The Class Struggle

The nomadic hunter-gatherer had a very homogenous intelligence level. Everyone was pretty much of the same intelligence level, because the society was one where everyone had to know about the same and have the same abilities. It promoted the "Jack of All Trades" (and master of them all…), forcing everyone to perform well on all fields.

Poor craftsmen would fail, because they would make poor hunting gear and other equipment, and would fail when hunting and fishing, or when building clothes and shelter. Poor planners would fail too, because their prey would get away, they would not find the right place to fish, etc. Poor gatherers would fail too, because they would not find the right or enough herbs, nuts, sea shells, roots etc.

The above is true, but yes, it is simplified to make a point. In reality, the ones with poor skills and abilities would simply more often fail. The result was that the intelligence and ability level was forcibly maintained at a high level. Yes, maintained by the force of Mother Nature.

The nomadic hunter-gatherers were few and note that they had no different social classes. Everyone was the same, because everyone had the same skills and abilities. Those that differed from the rest in a negative way would die out. If not immediately, then over time. Because the families were all left alone, in the wilderness, and any and all incapable families would more rarely succeed out there.

Agriculture changed this for several reasons. First because it became easier to produce enough food for many. They didn't have to "leave the weak for the wolves" in the forest, in order to survive. They didn't as often experience death from cold or starvation or predators, because of lacking abilities. Secondly because the possession of land became important. Thirdly because different abilities became more important. That is: specialization became a factor.

Specialization is a positively charged word, but note that by specialization I mean that some became good at performing only certain tasks. Often tedious tasks, like harvesting or planting or grinding of grains. Tasks that required very little intelligence or skill,and those who performed those tasks were untrained in most other skills.

With food enough for many, and with the need for individuals able to perform tedious tasks, the less intelligent all of a sudden became a valuable resource. They could allow them to live, because they had food enough for them too, and they were just as useful in society as the others – because they were able to perform those tedious tasks. Yes, I say able, because a more intelligent person will much faster and more easily get bored performing tedious tasks. They are, in effect, not able to. If forced to, they will at best become sad – possibly chronically depressed.

When harvest failed or herd animals got sick or died, to avoid large scale famine the farmers would simply put solve this by taking the harvest or animals from others. By force. Other consequences was of course tyranny (one man controlled the land producing food, and the food itself), slavery (you could kidnap others and make them work on your fields or with your animals under threat of violence and death), and also the introduction of different social classes: the owners versus the workers. The farmer and his slaves. You saw the introduction of a warrior class; men hired by the owner to protect his land and to enslave others or ensure obedience in the ranks of the workers. Men hired to enslave and steal from others or indeed to protect the owner's lands and people from others doing that.

With different social classes we saw an active cultivation of different abilities in different groups of society. Owners needed to remain fairly smart, to organize society, to predict future events accurately, to understand and prepare for different challenges, etc. The warriors needed to be obedient and capable. The workers needed to be obedient and "able to perform tedious tasks". Yes, the latter is a nice way of saying: "they needed the workers to be not too smart." Ergo: they needed the workers to be stupid.

Now, this didn't change man dramatically over night, but this process started some 7000 years ago here in Europe, and earlier elsewhere, and with time the differences became more and more noticeable. The owners remained fairly smart, although not as smart as the hunter-gatherers, because agriculture and later on civilization reduced their abilities too, as explained elsewhere. The warriors became more and more obedient (which can be a type of stupidity too, I may add…), and the workers dumber and dumber. So dumb that in our own age, the average worker is borderline retarded… and utterly slave-minded and incapable. Only able to obey and slave (work for others). Only able to perform simple tasks, and having close to zero personal initiative. They are content being entertained, when not slaving for their masters.

Yes, today we need people to be really stupid, because so many tasks are so utterly tedious, and we also need people to be extremely obedient, because otherwise they would not have performed them (like shoot rubber bullets on children only because your authorities tell you too, or throw gas grenades at pregnant women only because your authorities tell you too). "Don't ask any questions! Don't even wonder why you do that!" "Just obey!"

Then came Communism, or if you like; Marxism. I will use the Soviet Union as an example, because what happened there is so evident to those who look at it. First of all they removed (killed…) or enslaved (forced into GULags or working class jobs) the elite of the Russian society (the smarter owners). Secondly they removed the barriers that had previously prevented intermarriage between the social classes. In the USSR the "owner" would marry the "slave" as often as not. They were encouraged to, directly or indirectly. "There are no social classes! We are all the same!"

The result (after only some generations) of this mixing of classes was a man not smart enough to perform the tasks of the owner, but still a man too smart to perform the tasks of the worker. This of course is code for "a criminal"… one just smart enough to understand that he can break the rules and get away with it.

Now, not all ex-Soviet peoples are criminals, of course, but a disproportionately large amount of their populations are criminally corrupt. Russia is not "by chance" the most corrupt country in all of Europe, and competing for the title of the most corrupt in the entire world… Western Europe is not flooded by criminal East Europeans "by chance". This is the result of the Communism they have been under for 70 or so years.

Smart people still exist there, they are just fewer. Really stupid people (average workers) still exist there – and their numbers might actually have been increased. But the amount of "socially mixed" individuals have been dramatically increased by Communism, and the average intelligence has been lowered. Thanks to Marxism.

Here in "the West" we have had a similar reduction of overall quality of man, not just because of of the general negative effects of agriculture and civilization, but also because of the equally bad Capitalism and it's cultivation of greed at the expense of all qualities of man, but in a different way. Not in a better way, nor any less, but in a different way. I might discuss that another time, but today I just wished to point out that social classes are a result of agriculture and civilization, both utterly destructive to mankind, and the mixing of these social classes don't bring all up to the same or indeed a better level, but instead drag most down to the lowest levels of mankind. That of a criminally corrupt individual or that or that of a seriously stupid worker.

If you are from the working class yourself, I can throw you a bone here, and remind you of the fact that if you are better than the average worker, you will rise up from that cesspool and no longer be working class.

Thank you for reading
Varg Vikernes
11.11.2020