PDA

View Full Version : Savitri Devi: "And Time Rolls On" - Life in the Kali Yuga



ogenoct
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 04:11 PM
from Savitri Devi's AND TIME ROLLS ON


4. Life in the Kali Yuga
1. The Nature of History
I have never shared the opinion that history is a linear unfurling with continuous progress. I don't believe in progress at all. I never did. In 1925, at the university, we had that subject in one of the four exams that go to make a university final exam. In those days it was four. And for the third one the subject they gave us was the idea of progress, and what I wrote then, I could sign today after all these years. That is to say, after fifty-three years I could sign the same writing. I said in that writing, "I don't believe in progress, except in technical fields." Yes, we have electricity. In Babylon they didn't have it. They used to light themselves with something else, probably with naptha, petrol. They had ample supplies of petroleum in antiquity also in Mesopotamia, or else with something else, I don't know what, but anyhow they had no electricity. They had no electric fans. They had no hot and cold water. But excavations have proved that in Crete, 3,500 BC, they had sewers and hot and cold water in their houses. There were wonderful arrangements for water in Crete. So anyhow, in the technical domain, I admit there is a certain progress, with ups and downs.

But in all other domains, I don't believe in progress at all. I believe in regression. According to the not only Hindu, but ancient, theory of the cycles, I believe that history goes in cycles. And it's always the same thing. It begins again and again and again and again. It starts with a perfect age in which there's no need for violence because everything is all right. The visible world is a reflection of the invisible, which is perfect, or of that which is perfect in the invisible. They call that in Sanskrit the Age of Truth, the Satya Yuga.

And the second Yuga is less good than the first, lasts less long. The first Yuga is very, very long: tens of thousands of years. The second one is long, but not quite so long. And there you already have the germs of decay in it. The germs of decay are in anything material, anything visible. Even when you come to the subtle material world-invisible, but material still-there you already have decay. You have no decay in the One, the universal substance behind everything. That does not decay. It is something eternal. But all the rest-wherever you go outside of the One-you have the germs of decay. In this second Yuga, called the Treta Yuga in Sanskrit, you get certainly something very good. Compared to us it would be wonderful, but compared to the Satya Yuga, that's already a step lower.

And then you get to the Dvapara Yuga. The third one is already full of violence. You get wars and violence and all sorts of treachery. You get some characteristics that you have now, but to a lesser degree, and you have some races already existing. I think the Aryan used to exist already in the Dvapara Yuga. It is the youngest race of all. But still I suppose it existed then. Much better than now.

Now since some few thousand years BC-some say 3,000, some 4,000 BC, that is to say, the date of the entrance of first Aryans into India-you get the Kali Yuga, the Dark Age. And we are nearing the end of the Dark Age. I don't know when the end will be. Maybe in a few centuries. But we are nearer the end than we are to the beginning. That's all I can say. And the Dark Age is what you see around you. Technical progress, maybe. But in all other domains, perfect decay.

Decay in intuition, for instance. People can learn a lot by reasoning, and that is such today. They have been doing so for centuries. But before that, intuition was much more developed, and they could learn things directly. You didn't need so much reasoning and so much research. You didn't need any research at all-any scientific research, for instance. There were even some instances in the old Hindu epics, according to which they could fly. They had some appliances. I wouldn't call them aeroplanes. But something. They called it havavahana. A vahana is an appliance to go. A car is a vahana. Anything that goes. In the buses in Delhi or Calcutta, you have the Indian government's kind of vahana. A thing to go. Hava is air. Instruments to go in the air. You have a reference to those in the Ramayana.

The Ramayana is long before the Kali Yuga. I don't how many thousands of years. It corresponds to some historical fact. At least it might be over 4,000 BC, a little over 4,000 BC, when the Aryans came, because Rama is an Aryan. He's an Aryan king who conquered the South and conquered Ceylon. Ceylon was the stronghold of Dravidian power, the Dravidians being technically far in advance of the Aryans of those days. But they hadn't got the Aryan virtues. And Rama is said to have conquered Ceylon with the help of flocks of monkeys. The king of monkeys made an alliance with him. Who were the monkeys? Probably the aborigines of India. The aborigines, very primitive people, made an alliance with the Aryan king against the Dravidian stronghold. It's quite possible that it corresponds to such a fact as that in history.

Anyhow, we know a lot more about it. But we know that there were achievements, even in the technical field, far older than what we can imagine, and realized through more intuition than research. Nowadays intuition is getting slower and slower, and less and less. Some people have it, of course. But the people who have a lot of intuition are fewer and fewer. And fewer and fewer people are conscious of the One, the substance beyond all existing things, visible and invisible, what the Hindus called Brahman. Brahman and Atman. Atman and Brahman are the same thing. Atman is the soul, if you like, the soul of the universe. Not a person, anything but a person, anything but a personal god. That consciousness is given to a few people, even in our Yuga.
In fact, I have a friend who is now in the South, in an ashram. An ashram is a gathering of people who are interested in religious subjects. And the head of that ashram was conscious of that. In fact, our French friend is getting conscious of it herself. Through some exercises, breathing exercises from yoga, you can get conscious of it. But not everybody can. Only a few can, even with exercises. And very few can without exercises. Well, in the Satya Yuga, in the early ages, this consciousness, this supernatural consciousnesss, was a common thing. Well, not supernatural. It's natural. But consciousness of what is above the visible world and even above the invisible, above the subtle world: the One. People were more conscious of it than they are now. I don't know whether they lived in caves or not. It didn't matter if they did. You can live in a cave and be much more advanced spiritually than people who live in palaces.

The proof of this is that the ancient Germans were very highly civilized people, far in advance, I think, from that point of view, to the Mediterranean so-called more civilized ones. And the ancient Germans didn't live in caves. They lived in forests, in houses made of wood, without a single nail. They didn't have any nails. I've seen some of those reconstructed German settlements not far from Bielefeld in the woods. They are wonderful. I wish every German could see them. And how they are arranged. The family has a house of its own. And there is a house for the gathering of the community, the village community. There is a house for the head of the village. It's wonderful. But they hadn't any electricity of course. They used to light themselves with I don't know what. But they used to light themselves. They had lights. They had water. They used to bathe. They were very advanced people in every domain. Technical things are not to be the criteria of real civilization. Real civilization is something much, much more advanced than that.

So, we are in the Dark Age. Technical civilization is advancing, and real civilization is going backwards. Real civilization had one characteristic all over the world: No race-mixing You wouldn't have gotten an ancient German marrying an Etruscan or even a Greek, unless it were a Greek of the same race as himself. Because the real ancient Greeks, the invaders of Greece in the thirteenth century BC, came from the North of Europe, and they were Nordics. There was no harm in marrying Nordics. But the Greeks who were there before, the Cretan civilization, were Mediterranean people who were very beautiful indeed, but they were not Nordics. They were something different. As far as the Etruscans, they were no Aryans at all. Which doesn't mean that they were not capable, that they were not a fine race. You can be a fine race without being an Aryan. And you can be a wretched person being an Aryan. There are some exceptions, of course. What I think of when I speak of racial superiority, it's a statistical affair. Statistically, you get, say, 80 or 90% Aryans that you can recommend, and you might get 5% Africans. But you'll get some. You get some in all races. You get perhaps 20% of other races. You might get 50% of the Semites or of the Mongoloids. I don't know about Semites. There are some fine ones. Take the history of Arabia, the history of Islam, and you get fine characters.

Even in the history of the Jews you get fine characters, now and then. The famous Berulia, for instance-the Jewess who lived in the early centuries AD. AD or BC, I don't remember-anyhow, she was a fine woman. There are some. Well, in our day, the Führer himself said that the best Jew he ever knew was Otto Weininger, who discovered all the nasty things that his own race had done, wrote them down in a history, and committed suicide. He didn't want to be a Jew. Committed suicide. Then you have another one, Martin Buber, who was mentioned in connection with the trial by the Soviets of the so-called war-criminals of the SS. He was friendly with SS men, although he was a Jew. He didn't have any intermarriage. He didn't marry his children to any of them. Nor did they theirs to any relatives of his. But on the intellectual plane, they were getting on very well together. He did no harm to anybody. He did no conspiracy. He did not try to destroy the Aryan race. Well, let him live in that case.

We are only against people who are harmful. And we don't hate them. There's no need of hating them. We don't hate bugs. We fight them. We don't hate lice. We fight them. They're harmful. They bite us if we don't kill them. And they infect us with disease. Mosquitoes: the same thing. You don't want swarms and swarms of mosquitoes. You have to put something to make them go away, at least to get rid of them. It's the same thing with races that do harm to ours. We defend ourselves, and that's all.

But in this Yuga, this Dark Age nearing its end, you get more and more power in the hands of those people. That's natural. And there will be a racial struggle somewhere. I can see it coming. I can see it coming in the USA. I wouldn't be at all astonished if one day, not tomorrow, perhaps not in fifty years, but perhaps later on, the USA had a National Socialist government, made of Americans, after a terrific fight with the other races. By Americans, I understand Nordic Europeans that have immigrated amongst Americans. I wouldn't be at all astonished. It could happen anywhere else.

Of course, I think America will precede Europe in that way, not for any other reason but because in America the pressure of the dark races is much more powerful. I've never been to America, but I can imagine you meet Negroes everywhere. Well, you do in Paris, but you don't so much in the French countryside. Although I know a village in France called Chambly, six hundred inhabitants, six hundred. Of those six hundred, two girls have married Negroes. Two girls, two. Two out of six hundred. It's enormous, if you think of it. And there are more than two in the place where I used to teach, in Montbrison, with ten thousand inhabitants.

It's the fault of the Catholic Church, or of the Christian churches in general. The Negro is a Christian. Why not marry him? That's what happened. It happened to one girl in Montbrison. And I told her mother, "She's expecting a child from a Negro, all right, have her abort it and be finished. And may she never touch any man again. I would not advise an Aryan man to marry her after that. And just stay like that." And the mother said, "Yes, but abortion is a crime, you see." I don't believe it's a crime in that case. It's the best thing to do. No, she wouldn't on Christian grounds, and on Christian grounds with a man who was a Hottentot, if you please. The Hottentot being a Christian they married, and now they have five children. There you are, five French children. They are called French. They're born in France. They're called French. They marry French girls. Look at the danger of it. That is the thing that the Aryan race should react against, and I think it will react against sooner or later.
And if a new Yuga is to begin, if there is to be a world catastrophe, after which a new Yuga is to begin-a new succession of four Yugas, what they call in Sanskrit, manvantara-the first one will be perfect. Therefore the first one cannot have any struggle. It can only begin in an Aryan victory. But when, I don't know. And through what ordeals, I don't know either. There will be a terrific ordeal. The Hindus believe in the coming of the same one who always comes. It's the god himself. It's some inspiration from the force that they call Vishnu. They say Vishnu is a member of the Hindu trinity. There's Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Vishnu is nothing else but the force of the universe that keeps things together, that is against change. And change is a form of creation. There must be another force, an antagonistic force, that's Shiva, who goes for change. Change in order for new creation, the new appearance of form. They are connected. The two are connected. You can't have one without the other. And Brahma is of course the unthinkable, the unthinkable soul of the universe, the One out of whom everything comes, the creator, if you like. We'll call him creator. It's not really creation ex nihilo [out of nothing]. It's something that corresponds to a sort of emanation. In one of the Upanishads, the Chandogya Upanishad, the One says, "Bahu syam prajayeyti"-"Let us become multiple. Let us become many." And it is himself that makes himself many, that takes on forms, invisible forms, and a visible one after that.

We have been in the Kali Yuga since about 3,500 BC. It started then. It will last another perhaps two centuries. After the third or fourth World War-I don't know-when the Dark Age will end, there will be a new world, few people. There will be Aryans and non-Aryans, all right. But the proportion between Aryans and non-Aryans will be better in favor of the Aryans. Because a great number of people will be dead. A great number Mongoloids will be dead. The best will survive. The Kali Yuga will last. We mustn't expect the end tomorrow morning. We can expect for tomorrow morning only topical, that is to say, partial resurgences. Like in Germany. Germany was a partial resurgence, just for twelve years. It didn't last. It couldn't last in this era. This is a time when nothing good lasts. According to the laws of evolution, of manifestation, things don't last, because the quality of the people is bad, and you cannot make a good omelet with bad eggs. Even the best cook cannot do it. The eggs are stinking. Now in this period, you have fifty stinking eggs and one good egg, all over the world, if you take the world population.

2. The Significance of Adolf Hitler
Hitler was a throwback, something that belonged to none of the ages. But his movement is typical of this Dark Age. If he had come in the Satya Yuga, in the Golden Age, in the past long ago, he would have been at home. They were all like him in those days. Everybody lived according to the laws of nature. He went against time. He went against the current of time, and he was one of the latest ones. There's one that the Hindus are expecting, but not only the Hindus. The Christians say Christ will come again. Somebody will come. The Parsis say Saoshyant will come. Muslims say the Mahdi will come. The Buddhists say Maithra will come. They're all expecting somebody. If Adolf Hitler had been that somebody, he would've won the war. Even if he had the whole world against him, he would've won. But he didn't win. The only reason why he didn't win was that he wasn't that somebody. He was the forerunner of the one to come.

He said it himself. He said it himself. He knew it. He knew what he was saying. He said it in 1928 in a conversation with Hans Grimm. He said, "I know that Somebody must come forth and meet our situation. I have sought him. I have found him nowhere; and therefore I have taken upon myself to do the preparatory work, only the most urgent preparatory work. For that much I know: I am not he. And I know also what is lacking in me." And he knew he was going to fall. Kubizek tells that in his book, Adolf Hitler, Mein Jugendfreund. When he was sixteen he went with Kubizek to the theater and saw Rienzi, the play. It was 1:00 in the morning. He came out of the theater, and instead of going home, he said to Kubizek, "Gehen wir zum Freinberg" [Let us go to the Freinberg]. The Freinberg was the mountain near Linz where they used to go spend their Sunday afternoons. At 1:00 in the morning! Through the fog. But Kubizek followed. They both went there, through the fog. Time came when they were on the summit of the Freinberg. The fog was below. You could see nothing but fog and stars. And then Kubizek says in his book, "Then he caught hold of my hand and spoke to me with words that cannot be re-told, so great they are, and he unfurled in front of me, his own future and the future of our German people." He was sixteen. He knew he was going to fall. He said, "Like Rienzi, I'll go up." Rienzi was a Roman of the fourteenth century. "I will be carried up by popular love, and I'll fall." He knew it. He couldn't do otherwise. He had to fight all the same, because a fighter is a fighter. Of course, he couldn't say that to the public. He had to do his job. And his job was that: Go against the current of time. Show that the Germans could go against the current of time. They are the ones. They are the best Aryans in Europe.

Not because they are the purest. Swedes-well, up to now-are equally pure. Now they are taking in all sorts of non-Aryans. There is a hateful Catholic organization here: Mother Theresa, supposed to be a lover of children. They gather all the children they can, and if you want to adopt an Indian child you can. They adopted three hundred in Sweden last year. Only last year. Little girls and boys of low castes generally, as dark as possible. They adopted them. First of all, they are uprooted from their surroundings. They will never hear a word of Bengali or of Hindi again in their lives. They'll be Swedes. But they are non-Aryans. The masses of India are non-Aryans, and they'll probably marry Swedish girls and boys. You get the end of Sweden. These beautiful Europeans. And that's encouraged. That's encouraged by the Indian government. This government is nothing but the under the impôts, under the orders, of the international Jew. There's strong Freemasonry here.

3. Knowing the Future
My idea of the future is this: If one lives in the eternal present, one knows the future. One doesn't see it as we see it through reasoning, but one just is conscious of it. You have examples in history of this. One is the Great Master of the Templar Knights and some of his followers. They were burnt alive, some say on the 11th, some say on the 18th of March, 1314. It is said that the Great Master in the flames spoke and said, "I call you to God's tribunal, both of you, the Pope, Clement V, within a month, and the King, Philip the Fair, within this year." And it was true. They both died. The Pope died on the 9th of April and the King died on the 29th of November of the same year. How did that man know it? It was perfectly true. How did he know it?

Long before him, how did Confucius know about modern China? They say Confucius was asked by his disciples, "How long will your doctrine rule China?" And he said, "Twenty-five centuries exactly." After twenty-five centuries exactly Mao Tse Tung came. With Mao Tse Tung, the rule of Confucianism, the rule of the spirit of Confucius, was put to an end. The Chinese does not any longer live for his ancestors and in respect to his father and mother. He lives for the thoughts of Mao and the application of the thoughts of Mao. So he was right. How was he right? How did he know it? Why didn't he make a mistake of at least two or three centuries? He didn't. If he was on the margin, it was a margin of fifty years.

This is knowing the future. Unfortunately I have not that capacity. I don't live in the eternal present. To live in the eternal present, you have to be much higher than I am. Probably the Führer lived in the eternal present, because according to Kubizek he knew when he was sixteenth he would rise and fall like Rienzi.
But very few people do live in that way. For those who don't, well the future is a matter of reasoning, of conjecture. Suppose this and suppose that. From the data of the present and from the data of the past, you do some comparisons and you try to deduce the future. But this is nonsense. Nobody can deduce the future from the present and the past. At least the far future. Perhaps the near future. And in small things of everyday. Supposing it is known that in the locality there is a shop that shuts on Monday. Well, I'm perfectly sure, practically sure, that if I go on Thursday, I'll find it open. That's very easy. That's the future, the very near future and a very paltry kind of matter. But to tell you whether there's going to be a war before the end of this century or not, nobody knows. Because any event in the future depends on many factors, and the most obvious factors are not always the most important. Not always the most important.

There was a very great speech or sermon of the Bishop of Meaux, Bossuet. He was known as one of those who spoke the most beautiful French. He is given to the children of the college, college boys and girls, to read for his French. And he used to give sermons on the deaths of great people. There is one famous sermon of his on the death of Henrietta of England, who had married the brother of the King of France, Louis XIV. And she lived in Cromwell's day. And there's a passage of that sermon about Cromwell and about the trouble he had. He died of a stone, not in the bladder, but in the tube that goes down from the bladder to the lower parts of the body. In French it's called urètre [urethra]. Well, Bossuet says this stone, a tiny little stone, if it had been anywhere else in Cromwell's body, wouldn't have made any difference. But it happened to be just in that tube. And he died.

Now of course the death of Cromwell was something important in English history, and it was not foretellable. You couldn't see it twenty years before. Who knows what will happen to this person or that person? From a tiny little cause like this, a physiological cause. And that goes for the future. If Roosevelt had died twenty years earlier, world history would've been different. He could've died. Nobody knows. Life and death are in the hands of forces that we don't know anything about. World history would've been different.
They say political assassination is generally useless when one wants to suppress a movement. The movement is represented by a man. One kills that man. Some other man appears. It depends. Political assassination is generally useless because it comes too late. It always comes too late. The knowledge that this man is dangerous is the cause of his assassination. If somebody, knowing the future, had known that when the man was a baby and killed the baby, history would've been different. Suppose somebody had killed Stalin when he was six. History would've been different. Or anybody, any great man. You know the great man too late, and you get rid of him too late. You need to have insight. To have insight, you have to live in the eternal present, and that's not the affair of most people. But if you lived in the eternal present and could know that this man's going to be dangerous for this purpose, and you want that purpose-you want that thing, you love the ideology or whatever you like, that state of things-and you want to get the man out, get him out as a child before he knows himself what he's going to do.
That's what I have to say of the future. So I cannot say anything about the future. I just don't know it. I'm not living in the eternal present. All I know is this: Do, every one of us, what we can now. The future is made of many factors. One of the factors is now. And whatever one does, counts. Whatever one says, counts. Whatever one thinks, counts perhaps even more. I actually believe that thought is a force. Thought is something that comes from our nerves. It's a sort of radiating force. It's waves, if you like. There are waves of thought. We emit waves. These waves have an effect. A very small effect, of course, smaller or bigger depending on the person. But it has an effect. I would say why don't you try to do one thing: Get together every day, or every two days, or every week, or twice a week at the same place and especially at the same time. Time is very important. And intensely think. Don't do anything else. Intensely think about what you would like to happen. You have to think all the same. All the people united in one place have to think the same thing. Intensely think what you want the future to be. Intensely think of say, something simple. How to change the status of the USA or of Canada or of North America. How to do it. Think that. Think, "Superior forces of the universe, help us to do this or that, to reveal the responsible people for the mess in which the Aryan race is now in, and how to get out." I think that is useful.

I really think that the only thing we can do is to wait. Make ourselves strong, and create among ourselves a superior layer of people able to command, able to take the lead of the race one day in each country. People who are nearer in their daily lives to the ideals of the Führer than any others.

4. The Example of the Führer
Now, study the life of the Führer. Study his ideals. There are certain things he never did. I really think he was quite right. For instance, the Führer was a vegetarian, a perfect vegetarian. He didn't smoke, and he didn't take any alcohol. How many of us do the same, what percent, how many? He didn't ask anybody to do it. He says in the Tischgespräche [Table Talk], "If I had made these items a condition of belonging to the NSDAP, I would've had nobody. Therefore, I could not make them a condition." But he felt that they were things important in life. Of course, if you drink no alcohol your blood is pure, more pure, and you are stronger than if you do. It's artificial. It's a kind of drug. Of drugs, of course, he had no knowledge. No knowledge.

He gave up smoking when he was a boy. He said, "Isn't it a shame to spend money on cigarettes when I'm so much in need of butter?" He threw his last pack of cigarettes into the Danube in Vienna and bought butter instead of cigarettes. I think that was quite right. Of course, some people can buy both, but it is not good for the lungs. And the fact that people smoke necessitates and causes experiments to be done on poor dogs to see how long it will take for the poor dog to get cancer of the lungs by smoking. They put a kind of thing on his nose. He doesn't ask for it. He doesn't want to smoke. And they pour smoke into him. All these awful things are done because people smoke, and the doctors want to know about it. They should do experiments on themselves, or on smokers. Not on dogs. I'm absolutely against that. The Führer forbade all these experiments. If you have to do them, do them on enemies. I would say better than that, do them on "lovers of science." People who are in love with science, let them suffer for what they love. I would be glad to suffer, if at the cost of me being vivisected there would be, for instance, the reunification of Germany. I'd accept at once. I wouldn't accept for anything else, mind you, unless it could be for the suppression of vivisection for all times to come and everywhere in the world. Then I would accept.

Another thing: the Führer used to consider that there was what he called "the sacred flame of life." You get that in Kubizek's book, Adolf Hitler, Mein Jugendfreund. How, during his youth, during his preparation for life, in that den that was Vienna in those days, with all its temptations, he never fell for any temptation of a woman. He was strong. He wanted to keep his force for something better. Afterwards, when he was settled in life, whether he knew that kind of experience or not, I don't know, and I think nobody can know. Nobody can tell. Nobody was there. But if he had it, it's all right. All right. It was his own business. But he did not waste his energy, as so many people nowadays do, when he was young, when he could use it for something else. I don't think he could've done what he did if he had wasted his time. It's a waste of time and energy in anything one does without a real purpose.

Apart from that, he did not drink, although he was a man of a cold country. He never drank. He was not a tyrant. He was not a fanatic. He allowed people who did drink to come into his party, Robert Ley, among others. He didn't tell Robert Ley not to drink. But of course, I think he would've appreciated him more if he had also been a tea-totaller. He took coffee. I don't know if he took tea. I know he took coffee, the Führer. But coffee now and then. He didn't make a habit of it. He didn't intoxicate himself with any kind of thing. He kept his body as fit as possible.

People nowadays tell me that in the USA there are children of twelve that are already addicted to drugs. Why do they do it? I was offered morphine when I was seventeen in Greece by a Greek woman. I said, "No, I'll never take a drug in all my life." As far as alcohol, well I took Samos wine and Malaga wine once or twice in my whole life. And once it played me a bad trick. It was a birthday party in Athens, and I brought a bottle of Samos wine. I like Samos wine. I like these old wines, cooked wines. I don't like ordinary wine or champagne. Cooked wines I really like. I brought it to this young man, the son of one of my friends. And it was a party. There were Germans. There were English people. There were Greeks. And she said, "You brought the wine. You'll have a little, just a little, a bottom of a glass, with us." I said, "Don't ask me to take any wine. I don't put up with it. I get nervous, and I get-I don't know what to say. I get excited. So don't ask me." "Oh, just a little bit. Just a little bit. Just a centimeter." "All right." I took a centimeter. And I drank it with delight. Although it burns. I'm not used to it, so it burns my stomach. But it was nice. Samos wine is very nice. And then, after this party, we were all asked to sing a song. And some Germans said to me, "Well you know German, you must know German songs, sing a German song." Well, I said, "All right." And I sang,

Wir sind die Sturmkolonnen.
Wir gehen drauf und dran.
Wir sind die ersten Reihen
Der deutschen Revolution.
Sprung auf die Barrikaden.
Der Tod besiegt uns nur.
Wir sind die Sturmkolonnen
Der Hitlerdiktatur!

[We are the storm columns.
We die in our turn.
We are the first ranks
Of the German revolution.
Jump on the barricades.
Only death defeats us.
We are the storm columns
Of the Hitler dictatorship!]

I left out the greater part of the song. That is the beginning and the end. I sang that. Some people were delighted, but some were not. It would have been better if I had not drunk any wine at all. That's what happens to me when I drink even a little wine, and I can't control my speech. In vino veritas [in wine, truth]. And that's not the point. I don't mind if a good person drinks a little bit Schnapps for Christmas or something like that, on a great occasion. Christmas meaning the Winter Solstice, of course. It does no harm. But drinking every day and drinking too much. I know that in cold countries people drink a lot. You can put up with it in cold countries. You can't in hot countries. You can't in hot countries at all. You get ruined. But it's not so bad as drugs.

I think the Führer's life was abridged at the end by the stuff Theodor Morell gave him. He had confidence in Theodore Morrell, as his doctor. I'll tell you the source from where I got it. I remember comrade F-, Sturmbahnführer SS who was imprisoned in Landsberg. I met him in Uelzen in 1953 when he was just liberated from prison. And he showed me a letter, a letter from Karl Brandt, to him-Karl Brandt was also a doctor, an SS doctor -telling him, "Please can you do anything for him? Can you help me in this way? I'm sure that Theodore Morrell is just poisoning the Führer with all his medicines. Tell the Führer not to take that stuff, if you possibly can." So be very aware. Of course he had confidence in this Morrell. Unfortunately, they say he abridged his life. That's possible. I don't know. I can only speak of the letter I saw in F-'s hand, a letter addressed to him by Karl Brant who was also a very high-ranked SS man and a doctor.

Another thing is the vegetarian question. I think it's better if you follow the example of the Führer in that way. Now you tell me that in cold countries it's difficult. It's difficult for some people. Myself, I never took meat. I didn't like it. I didn't like the idea of it. I didn't like the sight of the quarters of animals hanging in front of the shop. It used to disgust me. But I took fish when I was young. I took fish, not every day, once in a while. Once in a while, on festivals. Or when I went to see people who had fish. I didn't refuse. I had fish. And it was a struggle, an interior struggle on my part, to give up fish. Even now, sometimes, when I take some fish for my cats-take a box of sardines for my cats, for instance-I'm tempted to take the oil for myself. I love the oil, fish oil. They used to give me cod liver oil when I was a child. Some children don't like it. I used to relish it. I don't know why, but I used to relish it. They gave me a spoon, and I said, "Give me another spoon of it." I liked it. Well, no accounting for taste, of course. The Führer gives us that example, neither meat nor fish. All right. If we can do it, I think it's very good. It's good for the health, and it's good to feel that one is doing as the Führer did. I believe it.

And I believe it is also a good thing to feel that we are not contributing to the industry of the slaughterhouse. I've never been to Chicago, but I've read descriptions of the stock herds of Chicago with all the animals in a row and killed en serie, one by one. They are killed by Negroes. But whoever kills them, they have a struggle of death, on a string, one after another. It's horrible to think of. And these flows of blood. It's disgusting. It disgusts me from an aesthetic point of view. Now there's another point of view. In Europe, they are not Negroes who kill them. They are people of our own race. And to think that by eating meat, we are forcing some people of our own blood to do that disgusting work, killing creatures eight hours a day, and then going home. And to think that these people have wives and children at home. I wouldn't like to be the wife of a slaughterer, but there are some women who are. And they're our people. They're our sisters, our sisters in blood. Could we not do something to suppress that obligation of some of our brothers and sisters in blood to do that dirty work? If we could do it, I think it would be a good thing.
Anyhow, the great idea behind that is the example of the Führer. I believe in him, and I believe that everything he did is something to look at. There's something contained in it for our own discipline and betterment.

5. Baby Seals
One thing also, there are certain things going on, especially in Canada. I cannot end this speech without saying that. It's something that hurts me so much and still makes me shudder every time I think of it. We should follow the spirit of the Führer in every way. And one thing that would've made the Führer indignant, if he had known it, is that massacre, that mass massacre of seals on the coast of Canada. I've not seen it. I've seen pictures of it. And it's more than enough for me. Poor baby seals, so beautiful, such trusting creatures that you can tame them if you like. Just killed. And how killed? A knock on the head, and their skin pulled off while they're alive, practically alive. Their skins stolen from them. To steal their skins, mass massacres of these beautiful creatures. Trusting creatures that do no harm to anybody.

And one has the cheek of criticizing us for treating our enemies badly. And sometimes without us doing it. Take the Malmédy case. These SS men that were so tortured in prison that van Roden, an American of Dutch origin, had to come to Germany to investigate the case. Some of them were not even in Malmédy, and some of them there had no part in the shooting of some American prisoners. They had nothing to do with it. And still, just because they were SS men of that same division or what, they were tortured in a most awful manner. They had to be condemned. Well, criticizing people for torturing, for using their enemies badly, and allowing in one's own country what goes on with the seals: that should be something to stop.

There were ten million seals. Now there are eight hundred thousand. Whatever is going to happen to the rest? I can see them. I can see them, see them skinned. I can see their corpses skinned, lying on the snow in pools of blood. Take away that sight. That's an awful thing. And what's even more awful than that, is to think that some Aryan men do it for two and a half dollars each. How can they do it? They are disgracing their race. Every Aryan who does something horrid disgraces his race. Disgraces his children first.

6. Sex, Marriage, and Family Life
There's this widespread propaganda, in order to destroy our race-it's willfully done-propaganda of the excellence, of the indispensable character of sex. Even to children. Telling people that if you don't have that, well what are you missing? And that is disastrous. That is disastrous, because it's one of the signs of the Dark Age. As said by the Hindu scriptures, if the marriage bond is no longer duty, but pleasure only and money, it's the beginning of the end. It's the Dark Age. And that's what they preach. They preach, "Enjoy yourself. You ought to have a good time. You're on earth to have a good time."

No, we are not on earth to have a good time. We are only individuals. We are on earth to serve that which is in us eternal, and the only eternal thing in anybody is the race. You are immortal if you have children. And children of your own kind. You are immortal if you have works. I don't say works that are known. In the old cathedrals of Europe, if you look at the sculptures, you have some little details that are perfect, as sculptures. The workman who sculpted those, sculpted that wonderfully eight hundred years ago, in the twelfth century, that man is immortal. You don't know his name, but he's immortal all the same. His work lasted. And the work doesn't last as long as the race. The race will outlive the work. Work is something that depends on climate. In a damp country, a sculpture will not last as long as in a dry one. But race, if it's kept pure, will last.

And that is the reason, of course, for the bondage of marriage, and it's not to be made a plaything. It's not to be made a pastime. It's a sacred thing for a purpose, in the spirit of the Führer. He said he was all for early marriage and for many children of good Aryan blood. He told the people that were not of perfect Aryan blood or who were deficient in a bodily way, "You can't have children. You are not to have any. You can adopt an Aryan child."

I like the propaganda of the NSWPP: "Adoption not abortion." When they go picket in front of the abortion clinics and tell the people, "Don't do any abortions of Aryan children. We are not so numerous, proportionately to the others. The Negroes multiply ten times as quick as we do." In England also, and that's a danger. That in itself is a danger. Don't abort Aryan children. Let the mothers have them. The mother doesn't want the child, all right. Find a couple without any children who is willing to take it. Or even a couple with children willing to bring it up as a brother or sister of their own children. Why not? Why not?

If I had money-I never had a fixed job, you see-if I had had a fixed job with a fixed income, I would've liked to adopt an Aryan child myself and bring it up in my own spirit. I would've inquired into the family. Failing that, when Mr. Mukherji had a job and when I thought it was stable-it wasn't of course, but I thought it was in those days-I told him, "We are outside the pale of breeding and all that. We are faithful to the caste system, both of us. All right, we don't want any intimacy and any children. But I wouldn't mind adopting a little boy or a little girl of your caste, an orphan of good Brahminic stock." He didn't want that. He didn't want to take the responsibility, probably feeling that his financial situation was not stable. In fact, after the war, he had no job at all. He had some kind of earnings during the war. But after the war, he no longer had any earnings at all. And he was right. He lived his last years on his astrology. And an astrologer in India doesn't earn so much as that. There are so many astrologists here.

But I'm all for this propaganda: no abortion, adoption instead of abortion, quite good. And encourage people to have children, not one or two, but more if they can afford to bring them up decently. And what does it mean bring them up decently? Bringing them up decently means: cleanly-lodged, I don't say lodged in luxury; well-fed, as they need to be fed for their health, and given a good sound education, a general education and an ideological education. And that's all. It doesn't mean to have a TV. You can live without a TV. You can live without a radio. There's our Kamerad in France, Marc Augier de Saint Loup, author of several books, and author of a trilogy on the fight for our ideology in Russia: Les Volontaires, histoire de la LVF , the Legion Volontaire Francaise, Les Hérétiques, histoire de la SS Charlemagne, and a third book called Les Nostalgiques, The Nostalgic People, very good books. He has no radio in his house, and no TV. He doesn't want the appliances, just as I don't want them myself. I never had a radio. I listened to the radio during the war at my landlord's place. I only listened to one thing: the Führer's speeches. I never listened to anything else. And Mr. Mukherji used to come to listen with me, although his German was anything but good. But he wanted to hear his voice. That's all. But you can live without that.

Instead of spending so much on these kind of things, which after all are just propaganda, and the enemy's propaganda, why not spend that on an extra child? Have an extra child. It's very good. Have, I would say even, a pet. It's good for children to be brought up with a young animal. It teaches them to love creatures, to love nature. If you have a garden, plant something beautiful in your garden. It's a good thing to put children in touch with nature, to keep them in touch with nature. Teaches them to love nature, and love of nature is one of the things that Adolf Hitler had. Germany still, in spite of all the devastations of after the war, has one-third of its surface covered with forest. It's one of the very few countries in Europe that has that. Sweden of course. Sweden has a small population. But more simple living, not so much artifice, not so much uselessness in life, and more concentration on health, beauty, ideology, truth. Health, beauty, truth.

Well, that's what I believe for the future. And the only thing we can do now, I think, is to prepare ourselves by sticking to ourselves. That is to say, either not breeding at all or breeding people of our own race. Not breeding at all, if we have any defect. I consider a defect some mixed ancestry, or else some weakness. Personally I opted for this solution for myself. My mother is one of the daughters, one of the fourteen children, of a couple of first cousins. It's allowed according to the English church. They were Church of England, both of them, English people of old descent. My grandfather descended from a Viking of Jutland, who came to England in the tenth century. He was not a Christian, but then they became Christians, of course. They intermarried with the British people. They became Christians, those Vikings. When they became Christians, it was not forbidden to marry between first cousins. Well, it was not forbidden at least after the Reform of Henry VIII, when it became the Church of England. And my grandfather Nash and my grandmother Nash were son and daughter of two sisters. One of the sisters married a Nash, and the other sister married a Morgan. And they were the father and mother of my grandfather and grandmother. Well, the fourteen children all died as babies, except three. And of the three, one died at fifteen of tuberculosis of the lungs and tuberculosis of the bones. She had tuberculosis of her bones all her life, poor thing. Never married. The other aunt never married either, but she was strong. Always suffering from stomach pain, though. My mother is the only one who married, and she only had me. Well, I thought that with this heredity, it's not necessary for me continuing the line. So I didn't do anything to continue it. That's all.

7. Detachment
Another thing is detachment. It is what I like immensely in the idea of the SS and especially in the idea of the élite of the SS, the Einsatzgruppen in charge of all the dirty work in defense of National Socialism, in Poland and Russia especially. We heard of it during the trial of Otto Olendorf. And I have the honor of knowing the family of Otto Olendorf. I was the guest of his widow several times, and I met his children when they were quite young.

Otto Olendorf was the head of Einsatzgruppe D. Of course he was condemned to death and hanged by the Americans with the other six of Landsberg in the night between the 7th and the 8th of June 1951, in spite of people asking to be hanged in his place or in the place of the others. Among those people was myself. I wrote to McCloy, the High Commissioner of America in that connection. But there were better people than I. There was a Catholic priest who had been interned for anti-Nazi activities during the war in a concentration camp. He offered his life for them, on other grounds, of course, on grounds of Christian love. Whatever it is, they rejected his demand, and they rejected the demand of several other people in Germany, and they rejected mine. As a sign of stupidity, McCloy sent me a book about the career of the seven, and with a small letter, written by his secretary, of course. He wouldn't take the trouble of writing to me. "If you knew the career of this man, you wouldn't try to offer your life in the place of theirs, or even in the place of one of them." I'd gladly be hanged in the place of one of them, any of them. And I found that so stupid. Ridiculous, laughingly ridiculous. I am a person who tells the people outright, "I am a National Socialist, and in the place of these seven people I would've done what they did, and perhaps worse. You don't want to do anything unreasonable. You don't want to do anything that would worsen your position in Germany. You have now the cold war with the Bolsheviks. You want to strengthen Germany against the Bolsheviks, your former Allies, your gallant Allies of before '45. You'll get the curses of all Germany for killing these seven people. If you kill one insignificant National Socialist from the other end of the world, who is not even a German, nobody would care. You will have Germany's approbation because you saved the seven, and that would be all right." They didn't even listen to that argument, which was a very reasonable argument. They didn't listen to me.

Otto Olendorf said in his trial-to come back to him-"If any of us showed pleasure in what he was doing or disgust, pleasure or disgust, he was degraded and set home. We should act only on the ground of duty. We had to act with indifference, because we had an order, and Befehl ist Befehl, an order is an order. It's our duty to obey the order. We obey, finished. We don't think about it any longer. It's finished, we do it, and we go do what we have to do later on."

That is the spirit of the oldest poem in Sanskrit , the oldest philosophical poem written by Aryans for Aryans. It's the Bhagavad-Gita. The Bhagavad-Gita says, "You are a fighter by nature. You belong to a fighter's race." The lord Krishna, the god, tells that to the hero Arjuna. He has taken the shape, the form, of Arjuna's charioteer to accompany him to the war. And Arjuna is reluctant to fight, because he is fighting his own kinsmen. Krishna tells him, "Take victory and defeat as equal. Take pleasure and pain as equal. Take success and failure as equal. Be indifferent, but throw yourself into the battle with courage in spite of that." This is said in chant #2. In chant #4 it is said that whoever acts-any kind of action, be it the most violent action-but not for himself, not for his personal interests, not for the interest of his family because it is his, not for the interest of his country because it is his, not for the interests of mankind because he's a man, but purely in the interest of all the living in the universe, in the interest of the universe and also, dispassionately, without any feelings or enthusiasm or passion, hatred, love, just because he feels it is his duty, his higher duty. He feels that it is not the duty of every man, because in Hinduism, all men have not the same duty. Duty is a matter of who he is and how he is to act. The duty of the priest is not the duty of the king's minister. The duty of the warrior is not the same as the duty of a mother. Each one has his own duty, svadharma. Well, whoever acts in the name of his svadharma, his own duty, without passion, and in the interests of the whole universe, whatever he does, he does not sin. That action will not fall into his karma. That is to say, that action will not be a determinant factor in his next birth or his re-birth or his lack of re-birth. It will exist as though it didn't exist. He can do whatever he's told, or whatever is considered as his duty. That I find wonderful.

And that is the spirit of National Socialism. Otherwise, Otto Olendorf wouldn't have said in his trial to the face of the Americans, "We acted like that." He didn't tell them, "We acted in the spirit of the Bhagavad-Gita." They wouldn't have understood, first of all. Half of them don't know what the Bhagavad-Gita is. But he said the same, and I had the honor, at his house, to read a few letters of his written a few days and a few hours before his death, his correspondence with the Princess von Isenberg, Eleni von Isenberg. And I must tell you one thing, those letters are absolutely detached. He knows he's going to be hanged in a few days or in a few hours. He doesn't care. He couldn't care less. He has done what he could according to his conscience. He has done his duty. Fate is fate. That spirit, that spirit is our spirit. That spirit is our spirit. And I've seen it also in other National Socialists. Great ones have all the same spirit. It was cultivated especially in the SS, which was the élite of National Socialism, but it must be cultivated at every level if possible, to the extent it is possible. I really like these people.

8. Aryan Solidarity
I wouldn't criticize the Führer, but I criticize the people who tried to keep down Russia. They should've been allies of the Aryan Russians-Slavs, the real Slavs-not despise them. Slavs may be inferior to Germans, all right, but they are not non-Aryans. The real Slavs. And the real Slavs got on very well with the Germans in antiquity. Thorburn with his hammer got on very well with Perrin, the four headed Perrin with his hammer, who was the god of the Poles and the god of the Russians, the Slavic equivalent of Thorburn. It's only when they became Christians of different churches that they started quarreling. They used to get on very well, the Germanic people and the Slavic people. Well they should've tried today.

I am told that there's a pan-Aryan movement in Russia.] It would be very good. It would be very good if they could take over Russia. There's a former SS French correspondent of mine who wrote to me not long ago saying the Russians should've packed off Marx and kept Stalin. Instead of that, they put Stalin into the dustbin and kept Marx. It was a mistake. Quite true. Quite true. Stalin at least was Russian, but his wife was Jewish and his brothers in law, the Kaganovich brothers, were Jews. His daughter was half Jewess. The Russians are conquered. Communism is Jewish. [Some people say the Russians freed themselves of the Jewish yoke.] I don't believe that. As long as you have Jews at the top. At the top you have Jews there. Of course the Russians are anti-Jewish by nature. When Mr. Mukherji was in Russia, he had a friend called Ligachov. Ligachov was removed from the Communist party for three years for calling a man who stepped on his toes in the tram a "dirty Jew." He said, "You dirty Jew." That was reported. He was removed for three years from the Communist party. He was a Russian, not a Jew.

There are many things that we could take from the Jews. I very often said if we had some of the virtues that the Jews have, there wouldn't have been a Jewish question. And one of them is this: solidarity. If a Jew goes bankrupt, other Jews will bring him out, three times. He can be three times bankrupt. He will survive with the money of the other Jews. In my native town, there was a Greek who tried business and failed, the son of friend of mine. His father and mother gave him some money. He wanted to go into the cloth business. Well, the cloth market in Lyons, as well as everywhere else, is a monopoly of the Jews practically. This young boy failed. Oh, the other Greeks laughed at him. "Why did he try business when he was not fit for it?" That's all. "Why did he try business? Serves him right." Jews would never have said that of him. They would've picked him up once, twice, three times. Now every Jew in Lyons, every Jew in Saint Étienne, France-I know those two towns very well-gives one-tenth of his income to Israel. If every person with an income-I wish I had one, I'm living on private lessons and have no fixed income-but if every person with an income could give even one-twentieth to these National Socialist organizations, to one National Socialist organization-it's a pity there are more than one-it would make a great difference. It would make a great difference. You cannot yet think of the head of the NSWPP becoming president of the United States. Why is that unthinkable? Why is it unthinkable, after all? Because you need an enormous quantity of money to get the television hours for the propaganda to be president.

9. Anthropos and Misanthropy
I am at home when I'm thinking of gods. I've never seen any gods, but I like to think of them. And the supreme. I'm at home with animals. I love all animals, especially felines. But I'm not afraid of them. I've caressed a tiger, a Bengal tiger three hundred kilos in weight, twice in my life. I put my hand in the cage in the Calcutta zoo. I gave a tip to the guardian. The guardian, the keeper, was green with fear. I said, "No fear. I'll give you a tip." And I put my hand in and caressed the tiger. I'm not afraid. If I were going into the cage, I wouldn't be afraid. I love them. I love felines. And I don't mind serpents. I had two cobras in my house when I was living in Jallandar. I used to give them milk. They never did a thing to me. I love trees, and I love that German characteristic that is love of forests and trees. That's perfectly Germanic. I think it's one of the reasons why I'm so much in love with the old Germany of former days, when the country was covered with forests, the Germany of Herman the Cheruskan.

Well, the only creature that I cannot love is the stupid, average two-legged mammal who doesn't think for himself. He's supposed to think. He's supposed to look upwards. Man in Greek is called anthropos. Now if you decompose the word anthropos, it means "the one who looks above." If he doesn't look above, he's no anthropos. He's no man. And the majority of people who call themselves men, they are not men according to the Greek etymology of the word. A man is supposed to think. That's what he's supposed to have more than the animals. He's supposed to think. Ask your neighbors, ask yourself, all those people that you are around, that are all around you, how far they think.
They tell you, "Yes, there were six million Jews killed in the war by your Führer. Six million. It was on the television." It's on the television, therefore it's right. And they have the cheek of criticizing the people of the Middle Ages who would tell you, "The priest said it, therefore it's right. The church says it, therefore it's right. The church says the world is flat, not round; therefore, the church is right. And Galileo's wrong." There's no difference. If you listen to what the radio says, because the radio says it, the radio is gospel or veda. And you listen to the television, and what the television says must be true. The television says the Führer is wrong. He must be wrong. That's not thinking. If a man doesn't think, he's no man. What we should develop among ourselves is thinking. And what is compatible with our National Socialist faith, and what is not compatible, we should know that. Try to analyze. We are given a theory or given a philosophy. We are asked to adhere to it, of course, by the one who does adhere to it. Is that philosophy compatible with our philosophy? And we should know our philosophy for that.

Nowadays, at least in this Yuga, and more and more as we go to the end of the Yuga, people are not, as a mass of people, race-conscious. And you can wash their brains so well that they can go against their race. I've seen pictures-I've never seen the thing itself, but I've seen pictures-of pro-Negro demonstrations in the USA, and half the people are White. What do those White people want in a pro-Negro demonstration for Negro rights? Of course, I have answered this long ago. And my answer is this: "All right, you are White and you don't mind supporting the Blacks. Well, I'm a two-legged mammal. I don't mind supporting the other animals. I'll be for the animals against you, against the two-legged mammals. I'll be for the trees and for nature against man. That is no worse than you being against your own race among men."

But of course, among men, I'm for my own race. And I would say, more than that, I think that if I were not an Aryan by birth-well, already I'm not pure a Nordic-but I would support a Nordic. And if I were a mongrel, or if I were anything, a perfect non-Aryan, I think I would support the Aryan race all the same for the very same reason I support felines: because it's beautiful. Beauty is everything for me. Beauty is my god and goddess. Visible beauty first and, as it's said in The Banquet [The Symposium] by Plato, "From visible beauty go up to invisible beauty, to truth without a form." All right, but the basis is visible beauty. I'm all for beauty. And the first reason why I feel proud of being an Aryan is that in general-not myself, of course-but in general, the race is beautiful.

10. Propaganda
You allow yourself to be brainwashed. I was brainwashed too. We were all brainwashed. In school: the French Revolution, the French Revolution, the French Revolution. I didn't have the time for it. I wouldn't have it. Who obliges you to think what people tell you? Who obliges you to bow your head to authority? Rise up, stick up-in your mind at least. You can say, "Yes, yes, yes," for your job. I have a job at the United Nations here. I have a job teaching French to the personnel. If I say no, I would lose four hundred rupees a month, and I would have nothing to live on. I have to accept. All right. But even to my pupils, I tell them, "The United Nations is rubbish." I tell them, and they say, "We think so the same, but we have to live. So we take a job here."

And I could've had a very good job in 1946 at the United Nations in New York, recommended by the Greek Consul in Lyons, my native town, who told me so. And he said, "You can have a very good job if you like. You know several languages, and you can go there." You know what I answered? I was rude to him. I said, "United Nations? That organization? I'd rather be the head of a brothel. Not do the work myself, but have it done by dirty girls, and have the profit. And earn even more than at the United Nations. But I don't like that kind of work, nor do I like the work of the United Nations. I'm not going to go there." He said, "All right, as you like."

This man had given, during the war, false passports to Jews. He gave them passports as Greek citizens. And the priests had given certificates of christening. They had made a traffic. They had made pots of money. If you were a Jew and you wanted to get out of France under the Germans, you could go to the Greek Consulate. They could do it for you. But it was three hundred thousand francs. If you were a poor Jew you couldn't go there. Only the Jews who were prepared to give three or four hundred thousand francs in those days. They made pots of money. I disliked that. I was ashamed of it. But that was that. The black market. They did many things.

But you see, that idea of people believing what they're told, being brainwashed, I just can't understand it.

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:15 PM
Thank you for that.The works of Savitri Devi are always very welcome.:)

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 03:26 AM
It's the fault of the Catholic Church, or of the Christian churches in general.

Yes children, when in doubt blame the bad old Christians! :eyes



The Negro is a Christian.

Thats highly speculative. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia talks about how the negro's nature is alien to Catholicism.



Why not marry him?

Because the Bible and Catholic social doctrine clearly state that inter-racial and inter-faith marriages are banned! And Adrian Hastings does a good job explaining how the two merged many times.


Slavs may be inferior to Germans,

We certainly are not!



And the real Slavs got on very well with the Germans in antiquity.

Oh you mean when Viking traders sold our people into Arab/Jewish slavery? It was not peachy clean I hope you know.

Let me guess, does she adhere to the Normanist theory, stating that the Rus who founded the Kieven state were Germanics and not native Slavs?



Thorburn with his hammer got on very well with Perrin

Ahem, the spelling is Perun



, the four headed Perrin

Perun was not four-headed.



It's only when they became Christians of different churches that they started quarreling.

Yes blame it all on the Christians again......even though there conflicts before Kiev's conversion. In fact it may interest you to know that many try to claim that the first evidence of Christianity in Russia were brought over from the Vikings.



They used to get on very well, the Germanic people and the Slavic people.

Slavic-Germanic relations have been mixed with good relations and wars. This was the case before conversion and after. Christianity did not make the Slavs and Germans hate each other more.



Stalin at least was Russian

Georgians are not Russians :eyes



The church says the world is flat, not round; therefore, the church is right.

Interesting, Im sure you were aware that St. Augustine(the most important Western theologian and had greatest influence on Medieveal thinking) thought the world was round. Im sure you were aware of that fact.



And Galileo's wrong.

Actually in many ways he was. It should interest most people today that Galileo's arguments for his theory of the earth revolving around the sun have actually been refuted by science. So Galileo was right in principle, but his evidence was bogus as hell.

Overall, I've read much better pieces people.

friedrich braun
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 10:15 PM
The idea of progress - indefinite betterment - is anything but modern. It is probably as oldest as man's oldest successful attempt to improve his material surroundings and to increase, through technical skill, his capacity of attack and defence. Technical skill, for many centuries at least, has been too precious to be despised. Nay, when displayed to an extra ordinary degree, it has, more than once, been hailed as something almost divine.

Wondrous legends have always been woven, for instance, round such men as was said to have, by some means, been able to raise themselves, physically, above the earth, be it Etana of Erech who soared to heaven "borne upon eagle's wings", or the famous Icarus, unfortunate forerunner of our modern airmen, or Manco Capac's brother, Auca, said to have been gifted with "natural" wings which finally fared hardly better than Icarus' artificial ones.

But apart from such incredible feats by a handful of individuals, the Ancients as a whole distinguished themselves in many material achievements. They could boast of the irrigation system in Sumeria; of the construction of pyramids revealing, both in Egypt and, centuries later, in Central America, an amazing knowledge of astronomical data; of the bath-rooms and drains in the palace of Knossos; of the invention of the war-chariot after that of the bow and arrow, and of the sand-clock after that of the sun-dial - enough to make them dizzy with conceit and over-confident in the destiny of their respective civilisations.

Yet, although they fully recognised the value of their own work in the practical field, and surely very soon conceived the possibility - and perhaps acquired the certitude - of indefinite technical progress, they never believed in progress as a whole, in progress on all lines, as most of our contemporaries seem to do. From all evidence, they faithfully clung to the traditional idea of cyclic evolution and had, in addition to that, the good sense to admit that they lived (in spite of all their achievements) in anything but the beginning of the long-drawn, downward process constituting their own particular "cycle" - and ours. Whether Hindu or Greeks, Egyptians or Japanese, Chinese, Sumerians, or ancient Americans - or even Romans, the most "modern" amongst people of Antiquity - they all placed the "Golden Age", the "Age of Truth", the rule of Kronos or of Ra, or of any other Gods on earth - the glorious Beginning of the slow, downward unfurling of history, whatever name it be! given - far behind them in the past.

And they believed that the return of a similar Age, foretold in their respective sacred texts and oral traditions, depends, not upon man's conscious effort, but upon iron laws, inherent to the very nature of visible and tangible manifestation, and all-pervading; upon cosmic laws. They believed man's conscious effort is but an expression of those laws at work, leading the world, willing or unwilling, wherever its destiny lies; in one word, that the history of man, as the history of the rest of the living, is but a detail in cosmic history without beginning nor end; a periodical outcome of the inner Necessity that binds all phenomena in Time.

And just as the Ancients could accept that vision of the world's evolution while taking full advantage of all technical progress within their reach, so can - and so do - to this day, thousands of men brought up within the pale of age-old cultures centred round the self-same traditional views, and, also, in the very midst of the over-proud industrial cultures, a few stray individuals able to think for themselves. They contemplate the history of mankind in a similar perspective.

While living, apparently, as "modern" men and women - using electric fans and electric irons, telephones and trains, and aeroplanes, when they can afford it - they nourish in their hearts a deep contempt for the childish conceit and bloated hopes of our age, and for the various recipes for "saving mankind", which zealous philosophers and politicians thrust into circulation. They know that nothing can "save mankind", for mankind is reaching the end of its present cycle. The wave that carried it, for so many millenniums, is about to break, with all the fury of acquired speed, and to merge once more into the depth of the unchanging Ocean of undifferentiated existence. It will rise again, some day, with abrupt majesty, for such is the law of waves. But in the meantime nothing can be done to stop it. The unfortunate - the fools - are those men who, for some reason best known to themselves - probably on account of their exaggerated estimation of what is to be lost in the process ! - would like to stop it. The privileged ones - the wise - are those few who, being fully aware of the increasing worthlessness of present-day mankind and of its much-applauded "progress", know how little there is to be lost in the coming crash and look forward to it with joyous expectation as to the necessary condition of a new beginning - a new "Golden Age", sunlit crest of the next long drawn downward wave upon the surface of the endless Ocean of Life.

To those privileged ones - amongst whom we count ourselves - the whole succession of "current events" appears in an entirely different perspective from that either of the desperate believers in "progress" or of those people who, though accepting the cyclic view of history and therefore considering the coming crash as unavoidable, feel sorry to see the civilisation in which they live rush towards its doom.

To us, the high-resounding "isms" to which our contemporaries ask us to give our allegiance, now, in 1948, are all equally futile: bound to be betrayed, defeated, and finally rejected by men at large, if containing anything really noble: bound to enjoy, for the time being, some sort of noisy success, if sufficiently vulgar, pretentious and soul-killing to appeal to the growing number of mechanically conditioned slaves that crawl about our planet, posing as free men; all destined to prove, ultimately, of no avail. The time-honoured religions, rapidly growing out of fashion as present-day "isms" become more and more popular, are no less futile - if not more: frameworks of organised superstition void of all true feeling of the Divine, or - among more sophisticated people - mere conventional aspects of social life, or systems of ethics (and of very elementary ethics at that) seasoned with a sprinkling of out-dated rites and symbols of which hardly anybody bothers to seek the or! iginal meaning: devices in the hands of clever men in power to lull the simpletons into permanent obedience; convenient names, round which it might be easy to rally converging national aspirations or political tendencies; or just the last resort of weaklings and cranks: that is, practically, all they are - all they have been reduced to in the course of a few centuries - the lot of them. They are dead, in fact - as dead as the old cults that flourished before them, with the difference that those cults have long ceased exhaling the stench of death, whil e they (the so-called "living" ones) are still at the stage at which death is inseparable from corruption. None - neither Christianity nor Islam nor even Buddhism - can be expected now to "save" anything of that world they once partly conquered; none have any normal place in "modern" life, which is essentially devoid of all awareness of the eternal.

There are no activities in "modern" life which are not futile, save perhaps those that aim at satisfying one's body hunger: growing rice; growing wheat; gathering chestnuts from the woods or potatoes from one's garden. And the one and only sensible policy can but be to let things take their course and to await the coming Destroyer, destined to clear the ground for the building of a new "Age of Truth": the One Whom the Hindus name Kalki and hail as the tenth and last Incarnation of Vishnu; the Destroyer Whose advent is the condition of the preservation of life, according to Life's everlasting laws.

We know all this will sound utter folly to those, more and more numerous, who, despite the untold horrors of our age, remain convinced that humanity is "progressing". It will appear as cynicism even to many of those who accept our belief in cyclic evolution, which is the universal, traditional belief expressed in poetic form in all the sacred texts of the world, including the Bible. We have nothing to reply to this latter possible criticism, for it is entirely based upon an emotional attitude which is not ours. But we can try to point out the vanity of the popular belief in "progress", be it only in order to stress the rationality and strength of the theory of cycles.

Arguments

The exponents of the belief in "progress" put forth many arguments to prove - to themselves and to others - that our times, with all their undeniable drawbacks, are on the whole, better than any epoch of the past, and even that they show definite signs of improvement. It is not possible to analyse all their arguments in detail. But one can easily detect the fallacies hidden in the most widespread and, apparently, the most "convincing" of them.

All the advocates of "prog-ress" lay enormous stress upon such things as literacy, individual "freedom", equal opportunities for all men, religious toleration and "humaneness," progress in this last line covering all such tendencies as find their expression in the modern preoccupation of child-welfare, prison-reforms, better conditions of labour, State aid to the sick and destitute and, if not greater kindness, at least less cruelty to animals. The dazzling results obtained, of recent years, in the application of scientific discoveries to industrial and other practical pursuits, are, of course, the most popular of all instances expected to show how marvellous our times are. But that point we shall not discuss, as we have already made it clear that we by no means deny or minimise the importance of technical progress. What we do deny is the existence of any progress at all in the value of man as such, whether individually or collectively, and our reflections on universal l! iterac y and other highly praised "signs" of improvement in which our contemporaries take pride, all spring from that one point of view.

We believe that man's value - as every creature's value, ultimately - lies not in the mere intellect but in the spirit; in the capacity to reflect that which, for lack of a more precise word, we choose to call "the divine," i.e. that which is true and beautiful beyond all manifestation; that which remains timeless (and therefore unchangeable) within all changes...

Progress? - It is true that, today, at least in all highly organised (typically "modern") countries, nearly everybody can read and write. But what of that? To be able to read and write is an advantage - and a considerable one. But it is not a virtue. It is a tool and a weapon; a means to an end; a very useful thing, no doubt; but not an end in itself. The ultimate value of literacy depends on the end to which it is used. And to what end is it generally used today? It is used for convenience or entertainment, by those who read; for some advertisement, or some objectionable propaganda - for money-making or power-grabbing - by those who write; sometimes, of course, by both, for acquiring and spreading disinterested knowledge of the few things worth knowing: for finding expression of or giving expression to the few deep feelings that can lift a man to the awareness of things eternal, but not more often so than in the days in which one man out of ten thousand could understand th! e symb olism of the written word. Generally, today, the man or woman whom compulsory education has made "literate" uses writing to communicate personal matters to absent friends and relatives, to fill forms - one of the international occupations of modern civilised humanity - or to commit to memory little useful, but otherwise trifling things such as someone's address or telephone number, or the date of some appointment with the hairdresser or the dentist, or the list of clean clothes due from the laundry. He or she reads "to pass time" because, outside the hours of dreary work, mere thinking is no longer intense and interesting enough to serve that purpose.

We know that there are also people whose whole lives have been directed to some beautiful destiny by a book, a poem - a mere sentence - read in distant childhood, like Schliemann, who lavishly spent on archeological excavations and wealth patiently and purposefully gathered in forty years of dreary toil, all for the sake of the impression left upon him, as a boy, by the immortal story of Troy. But such people always lived, even before compulsory education came into fashion. And the stories heard and remembered were no less inspiring than stories now read. The real advantage of general literacy, if any, is to be sought elsewhere. It lies not in the better quality either of the exceptional men and women or of the literate millions, but rather in the fact that the latter are rapidly becoming intellectually more lazy and therefore more credulous than ever - and not less so - more easily deceived, more liable to be led like sheep without even the shadow of a protest, provided th! e nons ense one wishes them to swallow be presented to them in printed form and made to appear "scientific". The higher the general level of literacy, the easier it is, for a government in control of the daily press, of the wireless and of the publishing business - these almost irresistible modern means of action upon the mind - to keep the masses and the "intelligentsia" under its thumb, without them even suspecting it.

Among widely illiterate but more actively thinking people, openly governed in the more autocratic manner, a prophet, direct mouthpiece of the Gods, or of genuine collective aspirations, could always hope to rise between secular authority and the people. The priests themselves could never be quite sure of keeping the people in obedience for ever. The people could choose to listen to the prophet, if they liked. And they did, sometimes. Today, wherever universal literacy is prevalent, inspired exponents of timeless truth - prophets - or even selfless advocates if timely practical changes, have less and less chances to appear. Sincere thought, real free thought, ready, in the name of superhuman authority or of humble common sense, to question the basis of what is officially taught and generally accepted, is less and less likely to thrive. It is, we repeat, by far easier to enslave a literate people than an illiterate one, strange as this may seem at first sight. And the enslave! ment is likely to be more lasting. The real advantage of universal literacy is to tighten the grip of the governing power upon the foolish and conceited millions. That is probably why it is drummed into our heads, from babyhood onwards, that "literacy" is such a boon. Capacity to think for one's self is, however, the real boon. And that always was and always will be the privilege of a minority, once recognised as a natural elite and respected. Today, compulsory mass-education and an increasingly standardised literature for the consumption of "conditioned" brains - outstanding signs of "progress" - tend to reduce that minority to the smallest possible proportions; ultimately, to suppress it altogether. Is that what mankind wants? If so, mankind is losing its raison d'etre, and the sooner the end of this so-called "civilisation" the better.

What we have said of literacy can roughly be repeated about those two other main glories of modern Democracy: "individual freedom" and equality of opportunities for every person. The first is a lie - and a more and more sinister one as the shackles of compulsory education are being more and more hopelessly fastened round people's whole being. The second is an absurdity.

One of the funniest inconsistencies of the average citizen of the modern industrialised world is the way in which he criticises all institutions of older and better civilisations, such as the caste-system of the Hindus or the all-absorbing family cult of the Far East, on the ground that these tend to check the "liberty of the individual." He does not realise how exacting - nay, how annihilating - is the command of the collective authority which he obeys (half the time, unknowingly) compared to that of traditional collective authority, in apparently less "free" societies. The caste-ridden or family-ridden people of India or of the Far East might not be allowed to do all that they like, in many relatively trifling and in a few really all-important matters of daily life. But they are left to believe what they like, or rather what they can; to feel according to their own nature and to express themselves freely about a great number of essential matters; they are allowed to condu! ct their higher life in the manner they judge the wisest for them, after their duties to family, caste and king have been fulfilled. The individual living under the iron and steel rule of modern "progress" can eat whatever he fancies (to a great extent) and marry whom he pleases - unfortunately! - and go wherever he likes (in theory at least). But he is made to accept, in all extra-individual matters - matters which, to us, really count - the beliefs, the attitude to life, the scale of values and, to a great extent, the political views, that tend to strengthen the mighty socio-economic system of exploitation to which he belongs (to which he is forced to belong, in order to be able to live) and in which he is a mere cog. And what is more, he is made to believe that it is a privilege of his to be a cog in such an organism; that the unimportant matters in which he feels he is his own master are, in fact, the most important ones - the only really important ones. He is taught not to value that freedom of judgment about ultimate truth, aesthetical, ethical or metaphysical, of which he is subtly deprived. More still: he is told - in the democratic countries at any rate - that he is free in all respects; that he is "an individual, answerable to none but his own conscience"... after years of clever conditioning have moulded his "conscience"! and h is whole being so thoroughly according to pattern, that he is no longer capable of reacting differently. Well can such a man speak of "pressure upon the individual" in any society, ancient or modern!

One can realise to what an extent men's minds have been curved, both by deliberate and unconscious conditioning, in the world in which we live today, when one encounters people who have never come under the influence of industrial civilisation, or when one happens, oneself, to be lucky enough to have defied, from childhood onwards, the pernicious pressure of standardised education and to have remained free amongst the crowd of those who react as they were taught to, in all fundamental matters. The cleavage between the thinking and the unthinking, the free and the slaves, is appalling.

As for "equality of opportunities," there can be no such thing anyhow, really speaking. By producing men and women different both in degree and quality of intelligence, sensitiveness and will power, different in character and temperament, Nature herself gives them the most unequal opportunities of fulfilling their aspirations, whatever these might be. An over-emotional and rather weak person can, for instance, neither conceive the same ideal of happiness nor have equal chances of reaching it in life, as one who is born with a more balanced nature and a stronger will. That is obvious...

What our contemporaries mean when they speak of "equality of opportunities" is the fact that, in modern society - so they say - any man or woman stands, more and more, as many chances as his or her neighbour of holding the position and doing the job for which he or she is naturally fitted. But that too is only partly true. For, more and more, the world of today - the world dominated by grand-scale industry and mass production - can offer only jobs in which the best of the worker's self plays little or no part if he or she be anything more than a merely clever and materially efficient person. The hereditary craftsman, who could find the best expression for what is conveniently called his "soul" in his daily weaving, carpet-making, enamel work, etc ..., even the tiller of the soil, in personal contact with Mother Earth and the Sun and the seasons, is becoming more and more a figure of the past. There are less and less opportunities, also, for the sincere seeker of truth - spe! aker or writer - who refuses to become the expounder of broadly accepted ideas, products of mass-conditioning, for which he or she does not stand; for the seeker of beauty who refuses to bend his or her art to the demands of popular taste which he or she knows to be bad taste. Such people have to waste much of their time doing inefficiently - and grudgingly - some job for which they are not fitted, in order to live, before they can devote the rest of it to what the Hindus would call their sadhana - the work for which their deeper nature has appointed them; their life's dedication.

The idea of modern division of labour, condensed in the oft-quoted sentence "the right man in the right place," boils down, in practice, to the fact that any man - any one of the dull, indiscriminate millions - can be "conditioned" to occupy any place, while the best of human beings, the only ones who still justify the existence of the more and more degenerate species, are allowed no place at all. Progress....

Tolerance?

Remain the "religious toleration" of our times and their "humaneness" compared with the "barbarity" of the past. Two jokes, to say the least!

Recalling some of the most spectacular horrors of history - the burning of "heretics" and "witches" at the stake; the wholesale massacre of "heathens," and other no less repulsive manifestations of Christian civilisation in Europe, conquered America, Goa, and elsewhere - modern man is filled with pride in the "progress" accomplished, in one line at least, since the end of the dark ages of religious fanaticism. However bad they may be, our contemporaries have, at any rate, grown out of the habit of torturing people for such "trifles" as their conception of the Holy Trinity or their ideas about predestination and purgatory. Such is modern man's feeling - because theological questions have lost all importance in his life. But in the days when Christian churches persecuted one another and encouraged the conversion of heathen nations by means of blood and fire, both the persecutors and the persecuted, both the Christians and those who wished to remain faithful to non-Christian c! reeds, looked upon such questions as vital in one way or another. And the real reason for which nobody is put to torture, today, for the sake of his or her religious beliefs, is not that torture as such has become distasteful to everybody, in "advanced" twentieth-century civilisation, not that individuals and States have become "tolerant," but just that, among those who have the power of inflicting pain, hardly anybody takes any vivid, vital interest in religion, let alone in theology.

The so-called "religious toleration" practised by modern States and individuals springs from anything but an intelligent understanding and love of all religions as manifold, symbolical expressions of the same few essential, eternal truths... It is, rather, the outcome of a grossly ignorant contempt for all religions; of indifference to those very truths which their various founders endeavoured to re-assert, again and again. It is no toleration at all.

To judge how far our contemporaries have or not the right to boast of their "spirit of toleration," the best is to watch their behaviour towards those whom they decidedly look upon as enemies of their gods: the men who happen to be holding views contrary to theirs concerning not some theological quibble, in which they are not interested, but some political or socio-political Ideology which they regard as "a threat to civilisation" or as "the only creed through which civilisation can be saved." Nobody can deny that in all such circumstances, and specially in war time, they all perform - to the extent they have the power - or condone - to the extent they have not, themselves, the opportunity of performing - actions in every respect as ugly as those ordered, performed or tolerated in the past, in the name of different religions (if indeed the latter ugly be). The only difference is, perhaps, that modern cold-blooded atrocities only become known when the hidden powers in contro! l of the means of herd-conditioning - of the press, the wireless and the cinema - decide, for ends anything but "humanitarian," that they should be, i.e. when they happen to be the enemies atrocities, not one's own - nor those of one's "gallant allies" - and when their story is, therefore, considered to be "good propaganda," on account of the current of indignation it is expected to create and of the new incentive it is expected to give the war-effort. Moreover, after a war, fought or supposed to have been fought for an Ideology - the modern equivalent of the bitter religious conflicts of old - the horrors rightly or wrongly said to have been perpetrated by the vanquished are the only ones to be broadcasted all over the world, while the victors try as hard as they can to make believe that their High Command at least never shut its eyes to any similar horrors. But in sixteenth century Europe, and before; and among the warriors of Islam conducting "jihad" against men of other faiths, each side was well aware of the atrocious means used, not only by its opponents for their "foul ends," but by its own people and its own leaders in order to "uproot heresy" or to "fight popery." Modern man is more of a moral coward. He wants the advantages of violent intolerance - which is only natural - but he shuns the responsibility of it. Progress, that also.

Humaneness?

The so-called "humaneness" of our contemporaries (compared with their forefathers) is just lack of nerve or lack of strong feelings - increasing cowardice, or increasing apathy.

Modern man is squeamish about atrocities - even about ordinary, unimaginative brutality - only when it happens that the aims for which atrocious or merely brutal actions are performed are either hateful or indifferent to him. In all other circumstances.... he shuts his eyes to any horrors - especially when he knows that the victims can never retaliate (as it is the case with all atrocities committed by man upon animals, for whatever purpose it be) and he demands, at the most, not to be reminded of them too often and too noisily. He reacts as though he classified atrocities under two headlines: the "unavoidable" and the avoidable. The "unavoidable" are those that served or are supposed to serve modern man's purpose - generally: "the good of humanity" or the "triumph of Democracy." They are tolerated, nay, justified. The "avoidable" are those which are occasionally committed, or said to be committed, by people whose purpose is alien to his. They alone are condemned, and their! real or supposed authors - or inspirers - branded by public opinion as "criminals against humanity."

Which are, anyhow, the alleged signs of that wonderful "humaneness" of modern man, according to those who believe in progress? We no longer have today - they say - the horrid executions of former times; traitors are no longer "hung, drawn and quartered," as was the custom in glorious sixteenth century England; anything approaching in ghastliness the torture and execution of Francois Damien, upon the central square of Paris, before thousands of people purposefully come to see it, on the 28th of May, 1757, would be unthinkable in modern France. Modern man also no longer upholds slavery, nor does he (in theory, at least) justify the exploitation of the masses under any form. And his wars - even his wars! monstrous as they may seem, with their elaborate apparatus of costly demoniacal machinery - are beginning to admit, within their code, (so one says) some amount of humanity and justice. Modern man is horrified at the mere thought of the war time, habits of ancient peoples - at! the s acrifice of twelve young Trojans to the shade of the Greek hero Patrocles, not to speak of the far less ancient but far more atrocious sacrifices of prisoners of war to the Aztec war-god Huitzilopochtli. (But the Aztecs, though relatively modern, were not Christians, nor, as far as we know, believers in all round progress). Finally - one says - modern man is kinder, or less cruel, to animals than his forefathers were.

Alone an enormous amount of prejudice in favour of our times can enable one to be taken in by such fallacies.

Surely modern man does not "uphold" slavery; he denounces it vehemently. But he practices it nevertheless - and on a wider scale than ever, and far more thoroughly than the Ancients ever could - whether in the Capitalistic West or in the Tropics, or (from what one hears from outside its impenetrable walls) even in the one State supposed to be, today, the "workers' paradise." There are differences, of course. In Antiquity, even the slave had hours of leisure and merriment that were all his own; he had his games of dice in the shade of the columns of his master's portico, his coarse jokes, his free chatter, his free life outside his daily routine. The modern slave has not the privilege of loitering, completely carefree, for half an hour. His so-called leisure itself is either filled with almost compulsory entertainment, as exacting and often as dreary as his work, or - in "lands of freedom" - poisoned by economic worries. But he is not openly bought and sold. He is just taken! . And taken, not by a man in some way at least superior to himself, but by a huge impersonal system without either a body to kick or a soul to damn or a head to answer for its mischief.

And similarly, old horrors have no doubt disappeared from the records of so-called civilised mankind, regarding both justice and war. But new and worse ones, unknown to "barbaric" ages, have crept up in their place...

And, curiously enough - although (they say) they "hate such things" - a considerable number of men and women of today, while lacking the guts to commit horrible actions personally, seem to be just as keen as ever on watching them being performed or, at least, on thinking of them and gloating over them, and enjoying them vicariously, if denied the morbid pleasure of watching...

Such are also the millions of folk, hitherto "civilised" and apparently kind, who reveal themselves in their proper light no sooner a war breaks out, i.e. no sooner they feel encouraged to display the most repulsive type of imagination in competitive descriptions of what tortures everyone of them "would" inflict upon the enemy's leaders, if he - or more often she - had a free hand. Such are, at heart, all those who gloat over the sufferings of the fallen enemy after a victorious war. And they are also millions: millions of vicarious savages, mean at the same time as cruel - unmanly - whom the warriors of the so-called "barbaric" ages would have thoroughly despised...

'Dark Age'

Such a world may well boast of its tender care for prize dogs and cats and for pet animals in general, while trying to forget (and to make better civilisations forget) the hideous fact of a million creatures vivisected yearly, in Great Britain alone. It cannot make us overlook its hidden horrors and convince us of its "progress" in kindness to animals, anymore than of its increasing kindness to people "irrespective of their creed." We refuse to see in it anything else but the darkest living evidence of that which the Hindus have characterised from time immemorial as "Kali Yuga" - the "Dark Age"; the Era of Gloom; the last (and, fortunately, the shortest) subdivision of the present Cycle of history. There is no hope of "putting things right", in such an age. It is, essentially, the age so forcefully though laconically described in the Book of books - the Bhagavad Gita - as that in which "out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes; out of the confusion of! caste s, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory the lack of understanding; and out of all this, all evils;" the age in which falsehood is termed "truth" and truth persecuted as falsehood or mocked as insanity; in which the exponents of truth, the divinely inspired leaders, the real friends of all the living - the god-like men - are defeated, and their followers humbled and their memory slandered, while the masters of lies are hailed as "saviours"; the age in which every man and woman is in the wrong place, and the world dominated by inferior individuals and vicious doctrines, all part and parcel of an order of inherent ugliness far worse than complete anarchy.

This is the age in which our triumphant Democrats and our hopeful Communists boast of "slow but steady progress through science and education." Thanks very much for such "progress"! The very sight of it is enough to confirm us in our belief in the immemorial cyclic theory of history, illustrated in the myths of all ancient, natural religions... It impresses upon us the fact that human history, far from being a steady ascension towards the better, is an increasingly hopeless process of bastardisation, emasculation and demoralisation of mankind; an inexorable "fall". It rouses in us the yearning to see the end - the final crash that will push into oblivion both those worthless "isms" that are the product of the decay of thought and of character, and the no less worthless religions of equality which have slowly prepared and ground for them; the coming of Kalki, the divine Destroyer of evil; the dawn of a new Cycle opening, as all time-cycles ever did, with a "Golden Age".

Never mind how bloody the final crash may be! Never mind what old treasures may perish for ever in the redeeming conflagration! The sooner it comes, the better. We are waiting for it - and for the following glory - confident in the divinely established cyclic Law that governs all manifestations of existence in Time: the law of Eternal Return. We are waiting for it, and for the subsequent triumph of the Truth persecuted today; for the triumph under whatever name, of the only faith in harmony with the everlasting laws of being; of the only modern "ism" which is anything but "modern", being just the latest expression of principles as old as the Sun; the triumph of all those men who, throughout the centuries and today, have never lost the vision of the everlasting Order, decreed by the Sun, and who have fought in a selfless spirit to impress that vision upon others. We are waiting for the glorious restoration, this time, on a worldwide scale, of the "Golden Age", of the everlasting Order of the Cosmos.

It is the only thing worth living for - and dying for, if given that privilege - now, in 1948.

Written by Savitri Devi, The Cyclic View of History appeared in the periodical Volkfenew Dawn, 1948.

http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/savitri_03.html

Dr. Brandt
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 11:04 PM
The privileged ones - the wise - are those few who, being fully aware of the increasing worthlessness of present-day mankind and of its much-applauded "progress", know how little there is to be lost in the coming crash and look forward to it with joyous expectation as to the necessary condition of a new beginning - a new "Golden Age", sunlit crest of the next long drawn downward wave upon the surface of the endless Ocean of Life.

Exactly how I feel! I can hardly await the collapse of this disgusting judaized world.


To us, the high-resounding "isms" to which our contemporaries ask us to give our allegiance, now, in 1948, are all equally futile: bound to be betrayed, defeated, and finally rejected by men at large, if containing anything really noble: bound to enjoy, for the time being, some sort of noisy success, if sufficiently vulgar, pretentious and soul-killing to appeal to the growing number of mechanically conditioned slaves that crawl about our planet, posing as free men; all destined to prove, ultimately, of no avail.

Perfect description of our current "State".


It is, we repeat, by far easier to enslave a literate people than an illiterate one, strange as this may seem at first sight. And the enslave! ment is likely to be more lasting. The real advantage of universal literacy is to tighten the grip of the governing power upon the foolish and conceited millions.

How True! Just look who owns the printing press and media!



The individual living under the iron and steel rule of modern "progress" can eat whatever he fancies (to a great extent) and marry whom he pleases - unfortunately! - and go wherever he likes (in theory at least). But he is made to accept, in all extra-individual matters - matters which, to us, really count - the beliefs, the attitude to life, the scale of values and, to a great extent, the political views, that tend to strengthen the mighty socio-economic system of exploitation to which he belongs (to which he is forced to belong, in order to be able to live) and in which he is a mere cog. And what is more, he is made to believe that it is a privilege of his to be a cog in such an organism; that the unimportant matters in which he feels he is his own master are, in fact, the most important ones - the only really important ones. He is taught not to value that freedom of judgment about ultimate truth, aesthetical, ethical or metaphysical, of which he is subtly deprived. More still: he is told - in the democratic countries at any rate - that he is free in all respects; that he is "an individual, answerable to none but his own conscience"... after years of clever conditioning have moulded his "conscience"! and h is whole being so thoroughly according to pattern, that he is no longer capable of reacting differently. Well can such a man speak of "pressure upon the individual" in any society, ancient or modern

Remain the "religious toleration" of our times and their "humaneness" compared with the "barbarity" of the past. Two jokes, to say the least!


Recalling some of the most spectacular horrors of history - the burning of "heretics" and "witches" at the stake; the wholesale massacre of "heathens," and other no less repulsive manifestations of Christian civilisation in Europe, conquered America, Goa, and elsewhere - modern man is filled with pride in the "progress" accomplished, in one line at least, since the end of the dark ages of religious fanaticism. However bad they may be, our contemporaries have, at any rate, grown out of the habit of torturing people for such "trifles" as their conception of the Holy Trinity or their ideas about predestination and purgatory. Such is modern man's feeling - because theological questions have lost all importance in his life. But in the days when Christian churches persecuted one another and encouraged the conversion of heathen nations by means of blood and fire, both the persecutors and the persecuted, both the Christians and those who wished to remain faithful to non-Christian c! reeds, looked upon such questions as vital in one way or another. And the real reason for which nobody is put to torture, today, for the sake of his or her religious beliefs, is not that torture as such has become distasteful to everybody, in "advanced" twentieth-century civilisation, not that individuals and States have become "tolerant," but just that, among those who have the power of inflicting pain, hardly anybody takes any vivid, vital interest in religion, let alone in theology.


someone should pass this on to Mother Teresa of Phora "Petr".


Moreover, after a war, fought or supposed to have been fought for an Ideology - the modern equivalent of the bitter religious conflicts of old - the horrors rightly or wrongly said to have been perpetrated by the vanquished are the only ones to be broadcasted all over the world, while the victors try as hard as they can to make believe that their High Command at least never shut its eyes to any similar horrors. But in sixteenth century Europe, and before; and among the warriors of Islam conducting "jihad" against men of other faiths, each side was well aware of the atrocious means used, not only by its opponents for their "foul ends," but by its own people and its own leaders in order to "uproot heresy" or to "fight popery." Modern man is more of a moral coward. He wants the advantages of violent intolerance - which is only natural - but he shuns the responsibility of it. Progress, that also.


Modern man is squeamish about atrocities - even about ordinary, unimaginative brutality - only when it happens that the aims for which atrocious or merely brutal actions are performed are either hateful or indifferent to him. In all other circumstances.... he shuts his eyes to any horrors - especially when he knows that the victims can never retaliate (as it is the case with all atrocities committed by man upon animals, for whatever purpose it be) and he demands, at the most, not to be reminded of them too often and too noisily. He reacts as though he classified atrocities under two headlines: the "unavoidable" and the avoidable. The "unavoidable" are those that served or are supposed to serve modern man's purpose - generally: "the good of humanity" or the "triumph of Democracy." They are tolerated, nay, justified. The "avoidable" are those which are occasionally committed, or said to be committed, by people whose purpose is alien to his. They alone are condemned, and their! real or supposed authors - or inspirers - branded by public opinion as "criminals against humanity."

"They hate our Freedom! They are Evil-doers!"
Oh yes - sounds familiar!



Surely modern man does not "uphold" slavery; he denounces it vehemently. But he practices it nevertheless - and on a wider scale than ever, and far more thoroughly than the Ancients ever could - whether in the Capitalistic West or in the Tropics, or (from what one hears from outside its impenetrable walls) even in the one State supposed to be, today, the "workers' paradise." There are differences, of course. In Antiquity, even the slave had hours of leisure and merriment that were all his own; he had his games of dice in the shade of the columns of his master's portico, his coarse jokes, his free chatter, his free life outside his daily routine. The modern slave has not the privilege of loitering, completely carefree, for half an hour. His so-called leisure itself is either filled with almost compulsory entertainment, as exacting and often as dreary as his work, or - in "lands of freedom" - poisoned by economic worries. But he is not openly bought and sold. He is just taken! . And taken, not by a man in some way at least superior to himself, but by a huge impersonal system without either a body to kick or a soul to damn or a head to answer for its mischief.



"out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes; out of the confusion of! caste s, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory the lack of understanding; and out of all this, all evils;" the age in which falsehood is termed "truth" and truth persecuted as falsehood or mocked as insanity; in which the exponents of truth, the divinely inspired leaders, the real friends of all the living - the god-like men - are defeated, and their followers humbled and their memory slandered, while the masters of lies are hailed as "saviours"; the age in which every man and woman is in the wrong place, and the world dominated by inferior individuals and vicious doctrines, all part and parcel of an order of inherent ugliness far worse than complete anarchy.

Hey Huckelberry! Hope you read this! sound familiar?!



Never mind how bloody the final crash may be! Never mind what old treasures may perish for ever in the redeeming conflagration! The sooner it comes, the better. We are waiting for it - and for the following glory - confident in the divinely established cyclic Law that governs all manifestations of existence in Time: the law of Eternal Return. We are waiting for it, and for the subsequent triumph of the Truth persecuted today; for the triumph under whatever name, of the only faith in harmony with the everlasting laws of being; of the only modern "ism" which is anything but "modern", being just the latest expression of principles as old as the Sun; the triumph of all those men who, throughout the centuries and today, have never lost the vision of the everlasting Order, decreed by the Sun, and who have fought in a selfless spirit to impress that vision upon others. We are waiting for the glorious restoration, this time, on a worldwide scale, of the "Golden Age", of the everlasting Order of the Cosmos.

It is the only thing worth living for - and dying for, if given that privilege - now, in 1948.

Written by Savitri Devi, The Cyclic View of History appeared in the periodical Volkfenew Dawn, 1948.

Roma Invicta
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 11:25 PM
The Religion of the Strong








Savitri Devi








"Enochia, monstrous City of the Manly,

Cave of the Violent ones, 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, sûre," [pure, hard, certain] -- in other words: unalterable. I would express by this the ideal of the Strong, that which nothing kills, nothing corrupts, nothing forces to change; those on whom one can count, because their life is order and fidelity, in accord with the eternal.

Oh, you who exalt the fight without end, be it without hope, attach yourself to what is eternal! That alone is; the remainder is only shadow and smoke. No individual, man or beast, no group of individuals, no people as such deserves your concern for them; each, on the other hand, deserves, as a reflection of the eternal, that you devote yourself to it to the limit of your capacities. And individual beings and natural groups reflect the eternal more or less. They reflect it insofar as they approach, on all levels, the archetype of their species, insofar as they represent it as living things. He who represents only himself, be he one of those who make and unmake history and whose name resounds from afar, is only shadow and smoke.

You who exalt the image of the solitary rock delivered to all the assaults of the Ocean, lashed by the winds, battered by the waves, struck by lightning at the height of the tempest, unceasingly covered by the furious foam, but always standing, millennium after millennium -- you who would like to identify with your brothers in faith, with this tangible symbol of the Strong, in order to feel, "That is us! That is me!," free yourself from two deadly superstitions: the search for "happiness" and concern for "humanity" -- or take care never to fall into them, if the gods grant you the privilege of being exempt in your youth.

Happiness -- which, for them, consists in unopposed natural development, to be neither hungry, nor thirsty, nor cold, nor too hot; to be able to freely live the life for which they are made, and sometimes, for some of them, also to be loved -- would have to be granted to living things which do not have the Word, the father of thought. It is compensation that they are due. Use all your power to ensure it to them. Help the animal and the tree -- and defend them against the selfish and mean-spirited man. Give an armful of grass to the horse or the weary donkey, a bucket of water to the buffalo dying of thirst, harnessed since day-break with its heavy cart under the burning sky of the tropics; a friendly caress to the beast of burden, whatever it is, whose master treats it like a thing; nourish the dog or the abandoned cat that wanders in the uncaring city never having had a master; set a saucer of milk at the edge of the path and caress it with your hand if it allows you. Carry the green branch, torn off and thrown in the dust, into your house so that it is not trampled, and put it in a vase of water; it too is alive and is entitled to your solicitude. It has nothing more than silent life. That, at least, you can help it to enjoy. To live, that is its way -- the way of all the beings of flesh, to which the Word was not given -- of being in harmony with the eternal. And to live, for all these creatures, is happiness.

But those who have the Word, father of thought, and among them the Strong especially, have something better to do than pursue "happiness." Their supreme task consists in finding this harmony, this accord with the eternal, of which the Word seems initially to have deprived them; to hold their place in the universal dance of life with all the enrichment, all the knowledge, that the Word can bring to them or help them to acquire; to live, like those who do not speak, according to the holy laws that govern the existence of the races, but, this time, knowing it and wanting it. 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 fulfill his task -- does not count. Only the task counts: the quest for the essential, the eternal, through life and through thought.

Attach yourself to the essential -- to the eternal. And never worry about happiness -- neither your own nor that of other men; but accomplish your task, and help the others achieve theirs, provided that it does not thwart your own.

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 "civilization" 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 civilization 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 organized 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. Nothing prohibits to you, certainly, from giving a hand to a man who needs help, even the most worthless. The Strong are generous. But in that case, they would be good to him as living flesh, not as a man. And if it is a question of choosing between him and a creature deprived of the Word but closer to the archetype of its species than he is to that of the ideal man, i.e., the superior man, give your preference and your solicitude to this creature: it is more an artwork of the eternal artist.

For "man," who is esteemed so highly, is not a reality but a construction of the mind starting from living elements of a disconcerting variety. No doubt all "species" are a construction of the mind: their names correspond to general ideas. But there is an enormous difference: the living realities that are the individuals of each species resemble each other. The species exists in each one of them. All the specimens that are attached to it reflect the eternal to the same degree, or thereabouts. The individuals of the same race, races that do not have the Word, are almost interchangeable. Their possibilities are fixed. One knows what the world of living things gains every time a kitten is born; one knows what it loses every time a cat, young or old, dies. But one does not know what it gains -- or loses -- every time a human baby is born. Because what is a man?

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" because they share an upright stance and the Word, the latter to quite unequal degrees. And within the same race -- moreover, within the same people -- there are insurmountable divergences, psychic as well as physical, divergences that one would like to be able, even though morbidity explains them partly, to blame on interbreeding in the remote past, so much do such differences between individuals of the same blood appear to be against nature. It is already shocking to witness such frequent and violent ideological (or religious) oppositions between racial brothers. It is even more shocking to learn that, even though Saint Vincent de Paul was French, there are child-abusers who are French also, or to learn that the beautiful and virtuous Laure de Noves, countess of Sade, had, four centuries after her death, among her descendants the marquis of ill repute who bears the same name.

Thus I repeat: one does not know, one cannot predict, what the world of living things gains or loses every time a young being called [i]human is born or dies. And the less the race is pure, i.e., the fewer possibilities each baby has from the start, and roughly uniform -- and also, the less the society tends to pour all individuals of the same group into the same mold, i.e., the less it tends always to encourage the development of the same possibilities, and that, roughly, in the same direction -- the less it is possible to guess it. Because then, the more the exception -- unclassifiable individuality -- will be frequent within a group of the same name, this "name" corresponding no more to reality. It will be relatively possible, and also easy, to envisage in precise circumstances the reactions of a member of an American Indian, African, or Indian tribe -- say, a Jivaro or a Masai or a Santal remaining in his natural environment and subjected to his tradition -- and those of an Aryan (German or not) who is at the same time an orthodox Hitlerian. It will be more difficult to envisage those of an unspecified non-aligned Western European.

It is, however, true that -- beyond a certain degree of mixing of races and cultures and conditioning on a vast scale, thanks to all the modern means of communication -- people end up resembling each other strangely, psychically if not physically; they resemble each another in nullity. They think that everything testifies to their independence and originality, yet, in fact, their reactions in similar circumstances are as identical as those of two individuals of the same tribe of Blacks or Red-skins, or ... those of people of the same race, bound by the same faith. The extremes meet. 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.

The exception is sometimes probable and always possible in a human group, even if it is homogeneous -- which is not to say that, in practice, one can or even must always take this into account: that would complicate the relationships between groups ad infinitum. Moreover the exception, if he represents something more than himself, changes groups whenever 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.

It follows from these observations that the concept of humanity does not correspond to any concrete reality, separable from the whole ensemble of living things. The Word and an upright stance, the only features common to all men, do not suffice to make them "brothers"; they do not mean that they are closer to each other than any one of them is to a being of another species. 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.

Love all living things whose humble task is not opposed in any way to yours, to ours: men with simple hearts, honest, without vanity and malice, and all the animals, because they are beautiful, without exception and without exception indifferent to whatever "idea" there may be. Love them, and you will see the eternal in the glance of their eyes of jet, amber, or emerald. Love also the trees, the plants, the water that runs though the meadow and on to the sea without knowing where it goes; love the mountain, the desert, the forest, the immense sky, full of light or full of clouds; because all these exceed man and reveal the eternal to you.

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 ardor 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. But -- and precisely for this reason -- it is necessary and even urgent to fight him, and by all means, without respite and weakness. For he is your absolute opposite -- our opposite and consequently our natural enemy -- in the pitiless play of forces.

Fight him with detachment and all your power: the Strong preserve a serene balance even in the most exultant fanaticism. 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.

Never underestimate ritual. Wherever it exists a certain order reigns. And any order implies submission of the individual will, discipline, hence renunciation -- preparation to pursue the eternal.

Any true religion is a path open to those who tend towards the eternal, consciously or not. And there is no true religion without ritual. And as soon as there are rituals, simple though they may be, there is the outline of religion. I say "outline," for even though ritual is necessary, essential even, for all true religion, it does not suffice to create one. It is necessary that doctrines be added that are an expression of the Tradition, i.e., that help the faithful to live the eternal truths. Needless to say -- for it is plain to see -- among people who are attached nominally to a given religion, each one lives it more or less, and the great majority (at least in decadent ages such as ours) does not live it at all. One almost can define a decadent age simply by saying that it is an age when traditional doctrines, that is to say, those that raise the faithful to the contemplation of the eternal, cease to interest men, except for a negligible minority.

In centuries when degeneration continues and is intensified, properly political doctrines, in the minds and hearts of the majority of people, take the place of the traditional doctrines, generally called "religious," and -- what is perhaps worse still -- men use the names of different religions for struggles which, in the end, are over nothing but personal and material advantages.

The properly political doctrines are, contrary to those which concern the Tradition, centered on immediate concerns and "historical," i.e., temporal, considerations at most; on what does not recur -- what one will not see twice. A doctrine that helps its followers solve immediate problems of a political or even economic nature, while teaching them the truths that transcend those by far, and inculcating in them a corresponding scale of values, is something other than a political doctrine. It is a Weltanschauung, a "vision of the Universe." It would suffice to add rituals to it to make it the basis of a religion. And those of its followers who have a sense of ritual, a need for ritual -- which they express how -- ever they can, such as by observing auspicious and inauspicious dates, joyous or sad anniversaries related to the history of their community, or by visiting on certain dates places rich in meaning for them -- are already the faithful.

But, I repeat: in order for a Weltanschauung, a vision of the Universe, a "philosophy," once infused with the magic of ritual, to become the basis of a true religion, it is necessary not only that it contain no internal contradictions, but also that its fundamental propositions are true, not relatively but absolutely; true at all times and everywhere; true in time and apart from time; eternally. It is necessary, in other words, that it rest on nothing less than the laws of the cosmos, on the laws of Life without beginning or end, the laws that apply to man but surpass man as they surpass all finite beings. It is necessary, in a word, that it have a cosmic philosophy capable of integrating itself into the eternal Tradition.

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 organization, 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,* 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 organizations 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.

[*Robert Brasillach, Les Sept Couleurs (Paris: Editions Plon, 1939). On 6 February 1945 Charles De Gaulle's "Liberation Government" executed Brasillach for treason. -- Trans.]

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 organizations 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. The fact that the doctrine is or is not an expression of cosmic truth is of no account here. But it submits in the long run, right or wrong, to these doctrines, in the sense that a society that refuses to accept a teaching in harmony with eternal laws and prefers untruths works for its own disintegration, in other words, damns itself.

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 honor 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,"* 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 the 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."**

[*"Die Weisheit des sternhellen Weltraumes," in Hart wie Kruppstahl [Hard as Krupp Steel], completed in 1963. ]

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

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.

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. And there are those that are by no means that way, and whose authors, far from being true followers of the doctrines, of which they display the visible symbols, represent in reality only themselves and use the prestige of the doctrine and the authority that it confers on them to promote their own interests, to satisfy personal grudges, or simply to give free reign to their passions.

There was, at the time of the Third German Reich, the man who denounced a Jew because he quite sincerely believed him dangerous to the regime to which he trusted the safety of his own people. And there was the man who denounced a Jew -- who profited from the power to denounce that the regime gave him -- ... because he coveted his apartment. There was the soldier -- or civil servant -- who obeyed orders. And there was the man who, under cover of the authority conferred by his uniform, committed, or had committed, under the sway of anger, jealousy, or simply his natural brutality -- or for an unhealthy pleasure -- useless acts of violence, even of cruelty, without having received orders. There are always, among the nominal adherents of any doctrine, and a fortiori among those that do not repudiate violence in principle, sincere combatants and opportunists; people who serve the cause to which they are devoted body and soul and people who pretend to be devoted to it and who use it for themselves. (I say "cause," and not "doctrine" on purpose. For one serves a cause, i.e., the application of a doctrine, the materialization of a dream in time, which may be in the direction of time or a counter-current. A doctrine does not merely have to be of "service." It is true or false, in accord or discord with the Laws of the cosmos. All the devotion of the world, plus the sacrifice of a million martyrs, would not succeed in making it true if it is false. And the resounding negation of its basic propositions by all the "scholars" and all the priests of the world, plus the hatred of all peoples at all times, would not suffice to make it false, if it is true.)

Unjustified acts of violence committed, under cover of "reasons of State," by opportunists disguised as Hitlerians, do not touch in the least the cause of the German Reich: the application of Hitlerism to the problems of Germany at a given time; a cause, moreover, to which they rendered disservice rather than service. Even less do they touch the Hitlerian doctrines themselves. 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.

Among the proselytizing international religions, it is, to my knowledge, only Buddhism that was spread practically without violence. And note that it is the religion of renunciation, the religion "of extinction" par excellence; that which, applied absolutely, would lead to exalting celibacy -- like Jainism, its contemporary, confined to India, and like Catharism, many centuries later -- inciting mankind to leave the planet. Christianity, centered on the love of man, alone among living beings created (according to it) "in the image of God," was largely propagated by bribery and violence, under the patronage of kings or emperors who believed they were serving their interests by proclaiming it the state religion and imposing it on conquered peoples. Innumerable crimes against man -- and, in general, against superior men -- have marked its expansion, from the massacre in 782, by order of Charlemagne, in Verden on the Aller, of four thousand five hundred German chiefs, faithful to the gods of their fathers, to the butchers of the Holy Inquisition -- crimes that do not preclude all that Christianity has retained of the eternal Tradition, which remains unshaken. And it acts, here, as a religion whose founder himself declared that his kingdom "is not this world"; as a religion, therefore, to which violence is, in principle, foreign. If it is true that the acts of violence of its adherents do not at all decrease its value, as such, it is more so with the adherents of doctrines, centered, not on man considered as a being "apart," but on Life, and the fight without end that it implies -- of a doctrine like Hitlerism, whose spirit and application in this world can only go against the current of our time -- do not alter at all its excellence as an expression of immutable laws.

A strictly political doctrine is judged by its success. A doctrine likely to receive the consecration of ritual -- or already having received it -- is judged by its approach to eternity, whatever may be the consequences, happy or unhappy, that accrue to it on the political plane.

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. Shin-toism, 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 is 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."*

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

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 (http://tarsus.htm/) 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.* 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.

[*Such as Leon "the Armenian" who reached the throne of Byzantium.]

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, Negro, 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.)

It is race in the broad sense of the word that gives a people its homogeneity across time; that makes it remain, in spite of political and economic upheavals, always the same people, and through which the individual, in renouncing what is his own and putting himself totally in its service, approaches the eternal.

One could undoubtedly say that neither the people nor the race nor mankind -- nor even the life on a given planet -- will always endure. Moreover "duration," which is "time," has nothing to do with timeless eternity. It is not the indefinite succession of the generations, physically and morally more or less similar to one another, but the ideal Archetype which these generations approach to a certain extent; it is the perfect type of the race, towards which each specimen of this race tends more or less, that we consider when we speak about the "eternity of the race." 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,"* (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.

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

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. 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 honor, that he never desires it.

Never forget that the race -- the racial Archetype towards which all generations of the same blood tend (with more or less success) -- is the visible and tangible eternity, concrete to some extent; it is the only eternity available to all living things, because of which, simply in living -- prolonging faithfully and immutably their species, without any thought -- they have already gone beyond Time, by the door of individual renunciation.

It is curious that the more beings are strangers to the word and to thought, the more they are unshakably faithful to the race.

If one admits, as I would readily, that "the Divine sleeps in the stone, wakes up in the plant, feels in the animal, and thinks in the man" (or at least in certain men) one will admire first, in all the bodies of the same chemical family, i.e., of a similar atomic structure, which accord perfectly with the "type" that they represent and which they cannot deny, a harmony that we call their common function. One will also admire no less the fidelity of each plant -- from the oak, the cedar, the conquering banyan to the vulgar dandelion -- to its race. It is not here a question of spontaneous interbreeding. It is not a question with animals either, as long as those remain "in a natural state," i.e., out of contact with man, including even the men said to be the most "primitive" -- those who remained at, or later descended (through poverty of words and increasing absence of thought) to the level of the primates deprived of articulated language, or lower still. 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 the 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 descent. 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.


The preceding text is chapter 1 of Savitri Devi's Souvenirs et réflexions d'une Aryenne (Calcutta: Savitri Devi Mukherji, 1976). Trans. R.G. Fowler.