Nowadays we are supposedly equal, because of democracy and all that crap. It’s untrue for two obvious reasons. First of all we are not equal in the political sense we have the 99% and the 1%, or we could divide the 99% into various groups where one has power social power than the other. Secondly, we are not equal. Equal means “=”. As in 1+1=2. Equal means to be the same. I am not the same as you, you are not the same as Bill Clinton or Sarah Jessica Parker. Male is not equal to female. In a very abstract sense one can say that one human being is equal in value to another, however when we get down to the nitty gritty, your mom, your dog or your lover is not equal in your eyes to some guy living somewhere far away you only hear about because they have died in a terrible accident. You might think it’s unfortunate, but if the same happens to someone you care about you feel it is horrible.
Maybe then, just maybe, a hypothesis, the way things were, when there used to be aristocrats and commoners, things weren’t so awful. When we look at history, yes it was pretty bad for the majority of people, but the principle of having different social classes might not be such a bad idea after all. For the last few millennia the upper classes have been dominated by selfish, sadistic scum, but the commoners haven’t been much better than them either, since they haven’t managed to rid themselves of the oppression. As I tried to highlight in the two previous articles, people aren’t the same, and it seems some people, a great many people are incapable of independent thought and consideration. They always ask society to tell them what to do instead of using their own reason, intuition or morality to do so. In effect they are people who want to be ruled. Independence to them is scary, or perhaps incomprehensible. Even if society says to them: be independent, they may repeat the meme, but do not grasp the essence of the concept.
I hope I am wrong about this assessment, but I see the idea of everybody getting it, enlightenment, awakening, whatever, very unlikely. I would like to be proved wrong. The masses have always been the masses with little sense of their own. I have to see it for myself to believe otherwise.
When the Aryans conquered India and introduced the caste system, maybe it was not a violent offensive. Perhaps the Aryans were wise educators. Maybe they had a highly developed spiritual science which enabled them to see the inner potential in a person. You’d become a good craftsman, he’ll be a great hunter, she’ll be a fine statesman, but that guy, while he has the ability, he would abuse it for his own gain. Perhaps that is how and why the caste system was introduced. Later on, Indians forgot the spiritual science and the system degraded into something morbid and oppressive.
I really don’t know much of the details of the story of Aryans in India, so maybe they were just a bunch of rampaging invaders. I should look more into it.
But continuing on with the hypothesis, maybe the origin of all class systems is similar. The most capable of moral and intelligent leadership became the leaders, sorcerer-kings or whatnot. Over the course of time, the institution degraded and was taken over by self-serving psychopaths. Maybe aristocracy isn’t simply the result of the 13 Illuminati bloodlines trying to take over. It might have had an older, loftier origin, which was later infiltrated by those families.
I said a lot of maybes and perhapses in this article, as this is all very hypothetical. I am not promoting the introduction of a class/caste system, I am simply trying to look at humanity and it’s tendency to gather in societies from a different angle. To me, at least, it seems very much a reality that not all men are equal, to kid ourselves due to ideological reasons that they are can only bring more problems and disappointment. Moreover if we were to come to the conclusion some sort of class system is preferred, in the current state of the world it too would be hi-jacked by those who certainly should not be running things.