Savitri Devi’s religion of the strong

This beautiful, classic Savitri Devi text is from Chapter 1 of Savitri Devi’s, Souvenirs et réflexions d’une Aryenne translated by R.G. Fowler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rid yourself not only of the superstition of “happiness,” if it ever allured you, but also that of man. Protect yourself from the attitude, as vain as it is stupid, that consists in trying “to love all men” simply because they are men. And if this attitude was never yours, if, from childhood, you were impermeable to the propaganda of the devotees of “humanity,” give thanks to the immortal Gods to whom you owe this innate wisdom. Nothing prohibits to you, certainly, from giving a hand to a man who needs help, even the most worthless. The Strong are generous. But in that case, they would be good to him as living flesh, not as a man. And if it is a question of choosing between him and a creature deprived of the Word but closer to the archetype of its species than he is to that of the ideal man, i.e., the superior man, give your preference and your solicitude to this creature: it is more an artwork of the eternal artist.

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

The most perfect Nordic specimen, whose heart is noble and whose judgment is firm and just, and whose features and carriage are those of the Greek statues of the finest age, is “a man.” A Hottentot, a Pygmy, a Papuan, a Jew, a Levantine mixed with Jews, are “men.” “Man” does not exist. There exist only quite diverse varieties of primates that by convention are called “human” because they share an upright stance and the Word, the latter to quite unequal degrees. And within the same race—moreover, within the same people—there are insurmountable divergences, psychic as well as physical, divergences that one would like to be able, even though morbidity explains them partly, to blame on interbreeding in the remote past, so much do such differences between individuals of the same blood appear to be against nature. It is already shocking to witness such frequent and violent ideological (or religious) oppositions between racial brothers. It is even more shocking to learn that, even though Saint Vincent de Paul was French, there are child-abusers who are French also, or to learn that the beautiful and virtuous Laure de Noves, countess of Sade, had, four centuries after her death, among her descendants the marquis of ill-repute who bears the same name.

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

It is, however, true that—beyond a certain degree of mixing of races and cultures and conditioning on a vast scale, thanks to all the modern means of communication—people end up resembling each other strangely, psychically if not physically; they resemble each another in nullity. They think that everything testifies to their independence and originality, yet, in fact, their reactions in similar circumstances are as identical as those of two individuals of the same tribe of Blacks or Redskins, or . . . those of people of the same race, bound by the same faith. The extremes meet. The ethnic chaos of the masses of a metropolis at the forefront of technological progress tends to acquire a uniformity of grayness, a kind of manufactured homogeneity—desired by those who control the masses—a sinister caricature of the relative unity natural to people of the same blood that binds a scale of values and common practices; a uniformity which, far from revealing a “collective mind,” at whatever level of awareness, reveals only the deterioration of a society that has definitively turned its back on the eternal—in other words: a damned society.

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

The exception is sometimes probable and always possible in a human group, even if it is homogeneous—which is not to say that, in practice, one can or even must always take this into account: that would complicate the relationships between groups ad infinitum. Moreover the exception, if he represents something more than himself, changes groups whenever he can. If there were an Aztec who was shocked by the sacrifices offered to the gods of his people, this man would be among the first to adopt the religion of the Spanish conquerors; and an Aryan of Europe who, in our time, feels only contempt for the “Christian and democratic” values of the West and dreams of a society in the image of ancient Sparta, adheres, if he has a taste for combat, to the Hitlerian faith.”

About skadhitheraverner
I'm a young freelance writer from the UK, with an interest in anthropology, the outdoors and rightist politics.

8 Responses to Savitri Devi’s religion of the strong

  1. Aryan - Deutsch Master Swiss The Anti - Negroid says:

    This is Biblical, excellent material.

    I never read Devi, except for a quick perusal. I’m impressed.

    Devi was a hermit, like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Junger.

    All Aryans are.

    • She was a brilliant woman, of English and Italian heritage and with such a love of the best in the German, Classical and Indian civilisation, she truly represents the best of the Indo-European women of the 20th C. I don’t even think we have women like that anymore, or at least I don’t see them, so lets hope they’re just reclusive and not extinct.

      Women on WN sites, blogs and forums are often feminists, though they might try and deny that, because of their backgrounds including Cultural Marxist saturation (preservationist females from less affluent backgrounds are fine, though). I still remember that American idiot Jaenelle Antas accusing me of justifying rape after I refuted her belief that women are discriminated against within the white advocacy movement, simply by pointing out the imbalance is the natural situation in the absence of political correctness, which pushes for gender equality in politics as it does everywhere else. No one discriminates against proud white women like Savitri Devi but we’re (sorry, they’re) at all times the minority involved in politics, not just WNist politics.

      The other day a relative of mine linked me to a preservationist forum, admittedly a ‘soft’ one, but the following was still unbelievable. One of the ‘preservationist’ women claimed to have had an abortion, refused to give a sound reason why and shamelessly talked about having no regrets. Not “I’m sorry for killing a white baby before I learned to protect my race”, not “White people shouldn’t have abortions because the guilt from mine was traumatic” – no, she talks about having no regrets and how her own abortion was different from everyone else’s (which do deserve condemnation, according to her, other women should regret theirs) and how it’s shallow of others to judge truly astonishing in-your-face hypocrisy.

      There was no criticism of her pro-extinction action though, and the post wasn’t anti-preservationist though it’s the height of anti-preservationism – doubtless because we need more women, of any kind, who need meet no standards other than descent from the right ancestry.

      Most racialist/preservationist women are such bloody airheads, Alex Linder’s right when he points out they only talk about cats, and other pointless shit that goes nowhere. There are only a few exceptions that WN females are a waste of fucking space the lot, but that doesn’t stop white knights calling the shots on their behalf especially over at Am Ren where the comments section deserves a particular mention. It really is a shame I can’t link to specific comments people leave over there, because when one female visitor pointed out the role of women’s rights and gender equality in the decline of the west, an anonymous staff member actually had the spine to admit her comment was only staying up because it was posted by a female visitor (Persephone Grey), otherwise the staff policy is to delete criticism of feminism as hate speech. Yes, at Am Ren!

      I’m sick to death of reading ‘preservationist’ and ‘WN’ females allowed to blabber on about how evil our men are, whilst feminist-tinged women get to whine and repeat antinatalist, feminist nonsense like how ‘white women are not simply there for creating babies’, thanks to their beta male white knights. Ugh!

  2. SM: That kind of thinking leads to entryism and it gets people like us kicked out of WN movements.

    And why on earth should we give them credit simply for saying they’re preservationists? Unless there’s an understanding there, in which miscegenation is just one part of a wider problem. preservationism becomes reduced to an apolitical subculture based only on its aesthetics, and that’s why the so-called preservationist forums are 90% online circlejerks.

    It might sound paranoid to say we’re going extinct, but whites really do face a demographic crisis encouraged by feminism and its offshoot, reproductive ‘rights’. Internalising feminism just to appease airheads who talk about cats is suicide, its as mad to be a feminist from a preservationist perspective as it would be adopting a policy supporting race mixing, but feminism is the norm on WN and preservationist sites.

    And if you understand heredity, what that baby killer SlavicMuse claims to have done was far worse than race mixing, Even if you mix genes with a black man or woman, at least the child is 50% white and some white genes survive and the traits from occasional admixture can in theory be bred out of the stock again – but a prenatal slaying is a direct race suicide like any other form of child killing… and extinction – the complete and total failiure of one’s own genes to replicate – is forever.

    I’m getting tired of the sites, forums and blogs to do with preservationism, its all a fucking joke. Remember all those self-parody anti-Islam idiots on AltRight accusing other preservationists of being Moslem just for disagreeing with their stupid opinions, and one of ’em tried to intimidate me by saying I’ve “been noted”?


      I have a feeling that many WNs may have legit problems with modernity, but they don’t really spiritually loath the level of untruthfulness and mediocrity they are surrounded by, because they themselves are a part of it.

      Anti-Islam is just a form of Western insecurity and weakness. The idea that someone else believes something intensely and you don’t is terrifying … especially to liberals (I think a lot of people who comment on Alt Right are in fact liberal) who don’t believe in anything and are against everyone else believing in something.

      The problem whites face is laziness and spiritual apathy. Egalitarianism has done this to us by allowing weak people to triumph. Strong sentiments (which only the few are capable of) are shunned as extremism. Where are the rebels and the strong souls? I don’t know.

      The Jews aren’t stupid, they first have to destroy the race soul of white people and turn us into spiritual negroes before the physical mixing can take place. So it’s a slow process. But most people are enjoying their demise, so what can be done?

      • Yea I respect extremists with opposing views to mine, more than I do the weaklings on our ‘side’. What the world needs is a quality called ‘resoluteness’ that is totally lacking in most people and is honourable in itself (like that related concept, bravery) wherever you can find it.

        Seriously what’s wrong with Islam? I don’t mean whats wrong with millions of Moslem immigrants all over the rest, I mean whats wrong with Moslem values? Nothing as far as I can see. Great western thinkers like Nietzsche praised Islam, is it any wonder why? Islam has resoluteness, and Christianity celebrates meekness.

        I’d be better off under an Islamic system than the western pig system, as Crowley called it. I don’t see anything in today’s west worth defending from Islam, a society much closer to that of our ancestors than is the pig system.

        Who benefits from the western system? Feminists and other anti-white pseudo-intellectuals, ethnic minorities, abortionists and abortionettes, slags, childless career women, deadbeat dads, playas, alcoholics, homosexuals and transvestites, layabouts, usurers and other people who get rich by manipulating money instead of going to work. I know I don’t fit into any of the above groups.

        Whats the worst Islam could throw at me? “But you’d have to wear a burka!”… yea if I was some consumerist, fashion-obsessed airhead or dressed like a whore I’d be pissed off by that lol. If the burqa seems foreign its because it is, just like our clothes seem as weird to tribes going round in loincloths (and the taboo that we have to wear clothes outdoors at all is as arbitrary as Islamic countries telling women to wear the burqa). And if the burqa seems excessive, it still explains why there are less ‘legitimate rapes’ in Moslem countries so the principle of advising females to cover ourselves more, is for our own protection.

  3. Hearthweru says:

    and Christianity celebrates meekness.

    In the right context.

    Sadly, most professingChristians have bought into the meekness lie as well.

    Christianity has been perverted and corrupted by certain extra-Christian influences.

    Biblical Christianity is grossly mis-represented in WN circles.

    The Christianity most often presented in WN circles is worthy of loathing. Modern Christianity is worthy of disdain.


    • Yea, the Christianity of the Crusaders and the Iron Guard was resolute and respectable but I don’t see it nowhere today outside the Third World (Philip Jenkins has written about that phenomenon). Given the reality that God is dead, its surely wisest to take a secular (but not secularist) position whilst avoiding anything that would alienate the few remaining good and useful Christians.

      Some people with a black and white viewpoint are explicitly anti-Christian, which overlooks the demographic good bestowed on whites by sincere Christianity in the same way many Christians themselves try and fail to rationalise away the uncomfortable truth that our current problems wouldn’t even exist if our ancestors had stayed Pagan.

      I don’t have a religion, but I’m not anti-Christian. Its just that Christ must meet the criticism of Nietzsche or his religion be discarded, in the same way Humanism has to be discarded for failing to respond to Heidegger’s criticisms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: