So how do people who disagree with this book explain the historical supremacy of European people?

>So how do people who disagree with this book explain the historical supremacy of European people?

Lots of competing polities in a very small geographical area led to fierce competition and innovation as they sought hegemony and facilitated the spread of technology and innovative ideology.

>Did Europeans evolve a higher IQ by pure luck?

That's the most retarded sentence I've ever read on this website.

>the historical supremacy of European people?
history didn't start with columbus discovering america
also, more like western european people
>IQ
lul

>history didn't start with columbus discovering america
we all know that, but how do you explain european dominance?

>Lots of competing polities in a very small geographical area
But why did it happen in the second half of first millenia? And why not in another region with many competing powers, like india or middle east?

>every single battle Spaniards fought without Aztec """auxiliary""" troops was lost

>we all know that, but how do you explain european dominance?

Explaining that higher IQ's for a group developed for environmental factors isn't really some extreme thing. Does /polhis/ really think there's some magic factor in white genetics that makes them inherently superior? Environment and evolution wasn't involved at all?

Nevermind that Asian countries have higher IQs than whites but still fell under white domination.

It's far more fun to watch SJWs try to disagree with Diamond than /pol/.
Their logic is that white people are inherently evil and have an innate desire to conquer and subjugate that other races don't have.

It seems to me like you would rather build up a strawman, rather than having a genuine discussion with the so called "SJWs"

To be fair even stormfront and /pol/ say it just in different ways, you often see
>Conquering is in our blood

didn't read that, only west and south Europeans are superior Stonia Finland Poland Prusia Austria etc these are at their best lower than the turks the Mongols China and all that

Disagreeing might be a strong word. I think the author made a 100% materialistic argument while ignoring that culture plays a strong role in what and how you produce.

Thats simply untrue user, Tabasco and vs the Tlaxcalans were won without any native soldier (with the Tlaxclanans there were some Tabascan females indians to cook, 20 or so). Bernal account it's pretty good being a first hand account about the battle and how the Messo fought (in ranks and trying to capture more than outright kill).

High IQ is a result of a civilization were intelligence and cunning are more useful then physical strenght. in pre-agrarian societies this is not the case.

No its the result of reduced impulsitivity caused by seasonal climates not civilization. Germanic niggers were still smarter than africans millenia ago.

Kinda agree with him tbqh
humans are inherently following their own nature to survive, which then forms our way of thinking and such
It's unconciously in our blood.

so how was it that they were 100 years more advanced when they met other races lol

I hate how this book implies that if Africans were in the place of Europeans or New Guineans in the place of the Chinese, the outcome would be indistinguishable. IQ, appearance, physique, temperament, culture, politics, etc. are all shaped by geography and environment as much as the economy. This is supported by the historical fact that Europeans settled wherever in the world the climate was closest to Europe (North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa), because a civilization is most well suited to an environment which is similar to where it originally developed.

Tl;dr Jared Diamond is not wrong on his facts but on his conclusions, which are shaped by his assumptions that all individuals are interchangeable blank slates.

Cool post! Hey, can I save that image?

his explanation of European civilization becoming supreme is fine, but then he uses that to try and shit on the West and act like it was unfair to the rest of humanity, plus every left wing stooge uses it to disparage le ebul white man

He claims that the success of cultures stems entirely from geographic determanism, while there is no such thing as a superior "culture". Ignoring the fact that culture is largely determined by environment.

Middle East and India were already pretty close to the trading action. Europe, on the other hand, had a strong incentive to find better, faster trade routes to the East, fueling the development in navigation technologies.

This. The Chinese were geographically pretty well positioned for success, but the cultural Confucian disdain for the merchant class and trade cultivated an insular outlook that ultimately led to stagnation.

Because his fundamental premise is an old, outdated anthropological theory. The environment is a significant factor in how a society develops, but it is not the only factor. Diamond effectively totally ignores the importance of human agency and culture in favour of blind determinism.

>He still believes in IQ scores

>historical supremacy of European people
besides the period of the Roman Empire, where there were plenty of peers to Europeans, there were multiple millennia BC of lack of European supremacy and one millennium of European backwardness that followed the collapse of the Roman and Byzantine empires.

if you're talking about since the dawn of globalization with Columbus's voyage, you should just read Guns, Germs, and Steel to refute your race-based perspective of supremacy. Diamond uses ecological and technological arguments that, while crude and stupid compared to more accurate archaeological and historical accounts of European colonialism, are at least not based in the mumbo jumbo pseudo-science of Charles Murray that you give yourself away as believing by pretending that
>IQ
comes into it

i'm gonna reply to this post with a few critiques of Diamond's work as a whole (I've read this book and Collapse, and I sometimes confuse where he says the stupidest shit)

t. archaeologist

so for those of you still with me who aren't active 19th century race scientist phrenologists and have instead evolved into being conservative early 20th century biological determinists, here are some empirical and theoretical arguments against Diamond's work:

>Disease
while the major civilizations of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca were very densely populated and thus subject to massive epidemics, many areas of North America had much more sparse settlement. the argument that disease wiped out "95%" of Native Americans is a commonly cited but entirely spurious claim. the Spanish tended to write down when entire entradas were marred by epidemics that could get spread, and we don't see a lot of that in the historical records of entradas into the Southern US, for example (SW or SE). archaeological data also fails to corroborate disease. someone who's good on this topic is Dale Hutchinson

>le Natives wiped out meme
especially in the western US, huge amounts of Native American groups remained that survive to this day in the same settlements they had shortly before Spanish contact. Maya groups lasted through to the present day as well. you might say these are exceptions that prove the rule, but the point here is that if there was a mechanistic link between European arrival and collapse, it's weird that there even are exceptions. it's almost as if there are historically contingent factors based on things besides le environment and le Euro weapons. there's a really interesting article by Mike Wilcox on this where he goes into how Diamond's collapse narrative for the SW US confuses historical eras pretty badly when he tries to point to environmental degradation by native groups

>Guns
there was active military resistance to the Spanish in the SW and SE that resulted in them changing their whole approach to being a missionary rather than conquest effort by the 17th century

>if you're talking about since the dawn of globalization with Columbus's voyage, you should just read Guns, Germs, and Steel to refute your race-based perspective of supremacy.
AHAHAHAHA

see
>mumbo jumbo pseudo-science of Charles Murray
The relevance of the general intelligence factor in differential social outcomes is the most. established. fact in the social science. You have absolutely no credibility, as demonstrated by your preference for confused, opinionated rhetoric over actual factual evidence.

cold northern climate causing favorable traits such as intelligence to develop

To add to what you're saying, evidence points towards seals being what spread tuberculosis to the Americas. Not Europeans.
And yeah groups in the southwestern US (such as the Anasazi) died out before European contact. Hypotheses for this include constant, nonstop, brutal warfare, as well as horrible malnutrition due to an almost exclusive cornmeal diet lacking in essential proteins.

>The relevance of the general intelligence factor in differential social outcomes is the most. established. fact in the social science.
[citation needed]

something tells me you're not a social scientist

actually, i'm feeling triggered rn, user, so why don't you give me a SINGLE reputable journal article from any social scientist that has been peer reviewed that cites Murray's central claim in a positive way? not trying to rehabilitate his claims and soften their edges to use his underlying methodology or something like that. someone who literally accepts the bell curve as a central thesis that is a useful predictor (not correlate) of fucking anything.

The scientific consensus on the reality of g (measured by the IQ test) UNANIMOUS. Do you get it? Or do I have to dumb it down more for you to understand?

>The debate over intelligence and
intelligence testing focuses on the question
of whether it is useful or meaningful
to evaluate people according to a
single major dimension of cognitive
competence. Is there indeed a general
mental ability we commonly call “intelligence,”
and is it important in the practical
affairs of life? The answer, based on
decades of intelligence research, is an
unequivocal yes. No matter their form
or content, tests of mental skills invariably
point to the existence of a global
factor that permeates all aspects of cognition.
And this factor seems to have
considerable influence on a person’s
practical quality of life. Intelligence as
measured by IQ tests is the single most
effective predictor known of individual
performance at school and on the job. It
also predicts many other aspects of wellbeing,
including a person’s chances of
divorcing, dropping out of high school,
being unemployed or having illegitimate
children.
hucama.se/uploads/1/6/5/0/16501994/g-factor_intellligence_1998.pdf

Can even be measured in animals:
aim.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:af5b9c0e-2287-49f1-803f-e19bd36d83ae/Burkart_BBS-D-16-00117_preprint.pdf

>But the fact that g is not specific to any particular domain of knowledge or mental skill suggests that g is independent of cultural content, including beliefs about what intelligence is. And tests of different social groups reveal the same continuum of general intelligence. This observation suggests either that cultures do not construct g or that they construct the same g. Both conclusions undercut the social artifact theory of intelligence.

>Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon. In the past decade, studies by teams of researchers in North America and Europe have linked several attributes of the brain to general intelligence. After taking into account gender and physical stature, brain size as determined by magnetic resonance imaging is moderately correlated with IQ (about 0.4 on a scale of 0 to 1). So is the speed of nerve conduction. The brains of bright people also use less energy during problem solving than do those of their less able peers. And various qualities of brain waves correlate strongly (about 0.5 to 0.7) with IQ: the brain waves of individuals with higher IQs, for example, respond more promptly and consistently to simple sensory stimuli such as audible clicks. These observations have led some investigators to posit that differences in g result from differences in the speed and efficiency of neural processing. If this theory is true, environmental conditions could influence g by modifying brain physiology in some manner.
psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/SuccessAndFitness.pdf

>This 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000+ English children examined the association between psychometric
intelligence at age 11 years and educational achievement in national examinations in 25 academic subjects at age 16. The
correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman's g from CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE
scores) was 0.81.
A correlation of 0.81. Just fucking ponder that.

emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-educational-achievement.pdf

>Teachers provided achievement assessments according to the UK National Curriculum criteria for Mathematics, English, and Science, and pupils reported their ability self-perceptions and intrinsic values for these subjects. For all three domains, g proved to be the strongest, and, in the case of Science, the only predictor of school achievement.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605001236

>Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective
>The impetus for our study was the contention of both Lynn and Rushton that persons in colder climates tend
to have higher IQs than persons in warmer climates. We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita
income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational
reflection of climate. The highest correlations were -0.92 (rho=-0.91) for skin color, -0.76 (rho=-0.76) for
mean high winter temperature, -0.66 (rho=-0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho=0.74) for
real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost
identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in
colder climates tend to have higher IQs.
A CORRELATION OF 0.91 BETWEEN IQ AND SKIN COLOR. THAT IS NEARLY ONE TO ONE.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.945&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>studies of individual aptitude in contemporary world based on cognition
>at all related to the subject on hand
>and at that, all from fucking psychologists who have a statistically significant rate of failure to reproduce studies

nice ideology dressed up as science, user

>National differences in intelligence and educational attainment
>We examine the correlations between the national IQs of Lynn and Vanhanen (Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T.
(2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger. Westport, CT: Praeger, Lynn, R. and Vanhanen,
T. (2006). IQ and global inequality. Athens, GA: Washington Summit Books.) and educational attainment
scores in math and science for 10- and 14-year olds in 25 countries and 46 countries (respectively) given in
the TIMSS 2003 reports. It was found that national IQs had (attenuation corrected) correlations of between
0.92 and 1.00 with scores in math and science. The results are interpreted as a validation of the national IQs.
They suggest that national differences in educational attainment may be attributable to differences in IQ, or
alternatively that national IQs and in educational attainment are both indicators of the mental ability of
national populations.
A correlation between 0.92 and 1.00. Jesus fucking Christ.

Shut the fuck up, bitch. I know you can't read that fast.

lol you're posting abstracts that all come down to "here's a correlation." they're all psychological studies, which have a horrible replicability rate, and they're all coming up with conclusions based on statistical correlations.

>nature.com/news/statisticians-issue-warning-over-misuse-of-p-values-1.19503
In its statement, the ASA advises researchers to avoid drawing scientific conclusions or making policy decisions based on P values alone. Researchers should describe not only the data analyses that produced statistically significant results, the society says, but all statistical tests and choices made in calculations. Otherwise, results may seem falsely robust.

additionally, you're fucking up thinking that you can just magically put a sheet in front of "individual cognitive aptitude in the contemporary globalized capitalist world" and pull it up to reveal a magic substitution of "aptitude of entire culture groups in the ancient past"

if you'd like to give me the substantive connective tissue between modern, un-replicable psychological studies about aptitude for success in white collar careers and your historical claims about aptitude of civilizations to resist colonial efforts, i'm all ears

This is all statistical work where they are repeatedly confirming the results of Flynn. Some of these works have hundreds of citations, all of them above 50.

Thats the reason why I gave you like 8 studies, dumbass. They all paint the same fucking picture, son dont bitch to me about reproducibility. Especially since MUH PSYCHOLOGY doesn't work when again, the general intelligence factor is the most well researched phenomena in the social sciences. Its rare to have something this solid in that field.

Im not letting you move the goalpost. You asked me to provide citations pointing towards the validity of g, and I did just that. There is practically no genetic difference whatsoever between modern humans and those who existed two thousand years ago.

>Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs.
So do you also think living in a cold place is relevant to how smart you are? Brainlet.

The causes between skin color and and IQ may be the same or nearly the same, given the nearly one to one relationship between the two.

the general intelligence factor is only studied in psychology. stop pretending that it's some consensus criterion for historical interpretation. anthropologists and archaeologists regularly contest its applicability to non-modern non-western contexts. if any of these psychologists actually collaborated with other social scientists, these papers might be more convincing, but psychology is just the latest academic bubble driving policy decisions after economics

>no genetic difference
completely correct, but the cultural contexts are completely different. you can't just assume that cultural context doesn't matter when you're studying multiple groups of people who live in the contemporary globalized world. we don't have discrete populations whose cognitive ability and aptitude can be completely divorced from modern contexts like differentiation of access to food among different populations or that the study of aptitude is itself culturally mediated by psychologists

You aren't actually addressing the content of the studies just bitching about a very broad field of which you know nothing about. Do you know how bad this makes you look?
As for cultural context, IQ matters more today than ever before, but one can surmise in ancient times it matters more in northern Eurasia where one has to plan for the seasons more than it does in the south, where food is available all year round. Hence the extremely strong correlation between skin color (=latitude) and IQ.

>Did Europeans evolve a higher IQ by pure luck?

Except this book tries to imply evolution isnt the reason for european superiority, just luck
While the truth is that conditions and luck allowed Europeans to become superior, and then evolution marked it in their genetics (which is why your average white will always be superior to your average black nowdays, and thus why whites can make something out of Africa while nogs cannot)

Flynn himself disagrees with you:

James Flynn has argued that intelligence should be conceptualized at three different levels: brain physiology, cognitive differences between individuals, and social trends in intelligence over time. According to this model, the g factor is a useful concept with respect to individual differences but its explanatory power is limited when the focus of investigation is either brain physiology, or, especially, the effect of social trends on intelligence. Flynn has criticized the notion that cognitive gains over time, or the Flynn effect, are "hollow" if they cannot be shown to be increases in g. He argues that the Flynn effect reflects shifting social priorities and individuals' adaptation to them. To apply the individual differences concept of g to the Flynn effect is to confuse different levels of analysis. On the other hand, according to Flynn, it is also fallacious to deny, by referring to trends in intelligence over time, that some individuals have "better brains and minds" to cope with the cognitive demands of their particular time. At the level of brain physiology, Flynn has emphasized both that localized neural clusters can be affected differently by cognitive exercise, and that there are important factors that affect all neural clusters.

[from wiki, but their citation is: Secular changes in intelligence. Pages 647–665 in R.J. Sternberg & S.B. Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press]

Okay, the fact that you just pasted that quote makes me think you're just frantically googling something to prove me wrong.

In this passage he is talking about the FLYNN EFFECT, a completely different idea to differences in g in different populations. The Flynn Effect is the trend of IQ gradually increasing in time in industrialized countries due to modern medicine, better nutrition, education, and more mental stimulation in general. The Flynn Effect is hollow because g is largely genetically determined and hence is not affected by the same environmental factors.

>which are shaped by his assumptions that all individuals are interchangeable blank slates.
No, he is saying that the population is shaped by its environment. This means if you take a different population and put it in that environment, they will also be shaped by that environment. And since both groups are humans, and the environment is the same, it's more reasonable to believe they will be shaped in a way to make them more similar to the previous population.

To say humans have properties independent of environmental factors makes ZERO sense unless you're a creationist.

does it matter? his definition of 'luck' is so vague it's basically meaningless.

>To say humans have properties independent of environmental factors makes ZERO sense unless you're a creationist.
No, that is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Diamond does not examine whether human beings are shaped by the environment to the degree that it causes innate differences in IQ, temperament, culture, politics, or religion. Only technology, economy, and disease, all of which were initially facilitated (in a very vague and suggestive sense, he paints an extremely broad brush) by geographical factors, but none of which are environmentally determined. You don't have to live in Europe to use gunpowder, or be immune to smallpox, or produce steel tools, hence for all intents and purposes the fundamental differences between different populations have more or less disappeared for Diamond.

>for all intents and purposes the fundamental differences between different populations have more or less disappeared for Diamond.
I feel like this is an extremely crucial point. Diamond is NOT an environmental determinist. If anything, he is a Marxist, except he substitutes economic class for technology spread by geography as the infrastructure and colonialism as the superstructure. Now that we live in a globalized world, geography ceases to matter and technology is available to everyone equally regardless of environment. hence there is no reason for racial groups to be different except for muh ebil white supreemacism, which can be explained away as a historically conditioned social construct by his particular brand of dialectical materialism.

There's a good taketown of this book by a Physics Ph.D. here:
amazon.com/review/R1DGX4YM4VFFF

>technology is available to everyone equally regardless of environment
Not even close, fuck off.

But different peoples with the same access to technology and education are not significantly different to each other?

In the globalized world every nation has access to steel, vaccines, gunpowder, and livestock. To Diamond geography has more or less been rendered irrelevant by the historical processes which decided it, namely the three technologies which he focuses on, just as in Marxism.

Chicken and egg.

>In the globalized world every nation has access to steel, vaccines, gunpowder, and livestock
That depends on money, which depends on resources. Resources that an already technologically superior force can rob you of.
Funny how your argument completely forgets that humans are capable of using force to take what they want.
Also, learn 2 economics. Just because the nation literally has potential access to resources doesn't mean it's economically feasible for them to actually acquire said resources.

Again, access to technology is what determines the level of economy to Diamond. The fact that New Guineans "lacked cargo" is because of historical disadvantages conditioned by geography. You're reversing the causality of the very book you are trying to defend.

Resources have absolutely fuck–all to do with it. Its pure geography. If resources mattered, Europe would still be a backwater because it lacks almost all valuable trade commodities: spice, silk, coffee, ivory, tobacco, gold, and so on, which can be found in abundance throughout Africa and other parts of Eurasia.

>If resources mattered, Europe would still be a backwater because it lacks almost all valuable trade commodities:
If Europe lacked resources, how did they trade for those things???

Who cares what caused it, the book still admits they evolved a higher IQ.

>Iq-
Pseudoscience.

Money. The Byzantine Solidus and later the Venetian ducat became the staple European currency that was traded on the Silk Road. The reason why the Spanish were so ravenous for New World gold and silver is because it conferred a trade advantage for commodities on this market. The trade deficit Europeans had due to lack of resources meant most of the Solidi, ducats, and spanish gold eventually ended up in the coffers of the Tang emperors.

>Tang emperors
Whoops, meant the Ming emperors. CHYNA

because europeans generated a culture that was superior at technological innovation and imperial conquest.

>innate desire to conquer and subjugate that other races don't have
so, just like the white we wuz?
the most common leftie critique is either that it is too deterministic, or simply not muh marx

>too deterministic
Thats rich coming from leftists, but I guess the Frankfurt school turned Marxism on its head.

What's wrong with historical supremacy of European people?

the assumptions that either it has lasted more than abhout 500 years, or that it is meant to last forever

The idea that Europeans only became different from the rest of the world because of the industrial revolution (this theory is called the great divergence) is thoroughly debunked in this great book:

bibotu.com/books/2012/Th e Uniqueness of Western Civilization.pdf

We come from a common ancestor the human population was at one point only a couple thousand individuals that then migrated out of africa. This group is the blank slate they're not black or white or chinese they're proto-human , take a population of proto-humans put them in europe you get white people, put them in africa you get nig nogs.

>We come from a common ancestor the human population was at one point only a couple thousand individuals that then migrated out of africa.
Recent discoveries have put tremendous doubt on the Out of Africa theory. The oldest human ancestor has been found to be European.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

By the way, the term you are looking for is "basal," which is completely fucking different from tabula rasa. Basal populations tend to succeed evolutionarily because they aren't so specialized for one unique niche in one specific environment. The common ancestor for all Eurasians probably looked Egyptian. This is a modern human being, not proto-anything, adapted for the Sahel environment of the African savanna. In contrast, the idea of tabula rasa is that human beings are magical creatures not influenced by genetic factors at all, and that we gain traits solely through environmental stimuli through some alchemical process. This is a quasi−religious idea, not science.

There was a documentary on NatGeo I saw about some goober archaeologist doing really cool stuff in the Arabian peninsula.

I can't remember his name but his schtick was the "Out of Arabia" theory based on the birth of civilization in Mesopotamia, the fact that a lot of the Persian Gulf was dry land many thousands of years ago when humans left Africa.

I mean the dude found seashells (mollusk shells and what not) many miles away from the modern coastlines. As well as a buttload more of potsherds found in prehistoric Arabia/Mesopotamia compared to Africa.

the important thing to remember is europeans wrote our history books, for one. then you have to remember europeans quite frequently colonized other nations and integrate their technology. for instance most advancements in early mathematics came from the east/middle-east.
again it's important to remember that history is written by the victors, and europeans have fought many wars.

I do agree in a sense with european dominance, but i think thats more to do to with their religion, Catholicism, and the iron fist it ruled with for a while that "united" europe to do it's bidding, even across different countries and cultures.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Europeans did not obtain advancements in early mathematics due to colonization and stealing technology, they obtained books written by ancient Greeks and Arab commentaries through trade. Much of this was due to the fact that centers of greek learning (Alexandria, Antioch, later Byzantium, etc) were conquered by Muslims and rendered inaccessible to the West. Algebra was invented by Aramaic/Greek speakers in Alexandria and refined in Baghdad. The Arabic numeral system was invented in India. Youre discounting the vast advancements made by Europeans in mathematics before colonization. Nicole Oresme invented time vs speed vs distance graphs and rectangular coordinates. Fibonacci invented the famous sequence. Regiomontatus invented trigonometry. All independently of colonialism.

I think I watched the same documentary as you, but it was years ago. Yeah I don't know what to make of it.

They did, white have a higher IQ than black people.

Reality shows you put niggers anywhere and you get the same savage behavior and actions.

>he still thinks all races are equal.

>one piece of unexpected evidence in an area with far more regular excavations going on
>raising serious doubts
you're gonna have to substantiate that claim a bit. as someone who works alongside early Paleolithic archaeologists, I haven't heard any of them say this really alters the paradigm even if it's compelling and could be substantiated if more European examples are found and African ones aren't. but the preponderance of genetic and linguistic evidence still points to Out of Africa

Exactly. But I get the feeling that they are generally happier in Jamaica or Brazil (places which approximate the conditions of their original environment) than Detroit or Baltimore. Just an intimation.

you knoww you could say the same about chinese and low class anglos, right?

I saw Jared Diamond at a grocery store in Los Angeles yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.

He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”

I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.

The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

it doesnt.
ancient greek thought is not "western civilisation" but classical mediterranean civilisation

>Recent discoveries have put tremendous doubt on the Out of Africa theory. The oldest human ancestor has been found to be European.

Wrong on both counts, congratulations. Learn something about mtDNA and Y-DNA first please.

In all fairness, you barely addressed anything, not that I'd expect you to address his whole book on here of course and I tend to agree with you. But classical civilization influenced both the "western" and "islamic" ones. And arguably "Islamic" civilization was directly also very influential to "Western".

Literally racial superiority.

islam never really adopted classical culture, but western european culture is a direct descendant of classical mediterranean culture.
western civilisation alone fostered the ancient greek concepts, but they did not create meaningful pan society changes until the renaissance/enlightenment

Hey, you look like a fucking idiot right now. The book specifically debunks the theories of contemporary theories about the great divergence separately from his discussion of the Greeks. Moreover, Duchesne's thesis does not focus on the ancient Greeks, but on the Indo Europeans. He has also written extensively on Western Civilization (post year 1000) in essays which can be found online.

>indo europeans
not western civilisation
>post year 1000
nothing happened until the renaissance