Bed of roses

In the mornings, after a good few hours of resting the brain, the mind is in a pristine state; and if we skip breakfast for coffee, our best thoughts come to us philosophers with extraordinary lucidity. On my morning walk to warm up this winter, one of those thoughts came to me again, albeit in a more focused way.

We have been saying on this site that the moralistic framework that whites inherited from Christianity is the cause of their decline. The idea that again came to me this morning is that we could compare that framework to an operating system that, at its core, is malware that inverted our values (recall what we have been saying about the Gospel of Mark from which the other three Gospels and even the so-called Acts of the Apostles were derived).

Left, book by Pope. Note how the old painting depicts Mark the Evangelist as a non-white.

If that operating system or Christian Question (CQ) is the basis of all evil, it is very easy to understand the Jewish Question (JQ). Once the operating system installed in the minds of whites is malware, all subversive programs loaded onto that operating system fall on a bed of roses. In other words, everything that Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique complains about flourishes in the most fertile soil imaginable if the soil is fertilised with Christian ethics.

That’s why we say that the JQ is a secondary issue, and that the primary issue is that damned malware installed on us by Semitic religionists and white traitors since Constantine, though only now has the malware of the mind reached its lethal metastasis.

Medicine is the transvaluation of Judaized values to National Socialist values. Attacking Jewry without attacking Christianity results in the ethnosuicide of E. Michael Jones, who doesn’t give a damn if Europeans become mulattoes as long as they are Catholic. Christian ethics induces even anti-Christian racialists to ethnosuicide! Recall #9 of this year’s first post: ‘No mercy and showing respect to the “right to a living space for all peoples”, as Varg Vikernes does’ (compare his stance with the opening essay of my Day of Wrath, recently censored by the printer Lulu).

In other words, it’s impossible to solve the JQ without first addressing the CQ. What the racial right does in North America and Europe (I am reminded of a conversation I had in London with the traditional Catholic Jez Turner, head person of the now-defunct London Forum) is to put the cart before the horse. It is hilarious that even anti-Christians who have commented here, such as Claudius, believe that it is I who put the cart before the horse when it is they who do it.

I have used mixed metaphors in this post, but it seems to me that the one about the operating system that is sunshine and flowers for subversive programs gives the idea of what we are talking about in The West’s Darkest Hour.

In a nutshell, no CQ no JQ.

Published in: on January 15, 2022 at 1:38 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags:

Two or three Russian dolls?

When I first discovered white nationalist (WN) sites in late 2009 I didn’t understand the Jewish question. It was not well explained on the forums until in February 2010 I came across a commenter’s statement that there were no Jewish associations that helped the white cause: only Jewish associations that harmed white interests. The discussion, then on the old incarnation of this site, reached over a hundred comments.

Then I became an orthodox WN. For a while…

But I began to wonder things like: Why, where I live (Latin America), has it been so bad (miscegenation) even when Jews and crypto-Jews were well controlled by the Spanish Inquisition (1530s-1821)? The WN paradigm began to fall short and could not explain it all.

Let’s listen to this excellent interview on how physicists have been changing their paradigms over the centuries.

Just as Newtonian physics explains gravity almost perfectly in the Solar System, the WN diagnosis (Jews as the primary cause) explains recent American history fairly well. But that is spatial or historical chauvinism, insofar there is a reality outside our solar system and the US. When one starts wanting to force Newtonian physics to give us answers at enormous speeds at the level of galaxies, the old paradigm has to be replaced by Einstein’s model.

My current model that goes beyond the year 2010, when I was an orthodox WN, can be symbolised in this published caricature. Both the WNsts of 2021 and I see the same information but, as I have also already said elsewhere, we see it differently:

I don’t deny the existence of the subversive Jew. But I focus on the white assholes who believe and obey the Jew for the simple fact that this family of whites also have agency. And even the most respected WN pundits don’t want to see that the gospel the Jew preaches to us is poison (see my postscript comment to my last post). Although WNsts and I see the same information, what they see as a JQ I see as a CQ, the Christian question.

Alas, I haven’t stagnated in this second interpretation à la Einstein, so to speak, of Aryan decline. For some time now I have been feeling that something is missing from my CQ model. When I see thousands of Aryan males marching for BLM at a historical moment when they should be doing exactly the opposite; when I see them so astronomically devoted to Evil (antiracism), I feel that something is missing in my second paradigm.

If you listen to the interview linked above in bold type carefully, you will see that Einstein’s model cannot explain the physics of black holes, and already a physics based on string theory or the laws of quantum gravity is being developed. That’s precisely why we will continue to translate Savitri’s book: What is it that is escaping me, how did the level of the Aryans’ voluntary surrender to evil reach the level of perversity that it has reached today?

Of the pro-Aryan philosophers after 1945, only Savitri has attempted to delve into this third model for understanding ‘psychics’ or a science of the mind (just as string theory is the third model for understanding physics).

I am not sure that Savitri is going to answer my questions once I finish reading her books. But it’s a start. What bothers me about the whole thing is that WNsts are stuck in a Newtonian (JQ) universe so to speak, and I am already beginning, at least intuitively, to feel the CQ a bit limited as the explanation for everything.

Will there be something else, a third doll, a sort of ‘string theory’ in ‘psychics’ that encompasses the JQ and CQ…?

Published in: on December 20, 2021 at 7:12 pm  Comments (10)  

‘Time here becomes space’

Sir Roger Penrose, born in 1931, is a British mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel laureate in physics. I recently mocked the old German philosophers’ trick of obscuring prose to start philosophical cults, as in the case of Kant. As Leszek Kołakowski said at the beginning of his monumental demolition of Marxist theory, Hegel’s ideas had already been developed earlier but in simpler language: language whose aim was to make metaphysical ideas comprehensible. That’s the way to go, rather than the artifice of deliberately obscuring the language so that philosophical ‘science’ cannot escape the walls of university scholasticism.

One of the things I like about contemporary philosophers is that they write or speak in a way that makes us understand complex ideas, even the most abstract metaphysics. In the film A Brief History of Time Penrose said, ‘I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance… Some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along—it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe. I think that there is something much deeper about it’.

A year ago in my post ‘Between Ice and Fire’ I concluded: ‘The dialectic of the song of ice and fire in the universe is the dilemma of whether the universe is to cool down eternally due to unnecessary suffering, or whether it is worth returning to the primal fire that makes Being explode again in countless stars…’

But yesterday I got a surprise in this YouTube interview. Penrose mentions something that had never occurred to me.

Once in the very distant future, where there are no more corpses of stars, and not even black holes that evaporate with time (remember Stephen Hawking’s phrase: ‘black holes are not so black’), leaving only protons in an expanding universe, if time ceases to make sense—then space, in our Newtonian sense, will cease to make sense. The moment time ceases to exist, space ceases to exist as well! And that would mean a new beginning or big bang insofar as astronomically large space would be, without time, nothing: equivalent again to a mathematical point or a new singularity.

I hadn’t thought of that possibility. Will the dialectic of the song of ice and fire not end with the Night King’s dream, eternal oblivion because of our misconduct (other ‘darkest hours’ may well be happening in other galaxies due to similar, astronomic stupidities of sentient beings)? It reminds me of a line from Wagner when Gurnemanz takes Parsifal into the castle to see if he can be initiated, and tells him that in that journey time becomes space:

Gurnemanz:
The king is returning from the bath;
the sun stands high;
now let me lead you to our hallowed feast;
for if you are pure, the Grail
will be meat and drink to you.

Parsifal:
Who is the Grail?

Gurnemanz:
That cannot be said;
but if you yourself are called to its service
that knowledge will not remain withheld.
And see!
I think I know you aright;
no earthly path leads to it,
and none could tread it
whom the Grail itself had not guided.

Parsifal:
I scarcely tread,
yet seem already to have come far.

Gurnemanz:
You see, my son,
time here becomes space.

See this exact moment in a performance of the Bayreuth Festival: here.

Penrose’s interview is fascinating, and in this other segment he says something I already knew intuitively: that those who fantasise about creating, say in a decade, artificial intelligence by mere computation will be in for a fiasco because consciousness is not algorithmic. As if that weren’t enough, in this other segment of the interview Penrose talks about beauty: an inherent structure in the universe and even in mathematics (remember, ‘mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the universe’, said Galileo Galilei). This is why soulless computers, which cannot be indoctrinated by PC nuts, have chosen the white race as the most beautiful.

Since the old incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour on blogspot I had chosen a painting, Daybreak by Maxfield Parrish, to sum up in a single image my philosophy. When a woke bitch says that beauty is subjective, she’s ignoring that mathematicians have detected how certain symmetrical relationships explain her beautiful facial features. The Roman sculpture we can admire on the sidebar is not the same as a humanoid ape from our remote past: the universe is evolving biologically according to the mathematical beauty inherent in our tastes for sexual selection.

Only the eternal feminine will lead us to the Absolute. It is no wonder why uncle Adolf wanted so much for his close friends to travel with him to the annual Wagner Festival in Bayreuth. But very few understood him…

Seymour Millais Stone
Parsifal and the Grail

‘Philosophy’

Today in the morning the first thing I did when I got up was to take a walk in the street. Whenever I go for a walk I think. Keeping in mind what we said yesterday about the pretentious academic profession called ‘philosophy’, I remembered a passage from my book El Grial that is worth translating into English:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

In the mid-1970s, when I wanted to study philosophy, I treasured one of the most popular philosophical dictionaries in the Spanish language: that of the Italian philosopher Nicola Abbagnano. After sleeping for decades in an era that hid fundamental questions from me, when I became awake it occurred to me to see what Abbagnano’s dictionary of philosophy said about National Socialism, but there was no article about it. So I looked up the word ‘Racism’ and was in for a surprise. After a good introductory paragraph, Abbagnano wrote the most propagandistic falsehoods one can imagine, breaking even the tone of his usual academic prose. We mustn’t forget that Abbagnano finished writing his dictionary in 1960, when the West knew nothing about the Third Reich except Allied propaganda. It is therefore not surprising that an Italian professor had to bow to such a narrative. But I would like to focus on his article:

Racismo (English racialism; French racisme; German Rassismus; Italian razzismo). The doctrine according to which all historical-social manifestations of man and his values (or disvalues) depend on race, and which enunciates the existence of a superior (‘Aryan’ or ‘Nordic’) race destined to be the guide of the human race. The founder of this doctrine was the Frenchman Gobineau in his Essai sur l’Inégalité des Races Humaines (1853-1855), aimed at defending aristocracy against democracy.

Not long ago, by the way, I added Count Gobineau’s book to my library, but let’s see what Abbagnano says next:

Towards the beginning of the 20th century a Germanophile Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, spread the myth of Aryanism in Germany in Die Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (The Foundations of the 19th Century, 1899), identifying the superior race with the Germanic race.

Here the problems begin, because that is not a myth. It is no coincidence that, until very recently, the Aryans have dominated culture, science, technology, and the political world.

Anti-Semitism dated back to ancient times in Germany and therefore the doctrine of racial determinism and the master race found easy dissemination there, resolving itself in support for anti-Semitic prejudice and the belief that there is a Jewish conspiracy for the conquest of world domination and that therefore capitalism, Marxism and, in general, cultural or political manifestations that weaken the national order are Jewish phenomena.

Here it is already raining ignorance. Abbagnano writes as if the Jewish problem were hallucinatory: a German prejudice. The best way to answer the late Abbagnano is simply to say that it is not hallucinatory. When Abbagnano was in his prime, Jews were over-represented not only among Lenin’s willing executioners, but the civic associations that lobbied to open the doors to mass non-white migration to the United States were Jewish. Those who doubt the veracity of these claims should read two books that document this, one by a Gentile and one by a Jew: Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique and Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears.

After the First World War, racism was for the Germans the myth of consolation, the escape from the depression of defeat, and Hitler made it the foundation of his politics.

Abbagnano was a scholar. It seems improbable that he was unaware of a few things in Western history. The paragraph above implies that racism was a 20th-century German myth. The truth is that racism is millennia old: from the Aryans who invaded India and developed a Brahmanical religion so as not to contaminate their blood; from the ancient Egyptians who posted signs that no blacks were allowed in their lands beyond a certain latitude; from the blond Spartans of ancient Greece who had very strict rules to avoid interbreeding with non-Dorians, to the Visigoths who burned at the stake any Goth who married a mudblood in ancient Hispania. Republican Rome used to practice patrician inbreeding to avoid mixing with the lower classes; the patricians being more Aryan than the plebeians (not to mention the slaves). Racism was not Hitler’s invention. All that the Germans of the century in which Abbagnano and I were born did was to provide racism with the scientific basis, and the political impetus, that such a healthy instinct required. The philosopher’s ignorance continues:

The doctrine was elaborated by Alfred Rosenberg in The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930). Rosenberg asserted a rigorous racial determinism. Every cultural manifestation of a people depends on its race. Science, morality, religion and the values they discover and defend depend on the race and are the expressions of the vital force of the race. Therefore, truth is always such only for a given race. The superior race is the Aryan, which from the North spread in antiquity through Egypt, India, Persia, Greece and Rome, and produced the ancient civilisations: civilisations that declined because the Aryans mingled with inferior races. All the sciences, the arts, the fundamental institutions of human life have been created by this race. Opposed to it is the parasitic Jewish anti-race, which has created the poisons of the race: democracy, Marxism, capitalism, artistic intellectualism, and also the ideals of love, humility, equality spread by Christianity, which represents a Roman-Judaic corruption of the teaching of the Aryan Jesus.

True, some National Socialists fantasised about an Aryan Jesus, Hitler included; but as we saw in the section on Jesus in my previous volume, 21st century New Testament studies have revealed that, in real history, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t even exist. But let’s return to the Italian philosopher. The reprint I own of Abbagnano’s Dictionary is from 1987. My original copy from the mid-1970s is now in the hands of a friend of the Arboledas Park [see The Human Side of Chess]. It is not worth quoting his entire article, ‘Racism’, pages 977-8 in the Fondo de Cultura Económica edition, but I should point out that it is on page 978 that the dictionary becomes nonsense. This is Abbagnano’s first nonsensical sentence: ‘There is no such thing as an “Aryan” or “Nordic’ race”.’ While it is true that, if one wants to write accurately one could say ‘ethnic group’ instead of ‘race’, the Nordics as an ethnic group do exist. The malevolence in an assertion like Abbagnano’s is similar to denying that races exist. Abbagnano’s second nonsensical claim deserves to be indented:

There is no proof whatsoever that race or racial differences influence in any way cultural manifestations or the possibilities for the development of culture in general. Nor is there any evidence that the groups into which mankind can be distinguished differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development. On the contrary: historical and sociological studies tend to reinforce the view that genetic differences are insignificant factors in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of men.

I dare say that such a paragraph invalidates not only the article ‘Racism’ but the whole dictionary. What is the use of so much ontology, so much theory of knowledge, so much metaphysics and logic of academic philosophers if they are unable to see the most elemental thing of the empirical world? What value can the so-called social sciences like the sociological studies that Abbagnano mentions—opinions in fact—bring to us as opposed to the exact sciences? If there is one thing that has been clear since Darwin and his disciples in physical anthropology (Franz Boas’ ‘social anthropology’ is pseudoscientific), it is the difference in cranial capacity between, say, blacks and whites. Moreover, there are psychometric tests on baby blacks adopted into the homes of wealthy whites. Such studies not only show that IQ varies between races, but also between men and women. Among active chess players there are no black chess grandmasters. And the world championships have to be divided between men and women, while the latter have been unable to reach the crown that has been won by champions such as Capablanca, Fischer and Carlsen.

If there is one thing that raciology, the study of human races, teaches us, it is that genetic differences between humans are determining factors in social differences (I have already mentioned Jared Taylor’s group that brings together all these scientific studies). The ivory tower of philosophers like Abbagnano, who all they do is bend the knee before the current narrative, should be the laughingstock of anyone who has overcome political correctness.

There is also no evidence that breed mixtures produce biologically disadvantageous results. It is very likely that ‘pure’ races do not exist and have never existed over time. The social outcomes, both good and bad, of miscegenation can be attributed to social factors.

Passages like that move me to say that what goes on in the minds of academics like Abbagnano is on the level of the Byzantine discussions of other times: thinking of angels on the head of a pin instead of real and concrete facts. The notable Italian philosopher seems to be deliberately dissociating reality. Any honest Italian can see that the mixed people of Sicily with the Turks in the south belong to an inferior culture than the whiter Italians in the north of the peninsula. And let us not speak of how, by interbreeding with Indians and blacks, the Iberians produced an inferior stock to their Anglo-German counterpart north of the Rio Grande. What on earth is Abbagnano basing his statement that there is no historical evidence that admixture produces disadvantages in mestizo offspring? The answer is not hard to find. In the last paragraph of his article we see that Abbagnano subscribes, religiously, to the suicidal universalism of the West: the heritage of the universal Catholicism of his country’s church. Let us hear what Abbagnano, who was born and died in Italy, opines about racism:

…it is an extremely pernicious prejudice, because it contradicts and hinders the moral tendency of humanity towards universalist integration and because it turns human values, beginning with truth, into arbitrary facts that express the vital force of race and thus have no substance of their own and can be arbitrarily manipulated for the most violent or heinous ends.

Violent ends? Who were the biggest genocidaires in World War II, the racists or the anti-racists? The most common way of lying by academics and the media is omission. The classic case of lying by omission is the Holocaust of Germans perpetrated, after 1945, by the Allies when the Germans had already surrendered; not to mention Lenin’s and Stalin’s wilful executioners and their tens of millions of dead.

Philosophical quackery – in German

I am pleased to announce that the 2013 article by Brazilian John Martinez, ‘On Philosophical and Religious Quackery’, has been translated into German and can be read in the German section of this site (here).

It is an important article. It exposes the quackery of all that Bertrand Russell called ‘wisdom of the West’ (in fact, Wisdom of the West is the title of one of Russell’s books I have read: an introduction to Western philosophy).

But Russell et al weren’t wise. There is nothing wise about what philosophers have been saying for millennia if we start serious thinking from the darkest hour of the West. If the ‘philosophers’ had been wise since ancient Athens, they would have warned us about the danger of interbreeding with the mudbloods of the Mediterranean.

John Martinez himself is, or was (I ignore if he’s still alive), a product of the three races of his native country. When he commented here it was clear that he was perfectly aware–unlike academic philosophers—of the havoc that miscegenation meant.

To make a tabula rasa of the so-called wisdom of the West, or rather to replace the unwise paradigm with National Socialism, is the only way ahead.

Published in: on November 28, 2021 at 11:45 am  Comments (18)  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 50

There is no shortage of opponents of Marxism. They range from those who condemn all violence and are frightened by the known episodes of ‘class struggle’ in Russia and China, to those who reproach the Communists for their atheism and materialism, to those who own some property and are afraid of losing it if they have to live under the sign of the Sickle and Hammer.

Many oppose it in the name of some political doctrine, usually embodied in a ‘party’, which, if it attacks the ‘subversive’ character of Marxism, is itself no less subversive, and for the same deep reasons. This is the case with the adherents of all democratic parties, whose common denominator is to be found in the belief in the ‘equality in law’ of all men, and hence the principle of universal suffrage, of power emanating from the majority. These people don’t realise that Communism is in its infancy in this very principle, as it was already in Christian anthropocentrism (even if it is a question of the value of human souls in the eyes of a personal God who infinitely loves all men). They don’t realise that it is and can only be so, for the reason that the majority will always be the mass—and increasingly so, in an overpopulated world.

Only those who are faithful to any adequate expression of immemorial Tradition, and in particular to any true religion or to any Weltanschauung capable of serving as a basis for a true religion—any worldview which is ultimately based on the knowledge of the eternal and on the will to make it the principle of the socio-political order—, are fundamentally opposed to Marxism.

Now, disregarding the apparent paradox of such an assertion, twenty-five years after the collapse of the Third German Reich I dare to repeat that the only properly Western doctrine which (after the very old Nordic religions which Christianity persecuted and gradually killed between the 6th and 12th centuries) fulfils this condition is Hitlerism.

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: Once more, Savitri didn’t know about the apocalypse of whites that also represented, in the 4th and 5th centuries, the violent destruction of the classical world by fanatic Christians. We cannot blame her. Books like this one had not been published! More recently than Savitri’s time, even Mauricio didn’t know about the blackest page of ancient history, as he commented yesterday.

______ 卐 ______

 
This is the only Weltanschauung infinitely more than ‘political’ that is clearly ‘against Time’ in accordance with the eternal. It is the only worldview which, in the long run, will triumph both over Marxism and the general chaos to which it will have led the world—and this, no matter how great the material defeat of its followers may have been yesterday, and no matter how hostile millions of men may be about it today. Only a total recovery can succeed a total subversion: a glorious beginning of the cycle at a lamentable end of it.

But our opponents won’t fail to draw everyone’s attention to the eminently ‘anti-traditional’ character of more than one aspect of National Socialism, both during the Kampfzeit, before 1933, and after the seizure of power. If it is ‘subversive’ from the viewpoint of eternal values to preach the ‘class struggle’ with a view to the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. But wasn’t it equally subversive to rise to power democratically thanks to universal suffrage, by relying on a succession of electoral campaigns (on the protection of young fighters, for the most part as ‘proletarian’ in their behaviour, as the Communists whose attacks they repelled during meetings and whom they overcame in street battles)? Wasn’t it to be so, to keep this power, which came from the people—the masses—and to omit the reestablishment of the old monarchy despite the last and fervent recommendation of Marshal von Hindenburg, President of the Reich?

On the other hand, didn’t several German banks[1] as well as industrial magnates[2] subsidised the NSDAP, thus making the success of the National Socialist Revolution depend, in part, on the power of money and running the risk of making it considered, despite its popular appearance, the supreme defence of the ‘capitalist’ order as it already existed—that is to say, a society extremely distant from the traditional ideal?

Finally, it may be said, how can it be denied that, even after the seizure of power the Third German Reich was far from presenting the appearance of an organism inspired from top to bottom by the vision of the cosmic hierarchy? The famous author Hans Günther himself, apparently disillusioned, wrote to me in 1970 that he had, unfortunately, seen in it ‘an ochlocracy’ rather than the aristocratic regime he had dreamed of. And one cannot categorically reject without discussion this judgement of one of the most prominent theorists of Hitler’s racism before the disaster of 1945. The judgement, while undoubtedly excessive, must, in more than one particular case, certainly express some regrettable reality.

Let’s never forget that we are approaching the end of a cycle, and that the best institutions can therefore only exceptionally have a semblance of the perfection of the past. For everywhere, and the post-war period has amply proved this, there are more and more two-legged mammals and fewer and fewer men in the strongest sense of the word. No doctrine should therefore be judged by what has been accomplished in the visible world in its name.

The doctrine is true or false depending on whether or not it is in unison with that direct knowledge of the universal and eternal which only a steadily diminishing minority of sages possesses. It is true—it cannot be repeated often enough—regardless of the victory or defeat of its followers, or so-called followers on the material plane, and regardless of their weaknesses, foolishness, or even crimes. Neither the atrocities of the Holy Inquisition, nor the scandals attached to the name of Pope Alexander VI Borgia, take anything away from the truth of the vision of the ‘intelligible world’ that a Master Eckhart, for example, or some initiated Templar, may have had through Christian symbolism. And the same is true of all doctrines.

We must therefore be careful not to impute to Hitlerism the faults, weaknesses or excesses of people with power, to any degree whatsoever, under the Third Reich or during the period of struggle (Kampfzeit) from 1920 to 1933, and especially the faults or excesses committed against the spirit of the Weltanschauung and the Führer’s dream, as there seemed to be so many. In German society, as it was under the growing influence and effective rule of the Führer during the Kampfzeit and afterwards, we must see only the Führer’s efforts to mould it according to his dream, or to prevent it from evolving against that same dream. We must try to understand what he wanted to do.

Already in the official National Socialist texts addressed to the general public—in the Twenty-five Points, which form the basis of the Party programme; and above all in Mein Kampf where the great philosophical directives of the latter are traced out even more clearly—it is visible that the Movement was directed against the most cherished ideals and the most characteristic customs of the eminently decadent society, which had grown out of the Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Lending at interest, financial speculation, and any form of gain alien to a creative endeavour, as well as the exploitation of vice or silliness in a press, literature, cinema or theatre envisaged above all as a means of making a profit, are condemned with the utmost rigour. Moreover, the very principles of modern Western civilisation—the equality of all men and all races in law, the idea that ‘law’ is the expression of the will of the majority, and ‘nation’ the community of those who, whatever their origin, ‘want to live together’; the idea that perpetual peace in abundance, the fruit of man’s ‘victory over nature’ represents the supreme good—are attacked, ridiculed and demolished in a masterly manner.

Natural law, the law of the struggle for life, is recognised and exalted on the human level as on all other levels. And the primordial importance of race and personality—the two pillars of the new faith—is proclaimed on every page. Finally, this new faith, or rather this new conception of life (neue Audassung) for the Führer and the few, is not a question of ‘faith’ but true knowledge. It is characterised as ‘corresponding to the original meaning of things’[3] which says a lot, this ‘original meaning of things’ being none other than that which they take on in the light of Tradition.

We can therefore, without going any further, affirm that everything in the history of the National Socialist Party that doesn’t seem to coincide with the spirit of a struggle ‘against Time’ is a matter of the tactics of the struggle, not its nature or purpose. It was under the pressure of hard necessity, and only after he had failed on 9 November 1923 in his attempt to seize power by force that Adolf Hitler, released from his Landsberg prison but now deprived of all means of action, had recourse—reluctantly to be sure—to the slow and long ‘legal way’, that is to say, to the repeated appeal to the voters and the gradual conquest of a majority in the Reichstag. It is well known that his first move after taking power ‘by democratic means’ was to replace the authority of the many with that of one, namely his own at all levels; in other words, to abolish democracy: to bring the political order into line with the natural order as far as possible.

It was under the pressure of a no less compelling material necessity—that of meeting the enormous expenses involved in the struggle for power in a parliamentary system with its inevitable election campaigns—that he had to accept the help of the Hugenbergs, the Kirkdorfs, the Thyssens, Dr Schacht and later Krupp, as well as of a host of industrialists and bankers.

Without it, he couldn’t have risen to power fast enough to block the road to the most dangerous forces of subversion: the Communists. For money is, more than ever, in a world which it increasingly dominates, the ‘sinews of war’ and politics. Does this mean that the Führer was subservient to money or to those who had given him money during the Kampfzeit? Does it mean that he made any concessions to them after taking power?

Far from it! He allowed them to get rich insofar as, in so doing, they served the national economy effectively and gave the working masses what he had promised them: abundance through work insofar as, subject to his authority, they continued to help the Party, i.e. the state, in peace and war. He kept them in their place and their role—like a king and the merchant ‘caste’ in a traditional society—thus showing both his realism and wisdom.

On the other hand, the (at least partial) ‘ochlocracy’ that has so often been attributed to National Socialism was, in fact, only the inevitable corollary of Adolf Hitler’s obligation to come to power by relying, quite democratically, on the majority of the electorate. It wouldn’t have existed if the putsch of 9 November 1923 had succeeded and had given him free rein to remake Germany according to his immense dream. It wouldn’t have existed because he wouldn’t have needed the collaboration of hundreds of thousands of young people ready to do anything: to strike blows as well as to receive them, to maintain in the vicinity of his massive propaganda meetings, and in the halls themselves, an order constantly threatened by the physical attacks of the most violent and implacable elements of the Communist opposition.

To conquer Germany ‘democratically’ he had to show himself, to be heard, hundreds and hundreds of times to convey to the public his message: part of his message, at least that which would induce the masses to vote for his party. The message was irresistible but it had to be communicated. And that would have been impossible without the wolf pack, the SA[4], who ruled the streets and who, at the risk of their own lives, ensured the Führer’s silence and safety amid his audience.

Adolf Hitler loved his young beasts, madly attached to his person, eager for both violence and adoration, many of whom were former Communists who had been won over to the holy cause by the fascination of his words, his looks, his behaviour and his doctrine in which the son of a proletarian saw something more outrageous, more brutal, and therefore more exalting than Marxism.

He loved them. And he loved the latest of their supreme leaders of the Kampfzeit, under whose orders he himself had once fought in the war: Ernst Röhm, who had returned from Bolivia, from the end of the world, at his call in 1930. He willingly turned a blind eye to his deplorable morals and saw in him only the perfect soldier and genius organiser.

And yet… he resigned himself, despite everything, to having this old comrade killed, or to let him be killed—almost the only man in his entourage who was on a first-name basis with him[5]—as soon as he was convinced that the turbulence of this troop, so faithful though it was, its spirit of independence and especially the growing opposition which was emerging between it and the regular German army could only lead precisely to ochlocracy, if not to civil war; in any case, only to the weakening of Germany.

One could compare this tragic but apparently necessary purge of June 30, 1934 with the most Machiavellian settlements of accounts in history; for example, the execution without trial of Don Ramiro di Lorqua on the orders of Caesar Borgia—with this crucial difference, however: that, while the Duke of Valentino had in mind only power for himself, the Führer aimed infinitely higher. He wanted power to try, in a desperate effort, to reverse the march of Time against itself, in the name of eternal values. There was nothing personal in his struggle at any stage.

And if, despite the fervent desire of Field Marshal and Reich President von Hindenburg, he rejected any idea of restoring the monarchy, it was not out of ambition either. It was because he was aware of the vanity of such a step in terms of values and true hierarchies. The monarchy ‘by divine right’, the only normal one from the traditional point of view[6] had, for centuries already, lost all meaning and justification in Europe.

The Führer knew this. It was not a question of trying to restore a shaky order by reinstalling a parliamentary monarchy presided over (there is no other word) by William II or one of his sons. He wanted to build a new order, or rather to resurrect the oldest order: the ‘original’ order in the strongest and most durable form it could take in this century.

And he knew that, by the choice of those forces of life which, throughout any cycle of time, untiringly oppose the ineluctable current of dissolution, he—the eternal Siegfried, both human and more than human—held both the legitimate power in this visible world and the legitimate authority emanating from beyond: the ‘power of the two Keys’. With him at the top, the pyramid of earthly hierarchies was to gradually resume its natural position, once again depicting in miniature, first in Germany, then throughout Europe and the Aryan world: the invisible Order which the Cosmos depicts in large.

It was in the name of this grandiose vision of ideal correspondences that he rejected, with equal vigour, Marxism: a doctrine of total subversion; Parliamentarism in all its forms, always based on the same superstition of quantity; and ochlocracy, a source of disorder, and therefore of constant instability.

But the traditional character of his wisdom is to be sought even more in the few texts that give us his secret, or at least intimate, talks, his open-hearted confidences in front of a few selected people, than in his writings or speeches addressed to the general public.

__________

[1] The Deutsche Bank, the Commerz und Privat Bank, the Dresdener Bank, the Deutsche Credit-Gesellschaft, etc.

[2] E. Kirkdorf, Fritz Thyssen, Voegler, Otto-Wolf von Schröder, then Krupp.

[3] ‘…unsere neue Auffassung, die ganz dem Ursinn der Dinge entspricht…’ (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 440).

[4] Sturmabteilungen or Storm Troops.

[5] With some of his other early collaborators, such as Gregor Strasser.

[6] The elective kingship of the ancient Germans, that of the Frankish warrior raised to the flagstaff by his peers, was also ‘of divine right’ if we admit that the ‘divine’ is none other than the pure blood of a noble race.

Good and bad Germans

As can be seen at the end of the last entry, Savitri’s admiration for Hitler was not as blind as that of those who never criticise the founder of the religion to which they belong. Dr Robert Morgan, who comments in The Unz Review, would be happy with Savitri’s pronouncement. But I differ from her.

One must bear in mind the words in Andrew Hamilton’s ‘The Depth of Evil’ which appears in On Exterminationism (see sidebar): what has impressed me most, to date, of anything written for the Counter-Currents webzine. Hamilton says that the fact that people blindly follow those in power (pack mentality) means that they aren’t good. If someone like Hitler is in power, the Germans behave in a very sane and healthy way. If bad people are in power, says Hamilton, the people just follow them.

This is as true for whites as it is for non-whites. Here in Mexico all the media, the universities and the state are promoting the rampant, suicidal liberalism that is destroying the West: equality of race, gender and sexual orientation. Yesterday’s Reforma newspaper, considered by some the most important in the country, published this aberrant note on page 21 of its main section (my Spanish-English translation): ‘Luise Greve, 23 [an Aryan girl] from Erlangen, Germany, bought the first flight to take her to her [gook] partner as soon as the White House announced that the nation will be open to visitors fully vaccinated against Covid-19’.

We can already imagine such ‘good news’ if Hitler had won the war!

What I’m getting at is that Savitri seems to be saying that humans, including Aryans, are good people when in reality they are animals who practice nothing but the most abject social conformity depending on who is in power. As I say in On Exterminationism: ‘What I failed to realise for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good’, wrote Hamilton. In other words, people, including the overwhelming majority of whites, are not really good.

Bingo. Responding to Savitri, there is nothing wrong that the Third Reich would have wanted to homogenise the people by producing items like the Volkswagen and others for mass consumption. If whoever is in power is a man like gold, to use the Platonic metaphor of The Republic, the people will behave as if they were saints (photo above). If, on the other hand, those in power are real pieces of shit, as the elites currently are, they will behave like the Luise in this other photo (or her cuck parents who allowed that) .

Like the vast majority of white nationalists—Hamilton would be the exception—Savitri didn’t delve into the pettiness of our species: something I believe I’ve delved into in my books in Spanish (titles translated: here).

I think my way of presenting Savitri’s book is the right one: not just a rough translation, but a constant dialogue with what the priestess of the 14 words used to write. Just because the priest and the priestess belong to the same religion doesn’t mean that we will agree on everything.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 29

Sometimes, even if his soul is less complex, that is to say, in this case, less divided against itself, the agent who senses, or even knows, what the inevitable course of events will be, will decide—and this, without any need for him to ‘deliberate’—in favour of the most useless action from the practical point of view. Teia, the last king of the Ostrogoths in Italy, knew that it was now impossible for his people to remain masters of the peninsula. This did not prevent him from launching himself without the slightest hesitation into the fight against Byzantium and finding a death worthy of him at the famous ‘Battle of Vesuvius’ in 563. He is credited with the historical words which, even if he didn’t say them, capture his attitude: ‘It is not a question of leaving or not leaving Italy; it is a question of leaving it with or without honour’. Words of a lord… words of a man ‘against time’, i.e. defeated in advance on the material plane.

One can say that to the extent that what the Sanskrit Scriptures call the Dark Ages unfold, and as a cycle of time draws to a close, more and more lords—both in the biological and psychological sense of the word—are men ‘against Time’, defeated in advance on the material plane. They don’t feel any less ‘free’ in their spontaneous choice of the practically useless act.

The impression of freedom is thus not at all related to hesitation and ‘deliberation’ before a decision. It has to do with the agent’s ability to imagine a future different from the one that will result from his act—the one that he would like to see result from it, if possible—and with the illusion that he is the source and principle of this act—whereas he is only the instrument of realisation of possibilities destined, in our world of time, to pass from the virtual to the actual, because they already exist, in the state of actualities, in the ‘eternal present’.

In other words, this impression of freedom is linked both to the agent’s thinking and his ignorance. For the man who acts in time, true freedom consists of the absence of external or internal constraint (i.e. from the deep contradictions of his ‘I’), and the total authorship of the ‘I’ concerning the decision and the act. Ignorance of this future—which sometimes partly follows from the act, but which cannot follow fully in the case of a practically useless act—may help some men to act. Was it not said that the foreknowledge of the fate that awaited their civilisation had broken the spirit of the leaders of 16th-century America, both Aztec and Inca, that they were unable to resist the Spaniards as quickly and as vigorously as they might have done, had they never known of the prophecies of destruction? It can give the illusion of an absence of constraint—a knowledge of the absence of the constraint of Destiny— and thus allow the blossoming of hope, which is a force of action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Once again, Savitri is assuming that precognition exists. Since I am more familiar with the 16th texts about the Conquest than her, and since for some years I read sceptical literature about the paranormal, I see things differently.

I don’t remember the source and I’m not going to dig for the moment into the literature I read when writing the section on pre-Columbian Amerindians for Day of Wrath, but I seem to remember that what the Amerinds began to say after the Conquest is that everything was prophesied. That is to say: it was not a real prophecy but vaticinium ex eventu: a psychological trick to better cope, based on the Mesoamerican worldview, with the trauma of the Conquest.

I mention this because it seems vital to me to question the existence of the extrasensory powers that came into vogue right after Savitri wrote her book. For the Westerner to regain his sanity, he cannot afford the slightest cognitive distortion of reality. This is why on this site we have been insisting so much on debunking the claims of the conspiracy theorists. Saving the Aryan race from extinction involves declaring war on all cognitive distortion, which includes blaming the Jews for everything. (Kevin MacDonald does generally a good job but there are quite a few racialists who, in their comment threads, blame Jewry for things they didn’t orchestrate. These guys would do well to read MacDonald’s trilogy, especially his first book, before keep seeing kikes under every stone.)

The same can be said of the American racialists who want to save their race but at the same time believe in the Hereafter, the existence of the god of the Jews and other paranoias. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But, as I said earlier, the Strong don’t need this help to do what the sense of honour dictates, which is always the consciousness of loyalty to a Leader, or an idea, or both, and the duty that this implies. Even in the full knowledge that the future escapes them, that their beloved truth will henceforth remain under a bushel and that, indefinitely, they will decide for action, useless certainly but honourable; for beautiful action, daughter of all that is most permanent, more fundamental in their lordly selves: an action for which they will be rigorously responsible and that they will never regret, because it is ‘them’.

They can, of course, imagine a future different from the one they only envisage with horror or disgust, and to which their whole attitude opposes them. But they cannot imagine themselves acting differently. In them, there is neither idle ‘deliberation’ nor choice, but a reaction of their whole being in the face of the elementary alternative: to be oneself, or to deny oneself; internal necessity—exactly like the sage ‘above Time’ when he acts.

The only difference is that, for those who do not yet ‘see’ the future from the point of view of the eternal, this internal need doesn’t necessarily merge with that which governs the visible and invisible cosmos, and the Being itself, beyond its manifestations. It can, by accident, merge with it. But it also can represent only the fidelity of action to the ‘ego’ of the agent, sages being rare, and a great character not always—alas!—being put in service of a true idea, an eternal cause.

This is enough to make the agent absolutely responsible. For one is responsible for everything with which one feels solidarity: initially for his action, insofar as it expresses his true ‘self’, and then for the actions of all those with whom one is bound by a common faith. So much the worse for the man who gives his energy to a doctrine that moves him away from the eternal instead of bringing him closer! No value of the individual as such, no nobility of character can make a false idea true and a cause centred on false ideas or half-truths objectively justifiable.

Published in: on October 15, 2021 at 1:23 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 29  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 28

‘But if’, I am told, ‘in the view of the man above Time, the future is ‘given’ in the same way as the past, what becomes of the notions of freedom and responsibility? If a wise man can see, centuries in advance, how long a civilising doctrine is destined to retain its credit with one or more peoples, what is the use of militating ‘for’ or ‘against’ anything?

I believe that there are, in response to this, a few remarks to be made. Firstly, it should be pointed out that all action—in the sense that we understand it when we speak of ‘struggle’ and ‘activists’, or when we have in mind the gestures of everyday life—is intimately linked to the notion of time (of time at the very least, if not moreover of space). We should then note that the philosophical concepts of freedom and responsibility only make sense in connection with an action, direct or indirect—actual or possible, or even materially impossible to direct or modify on behalf of whoever conceives it, as is for example the case of any action thought of in retrospect—but always with an action, which could or should have been thought of. Finally, it must be understood that, as a consequence of this, these notions no longer have any meaning when, from the temporal state, one rises to that of consciousness outside time.

For those who are placed in the ‘eternal present’, i.e. outside of time, there is no question of freedom or responsibility, but only of being and non-being; of possibility and absurdity. The world that we see and feel, that others have seen and felt or will see and feel—a set of indefinite possibilities that have taken or will take shape—is simply what it is and, given that the intimate nature of each limited (individual) existence cannot be anything else. The consciousness above Time ‘sees’ it, but does not take part of it, even though it sometimes descends into it as a clairvoyant instrument of necessary action.

The beings that cannot think, because they are deprived of the word, thus of the general idea, nevertheless act and are not responsible. They behave according to their nature, and could not behave differently. And ‘to be free’, for them, consists simply in not being thwarted in the manifestation of their spontaneity in the exercise of their functions by some external force: not to be locked up between four walls or the bars of a cage; not to wear a harness or muzzle; not to be tied up, or deprived of water or food, or access to individuals of the same species and the opposite sex, and in the case of plants not to be deprived of water, soil and light, and not to be diverted in their growth by any obstacle.

It may be added that most humans are, although they can speak, neither freer nor more responsible than the humblest of beasts, or even of plants. Exactly like the rest of living, they do what their instincts, their appetites, and the demands of the moment urge them to do, and this, insofar as external obstacles and constraints allow. At most, many of them believe themselves to be responsible, having heard it repeated that this is ‘the nature of man’, and they feel, among the fridge, the washing machine and the television set—well as in the factories and offices where they spend eight hours a day under the blinding neon light—that they are less captive than the unfortunate tigers in the Zoological Garden. This only tends to show that the tigers are healthier in body and mind than they are, since they are aware of their captivity, and suffer from it.

Freedom[1] and responsibility are to be sought in different degrees between these extreme planes which are either active in time without thought, or consciousness outside of time without action, or accompanied by a completely detached, impersonal action, accomplished per an objective need. In other words, in an absolute sense, no one is ‘free’, if ‘freedom’ means the power to direct the future as one pleases.

The future is all oriented, since few wise men know it in advance, or rather who apprehend it as a ‘present’. But it is undeniable that the man of goodwill who lives and thinks in time has the impression of choosing between two or more possibilities; that he has the impression that the future, at least in its immediate course (and also in its distant course if it is a question of a decision of obvious historical significance) depends partly and sometimes entirely on him. This is, no doubt, only an impression. But it is an impression of such tenacity that it is impossible to ignore it, psychologically speaking. It forms so much a part of the experience of every man who must act in time, that it persists, even if that man is informed in advance (either by an invincible intuition, or by the evidence of one fact after another, or by some prophecy to which he gives credence) of what the future will be despite his action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note:

When Savitri wrote her book the criticisms of purported precognitions had not been popularised.

As I already said a couple of years ago, when I lived in Marin County, in 1985 I had the opportunity to realise that the foundations of the ‘science’ I was studying were shaky. In a bookstore I saw that they sold the recently published A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology. Decades have passed since that night and I still remember the image of James Randi on the dustcover.

But as an immigrant who still had to get a job in the US for elemental survival, I thought I couldn’t afford it. If I had obtained a copy, years of my life would have been spared from my quixotic project of trying to develop psi and become a Bran before Martin wrote his novel!

(Left, the signature of the book’s editor on the first page when he visited Mexico City and I was, finally, able to purchase it at a reasonable price for my modest income.) The difference between the priest and the priestess, is that the priest already had the opportunity to read books like this one because he was born half a century after the priestess…
 

______ 卐 ______

 
[1] We are talking here, of course, about freedom in the sense that this word is generally understood, not about ‘freedom’ in the metaphysical sense in which René Guénon understands it, for example.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 15

Kant and friends on table

Is there such a thing as objectivity in the field of values? [Editor’s note: formally known as ‘axiology’]. To this question I answer yes. There is something independent of the ‘taste’ of each art critic, which makes a masterpiece of painting, sculpture or poetry a masterpiece for all time. Behind every perfect creation—and not only in the field of art proper—there are secret correspondences, a whole network of ‘proportions’ which themselves ‘recall’ unknown but prescient cosmic equivalences. It is these elements that link the work to the eternal—in other words, that give it its objective value.

On the other hand, there is no universal scale of preferences. Even if one could penetrate the mystery of the structure of eternal creations, which are human only in name because the author has effaced himself before the Force (the ancients would have said: ‘the God’), who for a moment possessed him, and acted through it and by it—if one could, say, explain in clear sentences like those of mathematicians, why such creations are eternal, one could never force everyone to prefer the eternal to the temporary; to find a work which reflects something of the harmony of the cosmos, more pleasant, more satisfying than another, which reflects anything.

There is good and bad taste. And there are moral consciences that are more or less similar to those of a man with an objective scale of values. But there is no more universal consciousness than there is universal taste. There is no such thing, and there can be no such thing, for the simple reason that the aspirations of men are different, once they have passed the level of the most elementary needs. (And even these needs are more or less pressing, depending on the individual. Some people find life bearable, even beautiful, without comforts, pleasures or affections, the lack of which would make other people frankly unhappy.)

Different aspirations mean different preferences. Different preferences mean different reactions to the same events, different decisions in the face of the same dilemmas, and therefore different ways of organising lives that might otherwise have been similar. Never forget the diversity of human beings, even within the same race, let alone from one race to another. How can people who are so different from each other have ‘the same rights and the same duties’?

There is no more universal duty than there is universal consciousness. Or, if we absolutely want to find a formula that is true for all, we must say that the duty of every man—indeed, of every living being—is to be to the end, in his visible or secret manifestations, what he is in his deepest nature; to never betray himself.

But deep natures differ. Hence, despite everything, the diversity of duties, as well as of rights, and the inevitable conflict, on the level of facts, between those who have opposite duties. The Bhagawad-Gîta says: ‘Focus on fulfilling your duty (svadharma). The duty of another involves (for you) many dangers’.

And what, in practice, will decide the outcome of the conflict between people with opposing duties? Force. I can only think of it. If I don’t have it, I have to put up with the presence in the world of institutions that I consider criminal, given my own scale of values. I can hate them. I cannot remove them with the stroke of a pen, as I would if I had the power. And even those who have power can not—insofar as they need the collaboration of some men, if not of a majority, precisely to maintain the position they have conquered. But I shall speak to you later about force, the condition of any visible and sudden change, that is to say of any victorious revolution, on the material plane.

I will first tell you a few words about the fathers of ‘universal consciousness’ and the idea that derives from it: the idea of a ‘duty’ that would be the same for all. I will recall the names of only a few of them who, in fields other than morality, are distinguished by some preeminence: by the firmness of their thought or the beauty of their prose.

First, there is Immanuel Kant, to whom we must be infinitely grateful for having drawn the line between scientific knowledge and metaphysical speculation; between what we know, or what we can know, and what we can only speak about arbitrarily, knowing nothing about it, or not at all, the direct vision we have of it is incommunicable. The whole part of Kant’s work that deals with the subordination of thought to the categories of space and time, and with the impossibility of going beyond the sphere of ‘phenomena’ with our conceptual intelligence, is of exemplary solidity.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Infinitely grateful? Exemplary solidity? Lol! As we saw in my previous post, ‘On Shelob’s lair’, on this issue Savitri errs. But she continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
The recipes given by the thinker to help every man discover ‘the duty’, which he believes to be the same for all, are less worthy of credence, precisely because they do not fall within the scope of what, according to Kant’s deductions, makes up the essence of the scientific mind.

We are here in the realm of values—not of ‘facts’, not of ‘phenomena’. The only ‘fact’ that could be noted in this connection is the diversity of value scales. And Kant takes no account of this. He believes he bases his notion of ‘duty’ on that of ‘reason’. And since reason is ‘universal’, the laws of discursive thought being so—two and two make four for the last of the Negroes, as well as for one of us—it seems that duty must be too.

Kant does not realise, as his values seem indisputable to him, that it is not ‘reason’ at all, but his austere Christian upbringing—pietistic, to be more precise—which dictated them to him; that he owes them, not to his ability to draw conclusions from given premises—an ability which he shares with all sane men, and perhaps with the higher animals—but to his spontaneous submission to the influence of the moral environment in which he was brought up. He forgets—and how many have forgotten before and after him, and still do!—that reason is powerless to set ends; to establish orders of preference; that, in the domain of values, its role is limited to highlighting the logical—or practical—link between a given end and the means that lead to its realisation.

Reason can tell an individual what his ‘duty’ will be in a specific circumstance if, for example, he loves all men, or better still, all living beings. Reason cannot force him to love them, if he doesn’t feel attracted to them. It can suggest to him what to do, or not do, if he wants to contribute to ‘world peace’. It cannot force him to want peace. And if he does not want it, if he finds it demoralising or simply boring, it will suggest to him, with equal logic, an entirely different course of action—just as it will direct the intelligent misanthrope to an entirely different course of action from that which it would command the philanthropist. It will always command each of those who think, the action that corresponds to the promotion of what he really loves, and deeply wants. How could it inspire duties, identical in content, to individuals who love different, even incompatible ideals, and who each want the revolution that their ideal implies? Or to individuals who love only people, and to others who love only ideas?

‘Always act’, says Kant, ‘as if the principle of your action could be set up as a universal law’.

How can this ‘rule’ be applied both to the conduct of one who, loving only his family and friends, far from sacrificing them to any idea whatsoever, will feel that it is ‘his duty’ to protect them at all costs, and that of the militant who, loving only a cause which goes beyond him, considers that it would be ‘his duty’, if necessary, to sacrifice him and his recent collaborators (as soon as he feels them weakening in terms of orthodoxy and becoming dangerous), and a fortiori his family, alien to the holy ideology, as soon as he sees one of its members, whoever he may be, making a pact with the hostile forces?

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Remember Savitri’s words in my Friday’s post: ‘During the war, my mother—although 75 years old in 1940, 80 in 1945—joined the resistance movement in France. I did not know it naturally. There was no communication between Calcutta and Europe. She told me in 1946, when I visited her, and said also that if I had been present in France in 1944 and had actively worked against the resistance (as I then surely would have), she would have handed me over to the resistance’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And what about the rule: ‘Always act in such a way that you take the human person as an end, never as a means’? In other words: ‘Never use a man’. And why not?—especially if, by using him, I am working in the interest of a Cause that is much greater than him, for example, the cause of Life, or the human elite (the elite of every living species) or simply that of a particular people, if this one has a more than human historical mission?

Man unscrupulously exploits the animal and the tree in favour of what he believes to be his own interest. And Kant apparently finds no fault with this. Why should we not exploit man—the ‘human person’ whose so-called ‘value’ we have been hearing about more than ever for the past quarter-century—in the interest of Life itself? What prevents us from doing so, if we do not have—like Immanuel Kant and so many others; like most people born and raised in a Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish, or simply ‘secular’) civilisation—a scale of values centred around the sacrosanct two-legged mammal?

Of myself, if I love ‘all men’, I won’t use any of them; I won’t take any of them ‘as a means’, for an end which is not him. You don’t exploit what you really love. This is a psychological law.

But no ‘reason’ can force me to ‘love all men’—any more than it can force most men to love all animals. Kant’s ‘reason’ ordered him not to exploit any human being, not because this is a universal commandment, but because he loved all men, like the good Christian he was. I, who do not love them all, do not feel that this ‘duty’ concerns me. It is not my duty. I refuse to submit to it. And if a man who finds the exploitation of animals and trees—and what exploitation!—quite natural, dares to come and preach me about ‘respect for the human person’, I would brutally send him to mind his own business.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is more than fundamental. If there is something that my work From Jesus to Hitler teaches, it is that we must stop loving the vast majority of humans to save the nymphs of the sidebar and the animals under the human yoke.

Published in: on September 23, 2021 at 12:58 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 15