Time for more food for thought.
Aurini’s video on “the fear of hierarchy”:
Watched it and honestly have a bunch of quibbles that spring to mind, but a major one was summed up nicely by Eric Orwoll in the comment section (posted yesterday):
Do you feel that natural law might be intrinsically threatened by technology? Perhaps the problem isn’t ideological, but meta-ideological; the space in which the ideas move may be structured in such a way that natural order is precluded. Patriarchal civic structures are a result of technology, they occur after the introduction of animal domestication in the occident. 7,000BC, Catal Huyuk, Central Anatolea is an example of a city where the veneration of the bull was primary as a mythological archetype but where the exploitation of cattle was not yet a predominant economic factor, and it was characterized by a relatively egalitarian social structure. Northern Semi-Nomadic proto Indo-European peoples of the same time depended more heavily on domesticated animals and consequently developed more authoritarian social structures, as it is (initially) a limited occupational status group which exploits the technology of animal husbandry. The Aryan social structures were rapidly exported in the last 5,000 years, along with the spread of their technology. Technologies will be exploited to advance the power interests of various occupational status groups, whether Aryan Horsemen or Modern Bankers.We cannot find a natural law within an economic world.
The ability to acquire social power via technological means has meant that our evolved ability to breed eugenically has been challenged. Overcoming this breakdown of natural law has been the great challenge of our times, and we’ve generally compensated through religious ideology. Religious order is a response to the breakdown of natural order. Religions are nearly always characterized by an exoteric/esoteric duality. Being that the originators of religions always have the most complete knowledge of their own philosophies and that the transmission of deeper meaning is generally limited to those individuals who are in direct contact with the originator, status groups form based on the proximity of disciples to the originator and the status groups characterized by occult knowledge will be in a position of authority to preserve the occult status of that knowledge. Any ideological development must be introduced through some individual, and at this point a return to natural law constitutes the assertion of an ideal, so a return to natural law would have to be essentially religious in character (which I suppose you agree with). Although, religion ends up being just another technology which is exploited by a particular psychological archetype, toward the advancement of their honor, status, or material interest.
Religion opposes itself to the material order and depends on the idea of hierarchy, so the material order is incentivized to reduce exoteric hierarchy to only matters of pure pragmatism. In a technological world there are always competing constructed law paradigms which overpower natural law, though natural law may represent itself if the technological society collapses. I wouldn’t depend on that, so the alternative is to effectively use religious technology to establish a competing law under the name of the resurrection of a natural law. Unfortunately “natural law” only appeals as a romantic ideal to a small minority of the population, so a general religious awakening to the principle of organic societies is, at present, unlikely. What is necessary to propagate the meme of “organic societies” is charismatic leadership, which accepts responsibility for the implementation if its ideals.
Interesting comment. “We cannot find a natural law within an economic world.” I’d say that pretty much sums up where we stand currently. How could we return (or move forward) to “natural hierarchies” when we live within a centralized system where economics rule the day? Humans would have to first break out from under that and then segregate off into various smaller clans in order to break up the hierarchies that currently have people in a stranglehold.
But I believe I understand what Aurini is basically getting at, and on some level I’m in strong agreement, it’s just that I struggle to see how we might get there without bringing about civil wars. Many, many people support the current setup because it’s all they’ve ever known or can imagine, and they will resist others’ attempts to break free from the system they depend on, fearing such secessions will threaten their own livelihoods.
So that’s where I wind up stuck when considering this on a practical level. In Eric’s last paragraph where he’s discussing such an ideal being embraced by a small minority, I believe he’s correct. It appears a potentially productive focus right now is in spreading the memes of the possibility of “natural hierarchies” and “organic societies” just to stimulate people’s imaginations on the topic. Because most of us are locked in tunnel-vision based on all the inputs we’re bombarded with, so right now we’re faced with needing widespread paradigm shifts. A good number of people are thinking outside of the box and challenging this status quo, but there seems to be less emphasis placed on critically considering what may replace the current setup. I do believe that because people are so easily drawn into hopeful fantasies we are too often uncritical of the alternatives being proposed and the potential they hold to become just as oppressive, if not worse, than what is in place now. And because people do fear a return to past examples of oppressive societies, they want to hold fast to this technologically-driven, money-worshiping scheme in thinking it’s at least an improvement on what has come before (which arguably in terms of material comforts and scientific advancements it is, though it’s being fashioned into something capable of becoming more oppressive than any hierarchical setup ever experienced before).
Everything is funneling us in the direction of greater centralization, and those willing to actively resist this will be marginalized and then ran over. But that’s no reason to fully submit. Some of us resist in whatever ways we do because we’re unable to go where we’re being pushed. Might not be able to stop this train, but we sure don’t have to accept the situation lying down. It is a matter of principles, and stubbornness, but it’s also a matter of trying to preserve some shreds of sanity for future generations if not our own.