Caste, Social Inequality and Fate
By: E.A. Biharie
Tags: Society, Literature, Critical Thinking, Democracy, Philosophy

When it comes to doubting and critiquing our current systems and generally-accepted truths, nothing is off the table as far as my subversive mind is concerned. Some of the holy cows of modern society of course are democracy, egalitarianism and the idea that the only correct way of governance is the type where everyone has a say in it. Lately I’ve been on a streak of reading controversial figures such as Guénon and Kaczynski who partially or totally reject democracy and equality. Today, let us take a stroll down the path of dark enlightenment.

There are very few if any people who’d argue that democracy in its current state is a perfect system (representative democracy — parliamentary and presidential. For the sake of ease I’ll just use the term democracy). In fact, democracy is often referred to as ‘the least worst system’ of governance that has been cooked up throughout the ages. C.S. Lewis has argued that precisely this negative definition has made radical (often even romantic!) alternatives such as fascism and communism so attractive. Certainly the more extremist types are quick to find flaws in the current system. For the record, I think there is lots of worth in a democratic form of governance. To date it has produced the most prosperous nations with the highest standards of life and the greatest amount of personal freedom.

However, the Unabomber has a bone to pick with our current system, especially when taking technological development into the equation. In Industrial Society and its Future (1995), Kaczynski argues that due to the proliferation of technology, freedom in our democratic systems will eventually be completely overridden. Technological advancement will bring with it (and already has brought) a total change in all facets of our lives. One of the most haunting statements Kaczynski wrote is that instead of adapting the social system to human nature, human nature has to be adapted to the social system. We can see such developments already in the prescription of literal hard drugs to children in the form of ADHD-medication and antidepressants. No young boy is made for sitting in a classroom all day. To make sure he ‘learns’ so that he can become a productive member of the system, his mind is drugged up so that he can fit in. A depressed person who could have possibly developed this mental anguish due to his terrible hopeless circumstances is not encouraged to change his predicament, but is instead given drugs to make his unbearable circumstances bearable. Would you argue that either of these persons are really free? They are essentially made to adapt to the social system against their own needs.

This illustrates a horror of the modern world that was in part predicted by Huxley in Brave New World (1932). Let’s say that the great machine of society is already constructed and that individuals are just cogs in it, made to serve. In Brave New World all humans are biologically engineered to fit into the system with a plethora of sedatives and distractions at their disposal to make their otherwise inhumane situation tolerable. The top-down sort of engineered society has rigid caste systems ranging from intelligent alphas to mentally deficient-ypsilons who are each assigned a certain role to play in society.

In the real world of course there is no (or not yet, at least) such thing as bioengineered people made as perfect cogs for the machine of society. A caste system however is not an alien idea at all, but is generally considered outdated. Let me however introduce the unholy notion of inequality. It seems abundantly clear to me that individuals differ and that different people are capable of different things, each with their own unique set of skills, talents and shortcomings. A caste system then is not such a strange idea at all: not everyone is meant to rule. Even the ruling bodies of the Netherlands largely consist of highly-educated individuals belonging almost entirely to a political class. We like to think that we did away with such rigid social systems, but that doesn’t seem so obvious to me.

Many of the flaws of the current system can be attributed to the fact that we are essentially in a race to the bottom, where democracy is nothing more than appealing to the lowest common denominator. This is essentially what René Guénon argued in Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power (1929). The most natural way of rule for the longest time was a system where the entirety derived its values and principles from a priestly caste that even the rulers were subjected to. Guénon argues that this stable system was thrown into pandemonium during the revolt of the Kshatriyas — referring to the warrior/ruler caste described in the Vedas, otherwise the nobles and royalty of Europe and other places. When the system lost its spiritual core when it did away with higher values, we lost the natural way of life. A similar notion can be found in the works of Plato (such as the Republic), where only the philosopher kings with a golden soul could prevent any given society from going astray.

In the year 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor. The ruler here is subject to the principles and rules of the spiritual powers.

To make sense of all these wildly varying topics, I think it is safe to say that at least to a degree, modern systems of governance are contrary to our nature where we are given the illusion of freedom while being made to love our servitude through an endless stream of distractions. We are told that our votes matter while in reality we have never been more powerless in the coming tide of globalisation and technocratic rule.

For a long time now I have argued for bottom-up rule, not top-down. It would only be logical then for me to support a democratic system. While I certainly think that individuals should be in charge of their own fate, the democratic systems of today seem anything but considerate of individuals and their circumstances. Let us instead rejoice in inequality and do away with false idols such as egalitarianism in celebration of true diversity.