A response to Ives

– This is a reply to a previous comment this morning –

Ives:

I made a big mistake in letting your first comment pass. The habit of trying to argue with white nationalists things that have already been much discussed on this site, made me forget what I promised in the last paragraph of my post the day before yesterday.

But I will no longer forget what I promised.

Just as a courtesy of passing a couple of your comments before I start implementing what I have promised, I’ll reply to what you say about Hadding Scott.

Hadding, with whom I discussed the issue of the so-called holocaust in a long thread at The Occidental Observer, is, unlike Alex Linder, a magnificent example of how axiological neo-Christianity prevents one from seeing what happened in WW2.

You might be interested to read an article explaining my position on David Irving. As Robert Morgan tried to convey to the racialists at The Occidental Observer six years ago: ‘In our culture, shaped as it has been by Christianity, the premier innocent victim is and always has been Jesus. He laid the groundwork; established the archetype. It’s inconceivable that the Holocaust racket would have been as successful as it has been in a non-Christian culture’.

And please, please, pay more attention to the letters in red in my sticky post. Thank you.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Noon update: This is the crux of my above-linked article:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality’. Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think:

1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners
2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do
3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous
4) Every human life has the same value

None of these statements ring true to a man who rejected Christian morality. In fact, even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathize with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you!

Published in: on December 10, 2021 at 11:38 am  Comments (4)  
Tags:

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 59

One can compare the action of the Einsatzgruppen against the Jews in Germany and in the countries occupied by the armies of the Third Reich with that of the Einsatzgruppen in the Eastern territories.

In both cases, according to the instructions given by Reinhard Heydrich in May 1941 to the leaders of the latter, the aim was to ‘mercilessly destroy all past, present and future opposition to National Socialism’[1] that is, to eliminate as many actual or potential enemies of the new Germanic faith and Empire as possible. In both cases, the action revealed a scale of values in complete opposition to all anthropocentrism or a scale of values completely devoid of hypocrisy. For war is in itself the negation of any anthropocentric faith or philosophy—especially war between men of different races and civilisations, some of whom regard the habitat of others as necessary, or favourable, to their development. Himmler remarked that the Anglo-Saxon pioneers in North America had ‘exterminated the Indians and only wanted to live on their native land’.[2]

And the fiercest anti-Hitlerites are forced to admit that he was right, and that there is no ‘respect for the human person’ in the attitude of the founders of the US towards the real Americans. It is all too easy, after the fact, when you have installed your democracy over the entire surface of a continent practically emptied of its inhabitants, whose race you have destroyed in the most cowardly way by alcohol, it is easy then, I say, to proclaim that the age of violence is over; to forbid others to carve out a ‘living space’ for themselves as you have carved out one for yourself and, should their effort end in failure, to bring them before a parody ‘International Tribunal’ as ‘criminals against humanity’.

This is easy. But it is an indictment of lies; of bad faith. It also accuses a secret and sordid envy: that of the dwarf towards the giant; that of the plutocrat in search of new markets, towards the warrior capable of frank and detached violence; that, too, of all the proud citizens of shaky colonial powers towards the conquering Third Reich, at the height of its glory.

In both actions—that of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia, and that against the Jews everywhere—the leaders of the Third Reich had men from conquered countries treated or allowed to be treated as the founders of the US had treated the Redskins, but with less tartuffery. They openly admitted that ‘the tragedy of greatness is to create new life by treading on corpses’:[3] corpses of which it doesn’t matter how many if the ‘new life’ is closer to its divine prototype; if it is more faithful to the supreme values than the life that is disappearing. And they sincerely believed it was, or would be (and indeed it would have been, if Germany had won the war).

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Some who come to comment on this site continue to do so without understanding that we are in a fight with the white nationalist POV. Here again is what we have said so many times:

This is a site for apprentices to fourteen-word priests (or a priestess, if a woman wants to become someone very similar to Savitri Devi, which I consider highly unlikely).

The gulf between the priest and the white nationalist is that the former has already transvalued Christian values to pre-Christian values, and regards the genocide of enemies as highly moral and laudable. The latter suffers from what we call ‘ogre of the superego’ inspired by Christianity, thus imagining the Nazis as if they weren’t killers but good Christians (like the Americans).

Those who want to know the real history of the Third Reich would do well to note that, among Reich sympathisers, the most knowledgeable don’t go around denying the genocides committed by the Nazis (e.g., Max Weber and David Irving). Or don’t they still notice these German words?

___________

[1] Quoted by André Brissaud in Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 319.

[2] Confidences in Kersten (see Kersten’s book, Les mains du miracle, page 319).

[3] André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 309.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 58

In a talk of 15 January 1942, the Führer alluded to the alarming increase in the population of India: an increase of fifty-five million in ten years[1], all the more alarming, one might say, because in this remote and last bastion of a properly Aryan religious and metaphysical tradition, it is the low castes, the aborigines and Eurasians—the non-Aryans and half-breeds—who are multiplying at the most insane rate, while the few millions of Aryans who have succeeded for sixty centuries in surviving more or less purely in a vast multiracial atmosphere, represent a growing minority.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Savitri lived there and was married to one of them. If she didn’t depend on them, she would have said that they are all mudbloods now.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The few millions of Aryans who have managed to survive, more or less, for sixty centuries in a vast multiracial environment, represent an ever-smaller minority, and enjoy (and already enjoyed in 1942), thanks to the parliamentary system introduced by the British, less and less political influence. But this tragedy didn’t concern Germany at war. The Führer continued: ‘We are witnessing the same phenomenon in Russia: women there have a child every year. The main reason for this increase is the decrease in mortality due to the progress of hygiene. What are our doctors thinking about?’ [2]

Here we are dealing with the direct threat of indefinitely increased masses, which risk submerging and dissolving in their bosom the future German colonists of the Eastern Marches and, in the meantime, softening the combatants of the German army who are the least detached from the human-too-human; Aryan masses, no doubt but not Germanic, and which the fate of history has set against the Germans from the Middle Ages onwards, and later on, sometimes mixed with Mongolian blood. This is a danger for the German people and for the balance of the new world that the Führer dreamed of founding: the pan-European, if not pan-Aryan, Empire dominated by Germany.

Adolf Hitler wanted to avert this danger, and he was well aware that banning preventive hygiene measures wouldn’t be enough. Therefore, according to Rauschning’s report, he had envisaged more radical measures—still in the spirit of the immemorial Law of the Jungle, the ‘struggle for life’, which the superior man has to apply above all to other men of inferior quality because they are his real rivals on earth: they, and not the noble beasts, aristocrats of the forest, savannah or desert nor the trees, the ornament of the soil.

‘Nature is cruel’, declared the Fighter against Time, ‘so we have the right to be too. At the moment when I am going to throw into the hurricane of iron and fire the flower of Germanism, without feeling any regret for the precious blood that is going to flow in torrents, who could dispute with me the right to annihilate millions of men of inferior races who are multiplying like insects, and whom I shall not, moreover, exterminate, but whose growth I shall systematically prevent—for example by separating men from women for years’?[3]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Wow and triple wow!

I have long fantasised that the Europeans who conquered the Americas should have taken all the Indian males to the Atlantic shores and all the Indian females to the Pacific shores (of course: interbreeding is forbid). I never imagined that the Führer had toyed with a similar idea…

But this is where it is seen that Christianity, a thousand times more than Judaism, is the Great Enemy of the white race. The church of Rome sent its friars to catechize the natives, to equalise them to the Iberian white through the sacred sacrament of marriage.

The rest is history. The West’s Darkest Hour is ignored by the racialist right for the simple fact that they don’t want to see something so obvious. Savitri continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And again: ‘For so many centuries we have been talking about the protection of the poor and miserable. The time has perhaps come to preserve the strong, who are threatened by their inferiors’.[4]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: When the slogan of the American white nationalist reads ‘Umwertuung aller Werte’ in German, not in English, we will know that the movement will have reached its maturity.

______ 卐 ______

 
Finally, it is hardly necessary to recall that this ‘directed economy of population movements’[5] through which he hoped to be able, outside the Germanic world, to check the tendency to overpopulation characteristic of the Dark Ages, represented only one aspect of his activity against the trends of this Age. A parallel, more visible and more brutal action—such as the much-maligned and misunderstood Einsatzgruppen—was later to complement it.

While all the Führer’s wisdom must be presented as a return to the Eternal Principles, his methods are reminiscent of those of antiquity, in the total absence of ‘conscience’ and hence of remorse, both in him, who was responsible for them, and in the men who applied them.

The suppression of human waste among his people is reminiscent of the summary treatment in Sparta of unwelcome newborns, whom the ephors deemed unworthy of being raised. And the action of its Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia—among the plethora of enslaved populations always ready to revolt—is singularly reminiscent of that of the merciless Spartan krypteia among the Helots. Both were, above all, actions of preventive defence implemented against a swarming of defeated people that the mere awareness of their numbers incited to raise their heads, and that nothing could push them to set up a force against their conquerors.

An enthusiastic statement by the Führer shows, moreover, better than long comments, his eminently revolutionary attitude and his contempt for the modern world—which he knew, anyway, doomed and which he dreamed of destroying: ‘Well, yes, we are Barbarians, and we want to be Barbarians. It is a badge of honour. We are the ones who will rejuvenate the world. The present world is near its end. Our only task is to tear it down.[6] That is, to destroy it in order to build on its ruins a world in accordance with eternal values, with the original meaning of things. [7]
___________

[1] Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix (op. cit) page 203.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, (op. cit), pp. 159-60.

[4] Ibid. p. 160.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Mein Kampf, German edition 1935, page 440.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 57

But that is not all. One of the most depressing features of the Dark Age drawing to a close is, certainly, the disorderly proliferation of man.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: From my childhood I became a racist when we would visit the centre of the great mongrel metropolis. What my eyes saw is what I’d eventually come to call ‘the Neanderthal marabunta’.

______ 卐 ______

 
Malthus, more than a hundred and fifty years ago, had already pointed out the dangers of this, but only from an economic point of view. Our optimists today try to answer him by evoking the new possibilities of exploiting the land, and even the sea, which, according to them, would allow the human population of the planet to increase fivefold or even tenfold without worry. But the dangers remain, and are becoming more and more apparent, because the overall increase in the number of people is no longer ‘arithmetical’ but geometrical. And it seems that now, more than a quarter of a century after the defeat of National Socialist Germany, the point has been reached beyond which nothing, other than a gigantic external intervention, human or divine, can stop it, and even more so to decrease the world’s population to the level where it would cease to endanger the natural balance.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: So far my insistence on pointing out Chris Martenson’s course (summary: here) has not made a dent in the racialists’ worldview. Savitri ignored scientific data on what now is called peak oil because neo-Malthusian studies weren’t yet popular. Never mind that Martenson and others who talk about energy devolution are normies. What matters is whether their calculations are correct. As I have also said several times, among the racialists only the Austrian-Canadian Ernest Ronin has predicted that when energy devolution hits the fan, later in this century, a window of opportunity will open for our cause.

 

______ 卐 ______

 
The Führer, more than anyone else, was aware of the catastrophe that the overpopulation of certain regions of the earth already represented (and increasingly does represent), and not only because of the inevitable push, in the more or less short term, of the ‘hungry’ against the ‘haves’. What he feared most of all was the gradual disappearance of the natural elites, the racial elites, under the rising tide of biologically inferior multitudes, even if here and there some dikes could be erected to protect us. For it is to be noted that, at least in our time, it is generally the least beautiful and least gifted races, and within the same people the less pure elements, that are the most prolific.

What the defender of the Aryan elite also feared was the lowering of the physical, intellectual and moral standards—the loss of quality—of generations to come. This is, in fact, a result, statistically fatal, of the unlimited increase in the number of humans, even of the ‘good race’, as soon as natural selection is undermined by the widespread application of medicine, surgery and especially preventive hygiene: factors of reverse selection.

Thus, his programme for the purification of the German people (and, if he had won the war, of the peoples of Europe) included, in parallel with the sterilisation of incurable people who were able, despite of everything, to justify their existence by some useful work, the pure and simple physical elimination (without suffering, that is to say) of beings who were only human in the form such as monsters, idiots, mentally retarded people, lunatics, etc.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: This reminds me of something funny. A few years ago, on a typical American white nationalist forum, a commenter said with conviction that the Third Reich’s eugenics programme was just another slander, similar to the holocaust myth. That happened a few years ago. What these folk didn’t realise, and still don’t get it, is that the Reich represented a transvaluation to pre-Christian values. In other words, axiologically the anti-Semites on the continent where I live are still Jew obeyers, a term I explained a couple of days ago.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It was conceived in the sense of a definitive return to healthy Nature, which prompts the bird to throw the malformed chick out of the nest; also, in the spirit of the breeder who, from the litters of his female dogs or mares, removes and eliminates without hesitation the deformed subjects, or those too weak to survive without constant care. It was conceived in the spirit of the divine Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta. And it is known that Lycurgus’ laws were dictated to him by the Apollo of Delphi, the ‘Hyperborean’.

Unfortunately, this programme was only just beginning to be implemented. The fierce opposition of the Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant, resulted in a ‘postponement’ of the drastic measures it contained. Adolf Hitler was too much of a realist to confront head-on, in the midst of war, the prejudices that eleven hundred years of Christian anthropocentrism had embedded in the psyche of his people, and to brave the indignant sermons of a few bishops, such as von Galen of Münster. It would have been difficult to put these prelates (and this one in particular) under arrest without risking a highly inappropriate disaffection with the regime among their flock. This is how (among others) the ten thousand or so mentally retarded in the Bethel asylum near Bielefeld survived the fall of the Third Reich. I repeat: unfortunately.

It remains true that the physical elimination of human waste was, together with the sterilisation of the incurably ill but still ‘usable’ as ‘economic factors’, an essential aspect of Adolf Hitler’s fight against decadence. The pure and simple suppression of medicine and preventive hygiene was, logically, another aspect. And it would, no doubt, have been another aspect in a victorious Germany which would have dominated Europe, and would have had nothing to fear from the threat of prolific multitudes, massed in the East, under the command of leaders who had identified the old cause of Panslavism with that of Marxism-Leninism.

But, given the tragic reality of this threat—and the threat represented, in the longer term, and for quite different reasons, by the overpopulation of the whole Earth—it was first of all this foreign proliferation that putting a brake was needed.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 41

It is the bloodshed that accompanied the seizure of power by these ideological movements that gives the illusion. We readily imagine that killing is synonymous with revolution and that the more a change is historically linked to massacres, the more profound it is in itself. We also imagine that it is all the more radical the more visibly it affects the political order. But this is not the case. One of the most real and lasting changes in known history, the transition of multitudes of Hindus of all castes from Brahmanism to Buddhism between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, took place not only without bloodshed, without revolution in the popular sense of the word, but without the least political upheaval. Nevertheless, Buddhism, even though it was later practically eliminated from India, has left its mark on the country forever.[1]

Marxism-Leninism is, despite the persecutions, the battles, the mass executions, the tortures, the slow deaths in the concentration camps and the political overthrows which have everywhere accompanied its victory, far too much ‘in line’ with the evolution of the West—and of the world, increasingly dominated by Western technology, to deserve the name of ‘revolutionary doctrine’.

Fundamentally, it represents the logical continuation, the inevitable continuation, of the system of ideas and values which underlies and sustains the world which arose both from the French Revolution and the increasing industrialisation of the 19th century; the seeds of this system were already found in the quasi-religious respect of the Jacobins for ‘science’ and its application to the ‘happiness’ of the greatest number of men, all ‘equal in rights’ and before that, the notion of ‘universal conscience’ linked to ‘reason’: the same for all, as it appears in Kant, Rousseau and Descartes.

It represents the logical continuation of that attitude which holds as legitimate any revolt against a traditional authority in the name of ‘reason’, ‘conscience’ and above all of the so-called ‘facts’ brought to light by ‘scientific’ research. It completes the series of all these stages of human thought, each of which constitutes a negation of the hierarchical diversity of beings, including men: an abandonment of the primitive humility of the sage, before the eternal wisdom; a break with the spirit of all traditions of more than human origin. It represents, at the stage we have reached, the natural culmination of a whole evolution which merges with the very unfolding of our cycle: unfolding which accelerates, as it approaches its end, according to the immutable law of all cycles.

It has certainly not ‘revolutionised’ anything. It has only fulfilled the possibilities of expressing the permanent tendency of the cycle, as the increasingly rapid expansion of technology coincides with the pervasive increase in the population of the globe. In short, it is ‘in line’ with the cycle, especially the latter part of it.

Christianity was, of course, at least as dramatic a change for the Ancient World as victorious Communism is for today’s world. But it had an esoteric side that linked it, despite everything, to Tradition from which it derived its justification as a religion. It was its exoteric aspect that made it, in the hands of the powerful who encouraged or imposed it, first of all in the hands of Constantine, the instrument of domination assured by a more or less rapid lowering of the racial elites; by a political unification from below.[2]

It is this same exoteric aspect, in particular the enormous importance it gave to all ‘human souls’, that compels Adolf Hitler to see in Christianity the ‘prefiguration of Bolshevism’: the ‘mobilisation, by the Jew, of the mass of slaves to undermine society’, the egalitarian and anthropocentric doctrine, anti-racist to the highest degree, capable of winning over the countless uprooted of Rome and the Romanised Near East. It is this doctrine that Hitler attacks in all his criticisms of the Christian religion, in particular in the comparison he constantly makes between the Jew Saul of Tarsus, the St. Paul of the Churches, and the Jew Mardoccai, alias Karl Marx.

But it could be said that Christian anthropocentrism, separated of course from its theological basis, already existed in the thought of the Hellenistic and then the Roman world; that it even represented, more and more, the common denominator of the ‘intellectuals’ as well as the plebs of these worlds. I even wonder if we do not see it taking shape from further back, because in the 6th century BC Thales of Miletus thanked, it is said, the Gods for having created him ‘to be human, and not animal; male, not female; Hellene, not Barbarian’ meaning a foreigner.

It is more than likely that, already in Alexandrian times, a sage would have rejected the last two, especially the last one!, of these three reasons to give thanks to Heaven. But he would have retained the first. And it is doubtful that he would have justified it with as much simple common sense as Thales.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Here I agree with Thales. But keep in mind that if Thales had not been an Aryan, I’d agree with Savitri. The point is that only the most beautiful specimens of the Aryan race are the image and likeness of divinity. The rest are, using the language of the priest of the 14 words, exterminable Neanderthals.

 

______ 卐 ______

 
Now any exaltation of ‘man’ considered in himself, and not as a level to be surpassed, automatically leads to the over-estimation of both the masses and individuals with interesting hands; to a morbid concern for their ‘happiness’ at any cost; therefore, to an utilitarian attitude above all in the face of knowledge as well as of creative action.

In other words, if, on the one hand, in the Hellenistic world—then in the Roman world—esoteric doctrines more or less related to Tradition—that is, doctrines ‘above Time’—have flourished within certain schools of ancient wisdom—among the Neo-Platonists, the Neo-Pythagoreans and certain Christians—it is, on the other hand, quite certain that all that conquering Christianity (exoteric, and to what degree!) was, as was the widespread interest in the applications of experimental science, in the direction of the Cycle.

The fact that the Churches have, later on in the centuries opposed the statement of several scientific truths, ‘contrary to dogma’ or supposedly so, doesn’t change anything. This is, in fact, a pure rivalry between powers aiming at the ‘happiness of man’—in the other world or this one—and embarrassing each other as two suppliers of similar commodities.

If the Churches today are giving more and more ground, if they are all (including the Roman Church) more tolerant of those of their members who like Teilhard de Chardin give ‘science’ the largest share, it is because they know that people are more and more interested in the visible world and the benefits that flow from its knowledge, and less and less to what cannot be seen or ‘proved’—and they do what they can to keep their flock. They ‘go with the flow’ while pointing out as often as possible that the anthropocentric ‘values’ of the atheists are, in fact, their own; that they even owe them, without realising it.

No doctrine, no faith linked to these values is ‘revolutionary’ whatever the arguments on which it is based, whether drawn from a ‘revealed’ morality or from an economic ‘science’.

The real revolutionaries are those who militate not against the institutions of one day, in the name of the ‘sense of history’, but against the sense of history in the name of timeless Truth; against this race to decadence characteristic of every cycle approaching its end, in the name of their nostalgia for the beauty of all great beginnings, of all the beginnings of cycles.

These are precisely those who take the opposite view of the so-called ‘values’ in which the inevitable decadence inherent in every manifestation in Time has gradually asserted itself and continues to assert itself. They are, in our time, the followers of the one I have called ‘the Man against Time’, Adolf Hitler. They are, in the past, all those who, like him, have fought against the tide, the growing thrust of the Forces of the Abyss, and prepared his work from far and near—his work and that of the divine Destroyer, immensely harder, more implacable, further from man than he, whom the faithful of all forms of Tradition await under various names ‘at the end of the centuries’.
__________

[1] The same could be said of Jainism, which still has one or two million followers there.

[2] Racial purity no longer played any role under Constantine. And even in the Germanic but Christian empire of Charlemagne much later, a Christian Gallo-Roman had more consideration than a Saxon or other pagan German.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 40

 

Chapter VII

Technical development
and ‘fight against time’

‘What a sun, warming the already old world
shall ripen the glorious labours again
who shone in the hands of virile nations?’

Leconte de Lisle (L’Anathème’, Poèmes Barbares)

It should be noted that the Churches, which theoretically should be the custodians of all that Christianity may contain in terms of eternal truth, [1] have only opposed scholars when the latter’s discoveries tended to cast doubt on, or openly contradicted, the letter of the Bible. (Everyone knows Galileo’s disputes with the Holy Office about the movement of the Earth.)

But there was never, to my knowledge, any question of their protesting against what seems to me to be the stumbling block to any unselfish research of the laws of matter or life; namely, against the invention of techniques designed to thwart natural purpose—what I shall call techniques of decadence. Nor did they denounce and condemn categorically, because of their inherently odious character, certain methods of scientific investigation such as all forms of vivisection.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: They don’t mind tormenting animals because they are Neanderthals; that is to say, they belong to an inferior psychoclass to ours: just as the pre-Columbian Amerinds belonged to an inferior psychoclass to that of the Spaniards. Is this passage from my Day of Wrath remembered (in the chapter ‘Sahagún’s exclamation’)?:

I don’t believe that there is a heart so hard that when listening to such inhuman cruelty, and more than bestial and devilish such as the one described above, doesn’t get touched and moved by the tears and horror and is appalled; and certainly it is lamentable and horrible to see that our human nature has come to such baseness and opprobrium that [Aztec] parents kill and eat their children, without thinking they were doing anything wrong.

Like Sahagún, the priestess and the priest of the four words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’) throw our hands up in horror when the man of today torments defenceless creatures, to the point of precognizing the appearance of a Kalki who avenges them (and us). Savitri continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
They could not, given the anthropocentrism inherent in their very doctrine. I recalled above that the vision that the esoteric teaching of Christianity opened to its Western initiates in the Middle Ages did not go beyond ‘Being’. But no exoteric form of Christianity has ever gone beyond ‘man’. Each of them affirms and emphasises the ‘apartness’ of that being, privileged whatever his individual worth (or lack of it) whatever his race or state of health. Each one proclaims concern for his own best interest, and the help it offers him in the search for his ‘happiness’ in the hereafter, certainly, but already in this lower world. Each of them is concerned only for him, ‘man’, always man, contrary even to the ‘exoterisms’ of Indo-European origin (Hinduism; Buddhism) which insist on the duties of their followers ‘towards all beings’.

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Remember my post from exactly a month ago: This very Catholic painter asked me at a family dinner: “¿Por qué los animales todavía existen?” (‘Why do animals still exist?’).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It is, I think, precisely to this intrinsic anthropocentrism that Christianity owes the short duration of its positive role in the West insofar as, despite all the horror attached to the history of its expansion, a certain positive role can be attributed to it. Once weakened and death, the influence of its true spiritual elite—that which, until perhaps the 14th or 15th century, was still attached to Tradition—nothing was easier for the European than to move from Christian anthropocentrism to that of the rationalists, theists or atheists; to replace the concern for the individual salvation of human ‘souls’, all considered infinitely precious, by that of the ‘happiness of all men’ at the expense of other beings and the beauty of the earth, due to the proliferation of the techniques of hygiene, comfort and enjoyment within the reach of the masses.

Nothing was easier for him than to continue to profess his anthropocentrism by merely giving it a different justification, namely, by moving from the notion of ‘man’, a privileged creature because he was ‘created in the image of God’—and, what is more, of an eminently personal ‘god’—to that of ‘man’: the measure of all things and the centre of the world because he’s ‘rational’, that is to say, capable of conceiving general ideas and using them in reasoning; capable of discursive intelligence hence of ‘science’ in the current sense of the word.

The concept of ‘man’ indeed underwent some deterioration in the process. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry has shown, the human individual, deprived of the character of ‘creature in the image of God’ that Christianity conferred on him, finally becomes a number within a pure quantity and a number that has less and less importance in itself. Understandably, everyone is sacrificed ‘to the majority’. But we no longer understand why ‘the majority’, or even a collectivity of ‘a few’, would sacrifice themselves or even bother for another one.

Saint-Exupéry sees the survival of a Christian mentality in the fact that in Europe, even today, hundreds of miners will risk their lives to try to pull one of them out of the hole where he lies trapped under the debris of an explosion. He predicts that we are gradually moving towards a world where this attitude, which still seems so natural to all of us, will no longer be conceivable.

Perhaps it is no longer conceivable in communist China. And it should be noted that, even in the West where it is still conceivable, the majorities are less and less inclined to impose simple inconveniences on themselves to spare one or two individuals, not of course of death but discomfort and even real physical suffering. The man who is most irritated by certain music, and who isn’t sufficiently spiritually developed to isolate himself from it by his asceticism, is forced to endure, in the buses, and sometimes even in the trains or planes, the common radio or the transistor of another traveller if the majority of passengers tolerate it or even more so enjoy it. They are not asked for their opinion.

One can, if one wishes, with Saint-Exupéry, prefer Christian anthropocentrism to that of the atheistic rationalists, fervent of experimental sciences, technical progress and the civilisation of well-being.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is true, and the best way to show it is to compare the most famous television series introducing the West: Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation (1969), Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man (1973) and Carl Sagan’s Cosmos (1980). Obviously, the series by Christian Clark has its problems, but at least he transmits the spirit of the Aryan through art. Bronowski and Sagan on the other hand present civilisation from the point of view of science and technology: something that betrays the essence of the Aryan and his notion of the numinous.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It is a matter of taste. But I find it impossible not to be struck by the internal logic that leads, without a solution of continuity, from the first to the second and from the latter to Marxist anthropocentrism for which man—himself a pure ‘product of his economic environment’—taken en masse is everything; taken individually, worth only what his function in the increasingly complicated machinery of production, distribution and use of material goods for the benefit of the greatest number. It seems to me impossible not to be struck by the character quite other than revolutionary and of Jacobinism at the end of the 18th century; and Marxism (and Leninism), both in the 19th and in the 20th.

____________

[1] Offered to the faithful through the symbolism of sacred stories and liturgy.

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?