In Il mito del sangue, Julius Evola has an important chapter on the theories of Hermann Wirth. In particular, Evola is interested in Wirth’s thesis of the Polar, or Hyperborean, origin of the Nordic race, a theory that himself accepts. He begins the discussion with a quote from Oswald Menghin, the rector of the University of Vienna:
More than any other discipline, the science of prehistory has been brought, and even more, should be brought, to the center of the spiritual battle of our times. I don’t think I’m mistaken in asserting that general prehistory will be the science that guides the next generations.
Unfortunately, Prof. Menghin’s advice is little followed today. There are a few reasons for that. The primary reason is that few people are even aware that there is a spiritual battle in progress; moreover, even fewer, probably, even understand what a spiritual battle is.
Then there is the problem of methodology. The belief is prevalent that the only approach involves the scientific method. Perhaps this method can provide a little information, but it does not, and never could, offer any insight into the inner nature or spirit of prehistory. Obviously, that would prove useless in a spiritual battle.
Finally, there is the question of pragmatism. Because of the emphasis on the false doctrine of evolution, few see the purpose of even looking into the prehistorical past in order to gain insight into the present. In this view, it is the future that matters, and the past something to be overcome or forgotten.
Yet, at the time he wrote, Evola had reason to be optimistic. He continues:
In recent times there can be found in many circles a significant impulse to return to origins. The origins, here, appear under a special, spiritual light. He turns back to a presentiment that in primordial times he lived in a still pure state with meanings and symbols that were then lost, obfuscated or altered. Prehistoric research was brought from the level of lifeless scientific-archeological or anthropological positivism to a level of spiritual synthesis, guaranteed, thereby, to open new horizons for the true history of civilization.
This impulse apparently ran out of gas. Instead of opening new horizons, we have three major theories of origins that limit what we know about ourselves.
The first is the biological view, that man is a genetic accident, made “in the image of animals”, or that the Nordic race evolved out of Africa. The individual is no longer a spiritual being with a Will, but rather the resultant of various electro-chemical processes in the brain.
Next is the return to polytheism. First of all, the purpose of the study of prehistory is not to return to the forms of the past; they are “the past” for a good reason. Secondly, as we learned from Guenon, polytheism is a sign of decadence and any genuine primordial tradition is necessarily monotheistic.
The worst, of course, is the negative, whiny, and ignorant rants of some who see nothing but decadence and disease, not only in the present state of Western man, but also in the past. Instead of recognizing a primordial unity, they propose a plurality of unrelated peoples and ideas. Compare that with the grand and inspiring vision —The Flowering of European Civilization — of Donoso Cortes, that unifies the greatest civilization of the West and relates them to the present.
Pingback: Sv?t prehistorie a protohistorie | Délský potáp??
So if the organism is a manifestation of Will, is the scope of biological change limited in principle? Douglas Dewar posited a “natural family” as the “unit of creation”, and believed that change was limited by logical possibility.
Yes, though the complete statement of the theory is “natural selection by random variation”.
It is not so much the “natural selection” part of the theory, since every organism must be able to survive in its environment. It is the “random variation” — which is really a non-explanation — that is in question, since everything must have its sufficient reason.
As Evola and other Hermeticists say, the sufficient reason for existence is Will. That is the point of the True Will, to manifest one’s highest possibilities. Manifestation (things that happen) seems random to those who sacrifice their will to external forces.
Re 5:
Yes, the issue isn’t ‘evolution’ at all the rather the mechanism of ‘natural selection’ [the ‘biologism’ of point one above]. Evola was perfectly happy to speak of ‘evolution of the soul,’ for example. The materialists have cleverly gotten everyone to use ‘evolution’ to mean simply ‘change’ which no one, of course, denies; except for some “5,000 year” creationists. And that’s the other clever move: to label anyone who questions ‘natural selection’ as a knuckle-dragging Bible-thumper.
It is important to recognize that the rejection of the “theory of evolution” is not the same as believing in some sort of so-called “creation science”. The point is that science is simply not competent to deal with the topic; it necessarily remains in the realm of metaphysics. “Involution” is a metaphysical concept.
Robman:
´ We do not believe the man is derived from the ape by evolution. We believe that the ape is derived from man by involution.´ [Evola, J. “The Metaphysics of Sex” p. 9]
´so-called primitive people are not primitive, but the degenerating remains of a cycle of premodern civilization.´ [Evola, J. “The Hermetic Tradition” annotation to p. 16]
Sometimes Traditionalists’ demonstrations of their theses seems unconventional. For example, Guenon claimed that Boreas was ultimately derived from the root word for “Boar”, yet all I’ve ever seen about Boreas says it refers to the North Wind. Also, since Traditionalists reject evolution, what is their thesis on the origin of mankind? Is it similar to that of the theosophists?
It is not a question of what Wirth “believed”, but rather a question of whether or not he demonstrated his theses. Evola accepted Wirth’s idea of the Hyperborean origin of the primordial Nordic race and their migrations, not necessarily his other ideas. For the rest, I’ll wait until I can get the entire chapter on-line.
Wirth also believed that this alleged primordial nordic civilization was matriarchal. Why would we accept certain aspects of his claims and not others?