web analytics

Tag: Savitri Devi

Categories
Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 18

It is precisely this anthropocentrism, common to Christianity and Communism, and to all ‘humanisms’, that served as the philosophical cement for the seemingly incongruous alliance of the Western, Christian or ‘rationalist’ world, and the Soviet Union during the Second World War.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is vital. Both American liberalism and Soviet communism are two branches of the same trunk: the vision of the world that emerged from the French Revolution. Oswald Spengler himself wrote that ‘Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It was, in the eyes of more than one Christian, quite painful to feel the glorious ally of atheistic Communism in the struggle against us, followers of Adolf Hitler. Moreover, many westerners, Christian or not, felt more or less confused that this alliance was, politically, a mistake: that their country, whatever it was, would have had more to gain, or less to lose, as a state by giving Adolf Hitler a hand (or accepting the hand the Führer held out to them), and by fighting at his side against Bolshevism. The voice of Germany’s leader, who was calling more and more desperately for them to ‘save Europe’, sometimes troubled them.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Being Bolshevism and American capitalism two branches of the same trunk, we can see why neo-Marxism has now conquered the US; and capitalism, China. Savitri continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And yet… it was not in the ranks of the Legion of French Volunteers or any similar organisation that they were finally found, but in those of the members of some ‘Resistance’, anti-German no doubt, but also and inevitably anti-Aryan. Their subconscious had warned them that by following the wisest political course of action they would have betrayed what was more important to them than politics: their world of values. He had told them what the post-war authors of the Resistance were soon to repeat over and over again for a quarter of a century (and who knows how much longer?): namely that Hitlerism, or Aryan racism in its modern form, is, like all racism based on the idea of a natural elite (not arbitrarily chosen by some all-too-human god), the negation of man.

Consequently, that this Europe which the Führer invited them to forge with him—the one which would eventually emerge from our victory—was not the one they wanted to preserve. And the atheistic Bolshevism, or simply the Bolshevism opposed to free enterprise and honest private property (of which our propaganda tried to frighten us) seemed to them, on balance, less frightening than the spirit of our doctrine.

But there is more. Very few of those who sincerely believed themselves to be our allies, and who fought and died with our people in the struggle against anti-Aryan values, understood the true meaning of the Führer’s message; of the call of the eternal Hero ‘against Time’, who returns from age to age, when all seems lost, to reaffirm the ideal of integral perfection that the unthinkable Golden Age of our Cycle lived. Most of the combatants of the Legion of French Volunteers were Christians who believed they were fighting for the accepted values of Western Christian civilisation. Robert Brasillach was profoundly Christian, and he realised that we were—and are—‘a Church’, and that this Church can only be the rival to the one that conquered Europe from the 4th to the 12th century.

Moreover, this type of man apparently preferred Italian, and especially Spanish, Fascism to German National Socialism. It was the social side of both—the comradeship, the mutual aid, the effective solidarity between people of the same country, independently of any philosophy— that attracted him. The enthusiasm which this national fraternity inspired in him made him close his eyes to the pagan character of Hitlerism. Even among us—the Germans who had followed the swastika banner from the beginning of the Movement—very few understood what was happening, not politically, but in terms of values.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: The transvaluation of all values advocated by Nietzsche!

______ 卐 ______

 
Few realised that a spiritual revolution—a negation of the anthropocentric values that had been accepted by almost everyone without question for centuries, and a return to the natural, cosmic values of a forgotten civilisation—was taking place before their eyes.

Some of them realised this, felt cheated in their early hopes, and left the Movement, like Hermann Rauschning, or betrayed it (with the tragic consequences that we know). Others—a minority—welcomed, and still do, in this revolution in values, precisely that to which they themselves had, more or less consciously, always aspired. Those are the rock on which the Hitler Church is built.

It will last if they last, that is, if they can pass on their blood and faith to an uninterrupted succession of Aryan generations, until the end of this Cycle.

Categories
Enlightenment Hinduism Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 17

No doubt all men have something in common, if only the upright posture and articulate language, which other living species do not possess. Every species is characterised by something which all its members have in common, and which the members of other species lack. The flexibility and purr of felines are traits that no other species can claim. We do not dispute that all human races have several features in common, simply because they are human. What we do dispute is that these common traits are more worthy of our attention than are the enormous differences between races (and often between human individuals of the same race), and the features that all living things, including plants, have in common.

In our eyes a Negro or a Jew, or a Levantine without a well-defined race, has neither the same duties nor the same rights as a pure Aryan. They are different; they belong to worlds which, whatever their points of contact may be on the material plane, remain alien to each other. They are different by nature—biologically Others. The acquisition of a ‘common culture’ cannot bring them together, except superficially and artificially, because ‘culture’ is nothing if it has no deep roots in nature.

Our point of view is not new. Already the Laws of Manu assigned to the Brahmin and the Soudra—and the people of each caste—different duties and rights, and very different penalties to the possible murderers of members of different castes. Caste is—and was in ancient India—linked to race. (It is called varna, which means ‘colour’, and also jat, race). Less far from us in time, and in this Europe where the contrasts between races have never been so extreme, the legislation of the Merovingian Franks, like that of the Ostrogoths of Italy, and the other Germans established in conquered countries, provided for the murder of a man of the Nordic race—of a German—penalties out of proportion to those incurred by the murderer of a Gallo-Roman or an Italian, especially if the latter was of servile condition.

No idea that is justified by healthy racism is new.

On the other hand, we do not understand this priority given to ‘man’, whoever he may be, over any subject of another living species, for the sole reason that ‘he is a man’. It is all very well for the followers of man-centred religions to believe in this priority and to take it into account in all the steps of their daily life. For them, this is the object of an article of faith, the logical consequence of a dogma. And faith cannot be discussed.

But that so many thinkers and so many people who, like them, do not belong to any church, who even fight against any so-called revealed religion, have exactly the same attitude and find the last of the human waste more worthy of concern than the healthiest and most beautiful of beasts (or plants); that they deny us the ‘right’ not only to kill without suffering, but even to sterilise defective human beings, when the life of a healthy and strong animal doesn’t count in their eyes, and that they will, without remorse, cut down a beautiful tree whose presence ‘bothers them’, is what shocks us deeply; what revolts us.

All these self-styled independent minds, all these ‘free’ thinkers, are, just as the believers of the man-centred religions and so-called human ‘dignity’, slaves of the prejudices that the West and a large part of the East. They have inherited it from Judaism. If they have rejected the dogmas and mythology of anthropocentric religions, they have retained their values in their entirety. This is as true of the eighteenth-century Deists as it is of our atheistic Communists. [Editor’s Note: The POV of this site about ‘neochristianity’ in a few words! Savitri continues:]

Although most anti-Communist Christians indignantly reject the idea, there is a profound parallelism between Christianity and Marxism. Both are originally Jewish products. Both have received the imprint of a more or less decadent Aryan thought: that of the subtle Hellenistic philosophy, overloaded with allegories and ready to accept the most unexpected syncretisms, in the case of the former—and of that ideology not of the true scientific spirit, which guards against error, but of what I will call ‘scientism’: the propensity to replace faith in traditional ideas by faith that is presented in the name of ‘Science’, in the case of the latter.

And above all, both are centred on the same values: on the cult of man, as the only being created ‘in the image and likeness’ of the god of the Jews, or simply as a being of the same species as the Marxist who glorifies him. The practical result of anthropo-centrism is the same, whatever its source.

Categories
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 16

But Kant—so independent and so strong in the field of criticism of knowledge—had a moral teacher, apart from the Christian teaching of his family: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose influence was still being felt throughout Europe at that time.

I can hardly imagine two men more different from each other than Rousseau, the perpetual wanderer, whose life was somewhat disordered, to say the least, and the meticulous Herr Professor Immanuel Kant, whose days and years were all alike, passing according to a rigorous schedule where there was not the slightest room for the unexpected or the whimsical.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau never misses an opportunity in his works to exalt ‘reason’ as well as ‘virtue’. But he seems to have had no rules of conduct other than his fantasy, or his impulses, with the result that the story of his life gives an impression of inconsistency, not to say imbalance. A poet rather than a thinker, he dreamed his existence; he did not live it—and especially not according to fixed principles.

The love he professed, whenever he could—on paper—for children, didn’t prevent him from putting his five children, one after the other, in the Assistance Publique on the pretext that the woman who had given them to him, Thérèse Levasseur, would have been incapable of bringing them up in the spirit he would have liked. And this abandonment, repeated five times, didn’t prevent him from writing a book about the education of children, and—what is worse—didn’t prevent the public from taking him seriously! He was taken seriously because, while believing himself to be highly original, he reflected the trends of his time, above all the revolt of the individual against Tradition in the name of ‘reason’.

It is not surprising that the enemy spirits of the visible traditional authorities, that is to say of kings and the clergy, should have chosen him enthusiastically as their guide, and placed the French Revolution, which they were organising, under his sign. It seems, at first sight, less natural that Kant should have been so strongly influenced by him.

But Kant was a man of his time, a time when Rousseau had seduced the European intelligentsia, partly by his poetic prose and paradoxes, partly by certain clichés, which come up everywhere in his work: the words ‘reason’, ‘conscience’ and ‘virtue’. It was these clichés that gave Kant’s limited imagination the opportunity for all the flight of which he was capable, and that gave the German philosopher the form of his morality.

The content of this morality—as indeed that of Rousseau himself and all the ‘philosophers’ of the 18th century and, before them, that of Descartes, the true spiritual father of the French Revolution—is drawn from the old foundation of Christian ethics, centred on the dogma of the ‘dignity’ of man, the only being created ‘in the image of God’, out of respect for this privileged being [red by Editor].

In other words, with meticulous honesty and quite Prussian application and perseverance, Kant tried to establish as a system the common humanitarian morality in Europe, because of Christian morality, which Rousseau had glorified in sentimental effusions: that morality which Nietzsche was one day to have the honour of demolishing with his pen, and which we were later destined to negate, by action.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: By ‘later’ she probably meant during the Third Reich. Unlike the Nazis, American white nationalists continue to subscribe to Christian ethics, including atheists. Incidentally, why ‘Rousseau’s babble was utter nonsense’, as Revilo Oliver wrote, can be seen: here.

Does my audience begin to tell the difference between a common white nationalist and a priestess (or priest) of the 14 words?

Categories
Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Universalism

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 15

Kant and friends on table

Is there such a thing as objectivity in the field of values? [Editor’s note: formally known as ‘axiology’]. To this question I answer yes. There is something independent of the ‘taste’ of each art critic, which makes a masterpiece of painting, sculpture or poetry a masterpiece for all time. Behind every perfect creation—and not only in the field of art proper—there are secret correspondences, a whole network of ‘proportions’ which themselves ‘recall’ unknown but prescient cosmic equivalences. It is these elements that link the work to the eternal—in other words, that give it its objective value.

On the other hand, there is no universal scale of preferences. Even if one could penetrate the mystery of the structure of eternal creations, which are human only in name because the author has effaced himself before the Force (the ancients would have said: ‘the God’), who for a moment possessed him, and acted through it and by it—if one could, say, explain in clear sentences like those of mathematicians, why such creations are eternal, one could never force everyone to prefer the eternal to the temporary; to find a work which reflects something of the harmony of the cosmos, more pleasant, more satisfying than another, which reflects anything.

There is good and bad taste. And there are moral consciences that are more or less similar to those of a man with an objective scale of values. But there is no more universal consciousness than there is universal taste. There is no such thing, and there can be no such thing, for the simple reason that the aspirations of men are different, once they have passed the level of the most elementary needs. (And even these needs are more or less pressing, depending on the individual. Some people find life bearable, even beautiful, without comforts, pleasures or affections, the lack of which would make other people frankly unhappy.)

Different aspirations mean different preferences. Different preferences mean different reactions to the same events, different decisions in the face of the same dilemmas, and therefore different ways of organising lives that might otherwise have been similar. Never forget the diversity of human beings, even within the same race, let alone from one race to another. How can people who are so different from each other have ‘the same rights and the same duties’?

There is no more universal duty than there is universal consciousness. Or, if we absolutely want to find a formula that is true for all, we must say that the duty of every man—indeed, of every living being—is to be to the end, in his visible or secret manifestations, what he is in his deepest nature; to never betray himself.

But deep natures differ. Hence, despite everything, the diversity of duties, as well as of rights, and the inevitable conflict, on the level of facts, between those who have opposite duties. The Bhagawad-Gîta says: ‘Focus on fulfilling your duty (svadharma). The duty of another involves (for you) many dangers’.

And what, in practice, will decide the outcome of the conflict between people with opposing duties? Force. I can only think of it. If I don’t have it, I have to put up with the presence in the world of institutions that I consider criminal, given my own scale of values. I can hate them. I cannot remove them with the stroke of a pen, as I would if I had the power. And even those who have power can not—insofar as they need the collaboration of some men, if not of a majority, precisely to maintain the position they have conquered. But I shall speak to you later about force, the condition of any visible and sudden change, that is to say of any victorious revolution, on the material plane.

I will first tell you a few words about the fathers of ‘universal consciousness’ and the idea that derives from it: the idea of a ‘duty’ that would be the same for all. I will recall the names of only a few of them who, in fields other than morality, are distinguished by some preeminence: by the firmness of their thought or the beauty of their prose.

First, there is Immanuel Kant, to whom we must be infinitely grateful for having drawn the line between scientific knowledge and metaphysical speculation; between what we know, or what we can know, and what we can only speak about arbitrarily, knowing nothing about it, or not at all, the direct vision we have of it is incommunicable. The whole part of Kant’s work that deals with the subordination of thought to the categories of space and time, and with the impossibility of going beyond the sphere of ‘phenomena’ with our conceptual intelligence, is of exemplary solidity.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Infinitely grateful? Exemplary solidity? Lol! As we saw in my previous post, ‘On Shelob’s lair’, on this issue Savitri errs. But she continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
The recipes given by the thinker to help every man discover ‘the duty’, which he believes to be the same for all, are less worthy of credence, precisely because they do not fall within the scope of what, according to Kant’s deductions, makes up the essence of the scientific mind.

We are here in the realm of values—not of ‘facts’, not of ‘phenomena’. The only ‘fact’ that could be noted in this connection is the diversity of value scales. And Kant takes no account of this. He believes he bases his notion of ‘duty’ on that of ‘reason’. And since reason is ‘universal’, the laws of discursive thought being so—two and two make four for the last of the Negroes, as well as for one of us—it seems that duty must be too.

Kant does not realise, as his values seem indisputable to him, that it is not ‘reason’ at all, but his austere Christian upbringing—pietistic, to be more precise—which dictated them to him; that he owes them, not to his ability to draw conclusions from given premises—an ability which he shares with all sane men, and perhaps with the higher animals—but to his spontaneous submission to the influence of the moral environment in which he was brought up. He forgets—and how many have forgotten before and after him, and still do!—that reason is powerless to set ends; to establish orders of preference; that, in the domain of values, its role is limited to highlighting the logical—or practical—link between a given end and the means that lead to its realisation.

Reason can tell an individual what his ‘duty’ will be in a specific circumstance if, for example, he loves all men, or better still, all living beings. Reason cannot force him to love them, if he doesn’t feel attracted to them. It can suggest to him what to do, or not do, if he wants to contribute to ‘world peace’. It cannot force him to want peace. And if he does not want it, if he finds it demoralising or simply boring, it will suggest to him, with equal logic, an entirely different course of action—just as it will direct the intelligent misanthrope to an entirely different course of action from that which it would command the philanthropist. It will always command each of those who think, the action that corresponds to the promotion of what he really loves, and deeply wants. How could it inspire duties, identical in content, to individuals who love different, even incompatible ideals, and who each want the revolution that their ideal implies? Or to individuals who love only people, and to others who love only ideas?

‘Always act’, says Kant, ‘as if the principle of your action could be set up as a universal law’.

How can this ‘rule’ be applied both to the conduct of one who, loving only his family and friends, far from sacrificing them to any idea whatsoever, will feel that it is ‘his duty’ to protect them at all costs, and that of the militant who, loving only a cause which goes beyond him, considers that it would be ‘his duty’, if necessary, to sacrifice him and his recent collaborators (as soon as he feels them weakening in terms of orthodoxy and becoming dangerous), and a fortiori his family, alien to the holy ideology, as soon as he sees one of its members, whoever he may be, making a pact with the hostile forces?

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Remember Savitri’s words in my Friday’s post: ‘During the war, my mother—although 75 years old in 1940, 80 in 1945—joined the resistance movement in France. I did not know it naturally. There was no communication between Calcutta and Europe. She told me in 1946, when I visited her, and said also that if I had been present in France in 1944 and had actively worked against the resistance (as I then surely would have), she would have handed me over to the resistance’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And what about the rule: ‘Always act in such a way that you take the human person as an end, never as a means’? In other words: ‘Never use a man’. And why not?—especially if, by using him, I am working in the interest of a Cause that is much greater than him, for example, the cause of Life, or the human elite (the elite of every living species) or simply that of a particular people, if this one has a more than human historical mission?

Man unscrupulously exploits the animal and the tree in favour of what he believes to be his own interest. And Kant apparently finds no fault with this. Why should we not exploit man—the ‘human person’ whose so-called ‘value’ we have been hearing about more than ever for the past quarter-century—in the interest of Life itself? What prevents us from doing so, if we do not have—like Immanuel Kant and so many others; like most people born and raised in a Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish, or simply ‘secular’) civilisation—a scale of values centred around the sacrosanct two-legged mammal?

Of myself, if I love ‘all men’, I won’t use any of them; I won’t take any of them ‘as a means’, for an end which is not him. You don’t exploit what you really love. This is a psychological law.

But no ‘reason’ can force me to ‘love all men’—any more than it can force most men to love all animals. Kant’s ‘reason’ ordered him not to exploit any human being, not because this is a universal commandment, but because he loved all men, like the good Christian he was. I, who do not love them all, do not feel that this ‘duty’ concerns me. It is not my duty. I refuse to submit to it. And if a man who finds the exploitation of animals and trees—and what exploitation!—quite natural, dares to come and preach me about ‘respect for the human person’, I would brutally send him to mind his own business.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is more than fundamental. If there is something that my work From Jesus to Hitler teaches, it is that we must stop loving the vast majority of humans to save the nymphs of the sidebar and the animals under the human yoke.

Categories
Newspeak Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 14

The more rigorous a reasoning is, impeccable from the purely logical point of view, the more its conclusion is false if the basic judgement from which it starts—the one expressed by its major premise, in the case of a simple syllogism—is itself false. This is clear. If I declare that ‘All men are saints’ and then I notice that the Marquis de Sade and all known and unknown sexual perverts, and all animal or child torturers, were or are men, I am forced to conclude that all these people were or are saints: an assertion whose absurdity is obvious.

Perfect logic only leads to a true judgement if it is applied based on major premises that are themselves true. The adjectives by which we characterise such rigour in the sequence of judgements depend on one’s attitude towards the judgement from which it starts. If one accepts it, one speaks of an irreproachable or admirable logic. If one rejects it vehemently, as Mr Grassot rejected the basic propositions of Aryan racism, in other words Hitlerism, one will speak of ‘appalling logic’. This does not matter, since judgements remain true or false, regardless of the reception, always subjective, that is given to them.

Now, what is a true judgment?

Any judgement expresses a relationship between two states of fact, between two possibilities, or between a state of affairs (and all psychological states fall under this category) and a possibility. If I say, for example, ‘The weather is fine’, I am relating a whole set of sensations that I am currently experiencing to the presence of the sun in the visible sky. If I say: ‘The sum of angles of a triangle equals the straight angle’ I am stating that, if a polygon has the characteristics which, mathematically, define the triangle, the sum of its angles will be, and can only be, equal to the straight angle; that there is a necessary relationship between the very definition of ‘triangle’, and the property to which I have alluded. If I say: ‘It is better to lose your life than to fail in honour’, I make a connection—no less necessary in principle—between my psychology and a possible situation in which I would have to choose either to live dishonoured, or to die saving honour.

The judgement is true if the relationship it expresses exists; otherwise, it is false. This is clear in the case of judgements—called ‘categorical’—which posit a relationship between two facts. If I say in broad daylight that ‘it is dark’, it is quite certain that there is no longer any connection between what my senses experience and what I say; the judgment is therefore false. If I say: ‘The sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to five angles’ I am saying an absurdity, because the connection I’m making here between the definition of the triangle and a property I attribute to it does not exist; the assertion contradicts the judgement that defines the triangle. (Even in non-Euclidean space with positive curvature, where the sum of the angles of a triangle ‘exceeds’ two right angles, that sum does not reach ‘five angles’.)

In the case of categorical judgements, which express a relation between two facts, as in the case of those perfect hypothetical judgements which are the theorems of mathematics, the ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ are evident. No one will certainly accept what I am saying if I declare in broad daylight that ‘it is night’ for every healthy eye sensitive to light. As for mathematical theorems, they can all be proved, provided that one accepts, in the case of geometrical theorems, the postulates that define the particular space they concern.

The only judgements people argue about, until they go to war because of them, are value judgements: those which presuppose, in whoever emits them, a hierarchy of preferences. It is, in fact, always in the name of such hierarchy that we grasp a relation between a fact (or a state of mind) and a ‘possibility’ (future, or else conceived retrospectively, as what might have been). Facts can give rise to heated discussions, no doubt, but devoid of passion, and especially hatred.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: No longer in our time! when elemental facts—like saying that boys are boys and girls are girls; or that there are no grandmasters in chess tournaments who are black—can lead to such hatred that we may lose our jobs. To call ‘a spade a spade’ is now considered racist.

Some bien pensant censors are even suggesting that the expression ‘To call a spade a spade’ should be retired from modern usage! A newspeaker said: ‘Rather than taking the chance of unintentionally offending someone or of being misunderstood, it is best to relinquish the old innocuous proverbial expression all together’ (see: here).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
One does not really quarrel with one’s adversaries and, if one has the power to do so, one only cracks down on them, unless one considers the ‘facts’, which are the subject of the discussion, to be directly or indirectly linked to values that we love.

The Church has been hostile to those who maintained that our Earth is round and that it is not the centre of the solar system, insofar as the belief in these facts—in case they were proven and therefore universally accepted—negate not only of the letter of the Scriptures but, above all, Christian anthropocentrism. The biological facts which form the basis of all intelligent racism are denied by organisations such as UNESCO, which pride themselves on ‘culture’. They do it only because these organisations see, in a widespread acceptance of this premise, the threat of a resurgence of Aryan racism, which they detest.

‘Woman Against Time’ excerpts

Editor’s note: Thanks R.W. for your contribution yesterday!

Below, some quotations from Woman Against Time: Biography and Collection of Letters and Articles of Savitri Devi (Wewelsburg Archives, 2017), a book that also contains texts from Savitri’s fans and friends.

I must confess I’m truly impressed: Exactly what I feel about some species of animals she felt it too (‘…seeing in the animal welfare legislation enacted in NS Germany the embodiment of cosmic law’)! And what Savitri felt about the archetype of Kalki I’ve also felt (under the name of ‘the exterminator of Neanderthals’)—decades before I discovered this eccentric writer!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
During the war, my mother—although 75 years old in 1940, 80 in 1945—joined the resistance movement in France. I did not know it naturally. There was no communication between Calcutta and Europe. She told me in 1946, when I visited her, and said also that if I had been present in France in 1944 and had actively worked against the resistance (as I then surely would have), she would have handed me over to the resistance.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
She [writes Kerry Bolton] was always a champion of animal welfare, as explicated in her last book Impeachment of Man, seeing in the animal welfare legislation enacted in NS Germany the embodiment of cosmic law…

A visit to Palestine in 1929 convinced her that Judeo-Christianity, whose outward observances in the Holy Land repelled her, was an alien intrusion into the West, distorting its natural spiritual evolution and imposing upon it a sterile monotheism and a servile philo-Semitism. It was in Palestine, she later said, that she first realised she was a National Socialist…

In 1932 she traveled to India, in search of the Aryan paganism that Judeo- Christianity had supplanted. On the subcontinent she sought ‘gods and rites akin to those of ancient Greece, of ancient Rome, of ancient Britain and ancient Germany, that people of our race carried there, with the cult of the Sun, six thousand years ago’. Her exemplar was Julian the Apostate, the fourth-century emperor who briefly restored paganism and the cult of the Sun to the Roman Empire…

Savitri was eventually arrested along with a comrade in February 1949, convicted of promoting national socialist ideas, and sentenced to six years imprisonment, of which she served only seven months, returning to Lyons in the summer of 1949…

In 1953 Savitri returned illegally to Germany on a self-styled pilgrimage, lasting four years, to the holy sites of National Socialism and Germanic paganism, visiting Braunau am In, Linz (where she met Hitler’s tutor), Berchtesgarden, the Berghof, the Feldherrnhalle, and Nuremberg. She lived for two years at Emsdetten in Westphalia at the home of an NS sympathiser, where she wrote Pilgrimage, completed Lightning and the Sun, and added to the stations of her pilgrimage the Hermanns-denkmal and the Externsteine, the former a monument honoring Hermann’s defeat of the Romans in A.D. 9, the latter a reputed pagan solar temple, where she experienced a mystical revelation of eventual Aryan victory.

Savitri returned to India in 1957, but was back in Europe three years later. The friendships she had made during her imprisonment provided entrée into murky world of post-war national socialism—she was already on friendly terms with such luminaries as Hans Rudel, Otto Skorzeny, and Leon Degrelle—and while living in London she became involved with the politics of the British Racial Right, attending, along with George Lincoln Rockwell, the international WUNS conference in the Cotswolds in 1962, site of the famous Cotswold Declaration…
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The New Mercury [writes R.G. Fowler] was closed by the British in late 1937 or early 1938, and all copies were confiscated… In January 2004, I traveled to India to do research on Savitri Devi and A.K. Mukherji. I searched without success in the National Archives in New Delhi and the National Library in Calcutta for copies of Bishan, Dhruba, the New Mercury, and The Eastern Economist. Copies of the New Mercury may still exist, however, in archives in England, Italy, and Germany. And copies of The Eastern Economist may still come to light in Japan. Any information about surviving copies of these periodicals would be greatly appreciated…

______ 卐 ______

 
I [Subrata Banerjee] remember her [Savitri] telling me once that animals were better than human beings…

She could not stand loud noise. The flat she used to live in, in Calcutta, was on a busy street and noisy. She used to plug her ears with the pillow and sometimes even sought refuge from the noise in the bathroom… She was known in the locality as the memsahib [White lady] who fed cats and dogs in the streets. That is how I located her residence. The place reeked with foul animal smells. [Editor’s Note: This is something I would never do at home.]

On 30 March 1981, she suffered a stroke which left her with partial paralysis on her right side, making it impossible for her to live on her own.

Subrata Banerjee’s closing reflections on Savitri [writes Fowler] are also interesting: ‘I could never accept her fundamentalist Hindu and Nazi views, but I remember my aunt as a very warm and loving person and even a lovable one, possibly because of her eccentricities’.

______ 卐 ______

 
I [Muriel Gantry] put the TV on for a short time to watch my usual soap-operas. But had to stop it as she got so upset… She said years ago that she would ban all radio and TV save for half an hour a day of propaganda…

I did get rid of a great deal of Savitri’s correspondence, but I did so at night—it would have looked odd had anyone come in while I was burning all that paper. [Editor’s Note: This was a crime. The next paragraphs are taken from Fowler’s self-interview:]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Everyone wants to know more about the woman who worshiped Hitler as a divine avatar; the woman who criticised Hitler for being too kind; the woman who advocated animal rights but not human rights; the woman who would ban medical experiments on animals and do them on people instead—who would prefer to eat the flesh of an enemy than of an innocent lamb. But what is even more surprising than these views is the fact that Savitri Devi provides a consistent rationale for them…

Savitri Devi, who claimed quite candidly that she was a sceptic about the literal existence of the gods, but had an overwhelming desire to worship them nonetheless…

In my short essay on Savitri Devi and Paul of Tarsus, ‘Enemy and Exemplar’, I argue that Savitri understood her project to be analogous to that of Saint Paul. Paul took the life and ideas of Jesus, a failed prophet or perhaps merely a would-be revolutionary [Editor’s Note: Savitri ignored that Jesus did not exist] and created a religion that eventually triumphed over Rome and all of Europe.

Savitri Devi wished to be the Saint Paul to Hitler’s Christ. She too took a failed political leader and transformed him into a divine avatar around which she hoped to crystallise a religion that would serve as a vehicle for the eventual triumph of his ideas. This is a remarkably grandiose ambition for such a modest lady!

Her plans may be grandiose, but I hasten to add that this does not make them absurd or impracticable. After all, it took more than 300 years for Paul’s creation to triumph over Rome.

Savitri Devi died in 1982. Since then, interest in her works has grown dramatically. The religion she envisioned may indeed be taking shape. I would love to know what sort of impact Savitri Devi will have three centuries hence. If there are any white people left on the planet, I would like to think that Savitri Devi would have played no small part in ensuring their survival.

Savitri wanted very badly to go to Germany during Adolf Hitler’s time. World War II prevented her from ever going and seeing the nation and people she idolised and loved so much in her writings. But if she had, how do you think Adolf Hitler and the others would have received her?

I think that Savitri Devi would have been well-received by German National Socialists. She would have impressed them as a sincere, intelligent, talented, and energetic National Socialist. I am sure that they would have found a way to fully mobilise her talents for the cause. Even her eccentricities would not have held her back, for the National Socialist leadership was filled with artistic, even bohemian types and remarkably free of bourgeois prigs.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Letter to Miguel Serrano:

My spontaneous answer to the six million story was: ‘A pity is was not sixteen million! Then the Jewish question would have been well-solved!’

Letter to Matt Koehl:

I had planned to sell my gold jewelry for the printing of this book. Unfortunately, on l March 1974 at 8 p.m. in a scooter carrying me (or expected to carry me) a short distance from here, I was assaulted by a man who jumped in the scooter, with the agreement of the driver, who at once pulled down the flaps, gagged me, sat on me to keep me immobile, and stripped me of all I had: twenty-seven gold bangles; a heavy gold chain (some one hundred grams); a big gold ring, twenty-two carat gold: my savings of sixty years…

I loved your two issues: 20 April and a later one about the events in Vietnam—in which you so clearly show what I have tried to show all my life, namely the more the human part played by our Führer—call Him ‘The Prophet of a New Age’, call Him a reappearance of the One-who-comes-back, when all seems lost. As I noted in The Lightning and the Sun (I have only one copy left) the Hindus called Kalki, the last incarnation of the divine spirit in our Time Cycle—the One who will destroy utterly that rot that we are taught to call ‘civilisation’, and open the long ‘Age of Truth’ (Satya Yuga) or Golden Age that will begin the next time cycle. He is the only successful man (God and Man) who fights against the stream of decay.

If our Führer had been He, He would have won. He could not win because he was not He but merely His Forerunner (as all ‘Men against Time’ are), and probably the last one. It was too late already, thirty or forty years ago, to give back steady power to the Best, and save what was still worth saving on earth. And it was too early for the coming of a new cycle: the Best had not yet suffered enough to deserve it. (They are suffering now in the post-1945 hell which is the world, wherever you might go.) And it will go from bad to worse. That is the price for choosing hell, instead of choosing Hitler.

It began with Yalta and the three slaves of Jewry: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin… All those who (on whatever pretext) raise their hand against Adolf Hitler and His rejuvenated Germany, or allowed their governments to do so without violent, active protest, will have to go down the drain. England will contain 50,000—or perhaps 20,000 only!— real Englishmen, Aryans (Anglo-Saxons and Celts)…

And what will the 50,000 (or 20,000) English Aryans do? Curse Mr. Churchill—and gather regularly in the private solemnity of a… Hitler cult!—at last—and wait for the Avenger, and praise His ways.

What is the racially conscious Aryan humanity in the USA to do now? Keep fighting against integration, of course, and against drugs and propaganda. But, before all: have racially conscious Aryan children, and never allow the thread of pure blood to break. Until the coming of the One, a thousand times more ruthless than our Führer was, who will destroy this ‘civilisation’ and open the next time cycle with an Age of Truth.

25 July 1975

Categories
George Lincoln Rockwell Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Sponsor Swastika

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).

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

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12

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.

Categories
Hinduism Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

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.

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

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.