Evola consistently rejects both the claims of faith and of science to explain the origins of civilization. Instead, Evola makes note of “extra-scientific intuitions” and his methodology is not the study of genetics, or even of arechology, but rather “very laborious philological, anthropo-geological, mythological, and symbolic methods”. In our post-Christian era, in rejecting the claims of faith, may assume that they are therfore committed to the claims of science, without even considerting the spiritual alternative profferred by Evola.

In his time, the common theory, as he pointed out, was that civilization arose from the East, moving Westward and Northward. All other considerations aside, there is not even any scientific or historic evidence to support that. Where are the waves of Babylonians or Dravidians bringing civilization to all parts of Europe? The record shows just the opposite.

First of all, there is what is now called the “Aryan invasion theory”, that northerners conquered India, carrying their civilization to that subcontinent. This is not such a popular theory nowadays, not because of new evidence, but because it is “politically incorrect’. But as for Evola’s claim that the ancient civilization of Greece and Rome were really Nordic, we have this:

In recorded history the Nordics first appear in the West as Achaeans. They came from the North from the Dacian Plains and conquered Greece and Phrygia about 1400 or 1500 BC.

About 1200 or 1300 BC a Noridc people, the Osco-Umbrians, sweeping down from the northeast, entered Italy. They were kindred to the Achaeans and were the ancestors of the Latin tribes, including the early Romans.

(Conquest of a Continent, by Madison Grant)

Unfortunately, Grant suffers from the same mistaken belief that to be hard-headed and rational, you must follow the fashions of science. Since Grant wrote that book, science now postulates that the human species originated in Africa! Grant also believed that the different races actually constitute different animal species. Such biological theories of race are so easily refutable, that they end up discrediting his entire work. Grant wants to hang onto notions of which race is “higher” or “lower”. Unfortunately, such distinctions have absolutely no meaning in science. Instead, science can only speak of fitness … that is, whether or not a species or race can thrive and reproduce itself. By that standard, it would appear — if current trends continue indefinitely — that European man is “unfit”, no matter what can be said about IQ tests or the glories of past civilizations.

Only a spiritual transformation — not improved genetics — can halt this trend. Unfortunately, everywhere you look, there is no such transformation, but rather its evasion with a pretense to be such a transformation … thus the competing claims that decadent sensuality, or the recovery of ancient superstitions, or a new “order”, or the next trendy Asian guru will save us.

Only a god can save us.