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 North remembers

‘The North Remembers’ is the second season premiere episode of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, first aired on April 1, 2012. Since I’m using the series as Rorschach images to project ideas of my own now that I see the series again, I confess that nothing new has come to mind except to reiterate what I’ve said.

(Jack Gleeson as Joffrey Baratheon.) The teenage King Joffrey begins to emerge as the villain of the first few seasons. Acting under his orders the king’s Guard, led by Commander Janos Slynt, tracks down and murders several of the late King Robert Baratheon’s bastard children, including babies under the screams of their mothers.

Still, if we assume a return to the monarchy in the 21st century, even a scoundrel like Joffrey could be infinitely better than any current democratic government. Without checks and balances but under the motto L’État c’est moi, a single king could expel the millions of non-whites from his lands. Under democracy, no current president could do something similar, even if he wanted.

Published in: on March 6, 2021 at 1:14 am  Comments Off on The North remembers  

The Kingsroad

‘The Kingsroad’ is the second episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones, first aired on April 24, 2011.

We see the first bad message of this episode when Jon Snow says goodbye and gives a real rapier to the little girl Arya, while she packs her clothes on the eve of the Starks’ fateful trip to King’s Landing. Thus the masculinisation of a little girl is promoted by one of the central characters, perhaps the most beloved, of all seasons: Jon Snow. If those who caused the darkest hour in the West, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union had lost the war, our world wouldn’t be turned upside down. A scene like this would never have been filmed.

Since this rapier is very light, so light that a little girl can wield it, in the real world she would never have had a chance to compete, in real combat, with the heavy swords wielded by men. Not only is Arya, as we said in ‘Winter is coming’, the most mishandled character of all Game of Thrones seasons, but the white fans who didn’t rebel against these insults to reason and good judgment are complicit in what the Jews of Hollywood, HBO or Netflix do.

Hugging Jon Snow in goodbye, and with her little legs dangling in the air due to her stature, right at this moment—hugging her half-brother—Arya names her small rapier Needle, as knights used to baptise their swords. Instead of needles for her embroidery and knitting classes the girl prefers a needle that is a weapon.

Interestingly, in this 2011 episode Jon Snow kisses Bran when the latter is in a coma. Jamie Lannister had pushed him out of the Winterfell tower when Bran caught Jaime committing incest with his sister Cercei, the queen. (Jon wouldn’t see Bran again until the last season, in 2019, and also greets him with a kiss on the forehead; although by that season Bran has undergone a psychic transformation to become the three-eyed raven.)

The farewell of Robb Stark and Jon Snow is very manly: very dry but affectionate. If the white man suffered enough during the coming convergence of catastrophes, in a century we would develop once again the gravitas of the Middle Ages.

One of my favourite scenes from the show is seen in this episode, when King Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark eat lunch on a placid afternoon during the long journey from Winterfell to King’s Landing. They both speak frankly, as real men spoke. The visuals of that scene, with a variety of fruits on an outdoor table in the beautiful countryside, are quite good. If it bothers me to see masculinised women I’m even more fed up with feminised men and can’t stand the sight of them. That’s why a contemporary series that at least sometimes shows real men set in a fantastic medieval period is worth watching.

The final scenes gave the episode the title. Away from the gaze of adults, the teenage prince Geoffrey, who will inherit the Iron Throne, grossly abuses his power over the commoners. He falsely accuses Arya and her pet, one of the young wolves of the Starks, and the son of a blacksmith. But as repulsive as the future king Geoffrey is in four seasons of this series of eight seasons, democracy is infinitely worse. As Harold Covington said when he lived, democracy is a system designed not to change.

Let’s imagine for a moment that monarchy persisted in our days. Imagine that, in the West, it occurred to one of the many kings of the western nations to reverse the migration of non-whites with the absolute powers that the monarchical system grants him. (This is the opposite of how the Deep State ruled the US during Trump’s presidency.) This hypothetical king, although as repulsive in his personal life as Geoffrey, could potentially produce a chain reaction if the will of other kings was also conquered to expel Moors and Jews à la 1492 in Spain (in the present, blacks and Asians would also be expelled).

And here we come to why I am so disgusted by white nationalism, which unlike the late Covington lacks a revolutionary ideology. None of the leading figures that I know of places democracy on the dock. Who of these Americans rejects democracy? In the last two elections many of them even voted or advised their visitors on who to vote for.

In one of his podcasts William Pierce hit the nail on the head by inquiring why Jews like democracy so much: because they can control the electorate if they control the media. But the leading figures of white nationalism have cucked about something so obvious. And worst of all is that these white nationalists, by validating democracy, indirectly validate Jewry behind the media.

I would suggest that my visitors no longer enter the sites of these pretenders, nor read their books whether published by Arktos or Counter-Currents. If I want to learn German it is to read the original texts of a political system that was even better than monarchy. The rest, including what is written in the forums of the racialised right, is like an American dog that returns to its vomit.

Published in: on February 23, 2021 at 3:23 pm  Comments (1)  

Not demo-cracy but media-cracy

The reason I don’t like to comment on the news is that just commenting on it validates the System. For example, commenting on recent elections in the US validates democracy. And if you hate democracy you can afford not to comment on any of the elections in any Western country.

But what happened yesterday is something I cannot ignore. Prematurely all the media declared Biden the winner before the legal process of Trump’s lawyers, caused by irregularities like Big Tech censoring the truth, demonstrable fraud, ridiculous turnouts, dead voters and mockery of the proper legal remedy.

Since I live in a banana country I remember the fraud of 1988, after the vote for the president. Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas beat Carlos Salinas de Gortari although the latter was declared the winner. I still remember that day.

While the votes were being counted in this banana country, a ‘failure in the system’ was reported with the count of the votes as they were carried out. Before the ‘failure’ the numbers favoured Cárdenas. When the system was restored, Salinas de Gortari emerged as the winner.

The incident, known as ‘fallo del sistema’, sparked accusations of fraud in the election of the President. In 2009, former President Miguel de la Madrid confessed that the PRI lost the 1988 election, thus confirming the electoral fraud orchestrated by his government to impose Salinas de Gortari as the winner.

In 1988 many were waiting for Cárdenas’s call to defend the vote at the polls, but it didn’t happen because, according to his collaborators, a civil war could have been unleashed.

What strikes me greatly is comparing what happened here more than thirty years ago with what happened yesterday in the neighbouring country to the north. Apparently, it is no longer the government that governs the US, but the media.

Even in a banana country like Mexico many complained in the mass media (there was still no internet). The difference could not be greater with the US, where even Fox News joined yesterday to proclaim victory for Biden before the courts reach a ruling on the lawsuits of Trump’s lawyers (by the way, is Rupert Murdoch Jewish?).

One might think that the racialist right would complain. But yesterday Kevin MacDonald just said he was feeling depressed (I won’t link him or the other white nationalists I mention below).

Greg Johnson in an article with a long title (‘The Counter-Currents 2020 Fundraiser: This Weekend’s Post-Election Livestreams with Jared Taylor, Sam Dickson, Mark Weber, James Edwards, & Many More’) links to podcasts of this weekend. But those podcast webpages are very hostile to the visitor, including that of James Edwards. If you click it, a maze of links appears and if you click a link again, commercial-type voices appear, not Johnson’s voice. For a long time I gave up going to Edwards’ site because of how hostile it is to the visitor, but in none of the links that Johnson puts up does his voice appear (surely you have to listen to them only within the hours when the interviews are announced on the respective sites).

Jared Taylor’s webzine on the other hand hasn’t even said anything about what happened yesterday until this early morning when I write.

If we visit Twitter there is some more information if one sees what Trump’s sons are saying or what they are re-tweeting. But the media is censoring others who are complaining about the stolen elections.

If the media, including the internet, and not the American courts decide when to declare a winning candidate, the situation in the US is infinitely more serious than I imagined.

If I lived in the US I wouldn’t have voted. But I find it incredible that there was much more media opposition in Mexico in 1988 than in the US today.

It seems that Jewry has come to absolutely control not only the MSM but of social media and, except for white nationalists, no one seems to complain about those who control the media.

Although the Mexican media are a hundred percent anti-Trump, at least yesterday I got to see on television Rudy Giuliani’s conference dubbed into Spanish for the Mexican audience for a long time: something I didn’t see on Fox News where they apparently eliminated, yesterday, the Saturday show of Judge Jeanine so she wouldn’t say something similar to what Giuliani said yesterday.

The United States is really fried for not having rebelled, since Hitler’s time, about who controls the media. Richard Nixon and Billy Graham had a chance and did nothing. And the saddest thing is that people like Hunter Wallace and Richard Spencer, who should know better, have joined the Biden triumph chorus because Trump had disappointed them.

Only The Daily Stormer has been complaining yesterday and today as in 1988 millions of Mexicans complained about the fraud. But voices like Anglin’s are not heard in the MSM. When it comes to mass media Mexicans had far, far more liberty thirty-two years ago than Americans today!

Today’s world is infinitely more surreal than what I imagined, and the next few months will likely be more surreal—and more totalitarian. In this MacDonald is right to feel utterly depressed. My only hope is that the dollar will collapse making Biden the fall guy. The interregnum that began in 1945 will end with a crash in the 2020s that will resemble the hyper-inflationary crash of the German mark of the 1920s.

The rest will follow from there…

I had said (cont.)…

that ‘I don’t talk about the news’ but I find myself violating that promise again because of the election disaster yesterday and today. Few are talking about the consequences that the disaster will have. But Greg Johnson wrote today ‘Is America a Banana Republic Now?’ which is worth reading.

From the point of view of this site—America delenda est—this is good news.

Remember: the collapse of the dollar is a psychological issue. As markets perceive that the Fed no longer has any interest in keeping its promises, and that the US is increasingly becoming a banana republic, the international confidence in the dollar as the reserve currency will be lost.

Also remember: since the US started with the worst kind of Christianity imaginable, a philo-Semitic Christianity (Richard Wagner’s pagan, anti-Semitic Christianity was the exact opposite), in addition to having fought two anti-racist wars in the 1860s and 1940s and a Cold (anti-racist) War raging now, the priest of the 14 words can only smile at seeing that bastard nation fall.

As an American southern nationalist put it in 2012: ‘We invite King George III to come back and resume the throne. He could dissolve the Union, arrest the pretender in the White House [Biden?], and round up our so-called “representatives” in Congress. In exchange for an apology and a promise to never misbehave again, we get lower taxes, a less intrusive government, secure borders, and an end to all the madness that has flowed from the “self evident” idea that “all men are created equal”.’

To which I added: Alas, King George is no longer with us.

Published in: on November 4, 2020 at 12:50 pm  Comments (7)  

I had said…

I wouldn’t add any more entries to keep the Summer 1945 text up for three whole weeks, but yesterday something happened in the comments section of that thread that motivates me to write this post: a guy in the UK wants to commit suicide instead of fighting back to reclaim his nation!

Not only this guy: virtually all white people in the 21st century are mentally ill, a disease that grew out of propaganda against Hitler and the Third Reich. See my articles on mental health I wrote this year collected in my book Daybreak: the PDF of which can be downloaded from the sidebar.

Even among white nationalists you can see the madness of the white man. This election day in the US, instead of talking about the candidates, if these nationalists were revolutionaries they would be writing articles against democracy as a viable political system. In this the late Harold Covington was absolutely right: Democracy is a system designed not to change, to perpetuate itself ad infinitum and ad nauseam. If democratic insanity, inspired by Christian equality, had not destroyed monarchies and fascism in world wars, any new king or dictator after the old ruler dies could easily reverse the anti-white system of any Western nation.

This day, the most important sites of white nationalism aren’t uploading anti-democratic articles on their webzines vindicating Plato, who saw democracy as the worst of the systems of government. White nationalists are not Platonic on this point for the simple fact that they are part of the system. The Daily Stormer even holds an image today indicating who its visitors have to vote for. Greg Johnson in Counter-Currents also suggests to his visitors today that they vote for the same candidate.

When will truly noble racists come to realise that right-wing racialism in America is charlatanesque and that what we need is political thinking that brings, to the real world, what Covington and Pierce dreamed of? Or am I alone in the blogosphere, as always talking to myself?

Conservanda est / delenda est

I am busy reviewing the syntax of my third book and am tempted to include here a few translated chapters from it when I finish it. We’ll see…

I had promised myself never to criticise the alt-right folk again but yesterday I saw a few minutes of the recent debate between Richard Spencer and Styx: one is going for Biden, the other for Trump. Since the priest of the 14 words abhors democracy even more than Plato, I found it so grotesque that I decided to change the subtitle of this site.

British Paul Johnson starts A History of the American People, which I read, with these words: ‘This work is a labor of love. When I was a little boy, my parents and elder sisters taught me a great deal of Greek, Roman, and English history, but America did not come into it…’ Of course: American conservatives loved Johnson’s book.

Like almost all white writers Johnson is a race traitor. A priest would start his story about the US with these words: ‘This work is a labour of hate…’ Why? It’s already surmised in my Daybreak and it was yesterday when I changed the subtitle from ‘Only the transvaluation will save whites’ to ‘America delenda est’, which resonates with one of the earliest subtitles of this site: ‘Gens alba conservanda est’, the white race must be preserved.

Published in: on October 3, 2020 at 11:29 am  Comments (1)  

Why revolution is necessary

by William Pierce

After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Jewish media were all over my 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries, claiming that a fictional bombing of the FBI headquarters building in Washington that occurred in the novel was a “blueprint” for the Oklahoma City bombing. They presented this amusing nonsense over and over, nearly every time my name was mentioned anywhere on TV or in print.

They really wanted to tie the Oklahoma City bombing to me and to everyone else who had criticized the Jews’ monopoly control of the news and entertainment media. I won’t be surprised when they discover that the last chapter of The Turner Diaries describes a suicide attack on the Pentagon with a bomb-carrying airplane and then begin claiming that that was a “blueprint” for the September 11 attack on the Pentagon.

There’s something else in The Turner Diaries, however, that I’m quite certain they won’t try to blame on me, and that is my description of the FBI’s adoption of torture as an interrogation technique. In the book, published 23 years ago, I described quite vividly the FBI’s torture of a terrorism suspect, using the services of an experienced Israeli torturer. The media bosses won’t blame the current yearning in the FBI for the authorization to use torture on my book because they themselves also are solidly in favor of the use of torture. It is no mere coincidence that both the Washington Post story and the Newsweek column are written by Jews.

They also are solidly in favor of every other measure to strengthen the hand of the government in dealing with its opponents—and not just with terrorists. They would like to put an end to all dissent, to all Politically Incorrect speech or writing or expression of opinion: an end to all opposition to them and to the government. And really, the media and the government are far too close to being one and the same these days. That’s quite a different situation from the one we had 30 years ago, during the Vietnam War, and the situation is far more dangerous today than it was then. Then, when Jewish and Marxist groups were burning ROTC buildings on our university campuses, setting off bombs in banks and other businesses they claimed were supporting the White government in South Africa, and committing other acts of terrorism on a continuing basis, if the FBI had suggested that perhaps it should use torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, the media would have gone ballistic and screamed for the head of the FBI director […].

Now Jewish billionaire Larry Ellison, the principal owner of Oracle, the country’s second-largest software company, is trying to persuade the government to require all Americans to carry a national identity card that will allow the FBI to keep track of their movements. Ellison has generously offered to provide the software without charge to the FBI to operate the tracking system. In the government the biggest booster of Ellison’s national identity plan is Senator Diane Feinstein, who heads the Senate subcommittee on terrorism.

Clearly, it is not Osama bin Laden who hates America’s freedom; rather, it’s our government, our media, and people like Larry Ellison and Diane Feinstein.

If you’ve been listening to many of my broadcasts, you know what I think about democracy and democrats. I think democracy is a lousy political system, and it is inherently crooked. It pretends to put power into the hands of the majority of the people—which is a stupid idea in itself—while it actually puts power into the hands of the tiny minority that control the opinions of the majority: namely, the media bosses. And I loathe Democrats: they are demagogues who seek power for themselves by appealing to society’s resentful losers and by dispensing bread and circuses paid for by society’s more productive elements.

But as much as I hate Democrats, I hate and fear Republicans even more: especially conservative Republicans […]. And I’ll guarantee you, the mania these conservative politicians and bureaucrats have for controlling citizens and suppressing dissent is not based on either patriotism or a conviction that it’s for our own good. They are crooks and liars, and the only good they’re concerned about is their own […].

In America’s present situation, terrorism is the least of our problems […]. They are nothing compared to the danger of a treasonous, lying government. They are nothing compared to the damage done to our society through the control of the mass media of news and entertainment by an alien minority pursuing its own agenda […]. In other words, even if the terrorism threat to Americans were a thousand times greater than we have experienced so far—even if terrorism cost us five million lives instead of five thousand—it would not be as harmful to us and as great a threat to our national survival as a treasonous government and alien-controlled mass media […].

Here’s an example: the Jewish media now are entertaining the theory that the anthrax letters causing so much anxiety are being mailed by neo-Nazi groups inside the United States. Even though the anthrax letters refer specifically to Israel and close with the words “Allah is great,” Jews are speculating that because all of the letters were mailed inside the United States and so many of the targets were media figures—that is, Jews—they could have been mailed by domestic anti-Semites rather than by Muslim backers of Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps so, but that still remains to be seen. The relevant fact is that domestic terrorism that would have been inconceivable 50 or 60 years ago is becoming increasingly common. Fifty years ago, no American would have considered launching a campaign of anthrax terrorism in this country. Today, it is at least conceivable. And it’s not that the technology is new. Any reasonably resourceful graduate student in microbiology can find anthrax spores or other lethal pathogens in the natural environment, identify them, isolate them, cultivate them in a small laboratory using inexpensive equipment, and grow enough of them to inoculate hundreds of letters. And he could have done the same thing 50 years ago. The spores always have been around, and the techniques are not new. What is new is the motivation.

What is new is the enormously greater corruption and irresponsibility of our government today and the consequent distrust of the government by perceptive citizens. What is new is the enormously greater intrusion of the government into the lives of law-abiding citizens today and the consequent hatred of the government by freedom-loving Americans. What is new is the enormously greater degree of alienation on the part of most Americans—at least on the part of those Americans who care about more than mall cruising and televised ball games. The principal cause of this alienation is, again, the government, with its destructive immigration policy and its destructive program of forced multiculturalism.

That’s easy enough to understand, but to act on our understanding in order to eliminate the cause of either foreign or domestic terrorism will require the replacement not only of the present U.S. government but also of the system on which it is based. Which is to say, until we have a thoroughly cleansing revolution in America, we must endure more and more terrorism and more and more loss of freedom at the same time.

Read it all on National Vanguard.

Mere reactionaries

The fact that white nationalists and southern nationalists are voting (and that former neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer recommends voting) demonstrates that they merely are reactionaries, not revolutionaries. In a few minutes the #212 show of The Public Space will start. Election night will be the subject of that show featuring Duke, Spencer, Collett, Edwards, Striker, RamZPaul and others.

I doubt that any of them will start talking like a true revolutionary, which makes me think, Who beside me has included these folks within the NPC category? Or do you honestly believe that non-violent democracy will save the white race from the current extermination program?

Published in: on November 6, 2018 at 6:21 pm  Comments (28)  

W. B. Yeats

“Puritanical anti-Europe has become exactly what it set out to become: New Zion,” wrote Sebastian Ronin a couple of years ago referring to the US. Regular visitors of this site know that from my point of view the etiology of white decline is, in order of importance: (1) materialism, (2) Christian ethics and (3) Jewish influence. These excerpts from Kerry Bolton’s essay on Yeats in his book Artists of the Right give the idea of the most harmful factor of all:


The rise of industrialism and capitalism during the 19th century brought with it social dislocation, the triumph of the commercial classes and interests, and the creation of an urban proletariat on the ruins of rural life. Smashed asunder were the traditional organic bonds of family and village, rootedness to the earth through generations of one’s offspring, and attunement to the cycles of nature.

With the ascendancy of materialism came the economic doctrines of Free Trade capitalism and Marxism and the new belief in rationalism and science over faith, the mysteries of the cosmos, and the traditional religions. The forces of money had defeated everything of the Spirit. As Spengler explained in his Decline of the West, Western Civilization had entered its end cycle. Such forces had been let loose as long ago as the English Revolution of Cromwell and again by the French Revolution.

There was, however, a reaction to this predicament. The old conservatives had not been up to the task. The spiritual and cultural reaction came from the artists, poets and writers who reach beyond the material and draw their inspiration from the well-springs of what C. G. Jung identified as the collective unconscious. This reaction included not only the political and the cultural but also a spiritual revival expressed in an interest in the metaphysical.

Among the artists in “revolt against the modern world” was the Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), leader of the Irish literary renaissance and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1923. Despite his English and Protestant background, Yeats was involved in the Young Ireland movement, much of his poetry celebrating the Irish rebellion and its heroes.

Yeats had been as a youngster introduced by his father John, himself a Pre-Raphaelite artist, to the paintings of the Pre-Raphaelites, the romantic imagery of which stood then as a rebellion against the encroachments of modernism and industrialism. Having lived in England as a child twenty years before, Yeats was now struck by how much had radically changed under the impress of “progress.” The modern era had even impacted upon the aesthetic of Yeats’ own family, writing of how his father now made his living, and also alluding to the changes being wrought by modernism in art:

It was a perpetual bewilderment that my father, who had begun life as a Pre-Raphaelite painter, now painted portraits of the first comer, children selling newspapers, or a consumptive girl with a basket of fish upon her head, and that when, moved perhaps by memory of his youth, he chose some theme from poetic tradition, he would soon weary and leave it unfinished. I had seen the change coming bit by bit and its defence elaborated by young men fresh from the Paris art-schools. ‘We must paint what is in front of us,’ or ‘A man must be of his own time,’ they would say, and if I spoke of Blake or Rossetti they would point out his bad drawing and tell me to admire Carolus Duran and Bastien-Lepage. Then, too, they were very ignorant men; they read nothing, for nothing mattered but “Knowing how to paint,” being in reaction against a generation that seemed to have wasted its time upon so many things.

For Yeats the mystical was the basis of both his poetry and his political ideas. He was particularly interested in the Irish mystical tradition and folklore. He saw the peasantry and rural values as being necessary to revive against the onslaught of materialism.

Additionally, the “occult” provided a literally hidden culture that was above and beyond the crassness of democracy, of the herd, and of material existence, hence its being termed the “Royal Art,” where again, as in traditional societies over the course of millennia, a priestly caste, at the apex of a hierarchical society, served as the nexus between the terrestrial and the divine, serving as that axis around which High Culture revolves.

Yeats’ poetry was intended as an expression of these symbols of the unconscious and the archetypal. This resurgence of these age-long memories required a “revolt of soul against intellect now beginning in the world.” What is here called “intellect” was the advance of rationalism, scientism, and Enlightenment doctrines that had destroyed man’s nexus with the divine embodied in traditions and hierarchical social orders, and which has repressed man’s spiritual nature in favor of the crassly material.

Yeats, like D. H. Lawrence, Ezra Pound, et al., was particularly concerned that commercialism would mean the pushing down of cultural values in the pursuit of profit rather than artistic excellence. Hence, he called for a revival of aristocratic values. He lamented that, “the mere multitude is everywhere with its empty photographic eyes. A declaration of war on the masses by higher men is called for. Everywhere the mediocre are coming in order to make themselves master.”

His appeal was to the artist and to the individual of taste and culture for, as Nietzsche had pointed out, culture is the faculty that distinguishes the human from other organisms. In this spirit, Yeats applauded Nietzsche’s philosophy as “a counteractive to the spread of democratic vulgarity.”

Yeats’ keen sense of historical context is reflected in “The Curse of Cromwell.” Here he identifies the English Revolution as what we can see as the inauguration of the cycle of “Money over Blood,” in Spenglerian terms: the victory of the merchant class over the traditional order, which was to be re-reenacted in the French Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution was of the same spirit of money against blood, of the materialistic against the spirit and culture.

All three revolutions were carried out in the name of “the people” against the traditional rulers, only to create a greater tyranny in the service of money. Spengler had written in The Decline of the West: “Practical communism with its ‘class war’… is nothing but the trusty henchman of big Capital, which knows perfectly well how to make use of it… in that their object is not to overcome money-values, but to possess them.”

Cromwell’s English revolution has had lasting consequences for the entire West. The cycle of Money over culture and tradition that Cromwell inaugurated has never been overcome. America was founded on the same Puritan money ethics and continues to spread that spirit over the farthest reaches of the world.

The specter of Puritanism has haunted the entire world ever since, “far and wide.” Nobility of character, regardless of “class”—itself a vulgarization of the traditional castes—was destroyed by the inauguration in the West of the reign of money by Cromwell, and one that was not overcome, but rather adopted by its supposed “enemy,” socialism, as Spengler was to point out. Yeats, as “The Curse of Cromwell” shows, has been one of the few to realize the full depth and lasting significance of Puritanism under whatever name it might appear.

No longer are there left those of noble tradition, those who served as part of a long heritage, “the tall men”; and the old gaiety of the peasant village, the squire’s hall and aristocrat’s manor have been beaten down.

All neighborly, content and easy talk are gone,
But here’s no good complaining, for money’s rant is on.

The artists, once patronized by the aristocracy, must now prostitute their art for the sake of money on the mass market, as script writers, and “public entertainers” to sell a product. All individuals are now producers and consumers, including the artist producing for a consumer market.

And we and all the Muses are things of no account.

Yeats considered himself heir to a tradition that has been repressed by democratic vulgarity, and he lived in service to that tradition, now virtually driven to the catacombs under the dead weight of “mass culture,” which is nothing more than consumerism posturing as “art,” “literature,” and “music” manufactured according to market demands. He and a few others of the same temperament lived in the service of High Culture as contemporary troubadours “against the modern world” to uplift the spirits of the remnant who have managed to maintain their nobility in the face of the crass.

One product of democracy and capitalism that Yeats feared was the proliferation of those he regarded as inferior people. Yeats advocated planned human up-breeding and joined the Eugenics Society at a time when eugenics was a widely held belief among the intelligentsia. Yeats had “On the Boiler” published the same year, where he endorsed the psychometric studies that were showing intelligence to be inherited, and expressed concern at the proliferation of the unintelligent.

The aristocracy of old, the noble lineage of blood, of familial descent, has been replaced by the new rich, the merchants, our new rulers are those who measure all things by profit. Like Spengler, Yeats saw hope in Fascist Italy: “The Ireland that reacts from the present disorder is turning its eyes towards individualist Italy.” In particular, he admired the educational reforms and cyclic historical doctrine of Italian Fascist philosopher and Minister of Education, Giovanni Gentile, stating in 1925 before the Irish Senate, of which he was a member, that Irish teachers should study the methods that Gentile had enacted in Italian schools, “so to correlate all subjects of study.”

The following year Senator Yeats stated that the Italian educational system was “adapted to an agricultural nation” which was applicable also to Ireland, “a system of education that will not turn out clerks only, but will turn out efficient men and women, who can manage to do all the work of the nation.”

With the assumption to Government of De Valera in 1932, the following year Yeats was seeking to formulate a doctrine for Ireland that would be a form of “Fascism modified by religion.” History consisted broadly of “the rule of the many followed by the rule of the few,” again reminiscent of Spengler’s idea of a “new Caesarism” that follows on the rule of plutocracy at the end cycle of a civilization.

For Yeats, the rule of the few meant a return to some form of aristocracy.