This is the fifth and final installment of selected correspondence between Savitri Devi and George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-1967).
We wish to thank Matt Koehl of the NEW ORDER for preserving this letter, photocopying it for the Archive, and giving us permission to publish it.
—R. G. Fowler
26 June 1966
This is in brief answer (all I can spare time for) to yours of 26 April 1966 [letter not preserved].
I cannot mention the subject in writing, for what I hope are obvious reasons, but you will remember it was criticism of one subject you were afraid might be included in the National Socialist World. By now, you should have received your airmail copy of this journal which we are very proud of. I doubt you will find anything about which to quarrel.
In fact, I think you will be quite pleased with the tremendous world circulation we have finally given to your wonderful book The Lightning and the Sun. In that very book, and in the condensation in National Socialist World, you and Colin Jordan both point out that National Socialists unhesitatingly and unhypocritically admit that the ends justify the means, providing the means do not contradict the end.
Surely you can understand that it is one thing for you, Savitri, to sit and write an idealistic book of pure, shining, and holy truth, and another thing for me to try to make these truths a practical reality using the miserable tools of the humanity available, the funds which are not available, and my own flesh and blood in a terrible struggle merely to survive.
An analysis of our income shows the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of our money comes from devout Christians. People like you cannot send a cent, and more than likely need help yourself. This is meant as no insult, simply a dramatic example of exactly what I mean in terms of practical results, which is what I have aimed for, rather than the position of ivory tower philosopher.
In short, without ammunition, even the greatest general on earth would lose a war. And of the people who have a monopoly on the ammunition require me to say “abracadabra” three times every morning in order to get enough bullets to annihilate the enemy, then, by God, I will say “abracadabra” not three times, but nine times and most enthusiastically, regardless of whether it is nonsense, lies, or what it may be.
Once we have achieved power, it is an entirely different matter. However, I will point out that, even the Master Himself did not go overboard in the direction you indicate. There can be no question that He agreed with you—and with all really hard-core National Socialists. But He was also a realist and a damned SUCCESSFUL one at that.
I hope to follow in His footsteps to the best of my ability, and, for that reason, I must insist that you go along with me in whatever helps us gain the means of power.
No National Socialist can deny that argument, and I hope you will not try to.
I wish you all success and hope things are going well with you.
(Incidentally, PLEASE type your future letters as you did that last one. You have no idea how difficult it is for me to struggle through handwriting. It is a personal failing of mine, and I am grateful for all those who will type their letters and hope you will be able to do so in the future as with this last one.)
Lincoln Rockwell, Commander
World Union of National Socialists
11 August 1966
Dear Commander Rockwell,
First I must apologize for this delay in replying to your most interesting letter: I just had to wait till I could borrow a typewriter (somebody had given me a second-hand one, but I cannot make it work!).
Your letter is interesting as a document on human psychology in connection with the difficult art of propaganda. Everything you write is perfectly accurate, and please do not believe that I “criticize” you in the least, even that it ever came to my mind to do so. When I wrote you the letters which you remember about what appears to me as “inconsistent” in talking of Christianity in a National Socialist paper, I merely expressed my strong personal feelings.
If I were again young and not yet conscious of how to call my own philosophy (not yet conscious of being a National Socialist), and had, of course, the self-same aspirations, basic ideas, sympathies and antipathies that I actually had already when I was young, nay when I was an adolescent, even a child, this propaganda of yours would, in many ways, put me right off that which it aimed at making me love and adhere to.
I would have reacted in the following manner: Christianity, as I am taught it, asks us to “forgive” and love all men—forgetting to tell us to love all creatures, beautiful, innocent beasts, and trees, at least as much, and certainly far more than any of our human enemies (which we are expected to “love”). In the name of Christian “values” the world, up till now, has protected the sick, the deficient, the good-for-nothing, at the expense of the healthy, beautiful, and strong. It proclaims any degenerate human mongrel infinitely more loveable, and worthier of my care, than the finest healthy Alsatian dog, the most beautiful cat, nay, the most splendid royal Bengal tiger. Christianity never forbade man to exploit, torture, exterminate the most splendid specimens of living Nature for his so-called “necessities” (which are no necessities at all) or even for his luxuries or his amusement. It is by far inferior to my natural, inborn moral standards, therefore I despise it, and hate anyone who tries to force it onto me.
If National Socialism, which at first sounded so wonderful to me, with its struggle against the silly teaching of men being “all equal,” is in any way connected with that stuff—Jewish stuff, by the way, to the very same extent as modern Communism (its natural and logical outcome, in a technically advanced society) is—then why should I have anything to do with it?”
In fact, in the early 1920s, it is the extreme care the propaganda of the young NSDAP took in order to blatantly disconnect the Party from any of the then existing German neo-Heathen movements (such as that of Erich and Mathilda von Lüdendorff) that prevented me from taking any interest in it, save as in a movement against the Versailles Treaty, for which it (the young National Socialist Movement) had all my sympathy for (1) I hated the Allies for the disgraceful way they had forced Greece into their war, and (2) I looked upon the Versailles Treaty as a piece of infamy, which it was.
But I had to become aware of the philosophical implications of Adolf Hitler’s attitude towards the Jews and of the subtle, real meaning of that Point 24 of the famous Twenty-Five Points: “The Party stands by what is positive in Christianity. It tolerates all religions and all cults except when these are a danger to the State or when they stand against the moral feelings of the Germanic race.” It then struck me that a religion that sees no harm in the marriage of an Aryan girl to a baptized Jew or to a Negro, provided they be wedded with the blessing of the holy Church, cannot but be “dangerous to the State,” to a national State in our sense of the word, and “go against the moral feelings of the Germanic race” or, by the way, against those of any racially-minded Aryan.
But that was in April 1929, when my presence in Palestine for forty days made me more aware than ever of the irreducibly Jewish character of Christianity. Then I suddenly saw in the liberator of my race from Jewish influence of every sort (economical and spiritual) Somebody infinitely greater than the greatest patriot of any one country in Europe, and gave Him my allegiance as my Führer.
Had it not been for that cautiousness of the young Party not to hurt the feelings of thousands of good Catholics and Protestants in Germany, I might have given my allegiance to it and to its Inspired Founder, if not in 1920, when I did not yet know anything about either (and was, anyhow, far too exclusively focused upon the Greco-Turkish war in Asia-Minor, 1920-1922, to think of anything else), but at least in 1923, when I was already following the growth of the handful of National Socialists in Germany.
Enemy propaganda—in particular, Hermann Rauschning’s book Hitler Speaks—pointing out how profoundly anti-Christian, and “in flagrant opposition to all the values of Western civilization” the National Socialist creed is—and how “inhuman,” placing a healthy dog before a deficient man—did far more to strengthen me in my National Socialist faith than any writings intended to convert the average European to the same faith.
But you are right—and I am the first one to admit it. The propaganda lies (or, let us say, “tricks”) that would put me right off, if I did not by now know the faith, are just the sort of thing that attracts to it those whom it immediately requires as supporters, because they happen to have the cash . . . while, as you say most accurately, I not only have none to give, but should require financial help myself. It could not be better said!
In fact I am in debt for £100 to a Swiss friend, a working woman who was generous enough to lend me that sum last year to help me finance my “cat” book [Long-Whiskers]. I was expected to give her back the money this month and just cannot. I shall send her the interest and ask her to wait. My book is not yet released for sale, on account of a financial quarrel between Mr. Gittens, the head of the Britons Publishing Society, who was to put it on sale (I gave him the money four years ago) and Mr. Purdy, his former printing manager, now on his own, who refuses to release it unless I pay him the £285 I have already paid Gittens in 1962 and 1965!—which of course I cannot.
You are right. If one wants the cash, one has to do or pretend to do what the owners of cash like—at least not obviously do the contrary. And as soon as one is to work in this dirty world, and do something practical which will enable one to get into power and clean it (if it still can be cleaned), one needs cash. Rest assured that I never did anything up till now, and that I firmly intend never to do, say, or write anything in the future, to counteract that (alas!) necessary, most unpleasant (and all the more meritorious on your part), and difficult effort of yours, to spread bad quality honey—the quality they happen to enjoy the most!—in order to catch silly, yet wealthy, flies. Surely, as you say, they are needed. Their cash is, at least.
And their young ones, if of good Aryan stock—I cannot say just “White” but Aryan, for the Jews are “White,” surely; most of them at least, and the dark ones are no real Jews by blood—so, I say, if of good Aryan stock, the young generation, sprung from those inconsistent supporters, brought up under new conditions and with a new faith after our rise to power, will one day prove most useful.
You are right to say “abracadabra” when “abracadabra” brings in the necessary means to fight, and win power; and, on other occasions, to say “taratata,” when “taratata” produces the same happy result. You are right, if you can say it with a straight face, and since it works. I am the last one to request you not to say it. Only I—who am no leader, and never had in my psychological make-up the slightest capacity to become one—just cannot say it; could not, for long, even if I tried hard. Continuing to write in my little corner is much more in my line, and I don’t believe I should be really useful if I tried to do what I was not made for.
While I am about it, let me tell you also how much that stress upon “Whiteness” and equality among all the Whites, as expressed in the latest Rockwell Report, shocks me as not corresponding to any truth. Excuse me for being so outspoken (but I am writing to you, and have never mentioned any of these criticisms “behind your back”). First, there are Whites who cannot be included in our community of faith: the Jews. You will admit this yourself. And not only the Jews. All people of Semitic stock (Arabs, if pure, for instance) are White. Anyhow as “White” and Whiter than many a Southern European. White, but not Aryan. (The features and many measurements of head and body are far more characteristic of race than the mere color of the skin.)
Another thing: you seem to consider all Europeans “White” and all “Asiatics” “colored.” I have fought all through the “Great Days,” to the extent I could—I was then in India—against this far too simple view of things. The inhabitants of Europe are anything but all “White.” One only has to take a look at certain types from Sicily or Andalusia, or Cyprus (or even Greece) to see so. I can well remember the contrast in color (let us first speak of color), between a Cypriot Greek, then living in Calcutta, and a Bengali Brahmin, sitting side by side, in that Greek’s drawing room: the Bengali Brahmin was obviously not only more Aryan in features, but also Whiter than the Greek. As for Kashmiri and Punjabi Brahmins, and Brahmins and upper-caste Indians of the Middle Provinces, and even often of the South, they are—especially the Punjabis and Kashmiris—decidedly Whiter than most Southern Europeans, and certainly more Aryan in features.
On the other hand, these Indians are not the sole Aryans of Asia. The Kurds—tall, fine peasants and warriors, with dark or light brown hair, black, grey, or blue eyes—are Aryans; it matters little whether they profess the Muslim religion—in Bosnia, a province of Yugoslavia, seventy-five percent of the (European) population profess the same. One finds fine Aryan (and White) types in Persia, along with non-Aryan ones, results of admixture with the blood of invaders (Arabs, Turks, Mongols).
But so does one find such admixtures in southern Europe. In southern France, one comes across types that are not “White” and not Aryan at all. The North of Europe is distinctively purer, racially, than the South. I can see no grounds for this proclamation of the equality of “all Whites”—just as unjustifiable in my eyes as the equality of all men. And no grounds either, if one is, as I am, a racialist, for any putting aside—outside “the community of White people”—of the Aryans of Asia, purer and Whiter, many of them, than most Southern Europeans.
Of course, if this is just propaganda for people who have never lived in Europe or Asia, and who are not likely ever to get a chance of going there and seeing for themselves, that is a different thing. I can only say that I, who spent seventeen years in India (in four journeys there), have been struck by the Aryan features of most upper caste Indians, especially of those of Kashmir, Punjab, and the Middle Provinces, and by the Whiteness of many of them. Anyhow, whether speaking of Indians or people of other parts of the world, Whiteness is surely less (and not more) important, as a racial characteristic, than features. (I have once seen, in France, a mongrel practically White, but with Negro features. It was a horrible sight!)
What we should establish, if we had the power to enforce such a “novelty,” would be, in the very spirit of most ancient, Aryan-governed India, a world-wide caste system, according to race. Not just “Whites” and “colored”—this would be about as false and untenable as “all men equal”—but, a real hierarchy of racial shades, corresponding to the capacities of the different biological divisions. That, yes! With the supremacy of the Aryan among the “Whites” of different shades. Surely an Indian Aryan—or an Iranian one, or a Kurd—should come in the hierarchy long before any Italian, Spaniard, Portuguese, or even Southern Frenchman of (sometimes) very doubtful Aryan origin (and, I repeat, of more than doubtful “Whiteness”).
In Europe, with, naturally, a few individual exceptions, in the case of man of less pure stock who have proved their worth, surely the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon elements should take the lead, in a future National Socialist community. And wherever there are Aryans and non-Aryans (like in India, or Iran) the former should, as a whole, rule over the latter.
As a religious basis to this, Christianity simply will not do—or the “moral values of Western civilization” either. All these contradict this vision of biological, natural hierarchy. I can see, for the future masses, no other moral and religious basis for it than . . . the old, old belief in reincarnation in this world according to one’s “merits.” Thus every one will feel that he or she is in the proper place, won by good and bad deeds in an endless series of past lives, and . . . willingly remain in his or her place, in this life, in order to earn a better one “in the next birth.”
This is no “criticism” in the bad sense of the word; just a frank talk from an old militant National Socialist to a young Leader full of immense possibilities. Take it without bearing me any grudge.
I loved your article in defense of the beautiful redwood forests, and of wildlife. Protect these, and forbid the horrors of the fur industry, and vivisection—which our revered Führer forbade—when you are President of the USA (thanks, probably, to the increasing racial tension there).
With my most hearty Heil Hitler!
Savitri Devi Mukherji
17 November 1966
Sorry to be so long about answering your letter of August 18 but I have been very hard pressed running around the country.
I am sure you will understand, Savitri, that I simply do not have the time to write the long and ideological letter I should like to, and you deserve, but I am pressed to the limit just trying to keep up with things, so thought it better to get some kind of letter off rather than nothing.
I appreciate your use of a typewriter in your letter of August 18. It is really terribly difficult for me to decipher handwriting.
There is much more I should like to comment on in your (as usual) very intelligent and provocative letter, but I simply can’t indulge myself much as I would like to in response.
We really have the Jews on the run at last in Chicago. They are using persecutions and prosecutions against us which I find hard to believe, even after all our experience.
I hope you will write again soon, as I really enjoy your letters, even though my late and brief answers might not indicate my real pleasure in receiving your correspondence.
Lincoln Rockwell, Commander
American Nazi Party
[This is the last known letter of the correspondence between Savitri and Rockwell.]