270 as he — admittedly not on account of any humanitarian prejudices, but for the sound, practical reasons that I have just mentioned: for the sake of the success of his life’s work or, in other words, in the interest of the Greater German Reich; in the interest of the Aryan Cause, i.e. in the interest of the Universe. But the everlasting forces of disintegration and death — those which I have described as forces “in Time,” and which were (and are, since 1945, more fatally than ever) leading all races to their doom, — mightily stood in the way of the Man “against Time” and of his dream of Aryan regeneration. And their agents — the Jews, as a body; and the conscious or unconscious, willing or unwilling servants of international Jewry: Free Masons of high and low grades; members and sympathisers of the most varied pseudo-spiritual societies in the service of Jewish interests or Jewish ideals (or both); believers in the most varied man-centred, equalitarian creeds of whatever origin, afflicted with a sincere but false conception of history; and all manner of people prepared to sacrifice any possibility of general regeneration to the maintenance of personal or collective advantages of a material or moral nature, — needed war, in order to nip the National Socialist revolution in the bud; in order to break its impulse before it had time to bring about the inner and definitive transformation of Germany, and before it spread to other countries of Aryan blood; the sooner, the better. They needed war, if they were not, themselves, to be compelled to abdicate all influence, and culturally — and spiritually, — no less than politically, to cease to exist. And they did everything they could to start war in spite of Adolf Hitler’s efforts to avoid it; and everything they could to prolong it, once it had started. And they succeeded; and they won the war, not because of any fault of his, but simply because the world had not — and has not, yet, — reached the end of the present Dark Age; because, as I have said before, Adolf Hitler is not the last Man “against Time,” and because it is a fact — nay, an unavoidable consequence of the laws of historical development, — that all Men “against Time” fail, save the very last one: the one whom the Sanskrit Scriptures call “Kalki.” In other words, seen from that higher standpoint from which all “politics” appear as consequences, never as causes,

271 the 1939–1945 World War is, in the midst of the gigantic struggle of polar opposites, without beginning nor end, which constitutes cosmic history, a tragic local instance of the fated victory of the satanic Forces — i.e. of the Forces of untruth — near the end of an Age of Gloom. * * * “Ribbentrop, bring me the English alliance!”1 Sincerer words than these — the last Adolf Hitler addressed to the man whom he was sending to London, as Germany’s ambassador, in 1936, to sound once more all the possibilities that could lead to an understanding with England — were never uttered in the history of diplomatic relations. Adolf Hitler had indeed been striving for “an understanding with England” nay, an “English alliance,” from the beginning of his public life. Already as early as 1924 he had, in his immortal book, “Mein Kampf,” clearly laid down the main lines of this new policy (“new,” at least after the first World War.) And, which is more, however justified it doubtless was, from a strictly political point of view, this policy had — like everything the Führer did — a definitely more-than-political meaning and more-than-political scope, and was even more justified from the point of view of Nature, i.e. of living truth. It rested upon the solid biological fact of common blood. And although it was, admittedly, something quite different from Adolf Hitler’s continental policy, — although there was, there, for instance, no question of people of the same blood coming under “the same State” — yet it could have been formulated in sentences impressively parallel to those which proclaim, on the first page of “Mein Kampf,” the legitimity of Austria’s incorporation into the German Reich; I mean: the inspired Leader would certainly have maintained that, “even if, economically, it were a matter of indifference, nay, even if it were positively a disadvantage,”2 still one should, in Germany, seek England’s alliance, for “people of similar blood” should stand together. It was, — again in perfect consistency with the tenets and general character of National Socialism, — a thoroughly revolutionary policy. Revolutionary not merely because it was a 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 93. 2 “Mein Kampf,” I, p. 1.

272 break with the recent past and — apparently — a return to an older political tradition, but because it was the outcome, of an attitude in complete contradiction with that of all European politicians for the last one thousand five hundred years at least, and a return to the spirit and corresponding customs of a long-forgotten age, the sanity of which other-worldly superstitions, on one hand, and all-too-worldly business considerations, on the other, had not yet destroyed, and in which common blood was, as a matter of course, — as Nature intended it to be, — the soundest thinkable basis of friendship and constructive collaboration; in other words, because it was a break with that untruth — that rebellion of man against Nature, — which is the distinctive (and increasingly visible) trait of our Dark Age. The system of political alliances that had prevailed up till then, and that yet prevailed, was indeed — like practically all human institutions of this Age — stamped with the sign of untruth. Common dogmatic faith (in the first millennium of the Christian era and somewhat later) and then, more and more, common (or supposed common) material interests, had been, irrespective of blood, and, more often than not, in flagrant opposition to any idea of natural blood-solidarity, the main bond between allied powers. Charlemagne and his warriors had fought, with the blessing of the Catholic Church, — the oldest international (and anti-national) power in Europe — against the Lombards, against the Saxons, people of Germanic stock like themselves, which was bad enough. And seven hundred years later, Francis the First, King of France — an Aryan king, at any rate — had, for the sake of dynastic greed, allied himself with the Turks against the German Reich, which was even worse, if worse could be. And in later history, calculations of mere material profit had played an ever greater part in the determination of the attitude of governments towards one another and in that of nations’ “friends” and “foes,” without the mentioned profit being, in fact, anybody’s but that of a few international — Jewish; or raceless — big-businessmen, — which meant the complete separation of “politics” from national life in the true sense of the word. The typical Dark Age mentality’ behind that unhealthy state of affairs had 1 “When society reaches a stage in which property confers rank; in which wealth becomes the only source of virtue ... then we are in the Kali Yuga or Dark Age” (Vishnu Puran).

273 been, already at the close of the 19th century, that of an influential British minority, championing, in the name of a misled and pre-eminently commercial nationalism, the most extreme anti-German policy. It can hardly ever have found a dearer and more cynical expression than in Sir Philip Chalmers Mitchell’s essay “A biological view of our foreign policy, by a biologist,” published in the 1st of February issue of the London “Saturday Review,” in 1896, and recently quoted in extenso by Hans Grimm.1 There, not only are England’s commercial interests stressed as though they were everything; not only is Germany, — the prosperous, and therefore dangerous business rival — pointed out as England’s main enemy in spite of undeniable biological similitude, but that biological similitude, that community of blood and the community of nature, which is the consequence of it, that similitude in permanent, deeper qualities, is precisely the fact alleged to make war between England and Germany unavoidable, nay, to cause that war to be a war to the finish;2 it is the fact which urges Sir Philip Chalmers Mitchell, professor of biology, — and, later on, (from 1916 to 1919) member of the British General. Staff — to paraphrase, applying them to England’s sister-nation, the famous pitiless words which the Roman Cato once used to repeat, at every opportunity, against Carthago, Rome’s Semitic rival, and to say: “Delenda est Germania” — “Germany must be destroyed.” It is difficult to ascertain whether Adolf Hitler knew or not of the existence of that strangely enlightening piece of English literature. Possibly he did; the essay had been, already at the time of its publication, handed over to German diplomatic and military circles, in which, apart from a few exceptional men, such as Admiral Tirpitz, nobody had — unfortunately — then or afterwards, taken it seriously. Possibly, he did not. But even so, he was perfectly aware of the widespread attitude which it now so unmistakably expresses; of that superstitious hostility to Germany, rooted in the fear of being commercially “outdone,” which is, with minor circumstantial differences, Eyre Crowe’s attitude and, nearer to us, Sir Robert Vansittart’s, Duff Cooper’s, Eden’s and Winston Churchill’s. 1 In both his “Erzbischofschrift,” and in “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” 2 See the text of the essay.

274 He was aware of it, and yet, from the beginning of his public life, and over and over again — nay, as we shall see, even during the war, — he held out his hand to England in a gesture of friendship — in a spirit of total, unconditional, thoroughly sincere reconciliation, without a shade of bitterness, let alone of revengefulness. He did all he possibly could, not to “placate” the mistress of the Seven Seas, whose might he neither feared not hated, but to win her confidence and collaboration, in absolute good faith; to break that superstitious dread of a powerful Germany, which clever, or, sometimes, irresponsible agents of the Dark Forces had been breathing into her people for over forty years at least, and to awaken in them the slumbering consciousness of the brotherhood of blood, deeper, truer, stronger than any commercial or narrowly political realities — everlasting, while profit and power are time-bound. Governments and Churches, inasmuch as they do not actually embody and adequately express a people’s collective soul, are also time-bound. Maybe, England was living under a political regime entirely different from — nay, the very opposite of — that which Adolf Hitler had given Germany. But that was a secondary matter. Germany herself had lived under a different regime up till 1933. And quite possibly, even a real “people’s regime” in England — in an English National Socialist State, if ever one had happened to come into existence — would have been, in many ways, profoundly different from the German National Socialist regime. Maybe, deep-rooted moral and religious prejudices (blind allegiance to time-honoured institutions and ideas) would, for years, — or for centuries — prevent the English from accepting some of the hard and simple biological truths upon which genuine National Socialism is based, and from sharing wholeheartedly that heathen scale of values which is, strictly speaking, inseparable from it. Yet even that was, from the standpoint of permanent, natural reality, i.e. from the standpoint of the Seer, a secondary matter. That did not alter the fact that, considered with her dominions overseas, England was, before the Second World War, — in spite of obvious weakness, mistakes and crimes; in spite of her having, hardly forty years earlier, waged the most disgraceful war upon the Boors, in South Africa; in spite of her having, through her missionaries and her schools, introduced the microbe of Democracy (and,

275 unwillingly, that of Communism) into such a land as India, — the great ruling Aryan power. Her Empire was, as a historical reality, one of the grand material achievements of the Nordic race — unthinkable, apart from the qualities of character of the best men among those who had built it up, and among those who were running it: daring; perseverance; sense of responsibility and sense of honour; organising genius, coupled with selfless idealism: Nordic qualities. Adolf Hitler repeatedly proclaimed his determination to respect the integrity of the British Empire. He repeatedly declared that the German National Socialist State was to look upon every manner of pre-1914 colonial policy, and every form pf aggressive commercial competition with England as a thing of the past. And he fully meant what he said. He meant it because he saw, no doubt, in that “alliance with England” which he so eagerly urged J. von Ribbentrop to “bring him back,” a guarantee of peaceful development for Germany and of further unhindered evolution and expansion for National Socialism — Germany’s highest interest, immediately and in the long run. He meant it also because the friendly collaboration of the two leading nations of Nordic blood appeared to him, from a more-than-political standpoint, as the unmistakable dictate of sanity; as the course in harmony with the meaning of life (which should also be the meaning of “politics,” if the latter are to cease being mere business intrigues) and the policy which was, therefore, immediately and in the long run, in the interest of superior mankind in the biological sense of the word, and consequently, “in the interest of the Universe,” again to quote the old hallowed words of the Bhagavad-Gita. He held out his hand to England both as a wise, far-sighted statesman and as a “Man against Time.” But England’s leading men — and number of men in high office in Germany — were not only short-sighted politicians but active agents of the everlasting Dark Forces. Adolf Hitler’s efforts were systematically neutralised through their stubborn, combined hostility and through that of the unseen Powers of disintegration and death at the back of them. * * * Had J. von Ribbentrop succeeded in bringing about that Anglo-German alliance which Adolf Hitler so eagerly wanted,

276 there would have been no Second World War. And the unseen Powers of disintegration would have had to devise some other means of thrusting this present Creation a foot-step nearer its doom. The formation in Germany of an eminently efficient National Socialist ruling élite would have secured the stability of the regime and, which is more, the definitive acceptance of the new scale of values and new conception of life “in harmony with the primaeval meaning of things,” first among Adolf Hitler’s people and then, also, — gradually — among all people of Aryan blood; in other words, it would have brought about a general rising of the Indo-European race (and, through the latter’s influence, of all the noble races) against the fatal, downward pressure of Time. The success of such a rising would have meant the end of this Dark Age and, under the divine Swastika, Sign of the Sun, Sign of Life in its pristine glory, “a new heaven and a new earth.” But, as I said before, this is precisely what the Death-forces were bound to try to hinder. They tried with diabolical masterfulness, knowing that it was perhaps their last chance of large scale success on earth within the present Time-cycle. J. von Ribbentrop’s experience with England’s ruling men was a steady series of disappointments. The Permanent Secretary of State, Sir (later Lord) Robert Vansittart, whom he had hoped to convince of the advantages of a close Anglo-German collaboration, proved adamant in his anti-German attitude — all the more baffling that he did not even attempt to justify it through some sort of logic.1 “In Vansittart,” was the German Ambassador to write, shortly before his martyr’s death in Nüremberg, ten years later, “I felt I had before me a man with an absolutely fixed opinion; the man of the Foreign Office, who not only supported the thesis of “balance of power” but also embodied Sir Eyre Crowe’s principle: ‘Whatever may happen, never pactise with Germany!’ I had the definite impression that this man would not even once try to bring our two countries nearer to each other. Every word was simply lost on him.”2 Winston Churchill, although admittedly more outspoken, was no less irreducibly opposed to any Anglo-German alliance. The very thought of a powerful 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 96. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 97.

277 Germany filled with bitterness, nay, with hatred. And he was determined to do all he possibly could to keep that nightmare of his from becoming a permanent reality. “If Germany grows too strong, she shall again be beaten down,” declared he bluntly, in the course of a several hours’ conversation with J. von Ribbentrop, in 1937. And he added, as the Ambassador reminded him that Germany had friends “Oh, we are pretty good at getting them around in the end,”1 thus foretelling that which was — alas! — actually to take place a few years later. Himself one of the cleverest and most efficient agents of the Forces of disintegration at the end of this Age of Gloom, he understood both the mentality of the professional politicians and that of the dull, conceited, inconsistent and gullible average man: the ultimate human factors at the back of “public opinion” and world-politics under a Democratic order. The hopes that one might have been prompted to draw from King Edward the Eighth’s friendly attitude to Germany were abruptly brushed aside through the King’s well’ known abdication in 1937. “With this abdication,” states the former German Ambassador, in the Memoirs I already mentioned, “the cause of the Anglo-German alliance had lost a possibility.”2 And the remaining possibilities were not to materialise. They rested upon the influence which a minority of racially-conscious, unprejudiced and far-sighted Englishmen, in no way connected with open or secret Jewish or pro-Jewish world-organisations — men such as Sir Oswald Mosley and some of the most enlightened members of the London Anglo-German Fellowship — could exert in Government circles, and upon the public. And that influence was practically negligible. In British Government circles, Adolf Hitler’s healthy new Germany was, — wrongly, no doubt, but all-too-actually — looked upon with mistrust, as a growing menace. And the very admiration that so many thousands of English people could not help feeling for the inspired ruler’s social achievements, was — with the help of the press, — steadily giving way to resentment at the idea of the leading position to which Germany had risen, under him, economically and politically, within but three or four years’ time and without war. The increasing prosperity 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 97. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 104.

278 and power of the sister nation were surely the most eloquent tribute to the proud faith in “blood and soil” that now filled the hearts and lives of her people. In England, one wanted peace, of course. Who did not, after a world war such as that of 1914–1918? And it was — or should have been — quite clear that an Anglo-German alliance would have meant lasting peace. Yet, one dimly felt that such a peace could only help Germany to become stronger and stronger, and National Socialism to win prestige within and beyond the frontiers of the Reich. Now Britons had been taught for centuries that every country which rose to prominence upon the European mainland was “a threat to England.” This was not merely the opinion of the Foreign Office; it had grown into a widespread British superstition, harder to uproot than any “opinion.” Germany was, therefore, (and whether this were or not in the interest of peace) not to be allowed to become “too strong.” It was easy — again with the help of the almighty press, — to bring the average Englishman to believe, on that point, the same as Mr. (later Sir) Winston Churchill. All the more easy that new Germany was unconceivable apart from her National Socialist creed, and that the average Englishman was from several sides, at first, discretely, and then, quite boldly, being told that the creed had a “dangerous” more-than-political bearing nay, a decidedly anti-Christian one (which no doubt was true, although in a far deeper sense than that stressed in the newspaper articles and propaganda pamphlets).1 The organisations which financed the latter were, in fact, keener on harming Germany than on saving “Christian civilisation” — let alone the essence of original Christianity (the other-wordly teaching “above Time”) which was by no means threatened. But the pious arguments were clever — the more illogical, the cleverer; — well-calculated to impress the non-thinking masses and the false-thinking half-learned. They bore fruit. In addition to that, the more and more “uncompromising attitude”2 which Adolf Hitler himself was beginning to take with regard to the Christian Churches — i.e., his very definite attempt to prevent any interference of the Churches 1 Among these one should remember the booklets published by “The Friends of Europe” and quoting extracts of National Socialist writers. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, loc. cit., p. 127.

279 in State affairs, — was bound to give grist to the anti-Nazi propaganda mills. It led to the greatest tension between the National Socialist State and the Vatican “and to the mobilisation of all the energies of the Churches against us, in protestant lands also,” writes J. von Ribbentrop; “a most significant and disadvantageous development from the standpoint of foreign policy.”1 It thus became clearer and clearer that the “English alliance” which Adolf Hitler had so earnestly striven for, was a psychological impossibility. Not merely the most influential men in the British Foreign Office, but “the atmosphere” in the whole country was against it. A few weeks before his promotion from the position of Ambassador in London to that of Foreign Minister of the German Reich, i.e., already at the close of 1937,2 J. von Ribbentrop sent Adolf Hitler a detailed report3 at the end of which the following sentences are, among others, to be found: “I do not believe any longer in the possibility of an understanding with England. England does not want any mighty Germany in her neighbourhood...”; “Here one strongly believes in the efficiency of National Socialism” (i.e., one believes it will give Germany more and more power); “Edward VIII was compelled to abdicate because one was not sure whether he would lend a hand to a policy of hostility towards Germany. Chamberlain has now appointed Vansittart, our most important and toughest opponent, to such a position as enables him to take a leading part in the diplomatic play against Germany. However much one might, in the meantime, for tactical reasons, try to come to an understanding with us, every single day in the future in which our political considerations should fail to be fundamentally, determined by the thought of England as our most dangerous opponent, would be a gain for our enemies.”4 There was indeed nothing else to do but to face the fact that Adolf Hitler’s great dream of Aryan world-leadership on the basis of a solid, peaceful collaboration of the two, main European nations of Germanic stock, was not — and was, for a 1 J. von Ribbentrop, loc. cit., p. 127. 2 He was appointed Reichsaussenminister on the 4th February 1938. 3 Deutsche Botschaft, London, A. 5522. 4 Quoted in J. von Ribbentrop’s “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 122-123.

280 very long time at least, not likely to become, — England’s dream It was, no doubt, a pity a greater pity even than the few racially-conscious Englishmen probably realised at the time. But it was a fact. England’s ruling classes were completely in the grip of international Jewry, which cunningly used, in its own interest, both their business-like fear of a powerful Germany, and their moral objection (or so-called such one) against the National Socialist view of life, in particular, against National Socialist anti-Semitism. And the British people, robbed, through the whole modern conditioning apparatus, of their natural capacity of doubt, analyse, and free choice, believed what they were told, and reacted to world events as their unseen masters — the Jews — expected them to. One day, perhaps, they would wake up — when it would be too late. (And Adolf Hitler, the Man “against Time,” first a seer and then a politician, never left off feeling sure that such a day would come). In the meantime, however, their masters saw to it that the sight of Germany’s grand awakening did not raise them out of their comfortable apathy — at least, not quickly enough for them to discover the tricks that were being played upon them, and to refuse to follow their wicked shepherds on the path of fratricidal war. Unable to break Jewish influence in England, Adolf Hitler strengthened his bonds with the two nations with which Germany was in ideological agreement: Japan, and fascist Italy, who both had — the former in November 1936, the latter a year later, — signed with him the Anti-Commintern Pact, which England had steadily refused to sign.1 Yet, again because he was first a Seer and then a politician; because he felt real, eternal England, in spite of all, behind the judaised England of to-day, and the essence of hallowed Aryandom behind eternal England, he never abandoned the old dream of friendship, and never gave up watching for a “change of heart” on the British side. * * * The germs of the Second World War lay in the Versailles Treaty. And, not merely in a complete revision of that shameful 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 112.

281 piece of work, but in the definitive suppression of the spirit which had produced it — i.e., in the abolition of that old, morbid fear and gratuitous hatred of a strong Germany in the hearts of most Europeans, — lay the only possibility of a lasting peace. In fact, the infamous Treaty was never revised, and the political map of Europe never given back the outlines of sanity on the basis of that “right of people to dispose of themselves” which the victors of 1918 had so often and so loudly proclaimed. And instead of being suppressed, or at least left to die out, fear and hatred were systematically and most cunningly cultivated in England, in France, in the smaller European countries that had fought on the Allied side, during the First World War in those that had remained neutral; in the United States of America — of all lands, the one which had the least reason to feel “menaced” by a Greater German Reich beyond the Atlantic Ocean-and, strange as this may seem, in a number of non-European countries such as India, whose people had nothing whatsoever to do with the frontier problems of Central and Eastern Europe, and did not (apart from one or two resplendent individual exceptions) possess the slightest idea of European history;1 countries which, moreover, Germany had never harmed, while England had... and how! Under the influence of those agents of the Dark Forces who had prepared the yet greatest crime in diplomatic history and who were now supervising its consummation, the people of the whole world outside the “fascist countries” were systematically made to forget or kept from learning the fact that “Austrians” — representatives of the small German nucleus that had, for ages, held together, and ruled the many and varied national groups comprised within the “Kingdom of Austria and Hungary” — were and always had been Germans; and that their Parliament had, immediately after the splitting up of the Austro-Hungarian State at the end of the First World War (long before Adolf Hitler had come to power; nay, before his Party had taken shape) unanimously voted the fusion of Austria with Germany. They were made to forget or kept from learning the fact that there had never existed and could 1 To be fair, one should point out that many of the “Americans” — sons of European emigrants — and Western Europeans who helped in the concoction of the Versailles Treaty, knew no more about the history and geography of Central Europe than any Indian coolie is likely to know.

282 never exist any such creatures as “Czechoslovaks” and that “Czechoslovakia” was an entirely artificial State, set up, at the Allies’ command, in 1919, out of Czechs, and out of Slovaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Ukrainians, etc., all unwilling to come together under Czechic rule, and of over three million most unwilling Germans, torn away from their fatherland thanks to the Versailles Treaty, and more resentful of Czechic domination than all the other components of the ridiculous State, rolled in one; and the fact that the only reason for the concoction of such a State — against biology, against history, against geography, against economics, against Nature — lay in its appointed action as a permanent thorn in the flesh of the already mutilated German Reich. They were purposely kept in ignorance of the daily provocations of the Czechs in German Sudetenland and wherever Germans lived within the new State; kept in ignorance, also, of the oppression the Czechs exerted upon the other, non-Czechic elements of “Czechoslovakia”: Slovaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Ukrainians etc. The people of the world were systematically kept in ignorance of the fact that the “newt Poland” that the victors of 1918 had brought back into existence after over hundred and fifty years, far from being homogeneously polish, comprised important German and Russian minorities; of the fact that the “corridor” linking the bulk of it to the Baltic Sea — and separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany, — was German territory, the inhabitants of which were submitted to continual vexations on the part of the Poles, and that Danzig was a German town. They were made to forget — or kept from learning — that Saarland, and the territory on the Memel were parts of Germany; that Rhineland — occupied by the French since 1923 — was also a part of Germany. And every effort which Adolf Hitler made to break without war the belt of hostile States and hostile armed forces that the victors of 1918 had tightened round the German Reich; every effort he made to win for Germany without war a status of “equal treatment” — Gleichberechtigung — among the leading nations of the West, — the re-annexion of the Saar, after a plebiscite in which ninety-nine per cent of the inhabitants had voted for Germany, in 1935; the peaceful reoccupation of Rhineland in 1936; the re-incorporation of 1 “A historical lie,” to quote Hans Krebs’ words.

283 Austria (in March 1938) and, a few months later, of Sudetenland into the Reich, not to speak of Germany’s earlier withdrawal from the League of Nations and her decision in favour of conscription after all Adolf Hitler’s honest proposals of a general disarmament had been turned down; was presented to them everywhere — be it in the London newspapers, an those of New York or in those of Calcutta, — as the outcome of a revival of “German militarism” and as the evidence of a “menace to civilisation.” As already stated, far from accepting the friendly hand that Adolf Hitler stretched out to her, England became more and more unbending in her resolution not to treat with Germany, happen what might, i.e., more and more fatally launched in the direction Sir (later Lord) Robert Vansittart and Mr. (later Sir) Winston Churchill etc., were striving to give her foreign policy. Nay, there are serious grounds to believe that the vexations that the German population in Sudetenland and in the Polish “corridor” suffered on the part of Czechs and Poles, were, more often than not, encouraged, when not actually provoked by secret agents of the British “Intelligence Service.” In other words, England was not only doing all she could to create such conditions as were the most likely to lead to war, but also, seeing to it, before hand, that she could, one day, — again as in 1918 — throw the blame for it upon Germany, as a matter of fact, this time upon Nazi Germany. Her most important European satellite — France — and the world-power of which she was herself (quicker than she expected) to become a satellite — U.S.A. — helped her efficiently in this dirty game. Still, war would — perhaps — not have become unavoidable, had it not been for a well-organised set of German traitors in high position — van Weizsäcker and Kordt, both holders of leading posts in the German Foreign Office; General Beck and General Halder, both in turn Chiefs of the German General Staff; Oberstleutnant H. Boehm-Tettelbach and other first rank officers of the German Army; Wilhelm Canaris, head of the German Military Intelligence, and a number of others, some of whose names were to become widely known overnight, in connection with the attempt on Adolf Hitler’s life, on the 20th of July 1944; and also a few militant Christians, priests

284 and lay men, all-too-conscious of the fact that a definitive victory of National Socialism could mean nothing less than the end of Christianity and of “Christian civilisation,” and determined to prevent such a happening at any price, even at the cost of Germany’s destruction; men to whose feelings Bonenhöfer was, during the war, to give expression, in a very clear sentence: “Better a devastated Germany than a National Socialist one!” Such elements were far more important than one is generally inclined to believe. Post-war political literature — and, to begin with, in various detailed “Memoirs,” the surviving traitors’ own description of their past doings, — goes to prove that the whole machinery of the National Socialist State was simply with them. And the fellows were active long before the war; in fact, from the very day Adolf Hitler rose to power. And they were in constant secret touch with Germany’s bitterest enemies in diplomatic circles abroad. They did all they possibly could to encourage the foreign and specially the English politicians in their stubborn and short-sighted will to hinder at all costs any further materialization of Adolf Hitler’s territorial programme — in their determination to “stop Hitler,” as they used to say, as the six million Germans of Austria had, after those of Saarland, greeted with unprecedented enthusiasm, their integration into the common motherland. They kept the men of the British Foreign Office regularly informed about Adolf Hitler’s plans,1 and gave them, at the same time, the false impression that the National Socialist regime expressed by no means the German people’s actual choice, and that it would be most easily overthrown at the outbreak of war. And whenever tension arose between Great Britain and Germany, they sent secret envoys to London, with precise instructions to prompt the British Government “not to give in.” Thus were, for instance, Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin, in August 1938, and Oberstleutnant Hans Boehm-Tettelbach, a fortnight later, dispatched, the former on behalf of General Beck, the latter on behalf of General Halder (General Beck’s successor as Chief of the German General Staff) in order to come in touch “with the men the most closely connected with the Foreign Office” and “to request the British Government to 1 See von Weizsäcker’s “Erinnerungen,” published in Munich in 1950.

285 oppose a categorical ‘no’ to all Hitler’s further claims,”1 in particular, “to cause England to remain adamant in the Sudeten question.”2 It is now known that Elwin von Kleist-Schmenzin paid visits to several notoriously anti-German leading British politicians, — in particular to Sir Robert Vansittart and to Winston Churchill — between the 17th and the 24th of August, and that he brought back a “private” letter of Winston Churchill to Wilhelm Canaris, one of the most powerful German traitors, already mentioned.3 It is now known that the German Secretary of State, von Weizsäcker, — who himself boasts of his “constant activity” consisting of “obstruction with regard to foreign policy,” in the Memoirs he was to write twelve years later, — also did his very best, in early September 1938, to impress upon the British Government (through Carl Burckhardt, Commisionary of the League of Nations for Danzig, who at once sent on the message to Sir G. Warner, British envoy in Bern, who in his turn telegraphed to the British Foreign Office) the necessity of sending to Germany not Chamberlain, but “some energetic military man, who can shout and bang his walking-stick upon the table, when he must”4 — i.e., a man who, instead of signing with Adolf Hitler the well-known Munich Agreement, would have broken off the negotiations and, apparently, caused war: the common aim of all the enemies of the National Socialist New Order. This much — which is just a sample out of the enormous (and ever-increasing) amount of evidence to-day available — goes to show that, if, in fact, such a supple person as Mr. Chamberlain was twice sent from London to meet Adolf Hitler, and given power to sign the Munich Agreement, securing peace (at least for another year), it was certainly not the fault of the German Anti-Nazis. The reason why the British Cabinet sent Chamberlain — and not the “energetic military man” whom Herr von Weizsäcker would have preferred — and the reason why Chamberlain finally acknowledged the integration 1 Hans Boehm-Tettelbach declares so himself. See the “Rheinische Post” of the 10th July, 1948. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 141. 3 See Jar. Colvin’s “Master spy; the incredible story of Wilhelm Canaris, who, while Hitler’s Chief of intelligence, was a secret agent of the British” (New York, 1952). 4 See Holldack “Was wircklich geschah” (Munich 1949), p. 95.

286 of Sudetenland into the German Reich, is the very same one which had, two months earlier, — i.e., before the last intrigues of the German traitors with a view to provoke war — caused the despatch of Lord Runciman to Prague, as a possible mediator between the Czechs and the German Sudeten Party, to the satisfaction of both (and of the German Reich); namely: the necessity for England to gain time; — “once more to do some thing for peace” — because she was not yet ready for war,1 or, more exactly, because the leaders of international Jewry behind the British politicians had not yet completed their preparations for a world war. Which did not mean that the British Government was not bent on war, sooner or later; war to “stop Hitler” because he had made Germany — the dreaded commercial rival, — free and powerful; and war to “stop Hitler” because he had put Germany’s power to the service of such more-than-political truth as this advanced Dark Age hates the most. Adolf Hitler was happy to interpret the Munich Agreement as the first decisive step towards that broader, lasting Anglo-German collaboration which he so sincerely desired. Was it not emphatically stated in the “Common Declaration” which both he and the English Premier had signed on the 30th of September, as an additional document stressing the meaning and importance of the Agreement: “We look upon the Agreement signed yesterday evening and the (earlier) Anglo-German Fleet Agreement as symbols of the desire of both our people never again to wage war upon each other. We are determined to handle also other questions which interest our countries by way of negotiation and to brush aside eventual causes of divergences in opinion, so that we might contribute to secure peace in Europe”?2 The German traitors were less pleased with the result of the Munich Conference. Their hopes of “putting Hitler aside” had to be given up — for how long? They did not know.3 But they continued their shadowy intrigues, in Germany and in every foreign land the policy of which they could directly or indirectly influence, relentlessly trying to provoke or strengthen every manner of hatred against 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 140. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 310. 3 Erich Kordt, “Wahn und Wircklichkeit” (edit. 1948), p. 128 and following.

287 the Man to whom their lips had sworn allegiance, and against the regime they outwardly professed to serve. As for England, her attitude towards new Germany — the State against Time — grew, in spite of all Adolf Hitler’s honest and earnest efforts, less and less friendly, not to say more and more hostile. Only three days after the solemn Declaration just quoted, Chamberlain announced in the House of Commons the decision of the Government of Great Britain to arm at any cost. Then, “on the 7th December 1938, the Munich Agreement was, through the veto of the British State Secretary for Colonies — doubtless not without the approval of his Government — denied all validity in connection with the question of Colonies and Mandate territories, and the ‘way of negotiation’ between England and Germany closed with regard to the same.” ... “At the same time,” writes J. von Ribbentrop in his Memoirs, “the British Government started a policy of still closer collaboration with France, and the United States of America were clearly invited to join in a coalition against Germany. The aim of this new policy consisted quite openly in an encirclement of Germany. War psychose was cultivated in England already before the integration of the remnant of Czechoslovakia into the Reich. The European political horizon was systematically swept in search of possibilities of anti-German alliances. What Churchill had prophesied to me (von Ribbentrop) in 1937 was now happening. Germany had, according to British opinion, become too strong and was again to be beaten down.”1 The German traitors in high office have, I repeat, no small responsibility in this tragic development. I am personally convinced that, without the knowledge of their activity, England would not have declared war on Germany in 1939 and that “the people would have remained satisfied with a solution of the Corridor question imposed through violence.”2 In other words, war between Germany and Poland would not have extended into war between England and Germany. But I am also convinced that war between England (with 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 146-147. 2 Friedrich Lenz, “Der ekle Wurm der deutschen Zwietract” (edit. 1952), p. 100.

288 her European satellite: France) and Germany, could have (and would have) been localised and ended in 1940, after the victorious campaign in France, had it not been for an enemy immeasurably more powerful than all the frustrated German officers (and intellectuals) and short-sighted, old-style British politicians and businessmen rolled in one, namely: the leader of the anti-Nazi forces (openly or secretly) all over the world; the enemy: the Jew. That one — and whoever, in any part of the world, allowed himself to be, directly or indirectly, influenced by him — is responsible for the fact that the war between England and Germany did not — could not — end in 1940 with the honourable peace which Adolf Hitler generously offered the sister-nation, which he did not hate, but that it spread further and further, becoming the Second World War. * * * There was, (originally) be it in Adolf Hitler’s own mind, be it in that of any of his disciples who had a say in the interpretation and application of his teaching, not the slightest intention of persecuting the Jews. There may, of course, have been, on the part of rank and file National Socialist fighters, individual cases of violence against specimens of that particularly obnoxious and thoroughly unwanted variety of foreigners — sporadic instances of long-repressed (and quite understandable) national hatred or less laudible personal revenge, neither encouraged by the leaders of the young Movement nor justified in the light of the National Socialist Weltanschauung. There was no systematic molestation of Jews — not to speak of planned extermination of them. Such drastic steps as mass “liquidations” — or mass sterilisations — were not foreseen. All what Adolf Hitler had done was to point out international Jewry — international Jewish finance, surely; yet not international Jewish finance alone, but the Jews (and half-Jews) themselves, and the Jewish spirit, — as the sinister force at the back of Germany’s betrayal during the first World War, of her defeat in 1918 and subsequent humiliation and misery, and as the soul of the whole Versailles policy — which was indeed, historically speaking, absolutely true. And all he wanted was to rid Germany (and, if possible, Europe) of the

289 Jewish pestilence — under all its forms and in all domains: politically and economically, no doubt, but also biologically, and spiritually. (He acknowledged, in fact, from the beginning — and that, because he was infinitely more than “a politician” — that biological separation from the Jews and freedom from their influence in the moral and spiritual domain, meant automatically political and economical riddance of them also). In Point Four of the famous Twenty-five Points — the unshakable basis of the National Socialist Party Programme, — he did away with that old and all-too-wide-spread lie which consists in calling a Jew, who speaks the language of a foreign people in whose midst he was born and brought up, a man of that people. And he boldly proclaimed that, on account of his blood, no Jew, — whatever be his capabilities or achievements, and however long his family be settled in Germany, — can be a German citizen. He thus laid — for the first time in the West since the decline of the Greco-Roman world (i.e. since a non-Aryan could, if he liked, become a Roman citizen), and since Theodoric the Great’s healthy Gothic kingdom, — the foundations of a natural and rational State; of a State according to the dictates of Life. In that long, dull process of decay which is, (with a short, very short halt under that exceptional Germanic king) the history of the West from the day Roman citizenship lost its meaning and value, this was a revolution — and what a one! But it was not an act of hostility towards the Jews. It was a healthy and enlightened reaction against the folly of every “naturalisation to the extent the latter is an insult to biology; a proclamation of the eternal truth of blood against the long-accepted but nevertheless shocking lie embodied in all such man-made regulations as defy it. In other words, it was an act “against Time”; against the ever-increasing untruth of our Age of Gloom. (The fact that Jews, and neither Negroes nor Hottentots nor Papuans are mentioned in Point Four is simply due to the presence of the former as the only non-Aryan community living in Germany and playing a part in German life.) Already in the days of the struggle for power, every National Socialist fighter called upon the German people not to buy from Jewish shops, not to believe the newspapers.

290 financed by Jews, etc., in one word, to free themselves by every possible means from the Jewish bondage, be it through individual initiative, without the help of laws that did not exist. One must admit that this was natural in a campaign led in the name of national freedom — natural, and neither new nor unique. Yet the reaction to it was, all over the world, (and not only in Communist circles) a louder and louder outcry against National Socialist “anti-Semitism.” Curiously enough, in far-away India, Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of “non-violence” — a man in many ways in glaring contrast to Adolf Hitler, but still, like him, a man “against Time” — was also, from 1919 onwards, urging his disciples to “boycott British goods” no less than “Western” — i.e. Christian-capitalistic — education and customs; to spin their own cotton, to weave their own clothes, and return to the simple life of older days; to free themselves from both the economic dependence and the moral corruption resulting from foreign yoke. Nobody blamed him for it. Many, in England itself — and some among the most prominent Englishmen in India, whose job it was to hinder his action, — could not help admiring him. The only criticism he attracted himself (mostly frond Marxists or sympathisers of Marxism) was that of being an enemy of “progress” and an utopist, whose passive resistance was not the proper answer to “colonial oppression.” But nobody blamed him for seeking to rid his people of foreign rule — nobody; not even the English themselves. Jewish rule in Germany (and in Europe at large) was, however — and is, once more, since 1945, — far worse than British rule in India or, by the way, than any obvious and brutal foreign rule in any conquered land. It was — and is — invisible and anonymous, not felt by the masses (who have neither leisure nor inclination to seek out subtle evils and their hidden causes) nor even by most of the so-called thinking people, and thereby all the more dangerous; all the more soul-killing. (In fact, England’s real crime against India was not so much her unheard-of exploitation of the land’s resources as the introduction — or strengthening — of that silly exaltation of “man” in opposition to Nature, which is, as I said before, the essence of the Jewish spirit compared to the Aryan, and which was to pave the way for later Marxist influence.) Still, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle was looked

291 upon with sympathy or at least with indifference; Adolf Hitler’s, with increasing uneasiness, mistrust, and soon positive hostility. Point Four of the Party Programme, and all Adolf Hitler’s bold — and so accurate! — statements about the nefarious part played in world history by the Jews, were quoted (half the time without their context) and hammered upon as ominous signs of a regression into “barbarism.” And, although no harm had yet been done to them, number of Jews residing in Germany left the country of their own accord, their hearts filled with hatred for that new, free Aryan world which they felt growing all round them and in spite of theme; for that new world which they would soon no longer be able to corrupt and to exploit at will. And they carried their hatred wherever they went and started, by every means within their reach — every means which hatred can devise and which money can secure, — a world-wide campaign against National Socialism-already then, before Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Any true National Socialist who, at the time, happened to be living outside Germany anywhere in the wide world where there exist such things as newspapers, magazines, books, cinemas and public lectures (wireless sets were not yet so popular as they soon became) remembers this fact all-too-well.1 Other people, — ninety-nine per cent of whom were to be, in some way or another, influenced by the Jewish propaganda, — may not necessarily remember it — a circumstance which only goes to prove how subtle and clever the latter was. Every racially-conscious Jew — and every Jew of the world (whether pure-blooded or not) is racially-conscious — experienced the news of Adolf Hitler’s legal and perfectly democratic victory in the last Reichstag elections of the Weimar Republic, and his no less legal and democratic appointment as Chancellor of the German Reich on the 30th of January 1933, as a personal insult from the whole German Nation (the overwhelming majority of which obviously stood behind the National Socialist Leader) and as a defeat of the Jewish people: 1 I myself spent those years before the Machtübernahme partly in France, partly in Greece, partly in South India — and remember the atmosphere (and a few incidents in support of what I have here written) Most vividly.

292 their first glaring defeat for many centuries, and an eloquent warning to them. Everyone was decided to do his best to unsettle that now settled fact of Aryan rule in Germany (for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power meant, first and foremost, that) and to destroy at any cost any possibility of German rule in Europe (which would have meant the end of the long, unseen Jewish domination of the West, nay, of the Jew’s secret influence in the world.) Hans Grimm has, in a recent book, quoted the words which a “prominent English-speaking Jew in Australia” addressed “a well-known German admiral” on the 31st of January, 1933, i.e. the very day after the “Seizure of power”: — ”You have heard that President Hindenburg has, in accordance with the results of the Reichstag elections, made the National Socialist Hitler Reich Chancellor. Well, I give you my word in this connection, and think of me later on: we Jews will do everything to wipe this fact out of existence!”1 And an organisation was actually founded under the name of “International Jewish economic Federation to combat the Hitlerite oppression of Jews,” and, in July, 1933, in Amsterdam, Samuel Untermeyer was elected president of it. Samuel Untermeyer’s speech in New York, less than a month later, is the first official] declaration of war on Adolf Hitler’s new Germany. And, in perfect keeping with the character and purpose of his people — the very brood of the “Father of lies,”2 — and with the spirit of this Dark Age in which all natural values are reversed, the Jew calls this war, which is to be conducted relentlessly, “to the finish” against the young State “against Time,” a “holy war”... “for the sake of humanity.” And he mentions the “millions of non-Jewish friends” whose collaboration he knew all-too-well his people could expect. And he forgets to mention the real and only motives of his campaign: hatred and fear of any genuine Aryan awakening — the only motives, indeed, for all the other ones (which he stresses) namely the desire to prevent “starving and extermination” of Jews, and to “bang the last nail into the coffin where bigotry and fanaticism are to disappear” were spurious ones. As Hans Grimm — who never was a follower of Adolf Hitler — 1 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 187. 2 The Gospel according to Saint John, 20, verse 44.

293 clearly points out, “not a single responsible word had been uttered in Germany about starving, killing or exterminating (Jews) till after 1938, and not a single action had been taken in that direction.”1 And the National Socialist attitude to Jewry before or after 1938 had — and has — anyhow, nothing to do with “bigotry” or “fanaticism.” In 1938 — i.e., before the war with Poland — the newly founded State of Israel officially declared war on Germany, again on behalf of all the Jews of the world. This second act of open hostility was, like the first, presented as an answer to Adolf Hitler’s supposed “persecution of the Jews,” which had not yet begun. It aimed in reality at impressing once more upon the minds of the Jews far and wide (through the enormous prestige of the State of Israel, symbol of their unity and centre of their hopes) that National Socialist Germany, the proud citadel of awakening Aryandom, remained their enemy number one; their enemy, whatever she did or did not do, simply because she was the stronghold of those forces which were, are, and always will be the polar opposite of their collective self. It also aimed at impressing upon the minds of those “millions of non-Jewish friends” of the Jews (whose obedience Samuel Untermeyer had so rightly surmised) that the first cry of the people of Israel — “God’s own people,” according to the sacred book of all Christians, — out of Palestine, — the “Holy Land” — after two thousand years of silence, was a curse against “the Nazis,” both “godless” and “inhuman.” (And such a cry could only be a cry of justice; or at least the “millions of non-Jewish friends” — Christians; lovers of “man”; haters of all revolutions in the domain of fundamental values — were expected to believe it was.) In fact, a lot had been done for the Jewish cause since the first Jews of Germany — far-sighted people who (also) could afford to travel — had judged that things were, there, likely to become, one day, too hot for them, and gone abroad, with their whole fortunes before 1933. A lot had been done, thanks to the undue, yet almost magical effect of certain empty and yet extremely popular words such as “mankind,” “freedom,” “Democracy,” etc.; thanks to the fathomless 1 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 187-188.

294 gullibility of most people who can read; and thanks to the masterful suppleness with which the Jews took advantage of both these negative traits of this end-period of our Dark Age. “Humanity” and “freedom of the individual” and “respect of the human person” were, in the West, at once linked with Christianity and with the “cultural tradition of Europe,” dear to all (or supposed to be.) As I said, the Jews were not — yet — in the Third Reich, the object of any particularly drastic measures. They just were no longer legally looked upon as “Germans.” They were no longer allowed to teach in schools and Universities, or to finance newspapers for German readers; to be actors, lawyers, professional musicians, writers, etc., for the German public — i.e., to influence that which Germans were expected to call art or literature, to consider as “good” or “bad” or as morally right or wrong. In one word, it was, now, since the establishment of National Socialist rule, forbidden to them to poke their noses into the actual life of the country in which they lived but which never had been and never could be theirs. It was, also, since September, 1935 — since the proclamation of the admirable Nüremberg Laws for the preservation of racial purity — forbidden to them to marry Germans or, by the way, to have, be it outside the bond of marriage, sexual relations with them. (Under National Socialist rule, abortion was, in the case of a pure-blooded Aryan child, looked upon as murder and severely punished, while the yet unborn product of a shameful union was — and rightly so, — to be destroyed. And a German who, before the Nüremberg Laws, had taken a Jewess to wife, was either to divorce her or to have her sterilised.) But, as Hans Grimm says, “these regulations had nothing to do with a malignant Anti-Semitism.”1 They applied, in fact, not only) to Jews, but to all people of non-Aryan race, as the systematic sterilisation of the half-German half-Negro children, shameful traces of the occupation of Germany by African mercenaries after the first World War, goes to prove. And the Jews should have been the last people on earth to criticise the new laws, they who, contrarily to so many better races, have remained faithful to their tribal God, Jehovah, who — like all tribal gods of all lands and of 1 Hans Grimm, Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 188.

295 all times — is said to hold blood-mixture in abomination;1 they who were, themselves, in 1953, to forbid by law, in the State of Israel, marriages between Jews and non-Jews.2 And yet... The wise “Nüremberg Laws” were, whenever possible, presented in the whole world as an attempt to “curtail the freedom of the individual” — as an “insult to the human person,” etc.; the dismissal of Jewish or half-Jewish Government clerks and Government officials, journalists, actors, theatre-managers, judges, doctors, professors, etc. — specially that of Albert Einstein, whose “Relativity Theory,” “explained” to lay people in thousands of cheap booklets, was said to be the marvel of our times — as acts of wild racial hatred, which they were not. A couple of German songs, admittedly anti-Jewish, but by no means more bloodthirsty than certain Greek songs I know against the Turks or against the Bulgarians (or Turkish songs against the Greeks) or than the well-known French national anthem “La Marseillaise,” or any war-songs of this planet, were translated into number of languages and repeatedly quoted as “proofs” of the “murderous spirit” of National Socialism. Even the suppression of “kosher” slaughter-houses, — that standing Jewish horror — was often criticised as an “attack against religious freedom” — criticised, nay, by many of those who looked upon the suppression of the old Indian Sati rite by the British, as a laudible step. Societies composed not of Jews, but of well-meaning Aryans under the double misguiding influence of their contemporary Jew-ridden press and of centuries of a man-centred religion, rooted in Judaism, sprang up here and there, with the definite purpose of saving the world’s soul from Adolf Hitler’s grip — in fact, of preventing Adolf Hitler from saving Aryan man, body and soul, in all countries, from the ever-tightening grip of international Jewry. One of these societies, — the “Friends of Europe” — published in booklet form, in or about 1935, series of extracts of the works of National Socialist writers, with comments showing that Adolf Hitler’s Weltanschauung is a denial of the fundamental scale of values which Europe has accepted 1 See the Old Testament, Ezra, Chap. 9. 2 The actual Jews of Cochin on the Malabar Coast do not marry their correligionists of local blood, the so-called “black Jews.”

296 along with the Christian faith (which indeed it is). The Jews and their “millions of non-Jewish friends” did not, however, lay stress upon this fact in order to save Christian love (which, being “above Time,” cannot be threatened) or historical Christianity (which has played its part, and is dying out, anyhow — or gradually merging into its natural and logical earthly successor: Marxism) but merely with a view to hindering by any means the healthy (when tardy) reaction of the better West against the Forces of decay, — the ruling Forces of the Dark Age and originators both of the old and of the new form of the everlasting Jewish lie. * * * In the East, the Jews had to be more subtle. Christianity is, there, less popular, And there are countries such as India in which a life-centred scale of values is (theoretically at least) the fundamental one — nay (in India’s own instance) where a deep-seated belief in the natural hierarchy of races and in the God-ordained superiority of the Aryan is the belief of millenniums, backed by the unshakable metaphysical dogma of endless re-birth. I think it is not superfluous to say, here, a few words about what was destined, in my humble estimation, to have a decisive bearing upon the turn events were to take in subsequent years, namely, about the part played in India by the Jews and their friends during the years before the Second World War. Most of those Jews from Germany who, in Bombay, as a rule after 1933, but still — strange as this may seem, — with all their possessions, poured out of the first class cabins of the great liners, had little knowledge of the history and religions of Asia in general or of India in particular, and little desire to bother to acquaint themselves with either. The mysterious sub-continent of many races, upon which they had landed, then under British rule, looked anyhow too miserable and powerless to be worth winning over as an ally in Untermeyer’s “holy war” against the Third German Reich. Its half starving millions could not possibly have an opinion about anything outside their own daily struggle for life, least of all about distant nations’ problems. And in

297 admitting they could have, that opinion did not count, for they were poor. But there were rich and influential Europeans, and a few rich Indians, too, in whose hands lay the economy of the dumb sub-continent. The Europeans, mostly Englishmen (or Scotchmen) were white, wore European clothes, lived in fine houses, had clubs of their own into which Indians were not admitted, played golf — or bridge — and read newspapers in their spare time. The Jews from Germany were also white (more or less) and were dressed in European clothes and could afford to live in fine houses. And, curiously enough, those proud English merchants and Civil Service officials, who kept aloof from the Indians, — who looked upon them as “coloured people” even when they happened to be of Aryan blood and no darker than many an Italian — were not unwilling to welcome as “Europeans,” despite the obviously non-Aryan features most of them had, rich men and women of fair or tolerably fair complexion, who had been “German citizens” till 1933. The cotton and jute bosses, members of Clubs “for Europeans only,” and the officials themselves, had little interest in racial characteristics deeper and more significant than “white” or “coloured.” The spirit of the great Aryan revolution that was taking place in Europe against all undue acts of “naturalisation” was totally foreign to them. Had they not already welcomed rich English-speaking Armenian residents of India — “British subjects” — as fit to enter that exclusive society — that tropical Europe — which they formed? And not only Armenians, but also rich English-speaking Jews, some of whom belonged to that titled nobility of money which is, in Great Britain, slowly displacing the old nobility of warrior-like merit!1 (Well, Queen Victoria had set the example in granting such favour to Disraeli, hadn’t she?) ‘Then why not also welcome those “persecuted” Jews, who had come — first class! — all the way from Germany, to tell them that Adolf Hitler’s repeated expressions of admiration for the British Empire as an achievement of the Nordic genius, and his regard for England, and his desire to live in peace with her, nay, to have her as his most trusted ally, were all quatsch — a mere trick to gain time 1 Example: Sir David Ezra, resident of Calcutta; and Lord Reading, at one time viceroy of India.

298 and that his aim was “world domination” at England’s expense? The cotton and, jute bosses — simple souls, with a very poor historical background, despite all their show of pride and power, — believed the Jewish bankers and night-club owners who spoke of “England’s interest” in the same tone as Winston Churchill and Sir Robert Vansittart, and who interrupted the boredom of tropical Europe with juicy descriptions of “Nazi tyranny.” They never bothered to find out whether the descriptions were true to fact or not. In tropical Europe, one is lazy... outside business hours; too lazy to think, let alone to criticise... Soon the new-comers — every month more numerous — got in touch with other rich Jews, residents of India, who knew more than they did about the country, and started planning with them the best contribution they could bring the “holy war.” And articles expressing doubts about Adolf Hitler’s sincerity in his dealings with England; articles accusing him of “aggression” every time some German land, which had been set under foreign administration by the Versailles Treaty, gladly and peacefully returned to the Reich; articles presenting him more and more openly as the enemy, appeared in the Calcutta “Statesman” and other papers in English language for British and Anglo-Indian readers. But that is not all. The islands of tropical Europe in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, never were India. On the contrary, there was a permanent tension between India and them who embodied foreign rule and (which was much worse) a way of life shocking, from the standpoint of a Hindu, in many of its aspects. In case of war between England and the Third Reich — and nobody knew better than the Jews that war would one day break out: they were themselves preparing it — India would (should, logically) stand against England, that is to say on Germany’s side. The problem for the Jews was to have English (and Anglo-Indian, — tropical European,) opinion on their side, without, for all that, setting India herself automatically against them. (There were Jews who knew better than to underestimate the weight the Hindu millions could throw into the scale of fate.) It would have remained an unsolvable problem, had it not been for two facts: first, India’s own, age-old reaction against Aryan influence — probably as old as Aryan conquest

299 itself, and certainly detectable in all those ancient and modern Indian religions and teachings of “non-violence,” which either reject the caste system altogether or rob it of all racial significance; and, in addition to that, among the official and non official representatives of the Third Reich in India, a regrettable lack of insight into (and perhaps even an underestimation of) the other — the Aryan — side of Indian Tradition and the astounding possibilities that lay within it. What I have just called “India’s own reaction against Aryan influence” is nothing else but that deep-rooted reluctance to any struggle “against Time,” which seems to underlie an enormous amount of Indian experience (and culture) throughout history. It is anything but aggressively, or even pe4tively, anti-Aryan — so little so, that some of the most perfect masters in whose lives, religious teachings or literary works it has found expression, were Aryans by blood: men of the warrior-like, princely caste — Kshattriyas, — such as the Buddha or Mahavira, or Brahmins, such as Chaitanya, or, in our times, the outstanding poet Rabindranath Tagore. It is just the attitude of men who live or aspire to live “above Time” either because this is the last resort of whoever carries logical thinking to its end after having lost faith in this earth, or because it is the spontaneous attitude of peace-loving and life-loving dreamers, or because it represents, for some sections of humanity, — as I believe it does for the extraordinarily sensitive and intuitive Dravidian race, whose masses have always exalted the saints and poets of non-violence, when not also of renunciation, — the sole natural alternative to purely sensual life “in Time.” But it is — and has always been, for the two and a half or three last millenniums at least, — by far the most popular in India, whatever may be the proper explanation for it from the standpoint of ethnology or psychology, or both. And it certainly is quite a different thing from that bold philosophy of action considered as “better than inaction,” and of serene but resolute acceptance of violence as a necessity of this earthly life in our Age, which appears to be the most substantial gift of the young Aryan race to the already old sub-continent, in Antiquity, and which is, no doubt, the other side of India’s classical Tradition. This remarkable duality in India’s outlook on life and this tendency of the older mystical and moral attitude, congenial

300 to the enormous non-Aryan substractum of the Indian population, to gain more and more prominence at the expense of the other, has been masterfully exploited by the agents of the Dark forces in the course of centuries. The Jew’s subtle action in certain influential Indian circles — in particular, in Indian Congress circles, — before and during the war, is merely the latest phase of that exploitation. Much the same thing has happened, in practice, to the other-worldly, Indian philosophies and religions of nonviolence as, in the West, to the original Christian faith, that spiritual path for people who strive to live, like their Master, “above Time”: they have become, in this world of the Dark Age, an excuse for disregarding the Nature-ordained separation of races, for neglecting the duty of keeping one’s blood pure, and, in addition to that — and far more so than Christianity in Europe, — for taking up an hypocritical attitude to violence. Buddhists and, later on (in Bengal at least) Vaishnavas, started despising not merely the letter but also the spirit of the caste system, in the name of universal love. And this old propensity gained new tempo already in the first half of the nineteenth century among the so-called “educated” Hindus, i.e., among certain Hindus who had undergone “Western,” or, to be more accurate, Judeo-Christian, influence, and in particular, (more often than one cares to believe) the influence of World Freemasonry. This most dangerous secret organisation of our Dark Age, controlled by Jews ever since the day Jews were admitted into it, was (as it still is) entirely devoted to the promotion of the one aim of international Jewry: the permanent and peaceful — economic and cultural — domination, of the Jew over a world robbed of all racial pride no less than of all desire to fight. It would be of great interest to note how many of the prominent leaders of the Brahmo-Samaj and other such bodies of “reformed” Hindus, were, for the last hundred years and more, directly or indirectly connected with Freemasonry, or with the Rosicrucian Order, or any such other “spiritual” society of similar type, under philosophical (and financial) Jewish leadership. In the second half of the same century, the Theosophical Society, an international body having (ultimately) the same secret aims and the same leadership as Freemasonry (to which an enormous proportion of its members are also affiliated), was

301 founded upon the double basis of an arbitrary, syncretic doctrine, partly of Indian origin, and presented as “occult,” and... of the belief in the equal rights of “all men” regardless, of race — the old Jewish lie for non-Jews. It has to this day its, head-quarters in India — in Adyar, near Madras, — and stands for a close collaboration between so-called “enlightened” Hindus and no less “enlightened” Westerners — Westerners supposed to understand “India’s message,” but who, in reality, interpret the Hindu Scriptures in the way the most suitable to the Society’s secret aims, and who, (whenever they can) have a say in Indian politics.1 Like the Hindu “reformed” bodies, products of Judeo-Christian influence upon India’s intelligenzia, it has done whatever it could to deny the importance of the idea of race in Hindu Tradition, to combat the interpretation of the word “Aryan” in the racial sense, wherever it is to be found in Hindu Writ, and to rob the teaching of Detached Violence — the Teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita — of its true scope; to give this sacred Book — against the spirit of India’s greatest hero both “above” and “against Time,” Lord Krishna, — such a “strictly symbolical” meaning as cannot justify that raw, material violence which the fighters “against Time” (be they also “above Time,” as all such great fighters necessarily are) need to display, to-day, near the end of the Age of Gloom. Well did the orthodox and really enlightened, racially-conscious and God-conscious Brahmin, Lokomanya Tilak, whose whole work bears witness to the unity of Eastern and Western Aryandom and to the power of Aryan genius, liken Dr. Annie Besant to the legendary female demon Putna, whose poisoned milk was intended to kill Krishna, the predestined Warrior and Teacher of detached Violence, when He was still a child. The Theosophical Society itself may well have played but a secondary part in India (despite the public prayers its President, Dr. Arundale, was to offer there for the victory of the anti-Nazi forces, during the Second World War). But the spirit embodied in it and in the other so-called “spiritual” organisations which claim to do away with the God-ordained inequality both of men and of human races no less than with the law of violent Action, (now, in this Dark Age); in other 1 Annie Besant, for years President of the Theosophical Society, was elected President of the Indian National Congress for 1917.

302 words, the spirit of all groups which deny or reject the perennial struggle “against Time” has corrupted to a great extent the conscious strata of the country. It has taught thousands of Hindus to lie to themselves and to the world, and to accept only such forms of the Struggle “against Time” as use moral violence as a weapon (calling it “non-violence,” as Mahatma Gandhi did — in fact, had to, for the sake of his success in contemporary India) and to hate any frank acknowledgement of the necessity of material violence in the service of the Cause of Life no less than any frank acknowledgement of the life-bound and life-ordained inequality of races and inequality of birthrights-including the so-called “right” of “all men” to live. In the end, no doubt, the divine Child — the growing Forces of Light and Life, will, like in the Hindu legend, kill the poisonous demoness of untruth. But in the meantime, the poison has gone very far. It has, slowly but steadily, set before hand thousands of “educated Hindus” against any living — contemporary — Incarnation of Him Who comes, back, over and over again, to fight the forces of decay and death and to “establish on earth the reign of Righteousness,” through openly accepted Dark Age methods — the only expedient ones in the times in which we live. It has prepared them to swallow the clever moral and cultural Jewish propaganda of the years before 1939 and all the lies of the following moral and political campaign against National Socialism and the Third German Reich, to this day. It has enabled the Jews to win over to their cause, before, during, and after the war, thought-forces and will-forces which would, otherwise, have worked in support of the Aryan awakening in the West, or at least remained neutral. The Jews from Germany who, already before the war, were beginning to gain credit amidst certain groups of Hindus, were not the same ones as those who met the rich Europeans — and pro-British Armenians, and Jewish residents of India, all termed as “British” — in clubs and at bridge parties. They had less money. Some (so, at least, they said) had even no money at all, and begged the kind-hearted Hindus to help them to get work, if possible in their own line. They had “lost everything” — lost, at any rate, their former right to carry on their job as doctors, lawyers, actors, professors or journalists in the once so tolerant “Land of thinkers and poets” which

303 had, through the victory of National Socialism, suddenly become a vast soldiers’ camp where nothing was to be heard save the regular stamping of jack-boots and the awe-inspiring repercussion of war-songs; where there surely was no longer any place for their refined intellectuality or their sensitive care for “mankind.” They were “persecuted” — or said they were, — even more so than the other Jews. And, in contrast to these, most of them were “learned,” when not erudite, — or pretended to be; — had, at least some summary knowledge of Indian philosophy and Indian customs, of which they drew the utmost advantage. They were to be found in places in which one was the most likely to come in touch with “educated” or, which is more, influential Hindus: Hindus, on one hand broad-minded enough to welcome the friendship (and admiration) of Indianised foreigners, on the other sufficiently Tradition-bound to be regarded, by a few people or by many, as true champions of Hinduism: — places such as Adyar, Shantiniketan, or Sabarmati (and later, Sevagram) Gandhi’s abode. Some of them visited the three and stayed there for a fairly long time, establishing further connections for themselves or for their friends. (One — Margaret Spiegel, alias Amala Bhen — spent two years at Gandhi’s feet, clumsily spinning cotton yarn, thoroughly learning Gujurati, and telling people every time she could what a flat denial of the Mahatma’s doctrine Adolf Hitler’s new Germany was, and then, — in 1935 — came to Shantiniketan to infuse further hatred of National Socialism into the students whose “German teacher” she was, and ended up as a professor in the Elphinston College in Bombay.) Others would just secure themselves comfortably settled Hindu husbands or — in the case they were men, — became “holy men” Buddhist monks, Vaishnava devotees, harmless and solitary Theosophists committed to the “Hindu way of life,” aspiring after nothing but “spirituality.” Jewish females who lacked sex-appeal also turned holy, or charitable — or both. They offered their loving zeal (and technical efficiency, whenever they had any) to Hindu organisations connected with social belief, and became popular as friends of the poor, comforters of the sick, foster-mothers and teachers of orphans — angels of pity! The orphans belonging to the most far-apart castes would naturally be brought up to eat and work and play together, against the custom of orthodox Hindus, but in accordance

304 with the views of “reformed” Hindu leaders. And it was secretly hoped that some of them — as many as possible — would one day also marry against the time-honoured custom and the old aspiration towards blood-purity thanks to which there are, six thousand years after the Aryan settlements of Vedic days, still Aryans in India. The bitterest enemies of the modern Aryan faith would undo what the Vedic Aryans had done; destroy, to the extent they could, the stamp of Aryan rule in Asia. Thus, in the distant Indian sub-continent, — which should, logically, have been a bastion of the Aryan forces against the machinations of both — the less rich Jews played as important a part as their apparently more influential racial brothers. Silently, — humbly, one could say, — but relentlessly, they were contributing to the formation of that bastardised world in which the consciousness of the “dignity of man” is expected to replace former racial pride; they were dragging whatever they could of India’s better substance into that world. And they were making themselves popular among the Hindus — at least among certain Hindus — because they helped them (or seemed to help them) and because they flattered them. And when, from 1933 and specially from 1935 onwards, — thanks to the Jewish press and literature and to, the efforts of Mr. Untermeyer’s “millions of non-Jewish friends” — (Free Masons and such ones) — it became, from one end of the earthly sphere to the other, more and more obvious that Adolf Hitler was “persecuting the Jews,” many Hindus among those who had a say in India’s affairs were at once prepared to look upon him if not — yet — as “a monster,” at any rate as a dangerous tyrant Jews! — such good and kind people as “Amala Bhen,” Gandhi’s devoted disciple, whose photo at the side of the prophet of non-violence every newspaper-reader had seen; or as Miss Gomparst, the efficient social worker of the Bengal Relief Association, who was (and, as far as I know, still is) running a children’s home and a dispensary amidst the slums of North Calcutta; or as that fair-complexioned monk, Govinda, who wrote learned articles about Buddhist metaphysics and could be seen walking through the lawns of Shantiniketan in yellow robes, under, an impressive Burmese parasol!... or as those sympathetic sari-wearing “mem-sahibs” who gave Hindu names to their half-Indian half-Hebrew children, and had taken to

305 Indian ways to such an extent that some of them had even become tolerable members of “joint families”!1 Really, how could he! — how dared he! May be the British themselves were also tyrants (and which national-minded Indian looked upon them as anything else?). But surely they were right when calling the world — louder and louder — to “stop Hitler.” Of course, all Hindus were not taken in by the Jews’ clever adaptability to Indian ways, by their real or supposed interest in “Indian philosophy” and by their comments upon new Germany. Millions, unable to read, and completely indifferent to the outside world, were never even aware of the anti-Nazi campaign of hatred. Some saw through it and despised it. One at least — a worthy Brahmin little known to the public at large, yet one of the finest characters of modern Aryavarta, Sri Asit Krishna Mukherji — fought against it “with tooth and claw” from the start, through the fortnightly magazine “The New Mercury” which he published in Calcutta from 1935 to 1937 (in collaboration with the German Consulate), and was, later on, — throughout and after the war, to this day — to prove his unfailing loyalty to the Aryan cause. Others, simple folk lacking such political consciousness, and often illiterate, yet felt that the inspired Western ruler whom so many sahebs seemed to hate was the one ruler in the world who professed and lived the doctrine of Detached Action preached in the Bhagavad-Gita. And they admired him. They related that he had come to replace the Bible by that most hallowed Book of Aryan Wisdom, among the Aryans of the West. But they were powerless, the lot of them. Powerless, while isolated; disconnected from the revolutionary forces of Life at work in the West. The support given to “The New Mercury” represented practically the only tangible attempt ever made by the authorities of the Third Reich to collaborate on the ideological plane with the racially-conscious Aryan minority of India. And I do not know a single European National Socialist, besides myself, who made it a point to beat the Jews on their own ground and to try to win over India — including non-Aryan India — to the Pan-Aryan 1 A “joint family” is, in India, a family in which several brothers all live together — under the same roof — with their parents, wives and children.

306 cause, preaching the modern philosophy of the Swastika — the unity of Life, within diversity; the divine hierarchy of races; the ideal of blood-purity and the selfless struggle for the creation of a higher mankind; Adolf Hitler’s wisdom and that of the ancient Aryan Conquerors of Aryavarta — in Indian dress, in Indian languages, and from the standpoint of Indian Tradition; presenting his or her effort as the will to free India from, the influence of the anti-racialist doctrines of equality: misrepresented Christianity and Islam; and Marxism (all three, in fact, more or less deeply rooted in Jewish thought.) * * * The international, ubiquitous Jew did not restrict his far-sighted propaganda to the Hindus. He carried it on among Mohammedans also — despite the old hostility between Hindus and Mohammedans (which was no concern of his) and, which is more, despite the permanent tension between Arabs and Jews in and around Palestine ever since the famous Balfour Declaration, and the natural sympathy of every follower of the Prophet for the Arabs. He carried it on — in a different way, and with increasing help from his friends the Marxists — among the Chinese and Annamites and other people of the yellow race; among Filipinos and Malays, and “educated” Negroes and half-Negroes. He carried it on everywhere, and always concentrated his efforts upon the proper men, i.e., upon those who were, at the same time, sufficiently gullible to take for granted whatever they were told about the Third German Reich and its “racial hatred,” and sufficiently influential for others to hold whatever opinion they might express, for the right one. The slogan of “humanity” and of the “rights of man” — the old slogan of the French Revolution — acted as a spell. With its help, the Jew overcame all difficulties, rousing, out of light-hearted indifference, feelings of aggressive indignation which verged more and more on crusaders’ zeal. The little one did to counteract his game (when one did anything at all) remained without a lasting effect. The visit of a few prominent members of the National Socialist Party, headed by the leader of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Shirack himself, to Damascus, in 1937, was (to mention that one instance) but a partial success. It disturbed for a few days the peace of mind of the French High Commissioner

307 in Syria, who was no Nazi, and who tolerated the honourable guests more than he welcomed them. And it was the occasion of valuable personal contact with several Arab personalities, some of whom were to help Germany during and, maybe, also after the war, none of whom was, however, powerful enough to throw the weight of the whole Moslem world on Adolf Hitler’s side, — a difficult task from the standpoint of Islam, admittedly, for how can, after all, believers in even a warrior-like faith which any man can join, wholeheartedly stand for Aryan racialism (or for any racialism, by the way?). The utmost which the sincerest anti-Jewish Arab — including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — could do, was to be Germany’s political ally against the Jews. And he was, thereby — in spite of the difference of race — perhaps a step nearer German National Socialism than even the well-known Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose or any of Adolf Hitler’s other political allies against England ever were to be.1 But those thousands of well-meaning but ill-informed Hindus, Mohammedans, Chinese, Indo-Chinese, Malays, literate Central Asian steppe-dwellers and “educated” Africans, who were impressed by the cheap anti-colonialism, preached to them in the name of the “rights of man” by the international Jew and his friends (specially the Marxists) and who, on the ground of clever misquotations from and misinterpretations of “Mein Kampf,” held National Socialism to be a new form of “abominable imperialism,” were, — unfortunately — more solidly bound to the sinister anti-Nazi forces, than any of the non-Aryan (nay, than many of the Aryan) friends of new Germany to the forces of Light and Life. And, I repeat, nothing or practically nothing was done, to my knowledge, on the part of the official representatives of the Third Reich, or through the private initiative of full-fledged European followers of Adolf Hitler (with one individual exception) to win over those millions of dull, perhaps, but nevertheless existing, and therefore — in the Invisible realm — to some extent effective human centres of psychic energy and willpower. (Now, in the one or two European papers that stand for the real interests of Aryandom, and in the catacomb gatherings of the German National Socialists of 1955 — the 1 An agreement between Adolf Hitler and England against Russia, at the eleventh hour, would have sufficed to detach from his alliance those Indians who were merely anti-British without being Aryan-conscious.

308 genuine ones, who stood the test of defeat — it is for the first time openly proclaimed that colonialism in its old accepted form is incompatible with a true “ethnic” — völkisch — attitude to, life and to politics. Then, — twenty years ago, and more, — I was myself, in India, as far as I know, the only European. National Socialist who stressed that truth, and pointed out, in Adolf Hitler’s ideological pact with Japan,1 the first step towards the collaboration of the racially-conscious aristocracy of Aryandom and that of the noblest, non-Aryan races in the new world that was taking shape under the sign of the Swastika.) Among the nations of the yellow race, Japan, protected by her immemorial Shinto philosophy — the East Asiatic equivalent of the National Socialist cult of Blood and Soil — and by Toyoma’s silent but far-sighted and far-reaching activity, was, in fact, the only one to escape the infection of anti-Nazi propaganda more or less entirely. Japan remains, however, a non-Aryan nation. Her ideological sympathy for that Aryan way of life which a Japanese was, in 1941, so accurately to characterise as “Western Shintoism,” did not bind her to Germany in the manner England could have felt herself bound, had she only been able to shake herself free from the influence of Sir Eyre Crowe, Sir Robert Vansittart and Winston Churchill etc., and from that of those hundreds of rich Jews from Germany who positively “invaded” London and all the large British towns from 1933 to 1939. Japan went her own way — even though she had, on the 25th of November, 1936, signed the Anti-Kommintern Pact; even though she was, later on, — on the 27th September, 1940 — to sign an actual Treaty of friendship with Adolf Hitler. Precious as it was, her alliance stood merely as a “second best” after the long-desired “English alliance” had — thanks to the atmosphere created in England and practically all over the world by the Jews and their friends, — revealed itself as a psychological impossibility. Germany’s other partner, Fascist Italy, was unreliable, as further history was so tragically to prove. And the Dark forces “in Time” — the self-same ones as are embodied in international Jewry — were there, in spite of Fascism, tremendously active through the Catholic Church: that twin-sister of Freemasonry 1 The Anti-Kommintern Pact, signed in 1936.

309 (shocking as these words may sound to pious Catholics, and contrary as they may be to all public statements, both of the Catholic leaders and of the Masters of the Lodges, concerning the separation of the two organisations, nay, their mutual hostility). The one powerful man in Rome with whose unfailing collaboration Adolf Hitler could reckon absolutely — Mussolini, his personal friend, — was not Fascist Italy; and was, in fact, less powerful than he looked. And Fascism itself was not National Socialism, contrarily to what so many haters of both seem to think. It was a political — and economical — system; not a more-than-political creed; and it inspired a Movement of practical and immediate — of time-bound — significance, not one of cosmic scope. It did not lay stress upon the all-important idea of race and the ideal of racial purity as National Socialism does. In other words, notwithstanding the Anti-Kommintern Fact and her further bond with Italy and Japan, National Socialist Germany was practically alone; alone at least in the invisible realm of quality and purpose — of aspiration and willpower and meaning; in that realm of “energy” in which material happenings are mysteriously but mathematically — unavoidably — determined; the only Aryan power as conscious of its natural mission as the leading agents of the Dark forces — the Jews — were (and are) of theirs; the only Aryan State “against Time.” More so: the Führer and, I would not say “the men of his entourage” (for there were, among these, persons of different shades of National Socialist orthodoxy and also of different degrees of loyalty), but “his true disciples” (whether they were to be found in his immediate entourage or elsewhere) were alone: a minority in Germany itself, despite Adolf Hitler’s immense popularity, and, in the world at large, an unbelievably small number of dedicated revolutionaries, at arms against both the obvious and the deeper characteristics of this end-period of the Dark Age. The Jews had, on the other hand, — thanks to the untruth into which the West and the East have been sinking for centuries; thanks to that silly superstition of “man” which has everywhere replaced healthy reverence of the Divine as manifested within all life but specially within the “hero like unto the Gods” — the whole world more or less on their side; “passively” on their side, when not “actively.” The Christian Churches and

310 anticlerical Freemasonry; the Communists and all those who still stand for bourgeois Capitalism; the gullible pacifists and the cleverest of all war-mongers; all internationalists and all anti-German (or anti-European) short-sighted nationalists were gradually to coalesce with them, in the name of “humanity,” against the more-than-human Wisdom embodied in the revolutionary State “against Time.” This astounding success of the Dark Forces was due — partly, — no doubt, to the suppleness of their agents who, like Paul of Tarsus — one of the most remarkable of them in world history, — acted “as Greeks with the Greeks and as Jews with the Jews.” (One should give the devil his due and admit that he — the Lord of the sinister Powers — is a businessman of genius, and that his children take after him!) The main and deeper cause of their victory lies however in the fact that, in this last period of the Dark Age, this world belongs more and more irredeemably to the forces of deceit; in the fact that this is their time par excellence — to which the last Man “against Time (Whom the Hindus call “Kalki”) can alone put an end — and their domain, slowly conquered through lies and trickery in the course of millenniums; their domain, which Kalki alone can win back to the Powers of Light and Life; and that Adolf Hitler was not “Kalki”; — not “the” one; the last one. He knew it, being, however, the one-before-the-last Embodiment of Him Who comes back. And he admitted it in his own way, as early at least as 1928, in that significant conversation of his with Hans Grimm, which I have already mentioned. * * * In November 1938, i.e., after the Munich Agreement, and before the developments that were to lead to the Second World War, Oswald Pirow, then Defence Minister of the South African Union, paid a visit, on behalf of General Smuts, both to Chamberlain and to Adolf Hitler. He was to mediate in order to bring about a lasting understanding between England and Germany. In the report which he published, in 1951, about his undertaking, under the title “Was the Second World War unavoidable?”, one reads these most enlightening sentences “Already through my first conversation with Chamberlain it became clear to me why the two governments did not understand each other. It was not lack of good will on the part of

311 Chamberlain: the latter had made his whole future political career dependent upon an understanding with Germany, and he was ready to make great concessions to that end. But, between Chamberlain’s good will and positive reality, stood, as firm as a rock, the Jewish question. The British Prime Minister had to reckon with a party — his own Conservative Party — and specially with a public that world-wide Jewish propaganda had influenced to the utmost. Unless this agitation could be cooled down, concessions to Germany were unthinkable for Chamberlain” ... “The factors which stood against Chamberlain’s peace policy were: the world-wide propaganda of the Jews, bitter beyond all measure; the political selfishness of Churchill and of his followers, the half-Communist tendencies of the Labour Party, and the war-mongery of the British chauvinists, encouraged by German traitors. In November 1938, this remarkable coalition had not yet succeeded in shattering Chamberlain’s political position, as it was to later on. But it had convinced the British public that Adolf Hitler was the greatest persecutor of man of all times, and that any pactising with him could only lead to further humiliation.”1 And, I repeat — for this can never be, now-a-days, sufficiently stressed, up till then, the Jews in the Third Reich had not been persecuted. Eugen Kogon himself, — that fanatical hater of National Socialism if there ever was one, admits, in the virulent book — “The S.S. State” — which he published in 1946 against the Hitler regime, that up to November 1938 there had only been “individual instances” of molestation of Jews within new Germany. And, which is more, Adolf Hitler had no intention whatsoever of “persecuting” — let alone of “exterminating” — the nefarious foreigners whom he knew to be the agents of Germany’s defeat in 1918 and the deadliest enemies of her people and of Aryan mankind as a whole. He had — unfortunately! — allowed thousands of them to leave the country with all their property. And he was prepared to arrange for them all to go, taking with them that much of their money as could suddenly be withdrawn from Germany without tragic consequences for German economy.1 He was 1 Oswald Pirow, “Was the Second World War unavoidable?” (quoted by H. Grimm, in “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” p. 192). 2 Jewish property in Germany was estimated a thousand million pounds.

312 not unaware of the mischief they could work against Germany, once abroad. The world-wide propaganda which those of them who had already emigrated were financing, was too obvious for him not to have known of it. But he was generous. And he believed in the loyalty of his own people, whom he loved. And he trusted the strength of that splendid German youth that was growing under his eyes, full of faith in him and in his eternal ideals; full of the will to live as a dedicated élite in the service of the latter, and ready to die, if necessary, so that new Germany might live. He knew that, provided they stood like one man behind him, and stuck to his principles, the German people had nothing to fear from the outer world. He did not know how many influential traitors of German blood were already in the service of the Dark forces, — against him, and against their own people, — nor how far Jewish influence was at work, secretly, subtly, (and all the more efficiently) through the occult bodies that he had forbidden (Freemasonry and all societies affiliated to it) and through the Christian Churches, in Germany herself. His constructive plans — in the biological, social, economic and cultural, not to say also religious, spheres — which could indeed only lead to the invincibility of the German Reich, needed time to be carried out. The eternal truths he preached (after one and a half thousand years of false doctrine) needed time to become once more, first among the Germans, and then among all people of Nordic blood, undisputed, self-evident articles of popular faith.... The Dark Forces were determined anyhow not to leave Adolf Hitler time — nor peace. Working from all sides, they did their best to make a permanent understanding between England and Germany impossible, in particular, to prevent all further personal contact between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain: the one development which, according to Oswald Pirow, might have, still at the eleventh hour, changed the whole atmosphere (and that, too, provided Chamberlain managed to remain in power.) It looked, for a time, as though they would, in spite of all, not succeed. Then, suddenly, an apparently unexpected — in fact, cleverly prepared — incident came to their rescue: an attaché of the German Legation in Paris, von Rath, was, on the 7th of November, 1938, for no accountable reason at all, murdered by a Jew.

313 This was not the first act of provocation on the part of the sworn enemies of the Third Reich as the leading power of regenerate Aryandom. Some time before, Gustlow, Landesleiter of the N.S.D.A.P. in Switzerland, had also fallen the victim of a Jewish murderer. And there were the daily insults of the Jewish press of the whole world, against all that the Germans held sacred. And there was Untermeyer’s formal declaration of war — on mendacious grounds — already in August 1933. This was but “the last straw” which “broke the camel’s back.” Up till then, the many and varied — louder and louder — expressions of Jewish hostility to Germany had, save for a few bloodcurdling articles (and eloquent caricatures) in “Der Stürmer,” remained without an answer. This provocation roused, throughout the Third Reich, an uproar of indignation, taking advantage of which some of the most impulsive among the leaders of the National Socialist fighting formations organised, in the night of the 8th to the 9th of November, under the direction of no lesser a man than Dr. Goebbels, what is known as the “Kristallnacht”: breaking up of Jewish shops, burning down of synagogues, with all the rough handling of individual Jews that one can imagine; from evening to dawn, all over Germany, a proper orgy of Jew-baiting. The next day, the Führer burst out in righteous indignation at the news of this useless and anything but detached violence, the repercussion of which he could well foresee. I have already1 quoted the words he addressed Dr. Goebbels: “You people have thrust back National Socialism and spoilt my work for many years, when not for good, through this nonsense!” His unmitigated disapproval of the pogrom did not, however, hinder or lessen the explosion of hatred which the news of it provoked in the whole world. It was surely not the first time in history that the murder of a man — in fact, of two men, — in high position, at the hands of a foreigner, had be came the occasion of tough reprisals against the murderer’s compatriots.2 Up till then, unconcerned nations had generally kept aloof from such affairs. But this time, the murderer’s compatriots were Jews. And in this Jew-ridden world of the 1 See above, p. 226. 2 For example, the scenes of violence that took place in Lyons against Italians, after an Italian, Caserio, had murdered Carnot, President of the French Republic, in 1905.

314 end of the Dark Age, whatever is done to Jews is the whole world’s business. Not only did the Jews literally “foam with rage” (to quote O. Pirow’s words), but the newspaper-reading population of the most varied lands reacted as though the most horrible event within ten thousand years had just taken place under their eyes. In England and in U.S.A. “public opinion” — so important, in Democracies! — flared up in an anti-Nazi outcry and thundered against all collaboration with the Third German Reich — that exponent of “barbarism” in the midst of our “civilised” century! The British Ambassador in Berlin was called back “to report about the happenings.” Chamberlain’s position was shattered, the days of his political career, numbered. Oswald Pirow’s official mission to Berlin as a mediator was now out of question. And the unofficial journey which he undertook there — in agreement with Chamberlain, in spite of all, — was before hand stamped with the sign of failure. By the time Oswald Pirow came back to London to tell the British Premier of Adolf Hitler’s unaltered good will, and readiness to treat with England, “Chamberlain’s position had become so difficult that he dared not take the initiative of approaching Hitler.”1 The two men, whose collaboration could, according to Oswald Pirow, “have saved Europe” were never to see each other again. On the other hand, the American ambassador in Berlin was recalled on the 13th of November, 1938, and diplomatic relations between U.S.A. and Germany, suspended. The Second World War, — for which, as we shall see, the U.S.A. bear the responsibility at least as much as England herself, if not even more — was now unavoidable. Maybe, it was not yet clear which local conflict would become the occasion and the pretext of it. But it was already certain that nothing could prevent it. * * * An exceptionally prominent freemason,2 Franklin Roosevelt, had been elected President of the U.S.A. in January 1933, i.e. at the time of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. With him, the hidden agents of world Jewry, — and, behind them, the everlasting 1 Oswald Pirow, “Was the Second World War unavoidable?” 2 He had reached the “32nd degree” of initiation — the very highest which any man who is not of Jewish blood can reach in that world brotherhood.

315 lasting Dark Forces “in Time” — the self-same ones that were already building up, in Russia and beyond Russia, Marxist Eurasia, — took over the government of the United States of America. Knowing this, it is interesting to follow from the start the signs of increasing hostility which the U.S.A. showed National Socialist Germany: at