Darwinism and the History of Evolution, + Notes (pt.2 Triumph of the Immortal Will by Mathilde Ludendorff)
Donate: https://www.patreon.com/VincentBruno
- Evolution robbed Christians of their souls so they began looking at Hinduism and Buddhism.
- Evolution mixed with awe has many opportunities for the human race.
- Christians suffered most from evolution because before that they held the Jewish perspective of unchanged created as are animals.
- Hindus thought the plethora of species were deceptions (Maya).
- Hindu lack of trust in the visible stunted them, but Nordic sole belief in the visible hurt them.
- Evolution is not just natural selection. Brightly-colored male birds are easier to spot and catch than dull-colored female birds. Evolution is not all about practicality, there is a will to beauty (in male birds) and a will to preservation (in female birds, dull colors to hide from predators). Pure practicality would favor cunning and fraud, this would be "Jewish" selection based on realistic aims in life.
- Preservation and unity of the race is the only solid foundation for life.
- Nordics have been torn from land and kin by Christianity and other modern forces
- But evolution led to belief of progress in life and now there is the idea man can progress into god, but random natural selection cannot create god, nor did it create all life, there is a will behind objects appearing, will to beauty, preservation, ect.
From The Book
The Triumph of the Immortal Will
By Mathilde Ludendorff
https://archive.org/stream/triumphoftheimmo029665mbp/triumphoftheimmo029665mbp_djvu.txt
Darwinism and the Histroy of Evolution
It was indeed a calamity that the Evolution Theory, that
science which seemed predestinated to become the safeguard for
mankind in the crisis of intellectual-development, should have
been fated to realise its exfoliation at a time, when religious
belief, through its standing opposition to science, had caused
already deterioration. The effects of this antagonism were apall-
ing on the human-soul; materalism (in the scientific sense of
the word) grew so rampant that it is a difficult matter now to
eliminate this evil. How different it would have been, had some
of the great German thinkers made their "Belief in the Meta-
physical" the foundation-stone to that grand scientific edifice
which so brilliantly illustrated the 19th and 20th centuries. The
grand flight which intellectual-life might have taken, despite
Christian terror, is beyond our imagination!
As fate would have it, our cultural-life had already fallen a
complete prey to Rousseau's rationalism, and so it came as a
matter-of-course that, among all the exponents of that wonder-
ful doctrine of evolution, to Darwin alone the priviledge was
given to fire it with interest. The chief reason was because his
method of treating scientific-matter satisfied so well the crying
need of the times. Had Darwin but chosen to approach that
chain of development in the spirit of awe and respect which is
due to such a subject and, when imparting his knowledge, risked
nothing more than a stammer and falter, his achievements in
research would have benefitted us more than all his, in reality,
incoherent "Theories of Development". As it stands, Darwin,
133
in the ardency of his research, believed naively, on account of
the virtue of his theory, "The Selection of the Fittest in the
Struggle- for-Life" to have discovered the chief and most import-
ant cause of the origin of the species. The fatal consequence of
this was that the Evolution-Theory, although it was adapted
more than any other doctrine to save human-kind from mate-
rialism, proved, in the long run, the very instrument for its ruin.
The profound insight into the origin of species has fructified
almost every belief and branch-of -science, or let us say, rendered
these hollow and shallow through its influence; so much so that
deeper thinkers have been compelled to turn away in a feeling
of abhorence from this doctrine altogether. However, a privi-
Icdge, seemingly, was left open to those compelled to familiarise
themselves with the Evolution-Theory, who were capable of
perceiving the deep meaning attached to the wonders of nature
and whom the sensibilitiy to see them and the respect due
to the laws of nature were not lacking. Actually speaking, it was
the lack of these sentiments and the putting in their stead a
dominating habit of judging scientific-matter always in the light
of the mere practical and purposeful which was the actual cause
of all the distorted conceptions which so unluckily prevail. In
reality, the doctrine of Evolution simply abounded and still
abounds in high opportunities for our cultural-life. Whosoever
approaches the wonders of nature disclosed in this particular
science in a spirit of awe and reverence will soon find out for
himself how capacitated the history-of-development is to ex-
pand the limits of his intellectual-horizon. In this respect even
better capacitated than the "Copernicus System" or Kant's
"Criticism of Pure Reason" was.
In fact, when we imagine how adequate the Evolution-Theory
was to quicken the God-cognising (Gott-erkennende) potent-
ialities in man, it will always remain a mystery to us how ever
Darwin's theory could have gained such a hold on the mind of
134
man. A whole century long it was capable of stifling the creative
spirit in the breast of man. In the very name of the Evolution-
Theory a grave was dug, big enough to bury all belief in God
and the Soul. All gods, in fact, were overthrown. As a con-
sequence men became soulless and uprooted. The exception was
the credulous-herd of religious-believers whose powers of judg-
ment and reasoning, through the persuasion o'f their religion
had become so warped as to allow them to go on breathing
freely, as of old, in the infatuation that their religion alone was
true. A Darwin-influenced materialism, empoverished in petty
intellectualism, could not make up to the bereaved for the loss
of faith they had suffered. Therefore, in the endeavour to save
their souls, all manner of ideals become their refuge. They
sought warmth from the cold of petty-reasoning. So the one
clothed himself in the rags of superstition, (the Cabala, Occult-
ism and Spiritism) another collected Indian-creeds which, in-
cidently, the Evangelists had not copied down, constructing on
them pyramids of a very vague intellectualism. Another again,
not venturing construction, took refuge in Buddha and the
Vedas, while others perused the book of Laotse.The rest flutter-
ed from one ism to the other in the vain hope of saving their
souls from the famine which was threatening them. If any felt
soul-contentment, it was those only who were born with such
a shadow of a soul as to be spared soul -craving altogether, not
to mention, of course, those individuals in whom the race-inherit-
ance had become so stifled and the powers of reasoning so
blunt that immunity had resulted.
Woe to us all should the inward vision of our race, owing to
its approaching death, be so clouded as to make it blind to the
boon knowledge holds out to it! But happy we, should its in-
ward sight be still intact and its soul still alive; for then the
wonders which natural development reveals to us, paired with
the scientific-knowledge gained in the 20th century, will not
135
be in vain. The ominous effects of Darwin's theory will become
a thing of the past. In their stead will step knowledge; men will
grow aware of the true meaning of life and growth, like our
forebears had once anticipated it. (S. "The Soul of the Human
Being) That new life in the fulness of soul will dawn, such as
the folks of the earth at all times have dreamed of; dreams,
however, which took on such fantastic forms (through men's
urge for happiness), as to conceive ideas such as for instance an
"Empire of a thousand Years".
Science, uprooted as it was from out of the soil of its own nat-
ive God-Cognisance (Gotterkenntnis) and instead, embedded
in the alien soil of Christian thought, was influenced a remark-
ably long time by the impressions it had received from the
outer world alone. Although the multitudinous variety and
diversity of animal and plant-life had been recognised, it was
taken for granted (conform with the Jewish creation-myth) that
all living species had been handed down, ready made, from the
hands of their creator. Even Linne, in the 18th century, expound-
ed the doctrine of the unchangeability of the animal-species,
which he taught were exactly the same to-day as they were from
the beginning of time. ("Species tot sunt, quot formae ab initio
creatae sunt"). With the assumption, which had cropped up
in the minds of men in past centuries, that all living beings
differed one from another, there grew synchronously the unshak-
able certainty that this diversity distinguished itself not only
in the degree of man's development but also in the nature of
his soul. The cause supposed for this assumption was completely
wrong and in this error men have persevered right up to the
present day. The doctrine of the unchangeability of the species
greatly marred the intellectual outlook of all the peoples that
had been nurtured in the "Jewish Faith". In fact, it proved to
be a sheer impediment to intellectual development, for in such
a trend of thought no truth could ever be arrived at. Other cult-
136
ural-folks approached nearer to cognisance. For instance, the
Chinese taught in the earliest times that all nature was one and
the same, and the Indians, our kindred ancestors, to whom the
cognisance of preceeding generations had been preserved, poss-
essed a legend of creation which told that all plant and animal-
life originated in order from the most primeval animate being.
In fact, despite their non-knowledge of the laws-of-nature, the
Indians were able to recognise at a very early age already, that
the invisible, the "Self", innate in each and all, could not be
grasped by our perceptive organs, nor with the powers of our
reason. But as Indian imagination dwelt on the visible-scene
(Welt der Erscheinung) as being something which was mere
deception prompted to lead mankind astray, (Maya-illusion)*
the consequence was that they believed the diversity and varie-
ty which the outer-world manifested was also mere illusion. At
the conclusion of their story-of-creation (Rigveda Jaitareya-
Upanishad 3 Khanda) the play of their childlike imagination is
well revealed. Nevertheless, it is full of profound wisdom inspitc
of the lack of scientific -knowledge. Here it is: "After having
been born, he regarded all the other kinds of living beings
and exclaimed: What difference can be found? But still he dis-
cerned that the spirit of Brahma had pervaded man the most".
It is of significance to note, that, although the Indian mind,
when judged from our standpoint in the knowledge of nature and
her laws, was still at a stage of very primitive dimensions, it
was, nevertheless, capable of discerning the uniformity under-
lying the multiform surface, and this was mainly due to the
fact that it had been spared from Jewish teachings polluting its
thought. It was very different in our case. Science was encount-
ered with a twofold handicap; the unchangeability and non-
relationship of the species. But the Indian thinker also lost
* The Edda was the only book belonging to our Aryan forefathers which escaped
the flames the Christians had prepared for them. In the Edda, the myth concerned with the
world-oak makes also mention of this cognisance. (S. "The Soul of the Human Being").
137
golden opportunities in disdaining and fearing the world of
appearances (Erscheinungswelt). The misconception of its signi-
ficance barred him from achieving knowledge which alone the
research of the visible could yield. We, on the other hand, have
fallen a prey to the opposite danger. Our familiarity with the
world-of-appearances (Erscheinungswelt) which earnest study
and research brought with them has intoxicated us to such an
extent, as to make us treat visibility (Erscheinung) as if it were
the only reality. We ought to be ashamed of treating "Maya"
so irreverently, especially since Kant has presented us with the
gift of his "Brahma-most-pervaded" doctrine.
Historical facts prove that the Evolution-history fell by no
means suddenly into the hands of materialism. It was a very
gradual process. To understand what this means, it is signific-
ant to note first how the magnificent scientific results were put
to use. An incident, in itself small and insignificant although,
physchologically speaking, of great interest, serves to show how
a certain practice will gain the upperhand. Goethe belonged to
that body of scientists who expounded that theory of evolution
which proceeded along the path leading from a uniform to a mul-
tiform. He even clothed this conception in the poetic language
as follows:
,,Alle Gestalten sind ahnlich und keine gleichet der anderen;
und so deutet der Chor auf ein geheimes Gesetz, auf ein heiliges
Ratsel." "All forms are similar, yet none are alike. A chorus
chanting a mysterious law. The sacred mystery of mysteries."
Now, a century has passed since Goethe wrote those lines and
in the meantime, as the result of study and research, the doctrine
of Evolution has grown into the fruition of achieved facts, and
on every possible occasion when natural evolution was written
about or spoken of, Goethe's lines were quoted. Yet, strange to
say, the last line, where he mentions the sacred mystery, was
always omitted. Now, at a time when men had grown into the
138
habit of explaining the process of the world's growth in the
light of the mere mechanical only, the expression "mysterious
law" would be suitable enough while 'sacred mystery* quite out
of place. So it came natural that 'sacred* was always omitted
although it closely belonged to the verse. Words implying that
anything was 'sacred' were more than superfluous in a world
where men were thankful that the 'mysterious in creation* had
been explained away so successfully. This brings us sharply
round to the fact that the high importance which was attributed
to the Evolution Theory was merely due to the dry fact that
scientists were able to emphasize the sheer mechanical by means
of the theory which taught of 'natural selection* causing the ori-
gin of the species. Herewith the problem of life seemed to be
adequately 'solved*.
When one comes to think of it, it seems hardly credible that
scientists should have made no attempts whatever to lay the
theory of evolution at the heart of their research. Yet verily, a
whole century long, the idea of a process of development lay
dormant; none stood up for or against it until Mr. Darwin
appeared. And what could have been the reason for this? In the
first place, most certainly, there was but a paucity of scientific
facts to work from; but this is not a sufficient explanation for
the reason, why every idea in this trend was so utterly ignored.
But it soon becomes clear when we bear in mind that, before
Darwin's time, all the scientific-researchers stood in opposition
to him. In the first place all of them felt that somehow there
was a 'sacred mystery', besides which, there was no craze for the
mere mechanical among the public which the scientists were
called upon to satisfy. On the contrary, even Darwin's own
grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, concludes his book with these
words: "The world has not been created, it has evolved gradu-
ally, step by step, from a small beginning to a higher end. It
expanded through the activity of an inner-potency; has grown
of its own accord rather than been created at the command of
an almighty power. What a grand idea this is of the great arti-
ficer's perpetual power! The cause of causes, the father of fa-
thers, the Ens entium! For, in order to compare perpetuity, a
still greater perpetual-power is necessary than the power is which
has caused cause and effects!" Then there was Lamark, who,
more than a century later in his Philosophic Zoologique",
taught the doctrine upholding the fact that all the present day
diverse species originated from the most primitive being; also
that the metamorphosis of certain groups was caused through
the species having adapted themselves to a change of life which
had brought about the transformation of the organic linbs;
these having been put to use or no use as each case called forth.
Yet Lamark himself was far from recognising that this very
fact was sufficient in itself to explain the process of evolution
and also to account for the multifariousness of our present day
species. But more important: he assumed that there was a "po-
tenciating first cause innate in all organisms which had issued
from the installed exalted Orginator of all things, and which
was striving, as of a necessity, to pave its way, in the order pro-
per to higher spheres of development".
Unlike all his predecessors Darwin alone was capacitated to
enthuse his epoch. The Evolution-Theory became suddenly in-
vigorated with the breath of enthusiasm. This had been his sole
priviledge to awaken. Darwin's own enthusiasm for the Evolut-
ion-Theory became contagious. But it was not so much the
admiration for his intimate knowledge and minute study, nor
for his vast experiments in breeding and rearing which absorbed
so much the public interest as the manner of his research. It al-
ways happened in the light of the mere mechanical! A whole
century became Darwin influenced. It was absolutely character-
istic of his times that the scientific facts concerning the meta-
morphosis of plant and animal were of minor interest, while
140
the mechanical explanation expounded in his selection-theory
found such an echo in the heart of man! (Mind, it was not the
scientific doctrine itself which met such interest, but the plausi-
bility of the sheer mechanical explanation. Now, according to
Darwin, we are called upon to imagine that it was not so much
the struggle-for-life which was the mighty potent in the growth
of organic-life, but rather the dry, matter-of-fact competition-
struggle. That vast multiformity, manifested in the abundance
of plant and animal-kind, was caused through the most realistic
of impulses! This thought, arising from the abyss of the most
sober of matter-of-facts, came as a boon indeed to a generation
which clung lovingly to its materialistic outlook.
This is what Darwin tells us: An over abundance of individ-
ual plant and animal-life comes into existence. Before these
can multiply, millions are doomed to die in the struggle-for-life
going on among their own kind. In this competition the fittest
wins the race of life. It is nominated the best of its kind because
it achieved that stage which allows it to bequeath its useful
attributes to later generations, while the mal-developed inevit-
ably suffers extermination before it can multiply. It follows,
therefore, that only the smartest throughout the generations, or
rather, as his theory gives to understand, the best-equipped is
qualified to become the ancestor of coming generations. The
feature of 'smartness' determines the character of its kind. In
this manner certain characteristics persevere in developing so
long as their possessor can be made 'smarter* than its compe-
titors in the general struggle-for-life, but arrest when disadvant-
age can happen.
A less dispassionate interpretation can hardly be imagined
but, at any rate, it suited his times and moreover was believed
to be a sublime truth; in the midst of all the industrious joy
which reigned at first everything else was overlooked. That
this doctrine could stand no proof when other facts were borne
141
in upon it went unperceived. And yet we are greatly indebted
to Darwin's enthusiasm for his own idea. Without it we should
not be in possession to-day of so many valuable scientific facts.
Through his study and research the definition could be found
for so many characteristics. For instance he made the discovery
that colour-change, mimicry etc. were means of defence. And
still many more points he brought to light which the warped
Christian imagination would have failed to discover. Yet, in-
spite of all these benefits to science, the fruits of Darwin's study
have been more of a curse than a blessing, for in no wise have
they contributed to the ideals of culture.
No one can deny that the competition-struggle played its
part in the history of evolution and that the best-fitted in the
struggle-for-life multiplied. But it is more than curious to want,
from these dull facts, to derive the explanation for the sublime
ascent of plant and animal, the origin of which we can trace
back to the most primitive being known in science as the pro-
tozoon. It becomes even more curious when one bears in mind
that the majority of these much-launded practical organs and
characteristics were practically of little use in the general
struggle-for-life.
To Darwin himself, even, it could not remain very long un-
noticed, that whole regiments of plant and animal-character-
istics were more of a hindrance than otherwise in the notorious
struggle-for-life, but that, on the other hand, they fully satis-
fied man's imagination of the beautiful, no matter how clumsy
in practice they were. Opposition quickly rose on the top of this
and proofs in contradiction as quickly brought forth. The best
field for observation proved to be the higher species, especially
the vertibrates, as the organs or characteristics useful or other-
wise could be better perceived. There it could be easily observed
that the males often had conspicuously bright colours. For in-
142
stance, many birds have. At the time of brooding fish have part-
icularly beautiful scales, while many songsters have headdresses
which are utterly useless in the struggle-for-existence. Now
Darwin transmitted our perceptive organs to the animal-king-
dom declaring these outward signs appealed to the sexual-in-
stinct of the female and through sexual-selection had made
their appearance mechanically. This shows how Darwin mis-
interpreted the very elementary laws ruling sexuality. In reality
it is so. The much talked-of, bright-hued wedding-dress which so
many fishes manifest and which, according to Darwin, originat-
ed mechanically through a process of sexual-selection, the fishes
themselves do not perceive on account of the peculiar construct-
ion of the fish-eye (facet-eye). Therefore, there must be ano-
ther reason for its existence (We shall refer later to the subject
which treats of this). Moreover, Mr. Darwin overlooks the fact
that his sexual-selection theory, for instance, the pleasure the
female bird is supposed to feel at the sight of the bright plumage
of the male etc., clashes with his own mechanical Evolution
Theory. The same holds good in more ways.
This fundamental-law (the female's attraction to the male
through the bright plumage) is not the only assumption of Dar-
win which stands in opposition to his own world-theory. There
is still another circumstance. All of those Secondary sexual
characteristics' which come in question here, such as the bright
feathers of the colibri, are suppositions which stand in a very
strange contradiction to Darwin's own theory (mechanism of
practicality) for they are a danger-signal more than anything
else. According to Darwin's theory it is surprising that all the
unpractical little males were not annihilated in the struggle-
for-existence. Furthermore, a sexual-passion which is supposed
to have been accelerated through the practical characteristics of
the male, either through outward signs or otherwise, ought,
according to the rules of sexual-selection, to have been applied
to the female likewise. This idea too would soon exhaust itself
in Darwin's own Evolution Theory.
But now to come back to our sense of beauty. Are these 'se-
condary sexual characteristics' (comparatively few in number)
the only forms in nature which satisfy our conception of the
beautiful. Behold here how the reason of man can turn facts
upside down! If we stop a moment to imagine that nature
really and truly took the principle of utility to be its guiding
star in the course of development how different ought the out-
ward appearance of things be. Think for a while of all the
many practical utensils which are of such service to man in his
struggle-for-existence. Have these any resemblance to plant and
animal life around us? Let us make comparisons. First there
would be the flying-machine with its telescope, and then, the
high-soaring sharp-eyed eagle. Yet what a difference between
these two! I am far from saying that men lack the sense of
beauty when they make their uesful implements. But still utility,
in such cases, is always the prime object they have in view,
exactly as Darwin assumed that the principle of utility was the
driving force in the evolution of nature. If the task was set
before us to construct a beast of prey, regardless of beauty, but
with the endeavour to equip it well for the struggle-for-life,
I feel sure nothing would make its appearance which could be
compared to the tiger for beauty! The supposition that the princ-
iple-of-utility was the ruling factor in the evolution of the
species, in face of all the wonderous beauty which plant and
animal exhibit, is a striking example of the warped conceptions
which mankind is all too capable of forming. Christian thought
was loftier, although erroneous likewise. It taught that a kind
father living in heaven had created the flowers of the field in
such wonderous beauty that we might gather them and place
them in water for our delight and pleasure. As they possess no
soul it signifies little if they must fade before their time. Now
144
we have not forgotten how our knowledge of the universe has
been intensified and our insight into nature's state of coherency
grown wider since we have learned that the scent of the flower
and their brilliant hues, in serving to attract the insects to carry
the germ of progeny farther, were auspicious in the mainten-
ance of the kind; but we cannot refrain from driving this quest-
ion home. If utility was the main principle, as the Darwinites
proclaim it to have been, why on earth was not a simpler method
chosen! For instance, a sheet of colour like the sign of an inn
would have done the purpose of nature just as well. Also, we ask
the Darwinites to explain to us why the form and colour of the
blossoms satisfy our conception of the beautiful so perfectly,
whereas the insects cannot perceive them at all on account of
their facet-shaped eyes? And again, what could have been the
reason for all the superlative beauty of that little mass of pro-
toplasm, that ancient ancestor of plant and animal which we
call the unicell, when it possesses no organs wherewith to per-
ceive the beauty of its fellow-companions; and its beauty is
useless to it in its struggle-for-existence? (S. Ernst Haeckel's
beautiful collection of artistic form in nature.)
An abundance of facts still exist which we could call up to
bear witness in the overthrowing of Darwin's theory. For us
this one is enough. Utility was not the cardinal-law in the form-
ation of the species. We are fully convinced that it was the
contrary. The chief law pulsating throughout all life was the
desire of beauty to be realised according to that sense of beauty
which men possess. But beauty did not grow in the same pro-
portion as the individual living object developed itself, as might
be supposed, in order that each and all should better perceive
their own and the beauty of others. The degree in which beauty
was allowed to appear on the visible scene (Welt der Erschei-
nung) depended on quite another circumstance. We are scienti-
fically justified in claiming that each single being was allowed
to possess as much beauty as would not endanger it in its struggle-
for-existence. This accounts for the conspicuous colouring of
the males and the insignificant appearance of the females in the
animal-kingdom. As the male is capable of producing more
offspring than the female, his existence, for the preservation of
the kind, is of less importance. It matters less in the case of the
male than in the case of the female if death occurs sooner or
later. Therefore we are fully justified in saying that the males
can afford to be arrayed more elegantly than the females can.
In order to follow our farther discussions with intelligence,
it is essential to be able to distinguish the dual-will which exists
in all living beings: the first will is the will-to-preserve the kind
which in times of emergency effected the practical variety: the
second will is the will-to-beauty which made the appearance
as beautiful as possible, that means to say, as far as the self-
preservation-will was not endangered. The sooner we get
acquainted with these facts, the better we shall understand how
nature formed and shaped all her living beings.
Notwithstanding all the abundance of matter which Mr.
Darwin collected in order to point out those characteristics
which had proved practical in the struggle-for-life; in reality,
he was merely concerning himself with a special group of charac-
teristics which manifested the sacrifices the will-to-beauty had
made to the will-to-preservation. In fact he was merely elabo-
rating a group of characteristics which had sprung into existence
through the hostility of the surroundings and which Lamark had
already mentioned. Yet what applies to one does not apply to
the other. Lamark allowed place for the sacred-mystery for the
host of varieties which could not be explained in this way. (The
passivity of the living-being and the activity of the outward
conditions). Whereas Naegli, in accordance with his times,
sought an explanation from the sole mechanical point-of-view;
he suggested that it was a physiological instinct-to-perfection
146
innate in the idioplasm which was the cause. It needs hardly
mentioning that this was no explanation at all but merely ano-
ther term for the sacred mystery, but which was better attuned
to the materialistic epoch.
Therefore, it was to be expected, that, by and by, the mater-
ialists themselves could remain no longer indifferent to the
mighty gaps and incorrect assertions which prevailed every-
where in the Darwinian Theory; for, even the most mater alist-
ic researcher, be he but earnest in his endeavours, demands the
truth and nothing but the truth. Hence it came about, that,
after the first outbreak of enthusiasm had calmed down, doubts
and disturbing uncertainties took its place. With the so-called
Cell-Selection-Theory and Weismann's Germ-Selection-Theory
vast research-work set in, in the hopes of expanding Darwin's
Selection Theory. But exactly as it happened in Roux's and
Osborne's Function-Theory etc. and in de Vries' Mutation-
Theory no place was allowed for the 'sacred mystery', much
less, for the possibility of a divine creative will existing in all
visibility (Erscheinung) which might have been the cause of that
gradual and multifarious ascent, the beginning of which was a
shapeless mass of protoplasm we term a germ, and the end man.
It was very characteristic for that epoch that the scientists,
one and all, not only ignored the assumption of a divine-will
potentiating this gradually ascending development, but all were
completely indifferent to any philosophies which taught it.
Schopenhauer's doctrine was ignored likewise, simply because
it taught that in every apparition (Erscheinung) a Will existed
that was the "Thing Itself (Ding an sich) and because this
wanted to become an object, (objectivation) it compelled the
form in which it could appear (Form der Erscheinung).
It goes without saying that it was an inaccurary on the part
of Schopenhauer when he termed the Will the "Thing Itself";
147
the Will is merely the apparition of the "Thing Itself, an
apparition, by the way, which can be revealed to the inner eye
only. Are we, philosophically speaking, of the same opinion as
Schopenhauer was, namely, that this Will existing in all Vit-
ality has had the power to create the form in which it could
appear, and are we also convinced (here contrary to him) that
the chief instinct in this Will was the urge to self-preservation,
(although, as we shall soon see, what is generally understood by
self-preservation, means, in each different being, something else)
it becomes plain to us that, when faced with the outward con-
ditions of life, such as; unfavourable conditions, conflicts with
ever fresh enemies, change of food etc. this Will was forced to
change its appearance. This will-to-adapt itself to its surround-
ings was a special expression of Ithe Self-preservation-will,
which achieved the thing most essential at the time, namely the
construction of the "Variety". The struggle-for-life or the Dar-
winian sexual-selection in the competition struggle merely work-
ed as aids in the same sense. As soon as we gain cognisance (Er-
kenntnis) of this mutual dependence, we shall be free to under-
stand more than just the origin of this particular group, the
small group of practical characteristics; for in as much as this
Will willed more than the sustenance of life, for instance, beauty
or life-enjoyment, it is obvious that it compelled other forms
to be constructed besides the practical constructions. Notwith-
standing the fact that Schopenhauer's conception was a mighty
step forwards, his philosophy never found the way to the 'sacred
mystery* contained in the development from a state of the deep-
est unconsciousness to one of highest consciousness. And be-
cause he could not find his way to the solution of this mystery,
Schopenhauer fell the prey to pessimism. And yet it would have
been a great progressive step for the scientists, if these had gone
at least so far in Schopenhauer's company. But as his philosophic-
al truths tended so little towards the mechanical, being more
148
adapted to lead men to the 'sacred mystery', they were naturally
of little use in the direction natural-science was persevering in.
And so it came about that this grand revolutionising cognis-
ance (Erkenntnis) ended, thanks to Darwin's explanation of the
origin of species, merely in the overthrowing of the creation-
myth and the construction, in its stead, of a purely mechanical
"Evolution Theory". At last men could venture without blushing
to say "God is dead". The scientists called out loudly: God is
dead, and, in extasy, the lay-world reechoed it, as if it were a
truth of a new gospel. And how beautifully did this Evolution-
Theory suit the demands of the shrivelled up soul-life of civil-
isation: nature herself showed, in selecting the fittest and the
best, to what high aims and perfect creations the inconsid-
erate struggle-for-life can lead to; for, and that is the truth of
Darwinism, mark you, the most practically endowed is the
fittest in the struggle-for-life. What a shameful change from
the Greeks who believed that the beautiful was identical with
the good. What a pernicious influence must have been exercis-
ed on the moral consciousness, when cunning and fraud, the
adequate means to victory in the struggle-for-life, become vir-
tues developed through natural Selection. For, in as much as
the culminating form in that long chain of development be also
subject to the continual laws of natural-selection, it must, of a
necessity, by the virtue of its cognising powers, even aid nature's
work of selection. Thus, in consequence, the fittest in life's
competition-struggle became to be recognised as being the most
favoured for the preservation of the kind; these were the ones
found worthy this time to be the 'heroes' leading us up the steps
to Olympus. Herein lay the glorification of the 'Jewish* or, as
it was generally called, the realistic aims in life. What once had
had significance had none at all now. What does God-living
(Gotterleben) want? What is the reason for art? In this kind of
struggle-for-life these sink to be mere past-times; the soul-
harmony essential in the choice of the marriage partner, which,
to the Hindu of ancient times, meant the greatest blessing, sink
now into irrelevancy. The unholy Darwinian-Selection-Theory
must be held responsible for the preeminence of the ones aban-
doned to the mere practical and whom Schopenhauer called
'the factory goods of nature', and especially for their being
upheld as the ones alone priviledged to have grasped the meaning
of life. After all this we cannot be amazed to find all the fields
of culture jeopardised through the appalling influence of this
theory, together with the degenerating effects which the Jewish
teachings had left behind them. (See "Liberation from Jesus
Christ" chapter-Duty). One can meet politicans, social-econo-
mists, national-economists, doctors, of whom none would be
ashamed to make a sentence like this: "The moral-outlook has
nothing to do with my science". Morality indeed! If it had not
happened to fit in here and there with the utilitarian demands,
by now, it would have had no place at all in man's thoughts
nor activities. Enough attempts were made to bann it altogether
from cultural-life. In the end it was allowed to hold its own
merely as a section of scientific-philosophy. And yet, how little
aware men were of the stronghold which the 'morals' of Dar-
winism and the 'morals' of Christianity had taken on the human-
mind, and how rapidly, in consequence, the free folks of the
earth were being driven to their own destruction.
But now take note; above and apart from all the material-
istic attempts to explain the Evolution, the marvellous doctrine
itself stands unhurt, offering us, anew, the bounteous truths
concerning the laws-of -growth. That marvellous doctrine which
once had already thrown such spontaneous light into the dark-
ened fields of science, yielding a fulness of individual scientific
experience, so that at one flash almost, the old conceptions of
life and growth were overthrown! That marvellous doctrine
which brought the obscurity of dead ages into life again, so that,
i jo
with its light, researchers could trace the laws-of-growth in the
forms of the obsolete animal-species giving them a right to
prophecy that certain animal-forms would make their appear-
ance (like the astronomer did who discovered the star Neptune)
long before the actual discovery of their remains in the earth
took place.
The new scientific truth, the so-called biogenetic-fundamen-
tal-law which had been founded on the strength of countless
proofs, was that, which taught that all vitality had originated
from the same prime animate unicellular-being, and was bound
up, in the course of its complex development, to laws which
were millions of years old. For the first time, since a thousand
years, the ancient wisdom contained in the creation-song of
the Rig- Veda "What can be seen here to be different" echoed
again in the breasts of men. (Long, long ago had these been
intentionally separated from the cognisance (Erkennen) of their
own ancestors). However, as was to be expected, the old con-
ceptions were held to tenaciously. The materialist found them-
selves still justified, by the virtue of Darwin's theory, to ring
out, "God is dead" and soon the facts of the Evolution-Theory
were put even to a second unholy purpose. This time it was
"The soul is dead" which they began to call out. The reason
they gave for this calling was, that the unicellular-being could
hardly be expected to possess a soul. Besides which the cognis-
ance (Erkenntnis) of the gradual development within the animal-
kingdom of these nerve-cell faculties which in men we call soul,
particularly put an end to all the most confusing and irritating
metaphysical fancies. The soul had disappeared, that means
to say, in its stead there had appeared: the sum of faculties
contained in the living brain cells. Now as this conception appeal-
ed mostly to the superficial thinkers, its effects in general were
appalling. To human-beings robbed of the God-belief akin to
their own race (arteigene - Gottglaube) it could but serve to
give the ultimate thrust which landed the soul into a deeper
abyss.
No matter how gladly the materialists hailed this 'wisdom',
it proved undeniably to be but another negation which could
be added to the negation of the Divine, so that it was with ob-
vious relief when something actually "positive" was discovered
in the Evolution-Theory which could be made to look like a
new confession of faith. First of all there was the continuity
of the species which, notwithstanding the obvious mortality of
the individual, was a comfort to the soul. Therefore, to labour
in the interest of the immortal-kind, not only through the act
of reproduction, but also through personal sacrifice for the
preservation or benefit of "humanity" was the moral aim which
the history of evolution was thought to yield. Be it clearly
understood, however, great care was taken to ignore the true
significance which it reveals, which is: The unity-of-race and
preservation-of-race make the only solid foundation for life
altogether. Put into practice, this truth would soon eliminate
that evil; the uprooting of men out of the soil of their native
race, folk, kith and kin which, lamentably, has gone so far al-
ready (and still goes on) through the influence of Christianity,
so that the once flourishing folks of the earth have been brought
to the edge of destruction.
Besides the comfort and impetus which the Evolution-Theory
had had the merit of giving in the idea of the 'continuity of
the species', there was given still a second thought of even
deeper significance: the belief in progress. Never before had
this belief been given such a chance. It grew to exquisite clearness,
for, it was argued, had not the marvellous ascent of man from
the beginning of a one-celled-being become an irrefutable fact
which implied a future ascent of man himself who was now
merely representing the intermediary stage between animal and
superman? This assumption deeply impressed Nietzsche who
combined it to many other Darwinian conceptions and clothed
it in the garb of poetry making it a thing of lasting beauty.
This caused all the lovers of progress and development, who
had been persuaded by the newly gained knowledge to bury
their God, to worship anew. Strange to say no-one was shattered
at the prospect of such a retrograde movement for Nietzsche
taught that the child was 'more than those who had created
it'! This remarkable theory has had its marked effects already;
the children of to-day are already so irreverent to their elders
and so unselfcontrolled, particularly the more gifted ones, that
one can expect a later generation of men and women aimlessly
given up to their own passions*. The respect for 'that which
is more than themselves' greatly encumbers parents, in the bring-
ing up of their children.
It is not surprising that the voice of criticism kept silence in
respect to this doctrine, for it seemed to confirm so magnani-
mously the ardent desires of the researchers. This fact itself
was certainly a blessing, for it gave so many the hope (and that
be it said in a century when two unholy funeral feasts had been
already celebrated) of a still higher ascent in man's develop-
ment. The argument rang: if such a progress as it was manifested
in the evolution of man whose beginning was a unicell was
possible, the ascent of man to the heights of the superman was
also possible. The doctrine became, scientifically, the more feas-
ible from the fact that its work was ascribed first to the spiri-
tual realms where, it was understood, the faculties of the soul
would undergo a higher development. The continual reform-
endeavours of past generations with their aims of raising man-
kind to a higher level contrived also to strengthen this trend
of thought. Distant vistas rose of future Godlike summits; for
these were certain if, in the past, the way from the unicell up
to man had been successfully traversed.
* (S. The Child's Soul and its Parents' Office.)
153
In the triumphant joy over the discovery that science and
cultural-hope apparently agreed, one fact was overlooked: The
History of Evolution promises very little for the future and
hardly any proofs for the assumption that man will ascend
higher in that same sense of development as it took place before
between unicell-man.
Ancient cultures, such as the Aryan, Sumarian, Indian, Egypt-
ian and Chinese teach the opposite. No elaborate study is
essential in order to perceive this. A few cultural-data of these
races suffice to confirm the fact that during thousands of years
of cultural-happenings there is no pronounced spiritual-exfol-
iation of any special kind to be noticed. That which gave
appearance of being such a 'stupendous' progress was nothing
more or less than the manner and degree of putting to use the
intellectual faculties which were at hand and the capability
of putting to use the knowledge handed down from preceeding
generations. In as much as one generation was able to bestow
its knowledge and experience (combined also with errors) to
the next, an ascent in Cognisance (Erkennen) and knowledge
(Wissen), especially in the fields of natural-science and in the
intelligent way its benefits were put to the welfare of mankind
did take place of-course, which gave to mankind the appearance
of 'progress' and a development of new capacities in his soul.
Now, if no development in the scientific sense of the word
has taken place during the historical epoch, is there one to look
forward too in the future? Had the span of time been too small
for a noticable development? The History-of - Evolutiones teaches
us the opposite. Inexorable facts indicate that, in a time imme-
morable, a plastic epoch was concerned in the creation of animals
and plants. Very probably sudden and incisive changes in the
outward life-conditions took place, especially in the climatic
conditions, which caused mutations, that is sudden changes in
the living organisms like it has never been experienced since.
'54
This occurence of a one time creative-epoch became the subject
of all the fantastic creation myths. Now, what has become un-
likely from a scientific point of view, becomes necessarily un-
likely from a philosophical point of view which is the object in
view I am going to prove, namely; that a repetition will never
again occur of that ascent of man from the mammalia, or the
fish from the amoeba. It follows from the same reason that a
new ascent of man towards the superman-state will not take
place. This philosophical truth which ascertains the impossi-
bility of a further development is, in reality, pregnant with
good fortune, and as soon as the reason for this has been pro-
perly understood all perplexity will vanish; we shall clearly
see the reason for the state of stability which the animal and
plant-kingdoms achieved at a certain epoch and understand
how natural it was for men to believe that the dogma of the un-
changeability of the species was truth. Thus we can be certain
now that there is no right to trace the origin of the doctrine of
the 'superman* to the Evolution History, for its origin cannot
be found there. But in the same way as we are indebted to the
mastersingers (albeit their art was far from being perfect) for
having been the means of saving our folk (Volk) from the loss
of their poetic art, we are filled with gratitude to Nietzsche for
having been able to inspire so many with faith in the superman.
He certainly saved all the scientific-minded living in the Dar-
winian period from religious destruction. What is more, the
language he used was so powerful that it inspired many a Ger-
man. These began to feel noble-self-esteem arise again within
them. Only too long had this divine feeling suffered suppression
through the ominous effects of the alien way of thinking which
had worked its havoc at will (The intellectual strife of our day
is one of the bitter results).
Nothing is more effective in uprooting the mind of man out
of the soil of his native imagination than the teachings of an
alien creed. It simply paralyses his brain. Therefore it ought
to be no longer surprising that the Evolution-Theory was put
to no better use than for the denial of God and the soul, not to
mention the puny creeds put up in their stead which became
known under the title of "Immortality of the Species, and
Superman". Moreover, when we recall to mind, in face of these
realities, the rapid hold which the superficial trends of Darwin-
ian thought had succeeded in taking on all the branches of life,
it no longer amazes us to find the Christian folks (Volker),
already at the brink of an abyss, threatened with their sudden
fall to destruction.
Comments
Post a Comment