This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

NOTICE:
This Dark Age is now available in paperback on Amazon. The print version is MUCH cleaner than this online version, which is largely unedited and has fallen by the wayside as the project has grown. If you’ve appreciated my writing, please consider leaving a review on the relevant paperback volumes. The print edition also includes new sections (Military History, War Psychology, Dogmatic Theology).

Volume 1 | Volume 2 | Volume 3| Volume 4 | Volume 5 | Volume 6

Caste and contemporary humanitarianism

Caste, and traditional institutions generally speaking, is concerned with the ultimate end of human life, which is, needless to say, beyond the material order of things. For that reason it is not legitimate to criticize caste or for that matter casteless traditional societies based on how well they provide for the welfare.

For religion, the norm is poverty. That is a fact which can be proved by the Founders of the great religions. Thus, it is again no strike against the religions and the religious world if it does not create an abundance of wealth, since wealth, in the traditional view, an occasion of sin.

Wealth is permissible, and almost all religions permit its accumulation even in extremes, because ownership is a natural right; but religion departs from the modern norm in that it does not see wealth as an ideal.

We can add that poverty, in the religious sense mentioned above, does not concern the lack of necessities: it does not imply starvation and squalor. Rather, it refers to a condition of simplicity, on the assumption that this simplicity—taking what one needs from nature and no more—is both spiritually and socially beneficial. The traditional world would say that it is boundless pursuit of wealth that is responsible for starvation and squalor where it does exist, and this on account of the massive fortunes held by some, which is considered, as much in Christianity as in other doctrines, to be outright theft from the poor.

All that is to say that if Islam and to some degree Christianity have seemed to adopt an egalitarian posture, it is not because they accept the modern ‘humanitarian’ view of man and the social order, which has in view nothing more than material provision and which seems to construe sin as a matter of material resources or social conditions, a position which is preposterous given that the most heinous crimes committed by man against man have not been motivated by fear of starvation. In other words, to explain sin as if it were a matter of lack of food and clothing and clean water and not, on the contrary, the result of a privation in human nature itself, is a fantasy.

Share This