“Each sheikh has a woman that develops him into a sheikh. Therefore, in this seemingly patriarchal mystery tradition (Sufism), we see that woman is the hidden initiatrix, the shadow guide, the blackness that births the light. ”Da Tariki, tariqat”—"In the darkness, the path," is a Sufic maxim. The void has been described as a dark cave, a shadowy mihrab, the concealed or secret radiance, the black stone of the Kaaba, ghayb ul-ghaib (mystery of mysteries), Ama' (primal Darkness), and returning to the [pleromatic] womb of Fatima ('Alaiha Assalam) the Mother.”
⸺”The Centrality of the Divine Feminine in Sufism”, Laurence Galian

Every woman is a potential hero factory

The idea that "Nationalism was not born in the 19th century" is so insane that only an American or an Americanized European could conceive of it. The thought that to have more than one nation within a state is a crime or a danger can only occur to someone who has already injected, if only in a small dose, the corrosive poison of Liberalism.

Nationalism is a Modern idea. It arose from Modern ideas such as natural rights, and the ideals of the Enlightenment. It was born in the womb of that vile image of the Jacobins, that intellectual and bourgeois prostitute, "Lady" Liberty.

Show me a Nationalist that was not also a democrat, a liberal, an egalitarian, a socialist in the pre-Marxian sense, and I might consider the claim.

Garibaldi, the republican and women's suffrage advocate?

France, the Netherlands, Italy, America, my own Norway, and so on. Germany too would have been corrupted in those days, had not the aristocratic Kamarilla overcome the liberals there, and used nationalism for a higher and superior purpose. Everywhere you look, Nationalism was a tool for progressives, anti-elitist, anti-authority, anti-imperial, anti-monarchical (in the true sense, Constitutional Monarchy is a bourgeois jest), and all those other plagues of the 19th-century.

Nationalism means one state, one nation.

It, like every other product of Liberalism, represents its infantile desire to stop all conflict forever.

The Romans subjugated the Italians, the Romans destroyed and absorbed the Etruscans and the Teutons, the Romans conquered Gaul, Iberia, Britannia, Illyria, Hellas, Anatolia, Africa, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Judea. The Romans scattered the Jews and exterminated Carthage. Numidians, Italians, Germans, Slavs, Parthians, Greeks, Celts, and so on, all these nations marched under the same imperial eagle.

Nationalism is subversive, with its patriotism and its blood-and-soil cult of particularity, it destroys or subverts the old, genuine culture and replaces it with a vague and general "national identity". Any red-blooded Roman would have considered nationalism a plebian heresy; a danger to his bloodline and the dignity of his family.

Dynasties, clans, families, bloodlines. These are all superior to the "national idea".


It is beyond Ironic that a body calling itself "Imperium Press" would argue for nationalism.

Nationalism refers to a specific relation of man to the state, and it really has no precedence in history. Following the Peace of Westphalia, or even the founding of the New World, there is a simultaneous strengthening and weakening of national borders and sovereignty. One can say that the nomos comes under threat, that a part of it is resituated outside of the nation itself. It is why we speak of nations-without-states.
The potential power in this, both formative and destructive, should be clear enough: if the formal order of the nation is relocated beyond its borders, and against the state, then a permanent condition of war and peace takes hold. One sees this conflict and absolute polarity in every event from the beginning of modernity, just as in the Christian era every event was named "the Katechon". The nations of Europe reform entirely based upon this.

Differences of state may be seen in the extent and degree of the nomos, in the figure and type of man created. While the nomos may itself be a weakening, the loss of the tyche or pomerium being great examples. And this is in the very name, as it was originally the "nomos basileus", so its power is divided.
One may say also that if the nation is made up of Iron Men it can only be an Iron Nation. Would it not then be a humiliation to man, history, and God to preserve this nation? To invoke a katechon where it is no longer a law is only to attempt to strengthen a doomed state, to hold onto death as a type of struggle against it, to refuse the theological and fall into rationalisations. And this was the mistake of all conservatives and reactionaries, they blindly held faith in dying and corrupt traditions, and could not invoke any power themselves. This was their essential role in the new order, in the progress of the secular, they weakened the appearance of pain and catastrophe, what had to be a divine revelation that the ancien regime had been annihilated – but as a test, not as a failing. It is telling that only artists, apostates, and liberals ever faced this; with divine ruin and singing praise in the ashes. Meanwhile, it was the Catholics who invoked the pitiable and unjust revolution. They could not raise themselves to the theological questions.

Returning to the ancients, Nietzsche attacked Homer as a destroyer of culture because of his Pan-Hellenism. Leaving aside the specifics of this we must say that the fall of Greece began early on, that the unity of a nation can be its own catastrophe, and that there is great strength in a divided state. The original tyrannies existed in a state close to anarchy and civil war – city-states filled with lions fighting one another, and who could see in neighbouring city-states the greatest enemies. A fog of war runs through the old national boundaries, but this is not a weakening of the territory, it is a strengthening through fear, through the unknown, the fateful aspects of life and dominion. The unknown territory remains as a gift of nature, that enriches and emboldens – a sacrifice to the creation of the gods. To impose oneself upon this territory would be a desecration.
And it is here that we see the fundamental distinction between the ancient and modern. The modern nation throws itself completely into this interim and desecrated territory. It will even sacrifice its own nomos for this total war, a mobilisation against its own territory so as to defeat the absolute, to secure a complete territory outside of it.

The order of the nation in modern times is a total inversion of the ancient states. A higher type of nationalism would attempt to respond to this division, to return dominion to the state itself, not abandon all higher laws for the material conditions of the nation. To throw all efforts into the material conditions of the nation is only to ally with the lower type, the leveled and catastrophic form of unity. It is defeatism after all conservative resolve had been exhausted by higher wars and fateful defeats – the permanent condition of the world civil war which even wears away the images of heroes.

Just as the bleary, uncleansed eye cannot behold exceeding brightness, so the soul that has not secured virtue is incapable of reflecting the beauty of truth. For it is not lawful for the impure to lay hold of the pure.

Hierocles, Commentary on the Golden Verses Proem

The good king cannot operate on the level of consciousness of his peasantry, who are not capable of understanding royal matters. By transcending the populi he rules in divine right, mirroring heavenly order, which orients the entire society towards to the Transcendent. This is the place of aristocracy; to rule rightly above the lower castes, for their sake, because the lower castes are only capable of higher forms of virtue when they are organized under a virtuous structure.

The religion of kings and heroes is not the religion of the people. The Way for the ascetic cannot be the Way for the people. A movement for the aristocracy is not a movement for the people. Royalty, heroes, and aristocrats of the soul seek higher goals than what can be called strictly religious, political, or social. Those things are downstream of higher forces; their best forms come as expressions of higher values.

Therefore it is not the aristocrat's place to operate only in the world of institutions and ideologies. This is not to say an aristocrat cannot be part of an institution or should never adopt an ideological identity; these things certainly have their practical places. But to navigate institutions and ideologies with the knowledge of what forces are above all of it, to live according to those higher principles even when the lower reality objects, to rightfully rule over those lower ones who DaVinci said 'cannot see at all' even when shown; that is the aristocratic way.

Re: The nationalism debate

This is something of an equivocation or what some people call the "word-concept" fallacy. To assume the word "nationalism" must always, in all contexts and uses, refer to the liberal nation-state is illogical and not consistent with how more and more are coming to understand it.

If, by nationalism, you mean nineteenth century liberal ideas, then yes, that is "the big gay".
But the traditional meaning of the word nation doesn't mean this, and it predates liberalism.

Latin natio (whence 'nation') comes from nasci which means to be born or begotten. Natio could be perhaps best understood as "a common birth" and refers to a collective people, an ethnicity, a folk; indeed, it would be directly equivalent to old Greek ethnos (ἔθνος) or German volk. Indeed, in the dreaded Bible, natio and ethnos are used in place of each other in respective Latin and Greek editions.

One would make the case that true "nationalism" is what is often called volkism, tribalism, or redundantly, "ethnonationalism", while there is no distinction between what is called "civic nationalism" and nineteenth century liberal nationalism.

Because the traditional nation is an ethnic collection of families and dynasties irrespective of liberal ideologues and their gross misuse of words.

Death, I think, is actually nothing but the separation of two things from each other, the soul and the body.

Plato, Gorgias 524b

Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering––every one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary.

They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not––the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

[from Book VI of Plato’s Republic]

The 'true pilot' is aristocratic

“Many people say: “I do not like the clangor and agitation that are characteristic of kirtan. I prefer to sit quietly in a solitary place and meditate.” As a matter of fact, if in solitude you can obtain communion with God, it is excellent. But watch and note carefully whether your mind is seeking God or wandering away among the perplexities of the world. If you take no notice of the boisterousness of the kirtan, but concentrate on God’s Name; if you do not listen to the various tunes and to the rhythms of the drums and cymbals, but let yourself be wafted away at the final note of the music, you will become aware that a contemplative mood has spontaneously awakened in you.”
- Anandamayi Ma

And yet he does not meet God himself, but contemplates, not him who is invisible, but rather where he dwells. This means, I presume, that the holiest and highest of the things perceived with the eye of the body or the mind are but the rationale which presupposes all that lies below the Transcendent One. Through them, however, his unimaginable presence is shown, walking the heights of those holy places to which the mind at least can rise. But then he [Moses] breaks free of them, away from what sees and is seen, and he plunges into the truly mysterious darkness of unknowing. Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to him who is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor someone else, one is supremely united to the completely unknown by an inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing.

Dionysius the Areopagite, The Mystical Theology

“The Bogdo clapped his hands and one of the secretaries took from a red kerchief a big silver key with which he unlocked the chest with the seals. The Living Buddha slipped his hand into the chest and drew forth a small box of carved ivory, from which he took out and showed to me a large gold ring set with a magnificent ruby carved with the sign of the swastika.

"This ring was always worn on the right hand of the Khans Jenghiz and Kublai," said the Bogdo.”

- Source: "Beasts, Men And Gods" by Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski, pp. 284 - 285