Category: Souvenirs et réflexions d’une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 13

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 15, 2021
5 Comments on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 13

Chapter IV

The contempt of the average man

‘Et la honte d’être homme aussi lui poignait l’âme’.

—Leconte de Lisle (‘L’Holocauste’, Poèmes Tragiques.)

‘This appalling logic’, said to me on October 9, 1948, Mr Rudolf Grassot, Assistant Chief of the Information Office of the French occupier in Baden-Baden, speaking of our intellectual consistency, without suspecting, for a single moment, to whom he was talking about. I have retained these words, which flatter us, among some other tributes—always unintentional—from the adversary, in Europe or elsewhere.

Few things shock me about those mammals who profess to ‘think’ as much as the absence of logic. They even stress how their superiority is supposed to give them over living beings who, they believe, are devoid of it. It shocks me, because it is a lack of agreement between the thought and the life of the same individual, even between two or more aspects of his thought itself; because it is an internal contradiction, a negation of harmony, therefore weakness and ugliness. And the more the person with whom he meets is placed in the conventional hierarchy of ‘intellectuals’, that is to say, literate people, preferably with university degrees, or technicians coming out from some big school, the more this lack of discursive capacity shocks me. But I find it absolutely unbearable in anyone who proclaims himself to be both a Hitlerite and an adherent of some religious or philosophical doctrine visibly incompatible with Hitlerism.

Why is that? Why, for example, do the millions of people who say they ‘love animals’ and eat meat so as not to look ‘special’, seem to me less irritating than the tens of thousands who say they are both Hitlerites and Christians? Are the former less illogical than the latter? Of course not! But they form a majority that I know in advance is lying, and cowardly or weak, which is almost the same thing: a majority that, despite the few interesting individuals there, I have despised since my earliest childhood, and from whom I expect nothing.

Editor’s Note: Two of my sponsors who used to send me a modest monthly amount recently stopped doing so, and they didn’t tell me why. There are many occasions when an entry doesn’t get any comments, except that of a troll who is annoyed by our Christian-wise position (just as there are Jew-wise folk): comments that I don’t let pass.

White nationalism is a Jew-wise movement but extremely unwise on the Christian question. Being the only site dedicated to adding thoughtful articles on the CQ, I doubt that it will be possible for me to continue at the current rate of posts per week if I lose more sponsors. (Remember, for example, that this series is a translation of Savitri’s book in French.) I suspect I lose them because they dislike our paradigm shift: from JQ to CQ as the primary cause of Aryan decline. And this, although the CQ and the JQ are ultimately two sides of the same coin, as we have tried to show with the essay considered the masthead of The West’s Darkest Hour, that of Judea against Rome.

American white nationalism will remain a weak movement until it recognises the Christian question. I will continue to recognise it even if this uncompromising attitude ruins me financially (which is why I call myself a ‘priest’): something that would dramatically reduce the number of articles per week, as I would have to look for a regular job.

Savitri continues:

The latter are my brothers in the faith, or those whom I have hitherto believed to be such. They form an elite that I have loved and exalted because they wear, today as yesterday, the same sign as me—the eternal Swastika—and claim to have the same Master: an elite from whom I expected, as a matter of course, this perfect harmony of thought with itself and with life, that absolute logic that one of our enemies, without knowing me, described before me as ‘appalling’ on 9 October 1948, the forty-first anniversary of the birth of Horst Wessel.

Illogic is either stupidity or bad faith or compromise—stupidity, dishonesty or weakness. However, a Hitlerite cannot, by definition, be stupid, dishonest or weak. Anyone who is afflicted with any of these three disqualifications cannot be counted among the militant, hard and pure minority, dedicated body and soul to the struggle for the survival and the reign of the best—our struggle. Unfortunately, it has been necessary—and will be necessary for a long time yet if we want to act on the material level—to accept, if not the allegiance, at least the services of a crowd of people who, seen from the outside, appeared and sounded Hitlerites, but who were not and are not, could not and cannot be, precisely because of the lack of consistency inherent in their psychology.

What to do? They were and are—and will be for a long time to come—the numbers and the money, which no movement with a programme of action can entirely do without. They must be used, but without placing too much trust in them. You should not argue with them because if they are stupid, it is useless; if they behave in bad faith, neither is it. And if they are weak, the revelation of their inconsistency may have the opposite effect on them to that which one would have wished.

As soon as Hermann Rauschning realised that he could not be a Hitlerite and a Christian at the same time, he chose Christianity, and wrote the virulent book, Hitler Told Me, which the enemy hastened to translate into several languages. Less wise, he would never have realised it, and would have continued, like so many other brave average Christians, to lavish on the cause of Germany, and beyond it, the Aryan cause, all the service they could. Rauschning was one of those who should have been left to sleep.

So many asleep, or logically inconsistent, people are on the practical level more useful than we, the small core of uncompromising militants! In his letter of 26 June 1966, the late G.L. Rockwell, the leader of the American National Socialist Party[1] who was destined fourteen months later to fall to an assassin’s bullet, wrote to me, among other things:

An analysis of our income shows the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of our money comes from devout Christians. People like you cannot send a cent, and more than likely need help yourself. This is meant as no insult, simply a dramatic example of exactly what I mean in terms of practical results, which is what I have aimed for, rather than the position of ivory tower philosopher.

In short, without ammunition, even the greatest general on earth would lose a war. And if the people who have a monopoly on the ammunition require me to say “abracadabra” three times every morning in order to get enough bullets to annihilate the enemy, then, by God, I will say “abracadabra” not three times, but nine times and most enthusiastically, regardless of whether it is nonsense, lies, or what it may be.

Once we have achieved power, it is an entirely different matter. However, I will point out that, even the Master Himself did not go overboard in the direction you indicate. There can be no question that He agreed with you—and with all really hard-core National Socialists. But He was also a realist and a damned SUCCESSFUL one at that.

Rockwell was replying to my letter of 26 April 1966, in which I had very frankly expressed my disappointment at reading some issues of the monthly Bulletin of the American National Socialist Party. (In one of these there were three symbols, side by side, in three rectangles, each with a word of explanation: a Christian cross, ‘Our Faith’!, a flag of the United States, ‘Our Country’, and finally, a swastika, ‘Our Race’.)

He was responding to my criticisms, my doctrinal intransigence, my demand for logic. And, from a practical point of view, he was a hundred times right. He who gives a hundred dollars to the NSWPP is certainly more useful than he who writes a hundred lines not of ‘propaganda’ (adapted to the immediate concerns and tastes of a majority of people at one point in time), but of truths; of propositions whose intrinsic value will be the same ten thousand years from now, and ten thousand times ten thousand years from now, and always, and which justify our struggle of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

But there is more. The man and woman of good Aryan blood who, alas, ardently hate both our Führer and ourselves but have a child destined to be, one day, one of us, are even more useful than the individual who gives our activists his financial support. Goebbels’ parents, who had no sympathy for the Hitler Movement, did more for it, simply by having this son, than did the German magnates who (without knowing more what they were doing than the ‘devout Christians’ of the USA whom Rockwell mentions in his letter) financed the National Socialists’ election campaigns from 1926 to 1933. In fact, each is useful in its own way. Moreover, there are services of such a different nature that they cannot be compared. Each has its value.

Nevertheless, I reread with pride the sentence that Rockwell wrote to me a little over a year before his tragic death: ‘the Master Himself [the Führer] did not go overboard in the direction you indicate. There can be no question that He agreed with you—and with all really hard-core National Socialists. But He was also a realist and a damned SUCCESSFUL one at that’, whereas I, his disciple, am not.

I am not a leader. And didn’t the Führer himself at times, by making some of his most far-reaching decisions, placed the appalling logic of our Weltanschauung above his immediate material success? What else did he do, for example, when he attacked Russia, the citadel of Marxism, on June 22, 1941? or already by refusing Molotoff’s proposals on November 11, 1940? (Exorbitant as these were, accepting them would have been, it seems, less tragic than risking war on two fronts).

__________

[1] The ANP, which later became the NSWPP (National Socialist White People’s Party).

Tags Adolf Hitler, Priesthood of the 14 words

Amerindians Free speech / association Hinduism Miscegenation Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Vegetarianism

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 14, 2021

The question arises, however, as to the boundary between the two intolerances, or rather, between acts and gestures hostile to the order dreamed of by the legislator and ‘thoughts’, deep-seated convictions, attachment to values that contradict the basic propositions on which this order is based. It is certain that gestures, unless they are purely mechanical, presuppose thoughts, convictions and the acceptance of well-defined values. And it is also certain that any ardent attachment to given values will sooner or later be expressed in gestures—by creating ‘facts’. It will do so as soon as it can, that is, as soon as the pressure of the hostile forces which have hitherto prevented it, relaxes.

And in the meantime, if any public demonstration is prohibited for him—if he is, even as a feeling, considered ‘subversive’, even ‘criminal’, by those in power—he will express himself clandestinely: by word and deed, behind closed doors, among ‘brothers’. This is exactly how our attachment to the values of Aryan racism in its contemporary form, Hitlerism, has been expressed for a quarter of a century now. We are tolerated only insofar as we are invisible. And the immense hostile world in whose midst we are scattered, accustomed as it is to trust only its senses, believes us to be non-existent. Any clandestine thought is necessarily tolerated, or rather ignored, and for good reason!

Tolerance of the expression of another’s thought or faith, in a society based on norms which it seems to despise, is logically justified in only two cases.

Either one considers this thought or faith as not being likely to have any influence on the social life of the individual (and even less on that of his racial brothers), or one admits its harmfulness; its subversive character, its potential danger on the practical level—but, either we don’t esteem the representatives enough to judge them capable of sustained persistence, or we don’t believe in the efficacy of thought and faith, even when expressed, if the action they call for is impossible. We don’t admit the real danger.

The Hindu who has no objection to one of his sons worshipping Jesus, rather than the divine Incarnations known and worshipped by his fathers, has in view only one function of religion: leading the worshipper to the lived experience of ‘God’ to the realisation of the universal Self within himself. He presupposes that his son, while tending towards this supreme experience through his devotion to the Christ, will not break any of the ties that bind him to Brahmanical society. If he thought differently, if he suspected, for example, that the young man no longer had the same respect for the traditional laws concerning food and marriage; if he believed that he was now capable of eating flesh (and especially bovine flesh) or of procreating children outside his caste, and this because his new faith had given rise to a new mentality in him, he would be less tolerant.

The European who is refused entry to a Hindu temple is excluded not because of his metaphysics, which is held to be false, still less because of his race, if he is indeed an Aryan, but because of the culinary habits attributed to him, sometimes wrongly; but no regulation takes account, alas, of the exception! (Although Hindu society in general had long since accepted me, I was refused entry to one of the temples of Sringeri, the homeland of Sankaracharya, in South-West India, on the pretext that I had been, before embracing Hinduism, a beef-eater. And when I vehemently objected to this accusation, pointing out that I had always been a vegetarian, both before I came to India and afterwards, the priest told me that ‘my fathers, no doubt’ had not been vegetarians. I must confess, to be fair, that I was admitted to almost every other temple in India, including the one at Pandharpur in the Mahrat country.)

Hindu ‘intolerance’ being, like ours, essentially defensive, is understood that it manifest itself against any idea or belief, or metaphysical or moral attitude, seen as tending to undermine the traditional social order. But it will never be exercised in respect of a different traditional order, to change it by force or even by persuasion. This is, I repeat—and it cannot be repeated too often—the ‘intolerance’ of all the peoples of antiquity, minus the Jews. The judges who condemned Socrates to drink the hemlock because he ‘didn’t believe in the gods of the city’ would never have dreamt of imposing these same gods of Athens on an Egyptian or a Persian.

If they could have known in which direction ideas would evolve and history would unfold—Christian (or Muslim) proselytism, the Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, the suppression of indigenous religions in America—, they would have seemed as monstrous to them as they do to us, the much-hated ‘intolerants’ of today. And we, who would be ready to crack down with the utmost violence on all those who, by nature or choice, would oppose the resurgence of a social and political order based on Aryan racial values among Aryan peoples, would regard as absurd any attempt to preach our values to Negroes or, in general, to peoples of other blood than ours.

Even in Europe we distinguish between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’, the Germanic and the Mediterranean element even though the latter was already mixed with the blood of the Nordic conquerors in ancient times. After every conquest there is a gradual return to the race of the conquered, if no ‘caste system’ or at least no marriage laws guarantee the survival of the conquerors.

If Aryans with our mentality would have conquered the Americas instead of the Spaniards and Portuguese, they would have left the temples and the worship of the native gods intact. At most, seeing that they themselves were taken for gods from the start, they would have allowed themselves to be worshipped while trying, with all their might, to become and remain worthy of being so. And they would have punished, with exemplary severity, any intimacy between their own soldiers and the women of the country, or at least prevented the birth of children from mixed unions, thus preserving the purity of both races.

______ 卐 ______

Note of the Editor: The following passage from Breve Historia de México (A Brief History of Mexico) by José Vasconcelos portrays the Catholic ethos criticised by Savitri:

In sum, it is time to proclaim, without reservation, that both the Aztec and the [Mesoamerican] civilisations that preceded it formed a set of aborted cases of humanity. Neither the technical means at their disposal, nor the morality in use, nor the ideas, could have ever raised them, by themselves.

The only means of saving peoples thus decayed is the one used by the Spaniards: the miscegenation legalised by the Papal Bull that authorised the marriages of Spaniards and natives. And with miscegenation, the total replacement of the old soul by a new soul, through the miracle of Christianity. The fact that we have so many millions of Indians in Mexico should not demoralise us, as long as the traditional tendency subsists: that is, the effort to make the Indian a European by soul, a Christian, and not a pagan with the paganism of savages. On the contrary, the Indianism that they try to take back from the past, to return us to the Indian, is a betrayal of the homeland that, since the Colony, stopped being Indian.

That is why we have always talked about incorporating the Indian into civilisation, that is, into Christianity and Hispanism, so that all our children, united, enjoy a Mexico totally regenerated from its Aztec-ism, even the Indians and the children of the Indians!

Vasconcelos was pathetically wrong. It’s impossible to turn the Other into oneself. Vasconcelos died when I was one year old. He could never have imagined that the statue of Christopher Columbus would be vandalised by the slightly mesticized Indians that he idealised; removed from its pedestal by the government itself, and replaced by that of an Amerindian woman as I said in my post yesterday.

Incidentally, those who want to read a translation of mine from ten years ago of another passage from Vasconcelos’ book can do it at Counter-Currents.

Tags Mexico

Hinduism Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 11

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 13, 2021
5 Comments on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 11

I have likened our ‘intolerance’ to that of the orthodox Hindus, which is so different from that of Christians and Muslims. You will soon understand why.

If some young Brahmin tells his father that he feels a special devotion to some expression, visible or invisible, of the Divine, outside the pantheon of Hinduism, whether it be Jesus, or Apollonius of Tyana, or some European leader of our own time, in whom he believes he has discovered the mark of the ‘Avatar’ or Divine Incarnation, the father will, as a rule, find nothing wrong with it. He will probably propose to his son to place the image of his God, even if he is a living man, on the domestic altar among those of the traditional divinities already there.

The young man will no doubt accept. And no one in the family will mind, because in practice it will not change the rhythm of life at home: the ordinary will be the same, the daily rituals will be the same and the festivals will be celebrated in the same way. Nothing will change. There will be just one more image, among many, in the corner devoted to the Gods, and… a thought somewhat different from that of other Hindus in the head of one of the family members.

But thoughts cannot be seen. Even expressed, they only begin to be bothersome when you feel they could—when you least expect them—turn into shocking acts. Until then, they are tolerated; and he who has them, even if he is, in his heart, a Christian or even a Communist, is regarded as one of the sons of the house and the caste.

But if another son of this same Brahmin, without claiming to be a son of any master, or any teaching, of any foreign God, comes and declares to his father that he has eaten forbidden food, and in the company of people of low caste that tradition forbids—or worse still, if he says he is living with a woman who is not one of those whom the holy tradition allows him to marry, and that he has a child by her…

He will then—no matter how much devotion he may have to Hindu deities, no matter what justification he may invent to link his actions, willy-nilly, to some well-known episode of the Hindu past—be rejected by the family and the caste: excommunicated, relegated to the rank of Untouchable by all orthodox Hindus. He will have to leave his village, and go and live two or three kilometres away, in the agglomeration of aborigines (men of inferior race) and the descendants of excommunicates.

Editor’s Note: Compare Hinduism with Christian cuckoldry.

Even before the scandal with the other Matt’s wife, white nationalist Matt Heimbach, well-known in MSM, said: ‘And no, I do no think that miscegenation is a sin’. More to the point: ‘If my sister or brother was engaged in a mixed race relationship I would express my views but they are still my family’ (italics added—see this snapshot).

But Heimbach was right about one thing: traditional Christianity is not racist. Savitri continues:

It may not be so today in all Hindu circles. Under the violent or subtle action of the forces of disintegration, the traditional mentality is being lost, in India as elsewhere. It is nevertheless true that it would have been so only a few years ago; and that it would still be so now, in those Hindu circles whose orthodoxy has resisted both the example of the foreigner and the propaganda of a government penetrated by foreign ideas.

The fact remains that this attitude corresponds well to the spirit of Hinduism. I would say more: to the Indo-European spirit, and even to the ancient spirit. It could be expressed in the phrase: ‘Think what you like! But do nothing that will destroy the purity of your race, or its health, or contribute to the contempt or abandonment of the customs that are its guardians’. Whereas the injunction by which the intolerance of the religions that come from Judaism, intended for non-Jews, could be translated to something like this:

‘Do what you want’, or something like that. ‘There is no action against religious (or civil) law that is unforgivable. But don’t think anything that might lead you to question the articles of faith: the basic propositions of Christian or Mohammedan, or (nowadays) Liberal-Humanitarian and Marxist doctrine’.

To think, to feel, even about the unprovable and perhaps the unknowable, differently than a ‘faithful’ should, is the worst of crimes. It is for committing it that hundreds of thousands of Europeans were tortured, and eventually burned to death, in the days when the Holy Office was all-powerful; that millions perished, in or out of Europe, for refusing the message of Christianity, Islam or, later, of triumphant Marxism.

Compare all this with the attitude asserted in the aforementioned point 24 of the famous ‘Twenty-five Points’ of the National Socialist Party programme, proclaimed in Munich on 24 February 1920: ‘We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, insofar as they do not jeopardise its existence or violate the moral sense of the Germanic race’.[1]

This is, of course, an open door to a certain kind of intolerance, but not to that of the murderers of Hypatia, nor to that of the judges of Giordano Bruno or Galileo. It is the justification for the only ‘intolerance’ that the ancient world practised—that of the Roman authorities who persecuted the early Christians, not as adherents of any ‘superstition’ but as seditionists who refused to honour the images of the Emperor-god with the traditional grain of incense, as enemies of the state.

This is the condemnation of all other forms of intolerance, both that of the prophets and the ‘good’ Jewish kings of the Old Testament, and that of the Inquisitor Fathers.

__________

[1] Wir fordern die Freiheit aller religiösen Bekenntnissen im Staat, solang sie nicht dessen Bestand geführden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits – und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstossen.

Mein Kampf (book) Real men Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 10

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 12, 2021
4 Comments on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 10

It seems to me that I hear from all sides the objection that has been made to us from the very beginning of the Movement, from the very first speeches of the Master, from the first edition of the Book. I am quoting the words, written in black and white on page 507 of the Book, words which I too have recalled so many times, in public and private meetings, before, during and after the Second World War:

Political parties tend to compromise; the Weltanschauungen never do. Political parties take into consideration the opposition of possible opponents; the Weltanschauungen proclaim their own infallibility. [1]

If this is not the most cynical glorification of intolerance, what is? And I remember—and how!—from the response of all the enemies of National Socialism, from the enthusiasts of good Parliamentary Democracy to the most rabid Communists, also theoretical defenders of ‘human rights’, to the slightest suggestion of identical treatment of all ‘committed’, including the Hitlerites: ‘There can be no question of tolerating the intolerant…’

Are we really ‘intolerant’? And did the Führer, in the passage quoted, or elsewhere, exalt intolerance? Yes, he did. But it is not the same intolerance that I have tried to describe throughout the preceding pages. It is the response to it, the reaction against it, which is very different.

In ancient times, before the virus of Jewish intolerance was spread throughout the world, we were tolerant as well as racist, as were all the Indo-Europeans and all the peoples of the world, including the Jews themselves, before the great Mosaic reformation. I will say more: without it our Movement, with its intransigence and aggressiveness, would not have existed—would not have had any justification. For it can only be understood in an age of accelerated decadence.

It is the supreme, desperate reaction—the reaction of people who have nothing to lose, since whatever comes of their revolution cannot be worse than what they see around them—against this decadence. Now this decadence is, as I have tried to show, linked to two attitudes that complement each other: the superstition of ‘man’ and to the superstition of ‘happiness’. It is these two superstitions which give rise to intolerance of the type I have described above, not really ‘that of the Jews’ (with the exception, no doubt, of the prophets), but that of all the doctrines with roots in Judaism: that which the Jews use, after having aroused it in other peoples, to incite those peoples to fight for them, without even knowing it.

Intolerance can only be fought with the help of other intolerance based on another faith, just as terror can only be fought with terror: a terror exercised in the name of another idea.

Editor’s Note: I’ve already embedded a clip of the 1959 film Ben-Hur in a previous post, but it’s worth rewatching.

It is at this point that white nationalists err big time, as it is schizophrenic to try to awaken the masses of whites to the JQ and at the same time behave like Sextus, not like Messala: a revolutionary idea must be fought with another revolutionary idea.

Most white nationalists are so traitors to their race that they really think like Sextus (watch the clip: here).

We fight the intolerance of the devotees of ‘man’ and those thirsty for ‘happiness’—both directly born of Judaism, and the humanitarian rationalists with scientific pretensions, fed by the same two superstitions. We are fighting against it with our intolerance, which has arisen not from the naive desire to make all men happy in this world or any other, but from the will to keep pure and strong this human minority, the biological elite that our Aryan race represents, so that one day (probably after the end of the present time-cycle) a community may emerge which is as close to our idea of the overman—without faults or weaknesses—as the tigers are to the idea of the perfect feline.

It does not matter to us whether the individuals who make up this biological elite are ‘happy’ or ‘unhappy’! The Strong have no interest in personal happiness. Their function is to ensure, from generation to generation, both the continuity of the race in its beauty and virtues, in its health, and the continuity of faith in natural values. The pride they feel in fulfilling this function, and the pleasure of defying those who would draw them to other tasks, must suffice for their ‘happiness’.

Happiness in the sense that the vast majority of people in consumer societies understand it, i.e., material comfort plus the satisfactions of the senses and the heart, is good for the beasts who, deprived of the word, and therefore of the possibility of looking back on themselves, feel no particular pride in fulfilling their functions and have neither ideological adversaries to harass, nor ‘re-educators’ to challenge. It is, as I said at the beginning, their right. Even the ‘man’ of the inferior races should disdain to seek it—all the more so the average Aryan, and especially the Strong.

Moreover, our intolerance, like that of the orthodox Hindus, is manifested on the plane of life, of action, not on that of pure thought, for we do not believe that the basic propositions of our Weltanschauung are true: we know it. We are undoubtedly irritated by those uninformed people who persist in denying them—those who, for example, proclaim loudly that ‘race does not exist’.

We feel no more hostility towards them than towards madmen who go away repeating that two and two make five. We see that if we add two pebbles to two pebbles, and count the whole, we inevitably find four pebbles. And although this belongs to another order of ideas—the domain of natural science, and not to that of mathematics—we also see, and very clearly, that there are, among all the people who are called Indo-Europeans, or Aryans, common, well-defined traits. That some fools—or parrots, repeating what they have been fed on television by anti-racist propaganda—deny this does not change the facts. It is not to ‘save’ these fools, or parrots, from error, for the sake of their souls, or out of respect for their ‘reason’, that we would crack down on them if we had the power to do so, but only to prevent the repercussions their speeches might have in society, and especially among the young.

Their ‘reason’ is so unreasonable—and so little ‘theirs’!—that we have no respect for them. And we are not interested in the fate of their souls, if they have any. But the survival of our race—still so beautiful, wherever it has remained more or less pure—and the possibilities of assertion and action that a future, however threatening it may seem, interest us deeply. It is in the name of these that we would, if we had the power, take ruthless measures against them. In a society long since imbued with our spirit, in which every anti-racist, egalitarian, pacifist statement, contrary to the divine wisdom of Nature—every expression of the superstition of ‘man’—would be received with irresistible laughter, like a crude fairground joke, or with total indifference, even more deadly, perhaps we would not take action against our adversaries, but would let them yap all they want. They would not be dangerous, and would soon tire of it.

_________

[1] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, German edition 1935, p. 507.

Tags Genuine spirituality

Amerindians Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 9

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 10, 2021

It is the deep connection of Christianity (and, in particular, the ‘holy Sacrifice of the Mass’) with the ancient mysteries that has ensured its survival to the present day. And it was a stroke of (political) genius in Paul of Tarsus to have given such an interpretation to the most ancient myths of the Mediterranean world that he thereby assured his own people, over this world and over all the peoples he was destined to influence over the centuries, an indefinite spiritual domination.

It was a stroke of genius (also political) of the Emperor Constantine to have chosen the spread of the religion which, by spreading most rapidly, would give the ethnic chaos which the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire.

Editor’s Note: Once again, Savitri was ignorant of the history of the House of Constantine. But we can’t blame her. In English, the real history of Christianity only reached public opinion decades later, with books like Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (see our quotations of Nixey: here).

And it was, in the case of the Germanic leader Clodwig, known as Clovis in the history of France, another stroke of genius (political, too), to have felt that nothing would ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other Germanic leaders, as much as his own adherence—and that of his warriors—to Christianity, in a world that was already three-quarters Christian, where the bishops represented a power to be sought as an ally.

Editor’s Note: Nixey’s book is just a book. Karlheinz Deschner’s ten-volume Christianity’s Criminal History is almost an encyclopaedia, and unlike Nixey he did write about Clovis (see our translation: here).

Political genius, not religious; still less philosophical—for in all cases it was a question of power, personal or national; of material stability and success, not of truth in the full sense of the word, i.e., of agreement with the eternal. Those were ambitions on the human plane, not thirsts for knowledge of the Laws of Being, or thirsts for union with the Essence of all things, the Soul, both transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.

If it had been otherwise, there would have been no reason why the religion of the Nazarene should have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were equal to it. It had only one practical advantage over them: its fanaticism, its childish intolerance inherited from the Jews: an intolerance which could make the Roman or the cultured Greek of the early days of the Church smile, and which the German, nurtured in his beautiful religion which was both cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd; but which was going to give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed since orthodox Judaism remained—and was to remain—the faith of a people.

Editor’s Note: Compare this with what Manu Rodríguez wrote for this site:

Nothing forced the Goths, Lombards, Burgundians and Franks to be Christianised but their greed for power and willingness to take over the remains of the Empire without reflection or discussion of its ‘ideological’ bases, fully Christianised by the 5th century (the century of the Germanic expansions). This was not the case of forced Christianisation, centuries later, of the Saxons and Frisians (by Charlemagne), or the politics from the top (the monarchs) as done by the Norwegians (Olaf ‘The Holy’) and the Slavs (Vladimir, also ‘The Holy’). The Germans could have been the liberators of Europe, but they put their arms in the service of a foreign faith and an ecclesia (priestly community). This attitude says very clearly how they were indifferent to their own traditions.

It was a betrayal. Our history would have been different if they had remained faithful to the cultural legacy of their ancestors.

Savitri continues:

Christianity could now only be fought by another religion that claimed to be as universal and as intolerant. And it is a fact that, up to now, it has only retreated on a large scale from Islam and, in our days, from the false religion of Communism.

Islam also was linked to the Old Testament of the Jews. It had, like it, come out of the desert, but was stripped of all the symbolism which links the cult of Christ to the old Mediterranean myths, Egyptian, Chaldean, etc., of the death and resurrection of the Saviour Wheat, and to the prehistoric rites which made them tangible to the faithful. (For the Mohammedan, Jesus-Issa is ‘a prophet’, not a God, and certainly not ‘God’). Syria, Egypt and the whole of North Africa, which had been Christian for three or four centuries, were Islamised overnight. Europe would have been conquered, had it not been for the war that Charles Martel and his Franks were victorious between Tours and Poitiers in 732 (and of course, hadn’t it resisted for centuries as Spain did).

Certainly, an Arab victory, followed by the conquest of the whole of Europe according to the plan conceived twenty years earlier by the brilliant Musa al-Kabir, would have been, from the racial point of view, a catastrophe of the first magnitude. The Aryan race would have lost, throughout the continent, the purity it still retained in the eighth century. At most, there would have remained here and there islands of predominantly Aryan population, just as there are still regions in North Africa populated mainly by Berbers, or as there are still places in Spain where the (northern) Visigoth type has left more traces than elsewhere. On the whole, Europe would have become, as regards blood, less pure even than it is today, which is not an understatement. But from the strict point of view of the evolution of the ideas and morals of each of its peoples, and more particularly of its religious psychology, its history would perhaps not have been very different.

It is true that Arabic would probably have supplanted Latin, and that there would probably not have been a ‘Renaissance’ in the tenth century of the Hegira. Or would the Greek scholars of Constantinople (themselves Islamized?) have emigrated to the West when the Turks approached, to courts very similar to those of the Moorish capitals of Spain, and would they have awakened a nostalgia for classical antiquity there, despite everything? Let us not forget that Aristou (Aristotle) and Aflatoun (Plato) were known and admired by Arab scholars.

There would certainly have been no painting or sculpture reproducing the human form: this is contrary to the laws of Islam. The artists of Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, the Leonards, the Michelangelos, the Dürer and the Rembrandts, would have been born. Enough Aryan blood would have remained for them to be born. And they would have given their genius an expression that was just as strong and probably just as beautiful, but different. But there are two features of the Christian civilisation of Europe which would have remained tragically the same: anthropocentrism, and intolerance—intolerance on all levels, a normal continuation of religious intolerance and its consequence, what I have called the superstition of ‘man’.

The spirit of controversy, inherited from decadent Hellenism, would not have failed to give rise to sects. The spirit of exclusiveness, inherited from the Jews, the mania that each one must believe, with his brothers in faith, the sole holder of the secrets of the Unknowable, would have made of these sects parties hating each other, and militating savagely against each other, for it was and is still the temperament of the European to fight savagely, as soon as he has accepted the combat.

There would undoubtedly have been wars of religion, and a Holy Inquisition which, in terms of horror, would have left nothing to be desired of the one that now exists. The Americas would have been discovered and conquered, and exploited. The caravels would have carried the faith of the victorious Prophet instead of that of the crucified Jesus, and the standard of the Khalifs would have replaced that of the very Catholic kings.

But the conquest, exploitation and proselytising would have been just as ruthless. The old cults would have been rigorously abolished, as had been, twenty-five centuries earlier, the worship of the Baalim and the Mother Goddesses, wherever the ‘good’ Jewish kings had extended their domination. The Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan would also have been razed to the ground. It did not matter that mosques had sprung up on their foundations instead of Christian cathedrals! From the point of view of Quautemoc and Atahuallpa, and of the populations of Mexico and Peru, this would have meant the same thing: the choice between conversion or death.

It is true that the Jews of antiquity had not even given this choice to the worshippers of Baal and Astarte, and that in North America the Aryans, morally could not be more Jewish (giving enormous importance to the Old Testament), were hardly going to leave it to the Indians, whom they had to decimate, almost to the point of complete extinction, by alcohol, not even granting them the honour of dying for their Gods, with weapons in their hands.

The Spaniards—and the Portuguese—apparently cared more about the fate of the immortal souls of ‘all men’. They were closer to the Jews, followers of Jesus, and especially of Paul of Tarsus, than they were to the Jews who were comrades-in-arms of Joshua, son of Nunn, or of King David or of Jehu. Nevertheless, they were, in any case, what all good Christians are or should be, according to Pope Pius XI: ‘spiritual Semites’, and religious intolerance is a Jewish product, the Jewish product par excellence.

Constantine Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) St Paul

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 8

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 9, 2021
5 Comments on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 8

Historically, little is known about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, his origins, his life before the age of thirty, so much so that serious authors have questioned his very existence.

Editor’s Note: Incredibly, Savitri said this decades ago. Nowadays, for most white nationalists questioning the existence of the historical Jesus is still taboo.

According to the canonical Gospels, he was raised in the Jewish religion. But was he a Jew by blood? More than one of the words attributed to him would suggest that he was not.

Editor’s Note: But this phrase is slightly misleading. If we are dealing with a mythical figure, it makes no sense to speculate about what ‘he’ used to say.

It has been said that the Galileans were an island of the Indo-European population in Palestine. In any case, what is important—what is at the origin of the turning point in history that Christianity represents—is that, Jewish or not, he is presented as such, and, what is more, as the expected Messiah of the Jewish people, by Paul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity, as well as by all the apologists who follow one another over the centuries.

What is important is that he is integrated into the Jewish tradition, he is the link between it and the old Mediterranean myth of the young God of Vegetation, dead and resurrected: the Messiah to whom the essential attributes of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, and all the other dead and victorious Gods of Death are attributed, and who pushes them all into the shadows for his own benefit—and that of his people—with an intransigence that none of them knew, a typically Jewish intransigence: that of Paul of Tarsus, of his teacher Gamaliel, and all the servants of the ‘jealous God’, Yahweh.

Not only is a ‘new meaning’ given to the ancient mysteries, but this meaning is proclaimed the only good, the only true one: the rites and myths of pagan antiquity, from the most remote times, having only ‘prepared’ and ‘prefigured’ it, just as ancient philosophy had only sensitised souls to the reception of the supreme revelation. And this revelation is, for Paul, as it was for the Jews of the Judeo-Alexandrian school before him, and for all the Christian apologists who were to follow him—Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen—, the one given to Jews by the God ‘of all men’.

Jewish intolerance, hitherto confined to one people (and to a despised people whom no one thought of imitating), spread with Christianity, and later with Islam—this reaction against the Hellenisation of Christian theology—to half of the earth. And, what is more, it is this very intolerance that has made the success of the religions linked to the tradition of Israel.

I have mentioned the religions of salvation—in particular that of Mithras and that of Cybele—that flourished in the Roman Empire at the time when Christianity was in its infancy. At first sight, each of them had as much chance as Christianity of attracting to itself the restless crowds for whom the Roman order was not, or was no longer, sufficient, and who, increasingly bastardized, felt themselves alienated from any national cult whatsoever. Each of them offered the average person everything he was promised—the religion of the crucified Jesus—and with rites all the more capable of attracting his adhesion, because they were more barbaric.

In the third century of the Christian era, it was the cult of Mithra, the old Indo-European solar god, seen through the thousand distorting mirrors represented by the races and traditions of his new worshippers, which seemed to be the one to prevail, provided that no decisive factor intervened in favour of one of his rivals. The God was popular with the legionaries and their officers. Emperors had seen fit to receive initiation into his mysteries under the hot-blooded shower of the Redeeming Bull. An increasing number of common people were following the movement. It may be said with all certainty that the world dominated by Rome came very close to becoming Mithraic—instead of Christian—for some twenty centuries. It can be said with no less certainty that it did not become so, not because of any ‘superiority’ of the Christian doctrine of salvation over the teaching of the priests of Mithras, nor because of the absence of bloody rites among the Christians, but because of the protection accorded to the religion of the Crucified One by Emperor Constantine, and no other factor. Now, it was precisely the intolerance of Christianity—especially, if not solely—that earned the preference of the master of the Roman world.

Editor’s Note: Like almost everyone else, Savitri was unaware that Christianity was imposed on the Mediterranean by destroying the temples, statues and libraries of the classical world (those new visitors who haven’t read the Judea vs. Rome essay should read it now).

What the emperor wanted above all was to give this immense world, populated by people of the most diverse races and traditions, as solid a unity as possible, without which it would be difficult for it to resist for long the push of those who were called Barbarians. Unity of worship was the only thing he could hope to impose on it, provided he could achieve it quickly. Among the religions of salvation, which were so popular, that of Mithras undoubtedly had the greatest number of followers. But it did not promise to spread quickly enough, first and foremost because it did not claim to be the only Way and the only Truth. It risked allowing its rivals to remain for a long time, and the much-desired unity would not be achieved—or would take centuries to achieve—when the interests of the Empire demanded that it be achieved in a few decades.

Editor’s Note: This madness was similar to what Western governments do today: Let’s dilute the white race in the hope that the mongrel masses will be easier to tame. Those familiar with the content of this site know that the policies of Constantine and subsequent emperors only weakened the West to the point of rendering it vulnerable, centuries later, to Islam and the conquests of the Huns and Mongols.

The same could be said of the old cult of Cybele and Attys: its priests did not proclaim, like the Jews, that they alone possessed the truth. On the contrary, they believed, like all the men of antiquity (except the Jews), that the truth has innumerable facets, and that each cult helps its followers to grasp one aspect of it. They too would have allowed rival religions to flourish freely.

Christianity, though already in the fourth century steeped in ideas and symbols borrowed either from Neoplatonism, the old Aegean mysticism or forms even further removed from the eternal Tradition, had inherited from Judaism the spirit of intolerance. Even its most enlightened apologists, those most richly nourished by classical Greek culture, such as St. Clement of Alexandria or Origen, who, far from rejecting ancient wisdom, considered it as a preparation for that of the Gospels, did not put the two pearls of wisdom on the same level.

There was, in their eyes, ‘progress’ from the former to the latter, and Jewish ‘revelation’ retained its priority over the more distant echo of the voice of the one god which could be detected in the pagan philosophers. As for the great mass of Christians, they regarded all the gods of the earth as ‘abominations’—or ‘demons’—except the one who had revealed himself to men of all races through the Old Testament prophets—the Jewish prophets—and through Jesus and his posthumous disciple, Paul of Tarsus; the latter, a hundred per cent Jew, the first considered a Jew and a son of David by the Church, although his origin is unknown and his historicity has been questioned.

Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 7

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 7, 2021
2 Comments on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 7

Much has been said about Jewish ‘racism’. And the doctrine of the ‘chosen people’ has been made an expression of this ‘racism’. In reality, in the eyes of the ancient Jews—I mean, of course, the orthodox Jews—membership of their race, i.e. of the ‘family of Abraham’, was only of value if it was combined with the exclusive service of the ‘jealous God’, Yahweh, the sole protector of Israel. According to the Bible, the Moabites and Ammonites were racially very close to the Jews. Were not the former descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, the son of Lot and his youngest daughter? [1] Lot, son of Haran, was a nephew of Abraham. [2] It does not seem that this link of kinship facilitated relations between the children of Israel and these peoples. If blood united them, their respective cults separated them. Chemosh, the God of the Moabites, and Milcom, the God of the Ammonites, were, in the eyes of the Jews, ‘abominations’—like all the gods of the earth except their own—and their worshippers, enemies to be exterminated. In Jewish racism, independent of any religion, the attitude of accepting a Jew and treating as such any man born as such, whatever his beliefs may be, seems to me to be something recent, dating at most from the eighteenth or seventeenth century, that is to say, from the time when Israelite-inspired Masonic societies began to play a determining role in the politics of the Western nations.

This is perhaps a product of the influence of Western rationalism on the Jews, despite themselves. It found its most spectacular expression in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Zionism, which could be called an avant-garde Jewish nationalism. This movement certainly respects the religious tradition of the Talmud and the Bible, but without identifying with it in any way. Its political faith is ‘national’, but it cannot be compared to that of Catholic Spain, Ireland or modern Greece, which is also inseparable from the state religion. But I would call it nationalism rather than racism, because it involves the exaltation of the Jewish people as such, without the enthusiastic awareness of any blood solidarity uniting all the peoples of the desert who are usually called Semitic.

Modern in its expression, this nationalism is not, however, different from the solidarity which, after the introduction of the Mosaic law, existed among all the children of Israel as early as the thirteenth century B.C. The religion of Yahweh played a primordial role. But this role consisted precisely in making all the Jews, from the most powerful to the humblest, feel that they were the chosen people, the privileged people, different from the other peoples, including those who were closest to them by blood, and exalted above them all. This the Jews have increasingly felt in modern times without the help of a national religion; hence the decreasing importance of that religion among them (except in the few permanent hotbeds of Jewish orthodoxy).

In other words, the Jews, who for centuries had been an insignificant tribe in the Middle East, among so many others, very close to the others in language and religion, before Abraham and especially before the Mosaic reform, gradually became, under the influence of Moses and his successors Joshua and Kaleb, and then, under that of the prophets, a people immersed in their own idea of themselves; having nothing but contempt for the men of the same race as themselves, who surrounded them, and all the more so for the people of other races. The prophet Ezra, on the return from the long Babylonian captivity, ordered those of his children who had remained in Palestine to marry Canaanite women to be set apart, on the pretext that this would only loosen the bond which united them and their families to Yahweh and weaken their sense of being a ‘chosen people’, a people not ‘like the others’.

They could have remained in this way indefinitely, isolated from the rest of the world by a national pride that was as immeasurable as it was unjustified because they were, already in antiquity, fairly mixed in race, if only because of their prolonged stay in Egypt. (The world would certainly not have been worse off for it—on the contrary.) They did not remain so because, to the idea of ‘one God’—a ‘true’ God, as opposed to the ‘false’ gods, the local and limited gods of other peoples—could not but be added, sooner or later, the idea of universal truth and human community. A God who alone ‘lives’—while all the others are only insensible matter, at most inhabited by impure forces—can only logically be the true God of all possible worshippers, that is, of all men. To refuse to admit this, it would have been necessary to attribute life, truth and beneficence to the gods of other peoples as well, in other words, to cease seeing in them only ‘abominations’. And the Jews refused to do this, after the sermons and threats of their prophets. The one God could well prefer a people. But he had to be, of necessity, the God of all peoples—the one whom, in their folly, they ignored, while only the ‘chosen people’ paid him tribute.

The first attitude of the Jews, conquerors of Palestine, towards the peoples who worshipped other gods than Yahweh, was to hate and exterminate them.

Their second attitude (when in Palestine the Canaanite resistance had long ceased to exist, and above all, when the Jews were losing more and more of the little importance they had ever had on the international level, to end up being only the subjects of Greek kings) was to throw the idea of the inanity of all Gods (except their own) and the false conception of ‘man’ as independent of peoples into the spiritual food basket of a decaying world; of ‘man’, a citizen of the world (and ‘created in the image of God’), whom Israel, the chosen people, had the mission of instructing and guiding to true ‘happiness’.

This is the attitude of the Jews, more or less ostensibly daubed with Hellenism, who from the fourth century BC until the Arab conquest in the seventh century AD formed an ever more influential proportion of the population of Alexandria, as well as of all the capitals of the Hellenistic and then the Roman world. This is the attitude of the Jews today, the very attitude that makes them a people like no other, and a dangerous people: the ‘ferment of decomposition’ of other peoples.

It is worth my attempt to give you a story about it.

As I said, this was already germinating in the fanaticism of those servants of the ‘unique’ and ‘living’ God, the Jewish prophets, from Samuel to the writers of the Kabbalah. One thing that must not be forgotten, if we want to try to understand it, is that the ‘one God’ of the Jews is transcendent, but not an immanent one. He is outside of Nature, which he has drawn out of nothing by an act of will, and different from it in essence; different not only from its sensible manifestations, but also from anything that might permanently underlie them. He is not that Soul of the Universe in which the Greeks and all Indo-European peoples believed, and in which Brahmanism still sees the Supreme Reality. He made the world as a craftsman makes a marvellous machine: from without. He has imposed upon it the laws which he has willed, and which might have been different if he had willed them differently. He gave man dominion over the other created beings. And he ‘chose’ the Jewish people from among men, not for their intrinsic worth—this is clearly specified in the Bible—but arbitrarily, because of the promise, once and for all, to Abraham.

In such a metaphysical perspective, it was impossible to consider the gods of other peoples—and all the less so since these were, for the most part, natural forces or celestial bodies: ‘aspects’ or ‘expressions’ of the one God. It was also impossible to emphasise in the least the indefinite variety of men and the irrefutable inequality which has always existed between human races, and even between peoples of more or less the same race. Man, whoever he may be, must have had in himself, and alone of all created beings, an immense value, since the Creator had formed him ‘in his own image’ and established him, because of this very fact, above all living beings. The Kabbalah says it very clearly: There is the uncreated Being who creates, God; the created being, who creates: man; and the rest: all the created beings—animals, plants, minerals—who do not create. This is the most absolute anthropocentrism, and a false philosophy to begin with, since it is obvious that ‘all men’ are not creators (far from it!) and that some animals can be.[3]

But that is not all. In this new humanistic perspective, not only did the Jew retain his place as the ‘holy people’, as the Bible puts it, who were destined to bring the one Revelation to the world, but whatever other peoples had produced or thought was only of value insofar as it accorded with the said Revelation. Unable to deny the enormous contribution of the Greeks to science and philosophy, some Jews of Alexandria, of Greek culture (and sometimes of Greek name, such as Aristobulus of the third century B.C.) did not hesitate to write that all the most solid Greek thought—the work of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle—was due, in the final analysis, only to the influence of Jewish thought, which had its source in Moses and the Prophets. Others, such as the famous Philo of Alexandria, whose influence on Christian apologetics was so considerable, did not dare to deny the obvious originality of the Hellenic genius, but retained from the ideas elaborated by them only those which they could bring into line with the Mosaic conception of God and the world, altered or even completely distorted.[4] Their work is this hybrid product which is the result of the influence of the Mosaic genius. Their work is that hybrid product which in the history of thought bears the name of ‘Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy’, a set of ingenious combinations of concepts drawn more or less directly from Plato (not necessarily in the spirit of Plato) and old Jewish ideas (such as the transcendence of the one God and the creation of man ‘in his image’). This is a superfluous scaffolding, no doubt, in the eyes of the orthodox Jew, for whom the Mosaic Law suffices, but is a marvellous instrument of spiritual control over the Gentiles, in the service of Jews (orthodox or not) eager to wrest from other peoples the direction of Western (and later, world) thought.

Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and religion, increasingly imbued with Egyptian, Syrian, Anatolian symbolism, etc., professed by the increasingly bastardised people of the Hellenistic world, formed the backdrop against which Christian orthodoxy as we know it gradually emerged in the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the early apologists, and became clearer in the course of the succession of Councils. As Gilbert Murray remarks, ‘it is a strange experience… to study those obscure congregations, whose superstitious, charlatan-ridden, hopelessly ignorant members, drawn from the proletariat of the Levant, still believed that God could procreate children in the wombs of mortal mothers, held the “Word”, “Spirit” and “Divine Wisdom” for persons bearing these names, and transformed the notion of the immortality of the soul into the ‘resurrection of the dead’, and to think that it was these people who were following the main road to the greatest religion of the Western world’.[5]

No doubt there was, in this early Christianity preached in Greek (the international language of the Near East at that time), more non-Jewish than Jewish elements by Jewish and then Greek missionaries to the raceless urban masses—so inferior in every respect to the freemen of the ancient Hellenic poleis. What dominated was the element which I dare not call ‘Greek’ but ‘Aegean’, or rather ‘pre-Hellenic Mediterranean’ or pre-Hellenic Near East, for the peoples of Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia all exemplified it, too, to a greater or lesser extent, in their cults from the depths of the ages. It was the myth of the young God cruelly put to death—Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, Attys, Dionysus—whose flesh (wheat) and blood (grape juice) become food and drink for men, and who resurrects in glory every year in the spring. This element had never ceased to be present in the mysteries of Greece, both in classical times and before. Transfigured, ‘spiritualised’ by the sense of allegory attached to the most primitive of rites, it is manifest in the international ‘salvation’ religions, rivals of Christianity in the Roman Empire: in that of Mithras, Cybele and Attys.

As Nietzsche saw it so well, the genius of Paul of Tarsus consisted in ‘giving a new meaning to the ancient mysteries’: taking the old prehistoric myth, reviving it, interpreting it in such a way that, forever, all those who would accept this interpretation would also accept the prophetic role and the character of the ‘chosen people’ as bearers of the unique revelation.

_________

[1] The Bible, Genesis, Chapter 19, verses 36-38.

[2] The Bible, Genesis, Chapter 11, verse 27.

[3] The practical intelligence of animals is no longer questioned; yet it also can be creative, as Koehler’s experiments in particular show. But let us think especially of the paintings—eminently ‘abstract’—executed by several of Desmond Morris’s chimpanzees, creations which could be taken, and in fact are currently taken, for human works of the same style.

[4] Edouard Herriot, Philo the Jew, 1898 edition.

[5] Guibert Murray, Five stages of Greek religion, 1955 edition (New York) p. 158.

Bible Destruction of Germanic paganism Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Tree

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 6

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 1, 2021
2 Comments on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 6

This claim of historical Christianity, as indeed of Islam, to be ‘the one true faith’ is a legacy of Judaism, whose tradition serves (in part) as the basis of both religions.

The ancient world—including that of peoples related to the Jews by blood, such as the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, Moabites, Phoenicians and, of course, the Carthaginians—was, as Adolf Hitler wrote in the quote reported above, a world of tolerance. Racine, undoubtedly without realising that he was paying homage to the enemies of the ‘people of God’, underlined this fact when, in the first scene of the third act of Athalie, he put in the mouth of this queen, worshiper of the Gods and Goddesses of Syria, the words she addresses to Joad, High Priest of the Jews:

I know, about my conduct, and against my power,
How far your speeches go in the direction of licentiousness;
Yet you live; your temple stands…

The daughter of Ahab understood by this that if, in her place, the Jews had had the power, it was not they who would have left the sanctuaries of the Baalim standing, nor who would have let their faithful live, let alone their priests. The end of the tragedy—where we see the queen traitorously locked up in the temple of Yahweh, and slaughtered mercilessly by order of Joad—and the whole history of the Jews as reported in the Old Testament, confirms her clairvoyance.

What does the Holy Bible say to the Jews about this? ‘When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are to inherit, and drives out before you many peoples—the Hittites the Jerjessites, the Amorites the Canaanites, the Perizzites the Hévites and the Jebusites, seven peoples, more important and stronger than you—and when He delivers them into your hands, you must crush them and destroy them with violence; not make treaties with them, nor show them pity; you must not unite with them. Nor shall you give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters as wives for your sons, for they will turn away from me and worship other gods’… ‘This is how you should deal with these peoples: you will overthrow their altars and smash their statues; and you shall cut down their sacred groves, and burn their carved images with fire, for you are the holy people in the sight of the Lord your God. He has chosen you, that you may be the chosen people among all the peoples of the earth’.[1]

And once after a conquest that surpassed (by far!) in atrocities those led by other peoples, both in antiquity and closer to us, the Jews finally established themselves in Palestine. Once there were two more or less stable Jewish kingdoms: one in Judea, the other in the north of the country. The Jewish Scripture became ‘holy’ Scripture in the eyes of so many people, for the only reason that their religion is based on the tradition and history of Israel. And how does this Scripture characterise each of the kings who succeed their father on the throne of Jerusalem or Samaria?

Oh, it’s very simple! It declares the king was ‘good’ or ‘bad’ without nuances of judgment, and even without reference to his political behaviour. ‘Good’, if he worshipped Yahweh, the god of the Jews, never bowing his forehead to other deities. Even if he persecuted the faithful of all cults other than his own; if he razed the sacred woods of the ‘false’ Gods, destroyed their images, prohibited the celebration of their mysteries and killed their priests.[2] ‘Bad’ if, on the contrary, the king showed a spirit of benevolent tolerance, and especially if he himself sacrificed to the Baalim or to the Mother Goddesses, according to the custom of the peoples whom the Jews had driven out before them, from the thirteenth to the eleventh century BC, during the conquest of the promised land.

The alternation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ kings is impressive in its monotony. Every story of a reign begins in the same way, with the same phrases, depending on whether Scripture praises or blames the king. ‘And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and followed in the footsteps of his ancestor David. He suppressed the worship of Baal in the high places, and smashed the statues and cut down the sacred trees’.[3]

This is Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, king of Judea, but it could just as well be any ‘good’ king, as the Jewish Scripture understands that word. And this is the description of the reign of Manasseh, the son and successor of Hezekiah, who was twelve years old when he came to the throne, and who ruled Judea for fifty-five years.

‘He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and followed the abominations of the peoples whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel. He restored the high places which his father, Hezekiah, had laid waste, and raised altars to Baal, and planted a sacred tree, as had done Ahab king of Israel; and he bowed his knee before all the host of heavenly bodies, and worshipped them’.[4] It is identical to all the early accounts of ‘bad’ reigns found in the Old Testament—‘bad’ simply because tolerance was practised there, according to the spirit of all people of antiquity.

Editor’s Note: I doubt anyone understood my initiative to have added so many entries about Game of Thrones on this site. Since almost no one in white nationalism is interested in, say, the books of the old Aryan religions that Arthur Kemp is re-editing, my idea was to use a popular television series for the normie to take his first baby steps towards the other side of the river through George R.R. Martin’s imagery. In Martin’s universe, the fanatical invaders who brought their new religion to Westeros destroyed the Weirwood trees south of the Wall with the same fanaticism as Hebrews and Christians did in real history. Savitri continues:

It should be noted that the mass of ancient Jews in no way seems by nature to have had that intolerance that has played such a far-reaching role in the history of Israel. The ‘average Jew’ before, and perhaps even more so after, the conquest of Palestine, tended to regard all the Gods of the neighbouring peoples as ‘gods’. The similarities of these deities to their own Yahweh, their god, held much more attention, apparently, than the differences which separated them. And it took all the curses of the prophets and all the severity (often bordering on cruelty) of ‘good’ kings, to prevent them from occasionally offering sacrifices to these foreign gods.

It was Moses, the prophets, and some of the Jewish kings—such as David, or Hezekiah—who, by marking it with the sign of religious intolerance, cut off Israel from the community of the peoples of the desert—from the ‘Semitic’ peoples, as they are called—and who, by cultivating at home the myth of the ‘chosen people’, indissolubly linked to the worship of the ‘jealous god’, prepared them for the unique role that, from the fourth century, Christ played in the world.

It is they who are, in the final analysis, responsible for all the violence committed over the centuries, in the name of the exclusive ‘truth’ of the religions of Judaism, in particular, of all the atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity, from the dreadful murder of Hypatia in the year 415, to the massacre of four thousand five hundred Germanic chiefs faithful to the Paganism of their race, in Verden, in the year 782, and to the stakes of medieval Europe and conquered America.

_____________

[1] Deuteronomy, Chapter 7, Verses 1 to 7.

[2] See at the end of Chapter 12 of the Second Book of Samuel, the treatment inflicted by the ‘good’ King David on the prisoners after the capture of the city of Rabbah, capital of the Ammonites.

[3] The Bible, Kings II, Chapter 18, verses 3 and following.

[4] The Bible, Kings II, Chapter 21, verses 2 and following.

Autobiography Catholic religious orders Deranged altruism Montaigne Music Portugal Pre-Columbian America Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 5

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 23, 2021
1 Comment on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 5

It cannot be repeated or emphasised enough: intolerance, religious or philosophical, is characteristic of devotees of ‘man’ regardless of any consideration of race or personality. As a result, it is the real racists who show the greatest tolerance.

No doubt racists demand from their comrades in arms absolute fidelity to the common faith. This is not ‘intolerance’; it is a question of order. Everyone must know what they want, and not adhere to a doctrine and then make reservations about it. Whoever has objections to formulate—and above all, objections concerning the basic values of the doctrine—has only to remain outside the community of the faithful, and not to pretend to be the comrade of those with whom he does not share faith entirely. No doubt also the racist is ready to fight men who act, and even who think, as enemies of their race. But he does not fight them in order to change them, to convert them. If they stay in their place, and stop opposing him and his blood brothers, he leaves them alone—for he is not interested enough in them to care about their fate, in this world or into another.

In the third Book of his Essays, Montaigne laments that the Americas were not conquered ‘by the Greeks or the Romans’, rather than by the Spaniards and the Portuguese. He believes that the New World would never have known the horrors committed to converting the native to a religion considered by the conquerors to be the ‘only’ good, the only true one.

What he does not say; what, perhaps, he had not understood, is that it is precisely the absence of racism and the love of ‘man’ that are at the root of these horrors. The Greeks and Romans—and all ancient peoples—were racists, at least during their time of greatness. As such they found it quite natural that different peoples had different gods, and different customs. They did not get involved in imposing their own gods and customs on the vanquished, under pain of extermination.

Even the Jews did not do this. They so despised all those who sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh, that they were content—on the order of this god, says the Bible—to exterminate them without seeking to convert them. They imposed on them the terror of war—not that ‘spiritual terror’ which, as Adolf Hitler so aptly writes, ‘entered for the first time into the Ancient World, until then much freer than ours, with the appearance of Christianity’.[1] The Spaniards, the Portuguese, were Christians. They imposed terror of war and spiritual terror on the Americas.

What would the Greeks of ancient Greece have done in their place, or the Romans or other Aryan people who would have had, in the sixteenth century, the spirit of our racists of the twentieth? They would undoubtedly have conquered the countries; they would have exploited them economically. But they would have left to the Aztecs, Tlaxcaltecs, Mayans, etc., as well as the peoples of Peru, their gods and their customs. Furthermore, they would have fully exploited the belief of these peoples in a ‘white and bearded’ god, civiliser of their country, who, after having left their ancestors many centuries before, was to return from the East, to reign over them—their descendants—with his companions: men of fair complexion. Their leaders would have acted, and ordered their soldiers to act, so that the natives effectively take them for the god Quetzalcoatl and his army.[2] They would have respected the temples—instead of destroying them and building on their ruins monuments of a foreign cult. They would have been tough, sure—as all conquerors are but they would not have been sacrilegious. They would not have been the destroyers of civilisations that, even with their weaknesses, were worth their own.

The Romans, so tolerant of religion, have on occasion persecuted adherents of certain cults. The religion of the Druids was, for example, banned in Gaul by Emperor Claudius. And there were those persecutions of the early Christians, which we talked about too much, without always knowing what we were saying. But all of these repressive measures were purely political, not doctrinal—not ethical. It was as leaders of the clandestine resistance of the Celts against Roman domination, and not as priests of a cult which might have appeared unusual to the conquerors, that the Druids were stripped of their privileges (in particular, of their monopoly of teaching young people) and prosecuted. It was as bad citizens, who refused to pay homage to the Emperor-god, the embodiment of the State, and not as devotees of a particular god, that Christians were persecuted.

If in the sixteenth century Indo-European conquerors, faithful to the spirit of tolerance which has always characterised their race, had made themselves masters of the Americas by exploiting the indigenous belief in the return of the white god, Quetzalcoatl,[3] there would have been no resistance to their domination, therefore no occasion for the persecution of the kind I have just recalled. Not only would the peoples of the New World never have known the atrocities of the Holy Inquisition, but their writings (as for those who, like the Mayans and Aztecs, had them) and their monuments would have survived.

And in Tenochtitlan, which over the centuries had become one of the great capitals of the world, the imposing multi-storey pyramids—intact—would now dominate modern streets. And the palaces and fortresses of Cuzco would still be admired by visitors. And the solar and warlike religions of the peoples of Mexico and Peru, while evolving, probably, in contact with that of the victors, at least in their external forms, would have kept their basic principles, and continued to transmit, from generation to generation, the eternal esoteric truths under their particular symbolism. In other words, they would have settled in Central America and in the former Empire of the Incas Aryan dynasties, whose relations with the conquered countries would have been more or less similar to those which they formerly had maintained, with the aristocracy and the peoples of India, the Greek dynasties who, from the third century BC to the first after the Christian era, ruled over what is now Afghanistan, Sindh and Punjab.

______ 卐 ______

Note of the Editor: William Pierce’s Who We Are was published after Savitri Devi’s book. She didn’t grasp the full meaning that the Aryans of India would, over many centuries, succumb to what happened to the Iberian Europeans in a few centuries: interbreeding with the Indians. Since Savitri was female, because of her yin nature she couldn’t see tremendously yang issues, like what Pierce tells us about extermination or expulsion.

The yin wisdom of the priestess (her loyal Hitlerism, something that Pierce lacked) must be balanced with the yang input of the priest (an exterminationist drive, something that priestess usually lack).

______ 卐 ______

Unfortunately, Europe itself in the sixteenth century had long since succumbed to that spirit of intolerance which it had, along with Christianity, received from the Jews. The history of the wars of religion bears witness to this, in Germany as well as in France. And as for the old Hellenic-Aegean blood—the very blood of the ‘ancient world’, once so tolerant—it was won in the service of the Roman Church: represented, among the conquerors of Peru, in the person of Pedro de Candia, Cretan adventurer, one of Francisco Pizarro’s most ruthless companions.

I will be told that the cruelties committed in the name of the salvation of souls, by the Spaniards in their colonies—and by the Portuguese in theirs (the Inquisition was, in Goa, perhaps even worse than in Mexico, which is not little to say!)—are no more attributable to true Christianity than to Aryan racism as understood by the Führer, unnecessary acts of violence, carried out without orders, during the Second World War, by some men in German uniforms. I am told that neither Cortés nor Pizarro nor their companions, nor the Inquisitors of Goa or Europe, nor those who approved their actions, loved man as Christ would have wanted his disciples to love him.

That is true. These people were not humanitarians. And I never claimed they were. But they were humanists, not in the narrow sense of ‘scholars’, but in the broad sense: men for whom man was, in the visible world at least, the supreme value. They were, anyway, people who bathed in the atmosphere of a civilisation centred on the cult of ‘man’, whom they neither denounced nor fought—quite the contrary! They were not necessarily—they were even very rarely—kind to humans of other races (even theirs!) as Jesus wanted everyone to be. But even in their worst excesses, they venerated in him, even without loving him, Man, the only living being created, according to their faith, ‘in the image of God’, and provided with an immortal soul, or at least—in the eyes of those who in their hearts had already detached themselves from the Church, as, later, to those of so many list colonialists of the eighteenth or nineteenth century—the only living being endowed with reason.

Note of the Editor: Left, a monk pitying and loving a conquered Amerindian (mural by Orozco in Mexico).

They worshipped him, despite the atrocities they committed against him, individually or collectively. And, even if some of them, in the secrecy of their thoughts, did not revere him more than they did love him, not granting him, if he was only a ‘savage’, neither soul nor right soul—after all, there were Christians who refused to attribute to women a soul similar to their own—this does not change the fact that the ‘civilisation’ of which they claimed, and of which they were the agents, proclaimed the love and respect for every man, and the duty to help him access ‘happiness’, if not in this earthly life, at least in the Hereafter.

It has sometimes been maintained that any action undertaken in the colonies, including missionary action, was, even without the knowledge of those who carried it out, remotely guided by businessmen who did not have them in sight, only material profit and nothing else. It has been suggested that the Church itself was only following the plans and carrying out the orders of such men—which would partly explain why it seems to have been far more interested in the souls of the natives than in those of the conquering chiefs and soldiers—who, however, sinned so scandalously against the great commandment of Christ: the law of love. Even if all these allegations were based on historical facts that could be proven, one would still be forced to admit that colonial wars would have been impossible, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century (and especially perhaps in the nineteenth), without the belief, then generally widespread in Europe, that they provided the opportunity to ‘save’ souls, and to ‘civilise savages’.

This belief that Christianity was the ‘true’ faith for ‘all’ men, and that the standards of conduct of Europe marked by Christianity were also for ‘all’ men—the criterion of ‘civilisation’—was questioned by no one. The leaders who led the colonial wars, the adventurers, soldiers and brigands who waged them, the settlers who benefited from them, shared it—even if, in the eyes of most of them, the hope of material profit was in the foreground less as important, if not more, than the eternal salvation of the natives. And whether they had shared it or not, they were nonetheless supported, in their action, by this collective belief of their distant continent, of the whole Christendom.

______ 卐 ______

Note of the Editor: That is very true. For example, in the last decades of his life my very Catholic father became obsessed with the biography of a 16th-century Spanish monk who made several trips from the Old to the New World to protect the rights of the Amerindians; so much so that my father dedicated his magnum opus, La Santa Furia (Holy Wrath), to him. This is a composition with three series of woods, six horns, three trumpets, four trombones and tuba, two harps, piano and timpani, percussion instruments among which were some pre-Hispanic, as well as a solo vocal quartet, a sextet of men and a choir mixed with four voices: 115 choristers in total and 90 orchestral musicians: a one-hour symphonic work that can be watched on YouTube:

It was precisely my father’s behaviour—cf. my eleven books in Spanish—that prompted me to repudiate not only Catholicism but Christian axiology, becoming a true apostate of Christianity. Savitri concludes:

______ 卐 ______

It is this belief which—officially—justified their wars which, if they had been waged in the conditions in which they were waged, but solely in the name of profit, or even security (as had been the wars of the Mongolian conquerors in the thirteenth century), would have seemed ‘inhuman’. It was such conquest that, still officially, defined the spirit of their conduct towards the natives. From there this haste to convert him—willingly, by force or using ‘bribes’—to their Christian faith, or to make him share the ‘treasures’ of their culture, in particular to initiate him to their sciences, while making him lose all contact with his own.

_______________

[1] Mein Kampf, German edition of 1935, p. 507.

[2] Or, in Peru, for the god Viracocha. The Peruvians had initially called the Spaniards Viracochas.

[3] Or Viracocha in Peru.

Tags Spain

Buddhism Individualism Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Welfare of animals

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 4

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 19, 2021

It remains nonetheless true that, wherever love is affirmed towards all men, there is intolerance towards all those who conceive ‘human happiness’ differently than the philanthropist who judges them, or who openly declares that they do not care about this happiness.

And this is not only true of the search for bliss in a Hereafter about which, for lack of precise knowledge, it is permissible to discuss indefinitely. It is also about the pursuit of happiness in this world. One might think that this notion is at least quite clear. Isn’t it taken from everyday experience? However, everyday experience, even when it seems identical, does not suggest the same conclusions to all.

A Bedouin who suffers from hunger and an unemployed European (or an old man, unable to live on his miserable little pension) will not react in the same way to their common misery. The first will resign himself to it without a murmur. ‘It was’, he will think, ‘the will of Allah’. The second will say it is ‘the government’s fault’, and will not give in. Complete loneliness, which seems to so many people a torment, seems to others a very bearable state, and to a few, a true blessing.

There is no universal minimum of physical, and especially moral, well-being below which no man can be happy. We have seen people—rare, it is true—that even in the midst of torture maintain a serenity that seemed impossible. And it is in the most prosperous ‘consumer societies’ that youth suicides are, statistically, the most numerous: more than thirteen thousand a year, for example, in Federal Germany, where nothing is lacking materially.

The devotees of human happiness on earth—who, in spite of these facts, are legion—are just as intolerant as the friends of their neighbour concerned, above all, for the salvation of souls. Woe to him who does not think like them! Woe to him in whose eyes the individual is nothing, if they believe that he is everything and that his ‘happiness’ or pleasure comes before everything! Woe to him in whose eyes technical progress, applied to everyday life, is not a criterion of collective value, if they themselves see it as the only basis for discrimination between peoples!

And above all, woe to him who proclaims that certain individuals—including himself—even certain peoples, have more need of faith, enthusiasm, fanaticism, than material comfort, even with the ‘minimum necessary’ of bodily food; if they happen to be the defenders of man; of those whom all fanaticism, and especially all warlike fanaticism, frightens!

To understand how true this is, we need only consider the way in which the Marxists, who, theoretically, raise ‘all workers’ so high, treat the workers and the peasants, as well as the intellectuals, who are not on their side—all the more so those who pretend to actively oppose their system of ‘values’, or even their administration, in the name of these ‘values’ themselves.

One has only to see how so many Christians, theoretically humanitarian, treat, as soon as they are endowed with some power, the Communists, their brethren. We only have to remember how the fighters for the cause of ‘man’, as well Marxists as Christians or Deists, and Freemasons of all stripes, have treated us whenever they could—we, the avowed detractors of any philosophy centred on man and not on life; we whom they accuse of ‘crimes against humanity’, as if we had a monopoly on violence. (These people apparently don’t have a sense of irony.)

If we agree to give the name of tolerance to any non-intervention in the affairs of others, there are two attitudes which deserve this name: that of the indifferent, alien to the problems which preoccupy other men; of one to whom certain areas of human experience, feeling or thought are literally closed, and who does not love any individual or group of individuals enough to seek to place himself in his point of view and to understand it; and that of the man who believes in the indefinite diversity of human races, peoples, persons (even if they are often of the same race) and who strives to understand all cultures, all religions and, to the extent that this is possible, all individual psychologies, because they are manifestations of Life.

The first is the attitude of a growing number of citizens of our ‘consumer societies’, who are not interested in metaphysics, who are ‘cold’ about politics, who are unconcerned by the activities of their neighbours unless, of course, they disturb their way of life and take away some of their little pleasures. This is ‘tolerance’ only through the abuse of language. In good tasty French, this is called je-m’enfoutisme.

The second—true tolerance—is that of Ramakrishna and all Hindus in religious matters. It is that of Antiquity, Aryan as well as Semitic, Amerindian, Far Eastern or Oceanian. It is that of all the peoples before the Christian era, except for one: the Jewish people. (And this tragic exception, which I will talk about again, does not seem to have arisen until quite late in the history of these otherwise insignificant people.) It is that which, in spite of that gradual change of mentality which accompanies, during the same temporal cycle, the passage from one age to the next and meagre human degradation from the beginning to the end of each age, more or less persists, almost everywhere, until the second half, or so, of the last age—of what the Hindu tradition calls Kali Yuga, or Dark Age.

Certainly, the exaltation of man, whatever his race and his personal worth, above all that lives, goes back to the dawn of time. But as long as there remains, among the vast majority of peoples, enough ancient wisdom for everyone to admit that there are fundamental differences between him and others, and so that, far from hating these differences, he observes them with sympathy, at least with curiosity, we can say that our cycle has not yet entered its final phase, the one which will inevitably lead to chaos.

Or, to express my idea in a short phrase and vigorous enough to hold attention, I would say that the superstition of ‘man’ initiates decadence; and that the superstition of human uniformity—uniformity of ‘primary needs’, ‘duties’, etcetera—precipitates it. It is moreover certain that the second superstition proceeds from the first; that it is unthinkable without it. To be convinced of this, it would suffice to notice that the most tolerant religions (and philosophies) are precisely those which are not centred on man, but treat him as a manifestation of life, a product of Nature among many others.

Hinduism (if we except a few sects) has this attitude. Buddhism too. Legend has it that the Buddha had, already in his childhood, resuscitated a swan, killed by the evil Dêvadatta. Legend also relates that ‘in one of his previous lives’, being an ascetic in the forest, he voluntarily stripped himself of the radiance that was sufficient to protect him from ferocious beasts, in order to offer his own body as food to a poor farmed tigress and her cubs. It adds that as greedy fingernails and teeth tore him apart, his heart overflowed with love for the huge beautiful ‘cat’ and her feline curbs.

It should be noted that no miracle, even no good deed and even more so no act of self-denial such as this—in favour of a beast—has been attributed by Christian tradition to Jesus of Nazareth. It should also be noted that, of all the major international religions, only Buddhism has spread without violence. (Hinduism too, professed by so many different races. But I said it before: Hinduism is not ‘a religion’ but a civilisation). Christianity, on the other hand, spread by violence in Germanic and Slavic countries; bit by bit, in the Mediterranean basin, where the number of Christians suddenly soared as soon as the doctrine, hitherto despised, was proclaimed ‘state religion’ by Emperor Constantine, and everyone served his own career by adhering to it.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Precisely because throughout the centuries most western historians have been Christians, Savitri Devi was unaware that in the Mediterranean the conquest of the Classical World was perpetrated with the same violence as Charlemagne would do in the North, and for centuries, since the fourth to sixth and even later, as we have seen in Karlheinz Deschner’s criminal history of Christianity.