Reflections of an Aryan woman, 21

Now, as I said above, man is the only living being on earth who has, even within the same race, elites, and physical, mental and moral dregs; the only one who, not being strictly defined by his species, can rise (and sometimes does rise) above it, to the point of merging (or almost merging) with the ideal archetype that transcends it: the overman. But he can also stoop (and does stoop, in fact, more and more, in the age in which we live) below, not only the minimum level of value that one would hope to find in his race, but below all animate creatures: those who, prisoners of a sure instinct and a practical intelligence placed entirely at the service of this instinct, are incapable of revolt against the unwritten laws of their being, in other words, of sin.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is extremely important. A group of killer whales that play with a bloody seal as if it were a ball, or an ugly monkey eating a little gazelle alive in front of her mother, probably cannot help but ‘sin’ because of their biological prison. But white Christians, like the idiot who recently argued with Jared Taylor, sin by proclaiming themselves Jew-wise and following, at the same time, the commandments that the bully called Yahweh ordered for them: not to distinguish between races, as that famous verse by Paul says. See what I said this morning about how I immediately lose love to one of these, be they Christian or atheist.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
We are reproached for preferring the healthy and beautiful beast—what am I saying?—the healthy and beautiful tree to the fallen man whether it is one who, born in an inferior race in the process of approaching more and more the monkey, has no chance of ascending to superhumanity, either for himself or his descendants; or whether it is about individuals or groups of individuals of a superior race, but to whom any possibility of such an ascension is prohibited, because of physical, psychic or mental corruption, or all three at once, which they have inherited from degenerate ancestors, or acquired as a result of the life they have led.

In the preface he wrote for the first French edition of the Tischgespräche attributed to Adolf Hitler, and published under the title of Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix (Free remarks on war and peace), Count Robert d’Harcourt recalls that the Führer ‘loved animals’ and that he, in particular, wrote pages of charming freshness about dogs.[1] The French academician compares this with the cynicism of the Head of State, in whose eyes political wisdom was ‘in inverse ratio to humanity’.[2] ‘Humanity towards beasts’, he says, ‘bestiality towards men: we have known this mystery of coexistence’. And he adds that those who, in the German concentration camps, sent their victims to the gas chambers ‘were the same ones who bandaged, with a nurse’s delicacy, the leg of a wounded dog’.

To these remarks of an opponent of Hitlerism I would add all that the Führer did for the animal (and the tree itself) in the spirit of the immemorial Aryan conception of the world: the banning of traps, as well as of hunting with hounds, and the restriction of hunting of any kind, as far as this was still possible in German society; the suppression of vivisection—that disgrace to man—as well as of all the atrocities connected with the slaughter of animals.[3]

The use of the automatic pistol was compulsory in all cases, including that of pigs, and I met a peasant woman in Germany who assured me that she had served a four-year sentence in a concentration camp for having killed a pig with a knife (out of treachery, so as not to have to pay the man to whom she should have entrusted the painless slaughter of the animal). I would add that Adolf Hitler, himself a vegetarian, dreamed of completely eliminating the horrible slaughterhouse industry, even if it was to be ‘humanised’, step by step ‘after the war’, as he declared to Goebbels on 26 April 1942.

Nonetheles, far from shocking me by their contrast with all the exceptional measures taken against human beings currently or potentially dangerous, these laws and projects appear, to me, as one of the glories of the Third Reich: and one more reason to be proud of my Hitlerian faith.

Count Robert d’Harcourt represents the public opinion of the West in general, both Christian and rationalist. His point of view is that of all those who fought against us, and even of a part of those who collaborated with us, collaborated for strictly political reasons despite our ‘negation of man’, not because of it, in the name of a common scale of values.

_________

[1] Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, 1952 edition, Preface, p. xxiii.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Reichsjagdgesetz: the complete collection of laws enacted under the Third Reich concerning hunting.

Published in: on September 30, 2021 at 2:01 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 21  

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.

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.

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?

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.

Published in: on September 23, 2021 at 12:58 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 15  

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.

Adunai vs. Morgan

An icon depicting Emperor Constantine, accompanied by the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325), holding the Creed of 381.

I’ve been watching the recent discussion between Adunai and Robert Morgan in the comments section of The Unz Review. Morgan seems to hold a classic view of Christianity: the one I held before reading a conservative Swede in Gates of Vienna. Now I see that Christianity is not just its dogmatic part, let’s say, what we who were Catholics used to hear during the Creed on Sundays:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all;
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God;
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father,
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven.
[Etcetera.]

The above is the dogmatic part that not all westerners believe now. But Christianity is also the axiological part, what we have been calling Christian ethics. And from this angle westerners continue to be Christians. As Adunai summed it up in his discussion with Morgan: Christianity, in essence, means not the number of priests ordained: but the number of niggers loved.

This means that secular, atheist or agnostic whites continue to be Christians. It doesn’t matter that they have left behind the dogmatic side of Christianity, the Credo quoted above. The axiological part of Christianity (secular neochristianity I call it) is today in its red giant phase: incinerating, with its suicidal ethics, the nations that used to be traditional Christian.

It was not Darwin, or the revolution of ideas that started 1789, as Morgan seems to believe, what marks real apostasy. Adunai is right that Hitler was the first one who tried to transvalue Christian values back to pagan times (see also our ongoing translation of Savitri Devi’s book). This is our litmus test: If you are willing to do something similar to the Nazis’ Master Plan East, then you have left Christianity behind.

Otherwise you’re a fucking neochristian.

Published in: on September 5, 2021 at 11:36 am  Comments (5)  

Adunai responds

> ‘The Empire as such is run by and for Jews’.

In no way is America run by Jews. Had America been run by Jews, it would likewise have genocided all the Arabs, Russians and other Asians. And then would have liquidated itself.

No, America is run on the spirit of universal love towards mankind, towards every individual—as long as he professes to love his neighbour, to ‘live and let live’, to accept the god of the Jews into his heart.

Source: The Unz Review (comments section) here. And in a previous thread he had said:

What is the opposite of materialism? Idealism, in the case of the Western civilisation—Christianity. Therefore, I blame not some ephemeral, rootless ‘leftism’. The maggots under the carpet do not self-germinate from spontaneous abiogenesis, as Pasteur proved. Likewise did the egalitarian liberalist cult have a predecessor in the message of universal love spread by the old Jew Jesus.

And in another thread he also responds to a monocausalist:

> ‘(((God’s Chosen))) are the only winners of WWII’.

It’s the Americans, stupid. The Americans who were 99% Nordic in 1945. (I don’t consider Negroes or Italians American.) The Americans had all the power in the world to do as they pleased. The Westerners were only limited by their merciful nigger-breeding Christian morality, fatally so…

America could have gassed all Mexicans, all Pinoy, all Japanese. America had all the power in the world in 1945 methodically to cleanse Iraq, Turkey, India and China. But didn’t. The reason—Christian cuckoldry. This is as clear as day! There wasn’t a capitulation in history as large as the American one. That’s when they had the bombs each of which could burn a million Asiatics alive. This pitiful sight abhors me to no end. History, return, and make the Anglo kill himself!…

I’d like to remind everyone that the triumph of the Taliban over the Christian faggots in Afghanistan in 2021 CE is but a foretaste of the final victory of the Asiatics in Korea in the future. That’s what happens when you pit Jewish love against racist hatred—hatred always wins. The sooner, the better.

In Adunai’s latest post he responds to Robert Morgan’s claim that technology is the bad guy of our movie:

Name me one cultural counter-current that has challenged Christianity since Julian—you cannot, only Hitler tried to commence such a revolution. Technology is an amplifier of the already existing substance. That is the issue with you—you think there was an invisible coup d’état in culture where Europe stopped being Christian between 1789 and 1900. No, a true apostasy looks like The Holocaust.

Adunai’s italics. However, he uses a straw-man against me: ‘Chechar’s idyllia is lions eating straw with lambs’, something I’ve never claimed of course (the 4 words is something altogether different).

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.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 4

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.

Published in: on August 19, 2021 at 7:23 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 4