How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared
In this clip from our 2015 session ‘The Myths We Need To Survive’, historian Yuval Noah Harari engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Intelligence Squared. He delves into the origins of civilisations and the ascent of the wealthy to power, exploring the mechanisms that enabled them to maintain their influence through to contemporary times. Share your insights with us in the comment section below!
See the full session here: • Yuval Noah Harari on t...
Want to see more videos and virtual events?
✅ Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: kzhead.info...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligencesquared.com/
#wealth #history #civilisation #yuvalnoahharari #intelligencesquared #intelligencesquaredplus #iq2
“If you have trust you can monetize it into almost anything” should be the motto of any successful business
This makes me think about the modern role of cryptography and blockchain technologies. Specifically the role of a 'trustless' decentralized future or, trust being cryptographically proven.
If you lie to most people often enough and for long enough they will believe anything you tell them.
"The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king."
Those are great stories though.
What was the peasant’s glorious reply to that? It was a good movie!
@@avadakedavra80 "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”
@@AngloSaks666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@AngloSaks666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its more than just an "accident of history" the phrase " Every great fortune was built upon anothers great misfortune" which is a nice way of saying most wealth was taken via the suffering and or slaughter of others.
That can be true, but often not. There are win-win situations, where technology can change the human condition, whether it was the first guy to start farming to starting Microsoft. It's not all just rape and pillaging.
Not often? Human history is stuffed full of all the horrible stuff we have done to each other and thats just the famous documented stuff, then there is what was done quietly behind closed doors. Where do you think all this insane wealth the elites have came from, it came from the inherited wealth passed down to them from their ancestors.
That is only true if there is no economic growth. So it was probably more true 300 years ago than now, when there was much less economic growth.
@@yanstev Actually, whether the Agricultural Revolution was a good thing is a point to be contested. For instance, the quality of people's nutrition used to be better when they were hunter-gatherers. By switching to farming, they were able to produce more and control their food supply, but the quality and range of what they produced diminished. Not to mention it put more strain on the soil.
Indeed. I mean none of us were there, so who can say for sure. But I think it's a safe bet. And not much has changed. I guess we have a minimum wage now....
These days: basic control is automatic but backed by violent intervention if deemed necessary. The automatic part is achieved by having a money creation system built on debt-based, compound-interest money attached to capital. Debt or the fear of it enables our socio-economic system to function automatically through cooperative exploitation and abuse.
Personally I think in today's society control is applied much more subtly yet much more completely. Most of the people in western society either don't realise just how much of their lives are controlled by the state, or accept it, like good little citizens.
there are a few benefits to the system as well though
Yep, very succinct. You have a monopoly on (non)lethal force (which is of course required at the end of the day as your final backstop on having actual real power), and then you control the social networks/groups at the very top of that chain. Design the system to reliably keep those general groups in power (2 party democratic systems, for example), and make sure the important parts of your economy are mostly owned (and will continue to be owned) by the groups you want (decrease the leverage of labour"in being able to act collectively, and increase the importance/power of capital, which is easy to control). This is only going to be exponentially more the case in the future, where AI (another form of capital, basically), has the potential to totally wreck any remainders of economic value that 99% of "labour" has.
workers of the world, unite!
And yet, very curiously, productivity is extremely high.
I appreciate Yuval Noah Harari as a historian and thinker.
The guy is a wolf in sheep clothing, do not be fooled by this guy.
@@JAAB9296 He doesn't look like a wolf. Why do you judge him like this? What are your arguments?
@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Do your own research and learn how to think for yourself.
@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Don't think so. I'm seventy years old, been researching for over thirty years plus. Probably longer than you have been alive, so don't flatter yourself. The reason I'm not going to give examples to you is because you most likely would not understand. Also, you would just argue the examples given to you. I have been down that road countless times with people like you so therefore it would be a waste of my time. As I already wrote, do YOUR OWN research instead of writing silly comments.
@@MendeMaria-ej8bfJust a troll. Don't feed them.
Why don't you give the link to the entire conversation? It is rather annoying to pass through cut out pueces of various discussions in search of the complete videos.
kzhead.info/sun/iLicmM2noHqDY40/bejne.htmlsi=QyvlGOkidolyiZt9
It’s in the description
kzhead.info/sun/iLicmM2noHqDY40/bejne.htmlsi=VxjT_hyeBM-C9XUc
In this clip from our 2015 session ‘The Myths We Need To Survive’, historian Yuval Noah Harari engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Intelligence Squared. Literally the first line of the description.
You watched half of the talk for free, and now demand the other half? You could just buy and read the books of Harari to get the entire story
Thank you Yuval, my teacher! 🙏
I like the way Yuval thinks and uses the knowledge available to us from a deep look at society and our history over centuries. I find many people now days take a position on a topic, without understanding what the history is behind a decision that has become a common understanding, so they struggle to look beyond that decision.
Sadly, it is merely an opinion.
Thanks!
Related question for Harari - how did Israel get its territories in the past (and present)
Yuval has reached his "Use by Date".
The Fed has the asset of public lands in the US as one example...also by fostering a larger GDP over time, they secure a larger tax base which in turn promotes investments in future technological infrastructure.
Lol. What a pipe dream.
The key is that it’s a powerful story. They sometimes live up to it but not necessarily all the time
Yes. And it is largely because the very wealthy (in fact the top 8% of the population) have pretty much come to own the governmental structures and those in it for a very long time. Perhaps for the majority of our country's existence judging by policies and actions taken since roughly the last 150 or so years. This is part of what he means when he suggests that wealth takes generations to create. Wealth is synonymous with power as the two are expressions of each other. Just as in the last three decades the wealthy have effectively cinched the sack over our heads having been slowly weaving the cloth of the sack for generations. Consider also what a generation is. In the modern era a generation is twenty years. If you are twenty-five or even thirty today, how much do you really remember and fully understand about the world or the nation twenty years ago, other than your own personal life itself.@@JAAB9296
This order man over women was set up in the ancient times. And at that times physical strength was very, very important. To fight animals, to build a cottage, to cut trees, to fight in the battle. Today the physical power is not so important, there are other skills, which are much more valuable and in big demand. Also technical skills were very important in the bygone days - building towns, to mak tools, in the army etc. You develop your skills by doing something, practising. What kind of technical skills do you want to develop taking care od 10-15 children all day? Today it is different, but this man/woman order was established in the ancient times and was inherited by generations.
Difficult to imagine a matriarchal empire or queendom commanding a patriarchal military.
Do you watch movies ever? It's basically the same as it's now, but the person ordering others has a different reproductive organ.
@DarkSkay Why so difficult to imagine, just consider, Queen Boudicca, Queen Hatshepsut, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth 1, Nzinga of Ndongo, Isabella 1, Tomoe Gozen, Artemisia of Turkey, Margaret Corbin, Airforce Gen Lori Robinson, Anne Dunwoody, Golda Meir, just to name a few. I could name many more, all real female military leaders from past and fairly contemporary history who led mostly male military combatants.
@@raewynannbenten1385 those are exceptions; the rule is male dominance, over millions of years
@@ireneuszpyc6684 You wrote "a matriarchal " meaning "one". twelve were given. Ergo. it is not so difficult to imagine.
@@MrCyclist biology doesn't care about your imagination; BTW, a third of Africa is ruled by military juntas - when will matriarchy triumph there?
Just to clarify what Harari said about Socialism because some might get the wrong idea. Socialism has been around for millennia as a concept or practice to a small extent. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto because it was commissioned to them by some already existing Socialists in Europe. Their book didn't create the idea of Socialism or Communism. But it was at the right time because the Industrial Revolution enabled capitalism to replace feudalism and when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie. Communism was pitched as the solution for the working class.
Now we have corporate neo-feudalism.
> when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie. This is the content of the unfocused mind, w/no more realism than Santa Claus or unicorns.
What is being described here is politics. Any system regardless of size or placement or gender or color has a form of politics. Politics is the path to power and gains in wealth. The process is enabled or disabled by many things. Physical strength or military power and knowledge of how to use it, access to and availability of resources, available resources of time to learn and prepare and create a plan, access to human capital to provide a more powerful force, ability to operate without constraints, access to a greater knowledge base. A stay at home cave woman with offspring is limited in all areas as with woman today. Men as the primary leaders is not some intrinsic deficit within women. Once the politics shut you out it is difficult to access power and become a political figure in any system. It is played out in exactly this way each and every day in all kinds of in your face situations. Interesting that you do not see it.
The abuse of religion, cults and the use of violence...
The words cult and religion are synonymous.
Christopher Hitchens: Religion is manmade.
@@dianahill5116 That depends... usually a cult refers to a small number of 'believers-followers'. Cults are what most people would call sects.. Religion is larger, it comes from the Latin word 'religare' which means connecting..connecting people together is what religion does. Cults connect few people, are often based on existing religions but have different rituals. Cults can grow out of a religion such as the veneration of holy figures such as the virgin Mary, St Anthony, Padre Pio, etc..in the roman catholic church but I think the Vatican prefers that people remain more Christo centric instead of giving too much attention to holy figures.. So it depends on what you want and consider important I suppose.?
Like the zi 0 nist cult.
@@voncarlowitz3506that is mere semantics and does not invalidate the comment
He referred to humans as "they". Not "us". Interesting.
He's an alien.
@@deeplearningpartnership he's Klaus Schwab's personal advisor, so he can't be human, whether literally or figuratively
I think he referred to the humans in authority
Oooooo, very suspect, i smell an evil conspiracy here! so what's say boys, is he illuminati? which Heeb cabal is he behind? is he even a human, and what is his sexual orientation, i think he might be a perv.
Starting, the speaker is an Israeli
So what? If you ever started listening you would understand that he explains why there is no piece in the middle east and that the separation between Israelis and Palestinians is just another one of the stories of power he talks of. I m so sick of such ignorant comments
Capitalism has turned trust into a vice, and paranoia into a virtue.
That is a smart way to change the narrative for a stupid audience. Consequently, the focus of the discussion shifts from the topic of gender inequality to the merits of the societal hierarchy. The answer to this is in effect quite simple, i.e., testosterone. No need to overwhelm the audience with excessive information.
Where does he talk about any merits of that?
Has he debated Peterson?
Not sure about faith leaders - why else would they be wearing those hats if not for protection.
Down with the Elites :D
He is one of them.
@@JAAB9296 Maybe he is, based on this talk its impossible to know what kind of elite he is. You can tell what kind of elite someone may be by how bothered they become when addressing risks of stability within their home government. The top tier elites are less bothered by the risks to their rights and freedoms declining in their home state because their rights havent been determined by a government for decades if ever. They buy them and others And they can always relocate. In contrast - I would be devastated if my home country's democratic ideals was to decline because my quality of life is no substantially tied to how much privilige I can buy but what someone else decides is fair. I am not an elite. There are multi-layered definitions of what an elite is, so its impossible to determine who is and who isnt on a yt video
@@ryanwporter Well, guess what? I have known of this guy for about 9 years give or take. HE is a very dangerous person and wants (if not is) to be part of the "powers that be" that will absolutely control every aspect of our lives. So be very careful.
Productive or political?
@@TeaParty1776 Both. Think about it.
When you talk but really shout out is really hard to listen.
funny how "look, 300 years ago, my great great great grandfather had a horse, so now you must all obey me - it wouldn't convince anybody" turns into "look, 3000 years ago, my ancestors were promised this land, so now you must all obey me - it's just my right" real easy
GREAT GREAT THOUGHTS ON BRAHMINS IN INDIA.
Hierarchy of men and women is based off the evolution of the ego.
Agreed.
Caste system is best example
Maybe the question is the other way around. Why do we now all of a sudden have trouble explaining a gender hierarchy which has always existed throughout all peoples? What is wrong with us ?
5,000 years ago Abraham had a horse.
In principle yes, but it wasn't horse but a goat and it had only 3 legs 😂
What do you mean?
The Abrahamic Religions, Judaeism in particular, make claim to Palestine because it was once 'owned' by Abraham. The Chinese make a similar claim over Tibet, 'First Nations[ make a similar claim, 'We were here first so it belongs to us'. @@jadonlawrence4909
Non-detected systemic nonsense gives an early advantage to one set of people over the other - and that nonsense is not 'myth', that is indeed the 'myth' because myths are non-apparent truth, not non-apparent nonsense.
Very difficult to avoid prejudice if one is a historian. East India company was accused of cutting off the thumbs of weavers of Muslin in Dacca. Even RK Narayan, the famous novelist gets worked up with this story. There is not a shread of Evidence that East India company did this. Further, it is totally out of character of traders. What will a trader do with thumbs?. British tax eaters (Government )allowed this story to flourish, as they wanted to seize power from East India company. But the thumb story is suspiciously similar to emotive story of Ekalavya in epic Mahabharata Since we now know Jati and Varna are not castes (European caste is defined as state privilege - Mises)but more tribal, we can now say Ekalavya story in Mahabharata was story of tribal reform.. Definition of caste is state privilage. Jati and Varna developed at least 2000 years before Vedas as genetic evidence suggests, it could not be state privilage as state itself was not formed in those times. Formation of state is start of terrorism of tax eaters. British tax eaters propaganda that it was caste , instead of Jati and Varna, may be to divert attention and cover it's own sin of seizing power from East India Company.
what are you yammering on about?
@@thecount1001 He is yammering. He spoke regarding "Caste" in India. He superimposed a western idea of caste (State Privilege) onto something totally different. Typical leftist intellectual carelessness. (For example Marx was careless enough to never talk about how exactly his Socialism/Communism would function. They can be very dangerous. Polpot got educated in such leftist talk in France. 25 % of people were wiped out by him. Therefore I need to respond
@@dr.rangarajc9691 Since you proclaim that Eklavya is fictional - Mahabharata is a work of fiction and Krishna is a fictional character.. If British East India company were just a bunch of traders then why did they have an army.
@@shijurajan6266 You do see private security even today. It must have been extention of that. Notion that only tax eaters are somehow morally superior is behind of tax funded armies. Singapore fell in days to invading Japanese even though British tax eater (Government)had a fort. Their reason was they had no water. Strange..Why didn't they store water?! With East India Company in charge , would such a thing be conceivable? Taxes fell to 1/10 as compared to Mughal rule, as measured by objective ratio of total taxes to total agricultural revenue. That shows superior efficiency.
Yuval, like many males thinks there is one primary reason for the prevalence of women’s inequality across cultures. His reason, that women don’t have the ability to negotiate large, impersonal systems and only have superior social skills in small communities is absurd. The widespread availability of birth control (which in my lifetime was illegal for unmarried women) is the reason women have been able to seriously commit to professional careers. Unfortunately this happened after males were entrenched in the political power hierarchy. Women, now, are out performing men in college degrees. Women are almost equal in number in medicine and law. They will be equal in number in politics in my daughter’s lifetime. Men are, unfortunately, now falling behind, socially and academically as they have lost the unconditional support of women.
Have you actually listened what he said before starting on your ideologie? And he clearly says that it's a Theorie that isn't yet backed by enough data while he explains why reproduction is an too easy explanation. He also makes the point that cooperating better in large societies isn't necessarily something good as it involves inventing stories that are harmful to many
He didn't have a good answer, and he admitted that. He debunked a few and gave a tepid hypothesis, but said there isn't strong evidence for the idea. Pre-agricultural societies were / are more egalitarian and less hierarchical. Compared to other apes, homo species have less sexual dimorphism, meaning men and women are not as different in size. Humans depended on technologies like cooking and weapons like spears and arrows, etc. If someone was a bully, the others could leave or kill the bully, or drive the bully out. Several modern hunter-gatherer groups today are said to be fiercely egalitarian. And anthropologists generally believe that was the norm of society before agriculture and herding. But sometimes groups of mostly men get together to form temporary hunting parties. If human societies grow larger, or become more attached to a herd of animals or crops, the hunting parties become war parties. If this goes on long enough, the war parties becomes a warrior society. Warrior societies became more patriarchal when the men started to control the resources and the warriors. They started to make rules that were hierarchical and patriarchal. Which they also enforced with marriage customs and violence. An example of marriage custom would be the practice of sending the women out of the tribe to marry a man in another tribe. So the women are more isolated from each other while the men are more deeply bonded.
@@AWildBard what you describe is only true for chimpanzees but not for Bonobos. I recommend the works of Robert Sapolski on that topic. And the idea that men are more willing to accept a hirachie based on a shared belief is pretty good IMHO. In a lot of agricultural cultures women do most of the work on the fields despite having children. And culture develops strongly different depending on if humans are Nomads with heads or farmers. There isn't any easy explanation why only in small societies we have examples of matriarchy
@@thomasburkhart5078 If he’s speculating, why not include more plausible theories?
Doesn't take generations to build wealth. I from a childhood of duch poverty, that out family ly of 8 lived in 400 sq ft, and i remember not having enough to eat. My daughter whose in-laws came from poverty also. Now my grandchildren are in private school where the fees are more than double my retirement income. We educated our daughter and she married a good ambitious man. Our other daughter is similarly situated. So this is a bit hard for me to agree...as much as i love Yuval.
It may very well be that he is speaking of wealth that exceeds your idea of it. Being upper middle class or even in the top 15 percentile of wealth is not what he is talking about. But remember something we learn in statistics 101. You cannot use personal experience, or the existence of exceptions to either prove a statistical average false, or even place doubt on it. Because if anything, what we know as exceptions (especially the ridiculous practice so many try to use to disprove averages as personal anecdotes) is that they're exceptions. They're the little, small areas of a bell curve chart on each end. Where the numbers descend almost to zero. Of which there are far far few of within the bell itself.
So, because women have to "feel" trust more in relationships, i.e., for help with own children, they are not so susceptible to "superficial" relationships, which are conversely necessary for career advancements, as historically men have...?
Put it differently. Men are more willing to accept a hirachie without questioning it
2:18 _“In your book you show that so many cultures -geographically spread around the world, temporally spread across history - have prioritized men over women and you struggle to offer - as everyone does - a convincing explanation for why that is…”_ -Maybe because that isn’t actually the case. Shout out to Occam's razor!
Yeah, women control from behind the scene - ask a married man. Thats why in social/Military conflicts, there exist no such thing as 'innocent' Women: stalin, the Mullahs, taliban, obn, jdb they all had a mother who was the crucial reference during their upbringing. Dont fool yourself.
Show one example that this is false
@@thomasburkhart5078 I suppose the argument could be more clear as to what is meant by _“…prioritized men over women.”_ One assumes this follows the feminist concept of so-called “patriarchy theory” - the idea that men as a group benefit at the expense of women as a group - however, if what is meant includes how men are “prioritized” to die in wars so that women may benefit from male sacrifice it isn’t so clear.
@@TheParadox_ I would argue that men don't sacrifice in wars but fall victim to the ability to be more willing to accept hirachie based on some stories. The same ability that kept men in power over centuries
@@thomasburkhart5078 "nen?" "hirachie?"
What about the black slave owners who justified their black plantation slaves?
Colonization, massacre, and slavery: I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. -- Winston Churchill 1937.
I think male leadership is based on economics not parenting.
Good social skills will get you far, but force always wins. Men are the enforcers. It's not that complicated.
Ok, then why are Bonobos matriarchal? The males could enforce patriarchy there too, but they don't. Same with other higher mammals, e.g. orcas, elephants…
@@vauchomarx6733 Yes, we should live like Bonobos. You go first.
@@_uncredited But you just dodged the question, why isn't force winning in Bonobos' society? Red herring doesn't count as argument.
@@zxbc1My comments keep getting deleted. I'll try again.... Bonobos live in small pods. As the other commenter said, the males COULD take over, but they don't. It's rule by consent and matriarchy is an easy way of describing that ('female dominant' is the correct term, but some primatologists are guilty of calling it a matriarchy becayuse it sells books and publishes papers). It's worth remembering that not all bonobo groups operate this way. Some rule jointly, some are male dominated. Modern humans COULD live in tiny groups - but we don't. At scale, enforcement is needed and that's a boy's job. Some creatures DO have female enforcers (several spiders, etc.) and males are often rendered insignificant. That doesn't make it better though. Unless you want to be somebody's lunch? Anthropomorphising nature is useful to compare and contrast different kinds of behaviours, biologies and chemistries. It's not for mimicry. You wouldn't suggest that a cat should live like a frog. Saying "bonobos do it" is as meaningless as saying "why aren't we wasps?"
@@zxbc1 It would appear this 'intelligent' channel has deleted my responses. Sorry.
It has been determined that there are many kinds of intelligence. We used to measure a successful valuable person by their IQ as the only kind of intelligence. I wanted to know how your theories fit that model. I was alarmed that you would designate people as a useless group who are not employed. As AI takes a hold on the economy, referring to those who lose their job due to automation now according to you are placed in the 'useless' category. I find your designations of many groups of people de-valuing and dishonest. You leave out details that create a bigger picture. You are an eloquent speaker and very good at creating what looks like Think Tank propaganda. Do you Think Tank for a living?
You don't get that he doesn't mean useless as his point of view but that of the system we are creating
WOW! Is he a genius or what? If he would lose that accent, I could listen to him talk all day!
Or you could perhaps, just maybe, out of shear respect, learn his native language. Not everyone had to bow down and learn English just to reach you.
Strange that you struggle with this.
Men can cooperate in large groups for long periods of time, women cannot.
There is a theory - impossible to prove empirically - that male dominate fiemale because of the risk taking. It is a longer and more complicated explanation but ... risk pays for men and not so much for women ... biologically - hence ... social consequences
What does it even mean - "risk pays for men and not for women"? What kind of risk? in what areas? pays in what way? I've read that risk taking differs between genders. The article I read maintained that people tend to take more risks in areas where they feel they have good skills. Women perceive themselves to have good social skills, so they are more likely to take risks in that area. Men are more likely to risk their lives physically or to take financial risks.
I suggest him to study Sanatana Dharma deeply at the philosophical level.
It is likely that you have no clue to what Indian philosophy is all about! Here he is talking about Indian mythology!
Jai shri ram. Modi hay to mumkin hay.
He refers to great civilisations of the past and says throughout history none have been matriarchal; but given the fact that most great civilisations we know of today are founded on looting, conquest and subduing neighbours, I would really question the validity of this approach. Perhaps no civilisations have been female-driven because women aren't interested in looting, conquest and affirming their ego by saying "I have burned cities to the ground, I pillaged, I took goats, and cows, and slaves, I made a pile of dead bodies", the way so many rulers have throughout history.
Its testosterone. Makes males more aggressive and persistent.
Madari
He has no idea what he is talking about. His views on the caste system are so coarse that it is meaningless.
I hope indian upper caste watching this …
Anthropology 101 -- The reason that men now dominate women and the world is actually pretty obvious...perhaps too obvious to be recognized like the proverbial "elephant in the room". I'm not going to tell you because may write a book about it someday so you'll just have to figure it out on your own. This I recommend because I tend to be a procrastinator.
🤣🤣🤣
hosting proponents of scinegue (spelt backwards) yes very intelligent
Peace cannot be through ignorance or deception, it cannot be forced, enforced or legislated only war can.
Living in peace requires an understanding of how to do so.
The economic, political and legal system is globalised, our species lives under rule, we are denied peaceful existence and that is not consensual.
The men in charge of The Estates and deceptively named Law Society and anyone enabling them are in violation of The Law.
They can never win the war against The Law as The Law never changes however their actions and policies have to in order for them to maintain an eternally losing battle.
Testosteron !!! Men are more driven, competitive and hungry by nature.
The guy is clueless . The stories are used to justify the social hierarchy but not to create the hierarchy. Debt is used to create the hierarchy and then we use stories to justify the oppression. Stories are also used to break free form the oppression . The story of Jesus is the most powerful story to break the captives free . Martin Luther King Jr used it to free the blacks , Mahatma Gandhi used a similar story to liberate India without the use of violence . The story of Jews is the worst because it perpetuates oppression without hope for oppressed . Could explain why Jews are one of the most persecuted people in history
Why do you think Christianity would help "to break the captives free"? It is the clergy that legitimizes the monarchs with their idea of 'divine birthright', with their claim to be the rightful representatives of the God(s). The alliance between clergy and aristocracy was nearly unsurmountable, imposed strict authority over life and afterlife, consolidated serfdom for centuries. Nietzsche goes even farther, characterizing Christianity as a "Sklavenmoral", which can be translated as "morality for slaves". In some countries simply owning a bible can get somebody into prison - in those places it's an act of resistance, yes. But in general the transformative political potential of the book, which praises sheep quite a lot, appears limited. Also, monotheism is usually preferred by raison d'état. Not least for the practical reason that after conquest and burying old local Gods, only one temple has to be erected in the city center, to signal who has the ultimate say now.
Another poppet of the cabal 👿
Zapłacicie za depopulację naczelnego.
The Indian invasion theory and the caste examples are based on poor evidence..
Harari does not know much about the Hindu jati system wrongly characterised as caste by British-Europeans. Stunning ignorance
On the matriarchy issue he kind of answers his own question on the outset. To most people it would seem evident that men are politically dominant because they are physically stronger. I'm not saying that's right and his examples of how that is ridiculous are elucidating, but until that association is no longer engrained in a populace, they are going to vote men into leadership positions based on this gut feeling bias. It's a pity for us though as women imo tend to reason better for the overall wellbeing of a group.
. Go read the history books before speak
You are telling this to one of the most renoun historians?
he never talks about private property but wants u too talk about religious inequality smart way to deviate from class inequality
I'm favoured financially, Thank you Jesus $32,000 weekly profit regardless of how bad it gets on the economy.
Same here, with my current portfolio made from my investments with my personal financial advisor I totally agree with you
Elizabeth Ann has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in the UK as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
Life is easier when the cash keeps popping in, thanks to Elizabeth Ann graney services. Glad she's getting the recognition she deserves
I use to work 3 jobs, full time at Walmart, a server at night and Lyft on the weekend, untill Elizabeth Ann graney change my story.
How do I start?
The fellow knows nothing about India and its scriptures , he quotes the same leftist BS that is all over
A perfect example of pseudo-intellectual.
yeah, what the heck would he know anyways? who does he think he is?!!
Lost all credibility during Covid.
An Athiest posing like a modern day Prophet... lol the irony