To-day, — ten years after the disaster of 1945 — when half the world is shivering and shaking before that which it calls the “Communist danger,” nothing seems more out of date than the old alliance of the capitalistic States with Soviet Russia (and the Communist forces of all countries) against National Socialist Germany. People who never had anything to do with National Socialism — sincere Catholics who are, at the same time, sincere French patriots, such as Professor Maurice Bardèche, — expose the stupidity of the Anti-German policy of the Western Democracies, which led to the war, and the iniquity and folly of the Nuremberg Trial, — that glorification of treason — and the folly of a “de-nazification” effort which, if successful, can only throw Germany into the arms of Soviet Russia. Nay, such a notorious Anti-Nazi as Sir Winston Churchill admitted publicly, only a couple of years after the end of the war, that the Western Allies had “killed the wrong pig,” meaning — in glaring contradiction with his own former words and actions — that it would have been more reasonable for the enemies of Communism to help National Socialist Germany to crush Russia, instead of helping Russia to crush National Socialist Germany and then to “bolshevise” half Europe and the three quarters of Asia. The sinister worldwide coalition without which Adolf Hitler would, no doubt, have won this war, appears more and more as a bad bargain in which the reading diplomats of Soviet Russia — and Stalin (that old fox!) at the head of them all — “did” their gullible partners of the capitalistic camp with masterful skill. And the Anglo-Saxon politicians who prepared the Agreements of Teheran and of Yalta and of Potsdam, and those who signed them, and those who welcomed them, and the millions of newspaper-reading sheep who, under the anti-Nazi intoxication of the time, (and the subsequent atmosphere of “war crime” trials and of “de-nazification”) found them wonderful, now feel small and |
bitter at the idea of having been “done” — nay, so thoroughly “done”! — and are taking to hate Soviet Russia, the fortress of conquering Communism, as violently — and as unintelligently, — as they ever hated National Socialist Germany. Many a political sympathiser of National Socialism in and outside Germany beholds this fact with unconcealed satisfaction and says: “The wheel is turning; — so much the better!” But this is not true; not true, at least, in the sense it is meant. It is not true, because it is contrary to the laws of evolution in Time — to the laws of Life — that a world, or even half a world, should halt on its way to perdition and try to go back, against the current of history. The wheel of history is turning. It never stopped doing so. But it is not turning towards the general acceptance, still less towards the broad-scale glorification of National Socialism, the typical Wisdom “againstTime.” On the contrary! It is turning as it has been ever since the fall of man, i.e. ever since the end of the far-gone latest Golden Age, in the sense of the stream of Time: towards untruth; towards chaos; towards degeneracy and death — further and further away fromthe Wisdom of salvation embodied, age after age, in all true Men “against Time” and nowadays in Adolf Hitler and his disciples. It cannot turn otherwise, as long as the last Man “against Time” — the victorious Destroyer-and-Creator, equally “Sun” and “Lightning,” Who will put an end to this humanity and to this Age of Gloom and open the coming Time-cycle, — has not manifested Himself. What gives so many people the illusion that the growing Anti-Communism of a large section of post-war mankind is necessarily linked (or susceptible of becoming, one day, linked) with a change in the world’s attitude to National Socialism, is a blissful ignorance of the true nature of the latter Weltanschauung. It is, in particular, the error which consists in taking it for a purely political doctrine, while it is, in reality, infinitely more than that; the ignorance of its character “against Time,” i.e. of its cosmic significance and place. It is, also, the ignorance of the true nature of the world-wide anti-Nazi coalition that caused the Second World War and finally broke the power of the Third German Reich. That fatal coalition of hatred against the Hitler faith is also something more-than-political. It is, as I have tried to show in the preceding chapter, the logical alliance of all the agents of the Dark |
forces against the one doctrine “against. Time” and the one State “against Time” at our epoch. The Dark forces are just as alive, just as active, now, after the war — after their victory — as during or before the war; nay, more so, as every day brings us nearer the unavoidable “end of the world.” The fact that their various agents have started quarrelling among themselves does not mean that they have ceased being what they always were, namely, agents of disintegration and death, — still less that any of them has suddenly become an agent of regeneration. They are, now, — all of them, — becoming blind to their deep similitude and are exaggerating their differences and forgetting their common origin and their common purpose only because the one obstacle that stood in their way — the National Socialist State, with that unassailable Wisdom “against Time” that underlay all its institutions — is no longer there.Were it, before their doom, to rise again, again they would automatically coalesce against it. The alliance of the capitalistic world with the citadel of Marxism may now appear, politically, as a bad bargain for the “Christian West.” In fact — from the standpoint of cosmic truth — it was and remains a most natural and reasonable bond: that of all those who believe the old Jewish lie against those who boldly and boisterously expose it; that of all those who share the superstition of the value of the two-legged mammal as such, against those who proclaim, in defiance of the spirit of this and of all fallen Ages, against the tendency of history” — against Time” — the merciless Doctrine of human selection and of Detached Violence, leading to the kingdom of living gods on earth. More so: it was, ideologically, on the part of Russia’s former “gallant allies,” a step dictated by an unfailing instinct of self-preservation. They, whose philosophy of life rests upon the old and obsolete form of the man-made and man-centred creed, — upon the Christian values, whether or not, also upon the Christian metaphysics, — ran, for the protection of their very raison d’être, for the defence of all that they were accustomed to love, to those who uphold the self-same creed of man in its new, young, materialistic form, feeling quite rightly that they alone could help them, if the creed and all it meant to them — the love of man; the cult of man; pity for man, as he is, with all his weaknesses; and the artificial barrier between him and the rest of Creation, — were to survive. They |
ran to them spontaneously, as old men run to young and strong ones for protection against other young and strong ones of a different world. Now that they have to pay the price for Russia’s help, — the price for the survival of their precious “human values,” which Russia alone (Russia who, deeply speaking, shares them) could save for a time, — and that they find it too high, they see, in it, the “Communist danger.” They forget who their once only possible ally against that danger was; and what he signified. They forget that the price they would have had to pay him (in the long run) for being freed for ever from the “menace of Asia” mobilised under Russia’s leadership, was nothing short of a definitive, irrevokable renunciation of that man-centred scale of values, which is dearer to them than anything else. For Communism is the natural product of evolution of capitalistic Democracy, while National Socialism is the flat negation of it — a revolt against its spirit. The Marxist values — centred round the love of all men irrespective of race (of all men as potential “workers”) — are the Christian values within a technically advanced world in which the nation of an “immortal soul” is rapidly loosing all appeal. The National Socialist values are the negation of these as well as of all man-centred ones. The Western Allies of 1945 believe National Socialism is dead. That is why they feel safe to quarrel with Soviet Russia and to speak of a “Communist danger.” The youngest expression of their own values “in Time” frightens them, because there no longer is, now, a powerful State “against Time,” bearer of the eternal life-centred values and denial of theirs, to remind them, through its sheer existence, of that which surely is, from their point of view, the greatest danger of all, namely, of the unavoidable advent of the lastMan “against Time” and of the dawn of a new Time-cycle. In his remarkable book “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?”, Hans Grimm, who never was a National Socialist, but who Understands, better than many a German who once called himself one, the nature and grandeur of Adolf Hitler’s mission, writes, among other things. “And had he” (i.e., the Führer) “been able to say, in full awareness, from the beginning: |
‘We are, in consequence of human fertility, from whiff a false ‘humanitarianism’ has taken away the restrictive interference of Nature, faced with a smothering of Europe under a flood of invading masses from the East. We Germans, are the first to be threatened. We can and must raise a dam against that mass-inundation. In order to be in a position to do so, we must again, physically and morally, take root in ourselves and in our race, and put an end to nonsensical quarrels for power among our own people; then, we must be given living space according to our number and abilities, as others have, or we must conquer that living space there where no valuable creation risks to be spoilt. And this must now become our accepted moral goal, for indiscriminate breeding coupled with mass-levelling means accelerated sinking into decay. But the Creator has made man healthy in body, spirit and soul, and wishes him to remain so, and every glance at Nature all round us — at Nature uncorrected by man, in which alone the healthy and fit to live are allowed to survive, — confirms this point of view.... Had he dared to say that after the successful Seizure of power, ... would not the whole world have, then, defended itself even quicker than it actually did against him and against his institutions and against us?”1 In these words lies the secret of the apparently strange coalition which started the Second World War, which persecuted National Socialism as long as it could after Germany’s defeat, and which is, in spite of all protestations of “Anti-Communism” on the part of the Western Democracies, still persecuting it; preventing, at least, its free expression. Through the sinister alliance of the Western plutocracies and of the Marxist Empire, — the alliance of Christianity as it has come down to us (and also of humanitarian Free Thought) and Communism — against National Socialist Germany, the fallen world of this advanced Dark Age was, indeed, just “defending itself”; defending the erroneous principles which have been, more and more completely, for centuries, governing its thoughts, its feelings and its life; the erroneous — anti-natural — values which its conscience has gradually evolved or accepted since the far-gone day decay began to set in, and which it has more and more cunningly glorified, as decay increased 1 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 155-156 |
and spread; defending its very existence as a Dark Age world “in Time.” I have tried, in two former chapters,1 to explain what this, means, insisting upon the fact that the state of present-day humanity (including that of the noblest races) is the natural and unavoidable result of millenniums and millenniums of ever-increasing aloofness from the primaeval divine pattern of the Universe, in other words, from primaeval life in Truth. I have also tried to show the part played by that extraordinary nation, the Jews, in our advanced Age of Gloom, which can, historically, be considered as theirparticular reign. At the beginning of our Time-cycle (as it is shown in the myth of the Garden of Eden, which the Christians borrowed from the Jews, and the latter from immemorial non-Jewish sources) man, — Golden Age man, in all his pristine health and beauty, — was a perfect part of a perfect Creation, in harmony with himself and with it; with every living being, which he at first respected. “Sin” — the cause of degeneracy — consisted not in man’s rebellion against a man-loving “God distinct from the Universe and “Maker” of it in the manner an artisan is the maker of a pot or of a watch, but in rebellion against that divine living Nature of which man was and remains a part and nothing but a part. It consisted in man’s implicit claim to dominate and even to “change” Nature for his own ends and, as time passed and as “civilisation” spread, in his increasing contempt for the silent daily example given him by less evolved (but also less corrupt) living species, still faithful to the spirit and purpose of Creation; in his deliberate transgression of the laws of Life for the sake of pleasure, temporary convenience or mere superstition. In other words, it consisted — and consists — in the sacrifice of the divine whole to the part, and of the future to the present;2 of the Universe to “man” and of every human race to the individual; and of the individual’s own immortality in his race and of his proper mission in the universal scheme, to a passing whim or a tiny, selfish “happy life.” It is noticeable that in this Dark Age — the only one, the historical evolution of which we can somewhat follow, — 1 In chapter I and in chapter XIV. 2 M. Edmond Goblot, the French logician, used to define all sin as a sacrifice of the future to the present.” |
religion itself has become, everywhere (in practice at least, when not also dogmatically) more and more man-centred and more and more individualistic. The Bhagavad-Gita, definitely life-centred — Gospel of detached action “in the interest of all creation” (and not only of “man”) — expresses, whatever be the epoch in which it was written in its present form, the Wisdom both “above Time” and “against Time” of the Ages preceding ours. (The epos in which it is inserted is significantly placed by Tradition before our Age of Gloom.) The great religions of escape that took birth in Ancient India — Buddhism, Jainism, — are, no doubt, life-centred. But they are religions of escape, doctrines of integral pessimism with no bearing, in fact, upon this earth. In practice, their devotees, in or outside India, and even their ascetics, have little to do with that truly universal and active love which prompted the Blessed Buddha, in one of his many marvellous lives (so the Jatakas relate) to give up his own body to feed a hungry tigress; little to do, nay, with the moral attitude behind that legend. One only has to see, in Buddhist countries, the general indifference to all creatures’ suffering, for which the passers-by are not directly responsible, and the indifference of most Jains or so-called such, to the misery of animals other than cows, to be convinced of it. In addition to that, they reject not only the traditional form but the very spirit of the Caste System: the idea of the natural hierarchy of human races. They reject it in perfect keeping with the logic of their attitude of escape from life. The result of this is, however — as I have tried to show in another book,1 — the lowering of the biological quality of the whole bulk of them who arenot committed to an actually monastic life. And this levelling provides, in its turn, the ground for the development of a man-centred philosophy in practice, be it against the logic of the original faiths. But it is in Christianity and Islam, the great international equalitarian religions rooted in Jewish thought, that the man-centred tendency, characteristic of our fallen world (and more specially of the advanced Dark Age) appears in all its strength. There, far from being an attribute of the faithful, in contradiction with the philosophy that they are expected 1 See “Gold in the Furnace” (edit. 1952), p. 212 and following. |
to profess, it is buttressed by that which is, perhaps, the fundamental dogma of these religions (so fundamental that, save in exceptional cases, it survives as a moral postulate in the hearts of those who have rejected all “articles of faith” once connected with it) namely: the dogma of “human dignity,” i.e., the unquestioned belief in “man,” irrespective of race or personal worth, as thecreature set apart from all creatures; God’s darling, infinitely valuable. It is, in fact, this dogma — expression par excellence of the general human tendency “in Time” — that secured these religions their immense success in the Near East and in the West (where they spread) and in the further East and in the whole world, where their moral influence is undeniable, even there where they met and still meet the most fanatical opposition. One may not — and, it would seem, one should not — think that the two prophets, whom the religions exalt as their respective founders, implicitly adhered no that already old dogma, denying the, unity of Life. I have said in this book (and elsewhere) that I personally look upon Jesus Christ, whose race is uncertain, to say the least; and teaching, anything but Jewish, as a man “above Time,” and upon the Prophet Mohamed, (who, contrarily to him, dreamed of a new Order of justice on earth, and used violence to establish it) as a man “against Time.” No really great Leaders of that type can share with fallen humanity a belief contradicting the harmonious indivisibility of Creation. It is, however, not Jesus Christ but Paul of Tarsus who gave Christianity its impulse as a conquering religion, and Christendom its historical character as a community “in Time,” exploiting (in disfiguring it, and adapting it to Dark Age conditions) a doctrine originally “above Time,” intended for small groups of unworldly devotees, never for the questionable “faithful” of a Church numbering millions. As for the great warlike Man “against Time,” Mohamed, founder of a theocracy in this world which he was to establish by frankly using the methods of this world and, which is more, of this Dark Age, (and not by pretending to scorn them while using them nevertheless, as the Christian Churches did) I have already said of him: he was endowed with more “Lightning” power than “Sun,” — the very reason for which he was, in our Age of Gloom, able to triumph during his own life-time. The enormous concessions he made to the weaknesses |
and superstitions of the Dark Age, — in particular to that dogma of the “dignity of every human being” and to the corollary conception of a community of faith, destined to spread over the whole earth, destroying or absorbing all the former communities of blood, — were weapons in his hand; weapons without which he never would have overcome rival Christianity in North Africa as well as in West Asia and laid the basis of Islamic civilisation. One may not, also, trace that now so broadly accepted dogma necessarily to a Jewish origin. Religious books that have no connection whatsoever with Judaism — the Popol-Vuh, of the Maya-Qu’ichés of Central America, for instance — lay stress upon it with no less insistence, and even more childish candour perhaps, than the Bible does. Chandidas and certain other exponents of fourteenth and fifteenth century Bengali Vaishnavism, have implicitly — and sometimes explicitly — adhered to it.1 And if the spirit expressed in it be precisely that which provoked, in the mist of an unreachable past, the fall of Golden Age mankind (as one should believe, in accordance with the logic of evolution in Time), then it is much older than the Jews themselves. But it is certain that it has become one of the most obvious postulates of Jewish thought, from the very dawning of the latter onwards, and that it has asserted itself more and more with the development of philosophical speculation among the Jews and with the evident (or subtle) growth of the influence of Jewish thought in the advanced Dark Age. Man is, irrespective of race and personal worth, according to Jewish tradition, “made in God’s own image,” while other creatures, however perfect they be as samples of their kind, and however noble, are not. And the Kabbala defines man — also irrespective of race and of personal worth or capability — as “the creature who, in his turn, creates,” in double opposition to God, — the Non-Created Who creates — and to the whole non-human living world, “creatures who do not create.” And from the time outwardly hellenised Jews, settled in cosmopolitan, Greek-speaking Alexandria, started systematically “blending” Greek ideas with their own “esoteric” doctrines, — i.e., from the Fourth Century B.C., — to the present day, the whole development of thought and religion could, in the West at least, I repeat, be defined 1 See footnote p. 253. |
as centred round an increasingly tyrannical belief in the so-called “dignity of man” as opposed to all other living creatures. That belief is as much the outcome of the fatal mixture of races which characterises fallen humanity in general and specially Dark Age humanity, as it is, on the other hand, the promoter of ever deeper physical and moral degeneracy, through further mixtures — further sinning against the blood of the superior races, in the name of an erroneous conception of life. And in the eyes of whoever studies history in the light of cosmic Truth, the Fourth Century before Christ, — beginning of the “Hellenistic period” in the annals of the Near East, which are inseparable from those of imperial Rome and of the “Christian West” — should be considered as the beginning of the last part of the present Dark Age, of which we are, now, nearing the end. Accelerated decay had, no doubt, already set in amid the Greek world (as elsewhere) before the foundation of Alexandria. It had set in, and was spreading-a sinister sign of times. But the confusion that started in 323 B.C., — after Alexander’s sudden death — gave it a new impulse (much against the spirit and intentions of the Conqueror.) The latter had, better than any of his most broad-minded contemporaries, understood the necessity of transcending that strictly hellenic — be it pan-hellenic — patriotism, that sharp distinction between Greek and non-Greek expressed in the words: “Pas men Hellen Barbaros.” Yet, far from setting the example of such internationalism as many modern ideologists would doubtless like to attribute to him, he drew a very definite line between one sort of “non-Greeks” and the others. He encouraged his pure-blooded Macedonians to marry Persian women — Aryans like themselves who merely spoke a different language and had different customs, — but, significantly enough, not women of other races. And both his own foreign wives were of Aryan blood. In other words, whether he acted in this connection in full, clear consciousness, or through some vague intuition — an intuition of genius, however vague it might have been, — he seems to have been, in our advanced Dark Age, one of the first great forerunners of true racialism as opposed to narrow State-patriotism; a practical champion of the idea that racial similitude should help to break down artificial barriers between people, being, moreover, as it is, the only reality in the name of which the suppression of such long-accepted |
accepted barriers is justified. One should not make him responsible for the shocking blood-mixtures that took place all over the Near East at a yet unheard-of rate, after him. They were fateful — as I said: signs of times. And consequences of a rapidly spreading man-centred attitude to life, for the generalisation of which the Greek speaking Jews of all the important trade and culture centres of the Hellenic world, specially of Alexandria, bear the heaviest responsibility. Outspoken racialists with regard to their own people, but active promoters of anti-racial internationalism in the midst of other nations, it is they, the everlasting “ferments of disintegration,” chosen agents of the Death-forces in our advanced Dark Age, who prepared, through multifarious “esoteric” adaptations of Hebrew ideas to Greek philosophy (and, at the same time, through intensified intimacy with women of all races in all the seaports of the Mediterranean) the double conditions for the development of a great international, man-centred, anti-racial and anti-natural religion, intended, in the course of centuries, to deliver the West, — and, through the growth of Western influence, the world: teeming bastardised masses, and an intelligenzia entirely won over to a man-centred philosophy — into their hands. Whether to their own knowledge or not, — certainly to the knowledge and under the pressure of those invisible Powers of darkness who rule the visible world more and more absolutely as one millennium succeeds the other in the Age of Gloom, — they made possible the career of such a man as Philo the Jew, also called Philo the Platonician,1 who paved the way which the Fathers of the Church and, after them, so many Christian writers were to tread. Their intellectual internationalism, rooted in that idea of the “dignity of man” which is so perfectly expressed in the Jewish Kabbala, drew the thinking Greeks of Alexandria and of the Near East further away from the example, the dreams, the spirit of the fair-haired young war-lord from the North to whom Greece, in her collective pride, had rendered divine honours. And they slowly replaced their more and more obsolete State-patriotism not by the consciousness and pride of a broader brotherhood of similar blood comprising Hellenes and Persians (and, ultimately, all Aryans) but by the superstition of “man” in general — “man” as distinct from and opposed to both created Nature 1 Philo taught in Alexandria in the first part of the first century A.D. |
and Godhead. And thus their descendants were, less than three hundred years after the death of the Macedonian hero, willing to accept the new wording of the old Jewish lie — Paul’s message: “God hath made all nations out of one blood,”1 — at least, willing to hear it with the smiling equinamity of indifference, while their children or grandchildren would accept it wholeheartedly. The old lie of the fallen ages — the superstition of “man,” older in fact than the Jews, — corrupted the blood and killed the spirit not merely of the Hellenes but of many other Aryan nations, from the Romans onwards. It is the curse of the modern world. Christianity is also not the only expression it assumed in order to spread far and wide, taking advantage of most men’s damnable conceit and unsurmountable cowardice: of their mania of wanting to feel personally important in some way or another, — in someone’s eyes — and of wanting to “hang on” to something, when faced with the mystery of death. Several Eastern religions of “salvation,” in particular the new forms of the very ancient cults of Cybele and of Mithra, centred like Christianity, round the “infinite value of the individual human soul” irrespective of the body it animates, had, along with the young religion of crucified Jesus, a following in the Roman Empire. But none possessed that conquering fanaticism which the latter owed to the tradition of the “jealous God” of the Jews. None proclaimed itself, like it, not “a” way among others but “the” only, way to salvation. None was, like it, prepared to use any Dark Age methods in order to raise itself, in the Empire and beyond, to the status of the only faith. In other words, none had, like it, already become, or was, at the first given opportunity, susceptible of becoming, to the same extent as it, a formidable organisation “in Time.” And that is precisely, why Constantine, that perspicacious politician, gave the Christians his imperial protection: salvation-seekers as well adapted as they to the conditions of success in this world were the most likely to give the Empire, quickly, at least some sort of unity of faith — better than no unity at all. And that is also why so many kings and war-lords of the best blood — personally, the last men one could have expected to adhere either to the unwordly, peace-loving creed “above Time” which 1 Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 17, Verse 26. |
Christianity originally was, or to the equalitarian, unnatural religion which Paul had made of it, — sought the friendship of the Church, asked to be baptised, and, what is more, forced the new, foreign faith upon the healthy nations of Northern Europe, who first did not want it, but who took to it all the same, and sooner or later got used to it, for they too had to go the way of decay, in accordance with the law of evolution in Time and the will of the dark Powers, rulers of our Age. The surest moral factor of decay is, indeed, none other than that old superstition of “man” — that sickly love of fallen man as he is, as we see him all round us; that sickly longing to “save” even the ugliest specimen of humanity at any cost; in one word, that sickly belief in the “dignity of all men,” which the Jews possibly did not invent, but which they proclaimed louder and louder and exalted more and more systematically before the whole world, in all international thought-currents or religions which they have started or helped to start, or influenced, in particular in Christianity as it has come down to us. This is so true that the mentioned superstition (for it is one) seems to be the strongest and most irradicable element — the really living element — of the official religion of the West. No typically Christian dogma, no article of faith in the theological sense of the word, has, like it, in public consciousness, stood the test of centuries; none has, nay, like it, with time, in so-called Christian lands and elsewhere — all over the world, — become accepted as self-evident truth by votaries of the most varied religions and by men who profess no religion at all. It has been spared — nay, strengthened — by every successive, storm which shook the prestige of dogmatic Christianity itself. It was never questioned, let alone rejected, by the boldest “rationalists” whose very profession of thought was doubt and impartial investigation. (On the contrary, some of them, such as Descartes, made it the basis of their whale philosophy.) It was and is likewise exalted by haters of the Catholic Church such as the theists of the French Revolution, and by detractors of all other-worldly faiths such as our Twentieth Century Communists. In one word, it is, — and more and more thoroughly and more and more consciously so, — the common faith of practically all men of the advanced Dark Age: of those who profess some creed originally “above Time” and of those whose philosophy is unmistakably and openly “in Time,” (for |
all creeds originally “above Time” — or even “against Time” — have, whenever successful, given birth in this Age to Churches and civilisations decidedly “in Time”; Churches and civilisations settled upon compromises with the Dark Forces.) Alone three classes of individuals are free from it: a minority of people “in Time,” consciously self-centred, of the type of those money-makers and power-seekers who would sacrifice anybody and anything — the whole world — to their personal ends; a minority of contemplative thinkers and saints “above Time,” of the type of those who have realised the unity of their deeper being with all life; and finally, a minority of fighters “against Time devoted to an unbendingly life-centred ideal. The people of the first of these groups hide their cynical self-centredness under a noisy lip-adherence to the dogma of the “dignity of all men.” They are, nay — while busy causing, directly or indirectly, in view of their goal, the suffering and death of any number of human beings, — the strongest supporters of that precious dogma; the promoters of an increasingly wide-spread belief in it. Who would ever dream of attacking them in defence of it? Contemplative saints and thinkers are, whatever may be the truth that they have realised, too far above the world — too inactive — to be looked upon as dangerous. They know one has to wait for the coming Golden Age in order to see eternal Truth once more integrally reflected in the institutions of this world. And they do not mind waiting. But the militant minority “against Time,” who not only in thought but in action, here and now, denies the very basis of all man-centred creeds in the name of a truer, life-centred wisdom, automatically rouses against itself and its ideals the coalesced fury of all the forces of disintegration. The Dark Age world ceases (for a time) being divided against itself, in order to wage upon it, — from the cosmic point of view, its real enemy — a war without compromise, without the hope of an “honourable peace”; a proper war of extermination. Such was the nature and the purpose of the coalition of Communists and Anti-Communists, Jews and Christians, Freemasons and Catholics, men of all races and all creeds, against National Socialist Germany: the State “against Time” par excellence. |
The noisy “anti-Communism” of a great number of notorious Anti-Nazis, from President Eisenhower and Sir Winston Churchill downwards, should not to-day impress us. Considered from the standpoint of immediate, practical interests, it may well be genuine. Considered from the standpoint of permanent — of absolute — reality, it is skin-deep. In the eyes of short-sighted politicians — and all politicians who are nothing more than politicians are necessarily shortsighted, — the distribution of the forces in presence has entirely changed since the world-wide anti-Nazi coalition, the last works of which were the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements and the Nuremberg Trial and the “de-nazification” imposed upon Germany, began to break in two, i.e. since 1948 or so. Since then, — so they imagine — National Socialism is out of the picture. And the Anti-Communists (thousands of “former National Socialists” and millions of definite Anti-Nazis of all countries) form more or less one block — the so-called “free world” — under American leadership, against the Communists of Europe, Asia and Africa (and America) — the other bloc — under Russian leadership. It looks as though it were so. And since the “free world” is more or less willing to absorb the “former Nazis,” it must be that the latter, — the Anti-Communists of always — have more affinity with it than with the Communists. The simple logic of all those who, but yesterday, had become the allies of Communism in the name of the “rights of man,” would, it appears, point to such a conclusion. But the conclusion is false, and the logic too simple, and those who profess it, ignorant of the great historical fact of our epoch: the growth of a militant minority “against Time,” at war with the whole Dark Age world and its ideals — at war, in particular, with the old superstition which proclaims the “dignity of all human beings.” The short-sighted politicians overlook the fact that neither international Agreements, nor law-courts, nor interdictions, nor measures of “re-education” can kill thought-currents which have their roots in cosmic reality; the fact that National Socialism, — or, to be more precise, Hitlerism — continues to exist after the disaster of 1945; more so: that the disaster of 1945 — the unavoidable defeat of the National Socialist State, — has purified the National Socialist community; separated, in it, the good corn from the weeds; tried it, like fire tries a mixture of pure gold and base metal, and isolated the pure |
gold. They overlook the fact that there are no such creatures as “former Nazis,” even if there be — alas! — plenty of former members of the N.S.D.A.P. nay, plenty of people formerly in high position in the National Socialist State, who never were National Socialists at all. Such people were, in the days they acclaimed Adolf Hitler, either unaware of what they were doing, or consciously playing a double game for the benefit of the anti-Nazi forces: either simpletons or traitors. Adolf Hitler’s full-fledged followers, who knew from the start what they stood for and what they wanted, have neither denied their principles nor accepted compromises. And if some of them seem to have done so — outwardly — it is only in order that they might deliberately work themselves into the governing machinery of both halves of the hostile world, and bring about its collapse at the first opportunity. They may, — those real ones, more supple but no less genuine than their silent brothers in faith — appear to have affinities with the “free world” in a renewed and, this time, shockingly insincere “struggle against Communism,” or, under different circumstances — when it suits the one sacred purpose — they may seem to have affinities with the disciplined Communists of East Germany, in a no less insincere “struggle against the Money-power.” In reality, they are that which they always were; that which their genuine brothers in faith have stubbornly and openly remained; that which all true followers of Adolf Hitler are: bearers of the perennial faith of Light and Life in its present-day form; enthusiastic agents of the perennial cosmic forces “against Time.” They reject within their hearts, as uncompromisingly as they always did, the Jewish-sponsored dogma of the “dignity of man.” Both Communists and Anti-Communists of the present brand would flatly refuse to have anything to do with them, if only they could read into their souls and know them as they are. And were they, with or without the material help of any section of the hostile Dark Age world, again to rise to power, again Communists and “Anti-Communists” would forget their non-essential antagonism, and coalesce against them and against the reborn National Socialist State, exactly as they did during the Second World War. Again the whole world, stamped with the every day more glaring characteristics of the advanced Dark Age, would “defend itself” — defend its tired, sickly, increasingly bastardised, ugly humanity, and the deep-rooted |
prejudices without which the latter could not survive — against the defiant detractors of every weakness and of every sickness; the haters of all forms of decay. Again it would rise in an unanimous “crusade” to crush the men who love not “man” as he is, but the proud human aristocracy in the making, as it one day will be, once it will have stood the test of the Dark Age; the men who are ready, here and now, and without a need of pity or sadness, to sacrifice present-day man to that race of living gods, which the youngest and boldest of the races of this earth — the Aryan — is to become, through the ceaseless struggle of its natural élite against the current of Time. Again it would react as it did only a few years ago, for it would again more or less dimly realise that the actual forces facing each other on the material plane are (and always have been, and always will be) the same: the forces “in Time” and the forces “against Time.” (They will be the same till the definitive triumph of the latter, and the end of the Dark Age.) As I said before, all historical movements original y “against Time,” which are successful — which look, at least, as though they were “lasting still,” after centuries of expansion — owe their success to some ideological compromise with the forces of decay, i.e. to some inner corruption; some irredeemable deviation from their inspiration and purpose; some unfaithfulness to their nature “against Time.” In other words, they have sunk to the level of movements “in Time”; or given birth to Churches and civilisations “in Time,” — denied themselves — in order to endure nominally. National Socialism refused every compromise with the spirit of the faiths “in Time.” That is the reason why it did not — could not — triumph, materially, now. That is, however, the reason why it shall triumph, materially, one day — upon the ruins of all faiths “in Time” and of all man-centred civilisations. Its crime, in the eyes of the short-sighted foreign statesmen, was that it had made Germany self-sufficient and powerful and that it would have within a generation or two, made her invincible. Arid the jealous politicians coalesced against it in order to hinder that extraordinary achievement. In the estimation of the Dark Forces of this Age, that stood behind them and behind the war-lords of the United Nations, and |
used them as a murderer uses his knife, and in the eyes of all its enemies, be they foreigners or Germans, who knew what they were doing, the crime of National Socialism was that it rejects the superstition of the “dignity of man” in favour of the everlasting, life-centred Wisdom “against Time” and, what is more, that it claims to remould the Aryan world in accordance with that Wisdom; that it proclaims the rights (and duties) of the strong and beautiful — of the healthy, pure-blooded élite — in the place of the rights of “man” indiscriminately, and that it did all it could to rule “against Time,” in the spirit of that proud faith of the best; in one word, that it raises what I call “the S.S. outlook on life” (I can find no more eloquent expression to characterise it) in the place of the Judeo-Christian (and Communist) love of “man.” It certainly is no mere coincidence that, of all the organisations closely connected with the defence of the National Socialist State, the S.S. is precisely the one which has been (and still is) the most bitterly hated by the enemies of the Hitler faith: first and foremost by the Jews, whose aversion to it is well nigh pathological; then by the Communists and by the Catholics, and finally by the non-descript “decent people” of all degrees of mediocrity — even by such narrow-minded nationalists of countries other than Germany as should normally, (given the personal career of some of them1) be the last ones to censure any supporters of ruthlessness in warfare or in coercion. The most bitterly hated and the most widely slandered; and the most relentlessly and the most savagely persecuted, no sooner persecution became materially possible; the one body, hundreds of thousands of members of which have died a martyr’s death in the anti-Nazi extermination camps of practically all countries of Europe — and of their colonies — and of the Soviet Union, or in the cellars and torture chambers of the Allied Prisons, after the war; thousands of members of which are I still in chains for so-called “war crimes,” in Siberia, no doubt, but elsewhere also — in Holland, in France, in Greece, — even ten years after Germany’s unconditional surrender; all members of which were collectively stamped by the judges of the international Tribunal of Nuremberg as “belonging to a criminal 1 For example that of the French “résistant” Jacques Soustelle, as “Governor of Algiers, in 1956. |
organisation,” and are, still to-day, after all these years, more or less everywhere (save in Germany itself) looked upon as such by the broad, uncritical masses, who have lived (or have been told about) the Second World War. It is no mere coincidence. And by no means also, a fact which the so-called “crimes against humanity,” rightly or mistakingly or willfully wrongly ascribed to numbers of S.S. men by the Nuremberg judges, would suffice to account for. No armies, ancient or modern, — and those of the united anti-Nazi front, less than any — and no police organisations are innocent of so-called “crimes against humanity”: acts of violence which obvious military necessities (or State necessities) cannot entirely justify. The history of the whole world is eloquent enough — and that of all great colonial powers of the past and of the present, particularly eloquent — in that respect. But why mention colonial powers and the multifarious horrors connected with the repression of resistance movements in tropical lands — or with the conquest of those very lands — by greedy crusaders of man-loving creeds? Were not Eisenhower’s gallant “crusaders to Europe” themselves lashingly censured, and that by non-Nazis and even by anti-Nazis — by Maurice Bardèche, a sincere Christian; by Frida Utley, a Communist, or at least the wife of one, — for their disgusting behaviour in Germany in and after 1945? And has not the American judge van Roden, who was sent to investigate into the atrocities perpetrated by his compatriots upon Germans (in fact, upon S.S. men) in connection with the all-too-notorious “Malmédy case,” clearly declared in 1948 that, were one seriously desirous of detecting and chastising “war criminals,” one should send home the “whole American Occupation forces” so that they be legally and impartially tried? It is true that the victors of 1945 never had the slightest, desire of being “impartial,” let alone “just.” Apparently what they had decided to punish were German “war criminals only — not their own. But even that is not rigorously accurate. At least, that does notsuffice to explain why they drew such a definite line between German soldiers of the Wehrmacht and German soldiers of the Waffen S.S. and no line at all between the latter and the members of the elder organisation known as “Algemeine S.S.”: the only one out of which Were recruited the Security Service, the Secret State Police (commonly |
known as Gestapo1) and the staff of the concentration camps, i.e. all men entrusted with the inner defence of the National Socialist State. It does not suffice to explain why the German (and, during the war, also non-German) regiments labelled as Schutz-Stafeln — S.S. — be they police or field units, were, as a whole, and without discrimination, branded as units of a “criminal organisation,” while their fellow formations of the Wehrmacht, Marine, Luftwaffe, etc, were not; why the victorious Allies and, along with them, the post-war press and radio, literature and cinema industry — all the forces of the anti-Nazi world — went out of their way to persecute, humiliate or revile every S.S. man, whatever he might have done or not have done, while they persecuted mostly individual officers and men out of the Wehrmacht and other German fighting forces, and presented their occasional so-called “war crimes” as individual cases of unjustified violence. It does not suffice to explain that reputation of cold-blooded barbarity which the whole S.S. — theWaffen S.S. no less than the “Allgemeine” — has acquired during and after the war, and the horror attached to its name to this day among the gullible masses of practically all countries, with the natural exception of Germany (and of Austria, which is, whatever one may say, a part of Germany) of Spain, and probably of Japan, where, I expect, no amount of democratic nonsense can kill men’s inborn admiration for any faithful soldiers. The truth is that, what roused — and still rouses — the hatred and fury of the “common man” in nearly all lands — and the very understandable fears of the intelligent leading Anti-Nazis, specially of the top-most Jews, actual rulers of the present-day world, — was (and is) not so much the German so-called “war crimes” themselves as the particular conception of life, the particular scale of values of some of those men who are alleged to have committed them or ordered them. For that which nearly the whole world of this advanced Dark Age stood up to combat and to crush, with a more or less clearly expressible but nevertheless most definite sense ofself-defence, was not, in reality “violence,” not “crime” — not even “crime against humanity,” in the material meaning of the word — but National Socialism,, or more precisely, Hitlerism: the latest expression of the 1 Geheime Staatepolizei |
perennial cosmic Wisdom “against Time”; Hitlerism, the creed of the healthy, strong and beautiful, in their place at the head of a creation of which “man” is but a part; the creed of triumphant Life — of Nature — as opposed to the commonly accepted creed of “man.” And that which distinguished the whole S.S. — the “allgemeine” and the other — from the rest of the German forces, and justified, in the eyes of the world of our Age (from the Nüremberg judges and the leading Jews behind them, down to the most irresponsible specimen of two-legged mammal whom anti-Nazi propaganda could possibly reach) that name of “criminal organisation” indiscriminately applied to it, remains the sole fact that it was, or, at least was intended to be, the National Socialist body par excellence; the physical and moral élite of awakening Aryandom; the living, conscious kernal out of which and round which the yet unborn race of gods on earth — regenerate Aryandom — was to take shape and soul. In other words, the S.S. as a whole had, in new Germany, the meaning which new Germany herself had among the people, of the broad Aryan family: that of being the innermost and highermost stronghold of the wisdom “against Time”; the ferment of regeneration, determined to overcome millenniums of decay. Is it a wonder that the very agents of the forces of decay treated it as they did — and as they do? A few quotations out of Georges Blond’s book “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne” will help to buttress what I have just said. The French author may have held Petain’s policy of collaboration with Germany for the right one, in France’s interest, but he never was and never pretended to be a devotee of the Hitler faith. His wards are therefore neither those of an enemy nor those of an admirer but those of a reporter whose sole desire is to give an accurate picture of what was. “S.S. men,” says he — and although he speaks only of the Waffen S.S. this applies also to the “allgemeine” — had to measure at least one metre eighty (nearly six feet) and to undergo an extremely severe physical and medical examination. They were not to have a single tooth which had once needed the attention of a dentist.”1 It strikes me as a remarkable coincidence 1 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p, 103. |
that this same condition (of not having even a single decaying tooth) was, among others, imposed, in ancient Greece, upon those who wished to become priests of Apollo, the god of Light. I must also add that, apart from revealing, at the medical test, a more than average sharpness of sight and hearing, S.S. men were all to be possible givers of blood. The letter indicating his particular blood-group — A, B, or O, — was tattooed under the right arm of every one of them, to make things easier in emergency cases. Useless to stress that all S.S. men had to be of irreproachable Aryan blood. The genealogy of each and every one of them was studied with utmost care — generations back1 — before his admission. The ideal of physical cleanliness and of absolute health — the natural basis of more-than-physical purity — was exalted among them to the supreme degree; exalted in their training as a conscious élite and in their daily life within the barracks and outside. “The rooms in which they lived and all objects which they used had to be washed and scrubbed, polished and shined every day. S.S. men were entitled to have uniforms and equipment of the very best quality, but the obligations imposed upon them with regard to presentation and cleanliness were unbelievable. At the time of the daily inspection the soldier was expected to look as though he had come ‘fresh out of a box’.... “As a result of the most severe inspection of all — the one that took place before the weekly day’s leave — one man out of three was sent back on account of some trifling omission.”2 “An S.S. man who caught a venerial disease was punished. The punishments consisted in supplementary military exercises (Aufmarsch: standing, lying, marching, running, crawling, with full equipment, for an hour) in imprisonment, or expulsion from the S.S. community.”3 And, side by side with a deadly, machine-like efficiency, carried, through intensive drill, to the limits of perfection, were cultivated — carried, they too, to their highest degree — among S.S. men, those exceptional qualities of character, the outcome of which is personal value and also efficiency: a complete mastery over one’s nerves; serene indifference to one’s individual fate; absolute detachment within utmost thoroughness 1 Up to 1600 A.D. at least. 2 George Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 104. 3 George Blond, Ibid., p. 104. |
and utmost skill. In other words, being already the physical and racial élite, the S.S. was expected to be, at the same time, a perfect organisation and a perfect aristocracy of character and deeper intelligence; an unfailing instrument of war (or of coercion) and a brotherhood of real supermen; the all-round conscious élite of our Age: heroes “against Time” accepting all the conditions of their extraordinary mission; accepting the mechanising tyranny of drill — twelve hours a day of the most exacting military exercises1 — not with “resignation” but with understanding and with joy, knowing it was a means to invincibility, at any rate a means to the most terrible efficiency in the fulfillment of duty; and loving duty, — their duty; their action for the triumph of truth on earth; their struggle “in the interest of the Universe” — above all. The military exercises were carried out under the actual conditions of modern war, with all the dangers that this implies. “Danger of accidents bred vigilance, and was an element of the S.S. education.”2 The young future officers were put to even harder tests than the soldiers. “One of these tests, intended to develop self-control, was the following: the young officer, standing in the position of “attention,” held a grenade in his right hand. On command, he was to unscrew it, to hit upon the fire-lever, and then, ... to place the grenade upon his helmet and while remaining in the position of “attention” — erect and immobile and perfectly calm — “to wait for the explosion.”3 A Hindu would probably think: a beautiful exercise in the training of Western “Karma Yogis.” And he would be right. All this however, — the fact of being a physical and, what is more, a racial élite, no less than a deadly efficient instrument of action (a merciless police-force and, in the case of the Waffen S.S, the toughest of all tough troops of the German Army) — would hardly have been enough to raise the S.S. above the best German military bodies of all times; to place it in a different class of warriors; and to bring down upon it, indiscriminately, the hatred of the Dark Age world. But let me once more quote Georges Blond: “Three times a week the S.S. recruits 1 In the second degree training of the Waffen S.S., after the young recruits’ oath. See George Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 106. 2 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 105. 3 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 106. |
had a course in political education: lectures about the Führer’s person and about his life; about the National Socialist doctrine and the history of the Party; but before all about the racialist Teaching. The two basic books were Walter Darré’s “Die Rasse” and Rosenberg’s “Mythus des XX Jahrhunderts.” “On the form he had filled demanding his admission, the future S.S. man had nearly always written, opposite the word ‘religion,’ the answer: Gottgläubig — believer in God. It was not the thing to do to write down ‘atheist,’ or ‘Lutheran’; still less ‘Catholic.’Gottgläubig. That ‘belief in God’ did not” — religiously, or rather, dogmatically speaking — “imply much. The important point was to be convinced, or ready to let one’s self be convinced, of the necessity and of the excellence of the advent of a ‘blood aristocracy’ that was to rule alone over the rest of mankind. The superior blood was the Aryan, and more particularly the Germanic or Nordic. The Latin people were held to be not very interesting, the Jews were looked upon as mud and vermin. Christianity was a religion soaked in Judaism, and even an undertaking carried on under Jewish inspiration, with a view to revile man by inculcating him a feeling of sinfulness. It is an error to believe that cruelty was systematically cultivated. Friendliness and kindness towards children and towards animals were recommended to S.S. men. But the tree of blood aristocracy and of the deified State could not bear fruits of meekness and humanity. Pride always carries within it the seed of cruelty.”1 Through this reportage of a non-Nazi — and nobody save a non-Nazi, nay, nobody save a definite opponent of the Hitler faith in its essence (i.e. an opponent of it not necessarily on the political but certainly on the philosophical plane) could write such a sentence as the last one, which I purposely quoted — one can, to some extent, understand the historical significance of the S.S. and account for the world-wide hatred of which that organised, warlike Aryan aristocracy has been, and still is, the object. At the root of both, there is that explicit and uncompromising repudiation not merely of “Christianity,” but of that which I have called “the values common to Christianity and to all man 1 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 102-103. |
centred faiths”; to all faiths “in Time,” be they other-worldly or of this world; the repudiation of the values which appeal to bastardised masses (and all the more so that these are more bastardised); there is the haughty rejection of that dogma of the superexcellence of “man,” outcome of immeasurable human conceit and, more and more, for the last two and a half thousand years or so, of Jewish sophistry. That, and that alone, is what this Dark Age world could not and cannot and never will be able to forgive the S.S.; that, and not its so-called “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” (the “decent people” and their leaders commit or encourage or tolerate far worse horrors); that, and not its terrible efficiency, nor its purity of blood as a fact, nor even its German pride and thirst of expansion. The famous Teutonic Knights of the Middle Ages were pure-blooded Germans and merciless warriors; conquerors of new lands for a German Reich that was already pushing eastwards with all its young strength. They were the sword that prepared the way for the German settlers’ plough — exactly what the S.S. would have been, had the Russian campaign ended victoriously, i.e. had the anti-Communist Western Allies left Russia to her fate. Yet they were not “war criminals” or “criminals against humanity,” whatever violence they might have exerted. For they fought and conquered in the name of Christianity, with the blessing of the Catholic Church — it was the only way to carry on a successful German Ostpolitik in the twelfth, thirteenth or fourteenth century. And had the toughest among the modern German forces — the S.S. — done the same, or that which can be, to-day, regarded as the equivalent of the same, namely, had it fought and conquered with the selfsame violence, the self-same ruthlessness, nay, the self-same national fanaticism, but in the name of the “rights of man” against the “bolshevik danger” considered as a menace to “man’s dignity” and to “individual freedom,” never would it have been collectively branded as a “criminal organisation” by an international Law Court — never; not even if Germany had finally lost the war. (In that case it is, in the first place, probable that Germany would have won. For the world-wide coalition of Communists and Anti-Communist against her would not have taken shape.) But there is more: whatever people may say, now that |
powerful material interests have torn asunder the Yalta front, I doubt whether the toughest and most fanatical units of the Red Army — whose fanaticism can match that of the S.S. and whose brutality has, already in this war, by far beaten its — be, even after a conflict between the so-called “free world” and the Soviet Union ending with the latter’s unconditional surrender, collectively stamped as groups of a “criminal organisation.” I doubt it because, however much the so-called “free world” may profess to hate Communism, Communism does not profess to attack that deep-seated superstition of “man” which is the implicit faith of the Dark Age. On the contrary! That very superstition lies at the root of Marxism even more so than at the root of historical Christianity or of humanitarian. Atheism, of which Marxism is but the logical prolongation in a world increasingly dominated by “technique.” The only, way to carry on any successful national Ostpolitik (or Westpolitik) in our Dark Age, is to carry it on under the mantle of some form or other of that international superstition. National Socialist Germany carried on the struggle for her existence against that superstition; against the accumulated moral prejudices of Dark Age mankind; I repeat: “against Time.” She fought for her existence, being herself the citadel of the Hitler faith. And the S.S. — indiscriminately, whether Waffen S.S. or “allgemeine” — was and remains the great dedicated Knightly Order of the Hitler faith. For no other reason has the Dark Age world persecuted it with such elemental hatred. After all that has been written before, during and after the war concerning the alleged “ungodliness” of National Socialism, it is striking to read in Georges Blond’s reportage, that the word a young man would generally write down in, answer to “religion,” in the form he had to fill in view of his admission into the S.S, was not “atheist” but “believer in God.” It is striking to read that “it was not the thing to do” to write down “atheist” — “atheist” or, by the way, “Lutheran” and still less “Catholic”; in other words: “atheist” or“Christian.” And yet, therein lies, perhaps, a hint at the fundamental difference between the National Socialist Weltanschauung, or, rather, the National Socialist attitude to life, and that of all Anti-Nazis. |
For the “Atheism” with which one is here concerned — that “Atheism” which is “not the philosophy to profess,” for a man expected to set the example of National Socialist orthodoxy — has nothing to do with the wisdom of the various “atheistic” schools of thought of Ancient India. It is just usual modern European “Atheism”: the hasty — uncritical — denial of, or at least, the complete absence of interest in “all that one cannot see,” on the part of men who have rejected the personal God of the Christian Churches while remaining as faithful as ever to the Christian values, i.e. to what I have called the superstition of “man.” Is not “man” as a whole the most evolved of all visible creatures upon this planet? True, the enormous differences in beauty, in nobility, in intelligence, which distinguish human races from one another are so obvious, they too, — so visible; — that one should hardly need any definite metaphysics in order to acknowledge them, and to regard not “man” but alone superior man — man of the superior races — as the masterpiece of Life’s patient artistry as we see it. Yet, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people who style themselves as “materialists” — as “atheists,” believers in “hard facts” — are, in that respect, as blind as those who postulate the existence of some invisible, transcendent, yet personal and man-loving “God.” Their “atheism” has all the ethical characteristics of historical Christianity. It is intimately interwoven with the self-same moral prejudices as it in favour of “all men,” irrespective of personal and racial differences with the self-same ferocious partiality in favour of “man” in general, as opposed to other living creatures. Like it, — and like all man-centred faiths of whatever metaphysical tenets and whatever origin, — it places the most idiotic or perverse, and ugly, human weakling of any race infinitely above the most perfect specimen of non-human Creation: above a splendid healthy lion or tiger; above a beautiful healthy tree. Or, to speak more accurately, the average European “atheist” or “materialist,” sub-consciously soaked in Judeo-Christian morals, loves any repulsive human weakling (or human devil) more than he does the most majestic dumb animals of the earth; more than he does the most loveable and beautiful cat or dog or horse, and all the trees of all the forests.. Like the average Christian, he believes that Nature is there for man to exploit |
to his utmost advantage. And the most abominable forms of that ever-intensified exploitation — vivisection; circuses; the fur industry, etc., — do not trouble his moral conscience; at least have never yet troubled it enough for him to cause their suppression. “Man” is, in his eyes, whatever be his objective value as a living creature, his individual and racial place in the general scheme of life, the one creature (or, at any rate, by far the first creature) to be loved and helped and saved. However contemptible he be, individually or racially, from a cosmic standpoint, he is, in his estimation, always worth saving — be it at the cost of any amount of suffering, disfiguration or destruction of the rest of living creatures; always worth saving just because he happens to be “a man.” To those few full-fledged believers in Adolf Hitler who have well understood and wholeheartedly accepted the basic principles of his Teaching with all their logical implications, nothing is as repugnant as that moral and metaphysical attitude. All brands of Christianity imply it. That is the reason why none of them was, on the part of whoever accepted to become a model of National Socialist orthodoxy, “the thing to write down” in answer to the question: “religion?” Atheism — I repeat: not the abstract atheism of certain schools of Aryan thought in Ancient India, but average present-day Western atheism: that of the Communist associations of the “Godless” in Russia; that of ninety-nine per cent of those Europeans who have stepped out of every Christian Church without realising in the least the absurdity of all man-centred ethics — is, in fact, closely connected with it, although it may, philosophically speaking, imply nothing of the kind. That is why the orthodox National Socialist, or he who sincerely wished to open his heart to the influence of National Socialist orthodoxy, could be no “atheist.” He could — and can — be no follower of any man-centred faith, for all these are faiths “in Time,” faiths of decadence, faiths expressing in a more or less naive more or less sophisticated form, that unchanged blasphemous conceit of man as such — that rebellion of man against the Cosmic Order — through which decay started, millenniums ago. He was — and is — to be a “believer in God”; not in the personal, transcendent and all-too-human “God” of the Christians (and of many “Theists”); not in a “God” made in the image of any man or men — least |
of all in the image of the Jews — but in that immanent Creative Force which manifests Itself in all Life’s masterpieces at all levels of its endless effort; in perfect man and in every perfect specimen of non-human creation; in other words, he was to be a believer in the reintegration of man into the cosmic Scheme, according to the original divine pattern of the latter, which implies the natural racial hierarchy of human beings and their individual inequality, not their indiscriminate “dignity” and “equal rights.” For his “belief in God,” which, in Georges Blond’s eyes, “did not imply much” implied at least that — or the readiness to accept that as unquestionable truth. Georges Blond immediately says so himself, strangely disconnecting this admission from his former statement. Let me repeat my quotation of his words: “The important thing was to be convinced or ready to let one’s self be convinced of the necessity and of the excellence of the advent of a blood aristocracy that was to rule alone over the rest of mankind. The superior blood was the Aryan, and more particularly the Germanic or Nordic, etc...”1 It is a fact that this conception of a naturally hierarchised world, with a natural — God-ordained; not arbitrarily man-chosen, — blood-aristocracy, in its place at the head of it, is incompatible with any faith that exalts “man” en bloc; man as an alleged privileged species (regardless of the tremendous differences between one human race and another, nay, between one human individual and another,) at the expense of all the rest of the living. It is a fact that it is incompatible with all faiths and all philosophies, the scale of values of which rests upon the dogma of the “dignity of man”: upon the idea of the infinite price of the “human soul” (to the exclusion of all other living souls) and of the “rights” of man, whoever he be; incompatible with all faiths and all philosophies which proclaim, among other things, that “all men” have the “right to live” and that they are “all” worth saving. According to that proud and ruthless wisdom — both essentially aesthetic and warrior-like — which was and remains that of the S.S, the supreme blood-aristocracy of mankind (the militant élite of the Aryan race) has not to “save” its inferiors, but to continue perfecting itself, according to Nature’s purpose; it has not to “love all men” and to sacrifice the rest of the beautiful realm of Life to “man’s” ends, but to love perfection — 1 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 102. |
health, in all its glory, — both in its own members and in the lovely healthy representatives of all natural species (including those of the noblest non-Aryan human races) and to sacrifice, always and everywhere, the sickly and the deficient to the healthy, the weak to the strong, the imperfect to the perfect; it has to be the privileged Legion that prepares “against Time” — regardless of the general tendency of the present-day world to forward decay — the god-like Perfection of the coining Golden Age; the chosen minority which, already now, at the darkest period of the Dark Age, foreshadows, through its own very existence, something of the unthinkable Golden Age beauty, just as the first streak of light at the Eastern horizon foreshadows, in the yet lasting night, the splendour of the coming Sunrise. It has to be the vanguard of those whom a mathematically just Destiny, rooted in their inherited virtues, will prompt to cross the “bridge” which Nietzsche mentions — the bridge between animalhood and supermanhood — while men of lesser dynamism and lesser detachment will fall from it into the primaeval Pit. It has to possess the mercilessness of the Nietzschean warrior — not that of the fool, who does not know why he kills; nor that of the passionate, who thinks he knows why, but makes a mistake, and deplores his own violence when it is over, but that of the wise, conscious of the necessity of his violence in the interest not of fallen “man” but of “the Universe” (again to use a word from the Bhagavad-Gita); the mercilessness of the wise, in the interest of the perfection that he represents and prepares; of the wise who knows himself to be in the service of the forces of Life, and who regrets nothing. It has to possess, also, the kindness of the Nietzschean) warrior, which is a sign of understanding and of serenity, and a tribute to the divinity of Life. Georges Blond cannot help mentioning the fact (although he may not give it its full significance) when he actually writes that “friendliness and kindness towards children and animals were recommended to S.S. men.”1 They were not recommended, in fact, to S.S. men alone, but to each and every National Socialist. They are in absolute keeping with the whole philosophy of the Swastika, which is a typically life-centred one. They are in keeping with those simple and beautiful commandments contained in that which 1 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 103. |
the Nuremberg judges have condemned as Alfred Rosenberg’s “Nazi Catechism”: “Thou shalt be brave. Thou shalt never do anything mean. Thou shalt contemplate and love God in all living creatures, animals and plants. Thou shalt keep thy blood pure....”1 (Nothing is more cowardly and more mean than indifference to the suffering of dumb creatures, let alone than cruelty towards them). The most one can say is that S.S. men, being the élite of the National Socialist forces, were to set the example of a definitely life-centred scale of values, with all that it implies. People who have, on the contrary, a scale of values rooted in what I have called the “superstition of man” — i.e. more or less all people of this Dark Age, — are puzzled at the thought of that “kindness towards children” so strongly stressed by National Socialist ethics and, one should add, so thoroughly practised by the Führer himself. “And what about the Jewish children, who were no better treated than their elders by Himmler’s men?,” they retort “And what about the deficient children of all races, who were ‘liquidated’ as useless consumers of valuable energy? Or about those babies who were not even deficient — and not Jewish — and who were, nevertheless, under the supervision of National Socialist doctors, ‘painlessly put to sleep’ because it was, amidst the atrocious conditions that prevailed in Germany at the end of the war, no longer possible to feed them?”2 The world’s reaction to the National Socialist and in particular to the S.S. attitude towards animals is quite different, but perhaps even more characteristic of this Dark Age mankind — even more instructive. It has been dearly expressed by all those who, having heard that vivisection had been declared illegal in the Third Reich, at the Führer’s orders, find it “queer” that, in the same State “against Time,” concentration camps were tolerated as a necessity. It has been clearly expressed by Count Robert d’Harcourt in his preface to the French translation of Adolf Hitler’s “Tisch Gespräche,” published in 1952: “Humanity towards animals bestiality towards human beings — we have seen that mystery of coexistence.... At Dachau, at Buchenwald, the torturers who used to push their 1 Quoted by Maurice Bardèche, in “Nüremberg II ou les faux-monnayeurs,” p. 88. 2 See Fran Schmidt’s case in my book “Defiance” (edit 1951), p. 330-342. |
victims into the gas chambers ... were those same men who would nurse a wounded dog’s paw with all a hospital sister’s tender care.”1In the first case: bewilderment and indignation. In the second case: also bewilderment, but an indignation of a still baser nature; an indignation rooted in the bitterness of wounded conceit; in the jealousy of the two-legged mammal who cannot bear the thought of anybody treating a four-legged creature better than him or at least better than certain specimens of his kind. In both cases, on the part of the alleged defenders of “liberty,” a complete lack of understanding for any scale of values which is the denial of their own; in both cases, on the part of the average man, soaked in his man-centred superstition, — for millenniums accustomed to regard his increasingly decaying brood as the centre of all things — hatred; wild hatred for that iron Legion of men “against Time” who love cosmic Perfection, not “man”; or, at the most, man and all creatures, to the extent they reflect and announce cosmic Perfection. What a votary of the actual S.S. faith could answer, — what, in fact, no National Socialist dares to answer, precisely because he more or less dimly feels, in this controversy of values, the real cause of the world-wide coalition against all he loves and reveres, — is the following: “Of course we do not, as you people, love all children just because they are “man’s” young ones! We are, thanks to our natural privilege of superior blood, destined to build, patiently and stubbornly, collective supermanhood. “Man” — fallen man; sickly or bastardised man, promised to perdition, i.e. lost to this earth, — does not interest us. We love, no doubt, the beautiful, healthy, pureblooded children of our own young and beautiful Aryan race: those who can and will grow into supermen — who will, at least, beget and bear supermen, in course of time. We love the healthy, pure-blooded children of other noble races: they are beautiful at their own level and according to their own pattern; beautiful, when healthy; and we hope to make them, sooner or later, our allies in the struggle we are carrying on. But Jewish brats — and that, in war time, of all things; when the food problem was becoming acute for our own people? And 1 Translated under the title: “Libres propos sur la guerre et la paix,” p. XXIII. |
when the British and Americans were pouring streams of fire upon us, to please their Jewish masters? No, my friends! Anyhow, a two year-old Jew is a Jew. And in twenty years’ time, he will be twenty-two, and will work against us and against our purpose. It is his“raison d’être” to be our opponent, in the natural play of forces. Why on earth should we spare him in the bud? Because “God made him”? “God” made all sorts of parasites: flees and bugs and lice and what not. Do you spare those? Or their eggs? The Jains — or some Jains — I am told, do. They are as logical and uncompromising as we, but serve a different ideal: an ideal entirely “above Time,” which leads their ascetics straight to pious suicide through willful starvation. But we, whose kingdom is of this earth, again, why should we spare whatever stands in our way? A human parasite — or possible parasite — is far more dangerous than a six-legged one; a human “ferment of decomposition,” far more dangerous than any mildew. Of course, he “is human.” That may be a reason for you people to confer upon him that “right to live” which you so flatly deny to thousands of harmless dumb animals that you sacrifice every day to “man.” It is no reason for us to do the same. We are free — always have been; always shall be free — from the superstition of “man.” I say: superstition, for your idea of “man” is false; contrary to the dictate of Nature that made man a creature to “be overcome” or to perish through decay; false, and dangerous, for it paralyses the healthy impulse of men who, otherwise, could follow us along the harsh and bloody road to collective supermanhood. As for deficient children — or, by the way, deficient grownups, — well! We are in the world to help Nature suppress all that is deficient; all that is irredeemably deficient, that goes without saying; and also all that could, perhaps, “be saved” — patched up — with a lot of patience and care, but that is not worth saving. You people believe “all men” to be “worth saving”; worth patching up. We don’t. We believe that the time, money and energy that one now wastes on prolonging most sickly lives would be far better employed in promoting the creation of such social conditions as would favour the birth of healthy people only. Let the incurable weaklings be put out of the way from the start, like among the Spartans, like among our own Nordic forefathers, Vikings and others! Place to the |
healthy! Place to the strong — to the plants that grow, victoriously amidst wind and storm, not in the artificial, even heat of green-houses! Those children that we painlessly “put to sleep” because we could no longer feed them, after your bombs had smashed our transport services to atoms, were a different problem. We find it bitterly ironical that “humanitarians” — and nay, such ones as took an active part in the savage world-wide “crusade” against us — should reproach us with such acts of mercy. Is not a painless death a thousand times better than death through starvation — since anyhow death was to be the unavoidable solution? What were we to do, according to your “superior” moral code? To watch the children’s agony for days and days, while you continued setting our supplies on fire and shelling our railway stations — and the children’s homes? It is strange, to say the least, that such tender-hearted people as you did not think of the “poor kids” before, and refrain, for their sake, from bombing our land. Surely the kids would now still be alive, had we not been faced with the most tragic hunger dilemma. And now, let us speak of the alleged “contradiction” between what you call our “humanity towards animals and bestiality towards human beings.” It seems a contradiction to you, because you judge us with your scale of values. But we have not your scale of values. We have not your silly infatuation for “man,” — for man is anything but an homogeneous species of which one can talk in one breath. We do not systematically love each and every two-legged mammal more than the most noble four-legged ones. On the contrary! We love, nay, we respect a perfect specimen of animal life — a beautiful horse, dog or cat, or a wild beast in all its majesty — infinitely more than a personally deficient or racially contemptible man; a so-called “thinking creature” who does not think, or whose thoughts are mean, or dangerous; specially if, in addition to that, the creature stands in our way in the political field, as our alleged “victims” all did, more or less. We do not worship “man” as he is — man in rebellion against Nature and against our Nature-inspired wisdom — nor do we bow down before any man-loving, whimsical personal “God,” conceived in the image of the meanest of men; before a “God” who “saves” man alone, among all living beings, (and that, all the more joyfully that |
the darling creature is more sinful!) We worship that impersonal, pitiless Godhead which abides in all beings to the extent they are healthy and beautiful — perfect; that Godhead, which is more alive and infinitely nearer to us in the magnificent four-legged aristocrats (in a velvety black panther; a royal Bengal tiger), in the noble birds, nay in the noble trees, than in most men of the present-day degenerate world, including many conceited “intellectuals” of sickly constitution and questionable Aryan descent. The royal tiger or lion, the eagle, the unbending oak-tree, are our equals, in a way; our equals, or rather our counterparts, on a different plane, — as the perfect Japanese warrior or the pure-blooded, chivalrous Arab aristocrat, are our human counterparts outside the Aryan race. The decaying masses of Menschenmaterial of various degrees of bastardisation, which we are out to use (whenever they can be used) or gradually to eliminate (whenever they prove useless) are neither our equals nor our counterparts in any way. In addition to this, don’t forget an important point: animals of whatever description can never stand in our way in the struggle for the triumph of National Socialism. People, — including God knows how many millions of misled or criminal men of Aryan blood — can; and did, and do, and will again, at the next opportunity. You don’t expect us to handle such ones (when we are in power, and manage to lay hands on them) as gently as we do our faithful parade horses and police dogs, do you? Once more: we are worshippers of hierarchised Life; fighters for the rule of the Best, in the interest, not of “man,” but of the whole scheme of Life. Our goal is not to “save man.” (Let man perish, if he cannot either become a god on earth, or integrate himself into our world, ruled by gods on earth!) Our goal is to build up, consciously, against the stream of millenniums and millenniums of decay, that earthly order of Truth in which perfect man will again be the kind and wise king of a world where there will be no place for sickness; to build it up, or, at least to prepare its next, irresistible return. You all, who persecute us in the name of “humanity,” put this into your pipes, and smoke it!” Such an answer would make the philosophical position of Hitlerism absolutely clear. It would, however, only make it — and Germany, the privileged Land of its birth — more unpopular than ever in this broad Dark Age world. |
It is here the place to recall a great German and a great Aryan, whose name has become, after 1945, in the hearts of most non-German (and, I may say, also of a considerable number of German) people, thanks to world-wide Jewish propaganda, the symbol of every abomination: the Reichsführer S.S., Heinrich Himmler. I have said: of all National Socialist organisations, the S.S. is the one the Anti-Nazis of most varied shades hate the most. Now, of all S.S. men, Heinrich Himmler, — “head of Germany’s whole Police forces, and later on, Home Minister; Reichskommissar for the ‘Consolidation of German Nationhood,’ Chief of the Reserve Army, Chief of the Prisoner of War Department, and, for a short time, (at the very end of the war) Commander of a section of the Army,”1 — is the one the whole world detests the most. I say: the whole world, and not merely “the Anti-Nazis,” this time, for I know quite a number of sincere National Socialists who anything but revere the Reichsführer’s memory, and that, apart from any personal reasons which they might have to dislike him. They esteem he was “too hard”; in Georges? Blond’s words, too “indifferent to human realities.” More than one former concentration camp warder (or wardress) has told me so — after having suffered for years in the Allied jails, for having carried out his orders. People who feel that it is high time to do something to attract attention upon whatever can recommend Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich to the admiration of an increasingly “anti-Communist” West, try, more often than not, in that laudible intention, to shift all the widely spoken-of “horrors” of the National Socialist regime unto Himmler’s account. Had it not been for that “ice-cold fanatic,” never would the Hitler Movement, originally so sound and beautiful, have “deviated”; never would Germany have become a “police State”; and never would the world have been faced with such atrocities as were, in 1945, discovered to have taken place in the German concentration camps. So they say. One would think it were Himmler’s fault if the world’s stubborn and stupid millions believed Roosevelt’s — and Untermeyer’s 1 Paul Hausser, “Die Waffen S.S. in Einsatz.” |
— propaganda instead of Adolf Hitler’s repeated warnings, and prepared, — before 1945, — Soviet Russia’s victory! Maybe it is not particularly “diplomatic” to render justice to the head of the Gestapo, and to point out that his much misunderstood ruthlessness takes on all its meaning in the light of the fact that he-he more than any other, apart from the Fuhrer himself, — acted “against Time.” Perhaps it is also not particularly “diplomatic” to remind people that Adolf Hitler had granted him his favour from the beginning, and, precisely — as Georges Blond rightly states, — “less because he found him remarkably efficient than because he recognised in him the perfect National Socialist believer”;1 and that he never withdrew the Reichsführer S.S. that absolute confidence which he had put in him — never, at least, till the very last week of the war; till the 29th of April, 1945, when the translation of a BBC Home Service message, relating Himmler’s attempt to negotiate, without his orders, some sort of an armistice with the Western Allies, was suddenly handed over to him. Now, — now, when the Western world, the “free” world, the world of the “decent people,” should systematically be led to forget the Gestapo and the German concentration camps, and the wild elemental “Anti-Semitism” (or rather Anti-Judaism) which is inseparable from the history of National Socialism, and made to remember only Adolf Hitler’s struggle “for Europe” — perhaps it is, I say, not exactly a National Socialist’s duty to go and stress that, although he surely did not know (couldnot know) every step which Heinrich Himmler (or his subordinates) took, in connection with individual cases, the Führer was, and remained to the end, in complete agreement with him with regard to the spirit and general lines of his coercive activity; that, in fact, when he did, finally, withdraw him his favour,2 it was not for having been “too hard,” but, on the contrary, not hard enough, — not uncompromising enough — in a different, yet parallel line of action, namely in the last phase of that desperate struggle “against Time,” which the two men had carried on together for so many years. I should myself feel that way, and would not mention the Reichsführer S.S. at all, were I writing a political pamphlet, 1 George Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 182. 2 To the extent the document published as Adolf Hitler’s “Political Testament” is genuine. |
intended to be read to-day, and thrown into the fire to-morrow, after having served its one purpose of contributing to bring my German comrades back to power. I entirely agree that, for the time being, the memory of many of those who have rendered the greatest services to the National Socialist cause — if necessary, even that of such a man as Heinrich Himmler, — should be sacrificed to the demands of the cleverest possible policy, in the immediate interest of the Cause. But this book is not a political pamphlet. And to hide this particular historical truth concerning Heinrich Himmler, would not serve the interest of Hitlerism in the long run. The frank acknowledgement of it leads anyhow to a better philosophical understanding of the great new faith “against Time” (and also of the world-wide coalition against it.) This truth must, sooner or later, be expressed. For it is nothing less than the consequence of a fundamental datum, which explains it, (and even explains the abrupt end of Himmler’s close and long collaboration with the Fuhrer) and which is the following: Heinrich Himmler was what I shall call, for the sake of convenience of speech, the Führer’s “lightning” counterpart: — a man “against Time,” he too, despite the enormous distance that separates him, the well-meaning disciple, from Adolf Hitler, the Man “against Time”; an idealist he too, as so many held him to be in the early years of the Movement and as some (who understand their National Socialist faith better than others) still dare to consider him to-day, and not that unscrupulous and faithless fellow, devoured with lust for personal power, that a pernicious propaganda has tried to make out of him. (One has no grounds whatsoever to believe such propaganda.) But an idealist with hardly any of the “Sun” qualities that the Fuhrer so eminently possessed, and with all the “Lightning” characteristics — all the traits of a man destined to act successfully “in Time” — which he partly lacked; a man “against Time” by far “more ‘Lighting’ than ‘Sun’,” in glaring contrast to Adolf Hitler. He was not — and never pretended to be, — a Master. He lacked that tremendous intuition which gave Adolf Hitler such an insight into cosmic realities. He lacked that aesthetic type of intelligence which distinguishes all creators and most prophets. He lacked that particular type of sensitiveness which draws unfailingly the right line between the spirit and the letter of a true doctrine; and also that particular suppleness |
which allows one to avoid hasty generalisations. But he was an admirable disciple — one of the best ones Adolf Hitler had; a man of faith, who not only adhered to the National Socialist doctrine, as millions did, on account of the political horizons it opened (because it was the only creed that could save Germany), but who accepted it in its essence, and that, because it struck him as being true: capable of saving Germany, surely; but, apart from that, true absolutely, eternally, independently of its success or failure on the material plane; a man who accepted its basic idea of a natural racial hierarchy and of the eminent superiority of Aryan blood, its scale of moral values, entirely rooted in that idea, and its flat denial of the old Jewish-sponsored superstition of “man.” And a man of works, who, once he had embraced that creed (which he did wholeheartedly, and very early — when one had all to loose and nothing to gain by proclaiming one’s allegiance to it) was to forward it with all the fanaticism of an eleventh Century Crusader; to defend it with all the ruthlessness, the method, the cold-blooded, meticulous thoroughness of a sixteenth Century Grand Inquisitor. He applied, with detached exactitude and with an iron hand, the principle expressed by Adolf Hitler in “Mein Kampf” — the principle steadily applied, in the course of history, by such men “against Time” or “in Time” who have succeeded in uprooting an old faith and in forcing a new one upon dynamic nations; the rule of every struggle “in Time” and a fortiori “against Time” — “Poison can only be overcome through counter-poison” ... “Tyranny can only be broken through tyranny, and terror through greater terror.”1 Few famous men of the Third Reich — apart of course from the Führer himself and also from Dr. Goebbels — were as thoroughly as he convinced of this practical necessity. Few — apart from the same (and from Julius Streicher) — were, as vividly as he, aware of the sinister historical role of the Jews, nay, of the fact that they have been, directly or indirectly, for centuries, and remain, the ferment of disintegration —the natural agents of the Forces of death — in the midst of all Aryan nations. The only pity is that Heinrich Himmler was not given immediately — on the 31st of January 1933 — the full powers that he was but gradually to acquire (and to enjoy, practically without control, but years later, — during the war). In that 1 “Mein Kampf” (edit. 1939), p. 507. |
case, many dangerous Jewish “intellectuals” who, through written and spoken word, stirred the whole world against National Socialist Germany, would quietly have been packed off to Auschwitz without a return-ticket (or disposed of in some still less spectacular but equally safe manner) instead of being allowed to take the boat (or the aeroplane) that carried them to London, to New York, to Bombay, and where not. In that case, no rich Jews would have been able to leave Germany. They would have worked hard — dug canals, built roads, cut stones for the rest of their lives — under the vigilant supervision of S.S. men, instead of financing anti-Nazi newspaper articles, and books and lectures, and movements, all over the world. And not only the Jews, but also many a German enemy of the regime would have been denied the opportunity of becoming, in later years, the hidden accomplice of Great Britain, the U.S.A. and Soviet Russia, in their struggle to crush the new Aryan order in the making. That beautiful New Order would have had, thanks to Himmler’s methods applied in time to its defence, a chance to live. These methods — and the spirit behind them — are, as regards their application to war, defined in the Reichsführer’s well-known, and most vehemently criticised, Posen speech of 1943: “...What happens to a Russian or to a Czech does not interest me in the least.... That hostile nations be prosperous or that they starve to death interests me only in connection with that number of their citizens which we need as slaves. Otherwise, it does not interest me. That ten thousand Russian women may die of exhaustion in digging an anti-tank ditch interest me only to the extent that the ditch is completed for Germany.... When someone comes and tells me: ‘I cannot have that ditch dug by women and children; it would kill them, and therefore be inhuman,’ I reply: ‘It is you the murderer of your German race! For if the ditch be not dug in time, German soldiers will perish; and these are sons of German mothers: men of your own blood....” This speech has given, after the war, any amount of grist to the anti-Nazi propaganda mill. One has deliberately forgotten that it is a war speech, delivered at one of the most critical moments of a life and death struggle. One has also, deliberately forgotten that the very equivalent of what Himmler here openly says has been practised over and over and over again, in |
the course of all wars and all revolutions of history, without it hardly ever having been as bluntly worded. No fighter is indeed interested in what might happen to his enemies: all he wishes is to defeat them. And as for women and children, one is compelled to use them as slave-labour when none other is available and when the work to be done is urgent. Nor can one afford to measure each and every person’s task to his or her strength, when the work has to be ready within a definite and very short delay. To pretend one can is nonsense. Not a single one of those “humanitarians” whom the Posen speech fills — so they say! — with indignation, would sit and watch the enemy’s tanks roll over his own people, instead of having an antitank ditch timely dug across their way by whoever it be, including women and children if no male labour be at hand. Again, as I noticed in one of the first chapters of this book: it is not violence, but honesty about violence, which rapidly decreases at the end of the Dark Age; not ruthlessness, but the frank and straightforward admission of the necessity of ruthlessness in any revolutionary struggle, nay, in any struggle whatsoever, if one wishes to be lastingly victorious; the admission that “to overcome poison through counter-poison” — in the present case, to overcome Marxism through National Socialism, its only antidote, — implies, in war, exactly that which Himmler here mentions, and, in the domain of coercive activity, concentration camps and gas chambers (or their equivalent.) The reason why Heinrich Himmler is so widely and so bitterly hated is not really that he acted with the ruthlessness that one knows, — that self-same ruthlessness, I repeat, which has characterised the historically decisive action of all great fighters “in Time” or “against Time”: of those European rulers who once forced Christianity upon their subjects or upon the people they conquered; of the early warriors of Islam; of the Mongols in all their campaigns; of the agents of the Holy Inquisition who defended the Roman Church against heresy; of those early Shoguns of the Tokugawa Dynasty who defended Japan against Christianity; of the men of the French Revolution; and finally of the European colonialists who, willingly or without meaning to, (ironical as this may sound in the case of some of them!) helped to spread the Judeo-Christian infection — and its unexpected, but logical consequence: the later Marxist infection — all over the world. It is not that he |
did this or that (or, rather, caused it to be done.) It is that he admitted, nay, proclaimed, in such blunt and brutal words, the necessity of his action. It is, more specially, that his action was accomplished neither in support of any already existing man-centred creed (whether Christianity, “humanitarian” Democracy, or Marxism) nor in the name of any new one, but for the triumph of Germany viewed as the citadel of an unbendingly life-centred faith “against Time”; for the glory of that cosmic (and not merely human) faith; for the preparation of the advent and rule of Aryan supermen: gods on earth. The advanced Dark Age world hates supermen, and is increasingly anti-Aryan. It loves “man” — average man; the more mediocre the better! — “man” as “God’s” alleged darling (and the actual darling of all philosophies rooted in, or mixed up with, Jewish thought); it loves “poor, suffering humanity”: the incurably sick; the cripple; the degenerate; and the vicious weaklings of all races, to whom it would gladly sacrifice all the healthy beasts of the earth. It believes in “human solidarity.” And any defiant denial of the latter, such as is contained in the Posen speech, “shocks” it profoundly. (What shocks me profoundly is that, among all those who feel “indignant” at the “monstrosity” of the Posen speech, hardly any — if any at all — have ever been kept awake, be it for half a night, at the thought of the sufferings of the countless innocent sentient creatures tortured in the vivisection chambers of the whole world in order to gratify man’s criminal curiosity, or to help him “save” — or prolong — the lives of people who are not worth saving, or, at any rate, to help him commercialise his diabolic ability as long as possible, at those patients’ expense. This does, not urge me to “love humanity.”) But there is more: the advanced Dark Age world, whose unifying faith is, more and more, the superstition of “man,” felt, and still feels, (be it dimly) that, had Heinrich Himmler enjoyed from the beginning of the National Socialist régime the full powers he had in 1943; or, rather, had Adolf Hitler, who actually was “more ‘Sun’ than ‘Lightning’,” possessed, along with his god-like vision, and dynamism and power of synthesis, — along with all the virtues and potencies and knowledge of a great creator “against Time,” who is, as I once stated, necessarily a Man “above Time” also, — Heinrich Himmler’s cold-blooded, abstract, exact and indiscriminate — mechanical — destructiveness, |
untiringly directed against anything and anybody that stood in the way of National Socialism; had he possessed Himmler’s policeman’s estrangement to “human realities,” his contempt for all manner of shades and distinctions between Jews and half-Jews (or quarter of Jews) on one hand, as well as between “more or less” dangerous Anti-Nazis of Aryan blood, on the other, the glorious Swastika faith would have triumphed. And a glorious new Aryan humanity, an aristocracy of gods on earth, would have risen, pushing aside (and leaving to die out naturally) or eliminating the bastardised millions we know only too well. And it would have governed the earth in justice and in truth — according to the scale of eternal natural values, which has nothing in common with Christian-democratic, Social-democratic or Marxist morals. But then, Adolf Hitler would not have been Adolf Hitler the One-before-the-last and most tragic of all that series of men “against Time” that stretches from the beginning of the far gone legendary “Silver Age”1 to the end of the one in which we are living. He would have been, in our Time-cycle, the last Embodiment of Him Who comes back, age after age “to establish on earth the reign of righteousness”; the last, and fully successful One, Whom Sanskrit Tradition names Kalki. For He alone will possess, mathematically balanced, and all to the supreme degree, the virtues which seem incompatible. He alone will be not merely “both ‘Sun’ and Lightning’,” but equally “Sun” and “Lightning.” Considered in the light of cosmic truth, the hatred of this advanced Dark Age world for Heinrich Himmler is but an unconscious expression of its fear of the invincible divine Destroyer, — Kalki — Who is to come. The East and West — Marxists and Anti-Marxists or so-called such — vaguely felt (and feel) that, had it been but for a little more “Lightning” power — a little more “cold-blooded inhumanity” such as Himmler possessed — Adolf Hitler would have been He, and have put an end to this Time-cycle. This is so true that, of all Anti-Nazis the most justifiably such — the most naturally such — the most conscious, the most 1 The Treta Yuga of Sanskrit Scriptures; the age immediately after the “Age of Truth.” |
purposeful, and those who, by far, understand the best the more-than-political nature of National Socialism, namely, the Jews, seem to have been aware of it. In December 1942, after noisy demonstrations in the streets of Jerusalem and after a day of fasting, they gathered at the famous Wailing Wall and there “invoked the Old Testament Jewish curse”1 against Adolf Hitler and three of his closest collaborators. Which ones? Not Rudolf Hess, the chivalrous idealist; the man who had risked his life and lost his freedom in order to try to stop a fratricidal war. Hess was too deeply like the Führer; he possessed, like he, more “Sun” than “Lightning” in his psychological makeup, and therefore was not to be feared; moreover, he was, for a year and a half already, a prisoner in the Tower of London. Not Julius Streicher either, although few were as demonstratively “anti-Jewish” as he. For the Jews are practical people — at least when they act systematically, as a nation. They do not object to people being anti-Jewish; they merely object to their being dangerous (from the Jewish point of view.) And Streicher was precisely too demonstrative and too impulsive to be dangerous. Even the stories he published in “Der Stürmer were too crudely related to be the last word in anti-Jewish propaganda. (The Jewish horrors presented as a matter of course, by Jews themselves, in the Old Testament, beat them anyhow!) No; the three great Germans that theRabbis of Jerusalem took the trouble to curse, through immemorial performances of black magic, along with the Prophet and Leader of awakening Aryandom were Dr. Goebbels, Hermann Göring and Heinrich Himmler:2 all idealists; men “against Time,” in the service of the same ideal as himself, but men possessing, to an even greater degree than he, the qualities or advantages which secure success “in Time”: ruthlessness, coupled with suppleness; a convenient and adaptable eloquence, that can lie convincingly, whenever it is in the interest of the Cause; or that extraordinary personal charm — the manners, the many-sided intellect and princely extravagance — which made Göring’s contact with foreign plutocrats so easy and so helpful;3 or Heinrich Himmler’s unhesitating mercilessness 1 See “The Goebbels Diaries” (New York, 1948), p. 250 — Entry of the 18th. December 1942. 2 See the same. 3 George Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 290. |
wherever the defence of the new German Reich, centre and citadel of a new, regenerate Aryandom, was concerned. Men who were, precisely, not like the Führer, but whose capacities completed his and forwarded his creation, in which they all believed; men who often could, better than he, defeat the Dark forces with their own weapons, be it with the diplomat’s friendly smile and irresistible words of deceit, be it with the policeman’s irresistible pressure upon alleged plotters until they break down and give away the names of other plotters and the details of the plot — or die. Dangerous men, from the Jewish standpoint; men such as Adolf Hitler needed; personalities such as, could they have been harmoniously woven into his, would have made him the dreaded One Whom he merely precedes and foreshadows: the last Man “against Time,” Destroyer of this Dark Age world. It is not that Adolf Hitler lacked eloquence or that he could not, when he liked, be full of charm. More than anything else, his inspiring speech and the fascination he exerted upon the masses, carried him to power. And his personal charm won him many a friend. But his were the devastating eloquence and the genuine, hypnotic fascination of a Prophet, not the artful persuasiveness of a diplomat or of a “man of the world” — or of both in one. The masses — the German masses, who are genuine, primitive; fundamentally in quest of justice — and the, real élite: — the aristocracy of blood and character; the men “against Time” — followed him as a matter of course. But he was not the man to bargain with the wily leaders of this advanced Dark Age, be they of the capitalistic or of the Communistic brand. He tried (how many times did he not stretch out his hand to England in a spirit of peace!) — but failed. An abyss gaped between all crafty professional diplomats and him; nay, between all men who accepted the “values” of this Age and him: an abyss which he (and they) increasingly felt to be unbreachable, but which did not exist (or at least was not obvious) between those same people and Hermann Göring, not to mention J. von Ribbentrop and other men of the Third Reich. There were moments in which the Führer was particularly |
aware of this difference and of his isolation in the midst of a hostile world that had let hell loose all round him It is in one of those moments that he is said to have declared — on the 22nd of April 1945, in presence of General Keitel and General Jodl —: “If it comes to negotiating, Göring will do it much better than I.”1 One cannot say, either, that Adolf Hitler could not be ruthless, when placed before exceptional circumstances. He proved himself to be, nay, more and more so, as the war drew nearer and nearer to its tragic end. Nothing buttresses this statement more definitely than the words he addressed all the Gauleiters of the Reich on the 24th of February 1945, commanding them to rouse the people to a “pitch of Teutonic fury” against the invaders from the East and from the West, so that the whole German nation might perish sword in hand, rather than surrender. “If the German people give way,” said he, carrying the logic of the National Socialist doctrine to its supreme conclusions, whatever these be, “that will only show that they have not a stamina worthy of their mission, in which case they deserve destruction.”1 It is not a sheer coincidence that these words were spoken on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the foundation of the National Socialist Party, They express the natural and logical reaction of the Man “against Time,” before the material impossibility of his dream within this Dark Age. The terrible “burnt earth” policy which he forwarded in a new message, addressed to the Gauleiters hardly three weeks later — on the 16th of March 1945 — is an outcome of the same. In that message, the Führer commanded that all power-stations, gas-factories, all manner of manufacturing centres, mines, railways, canals, water-supplies, clothes and food supplies etc., be totally destroyed. On the other hand, the generals received orders to turn into deserts the regions they were to defend to the death of their last soldier. They were to destroy not only the bridges, and all the works enumerated within the message to the Gauleiters, but even the water-tanks, the granaries full of corn, whatever is necessary to life, — whatever could be useful to the enemy. Never mind if the people who would survive bombing and battles would die of hunger and thirst!2 1 Quoted by Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne.” 2 Quoted by Georges Blond, same book. |
Those orders were never carried out. Albert Speer, Minister of Armement and Industries, saw to it that they were not. And although he came to know of this, the Fuhrer never had Speer arrested nor did he insist upon the execution of his own orders. The further desperate struggle absorbed all his energy. I have quoted these messages of the 24th of February and 16th of March 1945 merely on account of the light which they shed upon his spontaneous reaction to a state of affairs, that allowed no hope. A later episode is no less instructive. When informed, on the 29th of April 1945, that the Russians were advancing, through a passage of the Underground Railway under the River Spree, into the heart of Berlin, Adolf Hitler ordered that the passage be at once flooded. There were wounded soldiers in it: German soldiers who had fought and were dying for the love of him and of his dream of Aryan) pride and power. General Krebs told him so. The builder of the Third German Reich, mastering his feelings, replied that it could not be helped, and maintained his order, which, this, time, was carried out. The wounded Germans were drowned, along with a whole battalion of Russians1 — sacrificed to the ruthless logic of total war even though, viewed from a practical standpoint, the sacrifice was useless; even, though the war was now lost anyhow. There is more: it would seem that it was precisely for not having kept, to the end, that superhuman detachment in front of “the fruits of action” — that attitude of the warrior who knows he is defeated, but yet fights and dies, sword in hand, — that he finally dismissed Hermann Göring (the man who “could negotiate” better than himself; who, — some hinted — was willing to negotiate with the Western Allies) and rejected and condemned Heinrich Himmler (who had, at the last moment, actually tried to conclude an armistice with them.) He had Fegelein, — Gruppenführer S.S. married to Eva Braun’s own sister — shot for having, without permission, attempted to go home, and thus “to survive” the ruin of the Reich. He made apparently no distinction between Himmler, who had tried to negotiate with the Allies for Germany to live, and Fegelein, who had merely tried to spare his own life. In the last days of that titanic struggle against the coalesced forces of the whole Dark Age world, all discriminations and all proportions lost 1 Episode also quoted by Georges Blond. |
their meaning. Germany and a German became the same — or about the same — just as a light-year and a light-hour are the same in the agelessness of the Infinite. Adolf Hitler condemned Himmler precisely because he, “the perfect National Socialist believer,” who had followed him so far, and for so many years — already when the Party was small and illegal; — who had, nay, in many circumstances, gone further than he along the way of indiscriminate ruthlessness, did not follow him to the end; could not, it would seem, like he, and like Goebbels, and like admirable Magda Goebbels, understand the mathematical necessity of Germany’s Passion in view of the earthly salvation of the Aryan race, and of the ultimate re-establishment of the divine world-Order (never mind when and how); could not understand, like he, the necessity of her sacrifice “in the interest of the Universe.” (Albert Speer had also “not understood.” He too had stood up against the Führer’s determination to fight to the finish. He had prevented the execution of his “burnt earth” orders. And yet the Führer forgave him. True, Speer had joined the Party in 1933, after its rise to power, not like Himmler, ten years before, when the success of National Socialism seemed problematic. Nor was he that fanatical defender of the National Socialist doctrine, that Himmler was. Moreover, morally tortured at the thought of having broken his oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler, Speer came, at, his own risk, and opened his heart to him. It is difficult to say whether the Fuhrer would have pardoned Himmler’s attempt to negotiate with the hostile powers, had the Reichsführer S.S. come to him and done the same. Adolf Hitler expected more of him than of Speer or anybody else). The truth is that the Führer’s ruthlessness and Heinrich Himmler’s were not of the same quality, or, to repeat what I have already so emphatically stressed, that Adolf Hitler was essentially one of those heroic but unfortunate Men “against Time,” “more Sun than Lightning,” who, as long as this Dark Age lasts, are bound to loose, while Himmler would have won, had he but possessed something of Adolf Hitler’s genius. He would have sacrificed anybody and anything to the one goal, from the beginning — when the sacrifice would have had the greatest practical justification. He would not have cared for the losses. And he would have won. But he would not have been “Kalki” — the last one — for all that; not even with genius. He lacked |
“Sun” qualities to a too great extent. But then, National Socialism, like the ancient Aryan order in India, — or like early Islam — would have fallen to pieces from within after a few generations, thanks precisely to those compromises with the Dark Forces, which every victory “in Time” implies. Adolf Hitler did not want such a victory. The only victory he wanted was a definitive one; — the definitive one; the one which only He, the last Man “against Time,” the last Incarnation of the everlasting World-Sustainer in a human body, — Kalki — can win. And yet — for such is the law of every sincere, genuine struggle “against Time,” which asserts itself more and more compellingly as time flows by, and as the Dark Age draws to its end — he was, from the start, aware of the necessity of those qualities “in Time,” of those “Lightning” qualities, which all ruthless National Socialists, and specially Himmler, emimently possessed; which he possessed himself, to a very high, even if not yet sufficient, degree. He was aware of their necessity if, in his own words, “poison” was to be “overcome through counter-poison, tyranny through tyranny, and terror through greater terror.” He has more than once compared the rise of the new Movement to that of the early Catholic Church, thereby recognising the solid worldly capabilities of its organisers and of his fighters — even of its spiritual fighters — as a sine qua non condition of its development and triumph, at once and in the long run. It may seem somewhat unexpected — not to say somewhat irrelevant, when not absurd — to mention in this connection such a thing as the immemorial symbolism of colours. Still in that most powerful Church of the Dark Age, that National Socialism is out to combat and to crush, but the long worldly experience of which it was — and is, now and in the future, — to meditate upon and to make use of, every ritual colour has its meaning. The Pope, Head of the faithful, is clad in white, recalling thereby the spiritual purity and lucidity of the Initiate — the Man “above Time,” whose other-worldly truth has been distorted and exploited in historical Christianity. The scarlet, purple and gold of the high Church Dignitaries also symbolise states of advanced spirituality — the ideal towards which the Church is supposed to aspire. But the Church is an organisation of this earth — an organisation in Time. It is the militant hierarchy acting |
under the inspiration and orders of Dostoyevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” “for the greatest glory of Christ” but surely not according to Christ’s wisdom, which is “not of this earth.” And its actual fighting forces — all its priests and nearly all its monks and nuns, who are its strength in the day to day struggle against all contrary (or rival) powers and its obvious witnesses among the people, — are clad in black, the colour of this Age; at the most (as in the case of the Dominicans) in black and white — the colour of this Dark Age and of Light “above Time.” It strikes me as an extremely eloquent fact that the Swastika, Symbol of Life and Health1 and Symbol of the Sun, which Adolf Hitler chose to place at the centre of the German flag — not to say of the Pan-Aryan flag, for Germany is to remain, in the light of the Hitler faith, the head of a Pan-Aryan Movement — was back upon a white background, nay, black upon a white disk, amidst a further scarlet surface. And this is all the more remarkable if one assumes that the Führer took his decision intuitively, without being aware of its meaning (which I, personally, however, do not believe.) It is, also, remarkable that, although the exigencies of war imposed the unconspicuous greyish-green (feldgrau) uniform upon theWaffen S.S., the elder S.S. organisation, — the “Allgemeine” S.S, entrusted with the inner defence of the régime — wore black — black, I repeat, the colour symbolising par excellence the Dark Forces, which can be crushed only through forces of a similar nature; the colour symbolising the harsh qualities “in Time” that the S.S. men were to put to the service of an ideal of Golden Age perfection. Far from considering the black Swastika and the black raiment of the Knights of the new Faith as a “mistake from the standpoint of the Invisible” — still less as a “proof” of “black magic” — I see in them signs of an unfailing knowledge of the laws of action in Time; a knowledge at least as sound as that of the builders of the Catholic Church; a recognition of the fact that alone through qualities “inTime” — through those “Lightning” qualities that carry all agents of the Dark forces to success and all great men “in Time” to greatness — can a Movement triumph here and now, in this Dark Age; specially 1 Swasti, in Sanskrit. |
near the end of it, and specially a Movement against the spirit of it. And, I repeat, — for one cannot repeat it enough —: had those capabilities and tendencies symbolised in the black Swastika upon the German flag and in the black uniform of the toughest defenders of National Socialism been displayed to their full, from the beginning, by the Man “against Time,” Adolf Hitler, (and not only the qualities of ruthlessness and fanaticism; characteristic of all revolutionary movements in their youth, but also such qualities of cunning, of deceit, of shameless unscrupulousness, as alone can match and beat the cunning, deceit and selfish unscrupulousness of this advanced Dark Age mankind); had, first of all, the Jewish question been solved in time, not only with all Himmler’s mercilessness, but also with all the necessary diplomacy, i.e., had the Jews — and all the Jews; all the dangerous ones, especially, — been disposed of quietly, without the world knowing of it or being able to prove it; had even the influential Jews in foreign lands somehow been lured into confidence and brought to their doom, already before the war; had, on the other hand, the question of the collaboration of certain technicians, capitalists and high officers, whose National Socialist convictions were more than doubtful, but whose capabilities the Third Reich needed, been tackled in a both more ruthless and more supple manner, — as similar problems were handled in Russia, by the Communists, on their coming to power; — had Adolf Hitler also proved himself both more merciless and more supple in his dealings with the outer world; had he, instead of displaying, in the last days of the war, a materially useless ruthlessness towards his own people, crushed England without hesitation, without pity, without remorse, in 1940, and made the widest possible concessions to Russia at England’s expense, regardless of the number of Europeans (Aryan brothers) whom he would have sacrificed to Stalin’s convenience (the self-same ones whom Roosevelt and Churchill were to sacrifice two years later, but this time against the German Reich); in on word, had he been himself plus the extraordinary man “in Time” who could have deceived Stalin and crushed England and U.S.A. (or deceived Roosevelt and Churchill, and crushed Russia, in the case that was more advantageous in the long run), it is more than probable that the National Socialist State would be lasting still. |
But that was not to be, for the simple reason that I have already given — the reason which Adolf Hitler himself expressed, in his own way, to Hans Grimm, in 1928, — namely that he, the Leader of the National Socialist Movement, was not “the Leader Who is to come” — i.e., the last Man “against Time” — but only the One-before-the-last; the one who was to do “the preparatory work” (die Vorarbeit) for the One Who will come after him. He felt — not being, himself, that One “equally ‘Sun’ and ‘Lightning’” — that, were he to allow the ruthless (and cunning) men round him to act from the beginning as they liked, the State “against Time” that he wanted to build would, very soon, ins their hands (or very soon after him and them) degenerate into an ordinary State “in Time” — as the early, noble and warlike Islamic State so quickly degenerated into the dreary, corrupt Khalifate, nay, Khalifates, of which history tells us, after the rule of saintly Ali. Rather than such a victory, — the only possible one for any great Man “against Time,” save the last One — he preferred the terrible risk (and, soon, the terrible reality) of heroic defeat. And he faced defeat, fully conscious of its meaning, in the spirit of detached (apparently useless, yet, spiritually necessary) dutiful action, which is that of that other divine Man “against Time” Who spoke upon the Kurukshettra Field, thousands of years before. His S.S. men, — those of them, at least, who were worthy of the name, —faced it in the same spirit. It was natural to them. We read in one of the most impartial foreign reportages written about them — in that book of Georges Blond’s, already quoted — the following statement: “War, modern war, with its power of death and its essential inhumanity, was for them a pleasure. Or, if not exactly a pleasure, at least the most interesting, the only really interesting way of life. Most of the Waffen S.S. men did not even raise within their minds the question of the possible issue of the war: all that interested them was that it lasted.” And the French author adds: “Such was the result of National Socialist fanaticism coupled with drill.1 We see, in the S.S. men’s attitude to war the outcome of the glorious Aryan Wisdom of detached Action, which is both theirs and that of the Bhagavad-Gita. It reminds us verses 1 Georges Blond, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne,” p. 106. |
of the Book of books: “...looking to thine own duty, thou shouldst not tremble; for there is nothing more welcome to a Kshattriyathan a righteous war;”1 “Happy the Kshattriyas who obtain such a fight, offered, unsought, as an open door to heaven”;2 “...Slain, thou wilt obtain heaven; victorious, thou wilt enjoy the earth, therefore, stand up, son of Kunti, resolute to fight!”3 “Taking as equal pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, gird thyself for the battle; thus, thou shalt not incur sin.”4 It reminds us that the S.S. men — the real ones — élite of the privileged Nation out of which Adolf Hitler tried to make a Nation “against Time,” — are Aryan warriors “Kshattriyas” of the West. And if “National Socialist fanaticism coupled with drill” strengthened or created in them such an attitude, we should say that “National Socialist fanaticism coupled with drill” made genuine “Karma Yogis” out of them. Moreover, round them and beyond them, the Führer’s people at large, who were to continue to live, and to fulfill in suffering their long-appointed historical mission, had the same attitude, more or less, and did the same. Every true disciple of his did — and does — the same, according to his conscience; every one, from the martyrs of Nüremberg — those who were hanged and those who, to this day, are prisoners, — to the humblest faithful German; to the humblest faithful Aryan of other lands, who believes in him; every one, beginning with the three men who had the honour of being cursed, along with him, by the rabbis of Jerusalem in December 1942; — the three, two of whom had been, unfortunately, cut off from him in the fever of the last days of the war. (Dr. Goebbels died, with his wife and children, the voluntary, heroic death one knows, in the historic “bunker.” Heinrich Himmler was killed — shot, and then, ignominiously thrown into a cesspool, by British soldiers5 — a few days later. And Hermann Goring took poison in the night between the 15th and the 16th of October 1946, after having gone through the whole infamous Trial on the bench of the accused, and having justified before his judges and before posterity, in a last splendid speech, Adolf Hitler and the Third German Reich, 1 The Bhagavad-Gita, II, verse 31. 2 The Bhagavad-Gita, II, verse 32. 3 The Bhagavad-Gita, II, verse 37. 4 The Bhagavad-Gita, II, verse 38. 5 Heinrich Himmler’s widow has, herself, given me the confirmation of this fact. |
and the more-than-German and more-than-human aristocratic ideal that both embody forever). In the Allied jails and camps, after the war, and in the midst of the atrocious conditions under which all Germany was to live for years, the merciless purge began. The impersonal Forces of Light and Life, Whose ways are mysterious, used the Jewish torturers and Allied hangmen — and the politicians and businessmen whose interest it was to keep Germany down all these years, — to sort out and separate, within the National Socialist ranks or so-called such, the good corn from the tare. There were months and months of savage persecution, during which a host of martyrs sealed with their blood their allegiance to the Man “against Time.” I shall recall one — one among thousands; the worthy comrade and mouthpiece of thousands: a young S.S. warder of the Belsen camp, whom the British and their Jewish acolytes tortured in April 1945, in the hope to get I do not know what information out of him. One evening, he was brought to the infirmary, unrecognisable: eyeless, his jaw hanging; his bones broken, his face and body one raw, bleeding mass of torn flesh. He was placed upon a bed. And a British officer told the German doctors: “See to it that he lasts till to-morrow morning; we must try once more to make him speak...” In the middle of the night, the young man called the nurse in charge. He could not move; hardly utter a word. She leaned over the bed. He whispered; “Heil Hitler!” and gave up the ghost. I do not know his name; but r have often thought of him — and of others — and recalled the verse of the Horst Wessel Song: “Comrades whom the Reaction and the Red Front have slain,” — whom all the agents of the Dark forces have slain, — “march in spirit with us, within our ranks!” Countless such episodes have taken place in Germany (in Schwabisch Hall1 and elsewhere) and in all lands of Europe and in Russia. And there are the martyrs who died, and there are those who survived — who, to this day, are waiting in the prisons of Western Germany and Western Europe: in Werl, in Wittlich, in Landsberg, in Breda, in Fresnes, etc., in Spandau and in 1 The place in which the S.S. men involved (or alleged to be involved) in the notorious “Malmédy case” were tortured. See the report of the American judge Van Roden published in 1948. |
the camps of Russia and Siberia; working as slaves in the Ural mines, in the freezing gold-fields of Kolyma, and waiting; waiting for a liberation that never comes. There are the thousands of civilians who are not — or are no longer — in jail, but who have no place in a world in which the citadel of all hopes “against Time” — the Third German Reich — has disappeared. Some of them — more and more every day — give way; gradually change; let themselves be absorbed into the ugly, dreary, Anti-Nazi post-war world. A few resist and remain — stronger as the flood spreads and roars all round them; victorious rocks, — invincible rocks — in the midst of the ever-expanding flood. They make no noise; they are not spoken of; not mentioned in any connection. They work, and they live; apparently, “like other people”; in fact, as National Socialists. They forget nothing, forgive nothing, and learn all that they can. They keep within their hearts and live up to the commandments of the new faith of Aryan pride and cosmic Truth, expressed by Alfred Rosenberg, the martyr: “Thou shalt be brave; thou shalt never do anything mean. Thou shalt love God in all living things, animals and plants. Thou shalt keep thy blood pure...” They gather now and then, when they can, — and read Nietzsche’s works, and Rosenberg’s and Fremsen’s, but specially Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” And they comment upon the eternal words. They remember and tell their children the message of hope — the secret of invincibility; the call to power, — one of the last sentences of the Führer’s book: “A State which, in the Age of racial contamination, devotes itself to the care of its best racial elements, is bound to become, one day, the master of the earth.”1 They work. They wait. They live. They are, in this darkening Dark Age, the irreducible element “against Time.” They gradually take full consciousness of themselves and of their meaning and of their mission, in a small number of initiates such as that one who told me, on the 28th of October, 1953; “Up till 1945, we were a Party. Since 1945, we have become the kernal of a great new faith. We have discovered who we are, and Who our Führer is.” They live. They marry pure-blooded Aryans of the same faith as themselves. They have children — for the privileged Race must continue to be, and the Reich, its stronghold in the 1 “Mein Kampf” (edit. 1939), p. 782. |
West, must reconquer its power. They bring up their children in the same Hitler faith, in spite of all difficulties. They teach them to be proud of being, they too, members of the small, pure, healthy, — indestructible — community. They give them in marriage to worthy young men and women who will, with them, bring the community a generation further along its way to final power and glory. They are, of course, mostly Germans; there is, nay, a very strong proportion of former S.S. men among them. But there are also a few non-Germans, — so that the Führer’s words be fulfilled: “In the new world that we are building, it will matter little whether a man comes from Austria or from Norway, provided he be a pure-blooded Aryan.”1 (There were, during the war, non-German S.S. divisions — including an Indian one — fighting for the Third German Reich and for the Aryan Cause.) And the non-Germans look up to Adolf Hitler’s Land as to the Holy Land of the West. The whole faithful community is already a Pan-Aryan community. But a Pan-Aryan community conscious of Germany’s place and significance in the history of the West and specially in the history of these last years; conscious of the debt of the Aryan race to the National Socialist Reich — the State “against Time.” Its members are dispersed all over the earth. But the young faith “against Time,” the Hitler faith — that no de-nazification efforts can kill, for it is the modern expression of something eternal — is the link between them, wherever they be. They live, and work in silence, remembering Adolf Hitler. They live, and wait. Knowingly or unknowingly, they are waiting for Kalki; Kalki, the last Man “against Time”; the One Whom Adolf Hitler foresaw in 1928; the Avenger Who will give them — or their children — the world. 15th February 1956 |
No comments:
Post a Comment