For the presentation of the directive principles of this part of race theory it is however necessary to make a few remarks related to the problem of birth, and a final clarification of what has been said about heredity.
Even when we have worked out all the principal objections against the doctrine of race that are mded from an immediate, practical or intellectual point of view, whether in good or bad faith, there remains one that is insuperable but decisive. They can say: good, everything affirmed is correct. But with everything taken into account, what fault does a man have if he was born into one race and not in another? Is he perhaps responsible for the fact that his parents and ancestors are Aryans, Jews, blacks or Amerindian? Has he perhaps willed all that? With your theory of race you remain, in spite of everything, in a purely naturalistic point of view. You turn a natural event into a destiny and you build above your system, instead of paying attention above all to those values in which human responsibility can truly come into play, and be considered imputable.
This is, in some way, the ultima ratio of the adversaries of race theory. And it must be conceded that such an objection is not artificial and farfetched, but of a real importance, if it does not support the materialist and collectivist deterioration of the doctrine in word and is posed instead from the traditional point of view, which always emphasizes the values of the personality. Nevertheless, to consider that objection certainly means confronting the problem of birth. From a higher, spiritual point of view, the justification of the race idea depends on the problem of birth and its solutions.
In this regard, arriving at some firm points is still rather difficult, as long as it remains in the ambit of views introduced by the coming of Christianity into the West. And that is not by chance: race and super-race, cult of blood, arianity, etc., are all concepts that were formed and affirmed essentially in pre-Christian civilizations. It is therefore necessary to look in such traditions and in their knowledge for the elements for the solution of the problems, that the recovery of those ideas today are going to raise. Every reference in more recent conceptions of man and life can only furnish us incomplete and often inadequate points of view.
Thus we must not be surprised that the problem of birth is remarkably obscure in the Christian vision of the world. For precise and certainly not arbitrary reasons, that we cannot discuss here, the Church had to reject the idea of pre-existence that earlier traditions had always recognized: that is, it has denied that the spiritual center of the personality pre-exists terrestrial birth and, certainly, even conception. In Christian theology, things in this regard are not as simple, as this denial can be believed. Nevertheless, the fundamental Christian view is that each human soul is unique and is created by God from nothing at the moment in which it is breathed into a body or human embryo ready to receive it. That a man is born into one race rather than another therefore becomes a theological mystery: “God willed it” and, usually it is admitted that the divine will is inscrutable.
The view of ancient Aryan humanity was totally different and it alone can overcome the indicated objections. For a complete explanation, we must again remind the reader of our work Revolt against the Modern World. Recapping, here we limit ourselves to say that according to that view, birth is never by chance, nor a fact willed by God; nor does fidelity in respect to one’s own nature signify passivity, but rather it gives evidence to the more or less clear consciousness of a deep connection of one’s own Self with something transcendent and otherworldly, to the extent of acting in a transfiguring way. This is the essence of the doctrines of karma and dharma, which must not be confused with the idea of reincarnation. As we have shown in other works, the theory of reincarnation is either a conception foreign to “Aryan spirituality, essentially characteristic of pre-aryan, telluric, matriarchal cycles of civilization, or it is the effect of misunderstandings and deformations that certain traditional views have undergone in some contemporary theosophical circles. And if, in the traditional world, even in the Aryan, seemingly clear evidence in favor of the belief in reincarnation, in reality, it is only about symbolic forms that a superior knowledge had to disguise in regard to the people and the uninitiated.
In any case, for the problem that concerns us here, it is necessary to refer, not to reincarnation, but to the doctrine that the human Self, as I having my own given nature, would be the effect, the production, the mode of appearance under certain conditions of existence, of a spiritual entity that preexists and transcends it. And since everything that is time, sooner or later, is just something inherent in the human condition, so strictly speaking we cannot speak of anything preexisting or antecedent in the temporal sense.
We are getting into a rather difficult field, precisely because conceptions and expressions cannot be applied to it that we are formed in the existence of this world and that, applied to a different reality, they can easily lead to distortions and deformations. We say, in any case, that It is necessary to discern a double heredity. What stands before the individual, in the temporal, non-transcendental sense, is the heredity of parents, the folk, the race, a certain civilization, caste, etc., therefore, more or less, everything that commonly is meant when speaking of heredity. But even that does not exhaust the spiritual reality of the individual, as materialism and historicism claim: rather we must consider an intervention from above as determining and essential, a principle assuming and utilizing everything that this heredity has accumulated as its material of expression and incarnation, with its laws and its determinisms. Moreover, it must be thought that the historical and biological heredity of a given line is chosen and assumed when it can be approximately be considered as a kind of expressions analogous to transcendental heredity.
That is why two heredities meet and join each other in every being, the one terrestrial and historical, positively detectable to a great degree [i.e., known to science (tr)], the other spiritual and otherworldly. To establish the connection between the two, and thereby determine the synthesis that defines a given human nature, an event intervenes, represented in various traditions with various symbols, which we cannot examine her. Basically, as noted, a type of law of elective affinity operates. In order to clarify with some applications, we can say that a man is not of a given gender, race, or caste because he is born that way by chance or through the will of God, or through a mechanism of natural causes, but vice versa. He was born that way because he already was a man or women, of one race or another, etc., naturally in an analogical sense in the sense of an inclination of a transcendent vocation or deliberation, which we, because of the lack of adequate concepts, can indicate only through its effects. In a certain way, we therefore have the interference of horizontal lines and vertical lines of an earthly heredity and an otherworldly. At the point of crossing, according to traditional teachings, birth occurs, or better said, the conception of a new being, an incarnation.
Race, caste, etc., therefore exist in spirit before manifesting in terrestrial and historical existence. Diversity has its origin from above, and what relates to it on earth is only a reflection and symbol. As you have willed to be, based on a primordial nature or a transcendental decision, so you are. It is not birth that determines nature, but vice versa; it is nature, in its widest sense, because common words are inadequate, that determines birth.