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  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 2

Chapter II—False nations and true racism

‘We have to distinguish between the state as a vessel and the race as the content. This vessel only makes sense if it is able to preserve and protect its contents; otherwise it is worthless’.

—Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 434)

Do not forget that it is considerations of race which distinguish a real people from a collectivity of men which does not deserve the name.

Such communities can be very different from each other. There are states where the population is a deeply mixed mass, where specimens of ‘pure’ appearance, if there are any, have children who do not resemble them; where children of the same family, who nevertheless seems ethnically homogeneous, are different races: one Negroid, the other Mediterranean, or almost, the third, marked with strong Amerindian characteristics. These are states, not peoples. There is, for example, a Brazilian state. There is a population (multiracial, and without segregation laws) who inhabit Brazil. There are no Brazilian people—nor, therefore, a Brazilian ‘nation’.

There are, on the other hand, states whose populations are made up of several peoples juxtaposed, but not fused together. This is the case of the United States of America [Editor’s note: Remember that this was written in the late 1960s], the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, the Soviet Union, and India. It is by an abuse of language that one gives to the general population of any one of these States, the name of ‘people’ or of ‘nation’. There is, in fact, no natural link, no biological link, between an ‘American citizen’ of Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Mediterranean origin, and another ‘American citizen’ Negro or mestizo, or Jew…

Moreover, in the USA, as in the so-called ‘racist’ states of Rhodesia and South Africa, and more, Aryans and Negroes belong to the same Christian churches; are Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, as the case may be, but always without distinction of race. Since the realm of the true Christian is not of this world, biological considerations cannot be included…

If, favoured by the diffusion of a uniform way of life as well as of a common ‘knowledge’, and especially of self-distant common anti-racist ‘values’, the gangrene of interbreeding is gradually gaining the entire population, it is, for this, the irremediable decadence: the end of all culture, the end of all disinterested creation, that is to say of any activity other than that which consists in ‘producing’ always more, in order to acquire more and more material well-being. If, on the contrary, it is the healthy tendency of each race to remain separate from the others that prevails, the population will retain its heterogeneity. It will not become ‘a people’—much less a ‘nation’. It will remain what it is, namely a juxtaposition of two or more races living in harmony with each other to the extent that their primary diversity is recognised and accepted. [Editor’s note: Again, writing in the 60s, Savitri ignored that that is impossible in the long run.]

The Union of South Africa, so decried by anti-Hitlerites around the world for its so-called ‘racism’, is not such a multiracial state, or only very incompletely, despite its official program of ‘separate development of races’. It is only very incompletely so because, just like Rhodesia which, for its part, denies exalting racism, and like the USA which, despite the continued resistance of its segregationists, is fighting it, it confuses, as I said earlier, ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’. [Editor’s Note: Living in Mexico I can say that the few Jews I have come to know are phenotypically white, sometimes completely indistinguishable from real Aryans except for their last names (see e.g., here). This means that from now on I will use the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’ as Savitri used them; being the ‘Aryans’ those whites who don’t have Jewish blood, though many Ashkenazi Jews are white: something that Richard Spencer has acknowledged in one of his recent podcasts.]

Far, for example, from removing the Jews from key positions in the country and, in general, from any profession in the exercise of which they are likely to acquire political or cultural influence, it gives them, because of their colour alone, all the advantages enjoyed by the ‘Whites’, advantages that she refuses to the Aryans of Asia, however illogical that is, and that, even if, like most Brahmans and many ‘Khatris’ of Punjab, they are fair complexion. Crossbreeding between Aryans and Jews is not prohibited in the so-called racist Union of South Africa—any more than it is elsewhere. It has never been so in any country of Christian population, if the Jew—or the Jewess—had, by baptism, been received into the religious community of her partner. He was so only in the Third German Reich, a State whose true religion was that of Blood and Soil—and, it is again, since 1955, in the State of Israel, whose people believe themselves, to the exclusion of everything else, ‘chosen of God’.

It is true that wherever there are two or more human races, whose nations all or almost all adhere to a centred religion, like Christianity, in the long run a tendency of interbreeding emerges. All true racism implies the negation of the dogma of the immense value of ‘man’ whoever he may be; the negation of the ‘apart’ character of man, and his integration into all other living species; the negation of the legal equality of ‘souls’ as well as of men’s bodies.

______ 卐 ______

 
I will now tell you about India, so that you can once again be proud to be Aryan.

To understand the history of the peoples who inhabit this vast portion of the continent—which includes, in fact, in addition to the current ‘Indian Republic’, the two ‘Pakistans’[i] and the island of Ceylon; a surface, in all, equal to that of Europe minus Russia—you must refer to the distant time when the first Aryan tribes, coming from the North, descended in successive waves on the Pays-des-Sept-Rivières (the Sapta Sindhu of the Sanskrit Scriptures) by the famous Pass of Khaïber, the Voie des Couquérants.

It was, according to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, commonly called Lokamanya[ii] Tilak; this Brahmin of Maharashtra, both scholar and mathematician, who demonstrated it by astronomical considerations—before the fourth millennium before the Christian era, therefore at the time of the very first Egyptian dynasties, several centuries before the construction of the pyramids of Giza; at the time when, in Mesopotamia, the Sumerian civilisation flourished in its oldest centres: in Erech, in Nippur, in Eridu, some fifteen hundred years before Sargon of Akkad. And the Aryas—which, in Sanskrit, means ‘those who command’, in other words, the men of the race of the lords—came, still according to Tilak, from the far North. They were the brothers of those who, closer to the common cradle of the race, were one day to be called the Germans, the Hellenes, the Latins, and whose languages presented deep similarities with theirs. Their ancestors had lived beyond the Arctic Circle, at a time when the lands of this region still enjoyed a temperate climate—that is to say before the axis of our planet tilted further; twenty-three degrees. They had awaited in worship the return of the Sun—the victory of the Day after the long nights streaked with aurora borealis—and they had sung the splendour of the sky and venerated the stars (the ‘brilliant’ or ‘Devas’) which did not go to bed.

During the centuries that they had taken to cover, in stages, the immense distance which separated them from the divine arctic homeland, the Aryas had preserved some of these hymns. Their bards had composed others, and soon, during the gradual conquest of the hot lands, where to improvise new ones. For a very long time transmitted from mouth to mouth, 1009 of these poems—finally written—have come down to us. The whole constitutes the Rig Veda: the oldest sacred text in India, which pious Brahmans still chant today.

The Aryas were a few thousand—perhaps, over time, a few tens of thousands—in front of all these hostile peoples and tribes, which they called Dasyus, or dwellers of the woods, or the Rakshasas or demons. It is possible that they found, already in force in the society of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, a hereditary system of a division of labour. But it was they who gave such a system, if it existed, racial significance, and classified the population of India into immutable castes. They could not do otherwise if they wanted to preserve their physical and moral characteristics for their Aryan race, in other words, if they wanted to survive.

They probably began by mixing freely, if not with the Aborigines at least with the Dravidians, technically more advanced than them until they grasped, in all its tragic horror, the danger of interbreeding. It was then that the caste system was formed: the division of the population of the Indies into a minority of dwijas or twice-born Arya (because they had to know this ‘second birth’ which the spiritual initiation represents), and an immense majority of Shudras, people with dark skin, intended for servile work. At the bottom of the scale—out of all caste—were rejected the Negroids, Negro-Mongoloids and people of the Munda type: the oldest inhabitants of Indian soil. The ‘twice-born’ shared power. Spiritual authority was henceforth the privilege of the Brahmans; temporal power, that of the Kshatriyas; and this power which already gave, in a society much less attached than ours to material goods, wealth, born of commerce, the prerogative of the Vaishyas.

Disinterested scientific knowledge and above all spiritual knowledge was reserved for the Aryas, and very soon only for the Brahmans and Kshatriyas. It was unthinkable that a young Soudra, even exceptionally gifted—and all the more reason a Chandala, below any caste—were taught the supreme truths, or that he was taught to recite, even that recited before him the most beautiful invocations to the Devas or the most powerful ritual formulas. Frightful penalties awaited those who would have dared to transgress this defence, and those in favour of whom, it would have been transgressed.

Since then, many things have happened, many transformations have upset Indian society, like all societies. In spite of everything, forbidden unions took place; children were born whose parents did not belong to the same caste…

One could photograph and classify specimens of all both racial and professional groups in India. We would thus obtain a huge collection of types gradually going from Negroid or even Australoid to pure Aryan—an Aryan often purer than the majority of his brethren in Europe (at least in Southern Europe). There is maybe, very light, with brown or gray eyes (exceptionally blue or blue-green), hair ranging from black to reddish brown, with perfectly Indo-European features. It is little, one will say. This is a lot if we remember that at least sixty centuries separate the present day from the time when the first Aryan tribes emerged from the Khyber Pass.

In any case, the facts that I have just recalled here clearly show that the Indies are no more ‘a people’ than are the United States of America, the Soviet Union or the South African Union.

But there is a difference: while in each of these countries a common dogmatic faith, the dissemination of which is encouraged—and a clearly anti-racist faith, or one concerning the other world and indifferent to racial issues, let it be it is Marxism or any form of Christianity whatsoever—tends, in spite of everything, to bring the races together; constitutes, in any case, a permanent brake on the instinct of segregation, in India, it is the opposite which occurs. There the religious tradition itself proclaims the congenital inequality of ‘souls’ as well as of bodies, and the natural hierarchy of races, dominated by the Aryan race—in exactly the same spirit as Hitlerism—and thus encourages segregation.

Over the centuries, we have tried, either in the name of a philosophy denying Life, or in the name of ‘practical necessities’, to kill this racist tradition. We did not succeed. Buddhism referred its followers to monastic life, but had in practice as a result of mixing the castes without causing the extinction of the human species. He ended up being swept from India. Guru Govinda Singh, the founder of the Sikh warrior sect, had wanted to take his followers from all castes, claiming to take into account only the individual worth of each man. But this concern for combative efficiency, this requirement for essentially Aryan qualities such as the spirit of sacrifice, the sense of responsibility, the joyful acceptance of discipline, even a very hard one, etc., have resulted in it being mostly Hindus from Aryan castes who came to him. One only has to look at the Sikhs to see it. No Government of the present ‘Indian Republic’ will succeed where Guru Govinda Singh and, centuries before him, the Buddha himself, failed…

In other words, India will never be ‘a nation’. Nor will they—hopefully at least—be ethnic chaos without a racial elite: the caste system, even with its current weaknesses, will save them from such a fate. They will remain an association of peoples and races, united by the only common civilisation which is in accord with their natural hierarchy. Because Hinduism is more than a religion in the sense in which we hear this word today in the West. It is a civilisation; a civilisation dominated by Aryan racism, made acceptable to many non-Aryan races, thanks to the dogma of karma and the transmigration of souls.

If one day Hitlerism succeeded in conquering Europe, it seems to me almost certain that over the following centuries the mentality of the average European would come closer and closer to that of the Orthodox Hindu of any caste. I will tell you, as an illustration of this, an episode from my life in India.

It was during the glorious year—1940—shortly after the start of the French campaign. I was living in Calcutta—unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I had not managed to return to Europe in time. And I had a young servant named Khudiram, a fifteen year old teenager, Shudra, from the Mahishya sub-caste (West Bengal farming community), very dark skinned, with slightly slanted eyes, with a flat face—not Aryan at all!—and perfectly illiterate. One morning, coming back from the fish market (where he went every day to buy something to feed the cats) this boy said to me triumphantly: ‘Mem Saheb, I worship your Führer, and wish with all my heart that he wins the war!’

I was speechless. ‘Khudiram’, I said, ‘do you worship him only because you know, like everyone else, that he is victorious? You don’t know anything about the story of his life and his actions’.

‘It may be’, the teenager replied, ‘that I’m just ignorant. But this morning I got to know a grown-up at the market who is at least twenty years old and can read. And he told me that your Führer is fighting, in Europe, in order to root out the Bible, which he wants to replace with the Bhagavad-Gita’.

I was speechless again. I thought, in the blink of an eye: ‘The Führer would be very surprised if he knew how to interpret his doctrine in the Halls of Calcutta!’ Then I recalled a passage from Song I of the Bhagavad-Gîta, as I knew it in the beautiful translation of Eugène Burnouf: ‘From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes—therefore of races. From the confusion of castes comes the loss of memory; from the loss of memory comes the loss of understanding, and of it all evils’.[iii] And I thought, What else has Adolf Hitler done, but repeat these eternal words, and act according to their mind?

I said to Khudiram: ‘The ‘great’ you speak of was right. Repeat what he taught you to anyone who wants to hear you. I give you a day off for this purpose—and a rupee to pay for a cup of tea for your friends. Go, and use your freedom for a good Cause!’

The kid, very happy, was about to leave the kitchen where this interview had taken place. I couldn’t help but hold him back for a moment and ask him what made him so enthusiastically want this ‘New Order’ which, however, hardly favoured people of his race. ‘Do you know, Khudiram’, I said to him, ‘that to replace the Bible with the Bhagavad-Gita in distant Europe and in all the countries which come under its influence, would be equivalent to extending to practically the whole earth a caste system parallel to that of the Indies? And do you know that as Shudra you wouldn’t have any chance of promotion in my Führer’s New Order? And do you love him despite that?’

I will never forget the teenager’s response—the response of the non-Aryan masses in India, loyal to a racist Tradition that goes beyond them, from the mouth of an illiterate youth: ‘Certainly I know that. I want your Führer to win because the order he tries to establish wherever he can is in accordance with the spirit of the Shastras; because it is the divine order; the true order. No matter what place he gives me, to me! I am nothing; I do not count. It’s the truth that counts. If I was born into a very humble caste, it is because I deserved it. I have faulted, and seriously, in my past lives. If, in this life, I remain faithful to the rules of my caste: if I do not eat prohibited foods; if I marry a girl among those that are allowed to me, and do not desire any of the others, I will be reborn a little higher in the scale of beings. And if I persevere, from life to life, in the path of purity, who knows? One day—in many centuries—perhaps I will be reborn as a Brahmin? Or among these new Aryas of Europe who also worship your Führer?’

In successive waves, descended the Khaïber Pass. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them after sixty centuries. And I thought of my German comrades—my brothers in the Hitlerite faith—whose armored divisions then followed each other along the roads of France. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them too, because their faith is the modern expression of the Aryan Tradition of always.

______ 卐 ______

 
England’s real crime against India is not to have exploited the soil and the people on an unprecedented scale, but was to have inculcated into the heads of thousands of Hindus of higher castes, anti-racialist democratic principles, anti-traditionalist principles, along with an ominous humanitarianism when not an out-and-out anthropocentrism; and finally to have introduced into the administration of that vast sub-continent such measures as tended to promote the least valuable racial elements of the population.

The whole system was conceived in order to take away from the Hindus, in general, and especially from the high-caste Hindus—i.e., from the Aryan elite of India—every scrap of political power, already within the more and more ‘Indianised’ administration that the British were setting up themselves, before their departure, which they had felt was unavoidable. It was enforced by the authority without appeal of the colonial power. One could not change it. One only could, from an Aryan racialist standpoint, try to limit the mischief that would result out of its applications. And in order to do that, one had to act as though one accepted the absurd principle of the ‘right’ of any majority to power, regardless of its value, simply because it represents the greatest numbers and strive to make the Hindus a majority at the expense of other communities. (Editor’s note: With their obsession with JQ, white nationalists have been blinded to seeing the beam in their own eye – in this case, the egalitarianism imposed on this colony of the British Empire.)

One therefore had to try to give to the most backward of the most degenerate of Aborigines—to the half-savages of the hills of Assam—a (false) Hindu consciousness. One had to bring them to proclaim themselves ‘Hindus’, sincerely, by telling them how tolerant Hinduism is, but by forgetting to mention the caste system that it upholds. One had to try to bring (or rather bring back) the Indian Christian or Muslim (both, as a rule, sprung from low-caste Hindus converted to one of the two foreign creeds) to Hinduism. And for that one had to surmount the repugnance of most Hindus to accept them, for never yet had Hinduism taken back into its fold anyone who had left it or had been expelled from it (and declared Untouchable). One could fall out of one’s caste and land into Untouchable. One could not re-enter it. But one had to change that, if power was not to pass entirely into the hands of the non-Aryan majority of the population of India. For alone could a (false) nationalism—a European style nationalism, necessarily false in the case of any multiracial society—bring about the change and unite the Hindus under a no less false parliamentary system imposed up in them against their tradition, and against the Aryan Tradition, of which their elite had remained up till then the sole depositary.

I was then employed as a lecturer and as a ‘missionary of Hinduism’ by the ‘Hindu Mission’, a half-religious, half-political organisation which, for more than thirty years already, had been striving to recover from Hinduism all those who were (or whose fathers were) out of it, for whatever reason. Full of bitterness towards historical Christianity because of the role it played in the West—ardent admirer of Emperor Julian and Hypatia, no less than of Wittekind—I once introduced myself to the President of the Mission, Swami Satyananda. I had offered my services to him. He asked me what attracted me to India, and I quoted him, translating them into Bengali:

Rama, Daçarathide honoured with the Brahmans,
You whose blood is pure, You whose body is white,
Said Lakshmana, hi, sparkling tamer
Of all the profane races! [iv]

I had told him that I was Hitlerist and Pagan—still regretting the conversion, by snatch or by force, of my native Europe to the religion of Paul of Tarsus—and that I wanted to work to prevent the one and last country to have kept (in part at least) the Aryan Gods—India—from following the bad example of the West and from falling, too, under the spiritual influence of the Jews. I told him I wanted to help make India our ally, in the fight against false ‘values’.

He had accepted me and given me full freedom of expression provided that he told me, I place myself, in my speeches to crowds, ‘from the Hindu point of view’ and that I ‘take into account the particular circumstances from the country’. ‘I consider’, he added, ‘Your Master as an Incarnation of Vishnu, an expression of the divine Force which preserves what deserves to be preserved. And his disciples are in my eyes our spiritual brothers. But you will have to make concessions here, at least as long as the English are there; otherwise you will not be able to compete with the propaganda of Christian missionaries who preach “man”, regardless of race. Think about it!’

I had to ‘think about it’! No appeal to a mass, and especially to a multiracial mass, is possible without certain compromises. We could not ask the Shudras (or the Untouchables) converted to religions of equality, to come out and reintegrate Hinduism, without giving them the impression that they would lose none of their acquired ‘rights’…

The English administration, antiracist in principle (despite a racial segregation limited to worldly relations, and which did not apply to Jews, moreover) made no difference between a Brahmin, Indo-European by blood and mentality, and the last of the Nagas or Koukis of Assam, especially if the latter represented in the Assembly either the Christians or the ‘shudra castes’, that is to say the Untouchables, of his province. It was not my fault if she had this attitude, and if she tended to ‘Indianise’ as much as she could the legislative bodies and the public services, in this spirit that was other than that of decadent Europe; of that Europe which would soon reject Hitler’s renaissance with the stupid vehemence we know.

______ 卐 ______

 
If we had won the war, India—that she would have remained ‘British’, which is unlikely, despite the Führer’s desire (before the war) not to touch the British colonial empire—or that it had become independent—would have very quickly got rid of the democratic reforms introduced by the English and would have returned to its immemorial tradition: to the Tradition of the Aryas…

I have often wondered to what extent the few Englishmen who seriously wanted their country’s collaboration with the German Reich—those Englishmen who were, almost all, from the start of World War II, interned ‘preventively’ in the name of the Law 18 B, realised the magnitude of the transformation this would have brought about, and the repercussions it would have on the future of their people and the world. I knew one well—Elwyn Wright, physically and mentally, one of the most beautiful specimens of Aryan that I have met—who was aware of it, and who wanted this collaboration precisely because of that. But how many were there like him?…

One of the tragedies of our time is that, taken en masse, it is the enemies of Hitlerism, and in particular the Jews, and intelligent Christians, who have understood this best. They hated him, no doubt; but they detested him precisely for what makes him greatness and eternity: for his scale of values, centred not on ‘man’, but on life; for its possibility of becoming very quickly—once associated with rites—a real religion. They hated him because they felt, more or less confusedly—and sometimes very clearly—that his victory would mean the end of everything that, for at least two thousand years (if not two thousand and four hundred), the Western world has known and loved; the negation of the values which, for so long, helped him to live.

It should be noted that at least one of the most brilliant French collaborators—and one of those who paid with their life for their friendship for regenerated Germany—Robert Brasillach, himself was aware of the character essentially ‘Pagan’, from Hitler mysticism. He collaborated with Germany despite this; not because of it. And he has on several occasions, in particular in his novel Les Sept Couleurs, underlined the impression of disorientation, of somewhat frightening strangeness, which he felt in his neighbours across the Rhine, in spite of all the weather. Admiration he had for their rebirth, both political and social. ‘It is’, he writes, speaking of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, ‘a strange country, further from us than the most distant India or China, a pagan country’…

Among the French collaborators as well as among the English 18 B’s I have only met very few people who are sincerely Hitlerites, although they are aware of the philosophical implications of Hitlerism. I will say more: there were, even at the time of the greatest glory of the Third Reich, very few true Hitlerites among the millions of Germans who acclaimed the Führer. One of the purest that I have had the joy and the honour of knowing—the Oberregierungs-und Schulrat Heinrich Blume—told me in 1953 that the number of Germans who had given themselves entirely to the Movement knowing fully this they were doing, never exceeded three hundred thousand. We are far from the ninety-eight and a half percent of the voters of the Reich, who had brought the Führer to power! The vast majority of these had voted for the reconstruction of the German economy and the regeneration of the social body, not for the return to the fundamental truths of life and for the ‘fight against time’ that Hitlerism involved, and of which they did not even realise. (Editor’s note: This explains why the Allied denazification process was so easy.)

Even more: there are Germans who—like Hermann Rauschning, the author of the book Hitler Told Me—withdrew from the Movement as soon as they realised the pagan character of Hitler’s Weltanschauung. And it should be noted that they did not realise this until they had gained the Führer’s confidence enough for him to admit them into his small circle of insiders or partially insiders. For there was a difference between the teaching given to the people in general and that which the disciples received; a difference, not in content, but in clarity. For example, Point 24 of the famous ‘Twenty-five Points’ specifies that the Party, while proclaiming the widest religious tolerance, sticks to a ‘positive Christianity’—in other words, to there is something ‘positive’, that is to say true, in conformity with tradition, in historical Christianity—but that it condemns and combats any religion or philosophy ‘which shocks the moral sense of the Germanic race, or which is dangerous to the State’.[v] He (no doubt deliberately) omits to recall that any religion which turns its back on the realities of this world, and in particular on the biological realities, to the point of allowing the marriage of people of different races, provided they are members of the same ‘church’, as well as any religion or philosophy who exalts ‘the man’, even deficient, even to the last degree of physical or moral (or physical and moral) degradation, can only be a public danger, in the National Socialist State.

The Führer defends himself in Mein Kampf from aiming in the least at religious reform. ‘It is criminal’, he writes, ‘to try to destroy the faith accepted by the people, ‘as long as there is nothing that can replace it’.[vi] He further writes that the mission of the National Socialist Movement ‘does not consist of religious reform, but of a political reorganisation of the German people’.[vii] But what he does not write—what he could not write in a book intended for the great mass of a people Christianised since the ninth century and believing himself, at least for the most part, to be Christian—is that any regime based, as was the National Socialist regime, on the negation of the intrinsic value of everything man, regardless of his race and his individual worth, is necessarily the antithesis of a Christian social order. Because every Christian society has for principle the respect of ‘the human being’ created, whatever it is, ‘to the image and likeness’ of a transcendent and personal God, essentially a friend of man. What Adolf Hitler could not tell the masses is that any political regime based on a doctrine centred on Life and its eternal laws necessarily has a more-than-political meaning. His own success depended on the voice of the masses, because we must not forget that he took power ‘legally’, that is to say ‘democratically’.

This more-than-political significance of Hitlerism, only in Germany fully grasped the Führer himself and the National Socialist elite: the initiates of the Thüle-Gesellschaft; the teachers and the best pupils of the Ordensburgen, where the members of the SS were formed. The mass of the people did not feel it, and would have been astonished, if someone had shown it to them, with all its implications; if, for example, someone had made him understand that Christianity and Hitlerism are two different and incompatible paths, open to the Eternal, and that the same person cannot follow both, but must choose. (Editor’s note: Therefore, white nationalists have chosen evil.)

Outside of Germany—and outside of India, of Aryan tradition—a thinking elite loved or feared or hated Hitlerism because of its true nature. The Jewish elite cursed him for reasons far more profound than the secular secret hostility which opposed Israel to the Germanic world. The enormous mass of men from all countries—indifferent to ‘politics’—feared him without knowing exactly why, in reality because they vaguely felt in him the negation of all anthropocentrism; the ‘Starry Space Wisdom’ (as I have called it myself) as opposed to ‘the love of man’ and the concern for his happiness, in this world or in another.

_______________

[i] This was written before East Bengal ceased to be called ‘Pakistan’, to become ‘Bangladesh’, which simply means ‘Bengal’.

[ii] ‘Honoured with men’.

[iii] Bhagawad-Gîta, I, verses 41 and following.

[iv] Leconte de Lisle (The Arc of Çiva; Ancient Poems).

[v] ‘Wir fordern die Freiheit Aller religiösen Bekenntnissen im Staat, solang sie nicht dessen Bestand gefährden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits—und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstoßen’.

[vi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf German edition 1935, pages 293-294.

[ [vii] Adolf Hitler, Ibid, page 379.

The Antichrist § 20

Left, a detail from Christ Falling on the Way to Calvary in the Museo del Prado in Madrid: a painting by the Italian High Renaissance painter Raphael, ca. 1515. Although it is an important work for the development of Raphael’s style, in no way the face of Jesus depicts accurately how the faces of 1st-century Jews looked like.

For centuries, Europeans have been projecting their whiteness and even their Nordic features onto ancient Semitic characters. Recently, however, with old skulls forensic anthropologists have reconstructed the faces of first-century Jews. They demonstrate that those Jews had a broad, ugly face that differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in Renaissance art.

In this instalment of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist I won’t quote any sentence from the book’s §20, where Nietzsche compares Buddhism with Christianity. It is not germane to our subject and, unlike Nietzsche, I do not respect Buddhism.

Published in: on July 1, 2019 at 11:43 am  Comments (3)  

Impeachment of Man, 1

by Savitri Devi


 
Excerpted from Chapter I: Man-centered creeds

Of all moral ideas, that of our positive duties towards creatures of other species (animals, and even plants) is perhaps the slowest to impress itself upon the human mind. It seems as though it were alien to the spirit no less than to the letter of all successful international religions, save Buddhism. And one who is fully conscious of its importance—one who recognizes in it the expression of a fundamental moral truth—may as well wonder in amazement how creeds that omit to mention it altogether (let alone to stress it) have yet been able to secure themselves such numerous followings, and, what is more, how their narrow conception of love is still claiming to be “the highest,” and how that claim rouses no protest on behalf of the better men. This is, no doubt, enough to lead him to gloomy conclusions concerning the inherent coarseness, selfishness and ugliness of human nature in general.

Theoretically, the man-centered creeds and philosophies sway the whole world minus the greater part of India, Burma, Ceylon, and the countries of the Far East to the extent that these have actually come under the influence of Buddhism. That does not mean that there are no individuals in England and America, in Germany and Russia, who look upon all life as sacred, and to whom the infliction of pain upon animals is even more odious that that upon human beings. That does not mean, either, that all people who, in India and elsewhere, are catalogued in the census reports Hindus, Buddhists or Jains are, in fact, paragons of active kindness towards all living creatures. Far from it!

But we notice that, from those very civilizations in which cannibalism was generally admitted, sprang, now and then, a few individuals—an infinitesimal, powerless minority—whom the custom disgusted. And from amidst a world in which slavery was considered as a necessary evil by respectable people, sprang a few individuals who condemned it, either openly or secretly, in the name of human dignity.

And we see that it is the opinion of those better individuals that finally triumphed. One of the best among the ancient Mexicans, King Nezahualcóyotl, tried in vain, in the fifteenth century A.D. to put a stop to human sacrifices within his realm. But today, the murder of a man, be it even as an offering to a deity, is considered a criminal offence and would be punished by law nearly all over the world. The minority, in Mexico, became a majority—and would have become so, apparently, anyhow, even if no Christian adventurers had ever landed there. Minorities often do, with time, become majorities.

To those to whom the age-old exploitation of animals seems normal just because it is practically universal and as old as man, we shall say that there are today people who strongly disapprove of it—never mind if they be but a handful scattered among millions of human beings still at a more barbaric stage of evolution.

There are men and women—and the author of this book is one of them—who, at the sight of one of their contemporaries eating a beefsteak in a restaurant or a chicken sandwich in a railway carriage, feel no less a disgust than some rare Mexicans of old possibly did when they saw the cooked limbs of a prisoner of war served up on gold and silver plates at State banquets. There are men and women today, few indeed as they may be, who are as much saddened when they see a tired horse drawing a cart as certain other “queer” people might have been once, when they met a slave cutting wood or grinding corn for his owner under the supervision of a merciless taskmaster.

Those few are now “dreamers,” “eccentric folk,” “cranks”—like all pioneers. But who can tell whether their opinion will never become that of average man, and their principles the law of the world? If not… then we believe that the human race is not worth bothering one’s head about at all.

All the splendour of the material world; all the grace, strength and loveliness of millions of beasts, birds, fishes, trees and creepers; the majesty of the snow-clad mountains, the beauty of the unfurling waves—all that and much more—is not worth, in God’s eyes, the immortal soul of a human imbecile—so they say, at least.

That is why the hunting of tigers and deer, the butchering of innocent woolly lambs, so glad to live, the dissecting of pretty white guinea pigs or of intelligent dogs, are not “sins” according to the man-centered faiths—not even if they imply the most appalling suffering. But the painless chloroforming of worthless human idiots is a “crime.” How could it be otherwise? They have two legs, no tail, and an immortal soul. However degenerate they be, they are men.

I cannot help here recalling the answer of a French medical student, a member of the “Christian Federation of Students,” whom I has asked, twenty- five years ago, how he could reconcile his religious aspirations with his support of vivisection. “What conflict can there be between the two?” said he; “Christ did not die for guinea pigs and dogs.” I do not know what Christ would actually have said to that. The fact remains that, from the point of view of historical Christianity, the boy was right. And his answer is enough to disgust one forever with all man-centered creeds.

The God of the Christians, the God of Islam, and the God of most of those later Free Thinkers who are not out and out atheists, never succeeded in shaking off completely the habits he once had when he was but the patron deity of a few tribes of desert wanderers, slaves in the land of the Pharaohs. He was able to raise himself from the rank of a national god to that of a God of all humanity.

But that is all. His love seems to have been spent out in its extension from the “chosen People” of Israel to the Chosen Species of mankind. He had not in him the urge to broaden his fatherly feelings still beyond those narrow limits. It never occurred to him how narrow they were in fact and how irrational, how mean, how all-too-human that childish preference for man was, in a God that is supposed to have made the Milky Way.

The great creeds of the world west of India remained man-centered, it would seem, because they never could free themselves entirely from the marks of their particular tribal origin among the sons of Abraham. The Jews never were a race that one could accuse of giving animals too great a place in its everyday life and thoughts.

Christ, who came “to fulfil” the Jewish law and prophecies (not to introduce into the world a different, more rational, and truly kindlier trend of thought) appears never to have bothered his head about the dumb creatures.

We speak, of course, of Christ as the Christian Gospels present him to us. That Christ—we have no means whatsoever of finding out whether a “truer” one ever lived—never performed a miracle, never even intervened in a natural manner, in favour of any beast, as his contemporary, Apollonius of Tyana, not to speak of any more ancient and illustrious Master such as the blessed Buddha, is supposed to have done. He never spoke of God’s love for animals save to assert that He loved human beings a fortiori, much more. He never mentioned nor implied man’s duties towards them, though he did not omit to mention, and to stress, other duties.

If the Gospels are to be taken as they are written, then his dealings with nonhuman sentient creatures consisted, on one occasion, of sending some evil spirits into a herd of swine, that they might no longer torment a man, and, another time, of making his disciples, who were mostly fishermen by profession, as every one knows, catch an incredible quantity of fish in their nets.

In both cases his intention was obviously to benefit human beings at the expense of the creatures, swine or fish. As for plants, it is true that he admired the lilies of the fields; but it is no less true that he cursed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season and caused it to wither, so that his disciples might understand the power of faith and prayer.

Fervent English or German Christians, who love animals and trees, may retort that nobody knows exactly all that Jesus actually said, and that the gospels contain the story of only a few of his numberless miracles. That may be. But as there are no records of his life save the Gospels, we have to be content with what is revealed therein. Moreover, Christianity as an historical growth is centered around the person of Christ as the Gospels describe him.

To say, as some do, that every word of the Christian Gospels has an esoteric meaning, and that “swine” and “fishes” and the “barren fig tree” are intended there to designate anything but real live creatures, would hardly make things better. It would still be true that kindness to animals is not spoken of in the teaching of Jesus as it has come down to us, while other virtues, in particular kindness to people, are highly recommended. And the development of historical Christianity would remain, in all its details, what we know it to be.

There has been, it is true, in the West, in recent years—nay, there is, for nothing which is in harmony with the Laws of Life can ever be completely suppressed—a non-Christian (one should even say an anti-Christian) and definitely more than political school of thought which courageously denounced this age-old yet erroneous tradition, and set up a different scale of values and different standards of behaviour. It accepted the principle of the rights of animals, and set a beautiful dog above a degenerate man.

It replaced the false ideal of “human brotherhood,” by the true one of a naturally hierarchised mankind harmoniously integrated into the naturally hierarchised Realm of life, and, as a logical corollary of this, it boldly preached the return to the mystic of genuine nationalism rooted in healthy race-consciousness, and the resurrection of the old national gods of fertility and of battle (or the exaltation of their philosophical equivalents) which many a Greek “thinker” and some of the Jewish prophets themselves had already discarded—politely speaking: “transcended”—in decadent Antiquity.

And its racialist values, solidly founded upon the rock of divine reality, and intelligently defended as they were, in comparison with the traditional man-centered ones inherited, in Europe, from Christianity, are, and cannot but remain, whatever may be the material fate of their great Exponent and of the regime he created, the only unassailable values of the contemporary and future world. But it is, for the time being, a “crime” to mention them, let alone to uphold them—and their whole recent setting—in broad daylight.

The opposite ideologies, more in keeping with the general tendencies of modern Free Thought from the Renaissance onwards, have only broken off apparently with the man-centered faiths. In fact, our international Socialists and our Communists, while pushing God and the supernatural out of their field of vision, are more Christian-like than the Christian Churches ever were.

He who said, “Love they neighbour as thyself has to-day no sincerer and more thorough disciples than those zealots whose foremost concern is to give every human being a comfortable life and all possibilities of development, through the intensive and systematic exploitation by all of the resources of the material world, animate an inanimate, for man’s betterment. Communism, that new religion—for it is a sort of religion—exalting the common man; that philosophy of the rights of humanity as the privileged species, is the natural logical outcome of real Christianity.

It is the Christian doctrine of the labour of love for one’s neighbours, freed from the overburdening weight of Christian theology. It is real Christianity, minus priesthood—which Christ thoroughly disliked—and minus all the beliefs of the Church concerning the human soul and all the mythology of the Bible.

In other words, the rejection of the belief in the supernatural, and the advent of a scientific outlook upon the material world, has not in the least broadened the Westerners’ moral outlook. And, unless they be consistent Racialists, worshippers of hierarchised Life, those who today openly proclaim that civilization can well stand without its traditional Christian (or Muslim) background, stick to a scale of values that proceeds, either from a yet narrower love than that preached in the name of Christ or of Islam, (from the love of one’s mere individual self and family) or, at most, from the same love—not from a broader one; not from a true universal love.

The generous “morality” derived from modern Free Thought is no better than that based upon the time-honoured man-centered creeds that have their origin in Jewish tradition.

It is a morality centered—like the old Chinese morality, wherever true Buddhism and Taoism have not modified it—around “the dignity of all men” and human society as the supreme fact, the one reality that the individual has to respect and to live for; a morality which ignores everything of man’s affiliation with the rest of living nature, and looks upon sentient creatures as having no value except inasmuch as they are exploitable by man for the “higher” purpose of his health, comfort, clothing, amusement, etc. The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed—no less than that of Descartes and Malebranche and, later on, of the idealists of the French Revolution, and finally of Auguste Comte.

We believe that there is a different way of looking at things—a different way, in comparison with which this man-centered outlook appears as childish, mean and barbaric as the philosophy of any man-eating tribe might seem, when compared with that of the Christian saints, or even of the sincerest ideologists of modern international Socialism or Communism.

Three texts

Or:

Whites’ irresistible
death-wish

Revilo_p_oliver

by Revilo Oliver

 
If you search the annals of mankind for a parallel to the strict materialism and concomitant atheism that is the premise of a very large part of the dominant thought of our time and simply taken for granted by many of our best minds, you will find the closest parallel in the philosophy called Lokayata, of which traces remain in the next-to-oldest parts of the Mahabharata, in the Arthasastra, and in a few other ancient works in Sanskrit. It is quite clear that this virtually scientific materialism flourished while the Aryan conquerors of India were in the plenitude of their power, and vanished as completely as though it had never been when the natives of that sub-continent succeeded, by such devices as miscegenation, military imitation, and exploitation of rivalries, in breaking the Aryan power and racial consciousness.

Late in the sixth century B.C. a young Aryan prince named Siddhartha, doubtless influenced by the Lokayata prevalent in intellectual circles, evolved an atheistic pessimism that differed from a strict materialism only in the assumption that an individual’s will-to-live (as distinct from his mind and personality) could survive his death. This palingenesis of the will (which must be sharply distinguished from the reincarnation of a soul) strikingly resembled the basis of the modern philosophy of Schopenhauer, and Siddhartha, yielding to our racial instinct to deduce and formulate universal laws, presented it as true for all men. His doctrine therefore appealed to sentimental Aryans who were concerned for “all mankind” and had an itch to “do good” for the lower races by pretending that those races were their equals.

They accordingly preached the philosophy of Siddhartha and gradually transformed that bleak pessimism into a religion complete with gods, saviors, and innumerable angels and demons, and they called Siddhartha “the Enlightener of Mankind” (Buddha). As an odd mixture of philosophy and religion, Buddhism became the Established Religion of India, consummated the mongrelization of the Aryans and their submergence in the prolific native races, and then, its work of subversion accomplished, it disappeared from India and survived only as a grossly superstitious religion in Tibet, China, Japan, and adjacent Mongolian territories, and, with many doctrinal differences, in Ceylon and Southeast Asia, where it appears to have become as decadent as Christianity among us.

 
 

Book on the Jewish problem

It may also be significant that the Christians have always used the normal Jewish techniques of fraud and forgery, most obviously when they concocted gospels that purport to have been written by eyewitnesses of miraculous and impossible events. The evidence does not permit us to affirm that Christianity was cunningly invented by the Jews as a means of paralysing the healthy instincts of other races, but we can affirm that if the Jews did set out to devise a mental poison that would eventually be lethal to our race, they could have concocted no drug that was more efficacious in the circumstances.

I emphatically call your attention to the obvious fact that the primitive Christian doctrine is a specific demand for the suicide of our race, which survived from the end of the Roman Empire to the present only because our ancestors, of fresh barbarian stock, simply ignored in practice a large part of the pernicious doctrine, especially in northern Europe under essentially aristocratic regimes. Until the disintegration of Protestantism made it possible for any ambitious tailor, clever confidence man, or disgruntled housewife to have “revelations” and pitch the woo at lower classes to make themselves important or fleece the suckers, the professional holy men either contented themselves with telling our people they were “sinful” or used the common devices of theologians to conceal the import of the holy book. (Even so, however, the Catholic dervishes are obviously responsible for the eventual dominance of mestizos in “Latin” America, and many similar misfortunes.)

For the deplorable acceptance of Christianity by the ignorant barbarians of our race, I have tried to account in my book, Christianity and the Survival of the West. I would now change nothing in that discussion except to make it more emphatic, for in the years since I wrote it, I have come to the conclusion that, with only numerically insignificant exceptions, the Christians are useless in any effort to preserve our race, and that our domestic enemies are, from their standpoint, well advised to subsidize, as they are now doing, the ranting of evangelical shamans and the revival of menticidal superstitions by every means, including the hiring of technicians who can pose as “scientists” and “prove,” by subtle or impudent tricks, the “truth” of the flimsiest hoaxes and the most preposterous notions. The development of Christianity in all the sects of the Western world during the past two centuries has been the progressive elimination from all of them of the elements of our natively Aryan morality that were superimposed on the doctrine before and during the Middle Ages to make it acceptable to our race and so a religion that could not be exported as a whole to other races. With the progressive weakening of our racial instincts, all the cults have been restored to conformity with the “primitive” Christianity of the holy book, i.e., to the undiluted poison of the Jewish originals. I should, perhaps, have made it more explicit in my little book that the effective power of the alien cult is by no means confined to sects that affirm a belief in supernatural beings. As I have stressed in other writings, when the Christian myths became unbelievable, they left in the minds of even intelligent and educated men a residue, the detritus of the rejected mythology, in the form of superstitions about “all mankind,” “human rights,” and similar figments of the imagination that had gained currency only on the assumption that they had been decreed by an omnipotent deity, so that in practical terms we must regard as basically Christian and religious such irrational cults as Communism and the tangle of fancies that is called “Liberalism” and is the most widely accepted faith among our people today. I am a little encouraged that today some of the more intelligent “Liberals” are at last perceiving that their supposedly rational creed is simply based on the Christian myths they have consciously rejected. I note, for example, that Mary Kenny, who describes herself as “a former radical” (The Sunday Telegraph, 27 January 1980, pp. 8-9), has come to the realization that “so many of the [Liberals’] political ideas… are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally… The feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.”

So far as there is hope for us, it lies, I think, in this belated tendency to take account of biological realities.

The Doom on Nations. In the foregoing pages I have tried only to suggest what seem to me to be the most important phenomena that must be taken into account in forming an objective estimate of the Jews and in considering dispassionately the present plight of our race and the doom that seems to hang over our children and over ourselves, unless we are individuals who have already come prope ad ipsos exactae aetatis terminos.

I do not know what, if anything, can be done to preserve a species that some judicious observers believe to be driven by a largely subconscious, but irresistible, death-wish. In 1914, although we had the Jews on our backs, we were indubitably the dominant race on earth; we are now a despised and degraded species of anthropoids on whom all other species, including the very lowest and most brutish, joyously feed. When I see that our people are either too doltish to perceive their degradation or too craven to care, I am close to despair. Even a few decades ago, I should not have believed it possible that here in the United States Aryans would willingly see their children hauled to “schools” to be defiled by enforced association with savages and to be robbed, beaten, raped, and mutilated by the animals… Are creatures that accept such degradation capable of survival or even fit to live? Is it only that they have been enslaved by foul superstitions, or have their brains been so clotted by centuries of systematic poisoning that they have been rendered permanently and irremediably imbecile?

When the Jews invade a nation, their first concern is, as prudence demands, to acquire control over the minds of their victims. In the middle of the Nineteenth Century, Lord Harrington told Parliament that the Jews already controlled “a large portion” of the British press, and, of course, in other Aryan countries they had been equally or more successful. Less than a century later, their control over all the means of communication within every Aryan nation had become virtually absolute, although a few small journals are still permitted to publish some articles that the occupying power has not approved. In this connection, it is well to remember the dictum of Dzhugashvili (alias Stalin) that a periodical with a circulation of 10,000 or less was not worth capturing or suppressing. It is also true that the Jews need to have a little open opposition to maintain the fiction that they are “persecuted,” and it is possible that they have encouraged on a small scale the more absurd and impractical forms of “anti-Semitism” for precisely that purpose. But they seem now to feel that they may safely exhibit their arrogance and to have resolved that no Aryan cur shall be permitted to bark at his owners or even to whimper audibly.

For all practical purposes, the natural aristocracy of our race, which once gave it some sense of direction, has been totally destroyed, by revolutionary massacres, by contrived wars for hallucinatory ends, by economic looting under the guise of “democracy,” by internal corruption through the fostering of its vices, and by miscegenation. We are left with what is, on the whole, an Aryan proletariat, differentiated only by income, and, especially if the income is somewhat above average, willing to submit to anything and even to do anything for a few additional dollars, pounds, or rand. Our entire population, with almost no significant exceptions, is now at the mercy of, and therefore enslaved by, the economic pressures which the Jews exert at the first signs of disaffection. Our race’s traditional suspicion of “tradesmen” was only realistic. The man whose income depends on vending to the masses is always subject to temptations to profit that are likely to be stronger than any moral restraints he may theoretically acknowledge, and today he is no more than a slave at the mercy of his masters. Even more precarious is the status of those who have no material goods to sell, such as authors, journalists, actors, clergymen and other soothsayers… whose livelihood depends entirely on the sale of words, mere sounds whether spoken or written, to masses whose tastes have been formed by the formidable machinery that controls their minds. These facts of economic enslavement lead many acute observers to the conclusion that our race’s only chance of survival lies in the chance that the Jews, blinded by their own arrogant confidence in their absolute superiority, will permit or precipitate a total collapse of organized society into the anarchy in which the strong and resolute will again survive at the expense of the weak and foolish.
 
 

Book on the Christian problem

The foregoing pages were written in March and April, 1969, as a sequel to my article, “After Fifty Years,” and were to be published first as a series of articles and then as a booklet on behalf of the newly formed National Youth Alliance.

I was unwilling to have the booklet published under other auspices because conversations with some very influential Christians showed me the futility of trying to talk sense to them. Their plan for salvaging the nation consisted of cursing the Jews and repudiating reason by reciting the mantram, “A little child shall lead them.” They could not remember that precisely that phrase had been the inspiration of the Children’s Crusade, which succeeded only in filling the slave-markets of the Near East with a choice breed of biped cattle.

I also observed that, on the whole, American “conservatives” and “anti-Communists” seem to be either unwilling or unable to learn anything from the total and unmitigated failure of all their efforts for the past fifty years. They have dwindled to a little band of aged and aging men and women who now can talk only to themselves, repeating ever more shrilly their futile anachronisms, closing their eyes more tightly to avoid seeing the world of today, and retreating ever farther into a realm of fantasy filled with good fairies and wicked witches who can be summoned or exorcised with magic words. And they have, inadvertently and unwittingly, made patriotic organizations almost a monopoly of confidence men who cynically sell them fallacious hopes and comforting fictions.

The last years of the late Whittaker Chambers were overshadowed by a bleak pessimism of which some adumbrations appear in the pages of his Witness and the posthumous book, Cold Friday (1964). He was convinced that the American people are actuated by a subconscious, but ineradicable and irresistible, death-wish—a subliminal longing for extinction that makes them turn in fury on anyone who tries to make possible their survival. Before his death in 1962 so drastic a conclusion, extending the effects of morbid psychological states and degenerative diseases to an entire population or even an entire race, seemed highly improbable and could be dismissed as a reflection of the bitterness of his own experience. But another decade has produced no evidence that Chambers was not right. We usually tell ourselves that our domestic enemies have stealthily captured all of our means of information and communication, and now administer through the schools, the liepapers, and the boob-tubes a corrosive brainwashing that accounts for the ovine apathy of our people as they are herded toward national suicide, but it seems a little odd that our people should have been so obtuse as to permit that capture, and we cannot categorically deny that what we optimistically attribute to systematic brainwashing may have a deeper and hidden cause.

Our race is a biological species, and our peculiar intelligence, like the gorilla’s mighty shoulders, once gave us dominance over other species. But what we must now objectively observe in our behavior is not really the gorilla’s apathy. It is something much worse: a perverse and idiotic delight in whatever weakens us and strengthens our enemies. This morbid racial masochism is now most conspicuous in the United States and Britain, where we are not only doing everything in our power to subsidize and accelerate the breeding of voracious parasites to impoverish, degrade, and destroy us, but are also applying the most effective biological techniques to breed ourselves into imbecility and eventual extinction.

Six years ago in my Conspiracy or Degeneracy? I asked the one crucial question: Have we, the men of the West, lost the will to live?

Nothing, certainly, has happened since then to suggest a negative answer. To be sure, after some sensationally flagitious outrage to our race, a considerable number of men, invariably the least “educated,” mutter angrily among themselves; and in a city of almost two million some fifty men and women may boldly assemble to voice their protest, thus embarrassing the vast majority of Aryans, who hasten to assure the world that their heads are so stuffed with mush that they love their Enemies and hope for nothing better than the privilege of being spat-on and kicked some more. And if the outrage is widely reported, the computers will whirr more loudly as they churn out appeals to patriotic suckers, and the travelling salesmen will drive harder as they rush from chapter-meeting to chapter-meeting to meet a temporarily increased demand for patriotic paregoric to soothe nervous stomachs. Nowhere can one discern the slightest indication that in the great majority of our people the racial instinct of self-preservation has not been lost.

The question remains unanswered, however, for we cannot yet determine whether the instinct has been extinguished or is merely in abeyance while our people are in a kind of cataleptic trance from which they may be roused by physical suffering and acute privation when the times comes, as it assuredly will in a few years. In the meantime the question remains open, although our fragmentary data point to an affirmative answer—to the loss of the will to live. The laws of biological processes, like the law of gravitation, are constant and unalterable; they cannot be evaded by magic or oratory or whimpering; and it would be supremely silly to expostulate with a people that is not biologically fit to survive.

All these considerations confirmed my decision to withhold these pages from the press. This booklet is now published at the instance of Mr. Richard Cotten, who refuses to despair of the future, and who has himself set an example of perseverance in the face of great odds.

The economic status of our ruined nation is apparent to professional economists, who now speculate only about the date at which the counterfeit dollars printed by the Federal Reserve will be declared worthless and replaced by new counterfeits. And the goals of “education” are made more obvious by the “university” in California that has proudly established a special “curriculum” for homosexuals.

If you listen perceptively to the young who have not yet been permanently deranged by drugs and depravity, you will see that their febrile emotionalism, their promiscuity, their ostentatious clamor or indifference, their mercurial inconstancy, all mask an underlying and subconscious despair that is terribly significant.

Our situation is desperate, and we can afford no illusions, no retreat into a land of dreams. Now, more than ever, optimism is cowardice.

We are born into this time, and there is no escape from it save in death. If the courage of our ancestors was not entombed with them, if their ability to meet desperate perils with clear-sighted resolution was transmitted to their heirs, if their will to live is not extinct in us, our race and our civilization may yet survive.

If, as I am told, this little booklet can make even the slightest contribution to our survival, its publication is justified.

 

_____________________

These texts were chosen for my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. The first and the last texts have been excerpted from Oliver’s 1973 Christianity and the Survival of the West; the middle text, from The Jewish Strategy published posthumously in 2002.

On philosophical and religious quackery

and its dismal implications for the white race

by John Martínez

 
This is your best piece of writing in WDH up to now, Chechar—at least that I’m aware of. I don’t think this is the sort of article that will have much appeal to average White Nationalists, obsessed as they are with the Joooos, Niggers and other perceived threats, but until Whites grasp the deep mental roots of the their present malaise (specially as far as Christianity and its secular offshoot, Liberalism, are concerned) they will be like a man being attacked by a swarm of bees in the middle of a pitch-black night.

A couple of points.

First, you are right to be suspicious about “Philosophy”—have you ever considered how presumptuous (“love for wisdom”) the very name of this discipline is? I have my qualms about it too.

In another post you mentioned the fact that not a single one of the supposedly greatest philosophers ever said something about the importance of race to the establishment of a great civilization like ours. That is to say, these guys have devoted millions of man-hours to discussing every single subject under the sun—except for what is perhaps the most important of them all from the point of view of our civilization: the fact that it is a White civilization and that these discussions are not taking place in Africa, Asia or what have you.

I have long thought about this glaring gap in their discussions too and it has made me conclude that by and large the field of the so called “Philosophy” is a Sahara of barren discussions—Steve Sailer apparently agrees with me—and the very fact that after thousands of years of endless discussions, unlike other hard fields like Physics of Chemistry, these guys have not reached any generally accepted conclusions at all, is a testimony to the frivolity of their activity.

It is true that fields like Literary Criticism, for example, are not “hard sciences” either, but even here, unlike the case of Philosophy, you have a number of generally accepted judgments—the centrality of Dante and Shakespeare in Western poetry and the aesthetic preeminence of Tolstoy and Proust in the Western prose fiction, for example, among many other generally accepted opinions—whereas you cannot find a single philosophic view that will be shared by all of the myriad philosophical schools and fashions that have sprouted in the past 2,500 years.

For my part, what I can say is that any occasional powerful insights I have seen coming from professional philosophers never are the results of any elaborate philosophical systems, but are instead simple products of common sense, and might very well have been uttered by any regular, intelligent people. So, why bother? You can learn much more about the human nature and the real world by reading the great classics of the Western Literature than by wading through infinitely boring volumes of pseudo “lovers of Wisdom”, as these guys pompously call themselves.

Second, what’s the point of leaving one superstition just to embrace another? Unfortunately, that’s what people normally do. Atheists normally leave Christianity just to immediately convert to Liberalism and vice versa, for example. What’s the point of looking skeptically at Western spirituality and revering its Eastern counterpart at the same time? That’s a non sequitur. I don’t buy Buddhism, Hinduism or what have you for the same reasons that I don’t take the Abrahamic doctrines seriously: for all their bombastic claims, their allegations are not empirically verifiable, period. If I am to embrace their patent absurdities in particular, why not embracing any other absurdities in general?

Third, what you said concerning the intrinsic despair and pessimism of Buddhism is also true, and again I had also noticed it. The reason why the doctrine of reincarnation is so fundamental to Buddhism is because if you were to embrace the horrifying view this religion has of life without any faith in a life after death, you would logically feel the urge to commit suicide. People who convert to Buddhism have to be convinced to stay alive by means of inculcating in them a belief in reincarnation; and in the hope of not reincarnating by means of following the eightfold path in order to reach Nirvana and not to reincarnate anymore.

Well, any non mentally deranged person can see the madness of such a set of ideas. But unfortunately, all religious systems are ultimately as crazy as Buddhism. All you have to do is to boil their pompous, self-righteous talk down to its bottom lines and you’ll see what their proponents are really talking about.

Christians, for example, love to say that “God has a plan for your life”. It seems all very fine, until you realize that this plan is that you worship the Jew Jesus. By doing so, you’ll be awarded the opportunity to worship him forever in an afterlife, in a place called Heaven (apparently, a supernatural version of North Korea, with the Christian God in the place of Kim Jong Il), whereas, by refusing to do it, you’ll be tortured forever, being burned in a superheated chamber called Hell. It doesn’t matter how convoluted their talk, how straight their faces while they preach their ideas, or under how many pages of supposedly profound wisdom the Christians try to bury this horrific picture. The fact of the matter is that their core beliefs are as stupid as any savage’s from the Bronze Age—and arguably more wicked at that.

In my humble opinion, Whites should flush such nonsense down the toilet and follow the example of healthier races like the Japanese, the Chinese and the kikes—pace the wickedness of the latter. Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism are simple pseudo-religious casuistry aiming at preserving the temporal social order of their respective civilizations. To put it bluntly, the ultimate goal of these doctrines is the physical preservation and prosperity of their respective peoples, so much so that they don’t even waste time elaborating on a supposed afterlife, preferring instead to concentrate on the cult of the ancestors and on practical rules of public morality. In other words, we’re talking about racial-preservation cults here. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, on the other hand, are universalistic ideologies that see this world as a distraction from transcendental truths around which we should build all whole lives.

I’m not suggesting that Whites should create a new religion in which they worship themselves instead of the Christian God or any other non-White deity or spiritual leader for that matter (Ben Klassen, for one, was of this persuasion). White Nationalists are an intellectual vanguard of the White race and they are simply too smart to start following a new religion. It takes idiots to found a new religion (illiterate fishermen in the case of Christianity, illiterate caravan robbers in the case of Islam) and I honestly don’t think we have enough of them in this movement—at least not in numbers big enough to reach a critical mass.

Unlike a number of “philosophers”, I do think we don’t need a supernatural worldview in order to establish and maintain a stable, healthy social order. I can envision the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jewish races living far away into the future under the auspices of down-to-earth, metaphysically unambitious doctrines such as Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism. But can you picture racial stability for the populations leaving under universalistic creeds like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, which only acknowledge the physical world in order to repudiate it to a bigger or lesser degree in exchange for an alleged post-mortem reward of some kind? To ask this question is to answer it.

Just one more observation: Greg Johnson once noted apropos of a Michael O’Meara book he reviewed: “I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow”, and Johnson is right—as usual.

Look, philosophies and religions come and go. But the great White art, for example, like Literature that I mentioned above, is here to stay. And above all, the race that made the articulation of the three phenomena possible is what really matters.

At the end of the day, it is for the White race that one should fight for instead of religions or philosophies “A” or “B” or “Z”—especially when these philosophies and religions are not only dubious (to say the least) but were inflicted (or at least heavily influenced) upon Whites by folks who hate them and want to destroy them.

On Buddha & Evola

Or:

“The existence of Buddhism
should scare the White Nationalists
who can’t think of anything but Jews”

In a previous post I talked about my golden rule: never read those authors or philosophers who write in obscure prose.
I confess that, in the past, when I was researching the pseudoscience called psychiatry, I had to read a book of one of those authors who deliberately and unnecessarily wrote in extremely opaque prose. I refer to Michel Foucault’s analysis of how the “mental health” movement was launched after an edict of Louis XIV that created, under the umbrella name of “General Hospital,” a prison in Paris for people who had not broken any law. While I found historical data in Foucault’s Madness and Civilization germane to my investigation, I also found much tasteless sludge in his text from a strictly literary, didactic viewpoint.

I mention this only to show that I can decipher opaque prose if I wish. But only in an exceptional case, where no other historical works on the same subject were available, I dared to break my rule.

turgid book

Such was not the case when I tried to read Julius Evola’s Metaphysics of Sex. After a few pages I realized that it was written deliberately in opaque prose and, since I was not researching the subject to write a book (as was the case of my study of psychiatry), my copy of Evola’s book ended in the trash can.

This illustrates my extreme passion for crystal-clear and distinct language, and my loathsome even for the great minds of Western thought that refuse to write in readable prose. In fact, what I liked the most in Leszek Kolakowski’s monumental, three-volume deconstruction of Marxism was the passage where he said that every metaphysical insight of Hegel had already been written before him, and in much clearer language. Kolakowski’s honest sentence contrasted sharply with Hans Küng’s dishonest appraisal of Hegel in a heavy treatise of my library that, to date, has escaped the trash can, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel’s Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology where Küng dishonestly claims that Hegel wrote his philosophy in pristine prose!

One of my favorite books is Matthew Stewart’s The Truth About Everything: An Irreverent History of Philosophy. Stewart goes as far as trying to debunk almost the entire field of philosophy, partly for the specious use of obscure prose in many of the works of the greatest thinkers. Just for the record, of the Western philosophical canon I only like Augustine’s Confessions and Nietzsche’s Ecce homo in spite of the fact that both autobiographers became mad; Voltaire’s Candide, Schopenhauer’s Essays and Aphorisms and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, which I still like because free speech has now been curtailed in Mill’s native country. All of these works were written in clear prose. The Truth About Everything corroborated what I already knew but was afraid to say aloud. I would like to explain this book’s thesis not by quoting Stewart but by pointing out to something that I have figured out by myself.

The accepted view about Kant’s metaphysics is that it’s too complex and profound for the layman to understand. Those who study the snares of language, on the other hand, point out that Confucius detected the trick of using obscure language to pose as a profound metaphysician. Unlike the Chinese, the West hasn’t learned to detect this trick, and even today white nationalist sites such as Counter-Currents have presented obfuscating authors as deep thinkers (Alex Dugin, only the most recent case). A single example will suffice: If the interpretation of the universities is right, that is to say, if philosophers are so profound that only a few can grasp their ideas, how do you explain that Kant, the philosopher who introduced such obscurantism into the modern West, has been interpreted in dramatically different ways by such giants as Schopenhauer and Heidegger?

The answer is obvious. The goal of gratuitously obscuring language is that, by the heaviest and densest imaginable screens of smoke thus lifted, the philosopher’s System becomes impregnable to criticism. For instance, after honest psychologists found fatal flaws in Sigmund Freud’s edifice, the orthodox Freudian Jacques Lacan reacted by translating all of Freud’s claims, written in clear German prose, to an opaque French that only the initiate could understand. But of course: we don’t need to spend precious time trying to decipher the Ecrits of the charlatan Lacan to refute Freud. Just go directly to Freud’s original texts!

Today Counter-Currents published an erudite Evola essay on Buddhism, where Evola tries to spare the founder of Buddhism from any criticism from the Right by claiming that his philosophy was not effeminate like today’s liberals, but virile. But Evola represents exactly what is wrong with complex philosophizing that moved me to put one of his books into the trash can. In his essay published at C-C he even claims that Zen stands for a return to the original Buddhism, something that is patently untrue (see below). If you ask exactly what is Evola leaving out I would say that Buddhism contained the seeds of race treason for the Aryans in India. In a recent comment at this blog, Stubbs said:

Our race has had some really bad ideas over the ages: Alexander the Great telling all his soldiers to miscegenate, the Roman Empire making “citizens” out of aliens, the Aryan prince who founded Buddhism abolishing the caste system, White rulers in Egypt and Persia letting their countries go dark, not to mention the simple infighting and disorganization that would make our race easy prey for Jews or Muslims [and Mongols I would add]. Frankly, the existence of Buddhism should scare the White Nationalists who can’t think of anything but Jews.

Stubbs is right, and to prove it I have no choice but to debunk one of the most venerated religious icons of the West after the 1960s started to replace Christianity with Oriental cults and New Age nonsense.

In my twenties I read The Three Pillars of Zen and was greatly impressed by the enlightenment experience (“satori”) of a Japanese executive in that book of Philip Kapleau. Since there were no Zen schools in the city where I lived it’s no coincidence that the same month that I became interested in Zen I fell, instead, in the Eschatology cult. Infinite soul odysseys I had to cross through before I stopped seeking my salvation in mysticism, cults or the paranormal. In the remainder of this entry I’ll dwell with some of my conclusions about Buddhism after my long, dark night of the soul was finally over.

Pali is an ancient dialect of India, the equivalent for Buddhists of Latin for Roman Catholics. A text called Tripiṭaka, written in Pali, is the oldest about the life of Buddha.

“Tripiṭaka” means three baskets or divisions called the Pali Canon: Digha Nikaya (Dialogues of the Buddha), Majjhima Nikaya (Sayings of average length) and Samyutta Nikaya (Similar sayings). This “Bible” of Buddhism is formidable: a mountain of literature that secular laymen cannot address as easily as the Torah, the New Testament or the Koran. Fortunately, Wisdom Publications sells a splendid English edition with extensive introductions, summaries of the sutras attributed to Buddha, and hundreds of notes and appendices in three volumes which together consist of more than 4,000 pages. Unlike the extensive Talmud the Pali Canon is, as to abstract ideas, very dense. In addition to abstract teachings it contains interpretations and the Order’s rule attributed to Buddha. The recent translation to English is an invaluable collection for those interested in Buddhism who don’t know Pali. However, since I follow my golden rule the dense psycho-metaphysics in The Long Discourses of The Buddha: a translation of the Digha Nikaya by Maurice Walshe (1995), The Middle Length Discourses of The Buddha: a translation of the Majjhima Nikaya by Bhikkhu Nanamoli (1995), and The Connected Discourses of The Buddha: a translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi (2002) might find a place in my personal library, but I’ll never read them from cover to cover. Never.

Evola did not read them either, since this translation is so recent. But whether we like it or not we have to start from the Pali Canon, aided by modern commentators, to speculate about who might have been the historical Buddha, if he was a historical figure at all. For the moment I must rely on other scholars for what I venture to say below.


The Buddha of dogma

Buddha was born between the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. in a border of what is now Nepal and India (incidentally, a border crossed by one of my brothers in one of his searches for the “spiritual”). This seems to be true story. But legend says that Buddha was conceived when his virginal mother dreamed with a white elephant, which of course brings to mind the gospel’s nativity legends.

(Left, birthplace of Siddhatta in Lumbini.) Very few know that the narrative of the gospels of Matthew and Luke about the virginal conception of Jesus is not original. The Tripiṭaka also mentions a sage and a king worshiping the baby Buddha, which appears centuries after in the gospel narrative of the Magi. Moreover, the texts say that when Buddha was about thirty he suffered temptations by a devil (like Jesus in the desert at the same age) that wanted to prevent his enlightenment. And like the famous Sermon on the Mount of Jesus, Buddha is credited with the famous Sermon of Fire in which he speaks of the passions and human deceit (“Everything is on fire …”).

Like Jesus, Buddha is regarded by tradition as a man of extraordinary compassion for the downcast, and believers also attribute to him diverse miracles, like the Enlightened One having walked on the sea and calmed storms; stopped a plague in a village; more spectacular levitations than the ones attributed to Catholic saints, and even bilocations of his body. Like the Christian gospel, when Buddha died tradition says that the earth trembled and that the light of heaven was darkened. New Testament scholar Randel Helms suspects that the narrative of Jesus walking on the sea was modeled on Buddhist legends.

The Pali Canon claims that at thirty-five Buddha attained enlightenment; that the man reached the level of awakening from a world of illusion and thus became a “buddha” (legend speaks of previous Buddhas, like the Buddha Amida or the Buddha Kakusandha, but according to scholarship they are not historical figures). It is fascinating to compare the oldest and concise narrative of Buddha’s enlightenment with the legends about the same event, developed in much more recent types of Buddhism, like the Japanese Zen. But before doing it let’s think of the development of the Easter story in the New Testament.

The earliest New Testament writing, the epistles of Paul, do not talk of empty tombs, appearances of the risen Jesus, or the Ascension: they are only tortuous proclamations of faith without colorful resurrection narratives.

The Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the canonical gospels, speaks for the first time of the empty tomb but no Ascension or postmortem appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples.

Matthew and Luke do talk about the apparitions, but Matthew omits Jesus’ Ascension into heaven.

Luke’s Acts mention the ascension but the theological type of Christology like “In the beginning was the Word…” was not yet developed.

Only in the last of the gospels to be written, the gospel of John, appears a developed Christology interwoven with other narratives about Jesus.

For the critical reader it is obvious that the writers of the New Testament added layer after layer of inspiring legends to a more primordial tale. And if the resurrection is the top event in Christianity, the Buddha’s enlightenment after his last meditation under the Bo tree is the maximum event for Buddhism. The story that conquered my imagination about the Buddha when I just left behind my teens was precisely the experience of the satori, or enlightenment, when he saw the planet Venus in the morning after his final session under the tree. “Wonder of wonders!” the Buddha said aloud. “Intrinsically all living beings are buddhas, endowed with wisdom and virtue, but because men’s minds have become inverted through delusive thinking they fail to perceive this.”

The mistake I made at twenty was taking for real the late and extremely elaborated narratives about the Buddha’s enlightenment: the story told by Yasutani-roshi in The Three Pillars of Zen. At that time I could not think as modern historians do: study the oldest texts if you want to speculate about what might have happened in history. However, had I read the new, most scholarly edition of the Tripiṭaka instead of The Three Pillars of Zen, no numinous spirit would have awakened in my mind, a spirit sparked by my reading the words of the roshi.

Once “enlightened,” the official story goes, Buddha’s mission was to teach the dharma to mankind and he delivered his first sermon. Rewording some later texts, the starting point of his teaching seems to be something like this: “Here is the sacred truth of suffering. Birth is suffering, aging is suffering… Here is the truth about the origin of suffering: desire.” And the way to suppress human suffering involves an austere life, a happy golden mean between the ruthless asceticism that the saint practiced and the worldly life. The eightfold path or “path to liberation” leads to nirvana.


The Siddhatta of history?

This eightfold path suggests that Buddha taught a kind of what Scientologists call “OT levels.” We could see the arhats or “perfected ones” as the “clears” or “liberated” in Ronald Hubbard’s psycho-babble cult. The Tripiṭaka also says that the five ascetics who had departed him then recognized the Buddha, underwent their “path to liberation” and reached the level of arhats. Buddha would be the leader of a sect with half hundred arhats or perfected men.

My comparison to modern, destructive cults may sound pretty irreverent, but that’s precisely what the irreverent history of Western philosophy by Matthew Stewart taught me. If we can mock the Wisdom of the West, why aren’t we allowed to mock the Wisdom of the East too?

White nationalist circles are fond of saying that Buddha was ethnically Aryan. But “The Buddha” is a title similar to “The Christ” of Christians to designate the man Jesus, or “The Prophet” of Muslims to refer to Mohammed. Unlike Jesus or Mohammed, the stories about Buddha were written several centuries after his death. If we want to speculate from such late legends, we must start with the name itself. As I never call “Christ” the human Jesus because I’m not Christian, from this line on I won’t call “Buddha” the human Siddhatta because I’m not Buddhist.

Sidhartha Gautama is Sanskrit for Siddhattha Gotama in Pali, the language that perhaps the founder of the religion spoke. If he existed he would have been called “Siddhatta” (Gotama was the name of his father). A person who has reached the “buddha” level simply means that he is an “enlightened one,” as the word Christ means “anointed one” in Greek (i.e., the messiah).

Like the charlatan Hubbard, who obscured his message with a mountain of unnecessary neologisms for terms already known in previous esoteric movements, Siddhatta was not original. Alara Kalama, his first teacher, had told Siddhatta that he, Siddhatta’s master, had reached “the sphere of nothing,” and his second teacher taught him to achieve “the sphere without perception and without no perception.” Whatever they told him in real life, these cryptic thoughts would inspire Siddhatta about his idea of the nirvana. Like Hubbard, all he did was to change the names and claim that “nirvana” was a plane superior to our own plane of existence.

After dropping his first teachers, and like the sanctimonious Christians of later centuries, it seems that Siddhatta practiced severe asceticism, increasingly eating less rice. Later artistic representations depict the anorexic Siddhatta with the skin of his stomach appearing almost next to his spine. The ancient text Majjhima Nikaya puts in Siddhatta’s mouth these words: “My buttocks seem wild ox hoof.” Siddhatta felt the danger of dying and accepted milk and rice offered by a peasant girl. He recovered gradually and his first disciples abandoned him after he quitted ascetics. Legend tells us that after surpassing the temptations of the devil, in his meditation sessions Siddhatta retrieved the memories of his past existences. (The founder of another religion, Hubbard, also claimed having remembered his past lives.)

Whether these stories were historical or not, may I remind my readers the most elementary rules of logic. Clearly, if reincarnation does not exist, both Hinduism and Buddhism are based on deception. Similarly, if Yahweh didn’t speak to Moses at Sinai, Judaism is based on a lie. If Jesus was not resurrected, Christianity is based on a lie. And if the angel did not speak to Muhammad, Islam is based on a lie. The only difference with the doctrine of reincarnation is that it was not original of Siddhatta: it preceded him within the metaphysical tradition of his homeland. But the postmodern psyche is shaped so that the mere fact that such an ancient doctrine enjoys wide acceptance makes it respectable.

Siddhatta visited the house of his father. Legend tells us that Yasodhara, the wife Siddhatta had abandoned, fell under his feet. Siddhatta’s father asked his son to establish the rule that no child could be ordered monk of the new religion, unless he obtained permission of his father. Siddhatta nodded. If the anecdote is historical it proves that the now “enlightened” man allowed himself to be treated like a child, again.

(Dhâmek Stûpa in Sârnâth, India, site of the first teaching of Siddhatta.) In Jetavana Siddhatta founded a famous monastery which became his headquarters and where he gave his sermons. The movement grew and soon many monasteries were founded in the major towns of the valley of Ganges. The Hindus believed that Siddhatta had a special trick for galvanic attraction. As Mother Teresa would later do also in India, Siddhatta visited the patients: a PR trick we see even in the careers of politicians during election campaigns.

Siddhatta died of old age, and it is instructive to know that before dying he became seriously ill. Similar to what the leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, said after his guru died in 1986—that Hubbard voluntarily got rid of his body—, Siddhatta’s followers believe that he passed away voluntarily. He was cremated; his relics divided to the satisfaction of the various groups.

The central Buddhist doctrine, that suffering is caused by attachment to life, is a typical oriental escape from Life. After the magnificent sculptures in classical times of young Aryan bodies, the Eastern spirit of apathy and resignation (see my recent quote of Will Durant at Occidental Dissent) was reflected in Greek art through sculptures of sick old men. What a difference with the self-image of the Hellenes when Athens was at its height!

The other Siddhatta doctrine, that overcoming worldly attachment overcomes suffering, is the perfect corollary of such a pessimistic worldview. It is surprising that the religions that arose on dry soil, like Judaism and Christianity, have fantasized about a utopian future while moist religions, such as Buddhism and other Indian cults, preach the annihilation of the desire: one of the oldest definitions of nirvana. The central belief of Buddhism is that, if we get rid of attachment, we free ourselves from suffering. From this standpoint you will understand why devout Buddhists meditate hour after hour. The object is, to put it in contemporary terms, to turn the ego faculty off, an ego from which all suffering is derived.

Anyone who believes that we must cast out our desires would do well to shoot himself: the most direct way to destroy the ego, and forever. Siddhatta’s followers would object because of their sacred belief in the reincarnation chain, which condemns the suicidal individual to another, and probably worse, life. I remember how I was disappointed by the author of The Three Pillars of Zen while reading another of his books in a bookstore. The now “roshi-Kapleau” condemned both suicide and euthanasia. But the concept of nirvana is much like what we may experience after death: going nowhere, as we were before birth.

The painful way that the historical Siddhatta died contrasts with the serene depictions in Buddhist art. This is why in this post I did not reproduce any artistic iconography of India’s saint. They are all flawed and depict the Buddha of dogma, not the Siddhatta of history. More fundamental is the fact that the doctrine of reincarnation, as understood by Hinduists, Buddhists, Scientologists and many New Agers, is cowardly and un-Aryan.

Pace Evola I see no Übermensch in Siddhatta or in early Buddhism.