End of the Second Quarter 2021
G.D.O'Bradovich III
June 24, 2021
-1-
The Nicene Creed is clear: ‘We believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.‘ In Latin, Patrem omnipoténtem; in Greek Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα [Patera Pantokratora]. There is nothing in the creed where the believer must profess faith in a God who is omniscient or omnibenevolent. The Council Fathers were wise, unlike modern Christians, to not dogmatically declare that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. For anyone who concedes there is evil in the world, then one must ask, “Is God unaware of evil?” If he is aware of evil and does nothing, then he is not all good. If he is aware of evil and cannot intervene, then he is not all powerful, which explicitly contradicts the Nicene Creed. Therefore, in historical Christianity there is no dogmatic position on God being all good or all knowing, to the consternation of Modern Christians.
-2-
Esotericism Ancient and Modern Strauss Contra Straussianism on the Art of Political-Philosophical Writing, Michael L. Frazer
“First, Strauss chose the life of a teacher and a scholar. Second, as a scholar, Strauss built his reputation, not only through the insight of his commentaries and the loyalty of his students, but as the re-discoverer of “a forgotten kind of writing.”’ pg. 19
“The second best life may then be one devoted to the study of the work left by these true philosophers, scholarship undertaken in the hope that, with sufficient intellectual struggle, one may someday prove worthy of joining their ranks.” pg. 25
“A decision to communicate, to write esoterically in either the ancient or the modern mode, can only be attributed to a desire to educate “the puppies of his race” (PAW [Persecution and the Art of Writing], p. 36), that is, potential philosophers.” pg. 27
“Only after the game is over, only after the puppies grow into philosophers, will Strauss’s students even consider the possibility that they have been duped, that Strauss’s treasure map was exoteric, a ruse designed only to draw them into philosophy. By this time, however, they will have come to experience the happiness of philosophizing, and could only thank Strauss for his benevolent pedagogical deceptions.” pg. 30
“As his puppies grow into full-fledged philosophers, it would be Strauss’s hope that they abandon the dogmatism of their youth, a dogmatism that was necessary only in the early stages of their philosophical education.” pg. 31
If one could assemble all of Strauss’ students, then we would expect that no two would agree on the character of their teacher, his most important teachings, or what aspects of political science were stressed. If true, then these divided opinions would indicate that Strauss taught different things to students of different abilities and outlooks. The Gentle Reader would do well to compare the writings and statements between Allan Bloom and Harvey Mansfield.
To paraphrase Saint Paul, Strauss made himself all things to all students, that he might by all means reach both the numerous virtuous gentlemen and the rare potential philosopher [1 Cor 9:22]. This dual message is found in the works of Plato whereby Socrates reinforces Glaucon’s gentlemenly prejudices, while always on the lookout for the next ‘young man who likes to think’. Of course, Saint Paul writes contradictory messages to the various churches, so it can be surmised that the collation of the various letters was not intended, whereby their contradictions become obvious and problematic.
Frazer discusses several issues with Strauss’ insights and conclusions. As Frazer astutely notes, Strauss starts with a premise or, more correctly an idea, offers a few examples, and reaches questionable conclusions. This format is typically found in modern authors who advocate the concept of “ancient aliens”. Strauss writes that if “a master of the art of writing commits such blunders as would shame an intelligent high school boy, it is reasonable to assume that they are intentional…” [PAW, pg. 30]. Mastering the art of writing requires one to master the art of thinking, or logic, otherwise one’s writing would not be masterful, but mediocre. Since Frazer realizes there are logical concerns with Strauss’ conclusions that “would shame an intelligent high school boy”, then these blunders are “intentional”.
The Gentle Reader appreciates the likelihood that Frazer, a mature man who earned his PhD from Princeton with considerable life experiences and years of participation in academia, may be frustrated and bewildered at Strauss’ exegesis. Strauss’ writing style is for his targeted audience, which is not fellow academics, but “young men who love to think.” [PAW, pg. 24]
Strauss describes the political tension in western society as one between Jerusalem and Athens, between the Bible and Greek philosophy, between faith and reason. It can be added that reason is an aspect of thought, of thinking, whereas thought can be wholly absent in faith proper. The danger of denying the gods, creating new gods, and corrupting the young is that the faithful, the masses, will not hesitate to use force or violence when their opinions are seriously challenged. The political conflict that Strauss identifies can be understood as one between reasoning and force and, if this insight is correct, then there is no resolution to Jerusalem and Athens, it is an eternal dispute.
“First, Strauss chose the life of a teacher and a scholar. Second, as a scholar, Strauss built his reputation, not only through the insight of his commentaries and the loyalty of his students, but as the re-discoverer of “a forgotten kind of writing.”’ pg. 19
“The second best life may then be one devoted to the study of the work left by these true philosophers, scholarship undertaken in the hope that, with sufficient intellectual struggle, one may someday prove worthy of joining their ranks.” pg. 25
“A decision to communicate, to write esoterically in either the ancient or the modern mode, can only be attributed to a desire to educate “the puppies of his race” (PAW [Persecution and the Art of Writing], p. 36), that is, potential philosophers.” pg. 27
“Only after the game is over, only after the puppies grow into philosophers, will Strauss’s students even consider the possibility that they have been duped, that Strauss’s treasure map was exoteric, a ruse designed only to draw them into philosophy. By this time, however, they will have come to experience the happiness of philosophizing, and could only thank Strauss for his benevolent pedagogical deceptions.” pg. 30
“As his puppies grow into full-fledged philosophers, it would be Strauss’s hope that they abandon the dogmatism of their youth, a dogmatism that was necessary only in the early stages of their philosophical education.” pg. 31
If one could assemble all of Strauss’ students, then we would expect that no two would agree on the character of their teacher, his most important teachings, or what aspects of political science were stressed. If true, then these divided opinions would indicate that Strauss taught different things to students of different abilities and outlooks. The Gentle Reader would do well to compare the writings and statements between Allan Bloom and Harvey Mansfield.
To paraphrase Saint Paul, Strauss made himself all things to all students, that he might by all means reach both the numerous virtuous gentlemen and the rare potential philosopher [1 Cor 9:22]. This dual message is found in the works of Plato whereby Socrates reinforces Glaucon’s gentlemenly prejudices, while always on the lookout for the next ‘young man who likes to think’. Of course, Saint Paul writes contradictory messages to the various churches, so it can be surmised that the collation of the various letters was not intended, whereby their contradictions become obvious and problematic.
Frazer discusses several issues with Strauss’ insights and conclusions. As Frazer astutely notes, Strauss starts with a premise or, more correctly an idea, offers a few examples, and reaches questionable conclusions. This format is typically found in modern authors who advocate the concept of “ancient aliens”. Strauss writes that if “a master of the art of writing commits such blunders as would shame an intelligent high school boy, it is reasonable to assume that they are intentional…” [PAW, pg. 30]. Mastering the art of writing requires one to master the art of thinking, or logic, otherwise one’s writing would not be masterful, but mediocre. Since Frazer realizes there are logical concerns with Strauss’ conclusions that “would shame an intelligent high school boy”, then these blunders are “intentional”.
The Gentle Reader appreciates the likelihood that Frazer, a mature man who earned his PhD from Princeton with considerable life experiences and years of participation in academia, may be frustrated and bewildered at Strauss’ exegesis. Strauss’ writing style is for his targeted audience, which is not fellow academics, but “young men who love to think.” [PAW, pg. 24]
Strauss describes the political tension in western society as one between Jerusalem and Athens, between the Bible and Greek philosophy, between faith and reason. It can be added that reason is an aspect of thought, of thinking, whereas thought can be wholly absent in faith proper. The danger of denying the gods, creating new gods, and corrupting the young is that the faithful, the masses, will not hesitate to use force or violence when their opinions are seriously challenged. The political conflict that Strauss identifies can be understood as one between reasoning and force and, if this insight is correct, then there is no resolution to Jerusalem and Athens, it is an eternal dispute.
-3-
Our friend Jack Dailey will be in basic training at the end of the month. When the Apprentices and the Highschoolers went to basic training, we expected that they would return safe to the Haute within a few months. However, after basic training, Jack will be attending West Point for four years and then is obligated for eight years as an officer, if we recall correctly.
Our first recollection of Jack was when we learned he was taking classes to become Roman Catholic [his family is Roman Catholic and we betray our ignorance of this aspect of Roman Catholicism, as infants receive baptism, chrismation, and communion in the Greek Church] and we offered to help Jack study. Looking back upon this encounter between a cosmopolitan Capricorn and a goofy acting, socially awkward, blond haired, strapping quarterback, I’m sure that Jack was thinking that I, some guy who ‘hangs out’ at Taco Bell and seemingly does nothing, but chatting up Highschoolers, would not know anything more than just the basics, if even that, of the Roman Catholic faith. Of course, one cannot refute one’s critics if one does not have a firm understanding of their position. Anyway, Jack never took my offer and, in effect, one could say that my mentoring remains an open invitation.
We had many interactions and memorable moments with the Apprentices before their high school graduation, so their absence was a notable loss. Our clearest recollection of Jack is when he sought us out to relate the story of being informed of his acceptance to West Point and the set up to inform his parents. On that day, one could paint sunbeams with his enthusiasm and excitement.
We naturally categorize Jack with certain Apprentices who also share both a sense of duty and believe that virtues are not an idle word, but are a vital aspect of living. In fine, we are pleased to have the opportunity to know Jack and are certain he will have many exciting adventures.
[The above is the coda that was reworked for several days and we still are not pleased with it. Our intention was to strongly suggest that we are indifferent to Jack’s departure, yet this cannot be our genuine position. Although we can arrange a pop song and dedicate it to an Apprentice in a period as short as a few days, an original composition [Rondo for Trumpet and Orchestra] requires considerably more effort and untold scrutiny and herein lies our paradox. We have written and dedicated original music to four individuals, Jack being one of them, therefore, we cannot be as indifferent as we initially wished to claim. Regretfully, Gentle Reader, we offer no conclusion regarding our confusion on this subject, other than to note that our friend is a Libra on the cusp of Scorpio.]
Our first recollection of Jack was when we learned he was taking classes to become Roman Catholic [his family is Roman Catholic and we betray our ignorance of this aspect of Roman Catholicism, as infants receive baptism, chrismation, and communion in the Greek Church] and we offered to help Jack study. Looking back upon this encounter between a cosmopolitan Capricorn and a goofy acting, socially awkward, blond haired, strapping quarterback, I’m sure that Jack was thinking that I, some guy who ‘hangs out’ at Taco Bell and seemingly does nothing, but chatting up Highschoolers, would not know anything more than just the basics, if even that, of the Roman Catholic faith. Of course, one cannot refute one’s critics if one does not have a firm understanding of their position. Anyway, Jack never took my offer and, in effect, one could say that my mentoring remains an open invitation.
We had many interactions and memorable moments with the Apprentices before their high school graduation, so their absence was a notable loss. Our clearest recollection of Jack is when he sought us out to relate the story of being informed of his acceptance to West Point and the set up to inform his parents. On that day, one could paint sunbeams with his enthusiasm and excitement.
We naturally categorize Jack with certain Apprentices who also share both a sense of duty and believe that virtues are not an idle word, but are a vital aspect of living. In fine, we are pleased to have the opportunity to know Jack and are certain he will have many exciting adventures.
[The above is the coda that was reworked for several days and we still are not pleased with it. Our intention was to strongly suggest that we are indifferent to Jack’s departure, yet this cannot be our genuine position. Although we can arrange a pop song and dedicate it to an Apprentice in a period as short as a few days, an original composition [Rondo for Trumpet and Orchestra] requires considerably more effort and untold scrutiny and herein lies our paradox. We have written and dedicated original music to four individuals, Jack being one of them, therefore, we cannot be as indifferent as we initially wished to claim. Regretfully, Gentle Reader, we offer no conclusion regarding our confusion on this subject, other than to note that our friend is a Libra on the cusp of Scorpio.]
-4-
“I’m saved.” says the modern Protestant ignorant of both logic and history. Let us be clear: to “be saved” is technical jargon and its ambiguous nature is intentional. If pressed on the meaning of being saved, these unnuanced Gnostics will respond that they are saved either from sin or from Hell. Jean Hardouin [d. 1726] correctly observed that what “you read of in books as Heresies are fictions” and “they nowhere existed in the world; none renew them, and this because they are fatuous and insane...”
These credulous ‘Christians’ can declare belief in almost any fantastic premise, yet they are incapable of critically thinking through the correct difficulty of being saved. For the skeptical mind, being saved from sin and being saved from Hell cannot constitute a complete theology. Believing in Jesus [or believing one is saved] results in one being sinless and this belief results in avoiding Hell. We ask: “Who sends people to Hell?” Modern Christians cannot answer either Jesus or God, as one response is a damning indictment against the merciful Master, yet he is a just judge, and the second response indicates that God is not omnibenevolent, as is supposed. Therefore, by avoiding both of these unsavory verdicts, the ‘saved Christian’ responds that those unsaved individuals, by the supposed existence of personal sins [which are so plastic as to be virtually undefinable], send themselves to Hell. Of course, this sham explanation avoids the moral issue of punishing those who have never heard of this Good News, that is, those ignorant of the Master, either through time or place, suffer eternally for their ignorance.
Additionally, it is not unknown to hear that God is holy and nothing ‘sinful’ can be in his presence, not only does this seem correct, but some justification can be found in the Protestant Bible. However, the ‘correctness’ of this line of reasoning has no historical foundation or basis in ecclesiastical history, as the Greek Church has always taught that the saved and the damned will experience the essence of God for eternity.
Ultimately, the difficulty with modern Gnostics is that they are not the intellectual heirs of the heresies found in books. As found in books, the ancient Gnostics created viable, if questionable, and internally consistent cosmologies for their heresies and it was they who invented the form of popular science fiction called ‘space opera’. An important aspect of Gnostic theology is the acceptance of reincarnation, as reincarnation recycles the divine spark in the material world and allows the possibility that all can receive Gnosis in this world, avoid the archons in the afterlife, and return to the unknown Father in aeterna.
The modern Christian has reduced historical Christianity to the lowest common denominators: belief. Of course, we cannot know if this belief of the Modern Christian is true or false or, like everything else encountered in Protestantism, symbolic; where symbolic baptisms, symbolic communions, symbolic confessions, and symbolic church attendance leads to symbolic salvation. Symbolic means ‘serving as a character used as a conventional representation of an object’; where this ‘object’ is the actual workings of a historical church, that is, either the Roman or Greek Churches, and more likely the former than the later, since, as was previously stated, the Modern Christian has no understanding of historical Christianity. Neither the Roman nor the Greek Church offers the guarantee of salvation, they only offer the possibility. It is as if the greatest minds of Christendom for a thousand were incapable of understanding the simplicity found in the New Testament. These two ancient churches are internally consistent, as church attendance is the only means of encountering the sacraments. The Greek Church clearly teaches that the goal of mankind is not to be saved from Adam’s transgression [cf. Romans 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:14], but to become perfect the version of oneself, to become a god. In their ignorance, the moderns have taken the historical ideal of personal deification in eternity and transformed it into a belief of eternal salvation being granted while living in the world. And the visible results of this innovation is easily found in Modern Christian contempt for non Christians and their denigration of the world.
When confronted with the nonsense theology of modern Christians, the image of forty two gods flanking the deceased while he watches the swaying scale weighing his heart against a single feather in the Hall of Ma’at is sublime.
In conclusion to this part, modern Christians are saved neither from sin nor from Hell, but from retribution by their chosen belief, whether true or false, of God, otherwise said, ‘people imagine a vain thing.’
Jesus answered them [the Jews, v.33], Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he [the Psalmist] called them gods... and the scripture cannot be broken; [why] Say ye... Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:34-36
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Psalm 49:7
These credulous ‘Christians’ can declare belief in almost any fantastic premise, yet they are incapable of critically thinking through the correct difficulty of being saved. For the skeptical mind, being saved from sin and being saved from Hell cannot constitute a complete theology. Believing in Jesus [or believing one is saved] results in one being sinless and this belief results in avoiding Hell. We ask: “Who sends people to Hell?” Modern Christians cannot answer either Jesus or God, as one response is a damning indictment against the merciful Master, yet he is a just judge, and the second response indicates that God is not omnibenevolent, as is supposed. Therefore, by avoiding both of these unsavory verdicts, the ‘saved Christian’ responds that those unsaved individuals, by the supposed existence of personal sins [which are so plastic as to be virtually undefinable], send themselves to Hell. Of course, this sham explanation avoids the moral issue of punishing those who have never heard of this Good News, that is, those ignorant of the Master, either through time or place, suffer eternally for their ignorance.
Additionally, it is not unknown to hear that God is holy and nothing ‘sinful’ can be in his presence, not only does this seem correct, but some justification can be found in the Protestant Bible. However, the ‘correctness’ of this line of reasoning has no historical foundation or basis in ecclesiastical history, as the Greek Church has always taught that the saved and the damned will experience the essence of God for eternity.
Ultimately, the difficulty with modern Gnostics is that they are not the intellectual heirs of the heresies found in books. As found in books, the ancient Gnostics created viable, if questionable, and internally consistent cosmologies for their heresies and it was they who invented the form of popular science fiction called ‘space opera’. An important aspect of Gnostic theology is the acceptance of reincarnation, as reincarnation recycles the divine spark in the material world and allows the possibility that all can receive Gnosis in this world, avoid the archons in the afterlife, and return to the unknown Father in aeterna.
The modern Christian has reduced historical Christianity to the lowest common denominators: belief. Of course, we cannot know if this belief of the Modern Christian is true or false or, like everything else encountered in Protestantism, symbolic; where symbolic baptisms, symbolic communions, symbolic confessions, and symbolic church attendance leads to symbolic salvation. Symbolic means ‘serving as a character used as a conventional representation of an object’; where this ‘object’ is the actual workings of a historical church, that is, either the Roman or Greek Churches, and more likely the former than the later, since, as was previously stated, the Modern Christian has no understanding of historical Christianity. Neither the Roman nor the Greek Church offers the guarantee of salvation, they only offer the possibility. It is as if the greatest minds of Christendom for a thousand were incapable of understanding the simplicity found in the New Testament. These two ancient churches are internally consistent, as church attendance is the only means of encountering the sacraments. The Greek Church clearly teaches that the goal of mankind is not to be saved from Adam’s transgression [cf. Romans 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:14], but to become perfect the version of oneself, to become a god. In their ignorance, the moderns have taken the historical ideal of personal deification in eternity and transformed it into a belief of eternal salvation being granted while living in the world. And the visible results of this innovation is easily found in Modern Christian contempt for non Christians and their denigration of the world.
When confronted with the nonsense theology of modern Christians, the image of forty two gods flanking the deceased while he watches the swaying scale weighing his heart against a single feather in the Hall of Ma’at is sublime.
In conclusion to this part, modern Christians are saved neither from sin nor from Hell, but from retribution by their chosen belief, whether true or false, of God, otherwise said, ‘people imagine a vain thing.’
Jesus answered them [the Jews, v.33], Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he [the Psalmist] called them gods... and the scripture cannot be broken; [why] Say ye... Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:34-36
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Psalm 49:7
-5-
We are old enough to remember when ‘gay pride’ parades were held on the Saturday nearest the anniversary of Judy Garland’s death. Nowadays, pride is the entire month of June. On the whole, we agree with Apprentice Anon Amus’ opinion on gay pride. If homosexuality, or the tendency to be homosexual, is genetic, like eye color and the ratio of digits, then homosexuality is not an achievement, as it is beyond the control of the individual, and no one can be proud of non accomplishments that are wholly natural. However, if homosexuality is not genetic and it is a choice, like one’s religion or residency or favorite college, then one can have pride in these ‘widely admired qualities’. Our issues are twofold: if homosexuality is genetic, then one, logically, cannot have pride and it follows ‘gay pride’ is a gross misuse of the word to the extend that pride looses its proper meaning. If homosexuality is not genetic, then people are declaring that they are proud of their choice, but what does this pride entail? This pride is nothing more than engaging in sexual intercourse.
Either ‘gay pride’ is the willful distortion of a useful word or ‘gay pride’ is the acknowledgment not of man’s greatest potential through the use of his mind, but of his basest animal functions. As always, the Gentle Researcher will reach his own conclusions regarding both the degradation of the English language and of pride in hedonism.
Either ‘gay pride’ is the willful distortion of a useful word or ‘gay pride’ is the acknowledgment not of man’s greatest potential through the use of his mind, but of his basest animal functions. As always, the Gentle Researcher will reach his own conclusions regarding both the degradation of the English language and of pride in hedonism.
-6-
In several essays we have made disparaging remarks concerning the support systems promoted by modern psychology. Our miscreant behavior was based on conclusion that since the majority of patients are incurable, that is, the doctor can only treat them, then the patients are permanently medicated and are to seek support from friends and family between monthly office visits to renew the prescription or prescriptions. Cynically stated, the doctor is paid, the patients are treated, and friends and family remain to pacify the patient. We stand behind this assessment. However, we neglected to ask the philosophical question: “What are real family? What are real friends?”
Apprentice Tyler introduced us to fake money [credits created by banks and by central banks that act as money]. We have since learned of fake history [the only accepted opinion is Scaliger’s chronology], fake royalty [where minor royalty and nobles usurp the throne and then rewrite history], and if the Khazar theory is to be believed, fake Ashkenazi Jews. As we have learned through long and painful experience, family is not natural, but a construct created by judicial fiat wherein certain people can play the role of parents. Whether or not the child will be able to play ‘doctor’, ‘philologist’, ‘father’, or anything else is not a concern either of the judiciary or of social services. Based on the preceding, it is conceivable, nay highly likely, that fake friends exist, yet, true friends must also exist. We offer the advice that ‘friends’ desire that their friends do well and be successful. This wording is intentionally vague, so as to accommodate as many scenarios and outcomes as possible. Therefore, Gentle Reader, if one’s ‘friends’ are detrimental [the wording is intentionally ambiguous], then they are not ‘true friends’. We wish the Gentle Researcher well in navigating the perils of social interactions and as Thoth, Beaky to his friends, says: “Price and Participation vary.”
Apprentice Tyler introduced us to fake money [credits created by banks and by central banks that act as money]. We have since learned of fake history [the only accepted opinion is Scaliger’s chronology], fake royalty [where minor royalty and nobles usurp the throne and then rewrite history], and if the Khazar theory is to be believed, fake Ashkenazi Jews. As we have learned through long and painful experience, family is not natural, but a construct created by judicial fiat wherein certain people can play the role of parents. Whether or not the child will be able to play ‘doctor’, ‘philologist’, ‘father’, or anything else is not a concern either of the judiciary or of social services. Based on the preceding, it is conceivable, nay highly likely, that fake friends exist, yet, true friends must also exist. We offer the advice that ‘friends’ desire that their friends do well and be successful. This wording is intentionally vague, so as to accommodate as many scenarios and outcomes as possible. Therefore, Gentle Reader, if one’s ‘friends’ are detrimental [the wording is intentionally ambiguous], then they are not ‘true friends’. We wish the Gentle Researcher well in navigating the perils of social interactions and as Thoth, Beaky to his friends, says: “Price and Participation vary.”
“But think twice, that’s my only advice.”
-7-
And there are some who have no memorial, who have perished as though they had not lived. They have become as though they had not been born ... Sirach 44:9
This quote was in the introduction of an in memoriam video we stumbled upon. The unintentional irony is that the celebrities mentioned have attained immortality through thousands of appearances in film and future generations of historians, both professional and amateur, will review their work.
Similar to many Hautens, Chuck Holmes left Terre Haute and like the majority of Hautens, his contributions to the world are not touted and are largely forgotten, unlike 'The Birthplace of the Coca Cola Bottle' or the world's first airline stewardess, Ellen Church. Yet, the subtle or hidden influences of certain individuals associated with or from Terre Haute, whether famous or obscure, continue to effect events behind the scenes.
This quote was in the introduction of an in memoriam video we stumbled upon. The unintentional irony is that the celebrities mentioned have attained immortality through thousands of appearances in film and future generations of historians, both professional and amateur, will review their work.
Similar to many Hautens, Chuck Holmes left Terre Haute and like the majority of Hautens, his contributions to the world are not touted and are largely forgotten, unlike 'The Birthplace of the Coca Cola Bottle' or the world's first airline stewardess, Ellen Church. Yet, the subtle or hidden influences of certain individuals associated with or from Terre Haute, whether famous or obscure, continue to effect events behind the scenes.
Ne absorbeat eas Tartarus
Ne cadant in obscurum
Ne cadant in obscurum