Sunday, August 14, 2016

Why 'Meritocracy' has no Place in the Aryan Caste System

I read recently read some suggestions that the revived Germanic caste system should be based on a meritocracy, something which I cannot agree with and in essence is a contradiction of the concept of caste. Meritocracy is defined according to the Collins Concise English Dictionary as:

"rule by persons chosen for their superior talents or intellect."

In effect this is the system which is used by democracy which the aforesaid dictionary defines as:

"government by the people or their elected representatives." 

It is clear to me that we cannot have both; a caste system and a meritocracy. The caste systems of the Indo-European peoples were no doubt a reflection of the original Aryan caste system, something which I have discussed many times on this blog and on my Celto-Germanic Culture, Myth and History one. I do not intend to repeat the same arguments here. There was originally no mobility between the various castes. Only gradually with the onset of degeneration and intercaste miscegenation did this happen. This eventually caused the breakdown of the caste system and the loss of racial consciousness and blood memory. People were born into the caste which was fitting to their non-corporeal essence. There was generally no desire to be different to the station and caste that one was born into. This is a very modern and western notion and has no place in a traditional Aryan world view. To quote from Julius Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World:

"The castes, more than defining social groups, defined functions and typical ways of being and acting. The correspondence of the fundamental natural possibilities of the single individual to any of these functions determined his or her belonging to the corresponding caste. Thus, in the duties toward one's own caste (each caste was traditionally required to perform specific duties), the individual was able to recognise the normal expectation as well as the development and the chrism of his or her own nature within the overall order imposed 'from above'. This is why the caste system developed and was applied in the traditional world as a natural, agreeable institution based on something that everybody regarded as obvious, rather than on violence, oppression, or on what in modern terms is referred to as 'social injustice'. By acknowledging his own nature, traditional man knew his own place, function, and what would be the correct relationship with both superiors and inferiors;"

Thus in the world view of traditional Aryan man the caste one was born into was viewed as a natural station and obligation and the concept of 'social mobilty' was thus not of any relevance.

"Whatever the original class structure was, it is clear that it limited social mobility. (My note-'social mobility' is a non-traditional western notion) On all sides, in the historical period, a tendency may be observed among the upper classes to refuse intermarriage with the lower classes. As Pearson (1973) has remarked, the tendency towards endogamy, which reaches its maximum in the Indian caste system, has its root in the notion of family charisma (Jamieson 1983) which can be preserved only if people marry inside their class or caste.
"Among the Germanic tribes, for example, the issue of a freedman is fully absorbed into the class of freemen only from his grandson on, and this same principle is found among several other Indo-European peoples, either when passing from the condition of a slave to that of freeman or from the latter to that of the noble: the recently-ennobled, not having at their disposal the support of a powerful family group, are moreover in a position of inferiority. This is, according to Pearson, the proto-historical situation of Indo-European societies.
"Celtic society has three function-classes, as we have seen, but only two birth-classes or castes, since a Druid's son may become a warrior and vice-versa; in this way the caste-border separates the first two function-classes (the elite) from the third, whose position of inferiority is noted by Caesar. (B.G.6.13)  (The Indo-Europeans, Professor Jean Haudry)

This latter point is important as the first two castes-sovereign/priest, warrior/noble are clearly distinct from the third caste which relates to either production or trade (the mercantile or middle classes). The difference is most apparent when we consider the Rigsthula in the Elder/Poetic Edda. The third caste here is that of the Thralls and it is very clear from the description of this caste that they bear no physical (an in my opinion, genetic) resemblance to the Jarl or Karl castes:

"Edda a child brought forth: they with water sprinkled its swarthy skin, and named it Thrael.
"It grew up, and well it throve; of its hands the skin was shrivelled, the knuckles knotty, and the fingers thick; a hideous countenance it had, a curved back, and protruding heels." (Rigsthula 7-8, Thorpe translation)

By comparison the Karl is described as being a 'ruddy redhead' and the Jarl as having 'light' hair. Clearly the higher Germanic castes were of Nordic race whilst the Thrall is by definition a slave and is clearly of inferior physical, mental and spiritual disposition. As I have mentioned before the Thrall has no place in the true Aryan caste system for the Germanic is a degenerated form of the Aryan. If one studies Rigsthula one can see the original Aryan tripartite system: Kon (son of Jarl), Jarl and Karl. Thus the Kon (priestly/royal caste is biologically related to the Jarl (warrior/noble) and rules over the related but not biologically linked Karl caste. The introduction of the Thrall caste only occurred in my opinion when the Germanic peoples encountered, conquered and enslaved alien peoples. One lesson that history teaches us is that imperialism and slavery rebound upon the conquering elite with the pollution and watering down of the Aryan blood. We are seeing this sad state of affairs all around us today. It is of course likely or at least possible that the physical descriptions in Rigsthula are an exaggeration to emphasise the difference between the castes, no doubt to help maintain caste boundaries.

Let us now read what Caesar has to say about this issue:

"In the whole of Gaul two types of men are counted as being of worth and distinction. The ordinary people are considered almost as slaves: they dare do nothing on their own account and are not called to counsels. When the majority are oppressed by debt or heavy tribute, or harmed by powerful men, they swear themselves away into slavery to the aristocracy, who then have the same rights over them as masters do over their slaves. Of the two types of men of distinction, however, the first is made up of the druids, and the other of the knights." (The Gallic War 6:13, Hammond translation) 

Clearly the only castes which mattered among the Gauls were the Druids (priestly) and the Knights (warriors/nobles). Unfortunately he does not give us a physical description of the various castes. The Irish caste system is also worth examining in this context:

"We are again on solid ground with Gallic society, which according to Caesar is divided into druids, knights and commoners, a threefold functional division which is confirmed by that of the earliest Irish society, divided into a class of druids (with several sub-classes), a warrior nobility (flaith) and free peasant called 'cow-herds' (bo aire), like in Iran; in Ireland too a class of artisans (aes dana) was afterwards added.  

Interestingly according to Peter Berresford Ellis, the Chief Magistrate of each tribe was referred to as the Aire Echta. (p.194, The Druids). It is becoming increasingly clear to me that it was the highest castes of Indo-European society that were clearly Nordic in race and descended from the ancient solar Aryan race, semi-divine beings who brought culture and order to a chaotic and primitive world. At this concluding point I would direct my readers to my article which discusses this particular point in more detail. This would help to clarify why the  majority of 'white' people are degenerate, not only physically but mentally and spiritually as well. As Thralls they are acting according to type, according to their blood memory. This is why a meritocracy can have no lasting benefits. As a final point I wish to quote from Julius Evola's Revolt against the Modern World:

"In a society that no longer understands the figure of the ascetic and of the warrior; in which the hands of the latest aristocrats seem better fit to hold tennis rackets or shakers for cocktail mixes than swords or sceptres; (Revolt Against the Modern World)

Knighthoods and peerages are today doled out to political sychophants and wealthy donators to political parties. These modern day 'lords' and 'knights' are fake plastic impostors and undeserving of titles which belonged to those of superior Aryan blood and courageous deeds in warfare. Even those families with ancient titles no longer deserve the station that they hold. How many of these newly knighted parvenus can mount a horse and fight with sword and lance? This is just another example of life in the Kali Yuga.


SerpentSlayer said...

I think social mobility is what we need to rebuild the caste system. But of a different kind than the one talked about by politicians. I think our age will bring new knights to create order from the coming chaos and the actions of those knights will enable the rebirth of the priesthood. Within generations, I believe we will see the old order renewed.

WyrdWalker said...

So dear friend, accepting your observations as true....which I do; where does that leave us today in these dark days of Kali? It would seem to late, in this age, to have a caste system worthy of the name. Far to late; as you yourself so rightly state, even those with hereditary titles are undeserving of their status. How could such a system be constucted within our people, when they are so corrupted by centuries of democratic indoctrination? Let alone the entirety of the economic and social fabric that is woven to sustain this "meritocracy".

Surely these are observations of a current stage that will someday pass and not be seen for many ages, like the passing of a distant comet, only seen after long abscence. Not an appeal for a realistic path to a better way within this age. Correct me if I'm wrong but first must there come near complete destruction, saving nothing but honor and blood memory, so that a golden age be recreated with the help of higher forces?

Isn't that what must come about for the end of this degeneracy and the reestablishment of a golden age? Hasn't it gotten beyond us? Aren't we just players at this point, in the final act of a long running production? What can men do but maintain themselves as the world falls down around them?

I think of the tragic life of King Ludwig II. Even being a deeply flawed sovereign, he knew what was missing and he refused to compromise with what existed around him in the modern world. He could not exist in this world, a man out of time. His life and ideals intrigue me.

Wotans Krieger said...

Wyrd Walker, I agree with what you have said. I personally think that all our actions in this present age, even if they be fruitful actions, will not hold back the cosmic forces at play. The entire world is doomed. It is clear from Ragnarok as discussed in the Eddas and similar events in other Aryan mythologies that at the end of the Wolf Age complete destruction will follow and only the Asmegir will survive and return to replenish the earth. Man is and has been a virus upon Mutter Erde and She will eradicate this virus fairly soon so what I am discussing in my articles on the caste system relate to future times.
I appreciate your comments about dear Ludwig-he alone understood the majesty of Wagner's vision and like Hitler they called him mad. He was too good to survive in this foul and degenerate world. Without Ludwig Wagner could not have completed his last and greatest works. He was the 'dear friend'.