Gnostic Antropology: Chapter 1
The materialistic anthropologists of this decadent and tenebrous age have been investigating the origin of the human being, yet indeed all that they have elaborated upon are hypotheses.
If we ask the anthropologists of conventional anthropology exactly when and how the first human being appeared, they would indeed not know how to give us an exact answer.
Since the times of Darwin and Haeckel and up to this present day and age, innumerable theories about the origin of the human being have appeared. However, we must emphatically clarify that none of these much boasted about theories can be demonstrated by themselves. Ernest Haeckel himself emphatically asseverated that within the field of conventional science neither geology nor that science named phylogeny will ever be exact. Therefore, if Haeckel himself made this type of assertion, what more can be added to this subject-matter?
Indeed, this matter about the origin of life and the human being certainly cannot be known as long as humanity does not study Gnostic anthropology in depth.
What do the materialists that study protists say? What do they so arrogantly affirm? What do they suppose about the origin of life and of the human psyche? Let us remember with complete, absolute clarity Haeckel’s famous atomic Monera that was within an aqueous abyss, a complex atom that could not, in any way, emerge by chance, as this good gentleman supposed. Haeckel (an ignorant in depth) was worshipped by the British people. He induced great damage onto the world with his famous theories. As a parody to Job, all we can say about him is the following: “May the memory of him perish from the earth, and may he have no name in the streets.” [Job 18:17]
Do you believe perhaps that such an atom from that aqueous abyss, the atomic Monera, could emerge by chance? If the intelligence of scientists is necessary in order to construct an atomic bomb, then how much more talent would be required in order to construct an atom?
Therefore, if we deny the intelligent principles of Nature, then it’s mechanism would cease to exist, since the existence of Nature’s mechanism is not possible without machinists. If someone considers it possible for a machine to exist without its inventor, I would like him to demonstrate it. I would like him to place the chemical elements upon the table of the laboratory in order for a radio or an automobile or simply an organic cell to emerge by chance.
At this time, we know that Don Alfonso Herrera (the author of Plasmogeny) managed to build an artificial cell, yet this cell was always a dead cell; it never had life.
What else do the materialists that study protists [microorganisms] say? They say that the consciousness, the Being, the Soul, the Spirit, or simply the psychic principles, are nothing more than the molecular evolution of the protoplasm throughout the centuries. Obviously, the molecular souls of these fanatic materialists that study protists will never endure a deep analysis.
Therefore, the soul-cell, Haeckel’s famous gelatinous Bathybius from which all organic species emerged, is indeed just a good subject-matter for Molière and his caricatures.
What lies at the bottom of this whole subject-matter and what is behind all of these mechanist’s and evolutionist’s theories is the impulse to combat the clergy. They are looking for a system that satisfies the mind and the heart in order to demolish the Hebraic Genesis. It is precisely a reaction against a misunderstanding of the biblical Adam and his famous Eve (who was made out of one of his ribs).
Therefore, this reaction against a misinterpretation of the biblical Adam and Eve is the source for the ignorant theories of Darwin, Haeckel and their other accomplices. So, it is not right to originate so many hypotheses (that in themselves are deprived of any serious foundation) because of mechanical reactions against misapprehensions.
What does Darwin state about the matter of the catarrhine monkey? That the human being possibly came from it? Nonetheless, he does not emphatically asseverate it, as the German and British materialists supposed. Indeed, Charles Robert Darwin placed within his system a certain basis that disagreed with and even absolutely annihilated the supposed human emergence from the monkey, whether it is the catarrhine or platyrrhine.
First of all, as Thomas Henry Huxley already demonstrated, the human skeleton is completely distinct in its structure from the skeleton of the monkey. We do not doubt that there is a certain similitude between the anthropoid and the wretched intellectual animal mistakenly called “human being,” however this resemblance is not definitive or defining on this matter. The anthropoid has a climbing skeleton. It is made for scaling. This is what the elasticity and construction of its skeletal system indicates. On the other hand, the human skeleton is in itself made for walking. Definitely, these are two totally different skeletal constructions.
Moreover, the flexibility of the bones of the cranial axle of the anthropoid and of the human being is completely different; this invites us to seriously ponder. On the other hand the following has been stated by the materialistic anthropologists with complete, absolute clarity: an organized being cannot in any way be the outcome of another being who marches in the opposite way, who is antithetically ordered.
We must give a certain example in reference to this matter: Let us observe the human being and the anthropoid. Even though the human being in this day and age is certainly degenerated, he still is an organized being. Now let us study the life and behavior of the anthropoid; we can observe that it is organized in a different way, contrary, antithetical. Therefore, an organized being cannot be the outcome of another who is organized in the opposite manner. This former assertion is always severely uttered by the materialistic schools.
Which age could be associated with the anthropoid? In which epoch did the first simians appear upon the face of the Earth? Unquestionably, who can deny that it was during the Miocene Epoch? Obviously, it had to have appeared during the late Miocene Epoch, 15 to 25 million years ago.
Why did the anthropoids have to appear upon the face of the Earth? Can the people associated with materialistic anthropology, those brilliant modern scientists who boast about being so wise, give us an exact answer…? They obviously cannot.
Moreover, the Miocene Epoch was not in any way located upon the famous Pangaea which is touted so much by the materialistic geologists. It is obvious that the Miocene Epoch had its proper scenario on the ancient Lemurian land, the continent that was formerly located in the Pacific Ocean. Remnants of Lemuria are still located in Oceania, in the great Australia, and on Easter Island (where some carved monoliths were found), etc. So, if the materialistic doctrine cannot accept this due to the fact of their narrow-mindedness that is bottled up within the idea of Pangaea, what does it matter to people, or to science, or to us? Indeed, they are not going to detect Lemuria with carbon-14 tests or with potassium argon or with pollen. All of these test systems of a materialistic type are just good materials for Molière and his comedies.
In this day and age, after the infinite suppositions made by Haeckel, Darwin, Huxley and all of their secularists, they continue enthroning the theory of natural selection (of the species), granting it nothing less than the power to create new species.
In the name of the truth, we must state that natural selection as a creative power is simply a rhetorical game for ignorant people, something that has no basis.
The assertion that states that new species are being created through natural selection, that the human being had emerged through natural selection, is in the depth frightfully ludicrous and shows ignorance taken to extremes.
We do not deny natural selection; it is obvious that it exists, yet it does not have the power of creating new species. The truth is that physiological selection, selection of structures, and the segregation of the most apt does exist, that is all.
To take natural selection up to the degree of converting it into a universal creative power is the breaking point of absurdities. A true sage would not have so stubbornly conceived of such a notion.
Never have we observed or witnessed a new species emerge through natural selection; if so, when? In which epoch?
Structures are selected, yes, we do not deny it. The strongest ones triumph in the struggle for daily bread, in the incessant battle of every moment, when one fights in order to eat and not be eaten. Obviously the strongest one triumphs, and he transmits onto his descendants his characteristics, his physiological particularities, his structural particularities. Thus the selected ones, the most capable, are segregated and transmit their aptitudes on to their descendants. This is how the law of natural selection must be understood; this is how it must be comprehended.
Any given species within the profound jungles of nature has to fight in order to devour and not be devoured. Logically, such a struggle is frightful. As an outcome, as is proper and natural, the most powerful ones triumph. There are marvelous structures within the strongest, and their important characteristics are transmitted onto their descendants. Yet, this does not signify a change of figure; this does not signify the birth of a new species.
So, never has a materialistic scientist observed one species emerging from another through the law of natural selection. This has not been proven, this has never been palpated in any way. Then what do these materialistic scientists base themselves upon? It is easy to throw a hypothesis out there and then emphatically asseverate that it is the truth and nothing but the truth. Nevertheless, aren’t the scientists from materialistic anthropology the ones who state that they believe in only what they can see? The ones who do not accept anything that they have not examined? So, they contradict themselves horribly, because they believe in their assumptions that which they have never seen or touched.
They affirm that the human being comes from the mouse, yet this is not proven; they have never perceived this directly. They also emphasize the idea that the human being comes from the baboon or the mandrill (quadrumana cynocephalus from western Africa). The sophisms of these foolish scientists are innumerable, absurd assertions of facts that they have never seen.
We, the Gnostics, do not accept their superstitions because their absurd assertions are fetishism. We, the Gnostics, are mathematicians when investigating and precise in our expressions. We do not like such fantasies; we want facts, concrete and definite facts.
Thus, when investigating this theme related with our possible ancestors, we can clearly verify the chaotic state in which the materialistic doctrine is found. The disorder of these scientists’ degenerated minds and their lack of capacity for investigating is evident. This is the crude reality of the facts.
The subject-matter that states that certain hominoid forms emerge from other ones, just like that, based only upon ridiculous tests (such as carbon-14, potassium or pollen) palpably constitutes the shame of this century.
We, the Gnostic anthropologists, have different systems for investigation; we possess special disciplines which allow us to put into activity certain latent faculties of the human brain, certain senses of perception completely unknown to materialistic anthropology.
It is logical that nature has a memory; one day this will be demonstrated. Scientific research has already started; soon the sounding waves will be rearranged into images which will be perceptible on certain screens. Certain technical experiments about this matter already exist, then the tele-viewers of the whole world will see the origin of the human being, the history of the Earth and of its root races. When that day arrives (a day that is not so distant), the Antichrist of false science will be naked before the solemn verdict of public consciousness.
Indeed, the problems of natural selection, the climate, the environment, etc., fascinate many people, and this is why they forget the original source from which each species emerged.
The stubborn scientists believe that natural selection can be processed in an absolutely mechanical way without intelligent directrix principles. This is as absurd as to think that any machine in the world can be processed without an intelligent principle, without an architectural mind or without an engineer to give form to it.
Undoubtedly, these intelligent principles from nature can only be rejected by the stubborn ones, for those who pretend that it is possible for any organic machine to emerge by chance. These principles could never be rejected by those truly wise humans in the most complete sense of the word.
As time passes by and as we delve into all of this, we can see and further find all of the mistakes in materialistic anthropology. Therefore, it is necessary to profoundly reflect on all of these things.
If instead of assuming a position of attack against the clergy, those materialistic anthropologists would first of all reflectively analyze in depth, then they would not dare to disseminate their antiscientific hypotheses.
We know that Adam and Eve — who bother the scientists from materialistic anthropology very much— are nothing more than a symbol. So, the profane scientists from materialistic anthropology want to refute the Biblical Genesis. It is good for them as well as for all of us to understand that the book of Genesis is just a treatise of alchemy for alchemists. Genesis must be studied as an alchemical book, and not in a simple, literal way.
So, the scientists from materialistic anthropology exert themselves in order to refute something that they not even remotely know. This is why I honestly dare to state that their hypotheses do not have solid foundations.
Darwin himself never thought to go so far with his doctrine. Let us remember that he himself speaks about the characterizations: Unquestionably, after some organic species have passed through a selective process of physiological structures, these species characterize themselves in a constant and definitive way. Then, we see that the famous anthropoid had to pass through selective processes and subsequently assumed all of its present characteristics; but, it did not pass through any change again, this is obvious.
That subject-matter about Pithecus-Noah with his three famous sons — namely: the cyanocephalus with a tail, the monkey without a tail, and the paleolithical arboreal man — indeed never had exact corroboration; these are just theories without any basis, and indeed they are frightfully ludicrous.
Those who, when inquiring about the origin of the human being incline themselves towards the prosimian mammals (for example, the famous lemur), show that they do not even remotely suspect what the human being himself is, let alone his origin.
In this day and age, the celebrated lemur is considered by some scientists as one of our conspicuous ancestors because of his assumed discoid placenta. This has nothing to do with human genesis. This, in depth, is nothing but fantasies that are deprived of any reality.
Many renowned materialistic scientists are active in order to study the mechanical evolution of the human species or of any other species. They ignore that the original microorganisms from this great nature, human beings or beasts, always develop themselves within psychological space and the superior dimensions before crystallizing themselves in a physical form. Halfway through their development these microorganisms crystallize into a sensible form; they had previously passed through tremendous evolving and devolving processes within psychological space, within the hypersensible, within the superior dimensions of nature and the cosmos.
Of course, when we speak like this, conventional anthropologists feel very nervous and upset. They feel like the native Chinese people do when listening to an occidental musical concerto. Perhaps they laugh, ignoring that, “The one who laughs at what he does not know is an ignoramus who walks on the path of idiocy.” [Goethe]
Materialistic scientists search for similarities. Yes, they believe that the shape of the shark’s head and the mouth gives origin to other mammals, among them our “brother” the mouse that for the materialistic scientists in this day and age has passed into the category of “great lord.” Supposedly, the mouse is nothing more than the ancestor of those such as Haeckel, Darwin and possibly of Huxley and Einstein, even of those famous pharaohs of ancient Egypt, and who knows what else.
So, in this day and age, the mouse is considered a prosimian mammal. The mouse has become a prominent subject-matter in the conference halls. Alas, behold how far the ignorance of the human being has gone.
We do not deny that the mouse existed in Atlantis and that indeed it was the size of a pig. Don Mario Roso de Luna, the eminent Spanish writer, clearly talks about this. The small Larousse Dictionary illustrates it, and states that in ancient times the mouse was denominated with the word “alto” (tall).
Yes, the mouse existed in Atlantis and we cannot deny its presence in Lemuria either. Yet, to assert that the mouse is one of the most important ancestors of the human being is totally false. Indeed, when one does not know Gnostic anthropology, one then falls into the most frightful absurdities.
Now, in this present Space Age, the accomplices of the Antichrist, materialistic science, bow before the mouse and the shark (which is also considered an ancient ancestor) and also before the lemur, which indeed is a very fascinating animal.
So, when Gnostic anthropology is known in depth, one cannot fall into ludicrous statements; this is logical. When the principles of materialistic anthropologists are carefully analyzed, we discover that their fantasies are due to their absolute ignorance of universal Gnosticism.
It is very empirical to establish a basis for a possible descendant of the human being based upon the fact that the feature of one face is similar to that of another. This is too shallow; so too are those who suppose that the human being was made out of clay; they are not aware that this is merely a symbol.
So, as we have already stated, before the original microorganisms of this great Nature crystallized into a physical form such as into human beings or beasts, they always first developed themselves within psychological space and the superior dimensions.
There is no doubt that these microorganisms are similar in their construction, therefore they could not serve as basis, as a foundation in order to establish a theory or simply in order to elaborate a basic concept. These microorganisms are differentiated from one other by the pace at which they crystallize. This is normal indeed.
So, the origin of the human being is something more profound. He developed himself within the Chaos, in the superior dimensions of Nature, until in ancient times he was crystallized into a tangible form.
Unquestionably, in future chapters we will advance more and more throughout all of this exegesis.
I want to state to you that the origin of humanity will be uncovered in these lectures, namely the primary and secondary causes that originated the human species, and other themes of transcendental repercussion.
Do the materialistic anthropologists know perhaps the answer to the former questions? The scientists themselves, who are followers of Haeckel, know very well that the whole geological past and materialistic phylogeny will never be exact sciences. This is what they have affirmed themselves; this is how they have stated it. If this is what they say, then what?
We are in moments of great inquietudes. The mystery of the origin of the human being must be clarified. The field of conjectures is detestable; it is like a wall without a foundation: all you need to do is to push it a little bit in order for it to become a pile of rubble.
The most critical aspect of materialistic anthropology is the denial of the intelligent principles of universal machinery. Obviously, such an attitude leaves the machinery without a foundation. It is not possible for the machinery to work or to be built by chance. The intelligent principles of Nature are active in the whole selective process and they manifest themselves wisely.
Likewise, it is an absurdity to bottle up ourselves within the dogma of mechanical evolution. If the constructive principles exist in Nature, unquestionably, so too do the destructive principles.
If there is evolution in every living species, likewise so too is devolution.
For instance, there is evolution in the seed that dies in order for the stalk to sprout. There is evolution in the plant that grows, that gives flowers, leaves and that finally gives fruits. Yet, there is devolution in the plant that withers, that agonizes, and that finally becomes a bunch of wood.
There is evolution in the creature that is gestated in the maternal womb, in the child who plays, and in the teenager. Yet, there is devolution in the elder who dwindles away and finally dies.
When the worlds emerge from the Chaos of life they start to evolve to a certain point; afterwards, they devolve and finally they become new moons.
If when we study anthropology we give exclusivity to mechanical evolution, then we are studying it in a partial way and thus fall into error. However, if we study anthropology in the light of the law of devolution, then we advance equilibrated, because evolution and devolution constitute the two laws of the mechanical axis of the whole of Nature.
It is a total absurdity to say that evolution is the sole foundation for this entire, great natural mechanism. We must consider life and death, the times of development and the times of decrement. Only in this way will we correctly march within the integral structure of the Gnostic dialectic.
We are not willing, in any way, to remain bottled up within the materialistic dogma of evolution. We must by necessity study the devolving processes of anthropology, otherwise we will walk on the path of error.
What are the original prototypes of this human race? Who knows them? By means of scientific methods we can see, hear, and touch the original prototypes of this human race. We know very well that human beings existed before the intellectual animal appeared in the Atlantis of Plato. Atlantis is not a simple fantasy, as the ignorant fanatics of the famous materialistic Pangaea suppose.
The human being existed in Lemuria, as well as in the Hyperborean and Polar epochs. However, these are themes that we will develop in the following chapters in order for us to clarify these anthropological themes better.
Atlantis really existed. The archipelago of Antilles, the Canary Islands and even Spain itself are remnants of Atlantis. Spain is a piece of ancient Atlantis.
This is unknown to those who are passionately fond of materialistic anthropology and also to the geologists who are so deeply behind the times, who are incapable of projecting themselves through time. How can they know something about the events that occurred many millions of years ago in the Miocene Epoch? What do they know about it? Have they seen it? Have they touched it?
If we Gnostics talk about the Miocene Epoch, it is because we can see it. The Miocene Epoch is accessible to the one who is capable of developing the faculties that are latent in the human brain. Nonetheless, the materialist attitude of denial is incongruent. They say that they only believe in what they see, nothing else, yet they believe in all of their absurd fantasies. No one has seen and no one has proven their suppositions.
We can state with certainty that not even one scientist has ever witnessed how the first human being came forth. Yet, they talk with so much self-sufficiency it is as if they were present in the Miocene Epoch, as if they had seen the anthropoids appearing there in ancient Lemuria.
The materialistic anthropologists enthrone their marvelous gods, namely the lemurs and mandrills (baboons); they place them as sublime prosimians from which they assert we descended. Has this been confirmed by them? Have they, at some time, seen it? Never! So, where is their foundation? Is their foundation resting upon fantasies that they have never seen? Are they not the same people who state they only believe in what they see? Then, why do they believe in what they have never observed? Is it not perhaps a contradiction? Are they not perhaps contradictory within their depth?