Why does this book trigger so many people?

Because it sucks. It's a bird scientist's half assed attempt to explain to his tribal friend why his tribe hasn't taken over the world yet.

>accident of geography
I don't get why would this trigger you. Why is an accident of geography any different than an accident of genetics? What should actually matter to a racial/ethnic supremacist is that a superiority exists, and his ingroup can maintain it.

Shit argument debunked fifty years ago, very sketchty or shallow investigation, overly blown and pushed in academia etc.

Explain North America being still Hunter gathers in the 15th century then

The jew eliminates all the evidence pointing to any genetic superiority and just makes out europeans to be no different to africans or muslims, just getting the upper hand through accidents of geography. According to him, all you have to do to get afrian world domination is to put all the europeans in africa and all the africans in europe.

Except we have already done that experiment, we have whites in south africa, rich and advanced, and niggers in europe, poor and retarded.

Never trust a book written by a jew.

Europeans evolving superior genetics is not part of the book, and of course it wouldn't, how could a jew ever admit to white people being inherently superior???

The European geography molded superior humans through natural selection but not only so. There are other races that have the same level of organization and intelligence as europeans but who did not get the upper hand e.g. east asians.

"Why the west rules" is much better and a literal brick of a book.

Jews are smarter than whites.

i, for one, thought it was a pretty decent book, he made some strong points and put forward an comparative analysis of how humans react to their environment that is unlike anything before or since in its scope. naturally, as is the case with any work of such grandeur, he ends up ignoring a bunch of things and oversimplifying others, but i thin his basic point, that environmental circumstances are the key factor in shaping how human societies develop, is pretty darn strong and i have yet to hear any arguments against it that have anything like the in depth research that diamond has.

the reason it triggers /pol/lacks is because they're uneducated manchildren who haven't learn to deal with people holding opinions that differ to their own, let alone someone writing an incredibly detailed and well researched book that sells amazing well internationally and essentially contradicts all the core tenets of their worldview.

take Hanna arendt for example, her works pretty seriously rekt orthodox (bolshevik) marxism, but you dont see marxists throwing a temper tantrum every time she gets mentioned (which is basically in all decent politics classes)

>jews
>not white

Because /polfags want to feel special, instead they are taught that they dominated due to geography.

Most of the time it's Nazis getting mad because Diamond rules out genetics as the reason why certain places are more developed than others.

Serious historians have a lot of problems with Diamond's methodology and specific conclusions but broadly agree with the points he's making.

They evolved to be "smart" through millennia of cheating and screwing host civilizations across europe and the middle east.

Their type of intelligence is deceit, mass indoctrination and financial theft. Every single man that allowed europe to become powerful and industrialized and scientific was a christian white man, not a fucking jew. They ride and steal the ideas of greater white men, add a little shit to it, mediatize it and pretend to have done all the work, e.g. Einstein.

>North America being still Hunter gathers in the 15th century
Wrong. The southern half of north america had agriculture since the BC8000s. It came and went in many parts due to a variety of issues, but in the 15th century there were agricultural societies in north america, especially in the south west.

>Except we have already done that experiment, we have whites in south africa, rich and advanced, and niggers in europe, poor and retarded.
Are you fucking kidding me. That argument would require putting uncivilized euros and niggers into untamed Africa and Europe respectively. Too bad that there's no such thing as untamed Europe anymore, nor uncivilized euros to make the attempt.

Because he lives in the US. If it's geography not genetics, he doesn't have an excuse to feel better than other people

>rules out genetics

How can people be this stupid?
So Kenyans and Jamaicans dominating spring and long distance has nothing to do with race?

Top scientists and doctors all coming from very specific racial characters (europeans, jews, high caste indians, east asians) have nothing to do with genetics?

Massive IQ testing differences between racial groups have 0% genetic rationale?

Seriously, gas yourself.

Not true, Sep and Miz jews (the most pure ones) have a lower IQ than white, while the Khazars ones (askhenazi) are the ones than had a higher IQ.

I mean, a large chunk weren't, there were agrarian/fishing cultures. The Plains and Desert cultures were hunter/gatherer due to the geographical reasons; arid, hard to tend land without significantly advanced farming techniques, and in the case of the Plains cultures, a practically inexhaustible source of meat being the major source of mest, as well as one that is incredibly difficult to domesticate in the massive numbers they appeared in in the time. The Plains cultures were nomadic for this reason; if you have the choice between farming for a meager subsistence life off of small mammals, birds, and crops, or being nomadic with a near inexhaustible food source, why would you pick the latter?

Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest, and Southeast cultures did develop agrarian societies, proving you have zero idea what you're talking about besides DUDE EUROPEANS LMAO

>If it's geography not genetics, he doesn't have an excuse to feel better than other people
This is such a silly argument. If you can feel superior by virtue of average racial genetic (since you're using your race's fitness rather than your own) why can't you feel superior by virtue of cultural accomplishment and effective political relevance? I mean don't white supremacists already hold that against jews anyway? Why do you people feel the need to go about your business in the most retarded least efficient possible way?

I dont get why people dont agree with the idea that geography and trade has an impact on society.

Do those people belive that Italians are genetically disposed to create a larger country and be more inventive than slovenians? Or that syrians are supperior to saudi arabians?

Diamond even gave emaples of groups regresing thanks to differing incentives from geography.

What i find interesting is how technology and ideas, memes, affect our behaviours. That question basically is the ending chapter to the book.

The former is debatable but a point, but mental ability simply doesn't manifest genetically the same way as physical atributes.

IQ is effectively garbage the way international charts are done today. There is enormous bias in the results, since a nation with a particularly lower national IQ, like, say, Chad, has a massively smaller education budget and hugely worse quality of like than most of the US or Scandinavian or East Asian nations.

Hell, you provided the perfect example in your post; that of High v Low caste Indians. Caste has been proven over and over to be laughable bullshit, with there being no genetic differences. However, your example of High Caste people having higher IQs is due to two facts: they have better access to better education than lower caste people, and they are much more likely to be able to put all their focus on education as a child, rather than helping support their family like a poor, low-caste person would have to.

This obviously applies on an international level as well.

In conclusion, the only way for those "dae niggers are stupid" IQ maps to be less biased is to pick a sample population at birth, and provide them all the same standard of living and education, in their native languages, to remove as many outside factors as possible.

>that Second paragraph
How do you use a history board and yet ignore all historical context
South Africa wasn't some "perfect experiment". The Dutch sent trained, supplied, and civilized Colonists into the region, where they immediately enslaved a large portion of the native populace, and refused to make any attempt for an equitable society. The current mess South Africa is in is due to 250 years of Europeans having a ridiculous enough head start to effectively rule the entire region the second they arrived, not giving the native population any chance at all to catch up.

High caste and low caste indians both come from a shithole country, and both are nearly equally poor. In the west, once they have access to good education, food and healthcare, it's always high caste indians who end up making it big, because they have the inherent genetic characteristics to succeed (handed down by generations of selective breeding). Isn't it funny that merchant caste indians are generally the CEOs and owners of big indian corporations while high caste brahmins (educated priest class) tend to become top tier scientists and doctors?

As for the niggers being dumb even when adopted into a white family in a western country, we have a study for that, see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

The dutch didnt send shit, it was dutch surplus population in a highly overpopulated country, going overseas to become farmers.

The boers were just poor fucking farmers, not ubermensch. They created an entire advanced country where the niggers were just festering in poverty and mudhuts, even after the whites showed them advanced technology.

Even today, centuries after the start of colonialism, and blacks havent learned a thing.

What about the study and white and black american solders in Germany and their kids?

benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOPSYJ/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf

Why so you believe it's "inherent geneticcharacteristics " and not "their families are more affluent, even slightly, and are able to send their kids to the west to have a proper education, whereas lower-caste people don't have that option anywhere near as often"

Poor fucking farmers who came from a nation significantly more advanced than the region they ended up in

Cmon, it's not that hard to understand.

Humans are no different to dogs. We have good guard dogs, good shepherding dogs, good sniffer dogs, good attack dogs, good play dogs... and the list goes on.

Caste systems are literally selective breeding systems. Races in general are seletively bred humans that are designed to prosper in their own environments.

Because of the introduction. He said some really retarded shit about races and intelligence. But the actual book is solid and well argued, and there's only a few issues with it that don't really affect the core argument, which I think is true.

People also think it's somehow supposed to explain history, but it never claims to do that or attempts it. Them only topic is what the requirements for the emergence of civilisation are, and why a civilisation cannot exist without those being fulfilled, which is fairly uncontroversial.

Farmers who came from a region where they learned better agricultural practices with advanced tools.

Was that too much to add?

Jews are as white as Arabs are

so why didn't the blacks adopt their tech through trade

>Because of the introduction. He said some really retarded shit about races and intelligence.
Said shit is pretty evenly spread through the book actually. I can easily see the average poltard being triggered every other page and focusing on the 'outrage' dismissing the actual argument as they're wont to do.
It's actually pretty funny to read imo: how the fuck did the guy not see the issue with saying (and I'm barely even paraphrasing in any way here) "no race is smart than another, but by virtue of havin govercome their harsh environment the papuans are clearly geniuses"?

Because you need specific specialized jobs inorder to produce such tech.

The blacks didn't have enough of a population in that area to dedicate to tasks other then food production.

Yeah, that's pretty stupid, but he himself recognized that as a possible objection, so he develops his core theory in a monoracial context, so nobody can dismiss it based on that.

mr. jared diamond
MISTER
JARED
DIAMOND

Nobody can dismiss his argument, but they can dismiss his book. Which is what 99% of triggered people do, damaging its reputation in spite of a relatively solid (if not really novel) argument.
I just don't get why would he put that shit in at all. It's just pure fucking damage, and he even acknowledges it. Short of it having guaranteed him like a sale for every papuan, it's just bad business AND bad writing.

>superior genetics
>99% of Europeans can't survive in sunny areas

I'm a race realist, but please stop writing like an uneducated retard from Stormfront.

It probably didn't cross his mind that people would disagree with his anti-white racism and IQ misunderstanding, since thinking like that is pretty standard in certain circles.

Khazar thing is bullshit, so stop promoting it until you find genetic evidence for it.

>Humans are no different to dogs

It would really take an astounding level of doublethink to consider an argument he objectively believes wrong to be still valid or uncriticizable just because it's still socially acceptable.
Then again he DOES show astounding levels of doublethink in writing "everyone is equally intelligent but papuans are smarter", so eh.

Trading what? They were a subsistence farming society, all they would have had to trade was worthless to the Afrikaaners.

What should I read by Fukuyama? I read through his wikipedia page, seems very interesting

I think that the book is right when it comes to the differences between Eurasia and the Americas. There is definitely a dearth of domesticable animals native to the Americas. And of course the north-south axis which hinders the spread of agriculture.
The rest of the book is just wrong.

It's just ridiculous in its most fundamental form, history is not natural sciences, it's very hard to "prove" any theories. Anyone can create a narrative about anything if there is no burden to predict anything in the future, and you can cherry pick among whatever part of history you want. Why did China stagnate while the western world thrived after the dark ages? Seems like a very important point but it doesn't really interest Jared since it doesn't fit neatly with his narrative.

Ironically I jumped into this book to be able to back up my leftist views after it was recommended to me by everyone and their mom. The book instead made me realize what fucking morons leftist academics really are and that they'll eat up anything as long as you arrive at the same conclusion you do.

*as long as you arrive at the same conclusion they do.

read more books, they traded cattle for guns and steel

Read the book, idiot. It doesn't even deal with the crap you bring up as criticism.

>Why did China stagnate
Dont know much about China but isnt that what big empires do? stagnate?

I liked Origins of Political Order. The second volume, Political Order and Decay is apparently better and stands alone but I can't speak to that having not finished it.

The 1989 FP article The End of History is a really good thought peice but was proven wrong.

The two massive Political Order books he wrote 20 years later explain why he was wrong, even though so much of the world thought he was right.

I'll check it out, thanks for the tip

Why don't you read my post instead simpleton.

Yes, exactly, which signifies the importance of cultures.

You claim to have read it, and then write something that has nothing to do with its thesis as criticism. Tell me what the book is about. Should be easy if you read it as you claim.

What? My criticism IS that it has nothing to do with the thesis, he is cherry picking history and ignoring fundamental factors because they don't fit the narrative.

I won't pretend that environment didn't matter for Europe's development simply because I don't know. But you could just as easily as Jared make the case that it was culture that did it single-handedly, it still doesn't prove anything, it's just reductive.

As expected, you didn't read the book.

>Why did China stagnate while the western world thrived after the dark ages? Seems like a very important point but it doesn't really interest Jared since it doesn't fit neatly with his narrative.

well considering most of the book is primarily concerned with Polynesian islands, which he makes abundantly clear in the introduction, its not exactly surprising he doesn't talk much about china is it?

furthermore theres a fairly high degree of academic consensus around why china didnt develop the same way Europe did, look up the high level equilibrium trap

Good trole my man you sure got me, upvoted.

I agree that it's not surprising, but a theory that aspires to so much shouldn't allow itself to be so limited in scope unless it simply isn't good.

I know the main theories about China's stagnation, which don't include environment. Which is also why I brought it up, could have been clearer though I suppose.

>But you could just as easily as Jared make the case that it was culture that did it single-handedly, it still doesn't prove anything, it's just reductive.

so your basically saying that no mater how much research or thought you do, having any opinion about anything is no more valid than any other opinion unless you can 'prove' your opinion which is obviously impossible because all anyone else has to do to 'disprove' you is have the opinion that you havent actually proved anything

>The boers were just poor fucking farmers, not ubermensch
There were plenty of support programs for Boers in The Netherlands. We fucking shipped them rifles on the regular.

Incas were superior to europeans though.

lol what, his theory isnt limited in scope at all, he just chooses an excellent set of examples as to how humans and societies react to their environments, polynesia, and formulates a theory about it. he then points out that this theory can be extrapolated to apply to all human society, which is obviously a bit iffy but he sure as hell argues his theory better than pretty much anyone with any similarly far reaching theory about civilization with the possible exception of Marx.

him not specifically dealing with china is not a point against him, if it was than you could simply list every group of people that has ever existed and which he doesn't talk about to prove him wrong, which is silly.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with speculating and theorizing, but few would be so arrogant as to make such broad statements ignoring several large strokes of history (which fit much worse with his narrative), with so much confidence.

Reading GGS I remember him even skipping the "in my opinion" after a while and going straight to "this caused that".

can't tell if b8 or the pseudoscientific racists are actually out in droves

oversimplification and occasionally a reliance on noble savage stereotypes were the most immediately noticeable issues in the book imo. it's written with a lot of sensitivity but that's no excuse for romanticizing small groups of people shitting in the woods

beyond that it might not be 100% accurate but it's still required reading for a reason

That high caste Indians have higher IQ than other Indians, or that Jews have higher IQ than populations of similar genetics, PROVES intelligence is not racial.

Nobody would deny that intelligence has a hereditary component, but it can't be reduced to skin color and skull shape

I didn't go to books,
I went to history.

high caste indians and ashkenazi jews are racially different from their "lower" counterparts though

First post best post.

It is wrong, it speaks about everything but the obvious... there are racial differences. Nature covered this and says 80% of iq is inherited by age 21.

nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html?foxtrotcallback=true

It's a good book but it's trying so hard to ignore basic facts that the conversation seems ridiculous. The only people this appeals to are people with four year degrees or anybody outside the field. Imagine how far this book would be along if they just said there are racial differences but we're focusing on cultural differences and this is how they work in tandem

>but it can't be reduced to skin color and skull shape

Nibba yes it can. You can have an iq of 160 and be a Jamaican, it's just extraordinarily rare. No blacks have won a nobel prize outside of Peace and Literature (jerkfests) besides one guy in economics who shared the award with someone (keep in mind economics is sort of a jerk fest as well, economics is now where medicine was in the 19th century -- it's there, people are figuring things out, but the majority of it is a dead end while the populace engages in snake oil sales).

Your s.XX analysis of these populations' IQ, which isn't actually science, is also wrong.

because it completely debunks the pol narrative of european superiority

>european narrative of superiority
Pffffffft
Do "people" actually believe this?

No people don't

I included my source

Not all your claims are sourced.

>everyone is equal, except for whites who are inferior to the rest.
>next spend one thousand pages arguing why europeans just got lucky but are also more evil

Haven't actually read the book more than a few pages but I think that tl:dr sums the book up anyway.

Literally nobody says this

But europeans are inferior.

Except for the book we are discussing:

Quit being a cuck and use your words, what are you refuting?

You know, it doesn't matter how much you want this to be false. Established science dictates it is. This isn't even just nature, the American Psychological Association say it's at least 75% by age 21... that's a slightly different metric. This means everyone who is a professional accepts this trend from many different sources. The only ones who are butthurt about these facts are little virgins who don't want to accept the truth because they have to face the fact that maybe right-wing people are correct, are possibly more scientific than then and, by way of not denying science or history, are more moral than them.

That's a good summary, I use the book as a reference because it is an interesting read when referring to the 20% of life that isn't determined by genetics. Just horrible conclusion that makes you want to lynch white cucks

Terrible bait

It's a good summary cuck, it is the subject of op

What is it even about?

You've obviously never heard of Chaco canyon, or the pueblo Indians of new Mexico and Colorado that built permanent Adobe settlements, including cliff dwellings and pueblos on top of mesas for defense purposes. They stretch up and down the length of the Rio grande, they had agriculture, and they even had astronomical knowledge which they applied to architecture and sacred sites.

it couldn't possibly be because the caste system was only relatively recently abolished and the historically high class and low class people still feel the benefits/detriments of that system today, right? I mean, once you make everyone equal they just become instantly equal!

also stop drawing a false dichotomy between environment and genetics guys, your environment influences the sorts of genes which are successful

Do you mean sunny areas, in which we thrive, or horrid, humid, steaming jungles with no perceptible change in seasons besides torrential rain/hurricanes and moderate rain?
These jungles are also full of malaria and bacteria.