Why did people let this happen?
Because humans are hierarchal by nature.
>>401143
>human nature
Top cvck
Why not?
>>401136
Without The living Osiris Apep will swallow the Sun. You don't want to live in a sunless realm do you Ank-non?
>>401143
Humans don't like to be dominated by other humans by nature.
>>401136
It's a probably a huge fucking honor to hoist what was, to them anyways, a god-man on your shoulders.
That's why.
>>401160
Bullshit
>>401162
How did people start getting others to believe they were god-men?
Did someone just say so one day? Once everyone else saw he got better treatment because of it why didn't other start saying "hey, me too."
>>401160
People are naturally attracted to strong leaders. You can see this with politics. People pledge their support to a candidate or march for a the dicator.
You can even see this in primitive primates who have an alpha that leads the tribe.
The king is simply a super-alpha.
A guy happens to have more wealth, and thus power, than someone else, often by random happenstance.
This guy hires people to work for him, for example in a farm. He now has people under him, he probably gets a son now and dies soon.
At some point the son hires military strength, and subdues nearby farms to also hail him, often in a way that doesn't seem ill-willed, so that they think he is doing them a favour, when really he is just amassing more power. He then at some point gets a son and then dies.
Continue over tens of centuries, now you've got a king.
The further away from the leader a person is, the higher the leader is valued, more expansion leads to more easily attained praise and wealth and area of influence.
>>401175
People might like to look up to leaders but they don't like to worship them as gods or get killed for not bowing to them whenever they happen to pass you.
>>401136
In a time when education, nutrition, healthcare, weapons, etc. were scarce enough that only the elite could afford them, the elite literally became superior to the ordinary man in every measurable way.
If you were an ordinary man in early antiquity meeting royalty, the royal would be significantly taller and stronger than you, more beautiful than anyone you had ever seen, armed with iron weapons that your bronze or leather armor could not resist, armored with iron that your bronze or stone weapons could not pierce, and they would know so much about the world that they would appear omniscient from your perspective.
It would be like meeting God.
>>401345
Who let them get all that stuff in the first place?
>>401158
lol, underrated post.
>>401345
>implying this isn't the case today
I can't wait for %1 cyborgs to literally enslave us
>>401366
>let them
Ambition and Luck did
>>401366
If you go back far enough, most aristocratic families generally descended from someone of extraordinary martial prowess.
Basically, a really badass motherfucker killed anyone who didn't do what he said, and so he became the chief or lord of his community by force of arms. His position in society gave his children extraordinary advantages, so when he eventually died, people naturally deferred to them and regarded his eldest child as heir to his place as ruler. In time, this was formalized into a system of noble titles, and there you have it; monarchism is formed.
>>401372
there has never been a smaller cognitive gap between the elites and the common people than there is now. there are tons of poor losers who are smarter than a huge chunk of the top politicians and business elites.
>>401414
Rather than being about being "someone of extraordinary martial prowess", it's about being rich enough to keep the biggest clientele of warriors (who might have a clientele of their own too). Of course, often the rich man is also part of the same warrior class than his clients, as this eases the relationship in this early stages.
>>401136
>Why did people let this happen?
The capacity for violence of primitive communist villages was lesser than the capacity of violence for aristocratically organised tribal federations (Roman war of Orders, etc., Engels Family Private Property The State).
The development of social surpluses produced a class society within tribal affiliations.
>>401179
Rousseau Plz
>>401434
"Cognitive gap" is a meme
Medicine and technology is the real deal
>>401136
Whoever said "lol god said I wuz king" first won.
>>401136
Because physics which leads to chemistry which leads to biology which leads to economics which leads to politics.
You're welcome.
>>401414
If you look at the emergence of civilizations that we can track relatively clearly, ie: Cyclades, Crete, Greece you notice that martial strength and trade are equally capable of creating a social hierarchy ala aristocracy.
First of all, note that the Cyclades never developed a social hierarchy independently despite evidence of population exchange and trade between islands. No islands became dominant, no social castes developed.
On Crete the cites that developed into palace centres were also the largest ports for trade and there is no evidence of intra-island conflict.
On the mainland there is plenty of evidence of destruction, several waves of population displacement and migration, and similarly you find that the most prominent and wealthy members of society are buried with exotic goods indicative of trade.
Which brings me to grave goods: Exotic goods only attainable by trade with foreign peoples or kingdoms is a strong indicator that the upper caste of society was usually deeply involved in the trade industry.
Even as far back as Naqaqda II/III periods where expansion of proto-Egyptian culture was largely peaceful we see exotic goods from Nubia and the East in the largest burials and tombs.
>>401136
>Some dude is a really good leader
>Dude gets all the best shit because he is a good leader
>Makes sure his children get some of the best shit
>When he dies his children have a disproportionate amount of good shit
>>401136
cause people need leaders
>>401172
i think the title of pharaho was what raised you to godhood and you cant have 2 pharahos at the same time now can you
>>401136
Fear, desire to be protected, complacency, disinterest. Any combination, really.
It's also natural for people to, at the very least, look up to, or hope to become the tribal leader. So it's not so hard to see that they would look up to and obey the big tribal leader.
btw I'm pretty sure the original word for King from some of the first civilizations literally translates to "big man"
>>401172
>Once everyone else saw he got better treatment because of it why didn't other start saying "hey, me too."
I suppose you could say that this did happen in ancient Egypt. A Pharaoh's retainers were buried with him so they could serve him in the afterlife. Early Pharaohs, or at least a couple in the Early Dynastic or Old Kingdom periods, actually had all their retainers killed upon their death.
Anyways, this idea that only the Pharaoh got to experience eternal life in the Land of Reeds encouraged aristocrats who could afford it to build tombs near the Pharaoh and commoners from all over the kingdom would folk to Abydos to be buried in giant fields of 3ftx3ft cist graves.
I am pretty sure this practice continued in Saqqara when the royal burial grounds were moved.
>>401968
This is part of a long trend that culminated in the book of the dead.
Anyways, the idea was the in Egypt the Pharaoh used his position as a deity and a king to prevent that sort of action by democratizing his divinity via these actions.
>>401136
Read Cannibals and Kings OP.
Government structures are all formed because of available food resources.
When food is easy to come by - more democratic forms of government evolve, but you have more warfare.
When food is limited to certain areas like around a river - you get Pharaohs, kings, and so on, but less war.
>>401345
nice meme
in reality a lot of them were inbred downies
>>401160
So that's why government has been a thing since civilization started?
After getting raided enough, peasants just told the horse people "how about I give you my shit without you stabbing me."
And thus feudalism was born
>>401136
divine right to rule f͏͏a͏͏m
Monarchy evolved out of the ritual of sacrifice. There is always a delay of preparation before human sacrifice, during which the sacrificial victim must become the god, or at least a credible substitute for the god. To achieve this, he is given a series of privileges, sometimes extraordinary rights, and an obligation to break otherwise strict taboos (like incest). He is respected, feared, and despised in different measures depending on the culture, but he is always sacred. In some cultures, this delay got extended more and more, eventually indefinitely, and the victim managed to turn his symbolic divine power into effective power. Thus divine monarchy was born.
You can see transitional forms among African sacred monarchies, where the king is still ritually sacrificed after many years of reign.
>>401136
It worked.
>>401160
Yes they do. Majority of humanity are still followers. Including you.
>>401136
Bunch of mammal species have alphas in their pack; humans just took it to a higher scale
>>403595
I'd worship that.
>>402086
>they were all inbred
>no proofs
>inb4 one exa ple of Carlos v
>>403809
any source on this?
>>405504
He is referencing Frazer works on Monarchy, the Golden Bough.
Graves´ The White Goddes has some cool ideas in that same direction too.
>>401905
>pharaho
>>401345
I love how retarded this all is.
>armed with iron weapons that your bronze or leather armor could not resist,
THIS ISN'T HOW FUCKING METALLURGY WORKED.
BY THE TIME IRON COMES INTO ITS OWN AND CAN BE USED TO MAKE USEFUL WEAPONS AND ARMOR, IT IS CHEAPER THAN BRONZE, WHILE BEING AS EFFECTIVE OR BETTER. AND IRON WEAPONS AREN'T GOING TO CUT BRONZE.
>and they would know so much about the world that they would appear omniscient from your perspective.
LITERALLY NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED. EVER. TO ANYONE. YOU FAGGOT.
FUCK, THERE'S THIS PLACE CALLED GREECE.
ALL THE MIDDLE CLASSES WERE ARMED AND ARMORED PRETTY FUCKING WELL, AND DID THE FIGHTING, TRADING, AND TRAVELLING.
GUESS WHAT? THEY HAD A LOT OF FUCKING TYRANTS.
IN FACT, EVEN FUCKING BRONZE AGE SOCIETIES HAD LARGE BODIES OF COMMONER VOTING FOR WAR DESPITE HAVING KINGS.
YES, I'M MAD.
DON'T POST IF YOU'VE NEVER DONE ANY FUCKING READING IN YOUR LIFE.
Because some people are better than others.
>>401179
It can happen a lot more quickly and easily. Read Herodotus' story about how the Medes formed their kingdom.
>>401179
>This guy hires people to work for him
>Wage labour is a transhistorical phenomena
>>401160
True. But as long as they're not being overtly ordered around and disrespected, they'd really rather someone else was making the important decisions.
>>401136
>Why did people let this happen?
For protection.
>>406675
Food, roof, and comfort are all services that can be used to hire someone.
>>402086
They were inbred in the renaissance, not at the start in antiquity.
>>406826
I know he is hardly from the "start" of antiquity, but this guy looks pretty inbred without being even close to renaissance.
>democracy
Why did people let this happen?
>>406836
Probably not inbreeding, but a genetic disorder, IIRC from what I read about Akhenaten and his family recently.
>>406861
>picture of controversial elected politician.jpeg
Why did people let this happen?
>>402086
>>406826
>>406836
>>406868
Inbreeding probably took a toll.
Still, look at Cleopatra. 200 years of inbreeding and still had her wits and looks.
>inb4 someone posts a Romanized statue
Cleopatra had statues made in the likeness of whoever was going to be looking at it. For Egyptians she looked Egyptian, for Greeks she looked Greek, for Romans she looked Roman.
She probably looked most like her Greek or Egyptian art, rather than the hook-nosed Roman version people like to point at.
>>401136
Man hates his freedom.
prove me wrong.
>>401984
but wasn't greece notoriously shitty when it came to agriculture? city states could barely support their own populations, so shouldn't they have had more god-king monarchies and less war, going by that logic?
>>406861
Because the stupid individual thinks everyone will support his points of view, and that it should be promulgated.
>>403809
Maybe in some cases, but for most it was more like the strongest warrior took power, and told everyone to follow him. Then he recruited the second strongest warrior to enforce his will thanks to decent payment, and so on.
>>407235
Colonies.
By the LHIIIB/C periods, immediately prior to the collapse of Mycenaean Civilization, they were settled in Thrace, Italy and Sicily. Actually, it seems that Italy and Sicily were the economic centres of the LHIIIC and Early Iron Age, since pottery is being produced there and then turns up in Greece and Asia Minor.
Anyways, it's believed the Mycenaeans had settlements perhaps as far as Spain.
LHIIIB/C would be 1200 - 1050ish. By the 8th century you have the wave of colonization that spawned Magna Graecia and Sicily, Cyrene, Crimea and eventually most of the Black Sea, few colonies in Spain and France and Portugal.
Colonies of this period were sub servant to their mother polis and acted as grain supplies. Of course this didn't last terribly long because the Italian and Sicilian colonies were significantly richer than their founders and gained independence.
So the Greeks began colonizing agriculturally rich regions and by the iron age they colonized on steroids.
Plus, Greece is actually not the worst place to grow stuff. It just can't feed populations the size of Classical Athens.
>>407325
But monarchy is a sacrament, it's far more than just pack behaviour. It's especially obvious in Egyptian monarchy, which still has a lot of very obvious prehistoric sacrificial elements, like Pharaoh being a literal god or engaging in incest and cannibalism.
Of course monarchies in our time weren't established like this, but in fine they all imitated their sacraments from ones that were.
>>407155
You know cleopatra was a ptolemic egyption? They were greeks put on place after Alexander conquered Egypt.
>>407428
I fail to see how that is at all relevant to my post?
Are you disputing her genealogy, or the idea she had sculptures of herself tailored to her different subjects and allies?
>>407392
I'd still say even the Egyptian one still evolved out of power struggle. But they just added to it over the years.
>I'm the strongest, so I'm king
>My offspring are strongest too, so he's king next
>Huh, my family has been the strongest for a while, and all kings, so we must be Gods
>We're Gods, so we don't need to be the strongest anymore
I am, of course, talking out of my arse, but it makes more logical sense.
>>407392
Incest in the royal family is a New Kingdom development.
>>407471
If you follow the progression of civilization in Egypt from c. 4000 BC until the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by Narmer, there is virtually no evidence of internal strife and plenty of evidence suggested emphasis on trade rather than might.
>all these dumbass replies
People originally used to live in fairly egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups. Often you had 3 or so individual groups of a few dozen people at most who were in constant face-to-face contact.
With the emergence of agriculture people were able to transcend the hunter-gatherer ceiling that limited their population. They were able to settle down and grow at a far larger rate. Because enough food is being produced to allow them to not have to actively search for it all day, this causes a division of labour. Some specialised in farming, others in raising livestock, some in masonry, others in communing with the gods, etc.
So what ties the people in these towns together? They weren't bound by the close kinship ties of most hunter-gatherer groups, so more abstract forms of social control are necessary. The earliest settled communities in the Near East seem to suggest that religion and trade were the primary means to do this. Gobleki Tepe and Catal Huyuk seem to suggest that these communities were ruled by a priest elite. We see the same thing in Neolithic North Western Europe; Stonehenge and the complex it is a part of was a pretty ambitious project for the subsistence farmers that made it, depending on contacts stretching for tens of miles. Organised religion would've supplied the motive and means to construct such an impressive complex.
One thing to keep in mind is technology. The emergence of bronze caused a huge increase in centralisation. Bronze is fairly hard to make with relatively rare materials, it required a quite sophisticated trade network to create. This also meant that the bronze would end up in the hands of a few people, and these would've been warriors rather than priests, because the hierarchy was now based on an immutable, physical resource. British Bronze Age graves indicate how people thought that bronze was divine and superior to stone.
>>407496
Yea, but I mean from even before that. There were dynasties established by that time, just not on the same scale as later.
>>407499
Bronze meant that high-quality (for the time) weapons and armour could be made. The nature of bronze also meant that it would've been limited to a small elite who led the trade and metallurgy. This introduces a quite new concept: society based on a physical hierarchy, rather than spiritual. We know from archeology that bronze axeheads became a form of currency in Britain.
It's quite likely that kingship already existed before this. The early Germanic kings were after all, elected religious and/or military leaders. It's likely that these individuals would've been the wealthiest and most influential, and therefore able to accumulate the most currency (bronze) and followers, which gradually helped to cement his authority and help centralize society.
It has to be noted, however, that intensive agriculture and urbanisation seemed to have hastened the process of hierarchisation and centralisation further. After all, the earliest and most enduring king-led palace economies seem to originate from the most fertile and productive regions (Middle East, China).
Another thing to note is how iron radically changed alot socially. The diffusion of ironworking probably did a lot to hasten the Bronze Age Collapse, especially in Bronze Age North Western Europe, which was highly dependent on its trade. Iron is superior to bronze, easier to make, smelt and repair; sturdier and far more common. This was probably a quite interesting revolution, as it destroyed the basis of society and its hierarchy. Iron was the great equalizer long before the AK-47 was. It's quite possible the reason why the earliest Celtic Hallstat cultures were ruled by quite powerful minor kings, but the later La Tene Gauls had descended into a more egalitarian (though more chaotic) tribalistic society.
So, that's one factor that might've caused the rise of kingship. Namely the ability of humans to produce new ways of improving our technology and ability to reproduce.
>>402090
Civilization is evil and not humanity's natural state.
>>407528
Can you explain what you mean, please?
>>407597
That there were still prominent warrior caste families to gather around and take power in the forming of early Egypt.
Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate your theory on the sacrifices, but it would just make more sense for those types to evolve into the priestly caste first, (like Druids for the Kelts, Vestal Virgins for the Romans, and Ephors for the Greeks), and the later amalgamate with the warrior caste in the king to become God Emperor type dealio.
Or I could be completely wrong. I'm just inferring here.
>>407642
I am not that guy but...
I am saying pre-historic Egypt (Naqada I, II, III phases of the Naqada civilization) demonstrate relatively little in the way of warfare, strife, conflict, etc between population centres (Abydos, Naqada, Hierakonpolis) and even with the northern But'a Madi culture.
Naqada seems to have peacefully assimilated the But'a Madi culture through trade and cultural exchange.
Graves in the Naqada II/III periods begin to showcase exotic goods like ivory and gold from Nubia and other cultures.
Writing also appears in Naqada III and we see the beginnings of the centralized, redistributive economy that was characteristic of Dynastic Egypt.
All of this is to say that there is a surprising lack of evidence for a warrior based caste system or monarchy looking at the centres of the culture that unified Egypt.
Given the religious importance of Abydos and the presence of Horus and Hathor on the Narmer palette, and the peaceful Naqada I & II periods, I could say either religion or trade led to the development of the Egyptian monarchy.
>>401160
your mom definitely has something to answer to this for last night TBQH FAMPAI
>>407743
I mean, the person who eventually became the first monarch of Upper Egypt was likely a prominent religious or mercantile figure.
Obviously the monopolization of force occurred and he also became a warrior king. I am just inclined to think it was a consequence of religious or economic status than 'I am strong, and my son is strong, and so is my other son, and so I am king'
>>407349
thanks! i had no idea about this stuff
>>407743
Fair enough. Pre-unification Egypt was never my strong suit, so at least now I've learned a bit today.
>>407780
Well pre-unification Egypt is, with the exception of some seals in phase III, also pre-writing Egypt.
So who the fuck actually knows what went on?
I just want to stress that there is a possibility that a social hierarchy and monarchy spawned from non-martial origins (and that there is evidence to suggest it is possible).
Crete is another example. No way to say for sure how they developed their Palace centres and social hierarchy, but there is virtually no evidence for war or fighting on the island. Definitely not once the system began to form.
So who was in charge, and why? We have no idea. We just know that everybody worked for the Palaces, so there must have been some group calling the shots and they didn't seem to need force.
>>401136
Because it is the best way to order human society. Superiors at the top, inferiors at the bottom.
>>401136
It is a pop-anthro book but I would like to recommend to you Cannibals and Kings by Marvin Harris.
>>405592
Greek tyrannies didn't last long after the hoplite "reform"
>>401160
>Humans don't like to be dominated by other humans by nature.
this is what undergrad liberals believe
>>408537
Most of the Ionian coast retained tyrants until Alexander came around.
Many of the Magna Graecia cities for a while. Syracuse, most famously I guess.
Not to mention democracy was a huge failure that even Athens abandoned.
>>401136
Because he owned property, which meant he can pay for an army, which meant he commanded loyalty, which meant he had authority, which meant you had to respect him as a living God.
The fundimentary difference that begets Aristocracy from Tribal chiefdoms was the advent of personal titles. Titles that were worth something and commanded respect. In a sense, these titles were the currency used to buy the absolute loyalty of the army, and played a pivitol role in the development of organized militaries in the ancient world.
>>407591
so a thing developed by natural creatures, with the help of natural ressources and their natural thought process, suddenly becomes non-natural?
makes perfect sense.
it's a social construct
kinda like with america and liking black people when the rest of the world naturally hates them
>>401844
>Because mathematics which leads to physics which leads to chemistry which leads to biology which leads to psychology (which leads to sociology) which leads to economics which leads to politics.
Fixed that for you.
>>401183
>People might like to look up to leaders but they don't like to worship them as gods
>>409245
>Anyone in USSR took propaganda seriously
>Anyone gave a shit about Lenin except paying lip service
>>409267
1. They took.
2. They gave.
Deal with it.
Even now commie worship marx like demigod.
>>401136
it is pretty simple
a well to do peasant rents land from the local landowner and employs some landless serfs, he is a commoner like them and so cares deeply about their poverty, though naturally he secures grain for himself and his family so they don't suffer if there is a famine
a small landowner knows the peasants, he deals with them every day and listens to their complaints and if they are just he might give them an inch, he knows the local lord who he needs for political and legal protection
the local lord met the last king when he was younger, but doesn't really know the new one, he rarely interacts with the peasants, leaving his steward to manage his lands, he is a distant relative of the earl and in return for being loyal, paying his taxes and not getting involved with any rebellions, plots or the like he keeps the right to own the land of his forefathers
the earl spends a lot of time at the king's court and is his representative in the wide area that he controls, he is issued titles and offices of state and is compensated with his lands, to him a multitude of peasants are a note on a piece of paper, he mainly deals with people higher up the hierarchy
the king, well, he is so distant from the average peasant he is kind of a myth or an idea, even the servants he has close personal contact with were raised in noble households, it is an honor to send a son to wipe the king's asshole clean, if a peasant is angry they will blame the local sheriff or bureaucrat
>>407848
Would it make sense that once a society gets large enough it makes sense to have separate group keep tabs on stuff. You have the anecdotal-acknowledged people who are the 'best' at whatever they do decide stuff after a certain population point. They get their own building and since it's a representation of the community it has to be super-nice.
Over time one person gets recognized as being right a lot so maybe they give him a new position. Since trades are passed down, this gets passed down and over time you have one person leading everything.
>>401136
A band of marauders and ruthless killers impose their rule by force over others. Over time, their status is ritualized, and justifications other than "I'm a hardcore badass with weapons and a posse that will fuck you up if you get out of line" start being invented. Particularly, religious justifications start popping up when the religious class forms a mutually beneficial arrangement with the band of murderous thugs extorting everyone else. After enough generations, the descendents of those thugs, still ruling over the rest, still must remain military capable of defending their status, but their domination becomes much more about descent than just force and intimidation. Voila, an aristocracy.
Likewise, most aristocracies were either warrior aristocracies, religious or priestly aristocracies, or both. They developed from essentially using either physical threats, spiritual threats, or both to impose their will, and they had to continue doing so to keep their status. The "cane and tophat" aristocrat that some people imagine when they hear the term was basically a product of the Industrial Revolution.
>The majority of people actually legitimately believe that monarchy / aristocracy was terrible and that modern democracy is 1000 times better
It's a dark time we're living in.
>>409368
This
>>401136
Monarchies were originally priestly monarchies, i.e. the priests established themselves as rulers and people obeyed them because of their religious beliefs. From the pharaohs to the emperor of china, all "early" monarchies were founded on the idea that the king was divine.
What happened in practice is that the smart people became priests and ruled over the dumb peasants.
>>409368
Nick Land pls
>>401136
Which makes more sense
Democracy
>People so busy living their lives they can barely keep up with current events are expected to be experts on economics, foreign policy, the law, infrastructure, etc. so that they can intelligently vote for the correct representative
>This is flat-out impossible, so they vote for candidates that make them feel emotionally comfortable
>The political class is thus filled with narcissistic, deceitful opportunists primarily focused on their own wealth and image
>Politicians have no background or training in true leadership and management before they run
>Leaders are in positions of power for short periods of time, then are gone with no repercussions
or Monarchy/Aristocracy
>Leaders are trained from birth to lead
>If their lands and people are prosperous, they are prosperous; if the land and people are poor, they are poor
>If they really mismanage their job their children and grandchildren are poor
>If they *really* fuck it up they, they get murdered
Well?
There is a reason bad kings are famous - it is because they were rare.
>>401434
>The average loser is as smart or smarter than national leaders
That is FUCKING TERRIFYING
>>409368
Amen
I think a key is the fact that you can basically program a human every 20 odd years through the process of normal human reproduction. You can justify a lot of bullshit when you get them young.
The other is in post agricultural societies people are separate enough from each other that they don't truly feel the weight of violence and murder in guilt or social condemnation. You can't normally get a knight to murder his own family and friends on a "kings" word, but you can get him to kill a stranger.
Nearly every autocracy I've seen explained basically seems to follow the Robert Mugabe model of maintaining power no matter how shit you are. He did it by making sure a cadre of close military personnel were always well payed and got first choice of food no matter how bad the situation with inflation and food production got. It seems to be human nature that you can sell oppression to people so long as they feel they are doing better than others thanks to their allegiance to the status quo. Humans are anti-social enough in large societies to kill strangers, but not so anti-social that they stop caring about status among those same strangers.
The military force is almost always more organized than any resistance to the order too. So while a 100 men can kill ten warriors at once, 10 warriors can kill 100 dissident men over the course of years in piecemeal attacks. The big question imo is how king like figures make sure their strongmen don't turn on them when they figure instead of bribes they could take the whole bribe purse. Competition, I guess.
>>410504
>Monarchy/Aristocracy
>Autocracy
This is /his/, not/v/; we've read books
>>401434
>there has never been a smaller cognitive gap between the elites and the common people than there is now
That is absolutely false. The average IQ of poor people in America is something like 80. There's a huge difference in cognitive ability between rich and poor.
>>406868
>Probably not inbreeding, but a genetic disorder
... caused by inbreeding.
>from what I read about Akhenaten and his family recently
yes, many people in his family had the same disorder, because they were inbred and fucked their sisters
>>410526
But it was like 50 before.
>>410543
No, most poor people had average IQs.
Relevant, the distributions of people with college degrees in 1930 and in 1990. As you can see, most smart people nowadays go to college. Notice also that the mean of the "without college degrees" distribution decreased.
