Here the origin of the magnanimity of Rome is described, and how Roman action was the fulfillment of Greek thought. It is often said that Rome hardly conceived of nor built anything new themselves, only borrowing from all they conquered—yet Rome stands on its own merits as the greatest empire ever built. Their development of spiritual thought into a highly organized (and more importantly realized) system of supernatural forces combined with their innate sense of how to apply and act on knowledge learned (wisdom) is a most profound development. And there should be no wonder why they did not sit down to write treatises building on Plato and Aristotle. They achieved their greatness in the synthesis of actual action and contemplation; in the seemless integration of martial discipline and a fundamentally spiritual life. There was no 'lesser war' and 'greater war' nor was there 'church' and 'state.' Rather all life public and private was both a war waged materially, in constant resolute action, and a war of spirit, of carefully understood divine forces.

Rome's crowning achievement is that it achieved in itself a masterpiece of the ars regia: the integration of duality and unity, spirit and matter, god and man. Roman life was therefore heroic in the highest sense. Every Roman from God-Emporer to commoner was both a human individual and an embodiment of spiritual forces, and in living such a true and complete Life, they reflected heaven onto earth.

The philosopher of the future is more like a prophet than a philosopher. Hence, he must learn to think with his heart as well as with his head.
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=7379

* In a recently published collection of letters between Wolfgang Smith and Fr. Malachi Martin, there is this intriguing comment from Prof. Smith:

If the Greek Fathers could integrate Plato and Neoplatonism into the Christian worldview, and St. Thomas Aquinas could do the same for Aristotle, why should it not be possible, in our day, to correct and somehow “Christianize” Hegel, let us say, or Schelling, or even Nietzsche? Is there not in each of these German “Titans” a certain spark of truth that needs to be brought out, to be “liberated”?

I would highly recommend Michel Henry for his brilliant work at the intersection of spirituality and phenomenology.

I am not endorsing this idea per se, but it is indeed intriguing if one realizes it in fact works both ways; why should it not be possible to correct and somehow "re-traditionalize" Orthodox Christianity, or Catholicism, or even Eckhart and the Templars and the medieval Hermeticists? Is there not in some stands of Christianity a certain spark of truth that needs to be preserved, to be "adapted?"

"Nationalistic Socialism has clearly renounced the ancient, aristocratic tradition of the state. It is nothing more than a semi-collective nationalism that levels everything flat in its centralism, and it has not hesitated to destroy the traditional division of Germany into principalities, lands and cities, which have all enjoyed a relative autonomy." - Julius C. Evola, The Austrian Horizon

"We must close the eyes of the body, to open another vision, which indeed all possess, but very few employ."

Plotinus, Ennead 1.6.8.25–26

"All world-improvers are Socialists. And consequently there are no Classical world-improvers."

- Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West

Demagoguery and utopian ideas are inherently un-aristocratic and anti-traditional. No great man ever asked for approval to conquer. They did not waste time arguing 'their side' and daydreaming about idealized scenarios. Empires are built by the sword. The praxis of great men is violence.

The recent activity in Nationalist circles has shown that they truly are historically and genealogically illiterate, and that therefore they are, among other things, doomed to repeat the trajectory of history. However, like all the fools, they have thrown themselves off the cliffside and will probably never even recognize their mistake, not even when they crash head first into the ground. It is only unfortunate that they seem intent on rousing the whole village to follow them over the edge too.

Once you introduce and allow for the idea of Popular Sovereignty, you are essentially starting on an equation that, like virtually all mathematical problems, has but one final and unavoidable solution.

Although by no means a figure worthy of respect or emulation — and definitively someone who has been "quoted to death" — Eric A. Blair put it unusually well in these words from his essay on the subject "Every nationalist is possessed by the belief that the past can be altered." And we see this very clearly if only in a small way when, in his talk with Davis, Keith is eventually forced to acknowledge that Liberalism and the current order of things does have a connection to nationalism, collectivism, and the idea of Popular Sovereignty.

However, this is only admitted in order to be brushed aside as simply the effect of a "mistake" or "misunderstanding" or "subversion", and not taken for what it actually is; simply the concept being expanded upon and further developed in response to various stimuli. This is a visible trend in history. To take one example, the botched show trial of King Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which is the first really prominent example of the idea of Popular Sovereignty being employed legally and politically, clearly indicate how this one notion is held in common by a very diverse but all also, to a greater or lesser extent, subversive ideologies. Every instance of this idea being put into practice has always ended in democracy of one kind or another.

That this concept seems to exist in pre-revolutionary and even ancient texts is irrelevant. Are there refernces to it in traditional literature? very possibly. However, as the Actaeon Journal has pointed out, Rome's founding was mythical. It was founded by the virgin-born son of a God, and even as a king-less republic it took its legitimacy, not from being the mere collective or representation of this or that group of people, but as the elite enforcers and spreaders of the divine peace of heaven on earth. The Medieval monarchies were characterized, not by nationalism or some notion of "ethnic" determinism/collectivism, but by the struggle of an elite to restore Imperium and Sacrum to the world that was about to end.

The Gods are not a symbol for natural phenomena, such as lightening and earthquakes. The natural world is a symbol for the Gods.

Nothing is more real than the Gods, and certainly not the gross material we perceieve.

Modern academia has built its theory of progression on shakey grounds. We are supposed to believe that the ancients, masters of advanced mathematics, builders of monuments we would find impossible today, and philosophers, were childlike in the face of natural phenomena.

It is not ancient superstition that the Gods reflect, but unconditioned cosmic awareness.

As I have noted before, no one is completely Indo-European, but rather each European population is (generally speaking) made up of three components: Indo-European, Early European Farmer, and Hunter-Gatherer (explained as concisely as possible – the topic is, of course, much deeper and more complex).

It is my view, and perhaps I am wrong, that it is the Indo-European spiritual component in the European peoples that must be reawakened in order for European civilisation to be saved.

I will elaborate on this further at a later point.

Picture: I am admiring a monument to the men of the Portuguese Age of Exploration – men that certainly embodied the Indo-European spirit!

TGO is close, but not quite there. Genetics are interesting, as we've explored a while ago, but what is really important is not found by peering deeper into the material. What is truly important is the Solar spirituality and aristocratic culture of the Aryans which are not necessarily exclusive to any population based on blood.

"An Āryan civilization is a civilization advanced in spiritual knowledge. Not merely by stamping oneself an Āryan does one become an Āryan. To keep oneself in the deepest darkness concerning spiritual knowledge and at the same time claim to be an Āryan is a non-Āryan position."
- Prabhupada purport to Srimad Bhagavatam, 7.2.60

"This being the case, it is no wonder the superior races are dying out before the ineluctible logic of individualism, which especially in the so-called contemporary 'higher classes,' has caused people to lose all desire to procreate. Not to mention all the other degenerative factors connected to a mechanized and urbanized social life and especially to a civilization that no longer respects the healthy and creative limitations constituted by the castes and by the traditions of blood lineage. Thus proliferation is concentrated in the lower social classes and in the inferior races where the animal-like impulse is stronger than any rational calculation and consideration. The unavoidable effects are a reversed selection and the ascent and the onslaught of inferior elements against which the 'race' of the superior castes and people, now exhausted and defeated, can do very little as a spiritually dominating element.

Though today people talk more frequently about 'population control' in view of the catastrophic effects of the demographical phenomenon that I have compared to a cancer, this still does not address the essential issue, since a differentiated and qualitative criterion does not come into play at all. But those who oppose population control on the basis of traditionalist and pseudomoralistic ideas, which nowadays amount to mere prejudices, are guilty of an even greater obtuseness. If what really matters is the greatness and the might of a stock, it is useless to be concerned about the material quality of fatherhood unless an equal concern for its spiritual dimension is present as well in the sense of superior interests, of the correct relationship between the sexes, and above all, of what is really meant by Virility—of what it still signifies on a plane that is not merely naturalistic."

- Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

If all laws come from God, why speak of ethnonationalism rather than divine or Christian nationalism?

"On earth, the divine Sun is veiled; as a result the measure of things become relative, man can take himself for what he is not, and things can appear to be what they are not; but once the veil is torn, at the time of birth which we call death, the divine Sun appears; measures become a absolute; beings and things become what they are and follow the ways of their true nature."

Frithjof Schuon