Reflections of an Aryan woman, 31


Chapter VI

Technical Development and Tradition

No more clattering sounds on the walls of the abyss;
Laughter, vile noises, cries of despair.
Between hideous walls, a black swarming,
No more arches of foliage at sublime depths.

Leconte de Lisle (‘La Forêt vierge’, Poèmes Barbares)

Since the disaster of 1945 we have been talking about the ‘free world’ and the ‘other world’, that is to say the world where Democracy reigns and the one dominated by Communism: the only totalitarian ideology whose adherents are in power anywhere, after the destruction of the Third German Reich.

I’ll tell you what I think of each of these enemy worlds. Their superficial differences strike you to the point of diverting your attention from their similarities, or rather their profound affinities. And you have been told and continue to be told about these differences and to insist on them, so that you don’t get where you are being led. And you are told again and again that you wouldn’t have been ‘any freer’ under the Hitler regime, as Germany knew it for twelve years, than you would be today under any kind of Marxist totalitarianism. We repeat this to you to remove in advance any possible nostalgia for this regime which we, who admired and supported it, present as based on ‘joyful work’.

If there is anything certain, it is that in the so-called ‘free’ world at least—I haven’t lived in the other, and know it only from the criticism of hostile propaganda and the praise of its propaganda—not one person in ten thousand ‘works with joy’, and this is because not one person in ten thousand really likes his livelihood or his ‘state’, to speak as in the old days. They don’t like it, and rightly so. For the activity that they’re obliged to do, during all the time of sells, to be able to live, to an individual employer, a collective employer (a public company for example) or to the State, is more often than not so boring that it’s impossible to like it.

And this is all the more general the more technically advanced a society is, that is, the more mechanised. Just think of the thousands of workers who have been condemned to ‘assembly-line’ work by a sinister fate: to the indefinite repetition, eight hours a day, of the same easy gesture devoid of any perceived usefulness (since the worker never sees the finished product, car, plane or improved machine, or the manufacture of which each of his monotonous gestures has contributed), of a gesture without any real meaning for the one who performs it. Just think of the woman sitting in some ‘box’ at the foot of a metro staircase, who punches tickets every day, eight hours a day, sowing around her as much beige confetti as people coming out of the staircase to get into the cars with automatic doors that will wait for them for a few seconds, every two or three minutes. Just think of the ‘typist’ who ‘types’ all day long letters whose content doesn’t and cannot interest her.

The list of work which, by its very nature, can be of no interest to anyone could be extended indefinitely. The number of such chores that are ‘indispensable’ to the economy of modern society doesn’t depend on the political regime under which people live, but only on the degree of mechanisation of the cogs of production and exchange. And if it is sometimes possible to remove one or two of them, by replacing a person with a machine—for example, by an automatic banknote punching machine, such as is now used in the buses of Germany and Switzerland—it will never be possible to eliminate them all. The development of technology will create new ones: workers will be needed to manufacture the parts of the ‘latest’ machines.

And these new machines will have to work under someone’s supervision. But it is impossible to make interesting the task of producing identical parts ad infinitum, or of supervising the same machine, let alone pleasant. And if one imagines this task performed under the blinding light of neon tubes, and in continuous noise (or with a background of light music and ditties, even more irritating, for some ears, than any roar of machines), one will agree that for a growing number of men and women earning a living is a chore, if not, a torment.

But it is not only the work that is boring in itself, and therefore exhausting despite the ease with which it can be done by anyone. There are jobs which would undoubtedly interest some people, but which don’t interest a considerable proportion of the employees who perform them, either because these employees haven’t chosen their professional activity, or because they’ve chosen it for the wrong reasons. And the question arises: How is it that at a time when (in the ‘free world’ at least) so much emphasis is placed on the ‘rights of the individual’ and when, in the technically advanced countries, there are so many institutions whose purpose is precisely to help parents guide their children in the direction in which they should be both happiest and most useful. How is it, I ask, that there are so many malcontents, failures, bitter people, uprooted people and downgraded people; in a word, people who are not where they should be and not doing what they should be doing?

The answer presupposes some observations, the first of which is that it is impossible to ask a mass of people, even of a superior race, to resist the pressure of their environment for a long time, or even only for a few decades. It is certainly wrong to assert with Karl Marx that man is no more than what his economic environment makes of him. Racial heredity and history play a part in shaping the personality of individuals and peoples.

This is undeniable. But it must be admitted that the more one deals with a mass, the more important is the influence of the environment, and in particular that of the technical environment, in the formation of the collective personality, or rather in the evolution which results, in people taken as a whole, in an increasingly striking lack of personality.

In other words, the more one deals with a mass, the more the basic proposition of Marxism—‘man is what his environment makes him’—tends to be verified in practice. One could almost say that Marx would be right, if humanity consisted only of the masses. And it is understandable that people who love man above all else, and who are not put off by mass life, should be Marxists. (In order not to be, and to be sure never to be tempted to become, one must love not ‘man’, whoever he may be, but the human elites: the aristocracies of race and character.)

The technical milieu acts on the masses: it dictates to them by advertising the ‘needs’ they must have, or hasten to acquire to encourage ever more advanced research leading to ever more varied and perfected applications of the laws of nature to man’s ‘happiness’.

It offers her real electrification of housework and leisure activities: the ideal modern house, where you only have to turn a knob to heat the soup, bought ready-made, to clean the floor, to wash the clothes, or to watch the day’s film on the small screen (the same one for fifty million viewers), and to listen to the dialogues that are an integral part of it. Only a man who knows in advance what he wants has no use for the technical environment all his life, or even be unaware of it because they are so irrelevant to him; a man who is much more aware of his own psychology (and in particular of his scale of values) than ninety-five per cent of our contemporaries; in a word: a man who, by the grace of the Gods, doesn’t belong to the masses.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note. I would recommend the book Lord of the Rings to those who want to get out of the monstrosity that Saruman did with his arboreal destruction, iron industry, multiplication of Orcs, and technology like the ubiquitous cell-phones (which I don’t use since I have zero male friends in my native town).

If I were a film director and wanted to make a childrens’ TV series, I would bring LOTR to the screen by retrieving all those detailed descriptions of the bucolic fields in Tolkien’s prose, lacking in Peter Jackson’s strident trilogy after his first film.

______ 卐 ______

He will not ‘fit in’ in the modern world, and probably, whatever his profession may be. The mere fact of being happy where three-quarters of the people would be bored, and of being bored on the contrary, of having the most irritating impression of ‘wasting one’s time’ amid the distractions that the majority seeks, sets him apart.

He is really only at home among his few fellows, he who has no transistor, no radio, no television set, no washing machine, and that neon light hurts his eyesight and so-called ‘modern’ music ‘grazes his ears: he who persists in remaining true to himself and who refuses to love ‘on command’ what the advertisements and propaganda present to him as ‘progress’.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note:

If there is one thing almost all white nationalists fail at, it is this. The pop music most of them listen to only degrades the Aryan spirit. The transvaluation of all values begins with the music we listen to: food or poison for the soul.

It is impossible to save the race if the white man enjoys the inane and grotesque melodies of the fallen West—often not even melodies, but the grossest and cacophonous ape rhythms we can imagine (just compare it with the film’s Evenstar).

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 30

He who has risen above time and who, in spite of this (or even because of it) has a mission to accomplish, sees fit to act in time, acts with the certainty of beings who do not choose; with that of the plant that grows towards the sun—what shall I say?, he acts as the magnet that attracts iron, or the elements that combine to yield the compounds that chemistry studies. With consciousness, certainly; but without deliberation or choice, since he clearly ‘knows’ and there is no choice except for the consciousness that doesn’t know, or that knows only imperfectly. (One doesn’t ‘choose’ between the two propositions ‘Two and two make four’ and ‘Two and two make five’. We know that the first is true, the second false. Nor do we ‘choose’ to think that an object is white, if we see it as such. We feel unable to make any judgement about it that would exclude its ‘whiteness’).

What can encourage a decision by someone who is still a prisoner of time—who doesn’t ‘know’, who doesn’t ‘see’, what the future will be to which he contributes, and who has the impression that he can ‘choose’ his action? What could motivate him, especially if he is ignorant of the whole future yet knows that it will go against him, what is dearest to him in the world, and that his action is, on a practical level, perfectly useless? What could sustain the attitude of men like Teia, last king of the Goths in Italy? Or like the Amerindian princes and warriors, who, in spite of the decree of their own gods, deciphered in the heaven by the sages of their lands, fought all the same, albeit too late—and with desperate heroism—against the Spaniards? Or, closer to us, like those thousands of Germans and Aryans from all over the world who, even though they knew that all was lost, even though there were only a few square metres left of the great National Socialist Reich that had been shelled by Russian artillery, continued to fight, one against five hundred, like lions? [1]

What can sustain them in their action, in their refusal to give in, in their defiance, in their useless attitude—not a martyr who foresees, beyond death, a future of beatitude which will compensate him for the worst torments in this world, but these iron winds of all lost causes which, who have no hope either in this world or in any other—who are not even enlightened enough to imagine the triumph of their truth at the dawn of a future time cycle and who, humanly speaking, should feel that they fight, suffer and die for nothing? What can they oppose to this nothingness that is worth all the sacrifices?

They can—and do, no doubt, if only in their subconscious—oppose it with the only certainty that remains when all else collapses: that of the irrevocability of the past.

For them, it is no longer a question of the future of their people and of the world, over which they will have no influence. It is even less about their personal future, which has long ceased to interest them. It is about the beauty of the moment they are going to live, right now, in a second, in an hour, whenever; it is about the beauty of that moment which represents, in endless time, the last scene of their struggle, a moment which, as soon as it has been lived, will take on that unshakeable stability which is the very essence of the past; which will still ‘exist’, in the manner of the whole past, millions and billions of years hence, when there will be no memory of it on earth for a long time to come: when there will be no more earth; no more solar system; when all the visible worlds of today will have ceased to exist materially.

They feel that this moment is all that still depends on them; all that is yet given to them to create. They feel that it is in their power to make it beautiful, or ugly: beautiful, if it fits into the very structure of their being, like the perfect detail that crowns a work of art, the last perfect phrase of a musical composition. Ugly, if it contradicts it, if it betrays it; if, far from completing and crowning it, it robs it of its value; if it destroys it, just as a last brushstroke can turn a smile into a grimace, or a drop of impure liquid can stain, destroy forever, the most exalting of perfumes.

They feel—they know—that it depends on them to make it beautiful or ugly, depending on whether they proclaim, and proclaim for eternity, their honour or their shame; their fidelity to their true raison d’être, or their disavowal. For what is it to disavow, as soon as they become unpopular, the principles that one has professed, a king or a leader whom one has pretended to love and serve as long as there was some tangible advantage in doing so? This is not to prove that one ‘took the wrong path’—otherwise one would have changed it sooner—but it shows that one values effort only for attaining purchasable comfort and pleasures, and that one is incapable of disinterested allegiance, not only to the leaders one has betrayed, but to anyone else; that one has neither honour nor courage, in other words, that one is not ‘a man’ even if one has human form. For a coward is not a man.

The horror of an eternity of ugliness—for the revulsion of a man of honour before a degrading action or attitude is nothing else— is perhaps more decisive even than the aspiration of the faithful one, vanquished on the material plan, to remain himself after the defeat. In fact, if it is rare that a man who knows himself before circumstances reveal his true scale of values, he at least knows himself, to a certain extent, negatively.

If he doesn’t know, in general, what he is capable of, at least he has—and this, apparently, from the moment of the awakening of his self-consciousness—a fairly clear idea or feeling of things that he would never do; of some attitudes that could never be his, whatever the circumstances. The man of good breeding spontaneously shrinks before a degrading action or attitude. He feels that once it has been done, or taken—once it has become part of the past, henceforth unchangeable feeling—it would mark him for eternity, in other words, it would sully him and scar him irreparably. And it is against this projection of his degraded ‘self’—against this contrast between the nobility, the beauty he feels in himself, and the image he has of the ugliness, inseparable from all cowardice, that his fallen being would put on—that he revolts. Anything, rather than this! Anything rather than to become so repellent!—and that forever, for no contrition can erase what once was; no forgiveness can change the past.

And what can be said of the vanquished of this world who act ‘against Time’—that is to say, futilely, from viewpoint of his hostile surroundings—is also true of those to whom all action properly speaking is forbidden, even though they have not necessarily transcended the temporal realm, and who continue to live, day after day, for years and decades, in the spirit of a doctrine that is against the current of Time.

They leave, by the mere unfolding of their existence, with their increasingly impeded expression, an unwritten page of History. The humblest of them could claim a spiritual kinship, distant, no doubt, but undeniable, with certain illustrious figures: with a Hypatia, in the Alexandria of the 4th and 5th centuries, increasingly controlled by Christianity; with a Pletho, in the 15th century, in the atmosphere of Byzantine Hellenism, all steeped in Christian theology.

He could, in his moments of depression, think of all those who, in a forced, almost complete inactivity—or a phantom of activity, that their persecutors try to render useless—continue, in an indefinite captivity, to be the most eloquent witnesses of their faith. (As I write these lines I am thinking of Rudolf Hess and Walter Reder, the former locked up for thirty years, the latter for twenty-seven, behind prison bars.)[2] He could rightly say to himself that he is, that his brothers in the faith are, and that forever; that everything they represent is extended in them, already in our visible and tangible world.

Ancient Hellenism lives on in Pletho, as well as in some other men of the 15th century, insofar as they preserved its spirit. In the same way, the ‘real Germany’, that is to say, the Germany which has, in Hitlerism, rediscovered its original spirit, lives in the cell of Rudolf Hess—and more invincibly than anywhere else, certainly, since the captive of Spandau is one of the spiritual initiators of the more-than-political movement that the ‘Party’ represented in its origins, and probably one of the Führer’s co-initiates.

It also lives on—their truth and vision—in Walter Reder and in all the faithful Germans still in captivity, if there are any, as well as in the immortal figures of the irrevocable past, such as Dr. Joseph Goebbels and his wife, who in their spectacular demise carried along the six children that they had given to the Third Reich rather than letting them survive it. Not to mention the Führer himself, whose whole life is that of Man both ‘out of Time’ and ‘against Time’—out of Time if we consider him from the viewponut of knowledge, against Time (against the current of universal decadence, which is increasingly evident at the end of our cycle), if we speak of him from the point of view of action. But I would add that unless one has transcended Time through direct awareness of ‘the original meaning of things’[3] it is impossible to draw millions of people, even for a few short years, into a struggle against the general trend of temporal manifestation, especially near the end of a cycle.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: This perfectly explains my loneliness in the raven cave behind the Wall during Westeros’ darkest hour.

______ 卐 ______

He who, still trapped in the ‘before’ and ‘after’, cannot objectively relate his action or attitude to the ‘original meaning of things’, can only justify himself by the beauty of that episode of unwritten history that is, and will remain, even if unknown forever, his own history. The awareness of this beauty of something that nothing can destroy is the most exhilarating thing for the individual—all the more so because all beauty is, even if he doesn’t realise it, the radiation of a hidden truth.

But as a lived experience, it concerns only him and those who accept the same values. It may be enough for him. For many of them, this immutably beautiful past will soon be only a past. Only he who, having risen out of Time, knows that his action ‘against Time’ reflects the truth of all time—the truth, whose Source is the divine order—can transmit to multitudes not this truth (which is incommunicable and moreover would not interest them) but his faith in the necessary action; his conviction that his fight against the inverted values long preached and accepted, against erroneous ideas, against the reversal of the natural hierarchies, is the only one worthy of all sacrifice.

Only he can do this because he has, at the same time as the joy of the fight, even if practically useless, on behalf of a true idea, the vision of our historical cycle in its place in the indefinite rhythmic unfolding of all cycles, in the ‘eternal Present’; because there is, in the objectivity of this vision, a light capable of being projecting, be it only for an instant—a few years—onto our world, like a glimmer heralding the dawn of the next cycle; a force capable for an instant of holding it back in its race toward disintegration.

The multitudes are seduced by this light, and feel this force—but not for long. Every mass is, by nature, inert. The man of vision, Adolf Hitler, for a time drew the privileged crowds to him, as a magnet draws iron. They felt that they had a God as their leader: a man in touch with the ‘original’ (eternal) ‘meaning of things’. But they didn’t understand him. With him gone, they became modern crowds again. They remained, however, marked in their substance by the memory of a unique experience, and imbued with an immense nostalgia: a nostalgia that the whirlwind of life haunted by the idea of money, production, comfort and over-saturated with purchasable pleasures cannot dispel. I have been told that more than thirteen thousand young people commit suicide every year in western Germany alone.

Fortunately, there are also young people who, knowing full well that they will never see the equivalent of what the Third Reich was, live with courage and conviction the faith against the tide of time—the faith in the eternity of the Race, the concrete symbol of the eternal beyond the visible and transcendent world—that the Führer left to them in his so-called ‘political’ testament. They live it with courage and without hope, in the manner of the Strong who need neither support nor consolation. When these young people, who are now twelve, fifteen or eighteen years old, have become old men and women, those of them who will have remained unwaveringly faithful all the days of their existence—in thought, in their silence, in their speech, whenever possible by their behaviour in the ‘little things’ as well as in the big ones—those, I say, will be able, even without ever rising above the ‘before’ and the ‘after’, to look at this page of unwritten history which their life will represent, and to be satisfied with it as with a work of beauty. To this page, their children will add another. And the faith will be passed on.

There are, finally, some very few faithful ones who, sensing in the Führer’s teaching a more-than-political doctrine, devote themselves to its study in order to discover what makes its unshakeable value independently of the lost war and the tenacious hostility of the whole world, conditioned by the enemy. They gradually realise that Hitlerism—Aryan racism in its past and present expression—is, stripped of the contingencies that marked its birth, nothing other than a path, which implies in its Founder the vision, in all those who follow him in spirit, the acceptance of the metaphysical truths at the basis of all ancient traditions, in other words, of the supreme truth.

And they strive to come closer to the departed Leader, by coming closer to the One he was indeed: to the One who, in the Bhagawad-Gita, teaches the Aryan Warrior the mystery of union with the infinite Self through violent action, freed of any attachment; to the One who returns from age to age to fight ‘for Justice’, i.e., for the restoration of the divine order against the tide of Time. In other words, they seek the eternal, certain that only they will find it.


[1] Among others, the French members of the Waffen S.S., who defended Berlin to the end.

[2] This sentence was written in December 1970.

[3] ‘der Ursinn der Dinge’ (Mein Kampf, ed. 1935 p. 440).

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 3

Chapter III: Anthropocentrism and intolerance

I have told you, and will repeat it—for it cannot be repeated too often: Get rid of the superstition of ‘man’, or give thanks to the immortal Gods if you are by nature free; if ‘man’ as such is not of interest to you; if only Perfection interests you and if you love man only to the extent that he approaches—individually and collectively—the ideal type of the Race; insofar as, being of one day, he reflects that which is eternal.

Have you meditated enough on the history of the world to have noticed a puzzling fact, namely that few people have sinned more odiously against men than those who loved them the most, and wanted, with the most obstinacy, ‘to make them happy’ (even against their will) either in this world or in a Hereafter in which they firmly believed? Nietzsche, perhaps the only great master of thought that the West has produced on the fringes of Christianity, noticed it. ‘Christians no longer love us enough’, he said, ‘to burn us alive in public places’.[1]

Much has been said about the horrors committed by the Church of Rome in the name of defending Christian orthodoxy. What has almost always been forgotten is that the Holy Inquisition, the organ of this Church, acted out of love. It believed—like all good Catholics of the twelfth, thirteenth, or even seventeenth centuries—that outside the Church there was no salvation; that the individual who left the rigid path of dogma, and thereby ceased to be faithful, went, at his death, straight to hell.

The Church knew that men, inclined to sin since Adam’s disobedience, follow bad examples much more readily than good ones; that the heretic was therefore a public danger: a black sheep that was necessary, in case he refused the offered cure—that is to recant, the penance and the return to the bosom of the blessed flock—to cut him off at all costs from the whole population. And the most spectacular and terrible the aftermath of the heresy trial, the less likely it would be that the simple souls, who are the majority, would be tempted to rebel in their turn against the authority of the Church; the less likely they would be separated from God forever. The fear of God, which is said to be the beginning of wisdom, would be confused here with the fear of visible fire, with the fear of physical pain in the person who has, at least once, witnessed the burning of a heretic and saw and heard the man struggling in his bonds and screaming amid the flames.

Glory to Christ! the pyres shine, howling torches;
The flesh splits, sets fire to the bones of heretics,
And red streams on the hot coals
Smoke under black skies to the sound of holy hymns!

As for me, I sincerely believe that the Inquisitor Fathers were not monsters. They struggled, in the face of a formal refusal to recant, to deliver a human being ‘to the secular arm’, knowing what torment the said ‘secular arm’ had in store for him. This decision, which today seems to so many people to be so ‘contrary to Christian love’, was nevertheless inspired by Christian love as they understood it, taking into account their interpretation of passages of the Scriptures concerning the Hereafter. They loved men, i.e. human souls, so much to accept the risk of knowing that they were in danger of perdition, in contact with the ‘teachers of error’.

If there is anything against which you should revolt at the thought of the horrors of the Holy Inquisition (unless one agrees entirely with it; why not, if you subscribe such faith?) it is certainly not the ‘wickedness’ of the inquisitor fathers, but that unconditional love of all men, including heretics and unbelievers to be brought back, brought to Jesus Christ. This was a love of all men for the sole reason that they are considered the only living creatures ‘having an immortal soul created in the image of God’, a love of which the members of the Holy Office were, along with all, or almost all, Christians of their time, the first victims.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: To those unfamiliar with theology this issue may seem anachronistic but it is not. As the Spanish filmmaker Luis Buñuel (1900-1983) said in his autobiography, ‘I was born in the Middle Ages’: something that I could also say.

When investigating the Turin shroud and visiting the Archdiocese of Mexico, I discovered the theological essays of Antonio Brambila (see my criticism: here, in Spanish), who died a month before radiocarbon tests dated the Turin cloth as a medieval product (not as a 1st-century miraculous cloth!). This Brambila priest explained in several articles what Savitri sums up in the passage above. He claimed that only the human being is eternal and that Jesus had shown it to us with his Resurrection (a Resurrection that left its mark, by the way, on the Turin sheet). The implication of Brambila’s theology was: either you believe in Christ or you are forever damned.

When I lived in the US, I was greatly surprised that many gringos, whom I previously viewed as non-Neanderthals, believed exactly the same shit through Protestantism. So what Savitri wrote decades ago is not outdated: Catholic fundamentalists like Brambila (who published his own Latin-Spanish translation of Augustine’s Confessions) and today’s last-ditch fundamentalist Protestants are still with us.

______ 卐 ______

To those who do not particularly love men, their destiny—salvation or perdition, in a hypothetical Hereafter—is a matter of indifference. The so-called ‘tolerance’ of the people of our time is, in reality, a complete disinterest in questions of dogma in particular, and metaphysical questions in general; a deep scepticism of the Hereafter and an increasingly widespread (though less and less avowed) indifference towards men. All in all, men are no worse off. Not only are there no longer any pyres in public places in countries of Christian, Catholic or Reformed civilisation (in Christian countries subject to the Eastern Orthodox Church there never were any). But a major excommunication, launched against an individual by any Church would have, in the West, no social consequences: the excommunicated would continue to live the next day as he lived the day before. No one would notice that he was excommunicated (except perhaps devotees in his parish).

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Exactly what happened to the priest of my family, Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, excommunicated for having dared to criticise the Second Vatican Council.

______ 卐 ______

If, as recently as 1853—a little over a century ago—an excommunicated monk, Théophile Kaïris, could have been imprisoned by order of the Greek government, and died in prison, it is not that the Greeks were, at that time, ‘less tolerant’ than their brothers in France or Germany. It was only that Greece was not then (as it is not today) the West, and that the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church was there (as is still today) held to be ‘national religion’, like that of the Roman Church is in Spain, Free Ireland, or Poland, despite the Communism imposed on the people: a living contradiction, given the largely human and ‘not of this world’ character of all true Christianity.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: If I manage to reproduce the entire translation of this chapter I will divide it, of nearly 14,000 words in the original French, into several entries.

I do it just out of curiosity to know exactly what Savitri was thinking. Some passages from the previous instalments of this new series suggest that Savitri was in line with what, at the end of my eleven books, I call the religion of the four words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’). If to this we add that Savitri also subscribed to what from David Lane is known as the fourteen words she would be, together with Hitler and others from the Nazi leadership, the only ones whom I resemble. (Recall that Hitler wanted to close the slaughterhouses after the war; Göring forbade vivisection, Himmler disapproved of hunting animals for sport, etcetera.)


[1 ] In Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil.

[2] Leconte de Lisle, ‘The Agony of a Saint’, Poèmes Barbares.

Published in: on August 18, 2021 at 3:34 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 3  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 2

Chapter II—False nations and true racism

‘We have to distinguish between the state as a vessel and the race as the content. This vessel only makes sense if it is able to preserve and protect its contents; otherwise it is worthless’.

—Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 434)

Do not forget that it is considerations of race which distinguish a real people from a collectivity of men which does not deserve the name.

Such communities can be very different from each other. There are states where the population is a deeply mixed mass, where specimens of ‘pure’ appearance, if there are any, have children who do not resemble them; where children of the same family, who nevertheless seems ethnically homogeneous, are different races: one Negroid, the other Mediterranean, or almost, the third, marked with strong Amerindian characteristics. These are states, not peoples. There is, for example, a Brazilian state. There is a population (multiracial, and without segregation laws) who inhabit Brazil. There are no Brazilian people—nor, therefore, a Brazilian ‘nation’.

There are, on the other hand, states whose populations are made up of several peoples juxtaposed, but not fused together. This is the case of the United States of America [Editor’s note: Remember that this was written in the late 1960s], the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, the Soviet Union, and India. It is by an abuse of language that one gives to the general population of any one of these States, the name of ‘people’ or of ‘nation’. There is, in fact, no natural link, no biological link, between an ‘American citizen’ of Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Mediterranean origin, and another ‘American citizen’ Negro or mestizo, or Jew…

Moreover, in the USA, as in the so-called ‘racist’ states of Rhodesia and South Africa, and more, Aryans and Negroes belong to the same Christian churches; are Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, as the case may be, but always without distinction of race. Since the realm of the true Christian is not of this world, biological considerations cannot be included…

If, favoured by the diffusion of a uniform way of life as well as of a common ‘knowledge’, and especially of self-distant common anti-racist ‘values’, the gangrene of interbreeding is gradually gaining the entire population, it is, for this, the irremediable decadence: the end of all culture, the end of all disinterested creation, that is to say of any activity other than that which consists in ‘producing’ always more, in order to acquire more and more material well-being. If, on the contrary, it is the healthy tendency of each race to remain separate from the others that prevails, the population will retain its heterogeneity. It will not become ‘a people’—much less a ‘nation’. It will remain what it is, namely a juxtaposition of two or more races living in harmony with each other to the extent that their primary diversity is recognised and accepted. [Editor’s note: Again, writing in the 60s, Savitri ignored that that is impossible in the long run.]

The Union of South Africa, so decried by anti-Hitlerites around the world for its so-called ‘racism’, is not such a multiracial state, or only very incompletely, despite its official program of ‘separate development of races’. It is only very incompletely so because, just like Rhodesia which, for its part, denies exalting racism, and like the USA which, despite the continued resistance of its segregationists, is fighting it, it confuses, as I said earlier, ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’. [Editor’s Note: Living in Mexico I can say that the few Jews I have come to know are phenotypically white, sometimes completely indistinguishable from real Aryans except for their last names (see e.g., here). This means that from now on I will use the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’ as Savitri used them; being the ‘Aryans’ those whites who don’t have Jewish blood, though many Ashkenazi Jews are white: something that Richard Spencer has acknowledged in one of his recent podcasts.]

Far, for example, from removing the Jews from key positions in the country and, in general, from any profession in the exercise of which they are likely to acquire political or cultural influence, it gives them, because of their colour alone, all the advantages enjoyed by the ‘Whites’, advantages that she refuses to the Aryans of Asia, however illogical that is, and that, even if, like most Brahmans and many ‘Khatris’ of Punjab, they are fair complexion. Crossbreeding between Aryans and Jews is not prohibited in the so-called racist Union of South Africa—any more than it is elsewhere. It has never been so in any country of Christian population, if the Jew—or the Jewess—had, by baptism, been received into the religious community of her partner. He was so only in the Third German Reich, a State whose true religion was that of Blood and Soil—and, it is again, since 1955, in the State of Israel, whose people believe themselves, to the exclusion of everything else, ‘chosen of God’.

It is true that wherever there are two or more human races, whose nations all or almost all adhere to a centred religion, like Christianity, in the long run a tendency of interbreeding emerges. All true racism implies the negation of the dogma of the immense value of ‘man’ whoever he may be; the negation of the ‘apart’ character of man, and his integration into all other living species; the negation of the legal equality of ‘souls’ as well as of men’s bodies.

______ 卐 ______

I will now tell you about India, so that you can once again be proud to be Aryan.

To understand the history of the peoples who inhabit this vast portion of the continent—which includes, in fact, in addition to the current ‘Indian Republic’, the two ‘Pakistans’[i] and the island of Ceylon; a surface, in all, equal to that of Europe minus Russia—you must refer to the distant time when the first Aryan tribes, coming from the North, descended in successive waves on the Pays-des-Sept-Rivières (the Sapta Sindhu of the Sanskrit Scriptures) by the famous Pass of Khaïber, the Voie des Couquérants.

It was, according to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, commonly called Lokamanya[ii] Tilak; this Brahmin of Maharashtra, both scholar and mathematician, who demonstrated it by astronomical considerations—before the fourth millennium before the Christian era, therefore at the time of the very first Egyptian dynasties, several centuries before the construction of the pyramids of Giza; at the time when, in Mesopotamia, the Sumerian civilisation flourished in its oldest centres: in Erech, in Nippur, in Eridu, some fifteen hundred years before Sargon of Akkad. And the Aryas—which, in Sanskrit, means ‘those who command’, in other words, the men of the race of the lords—came, still according to Tilak, from the far North. They were the brothers of those who, closer to the common cradle of the race, were one day to be called the Germans, the Hellenes, the Latins, and whose languages presented deep similarities with theirs. Their ancestors had lived beyond the Arctic Circle, at a time when the lands of this region still enjoyed a temperate climate—that is to say before the axis of our planet tilted further; twenty-three degrees. They had awaited in worship the return of the Sun—the victory of the Day after the long nights streaked with aurora borealis—and they had sung the splendour of the sky and venerated the stars (the ‘brilliant’ or ‘Devas’) which did not go to bed.

During the centuries that they had taken to cover, in stages, the immense distance which separated them from the divine arctic homeland, the Aryas had preserved some of these hymns. Their bards had composed others, and soon, during the gradual conquest of the hot lands, where to improvise new ones. For a very long time transmitted from mouth to mouth, 1009 of these poems—finally written—have come down to us. The whole constitutes the Rig Veda: the oldest sacred text in India, which pious Brahmans still chant today.

The Aryas were a few thousand—perhaps, over time, a few tens of thousands—in front of all these hostile peoples and tribes, which they called Dasyus, or dwellers of the woods, or the Rakshasas or demons. It is possible that they found, already in force in the society of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, a hereditary system of a division of labour. But it was they who gave such a system, if it existed, racial significance, and classified the population of India into immutable castes. They could not do otherwise if they wanted to preserve their physical and moral characteristics for their Aryan race, in other words, if they wanted to survive.

They probably began by mixing freely, if not with the Aborigines at least with the Dravidians, technically more advanced than them until they grasped, in all its tragic horror, the danger of interbreeding. It was then that the caste system was formed: the division of the population of the Indies into a minority of dwijas or twice-born Arya (because they had to know this ‘second birth’ which the spiritual initiation represents), and an immense majority of Shudras, people with dark skin, intended for servile work. At the bottom of the scale—out of all caste—were rejected the Negroids, Negro-Mongoloids and people of the Munda type: the oldest inhabitants of Indian soil. The ‘twice-born’ shared power. Spiritual authority was henceforth the privilege of the Brahmans; temporal power, that of the Kshatriyas; and this power which already gave, in a society much less attached than ours to material goods, wealth, born of commerce, the prerogative of the Vaishyas.

Disinterested scientific knowledge and above all spiritual knowledge was reserved for the Aryas, and very soon only for the Brahmans and Kshatriyas. It was unthinkable that a young Soudra, even exceptionally gifted—and all the more reason a Chandala, below any caste—were taught the supreme truths, or that he was taught to recite, even that recited before him the most beautiful invocations to the Devas or the most powerful ritual formulas. Frightful penalties awaited those who would have dared to transgress this defence, and those in favour of whom, it would have been transgressed.

Since then, many things have happened, many transformations have upset Indian society, like all societies. In spite of everything, forbidden unions took place; children were born whose parents did not belong to the same caste…

One could photograph and classify specimens of all both racial and professional groups in India. We would thus obtain a huge collection of types gradually going from Negroid or even Australoid to pure Aryan—an Aryan often purer than the majority of his brethren in Europe (at least in Southern Europe). There is maybe, very light, with brown or gray eyes (exceptionally blue or blue-green), hair ranging from black to reddish brown, with perfectly Indo-European features. It is little, one will say. This is a lot if we remember that at least sixty centuries separate the present day from the time when the first Aryan tribes emerged from the Khyber Pass.

In any case, the facts that I have just recalled here clearly show that the Indies are no more ‘a people’ than are the United States of America, the Soviet Union or the South African Union.

But there is a difference: while in each of these countries a common dogmatic faith, the dissemination of which is encouraged—and a clearly anti-racist faith, or one concerning the other world and indifferent to racial issues, let it be it is Marxism or any form of Christianity whatsoever—tends, in spite of everything, to bring the races together; constitutes, in any case, a permanent brake on the instinct of segregation, in India, it is the opposite which occurs. There the religious tradition itself proclaims the congenital inequality of ‘souls’ as well as of bodies, and the natural hierarchy of races, dominated by the Aryan race—in exactly the same spirit as Hitlerism—and thus encourages segregation.

Over the centuries, we have tried, either in the name of a philosophy denying Life, or in the name of ‘practical necessities’, to kill this racist tradition. We did not succeed. Buddhism referred its followers to monastic life, but had in practice as a result of mixing the castes without causing the extinction of the human species. He ended up being swept from India. Guru Govinda Singh, the founder of the Sikh warrior sect, had wanted to take his followers from all castes, claiming to take into account only the individual worth of each man. But this concern for combative efficiency, this requirement for essentially Aryan qualities such as the spirit of sacrifice, the sense of responsibility, the joyful acceptance of discipline, even a very hard one, etc., have resulted in it being mostly Hindus from Aryan castes who came to him. One only has to look at the Sikhs to see it. No Government of the present ‘Indian Republic’ will succeed where Guru Govinda Singh and, centuries before him, the Buddha himself, failed…

In other words, India will never be ‘a nation’. Nor will they—hopefully at least—be ethnic chaos without a racial elite: the caste system, even with its current weaknesses, will save them from such a fate. They will remain an association of peoples and races, united by the only common civilisation which is in accord with their natural hierarchy. Because Hinduism is more than a religion in the sense in which we hear this word today in the West. It is a civilisation; a civilisation dominated by Aryan racism, made acceptable to many non-Aryan races, thanks to the dogma of karma and the transmigration of souls.

If one day Hitlerism succeeded in conquering Europe, it seems to me almost certain that over the following centuries the mentality of the average European would come closer and closer to that of the Orthodox Hindu of any caste. I will tell you, as an illustration of this, an episode from my life in India.

It was during the glorious year—1940—shortly after the start of the French campaign. I was living in Calcutta—unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I had not managed to return to Europe in time. And I had a young servant named Khudiram, a fifteen year old teenager, Shudra, from the Mahishya sub-caste (West Bengal farming community), very dark skinned, with slightly slanted eyes, with a flat face—not Aryan at all!—and perfectly illiterate. One morning, coming back from the fish market (where he went every day to buy something to feed the cats) this boy said to me triumphantly: ‘Mem Saheb, I worship your Führer, and wish with all my heart that he wins the war!’

I was speechless. ‘Khudiram’, I said, ‘do you worship him only because you know, like everyone else, that he is victorious? You don’t know anything about the story of his life and his actions’.

‘It may be’, the teenager replied, ‘that I’m just ignorant. But this morning I got to know a grown-up at the market who is at least twenty years old and can read. And he told me that your Führer is fighting, in Europe, in order to root out the Bible, which he wants to replace with the Bhagavad-Gita’.

I was speechless again. I thought, in the blink of an eye: ‘The Führer would be very surprised if he knew how to interpret his doctrine in the Halls of Calcutta!’ Then I recalled a passage from Song I of the Bhagavad-Gîta, as I knew it in the beautiful translation of Eugène Burnouf: ‘From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes—therefore of races. From the confusion of castes comes the loss of memory; from the loss of memory comes the loss of understanding, and of it all evils’.[iii] And I thought, What else has Adolf Hitler done, but repeat these eternal words, and act according to their mind?

I said to Khudiram: ‘The ‘great’ you speak of was right. Repeat what he taught you to anyone who wants to hear you. I give you a day off for this purpose—and a rupee to pay for a cup of tea for your friends. Go, and use your freedom for a good Cause!’

The kid, very happy, was about to leave the kitchen where this interview had taken place. I couldn’t help but hold him back for a moment and ask him what made him so enthusiastically want this ‘New Order’ which, however, hardly favoured people of his race. ‘Do you know, Khudiram’, I said to him, ‘that to replace the Bible with the Bhagavad-Gita in distant Europe and in all the countries which come under its influence, would be equivalent to extending to practically the whole earth a caste system parallel to that of the Indies? And do you know that as Shudra you wouldn’t have any chance of promotion in my Führer’s New Order? And do you love him despite that?’

I will never forget the teenager’s response—the response of the non-Aryan masses in India, loyal to a racist Tradition that goes beyond them, from the mouth of an illiterate youth: ‘Certainly I know that. I want your Führer to win because the order he tries to establish wherever he can is in accordance with the spirit of the Shastras; because it is the divine order; the true order. No matter what place he gives me, to me! I am nothing; I do not count. It’s the truth that counts. If I was born into a very humble caste, it is because I deserved it. I have faulted, and seriously, in my past lives. If, in this life, I remain faithful to the rules of my caste: if I do not eat prohibited foods; if I marry a girl among those that are allowed to me, and do not desire any of the others, I will be reborn a little higher in the scale of beings. And if I persevere, from life to life, in the path of purity, who knows? One day—in many centuries—perhaps I will be reborn as a Brahmin? Or among these new Aryas of Europe who also worship your Führer?’

In successive waves, descended the Khaïber Pass. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them after sixty centuries. And I thought of my German comrades—my brothers in the Hitlerite faith—whose armored divisions then followed each other along the roads of France. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them too, because their faith is the modern expression of the Aryan Tradition of always.

______ 卐 ______

England’s real crime against India is not to have exploited the soil and the people on an unprecedented scale, but was to have inculcated into the heads of thousands of Hindus of higher castes, anti-racialist democratic principles, anti-traditionalist principles, along with an ominous humanitarianism when not an out-and-out anthropocentrism; and finally to have introduced into the administration of that vast sub-continent such measures as tended to promote the least valuable racial elements of the population.

The whole system was conceived in order to take away from the Hindus, in general, and especially from the high-caste Hindus—i.e., from the Aryan elite of India—every scrap of political power, already within the more and more ‘Indianised’ administration that the British were setting up themselves, before their departure, which they had felt was unavoidable. It was enforced by the authority without appeal of the colonial power. One could not change it. One only could, from an Aryan racialist standpoint, try to limit the mischief that would result out of its applications. And in order to do that, one had to act as though one accepted the absurd principle of the ‘right’ of any majority to power, regardless of its value, simply because it represents the greatest numbers and strive to make the Hindus a majority at the expense of other communities. (Editor’s note: With their obsession with JQ, white nationalists have been blinded to seeing the beam in their own eye – in this case, the egalitarianism imposed on this colony of the British Empire.)

One therefore had to try to give to the most backward of the most degenerate of Aborigines—to the half-savages of the hills of Assam—a (false) Hindu consciousness. One had to bring them to proclaim themselves ‘Hindus’, sincerely, by telling them how tolerant Hinduism is, but by forgetting to mention the caste system that it upholds. One had to try to bring (or rather bring back) the Indian Christian or Muslim (both, as a rule, sprung from low-caste Hindus converted to one of the two foreign creeds) to Hinduism. And for that one had to surmount the repugnance of most Hindus to accept them, for never yet had Hinduism taken back into its fold anyone who had left it or had been expelled from it (and declared Untouchable). One could fall out of one’s caste and land into Untouchable. One could not re-enter it. But one had to change that, if power was not to pass entirely into the hands of the non-Aryan majority of the population of India. For alone could a (false) nationalism—a European style nationalism, necessarily false in the case of any multiracial society—bring about the change and unite the Hindus under a no less false parliamentary system imposed up in them against their tradition, and against the Aryan Tradition, of which their elite had remained up till then the sole depositary.

I was then employed as a lecturer and as a ‘missionary of Hinduism’ by the ‘Hindu Mission’, a half-religious, half-political organisation which, for more than thirty years already, had been striving to recover from Hinduism all those who were (or whose fathers were) out of it, for whatever reason. Full of bitterness towards historical Christianity because of the role it played in the West—ardent admirer of Emperor Julian and Hypatia, no less than of Wittekind—I once introduced myself to the President of the Mission, Swami Satyananda. I had offered my services to him. He asked me what attracted me to India, and I quoted him, translating them into Bengali:

Rama, Daçarathide honoured with the Brahmans,
You whose blood is pure, You whose body is white,
Said Lakshmana, hi, sparkling tamer
Of all the profane races! [iv]

I had told him that I was Hitlerist and Pagan—still regretting the conversion, by snatch or by force, of my native Europe to the religion of Paul of Tarsus—and that I wanted to work to prevent the one and last country to have kept (in part at least) the Aryan Gods—India—from following the bad example of the West and from falling, too, under the spiritual influence of the Jews. I told him I wanted to help make India our ally, in the fight against false ‘values’.

He had accepted me and given me full freedom of expression provided that he told me, I place myself, in my speeches to crowds, ‘from the Hindu point of view’ and that I ‘take into account the particular circumstances from the country’. ‘I consider’, he added, ‘Your Master as an Incarnation of Vishnu, an expression of the divine Force which preserves what deserves to be preserved. And his disciples are in my eyes our spiritual brothers. But you will have to make concessions here, at least as long as the English are there; otherwise you will not be able to compete with the propaganda of Christian missionaries who preach “man”, regardless of race. Think about it!’

I had to ‘think about it’! No appeal to a mass, and especially to a multiracial mass, is possible without certain compromises. We could not ask the Shudras (or the Untouchables) converted to religions of equality, to come out and reintegrate Hinduism, without giving them the impression that they would lose none of their acquired ‘rights’…

The English administration, antiracist in principle (despite a racial segregation limited to worldly relations, and which did not apply to Jews, moreover) made no difference between a Brahmin, Indo-European by blood and mentality, and the last of the Nagas or Koukis of Assam, especially if the latter represented in the Assembly either the Christians or the ‘shudra castes’, that is to say the Untouchables, of his province. It was not my fault if she had this attitude, and if she tended to ‘Indianise’ as much as she could the legislative bodies and the public services, in this spirit that was other than that of decadent Europe; of that Europe which would soon reject Hitler’s renaissance with the stupid vehemence we know.

______ 卐 ______

If we had won the war, India—that she would have remained ‘British’, which is unlikely, despite the Führer’s desire (before the war) not to touch the British colonial empire—or that it had become independent—would have very quickly got rid of the democratic reforms introduced by the English and would have returned to its immemorial tradition: to the Tradition of the Aryas…

I have often wondered to what extent the few Englishmen who seriously wanted their country’s collaboration with the German Reich—those Englishmen who were, almost all, from the start of World War II, interned ‘preventively’ in the name of the Law 18 B, realised the magnitude of the transformation this would have brought about, and the repercussions it would have on the future of their people and the world. I knew one well—Elwyn Wright, physically and mentally, one of the most beautiful specimens of Aryan that I have met—who was aware of it, and who wanted this collaboration precisely because of that. But how many were there like him?…

One of the tragedies of our time is that, taken en masse, it is the enemies of Hitlerism, and in particular the Jews, and intelligent Christians, who have understood this best. They hated him, no doubt; but they detested him precisely for what makes him greatness and eternity: for his scale of values, centred not on ‘man’, but on life; for its possibility of becoming very quickly—once associated with rites—a real religion. They hated him because they felt, more or less confusedly—and sometimes very clearly—that his victory would mean the end of everything that, for at least two thousand years (if not two thousand and four hundred), the Western world has known and loved; the negation of the values which, for so long, helped him to live.

It should be noted that at least one of the most brilliant French collaborators—and one of those who paid with their life for their friendship for regenerated Germany—Robert Brasillach, himself was aware of the character essentially ‘Pagan’, from Hitler mysticism. He collaborated with Germany despite this; not because of it. And he has on several occasions, in particular in his novel Les Sept Couleurs, underlined the impression of disorientation, of somewhat frightening strangeness, which he felt in his neighbours across the Rhine, in spite of all the weather. Admiration he had for their rebirth, both political and social. ‘It is’, he writes, speaking of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, ‘a strange country, further from us than the most distant India or China, a pagan country’…

Among the French collaborators as well as among the English 18 B’s I have only met very few people who are sincerely Hitlerites, although they are aware of the philosophical implications of Hitlerism. I will say more: there were, even at the time of the greatest glory of the Third Reich, very few true Hitlerites among the millions of Germans who acclaimed the Führer. One of the purest that I have had the joy and the honour of knowing—the Oberregierungs-und Schulrat Heinrich Blume—told me in 1953 that the number of Germans who had given themselves entirely to the Movement knowing fully this they were doing, never exceeded three hundred thousand. We are far from the ninety-eight and a half percent of the voters of the Reich, who had brought the Führer to power! The vast majority of these had voted for the reconstruction of the German economy and the regeneration of the social body, not for the return to the fundamental truths of life and for the ‘fight against time’ that Hitlerism involved, and of which they did not even realise. (Editor’s note: This explains why the Allied denazification process was so easy.)

Even more: there are Germans who—like Hermann Rauschning, the author of the book Hitler Told Me—withdrew from the Movement as soon as they realised the pagan character of Hitler’s Weltanschauung. And it should be noted that they did not realise this until they had gained the Führer’s confidence enough for him to admit them into his small circle of insiders or partially insiders. For there was a difference between the teaching given to the people in general and that which the disciples received; a difference, not in content, but in clarity. For example, Point 24 of the famous ‘Twenty-five Points’ specifies that the Party, while proclaiming the widest religious tolerance, sticks to a ‘positive Christianity’—in other words, to there is something ‘positive’, that is to say true, in conformity with tradition, in historical Christianity—but that it condemns and combats any religion or philosophy ‘which shocks the moral sense of the Germanic race, or which is dangerous to the State’.[v] He (no doubt deliberately) omits to recall that any religion which turns its back on the realities of this world, and in particular on the biological realities, to the point of allowing the marriage of people of different races, provided they are members of the same ‘church’, as well as any religion or philosophy who exalts ‘the man’, even deficient, even to the last degree of physical or moral (or physical and moral) degradation, can only be a public danger, in the National Socialist State.

The Führer defends himself in Mein Kampf from aiming in the least at religious reform. ‘It is criminal’, he writes, ‘to try to destroy the faith accepted by the people, ‘as long as there is nothing that can replace it’.[vi] He further writes that the mission of the National Socialist Movement ‘does not consist of religious reform, but of a political reorganisation of the German people’.[vii] But what he does not write—what he could not write in a book intended for the great mass of a people Christianised since the ninth century and believing himself, at least for the most part, to be Christian—is that any regime based, as was the National Socialist regime, on the negation of the intrinsic value of everything man, regardless of his race and his individual worth, is necessarily the antithesis of a Christian social order. Because every Christian society has for principle the respect of ‘the human being’ created, whatever it is, ‘to the image and likeness’ of a transcendent and personal God, essentially a friend of man. What Adolf Hitler could not tell the masses is that any political regime based on a doctrine centred on Life and its eternal laws necessarily has a more-than-political meaning. His own success depended on the voice of the masses, because we must not forget that he took power ‘legally’, that is to say ‘democratically’.

This more-than-political significance of Hitlerism, only in Germany fully grasped the Führer himself and the National Socialist elite: the initiates of the Thüle-Gesellschaft; the teachers and the best pupils of the Ordensburgen, where the members of the SS were formed. The mass of the people did not feel it, and would have been astonished, if someone had shown it to them, with all its implications; if, for example, someone had made him understand that Christianity and Hitlerism are two different and incompatible paths, open to the Eternal, and that the same person cannot follow both, but must choose. (Editor’s note: Therefore, white nationalists have chosen evil.)

Outside of Germany—and outside of India, of Aryan tradition—a thinking elite loved or feared or hated Hitlerism because of its true nature. The Jewish elite cursed him for reasons far more profound than the secular secret hostility which opposed Israel to the Germanic world. The enormous mass of men from all countries—indifferent to ‘politics’—feared him without knowing exactly why, in reality because they vaguely felt in him the negation of all anthropocentrism; the ‘Starry Space Wisdom’ (as I have called it myself) as opposed to ‘the love of man’ and the concern for his happiness, in this world or in another.


[i] This was written before East Bengal ceased to be called ‘Pakistan’, to become ‘Bangladesh’, which simply means ‘Bengal’.

[ii] ‘Honoured with men’.

[iii] Bhagawad-Gîta, I, verses 41 and following.

[iv] Leconte de Lisle (The Arc of Çiva; Ancient Poems).

[v] ‘Wir fordern die Freiheit Aller religiösen Bekenntnissen im Staat, solang sie nicht dessen Bestand gefährden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits—und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstoßen’.

[vi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf German edition 1935, pages 293-294.

[ [vii] Adolf Hitler, Ibid, page 379.

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.

April 20 gift

The best gift I received yesterday, on the Führer’s anniversary day, were the fifteen booklets I had requested from Third Reich Books: most of them authored by SS men. Although the publishers have been deplatformed by banks that issue credit cards, it’s still possible to acquire them.

In my previous post I reported the poison that the most successful series on television put us. What Himmler wrote inside the front cover of the original German booklet is the perfect antidote:

Men of the SS and Police!

Two weapons are available to each folk in the struggle for existence. Its fighting strength and its natural fertility. Never forget that the fighting strength alone cannot secure the folk’s survival into the distant future. The inexhaustible fountain of its fertility is also necessary.

Read this book, which I have given to you, and act accordingly. The victory of German arms must be followed by the victory of the German child.

H. Himmler.

The translation was published under the title SS Man, Be Fruitful. But the original title Sieg der Waffen—Sieg des Kindes (Victory of the Arms—Victory of the Children) better reflects the content. Nothing can be more antithetical to the ethno-suicidal feminism of television than the simple message of this brief pamphlet, packed with photographs.

A year ago I complained that the sites of white nationalism didn’t pay tribute to the birthday of the Führer. This year I didn’t want to inquire if the same thing happened yesterday. It is time to dismiss what is written in the US to find out what was written in these booklets available in several languages: here.

Michael’s schizophrenia

I use the term ‘schizophrenia’ in its popular sense of a divided mind, not in the psychiatric sense.

A week ago I honoured the retired revolutionary ideologue Michael O’Meara in the context that, unlike him, white nationalists are merely reactionaries.

Today I came up with the idea to look in the discussion threads of the webzine where O’Meara used to post his articles to see when was the last time O’Meara discussed one of his articles with the commenters. I found out it was a reply to a commenter in one of the threads from September 2012:

No offense taken. I was pleased that someone had commented on the Catholic aspect of the piece. Another take on religion is my ‘Only a God Can Save Us’, archived here at C-C.

O’Meara refers to his article on Nietzsche originally published in The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 2008), which Greg Johnson later republished in Counter-Currents on July 1, 2010. This means that O’Meara wrote his article before the Spaniard Evropa Soberana published his long essay on Judea vs. Rome, which I later translated and adopted as the masthead of this site.

O’Meara’s last comment in Johnson’s webzine reminds me that, in another of his articles, O’Meara said things about Hitler that denoted a critical spirit towards what, in my opinion, has been the apex of western history to date: the Third Reich.

Years ago I asked a question in one of the discussion threads of this site. I didn’t understand why Solzhenitsyn, who so longed for the destruction of the USSR, had not sided with the Nazis who wanted to destroy Bolshevism even after writing his two non-fiction books: The Gulag Archipelago and 200 Years Together. How was this possible, taking into account that Solzhenitsyn was a hawk during the Vietnam War (insofar as he wanted to prevent communism from spreading)? Roger, a British commenter with great sensitivity to why we should reject the degenerate music of the past decades, replied that it was due to Solzhenitsyn’s Christianity.

The Briton hit the nail. It was Solzhenitsyn’s orthodox Christianity that made him ‘schizophrenic’ in the sense of not siding with the good guys during the greatest conflagration between Good and Evil in Western history (check out my most recent sticky post).

The same with Michael O’Meara, whose parents I guess were Irish Catholics. Although O’Meara was far more courageous than today’s white nationalists in suggesting that only revolutionary thinking can save us, he fell short in not appreciating the greatest mental revolution of our day, embodied in the figure of Hitler. And since unlike Roger most American racialists are sympathetic to Christianity, they will remain as schizophrenic as Solzhenitsyn and O’Meara until they stop idealising everything related to the god of the Jews.

Michael’s ‘Only a (((God))) can save us’ is truly schizophrenic if he has in mind the god of his Catholic parents (triple parenthesis added).

Published in: on January 29, 2021 at 12:09 pm  Comments Off on Michael’s schizophrenia  

Lebensraum, 6

Norwegian women had perfect genes

When the storm subsided, the Führer extended the Lebensborn Program to the occupied countries. Here the soldiers were invited to have relations with the purest women from the racial point of view: a modern recreation of the abduction of the Sabine women, although in a more formal, orderly and less brutal way. If a pregnancy resulted, the expectant mother was invited to a Lebensborn home, where the child would be born in a safe place. These types of houses were opened in France, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Poland.

In Norway the program was carried out with great zeal, since the women of that country were very close to the National Socialist ideal. The German regime believed that the genetics of Norwegian women were superb and wanted them to have many children with German soldiers. They loved Nordic women, with their blond hair and blue eyes, and so they considered Norway a suitable country for Lebensborn. During the occupation about 12,000 children were born to Norwegian mothers and German fathers.

Unfortunately, due to the betrayal of the Anglo-Saxons, it became clear that Hitler and Himmler could not come to fulfil their dreams of increasing the Aryan race. Far more lives were lost in the unfair war than the Lebensborn Program could ever produce. But infinitely worse was their military defeat.

On May 1, 1945, troops from the vilest country the West has produced, the United States of America, arrived at the Steinhöring orphanage, a community in the Upper Bavarian district of Ebersberg, and came across three hundred blond children between the ages of six months and six years old. I don’t want to recount what happened next with the Lebensborn project: it is something that hurts me, especially where the children were more perfect: in Norway. Suffice it to say that the dream of the Lebensraum that would last a thousand years was aborted by the Anglo-Saxons, as soon as the baby had been born.

Stalin’s Soviet Union was not an Aryan nation, as were the US and UK. That is why the priests of the fourteen words must hate these last two nations with all our heart and with all our strength, and with all our being and with all our soul.

Published in: on December 8, 2020 at 9:41 pm  Comments (6)  

Lebensraum, 5

A child for the Reich

Kidnapping and helping single mothers were not the only methods used by the Germans to increase the population. In an unofficial document sent to all members of the SS on October 28, 1939, Himmler ordered his men to fulfil their patriotic duty by becoming fathers. It didn’t matter if they were married or not.

‘Beyond conventional bourgeois laws, which may be necessary in other circumstances, it may be a noble endeavour for German women and girls to become, even out of wedlock—and not lightly, but with deep moral seriousness—mothers of children who will become soldiers and go to war; of whom only fate knows whether they will return or die for Germany’, Himmler wrote.

At the same time, the Reichsfürer assured the soldiers that both mothers and children would be cared for while the war lasted, or if men fell on the battlefield.

‘SS soldiers and mothers of these children: Show that you are ready, by faith in the Führer and for the sake of our blood and our people, to regenerate life for Germany with the same courage with which you know how to fight and die for Germany’, he added.

Stories of sex in Hitler’s Youth that were already circulating revived. There was also a rumour that the Lebensborn Organization favoured sexual encounters between honourable women and members of the SS, causing a scandal among a people who still didn’t fully understand the laws of sexual selection and eugenics.

Himmler tried to smooth things over, but only made it worse: ‘We only recommend men who are racially unblemished as conception assistants’. He then had to clarify that the order didn’t apply to wives of soldiers and police officers. He also expressed his great faith in the German woman and assured that he could decide for himself if a potential mother was racially and ideologically appropriate.

Alas, none of this had much of an effect on an audience that still required decades of education in eugenics. ‘Nature has no use of organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly’, wrote the historian Will Durant.

Lebensraum, 4

‘White’ to me just means ‘European’, which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown.

–Greg Johnson

Abducting the future Sabine women

The image below says: ‘New Wolf’ [see first comments below] and below other letters seem to indicate that it is a text for the racial policies of the NSDAP.

To found Rome, on this site I have talked a lot about the abduction of the beautiful Sabine women, who belonged to an ethically related people of the Spartans. We have also talked about how the Spartan state nationalised small kids to garrison them.

But neither Sparta nor Republican Rome still suffered from the miscegenation that would fall on Europe centuries later. Since the extensive interbreeding with mudbloods was already well advanced in the last century, the Germans were forced to kidnap the most Nordish-like children from the conquered countries to educate them as god intended.

If the white race is to be saved, these kinds of measures will have to be retaken along with the repudiation of white nationalists who, following the egalitarian fashions of the darkest times in the West, reject Nordicism. Let’s just compare the above heading to the policies of the NSDAP and we will understand what the word quackery means in my mouth when I refer to white nationalists.

But let’s go back to the non-quacks who wanted to save the race.

Despite the successes, Himmler admitted that Lebensborn households couldn’t produce enough children to fulfil his dream. Even counting German-speakers in newer regions, such as the Sudetenland, the Third Reich’s population didn’t exceed seventy-nine million, well below the 120 million that had been proposed.

To increase the number of inhabitants, Himmler gave the order to the soldiers of the occupied countries to abduct Nordic-looking children. This strategy was carefully put into practice in some areas of the East, especially Poland. The children were divided into two groups: those with Slavic features were deported to the east or became labour; those with Aryan features could be Germans with all their privileges. The result was a real hunt of blond and blue-eyed children.

After this examination, they were classified into three different categories: desirable, acceptable or undesirable. Having gypsy features automatically made a child undesirable, which, in practice, carried a death sentence. Many of them were sent to the camps.

The past of the chosen children was painstakingly erased. Usually they were told that their parents had died and, after giving them a new name with Germanic resonances, they were sent to Germany. (At this point it’s necessary to recall the quote from Who We Are in the last article of Daybreak in which Pierce tears his garments when speaking of the ethno-suicidal American custom of bestowing Hebrew names on children.) There they entered a home where they strictly forbade them to speak Polish. Those who were unable to learn German or who didn’t adapt to their new nationality would be sent back to Catholic Poland.

This same fate happened to the children of many other parents, including Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, and parts of the Soviet Union. One of them was Alexander Litau, originally from Crimea, who was only twenty months old when, in 1942, Germany invaded the peninsula. With his blue eyes and blond hair, the little boy matched exactly what the Germans were looking for. One day, some SS officers saw him playing in front of his house and took him away.

Alexander was first sent to Poland, where German doctors made sure that he was healthy and met all the requirements. The examination was thorough and it was found that the child didn’t have any Jewish traits. He was then placed in a Lebensborn home, Sonnenwiese (Sunny Meadow) in Kohren-Sahlis, Saxony. Here, now under the name Folker, he was offered up for adoption along with others.

‘My first memory is being in a room with thirty other children. People would come in there and they would line us up as if we were puppies looking for a new home. Those people were going to be my parents. They left and came back the next day. Apparently my “mother” wanted a girl, but my “father” preferred a boy… I placed my head on his knee and this was enough: I would be his son’, Folker recalled.

Published in: on December 8, 2020 at 2:30 pm  Comments (10)