Talk:Savitri Devi

Nationality

I was wondering if "Franco-Greek" is a correct description of her nationality. While born and raised in France, she never embraced a "French identity", and obtained Greek citizenship early in her youth. Even if she cannot escape identification with with her country of birth, wouldn't it be "Graeco-French" (though this would still ignore her Anglo- ancestry). -- Morning star 15:43, 04 April 2004 (UTC)

It would ignore it, as well as her Italian roots (her father was half Italian) and her embracing of and identification with Indian nationalism. That's why she called herself an "Aryan woman". I think this self-description is really the most matching one--even to label her "European" would mean to cut her identity down to a too low common denominator. -- Falk9 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Falk9, the information about her ethnicity is relevant, would have been included in any print encyclopedia before Wiki, and therefore should remain in Wiki. We are not serving HER here, we are serving facts. The reader comes here for information, not for a glistening snow job. Her extreme racist views, coupled with her attempts to "escape" from identification with her own background, need to be presented. The dichotomy is just as relevant to her later political choices as Bobby Fischer's statements that he is not Jewish are to his political choices. Catherineyronwode 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut down 'related' list

It's not standard practice to have quite so many 'related' links. There's no need to link to every well-known neo-Nazi; a few links to general pages will do. --Saforrest July 8, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I agree. I cut the list down to topics of esoteric nazism that hadn't already been mentioned. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

I removed the link to Julius Evola. She is no more related to him than she is to Rene Guenon. While she cited both, neither cited her, and neither was a National Socialist.68.180.6.24 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Influenced?

Savitri Devi herself was influenced by writers and thinkers like René Guénon, Julius Evola, and Oswald Spengler.

Where are the sources for an influence of Evola?

Although it wouldn't surprise me if this were true (that Spengler had, at least), this is the first place I've encountered this assertion. Hitler's Priestess only indexes these thinkers to influences on activists who Savitri Devi also influenced. —Morning star 17:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

May be she was influenced by Spengler, but the alleged Guenon influence seems nothing but a forgery. In addition, it is not mentionned that she met Subhas C. Bose, and the Pandit Rajwade, from Puna. TwoHorned 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

She certainly reads like she's been influenced by Guenon, though not necessarily directly. I couldn't provide evidence, though, I'm just saying. Dogville 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The Evola influence is flagrant (Kali Yuga, revolt aginst modernity), the Blatavasky is stated, and the Guenon is implicit. She's an Orientalist working in Traditionalism. You couldn't escape the guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following text:

NOTE: The claim that Savitri Devi influenced Ernst Zündel's views on the Holicaust is false. According to Zündel himself, the reverse is the case. He claims that Savitri Devi believed all the major tenets of the Holocaust story, including the use of homicidal gas chambers. She was extremely skeptical of Zündel's attempts to dispute elements of the Holocaust story. Zündel even suspected that she WANTED to believe in the extermination of six million Jews. At the very least, she did not care. In her 1978 interviews she said that her standard answer to the accusation of the six million was: "Pity it was not sixteen million, then the Jewish problem would have been solved." In the same interviews, Savitri also claimed that she believed in the standard Holocaust story until 1977, when she read Arthur Butz's THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.

I have no idea about its validity, and that is why I added the tag. If the info is true, please source it, and add it in a coherent manner. If not, feel free to remove that tag! --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the claim (that Savitri Devi influenced Zündel's views on the Holocaust) based on what Goodrick-Clarke states in Hitler's Priestess (pp. 206-207). The alternate claim wouldn't surprise me, but—as you say—it would need to be sourced. —Morning star 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

While certainly believing (and delighting) in the Holocaust from early on, Devi was also quick off the mark in claiming its scale had been exaggerated. For example, the following is a quote from 'Pilgrimage', written 1953-4:

‘By the way,’ said I, ‘it seems that, in their desire to show tourists how “awful” we were, the Democrats have built gas-chambers in former camps in which there were none, and added new ones in such places as Auschwitz … Is it true?’

‘It’s just like them, anyhow!’ laughed Hans F. ‘But let them do so! It will spare us the trouble – and the expense – of new installations, next time …’

Dogville 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how the disputed text has been removed, I'm removing the tag for now. I'm going to look into sourcing that claim, however. Deleuze 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

this is incorrect. In one of her animal rights books (I'd have to check my bookshelf) she denies the holocaust. edit: it was lightning and the sun p.288. It's in one of her animal rights books too but I can't find it.

THE OPENING (REMOVED) TEXT IS CORRECT; I'm not responsible for the said inclusion, but the fact is that Devi did originally believe the standard historical narrative of the Holocaust and her subsequent disbelief was indeed a result of her reading Butz's influential book. The source for this can be found in her taped interviews with Ernst Zundel that have since been transcribed by R.G. Fowler and published by Black Sun Publications in 2007 as And Time Rolls On: The Savitri Devi Interviews. 86.161.201.222 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed: "Portas impressed her teachers with her vibrant, penetrating mind." Already I think this article is a little too long and detailed, almost glamorising a person whose views most people would find abhorrent (more extreme even than the KKK in the US). But crediting her with a 'vibrant, penetrating mind' is going too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.169.217 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

There's still no source for the article's claim that Devi's marriage was never consummated. Can anyone supply? 194.66.226.95 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Did she remain married to Mukherji until he died? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

Removed links to savitridevi.org (s.o), library.flawlesslogic.com (l.f.c), and the Kerry Bolton treatise on geocities.com again. The l.f.c site contains racist and antisemitic texts by Savitri Devi and other writers. The s.o site includes her own racist and antisemitic texts, and contains links back to l.f.c. So both sites are neither useful or tasteful, see

Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link: Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

The s.o and l.f.c aren't sites of recognized authorities on the biography of Savitri Devi.

The Kerry Bolton text is a personal blog. It has no critical comment about Savitir Devi or Nazism. Instead it repeats Savitri Devi's opinions and seems to agree with it. Bolton even claims that "she was the first to discover the secret and spiritual power behind Hitlerism", which in no way is a scientific fact . So this is neither a suitable nor reliable source wikipedia should link to.--Schwalker 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how the sites aren't useful if you wish to understand Savitri Devi's POV. As for their tastefulness, they are far from the "DEATH TO SUBHUMANS!"-screeching variety of racist site. As the letter page of s.o states: "the purpose of this archive is research, not propaganda." The literature page includes links to critical and scholarly articles about Savitri Devi and it's webmaster has edited three published books by her.

The l.f.c site is a bit more propagandistic, but aside from R.G. Fowler's Woman Against Time and Savitri Devi: Life and Work by Irmin, it simply presents Savitri's writings.

Kerry Bolton is a notable far-right activist and author so I think of his viewpoint on Savitri Devi as significant. —Morning star 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Savitri Devi point of view can be explained well enough by using secondary sources. Wikipedia should not link to uncritical presentations of her writings, since the content is racist, anitsemitic and pro nazism. The editors of the s.o and l.f.c sites may be passionate collectors and editors of Savitri Devi stuff, but that does not turn them into authoritative experts. The editors claim that the purpose of the archive is not propaganda, however this does not change the fact that the sites are full with it. One of many examples for racism can be found on the very same letter page of s.o, where the editor in an answer to a letter extensively advocates race segregation and purity.--Schwalker 13:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only secondary sources left would be those of Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke and Koenraad Elst which, beside having their own inaccuracies and biases, do not provide as full a picture as her writings and the findings of s.o.

It's logical to make links to her writings available, just as the pro-Nazi racist antisemitism in Mein Kampf is available from its article. Wikipedia is not Germany (where presenting these views are illegal), it does not have to limit itself solely to sites advocating universalist egalitarianism. I might find Communism objectionable, but I'd never argue that direct links to the writings of Lenin should not be provided, even if the site providing them presented him as the greatest genius ever to walk the earth.

I fail to see where the editor of s.o "extensively advocates race segregation and purity." I assume you mean his response to the letter inquiring if "Savitri Devi was a race-mixer," in which he argues that she doesn't meet the definition of that term. Note that I'm not making the case that Fowler is not "a racist," I assume he's sympathetic to Savitri's POV, I am arguing that those are not proper grounds for censoring him. As Wikipedia is not censored, "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content". —Morning star 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia would use s.o or l.f.c as a source for its articles, it would declare these sites as reliable sources. But such a declaration would include every statement on these sites. So Wikipedia would agree with the racist or antisemitic content, too. This could be offensive for the reader. I have also explained this on Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_racist_or_antisemitic_sites, and demanded to remove s.o and l.f.c sites as sources from Wikipedia.--Schwalker 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has direct links to Mein Kampf...in 10 languages. Are you going to ask that those links be removed as well? Links to Devi's writings should remain. Aryaman (☼) 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In case of the Mein Kampf article it depends to what kind of web-sites these links go. I think the discussion belongs to Talk:Mein Kampf. --Schwalker (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a direct analogy, used as an example in relation to changes to this article, and thus relevant. The links to Mein Kampf include a Gutenberg e-text - without any kind of 'critical preface'. (Which is how they can publish it in the first place: if it had a preface by another author, the same would be under copyright.) But we needn't limit it to Mein Kampf: following your argument, we should also eliminate links to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, for example, because some unsuspecting reader could assume that Wikipedia considers his philosophy to be a 'reliable source'.

The s.o. site is far from a shock site, and presents a fair collection of Devi's original work with little to no commentary (and where this is the case, the author is clearly identified). Unless you have other arguments to bring up, I see no reason to eliminate the link. Aryaman (☼) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At least the Gutenberg organization does not advocate racism like the s.o and l.f.c sites do as I've tried to explaine above. If you really believe that Kant advocated racism and antisemitism please propose a removal of links on Talk:Critique of Pure Reason. --Schwalker (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can accept Gutenberg's edition of Mein Kampf, then you should have no problem including links to PDFs of Devi's works. Though I really see no need for one, I think that is a fair comprimise. Aryaman (☼) 11:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Advocating Racism is not yet illegal in the United States. Devi provides a primary source for understanding Esoteric Hitlerism, especially that of Serrano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

White supremacist?

This has always kinda bothered me. She believes Hitler was a demi-god, that more Jews should have died in the holocaust and that Germany is the spiritual was homeland of the Aryan peoples. Yet... she was also a Hindu & supported the struggles of ethnic Indians. So, technically, can she be considered a White Supremacist? It's seems the usage of the word Aryan in this case works in both the factual sense (Indian) and non-factual sense (German). So which one? Was she a multicultural anti-Semitic or what? I find it hard to believe many people would continue to take her very seriously…

69.250.130.215 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're mostly right. She wasn't a white supremacist, but presumaby because she has a thing for Hitler (though she sees him as a Hindu deity) the white power nutjobs have taken to heavily abridged copies of her books (sans Hinduism, which doesn't leave much). She's undoubtedly racist, anti-egalitarian and anti-semitic, though, but it stems from an extremely unorthodox interpretation of Hinduism, rather than Naziism. Her animal rights stuff is actually fairly interesting. She's a solid thinker in some respects (e.g. animal rights), but she's prone to irrational bouts of extreme racism and denying things that are plainly obvious in Lightning and the Sun(Holocaust, the fact that Hitler wasn't a boy scout and wasn't after world peace). She also relies on secondary sources too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics traces the languages of both German and Hindi (as well as all other Indo-European language, hence the term) back to an 'Aryan' tongue at some point in distant history. The implication of this is that both Indians and the Germanic peoples of Europe are of the same cultural stock, albeit one very distant historically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.110.52 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Solid thinker"? The euphemisms that "animal rights"{ / vegetarians are willing to resort to... She was a raving fascist nutcase, and her "animal rights" crap was right out of the Adolph Hitler "love animals, murder people" playbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.102.101.85 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Treating animals like people is not far from treating people like animals. Let deep ecologists everywhere read this and check themselves for anti-humanism. Chrisrus (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

S. Devi and Traditionalism

The current article reads:

"(Her works) have also influenced traditionalist thought (philosophia perennis)."

Can we get some kind of qualification or reference here? I have read works of several members of the Traditionalist School (Guénon, Schoun, Coomaraswamy and others), and have yet to run across any mention of Savitiri Devi or anything in the way of original ideas advocated by her. Unless someone is willing to argue that Evola was the mouthpiece of Traditionalism, I don't see how we can make anything more than a mention of a perceived similarity - provided someone notable noticed the same. If we can't get references on this, I nominate it for deletion. Aryaman (☼) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I just noticed the earlier discussion regarding this subject (under: Influenced?). This only encourages me to delete what appears to be a case of WP:OR. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please submit it below. Aryaman (☼) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, even if we consider Evola to be the mouthpiece of Traditionalism, the statement still seems inaccurate. As far as I can tell, Evola was not influenced by Savitri Devi, and his works reveal many important divergences in thought from Savitri's. 169.229.6.170 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kalki Avatar

Does anyone who has read her book know if Savitri Devi actually said that she believed Hitler to be the Kalki avatar? It does not say that in the article here. Yet it says this in the Kalki article. Vedantahindu (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer's in "The Lightning and the Sun" and its extensive biography/love letter to Hitler. It's NO. While she declares Hitler a "Man against Time", he's not a deity. Kalki is the final "Man Against Time" and of necessity Hitler fails, because he's not Kalki. What makes Kalki? Success at bringing about the end of the world, therfore Kalki can't be Hitler because the world's not yet ready to end (270). It's tautological. But, Hitler himself presages Kalki by having the "triple aspect of divine immanence" (417). Think: Hitler = Nihilistic John the Baptist, to a Nihilistic Messiah.

Or something like that. The whole thing is fairly obscure. The esoteric hitlerists more or less are extreme nihilists involved in a Hitler personality cult that are hoping for the return of Hitler so he can bring about the end of the world, which would paradoxically make him Kalki rather than Hitler so wishing for the return itself is, even under Devi's system, completely circuitious since it's impossible for Kalki to be Hitler as Hitler himself was the last great archetype.

If you want me to take a glance at the Kalki article, I will. Guinness4life (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnicity", skin-colour, inconsistence

Biographic Wikipedia articles usually tell the nationality of the person, but not their alleged "Ethnicity" which is an unclear and controversial concept. Also article do not tell the colour of the skin of someone, if it is not relevant for the article. The statement that it would have benn inconsistent with Mrs. Devi's beliefes for her to mary Asit Krishna Mukherji is original research and does not beolong into the article either. --Schwalker (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

She isn't Mrs. Devi, see this article. Derpian (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting!

An interesting, well done article. Kudos to all involved in making it this way. Chrisrus (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing of the claim about savitri devi helping subhash chandra bose

Savitri devi's claim about helping subhash chandra bose meet the japanese is presented in factual manner in the article. There seems to be no such incident in reality. Subhash bose first went to soviet union to meet stalin. Being disappointed there, he was put in contact with german embassy by the soviets, and went to germany. From there, he was put into contact with japanese represantatives by the germans in germany. There seems to be no point where savitri devi could have played a role in helping subhash chandra bose contact the japanese. The claim seems extremely dubious, and should be deleted. Savitri devi was a nazi spy and a well known weirdo. She is not a reliable source on anything, including herself. 2409:4066:97:AC76:2D53:1D81:B14F:1B82 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Well-spotted. The source says she "claimed", which was omitted by whoever inserted the tidbit. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there were contacts between Bose and Savitri Devi. Bose needed to recruit practically everybody willing to his project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and updating the article. I think the claim needs further wayering down, or deletion. The source is claiming that she made this claim, after her death. But I never saw any such claim before her death. Its just a news media source making an off hand comment. It may be entirely made up to fill up space. If savitri devi does not make this claim in any of her books, whole thing may be spurious, or based on hearsay. There should be a better source to establish that she actually made this claim. Otherwise, the thing should be deleted IMO. 2409:4066:9C:E16C:E064:D81D:6461:D61E (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Judeo-Christianity

The Term "Judeo-Christianity" should be removed from this article. "Judeo-Christianity" is about as legitimate as saying "Islamo-Christianity" or "Judeo-Islam". This term seems especially nonsensical if one looks at the history of relations between the religion of Judaism and the religion of Christianity. A much more fitting term, if we should use one, is Abrahamism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The attached source specifically say "Judeo-Christianity". Further, it mention that Devi has support among Islamic Fundamentalists. We are interested in sources, not first-hand familiarity. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Faulty argument - there are some self-identified Christians in Neo-Nazi and Alt-Right circles who admire her as well. In fact, Her idea of Racial Spirituality influenced the RAHOWA/"Christian Identity", so bringing up the Islamic Fundamentalists doesn't hold. Also, the sources could pull a Varg Vikernes and just (incorrectly) call it all "Judaism" and you would still accept it? This doesn't hold up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on the many issues with “Judeo-Christian” as a legitimate term. It’s a nonsense phrase, and it’s usage in certain sources does not justify its inclusion in the article. In fact, it shows that the quality of the sources is dubious. Farrazine (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Article title/lede

@Lard Almighty: Could you provide a summary of your revert of my edit? Please keep in mind that I made an effort to explain why I believe your stance on this is wrong so I could use your help seeing how my stance is wrong. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:ACF0:E0DC:FF71:4B95 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between a pen name and a birth name that was changed. Maximiani Portas changed her name to Savitri Devi, and her married name was Mukherji. That was her legal name and the name she was known by, and why her article is under that name and her birthname redirects to that article. Samuel Clemens was always Samuel Clemens in real life. Twain was only a pseudonym. So the article is "Mark Twain" but it starts with his legal name Samuel Clemens, just as Maximiani Portas' article starts with her legal name, Savitri Devi. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Our article on pseudonym says "Pseudonyms should not be confused with new names that replace old ones and become the individual's full-time name. Pseudonyms are 'part-time' names, used only in certain contexts". That means "Savitri Devi" isn't a pseudonym. You're also right: my edit shouldn't have started out with her birth name. The first famous person I could think of who changed their entire name is Muhammad Ali. Here's his article's first sentence:

Muhammad Ali (/ɑːˈliː/; born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American professional boxer, activist, and philanthropist.

I used that as a guide and came up with this:

"Savitri Devi Mukherji (born Maximiani Portas (pronounced [mak.si.mja.ni pɔʁ.tɑ], 30 September 1905 – 22 October 1982), was an English-Greek-French proponent of Nazism who served the Axis powers by committing espionage on the forces of the Allies of World War II in India.

@Lard Almighty: Does that work? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:ACF0:E0DC:FF71:4B95 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I had already changed it to that. Ali is a much better example than Twain because Clay changed his name as Mukherji did. It was not a pseudonym. Lard Almighty (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source without any further reference to a reliable source.

Savitri was a proponent of a synthesis of Hinduism and Nazism, proclaiming Adolf Hitler to have been an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.[5] Bramharpan (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't comment on the sources, we just record what they say. Please explain why you think it is unreliable. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Year of first visit to India?

Is the year 1932, mentioned in the article, correct? The Indian National Archives hold a Visa application dated 1935, where she claims to not have visited India before. Of course, I don't know if she has intentionally made a false claim. Here are the digitized files:

Grant of Visa for India to Miss Maximiani Portaz, a Greek National Report of Activities of This Lady After Her Arrival in India

84.205.227.38 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)