Hierarchy

Thread failed on /pol/. Let's see here.

So a point of criticism of USA and modernism brought up by Guenon, Evola, Gobineau and others is the lost of hierarchy.

The need of a rigid caste system with a "priestly" / "warrior"/ whatever caste that rules over the rest, who are deemed to be completely degenerate. While indeed it guarantees an order, imo it's also explicit that this is a double edged sword, for it exposes itself grealty to abuses, exploitation, elitism. We all know that elites are majoritary degenerates. Traditionalists argue that this is because: either the caste degenerates or it's infiltrated or because le kali yuga.

But, how are we sure that high castes weren't degenerate even in the past and that the pure perfectly priestly caste isn't just an idealization of something that didn't really exist? Of course, righteous rulers always existed as well, but that doesn't means that the caste system is perfect either.

Several imperial castes in China were of peasant (ie lower caste) origin. Abuse/degeneration of brahmin caste is mentioned since centuries before Christ in India.

Therefore, are rigid castes just an idealized vision of exploitation? Or is social mobility and democracy (perhaps not in its modern form) superior?

Other urls found in this thread:

jokes4us.com/religiousjokes/catholicjokes.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Hierarchy is always going to exist. Whether or not its (((bankers))) or kings who share your ethnic ingroup, nothing will change the fact that there is a top and a bottom. This is simply reality.

As for social mobility, the idea the hierarchical systems don't have them is false. In the Middle Ages a peasant could move up the social latter in the span of several generations. While this slow and steady approach may not be exciting, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't there.

Societies that have caste systems today (India) do pretty good.
inb4 some fucktarded fedora compares India to the USA or Switzerland in order to criticizes it.

>India does pretty good

A great division of labor was needed back then.

>Hierarchy is always going to exist. Whether or not its (((bankers))) or kings who share your ethnic ingroup, nothing will change the fact that there is a top and a bottom. This is simply reality.

This. There is no "need" for hierarchy as this user implies. Hierarchy is a part of reality.

>india today works on caste system

I believe the main functions of a caste system appear naturally in any society.

In Western society, for example, I recognize the intellectuals, the journalists and the creative class as priestly castes, while entrepeneurs have assumed the role reserved to warrior castes in ancient societies from soldiers themselves, who are just civil servants nowadays.

This conflict between intellectuals and businessmen is the defining feature of Western history since the XIXth century, more even than class struggle (working class can be on either side, while intellectuals and businessmen are always on the opposite side of each other).

So the difference between Western society and, say, India, is not that the caste system and hierarchy doesn't exist in the West, the difference is that the castes in the West are not formalized, and therefore they are always at war.

>In Western society, for example, I recognize the intellectuals, the journalists and the creative class as priestly castes
The issue is they are supposed to be a separate caste.

>what is de facto

First off, hierarchy =/= division of labor. Second, there's more division of labor (accurately so defined) the more complex an economy is, not the contrary.