>>457
I can't really disagree with any of your post, so I guess I'll expand on it.
Devi talks a lot about the morality of eating meat, and I agree with most of her points. Reducing and eliminating cruelty wherever possible should be a primary concern of a post-establishment Aryan society, as kindness to animals and nature is a defining trait of the Aryan psyche. The consumption of meats like veal is wrong, as it deprives the animal of a fulfilling life and a mother of her children, as well as callous exploitation of animals in slaughterhouse and factory farm conditions. Where I start to disagree with her, like (you) said, is the notion that the Aryan man can reach his full potential eating only plants. The nutrients found in offal and other meats, which have been systematically demonized and eliminated from modern diets for the express purpose of harming Aryan men and women, are essential to the proper development of Aryan children. If the fairer races are needed healthy and in their prime to establish a perfect world, as Devi says, then the consumption of meat is necessary.
She also relies too much on examples of situations involving feral cats, and this reveals the somewhat limited scope of her understanding of the love for all living creatures, unless she is using this to make the arguments she uses more appealing to the common person. Cats and dogs in most places are invasive species. When people feed them, they only cause their populations to multiply further. They cause untold havoc on local ecosystem, like in examples of the cat's colonization of islands in the Pacific. When one steps back and truly sees the situation, they realize that the most humane thing to do would to be to remove invasive cat populations in the least cruel way possible. By this, I mean that sometimes traditional kindness to all animals (feeding stray cats), although it makes us feel good, might not always be the best thing to do. The greater good is not always what would look "right" to the common man.
Also, I do not agree with Devi's praise of the concept of the universalist soul. Just because all beings are imbued with the fire of life, does not mean that they are inherently the same. They are united by one principle, not equal in power or importance (they do all have some purpose though). The idea that a man can reincarnate as an animal seems like a dangerous slipping point into ideas of equality of other kinds. The Aryan is an Aryan because his soul could be nothing else but that. To reject his purpose would be adharmic, which is why it is used as a punishment in many myths like those mentioned by Devi, and others, like the Bacchae.
Keep in mind, I do not think that Savitri Devi wrote any of this maliciously, but only that she had deficient information about nutrition and that she did not properly analyze the rule of Eternal Struggle. Most of the problems Devi has with meat consumption could be solved by relying more on dairy consumption for protein intake, and only eating livestock that are old or already dying. She also fails to acknowledge the harmful effects of modern agriculture, like the repeated harvest of fast growing plants as opposed to more permaculture related plantings, the loss of soil, and the incompatibility with unmanaged ecosystems. Still, the book was a very engaging read.