True Left

Any ideas why Savitri Devi chose to associate with the blatantly racist (among other things) British National Party?

Too bad the original NS didn't have access to all the information we now do. I always try and keep that thought in mind when viewing NS history. On that same note though, considering what information they had available to them it is quite amazing where they ended up ideologically, especially Hitler.

Lest we also forget that Savitri Devi spied on the allies for the axis powers....

Many also sought her knowledge and wisdom while she was still alive, from all walks of life.

At that time in the UK, it would probably have appeared easier to try to persuade on other issues a party already hostile towards Jews than to try to create hostility towards Jews among other parties. BDS and the associated leftist hostility towards Jews did not exist back then (BDS was only founded in 2005). In conjunction, Savitri Devi already knew she did not have long to live (she died in 1982, the same year the BNP was founded(!)), hence could not expect to have many years to spend waiting for a better organization to come along, but had to take her last shot with with whatever was immediately available at the time. In light of this, her association with the BNP is understandable. My best guess is that she had hoped that the fledgling BNP would incorporate some of her ideas in order to distinguish itself from the NF (from which the BNP was splitting), thus at least creating a comparatively more ethical party to rival the NF.

With that said, Savitri's grasp of Aryan racial theory was very messy. She never provided a central definition of the term in her own writings, but made only peripheral judgements on who was or was not Aryan based on throwaway criteria (mostly while writing about other subjects!). While Savitri and I might agree on an individual historical figure's Aryan quality, we are more likely than not to differ in where we guess their blood came from. For example, Savitri credited Akhnaten's Aryan blood to alleged Hittite ancestry, whereas I credit it to Puntian ancestry.

...Savitri's grasp of Aryan racial theory was very messy. She never provided a central definition of the term in her own writings, but made only peripheral judgements on who was or was not Aryan based on throwaway criteria (mostly while writing about other subjects!). While Savitri and I might agree on an individual historical figure's Aryan quality, we are more likely than not to differ in where we guess their blood came from. For example, Savitri credited Akhnaten's Aryan blood to alleged Hittite ancestry, whereas I credit it to Puntian ancestry.

I assume that is the explanation for this quote:

“The one thing I strongly object to in your paper is your calling Negroes ‘animals.’ I love animals—all, but especially felines. They— and they especially—are beautiful. Negroes are not. That is the first thing I have against them: their flattened noses, thick lips, tiny high-set ears, and woolly hair. I never for an hour believed in man descending from ‘the ape.’ I’d rather think it far more likely that apes (especially of the big size) are descended from man—and the Negro, so similar to them that it seems incredible at times, could well be the intermediate stage in the process of decay. That is why there are Negro tribes that cling onto bits of genuine tradition, without the slightest knowledge, of course, of what they are accepting—theoretically.”

I think it is also noteworthy that the features listed by Savitri Devi are associated with the Congoid type, i.e. Gentile-leaning "Black" persons. Aryan-leaning "Black" phenotypes (see the Human Beauty-page for examples) do not fit her description at all. Thus it appears that she is applying the term "Negro" to Gentile-leaning "Black" persons exclusively, implying that Aryan-leaning "Black" persons wouldn't be included in her "Negro"-category and thus not affected by her dislike for "Negroes".

Nevermind. I stand corrected.