The Demons of Evolutionism, Technologism, and Scientism

Traditional doctrines regarding the meaning of human life are completely incompatible with modern evolutionary beliefs, and with the scientistic, manipulative worldview generally.

Of course we are aware of many who would — perhaps not on the scandalous, even ridiculous order of Teilhard de Chardin, but nearly so — attempt to make their religious beliefs correspond to evolutionary doctrines. But these two cannot be made to lie down together, for the evolutionary worldview is fundamentally opposed to and destructive of the religious perspective; one can only force them together by denaturing one’s religious understanding until it is meaningless.

The evolutionist hypotheses are so destructive of traditional religious doctrines because they substitute always the human for the Divine order. Ignoring the traditional teachings of timecycles and of the spiritual nature and purpose of the human being, evolutionism necessarily places mankind at the head of a long temporal series of transformations, so that rather than being the Divine vice-regent upon earth, with a “vertical” origin and purpose, man’s origin and purpose is “horizontalised,” making of him merely another animal, with the ability to reason, his very existence “the result of chance.” To acknowledge any of these elements as being true is to deny the Divine purpose and nature of the human being: to accept them is to deny religion. There are no two ways about it. ~ Arthur Versluis, Song of the Cosmos: An Introduction to Traditional Cosmology, 109-110

It is naive to believe that modern science came to the conclusion of evolution through open and honest inquiry and that it is taught in classrooms only out of a desire to inform the public of the truth as best as modern man is able to perceive it. If evolution presented no difficulties for the religious and traditional perspective then it would be given no emphasis and there would be no cause for debate.

Evolutionism has nothing to do with science. The theory was invented and propagated for the purpose of accomplishing political, social, and above all spiritual objectives, the primary one being to debase and degrade man, separating him from his ancestors, his traditions, and his gods. The staggering moral, intellectual, and spiritual decline that has occurred even since Darwin’s day, to say nothing of man’s decline since ancient times, gives the lie to this theory. The supposed progress that has been made is either trivial, based on lies about the state of ancient man, or is simply outright fraud.

Evolutionary theory is essentially taking the modern day political and social arrangement, which is arbitrary, dependent on the use of brute force, highly unstable, and the result of ignorance of reality, and projecting this situation into the past. There is no real cosmos of ultimate truth, order, and natural hierarchy of being, one that can be known at any time or place because it is eternal and unchanging, and that provides an unshakeable foundation, but rather an ever shifting chaos of temporary and relative truths. Of course this principle of evolution is not followed consistently, as modern day beliefs are not treated as arbitrary and temporary but rather as eternal truths, eternal that is, until it is time to change them.

Indeed, the very fact that this nonsense is taken seriously is one of the best proofs that this is the Kali Yuga, the age of darkness and ignorance, for to believe it is to reject all tradition and all religion. To ancient man nothing was more important than religion, and the spiritual world to which it referred. If they were wrong about the most fundamental questions, the origin and purpose of man, then why could they not be wrong about everything else? Why should they and their beliefs not simply be discarded as foolishness?

History is not a story of learning about ourselves and the world but rather of forgetting. Modern man has forgotten who he is and where he is. He has become deaf, dumb, and blind, powerless to accomplish his will, and helpless before forces he does not understand. Modern man is controlled by these forces, rather than controlling them, for to do so requires knowledge of what these forces actually are, knowledge that ancient man possessed, and that modern man lacks. Thanks to his knowledge, which he had through direct spiritual vision, not trial and error, ancient man lived, due to his ignorance, modern man merely survives. Ancient man knew that the world, his environment, was not limited to what modern man can see and hear, or even what he can detect with his scientific instruments. Ancient man knew that the world is full of gods. He knew he was surrounded and filled with energies, powers, and beings. Religion and true science, including alchemy, astrology, and geomancy, is based on this knowledge. Without this knowledge, one is ignorant of the forces influencing or even controlling one’s life, and it is impossible to adapt to the environment or to truly live. Rather than making man stronger or wiser, these forces are tearing him apart. Far from evolution, it would be more accurate to speak of devolution.

Any meaningful theory of evolution would have to account for non-material beings such as angels or demons, magical powers demonstrated by exceptional humans, and indeed God and the divine, as it is the spiritual environment, not the material one, that is most important for man’s development. The supernatural or paranormal cannot be dismissed as nonexistent except through ignorance or dishonesty, nor can it be explained away as aberrant brain chemistry, as all experience could be dismissed in this same way. If evolutionary theory cannot account for these things then the theory is of little importance, even if it were true in some very limited sense. When it is understood that the human being is more than flesh and blood, and that human existence is not limited to mortal life, then evolutionary theory loses all meaning. Evolution is usually seen as a challenge to religion, that either destroys religious faith, or that forces religion to adapt to it, rather than the other way around, because evolution, and modern science in general, depends upon a materialistic, atheistic worldview that simply dismisses everything that is truly important.

Some would point to technology to prove the superiority of modern civilization over ancient civilization, or at least to give it some value, and within a modern frame of reference this appears legitimate. The problem with this perspective is that it does not recognize the true knowledge and technology that ancient man possessed, and more importantly it does not recognize how much man has lost. It not only does not acknowledge, it cannot even conceive of the idea that it is modern man that is primitive compared to his ancestors, indeed that the life of modern man is truly wretched and pathetic compared to the one his ancestors enjoyed. Since it does not understand, or even denies altogether, the true forces of the universe, it refuses to acknowledge ancient science as valid, referring to it as superstition and ancient accounts as purely fictional. Modern man believes he is rising to the heavens when in reality he is sinking into hell.

Not only are the achievements of modern science and technology mediocre at best, but the Apollo Missions, what would have to be considered the greatest technological achievements of modern man, were faked. Undoubtedly there were many reasons for carrying out the hoax, including immediate political concerns, but the most important is that it provided a sense of legitimacy to modern society, science, and the evolutionary, progressive worldview. There was probably no other feat, at least none that could be faked convincingly, that would have this same effect.

The claim that the Soviets would have exposed this hoax is naive. The Soviets were even more committed to scientism than the Americans were. It was also necessary to present the US as a powerful and dangerous enemy. Accusing the US of using capitalism to enslave millions was simply rhetoric that meant and accomplished nothing, calling the Apollo Missions a hoax however, would have been genuinely dangerous.

Those who claim that such a conspiracy would have been exposed by now (by an insider, not by cranks such as myself) misunderstand the context in which conspiracy takes place. Most likely relatively few people were directly involved, and few had detailed knowledge of how the hoax was carried out. Those indirectly involved, such as NASA employees, who suspected it was hoax kept quiet due to fear of ridicule, loss of employment, or perhaps even more serious consequences. The same applies to military and other government employees. Most people simply go along to get along. People believed the Apollo Missions were real because they wanted to believe.

I think for many the very audacity of the hoax, the very absurdity of the Moon landing story is proof that it must have actually happened. It’s simply too big. It’s impossible to accept that someone could lie about that and that everyone could have been fooled. Yet it is so.

Here is the summary portion of the video Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors. I recommend watching it in its entirety.


The House Pagan

14 thoughts on “The Demons of Evolutionism, Technologism, and Scientism

  1. Hate to be so negative here, but: No to all of this! Just because something is inconvenient for your particular ideological framework does not make it invalid. There are many things that are problematic and bad about reductionist “Scientism” but the theory of evolution isn’t one of them. There are many issues with it and we don’t yet have a completely full understanding of how exactly it worked, but it is by far the most plausible explanation for the development of life on earth. It doesn’t necessarily have to contradict an authentic religious/mystical understanding of the world (unless you are a sola scriptura fundamentalist, which itself is a quite a modern idea). A religious sense that requires a negation of all empirical science is a weak religious sense.

    I’m not even going to go into the moon landing nonsense. It’s on the same level as 9/11 truther stuff.

    Again, not trying to be a prick here. Just saying.

    1. I actually agree with you! The whole article attempts to discard science and evolution just because some people who hold those ideas are Reddit-tier atheists.

      Personally, I am very spiritual, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity, but evolution is the most plausible theory for our current stage in development as a species. I can still worship God, whether He be YHVH, El Elyon, Zeus, etc. and not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to science.

      1. yes i agree too about evolutions veracity but there is also something to what the author is getting at and that is its effects on society. im reminded of this zen phrase i heard somewhere “Even false words are true if they lead to enlightenment; even true words are false if they breed attachment.”

        1. I agree that the ‘ends justify the means’ to spiritual enlightenment, but the ‘means’ tearing down science using sophistry are quite insufficient for the task.

  2. >implying time is cyclical and didn’t start when the Hyperboreans were given physical form by the demiurge

  3. Also, Evolution does not in any way imply progression or improvement, evolution is about adaption to present circumstances, which amounts to change over time. Thinking that evolutionary theory implies progress shows a basic lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

    1. maybe so but there is an implication that what is now is what is best or at the least most fit for the current state. so its mere existence is in this way a justification for itself and possibly its continuation. now, there is probably something about amor fati or something that could be said here but ill stop now.

  4. While as always I generally agree with you, Paul, I see the point you’re making and I don’t have much to bicker about (or sarcastically mock, as others comment here unfortunately have done), I do think there is a lack of knowledge on your part about what constitutes evolution. As I said in conversation to you, I don’t believe it to be a theory which is antagonistic to spiritual belief. Moreover it’s a totally logical idea — traits are hereditary, and in certain environments, different traits a creature has can be good or bad for that environment, so if a trait is good it is likely to be passed on to future generations, and if not then it will die-out. Here’s a good video on the topic.

    Interesting name…

    It isn’t about macro-improvement, but, rather, adaptation to particular circumstance. But don’t get me wrong, as for scientism etc., I cannot correct you; it is nothing but a symptom of materiality. We are in need of a synthesis, however, and as usual Gornahoor holds the keys.* I’d advise everyone to read the following:

    Involution and Evolution:
    Darwin and Social Surgery:
    Esoteric Darwinism:
    The Esoteric Origin of the Species (I):
    The Esoteric Origin of the Species (II):
    The Esoteric Origin of the Species (III):

    * — It’d be neat in the future, Paul, in order to mitigate silly comments which woefully misunderstand the point of your writing, to flesh-out the more antimodern ideas you write of so that they can be at least partially grasped by a modern mind and not thrown out of the window at first glance.

    1. You know perfectly well that neither Imperial Aspirations and I are not “modern minds” and are not “misunderstanding” anything.

      If anyone is misunderstanding things its Hotherus. He seems to be purposing that Alchemy and geomancy gave people super-powers.

      All he has done is make declarations, he the only “evidence” he has given is a damned Moon Landing hoax video. That is not the “Traditional world view”, that is simply conspiratorial rambling.

      My comment may have seemed like I was mocking, but I was pointing out the obvious. If you just say “all evidence that goes against my world view is people conspiring to keep society under control” it is as bad as Flat-Earthism or Afrocentrism.

  5. I disagree with the author’s claim about the moon landings mainly for epistemological reasons. If something like that can be faked then really everything is thrown into doubt. Perhaps it is conditioning, but I simply cannot believe that a few Youtube videos is enough to question as generally accepted a fact as the moon landings.

    However, I agree with his general view of modern science. None of the the theories of modern science can be said to be true since there are an infinite number of possible explanations for a physical phenomenon This occurs because, by rejecting metaphysical truths, the modern discipline of natural science cannot conclusively prove anything at all. Not only is modern science in its very nature not conducive toward expressing truth but history has, as demonstrated by multiple philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Feyerabend, shown that the idea of scientific progress is a myth. What actually occurs are paradigm shifts where one way of viewing things gets replaced by an entirely new way of viewing things just because for reasons of personal bias or political pressures scientists decide to look at the same phenomena in a new way. This critique applies to scientific theories in general and also to Evolution since it is a scientific theory.

    All we know is evident experience and necessary logical deductions from this experience called Philosophy. We also know religious truth by spiritual illumination.

    1. Just to be clear that video is not the only reason for questioning the moon landings, there is a great deal more. It is only that I consider this video a good starting point. My hope was that after viewing it at least some would be inspired to do further research.

  6. You are correct that evolution is, in many ways, quite destructive to many theological doctrines – it is also empirically verifiable. Your ideology appears to be interfering with your ability to appreciate objectivity.

  7. Hotherus, you appear to present your views with sincere conviction, from the ones with which I sympathize to those I vehemently repudiate. At your article’s crux of the world being “more than what mortal man senses” I reply that this does not imply the senses are nothing. When God caused his sacrifice to burn as Ba’al could not, the hearts of the people were turned, while it would seem as if you would argue, as the prophets of Ba’al might if they had not been slaughtered, that the spiritual was more, and more important to man, than the physical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s