“The power of the tradition that gave its character to Rome revealed itself, towards Christianism, in the fact, that if the new faith managed to subvert the ancient civilization, it couldn’t really conquer the western world as pure Christianism; that where it attained some greatness, it was able to do so by betraying, to a certain extent, itself: it was able to do so more thanks to elements taken from the opposite tradition – thanks to roman and classical pre-christian elements – than thanks to the christian element in its original form. De facto, Christianism <<converted>> the western man only externally; it constituted its <<faith>> in the most abstract sense, while the effective life of this one continued to obey to forms, more or less materialized, of the opposite tradition of action and, later, in the Middle Ages, to an ethos that again had to be marked essentially by the aryan-nordic spirit. Theoretically, the west accepted Christianism, – and that Europe could accommodate, in this way, many themes related to the jewish and levantine conception of life is something that always renews the wonder of the historian – practically, it remained pagan. The result was therefore a hybridism. Even in its attenuated and romanized catholic form the christian faith represented an obstruction, which took from the western man the possibility to integrate his authentic, insuppressible way of being by means of a conception to him congenial of the sacred and of the relationships with the sacred”.
“Catholicism took shape through the rectification of various extremist aspects of the Christianism of the origins, the organization of a ritual, dogmatic and symbolic corpus beyond of the simple mystical-soteriological element, the absorption and adaptation of both doctrinal and organizational elements taken from the romanity and the classical civilization in general. That’s how Catholicism presents sometimes <<traditional>> traits, which however must not induce to misunderstanding: what in Catholicism has a truly traditional nature is very little christian and what in it is christian is very little traditional”.
“By having as model the hero more than the saint, the winner more than the martyr; by placing the sum of all values in fidelity and in honour more than in the <<caritas>> and in humility; by seeing in cowardice and in shame an evil worse than sin; by knowing very little of resisting evil and of repaying evil with goodness – intending much more to punish the unjust and the wicked, excluding from its ranks those who literally followed the christian precept of the <<don’t kill>>; by having as principle not to love the enemy, but to fight him and to be magnanimous only after having won it – in all this chivalry affirmed almost without alteration an aryan ethic within a world only nominally christian”.
“The life of the ancient nordic-germanic societies was based on the three principles of personality, freedom and fidelity. To it was totally alien both the promiscuous communitary sense and the inability of the individual to valorize itself if not in the context of a given abstract institution. Here being free is, for the individual, the measure of nobility. But this freedom is not anarchic and individualistic, it is capable of a dedication beyond the person, it knows the transfiguring value proper to the principle of fidelity in front of who is worthy of recognition and to whom one subordinates oneself voluntarily. Thus were formed groups of faithful around leaders to which could well be applied the old saying: <<The supreme nobility of a roman Emperor is of being not a master of slaves but a lord of free men, who loves freedom also in those who serve him>>; and the State, almost according to the ancient roman aristocratic precept, had as center the council of chiefs, each one free, lord of his land and in his land, leader of the group of his faithful. Beyond this council, the unity of the State and, in a certain way, the superpolitical aspect of it was embodied by the King, since this one belonged – unlike the simple military leaders – to one of the lineages of divine origin: Amals, the <<heavenly>>, the <<pure>>, was a name of the kings among the Goths. No impersonal <<duty>> and <<service>> existed, everywhere there were free, strongly personalized relationships of command and obedience, of understanding and fidelity. In this way the idea of the free personality remained the foundation of each unity and each hierarchy”.