Caste

[cryosteel]

The vast majority of Norsemen belonged to the middle class, the karls. These people were freemen and land owners. They were the farmers, the smiths, and the just plain folks. Families of karls usually lived in clusters of two or more buildings, typically longhouses supplemented by barns and workshops.

Jarls were distinguished by their wealth, measured in terms of followers, treasure, ships, and estates. The eldest son of the jarl was on the fast track to becoming the next jarl. But, by gaining enough fame and wealth, a karl could become a jarl. The power of a jarl depended upon the goodwill of his supporters. The jarl's essential task was to uphold the security, prosperity, and honor of his followers.

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm

prototype proposal:

Beneath the upper and middle classes were slaves. Slaves were taken as captives of war or bondsmen repaying a debt. We don't need a slave caste in the future and the breeding of this type of human underman is immoral. Undermen dissolve civilizations and promote ecocide. A slave is a human robot with no will or spirit of any consequence. The task of human robots is being given over to mass production machinery. We don't need mass production waste. Instances of unique creations where needed is the future, so slaves, robots and mass function is out.

Karls will independently, like entreprenuers, manage farms, produce technology and staff various personnel services as consultants or warriors. Jarls will master the arts in order to remind us who we are, to assert our purpose for the now and to give us ideal direction for tomorrow.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That sounds sensible.

Social mobility is important for maintaining quality too, don't you think? If someone has a talent they should be able to practice that, even if that means a change of caste. And likewise if someone lacks talent, should they keep their caste as a birth right?

 

[speed]

I dont know how feasible this all is today. It reminds me a bit of Carlyle, who thought the intelligent intellectuals would lead the minds of men through books, poetry, music like Goethe, Rilke, Novalis, etc did around the turn of 19th century. However, we've seen that today, the arts are really only loved or practiced by persons so inclined towards then; and instead of being led by such great men and artists, the common man looks to the for-profit newspaper man, or pop music, and sates himself with easy ideas and simple music.

Even Schumpeter in the 1930's-40's, thought the "intellectuals" if you will, would influence the media, popular culture, etc, and their dislike for capitalism and the modern world, would eventually trickle down to the rest of us. Unfortunately, these same intellectuals have been totally marginalized to the ivory towers, and cafes in coastal cities. Money, and easily consumable for-profit art and media has totally taken over.

The idle artist, or intellectual, who scoffs and criticizes the modern world is not lauded or appreciated by American culture as such a person is in many other cultures. Instead, we find such a person ridiculous and dumb. Thus, this Jarl, and this social caste you've set up, will not work in American society. Perhaps in Italian, Scandinavian, or French; but not American.

 

[OldScratch]

The idle artist, or intellectual, who scoffs and criticizes the modern world is not lauded or appreciated by American culture as such a person is in many other cultures. Instead, we find such a person ridiculous and dumb. Thus, this Jarl, and this social caste you've set up, will not work in American society. Perhaps in Italian, Scandinavian, or French; but not American.

I wonder that this isn't true to a degree, because the intellectual/artist, etc. who is doing the scoffing is often perceived, fairly or not, to speak from an ideological pulpit as much as anything. Just as a Nietzsche or Heidegger fell out of favor after the second world-war, many a modern intellectual doesn't resonate with Americans, as they(the intellectuals)are perceived to be dreamy idealists, usually liberal/left politically, full of heady utopianism, egalitarianism and a fragrant disdain for anything traditional/conservative.
Well, that and Americans almost instinctively dislike or dismiss deep-thinkers for whatever reason; hence our decidedly pedestrian reputation worldwide.

Either way, your observation is quite true. I do not personally know a single person who even knows who a Hegel or Hume is, let alone bothers to listen to what they had to say. This likely goes along with the recent History thread, as few know much about that either. Thus, without meaningful context or a working knowledge of why such ideas at least "were" imortant historically; having impacted religion, culture, education, science, etc. it is no wonder Americans are so culturally adrift...if not utterly bankrupt.

 

[speed]

I wonder that this isn't true to a degree, because the intellectual/artist, etc. who is doing the scoffing is often perceived, fairly or not, to speak from an ideological pulpit as much as anything. Just as a Nietzsche or Heidegger fell out of favor after the second world-war, many a modern intellectual doesn't resonate with Americans, as they(the intellectuals)are perceived to be dreamy idealists, usually liberal/left politically, full of heady utopianism, egalitarianism and a fragrant disdain for anything traditional/conservative.
Well, that and Americans almost instinctively dislike or dismiss deep-thinkers for whatever reason; hence our decidedly pedestrian reputation worldwide.

Either way, your observation is quite true. I do not personally know a single person who even knows who a Hegel or Hume is, let alone bothers to listen to what they had to say. This likely goes along with the recent History thread, as few know much about that either. Thus, without meaningful context or a working knowledge of why such ideas at least "were" imortant historically; having impacted religion, culture, education, science, etc. it is no wonder Americans are so culturally adrift...if not utterly bankrupt.

We love doers, not thinkers.
But yes, a good 50% or more of my threads are on the same subject: the shallowness and childlike intellect of America, and its resulting total annihilation of culture, and anything non-utilitarian or profit-maximizing. Saul Bellow without the Jewishness, self-love, and hypocrisy.

 

[cryosteel]

Unfortunately, these same intellectuals have been totally marginalized to the ivory towers, and cafes in coastal cities. Money, and easily consumable for-profit art and media has totally taken over.

We have productive entrepreneur types and creative members of our societies but these are a minority. The overwhelming majority of our population seem to be of the (menial tasks and mentality, resentful disposition, pop culture consumerism, criminality) slave caste and the existence of these are why such a caste structure will not happen now. The ratio could be 1 Karl or Jarl for every 12 or 13 slave caste in our time.

 

[Έρεβος]

We have productive entrepreneur types and creative members of our societies but these are a minority. The overwhelming majority of our population seem to be of the (menial tasks and mentality, resentful disposition, pop culture consumerism, criminality) slave caste and the existence of these are why such a caste structure will not happen now. The ratio could be 1 Karl or Jarl for every 12 or 13 slave caste in our time.

I would say for Jarls, or the elite, it is more like 1:100, or 1:1000. And maybe your 1:12 or 1:13 for Karls.

 

[derbeder]

The overwhelming majority of our population seem to be of the slave caste and the existence of these are why such a caste structure will not happen now.

Well if people are of a caste, then there is a caste structure, isn't there? Of course, there is no caste structure today (in the places you intend to talk about) and you are only trying to point to some resemblances between the members of a caste back whenever and the majority of people today. But the sort of resemblances you mention between the members of a slave caste and the majority of people today also exist between the majority of people in the past who were not part of a caste society and the majority of people today. These resemblances (if any) do not support a strong analogy between slaves and the majority of people today.

 

[cryosteel]

That depends on who we refer to from antiquity.

The vast majority of Norsemen belonged to the middle class, the karls.

Modern societies encouraged undermen to breed out of control so that the crass vastly outnumber the noble (karls are a tiny minority). This demonstrates that we are free and "moral", thus "enlightened" humanitarian moderns.

 

[cryosteel]

October 10, 2002
Pew Research Center

A sizable majority of Americans continue to support a war to oust Saddam Hussein, and most seem to believe the worst about possible links between the Iraqi leader and the Al Qaeda terrorists, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center For The People & The Press in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051

Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Posted: 6:00 a.m. EDT (10:00 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

 

[speed]

That depends on who we refer to from antiquity.



Modern societies encouraged undermen to breed out of control so that the crass vastly outnumber the noble (karls are a tiny minority). This demonstrates that we are free and "moral", thus "enlightened" humanitarian moderns.

Well I think economic factors influenced or demanded a new social order that brought about a largely egalitarian and middle-class society. Foucault spent his philosophical life covering this topic. Furthermore, the decline of the caste system at the top (these jarls, or karls whatever), was due to their own economic and social disintegration. They stagnated, become sated with luxury--well its the story of a 18th/19th century novel (decadent good-for nothing aristocrat spends or gambles his fortune away to a bourgois). Hence, you forget the eventual corrupt nature of those who reach the top of the castes.

In America, Caste still partially remains in politics, and there is some semblance of high-society( i.e. country clubs, and other clubs and groups), but to america at least, Caste is through. Our upward Caste has always been culturally and morally bankrupt anyway. As your Fitzgerald wrote about, the higher class in America is nothing but money. Perhaps a fifty to a hundred years ago, it had a slight veneer of culture, but thats all. Indeed, the easiest way to see this in action is to go to any opera/symphony outside of NY. Most of the patrons are old, and the fact they're dying off, means every symphony is experiencing attendance and thus budget problems. Those few younger persons who go, or middle aged persons, go for true love of the music (perhaps they had a talent for it) or the opportunity to sit on the symphony board, or make some business or social connections. The cultural value of the symphony is not there, and its once at least slight importance as something a higher class person did, is quickly dying off with the remaining 80 year olds who were from a far less egalitarian time.

However, things in Europe are entirely different--albeit changing towards American attitudes--as I think caste and aristocracy is still ingrained within the society.

 

[cryosteel]

Indeed, the easiest way to see this in action is to go to any opera/symphony outside of NY. Most of the patrons are old, and the fact they're dying off, means every symphony is experiencing attendance and thus budget problems. Those few younger persons who go, or middle aged persons, go for true love of the music (perhaps they had a talent for it) or the opportunity to sit on the symphony board, or make some business or social connections. The cultural value of the symphony is not there, and its once at least slight importance as something a higher class person did, is quickly dying off with the remaining 80 year olds who were from a far less egalitarian time.

The budget problems experienced by opera halls can be attributed to our slave dominance. The city lot supporting the cultural hall would generate more revenue if it was replaced by a large retailer outlet like WM, as if these do not already vastly outnumber opera halls right now:

Undermen dissolve civilizations and promote ecocide.

The existence of an overwhelming slave caste is immoral.

 

[cryosteel]

Synonyms for immoral are not characteristic of our analytical, creative, entrepreneurial, innovative or intellectual type. These people are crowded out by the 80% biological traits (poor breeding) and 20% negative social effects (poor judgement) of the majority who are described as follows:

—Synonyms bad, wicked, dissolute, dissipated, profligate. Immoral, abandoned, depraved describe one who makes no attempt to curb self-indulgence. Immoral, referring to conduct, applies to one who acts contrary to or does not obey or conform to standards of morality; it may also mean licentious and perhaps dissipated. Abandoned, referring to condition, applies to one hopelessly, and usually passively, sunk in wickedness and unrestrained appetites.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral

 

[speed]

Synonyms for immoral are not characteristic of our analytical, creative, entrepreneurial, innovative or intellectual type. These people are crowded out by the 80% biological traits (poor breeding) and 20% negative social effects (poor judgement) of the majority who are described as follows:



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral

Again, I see a glaring problem. It seems you think these undermen and their resulting morality is almost entirely genetic in predisposition. What I am getting at here is what I see as your underlying belief, that the problems of society are based on genetics, not the valuation and culture of society itself.

Genetics predispose one to intelligence, ability, and behavior, but all of these traits on their own mean nothing, and are entirely dependent on the prevailing societal form. For example, fifty years ago, it was better perhaps to be born with a disposition towards average or below average intelligence and servility, in China and the USSR. Thus, it is culture and society that needs a changing (although I do admit, having a plethora of idiots doesnt help any, and only hastens the decline).

 

[cryosteel]

What I am getting at here is what I see as your underlying belief, that the problems of society are based on genetics, not the valuation and culture of society itself.

The problems of society was not really the point of the topic. Can we seek a better way than what exists? I believe so.

Genetics predispose one to intelligence, ability, and behavior, but all of these traits on their own mean nothing, and are entirely dependent on the prevailing societal form.

Society is an extension of our genetics. People have to make the societies they live in. The characteristics (intelligence, ability and behaviour) of many people at work influence the structure and course taken by society. As the traits of people change along with a shift in population, we invariably see societies change. Genes are a significant factor at work.

 

[speed]

The problems of society was not really the point of the topic. Can we seek a better way than what exists? I believe so.



Society is an extension of our genetics. People have to make the societies they live in. The characteristics (intelligence, ability and behaviour) of many people at work influence the structure and course taken by society. As the traits of people change along with a shift in population, we invariably see societies change. Genes are a significant factor at work.

Ah, but the problems of society are what you've heavily implied will be solved with a return to ancient Nordic/Aryan castes.

As for society being an extension of genetics: yes, I do think genetics play a very important part, and perhaps shape our society. I read a book last year by a Peter Whybrow (America Mania), a neuroscientist, who claims the American drive towards entreprenuerialism, risk-taking, capitalism and individuality, is a genetic trait Americans acquired from their risk-taking individualistic forefather immigrant ancestors, who took a major risk leaving to the new world, and did so to sow their religious and economic potential. And its obvious with scientific research over recent years that genetics perhaps condition our potential and our beings, even more so than environment. However, they do so within the context of ones culture. This example is from the great E.O. Wilson: Say Im inclined to be a poet. If im born Eskimo, I'll still be a poet, but probably I wont be a very good one due to the weakness of the poetic tradition and culture of the Eskimoes. However, if I'm born Irish, I have a much better shot of becoming a good poet for obvious cultural reasons.

However, culture and society is shaped over a long period of time, and by such a number of factors including genetics. I mean, there are historical, economic, theoretical, political, family-based factors that play a very strong part on how our society is shaped--and are more, or just as important as genetics.

 

[cryosteel]

Society does not develop in a vacuum and does not indicate primary causality of anything. The development or loss of culture and the resulting society is an effect. What causes culture? Why do organisms other than humans not develop a culture? Society is a method of organization: ants and birds have different types of societies, but none develop culture. Our respective appropriate roles best fit as Karls (society) and Jarls (culture), with no use for an exploited caste.

However, culture and society is shaped over a long period of time, and by such a number of factors including genetics. I mean, there are historical, economic, theoretical, political, family-based factors that play a very strong part on how our society is shaped--and are more, or just as important as genetics.

History, economy, politics, theory, family and society itself fundamentally rely on biology in order to exist. Genetics explains the unique structure of each developed system, else every person's and every civilization's experiences would closely mimic another according to climate and topography. What causes the extreme uniqueness of so many living systems?

 

[speed]

Society does not develop in a vacuum and does not indicate primary causality of anything. The development or loss of culture and the resulting society is an effect. What causes culture? Why do organisms other than humans not develop a culture? Society is a method of organization: ants and birds have different types of societies, but none develop culture. Our respective appropriate roles best fit as Karls (society) and Jarls (culture), with no use for an exploited caste.



History, economy, politics, theory, family and society itself fundamentally rely on biology in order to exist. Genetics explains the unique structure of each developed system, else every person's and every civilization's experiences would closely mimic another according to climate and topography. What causes the extreme uniqueness of so many living systems?

I think you're taking it a bit far arent you? Even if this caste system was created in the past to best fit with the specific demands of the hyperborean climate and topography, things change, society changes, culture changes, and our definition of everything is rapidly being re-evaluated and changes as time passes. This is sort of the point of the Order of Things thread. And then lets talk about a return to this old caste system in the modern world, where climate and topography and even place are not very important with modern technology and globalization--indeed, the identity of a specific culture or people is less important. New castes are being created, and they increasingly have less to do with the traditional ones. Indeed, with technology and globalization, genetics are dramtically changing as well. Races are mixing; people are leaving traditional settings and going to urban ones marrying people they'd never meet; hell, one can find love half-way around the world, instead of being tied to the proximity of where one lives; they no longer are tied to traditional labor, food, products. This is the future, and although I sympathize with returning to these traditional forms, I dont see it happening anywhere except for Europe.

 

[Majesty]

@Speed:
"This example is from the great E.O. Wilson: Say Im inclined to be a poet. If im born Eskimo, I'll still be a poet, but probably I wont be a very good one due to the weakness of the poetic tradition and culture of the Eskimoes. However, if I'm born Irish, I have a much better shot of becoming a good poet for obvious cultural reasons."

Maybe it is that eskimos have never been as inclined to be poets as the irish and because of that no great poetic culture have grown.
Then it would be purely genetical again wouldn´t it?
That quote seems to make sense only if your mind/soul is created before your body is.