"The greater holy war is the struggle of man against the enemies he bears within himself."It is well known that the entire first generation tells of tragic heroes. In Aristotelian terms, Sigurd's fatal error lies not so much in political naiveté as in the belief that his own rationality and moral judgment are sufficient to overcome limits respected by others. When he dismisses the ancient prophecies and warnings of the Forest of Spirits as meaningless superstitions and takes Deirdre away, even with good intentions, he crosses a boundary he does not understand. Sigurd acts in good faith: he is not driven by lust for power or boundless pride, yet he sins when he thinks he can replace the fate of men. His sin lies not only in belittling the prophecy of the elders warning him against recklessly taking Deirdre from the forest, but also in the belief that, even if something bad were to happen to her, his love and determination would be enough to save her—that is, that his will was stronger than fate. Sigurd acts as a tragic hero who, unwittingly, sets tragedy in motion in an attempt to avert it: he is Oedipus fleeing from Corinth to Thebes to try to escape his fate, unaware of the tragic consequences.At that point in the story, Sigurd's belief that he had the ability to ensure a better fate for Deirdre than confinement in the forest was not entirely unjustified. By then, he was one of the strongest and most influential men in Grannvale, due to his conquests, and on the entire continent. Ironically, it is precisely the moment he rescues Deirdre from the spirit forest that creates the material conditions for his decline. From the moment Malfoy kidnaps Deirdre, Sigurd goes from being the most celebrated knight of Grannvale to being declared a traitor, stripped of his rank, forced to flee as a stateless man, and ultimately being the victim of the conspiracy that culminates in his death.
>>12689275But Sigurd's fall is not confined to his personal sphere: it becomes the turning point in the history of an entire continent—his defeat opens a space of power that allows the rise of the imperial regime and the consolidation of a tyranny destined to overwhelm the entire Jugdral. The protagonist's downfall coincides with that of the political order.As the plot progresses, his righteousness leads to his isolation. The more he tries to do the right thing, the more the political system rejects him, just as it does with Alfieri's Brutus, for example.Alfieri’s drama is based on the titanic clash between an exceptional individual and an overwhelming force (tyranny, fate, deception), a dynamic that perfectly mirrors Sigurd's parable. Often, Alfierian tyrants act not only with brute force, but also with deception and psychological manipulation. Sigurd would therefore be the hero of powerful passions, embodied by his love for Deirdre, his loyalty to the crown, and his sense of justice, crushed by the machinations of Malfoy and Loptyr's followers.But the deeper core of the parallel with Alfieri lies precisely in the way Sigurd's end reflects Jugdral's fate. In Alfierian tragedies, the hero's downfall often coincides with the triumph of darkness and tyranny.It is interesting to note, in this sense, that there is a distinction in Islam, also taken up by Evola, between the "Greater Holy War" and the "Lesser Holy War." While the Lesser Holy War refers to the conflict fought by an army in defense of a community, the Greater Holy War refers to the individual's internal struggle against his own chaotic impulses. While the "Holy War" of the title obviously refers to the second crusade undertaken by Seliph and the others against the demonic Loptyr, it is perhaps bold but interesting to note that this Holy War became necessary only because all the great men of the first generation lost their own internal Holy War.
>>12689278>Sigurd loses to his passions: they render him incapable of seeing the cynicism of the world, and the finiteness of his power compared to the grand scheme of things, blinding him to political intrigues.>Eldigan loses to his pride: he places formal honor and loyalty to a mad king above the real good of his people and rationality.>Arvis loses to his ambition: driven by the idealistic desire to create a better, just, and tolerant world, he opportunistically allies himself with the sect, with the foolish belief that he can use evil to do good. But you can't use evil to do good, and Arvis will learn this the hard way.In other words, each of them fought and lost their own "Greater Holy War." Evil does not have the power to create things from nothing; it infects, corrupts, and parasitizes the emotional and moral cracks of great men (cfr. privatio boni).Loptyr simply feasted on their human weaknesses, which led to his rise and the necessity of the external Holy War against him.So why does Seliph succeed where Sigurd failed?Seliph undergoes a spiritual evolution of the hero figure compared to his father.If Sigurd is driven by impulse, Seliph is driven by the awareness of pain. Sigurd is the passionate hero, Seliph is the compassionate hero. Sigurd acted with the ardour of the ancient knight, Seliph has no room for pride. Where Sigurd acts with unwavering conviction, Seliph doubts.But the fundamental difference between father and son emerges in the way they view their adversaries. Where Sigurd had a more Manichean vision, Seliph learns to see the nuances of human drama.
>>12689283When Seliph faces enemies like Ishtar, Arvis, or Julius himself, he acts not with the wrath of the avenger but with the compassionate pity of the liberator. His final battle is not driven by angry vengeance for his father, but by the need to end a cycle of suffering that devastates both the oppressed and the oppressors.Seliph wins his external Holy War because he had already won his internal Holy War. His soul lacks the "cracks" of pride or ambition that Loptyr might insinuate.
I'm not reading all that shit
