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:

Salvador Borrego

(1915-2018)

Mexican journalist Salvador Borrego, author of revisionist books about the Second World War, died last month, aged 102. The year that Borrego was a hundred years old, in 2015, David Duke paid a visit to him in Guadalajara, as can be seen in this photograph.

In 1955 the famous José Vasconcelos wrote a preface for Borrego’s main work, Derrota Mundial, in which Borrego argues that the world lost with the defeat of Germany.

Published in: on February 22, 2018 at 6:04 pm  Comments (14)  

My “pod” cousin

hispania-serie-de-tv

I am reposting the below entry, originally published on November 20, because for a mysterious reason comments were off below this article and I just discovered it a few minutes ago (maybe the reason why this entry had received zero comments). Did I inadvertently click on a wrong button last month?

At any event, now that I have seen more Spanish television series, I must say that what my “snatched” cousin did in Mexico the Spaniards are doing it too at the other side of the Atlantic. For example in the 2010 series Hispania (article of the Spanish wiki: here) the hero and liberator of some Hispanic towns from the Roman invaders, third guy in the above pic, is not an Aryan; and his daughter, not shown above, looked like an Amerindian child. Keep in mind that these series are supposed to depict the peoples of the Iberian Peninsula in the second century B.C., long before the huge mongrelization after the Moor invasion.

I also watched the 2012 prequel of it (article of the Spanish wiki: here) but I have no more liver left to continue to debunk all these silly series. Better repost about—:



My pod cousin


Gerardo-Tort

Recently I have been complaining about the fact that American films and British and Spanish TV series are mediums for either anti-white propaganda or at least not pro-white messages (with the sole exception of the first episode of The White Queen). A naïve person could think that if I approach, instead, a series directed by one of my cousins the message would be a little more positive.

Gritos de Muerte y Libertad (Screams of Death and Freedom) is a Mexican television series based on the period of the war of independence of Mexico, produced by Leopoldo Gómez and directed by my cousin Gerardo Tort (pic above) and the lesbian Mafer Suárez. Several writers wrote thirteen episodes of the first season of the series advised by a group of historians. The series premiered on August 30, 2010 to mark the bicentenary of the independence of Mexico from Spain and ended on September 16 of that year.

I have already quoted Mexican intellectual José Vasconcelos (1882-1959) in this blog stating that the war of independence was “supposed to destroy the Spaniards, who represented the force and culture of the country… all under the pretext of freeing the Indian.” And two months ago I revealed here some hidden facts about Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, the father of the Mexican independence.

All 19th century paintings of Hidalgo, like the one you see in the Wikipedia article about him, are fake. All were based on an original portrait of an Aryan man of Austrian origin who posed as Hidalgo because nobody had painted a portrait of the real Hidalgo by the time he was elevated to the status of father of the independence, and the man was long dead and the new nation needed a noble face to honor (just as the Americans have their portraits of George Washington).

Well, original spoken reports describe Hidalgo not like an Aryan but with hooked nose. What does it mean?

That the overwhelming majority of Mexicans ignore that the Catholic priest Hidalgo was probably the son of Jewish conversos. Presently even the Mexican Jews, no longer in the need to hide the Jewishness of their people, have acknowledged it.

Of course: my cousin Gerardo Tort was only a hired hand to direct a script written by others. But since I know him I surmise that he did not object the anti-Spain bias of the script. It is worth mentioning that at the beginning of the century Gerardo Tort had made an “author film” about homeless kids in Mexico City, and later filmed a documentary of his own about a Mexican guerrilla fighter he admires and perfectly fits his lefty ideology. I had not watched the series Gritos de Muerte y Libertad until yesterday [November 19, 2013] but now that I am reviewing other television series I would like to say something about it.

In the first episode one of the pro-Spain characters says these words (in Spanish of course) about the pro-independence movement, “Imagine a government of Creoles [Criollo people], Indians, Mestizos and Mulattos!”

Yes: thoroughgoing leftists like my cousin know that ultimately the struggle is racial. But race conveniently disappears when Whites claim majority rights—or even minority rights in the case of New Spain. In Gritos de Muerte y Libertad what I found most surreal is that the overwhelming majority of upper class New Spaniards are depicted as Mestizos or Castizos (slightly whiter Mestizos), not even as Harnizos (Iberian whites with a distant drop of Amerind blood) or true Iberian whites. The script that Gerardo Tort directed mentions “Creoles” many times in the textual dialogues, but during the casting he selected Mestizo actors. Phenotypical Creoles do appear in the next episode, but that episode was directed by the lesbian.

gritos-de-muerte-y-libertad

Most surreal of all is that the Aryan-looking actor who was chosen for Hidalgo by both directors, the actor at the far left in the pic, was—not in the series but in real history—a kike with even the prototypical hooked nose, according to the spoken testimony of those who had seen the historical Hidalgo in the flesh. Also, in Gritos de Muerte y Libertad my cousin depicts José de Iturrigaray, the Viceroy of New Spain from 1803 to 1808 (standing in the pic with a ridiculous wig), as an ignoble character; and for María Inés de Jáuregui y Aróstegui, his wife, he chose a Mestiza actress (wasn’t the historical Inés an Iberian White too?).

So you have Gerardo Tort, the phenotypical Creole, filming the Spanish Viceroy as the bad guy and the kike Hidalgo as the good guy of his movie. This said, I doubt that Gerardo knows that the historical Hidalgo was genetically Jewish. Like all Mexican leftists he is sleeping in a profound Matrix.

In the other episodes of the series that my cousin also directed a dialogue caught my attention. A woman asks Hidalgo: “Removing the command from the Europeans and handing it over—to who?” at the time of delivering a hostile look to a Mexican Indian beside her. Of course: the woman is depicted almost as a bigot.

Gritos de Muerte y Libertad includes explanatory notes to clarify the supposed historical events for the Mexican audience. In one of these texts it is announced that, once in jail and excommunicated by the Catholic Church, Hidalgo actually repented that the mud mobs he had commanded massacred civilians in the Alhóndiga de Granaditas—a ridiculous claim since Hidalgo was very well known for his cri de guerre “¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe y mueran los gachupines!” (“Life to the Virgin of Guadalupe and death to the Spaniards!”).

So clearly racial is the script of Gritos de Muerte y Libertad that it includes these words by a fearing Viceroy when Hidalgo’s mud mobs reached the capital of New Spain, “This is the main square of the Spanish crown! And no horde of Zambos [half-breeds of Amerinds and imported Negroes] will claim it ever!” This was the Viceroy who succeeded José de Iturrigaray, but my cousin also puts him under bad light.

In subsequent episodes, Gerardo Tort has Hidalgo incarcerated prior to his shooting after having lost important battles with the troops loyal to Spain. Once again my cousin used a Mestizo actor for the jailer. Hidalgo recounts his adventures to the jailer and is depicted as noble and wise. The jailer even recognizes that Hidalgo “is a good man, a son of God.” At least in that monologue my cousin has Hidalgo recognizing that in Guanajuato his furious mobs killed women and children, but he didn’t dare to film the actual scenes showing the Mexican public that the victims were probably White, and the assassins Indians and Zambos.

Gerardo Tort filmed the platoon that shot Hidalgo, again, as a group of slightly mesticized Indians. I wonder if machines to see the past are ever invented and we could see the historic scene rather as whiter men shooting an obvious kike? But before the shooting Hidalgo delivers candies—yes: candies!—to his executioners and after the shooting one of them is on the verge of tears. How moving.

There are two DVDs in the product Gritos de Muerte y Libertad that I acquired yesterday, the next one dealing with Hidalgo’s successor, the mulatto José María Morelos, who continued the killing of Iberian whites after the death of his mentor. But I don’t have any humor left to watch this second DVD.

A few years ago, here in Mexico City some nacos (insulting pejorative for Indian-looking residents of Mexico City, analogous to what in the US is called “nigger”) assaulted Gerardo’s brother. Curiously, one of Gerardo’s two sisters once told me during a private conversation that the nacos must “have the same rights.”

Yes… all of my relatives are now Pod people. And a worse kind of Pods to boot than the American liberals since among older American folks there is at least the memory of their nation being mostly White. Those who have watched the 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers for instance can see a nice California town populated exclusively by Whites. This was California before Aztlán took over.

Mexico, even since the three centuries when it was known as New Spain, has experienced no less than half a millennium of miscegenation. The remaining Creoles have been so thoroughly indoctrinated through centuries of Christian and liberal propaganda that the sole mention of avoiding intercourse with the mudbloods would be considered a kind of unheard of heresy. I would go as far as claim that after the dollar crashes dragging the Mexican peso with it and after my native town burns, the apocalyptic shock won’t be enough to awaken the remaining Creoles (like Gerardo) from their catatonic sleep.

Mexico: The crypto and the mulatto

Here in Mexico, a couple of days ago, after my family celebrated the Day of Independence, I caught my Catholic father and sister speaking in high terms about Miguel Hidalgo, the Catholic priest that in 1810 started the war of independence; and José María Morelos, the mulatto that continued Hidalgo’s anti-white wars. While father and daughter recognized that Hidalgo and Morelos killed lots of Iberian white civilians and “from 20,000 to 30,000 prisoners of war,” they, nonetheless, regard them as “heroes.” In the Mexican wars of independence from Spain of 1810 to 1821 my father and sister could have been confused with Spaniards and, still, like many other Mexicans who could pass as Mediterraneans, they side the crypto-Jew and the mulatto. Why?

miguel-hidalgo

The 19th century portraits of Hidalgo are fake. All of them used a man of Austrian origin who posed as the father of the independence. Original reports depict Hidalgo with hooked nose. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans ignore that the Catholic priest Hidalgo was probably the son of Jewish conversos. Even the Mexican Jews, no longer cryptos, acknowledge it: “Two genealogical studies of the eighteenth century, the Archivo General de la Nación de Mexico and the Ramo de la Inquisición, suggest that Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, the father of Mexican Independence, had a Converso background and that Bartolomé de las Casas, a Bishop who fought to free slaves in Nueva España, also had Jewish ancestors.” In case of my family, they are under the naïve impression that both Hidalgo and Las Casas were of pure Spanish origin.

But what about the mulatto Morelos? The 1944 edition of José Vasconcelos’ A Brief History of Mexico that my father read long ago, says (my translation):

For Morelos, for example, to be comparable to Washington, it must be assumed that Washington had decided to recruit blacks and mulattoes to kill the English. Instead, Washington disdained blacks and mulattoes and recruited the English of America, who did not commit the folly of killing their own brothers, uncles, and relatives, only because they were born in England. Quite the contrary, each participant of the American Revolution felt pride for his British ancestry and hoped for the betterment of the English. This should have been the sense of our own emancipation, to transform New Spain into an improved Spain, better than that of the peninsula but with its blood, our blood. The whole later disaster of Mexico is explained by the blind, criminal decision that emerged from the womb of Hidalgo’s mobs and is expressed in the suicidal cry: “Death to the Spaniards!”

So why many Mexicans who physiognomically could pass as southern Italians, Greeks or Spaniards side the mulatto against their blood? Recently, for example, my father’s orchestra composition, La Espada (The Sword), was a success in Mexico City: an homage to the mulatto Morelos (my father has zero black blood by the way).

The music is good—the first ten minutes can be listened in the above clip—, but the libretto is outrageous. The poet Carlos Pellicer (1897-1977) wrote it and my father adapted it for 150 voices and orchestra:

Tú fuiste una espada de Cristo,
que alguna vez, tal vez, tocó el demonio.
Gloria a ti por la tierra repartida.
Perdón a tu crueldad de mármol negro…
Gloria a ti al igualar indios, negros y blancos…
Gloria a ti que empobreciste a los ricos
Y te hiciste comer de los humildes,
Procurador de Cristo en el Magníficat.

My rough translation:

You [Morelos] were a sword of Christ,
once, perhaps, touched by the devil.
Glory to you for distributing the land.
Sorry for your cruelty of black marble…
Glory to you for equating indians, blacks and whites…
Glory to you that made the rich poor
And made the humble eat,
Attorney of Christ in the Magnificat.

When Pellicer said “touched by the devil” he meant the killings of unarmed Iberian whites that the mulatto ordered in cold blood. That’s why Pellicer said “black marble”: Morelos’ appearance was even darker than the Amerind skin! So much that, to avoid being called names, Morelos covered his curly hair—obvious black heritage—with the legendary bandana that adorns his head in every single picture that represents him.

JOSE MARIA MORELOS Y PAVONThe rest of my rough translation of the famed poet needs no explanation. However, as far as I know Catholic Pellicer (whom I met as a child when my family visited him at Tepoztlán) didn’t have black blood either. You can imagine where all of these ethno-suicidal ideas came from: the religion of the inversion of values of these Body-snatched Mexican Pods, my family included.

A Mexican lesson for Americans

Americans who have visited their southern neighbor or observed Mexican immigrants in California and Texas and observed their overwhelmingly Indian phenotype might find difficult to imagine that in the early 19th century — just before the War of Independence, in the country that would retake its ancient Aztec name, “Mexico” — whites constituted one-sixth of the population of New Spain. In modern Mexico, because of low white and high non-white birthrates, pure whites are almost on the brink of extinction. Thus the history of this nation should serve as a warning to the Americans against open borders, miscegenation, and affirmative action.

The following translation is taken from the chapter on “Independence” in A Brief History of Mexico (Breve historia de México, [México, D.F.: Ediciones Botas, 1944, first edition 1937], pp. 255–60). The author, José Vasconcelos, one of the most celebrated Mexican intellectuals of the 20th century, wrote: “El desprecio de la propia casta es el peor de los vicios del carácter” (Contempt for one’s race is the worst of character flaws).

(Mexican whites:
An endangered species)


The independence of the Latin American nations is the result of the disintegration of the Spanish empire. None of the nations of Latin America had, by a process of natural growth, reached the maturity required for emancipation. . . . . In the colonies, the men of clearer vision and greater patriotism, for example, the bishop Abad y Queipo, gave Mexico up for lost, and rightly so, after he saw that the independence was inevitable. . . .

From the beginning, the war was supposed to destroy the Spaniards, who represented the force and culture of the country, in the same way that later a fight against the criollo was developed, and today against the mestizo—all under the pretext of freeing the Indian—in order to uproot Spanish culture and replace it with American.

The two lands most imbued with Spanish influence, Mexico and Peru, resisted independence, which happened through foreign intervention. Peru was freed by Colombians and Argentines. . . .

In the United States, the independence movement was not a race war. For Morelos, for example, to be comparable to Washington, it must be assumed that Washington had decided to recruit blacks and mulattoes to kill the English. Instead, Washington disdained blacks and mulattoes and recruited the English of America, who did not commit the folly of killing their own brothers, uncles, and relatives, only because they were born in England. Quite the contrary, each participant of the American Revolution felt pride for his British ancestry and hoped for the betterment of the English. This should have been the sense of our own emancipation, to transform New Spain into an improved Spain, better than that of the peninsula but with its blood, our blood. The whole later disaster of Mexico is explained by the blind, criminal decision that emerged from the womb of Hidalgo’s mobs and is expressed in the suicidal cry: “Death to the Spaniards!”

The absurd idea never crossed the mind of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, or any of the fathers of the Yankee Independence that a redskin should be the President or that blacks should occupy positions held by the English. What we should have done is to declare that all the Spanish residents in Mexico were to be treated like Mexicans.

The idea that independence would tend to devolve power to the Indian was not an Indian idea. The emancipation, as already said over and over again, was neither devised nor consummated by the Indians. The idea of stirring up the Indians appears in the leaders of the emancipation who had not found positive reception for their plans from the educated classes. They resorted to the dangerous decision of starting a caste war because they were unable to carry out a war of emancipation. Not even Bolívar escapes this charge, since in Colombia he stirred up blacks against the whites in order to recruit his armies. For the people of the North, such procedures would have seemed insane, as they were.

It was therefore a crime: stirring up the underdogs against the top brass without any social improvement, merely to have soldiers. In fact, the idea of putting the Indian in front of the insurrection was an English idea. One of the first people to speak of confederating the Hispanic continent under the rule of a descendant of the Incas was Miranda. This idea was given to Miranda by the two biggest enemies of the Spanish in America, namely the French and the English.

If, during the US War of Independence, an agitator had said that the country should be ruled again by the redskins, surely he would have been shot by patriots as a traitor. But among us, talk of returning the country to the Indians is greeted with smiles. The English originators of this propaganda knew well that the Indians would not even hear it, but they counted upon the unseriousness, the vanity, and the folly of the criollos and mestizos, both of whom took sides against the Spanish. Once the Spanish were destroyed, these countries could be easily divided and thus fall prey to a new form of domination. Undoubtedly, a Mexico ruled by Indians and becoming Aztec again would be as easy prey as it was for Cortés.

Even if the Indians deserved this restoration, which is absurd to imagine, it is obvious that people do not go back three hundred years—much less in the case of Mexico, where the race itself, apart from the customs and ideas, had been transformed. Contempt for one’s race is the worst of character flaws.

___________

I translated this excerpt for Counter-Currents Publishing (here).

Published in: on May 23, 2011 at 5:59 pm  Comments (9)