable, I say, for the simple reason that the inferior races are by nature far more prolific than the others (the same is true of the various species of four-legged mammals: mice and rats multiply so much more rapidly than lions and tigers!).

A racial elite can only survive if it keeps its blood pure. And it is clear that even then it can only continue to play its natural role, which is to command, both politically and in other areas, if it is part of a civilisation which, unlike today’s democracies, both popular and plutocratic, rejects any idea of giving priority to the greatest number. As soon as one accepts the principle of universal suffrage—one man, one vote, whatever the man—; as soon as one attributes to any man (of any race, even the least beautiful and least gifted, and even of any level of personal degradation) an immense ‘value’, superior by the mere fact that he is ‘a man’, to that of the noblest animal or tree, one puts the human elite in danger.

And the threat of impotence, of deterioration, and finally of death, which is thus brought to bear upon it, is all the more formidable, and all the more imminent, because preventive sanitary techniques more effectively prevent infant mortality and epidemics of all kinds from taking their toll on the weak of any race, and from keeping in check the tendency of the inferior races to swarm at the rate of the rodents.

For if nothing is done to slow down the rate of reproduction of these races at all costs, and if moreover a higher and higher minimum of education is imposed on them, it will automatically be they who will have the last word in a world governed by ‘the majority’—they, or rather a few raceless and faithless demagogues, skilled in manipulating them, and behind them the international Jew. For he is the eternal enemy of all racism (except his own), capable of creating or suppressing at a price of gold, the most diverse demagogies.

In India, this process has been going on for decades already, even for a century, since the moment they became victims of the false belief in the ‘value of every man’. The British have felt it their duty not only to Indianize their administrative services, but to Indianize them from below, by giving more and more benefits to the lower castes—i.e., races—of India at the expense of the Aryan castes. It is they, the English, and they alone, as I have repeatedly said, who are directly responsible for the accelerated decadence of this vast country, not for having ‘exploited’ it excessively, economically; but for having instilled in those who were to become its effective rulers, their democratic and humanitarian ideals.

They are responsible for this in two ways. Firstly, they set up their hospitals and dispensaries, their faculties and their medical research laboratories everywhere. They inaugurated, on a vast scale, the fight against epidemics and especially against infant mortality—against the rapid elimination of the weak—and in every way encouraged the Indians to continue it after their departure. Thus, and while the population increased in frightful proportions (it doubles every thirty years!), they applied to its enormous masses—of different races, but, in the increasing majority, of inferior races—those same democratic principles which haven’t ceased to infect Europe since 1789.

They trained in their school the Indians (Hindus of all castes but, increasingly, of the lower castes; Mohammedans, Christians) to whom they, first under their colonial aegis and then from the ‘independence’ which followed their departure, passed on the burden of power. They imposed universal suffrage; they gave equal importance as voters (however small) to the savage Kuki of Assam, the Naga, the Santal, the Gund, and the fairest-skinned Brahmin with regular features, a blood brother of the best Europeans, and more cultured than many of them. They have chosen, as their successors, Indians, educated in their school and psychologically dead to the racist spirit of the Hindu Tradition, and sure to continue their work of disintegration.

These Indians are now doing the impossible for the promotion of the masses of inferior races, ever more compact, more swarming, more invasive thanks to the decline in mortality. They have set up legislation that gives the greatest number of posts everywhere to the nationals of these masses, as soon as they have assimilated a minimum of literacy. The result is a generalized mess, incredible incompetence at all levels: an express telegram sent from Delhi, takes four days to reach Jammu; the Delhi buses leave at the convenience of their driver, and arrive when they can, etc. It also leads to corruption at all levels, in all departments. But that does not matter.

The main thing is that people now say, abroad, ‘India’, instead of saying ‘the Indies’, and thus the illusion of an Indian ‘nation’ is born. The main thing is that this ‘nation’, or rather this State, which is the spirit of the degenerate, Jewish, humanitarian and pacifist Britons, continue to rule. It is a democracy and, to boot, a secular democracy—without official religion (because this title is refused to immemorial Hinduism), even against any traditional religion, in the manner of Emile Combes’ France: a State in which, some dare to hope, the cult of science and humanity—of science applied to the well-being and ‘happiness’ of ‘all men’—will increasingly replace the cult of the ancient Gods, according to the outdated dream of Auguste Comte.

The essential point is that this State is a multiracial democracy, in which all shades of inferior humanity are in open or latent, noisy or silent revolt against the few millions of Brahmins and Kshatriyas—even against those of them (as is the case with so many southern Brahmins) to whose ancestors the privileges and honours of caste were originally bestowed on account of their extraordinary merits, without having been Aryans.

Categories
Democracy

On Trudeau’s Canada

A musician who died last century said: ‘The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater’. (See also what Tucker said yesterday on Fox News: here.)

Categories
Democracy Monarchy Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Sturmabteilung (SA) Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 50

There is no shortage of opponents of Marxism. They range from those who condemn all violence and are frightened by the known episodes of ‘class struggle’ in Russia and China, to those who reproach the Communists for their atheism and materialism, to those who own some property and are afraid of losing it if they have to live under the sign of the Sickle and Hammer.

Many oppose it in the name of some political doctrine, usually embodied in a ‘party’, which, if it attacks the ‘subversive’ character of Marxism, is itself no less subversive, and for the same deep reasons. This is the case with the adherents of all democratic parties, whose common denominator is to be found in the belief in the ‘equality in law’ of all men, and hence the principle of universal suffrage, of power emanating from the majority. These people don’t realise that Communism is in its infancy in this very principle, as it was already in Christian anthropocentrism (even if it is a question of the value of human souls in the eyes of a personal God who infinitely loves all men). They don’t realise that it is and can only be so, for the reason that the majority will always be the mass—and increasingly so, in an overpopulated world.

Only those who are faithful to any adequate expression of immemorial Tradition, and in particular to any true religion or to any Weltanschauung capable of serving as a basis for a true religion—any worldview which is ultimately based on the knowledge of the eternal and on the will to make it the principle of the socio-political order—, are fundamentally opposed to Marxism.

Now, disregarding the apparent paradox of such an assertion, twenty-five years after the collapse of the Third German Reich I dare to repeat that the only properly Western doctrine which (after the very old Nordic religions which Christianity persecuted and gradually killed between the 6th and 12th centuries) fulfils this condition is Hitlerism.

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: Once more, Savitri didn’t know about the apocalypse of whites that also represented, in the 4th and 5th centuries, the violent destruction of the classical world by fanatic Christians. We cannot blame her. Books like this one had not been published! More recently than Savitri’s time, even Mauricio didn’t know about the blackest page of ancient history, as he commented yesterday.

______ 卐 ______

 
This is the only Weltanschauung infinitely more than ‘political’ that is clearly ‘against Time’ in accordance with the eternal. It is the only worldview which, in the long run, will triumph both over Marxism and the general chaos to which it will have led the world—and this, no matter how great the material defeat of its followers may have been yesterday, and no matter how hostile millions of men may be about it today. Only a total recovery can succeed a total subversion: a glorious beginning of the cycle at a lamentable end of it.

But our opponents won’t fail to draw everyone’s attention to the eminently ‘anti-traditional’ character of more than one aspect of National Socialism, both during the Kampfzeit, before 1933, and after the seizure of power. If it is ‘subversive’ from the viewpoint of eternal values to preach the ‘class struggle’ with a view to the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. But wasn’t it equally subversive to rise to power democratically thanks to universal suffrage, by relying on a succession of electoral campaigns (on the protection of young fighters, for the most part as ‘proletarian’ in their behaviour, as the Communists whose attacks they repelled during meetings and whom they overcame in street battles)? Wasn’t it to be so, to keep this power, which came from the people—the masses—and to omit the reestablishment of the old monarchy despite the last and fervent recommendation of Marshal von Hindenburg, President of the Reich?

On the other hand, didn’t several German banks[1] as well as industrial magnates[2] subsidised the NSDAP, thus making the success of the National Socialist Revolution depend, in part, on the power of money and running the risk of making it considered, despite its popular appearance, the supreme defence of the ‘capitalist’ order as it already existed—that is to say, a society extremely distant from the traditional ideal?

Finally, it may be said, how can it be denied that, even after the seizure of power the Third German Reich was far from presenting the appearance of an organism inspired from top to bottom by the vision of the cosmic hierarchy? The famous author Hans Günther himself, apparently disillusioned, wrote to me in 1970 that he had, unfortunately, seen in it ‘an ochlocracy’ rather than the aristocratic regime he had dreamed of. And one cannot categorically reject without discussion this judgement of one of the most prominent theorists of Hitler’s racism before the disaster of 1945. The judgement, while undoubtedly excessive, must, in more than one particular case, certainly express some regrettable reality.

Let’s never forget that we are approaching the end of a cycle, and that the best institutions can therefore only exceptionally have a semblance of the perfection of the past. For everywhere, and the post-war period has amply proved this, there are more and more two-legged mammals and fewer and fewer men in the strongest sense of the word. No doctrine should therefore be judged by what has been accomplished in the visible world in its name.

The doctrine is true or false depending on whether or not it is in unison with that direct knowledge of the universal and eternal which only a steadily diminishing minority of sages possesses. It is true—it cannot be repeated often enough—regardless of the victory or defeat of its followers, or so-called followers on the material plane, and regardless of their weaknesses, foolishness, or even crimes. Neither the atrocities of the Holy Inquisition, nor the scandals attached to the name of Pope Alexander VI Borgia, take anything away from the truth of the vision of the ‘intelligible world’ that a Master Eckhart, for example, or some initiated Templar, may have had through Christian symbolism. And the same is true of all doctrines.

We must therefore be careful not to impute to Hitlerism the faults, weaknesses or excesses of people with power, to any degree whatsoever, under the Third Reich or during the period of struggle (Kampfzeit) from 1920 to 1933, and especially the faults or excesses committed against the spirit of the Weltanschauung and the Führer’s dream, as there seemed to be so many. In German society, as it was under the growing influence and effective rule of the Führer during the Kampfzeit and afterwards, we must see only the Führer’s efforts to mould it according to his dream, or to prevent it from evolving against that same dream. We must try to understand what he wanted to do.

Already in the official National Socialist texts addressed to the general public—in the Twenty-five Points, which form the basis of the Party programme; and above all in Mein Kampf where the great philosophical directives of the latter are traced out even more clearly—it is visible that the Movement was directed against the most cherished ideals and the most characteristic customs of the eminently decadent society, which had grown out of the Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Lending at interest, financial speculation, and any form of gain alien to a creative endeavour, as well as the exploitation of vice or silliness in a press, literature, cinema or theatre envisaged above all as a means of making a profit, are condemned with the utmost rigour. Moreover, the very principles of modern Western civilisation—the equality of all men and all races in law, the idea that ‘law’ is the expression of the will of the majority, and ‘nation’ the community of those who, whatever their origin, ‘want to live together’; the idea that perpetual peace in abundance, the fruit of man’s ‘victory over nature’ represents the supreme good—are attacked, ridiculed and demolished in a masterly manner.

Natural law, the law of the struggle for life, is recognised and exalted on the human level as on all other levels. And the primordial importance of race and personality—the two pillars of the new faith—is proclaimed on every page. Finally, this new faith, or rather this new conception of life (neue Audassung) for the Führer and the few, is not a question of ‘faith’ but true knowledge. It is characterised as ‘corresponding to the original meaning of things’[3] which says a lot, this ‘original meaning of things’ being none other than that which they take on in the light of Tradition.

We can therefore, without going any further, affirm that everything in the history of the National Socialist Party that doesn’t seem to coincide with the spirit of a struggle ‘against Time’ is a matter of the tactics of the struggle, not its nature or purpose. It was under the pressure of hard necessity, and only after he had failed on 9 November 1923 in his attempt to seize power by force that Adolf Hitler, released from his Landsberg prison but now deprived of all means of action, had recourse—reluctantly to be sure—to the slow and long ‘legal way’, that is to say, to the repeated appeal to the voters and the gradual conquest of a majority in the Reichstag. It is well known that his first move after taking power ‘by democratic means’ was to replace the authority of the many with that of one, namely his own at all levels; in other words, to abolish democracy: to bring the political order into line with the natural order as far as possible.

It was under the pressure of a no less compelling material necessity—that of meeting the enormous expenses involved in the struggle for power in a parliamentary system with its inevitable election campaigns—that he had to accept the help of the Hugenbergs, the Kirkdorfs, the Thyssens, Dr Schacht and later Krupp, as well as of a host of industrialists and bankers.

Without it, he couldn’t have risen to power fast enough to block the road to the most dangerous forces of subversion: the Communists. For money is, more than ever, in a world which it increasingly dominates, the ‘sinews of war’ and politics. Does this mean that the Führer was subservient to money or to those who had given him money during the Kampfzeit? Does it mean that he made any concessions to them after taking power?

Far from it! He allowed them to get rich insofar as, in so doing, they served the national economy effectively and gave the working masses what he had promised them: abundance through work insofar as, subject to his authority, they continued to help the Party, i.e. the state, in peace and war. He kept them in their place and their role—like a king and the merchant ‘caste’ in a traditional society—thus showing both his realism and wisdom.

On the other hand, the (at least partial) ‘ochlocracy’ that has so often been attributed to National Socialism was, in fact, only the inevitable corollary of Adolf Hitler’s obligation to come to power by relying, quite democratically, on the majority of the electorate. It wouldn’t have existed if the putsch of 9 November 1923 had succeeded and had given him free rein to remake Germany according to his immense dream. It wouldn’t have existed because he wouldn’t have needed the collaboration of hundreds of thousands of young people ready to do anything: to strike blows as well as to receive them, to maintain in the vicinity of his massive propaganda meetings, and in the halls themselves, an order constantly threatened by the physical attacks of the most violent and implacable elements of the Communist opposition.

To conquer Germany ‘democratically’ he had to show himself, to be heard, hundreds and hundreds of times to convey to the public his message: part of his message, at least that which would induce the masses to vote for his party. The message was irresistible but it had to be communicated. And that would have been impossible without the wolf pack, the SA[4], who ruled the streets and who, at the risk of their own lives, ensured the Führer’s silence and safety amid his audience.

Adolf Hitler loved his young beasts, madly attached to his person, eager for both violence and adoration, many of whom were former Communists who had been won over to the holy cause by the fascination of his words, his looks, his behaviour and his doctrine in which the son of a proletarian saw something more outrageous, more brutal, and therefore more exalting than Marxism.

He loved them. And he loved the latest of their supreme leaders of the Kampfzeit, under whose orders he himself had once fought in the war: Ernst Röhm, who had returned from Bolivia, from the end of the world, at his call in 1930. He willingly turned a blind eye to his deplorable morals and saw in him only the perfect soldier and genius organiser.

And yet… he resigned himself, despite everything, to having this old comrade killed, or to let him be killed—almost the only man in his entourage who was on a first-name basis with him[5]—as soon as he was convinced that the turbulence of this troop, so faithful though it was, its spirit of independence and especially the growing opposition which was emerging between it and the regular German army could only lead precisely to ochlocracy, if not to civil war; in any case, only to the weakening of Germany.

One could compare this tragic but apparently necessary purge of June 30, 1934 with the most Machiavellian settlements of accounts in history; for example, the execution without trial of Don Ramiro di Lorqua on the orders of Caesar Borgia—with this crucial difference, however: that, while the Duke of Valentino had in mind only power for himself, the Führer aimed infinitely higher. He wanted power to try, in a desperate effort, to reverse the march of Time against itself, in the name of eternal values. There was nothing personal in his struggle at any stage.

And if, despite the fervent desire of Field Marshal and Reich President von Hindenburg, he rejected any idea of restoring the monarchy, it was not out of ambition either. It was because he was aware of the vanity of such a step in terms of values and true hierarchies. The monarchy ‘by divine right’, the only normal one from the traditional point of view[6] had, for centuries already, lost all meaning and justification in Europe.

The Führer knew this. It was not a question of trying to restore a shaky order by reinstalling a parliamentary monarchy presided over (there is no other word) by William II or one of his sons. He wanted to build a new order, or rather to resurrect the oldest order: the ‘original’ order in the strongest and most durable form it could take in this century.

And he knew that, by the choice of those forces of life which, throughout any cycle of time, untiringly oppose the ineluctable current of dissolution, he—the eternal Siegfried, both human and more than human—held both the legitimate power in this visible world and the legitimate authority emanating from beyond: the ‘power of the two Keys’. With him at the top, the pyramid of earthly hierarchies was to gradually resume its natural position, once again depicting in miniature, first in Germany, then throughout Europe and the Aryan world: the invisible Order which the Cosmos depicts in large.

It was in the name of this grandiose vision of ideal correspondences that he rejected, with equal vigour, Marxism: a doctrine of total subversion; Parliamentarism in all its forms, always based on the same superstition of quantity; and ochlocracy, a source of disorder, and therefore of constant instability.

But the traditional character of his wisdom is to be sought even more in the few texts that give us his secret, or at least intimate, talks, his open-hearted confidences in front of a few selected people, than in his writings or speeches addressed to the general public.

__________

[1] The Deutsche Bank, the Commerz und Privat Bank, the Dresdener Bank, the Deutsche Credit-Gesellschaft, etc.

[2] E. Kirkdorf, Fritz Thyssen, Voegler, Otto-Wolf von Schröder, then Krupp.

[3] ‘…unsere neue Auffassung, die ganz dem Ursinn der Dinge entspricht…’ (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 440).

[4] Sturmabteilungen or Storm Troops.

[5] With some of his other early collaborators, such as Gregor Strasser.

[6] The elective kingship of the ancient Germans, that of the Frankish warrior raised to the flagstaff by his peers, was also ‘of divine right’ if we admit that the ‘divine’ is none other than the pure blood of a noble race.

Categories
Democracy Julian (novel) Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 47

 

Chapter VIII

The two great modern movements and tradition

 
Whenever justice is in danger, O Bharata, and
injustice is exalted, so I myself come back. For the
protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for
the establishment of a reign of justice, I am reborn from age to age.

Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verses 7 and 8.

The difference in ‘style’, as well as in spirit, which separates the great collective demonstrations of Hitler’s faith under the Third Reich from the parallel expressions of Marxism in Russia (or China) and, even more so, from the orderless processions of the scruffy youths of the ‘New Left’, on the one hand, and the official parades of the liberal plutocracies, conceals a fundamental opposition in nature: the opposition between Tradition and Anti-tradition, to use the language of René Guénon or Evola.

I have tried to show that a visibly ‘political’ doctrine can sometimes serve as the basis of a religion, provided that it is associated with rituals, that is, with symbolism, and that it becomes an object of faith for all its adherents. But I recall that it can only serve as a foundation for a true religion if the propositions on which it is based are the expression of eternal truths, or are justified only in the light of such truths; in other words, are legitimately linked to Tradition.

A true religion is the set of beliefs and symbolic gestures—rites and customs, linked to these beliefs—which in a traditional civilisation give expression to the consciousness of the sacred. On the other hand, a traditional civilisation is, according to René Guénon, ‘that which rests on principles in the true sense of the word, that is to say, where the intellectual order dominates all the others, where everything proceeds from it directly or indirectly and, whether it is a question of sciences or social institutions, is, in the final analysis, nothing but contingent, secondary and subordinate applications of intellectual truths’.[1] And it is worth adding that what the sage means here by ‘purely intellectual truths’ and ‘intellectual order’ are the very laws of universal existence, manifest or unmanifest, and the permanent order behind all that passes: the eternal.

It is hardly necessary to point out that the ‘values’ and ‘truths’ nominally exalted in the civil solemnities of the western democracies—even in the secular education given to the youth—fit into a particular form of Tradition but don’t even possess, even as mere words, enough resonance to give rise to the outline of any powerful anti-traditional system—let alone a ‘false religion’, a religion based on a deliberate negation of Tradition: a counter-initiation. If an ever more relentless encroachment of technology brings the world of plutocracies and the world of communism so close together that one can, theoretically at least, say that there is nothing to choose between the two, there is, nevertheless, a difference between them. The world of the plutocracies—and their satellites—has no faith, and is not attached, and has not been for a long time, to any vision beyond the sensible and the transient.

If a few individuals or groups of individuals still possess a knowledge of the Eternal, they no longer have any influence over society as a whole; they remain silent, and wait, striving at most to remain faithful to themselves and recognise each other.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:

The novel I have recommended most on this site is Julian by Gore Vidal. Those who have read it will recognise what Savitri says here on the last page of Julian.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The masses are left to scatter in the grey of small daily worries and pleasures. They are not involved at all. On the other hand, all they have retained from the old faith of their churches is a veneer of conformity that is increasingly crumbling, and that anthropocentrism common to all teaching devised by Jews for Aryan consumption. The elites, or so-called elites, have, apart from a few individuals, hardly retained more.

The West lives on its gains but for how long?

Emptied of all will to power, refusing all risk, cursing all aggressiveness (except that which it deployed from 1939 to 1945 and beyond—in its efforts to ‘denazify’ Germany—against the only people and the only faith that could have led it into a prodigious recovery), it slips into comfortable decay, it gets stuck in a precarious welfare, becomes mechanised, Americanised, proletarianized until what it falls one day on its own, as a result of increasing infiltration of ideas and agents who are all the more effective for being more silent, under the dependence of the communist world, or that it becomes, by right of conquest, an integral part of it.

But, if it is true that while liberal democracy—with its superstitions of universal suffrage, of compulsory primary (and soon, secondary!) education, and of generalised vaccination, in other words, with its cult of equality and quantity—leads straight to Marxism, it is not Marxism. The decadence over which it presides is, to be sure, all pervaded by a distinctly anti-traditional spirit—all decadence is: this is its very essence. But it is a natural process, a sign of senility encouraged at most by certain conscious agents of the Dark Forces, working in a muted way in high places in the direction of anti-tradition. It is not linked to a systematic, long and coldly coordinated, and masterly directed effort of deliberate subversion of the traditional order, as is that which the zealots of Marxism have, if not provoked, at least accelerated in all the countries where they have taken power.

In other words there are between the so-called ‘free’ world—the elites and multitudes aspiring only to easy happiness and immediate success—and the communist world with its fiercely disciplined masses dominated by leaders (some of whom such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao-Tsé-Tong will leave an indelible mark on history), about the same analogy as between a man who lets himself live, without faith, without any impulse whatsoever beyond the realm of the senses, without participation in any rite, and a man who attends black masses.

This is the difference between the absence of any velocity of initiatory development, and real counter-initiation. And it is precisely for this reason that ‘the small margin of material freedom that the world of democracy still grants in some activities… to those who don’t allow themselves to be internally conditioned… would certainly disappear under a communist regime’.[2] A society without order is, of course, less intolerant in practice than a society built on a reverse order or one whose structure reflects true Order.

____________

[1] R. Guénon, Orient et Occident, p. 150.

[2] Julius Evola, Chevaucher le tigre.

Categories
Buddhism Democracy Deranged altruism Hinduism Indo-European heritage Miscegenation Poetry Racial right Racial studies Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 2

Chapter II—False nations and true racism

‘We have to distinguish between the state as a vessel and the race as the content. This vessel only makes sense if it is able to preserve and protect its contents; otherwise it is worthless’.

—Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 434)

Do not forget that it is considerations of race which distinguish a real people from a collectivity of men which does not deserve the name.

Such communities can be very different from each other. There are states where the population is a deeply mixed mass, where specimens of ‘pure’ appearance, if there are any, have children who do not resemble them; where children of the same family, who nevertheless seems ethnically homogeneous, are different races: one Negroid, the other Mediterranean, or almost, the third, marked with strong Amerindian characteristics. These are states, not peoples. There is, for example, a Brazilian state. There is a population (multiracial, and without segregation laws) who inhabit Brazil. There are no Brazilian people—nor, therefore, a Brazilian ‘nation’.

There are, on the other hand, states whose populations are made up of several peoples juxtaposed, but not fused together. This is the case of the United States of America [Editor’s note: Remember that this was written in the late 1960s], the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, the Soviet Union, and India. It is by an abuse of language that one gives to the general population of any one of these States, the name of ‘people’ or of ‘nation’. There is, in fact, no natural link, no biological link, between an ‘American citizen’ of Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Mediterranean origin, and another ‘American citizen’ Negro or mestizo, or Jew…

Moreover, in the USA, as in the so-called ‘racist’ states of Rhodesia and South Africa, and more, Aryans and Negroes belong to the same Christian churches; are Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, as the case may be, but always without distinction of race. Since the realm of the true Christian is not of this world, biological considerations cannot be included…

If, favoured by the diffusion of a uniform way of life as well as of a common ‘knowledge’, and especially of self-distant common anti-racist ‘values’, the gangrene of interbreeding is gradually gaining the entire population, it is, for this, the irremediable decadence: the end of all culture, the end of all disinterested creation, that is to say of any activity other than that which consists in ‘producing’ always more, in order to acquire more and more material well-being. If, on the contrary, it is the healthy tendency of each race to remain separate from the others that prevails, the population will retain its heterogeneity. It will not become ‘a people’—much less a ‘nation’. It will remain what it is, namely a juxtaposition of two or more races living in harmony with each other to the extent that their primary diversity is recognised and accepted. [Editor’s note: Again, writing in the 60s, Savitri ignored that that is impossible in the long run.]

The Union of South Africa, so decried by anti-Hitlerites around the world for its so-called ‘racism’, is not such a multiracial state, or only very incompletely, despite its official program of ‘separate development of races’. It is only very incompletely so because, just like Rhodesia which, for its part, denies exalting racism, and like the USA which, despite the continued resistance of its segregationists, is fighting it, it confuses, as I said earlier, ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’. [Editor’s Note: Living in Mexico I can say that the few Jews I have come to know are phenotypically white, sometimes completely indistinguishable from real Aryans except for their last names (see e.g., here). This means that from now on I will use the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’ as Savitri used them; being the ‘Aryans’ those whites who don’t have Jewish blood, though many Ashkenazi Jews are white: something that Richard Spencer has acknowledged in one of his recent podcasts.]

Far, for example, from removing the Jews from key positions in the country and, in general, from any profession in the exercise of which they are likely to acquire political or cultural influence, it gives them, because of their colour alone, all the advantages enjoyed by the ‘Whites’, advantages that she refuses to the Aryans of Asia, however illogical that is, and that, even if, like most Brahmans and many ‘Khatris’ of Punjab, they are fair complexion. Crossbreeding between Aryans and Jews is not prohibited in the so-called racist Union of South Africa—any more than it is elsewhere. It has never been so in any country of Christian population, if the Jew—or the Jewess—had, by baptism, been received into the religious community of her partner. He was so only in the Third German Reich, a State whose true religion was that of Blood and Soil—and, it is again, since 1955, in the State of Israel, whose people believe themselves, to the exclusion of everything else, ‘chosen of God’.

It is true that wherever there are two or more human races, whose nations all or almost all adhere to a centred religion, like Christianity, in the long run a tendency of interbreeding emerges. All true racism implies the negation of the dogma of the immense value of ‘man’ whoever he may be; the negation of the ‘apart’ character of man, and his integration into all other living species; the negation of the legal equality of ‘souls’ as well as of men’s bodies.

______ 卐 ______

 
I will now tell you about India, so that you can once again be proud to be Aryan.

To understand the history of the peoples who inhabit this vast portion of the continent—which includes, in fact, in addition to the current ‘Indian Republic’, the two ‘Pakistans’[i] and the island of Ceylon; a surface, in all, equal to that of Europe minus Russia—you must refer to the distant time when the first Aryan tribes, coming from the North, descended in successive waves on the Pays-des-Sept-Rivières (the Sapta Sindhu of the Sanskrit Scriptures) by the famous Pass of Khaïber, the Voie des Couquérants.

It was, according to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, commonly called Lokamanya[ii] Tilak; this Brahmin of Maharashtra, both scholar and mathematician, who demonstrated it by astronomical considerations—before the fourth millennium before the Christian era, therefore at the time of the very first Egyptian dynasties, several centuries before the construction of the pyramids of Giza; at the time when, in Mesopotamia, the Sumerian civilisation flourished in its oldest centres: in Erech, in Nippur, in Eridu, some fifteen hundred years before Sargon of Akkad. And the Aryas—which, in Sanskrit, means ‘those who command’, in other words, the men of the race of the lords—came, still according to Tilak, from the far North. They were the brothers of those who, closer to the common cradle of the race, were one day to be called the Germans, the Hellenes, the Latins, and whose languages presented deep similarities with theirs. Their ancestors had lived beyond the Arctic Circle, at a time when the lands of this region still enjoyed a temperate climate—that is to say before the axis of our planet tilted further; twenty-three degrees. They had awaited in worship the return of the Sun—the victory of the Day after the long nights streaked with aurora borealis—and they had sung the splendour of the sky and venerated the stars (the ‘brilliant’ or ‘Devas’) which did not go to bed.

During the centuries that they had taken to cover, in stages, the immense distance which separated them from the divine arctic homeland, the Aryas had preserved some of these hymns. Their bards had composed others, and soon, during the gradual conquest of the hot lands, where to improvise new ones. For a very long time transmitted from mouth to mouth, 1009 of these poems—finally written—have come down to us. The whole constitutes the Rig Veda: the oldest sacred text in India, which pious Brahmans still chant today.

The Aryas were a few thousand—perhaps, over time, a few tens of thousands—in front of all these hostile peoples and tribes, which they called Dasyus, or dwellers of the woods, or the Rakshasas or demons. It is possible that they found, already in force in the society of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, a hereditary system of a division of labour. But it was they who gave such a system, if it existed, racial significance, and classified the population of India into immutable castes. They could not do otherwise if they wanted to preserve their physical and moral characteristics for their Aryan race, in other words, if they wanted to survive.

They probably began by mixing freely, if not with the Aborigines at least with the Dravidians, technically more advanced than them until they grasped, in all its tragic horror, the danger of interbreeding. It was then that the caste system was formed: the division of the population of the Indies into a minority of dwijas or twice-born Arya (because they had to know this ‘second birth’ which the spiritual initiation represents), and an immense majority of Shudras, people with dark skin, intended for servile work. At the bottom of the scale—out of all caste—were rejected the Negroids, Negro-Mongoloids and people of the Munda type: the oldest inhabitants of Indian soil. The ‘twice-born’ shared power. Spiritual authority was henceforth the privilege of the Brahmans; temporal power, that of the Kshatriyas; and this power which already gave, in a society much less attached than ours to material goods, wealth, born of commerce, the prerogative of the Vaishyas.

Disinterested scientific knowledge and above all spiritual knowledge was reserved for the Aryas, and very soon only for the Brahmans and Kshatriyas. It was unthinkable that a young Soudra, even exceptionally gifted—and all the more reason a Chandala, below any caste—were taught the supreme truths, or that he was taught to recite, even that recited before him the most beautiful invocations to the Devas or the most powerful ritual formulas. Frightful penalties awaited those who would have dared to transgress this defence, and those in favour of whom, it would have been transgressed.

Since then, many things have happened, many transformations have upset Indian society, like all societies. In spite of everything, forbidden unions took place; children were born whose parents did not belong to the same caste…

One could photograph and classify specimens of all both racial and professional groups in India. We would thus obtain a huge collection of types gradually going from Negroid or even Australoid to pure Aryan—an Aryan often purer than the majority of his brethren in Europe (at least in Southern Europe). There is maybe, very light, with brown or gray eyes (exceptionally blue or blue-green), hair ranging from black to reddish brown, with perfectly Indo-European features. It is little, one will say. This is a lot if we remember that at least sixty centuries separate the present day from the time when the first Aryan tribes emerged from the Khyber Pass.

In any case, the facts that I have just recalled here clearly show that the Indies are no more ‘a people’ than are the United States of America, the Soviet Union or the South African Union.

But there is a difference: while in each of these countries a common dogmatic faith, the dissemination of which is encouraged—and a clearly anti-racist faith, or one concerning the other world and indifferent to racial issues, let it be it is Marxism or any form of Christianity whatsoever—tends, in spite of everything, to bring the races together; constitutes, in any case, a permanent brake on the instinct of segregation, in India, it is the opposite which occurs. There the religious tradition itself proclaims the congenital inequality of ‘souls’ as well as of bodies, and the natural hierarchy of races, dominated by the Aryan race—in exactly the same spirit as Hitlerism—and thus encourages segregation.

Over the centuries, we have tried, either in the name of a philosophy denying Life, or in the name of ‘practical necessities’, to kill this racist tradition. We did not succeed. Buddhism referred its followers to monastic life, but had in practice as a result of mixing the castes without causing the extinction of the human species. He ended up being swept from India. Guru Govinda Singh, the founder of the Sikh warrior sect, had wanted to take his followers from all castes, claiming to take into account only the individual worth of each man. But this concern for combative efficiency, this requirement for essentially Aryan qualities such as the spirit of sacrifice, the sense of responsibility, the joyful acceptance of discipline, even a very hard one, etc., have resulted in it being mostly Hindus from Aryan castes who came to him. One only has to look at the Sikhs to see it. No Government of the present ‘Indian Republic’ will succeed where Guru Govinda Singh and, centuries before him, the Buddha himself, failed…

In other words, India will never be ‘a nation’. Nor will they—hopefully at least—be ethnic chaos without a racial elite: the caste system, even with its current weaknesses, will save them from such a fate. They will remain an association of peoples and races, united by the only common civilisation which is in accord with their natural hierarchy. Because Hinduism is more than a religion in the sense in which we hear this word today in the West. It is a civilisation; a civilisation dominated by Aryan racism, made acceptable to many non-Aryan races, thanks to the dogma of karma and the transmigration of souls.

If one day Hitlerism succeeded in conquering Europe, it seems to me almost certain that over the following centuries the mentality of the average European would come closer and closer to that of the Orthodox Hindu of any caste. I will tell you, as an illustration of this, an episode from my life in India.

It was during the glorious year—1940—shortly after the start of the French campaign. I was living in Calcutta—unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I had not managed to return to Europe in time. And I had a young servant named Khudiram, a fifteen year old teenager, Shudra, from the Mahishya sub-caste (West Bengal farming community), very dark skinned, with slightly slanted eyes, with a flat face—not Aryan at all!—and perfectly illiterate. One morning, coming back from the fish market (where he went every day to buy something to feed the cats) this boy said to me triumphantly: ‘Mem Saheb, I worship your Führer, and wish with all my heart that he wins the war!’

I was speechless. ‘Khudiram’, I said, ‘do you worship him only because you know, like everyone else, that he is victorious? You don’t know anything about the story of his life and his actions’.

‘It may be’, the teenager replied, ‘that I’m just ignorant. But this morning I got to know a grown-up at the market who is at least twenty years old and can read. And he told me that your Führer is fighting, in Europe, in order to root out the Bible, which he wants to replace with the Bhagavad-Gita’.

I was speechless again. I thought, in the blink of an eye: ‘The Führer would be very surprised if he knew how to interpret his doctrine in the Halls of Calcutta!’ Then I recalled a passage from Song I of the Bhagavad-Gîta, as I knew it in the beautiful translation of Eugène Burnouf: ‘From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes—therefore of races. From the confusion of castes comes the loss of memory; from the loss of memory comes the loss of understanding, and of it all evils’.[iii] And I thought, What else has Adolf Hitler done, but repeat these eternal words, and act according to their mind?

I said to Khudiram: ‘The ‘great’ you speak of was right. Repeat what he taught you to anyone who wants to hear you. I give you a day off for this purpose—and a rupee to pay for a cup of tea for your friends. Go, and use your freedom for a good Cause!’

The kid, very happy, was about to leave the kitchen where this interview had taken place. I couldn’t help but hold him back for a moment and ask him what made him so enthusiastically want this ‘New Order’ which, however, hardly favoured people of his race. ‘Do you know, Khudiram’, I said to him, ‘that to replace the Bible with the Bhagavad-Gita in distant Europe and in all the countries which come under its influence, would be equivalent to extending to practically the whole earth a caste system parallel to that of the Indies? And do you know that as Shudra you wouldn’t have any chance of promotion in my Führer’s New Order? And do you love him despite that?’

I will never forget the teenager’s response—the response of the non-Aryan masses in India, loyal to a racist Tradition that goes beyond them, from the mouth of an illiterate youth: ‘Certainly I know that. I want your Führer to win because the order he tries to establish wherever he can is in accordance with the spirit of the Shastras; because it is the divine order; the true order. No matter what place he gives me, to me! I am nothing; I do not count. It’s the truth that counts. If I was born into a very humble caste, it is because I deserved it. I have faulted, and seriously, in my past lives. If, in this life, I remain faithful to the rules of my caste: if I do not eat prohibited foods; if I marry a girl among those that are allowed to me, and do not desire any of the others, I will be reborn a little higher in the scale of beings. And if I persevere, from life to life, in the path of purity, who knows? One day—in many centuries—perhaps I will be reborn as a Brahmin? Or among these new Aryas of Europe who also worship your Führer?’

In successive waves, descended the Khaïber Pass. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them after sixty centuries. And I thought of my German comrades—my brothers in the Hitlerite faith—whose armored divisions then followed each other along the roads of France. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them too, because their faith is the modern expression of the Aryan Tradition of always.

______ 卐 ______

 
England’s real crime against India is not to have exploited the soil and the people on an unprecedented scale, but was to have inculcated into the heads of thousands of Hindus of higher castes, anti-racialist democratic principles, anti-traditionalist principles, along with an ominous humanitarianism when not an out-and-out anthropocentrism; and finally to have introduced into the administration of that vast sub-continent such measures as tended to promote the least valuable racial elements of the population.

The whole system was conceived in order to take away from the Hindus, in general, and especially from the high-caste Hindus—i.e., from the Aryan elite of India—every scrap of political power, already within the more and more ‘Indianised’ administration that the British were setting up themselves, before their departure, which they had felt was unavoidable. It was enforced by the authority without appeal of the colonial power. One could not change it. One only could, from an Aryan racialist standpoint, try to limit the mischief that would result out of its applications. And in order to do that, one had to act as though one accepted the absurd principle of the ‘right’ of any majority to power, regardless of its value, simply because it represents the greatest numbers and strive to make the Hindus a majority at the expense of other communities. (Editor’s note: With their obsession with JQ, white nationalists have been blinded to seeing the beam in their own eye – in this case, the egalitarianism imposed on this colony of the British Empire.)

One therefore had to try to give to the most backward of the most degenerate of Aborigines—to the half-savages of the hills of Assam—a (false) Hindu consciousness. One had to bring them to proclaim themselves ‘Hindus’, sincerely, by telling them how tolerant Hinduism is, but by forgetting to mention the caste system that it upholds. One had to try to bring (or rather bring back) the Indian Christian or Muslim (both, as a rule, sprung from low-caste Hindus converted to one of the two foreign creeds) to Hinduism. And for that one had to surmount the repugnance of most Hindus to accept them, for never yet had Hinduism taken back into its fold anyone who had left it or had been expelled from it (and declared Untouchable). One could fall out of one’s caste and land into Untouchable. One could not re-enter it. But one had to change that, if power was not to pass entirely into the hands of the non-Aryan majority of the population of India. For alone could a (false) nationalism—a European style nationalism, necessarily false in the case of any multiracial society—bring about the change and unite the Hindus under a no less false parliamentary system imposed up in them against their tradition, and against the Aryan Tradition, of which their elite had remained up till then the sole depositary.

I was then employed as a lecturer and as a ‘missionary of Hinduism’ by the ‘Hindu Mission’, a half-religious, half-political organisation which, for more than thirty years already, had been striving to recover from Hinduism all those who were (or whose fathers were) out of it, for whatever reason. Full of bitterness towards historical Christianity because of the role it played in the West—ardent admirer of Emperor Julian and Hypatia, no less than of Wittekind—I once introduced myself to the President of the Mission, Swami Satyananda. I had offered my services to him. He asked me what attracted me to India, and I quoted him, translating them into Bengali:

Rama, Daçarathide honoured with the Brahmans,
You whose blood is pure, You whose body is white,
Said Lakshmana, hi, sparkling tamer
Of all the profane races! [iv]

I had told him that I was Hitlerist and Pagan—still regretting the conversion, by snatch or by force, of my native Europe to the religion of Paul of Tarsus—and that I wanted to work to prevent the one and last country to have kept (in part at least) the Aryan Gods—India—from following the bad example of the West and from falling, too, under the spiritual influence of the Jews. I told him I wanted to help make India our ally, in the fight against false ‘values’.

He had accepted me and given me full freedom of expression provided that he told me, I place myself, in my speeches to crowds, ‘from the Hindu point of view’ and that I ‘take into account the particular circumstances from the country’. ‘I consider’, he added, ‘Your Master as an Incarnation of Vishnu, an expression of the divine Force which preserves what deserves to be preserved. And his disciples are in my eyes our spiritual brothers. But you will have to make concessions here, at least as long as the English are there; otherwise you will not be able to compete with the propaganda of Christian missionaries who preach “man”, regardless of race. Think about it!’

I had to ‘think about it’! No appeal to a mass, and especially to a multiracial mass, is possible without certain compromises. We could not ask the Shudras (or the Untouchables) converted to religions of equality, to come out and reintegrate Hinduism, without giving them the impression that they would lose none of their acquired ‘rights’…

The English administration, antiracist in principle (despite a racial segregation limited to worldly relations, and which did not apply to Jews, moreover) made no difference between a Brahmin, Indo-European by blood and mentality, and the last of the Nagas or Koukis of Assam, especially if the latter represented in the Assembly either the Christians or the ‘shudra castes’, that is to say the Untouchables, of his province. It was not my fault if she had this attitude, and if she tended to ‘Indianise’ as much as she could the legislative bodies and the public services, in this spirit that was other than that of decadent Europe; of that Europe which would soon reject Hitler’s renaissance with the stupid vehemence we know.

______ 卐 ______

 
If we had won the war, India—that she would have remained ‘British’, which is unlikely, despite the Führer’s desire (before the war) not to touch the British colonial empire—or that it had become independent—would have very quickly got rid of the democratic reforms introduced by the English and would have returned to its immemorial tradition: to the Tradition of the Aryas…

I have often wondered to what extent the few Englishmen who seriously wanted their country’s collaboration with the German Reich—those Englishmen who were, almost all, from the start of World War II, interned ‘preventively’ in the name of the Law 18 B, realised the magnitude of the transformation this would have brought about, and the repercussions it would have on the future of their people and the world. I knew one well—Elwyn Wright, physically and mentally, one of the most beautiful specimens of Aryan that I have met—who was aware of it, and who wanted this collaboration precisely because of that. But how many were there like him?…

One of the tragedies of our time is that, taken en masse, it is the enemies of Hitlerism, and in particular the Jews, and intelligent Christians, who have understood this best. They hated him, no doubt; but they detested him precisely for what makes him greatness and eternity: for his scale of values, centred not on ‘man’, but on life; for its possibility of becoming very quickly—once associated with rites—a real religion. They hated him because they felt, more or less confusedly—and sometimes very clearly—that his victory would mean the end of everything that, for at least two thousand years (if not two thousand and four hundred), the Western world has known and loved; the negation of the values which, for so long, helped him to live.

It should be noted that at least one of the most brilliant French collaborators—and one of those who paid with their life for their friendship for regenerated Germany—Robert Brasillach, himself was aware of the character essentially ‘Pagan’, from Hitler mysticism. He collaborated with Germany despite this; not because of it. And he has on several occasions, in particular in his novel Les Sept Couleurs, underlined the impression of disorientation, of somewhat frightening strangeness, which he felt in his neighbours across the Rhine, in spite of all the weather. Admiration he had for their rebirth, both political and social. ‘It is’, he writes, speaking of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, ‘a strange country, further from us than the most distant India or China, a pagan country’…

Among the French collaborators as well as among the English 18 B’s I have only met very few people who are sincerely Hitlerites, although they are aware of the philosophical implications of Hitlerism. I will say more: there were, even at the time of the greatest glory of the Third Reich, very few true Hitlerites among the millions of Germans who acclaimed the Führer. One of the purest that I have had the joy and the honour of knowing—the Oberregierungs-und Schulrat Heinrich Blume—told me in 1953 that the number of Germans who had given themselves entirely to the Movement knowing fully this they were doing, never exceeded three hundred thousand. We are far from the ninety-eight and a half percent of the voters of the Reich, who had brought the Führer to power! The vast majority of these had voted for the reconstruction of the German economy and the regeneration of the social body, not for the return to the fundamental truths of life and for the ‘fight against time’ that Hitlerism involved, and of which they did not even realise. (Editor’s note: This explains why the Allied denazification process was so easy.)

Even more: there are Germans who—like Hermann Rauschning, the author of the book Hitler Told Me—withdrew from the Movement as soon as they realised the pagan character of Hitler’s Weltanschauung. And it should be noted that they did not realise this until they had gained the Führer’s confidence enough for him to admit them into his small circle of insiders or partially insiders. For there was a difference between the teaching given to the people in general and that which the disciples received; a difference, not in content, but in clarity. For example, Point 24 of the famous ‘Twenty-five Points’ specifies that the Party, while proclaiming the widest religious tolerance, sticks to a ‘positive Christianity’—in other words, to there is something ‘positive’, that is to say true, in conformity with tradition, in historical Christianity—but that it condemns and combats any religion or philosophy ‘which shocks the moral sense of the Germanic race, or which is dangerous to the State’.[v] He (no doubt deliberately) omits to recall that any religion which turns its back on the realities of this world, and in particular on the biological realities, to the point of allowing the marriage of people of different races, provided they are members of the same ‘church’, as well as any religion or philosophy who exalts ‘the man’, even deficient, even to the last degree of physical or moral (or physical and moral) degradation, can only be a public danger, in the National Socialist State.

The Führer defends himself in Mein Kampf from aiming in the least at religious reform. ‘It is criminal’, he writes, ‘to try to destroy the faith accepted by the people, ‘as long as there is nothing that can replace it’.[vi] He further writes that the mission of the National Socialist Movement ‘does not consist of religious reform, but of a political reorganisation of the German people’.[vii] But what he does not write—what he could not write in a book intended for the great mass of a people Christianised since the ninth century and believing himself, at least for the most part, to be Christian—is that any regime based, as was the National Socialist regime, on the negation of the intrinsic value of everything man, regardless of his race and his individual worth, is necessarily the antithesis of a Christian social order. Because every Christian society has for principle the respect of ‘the human being’ created, whatever it is, ‘to the image and likeness’ of a transcendent and personal God, essentially a friend of man. What Adolf Hitler could not tell the masses is that any political regime based on a doctrine centred on Life and its eternal laws necessarily has a more-than-political meaning. His own success depended on the voice of the masses, because we must not forget that he took power ‘legally’, that is to say ‘democratically’.

This more-than-political significance of Hitlerism, only in Germany fully grasped the Führer himself and the National Socialist elite: the initiates of the Thüle-Gesellschaft; the teachers and the best pupils of the Ordensburgen, where the members of the SS were formed. The mass of the people did not feel it, and would have been astonished, if someone had shown it to them, with all its implications; if, for example, someone had made him understand that Christianity and Hitlerism are two different and incompatible paths, open to the Eternal, and that the same person cannot follow both, but must choose. (Editor’s note: Therefore, white nationalists have chosen evil.)

Outside of Germany—and outside of India, of Aryan tradition—a thinking elite loved or feared or hated Hitlerism because of its true nature. The Jewish elite cursed him for reasons far more profound than the secular secret hostility which opposed Israel to the Germanic world. The enormous mass of men from all countries—indifferent to ‘politics’—feared him without knowing exactly why, in reality because they vaguely felt in him the negation of all anthropocentrism; the ‘Starry Space Wisdom’ (as I have called it myself) as opposed to ‘the love of man’ and the concern for his happiness, in this world or in another.

_______________

[i] This was written before East Bengal ceased to be called ‘Pakistan’, to become ‘Bangladesh’, which simply means ‘Bengal’.

[ii] ‘Honoured with men’.

[iii] Bhagawad-Gîta, I, verses 41 and following.

[iv] Leconte de Lisle (The Arc of Çiva; Ancient Poems).

[v] ‘Wir fordern die Freiheit Aller religiösen Bekenntnissen im Staat, solang sie nicht dessen Bestand gefährden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits—und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstoßen’.

[vi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf German edition 1935, pages 293-294.

[ [vii] Adolf Hitler, Ibid, page 379.

Categories
Democracy Jared Taylor

Jared

It is fascinating to listen to Jared Taylor in this interview from about minute 25 to 30. We can see the ideological gulf between him and us, especially what he says about Hitler and fascism, democracy as the only legit approach for a solution to the racial problem in his country, and—God forbid!—never think about the possibility of a violent revolution in the future.

Categories
Democracy Ethnic cleansing Monarchy

The North remembers

‘The North Remembers’ is the second season premiere episode of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, first aired on April 1, 2012. Since I’m using the series as Rorschach images to project ideas of my own now that I see the series again, I confess that nothing new has come to mind except to reiterate what I’ve said.

(Jack Gleeson as Joffrey Baratheon.) The teenage King Joffrey begins to emerge as the villain of the first few seasons. Acting under his orders the king’s Guard, led by Commander Janos Slynt, tracks down and murders several of the late King Robert Baratheon’s bastard children, including babies under the screams of their mothers.

Still, if we assume a return to the monarchy in the 21st century, even a scoundrel like Joffrey could be infinitely better than any current democratic government. Without checks and balances but under the motto L’État c’est moi, a single king could expel the millions of non-whites from his lands. Under democracy, no current president could do something similar, even if he wanted.

Categories
Democracy Monarchy Racial right

The Kingsroad

‘The Kingsroad’ is the second episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones, first aired on April 24, 2011.

We see the first bad message of this episode when Jon Snow says goodbye and gives a real rapier to the little girl Arya, while she packs her clothes on the eve of the Starks’ fateful trip to King’s Landing. Thus the masculinisation of a little girl is promoted by one of the central characters, perhaps the most beloved, of all seasons: Jon Snow. If those who caused the darkest hour in the West, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union had lost the war, our world wouldn’t be turned upside down. A scene like this would never have been filmed.

Since this rapier is very light, so light that a little girl can wield it, in the real world she would never have had a chance to compete, in real combat, with the heavy swords wielded by men. Not only is Arya, as we said in ‘Winter is coming’, the most mishandled character of all Game of Thrones seasons, but the white fans who didn’t rebel against these insults to reason and good judgment are complicit in what the Jews of Hollywood, HBO or Netflix do.

Hugging Jon Snow in goodbye, and with her little legs dangling in the air due to her stature, right at this moment—hugging her half-brother—Arya names her small rapier Needle, as knights used to baptise their swords. Instead of needles for her embroidery and knitting classes the girl prefers a needle that is a weapon.

Interestingly, in this 2011 episode Jon Snow kisses Bran when the latter is in a coma. Jamie Lannister had pushed him out of the Winterfell tower when Bran caught Jaime committing incest with his sister Cercei, the queen. (Jon wouldn’t see Bran again until the last season, in 2019, and also greets him with a kiss on the forehead; although by that season Bran has undergone a psychic transformation to become the three-eyed raven.)

The farewell of Robb Stark and Jon Snow is very manly: very dry but affectionate. If the white man suffered enough during the coming convergence of catastrophes, in a century we would develop once again the gravitas of the Middle Ages.

One of my favourite scenes from the show is seen in this episode, when King Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark eat lunch on a placid afternoon during the long journey from Winterfell to King’s Landing. They both speak frankly, as real men spoke. The visuals of that scene, with a variety of fruits on an outdoor table in the beautiful countryside, are quite good. If it bothers me to see masculinised women I’m even more fed up with feminised men and can’t stand the sight of them. That’s why a contemporary series that at least sometimes shows real men set in a fantastic medieval period is worth watching.

The final scenes gave the episode the title. Away from the gaze of adults, the teenage prince Geoffrey, who will inherit the Iron Throne, grossly abuses his power over the commoners. He falsely accuses Arya and her pet, one of the young wolves of the Starks, and the son of a blacksmith. But as repulsive as the future king Geoffrey is in four seasons of this series of eight seasons, democracy is infinitely worse. As Harold Covington said when he lived, democracy is a system designed not to change.

Let’s imagine for a moment that monarchy persisted in our days. Imagine that, in the West, it occurred to one of the many kings of the western nations to reverse the migration of non-whites with the absolute powers that the monarchical system grants him. (This is the opposite of how the Deep State ruled the US during Trump’s presidency.) This hypothetical king, although as repulsive in his personal life as Geoffrey, could potentially produce a chain reaction if the will of other kings was also conquered to expel Moors and Jews à la 1492 in Spain (in the present, blacks and Asians would also be expelled).

And here we come to why I am so disgusted by white nationalism, which unlike the late Covington lacks a revolutionary ideology. None of the leading figures that I know of places democracy on the dock. Who of these Americans rejects democracy? In the last two elections many of them even voted or advised their visitors on who to vote for.

In one of his podcasts William Pierce hit the nail on the head by inquiring why Jews like democracy so much: because they can control the electorate if they control the media. But the leading figures of white nationalism have cucked about something so obvious. And worst of all is that these white nationalists, by validating democracy, indirectly validate Jewry behind the media.

I would suggest that my visitors no longer enter the sites of these pretenders, nor read their books whether published by Arktos or Counter-Currents. If I want to learn German it is to read the original texts of a political system that was even better than monarchy. The rest, including what is written in the forums of the racialised right, is like an American dog that returns to its vomit.

Categories
Conservatism Democracy Michael O'Meara Racial right

Against white reformists

Editor’s note: The following text by Michael O’Meara originally appeared on Vanguard News Network, September 24, 2007 and Greg Johnson later republished it on Counter-Currents, July 17, 2012. It also appears in O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘Je crois à la Révolution dans la mesure où je ne crois ni à la durée ni à la valeur de la Société qui m’entoure’. —Pierre Drieu La Rochelle (pic left)

Almost as depressing as the thought of our people’s extinction is that of the white opposition to it.

It’s not just that this opposition is minuscule in number, confined to the internet, has a negative rather than a positive understanding of what needs to be done, lacks consensus as to its common aim, and attracts a great many asocial, dysfunctional types incapable of sustaining any sort of nationalist resistance.

Worse, it seems at times not even to know the enemy. Whether racial conservatives endeavouring to stem the rising tide of colour and get back to the high ground of pre-1965 America or white nationalists ‘who are not revolutionaries, but paleoconservatives who don’t want to change the system, but to make it work for them’, the white opposition fixates on media (i.e., the internet), on consciousness raising, and on political policies aimed at reforming a system that is inherently anti-white.

Worse still, its Sisyphean activities are engaged in the belief that the old white America, dedicated to money-making and happiness, can be won back and is worth winning, that this can be done through ideas, in the form of media-conveyed information, exposés, and arguments, and through existing institutional channels, like the courts and the electoral system.

If only it were that simple.

Our people face extinction not because the Jews or the liberals monopolise the media, force feed us anti-white ideas, control the leading institutions, and wield all the power and influence. This is a big part of it, to be sure, but to see things solely—or principally—in these terms is to overlook the last two or three centuries of Western history.

The threat to white existence is profound, rooted in the civilisational, ontological, and spiritual disorders undergirding the Judaification presently pervading our daily lives.

When Yuri Slezkine boasts that the modern age is the Jewish age, he gets to the heart of this in a way few white nationalists ever do. Based on the Levantine behaviour of ‘rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens’, the entire course of the modern Jewish age works, in effect, toward our collective de-Aryanization.

Since its advent, with the liberal-democratic revolutions of the late 18th century, the Modern West, unlike its Medieval and Ancient counterparts, has shed all sense of tradition, transcendence, and fidelity; it violates the natural order of things; it pursues a purely practical, economic course geared to the lowest order of existence; it can’t see the higher points of reference; and it replaces the rights of blood and heritage with false creeds and material acquisitions.

Whether the modernisation spurred by the liberal-democratic revolutions was inherently Judaifying or not (the anti-Semitic tradition is divided on the question) is irrelevant to the fact that Judaification and modernisation—what Kevin MacDonald calls ‘the rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the US’—happened in tandem, being obverse expressions of the same historical phenomenon.

With the advent of modernity’s Judaification, the Aryan spirit that gave form to our race at the dawn of history and accompanied it through every subsequent stage of its Greco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and European growth was exiled from the world.

Our people face extinction, it follows, because the entire structure of Western life—culture, civilisation, economy, whatever you want to call it—betrays the defining essence of their being.

What is to be done?

The development of alternative media, consciousness raising, various local activities to defend white existence must, to start, give no credence to the reformist snare that the system can be made receptive to white interests. This illusion is the greatest treason. For it is the system itself, communicating vessel of the Jews’ lunar spirit, that de-Aryanizes us, contaminates our blood, and seeks our destruction. It is the enemy. It cannot be reformed, only abandoned—if we are to live. All talk of working through it is but Utopian chatter, better left to sheenies, darkies, and schoolteachers.

The notion that racialists follow the left’s Gramscian ‘march through the institutions’ is equally unserious. Covington’s Northwest Volunteer Army is a hundred times more realistic than the thought of re-establishing the integrity of white life through elections or an expanded media.

Of necessity, our course must be Aryan, not American. The old America may have been racially conscious, but in a typically liberal way, privileging the lower functions of production and reproduction—which fated it to become ‘capitalist, cosmopolitan, and anti-national’. Its racialism was thus not the blood consciousness native to the warriors who sired our race, just as its upper world of wheeling-dealing money men, bought politicians, and leading families is but the respectable verso of its criminal underworld—alien to traditional Aryan standards of hierarchy, form, virility, transcendence, authority, and sovereignty.

As for the white masses—whose vegetative existence is lived unconscious of the higher forces governing them and oriented to the materialist and family concerns of the lower orders—they’ll never be moved by ideas and principles openly challenging the existing order. Only a social crisis set off by some cataclysm that makes their normal way of life impossible will cause them to look for alternatives. And at that point, what matters most will not be ideas and principles, but men and organisations whose exemplary stature instils in them the confidence for decisive action.

What need, then, have we for more education, more programs, more market strategies, more media, more time in the Gay Old Party to make the existing anti-white system work for us? Any self-respecting white man who wants to know what’s going on or what to do doesn’t have far to search. All the answers are already there, waiting for the taking.

In any case, the increasingly totalitarian character of contemporary liberalism, not to mention the plantation of a hundred million muds on our soil, makes the entertainment of such reform an exercise in folly.

The white race will be reborn, then, not by electing Congressmen, hiring lobbyists, and participating in a system that seeks its destruction, but by returning to its original self—and to the challenge of creating a new elite, a revolutionary vanguard morally and organisationally armed to stand against the Jewish age—so that when the foul system supporting it collapses in decay, there will be someone around to fight for our fair share of the spoils.

It’s in this way that the nobles of blood and spirit are born and come to rule.

All the ancient Aryan civilisations arose, in fact, from ‘a race of conquerors who overcame lands and peoples on the basis of a higher calling and qualification’—a higher calling and qualification modelled on the Aryan Doctrine of Battle and Victory. Hierarchy, order, courage, and a solar universality came, as a result, to inform white life.

If our people are to restore European America (in the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere), it will be in the Aryan way, through a return to the ancient practices that formed us in the beginning and made us who we are. It will not come about through a process dependent on all that is the root of our present humiliation.

Categories
Currency crash Democracy Kali Yuga Kevin MacDonald Mainstream media

Not demo-cracy but media-cracy

The reason I don’t like to comment on the news is that just commenting on it validates the System. For example, commenting on recent elections in the US validates democracy. And if you hate democracy you can afford not to comment on any of the elections in any Western country.

But what happened yesterday is something I cannot ignore. Prematurely all the media declared Biden the winner before the legal process of Trump’s lawyers, caused by irregularities like Big Tech censoring the truth, demonstrable fraud, ridiculous turnouts, dead voters and mockery of the proper legal remedy.

Since I live in a banana country I remember the fraud of 1988, after the vote for the president. Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas beat Carlos Salinas de Gortari although the latter was declared the winner. I still remember that day.

While the votes were being counted in this banana country, a ‘failure in the system’ was reported with the count of the votes as they were carried out. Before the ‘failure’ the numbers favoured Cárdenas. When the system was restored, Salinas de Gortari emerged as the winner.

The incident, known as ‘fallo del sistema’, sparked accusations of fraud in the election of the President. In 2009, former President Miguel de la Madrid confessed that the PRI lost the 1988 election, thus confirming the electoral fraud orchestrated by his government to impose Salinas de Gortari as the winner.

In 1988 many were waiting for Cárdenas’s call to defend the vote at the polls, but it didn’t happen because, according to his collaborators, a civil war could have been unleashed.

What strikes me greatly is comparing what happened here more than thirty years ago with what happened yesterday in the neighbouring country to the north. Apparently, it is no longer the government that governs the US, but the media.

Even in a banana country like Mexico many complained in the mass media (there was still no internet). The difference could not be greater with the US, where even Fox News joined yesterday to proclaim victory for Biden before the courts reach a ruling on the lawsuits of Trump’s lawyers (by the way, is Rupert Murdoch Jewish?).

One might think that the racialist right would complain. But yesterday Kevin MacDonald just said he was feeling depressed (I won’t link him or the other white nationalists I mention below).

Greg Johnson in an article with a long title (‘The Counter-Currents 2020 Fundraiser: This Weekend’s Post-Election Livestreams with Jared Taylor, Sam Dickson, Mark Weber, James Edwards, & Many More’) links to podcasts of this weekend. But those podcast webpages are very hostile to the visitor, including that of James Edwards. If you click it, a maze of links appears and if you click a link again, commercial-type voices appear, not Johnson’s voice. For a long time I gave up going to Edwards’ site because of how hostile it is to the visitor, but in none of the links that Johnson puts up does his voice appear (surely you have to listen to them only within the hours when the interviews are announced on the respective sites).

Jared Taylor’s webzine on the other hand hasn’t even said anything about what happened yesterday until this early morning when I write.

If we visit Twitter there is some more information if one sees what Trump’s sons are saying or what they are re-tweeting. But the media is censoring others who are complaining about the stolen elections.

If the media, including the internet, and not the American courts decide when to declare a winning candidate, the situation in the US is infinitely more serious than I imagined.

If I lived in the US I wouldn’t have voted. But I find it incredible that there was much more media opposition in Mexico in 1988 than in the US today.

It seems that Jewry has come to absolutely control not only the MSM but of social media and, except for white nationalists, no one seems to complain about those who control the media.

Although the Mexican media are a hundred percent anti-Trump, at least yesterday I got to see on television Rudy Giuliani’s conference dubbed into Spanish for the Mexican audience for a long time: something I didn’t see on Fox News where they apparently eliminated, yesterday, the Saturday show of Judge Jeanine so she wouldn’t say something similar to what Giuliani said yesterday.

The United States is really fried for not having rebelled, since Hitler’s time, about who controls the media. Richard Nixon and Billy Graham had a chance and did nothing. And the saddest thing is that people like Hunter Wallace and Richard Spencer, who should know better, have joined the Biden triumph chorus because Trump had disappointed them.

Only The Daily Stormer has been complaining yesterday and today as in 1988 millions of Mexicans complained about the fraud. But voices like Anglin’s are not heard in the MSM. When it comes to mass media Mexicans had far, far more liberty thirty-two years ago than Americans today!

Today’s world is infinitely more surreal than what I imagined, and the next few months will likely be more surreal—and more totalitarian. In this MacDonald is right to feel utterly depressed. My only hope is that the dollar will collapse making Biden the fall guy. The interregnum that began in 1945 will end with a crash in the 2020s that will resemble the hyper-inflationary crash of the German mark of the 1920s.

The rest will follow from there…