The Iron Crown of Lombardy, dating from the seventh century, is said to contain one of the nails used in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne used it at his coronation ceremony in Lombardy, as did several succeeding emperors. Even Napoleon used the crown when he claimed to be King of Italy. Two attempts to create an Order of the Iron Crown were made, first by Napoleon, then by King Victor Emmanuel; both came to nothing.
Apparently Julius Evola outlined his own ideas about the Order. Evola both acknowledges the inception of ascetic orders following the fall of the Roman Empire, while denying any link to the Lombardian Iron Crown, despite using the same name. (The published translation is incorrect, either accidentally or deliberately to obscure the ancient connection.)
I’ll not bother to comment on the eight points as they are generic and innocuous in themselves. Certainly, it is unlikely to ever be implemented as they stand. While Cordelia for Lear has the good sense to stop at that point, another site adds a section about qualifications and structure.
What is curious about this ascetic order, especially since there are provisions for passing on membership to sons, is a comment about an affiliated formation of women who would serve as sexual surrogates for the men. Methinks Evola is trying to show he’s “got game”, but I don’t see the appeal. Maybe the dateless computer geeks who seem to be reading Evola these days relish the idea of 50 men sharing the same half dozen or so thots. This would be sure to lead to attachments and the inevitable jealousies and conflicts that would disrupt the group. Any man with real world experience, instead of living in his mother’s apartment, can grasp this. Believe me, the women will turn out to be very demanding, to the point of diverting attention from the order’s purpose.
Then there is the delicate problem of recruitment. Perhaps in decadent Rome, such an order can find suitable women. But in Evola’s ancestral Sicily, those women are likely to be some man’s daughter or sister. I can guarantee this idea would not have gone over very well and the Sicilians had their own secret order to deal with such issues.
We have made available several posts about actually existing knightly orders, for example at Random Thoughts on Chivalry. Notice the profound difference in values from what Evola proposes. I suggest that anyone interested in a chivalric or ascetic order should take a look at previously successful endeavors and not the laundry list of a man who was never part of any order.
Enfin un livre pour aider les couples qui sont en rupture amoureuse.
Il s’agit d’un guide qui contient plusieurs méthodes efficaces afin d’aider les femmes/hommes à récupérer leurs ex .
Le site propose des techniques de la séduction (comment séduire un homme, et comment séduire une femme).
Gotta say, not to be vulgar, but this Mark character really got his “behind” handed to him by Cologero in this discussion…
Fight against the false pagans as equally strong as the false Christians!
Evola knew Tradition was found not in just one tradition (without being relativistic of course), and reviving paganism was a complete and utter DEAD END.
The historically unavoidable task at hand for Evolians who want to be actually relevant to things instead of fantasize about virgins in their mothers’ basements is the sublimation and “polarization” of Christianity…its refinement and the condensation of its highest qualities…the secret core of Tradition at its essence, hidden to modernity…
And when Evola acts like a malignant narcissistic Sadist, we should make no excuses for him either! Recognizing his good side doesn’t mean we coward-like ignore his authentic ethico-moral ambiguities and imperfections. Tradition is not about idolizing one person, and when Evola dips into dark-side antinomianism recklessly (and the evidence seems to point he did have moral lapses–and having character and morality with the right degree of compassion/empathy is the exact opposite of being “effeminate”–except to “Might is Right” pseudo-neo-pagan psychopaths/sociopaths who either live with their parents or are incarcerated legitimately)…as I was saying, when Evola trips or stumbles, we should aggressively, but charitably, criticize him and out-Evola Evola himself…
I have to agree with Cologero. Mark’s steadfast straw-manning of Christianity, to use his own term, only betrays his shallow knowledge of the subject, as he indeed skirts the fact that to all the Traditional writers, the CHRISTIAN Middle Ages were indeed the last Golden Age before our kali yuga. Had they felt it was “impossible” to transcend in a Christian context, this would not have been so, and the last Golden Age would have, in fact, been a very early Roman Empire. But feel free to lampoon the Americanized protestant “christianity” that passes itself off as a religion in the modern world. I, for one, would not be prepared to stop you. Just remember that in doing so you mock a counterfeit of the religion of Christ, and not the genuine article, as any traditional Orthodox or Roman would tell you.
Good, then I will create a topic.
At page 57 in Revolt, Evola states the importance of “blood purity” based upon the blood registering actions from certain formative principles that affected one’s ancestors, so “purity of blood” seems to be important so that these forces can act again through people that have this “blood”. He does state that this is important in times of dissolution because a link to “what is above” is broken, so the blood can be a starting point.
Where are these deeper forces located in the person? I assume it resides in the more subtle planes of existence that he speaks about in his article on Karma and Reincarnation.
“Besides, karma extends to orders of influence elusive to the common man; it connects
effects to remote causes from much different planes”
I really gravitate to this idea, now there is something that I really like from Evola.
On page 208 he speaks about the experiences of the Northern races spiritually. The Sun, Fire, the Sacred Stone, and the Thunderbolt are all talked about as having a spiritual context. This is great, it evokes images of my ancestral gods like Svarog, Dazbog, Perun, and the sacred stone Alatyr.
How does one appropriate the “Northern Spirituality” through a Christian context?
We are not at all interested in philosophy or psychology, and I am sure you are competent in those fields.
If you have some comments on the subject matter of Tradition and metaphysics, then you are welcome to bring up a topic.
Perhaps you may want to begin with the difference between opinion (belief) and gnosis (metaphysical knowledge) as discussed in Characteristics of metaphysical knowledge or The Degrees of Knowledge.
I do not have a problem with Tradition, but with you. You are extremely presumptuous. You keep assuming my level of knowledge in certain areas, and you have no basis to do so. You don’t know my level of knowledge in philosophy or psychology, but make pot shots(regurgitation of definitions),(basing a life upon a pop psychology), when you know the context was just for easy reference.
I do not reject Tradition, but you. You behave like a kid in junior high with your constant digs, and that is a sad demonstration of Traditional values. My impression is that you seem to be engaged in a form of rhetorical posturing, and nothing else.
To quote Guenon:
Similarly, it is quite surprising to me, also, that anyone would take notice of this blog while at the same time rejecting out of hand any of its content.
The regurgitation of definitions purloined from a philosophy textbook is passed off as intelligence, and basing one’s life someone else’s conception published in a pop pychology magazine is considered creativity.
That, sad to say, is the state of the world today. What we have to offer on this blog is a much deeper and richer conception of life. As such, however, it will be accessible only to a superior type of man. They will know themselves by their almost magnetic attraction to traditional doctrines, even if their understanding is at yet immature. The purpose of this blog is twofold:
(1) to counteract the misconceptions aroung Tradition
(2) to encourage those interested to pursue Tradition in depth
The poseurs will eventually get bored and leave.
I can at least respect Francis, since he seems to be dealing with the issue of a “test”, and who has the harder one, not just making digs. Seriously, cut that out. I would like to rise above the level of high school insults, but you seem unwilling to do that.
Again, do not caricature me, and place what I say in a silly context, like you keep doing. You are showing a complete lack of intellectual integrity by constantly straw manning my position, and trying to caricature me. If you want to know my appearance, I am a 6’2″ 265 lbs, with a bodybuilder physique (not fat at all), and not goth at all. This is where I happen to think that Yukio Mishima is an excellent ideal for a “muscular paganism” (Sun and Steel), and the concept of a test, and higher ideals. The concepts in Sun and Steel can not be realized through a Christian, but only a pagan system. Especially those like Asatru and Rodnovery with the warrior ideal.
Also, as far as the difference between belief and knowledge, I actually do know the standard philosophical definitions.
Knowledge = Justified True Belief
Belief = mental assent
Stop claiming my level of knowledge, because when it comes to actually philosophy, I have a much better background than you.
All you have is your own private language of your own concept of “Tradition”, where everyone could be wrong by the rules of your own personal “language game”, where you have intuitive insight into every concept, and you are an authority on all matters of truth. This is what you will do to the words of both “knowledge” and “belief”.
OK, Mark, rather than try to guess at your context, I focus on what you actually write. I suggest you do the same.
Seriously, for example, I was picking on you for not understanding the difference between belief and knowledge … go back and reread, as the distinction is actually quite important.
So your context is you have tatoos and piercings and dress like a goth … I always knew you were way cool. But that is precisely the sort of neo-paganism Evola is rejecting. I reject it too for the same reasons … you did say you read Evola’s essay?
As for the Medieval period, it was Evola the pagan who describes it as the last great Traditional civilization in the West. That is why I take examples from that era.
So the blog is not anti-pagan, it is anti-neopagan. And it is not pro-Catholic, since Catholicism in our time has lost its Traditional features.
It is pro-Tradition, in whatever forms it may take. That is the context. Simple, if you read carefully.
Mark wrote <>
Mark, while it is somewhat true that mainstream Christianity enjoys a greater, albeit superficial, acceptance as an organized religion, as a “norm”, among the general Western public (as opposed to Paganism), this does not imply that traditional Christians are not “tested”.
1. In the modern (predominantly liberal) social (“public”) domain, which is characterized by materialism, mechanism, moral relativism, and to a large extent atheism, the ideals of traditional Christianity are perceived as antagonistic to the overall operation of the current order. So, it is “ok” to be Christian, just as long as one “keeps their opinions to themselves”, and doesn’t try to apply their traditional Christian theology, philosophy, or ethics to “real world” scenarios, that might just “upset the apple cart”. As far as modernity is concerned, the world of Medieval Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, is just as anathema as “Paganism”, if not more so.
2. Inwardly, the authentic Christian path is entirely about being “tested”. I get the feeling that you understand Christianity as being just a “belief”, or a sentimental “feeling”, sort of akin to how one might acquiesce to popular sentiments about their home team(s). However, if you dig a bit deeper, you will find that Christianity is about winning a precious medicine. This healing balm repairs the rupture between a divided immanent and transcendent in man, the fundamental cause originating with the “Fall”, but the secondary and ongoing causes arising in man himself, as the result of attachment (identification with) the passions, or as some might say, the innumerable “i’s”, which obscure the true “Personality” (per Guenon’s meaning of “Personality”). These forces, are what the Christian contends with, in an ongoing effort of “spiritual athletics”–not in the sense of being “sins” or violated rules, to be punished (as exoteric jargon might phrase it), but as energies obfuscating the “Real Presence”. This really differs little from what Evola writes about how to deal with the “emotions” while pursuing the real “I”, in his tract about the Mithraic Mysteries.
In the past, I’ve explained things this way to Pagans, who marginally agree with the content as expressed, but always with the retort “Yes, but, that isn’t how the ‘average’ Christian understands Christianity”, and I anticipate this is what you might be thinking. In response, I’d say that simply it matters little what the ‘average’ Christian thinks in this regard, as what we are talking about is Christianity “as it is”; that is to say, not what some modern Protestant deviation has made of it–but, what it says of itself, via the totality of Scripture, the Orthodox Liturgies/Liturgical cycle, Patristic and Saintly writings/exegesis, ascetical commentaries such as Philokalia and the Gerontikons, the symbolism inherent in Iconography, among other sources.
Minimally, in these ways, I do consider that the Christian is indeed “tested”; but, like the owner of the forum recently stated, we must go beyond the “superficial distinctions” to grasp this. It is a waste of energy on all parties behaves to beat each other over the head concerning false dichotomies surrounding some endless “war” between a traditional Christianity and Paganism.
GFJF, get some knowledge about the handicap principle, I gave links for reference. It is not a bad thing. The idea is that the pagan is tested, whereas the Christian is not, and I think that can be a very good thing.
Also, as far as the digs, I believe the author of this blog is a Traditionalist Catholic, and tries to push Catholicism through Tradition. Anybody reading this blog can tell when he is showing a “great” aspect of Tradition he selects something from Medieval Catholicism, but when it is some modern degraded spiritual expression, it is from a “neopagan”.
This is a good blog, but I hope the author will either eliminate the pro-Catholic, anti-pagan aspect, or be honest about it.
Why is Mark so concerned about supposed ‘digs’ aimed at paganism? Is he playing the victim (and notice his insistence that paganism ‘handicaps’ him)? Apparently he can dish it but can’t take it.
The difference in Evola’s list of requirements and the requirements of the medieval orders is quite interesting. Your suggestion of a possible inaccurate translation is possible, though there is also the possibility that Evola didn’t want to include elements that he thought were of a christian nature.
The last sentence of this blog entry makes me think of his ur group and I have always wondered whether Evola and the group at large achieved any kind of inner/spiritual realization, at least of any considerable magnitude.
Again, stop taking things out of context. When I used “defined”, it was in reference to my “pagan handicap hypothesis” in relation to the Christianity of today. You seem to have this inability to understand context at all.
Seriously, you are picking on me using the term Transcendence over Transcendent Knowledge, that is ridiculous
“This, alas, is not the path taken by the radical circles we have mentioned. Many of these neo-pagans seem to have fallen into a trap deliberately set for them, often ending up by advocating and defending ideas that more or less correspond to that invented, nature-bound, particularistic pagandom, lacking light and transcendence, which was the polemical creation of a Christian misunderstanding of the pre-Christian world”
Lacking light and TRANSCENDENCE
If you also want to know what I am advocating it is paganism as a handicap principle. If you have symbols in the form of jewelry, tattoos, clothing, etc. that are pagan, then you put yourself in a socially marginalized position, but by doing so, you can show virtues like strength, creativity, and intelligence. The Christian cannot do that, since Christianity is not a social handicap.
Read this, but make sure to flush out some of the important principles and not the specific details about the people that are doing it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/more-intelligent-stupid-liberals
Unfortunately, you are way off the mark, yet again. First you write: “Christianity is basically defined …”, then a few hours later you claim: “I was not defining Christianity”. Well, that sort of illogicality may explain why I having difficulty understanding the point you are making. I have no idea what the handicap principle is, nor am I at all interested. Furthermore, I would never advocate “born-again Christianity” and I don’t know who Ned Flanders is, nor do I care. If he is the standard by which you measure your alleged superiority, then I am sure you will prevail.
As for your claim about being “very familiar” with Against the Neo-Pagans. Could you please quote where Evola mentions “belief in the Transcendent”? Oh, I didn’t think so, since it is a ridiculous comment (that is not a dig, just a fact). He does write about Transcendent knowledge, quite a different notion.
Now, it seems to me that some of the other commenters have been advocating the kidnapping, sexual exploitation, torture and even murder of young girls. I hope they are not serious. But even entertaining such fantasies is contemptible. Is that what you, too, are advocating as a sign of strength and creativity?
Evola began the essay with this declaration:
I have to comment on this
“I heartily commend strength, creativity, and intelligence, and I encourage you to develop those characteristics.”
You are a master of the underhanded digs, I will give you that. You should cut that out.
As far as other things are concerned, I am quite knowledgeable when it comes to the different branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, though I know that Evola uses the term in a different way from how it is used in philosophy, as an articulation of supreme values and meaning that transcends the physical instead of a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality.
I was not defining Christianity nor paganism, but stating a strength about paganism today that Christianity cannot have, and that is based upon a type of the handicap principle. This is what I wanted to center the discussion on, because the basic idea in your post was “pagans are losers”. Why don’t you deal with this.
I am very familiar with Against the Neo-Pagans, and the criticism that Evola makes deals with their lack of belief in the Transcendent. That has nothing to do with the point I am making though.
I heartily commend strength, creativity, and intelligence, and I encourage you to develop those characteristics.
Unfortunately, Mark, your knowledge of history and understanding of religion and metaphysics is quite defective. That is something you can rectify, but until you do, you simply will continue to misinterpret anything you read here.
First of all, I reject categorically your so-called “definitions” of Christianity and paganism. So much so, in fact, that it is pointless to state why. However, if you search through the blog archives, you will find better definitions.
This blog is “pro-Tradition”, whether displayed by pagans or Traditional Christians. Usually, neither faction, in our day, adheres to Tradition. I reject both, whereas you expect me to take one side or the other. My attitude is more in line with Julius Evola, where he writes:
That is the kind of paganism I reject, and it is all too common today … it is really a comic book variety of paganism.
Similarly, we also oppose the mindless rejection of Christianity, which is the bearer of so much of Western civilization; this rejection more often than not gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the West. Again, quoting Evola:
Please, Mark, think things through a little more deeply; not everything you read fits into the consensus reality that has been spoon fed to you via education, television, and movies.
BTW, the Evola essay can be found on-line here: Against the neo-Pagans. Please read it. Of course, it is a “dig” against a certain pagan mindset … the very one that I have mocked. But he does point the way to an authentic spirituality.
This will be my last comment on this post. This posting of yours did not deserve serious responses, jaque was right in the sense of it being “low-brow”. It was clearly a dig at pagans, and your responses showed that to be the case as well.
But if you want to take a more serious response to what I am saying then deal with my “Pagan handicap hypothesis” compared to the “Christian support hypothesis”. Christianity is basically defined as a religion of support through the born again experience, whereas paganism amongst some is being used to display strength, creativity, and intelligence. This I will talk about, but I am done with the digs.
The problem is that you are always trying to get a underhanded dig to the pagans. You completely misunderstood the context which that comment on the facebook page was made, and tried to develop your pagans are losers position. The reality is that Christianity has become the religion of support for losers (Ned Flanders ideal, born again experience, etc.). Paganism on the other hand can be a type of handicap principle. Having a socially marginalized position forces you to have the ability to defend you position, which shows certain virtues.
Reference for handicap principle
http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Faculty/Dornhaus/courses/materials/papers/other/Zahavi%20sexual%20selection%20handicap%20model%20signal.pdf
I am sure, Mark, that you are trying to make some point. However, it totally eludes me. I suggest to stick to locker room banter and avoid this blog.
The appropriate context would be this. To mock Christianity out in the open, and no Christian defends their faith.
You like to twist the context of everything to suit your agenda. If I mock Christianity, it is out in the open, and I did it around a lot of other people, so it is not picking on the “weak kids in the locker room”. Think of it as “pagan shittalking”. Plus, the guy is actually rather strong physically, but comes across as very timid and weak, and also is very Christian, so the idea is that his weak psychological attitude is due to his Christianity.
So, Mark, you enjoy bullying the weak boys in the locker room? You sound like a real cool dude.
With all due respect, Jaque, this is the passage in question:
A “third-class formation” is persistent, not a “one time event” as you claim. Furthermore, how else could they be for communitarian use? That also precludes “virgin”. And, to be of communitarian use, they would need to be accessible and available. All of which you deny.
Point two: Evola claims the members of the Order are not subservient to sex. If so, then what is the purpose of the third-class formation? There is no biological necessity for sex, other than reproduction. And Evola specifically says: ‘measures being taken to prevent fecundation”. So other than to satisfy biological desire (that is, being “subservient” to sex) there is actujally no purpose for the third class formation.
Yet you claim to know better, and criticize me, when the critique ought to be directed toward Evola, who does not mention any sex magick or alchemy in this context … nor does Plato, whose warrior caste in the Republic serves as Evola’s model.
So, instead of Evola’s proposal, it seems to me Jaque, that you would, instead of maintaining a third-class formation, seek out virgins for a one time use for sex magick. And which member of the order would get the virgin? Well, I provided you the necessary qualifications for him to satisfy, so don’t get your hopes up. I doubt there are many who would qualify.
One fellow commented that after the magickal act, the former virgin would be disposed of in a de Sadean fashion. Do you disagree with that? Well, you must, since you mention the idea of eugenically breeding a higher man (unlike Evola who advocated birth control); this means she would have to be kept alive and cared for. In that case, I need to inform you that simply providing sperm will be insufficient; the boy will also need training and the influence of a “noble higher man”. And that brings in the issue of families and such, ideas opposed to Evola’s conception of the order.
I also feel obliged to point out that alchemical texts need to be read carefully; they actually describe spiritual processes, not material actions, despite all appearances to the contrary. In the Preface to the “Hermetic Tradition”, Evola writes:
So, after going around in circles, I can arrive back to the oriignal point of the blog post: the vulgar are attracted to Evola for the wrong reason, viz, to satisfy their prurient interests.
So, Jaque, perhaps sex magick and the alchemical process are done within your own mind, spirit, and consciousness. And since you seem so perturbed and frightened by the femininity all around you, perhaps you need to look within instead. The segregation you need to investigate is the alchemical process of the “Separation of the Sun and the Moon.” But beyond that, the real task of the Hermeticist is not to segregrate it, or eradicate it, but to integrate it.
Evola quotes the Christian mystic, Jacob Boehme: “Between Etrenal Birth, Restoration from the Fall and the discovery of the Philosopher’s Stone, there is no difference.”
This has to be the most vulgar and low brow post of this forum yet and entirely out of context. Funny that’s it you as “a spiritual leader” offering a LA workshop in what appears to be some new age pap (is this your idea of trying to “score” some col?).
It is because the spirit of the woman is intimately known, that traditional societies for wise reasons choose to keep that serpent power at a distance. Yet neither too high or too low. Todays society is dominated by uncontrolled feminine passions(selfish childishness etc),liberalism and illdiscipline.
The Order in question would exist as a state entity. At most times( except within the case of breeding) a celibate order is harldy about “gaming” wenches to prove “manilhood”; that is a gynacracy the likes of which degenerate vermin the likes of Mr Strauss (note the enthicity) of the “the game” make a living of. The worship of the whores flesh. Think about it this way: The order as Elite, would operate at segregation on every level. There is no “third party” disposal attachment of loose groupies akin to a promsicuous African village or Arab harem. The virgin serves as the alchemical process as said above, it would be a one time event. The purpose would be to eugenically breed a healthy and noble higher man.
I saw the comment that you were talking about on the facebook page, and I think you are misunderstanding the context. That page seems to be a forum for more of lighthearted and humorous chat, and not for developing an intelligent pagan metaphysics.
“The key to happiness is a goblet full of mead, a wench, and a steed.” This comment has a subtext, which is basically that “we have a life affirming religion”
If I make a comment to a Christian about why I am not a Christian, I could go into two modes.
1) A serious discussion about the problems inherent in Christianity, we went over this, the Christian Desacralization, etc.
2) A funny mock, “Christianity is a religion for little girls and old women”
The second point is not a serious critique, but it is based upon a social context, which has impact considering my appearance.
At an academic situation, I would have a more “philosophical approach”
At the gym, I would have a more “mocking” approach. For example, there is a guy that has a lot of problems, he is socially very “beta”, and he is ardent in his Christianity. He is a good guy, but it is a good opportunity to mock a Christian, I can’t pass that up.
I guess I just find it unlikely. Evola did write of a third order, so I understand that to mean a more or less permanent underclass of groupies, not disposable virgins. In order to count on the locals supplying the virgins willingly, the Order would have to be doing favours in return … just ask Michael Corleone. The actual activities of the order are left undefined.
I wasn’t addressing the post so much to Evola, but rather to rather to a certain type of neo-pagan who has not a chance at a virgin. For example, consider this quote from a Odinist facebook page: “The key to happiness is a goblet full of mead, a wench, and a steed.” If sex and intoxicants were the key to spirituality, there would be pilgrimages to every American ghetto. But this Odinist wants to act like one; just needs his low rider to make him a man.
On the contrary, sex magick is only of value to someone who has no need for sex (as Evola subtly implies). When the Dalai Lama was asked about Tantric initiation (naturally of intense interest to his decadent American followers), he pointed out that it is only appropriate to someone who could dine on a plateful of shit and a glass of pus or a gourmet meal with the same indifference.
Even our friend Aleister Crowley, in a lucid moment wrote:
Who do you know who is capable of that? He’s the one that gets to deflower the Virgin. But that attitude is what indeed makes it “unusual” in Tradition, except, perhaps, for poseurs.
But aren’t there other ways to deal with feminine energy. Do you suppose Moonchild is a bit too sweet?
Or the idea of Polar beings to bring completion. There may be something necessary in the constant irritant of a female companion. Just hanging out with the guys is an option, but even the misogynist went on the quest for “She who must be obeyed.” (Rider Haggard)
I’ve frequently commented on my blog regarding Evola’s rather eccentric ideas on sexuality, so this caught my eye. I don’t see this as particularly shocking or unworkable. The footnote makes it clear that this is in the context of sexual alchemy, not recreation or ‘scoring.’ The idea female for this activity, as Evola notes in Metaphysics of Sex, would be a virgin suitable for deflowering; as this is a one-time event, the whole issue of “jealousy” etc. doesn’t arise. I suppose the women would be disposed of in some de Sadean way; this would be consistent with his other preferred activity, flagellation.
“I realize these are unpopular idea” as a Python character says, but they are not unusual in the alchemical tradition; just as Madonna knows nothing about Qabalah, Sting knows nothing about Tantra. Actual Tantric or Taoist practices involved the ruthless exploitation of women for their “essence” [as General Jack Ripper would say]. Women represent “power” but that is precisely why they must be controlled and assimilated; no “goddess” worship here.
You may find these ideas untrue [i.e., of no practical use] or “immoral” on the basis of some feminine, Christian morality, but they are hardly “unusual” in Tradition.
That a celibate order would need to provide for the children of its members would not be surprising to anyone familiar with the Renaissance Church; for the same reason, I would assume Sicly would in fact be an excellent source of virgins [ask Michael Corleone] where their “protective” family would, for that very reason, be able to hand them over to the local Elites. Happens every day, man.