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

Theocratic equality and profane equality

We would like to summarize everything we’ve said as follows: the caste system is, contrary to modern sentiments, a social order structured on the basis of human nature itself; it is healthy, provided it is deployed within a context of sanctity and so long as man’s final end—union with God—is kept as the center point. We could even say that, for a given human type, it is not only healthy but necessary. The above pre-requisite, that it be deployed within a context of sanctity, is also what legitimizes other social orders for other human types, such as those characterized by the absence of castes, for example Islam: this type of equality is legitimate because it is a theocratic equality, an equality of servants under a divine law, and it succeeds insofar as the pursuit of sanctity remains paramount, for this is the only thing capable of neutralizing the disorders that occur in the absence of social distinctions.

The ‘equality’ preferred by modern liberal regimes is both primitive and idealist without being theological, and is therefore something quite different from both extremes in the traditional world. It is based on secularism where each man is respected on the basis of so-called ‘rights’ (a legal invention of the Enlightenment which has never been, even on a theoretical level, demonstrated to be legitimate or true).

Modern equality is a kind of caricature of the traditional form of equality, which retained a respect for man, not as an ‘equal’ but as a potential saint, and this equality itself was but an aspect of religion. In other words, only religion can give a suitable and functional basis to equality because it is acknowledged as a superior, ordering principle supplying a social, moral, and ritual code applicable to all and by which all are judged. Without a sacred context, equality atomizes rather than united, and sets each man against his neighbor in a battle for rights, a war of all against all, where truth extends only so far as the individual who chooses to accept it. Hence, the notion of ‘freedom’ as the paramount ideal in the modern world, an ideal conspicuously absent in traditional egalitarian contexts because of the social chaos it implies.

Share This