“The power of the tradition that gave its look to Rome became clear, in respect of 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 reached some greatness, it has exclusively been able to do that by betraying in a certain extent itself: it succeeded more in grace of elements taken from the opposite tradition – thanks to Roman elements and pre-christian classical elements – than in grace of the Christian element in its original form. In fact, Christianism <<converted>> the western man only externally; it constituted its <<faith>> in the most abstract sense, while the effective life of these 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 imprinted essentially by the aryan-nordic spirit. Theoretically, the west accepted Christianism, – and that Europe was able to accommodate, in such a way, many motives related to the jewish and levantine conception of life is something that ever anew fills the historian of wonder – practically, it remained pagan. The result was then a hybridism. Even in its attenuated and catholic romanized form the christian faith represented an obstruction, that took away to the western man the possibility to integrate his authentic, irrepressible way of being through a conception, congenial to him, of the sacred and of relations with the sacred”.
“Catholicism took shape through the rectification of various extremist aspects of the Christianism of the origins, the organization of a ritual corpus, dogmatic and symbolic beyond of the simple mystical-soteriological element, the absorption and the adaptation of both doctrinal and organizational elements drawn from the romanity and the classical civilization generally speaking. That is how Catholicism presents sometimes <<traditional>> traits, which however must not lead to misunderstanding: what in Catholicism has a real traditional trait is very little christian and what in it is christian is very little traditional”.
“By having as an ideal the hero more than the saint, the winner more than the martyr; placing the sum of all values in fidelity and in honour more than in the <<caritas>> and in humility; seeing in vileness and in shame a worse evil than sin; knowing very little about not to resist evil and of repaying evil with goodness – intending much more to punish the unjust and the wicked, excluding from its ranks he who literally adhered to the christian precept of <<do not kill>>; having as principle not to love the enemy, but to fight him and to be magnanimous only after having won it – in all this the cavalry affirmed almost without alteration an aryan ethic within a world only nominally christian”.
“The life of the ancient nordic-germanic societies was based on three principles of personality, of freedom and of fidelity. To it was totally alien both the promiscuity of communities and the inability of the individual to valorize itself if not in the context of a given abstract institution. Here freedom consists, for the individual, in the measure of nobility. But this freedom is not anarchic and individualistic, it is able of a dedication beyond the person, it knows the transfiguring value proper to the principle of fidelity in front of those who are worthy of recognition, and to which one subjects himself voluntarily. In this way 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 even in those who serve him>>; and the State, almost according to the ancient aristocratic roman precept, had as center the council of chiefs, each one free, lord of his land and in his land, leader of the group of those faithful to him. Beyond this council, the unity of the State and, in a certain way, its super-political aspect was incarnated in the King, as these belonged – differently from the simple military leaders – to one of the strains of divine origin: Amals, the <<heavenly>>, the <<pure>>, was a name of the kings among the Goths. None impersonal <<duty>> and none impersonal <<service>> existed, everywhere there were relationships of command and obedience strongly personalized and based on freedom, on agreement and on fidelity. In this way the idea of the free personality remained the foundation of each unit and each hierarchy”.