This is the concluding section of the Arctic Myth chapter of Julius Evola’s The Myth of Blood . Evola extracts two main points from Wirth:

The former Evola accepts, though not all of the latter. Nevertheless, today the Arctic Myth is more difficult to defend and a primordial monotheistic tradition seems plausible. For the Arctic myth, we can rely on Fabre d’Olivet, Bal Tilak, Hermann Wirth, Guenon and Evola. Has anyone lately tried to revive that idea? In particular, has anyone tried to harmonize it with the latest in anthropological, archeological, and historic research?

As for the second thesis, it answers the question why would the Nordics so readily adopt Christianity in the Medieval era? Perhaps they did recognize in it, or read into it, the echoes of a more ancient tradition. Gornahoor has supplied enough quotes to make that plausible. The competing answers, (1) the entire European continent was put under the spell of a global multi-generational Semitic plot, and (2) the “Christians” haulocausted the “pagans” or converted them by force. Option (1) is an insult to our ancestors while option (2) is logically flawed, since the Christians forcing the conversions were themselves Nordic. Evola wans to split the baby and extract the Ghibelline Middle ages from the Guelphs. But conceding so much to the non-Tradition seems unwise, when what is called for is another long march through the institutions. The full translation follows.

Wirth claimed he could reconstruct not only the history of the Nordic-Atlantic race, but also its religion. It would have been a higher, monotheistic religion, quite distinct from the animism and demonism of the black or Finish-Asiatic aborigines, without dogmas, of a great purity and potentially universal. At its base there would have been a type of natural revelation, that is, a perception of spiritual laws directly suggested by nature. When the Arctic freeze occurred, winter was prolonged for six months, so that the annual return of the sun had to be seen by those people almost as a liberation, as a resurrection of life. This is precisely the point of the winter solstice; the solar light appeared as a divine manifestation and the bearer of a new light; the year was the theatre of this manifestation and the winter solstice – being the lowest point of the ecliptic, in which the light seems to permanently die, sinking into the earth or the waters, but instead miraculously rising from there – was the decisive point of this cosmico-religious experience.

As we said, the sacred series for Wirth would have precisely fixed in the Nordic-Atlantic civilization the various phases of this symbolic annual event, summarized, in general, by the circle with a cross inscribed. The primordial religion of 15,000 BC would have therefore been solar and permeated by the sense of a universal law of eternal return, of death and rebirth. Like the light, so also the life of men has its “year”, its perennial dying and rebirthing. The Christmas of the Christians, the birth of the Saviour at a date that fell in the period in which all the people celebrated the winter solstice, for Wirth, would be a distant fragmentary echo of this prehistoric religion. In general, Christianity would have originated from the tradition preserved among an Atlantic group of Galilee, a country rich with traces of the megalithic solar tradition. The most salient events of the life of Jesus, up to his crucifixion, that recovered the theme of the god-year, giver of life, nailed to the cross of the year, would be pure symbols of the Nordic-Atlantic tradition. So, Wirth speaks of a primordial Nordic monotheism and of a “cosmic Nordic Christianity” that would therefore date back to thousands of years before Christ, anticipating thereby Protestantism (which for him would only contribute to a re-Nordicization of that tradition) and would have had naturally nothing to do with the Jews.

The connection with ideas already entertained by Chamberlain and Woltmann is obviously established here, and, in addition, it has an imaginary point between a resumed tradition of early prehistory and the themes of dying and rising again and of eternal renewal so dear to German romanticism and the modern Faustian religion of life. Nevertheless, as to this last consideration, a divergence of views between Wirth and other racialist such as, for example, Gunther is quite visible. The concept of “dying and rising again”, which for Wirth would make the keystone of the Nordic religion, Gunther would probably be able to carry a Semitic-Levantine spirit; and a divergence not less sensible remains in the fact, that while Wirth claimed that the symbol of a priestess or divine mother was at the first level among the Nordic-Atlantic people, who would even have called their land the “Land of the Mother”, mo-uru, Gunther and various others related more sensibly similar conceptions to the meridional races and, at most, to the Celts, who would be a race already far from that pure Nordic and more akin to the Mediterranean races.

Besides, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the value and the significance of the Arctic thesis (or, as we prefer to call it, the Hyperborean) in itself from Wirth’s arbitrary personal adaptations, because the plane to which it belongs is quite distinct and has a totally different dignity than these reconstruction of contemporary researchers, reconstructions, nevertheless, not lacking in interest as indications and obscure presentiments of a truth.

Von Leers writes that the preceding epoch of liberalism and scientism was characterized by three fundamental ideas.

The equality of the human race Nordic barbarity and the origin of every civilization from the East Finally, the Hebrew origin of monotheism

These three ideas in the cycle that leads up to Wirth are defeated and overturned: