this book has completely changed the way i feel about history as a practice
even if most of the stuff he argues for in the book is bunk, there are so many clear examples of historians being wrong and purposefully using false data just because they don't want to revise their opinions or do new research that it totally puts into question trusting any mainstream historian on matters of ancient history
we're only now getting decent enough technology to look back deep into the past yet these gays still act like know-it-alls about the past even as they concede that very few things would've been preserved in terms of cultural importance
shame that hanwiener ruined his reputation with all the alien shit, because this is 100% worth a read by anyone with an interest in history
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>shame that hanwiener ruined his reputation with all the alien shit
Reckon you've got a ways to go anon, you're getting there though.
>just because they don't want to revise their opinions or do new research
homie that's literally all historians do
>into the past yet these gays still act like know-it-alls about the past even as they concede that very few things would've been preserved in terms of cultural importance
The majority of research into ancient history is acknowledged as being extremely lacking in artefacts. It's the fricking norm.
You are scared shitless of historians as a boogeyman for 'things I don't like' which the majority of historians don't practice.
you are delusional
if you were talking about anthropologists i would accept what you were saying, since they're very open minded about the past, but historians, especially ones that aren't trained in anything pre-modern basically think of everyone before the 1500s as moronic savages, and the very notion that there would be a complex civilization 10.000 years ago goes so against their linear view of history that they reject it out of hand without any evidence whatever
>especially ones that aren't trained in anything pre-modern basically think of everyone before the 1500s as moronic savages
Most historians only deal with their own periods. They are likely as informed about other periods as any moron down the street
>at there would be a complex civilization 10.000 years ago goes so against their linear view of history that they reject it out of hand without any evidence whatever
Nobody does this
Nobody does this
>Nobody does this
waste of quads on a doofus like you
Post a single example of this happening in the last 20 years
Zahi Hawass does it all the fricking time, with Hanwiener and Bauval, refusing to debate with anyone that mentions Bauval
are you joking right now? like literally any statue or figure they find at any point they assign religious importance to because that's how their brains work
>uhhh, idk lol, they were ancient people, and i'm a strong rational godless man, and they were dumb, so i guess everything around them was just religious fetishes
what is their evidence for example that the fertility goddess was a fertility goddess in the first place?
i'll tell you what, FRICKING NOTHING
for all they know it could've been jerk off material or a toy, but they assume that's not the case because they think that ancient people were dumb and superstitious and they project upon them the same disdain they have for religious people today
>the very notion that there would be a complex civilization 10.000 years ago goes so against their linear view of history that they reject it out of hand without any evidence whatever
I'm a commercial archaeologist by trade
I've been involved in numerous digs across the country, and every year in Britain there are hundreds of excavations which strip away overburden down to pre-glacial natural strata. Mesolithic and even late Palaeolithic flints are not uncommon finds, though it's rare to find cut features before the Neolithic.
If there were an 'advanced civilisation' in the early Mesolithic we'd have absolutely found it
>If there were an 'advanced civilisation' in the early Mesolithic we'd have absolutely found it
by advanced i am talking culturally, not fricking atlantis, anon
What do you mean by culturally advanced? I'm not talking about Atlantis, I'm talking about agrarianism, pottery etc
not him but if he's using Hanwiener's definition, it would be a society with knowledge of agriculture, stonework, architecture and astronomy.
since when does agrarianism mean civilization? you realize that there are countless tribes that we know rejected agrarian settlements even when we know for a fact they were aware of it because of were they were situated? which means that they realized the agrarian way of life really just led to slavery and misery and made an active decision not to go down that path until it became inevitable and they were overwhelmed by the slave states that were built up by agrarianism
but this exactly my problem, people like you are so backwards, so stuck in your mentality of fricking 19th century theories that you have no way of leaving this closed circle you've been brought up in, i might as well be talking to some orthodox leninist in how strictly you adhere to your ideas about history, you simply reject anything that doesn't fit your pre-established mould
>heh, they weren't agrarian? then they weren't civilized, were they?
I still don't know what you're actually advocating.
You're suggesting that there was an advanced culture in the Mesolithic, but aren't expanding on what exactly you think they were advanced in and what, in your opinion, differs from 'mainstream' archaeology.
My personal input, based on several years of actual experience both digging and managing exavations+conducting research, is that Hanwiener et al's arguments are extremely hard to square with the vast body of archaeological evidence and show a poor understanding of geology.
If these 'advanced' societies were post-glacial, their remains would be above the vast majority of superficial geology in the country. Even deposits like gravel terraces in the south of England are of Pleistocene date or earlier. Bear in mind that we find Mesolithic features and artefacts in these strata, I've found several microliths myself. And everything we find in the UK is indeed publicly accessible, you can email county records offices and get GIS data+a written summary of every find and archaeological excavation wherever you want, for a relatively notional charge or even for free if you let them know it's for personal research. Nobody is trying to hide or obscure anything.
Also, even if you argue they were pre-glacial, there are huge swathes of land where there is no superficial geology. There are miles and miles just north of where I live where if you stick a spade in the ground you will hit solid bedrock.
There is absolutely no reason we wouldn't know about any such advanced society in the Mesolithic or Palaeolithic.
you don't know what you don't know, this is problem with historians
i'm not talking about hanwiener's theories specifically, the guy is a crackpot that believes in ancient aliens
what i am saying is that it's highly likely that there were tribes and societies 10k years ago that were nothing like the image of the superstitious animal tier depiction most historians like to give of that time
furthermore, i take an issue with this entire idea that you have a linear progression in technology and human organization that mirrors a fricking civ game and that all progress is desirable
agragrian settlement was undesired and beneficial only to a very small class of people, for example, yet mainstream historians depict this as some great leap forward that's a sign of civilization
it isn't so much about hiding or obscuring findings, it's about the prevailing attitude in the west (and probably the whole world) that still follows strict guidelines of how to classify human societies and civilizations based on extremely tentative theories from almost two centuries ago
read graeber's dawn of everything, even if you disagree with the politics it's still a good entry into what we're talking about
yeah this is pretty much it. Gobleki Tepe and human sites found 20k+BC BTFO nearly everything we "know" about pre-history peoples.
yes, there was civilization 5,000 years before Egypt. Yes, there were human settlements with pottery 10,000 years before the landbridge between alaska and russia existed. No, we did not all come from Africa.
Nobody has peddled the linear/technological diffusion theory for about 60 years.
Again, I'm not really sure what you're arguing. If you mean technologically advanced there isn't evidence for it, as in use of pottery, metal and other materials.
If you mean culturally advanced with complex societies and belief systems, most archaeologists would agree with you. Nobody thinks the Mesolithic was inhabited by unga bunga tier cavemen
>Nobody thinks the Mesolithic was inhabited by unga bunga tier cavemen
Literally 90% of the posts on IQfy talk about history like it's some video game with different "cultures" progressing through technological milestones. The view of linear history is endemic to the way the West thinks about itself.
I think he's talking about academic historians not video game/youtube/stormgayinfographic/wikipedia/whatever IQfytorians
what's the difference there? it's the job of academic historians to spread these views via osmosis, so the fact that 99% of people still think of it in a linear fashion means they aren't doing their fricking job, either because they are purposefully misleading or don't actually believe what you're saying themselves
and i have a feeling that if i asked you to name some academics you'd name like 2-3 progressive guys from highbrow universities when the truth is that almost every other normie historian that doesn't work in this field ABSOLUTELY believes it
this taxonomy is a part of western imperialism and it's well alive to this day and colors how we even think about people from other countries, never mind some homies from 10k years ago
Francis Pryor
Barry Cunliffe
Colin Renfrew
None of the above are from 'highbrow' universities
Mike Parker Pearson
this still doesn't substantively address what i said
outside of people that are specialized in these areas, most historians, and definitely most people IN GENERAL absolutely believe the linear view of history
if you ask them whether hunter-gatherers or farmers were more developed as a society, the instinctual answer is going to be farmers, this is what we're taught from when we're young and what we apply even to geopolitics today
Yeah, the Rostow model of development still applies to the ways that this kind of thinking informs INGOs and "third world" economies
>if you ask them whether hunter-gatherers or farmers were more developed as a society, the instinctual answer is going to be farmers
That wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Hunter-gatherer based societies struggle to maintain coherent social groups larger than a few dozen or so (Chagnon estimated about 50).
I think that's a bit of a loaded point though, because most 'hunter gatherers' in Europe and the Levant in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene were more like pastoralists with a side hustle in hunting and gathering. There's some evidence that this included limited agricultural exploitation of some types of seed crop, though not at an organised level.
You are correct in that the adoption of farming was not a linear process, nor was it inherently better than other ways of living. Farming did however allow for the support of larger populations and required a more rigid social hierarchy, which is what most would consider to be 'social complexity'. Certainly the first true settlements, such as Catalhoyuk, could not have come about without agriculture.
>rigid social hierarchy, which is what most would consider to be 'social complexity'.
this is the thing though. You're conflating hierarchy with complexity. The point that Graeber and Wengrow make is that societies can be incredibly complex without rigid hierarchies.
Even the missionaries to American knew this, and wrote massive volumes about the complex and intellectual lives of the Americans they met and debated with
i would reply but
anon already covered it
and not only does graeber argue that farming did not necessarily make certain societies superior, but he looks for examples of people that intentionally did not pick up agricultural practices despite having knowledge of them because they realized it would ultimately lead to some kind of enslavement in a rigid system with a defined ruler
there's a bit in Scott's The Art of Not being Governed where he talks about upland societies who planted potatoes in random places as opposed to the valley societies who planted rice, which could be easily taxed because it was in a dividable field.
Everyone forgets the Dutch abolished democracy in favor of Monarchy.
Humans have been getting weaker and making up for it in numbers and specialization. They are in decline but don’t imagine it to be so because their crutches are made of gold.
literally, we are, mostly because of all this poison we put in our bodies
we're really close to reaching a stage where a lot of people will be functionally infertile, it's so insane that nobody even cares about that at all lol
People really did Cunliffe dirty. He is somewhat correct that the earliest form of Celtic culture is found in Ireland.
It’s just that Ireland was left behind by other proto-Celts.
People think Cunliffe is crazy even though in his initial starting position, he isn’t wrong.
>Oldest “Celts” are in Ireland
>Celtic culture itself did not come from the East to the West
>Proto-Celtic people living along the Atlantic expanded Eastward
These are all true as per the most current archeogenetic data.
I think the sad fact of life is just that the number of people interested in serious academic history is very limited (like with the sciences or most of anything else really). Basic education seems generally dominated by trying to imprint narratives large parts of which might go back to the 19th century if not earlier in the interest of nation and myth building and moralising. Compared to the hard sciences history can be dramatic and more directly relevant to how people view economics, politics and the society around them and in turn becomes a tool for people to advance their views on those subjects. The entertainment industry thrives on presenting people with the simple, comfortable and familiar (maybe with the exception of when it goes into the absurd and fantastical - like ancient aliens) rather than challenging people with complex and ever-changing historical understanding. History in the popular imagination seems mostly out of the hands of academics.
yup, the whole system is intended to brainwash people
i can tell you i hail from an eastern european country, and everything here in history class comes down to
>TURKEY BAD
>TURKEY BAD
>TURKEY BAD
actually start reading the history and you quickly realize most of these boyars and feudal rulers were infinitely worse and the turks were legit the good guys when they first arrived, and orthodoxy probably wouldn't have survived without them since catholics wanted to use the weakness of byzantium to submerge orthodoxy under catholicism
it was only later after the turks solidified their control and degenerated that they became the bad guys, hundreds of years later
they just want you dumb and numb
Despite the fact this thread has Hanwiener in the title, it's probably one of the better ones on IQfy I wonder if there's enough posters here to start a serious historians general?
>implying the janies won't delete it
i'm surprised this thread isn't delete already, we aren't talking about hitler, israelites, or stalin, we've already broken the rules
>If these 'advanced' societies were post-glacial
they weren't. That's the entire point. Global flood from a meteor impact melted all the glaciers in the northern hemisphere at once wiping them all out.
>t. never stepped foot in a university
Kek I asked my friend who is an academic historian about Hanwiener's claim that pre-modern societies had megastructures aligned to true north and he genuinely responded with "dass rayciss"
If universities aren't totally moronic how come everyone I know with a PhD went from being a somewhat bright spark with a slight tendency towards obedience to a complete moron unable to discuss even their own area of "expertise" without defaulting to irrelevant globohomosexual mindvirus aphorisms?
>Joe Rogan/Alex Jones meme
Checks out
>find statue i don't know the meaning of at all
>rather than look stupid, i just say it's the 983217th goddess of fertility because she has big breasts
WOAAAH, so this is the power of a PhD...
I had a historian tell me it’s the most conservative field by nature because a minor detail can collapse a whole narrative require lifetimes of labor to make a new one which is even half as coherent that accounts for all the information.
I read it too. It changed my worldview a lot. It offers some very interesting hypothesis on a lot of things including the great flood and pre-mesopotamian civilizations. However i have seen a lot of YouTube historians debunking some of his stuff. I think what Hanwiener offers is at least the possibility that we are wrong about current theories. He certainly has very appealing and exciting ideas but most of them are still at the "conjecture" stage. Its "pop archeology" although that doesnt mean it doesnt have value but we should be cautious.
Same. I was really him but then started following him on social media and the amount of fake or extremely misleading 'findings' he shared kinda put me off.
Hanwiener is just regurgitating West's ideas
Okay so when we're stacking up people by their value to the study of history, on top you have the good historians with evidence on their side, then the bad historians that Graham Hanwiener doesn't like, then people with absolutely no evidence to support their theories at all, such as Graham Hanwiener.
He's too dumb to understand the work, and you're too dumb to understand that.
no evidence apart from the ever increasing age of monuments and geographic sites that indicate knowledge of things that historians tell us hunter-gatherers couldn't possibly know or have the organisation or man-power to construct
>ever increasing age of monuments
No, that's stupid, periodically finding slightly older stuff than before and learning slightly more things about ancient people is a perfectly expected result of mainstream archaeology. Assigning ancient people powers BEFORE locating and analyzing their shit - the Graham Hanwiener method - is moronic and wrong.
>historians tell us hunter-gatherers couldn't possibly know or have the organisation or man-power to construct
This is because they don't say shit that they don't have evidence for, dumbass. Again, the opposite of the GH approach.
>how deranged and insecure mainstream historians are
This is literally every field of science at all times and it hasn't prevented us from building a reasonably accurate model of the universe around us and conducting repeatable experiments based on that model. At all.
>This is because they don't say shit that they don't have evidence for, dumbass.
yet they refuse to entertain theories that dare infer that some groups of early humans weren't hunter gatherers and actually had knowledge of agriculture and the ability to construct astronomically aligned structures, modern history is in denial (and the israeli pocket) just like you
I'm sorry man I didn't realize how much of a fat kid you are
Yeah let it rip man israelites and stuff fricking awesome. Treat yourself to a snack or something on me.
nice deflection bro defend historians some more when you know they're just protecting themselves
>whining about antisemitism
>immediately goes to fatphobia
i know more nice fatties than israelites m8
>rejects israeli shit
>except the israeli shit that pushes obesity as beautiful and healthy
Sorry about your weight.
You're a fattie. Deal with it (I am, we can make it bros)
is obviously a fattie and a israelite projecting
cringe
>yet they refuse to entertain theories that dare infer that some groups of early humans weren't hunter gatherers and actually had knowledge of agriculture
Where are the ditches? Where are the ecofacts? Why don't we have the evidence of domesticate seeds?
You can see very clearly in the archaeological record where plants begin to be domesticated, because elements of their morphology are selected for by the process of harvesting (e.g they develop a more robust rachis).
historians have told us that the absence of proof isn't proof yet are more than happy to use this as the basis for their arguments in favour of denying grants and access to archeological findings
>grants
>access
Bro, it's professional archaeology, research grants and historians have nothing to do with it.
By law in the UK archaeological excavations have to be funded by developers/extraction companies when they apply for permission to quarry or build on the land.
Findings are made publicly accessible.
You can say absence of evidence != evidence of absence all you like. But we do have a growing body of artefactual and geoarchaeological evidence for these time periods, and it's not anything like Hanwiener argues.
>This is because they don't say shit that they don't have evidence for, dumbass. Again, the opposite of the GH approach.
except that they actively deny stuff and treat ancient peoples like they were morons that couldn't have known x or y
they let their bias come into their every opinion
if they said, i don't know, but it's possible, it would be one thing, instead they're authoritative c**ts that just say
>NOOO THAT COULDN'T HAPPENED, LET ME TELL YOU HOW IT REALLY WAS
No, they don’t say this based on whether it discredits a lifetime of canon.
They slandered and discredited people for suggesting the Azores were inhabited prior to the Spaniards and Portuguese. People had their careers ruined over theoreticals which intuitively made sense due to the evidence and then they turned out to be correct.
Historians are not in search of evidence or truth. They simply aren’t. Some are honest about it. Many are not. Historians tell stories, that’s it, true or false they tell stories.
The more work is put into a story the more it’s guarded.
>but da evidence
Artifacts do not actually talk and ancient accounts are as reliable as modern ones.
Historians are telling stories. It should be a field which more malleable than it currently is and should seek the best explanation even if it means the boomer israelites who formed the corpus of History in the 70s have their books placed in the fiction section.
This is really easy to understand if you come outside of America, because the further you go from the Anglo, the more you see history as naked mythmaking with very little basis in reality. That's why these frickers in the Balkans have been slaughtering each other for centuries, calling out each other on lying, when probably most of what every side has is just empty bullshit.
Anglos on the other hand, like that guy you're responding to, are genuinely convinced that history is just some discipline that deals with the past and that everyone pursuing it is super honest and that there are no interests being promoted in it at all. They've done a really good job of incorporating archeology and all these disciplines to give their bullshit an undeserved veneer of legitimacy.
It's amazing that they don't believe this. We have an academia that somehow has money to give to trannies to write papers that nobody reads on the most obscure shit imaginable, and yet you can't even find a modern biography on somebody like Cao Cao, who is arguably one of the most important figures in history. I won't even mention lesser known figures from other cultures. They would sooner pay to have some garbage like the "The Nitzschean Influence on 1980s San Franciscan Queer Theatre Community" before they even consider bringing the history of other countries into the mainstream.
I was actually recently checking the Yale reading section for Indian history because some friend asked me what they should read and I didn't know, and the fricking garbage they had on there for undergrad students is incredible. There isn't even an attempt at studying other countries immanently from their perspective, they just want to give you a brainwashed perspective through the lens of Western imperialism.
I think it’s because Westerners since Christianity imagine works of the past as canonized and their age gives them legitimacy, especially if it “makes sense” as in it doesn’t offend their sensibility.
>then people with absolutely no evidence to support their theories at all
who cares about whether or not his theories are supported? the OP even stated this isn't about his theories, the point is that he's done a good job in exposing how deranged and insecure mainstream historians are
This is available 4 free on YouTube as an audiobook.I started to listen to it but had to put it down for a bit. Is it worth the full read? First few chapters really seem to straddle the line between outside thinking and crackpot bs.
bottom line is that if you believe that the great pyramid was built entirely in the reign of Khufu then you believe that one 10 ton stone was laid every 5 minutes for 22 years straight without a single break. And this isn't even covering the fact that the Giza Plateau is a gargantuan perfectly level manmade structure itself. It means you are a fricking moron. Every Egyptologist is a fricking moron.
do the math
>Its estimated 2.3 million stone blocks each weigh an average of 2.5 to 15 tons
>Khufu reigned from 2590 BC to 2568 BC (22 years)
>22 years in minutes is 11,560,000 minutes
>dividing 2.3 million stones by 11.56 million minutes gives you ~.20 stones per minute, or one stone every 5 minutes
If I were emperor of the earth I would interview every historian and Egyptologist one by one. I would ask them if they believed in this timeline; every one who does would be lobotomized. We would have a lobotomized historian petting zoo that would be a lesson to all current and future generations that even the most well educated and intelligent people can be fooled into believing the emperor is wearing clothes. I would then give Robert Schock, Graham Hanwiener, and Randall Carlson executive authority over all archeological matters across the globe, prioritizing Egypt, China, and the Amazon.
I remember reading the claim that the inner core of the pyramids are actually filled with an ancient type of concrete, which would have greatly sped up the building process.
no the core is made of roughly graven stones
it's the outer and inner casing blocks that are reconstituted limestone cement, that makes the top section entirely artificial
>if you believe that the great pyramid was built entirely in the reign of Khufu then you believe that one 10 ton stone was laid every 5 minutes for 22 years straight without a single break.
um, anon
they could have been moving more than one stone at the same time somewhere else
that doesn't contradict the point at all. So let's say they were able to have enough crew to lay down 4 stones at a time. That still doesn't put the project into any kind of reasonable time frame for completion, especially considering all the stones would have to be cut and quarried fast enough to be laid without interruption. Instead of one stone every 5 minutes you're now down to 4 stones every 5 minutes but now you don't have to work all night and just have 6 hours of stone laying with the other 6 potential work hours taken up by other labor and planning. It just literally is not possible for it to have been done in the reign of one pharoah. If you believe that it was you are incapable of critical thinking.
i honestly think we should get these frickers to resolve their most workable theory and then round up a few million of our worst convicts and put them to work on this shit
let's see if it's really doable or not
I also unironically support forced labor.
>our infrastructure is going to shit
>wtf we have so many convicts?
>???
>no we can't make the convicts work
jesus fricking christ liberals are literally going to destroy humanity.
what makes you think they'd get anything done? they're already in jail
>the most advanced and complex civilisation for thousands of years couldn't stack rocks that don't fall down
>why?
>BECAUSE THEY HECKIN COULDN'T OK
>"There was a super-mega-giga advanced super society that existed before the ice age, but even thought they were super advanced they didin't leave any evidence of their existence behind. But i am in the know! I know the secret truth that everybody else has missed or are hiding because they are EVIL!"
Do people like this just want to feel smug that they are 'in the know' about some supposed secret?
What would be left of us if our civilization got completely wiped out and there wouldn't be anybody even close to our level for thousands of years?
An incredibly distinctive layer of soil containing massive amounts of metals, plastics and radioactive materials, with a clearly unnatural distribution.
Nobody ever said that the ancient civilisations had plastics and radioactive materials. Advanced civilisations just means they weren't as dumb and primitive as we think.
So what about metal, pottery, structures etc? Use of certain materials by humans (lead, for example) causes elevated atmospheric levels of that element, which can be observed in core sampling.
Large singular events leave substantial strata behind as well. If there were say a Bronze-Age level human civilisation existing during the Pleistocene, we would expect to find artefacts and ecofacts within till deposits and other superficial layers.
You seem to think archaeological findings are some sort of random phenomenon or happenstance, which they absolutely are not. Preservation processes and stratigraphy are well understood sciences, and have been for a long time.
>bro why isn't there pottery lying everywhere in the middle of a jungle after 10 000 years?
you're a midwit
lets say pottery wouldn't survive in the jungle for 10,000 years, despite the findings of 20,000 year old pottery in China https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1218643
what about metal and structures? what about changes in the atmosphere that can be observed in core sampling?
Palaeolithic flints get found in gravel terraces quite often.
have you read Hanwiener? if you have, please give us Hanwieners definition of an "advanced civilization". I do not bother asking op because he is too stupid.
i have no idea what that book is and im not familiar with any of hanwieners other works but based of the mysticism vibe im getting here im going to assume that you are a neonazi zoomer with a very tenuous grasp of reality
it's not my job to educate you
nor did i ask you to
blow me
i listened to his DMT experience on joe rogan and the guy said he literally talked to a demon
you should read this one too Op, it has the added bonus of being written by actual historians too.
Similarly will change your worldview about "primitive" societies
yes i mentioned it above in a post too, it's a great read
graeber might've been a dumb anarchkiddie, but he was a great anthropologist
This is the worst board on IQfy and all of you are examples of it, 4/5 of the catalog is. The only difference here is that it's about the alien book.
Field archeologist blogging on YouTube just uploaded a video on Hanwiener, might want to look at it.
based
Most of Graham Hanwiener's ideas are deboonked and the few that are not don't substantiate his claims, they are along the lines of "we don't really know who built gobekli tepe". Graham Hanwiener has made millions from events and tours and his followers just keep on handing him their money, most of the people shilling him here have spent $1000s I imagine.
It is one thing to be open minded and scrutinize mainstream history, but Graham Hanwiener's ideas have been published and memed across the internet ad nauseum yet the CIA illuminati hasn't shut it down yet and its critics are just random history majors who feel compelled to say "wait, that's wrong". I think it is time to divert attention to other alternative history, if you actually care about that kind of thing. Better than being scammed.
what is some other alternative history or other schizos
i just love crazy theories
Phantom time is a good one if you like deranged vatnik ramblings
Queen – A colony will have only one queen. When a queen is chosen from the hive she will only be fed royal jelly. Once she has grown to full adulthood, she governs a hive by the release of her pheromones.
Class morphology is the true redpill.
can you post this on Leftypol? I'm interested to see the responses