Sagittarius Granorum

Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. — St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff

The Father knows only lightning strikes of violence, all other forms of might are unknown to Him. The fist on the table, the raised scepter, the Cyclopean Firebolt.

What we now call the Christian religion existed amongst the ancients, and was from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came in the flesh; from which time the already existing true religion began to be styled Christian. — St. Augustine

I have long been surprised at my own wisdom - and doubtful of it, too. That's why I think it's necessary to keep re-investigating whatever I say, since self-deception is the worst thing of all. How could it not be terrible, indeed, when the deceiver never deserts you even for an instant but is always right there with you? Therefore, I think we have to turn back frequently to what we've already said, in order to test it by looking at it "backwards and forwards simultaneously," as [Homer] puts it. Plato, Cratylus 428d

Master's Thesis I read just a few days ago. Worthy looking at for the term "filiarchy" alone.

https://t.me/EvolasCave/3371 Study of Evola is important to understand the nature of the fundamental moral divide between traditional and modern man. Evola describes certain symbols pointing towards Tradition better than any other. The Solar symbol represents the transcendent and its reigning supreme over the entire world, illuminating all with its light. It is the fire that burns all impurities: falsehoods, weakness, and impiety. It is also tied to the Uranic symbol, the masculine principle which is generative or properly creative, not only physically but intellectually; at the same time it is a representation of the sheer moral force required for such metaphysical virility. The Imperial symbol is a direct reflection of the power and glory of God. The Empire establishes an "eternal" order on Earth by conquering all its impious and uncultured barbarian enemies, bringing peace and stability to the land for generations, and lifting up even its lowliest people so they may transcend the merely earthly in their lives. The Aryan symbol takes its name from that great culture which spread its Solar Empire across the world. The symbol stands for the archetypal features present in Aryan culture which can also be found in other great cultures at their zenith. It stands for aristocratic values of spirit that echo those of the Roman Mos Maiorum: Dignity, Virtue, Authority, among others. Within that is integration of the way of the warrior and of the priest, that is, uniting righteous action and pious contemplation in all things.

Xavier developed a special friendship with one of the oldest and wisest monks. His name was Ninjitsu, which means "Heart of Truth" in Japanese, and he was the equivalent of a bishop. Francis lamented that "if his name squared with his profession he would be truly blessed." He tells of their many conversations, in which he found Ninjitsu "doubtful and unable to decide" whether the human soul is immortal or not. Sometimes he was convinced one way and sometimes the other (Brodrick 1952:382-383). Ninjitsu was cynical like many of his fellows, but more frank than most. One day when Francis observed the bonzes meditating, he asked what they were doing. Ninjitsu replied, "Some are calculating how much they got out of the people last month, the rest planning how they will dress and amuse themselves." (Yeo 1932:246) Unfortunately Ninjitsu never became a Christian. He told a later missionary, Brother Almeida, "I wished to know all that Father Francis came to preach; but… I was unable to understand. Though I should like to be baptized before I die, my position, my dignity, and the veneration in which I am held prevent me." Almeida refused his request to baptize him in secret (Cary 1994:vol. 1,36-37). — Matthew Ropp, Francis Xavier and the Land of the Rising Sun

https://open.substack.com/pub/scatteredroses/p/a-response-to-imperium-press My response to Imperium Press' article on universalism. In short, they are mostly right...until they make hasty and unjustified leaps that do not follow from what came before.

Revolutionaries and would-be philosophers always think they emerge triumphant whenever they ask the following loaded question: “Was the prince made for the people, or the people for the prince”, as though only one of these positions can possibly be taken. They think nobody would dare take the second, and if one comes out in support of the first, then they win the day. But one need only reply: Neither. Such questions are but frivolous hair-splitting, cheap sophisms that bog down the simple-minded. One might as well ask whether the merchant exists for his wares, or his wares for the merchant. In one relation, every man exists for himself, in another, he exists for his fellows. Everybody looks out for themselves; but they help each other too. — Karl Ludwig von Haller, Restoration of Political Science

Good channel for those interested in traditionalist litterature. https://t.me/PrencipeGaleotto

A father beating his children, a husband beating his wife or a monarch firing artillery shells into a mob. They all belong to the same category of paternal violence, not always corrective, but always a last ditch defence of power where all sound legality fails.

On Evola. Giulio Caesare (Julius Caesar) Andrea Evola. That is the full legal name of the child born in Rome on the 19th of May, 1898 to two lower bourgeoisie parents. There is little indication that Evola was a baron, a noble at all, nor is there that much in the way of proof that he even called himself anything of the sort. It is likely this is the result of a decades long game of telephone, in part started by Evola as a young adult when he was active in the Italian Dada scene, and further utilized as part of a wider ploy to be recognized as a reliable Italian asset by agents of the SD. His father was a radio technician and his mother rented out apartments. Everyone and their grandmother has heard the story of the buddhist text and Evola's depression, but very few people know that the real start of Evola's interest in mysticism and the origins of the crisis of modernity started when he was studying mathematics for his engineering degree, and he began to properly internalize the implications of the works of such figures as Einstein and Gödel. Much like with his "origin story", most people have picked up RAtMW, read a hundred pages and then asked themselves in frustration "what am I even to get out of this?!". Worse still are the people who have been adviced by well-intentioned but predominantly ignorant people to read Pagan Imperialism, or something in the vein of that somewhat immature, rather controversial work. I'm here to tell you to throw it all away. The best thing you can do is to go read The Path of Cinnabar. If you can't stand reading an autobiography, go read Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism (get the Arktos version, the foreword is excellent) or Recognitions instead. Failing that, you can try reading Mystery of the Grail, but I would be careful with doing so. Basically for now it is the case that late Evola>early Evola. Mask and Face is very good because it gives you an idea of how Evola looks at other peoples ideas, whereas Path of Cinnabar is how Evola has portrayed himself. As to why read Evola at all? I would say the primary purpose of reading Evola, unless one is a committed Evolian, is to use it as a gateway drug to understanding patriarchy in a universal sense. Evola is basically engaged in reinventing the mystical body of kingship, or the order of the temporal sword of the emperor, using among other things comparative religion and the occultism of various western practitioners, not infrequently also with reference to eastern forms and systems. Evola correctly identified the fact that the issue of what he calls "modernity" is a theological, or more suitible to his worldview; a mystical issue. He is very much deserving of the title of the Italian Spengler, for his laudible if flawed attempt to create from scratch a super-holistic rationalization of the pulse of history.

>The nation is the family writ large If nationalists truly believed this they would be royalists. The principle of the fatherdom - patriarchy - is nessecarily one which in a political dimension breeds royalist (I will not say monarchist) attitudes. The idea of the first among brothers so precious to the republicans meets with death when faced with this conception of statehood as fatherhood. If the father is murdered by his sons, the squabbles of the brothers over the inheritance will persist until one of them rises above - Zeus-like - and establishes a new fatherdom.

Man's blind reason, his weak will, and the ridiculous vitality of his carnal longings appeared to him so pitiable that all words in every human language do not suffice to express the complete lowness of this creature. Had God not become man, the reptile that my foot tramples would have been less contemptuous than a human being: "El reptil que piso con mis piés, seria á mis ojos menos despreciable que el hombre." The stupidity of the masses was just as apparent to him as was the silly vanity of their leaders. His awareness of sin was universal; he was even more horrified than a Puritan. No Russian anarchist in asserting that "man is good" expressed a greater degree of elementary conviction than the Spanish Catholic who said: Since God has not said it to him, whence does he know that he is good? "De donde sabe que es noble si Dios se lo ha dicho?" The despair of this man, as can be gathered from his letters to his friend Count Raczyński, often bordered on insanity; according to his philosophy of history, the victory of evil is self-evident and natural, and only a miracle by God can avert it. The pictures in which his impressions of human history were objectified were full of dread and horror: Humanity reels blindly through a labyrinth that we call history, whose entrance, exit, and shape nobody knows; humanity is a boat aimlessly tossed about on the sea and manned by a mutinous, vulgar, forcibly recruited crew that howls and dances until God's rage pushes the rebellious rabble into the sea so that quiet can prevail once more. But the typical picture is a different one: the bloody decisive battle that has flared up today between Catholicism and atheist socialism. According to Donoso Cortés, it was characteristic of bourgeois liberalism not to decide in this battle but instead to begin a discussion. He straightforwardly defined the bourgeoisie as a "discussing class," 𝘶𝘯𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘢. It has thus been sentenced. This definition contains the class characteristic of wanting to evade the decision. A class that shifts all political activity onto the plane of conversation in the press and in parliament is no match for social conflict. The insecurity and immaturity of the liberal bourgeoisie of the July Monarchy can be recognized everywhere. Its liberal constitutionalism attempted to paralyze the king through parliament but permitted him to remain on the throne, an inconsistency committed by deism when it excluded God from the world but held onto his existence... Dictatorship is the opposite of discussion. It belongs to the decisionism of one like Donoso Cortés to assume the extreme case, to anticipate the Last Judgment. That extremist cast of mind explains why he was contemptuous of the liberals while he respected atheist-anarchist socialism as his deadly foe and endowed it with a diabolical stature. In Proudhon he claimed to see a demon. Proudhon laughed about it, and alluding to the Inquisition as if he were already on the funeral pyre, he called out to Donoso Cortés: Ignite it! The satanism of that period was not an incidental paradox but a powerful intellectual principle. — Carl Schmitt, Political Theology

Nietzscheans! I will not hear anymore of your "Prometheus" until you listen to this, which is to be found in Hesiod's Theogony: "And ready-witted Prometheus he bound with inextricable bonds, cruel chains, and drove a shaft through his middle, and set on him a long-winged eagle, which used to eat his immortal liver; but by night the liver grew as much again everyway as the long-winged bird devoured in the whole day. That bird Heracles, the valiant son of shapely-ankled Alcmene, slew; and delivered the son of Iapetus from the cruel plague, and released him from his affliction -- not without the will of Olympian Zeus who reigns on high, that the glory of Heracles the Theban-born might be yet greater than it was before over the plenteous earth. This, then, he regarded, and honoured his famous son; though he was angry, he ceased from the wrath which he had before because Prometheus matched himself in wit with the almighty son of Cronos."

"With out a sovereign, there is no sovereignty." The gravestone inscription of Republicanism.