Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker extras:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebook

Postgenderism H. P. Blavatsky and Darwinian evolution | True Freethinker

This is a portion of an ongoing series which seeks to chronicle the occult, magickal and mystical alchemy roots of the transgender and postgender movements from secret societies and mystery religion sources. I have chronicled these in the Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond section.

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891 AD) amongst other accomplishments, founded the magickal-mystical-occult group Theosophy. Seeking as she did to elucidate The Secret Doctrine she pieced information together from any and every source she could and concocted a particular, and peculiar, anthropology and theology. Following are some of her statements regarding an issue I have been focusing on to some extent which is uncovering the occult roots of the postgender movement; a movement to which the transgender movement is merely an open door.

H. P. Blavatsky appeals to the worldview philosophy of Darwinian evolution (as opposed to the science of biology) toward the ends of arguing that humanity was originally androgynous or hermaphroditic in p. 109, section “The Tabula Smaragdina – Stanza V – The Evolution Of The Second Race”:

Primeval human hermaphrodites are a fact in Nature well known to the ancients, and form one of Darwin’s greatest perplexities. Yet there is certainly no impossibility, but, on the contrary, a great probability that hermaphroditism existed in the evolution of the early races; while on the grounds of analogy, and on that of the existence of one universal law in physical evolution, acting indifferently in the construction of plant, animal, and man, it must be so.
The mistaken theories of mono-genesis, and the descent of man from the mammals instead of the reverse, are fatal to the completeness of evolution as taught in modern schools on Darwinian lines, and they will have to be abandoned in view of the insuperable difficulties which they encounter. Occult tradition — if the terms Science and Knowledge are denied in this particular to antiquity — can alone reconcile the inconsistencies and fill the gap. “If thou wilt know the invisible, open thine eye wide on the visible,” says a Talmudic axiom.

In the “Descent of Man” [Second Edition, p. 161] occurs the following passage; which shows how near Darwin came to the acceptance of this ancient teaching.
“It has been known that in the vertebrate kingdom one sex bears rudiments of various accessory parts appertaining to the reproductive system, which properly belong to the opposite sex….Some remote progenitor of the whole vertebrate kingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite or androgynous [Blavatsky’s footnote, “And why not all the progenitive first Races, human as well as animal; and why one ‘remote progenitor’?”]…[these last two ellipses in original]
But here we encounter a singular difficulty. In the mammalian class the males possess rudiments of a uterus with the adjacent passages in the Vesiculae prostaticae; they bear also rudiments of mammae, and some male marsupials have traces of a marsupial sac. Other analogous facts could be added. Are we then to suppose that some extremely ancient mammal continued androgynous after it had acquired the chief distinctions of its class, and therefore after it had diverged from the lower classes of the vertebrate kingdom?
This seems very improbable, [Blavatsky’s footnote, “Obviously so, on the lines of Evolutionism, which traces the mammalia to some amphibian ancestor”] for we have to look to fishes, the lowest of all the classes, to find any still existent androgynous forms.”

Mr. Darwin is evidently strongly disinclined to adopt the hypothesis which the facts so forcibly suggest, viz., that of a primeval androgynous stem from which the mammalia sprang. His explanation runs: — “The fact that various accessory organs proper to each sex, are found in a rudimentary condition in the opposite sex may be explained by such organs having been gradually acquired by the one sex and then transmitted in a more or less imperfect condition to the other.”
He instances the case of “spurs, plumes, and brilliant colours, acquired for battle or for ornament by male birds” and only partially inherited by their female descendants. In the problem to be dealt with, however, the need of a more satisfactory explanation is evident, the facts being of so much more prominent and important a character than the mere superficial details with which they are compared by Darwin.
Why not candidly admit the argument in favour of the hermaphroditism which characterises the old fauna? Occultism proposes a solution which embraces the facts in a most comprehensive and simple manner. These relics of a prior androgyne stock must be placed in the same category as the pineal gland, and other organs as mysterious, which afford us silent testimony as to the reality of functions which have long since become atrophied in the course of animal and human progress, but which once played a signal part in the general economy of primeval life…


It is fascinating to read the philosophizing of, both, Charles Darwin and Helena Blavatsky who, at the time they wrote, knew nothing of the information storehouse and replication occurring within the cell, etc. In fact, she appeals to what has been termed “vestigial organs” which is an evolutionist’s manner whereby to say, “What does that organ do? I don’t know. Well then, it must be useless and since it is useless, it is evidence that we once used it but no longer do so.” Just as with all supposed vestigial organ proofs of evolution, we know the pineal gland’s function now as well as the appendix and many others.

See Jerry Bergman and George Howe’s book Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional: A History and Evaluation of the Vestigial Organ Origins Concept.

On p. 180, Stanza VIII, Evolution of the Animal Mammalians – The First Fall H. P. Blavatsky wrote:

31. THE ANIMALS SEPARATED THE FIRST (into mate and female) (b)…. [ellipses in original]
(a) Vertebrates, and after that mammalians. Before that the animals were also ethereal proto-organisms, just as man was.
(b) The fact of former hermaphrodite mammals and the subsequent separation of sexes is now indisputable, even from the stand-point of Biology. As Prof. Oscar Schmidt, an avowed Darwinist, shows:
“Use and disuse combined with selection elucidate (?)the separation of the sexes, and the existence, totally incomprehensible, of rudimentary sexual organs. In the Vertebrata especially, each sex possesses such distinct traces of the reproductive apparatus characteristic of the other, that even antiquity assumed hermaphroditism as a natural primeval form of mankind….[ellipses in original] The tenacity with which the rudiments of sexual organs are inherited is remarkable. In the class of mammals, actual hermaphroditism is unheard of, although through the whole period of their development they drag along with them these residues born by their unknown ancestry, no one can say how long ago.” [Blavatsky’s footnote, “‘Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism,’ pp. 186-7. The ‘Unknown Ancestry’ referred to are the primeval astral prototypes. Cf. § II., p. 260 (a)]


A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.