Where do we go from Buffalo?

Although Andrew Anglin has always condemned violence, The Daily Stormer went down today because Payton Gendron (left) dared to mention Anglin’s site in his manifesto!

‘Legislation will be drafted to ban the mere expression of every last idea contained in Gendron’s manifesto, despite the fact that most of the material has nothing to do with direct calls for violence’, writes Jim Goad in a piece published today on Counter-Currents.

I hope he’s wrong…

Published in: on May 16, 2022 at 2:31 pm  Comments Off on Where do we go from Buffalo?  

Twitter

On Ann Coulter’s account I just responded to the question by another woman, ‘What’s the Biggest Lie you were sold by society, previous generations, the media, or our leaders?’:

That the Nazis were the bad guys in the movie and the Allies the good guys. They hid from me the Holocaust that the Allies committed after 1945 (link).

Will free speech really come to Twitter?

Published in: on April 29, 2022 at 10:44 am  Comments (2)  

Lavrov v. Uncle Sam

by Andrew Anglin

Editor’s Note:

When I first became involved in the issue of defending the West against the programme of soft genocide through mass migration, I noticed on anti-jihad forums that conservatives, many of them Christians, were spearheading the fight. So why do I insult Christians so much?

As one begins to deduce from a Swede’s seminal essay, ‘The Red Giant’, the problem is that liberal neochristianity (today’s Woke ideology) hypertrophied Christian ethics, albeit in a strictly secular way. That’s why non-liberal Christians like Anglin are in the vanguard, though they should be non-Christians like the late William Pierce. Le wokisme, as the French would say, drew on ideals dating from the French Revolution, which in turn drew on the gospel’s message (see my own take on the subject in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’).

Anglin’s site, The Daily Stormer, has once again been taken offline by Thought Police, although his articles can still be read on The Unz Review. The one published today, ‘Lavrov: the Ukrainian operation is intended to end US world domination agenda’, is worth reproducing here without the garish images and screenshots of Anglin’s original article:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I’ve only met two people in real life who were able to communicate this level of calm ferocity in their physiognomy and facial expression. One was my maternal grandfather, and the other was an Australian Vietnam veteran I met in a village in [redacted]. I did not ever have a meaningful conversation with either, as their consciousness appeared to exist on a separate plane of reality. The closest I have come to understanding the nature of this other plane is by playing Planescape: Torment [Ed.’s note: a role-playing video game].

Russia’s top diplomat has declared that the purpose of the special military operation in the Ukraine is to put an end to the US-dominated global order.

“Dicks out for Harambe,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added, his countenance pointedly sangfroid, punctuating the earth-shattering implications of the unfolding global reorganization.

The Americans always used to laugh. They used to think it was a joke. They are actually still laughing now, and do not appear to have any comprehension of the gravity of the situation.

RT:

Russia’s military action in Ukraine is meant to put an end to the US-dominated world order, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explained. Washington has been seeking supremacy by imposing ad-hoc rules and violating international law, he claimed, in an interview aired by Russian television on Monday.

He was referring to America’s attempts to impose its own so-called “rules-based international order,” which have met with strong resistance from Moscow and China.

“Our special military operation is meant to put an end to the unabashed expansion [of NATO] and the unabashed drive towards full domination by the US and its Western subjects on the world stage,” Lavrov told Rossiya 24 news channel.

“This domination is built on gross violations of international law and under some rules, which they are now hyping so much and which they make up on a case-by-case basis,” he added.

“Under some rules” strikes me as a bad translation.

As he continues, the “rules” are made up on a case-by-case basis, meaning they are not actually rules at all. When it comes to political jargon, Russian can be difficult to translate, and RT is not always sending their best (that’s not a diss – they have budgetary concerns and someone who speaks both perfect English and perfect Russian is expensive).

I am also seeing direct translations that state that Lavrov said Russia is “putting an end to the US plan for global domination,” which is probably a better translation than the above.

Regardless of the wording, this is the greatest statement I’ve heard from anyone in my life, and it is also the truest.

The only thing that could have made it better is if he would have literally ended the statements by breaking into English and saying “Dicks out for Harambe.”

Russia is among the nations who would not submit to Washington’s will, the Russian diplomat added. It will only be part of an international community of equals and will not allow Western nations to ignore its legitimate security concerns, Lavrov said.

Lavrov blasted EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell for appearing to encourage more fighting in Ukraine. The bloc’s top diplomat said the conflict “will be won on the battlefield” as he announced more military aid to Kiev last Saturday. Lavrov called the statement “outrageous.”

This statement alone should tell you who is responsible for this conflict.

It’s not Russia!

Russia was backed into a corner and threatened with obliteration by this ZOG world domination scheme, and unlike other countries, they stood up and said “nope.”

“When a diplomatic chief… says a certain conflict can only be resolved through military action… Well, it must be something personal. He either misspoke or spoke without thinking, making a statement that nobody asked him to make. But it’s an outrageous remark,” Lavrov added.

The EU’s role has shifted during the Ukraine security crisis, the minister believes. Previously it didn’t act as a military organization “fighting collectively against an invented threat.” Lavrov said the change was the result of pressure put on the bloc’s members by Washington, which has pushed it closer to NATO.

For its part, Russia wants to negotiate peace with Ukraine, Lavrov added.

Well, someone is behind this bizarre transformation from peacefulness to open military conflict, and it is certainly clear that Europe would not make these decisions themselves.

Since the end of World War II, Western Europe has been a proxy of Washington, and since the 1990s, most of Eastern Europe has been a proxy of Washington.

They appear to continue to believe that they have this in the bag, something which is utterly delusional to the point where it is incomprehensible.

Please remember what the Russian soldiers were told in their instructional materials:

“The Russian army is the last bastion against the Satanic new world order”. Literal quote from the official Russian Officer’s Handbook. Captured by Ukrainian GUR, document appears authentic. [link]

We have prayed for salvation of our ancient faith. We have prayed for the destruction of the Anal Empire.

The Lord does not abandon His servants, and when they cry out to Him, He hears them.

He has made with us a covenant.

Putin was biding all of his time. Then he made the move.

This is checkmate.

May the Archangel Michael guide the bullets and bombs of the heroes defending the faith against this global Jewish faggot terror.

The people of the Lord will be free from this satanic ensnarement.

Putin speaks out!

Kremlin says: The US has long bombed civilians and used nuclear weapons in Japan at the end of WW2. So the US president has no right to lecture Russia. For context, RT’s recent article about Putin’s speech yesterday (click here for the whole speech) is an eye-opener. Here there are some excerpts:

Ultimately, the West’s desire to maintain its global dominance is the root of the ongoing Ukrainian turmoil, as well as crises in the other parts of the globe, Putin believes. ‘Today, the entire planet has to pay the price for the ambitions of the West, for its attempts by any means to maintain its crumbling dominance’, he said. Concerned only with their ‘vested interests and super profits’, the Western elites led the world into the current situation through ‘years of mistakes and short-sited decisions’.

For instance, the impact of the anti-Russian sanctions, imposed over the Ukrainian conflict, is already being felt by the common people in the West—while the elites have been bizarrely trying to blame it on Moscow, Putin noted.

‘I want ordinary Western people to hear me as well. You are being persistently told that your current difficulties are the result of Russia’s hostile actions and that you have to pay from your own pockets for the efforts to counter the alleged Russian threat. All of that is a lie’.

Emphasis in the original. Andrew Anglin has commented today on RT’s article: ‘Of course, no Westerners will hear this, except you dear readers and others who already understand the situation… At some point, you would think someone, somewhere in the media would be offering some kind of counterpoint here, or at least saying “just at least listen to what Putin is saying”. Instead, everything is banned. RT is blocked outright in most countries and banned from social media. No Western outlet will publish transcripts of these Putin speeches’. He adds:

When I was censored, virtually no one stood up for my right to share my thoughts, excluding Tucker Carlson and a few others. Then, three years later, the sitting President of the United States was silenced. All dissenting information about coronavirus was silenced. Glenn Greenwald pointed out that this was a big transformation, as they had gone from political censorship to information censorship. That largely went unnoticed.

Anglin concludes: ‘If free speech was not de facto illegal in America (and literally illegal in Europe), none of this would be possible’. We must, therefore, understand what young white nationalist Nick Fuentes also said yesterday. He encourages brave Russian soldiers who are fighting to ‘liberate Ukraine from the Great Satan and from the evil empire in the world, which is the United States’ (see clip here).

Indeed. ‘The Russian army is the last bastion against the satanic new world order’. This is a literal quote from the official Russian Officer’s Handbook. Captured by Ukrainian GUR, the document appears authentic (see source here).

Also recently, Robert Morgan said on The Unz Review that the US started out as a nation; a group of biologically related individuals occupying a definite geographic range. But it forswore true nationhood when it decided to admit negroes to citizenship—courtesy of Christian ethics! That changed it into the so-called ‘proposition’ nation. It’s now become an empire; a global empire based on the technological ‘progress’, Morgan states, that dominates worldwide culture, sucking up everything in its path, homogenising it, and changing the West into itself.

I can even observe this phenomenon in Mexico. Yesterday, out of curiosity, I saw what a very popular anchor was saying on a pundits show and it looked like his nails were painted. I don’t see anything of Mexican media because it disgusts me. But this time I made an exception and found out, through Google, that this swarthy guy is a vulgar fag. When was I going to see an anchor with painted nails in the Latin American media when I was a child? The idealisation of Sodom and Gomorrah began in the neighboring country to the north, specifically in what occurred to the mayor of San Francisco. Then the Gomorrahite idealisation passed to Zapatero’s Spain, and finally to Latin America. But all this shit originated in the United States of America.

The moral of this story—America delenda est, just like those two biblical cities were turned to ashes—can be guessed in my editor’s note today, regarding the book by the priestess of the sacred words we have been translating from French (we still need to translate the last chapter…).

American Pravda

‘RT is now subject to censorship in many western countries because it tells the Russian side of the Ukrainian crisis story’ (watch the 2-minute clip here).

This reminds me of what some Eastern Europeans used to say when, even many years ago, they visited America: that censorship in that country was far more wicked than censorship in the Warsaw Pact countries because Westerners were under the illusion that they lived under the heaven of free speech, when in reality the West was as totalitarian as the countries under the shelter of the Soviet Union.

Listen to the interview of what a Serbian intellectual said years ago on the subject here.

Regarding passing the microphone to the other voice (‘Putin, Putin…!’ —Nick Fuentes), you can follow me on Twitter here. I had to write my name backwards because even in the Latin American country where I live friends and relatives started to complain when I tweeted with my real name. The goal of totalitarianism is that there are no dissenting voices, not even south of the Rio Grande.

Just remember that, although I’m not a Putin fan, I love what he did because it’s a slap in the face to Uncle Sam, who is leading the anti-Aryan crusade in the West. (Now history is starting to move on from the glaciation that began in 1945…!)

Published in: on March 4, 2022 at 10:44 am  Comments Off on American Pravda  

Sticky post

If The West’s Darkest Hour, hosted by WordPress, is
censored, visit the backup in English and in German.

Published in: on March 1, 2022 at 10:22 pm  Comments (1)  

Vaporised!

For the second time, Lulu has vaporised my account, including all my autobiographical books that have nothing to do with racial or political issues.

Dear user,

Lulu has terminated your access to your accounts pursuant to the terms of our Membership Agreement. Your final royalty payments will be forthcoming as set forth in the Agreement.

Regards,
Questionable Content Team
Lulu Press, Inc.

For this site’s point of view to flourish we need a printer that won’t censor, and without warning, our content. (The royalties I received from my books were essential to support my work on The West’s Darkest Hour!) Some printers tolerate so-called ‘questionable content’ but it costs money.

I’ll leave this post as the new sticky post until I can solve the problem. For the moment, PDFs of my books are still available on the sidebar.

If The West’s Darkest Hour, hosted by WordPress, is also censored, visit the backup which is in English and in German.

Thank you for your patience and contributions! (*)

_________

(*) For the donation button, see the bottom of this page. We still have a PayPal account. But we also accept Bitcoin and Monero.

Published in: on January 12, 2022 at 8:32 am  Comments (1)  

Evropa Soberana!

As I have said countless times, I have called the translation of a Spaniard’s essay on Judea and Rome the ‘masthead’ of this site, in the sense that it is a sort of combination of NS and Nietzsche’s thought (something the Nazis never dared to do openly).

Not only that, The Fair Race (see sidebar), which is a sort of extensive manifesto for the Aryan to wake up, contains other fundamental essays from Evropa Soberana such as the essay on Sparta and a new racial classification.

But Blogger has taken down his site!

Fortunately, I saved all his articles on a DVD. Yesterday I sent an email to the Spaniard we call here Evropa Soberana, but have had no reply.

I hope his site will be restored elsewhere.

New visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour who haven’t read his ‘Rome v. Judea; Judea v. Rome’—our masthead—should do so now.

Published in: on December 17, 2021 at 9:59 am  Comments (4)  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 34

Note that I say nothing about the political regime in this world of living automatons. I’m not trying to ask what it might be, because that question is irrelevant.

The deeper one sinks into uniformity from below, created and maintained by dirigisme with no other ideal than that of ever-increasing production, with a view to the well-being of the greatest number—in other words, the more it moves away from the type of hierarchical social organism that ceases to be a living pyramid as it once was in all civilisations and becomes a nameless, grey porridge brewed not by artists, still less by sages, but by clever people devoid of any awareness of extra-human values working for the immediate, in the narrowest sense of the word—the more it is like this the less the form of government matters.

There is still, theoretically at least, a difference between the condition of an assembly line worker in the Cadillac factories and that of an assembly line worker in some industrial complex in the Marxist world; between a saleswoman in a supermarket in Western Europe or the USA and that of a food distributor in a canteen anywhere behind the iron curtain. And the list of parallels could go on and on.

In principle, the worker in the ‘free world’ is not obliged to accept conditioning. When the siren sounds, or when the monster shop closes, he can do what he wants, go where he wants, use his leisure time as he pleases. Nothing forces him physically to buy drinks for his mates at the local café, or in monthly instalments the indispensable TV set or the no less ‘indispensable’ car. There are no political, or semi-political, semi-cultural meetings which he is forced to attend, on pain of finding himself, the next day, without a job or, worse still, suspected of deviationism and incarcerated—whereas in the USSR or China there are some and how! (according to the echoes we have of it; I repeat, I don’t know, first hand, the Marxist world).

Nothing would prevent a worker or an office employee or a saleswoman in the free world from using her leisure time as I would use it in his place if, for whatever reason, I had to work in a factory, an office or a supermarket to pay my bills. Nothing would prevent him provided that he finds a home secluded enough or soundproofed not to be bothered by the neighbours’ radio or television, and a manager or building owner complaisant enough to allow him to keep some domestic animal around, should that be his pleasure. Then perhaps his leisure hours would be truly blessed, and his modest flat a haven of peace.

Then perhaps he (or she) could, after spending an hour or two in silence, completely free himself entirely from the persistent noise of machines (or the light music imposed in certain workshops or shops); or the blinding glare of lights, of the atmosphere of people, have a quiet supper, alone or amid his family, walking his dog under the trees of some not too busy boulevard, and absorb himself, before the hour of sleep, in some nice read.

Then perhaps, but only then, the progress of machinery would guarantee him leisure, which he would use to cultivate himself, the more he would become ‘man’ again, in the most honest sense of the word; and the more one could, to some extent, speak of a ‘liberating technology’—although I could never be persuaded that even two hours a day spent in the depressing atmosphere of the factory or the office, or the modern department stores, are not, on balance, more exhausting than ten or twelve hours employed in some interesting work—in some art, such as that of the potter or the weaver of bygone ages.

But for this to happen, the worker, the proletarian, in the countries of the ‘free world’, who, in principle, can do what he wants after his working hours, would have to want something other than what he is conditioned to want. His ‘freedom’ resembles that of a young man, brought up since childhood in the atmosphere of a Jesuit boarding school, to whom one would say: ‘You are now of age. You are free to practice whatever religion you like’.

One student in ten million will practice something other than the strictest Catholicism; and the very one who breaks away from it will, most of the time, retain its imprint for the rest of his life.

In the same way, even in the ‘free world’ where, in theory, all ideas, all faiths, all tastes are accepted, the man of the masses and, increasingly, that of the ‘free’ intelligentsia, is, from childhood, caught up in the atmosphere of technical civilisation, and stultified by it and by all its ‘progressive’, humanitarian or pseudo-humanitarian, and pseudo-scientific publicity—the propaganda of ‘universal happiness’ by material comfort and purchasable pleasures. And he no longer wishes to break free of it.

One individual in ten million violently disengages from it, and turns his back on it, with or without ostentation, as the painter Delvaux did; as a few anonymous people do every day without even bothering to leave the banal building where they have made their room the sanctuary of a life that is anachronistic without necessarily appearing to be.

The only thing that might be said in favour of the ‘free world’, as opposed to its enemy brother, the Marxist world, is that it doesn’t take police sanctions against this exceptional individual—unless, of course, we express our hostility to today’s mores in the form of Hitlerism. And even in this respect there is a little less constraint than among the Communists in power: one can, everywhere in the ‘free world’, except, no doubt, in the unfortunate Germany, whose soul the victors of 1945 killed, have a portrait of the Führer on one’s bedside table, without fear of indiscreet inspections followed by legal sanctions.

What could be said in favour of the Marxist world, however, is that the latter has, despite everything, a faith—based on false notions and real counter-values, that is undeniable if we take a stand from the viewpoint of the eternal, which is that of Tradition, but finally, a faith—whereas the so-called ‘free’ world has none at all. The militant of values other than those exalted by official communist propaganda is likely to find himself one day in some ‘correction camp’ only if he pushes his temerity to the point of forgetting that he is in the underground, and must remain there.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This interview with a Serbian intellectual who lived in the Spanish island Gran Canaria (where I lived for ten months) woke me up ten years ago to the fact that today’s West is more totalitarian than Eastern Europe in the time of Breshnev. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But the mass of the indoctrinated, who form the majority of the population there, will have the impression that they are working—and working hard—for the advent of something that seems great to them and that they love, whether it be the world revolution of the proletarians, the union of all Slavs under the aegis of holy Russia (this ideal is, it seems, that of more than one Russian Communist), or the domination of the yellow race through universal Communism. Industrial or agricultural production—that in the name of which so much eminently dull work has to be done—leads, in the final analysis, to such grandiose goals. It’s more exciting than the safe and neat little life culminating in the Saturday or Friday night drive to Monday morning.

Both worlds are, in fact, abominable caricatures of the hierarchical societies that once claimed to be, or at least wanted to be, as faithful images as possible of the eternal order of which the cosmos is the visible manifestation. The technical civilisation of the ‘free world’ opposes the unity in diversity which these societies possessed with the despairing uniformity of the man who is mass-produced, without direction, without impetus—not that of the water in a river, but that of a heap of sand whose grains, all insignificant and all similar, would each believe themselves to be very interesting.

The dictatorship of an increasingly invasive proletariat, on the other hand, opposes it with a uniformity of marching robots, all driven by the same energy: robots whose absence of individuality is a wicked parody of the deliberate renunciation of the individual, conscious of his place and role, in favour of that which is beyond him. The zeal for work and the irresistible push forward of these same automatons who believe they are devoted to the ‘happiness of man’ counterfeits the ancient efficiency of the masses who built, under the direction of true masters, monuments of beauty and truth: the pyramids, with or without floors, of Egypt, Mesopotamia or Central America; the Great Wall of China; the temples of India and those of Angkor; the Colosseum; the Byzantine, Romanesque, or Gothic cathedrals…

Of the two caricatures, the second, the Marxist, is arguably more clever in its crudeness than the other. To see this, one need only look at the number of people of real human worth who have fallen for it and who, in all sincerity, convinced that they were guided by an ideal of liberation and disinterested service, have swelled the ranks of the militants of the most fanatical form of Anti-Tradition that has yet appeared. This can be seen in Europe as well as in other regions—in India, in particular, where the Communist leaders are recruited mainly from the Aryan castes, strange as that may be. There is something in the very rigour of Communism that attracts certain characters eager for both discipline and sacrifice; something which makes them see the worst kind of slavery under the disguise of self-sacrifice, and the most laughable narrow-mindedness under the guise of a sacred intolerance.

The caricature of the ‘free world’ is less dangerous in the sense that it is outwardly ‘less resembling’, and therefore less capable to appeal to elite characters. But it is more dangerous in that, being less outrageous, it is at first sight less shocking to those whom Marxism repels, precisely because they have discovered in it the features of a false religion.

Having none of the attributes of a ‘faith’ it reassures them, encouraging them to believe that thanks to democratic ‘tolerance’—a tolerance which, as I have said, extends to all but us Hitlerites—they will be able to continue to profess in peace all the cults (all the exoterisms) which are dear to them: Christianity or Judaism in the West; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, elsewhere; even one of these in the historical domain of another—why not, when the individual believes himself to be everything, and arrogates to himself, therefore, the right to choose everything?

They don’t realise that the very mentality of the technocratic world, with all its emphasis on the immediately and materially useful, the ‘functional’, and therefore the increasingly extensive applications of the sciences and pseudo-sciences at the expense of any detachment, is the antithesis of any disinterested thirst for knowledge as well as of any love of works of art and also of beings because of their beauty alone. They don’t realise that it can only accelerate the severing of any exoteric religion or philosophy from esotericism, without which it has no eternal value, and thus precipitate the ruin of all culture.

They don’t realise this because they forget that disinterested knowledge, the blossoming of art worthy of the name and the protection of beings (including man insofar as he responds to what his noun, Anthropos, ‘he who looks or reaches upwards’ would lead one to expect) go hand in hand, beauty being inseparable from truth, and culture being nothing if it doesn’t express both.

They forget—or have never known—that, deprived of their connection with the great cosmic and ontological truths they should illustrate, exoteric religions very quickly become fables to which no one attaches credence anymore; degenerate philosophies become idle chatter and political doctrines, recipes for electoral success; and that the technocratic world, with its eminently utilitarian approach to all problems, with its anthropocentrism coupled with its obsession with quantity, diverts even the best minds from the search and contemplation of eternal truths.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12

The question arises, however, as to the boundary between the two intolerances, or rather, between acts and gestures hostile to the order dreamed of by the legislator and ‘thoughts’, deep-seated convictions, attachment to values that contradict the basic propositions on which this order is based. It is certain that gestures, unless they are purely mechanical, presuppose thoughts, convictions and the acceptance of well-defined values. And it is also certain that any ardent attachment to given values will sooner or later be expressed in gestures—by creating ‘facts’. It will do so as soon as it can, that is, as soon as the pressure of the hostile forces which have hitherto prevented it, relaxes.

And in the meantime, if any public demonstration is prohibited for him—if he is, even as a feeling, considered ‘subversive’, even ‘criminal’, by those in power—he will express himself clandestinely: by word and deed, behind closed doors, among ‘brothers’. This is exactly how our attachment to the values of Aryan racism in its contemporary form, Hitlerism, has been expressed for a quarter of a century now. We are tolerated only insofar as we are invisible. And the immense hostile world in whose midst we are scattered, accustomed as it is to trust only its senses, believes us to be non-existent. Any clandestine thought is necessarily tolerated, or rather ignored, and for good reason!

Tolerance of the expression of another’s thought or faith, in a society based on norms which it seems to despise, is logically justified in only two cases.

Either one considers this thought or faith as not being likely to have any influence on the social life of the individual (and even less on that of his racial brothers), or one admits its harmfulness; its subversive character, its potential danger on the practical level—but, either we don’t esteem the representatives enough to judge them capable of sustained persistence, or we don’t believe in the efficacy of thought and faith, even when expressed, if the action they call for is impossible. We don’t admit the real danger.

The Hindu who has no objection to one of his sons worshipping Jesus, rather than the divine Incarnations known and worshipped by his fathers, has in view only one function of religion: leading the worshipper to the lived experience of ‘God’ to the realisation of the universal Self within himself. He presupposes that his son, while tending towards this supreme experience through his devotion to the Christ, will not break any of the ties that bind him to Brahmanical society. If he thought differently, if he suspected, for example, that the young man no longer had the same respect for the traditional laws concerning food and marriage; if he believed that he was now capable of eating flesh (and especially bovine flesh) or of procreating children outside his caste, and this because his new faith had given rise to a new mentality in him, he would be less tolerant.

The European who is refused entry to a Hindu temple is excluded not because of his metaphysics, which is held to be false, still less because of his race, if he is indeed an Aryan, but because of the culinary habits attributed to him, sometimes wrongly; but no regulation takes account, alas, of the exception! (Although Hindu society in general had long since accepted me, I was refused entry to one of the temples of Sringeri, the homeland of Sankaracharya, in South-West India, on the pretext that I had been, before embracing Hinduism, a beef-eater. And when I vehemently objected to this accusation, pointing out that I had always been a vegetarian, both before I came to India and afterwards, the priest told me that ‘my fathers, no doubt’ had not been vegetarians. I must confess, to be fair, that I was admitted to almost every other temple in India, including the one at Pandharpur in the Mahrat country.)

Hindu ‘intolerance’ being, like ours, essentially defensive, is understood that it manifest itself against any idea or belief, or metaphysical or moral attitude, seen as tending to undermine the traditional social order. But it will never be exercised in respect of a different traditional order, to change it by force or even by persuasion. This is, I repeat—and it cannot be repeated too often—the ‘intolerance’ of all the peoples of antiquity, minus the Jews. The judges who condemned Socrates to drink the hemlock because he ‘didn’t believe in the gods of the city’ would never have dreamt of imposing these same gods of Athens on an Egyptian or a Persian.

If they could have known in which direction ideas would evolve and history would unfold—Christian (or Muslim) proselytism, the Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, the suppression of indigenous religions in America—, they would have seemed as monstrous to them as they do to us, the much-hated ‘intolerants’ of today. And we, who would be ready to crack down with the utmost violence on all those who, by nature or choice, would oppose the resurgence of a social and political order based on Aryan racial values among Aryan peoples, would regard as absurd any attempt to preach our values to Negroes or, in general, to peoples of other blood than ours.

Even in Europe we distinguish between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’, the Germanic and the Mediterranean element even though the latter was already mixed with the blood of the Nordic conquerors in ancient times. After every conquest there is a gradual return to the race of the conquered, if no ‘caste system’ or at least no marriage laws guarantee the survival of the conquerors.

If Aryans with our mentality would have conquered the Americas instead of the Spaniards and Portuguese, they would have left the temples and the worship of the native gods intact. At most, seeing that they themselves were taken for gods from the start, they would have allowed themselves to be worshipped while trying, with all their might, to become and remain worthy of being so. And they would have punished, with exemplary severity, any intimacy between their own soldiers and the women of the country, or at least prevented the birth of children from mixed unions, thus preserving the purity of both races.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: The following passage from Breve Historia de México (A Brief History of Mexico) by José Vasconcelos portrays the Catholic ethos criticised by Savitri:

In sum, it is time to proclaim, without reservation, that both the Aztec and the [Mesoamerican] civilisations that preceded it formed a set of aborted cases of humanity. Neither the technical means at their disposal, nor the morality in use, nor the ideas, could have ever raised them, by themselves.

The only means of saving peoples thus decayed is the one used by the Spaniards: the miscegenation legalised by the Papal Bull that authorised the marriages of Spaniards and natives. And with miscegenation, the total replacement of the old soul by a new soul, through the miracle of Christianity. The fact that we have so many millions of Indians in Mexico should not demoralise us, as long as the traditional tendency subsists: that is, the effort to make the Indian a European by soul, a Christian, and not a pagan with the paganism of savages. On the contrary, the Indianism that they try to take back from the past, to return us to the Indian, is a betrayal of the homeland that, since the Colony, stopped being Indian.

That is why we have always talked about incorporating the Indian into civilisation, that is, into Christianity and Hispanism, so that all our children, united, enjoy a Mexico totally regenerated from its Aztec-ism, even the Indians and the children of the Indians!

Vasconcelos was pathetically wrong. It’s impossible to turn the Other into oneself. Vasconcelos died when I was one year old. He could never have imagined that the statue of Christopher Columbus would be vandalised by the slightly mesticized Indians that he idealised; removed from its pedestal by the government itself, and replaced by that of an Amerindian woman as I said in my post yesterday.

Incidentally, those who want to read a translation of mine from ten years ago of another passage from Vasconcelos’ book can do it at Counter-Currents.

Published in: on September 14, 2021 at 3:37 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12  
Tags: