‘“Wahhh, you support genocide, you’re anti-White and bad” said the WN [white nationalist] fag pussy. Whites won’t survive if they don’t genocide non-Whites!’ —Twitter post
Update of 31 October 2022: It seems that Musk has betrayed us (see Anglin’s article here).
This lone walker from 1870 on a track leading up a mountain in the Trossachs reminds me of Nietzsche’s loneliness.
Tomorrow I will probably continue with the Charlemagne theme of Karlheinz Deschner’s series, but first I would like to recapitulate a few things.
Crossing the psychological Rubicon has its problems, especially since almost nobody is on the other side of the river.
A few days ago for example a Canadian contacted me by email and didn’t understand why I reject white nationalism, even though I don’t know any nationalist who has as his absolute religion what I call ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’. Even the latest commenter who has commented on this site doesn’t seem to have a clue about our position on the so-called holocaust.
Virtually all racialists today are stuck at levels 1-5 on the Mauritius scale. There is a real psychological gulf between us and them. The distance is unbridgeable. It is a fact that the people who write articles, and comment in the comments section of the main racialist forums, haven’t made the step to level 6 (let alone level 10!) and won’t make it, unless World War III breaks out and the US becomes a sort of lunar desert.
Since I live in Mexico, it makes me angry that normies like the Argentinian Agustín Laje and the Chilean Gonzalo Lira have thousands and thousands of fans and that those of us on the other side of the river are so lonely. But that’s the price to be paid by those who dare to cross the Rubicon, as we see in the prose of an Austrian biographer:
The tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s life was that it happened to be a one-man show, a monodrama wherein no other actor entered upon the stage: not a soul is at his side to succour him; no woman is there to soften by her ever-present sympathy the stresses of the atmosphere. Every action takes its birth in him, and its repercussions are felt by him alone. Not one person ventures to enter wholeheartedly into the innermost sanctum of Nietzsche’s destiny; the poet-philosopher is doomed to speak, to struggle, to suffer alone. He converses with no one, and no one has anything to say to him. What is even more terrible is that none hearken to his voice.
In this unique tragedy, Friedrich Nietzsche had neither fellow-actors nor audience, neither stage nor scenery nor costume; the drama ran its course in a spaceless realm of thought. Basel, Naumburg, Nice, Sorrento, Sils-Maria, Genoa, and so forth are so many names serving as milestones on his life’s road; they were never abiding-places, never a home. The scene having once been set, it remained the same till the curtain was rung down; it was composed of isolation, of solitude, of that agonizing loneliness which Nietzsche’s own thoughts gathered around him and with which he was entrapped as by an impenetrable bell-glass, a solitude wherein there were no flowers or colours or music or beasts or men, a solitude whence even God was excluded, the dead and petrified solitude of some primeval world which existed long ago or may come into being æons hence.
At first, while he was professor of Basel University and could speak his mind from the professorial chair, and while Wagner’s friendship thrust him into the limelight, Nietzsche’s words drew attentive listeners; but the more he delved into his own mind, the more he plunged into the depths of time, the less did he find responsive echoes. One by one his friends, and even strangers, rose to their feet and withdrew affrighted at the sound of his monologue, which became wilder and more ecstatic as the philosopher warmed to his task. Thus was he left terribly alone, upon the stage of his fate. Gradually the solitary actor grew disquieted by the fact that he was talking into the void; he raised his voice, shouted, gesticulated, hoping to find a response even if it were no better than a contradiction.
Thus the drama was played to a finish before empty seats, and no one guessed that the mightiest tragedy of the nineteenth century was unrolling itself before men’s eyes. Such was Friedrich Nietzsche’s tragedy, and it had its roots in his utter loneliness. Unexampled was the way in which an inordinate wealth of thought and feeling confronted a world monstrously void and impenetrably silent. The daimon within him hounded him out of his world and his day, chasing him to the uttermost marge of his own being.
My excerpts from The Struggle with the Daimon can be read here.
I would like to add a postscript to my previous post about the book On Exterminationism. Yesterday Autisticus Spasticus asked me:
César, there’s something I’ve wanted to ask you for quite some time. Do you, personally, have it in you to kill non-white women and children in cold blood? Imagine they were lined up before you, black and arab women and children, sobbing, pleading desperately for their lives as you level a machine gun at them. Could you bring yourself to do it? I’m genuinely curious. Have you ever given it much consideration?
The best way to answer him and others who ask me similar questions is through an experiment of the imagination, already mentioned in the final pages of another of my books:
It is enough to see the photographs of mammals in laboratory experiments that are carried out throughout North America and Europe to perceive that the human being is truly a wicked species. I will not incur the rudeness of adding those photographs in this text: a task I leave to my readers.
My exterminating fantasies would not seem unhealthy if we do another thought experiment. In Dies Irae I quoted a non-fiction book by Arthur Clarke where he talked about the ‘judgment from the Stars’ that earthlings could experience. If we imagine that in real life someone similar to a Karellen visited our planet, what is the first thing he would see from his distant silver ships, far above the human tingling? Urban spots. Industries that destroy the environment and, bringing his cameras closer, abject human misery and inconceivable suffering of the other species that share the planet with us. If, as in Clarke’s novel, the visitor also possessed machines to open a visual window to the past to study the species, he would perceive that, besides the hell that the naked apes subject their cousins, through history and prehistory they had behaved in an absolutely horrendous way with their own children. It does not hurt to summarize the revelations of the previous pages.
With his machines to literally see the human past this hypothetical extraterrestrial would be taken aghast by the magnitude of infanticide: nine percent of all human births. He would see thousands of young children slaughtered ritually, offered to the goddess of Babylon. He would see the infant sacrifices of the Pelasgians, the Syrians, the sacrifices in Gezer and in Egypt of the centuries that the earthlings call 10th to 8th before Christ. And let’s not talk about what the visitor would see with his machines when focusing on the ancient Semites of Carthage, where the burning of living children ordered by their own parents reached levels that surpassed the exclamation of Sahagún. Something similar could be seen by our visitor about other Phoenicians, Canaanites, Moabites, Sepharvaim, and ancient Hebrews: who in their origins offered their firstborn as a sacrifice to their gods. With his magic to see our past, the alien visitor would learn that both the exposure and the abandonment of infants continued in Europe until a council took action against the custom of leaving the children to die in the open.
With technology based on unimaginable principles the visitor would also see much worse behaviour in the lands of coloured people: thousands of babies, mostly women, abandoned in the streets of ancient China, and how those babies that were not abandoned were put in cold water until they died. He would see how in feudal Japan the baby was suffocated with wet paper covering her nose and mouth; how infanticide was systematic in the feudal Rajputs in India, sometimes throwing the living children to the crocodiles; and how in pre-Islamic Arabia they buried alive not a few new-borns. The visitor would also see that the sub-Saharan inhabitants of Africa killed their children much more frequently than other races did. He would even see that the sacrifice of children in Zimbabwe was practiced as recently as the beginning of the century that the earthlings call the 20th century. The window to the past would also make visible the incredibly massive slaughter of infants among the natives of the countless islands of Oceania, New Guinea and even more so among the extremely primitive aborigines of Australia, Tasmania and Polynesia. He would realize that in the American tribes, including the redskins, infanticide continued at a time when the practice had been abandoned in Europe. The same happened not only in Central American and South American tribes, but also in the civilizations prior to the Spanish conquest: where the ritual sacrifice of women and children suggests that they did it out of pure sadism. Finally, the visitor would see how, after the Conquest, the sacrificial institution of the Mesoamerican and Inca Indians was forbidden only to be transferred to the animals in the so-called santería in times when our visitor no longer has to use his devices to open the Complete Book of History and Prehistory of the species he studies.
It’s clear where I want to go… If it is legitimate for this hypothetical extraterrestrial to remove from the face of the Earth a newly-arrived species whose haughtiness blinds them from seeing their evil ways, how can it be pathological for an earthling to arrive at identical conclusions? Just because, unlike the visitor, he lacks technological power? The sad truth is that the infanticidal passion and cruelty of primitive humans have not been atoned, only transferred to our cousins.
In answering questions like those of Autisticus Spasticus, it is essential not to fall into stereotypes like the films that Jews make about Nazis.
Unlike the archetypical Hollywood Nazi, in the real world the scenario I imagine would mean liberating various zones in the US, and, from there, launching calls for white males who want to fight in the HRWs, and white women who want to procreate, to flee to the liberated zones—away from the archipelago of Gomorrahite cities that are about to be punished. Once those whites who want to survive take their families to the liberated zones, cut off electricity to the degenerates and deprive them of oil. It is obvious that those who stay in Gomorrah would start dying like flies. (In the sacred book of the Jews it is Yahweh who punishes and exterminates; in the HRWs it will be the Aryan man who does it, whose religion will no longer be Judaic but panentheistic.)
As you can see, none of this resembles the stereotype of the Hollywood Nazi, especially if all this is done in the name of the 4 words, like the alien of our Gedankenexperiment. On the contrary: it is something that could be done with the utmost coolness and preferably without eye contact with those who are about to be exterminated, or with as little contact as possible. I call what the Gomorrahites would suffer necessary suffering (remember that the four words say something else: eliminate all unnecessary suffering).
It’s the same as starting to exterminate the gangs of killer whales that torture a whale calf for hours by drowning her slowly. By shooting them with Apache helicopters, the object wouldn’t be to make them suffer, but to eliminate the whale calf’s unnecessary suffering. That the gang of orcas would suffer during the slaughter (let’s imagine that even one would evade the rockets and survive, traumatised) is what I call necessary suffering. Needless to say that after exterminating the offending species there will be no need to use the Apaches in the oceans.
With the Neanderthaloid versions of humans we would proceed in exactly the same way. The distinction between necessary and unnecessary suffering is fundamental to understanding our point of view.
One of the most serious objections lodged against the interpretation of Hitler as a pantheist is his use of the term “Creator” in his writings and speeches. Hitler occasionally referred to an Almighty Creator or Eternal Creator, and he sometimes asserted humans were made in the image of God. If Hitler believed in a God who created nature as a distinct entity, separate from himself as deity—as monotheistic religions have traditionally taught—then he would not be a pantheist. He would most likely be a deist, since he generally spurned the idea that God intervened miraculously in history.
In his speech to the 1935 Nuremberg Party Congress, Hitler called God “the Creator” of the German Volk. However, he also implied that God would not intervene miraculously on behalf of his chosen people. They would have to work and fight to gain the Almighty’s favor and blessing. Hitler stated, “In the long run God’s favor will be given only to him who deserves it. He who speaks and acts in the name of a people created by the Almighty continues to act under this commission so long as he does not sin against the substance and the future of the work of the Creator that has been placed in his hand. Therefore it is good that the conquest of power is always bound up with hard fighting.” Hitler’s God was not one who intervened super-naturally in historical developments. Rather, he rewarded people according to the way they worked and fought. God did not break into the cause and effect relationship governed by natural law.
In January 1943, Hitler again called God “Creator” yet implied this version was not a miracle-working deity; rather, he expected humans to make their own way in the world… “In this mightiest struggle of all time, we cannot expect that Providence give us victory as a present. Each and every people will be weighed, and what is judged too light will fall.”
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: If this is true, and I believe it is, American white nationalism will fall: it is too timid an intellectual movement.
______ 卐 ______
God’s judgment is thus not a decision of a personal deity but the result of natural causation: those who work hard and fight bravely win. It is also interesting to note that, according to this speech, one of the things Hitler’s God established was the Darwinian law of the struggle for existence…
Hitler explicitly rejected the creation stories of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Finally, Hitler embraced an evolutionary account of the origins of humanity.
Let’s explore these last two points in greater depth. Never did Hitler express belief in the biblical creation story—which, after all, derived from the Jewish scriptures. (We have already seen that Hitler’s anti-Semitism led him to spurn the Old Testament as a Jewish document.) He obviously did not embrace young-earth creationism (which is what most Americans mean today when they use the term creationism), since on quite a few occasions he mentioned the earth existing for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years. For example, in Mein Kampf, he warned pacifists that their naiveté would have disastrous consequences, because “this planet once moved through the ether for millions of years without human beings and it can do so again some day if men forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of a few crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and ruthless application of Nature’s stern and rigid laws”…
In general, Hitler regarded the Old Testament creation stories as delusional inventions of the Jewish mind. On October 24, 1941, Hitler spoke at great length to his entourage about the controversy between science and religion, and specifically between evolution and Christianity. Hitler opened this lengthy monologue on evolution by claiming that the church’s teachings are contrary to modern research. In fact, as Hitler expounded on this science-religion controversy, he clearly came down on the side of science and bashed the church, asserting, “The definition of the church is a misuse of the creation for earthly purposes.” He also divulged his pantheistic tendencies: “Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle and not in the Whole, cannot be pious deep inside; he remains stuck in the outward.” In addition, Hitler praised the French Enlightenment thinkers’ anticlericalism and the progress of science. After expostulating on the glories of science and the ignorance of the church, Hitler pronounced his belief in the evolution of humans. He stated, “There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least. The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer”…
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Just what I meant in my previous post, ‘On the hermit’s cave’.
______ 卐 ______
[Hitler’s secretary Christa] Schroeder confirmed in considerable detail that Hitler believed in human evolution through the process of struggle and selection. Two other associates of Hitler testify that belief in Darwinian evolution was integral to his ideology. Wagener remembered a conversation in the summer of 1931 when Hitler professed, “Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives”.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: And the Jews are proving to be stronger than the Aryans because of the Christian malware in the latter’s head, the parasite that weakened them (compare today’s Aryans with what Flavian dynasty member Titus did in Jerusalem).
______ 卐 ______
This not only demonstrates Hitler believed in Darwinian natural selection, but it also suggests he saw the process as nonteleological, i.e., not directed by some deity. Wagener claimed that Hitler based his support for killing the weak and the sick on this vision of natural selection. Otto Dietrich generally concurred, stating that Hitler’s “evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel.” Hitler was not an atheist, according to Dietrich, but believed in a Supreme Being who “had created laws for the preservation and evolution of the human race. He believed that the highest aim of mankind was to survive for the achievement of progress and perfection.” Thus, evolutionary thought was central to Hitler’s goals and policies.
In his two books, Hitler discussed evolutionary theory as vital to his theory of racial struggle and eugenics. Several times throughout Mein Kampf, he specifically employs the term “struggle for existence” (“Kampf um das Dasein”); in fact, the phrase or its plural appears three times in a passage several pages long where Hitler described why the Germans should be both pro-natalist and expansionist. Historian Robert Richards, however, inexplicably claims that Hitler’s views in this passage are un-Darwinian, because—according to Richards—a Darwinian should supposedly want population expansion only within restricted borders, which would allow the fit to triumph over the unfit. Richards argues expanding into new territory would lessen the struggle, allowing the fit and less fit “to have fairly equal chances.”
Richards, however, miscalculates here because he leaves out one of the most important factors in Hitler’s reasoning: the living space (Lebensraum) is to be taken from allegedly inferior races. Thus, expanding is part of the Darwinian racial struggle that allows the allegedly fitter Nordic race to outcompete allegedly inferior races. Contra Richards, Hitler’s discussion makes perfect sense in a Darwinian world if unequal races are waging a struggle for existence. In fact, the whole idea of Lebensraum was first formulated by Friedrich Ratzel, a Darwinian biologist who later became a geographer. In addition, many pro-natalist eugenicists with impeccable Darwinian credentials, such as Alfred Ploetz or Max von Gruber, agreed with Hitler’s position on expansionism (indeed, they may have influenced Hitler in this matter).
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: On the following pages (231-236) of Hitler’s Religion, pages containing a very important quotation from Hitler’s second book, we see that Hitler understood Darwinism perfectly.
The point is that this Darwinism will lead us to our exterminationist philosophy (remember what Darwin himself believed would be the fate of coloured people). Weikart continues:
______ 卐 ______
In June 1944, Hitler explained his views on war to an audience of army officers in a remarkably candid speech. He opened it by basing his philosophy of war on natural law:
“Among the processes that are essentially immutable, that remain the same throughout all time, and that only change in the form of the means applied, is war. Nature teaches us with every gaze into its workings, into its events, that the principle of selection dominates it, that the stronger remains victor and the weaker succumbs. It teaches us that what often appears to someone as cruelty, because he himself is affected or because through his education he has turned away from the laws of nature, is in reality necessary, in order to bring about a higher evolution of living organisms”.
Hitler then insisted that humans must follow the ways of nature, not the allegedly misguided path of humanitarians. If they pursue humanitarianism, Hitler warned, they will be supplanted by other organisms that take the struggle seriously.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Instead of ‘humanitarians’ or ‘humanitarianism’, the Christian author of this book didn’t dare to write simply ‘Christians’ or ‘Christianity’. If the ancient Romans would have had weapons of mass destruction and survived the next centuries instead of succumbing to Christianity, we can already imagine the fate of the Huns, the nascent Muslims or the Mongol invaders.
______ 卐 ______
As I have demonstrated above, Hitler did indeed believe in human evolution. It was not a peripheral element of his worldview, either. It helped shape his understanding of the human struggle for existence, natural selection among humans and human races, eugenics, pronatalism, killing the disabled, and expansionism. Of course, Hitler’s evolutionary views were synthesized with many other influences, such as anti-Semitism and nationalism; it was by no means the sole influence on his ideology or policies.
But in addition to all the times Hitler explicitly broached the topic of human evolution, he even more frequently discussed the racial struggle for existence, the struggle for existence within the Nordic race, natural selection, and many other Darwinian themes. He often abbreviated these terms as “racial struggle,” “struggle,” and “selection,” just as many of his contemporaries, including biologists and eugenicists, did, but key issue here is the concept, not the exact terminology. When Hitler spoke about the “selection” of the strongest organisms and the elimination of the weakest, it did not matter whether he used the exact term “natural selection” (though he did at times). He was obviously describing it, and that is the crucial issue…
“The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer.” In a 1933 speech at the Nuremberg Party Rally, he stated, “The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape.” These last two comments paraphrase statements Haeckel made in many of his works; two examples are “the difference between the lowest primitive humans and the highest evolved cultured humans is in this respect greater than that between the former and the apes” and “the differences between the highest and the lowest humans is greater than that between the lowest human and the highest animal.”
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Emphasis in the original. I hope that by now you understand my iterated statement on this site about “the extermination of the Neanderthals”: something I have been telling myself for decades in the cave but only in recent years dared to divulge.
______ 卐 ______
Hitler asserts, “Nature knows no political boundaries. First, she puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master’s right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry.” In other words, nature is the source of living organisms—not some Creator God—and lets these organisms fight it out among themselves. Nature is not actively intervening or doing miracles but rather allowing its laws to prevail.
You need to transvalue your views on Hate and War.
Hate is a source of pure, raw power. The best source of Power.
Aryans need to re-learn how to tap into that source and use it effectively to destroy their enemies completely, forever.
It should be obvious by now, that in order for Aryans to continue to exist, all other human races have to die.
Seven billion humans must be exterminated. There is no other way.
And to accomplish that enormous, herculean, multi-generational task, the Aryan Man must adhere to a religion of infinite Hatred.
The Aryan Man must become a remorseless, relentless, genocidal mass-murderer of non-Whites and White traitors, or he will cease to exist; or Beautiful Eyes will disappear forever.
Therefore he must wage War against Non-whites mercilessly.
War is Chaos, and Chaos is Nature’s way of determining who is Strongest.
Hatred is Strength, and Strength is Power.
To win the War, Aryans must religiously Hate their non-Aryan enemies enough to carry out a Hundred Year Race War of Extermination of 7 Billion. Infinite Hatred.
Kill all sub-humans until there is no more dark skin and dark eyes on this Earth.
I can’t explain it any simpler than this.
Blood Purity will bring the ‘End of Unnecessary Suffering’.
Anything else will inevitably lead to the extinction of White Beauty.
Anything else means Whites were not fit to exist.
Mauricio’s words yesterday, that he will echo Savitri’s:
… call with a resounding prayer worthy of the 4 words:
Death to America! Death to China! Death to Russia! Death to all nations!
Death to all the Subhuman Scum of this world!
May the Great Suffering come in our lifetimes!
May it bring the End of this long Cycle of Unnecessary Suffering!
May it bring the Beginning of a new Cycle of Necessary Struggle!
—remind me that Jung said that the ultimate archetypal symbol for wisdom was represented by goddesses like Pallas Athena. How is it? Let’s compare for a moment the best post-1945 racialist thinkers, Savitri and William Pierce.
While it is true that Pierce reached the highest heights a pro-Aryan could reach with Who We Are and The Turner Diaries, he failed to say in a non-fiction book that the vision of his Diaries, where billions are exterminated in a race war, is the noblest goal we can imagine as long as the surviving Aryans live up to the 4 words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’).
Never forget the measures the Third Reich took against cruelty to animals! It is key information why the ultimate symbol of wisdom has to be represented by a compassionate woman, like Pallas Athena / Savitri Devi, in the darkest hour for the fair race that began in 1945.
When will the inevitable Avenger come? He who will restore order, and put ‘every being in its place’? Is it my devotion to him that makes me—and has always made me—so fond of all the Forces that dominate from on high and seem to want to crush this insolent worm that is man?
Is he, in particular, who, in April 1947, made me greet the sight (and the subterranean roar!) of the Hekla in full eruption as one greets the divinities in the temples in India, and, in an ecstasy of joy, intone in Bengali the hymn to Shiva: ‘Dancer of Destruction, O King of the Dance’?
Was it he who urged me to walk all night along one of the seven lava flows, under a pale violet sky, flooded with moonlight, streaked with green aurora borealis fringed with purple, barred by a long black cloud of volcanic smoke—a sky against which the craters (there were several) hurled their jets of flame and their incandescent quarters of rock?
Was it he who, in the uninterrupted roar, bursting from the bowels of the trembling earth and sometimes bursting into sudden mouths of fire, made me recognise the sacred Syllable Aum: the very one which I had heard, and was to hear ever since, with adoration, coming out of the mouths of lions?
Was it the more or less obscure consciousness that they were themselves of the race of the One who returns from age to age and, like Him, defenders of the beauty of the Earth—the Avengers of the Strong against all anthropocentric and therefore egalitarian superstitions, and in particular against Christianity, then newly imposed on the proud Germanic people?
Was it this conscience, I say, that prompted the Vikings of Jütland, my mother’s ancestors, to sing their hymns to Donner and Thor alone in the middle of the fog, on the raging North Sea, joyous to hear, in the rolls of thunder, the answer of the Gods?
Perhaps. What is certain is that I have always been for untamed Nature, against man: for the lion and the tiger, against the hunter, sometimes very ugly and, in any case, however beautiful he may be, less beautiful than them, who live on the fringes of world decadence. What is certain, too, is that I have always been for the superior man, the strong, the conqueror (unless, like the European invaders of the New World [1] he uses his strength to spread some levelling doctrine, justifying all miscegenation), against the pacifist, benumbed in his pleasures; against the haircutter in four; and against the ‘scientist’, working ‘for humanity’ at the expense of innocent beasts; always been for the SS, against the Jew, and his servants more contemptible than himself.
Almost forty years ago I came to the Indies, seeking (for want of a better word) the tropical equivalent of Aryan and pagan Europe—of that Ancient World, where enlightened tolerance reigned, and the cult of the Beautiful drawing its very essence from the True. I have come and remained there; I have left and returned, always as a disciple of Adolf Hitler, the modern Face of He Who Returns; always animated by the spirit of the ‘fight against Time’ which he embodies, with all his glorious predecessors, and with Kalki, the Victor who must one day succeed him, and succeed them.
Now that there’s nothing else to do, my comrades, live with me in ardent anticipation of the end of this humanity, which has rejected us and our Führer. Mankind isn’t worth saving. May it go to all the devils, buried under the ruins of its hospitals, its laboratories, its slaughterhouses and its ‘nightclubs’! I quote to you the verses that Leconte de Lisle addresses to the Virgin Forest, burned, uprooted, shredded by man:
Tears and blood will sprinkle your ashes,
And you will spring from ours, O Forest!
These are words of anticipated joy for me.
I also remind you of the words of Goebbels at the time of the collapse of this Reich, for which we lived: ‘After the deluge: us!’
All that remains is to wish, to call with all our might ‘the Deluge’—the End, to make ourselves personally responsible for its coming, wishing for it day and night.
I would desire it, I would call for it, even if I were persuaded that none of us—including myself, of course; including those whom I most admire and love—would survive it. The world is too ugly, without its true Gods—without the sense of the sacred in life—for the Strong not to yearn for its end.
My comrades: join me, and let us echo with Wotan the Song of the End:
Eins will ich: das Ende; das Ende!
The world without humans is far and away preferable to the world in which no human elite will rule anymore. The lion’s roar will again be heard everywhere, in the course of the nights, under the moonlit sky, or dark and full of stars. And again the living will tremble before a King worthy of them.
Savitri Devi Mukherji
___________
[1] With the spread of Christianity miscegenation took, in Latin America especially, an unprecedented extension.
Perhaps the last great collective Aryan creation in the West was that of the German Third Reich, with the architects of the new Chancellery and the Nuremberg Stadium; the sculptors Arno Brecker and Kolbe, and the interpreters of Wagner—in particular, the extraordinary conductor Fürtwangler. It was the result of a prodigious upsurge of the whole of Germany, under the inspiration of the supreme artist, Adolf Hitler, against the tide of world decadence. This momentum was abruptly interrupted, after only six years, by England’s declaration of war on Germany, immediately followed by the familiar coalition of hatred, under the overt or subtle leadership of the Jews.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: This is where Savitri and many white nationalists fail, in that the leadership actually came from the American ethno-traitors (see what I said yesterday about John Mearsheimer). That doesn’t mean that Jewry is non-guilty. It means that Jewry was always a minor player compared to the anti-German initiative of the Anglo-Americans. (The best metaphor I can think of is a poison in which the active ingredient is provided by the ethno-traitors, and the catalyst that accelerates that poison by the Jews.)
______ 卐 ______
Everything that the non-German West has produced recently that is truly great—in France, for example, the work of a Robert Brasillach, a Henry de Montherlant, a Céline, a Benoît-Méchin, a Saint-Loup—has been, in one way or another, affected by the spirit of the Reich. There is, moreover, from one end to the other, a deep pessimism like a prescience of the inevitable death or the ‘decline of the West’ already announced by Spengler.
And the East is no better. It lives on its traditional wisdom; it performs its immutable rites and quotes its sacred scriptures whose content is older than prehistory since it is truth itself—non-human truth. But it doesn’t seem to have the strength to draw from it anything to regenerate from top to bottom. (It is, I remind you, a Hindu minority, as well as a European one, and a minority without political influence, alas, that has understood what eternal link exists between Hitlerism and the Doctrine of violent action in absolute detachment, as preached by Lord Krishna to the Aryan warrior Arjuna, in the Bhagawad-Gita).
I have, on the other hand, now, in 1971, found in India more echoes than ever of the expression of my passionate expectation of the Kalki avatar, and the end of the Dark Age. Others await it as I do, and they too don’t feel that there is anything to deplore at the thought of the end of man—except for those few whom the last divine Incarnation will welcome as collaborators, deeming them worthy to open with Him the Golden Age of the next Cycle.
There is no reason to be saddened by the idea that the innumerable ugliness that we see spreading everywhere, on every continent, will one day be definitively swept away along with those who have produced them, encouraged or tolerated them, and who continue to produce new ones.
There is no need to be saddened by the fear that the old and beautiful human creations—the Pyramids of Giza, the Parthenon, the temples of South India, Ellora, Angkor, Chartres Cathedral—may well be swept away along with them, in the colossal fury of the End.
The ugliness that man has accumulated, the desecrations of the Earth of which even the best races have been guilty in this century of universal decay, neutralise by far all that the genius of the Ancients has produced that is greatest and most beautiful. They make us forget the winged bulls of Babylon and Assyria, the friezes of the Greek temples and the Byzantine mosaics, and tip the scales in favour of the disappearance of the human species.
Moreover, eternal works no longer belong in today’s world. We don’t even see them anymore. The ugly glass and steel buildings for offices, erected recently in the centre of Athens around the Place de la Constitution, completely hide the view of the Acropolis from anyone standing in the square. The frame of the four-thousand-year-old cities is destroyed. Lycabettos, three-quarters stripped of its beautiful pine forest, is no longer Lycabettos in the eyes of those who knew and loved it fifty years ago.
And so it is everywhere. It is, or will be tomorrow on a planetary scale, the realisation of the sacrilegious dream of Descartes and all the devotees of anthropocentrism. It is the triumph of the immense human anthill over the savannah, the desert, all the terrestrial spaces where the superior man could still be alone and, through visible beauty and contact with the innocence of private life of the word, commune with the eternal.
If there is an immanent Justice, it is to be wished that such people die of hunger and thirst, abandoned, disowned by all those in whose affection they believe, on some deserted island or at the bottom of a dungeon. They are sometimes punished in an unexpected way, such as the man and woman whose punishment was reported in the journal of the Société Protectrice des Animaux of Lyon, without publishing their names.
Parents of a six-year-old boy, they had, despite the child’s cries and pleas, pushed the dog out of the door of their car, which had devoted all its love to them, and then set off again at full speed, arrived at their holiday destination, settled into a hotel and fell asleep without remorse. But serene Justice was watching.
The next day, the two unworthy people found their only son dead, in a pool of blood he had cut his veins with his father’s Gillette. On the bedside table they found, written in his childish hand, a few words: his verdict against them and all those like them; something to remember day and night, for the rest of their lives: ‘Daddy and Mommy are monsters. I can’t live with monsters!’
This act of heroism by a very young child could not, alas, give the unfortunate beast back its lost home. But it has symbolic value. It proclaims, in its tragic simplicity, that in this world of the Dark Ages, almost at its end, where everything belongs to man, and where man belongs more and more to the Forces of the Abyss, it is better to die than to be born. It is similar, in its essence, to all the glorious suicides motivated by an intense disgust with the environment that was once respected if not admired, to the sudden revelation of one’s true vileness, for all vileness—especially all treason—is cowardice. It is similar to all similar acts of heroism—suicides or, sometimes, murders requiring even more despair than suicide—motivated by the awareness that the inevitable future, the consequence of the present, can only be hell.
I am thinking, in particular, of the words that the sublime Magda Goebbels addressed to the aviatrix Hanna Reitsch, a few days before giving her six children the poison that was to save them from the horror of the post-war period: ‘They believe in the Führer and the Reich’, she said. ‘When these are no more, they will have no place in the world. May Heaven give me the strength to kill them!’
In the world the Führer had dreamed of, cowardice—and especially cowardice on the part of people of the Aryan race—would have been unthinkable. The boy whose death I have recalled would have been at ease there, for he only wanted to live among people as noble as himself (and no doubt his ancestors). He would surely have felt, in the Defender of eternal values—like himself a friend of animals, and especially of dogs—a leader worthy of his total allegiance. But the last attempt at recovery had failed, fifteen years before his birth. The present world, the post-war world, was revealed to him in the person of his abominable parents.
Because it was not only those who believed and still believe in ‘the Führer and the Reich’ but all ‘good and brave’ characters, all Aryans worthy of the name, who had no place in it, and whom one meets there—as one might expect—less and less.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note:
‘In this world of the Dark Ages, almost at its end, where everything belongs to man, and where man belongs more and more to the Forces of the Abyss…’
I couldn’t have said it better! We live in the darkest hour of the West, and we must pray that Mordor will soon be covered in lava after the ring is cast into the place it should never have come from.
https://youtu.be/x7_5BX5rzhw
I remember with nostalgia the beautiful cats that abounded, more than half a century ago, in the streets and houses of the good city of Lyon where I was born, and where I grew up.
Rare were the shops where one didn’t see one of these felines sitting at the door, or comfortably stretched out on the counter, or rolled up in a ball in its basket, somewhere in a corner, well-fed, loved, trusting, ready to be caressed by the child that I was. There was rarely a family without one, unless there was a dog in its place, also loved, pampered, happy (usually). Most city dwellers didn’t have holidays then, certainly not paid holidays. And the few who did, perhaps didn’t feel obliged to spend them away from home. Or, if they had to go away, at least one member of the family stayed behind to look after the animals or a neighbour who didn’t leave town, or a complaisant caretaker took care of it.
My parents had a cat since before I was born. And as far back as I can remember, I can see myself running my hand with delight through the warm, purring, silky fur, while a beautiful velvet head rubbed against me, and two half-closed amber eyes looked at me with total abandon.
Today, in the same city and so many others, rarer and rarer are the children who grow up in the daily company of beloved pets, dogs or cats. The question arises: ‘What should we do with them when we go on the necessary holidays? And what would be done with them if we had to move to a new building and weren’t allowed to have pets in the new flat?
It is no longer conceivable to spend a whole life in the same house, without annual holidays, without travel, without changes. One prefers to do without familiar animals rather than car trips. Few people give up all travel for the sake of the animals they have taken under their protection (I know a few who did, however) in case they cannot take them with them and cannot find anyone they can rely on to look after them.
On the other hand, at the time of the annual rush of holidaymakers out of the cities, one meets in the streets, along the roads, and even in the woods, sometimes tied to the trunks of trees, and thus destined to die slowly of thirst and hunger, abandoned animals. (A few years ago, several thousand dogs were discovered abandoned in this way in the forest of Fontainebleau.) They, in their innocence, had trusted men and given them unconditional love. And these same men had, for a time, seemed to love whom they had fed and pampered, and whom they finally kicked out of their carriage, to go away, with a light heart, without responsibilities, without embarrassment, to enjoy their leave; in fact, whom they had never loved.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note:
I would like to use this entry to reiterate my differences with Savitri regarding the animal kingdom. The best way to do it is to respond not to what Savitri just said, but to what a concerned reader told us yesterday. This was my response in that thread:
Amen, but I would put your #12 as my #1. After all, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban cruelty to animals, right?
Regarding your #13, on this point I somewhat disagree with Savitri in that there is a serious conflict of interest between the species. Yesterday I saw a clip of some orange parakeets [only two seconds!: here] that really sublimated my soul when I saw them looking so sweet… If I had the power, I would exterminate those snakes that climb trees to hunt and swallow them.
Neither Savitri nor today’s Gaia fans (remember that old contributor of this site, Manu Rodríguez?) see this conflict of interest. They have idealised the animal kingdom just as Christians and neochristians idealise humans.
The way ‘my Kalki’, so to speak, understands exterminationism is somewhat different from Savitri’s Kalki.
