Against Social Mobility
A man of integrity passes his father’s civilization to his son, without selling it off to strangers.
Kakistocracy
Every historical or traditional civilized society I am aware of practiced a form of social separation/hierarchy which served as a barrier between higher and lower classes/castes. In our modern era, such practices are seen as antiquated at best, or antihuman at worst. Such a negative reading is understandable when we look at today’s most known example of a caste system, that being Hindu India. Of course, it has been argued that Hindu society and culture is in a state of abject decline, with most of their cultural practices having been imposed upon them by ancient Indo-Aryan conquerors; after millennia of self-rule, the meaning and purpose of such ancient customs has been lost and replaced with exploitation and sadism. Yet even in the Hindu example, the Hindu caste system does represent the fundamental, if in a more pronounced and extreme manner, need for societal distinctions between a people. Society does not function as a collection of deracinated individuals, but rather is hierarchically structured with those is lower positions providing the essential resources for the higher classes so that those higher positions can sustain, perpetuate, and develop innovations, cultural and otherwise, that do ultimately benefit all.
One of the supposed benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism is that it affords the opportunity for those of middling societal status to ascend the ranks of class and join in equality with those of a higher position. We are taught to value meritocracy as something which is morally just, however merit itself is not something of value. If my profession is that of millwright yet I excel at carpentry, my ability to manipulate wood serves at the expense of my profession and thus it is not meritorious to what I am called to do. Thus, merit as a concept is circumstantial at best. One is only “good” if they are proficient at the tasks they are called to perform, not whatever extracurricular function they are able to perform outside of it. For another example, lets take a peasant farmer who is a capable blacksmith. He may desire to leave farming behind and pursue his interests, but then what happens with the village’s established black smith and his son whom he was apprenticing? Would it be moral for the ex-farmer to usurp the role of the blacksmith and his generational commitment to the trade? Such an arrangement would upset the order of society and its familial basis. Whereas the smith has committed his life and family legacy to this particular trade, the farmer is an upstart with only interest and potential skill, and there is no guarantee that he will be able to impart his knowledge to his son, or that the son will share his particular interest in smiting. How many interests of our parents and grandparents get pawned off or given away because the subsequent generations do not share the interests of their forbearers? The farmer is surely unique and special given his interest and skill, but these arise outside of his heritage and blood. It is far more likely his son and grandson would yearn for the soil, rather than the blacksmith-farmer’s particular interest. The farmer is an outlier and usually with outliers, we see in subsequent generations that their descendants fold back/return to the norm. This is not to say that the farmer must give up that which he is passionate for. He can develop his hobby and perform his own smithing tasks for himself whilst remaining true to his established role in society. The farmer, even as a peasant, has a vital function to perform in society and a responsibility to his community and future generations.
Happiness and stability can be achieved at any class. It is not immoral and does not represent a personal failing for one to be of a lower or working class. We have seen suicidal debauched millionaires and we have seen happy working-class men with large families. The reverse is also quite true, with degenerate substance-addicted working-class men, and selfless millionaires. It should be noted that wealth is not a proxy for class, as today we have many wealthy individuals of debased stock and workers of the embarrassed aristocracy. Wealth today is used as a proxy for class, but given the quality and tenor of say lottery winners, it can safely be said that wealth does not buy class. In societies that are hierarchically ordered, one is able to find purpose in their role, whatever it may be. Even if they are dissatisfied with their position, they are assured that they play an essential role in the continuance of society. Class resentment has never not been a desire for the power, luxury, and freedom of the higher classes without consideration of their responsibilities. The average factory worker does not want to be responsible for morally and culturally leading his society, but rather desires more disposable income so that he can consume more products of popular culture. Even with wealth, such a person is a consumer and follower and not fit to rule. This is not a condemnation of his character, but a recognition of his nature. Those of the traditional nobility, aristocracy, and even some of those industrialists of the early 19th century, saw it as their duty to propagate high culture, which was the highest expression of their civilization. Although the audience for their endeavours were those like themselves, there were attempts to elevate the quality of the lower classes, to steward them well, and the elevation of culture as a whole does enhance the quality of life for all, maybe not materially but spiritually. What separates modern capitalists from industrialists was that the latter saw money as a means to an end, for the improvement of the lives of their families and for their nation as a whole. Perfecting society is not achieved exclusively by acts of charity, but by building concert halls, universities, and libraries.
In my time, I have had dealings with many people of the lower and working classes. They are fine people, dedicated to their work to the benefit of their families. Yet they have no inclination or aspiration to higher things. Again, I have nothing bad to say about them, and aspiring to lofty concepts is not something which makes one person of greater innate value than another. There is equal dignity in class even if its demands and rewards differ. Furthermore, given their power, those in higher positions are demanded more of and can fall further than those below them. When someone of the lower classes is elevated beyond their station, their influence is used to promote a debased culture, something which no one really can aspire to. Such people are not fit and neither would those of their class desire to see those like them produce what they are to consume.
The quote above articulates the necessity for class and a rejection of social mobility. Culture can only be passed down if father and son remain alike. If a son is separated from the culture of his father, the culture he imparts will be incongruent with that which came before and will be something of his own imagination with no permanent value. Such a culture will not be transmitted because it will shift in change after every generation, becoming impermanent and meaningless. When one is elevated to a higher class, they retain with them the disposition of the lower class and thus through their position, promote that which is now below them. With their position now influencing others, the higher classes degrade and become more like those from below. It is an inversion, satanic even if we take seriously the credo as above so below. Social mobility allows not for the elevation of the lower classes but rather the debasement of the higher. This is one such reason we are unable to have an authentic ruling nobility or aristocracy in this day, let alone a proper functioning monarchy. Strict class and caste distinctions were not created arbitrarily by the ancients, neither were they a mechanism by which to quell the masses, but rather the necessary bedrock upon which high civilization can be achieved. Again, as we see today, class or hierarchy still exists and it will always exist, regardless of whether we live in a socialist state or an egalitarian democracy. In modern times we obfuscate the existence of hierarchies, but our ancestors were honest, openly basing their whole society on hierarchy and celebrating it. Furthermore, as Dr. Edward Dutton has shown in his work, class is a proxy of genetic relatedness. To a greater or lesser degree, class is an innate aspect of who we are, and our predilections are in part dictated on a fundamental level by this. This is why marrying outside of one’s class posed social consternation, as bloodlines were seen as something to protect and improve over time. Without class, the offspring of these mixed marriages have no class foundation or defined purpose in their lives and are instead cursed to wander the earth deciphering their own meaning and purpose. As we know from the Book of Judges, this is a poor manner in which to structure society. One of, if not the, greatest failings of capitalism was that it elevated individuals into stations they had no right to be in, and we today suffer because it is those ignoble people who rule over us.
