Reflections of an Aryan woman, 49

As the present Cycle is much nearer its end than its bright beginning, it is probably not the first time that such an undertaking has taken place. I mentioned above the Revolution of 1789, which, in the name of the idea of equality ‘in law’ of all men of all races, led in France, de facto, to the usurpation of power by the bourgeoisie, and, in the geographically much more distant West, to the creation of the grotesque negro republic of Santo Domingo.

I could have mentioned Christianity itself, despite the undeniable, but visibly limited, part of true universal symbolism it may contain. Didn’t its dissemination—in the name of this same idea, as subversive as it is erroneous of equality—consummated the disintegration of the Greco-Roman world (already begun, it is true, in the Hellenistic period)? And its outrageous anthropocentrism makes it, in any case, an incomplete religion.

The European aristocracy, that is to say Germanic, and the Byzantine or Byzantinized Slavic aristocracy, came to terms with it out of policy, using it as a ready-made pretext for proselytising conquests and as a unifying force for the conquered peoples; while some of their members, and the most eminent ones at that, sometimes welcomed in it the opportunity for pure spiritual masochism, if not physical masochism as well.[1] All in all, and despite the inspiration that so many artists have drawn from it, this work has been, practically as well as in the absolute sense of the word, more subversive than constructive.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This letter to me has been the most radical approach to this subject I have ever read.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I could have mentioned any of these wisdoms, always more or less truncated, that Nietzsche calls ‘slave religions’. For all of these, even and perhaps especially those that most ostensibly place themselves ‘above Time’, by the mere fact that they deny hierarchy even if only in society and not in itself, and take no account of race on the pretext that the visible is of little importance, result in practice in the encouragement of a levelling down[2] and thus constitute (in practice, always) disintegrating factors acting in the direction of Time. They all contribute to the vast work of subversion, in the true sense of the word: of turning the ideal order upside down which continues, and intensifies, throughout the cycle.

I will say more. Undoubtedly there is a ‘subversion’ of this principial order whenever a man, or a natural group of men—a caste, a race—moved by a false estimate of his ‘rights’ or even of his ‘duties’, usurps or tries to usurp the normal place of another; whenever, for example, a prince rejects the spiritual authority to which his kingdom, and perhaps his civilisation, owes its link—however remote and tenuous—with the highest and most hidden sources of Tradition. It is a crime of this nature of which Philip the Fair, otherwise a great king, seems to have been guilty in destroying, with the connivance of a pope who was more of a politician than a priest, the Order of the Knights Templar. But all this only prepares and prefigures, by far or by near, the ultimate subversion: that which consists in calling the mass—and the mass of all races: the ‘world proletariat’—to power and what is worse is the claims to derive from it, and from it alone, the principle and justification of power.

This subversion, which Guénon calls ‘the reign of Soudra’, is the worst of all those who have succeeded one another in the course of the ages. It is the worst not because a non-Marxist would find himself subjected to more inconveniences under a communist regime than under another, but because it is no longer a question of arbitrary changes, contrary to the spirit of the true hierarchy within visible society, but of a complete reversal of ideal situations and essential values.

The result is that this society, instead of tending, as it should, to reflect what it can of the eternal order, reflects, symbolises, concretises in the world of manifestation exactly the opposite. The pyramid which, in the supra-rational vision of the wise man, represents the organic arrangement of the ideal society, the image of the hierarchical states of cosmic existence, visible and invisible, is, in the sacrilegious dream of the Marxist, completely turned upside down. It is planted in balance—oh, how unstable!—on what should be, on what, from the viewpoint of formal correspondences, is its summit. And it is its natural base that serves as its artificial summit: a ‘summit’ that is not a summit because it is, precisely, mass, a formless and heavy mass: a crushing mass overflowing everything and not a point.

It is from the metaphysical point of view that Marxism is nonsense, no matter how deceptively subtle the arguments on which its founder, Mardoccai, a.k.a. Marx, tried to support from economic and political considerations concerning production, the employer’s profit, the worker’s wage, ‘surplus value’, etc.

No dialectic can bring a doctrine into line with cosmic truth, if it is not already so. And, in the practical domain this time, no force of coercion or persuasion or conditioning can in the long run stabilise a particular state of deterioration in a cycle. The social pyramid cannot remain precariously balanced on its top with its base in the air indefinitely. Either a ‘partial recovery’ will tend to put it back on its feet—with an increasingly illusory success, and less and less durable as the cycle approaches its end—or the pyramid, dragged down by the very inertia of the mass which it was intended to be the ‘summit’, will collapse, disintegrate, fall apart. And it will be chaos, complete anarchy succeeding the reverse order. It will be—to imitate the colourful, Hindu-tinged language of the author of The Crisis of the Modern World—the reign of the Chandala succeeding the reign of the Soudra: the end of the cycle.

Perhaps we still have sporadic glimpses of this in some manifestations of gregarious eccentricity and boisterous nihilism, such as those of the ‘Existentialists of Saint-Germain-des-Prés’, the young people of the ‘New Left’, or ‘hippies’ of all stripes: anarchists out of laziness, pacifists out of laziness, drug addicts, unwashed, uncombed, noisy, ragged individualists and tolerant as long as the individuality of their neighbours doesn’t bother them, preaching: ‘Make love; don’t go to war!’ and ready to jump on the first one who prefers to make war, or both.

________

[1] As could well be the case of Elisabeth of Thuringia, princess of Hungary, who was flogged by Conrad of Marburg, her director of conscience.

[2] I have tried to show this in a long passage in my book Gold in the Furnace, 1951 edition, Calcutta, pages 212ff.

Published in: on November 15, 2021 at 2:51 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 49  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 48

I have already insisted on the untruth at the root of Marxism, namely the assertion that man is reduced to what his economic environment makes of him. I won’t come back to this. I need only emphasise the unnatural character—against the fundamental law of all manifestation—of the approach which consists in presenting a being as the product of something external to him and which, in any case, is only interested in what is in him less essential, less specifically ‘his’ metaphysically speaking, less permanent: his physical needs and comfort.

From the point of view of the universal order, such an approach would be just as absurd about the animal, or the plant, as it is concerning man. No being can be reduced to its appearance and material functions, and even less to the result of the action of the economic environment, that is to say, in the final analysis, of the possibilities of nutrition, appearance and functions. The last of the herbs derives its existence from what is permanent in the seed from which it emerged. The environment can, of course, help it to develop, or on the contrary prevent it from developing; it cannot make it become what it is not: turn a buttercup into a dandelion or vice versa any more than it can destroy what is, in the visible world and beyond, permanent in a man: his physical and psychic heredity, his race.

No one is so foolish as to deny the influence of environment on a man’s life: his occupations, the opportunities he has or doesn’t have. But to reduce the being of the latter to the ‘result of the influence of the environment’ and especially of the ‘economic’ environment and to build on this real reversal of the process of passage from essence to existence a whole political philosophy, is a reversal of the original and impersonal cosmic wisdom. It is, therefore, an anti-traditional enterprise.

If proof were needed the few words which sum up, with blinding clarity, the method and aim of the Marxists are ‘class struggle’, and ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.

Certainly, in the advanced epoch of the Dark Age, in which we have been living for a long time now, ‘classes’ have lost their meaning. They have lost their meaning insofar as they no longer correspond to castes. They represent less and less the real differences in character and aptitudes between the people who compose them, differences linked to heredity. It is therefore not at all bad, but highly desirable, that they should disappear in a total overhaul of societies—an overhaul that would tend to restore the ideal order, as far as possible. It is, for anyone who wants to oppose the general decadence which only the fanatics of ‘progress’ refuse to see all around us, especially urgent to put an end to the scandal of purchasable privileges.

This state of affairs is not new. It seems to have been established in Western Europe—in France at least—in the 16th century, with the very first acquisitions of titles of nobility for money. It was sanctioned, and reinforced, by the Revolution of 1789, made in part by the people, but for the benefit of the bourgeoisie and under its direction: a Revolution whose result was to substitute, for the power emanating from birth alone, the power granted by money alone.

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: This is extremely important! See this post that is already eight years old on this site.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Nothing could be more urgent than to change this. It is not that the rich are condemnable in themselves because they have become rich, or because their rich fathers have passed on a fortune to them. It is by no means so, provided, of course, that their money hasn’t been acquired through the exploitation of misery or vice, at the expense of the community. But he becomes one as soon as he imagines that this money gives him rights other than those which derive from the qualities and capacities inherited with his blood, and therefore inherent in his very being. He becomes one if he imagines that he can legitimately buy everything with this money, including the responsibility of command and the obedience of his compatriots.

In a word, there is no need to ‘fight’, let alone suppress, the bourgeoisie, or the aristocracy, or the working or peasant class. All have their raison d’être and their role. It is only necessary to ensure that every man is truly in his place, and remains there.

From the point of view of this ideal order, which reflects and symbolises the intangible hierarchy of the states of Being from the point of view of the eternal, the idea of ‘class struggle’ having political power is nonsense. Power should be in the hands of the best, the aristoi, those worthy and capable of exercising it. And if the fact of losing it always reveals some lack or failure, or even, sometimes, some deep indignity in the one who has it snatched from him, it doesn’t follow that it is enough to usurp it to become worthy of it.

The ‘class struggle’ is only conceivable at a time when these ‘classes’ are no longer distinguishable from each other, except by what they possess, and not by what they are. It is, in other words, only conceivable when it is property alone, or property above all, which determines the factitious ‘being’ of each class instead of the true being of the class, that is, the physical and psychic heredity of its members which determines what they are entitled to possess; when, I repeat, the ‘classes’ no longer correspond to the respective castes.

‘Struggle’, ‘combat’—I shall come back to this later in connection with anything other than Marxism—then becomes the only means of establishing a certain order in a society that no longer has any connection with eternal principles. There is necessarily violence or struggle when these principles are disregarded in the visible world. This has been the case since the end of the age of truth.[1] This is the meaning given to this struggle, for or against the ideal order, that ultimately justifies or condemns it.

Now, for Marxists, it must lead to what they call the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, in other words, to the passage of power into the hands of the masses: that is to say, of the people who are the least qualified to exercise it. It therefore tends towards a complete overthrow of the social hierarchy as it was in all the periods when it reflected, even from a distance, the eternal order. This alone should suffice to characterise Marxism as a backwards philosophy. Its effort to eradicate the existing elites and to reduce the masses themselves to the state of a human ragbag which is increasingly easy to ‘condition’ and guide in the direction of exclusively economic production, is a seemingly a diabolical undertaking.

________

[1] The Satya Yuga of the Sanskrit scriptures.

Published in: on November 13, 2021 at 1:10 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 48  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 47

 

Chapter VIII

The two great modern movements and tradition

 
Whenever justice is in danger, O Bharata, and
injustice is exalted, so I myself come back. For the
protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for
the establishment of a reign of justice, I am reborn from age to age.

Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verses 7 and 8.

The difference in ‘style’, as well as in spirit, which separates the great collective demonstrations of Hitler’s faith under the Third Reich from the parallel expressions of Marxism in Russia (or China) and, even more so, from the orderless processions of the scruffy youths of the ‘New Left’, on the one hand, and the official parades of the liberal plutocracies, conceals a fundamental opposition in nature: the opposition between Tradition and Anti-tradition, to use the language of René Guénon or Evola.

I have tried to show that a visibly ‘political’ doctrine can sometimes serve as the basis of a religion, provided that it is associated with rituals, that is, with symbolism, and that it becomes an object of faith for all its adherents. But I recall that it can only serve as a foundation for a true religion if the propositions on which it is based are the expression of eternal truths, or are justified only in the light of such truths; in other words, are legitimately linked to Tradition.

A true religion is the set of beliefs and symbolic gestures—rites and customs, linked to these beliefs—which in a traditional civilisation give expression to the consciousness of the sacred. On the other hand, a traditional civilisation is, according to René Guénon, ‘that which rests on principles in the true sense of the word, that is to say, where the intellectual order dominates all the others, where everything proceeds from it directly or indirectly and, whether it is a question of sciences or social institutions, is, in the final analysis, nothing but contingent, secondary and subordinate applications of intellectual truths’.[1] And it is worth adding that what the sage means here by ‘purely intellectual truths’ and ‘intellectual order’ are the very laws of universal existence, manifest or unmanifest, and the permanent order behind all that passes: the eternal.

It is hardly necessary to point out that the ‘values’ and ‘truths’ nominally exalted in the civil solemnities of the western democracies—even in the secular education given to the youth—fit into a particular form of Tradition but don’t even possess, even as mere words, enough resonance to give rise to the outline of any powerful anti-traditional system—let alone a ‘false religion’, a religion based on a deliberate negation of Tradition: a counter-initiation. If an ever more relentless encroachment of technology brings the world of plutocracies and the world of communism so close together that one can, theoretically at least, say that there is nothing to choose between the two, there is, nevertheless, a difference between them. The world of the plutocracies—and their satellites—has no faith, and is not attached, and has not been for a long time, to any vision beyond the sensible and the transient.

If a few individuals or groups of individuals still possess a knowledge of the Eternal, they no longer have any influence over society as a whole; they remain silent, and wait, striving at most to remain faithful to themselves and recognise each other.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:

The novel I have recommended most on this site is Julian by Gore Vidal. Those who have read it will recognise what Savitri says here on the last page of Julian.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The masses are left to scatter in the grey of small daily worries and pleasures. They are not involved at all. On the other hand, all they have retained from the old faith of their churches is a veneer of conformity that is increasingly crumbling, and that anthropocentrism common to all teaching devised by Jews for Aryan consumption. The elites, or so-called elites, have, apart from a few individuals, hardly retained more.

The West lives on its gains but for how long?

Emptied of all will to power, refusing all risk, cursing all aggressiveness (except that which it deployed from 1939 to 1945 and beyond—in its efforts to ‘denazify’ Germany—against the only people and the only faith that could have led it into a prodigious recovery), it slips into comfortable decay, it gets stuck in a precarious welfare, becomes mechanised, Americanised, proletarianized until what it falls one day on its own, as a result of increasing infiltration of ideas and agents who are all the more effective for being more silent, under the dependence of the communist world, or that it becomes, by right of conquest, an integral part of it.

But, if it is true that while liberal democracy—with its superstitions of universal suffrage, of compulsory primary (and soon, secondary!) education, and of generalised vaccination, in other words, with its cult of equality and quantity—leads straight to Marxism, it is not Marxism. The decadence over which it presides is, to be sure, all pervaded by a distinctly anti-traditional spirit—all decadence is: this is its very essence. But it is a natural process, a sign of senility encouraged at most by certain conscious agents of the Dark Forces, working in a muted way in high places in the direction of anti-tradition. It is not linked to a systematic, long and coldly coordinated, and masterly directed effort of deliberate subversion of the traditional order, as is that which the zealots of Marxism have, if not provoked, at least accelerated in all the countries where they have taken power.

In other words there are between the so-called ‘free’ world—the elites and multitudes aspiring only to easy happiness and immediate success—and the communist world with its fiercely disciplined masses dominated by leaders (some of whom such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao-Tsé-Tong will leave an indelible mark on history), about the same analogy as between a man who lets himself live, without faith, without any impulse whatsoever beyond the realm of the senses, without participation in any rite, and a man who attends black masses.

This is the difference between the absence of any velocity of initiatory development, and real counter-initiation. And it is precisely for this reason that ‘the small margin of material freedom that the world of democracy still grants in some activities… to those who don’t allow themselves to be internally conditioned… would certainly disappear under a communist regime’.[2] A society without order is, of course, less intolerant in practice than a society built on a reverse order or one whose structure reflects true Order.

____________

[1] R. Guénon, Orient et Occident, p. 150.

[2] Julius Evola, Chevaucher le tigre.

Published in: on November 12, 2021 at 1:35 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 47  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 18

It is precisely this anthropocentrism, common to Christianity and Communism, and to all ‘humanisms’, that served as the philosophical cement for the seemingly incongruous alliance of the Western, Christian or ‘rationalist’ world, and the Soviet Union during the Second World War.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is vital. Both American liberalism and Soviet communism are two branches of the same trunk: the vision of the world that emerged from the French Revolution. Oswald Spengler himself wrote that ‘Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It was, in the eyes of more than one Christian, quite painful to feel the glorious ally of atheistic Communism in the struggle against us, followers of Adolf Hitler. Moreover, many westerners, Christian or not, felt more or less confused that this alliance was, politically, a mistake: that their country, whatever it was, would have had more to gain, or less to lose, as a state by giving Adolf Hitler a hand (or accepting the hand the Führer held out to them), and by fighting at his side against Bolshevism. The voice of Germany’s leader, who was calling more and more desperately for them to ‘save Europe’, sometimes troubled them.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Being Bolshevism and American capitalism two branches of the same trunk, we can see why neo-Marxism has now conquered the US; and capitalism, China. Savitri continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And yet… it was not in the ranks of the Legion of French Volunteers or any similar organisation that they were finally found, but in those of the members of some ‘Resistance’, anti-German no doubt, but also and inevitably anti-Aryan. Their subconscious had warned them that by following the wisest political course of action they would have betrayed what was more important to them than politics: their world of values. He had told them what the post-war authors of the Resistance were soon to repeat over and over again for a quarter of a century (and who knows how much longer?): namely that Hitlerism, or Aryan racism in its modern form, is, like all racism based on the idea of a natural elite (not arbitrarily chosen by some all-too-human god), the negation of man.

Consequently, that this Europe which the Führer invited them to forge with him—the one which would eventually emerge from our victory—was not the one they wanted to preserve. And the atheistic Bolshevism, or simply the Bolshevism opposed to free enterprise and honest private property (of which our propaganda tried to frighten us) seemed to them, on balance, less frightening than the spirit of our doctrine.

But there is more. Very few of those who sincerely believed themselves to be our allies, and who fought and died with our people in the struggle against anti-Aryan values, understood the true meaning of the Führer’s message; of the call of the eternal Hero ‘against Time’, who returns from age to age, when all seems lost, to reaffirm the ideal of integral perfection that the unthinkable Golden Age of our Cycle lived. Most of the combatants of the Legion of French Volunteers were Christians who believed they were fighting for the accepted values of Western Christian civilisation. Robert Brasillach was profoundly Christian, and he realised that we were—and are—‘a Church’, and that this Church can only be the rival to the one that conquered Europe from the 4th to the 12th century.

Moreover, this type of man apparently preferred Italian, and especially Spanish, Fascism to German National Socialism. It was the social side of both—the comradeship, the mutual aid, the effective solidarity between people of the same country, independently of any philosophy— that attracted him. The enthusiasm which this national fraternity inspired in him made him close his eyes to the pagan character of Hitlerism. Even among us—the Germans who had followed the swastika banner from the beginning of the Movement—very few understood what was happening, not politically, but in terms of values.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: The transvaluation of all values advocated by Nietzsche!

______ 卐 ______

 
Few realised that a spiritual revolution—a negation of the anthropocentric values that had been accepted by almost everyone without question for centuries, and a return to the natural, cosmic values of a forgotten civilisation—was taking place before their eyes.

Some of them realised this, felt cheated in their early hopes, and left the Movement, like Hermann Rauschning, or betrayed it (with the tragic consequences that we know). Others—a minority—welcomed, and still do, in this revolution in values, precisely that to which they themselves had, more or less consciously, always aspired. Those are the rock on which the Hitler Church is built.

It will last if they last, that is, if they can pass on their blood and faith to an uninterrupted succession of Aryan generations, until the end of this Cycle.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 17

No doubt all men have something in common, if only the upright posture and articulate language, which other living species do not possess. Every species is characterised by something which all its members have in common, and which the members of other species lack. The flexibility and purr of felines are traits that no other species can claim. We do not dispute that all human races have several features in common, simply because they are human. What we do dispute is that these common traits are more worthy of our attention than are the enormous differences between races (and often between human individuals of the same race), and the features that all living things, including plants, have in common.

In our eyes a Negro or a Jew, or a Levantine without a well-defined race, has neither the same duties nor the same rights as a pure Aryan. They are different; they belong to worlds which, whatever their points of contact may be on the material plane, remain alien to each other. They are different by nature—biologically Others. The acquisition of a ‘common culture’ cannot bring them together, except superficially and artificially, because ‘culture’ is nothing if it has no deep roots in nature.

Our point of view is not new. Already the Laws of Manu assigned to the Brahmin and the Soudra—and the people of each caste—different duties and rights, and very different penalties to the possible murderers of members of different castes. Caste is—and was in ancient India—linked to race. (It is called varna, which means ‘colour’, and also jat, race). Less far from us in time, and in this Europe where the contrasts between races have never been so extreme, the legislation of the Merovingian Franks, like that of the Ostrogoths of Italy, and the other Germans established in conquered countries, provided for the murder of a man of the Nordic race—of a German—penalties out of proportion to those incurred by the murderer of a Gallo-Roman or an Italian, especially if the latter was of servile condition.

No idea that is justified by healthy racism is new.

On the other hand, we do not understand this priority given to ‘man’, whoever he may be, over any subject of another living species, for the sole reason that ‘he is a man’. It is all very well for the followers of man-centred religions to believe in this priority and to take it into account in all the steps of their daily life. For them, this is the object of an article of faith, the logical consequence of a dogma. And faith cannot be discussed.

But that so many thinkers and so many people who, like them, do not belong to any church, who even fight against any so-called revealed religion, have exactly the same attitude and find the last of the human waste more worthy of concern than the healthiest and most beautiful of beasts (or plants); that they deny us the ‘right’ not only to kill without suffering, but even to sterilise defective human beings, when the life of a healthy and strong animal doesn’t count in their eyes, and that they will, without remorse, cut down a beautiful tree whose presence ‘bothers them’, is what shocks us deeply; what revolts us.

All these self-styled independent minds, all these ‘free’ thinkers, are, just as the believers of the man-centred religions and so-called human ‘dignity’, slaves of the prejudices that the West and a large part of the East. They have inherited it from Judaism. If they have rejected the dogmas and mythology of anthropocentric religions, they have retained their values in their entirety. This is as true of the eighteenth-century Deists as it is of our atheistic Communists. [Editor’s Note: The POV of this site about ‘neochristianity’ in a few words! Savitri continues:]

Although most anti-Communist Christians indignantly reject the idea, there is a profound parallelism between Christianity and Marxism. Both are originally Jewish products. Both have received the imprint of a more or less decadent Aryan thought: that of the subtle Hellenistic philosophy, overloaded with allegories and ready to accept the most unexpected syncretisms, in the case of the former—and of that ideology not of the true scientific spirit, which guards against error, but of what I will call ‘scientism’: the propensity to replace faith in traditional ideas by faith that is presented in the name of ‘Science’, in the case of the latter.

And above all, both are centred on the same values: on the cult of man, as the only being created ‘in the image and likeness’ of the god of the Jews, or simply as a being of the same species as the Marxist who glorifies him. The practical result of anthropo-centrism is the same, whatever its source.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 1

Editor’s Note: Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman by Savitri Devi was written in 1968, 1971 and published in 1976. While the book edition I plan to publish on Daybreak Press contains the entire text of Memories, the following is only the first abbreviated chapter.

It wouldn’t make much sense to publish a new edition but the edition of the image below is out of print (in case it isn’t please let me know).

Yesterday, when I saw a few seconds of the last video of Richard Spencer chatting with his English colleague, I could no longer bear the lack of gravitas of these two pundits of the alt-right. Lack of gravitas is poison for priests or priestesses of the sacred words. In Savitri’s prose, ‘pale imitations [of NS] without heart’.

Since it is a long text, if you do not have time to read it pay attention to the words I highlighted in bold-type:

 

Chapter I—The Religion of the Strong

‘Enochia, monstrous City of the Manly, Den of the Violent, Citadel of the Strong, Which has never known fear or remorse’. —Leconte de Lisle (‘Cain’, Barbaric Poems)

If I had to choose a motto for myself, I would take this one—pure, dure, sure (pure, hard, certain)—in other words: unalterable. I would express by this the ideal of the Strong, that which nothing brings down, nothing corrupts, nothing changes; those on whom one can count, because their life is order and fidelity, in accord with the eternal…

Free yourself from two deadly superstitions: the search for ‘happiness’ and concern for ‘humanity’… Help the animal and the tree—and defend them against the selfish and mean-spirited man…

But those who have the Word, father of thought, and among them the Strong especially, have something better to do than pursue ‘happiness’… The pleasure or the displeasure, the happiness or the discontent of the individual does not count. Well-being—beyond the minimum that is necessary for each to fulfil his task—does not count. Only the task counts: the quest for the essential, the eternal, through life and through thought…

He who has the Word, father of thought, and who, far from putting it in service of the essential, wastes it in the search for personal satisfactions; he who has technology, fruit of thought, and who makes use of it especially to increase his well-being and that of other men, taking that for the main task, is unworthy of his privileges. He is not worthy of the beings of beauty and silence, the animal, the tree—he who himself follows their path. He who uses the powers that the Word and thought give him to inflict death and especially suffering on the beautiful beings that do not speak, in view of his own well-being or that of other men, he who uses the privileges of man against living nature sins against the universal Mother—against Life—and the Order that desires noblesse oblige. He is not Strong; he is not an aristocrat in the deep sense of the word, but petty, an egoist and a coward, an object of disgust in the eyes of the natural élite.

All society, all ‘civilisation’ that proceeds from the same aspiration to human well-being above all, to well-being or human ‘happiness’ at any price, is marked by the seal of the Powers of Decadence, enemies of the cosmic order of the play of forces without end. It is a civilisation of the Dark Age. If you are obliged to suffer it, suffer it by unceasingly opposing it, denouncing it, combating it every minute of your life. Make it your glory to hasten its end—at least to cooperate with all your might with the natural action of the forces leading to its end. For it is accursed. It is organised ugliness and meanness.

Rid yourself not only of the superstition of ‘happiness’, if it ever allured you, but also that of man. Protect yourself from the attitude, as vain as it is stupid, that consists in trying ‘to love all men’ simply because they are men. And if this attitude was never yours, if, from childhood, you were impermeable to the propaganda of the devotees of ‘humanity’, give thanks to the immortal Gods to whom you owe this innate wisdom…

For ‘man’, who is esteemed so highly, is not a reality but a construction of the mind…

The most perfect Nordic specimen, whose heart is noble and whose judgment is firm and just, and whose features and carriage are those of the Greek statues of the finest age, is ‘a man’. A Hottentot, a Pygmy, a Papuan, a Jew, a Levantine mixed with Jews, are ‘men’. ‘Man’ does not exist. There exist only quite diverse varieties of primates that by convention are called ‘human’…

The ethnic chaos of the masses of a metropolis at the forefront of technological progress tends to acquire a uniformity of grayness, a kind of manufactured homogeneity—desired by those who control the masses—a sinister caricature of the relative unity natural to people of the same blood that binds a scale of values and common practices; a uniformity which, far from revealing a ‘collective mind’, at whatever level of awareness, reveals only the deterioration of a society that has definitively turned its back on the eternal—in other words: a damned society.

But one can still sometimes discover an exceptional individual within such a society, an individual who disdains the ethnic chaos that he sees around him and of which he is perhaps himself a product, and who, in order to escape, adheres to some doctrine of the extinction of the species, or even puts himself completely at the service of a true race, with all the renunciation that entails for him. The mechanism of heredity is so complex and the play of external influences so random that it is not possible to envisage who among the children of a declining society will become such individuals—no more than it is possible to envisage which new-born member of a tribe will aspire one day to something other than received values and ideas, or which child raised in a particular faith will hasten to leave it as soon as he can…

If there were an Aztec who was shocked by the sacrifices offered to the gods of his people, this man would be among the first to adopt the religion of the Spanish conquerors; and an Aryan of Europe who, in our time, feels only contempt for the ‘Christian and democratic’ values of the West and dreams of a society in the image of ancient Sparta, adheres, if he has a taste for combat, to the Hitlerian faith.

* * *

Thus there is no moral obligation to love all men, unless one postulates a duty to love all living things, including the most harmful insects, because a man (or a group of men) that, by nature or choice, spreads ugliness, lies, and suffering, is worse than any harmful insect. It would be absurd to fight the one, the least powerful and therefore the least dangerous of all, and to tolerate—and worse, to ‘love’—the other.

Love, therefore, the higher man, the Aryan worthy of the name: beautiful, good, and courageous; responsible; capable of all sacrifices for the achievement of his task; the Aryan healthy and strong. He is your brother and your comrade in arms in the fight of your race against the forces of disintegration, he whose children will continue this sacred fight in your place, when your body is returned to the elements.

Respect the man of noble races other than your own, who carries out, in a different place, a combat parallel to yours—to ours. He is your ally. He is our ally, be he at the other end of the world…

But despise the mass man with his empty heart and shallow mind; the mass egoist, mean and pretentious, who lives only for his own well-being and for what money can buy. Despise him, while using him as much as you can. If he is of our race and sufficiently pure, then from him children can be born who, educated in our care at a time when we will again have our say, will be worth infinitely more than he is. It is the best, perhaps the only, service he can render. Any time that a man of good race, cheerfully integrated into ‘consumer society’, disappoints you, tell yourself that he does not count as a conscious individual; only his blood counts. See in him only what the breeder of horses or dogs considers in his subjects: his pedigree. Let us be frank: what he says, believes, and thinks is of no importance.

As for the enemy of immutable values, the enemy of Nature and Life—he who would like to sacrifice the most beautiful to the least beautiful or the downright ugly, the strong to the weak, the healthy to the suffering, sick, and defective; he who rises up, alone or in a group, against the eternal: fight him with all the ardour of your heart, all the force of your arms, all the power of your intelligence. It is not necessary to hate him. He follows his nature and achieves his destiny while being opposed to the eternal values. He plays his role in the cosmic dance without beginning or end…

Fight him with violence; fight him without violence—as the case may be. Fight him by thinking day and night of the opposition between your role and his.

* * *

Extremely rare are the alleged doctrines of ‘liberation’, and rarer still are political doctrines (if their base is ‘philosophical’) that meet this condition. If one of them, while not meeting it, under the pressure of a need of the human heart as old as mankind, adopts rituals, it will tend to give rise to a false religion—to a sacrilegious organisation, in other words, a counter-Tradition. This is, in our age, the case with Marxism, insofar as a pretence of ritual life began to be introduced there. The humble and sincere Slavic peasant who, among many others, waits in front of the mausoleum of Lenin for the moment when he will finally be allowed to gather in the presence of the body, rendered artificially incorruptible, of the man who made the ideas of the Jew Marx the basis of a world revolution, is a man of faith. He came there in pilgrimage, to nourish his devoted heart, as his fathers went to prostrate themselves, in some famous church, in front of a miraculous icon. The food of the heart remains, or has become again, for him more significant than that of the stomach. There he would remain, if need be, for two days without eating and drinking, to live in the minute when he will pass in silence in front of the mummified flesh of Lenin. But the heart lives on truth, on contact with that which is, always and everywhere. The untruths that it believes divert it from this contact and leave, sooner or later, a hunger for the absolute. But the whole philosophy of Marx, adopted by Lenin as the foundation of the proletarian State, is based on flagrant untruths: on the assertion that man is nothing more than what his economic milieu makes of him; on the negation of the role of heredity, therefore of race; on the negation of the role of superior personalities (and races) in the course of history. The sincere man, religiously devoted to the Masters who have exalted this error in theory and unleashed from it a revolution on a worldwide scale, serves unknowingly the Forces of disintegration; those which, in the more or less dualistic terminology of more than one traditional teaching, one calls the ‘Powers of the Abyss’.

Among the doctrines of the twentieth century called political, I know of only one that, while being in fact infinitely more than ‘political’, meets the condition sine qua non, without which it is impossible for a Weltanschauung, even with the aid of ritual, to be used as the basis of a true religion, namely, that it rests on eternal truths, exceeding by far mankind and its immediate problems, not to mention the particular people to whom it was initially preached and the problems they had then. Only one, I say, and I speak of the true Aryan racism, in other words, Hitlerism.

* * *

In a passage of his novel The Seven Colors, [i] Robert Brasillach describes the consecration ceremony for the new flags of the Third Reich at one of the great annual meetings at Nuremberg, at which he himself was present. After the imposing procession of all the organisations dependent upon or attached to the National Socialist Party, the Führer solemnly advanced under the eyes of five hundred thousand spectators crowded on the steps of the immense stadium, on which reigned an absolute silence. One after another, he raised the new banners and put them in contact with the ‘Blood Flag’: the standard that his earliest disciples had carried during the Putsch of 9 November 1923 and to which the blood of the Sixteen who fell this day had given a sacred character. In this way, each flag became similar to that one; ‘charged’ like it with a mystical fluid by participation in the sacrifice of the Sixteen. And the French writer remarks, quite justly, that he whom the religious meaning of this act escapes ‘does not understand anything of Hitlerism’. He emphasizes, in other words, that this act is a ritual.

But this ritual, to which many others can be added, would never have sufficed to give Hitlerism the character of a religion, if it had not already been a more-than-political doctrine: a Weltanschauung. And above all, it would have been unable to make it a true religion, if, at the base of this Weltanschauung, there had not been eternal truths and a whole attitude which was not (and does not remain), in last analysis, anything other than the quest for the eternal even in what changes—the traditional attitude par excellence.

These words may seem strange in 1969, more than twenty-four years after the defeat of Hitler’s Germany on the battlefield and the collapse of its political structure. They can seem strange, now that one would seek in vain, in the whole geographical region covered by the Third Reich, a visible sign of the resurgence of National Socialism such as the Führer intended it, and that the majority of the organisations which, beyond the old frontiers of the Reich, claim they would rescue the condemned Movement, are just pale imitations without heart, or just lamentable caricatures, sometimes in the service of other goals. But the value of a doctrine—its truth—has nothing to do with the success or the failure of its members on the material plain. This success or failure depends on the accord or discord of the doctrines with the aspirations of people at a given moment of history, and also on the fact that its adherents are or are not, from the military point of view, the diplomatic point of view, from the point of view of the art of propaganda, able to impose themselves—and consequently do impose themselves—on their adversaries…

It is correct that Hitlerians had been vanquished on all fronts in 1945; it is correct that the Third German Reich was dismembered; that the National Socialist party does not exist anymore; that in Germany and elsewhere there are no more Swastika flags in the windows, no streets bearing the name of the Führer, no publications of any kind that honour his memory. It is correct that thousands of Germans learned how to scorn or hate He whom their parents had acclaimed, and that millions are no more interested in him and his teaching than if he had never lived. Yet it remains no less true that the essence of the Hitlerian doctrine is the very expression of eternal laws; the laws that govern not only man, but life; which represent, as I wrote in a book in the German language ‘the wisdom of the starry heaven’,[ii] and that the choice posed to the world is, consequently, the same after 1945 as before. It is the acceptance of this more than human wisdom, it is this accord with the spirit of Nature, which Hitlerism implies, or disintegration, ethnic chaos, the degeneration of man—separation from the Heart of the cosmos; damnation. It is—and the words are again mine—‘Hitler or hell’.[iii]

People of our planet seem to have chosen hell. It is what a declining humanity invariably does. It is the very sign that we are completely in what the Hindu tradition calls the Kali Yuga, the Dark Age [Editor’s note: The West’s darkest hour]. But the ages follow one another. The laws that regulate their succession remain.

It is equally correct that very many acts of violence were committed in the name of Hitlerism, and it is for them that it is reproached so obstinately by the herd of right-thinking people, the ‘decent people’, deeply attached (in theory at least) to humanitarian values.

There are, however, two kinds of acts of violence—or acts leading to violence—‘committed in the name of a doctrine’. There are those that, in the spirit of the doctrine, are necessary, or at least justifiable, in the circumstances in which they take place…

The acts of violence committed in the spirit of Hitlerism— according to its profound logic—far from calling its truth into question, on the contrary, only underscore it. For the application of a true doctrine—that is to say, expressing the very laws of life—in a society, however privileged, of the Dark Age, in other words, in a society which, along with all humanity, is, in spite of its progress on the technical level, and perhaps because of it, in regression from the point of view of Nature, can only be done ‘against Time’; against the universal current of decline that characterizes the Dark Age. And that is materially impossible without violence.

* * *

On 28 October 1953, in front of some comrades, very few in number, gathered at Holzminden on the Weser, the Hitlerian Félix F. told me: ‘Up to 1945, we were a party; after 1945, let us be the core of a great international faith’. He believed, no doubt, that even in an age of universal degeneration such as ours, the Strong of Aryan blood were still numerous enough and conscious enough to be linked in a ‘great international faith’ around the only doctrine worthy of them.

Only the future will tell if he was right or not. But I affirm today that, even if stripped of everything that could be contingent—temporal—in its first expression as a political doctrine, Hitlerism never managed to impose itself on the Aryan élite wherever it exists, it nevertheless remains the Way of the Strong, open to the eternal, their asceticism, in all ages of accelerated decadence, at all ‘ends of the cycle’.

* * *

All true religions, all those that can be integrated into the Tradition, lead to the eternal, certainly. But they do not carry all the same people to it. The religions ‘of extinction’, as I call them—such as Buddhism, Jainism, and later Catharism—guide the lost and the desperate for whom the absence of hope is suffering, people broken or rejected by the fight without end and who aspire to ‘leave it’. The doctrines that preach action in detachment and enthusiasm without hope are addressed to the Strong, to those whom the fight, though ‘useless’, never tires, and who need neither the anticipatory vision of a paradise after death, nor that of a ‘better world’ for their sons and their nephews, to fight with zeal and until the end, according to what is, for them, duty.

The Varnashramdharma of the Hindus—a religion based on the natural hierarchy of the castes (thus of the races, the Hindu castes being hereditary and having nothing to do with the goods that can be acquired) and on the natural succession of duties in the course of a man’s life—is a religion of the Strong. It is dominated by the doctrine of detached Action as it has reached us in the Bhagavad-Gîta. It was conceived as the basis of a traditional society, already decadent, no doubt—the decline begins, in each temporal cycle, at the end of the first Age, called the Age of Truth, Satya Yuga, or Age of Gold—but incommensurable with ours, as it is infinitely closer to the ideal or divine order.

Hitlerism considered in its essence, i.e., stripped of all that attaches it to the political and economic contingencies of a particular time, is the religion of the Strong of the Aryan race, as opposed to a world in decline; a world of ethnic chaos, contempt of living Nature, the silly exaltation of ‘man’ in all that is weak, morbid, eccentrically ‘individual’, different from other beings; a world of human selfishness (individual and collective), of ugliness and cowardice. It is the reaction of the Strong of this race, originally noble, to such a world. And it is that which they offer to all their brothers in race.

There are, parallel to it, the religions that exalt the same virtues, the same asceticism of detachment; which rest on the same glorification of combat without end and the same worship of Blood and Soil, but which are addressed to other races—religions, sometimes very old, but continuously renewed, rethought, thanks to the vitality of their followers. Shintoism, based on the deification of the heroes, the ancestors, the Sun, and of the very soil of Japan, is one. As a Japanese said to me in 1940: ‘Your National Socialism is, in our eyes, a Western Shintoism; it is our own philosophy of the world, thought by Aryans and preached to Aryans’. (Alas! In Gamagori, not far from Hiroshima, the Japanese raised a temple to Tojo and those whom the victors of 1945 killed with him as ‘war criminals’. When will one see in Germany monuments, if not ‘temples’, to the glory of all those Germans hung from 6 October 1946 and after, up to 7 June 1951, for having been faithful to their faith, which is also ours, and having done their duty?)

But that is another question.

Let us return to what constitutes the eternity of Hitlerism, that is to say, the not only more-than-political but more-than-human—cosmic—character of its basic truths, in particular of all that relates to race, biological reality, and the people, historical and social reality.

The Führer said to each of his compatriots and, beyond those, to each of his brothers in race and to any man of good race: ‘You are nothing; your people are all’. He has, in addition, in Point Four of the famous Twenty-Five Points which constitute the program of the National Socialist Party, indicated what, in his eyes, made the essence of the concept of the ‘people’: ‘Only he who is a member of the people can be a citizen of the State. Only he who is of Germanic blood can be a member of the (German) people. From whence it follows that no Jew can be a citizen of the (German) State’.[iv]

It is a return, pure and simple, to the ancient conception of the people: of the German conception, certainly, but also the Greek, that of the Romans before the Empire, with that of all peoples, or almost all. It is the negation of the Roman attitude of the centuries of decadence, which allowed any inhabitant of the Empire, any subject of the Emperor, to become a ‘Roman citizen’, be he Jewish, like Paul of Tarsus or Flavius Josephus, or Arab, like the Emperor Philip—and, later, it sufficed to be ‘Christian’, and of the same Church as the Emperor to be an Byzantine ‘citizen’, able to reach the highest offices.[v] [Editor’s note: White nationalists are still unwilling to see that Constantinople was a melting pot of the races, courtesy of universalist Christianity.] It is the negation of the ideas of the ‘people’ and the ‘citizen’ such as presented by the French Revolution at the moment when, at the suggestion of the Abbé Grégoire and others as well, the Constituent Assembly proclaimed ‘French’ all the Jews residing in France and speaking French.

In other words, if a people is an historical and social reality, if its common memories, glorious and painful, common habits and, in general, common language, are factors of cohesion among its members, it is also more than that. It is part of a great race. It is an Aryan or Mongoloid people, an Australoid, Negroid, or Semitic people. It can, without ceasing to be a true people, contain a more or less large proportion of different sub-races, provided that these are all part of the great race to which it belongs. The Führer himself was physically as ‘Alpine’ as he was Nordic, and perhaps more. The brilliant and faithful Goebbels was almost purely Mediterranean. And they are not the only greater Germans or the only personages in the first rank of the Third Reich not to be one hundred percent Nordic…

The people which, even in the midst of the ethnic chaos that reigns more and more everywhere on earth, ‘devotes all its energy’ to preventing interbreeding and ‘to promoting its best racial elements’, writes the Führer, ‘is sure to become sooner or later the master of the world’,[vi] (provided, naturally, that it is a dynamic and creative people). Consequently, it will live; it will remain a true people, while each of its competitors, more and more invaded, submerged by heterogeneous elements, will have ceased to be such—and for the same reason, cease to merit (and to rouse) the sacrifice of individuals of value.

The sincere man who, in agreement with the spirit of Aryan racism, i.e., of Hitlerism or any other noble racism, effaces himself before a true people that is his; who, in order to serve it above all, tramples personal interest, money, pleasure, the glory of his own name; this man approaches the eternal. His good citizenship is devotion and asceticism.

But he needs a true people to serve. For he who is devoted to a mixed ‘people’, in other words to a human community without race and definite character, a ‘people’ in name only, wastes his time. His activity is a little less shocking than that of people who devote themselves to the service of the handicapped, retarded, deficient, of human refuse of all kinds, because the mongrel, if he is healthy in body, is nevertheless quite useful. Just the same, it would be better for an individual of value who emerges by chance from a ‘people’ which is not one, to devote himself in all humility to a true people of a superior race, or that he be content to serve innocent life, beautiful non-human life, that he defend animals and trees against man, or, if he can, that he combine the two activities [Editor’s note: the 14 words and the 4 words!]. Perhaps then—supposing the widespread Indian belief in an unknown reality—he will be reborn one day in a human community worthy of him… provided that he does not act in view of such an honour, that he never desires it.

* * *

The mixture began with the evil pride born of the Word: the pride that pushed the man to believe himself a being apart and against the iron laws that attach him to the earth and to Life; that made him dig an imaginary trench between himself and all other living things; that encouraged him to place his whole species on a pedestal; to scorn, in the name of the false fraternity of the Word, flagrant racial inequalities, and to think that he could with impunity bring together what Nature separates; that he was ‘superior’, above this prohibition, above divine law.

Hitlerism represents, in the midst of ethnic chaos, in the midst of an epoch of the world’s physical and moral decline, the supreme effort to bring the thinking Aryan back to respect for the cosmic order as it is affirmed in the laws of development, conservation, and disintegration of races, back to willing submission to Nature, our Mother and to lead back, willingly or by force, the non-thinking Aryan, who is nevertheless valuable because of the possibilities of his offspring. The cult of the ‘people’—at the same time of Blood and Soil—leads to the cult of the race common to people of the same blood and the eternal Laws that govern its conservation.

_______________

[i] Robert Brasillach, Les Sept Couleurs (Paris: Editions Plon, 1939). On 6 February 1945 Charles De Gaulle’s ‘Liberation Government’ executed Brasillach for treason. —Trans.

[ii] ‘Die Weisheit des sternhellen Weltraumes’ in Hart wie Kruppstahl [Hard as Krupp Steel], completed in 1963.

[iii] ‘Hitler or Hell’, in Gold in the Furnace (Calcutta: A.K. Mukherji, 1952), 416; written in 1948-49.

[iv] Text of item four of the Twenty-Five Points.

[v] Such as Leon ‘the Armenian’ who reached the throne of Byzantium.

[vi] Mein Kampf, German edition of 1935, 782.

Whipping the fog and pride

‘It was as useless to fight against the interpretations of ignorance as to whip the fog’.

—George Elliot, Middlemarch

Throughout the first decades of my life I was very naive. I believed that it was possible to reason with people simply by citing facts and solid arguments based on those facts. I hadn’t realised that humanity is a failed species, and that throughout civilisations humans have believed simply what they want to believe, even if they are the most horrible and cruel religions or secular ideologies.

After reading Schopenhauer I realised that everything has to do with the will, and that it is impossible to change the worldview of an ordinary human unless one first gains his will.

When I learned in my twenties of liberal Christian criticism about the historicity of New Testament accounts, in my infinite naivety I believed that I could use that knowledge to argue with my father. For example, I once told him that Herod’s massacre of the innocents could not be historical since Flavius Josephus, the historian of the 1st century of our era, would not have overlooked it in his famous history of Jewry. But Josephus doesn’t mention it. The only thing my father did was get angry, and of course my solid argument didn’t make the slightest dent in his traditional Catholic worldview.

The same I came to observe with the people of the left whom I dealt with. As my visitors know, I grew up in a country in Latin America. In the days before the internet, my acquaintances were not interested in what could be accessed through the cultural magazines of the country, for example, the magazine Vuelta by Octavio Paz: who criticised Marxism-Leninism. The left-wing people whom I dealt with weren’t interested in Paz’s magazine, even though he was the Spanish speaker whose prose was the most lyrical in his day.

(Left, Juan del Río and his wife, who invited me to enter Eschatology in December 1978. Both have already died.) Likewise, when I began to apostatise from Eschatology, a cult of the New Age type in which I spent some years of my life (see the first of my essays in Daybreak), my teacher Juan del Río didn’t answer any of my arguments even when I sent them in writing. Juan died because eschatologists believe that all diseases have a psychosomatic aetiology, and despite having the financial means, a colon cancer that tormented him for years wasn’t properly treated. In his book-review ‘Do not rely on “mental healing”, scepticism is healthy’, the American S. Currie tells about a similar case:

My mother left leather-bound editions of The Sickle (1918) and The Sharp Sickle (1938) [the textbooks of Eschatology] to me before she passed away. She used to read to me from these books on Sundays when I was young. I believe her mother, my grandmother, originally introduced her to these books when she was a young woman. Both my mother and grandmother died of colon cancer. My father was a physician. In my mother’s case, she kept her early symptoms secret from my Dad and everyone else so that she could work on them via ‘mental healing’. When at last she did tell my Dad and she went to her doctor, it was too late. I both love these books as my mother’s close possessions, and despise them for encouraging her to ignore modern medicine. I will not leave them to my children.

Some time later, now with the advantage of the internet, I discovered the forums of white nationalists, and it happened exactly the same that had happened to me with my father, the Latin American leftists and the eschatologists: they don’t tolerate cognitive dissonance. If they tolerated it the first thing they would do would be a severe examination of conscience of how it is possible to be Jew-wise and at the same time bend the knee before the god of the Jews. It took me a few years to realise that white nationalists are as closed-minded as my father, the people of the old left that I dealt with, and the eschatologists.

For the record, I have been in this world for over sixty years, and this has been my experience with the common human. Trying to fight ignorance with all of them has been like whipping the fog: a pointless experience. I’m not referring to one hundred percent of Christians, leftists or white nationalists because it is obvious that there are exceptions. I mean the bulk of the population.

What they all lack is a little humility. I abandoned Christianity, leftist ideologies, Eschatology and White Nationalism out of humility (now I don’t consider myself a white nationalist but rather a ‘priest of the 14 words’ to distinguish myself from them): humility to face tough or ugly facts. What all these people suffer from is pride, the original sin to quote their own vocabulary.

Published in: on January 23, 2021 at 1:42 pm  Comments Off on Whipping the fog and pride  

Feels lonely sometimes

This morning I was looking for another of Linder’s archived quotable Gab quotes and, while finding this one—:

The theory that “exposing the jews” would solve the problem was first put out there by Henry Ford. We now have 100 years to judge “how’s that theory working out for you, White man?”

—at the same time I was listening to the first episode of Black Wolf Radio: two voices of English men I’ve met personally. In the podcast, one of them used the word ‘Marxist’ repeatedly.

(Left, Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto.) Luis Salazar, a Marxist teacher of the Madrid School (a school founded by those Spaniards who fled the Franco regime), taught us Marxism in Mexico City in the middle 1970s. This word has changed so much since the 70s that presently it means something altogether different.

In white nationalist circles, it now means the ideology of white genocide through the inversion of values. I still remember pretty well the content of the Communist Manifesto that we had to study at the Madrid School, and thus I believe that the term ‘neo-Christian’ would better describe the ideology of white genocide.

Of course: ‘cultural Marxism’ is the term in fashion in white nationalist circles after the old term ‘liberalism’, in the sense of liberalism ran amok, fell into disuse. But since classical liberalism and classical Marxism weren’t ideologies aimed at the extermination of whites, the priest of the 14 words should try to develop a more concise vocabulary. From the POV of the priest, white nationalism uses terms very loosely because it has failed to settle accounts with Christianity.

If one cries ‘Marxist’, the impression on the listener is that things were going on well until Karl Marx in the 19th century. But the French Revolution enforced egalitarian principles before Marx was even born. And long, long before the French Revolution white culture was overwhelmed by an ideology of Semitic origin that erased almost all vestiges of the original Greco-Roman world.

The terms used by white nationalists only convey the level of awakening in the movement, and this includes Linder’s quote above. Yes: some of those who destroyed the Greco-Roman world were anti-Semites, but the virus of enforced egalitarianism in the Ancient World (that could only be implemented by destroying everything noble that whites had created) was far more destructive for classical culture than to Judaism.

This is White history, as every regular visitor of this site should already know. Alas, as Mauricio said, ‘The leap from level 5 to level 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’.

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 20

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
The Christian apologetics of Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Sociobiological accounts of Western pathological altruism are based on inferences not supported by the available empirical evidence. For example, if the individualism of European societies is the result of evolutionary adaptation under ecologically adverse conditions, a similar tendency would be found among other ethno-racial groups that evolved in the same environment. However, Eastern Europeans and Northeast Asians evolved in the same North Eurasian and Circumpolar region but remain strongly ethnocentric and collectivist.

Those arguing in favor of a European genetic basis for pathological altruism face another serious problem: for thousands of years of recorded history, there isn’t a single instance of collectively suicidal behavior among Europeans until the Christianization of Rome in the 4th century. Why this is the case requires the following explanation.

Ancient ethical norms diverged considerably from modern ones. Pity was condemned as a vice; mercy was despised as a character flaw. Mercy was viewed as the antithesis of justice because no one deserved help that had not been earned. The rational man was typically expected to be callous towards the sufferings of the less fortunate. His philosophical training in the academies had shown him that mercy was an irrational and impulsive behavior whose proper antidote was self-restraint and stoic calm in the face of adversity. In the Roman world, clementia was reserved exclusively for the vanquished in battle or the guilty defendant at trial. Weaklings and the economically disadvantaged were beneath contempt.

Life in the ancient world was quite brutal by modern Western standards. The punishments meted out to criminals—blinding, burning with coals, branding with hot irons and mutilation—were exceedingly cruel and unusual. Public entertainment was noted for its brutality. Scratching, biting, eye gouging and mauling an opponent’s genitals were accepted as legitimate tactical maneuvers for boxers and wrestlers alike. In the naumachia, armies of convicts and POW’s were forced to fight each other to the death in naval vessels on man-made lakes. Gladiatorial combat remained immensely popular for centuries, until the monk Telemachus tried to separate two gladiators during a match in the Roman coliseum. He was promptly stoned to death by the mob for his efforts. Slavery was considered a non-issue in the ancient world. Aristotle rationalized the institution by dividing men into two classes: those by nature free, and therefore capable of assuming the responsibilities of citizenship, and those who were by nature slaves. A slave was defined as chattel property bereft of the capacity to reason. This meant that he could be sexually exploited, whipped, tortured and killed by his master without fear of legal reprisal.

Racism or, more accurately, “proto-racism” was more widespread and more accepted in the ancient world than in our politically correct modern Western “democracies.” As revealed by in-depth examination of classical literary sources, the Greeks were typically ethnocentric and xenophobic. They were given to frequent generalization, often negative, about rival ethnicities. The Greeks casually and openly discriminated against foreigners based on deeply ingrained proto-racial prejudices. Ethno-racial intermarriage, even among closely related Greek ethnic and tribal groups, was universally despised. It was even regarded as a root cause of physical and mental degeneration. The absence of terms like “racism,” “discrimination” and “prejudice” in the ancient world reveals that proto-racist attitudes were not generally condemned or seen as pathological.

Greek intellectual and biological superiority was determined by their intermediate geographical position between lazy, stupid northern Europeans and effeminate, pleasure-loving Asians. The Greeks were the best of men because they had been exposed to the right climate and occupied the right soil. The Greeks looked down upon foreigners, pejoratively referring to them as “barbarians.” This was an onomatopoeia derived from Hellenic mockery of unintelligible foreign speech. Barbarians were viewed as the natural inferiors of the civilized peoples of the Mediterranean basin. Prejudice was not only directed at foreigners. Significant interethnic rivalry also existed among fellow Greeks, as demonstrated by the history of the Peloponnesian Wars. Greek patriots despised their Roman conquerors, even referring to them contemptuously as barbarians. After the conquest of Macedonia, the Romans embraced the prejudices of their Greek subjects as their own.

How do contemporary sociobiological accounts of Western pathological altruism explain this?

It has been alleged that pathological altruism was always a deeply ingrained European character flaw. The Pythagorean communism of the 5th century BC is frequently mentioned as corroborating evidence, but these practices were reserved for the intellectual elite. Much the same could be said for Stoic cosmopolitanism, which bears no similarity to the deracinated cosmopolitanism of the modern West. In the Greek variant, the intellectual gains world citizenship by living in accord with the cosmic law of universal reason; in the Roman variant, the cosmopolis is identified with the Roman patria.

The Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great is believed by some to have been established on a morally universalist foundation. These accusations have their basis in the rhetorical amplifications and literary embellishments of chroniclers who wrote long after the exploits of Alexander. The expansion of the Greek sphere of influence in Asia was romanticized by some as implying a new world order based on an imagined brotherhood of man. This is contradicted by the historical record. In actuality, Alexander and his generals promoted a policy of residential segregation along ethno-racial lines in the conquered territories, with Greek colonists on one side and natives on the other. In the Greek view, Hellenized Egyptians, Israelites, Syrians and Babylonians were racial foreigners who had successfully assimilated Greek culture; clearly then, cultural and linguistic Hellenization was not enough to make one “Greek.”

Ancestral lineage was an important component of ancient Greek identity. Herodotus observed that the Greeks saw themselves as a community “of one blood and of one tongue.” Caracalla’s extension of the franchise to Roman provincials in 212 AD was not an act of universalism per se, but occurred after centuries of Romanization. It was done for purposes of taxation and military recruitment. This imperial legislation, known as the Antonine Constitution, did not abolish ethnic distinction among Roman citizens.

The conventional sociobiological explanation of Prof. MacDonald and others is contradicted by the pervasive brutality and ethno-racial collectivism of ancient societies. Given Christianity’s role as an agent of Western decline, no explanation will be fully adequate until this is finally acknowledged and taken into consideration. Prof. MacDonald, in an essay for The Occidental Observer, “Christianity and the Ethnic Suicide of the West”, ignores this major obstacle to his own detriment, arguing that from a Western historical perspective, Christianity was a relatively benign influence. Despite MacDonald’s eminence as an authority on 20th century Jewish intellectual and political movements, his defense of Christianity reveals a superficial understanding of history, contemporary political theory and Christian theology.

Prof. MacDonald whitewashes Christianity throughout, denying that the religion has ever been “a root cause of Western decline.” He observes that Christianity was the religion of the West during the age of European exploration and colonization, but not once does he mention that Christianity was a spent force by the late Middle Ages, having undergone a serious and irreversible decline in power and influence. Prof. MacDonald does not mention that after 1400, Christendom was no longer unified because the legitimacy of medieval ecclesiastical authority had been shattered; first, by the rediscovery of classical science and philosophy, which shook the Christian worldview to its very foundations, and second, by the Protestant Reformation, which reduced the pope to the status of a mere figurehead.

This set the stage for the large-scale dissemination of atheism and agnosticism in the 20th century. Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, combined with the spread of mass literacy, virtually ensured that the Christian church would never again control European intellectual life. If the late medieval church had retained the same ecclesiastical and political authority it had under Pope Innocent III, European colonization and exploration of the globe would have been virtually inconceivable. For these reasons, it is more historically accurate to situate European territorial expansion within the context of resurgent pagan epistemic values, i.e. empirical rationality, intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of scientific progress for its own sake, during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.

It is argued that the decline of the West has co-occurred with the decline of Christianity as an established faith, but this is incorrect. The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, as well as exploration and colonization that occurred along with it, were only possible because of the collapse of ecclesiastical authority in the late medieval period. This eroded the Christian stranglehold on the spread of knowledge, replacing blind faith with the pagan epistemic values of classical antiquity. The recent decline of the modern West beginning in the 1960s has co-occurred with the growing influence of a neo-Christian ethic in the public sphere, just as the decline of the ancient world co-occurred with the triumph of Christianity over the forces of paganism.

Prof. MacDonald observes that Christians have not always been consistent moral universalists in practice, but this is a non-sequitur. Marxists have not always been consistently anti-racist or multiculturalist, given Stalin’s rabid anti-Semitism, aggressive policy of national Russification, and deportation of entire ethnic populations to Siberia, but this does not change the fact that anti-racism and multiculturalism are characteristic features of Marxist orthodoxy. Since when have the inconsistent practices of a few individuals ever mitigated or excused the destructive nature of an ideology completely at odds with the biological reality of human nature? Likewise, MacDonald’s non-sequitur does not affect the central importance of spiritual equality in the Christian belief-system. Historically, Christians were divided on whether spiritual equality entailed certain real-world implications or was of purely eschatological significance.

This hopelessly muddled line of argument revolves around a nebulous definition of “traditional” Christianity, a term either alluded to or directly mentioned throughout. If traditional Christianity is supposedly good for Europeans, how can it be universalist and ethnocentric at the same time, as in the case of American abolitionists and slave-owners? Or is traditional Christianity whatever form of Christianity MacDonald finds acceptable? If this is the case, what is the point he is trying to make here? Prof. MacDonald mentions that the patristic writers frequently criticized Jewry for being obsessed with biological descent. This placed them at odds with the multicultural and multiethnic ideology of the Christian religion. But how can the patristic writers, who systematically formulated the official dogmatic orthodoxy of the church, not be representative of “traditional” Christianity? Paradoxically, MacDonald acknowledges the ancient origin of the church’s race-mixing proclivities. If he believes that the patristic writers were corrupted by egalitarian principles at a very early date, he should at least provide evidence of theological subversion.

According to Prof. MacDonald, the secular left, which initiated the cultural revolution of the 1960s, is not Christian in inspiration. This statement is egregiously wrong, revealing a profound ignorance of the philosophies of liberalism and Marxism, especially in terms of their historical development. These belief-systems originated in a Christian theological context. The core ideas of liberalism, human rights and equality, have their genesis in the careful biblical exegesis of 17th and 18th century Christian political theorists. Marxism is deeply rooted in the fertile soil of the Christian tradition, especially in the speculative Protestant rationalism of Hegel. It also draws additional inspiration from the Reformed theological principles of Luther and the communist socio-economic practices of the primitive Christian church.

The hostility between the secular left and “traditional” Christianity is emphasized to further demonstrate the non-Christian origins of Western pathological altruism. However, his observation is completely irrelevant, as both traditional and secular Christianity are essentially rival denominations within the same Christian religious tradition. The mutual hostility that exists between the two is to be expected. Furthermore, it is foolhardy to maintain that traditional or mainline Christianity has been corrupted by the secular left; given the origins of liberalism and Marxism in Christian theology and biblical exegesis, it is more accurate to say that traditional Christianity has allowed itself to be corrupted by its own moral paradigms after taking them to their logical conclusion. The Christian theological basis of social and biological egalitarianism is merely the rediscovery and application of the original ethical teachings of Jesus and the primitive church.

Prof. MacDonald says the “contemporary zeitgeist of the left is not fundamentally Christian.” He fails to realize that the liberal-leftist ideas behind Third World immigration and state-sanctioned multiculturalism have deep roots in the Christian tradition. There is a common misunderstanding, no doubt propagated by Christian apologists, that one must embrace the supernatural claims of Christian religious dogma to be considered a Christian. This contention is not supported by contemporary scholarship. For example, Unitarians reject traditional Christian orthodoxy but remain well within the Christian fold. Neo-Christianity, like Unitarianism, is a thoroughly demythologized religion, properly defined as the application of New Testament-derived ethical injunctions to the management of contemporary social and economic relations. By this definition, Liberals and Marxists are no less Christian than your typical bible-thumping “holy roller.”

If Christianity is ultimately responsible for the destruction of Western civilization, asks MacDonald, why aren’t Middle Eastern Christians destroying their own societies by aggressively pushing the same universalist and ethno-masochistic agenda? In this case, the comparison is historically flawed. The medieval Islamic conquest of Byzantine North Africa and the Near East virtually guaranteed that Middle Eastern Christianity would follow a socio-historical trajectory differing significantly from the one followed by Latin Christianity. Up until quite recently, Middle Eastern Christians inhabited a medieval world no different from the one Europeans had lived in for centuries before the dawn of the Renaissance. Middle Eastern Christians never experienced any Reformation that allowed them to shake off the tyranny of ecclesiastical authority and wrestle with the real-world implications of spiritual equality.

Furthermore, none of the conditions for a Reformation ever existed in what remained of Middle Eastern Christendom. There was no humanist movement, which meant no dramatic increase in literacy or availability of printed material. There was no rediscovery of the patristic writers or of the ancient biblical manuscripts in the original languages. Access to the original source material would have made it easier for religious dissidents to challenge ecclesiastical authority and refute long-established medieval Christian dogma. In fact, Middle Eastern Christians were dhimmis, a persecuted jizya-paying religious minority in a larger Moslem world hostile to their very survival. Given the precariousness of their legal situation in the Ottoman empire, they had no time for the finer points of biblical exegesis or theological analysis.

Prof. MacDonald states, erroneously, that in Judaism there is no “tradition of universalist ethics or for empathy with suffering non-Jews.” He is obviously not familiar with the teachings of the Old Testament: “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34) Christianity is simply the radical universalization of Hebrew ethical concern for the plight of hapless foreigners living among them; as such, it is firmly embedded within the soil of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. Although Christianity has absorbed Greek philosophical ideas because of its wide dissemination in Europe, it is obviously not a European invention.

At this point, Prof. MacDonald asks: If the “moral universalism / idealism” that is destroying Sweden is due to Christianity, how does one explain “how people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics”? To answer this question, let us inquire into the historical genesis of the Christian religion and the identity of its earliest followers.

Christianity originated in the yearning of Palestinian Jewry for social justice while having to patiently endure the tyranny of foreign rulers. Under these harsh conditions, Jewish beliefs in a messiah acquired an unprecedented sense of urgency, eventually assuming militant and apocalyptic overtones. This sense of urgency reached a crescendo in 1st century Palestine; self-proclaimed messiahs amassed armed bands of followers poised and ready to establish the son of David on the throne of Caesar, by force if necessary. This is the environment in which the Jesus myth originated, woven together from different strands of Jewish tradition in an atmosphere of deep-seated yearning for the coming advent of a messiah. This advent symbolized the end of Roman tyranny and the establishment of the kingdom of god on earth.

Christianity’s earliest followers were drawn from the refuse of the empire. Why? Because Christianity was the first mass movement in history to give concrete expression to the inner yearning of the people for freedom from oppression and hunger. What man has not sought to escape the oppression of his masters or the poverty of his surroundings? With the rise of Christianity, like the rise of Jewish Messianic belief, the inchoate yearnings of the mob for deliverance from oppression were replaced with a vision of a new social order that would inaugurate an age of universal justice and freedom. This new vision would lead to the establishment of a worldwide communist economic system that would forever solve world poverty and hunger. In the New Testament was found a blueprint for an ideal society that would inspire generations of social reformers and leftist revolutionaries.

For centuries, it was the only widely accessible document that demanded social justice for the poor and downtrodden and the only document to propose a practical solution to the problem of social inequality: the establishment of a socially egalitarian or communist society on earth. The religion of Christianity tapped into this deep-seated, age-old psychological yearning of the masses and, for the first time in history, gave it a coherent voice. This ensured the survival of ethical Christianity long after the decline of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the late Middle Ages, allowing it to flourish, virtually unchallenged, in the ostensibly secular milieu of the modern 21st century Western “democracies.”

As a control mechanism, ethical Christianity was remarkably flexible. It could be used to justify any social arrangement, no matter how unjust or brutal. Its promise of “pie in the sky” had a remarkably pacifying effect on the illiterate serfs, who were expected to toil on the lord’s manor for their daily bread. Feudal landowners encouraged Christian religious instruction because it produced an easily controlled and manipulated peasantry. Vassals had it drummed into their heads from the moment of birth that servants must obey their masters. The church promised them life everlasting in paradise if they faithfully observed this requirement until death.

The great rarity of the peasant revolt against serfdom reveals the shrewd pragmatism of those who used religion as a means of safeguarding the public order. Punishment for original sin and the Pauline dualism between body and spirit, among other things, provided European rulers with additional convenient rationalization for the institution of serfdom. In the right hands, the ethical pronouncements of the New Testament could be used as an agent of revolutionary change, capable of stirring up mass revolt and potentially unleashing forces that could tear apart the “vast fabric of feudal subordination.” This was demonstrated by the Peasant Revolt of 1381, ignited by the fanatical communist-inspired sermons of the renegade priest John Ball.

The concept of human rights—Christian ethical injunctions in secularized form—illustrate in concrete fashion why the morality of the New Testament managed to survive long after the decline of Christian dogmatic orthodoxy. Rights dominate the field of political discourse because they are considered by egalitarian ideologues the most effective mechanism available for ensuring (a) the equal treatment of all persons and; (b) equal access to the basic goods deemed necessary for maximal human flourishing.

This practicality and effectiveness must be attributed to the ability of rights to fulfill the secret yearning of the common people, which is to ameliorate, as much as possible, the baneful effects of oppression and want. It achieves this by demolishing the traditional social and political distinctions once maintained between aristocracy and peasantry, placing all individuals on the same level playing field. The concept of rights has allowed the masses to closely realize their age-old utopian aspirations within a liberal egalitarian or socialist context. The concept’s great flexibility means that it can be interpreted to justify almost any entitlement. Even those who openly rejected the notion of rights, such as utilitarian philosopher Bentham, were unable to devise a more satisfactory mechanism that ensured equal treatment of all.

The Marxist tradition, emerging from under different historical circumstances, never fully decoupled Christian ethical teaching from traditional orthodoxy; instead, Marxist philosophical method necessitated an “inverted” Judeo-Christian eschatological and soteriological framework, largely because dialectical materialism is primarily an inversion of Hegel’s speculative Protestant rationalism.

In Hegelian Christianity, knowledge is substituted for faith. This eliminated the “mysteries” of Christian orthodoxy by making rational self-knowledge of god a possibility for all believers. The trinity as absolute mind, and therefore reason incarnate, means that Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher of rational morality, although his ethical system had been corrupted by patristic and medieval expositors. If “the rational is real and the real is rational,” as Hegel said, history is not only the progressive incarnation of god, but god is the historical process itself. The triadic structure of the natural world, including human self-consciousness, proves that the structure of objective reality is determined by the triune godhead of Christianity.

Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity gave Marx the raw material he needed to extract the “rational kernel” of scientific observation from “within the mystical shell” of Hegelian speculative rationalism. This liberated dialectical analysis from Hegel’s idealist mystification, allowing Marx to do what Hegel should have done, before succumbing to Christian theological reflection: construct a normative science, a Realwissenschaft, analyzing the socio-economic developments within capitalism that would unleash the forces of worldwide proletarian revolution.

The secularization of Christianity preserved the religion’s ethical component, while discarding all supernatural elements. This gave us modern liberalism. In contrast, Marx turned Hegel’s Protestant theological system upside down, a process of extraction resulting in the demystification of Hegelian Christianity. In Marxist philosophy, the inversion of dialectic removes the analytical tool—the “rational kernel”—from within its Christian idealist “shell.” This is then applied to the analysis of real-world phenomena within a thorough-going materialist framework, like the internal contradictions of capital accumulation in Marxist crisis theory.

Prof. MacDonald argues for a genetic basis for moral universalism in European populations, a difficult argument to make given the historical evidence indicating a total absence of pathological altruism in the ancient world before Christianization of the Roman empire. He mentions the systematic brainwashing of Europeans and the major role of Jewish political, academic and financial influence in the ethnocide of the West, but again forgets to mention that all these cultural forces rationalize European dispossession using political ideas like universal human rights and equality, the two fundamental pillars of secularized Christianity.

Prof. MacDonald’s attempt to exculpate Christianity of being “a root cause of Western decline” is easily refuted. In the final analysis, Christianity, at least in its organized form, is the single greatest enemy of Western civilization to have ever existed.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.