Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 22nd, 2005 #1
ThemeOfSadness's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The West
Posts: 275
Default Debunking Jared Diamond

Despite the accolades he receives from the establishment and from his fellow academic syncophants (Jews, Whites, and egalitarians alike). There are serious problems with Jared Diamonds thesis that the explanation for White evolutionary advantage can be explained solely by location and resource distirbution. Mr. Diamond has become one of the preeminent writers on race in America, taking up the task of the late Jewish fraud scientest Stephen Gould. P.T. Barnum said that there is a sucker born every minute, well it seems that with the Jews there is a charlatan selling the snake oil born every minute. Sometimes, in my boredom I like to look at book reviews and see if there are any like-minded individuals out there who dare to challange these sorts of lies rather than regurgitating them. To my suprise I found some quite opinionated writers on who place bare Diamonds thesis and expose it for what it is.

The Follies of Jared Diamond, November 22, 2004
Calvin The Celt (Scotland) - See all my reviews

1. The unrivalled extent of the Eurasian landmass allowed the proliferation of many different civilisations, between which information could be exchanged allowing far greater cross-fertilization of cultures.
Wrong! However unified the Eurasian land-mass may look to a cartographer, it is intractably divided by formidable topographical features. Europe is isolated from Central Asia by the Alps, the Urals, the Caucasus, the Russian Steppes, the Taiga and the Anatolian plateau. East Asia is divided from Central Asia by the Thar desert the Himalayas the Gobi desert and the Tian Shan mountains. No significant cultural exchanges took place between these regions until the 15th century, by which time sub-Saharan Africa and America lagged far behind Europe and China in terms of technology and higher cultural attainment. Sub-Saharan Africa lies as close to the Fertile Crescent, regarded as the cradle of civilisation, as Western Europe and far closer than China.

2. A diverse abundance of potential food crops is necessary in order for settled agricultural communities to flourish.
Wrong! The Inca created a complex civilisation based on the cultivation of two food crops, the potato and maize. Large agricultural communities, like Cahokia in North America, flourished on the exploitation of maize. Western European agriculture was overwhelmingly based on wheat production, China's on rice.

3.The European biome contained a greater variety of domesticable crops than Africa and America and these crops were more nutritious.
Wrong! America had indigenous food crops which were more nutritious than European staples. Beans, corn, squashes and peanuts are superior to wheat and, if grown in rotation, create a self-replenishing agricultural cycle. Far from having no viable indigenous staples, Africa had okra, rice, sorghum, millet, the bambara ground nut, black-eyed peas, watermelons and numerous gourds and tubers, as well as immensely useful plants such as the oil palm and the tamarisk. African slaves actually introduced rice cultivation to the United States. The standard refrence on this subject is, "Lost Crops of Africa".

4. Eurasia had more domesticable large mammals than Sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas.
Wrong! Africa has indigenous breeds of sheep, goats and cattle which were spread from the Sudan to the Cape by 200AD. The South Americans domesticated the llama. The North Americans, like the Aboriginals of Australia, almost hunted their domesticable mammals to extinction. Why didn't Europeans hunt horses, cows and sheep to extinction?

5. Only urban civilisations can develop the levels of technological skill and social organisztion required for military conquest.
Wrong! The two greatest conquerors in history, Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan came from nomadic tribal civilisations. Rome was overthrown by nomads. The Indus valley civilisation was destroyed by Indo-European barbarians.

6. The transmission of European diseases helped European nations conquer non-European nations.
Wrong! The European nations had achieved such technological superiority to non-European nations by the colonial epoch, that there could be no serious question of a non-European army successfully resisting an attack by a European army. Europeans conquered huge swathes of territory with tiny armies (Pizzaro). Epidemic disease only became a factor post-conquest. In Africa, India and South America native diseases like malaria were just as deadly to Europeans as European diseases were to the indigenous peoples.

7. China lacked the type of convoluted coastline necessary for dissidents to hide out in.
Bizzare! Is Jared Diamond trying to claim that dissidents can only hide on convoluted coastlines? This is about as strange as his assumption that only large bodies of water constitute an effective barrier to trade and travel. China abounds in intractable wastes and remote mountain ranges where bandits and outlaws fled the authority of central government, the most obvious region being the famous water margin.

8. Urban populations are less intelligent than non-urban populations.
Western European civilisation sets a premium on education. Abstract reasoning skills are rewarded by better employment prospects, which in turn create enhanced relationship opportunities, meaning that intelligent people are encouraged to procreate with other intelligent people, unlike in Papua New Guinea, where the physical prowess is far more important than deductive logic.

Europe and China developed the worlds greatest civilisations in regions which were no bigger than the regions inhabited by any other cultures, which enjoyed no great advantages in terms of agricultural potential, which had no special abundance of handy food crops and which had particular disadvantages in terms of climate. Diamond's theory sounds so incontestable because he has edited out substantial volumes of contradictory information with the skill and shamelessness of a Stalin era Commissar.

Smoke, Mirrors and Buffoonery, November 1, 2004
H. Montgomery "lordcalvin" (edinburgh Scotland) - See all my reviews

Quack science of the most transparent type. This is a planet of almost infinitely variable environment. It is possible to discern significant environmental differences even between areas of close geographical proximity. Diamond ingeniously exploits this near-constant environmental variety as a means of explaining radical differences in the cultural and technological achievements of the various human ethno-cultural groups.

The obvious fraudulence of Diamond's methodology lies in its teleological fluidity. For example, if Diamond were to have explored the Western mountains of Latin America and found only a collection of hill tribes, Diamond would explain that the lack of domesticable mammals, paucity of crops and of ground suitable for agriculture had precluded any kind of advanced civilisation. In fact the Indians who inhabited this region domesticated the lama, terraced the rugged hills and, exploiting only two food staples, corn and potatoes, built a vast empire with sophisticated architecture, a complex bureaucracy and an ingenious means of recording information. All of this despite dwelling outwith Diamond's "environmentally favoured planetary zone". Of course, this is no problem in Diamond's win-win scenario. Diamond's acolytes simply indulge in a reframing exercise and proclaim that if not for environmental limitations, the Inca would have created an even more sophisticated civilisation.

We see the same trick employed in the case of animal domesticability. For Diamond if an animal was domesticated it was domesticable. If an animal wasn't domesticated it was, ipso facto, not domesticable. Africans failed to domesticate the zebra, therefore the zebra is not domesticable. Europeans domesticated the horse, therefore, the horse is domesticable. In support of his argument Diamond quite rightly states that the zebra in its present condition has been found to be untameable. Diamond neglects to acknowledge, however, that the primative Eurasian horse was equally untamable. The horse in Eurasia was first herded as a food supply; it took thousands of years of human selective manipulation to create the modern horse. All sorts of unlikely animals have proven to be, to a greater or lesser degree, domesticable: the lama, the elephant and the reindeer to name a few. These animals are conveniently overlooked. Diamond employs the same one-sided analysis of the exploitability of the flora of the various global biomes. Anyone reading GG&S would think that Caucasians had stumbled into an eden of fully developed seed crops, cleared farmlands and general year-round abundance. In fact, post ice-age Europe was a land of vast uncleared forests, unfordable rivers, mountain ranges and long, bitter winters. Corn and wheat were painstakingly developed into agricultural staples over many millenia by an ingenious population. Had this population failed to exploit their environment, however, these negatives could easily be invoked in support of Diamond's environmentalist theory, thus scoring another victory for environmental absolutism. Diamond's stipulations for assessing environmental origin resemble the medieval test for witchcraft. Throw the accused into a lake. If she drowns she is innocent. If she survives she is a witch and must be killed. Either way you die.

Even if you accept Diamond's theory that Eurasians supposedly favourable environment gave them the stability from which to develop higher cultures, it does not sufficently explain why sub-Saharan Africa failed to develop such fundamentals as the wheel or a system of writing. Why no ox-drawn carts in Africa?

Diamond postulates an army of rhino-mounted Africans invading central Europe and then invokes his indomesticablity clause to explain the impossibility of this scenario. How does he explain the actual invasion of Europe by Africans from Carthage mounted on elephants? Of course! Elephants are domesticable! Or at least they are a bit; just domesticable enough, in fact, not to upset Diamond's theory. How convenient!

GG&S is peppered with much peripheral nonsense. Diamond, supposedly a believer in the equality of races, proclaims that the tribespeople of New Guinea are the "most intelligent people on Earth" because they manage to survive in one of the most hostile environments on Earth. It would be obvious to anyone less blinded by his own dogma that the skills necessary for survival in a jungle environment would be acuity of vision and hearing, fast reactions, stamina and fleetnes of foot. I don't think that any of these attributes would feature on a university entrance exam.

So it goes on. It is difficult to see Mr Diamond's opus as anything more than a vast example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, simple elegant and wrong. If human beings are moulded by environment it is equally true that human beings mould their environments. Extreme environmentalist positions are at best unhelpful and at worst deceitful.

History as a Middle Class Consumer's Paradise, August 16, 2004
John David Ebert (San Francisco Bay Area) - See all my reviews

The Establishment at places like the New York Review of Books and the New York Times Book Review, or indeed, academe in general, has a way of rewarding those who write books which conform to, and confirm, its basic prejudices while penalizing those heretics who do not. Traditionally, it was the Church who fulfilled this role, fighting against one heretical "natural philosopher" after the next--people such as Kepler, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Descartes--until, by the turn of the eighteenth century, with hordes of experimental data giving confirmation to scientific theories, it became clear which worldview was out of date, and which current. Nowadays, it is the university system which--with its race, class, gender concerns, and its materialistic assumptions about the nature of the cosmos and the way it works--has become obsolete, and will go on defending its stiffening Image of the universe until the Western Mind simply outgrows it.
But in the meantime, along comes Jared Diamond, credentialed UCLA professor of geography, to lay out this university-stamped and approved vision of history for the rest of us idiots who just aren't savvy enough to keep up with the latest the university has to offer. One thing Diamond--along with his university colleagues--assures us of, is that all peoples are the same. Fundamentally. No one is any smarter, harder-working, more pragmatic, more dreamy and idealistic than any other. Every culture begins, apparently, on every continent, with the same batch of tabula rasa rubes who then set to work to see who can produce the first civilization. The only problem is, they don't have equal access to equal resources. The Australians hunted all their candidates for animal domestication to extinction early on, and so would never have access to draft animals, and along with them, wheeled vehicles to be pulled by such animals. Same thing with the New World, whose aboriginal peoples hunted all their large mammals to extinction just after the end of the last Ice Age. No draft animals, no civilization. Sorry. You guys lose. Oh, and writing? According to Diamond, only those societies with food production can produce writing, since they are the only ones who can afford to support a non-food producing elite of specialists; so hunting societies who do not have writing cannot keep records and therefore cannot keep tabs on who owes what to whom. (In Diamondworld, inventions only emerge for pragmatic reasons, never symbolic or ritualistic). Nevermind those examples of writing that Alexander Marshack pointed out on Paleolithic bone and ivory carvings, or for that matter, those geometrical figures that no one can decipher on the walls of Paleolithic caves. And don't trouble me with Marija Gimbutas and her insistence that writing began as coded geometries inscribed on pottery during the Neolithic. (She's one of those heretics).
Hmm. So let's get this straight. All those scholars who remarked on the temperamental differences between cultures, like say, between India as dreamy and idealistic vs. the West as mechanically inclined, are really just bogus. The only reason India ever specialized in metaphysics was because it didn't have access to certain goods and services on its continent, although I have no idea what Diamond thinks those natural resources might be, since India apparently has them all, including the cattle which are so sacred that they cannot be eaten even when people are starving (so much for Diamond's economics). There is no such thing as a lazy tribe in Africa vs. an industrious one. We just imagined those things because we were bigotted white men. And the only reason the West is so Imperialistic is because it originated on a continent and in a place teeming with natural resources and other such geographical advantages that those poor Native Americans or Australian aborigines never had. Hmm.
In Diamondworld, history is entirely determined by environmental forces, not human ones, and so human beings are just there like checkers waiting to be pushed about by natural forces. You know, just like Darwin said about evolution, "adapt or die!" So, his model is essentially a modernized version of an outdated Victorian model of Progress in which only those societies which accept sensible innovations like food production and animal domestication go on to become big Chiefs of Empire.
One of the major, major failings of this book is that Diamond has no undertanding of the true forces which shape cultures, i.e. ritual, symbol and mythology, or the way in which human consciousness has evolved in different societies to produce different mythologies which envision different ways of what being human is all about. And that sometimes those mythic visions can act as hindrances toward societies adapting this or that technology. But Diamond is a materialist, not a cultural theoretician. He's a good old all American pragmatist with a vision of history which is basically that of a white, middle class suburban man's in which a trip to Albertson's or Safeway is the high point of a day's events.
It's nice to know that the Establishment still awards Pulitzers to those who see in history only economic and materialistic forces. God forbid that they should ever reward someone who sees things like myth and symbol and vision and spiritual agony as the motivating forces. That would be closer to the Truth, and as Nietzsche was fond of saying, the Lie must be protected at all costs, particularly by rewarding those who reinforce our cherished illusions about life, rather than challenging them.
--John David Ebert

NO PIGS!, July 8, 2004
Reviewer: A reader

Because a new crop of bushy tailed Ivy League students are sure to be required to pick up a copy of this book before their orientations, before even being allowed on campus, there are a few things that you should know about this book before you do start.

Even though there are plenty of wild pigs in New Guinea, which could have been domesticated at any time during the last 100,000 years, Jared Diamond describes the natural fauna in New Guinea as if it were the most protein deficient wasteland on earth. No protein, hmmmm, what could this mean? Why, those poor people!

And even though you would think that this work might lose all credibility if when discussing human cultures, he were to leave out such a grossly significant fact, as the observation that the rugged terrain of the thousands of square miles of the New Guinea highlands is most well known, among educated people, as the home of a people that have been nothing for thousands of years but stone age men without a written language, or any metal tools, but with a human bone or a nasal shell through their septum because they are the world's most feared cannibals.

Yet not one word will you find in this book about that, but with a subtle nod of Jared's head for those in the know, wink wink, that oh, their natural diet has no protein. So, of course, the same trade routes and tasty plants that led other peoples to great things, through no fault or effort of their own, left these poor people in New Guinea very hungry. Very hungry for protein!

You will kill anyone who disagrees with you, by the end of this great work, about the fact that all cultures just have different ways of solving the same universal problems, like protein deficiency for example. And that socialism and capitalism and communism and cannibalism are all just different ways of accomplishing the very same things. Except for capitalism, of course, which is grossly unfair to the poor and to be despised!

You will always have a warm feeling in your stomach, as well, at the secret thoughts that you will imagine that you only realize to yourself after reading this book, about how white boys aren't really anything special after all, despite what you had previously been tricked into believing, in how they just happened to find themselves on east west trade routes near plants that just happened to contain protein.

Of course, you will find many other new ideas in this book, such as Jared Diamond's suggestion in the introduction, that Western civilization encourages white boys to pass on their genes, no matter how intellectually deficient they might be, because Western civilization makes so few demands upon its citizens. Which is why you must be given this book to read even before your orientation, while you are still unlearned enough to not even know about the famous cowry shell collecting New Guinea cannibals.
"It seems that the American idea of democracy is rape and murder" Iraqi News Correspondent
Old November 22nd, 2005 #2
ThemeOfSadness's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The West
Posts: 275
Default continued

(Continued from previous post)

There is a Kevin MacDonald reference in the second one!!!!

Racial egalitarianism masquerading as science, April 27, 2004
deltapolis (Cape Town, South Africa) - See all my reviews

The timing of this book (1997), the authors obvious commitment to "racial egalitarianism" and the convenient awarding of a coveted Pullitzer Prize - thus guaranteeing huge publicity and sales - lends suspicion that GGS may have been deliberately "commissioned" by the "anti-racist" academic intelligentsia to neutralise the surprising success of the much-loathed "Bell Curve" (1994), a book which could never have been awarded a Pullitzer, given the left-wing bias of that committee.

As my title suggests, GGS heavily promotes a left-wing political agenda although this may not have been noticed by the bevy of gushing 5-star reviewers below. Which emphasizes the insidiousness of the PeeCee demand that, in order to appease "turd world" sensitivities, "eurocentric" history and achievements must always be slandered and denigrated - hence the title "Guns, Germs, and Steel", all 3 destructive elements supposedly symbolic of "exploitative" white colonialists.

JD establishes his true agenda as early as the 3rd page where he regurgitates the "blame it all on whitey" justification for the spectacular failure of virtually every black African state - "much of Africa is still struggling with its legacies from recent colonialism" - he dutifully proclaims. Then, on page 19 he uses the word "loathsome" to describe those who would dare to consider that the human races are not exactly equal in intellect. And yet, in almost the same breath he contradicts himself by saying "New Guineans impressed me as being more intelligent than Europeans or Americans". Reverse that last statement and, hey presto, Pullitzer disappears in a puff of peecee.

The objective of this book is to answer "Yali's Question". Yali was a New Guinean who, whilst strolling on a tropical beach, wondered aloud to JD - "why is it that you whites have so much `cargo' when us blacks have so little?" JD's 400 page answer is an ingenious and (to the white liberal conscience) convincing attempt to explain away white success whilst avoiding the real reason (superior intellect) and thus remaining faithful to the gospel of innate racial equality.

JD labours at great length how Eurasia (as opposed to America and Africa, but especially the latter for obvious reasons) was divinely favoured by the larger size of their grass-seeds, the horizontal shape of their continent(!!!), the number and usefullness of domesticable animals and, (inevitably) how unspeakable white people have raped, pillaged, enslaved, decimated, subjugated, colonised, and exploited dark-skinned races as they unfairly clawed their way to the summit of the human heap. JD is also too fond of silly PeeCee statements such as "the oldest Java `man' fossils may actually have belonged to a Java woman!" or "Rhino-mounted Bantu shock troops could have overthrown the Roman Empire". All in all he presents an ingenious but ultimately highly contrived case, whilst propping up the intellectual left's fantasy world of absolute and innate racial egalitarianism.

The book is certainly a good read and makes interesting points some of which may even be valid, but ultimately his conclusion seems to be "well if whites are smarter than blacks its not because they are genetically superior - its because they were lucky..! If blacks had originated in Europe and whites in Africa, the tables would have been turned..!" A conclusion that could only have been made by a committed racial egalitarian.

Just plain wrong, March 4, 2004

CHRIS (binghamton, new york United States) - See all my reviews
Mr. Diamonds thesis and knowledge of how different environments benefit certain populations is very intriguing. His book is easily the best radical cultural/environmental determinist book ever written. But this doesn't change the fact, that this book is just plain wrong in all respects. Mr. Diamonds marxist/egalitarian political agenda so obvious, its amazing that most cannot see right through his line of reasoning. His major point is to show that Western societies only dominated (the world) because of luck, the right environment and plants and the Nonwestern world is not advanced because of "bad luck" and the so ever "white racism". He basically playing the same old tirade that Gould, Montagu and other marxists have been spewing for years. His real intent is to basically dismantle white racialism (the main function of the race-denier crowd), and to take advantage of European's peoples universal morality( why don't race-denier theories show up in China, africa, India, Japan or the Non white world?). His hatred for whites is also abhorrent, its obvious he just wants whites to be more "tolerant", "accepting", "altrusitic" and open to the Nonwhite world. The the fact that Mr. Diamond is Jewish is no concidence, I urge all readers here to read "The Culture of Critique" chapter 2 where Kevin Macdonald discusses how and why so many of the leading race-deniers/radical environmentalists have been Jews. Starting with Boas in anthropoloy all the way up to Diamond,Gould and Montagu Jewish social scientists have primarily been concerned with trying to squash white ethnocentrism by supporting movements that support racial egalitarianism and enviromentalist theories (of course not all have been Jewish, likewise many Jews have helped sociobiology, this is just a generalization). BUT science is moving on, sociobiology has been vindicated, and the biological basis for human behavior and racial differences is becoming more and more accepted by specialists everyday. Even though the public may be ignorant of the real research for political reasons, that won't change the fact that sociobiology and Jensenism will be vindicated. I suspect that once these theories of human behavior become more and more accpeted by scientists, the popular media/leftists/radical envrionmentalists will lanuch a full scale attack to supress it. You know the sciencitific zietigiest is poor when a book gets the "pultizer prize" for basically spewing "feel good" scientific theories that have absolutely NO basis in fact or research( Mr. Daimond denies sixty years of research into mental and physical differences between the Races, and amazingly makes no attempt WHATSOEVER to refute anyone of them. The current theories are as vindicated, as the theory that earth goes around the sun) . In the end science, doesn't wait for anybody, for political extremism, bias or dogma when sociobiology and Jensenism get pubilcy vindicated, people and socieites will have to start over and build according to the CORRECT view of human nature. In fifty years, people will be wondering how such garbage, was ever considered serious science at once.

Biased politically-correct tripe, February 17, 2004

Mark5576 "mark5576" (Framingham, MA United States)
- See all my reviews
Jared Diamond claims that Europeans advanced further than Native American, Asian, African, etc. because the Europeans developed plow-driven farming sooner and thereby developed organized societies sooner. Also Europeans developed immunities through frequent contact with various domestic animals and consequently defeated other peoples by bringing diseases with them. Entirely valid thesis, except that Diamond proceeds to pick any evidence supporting it, and ignores anything that contradicts it.

Why did Britain conquer India? Indians were certainly more resistant to diseases in India, had BETTER domestic animals (elephants to pull canons, for instance), and had just as sophisticated social structure. And during the Indian Mutiny their weapons were just as good as the British ones. Yet the outnumbered British prevailed. The central point of Diamond's book is Pizarro's capture of Atahualpa (168 Spaniards against 80,000 Incas). Diamond attributes that stunning victory purely to superior weaponry - ignoring the fact that with 500 to 1 advantage completely unarmed people (and Incas WERE armed, if poorly) can easily swarm armored arquebusiers by sheer mass. Incas were paralyzed by their delusional view of reality - in other words, their CULTURE. And culture seems to be either a dirty world, or a non-existent one to Diamond. He does no even consider that cultural differences, such as tradition of rational inquiry, have anything to do with military victories.

The book is rife with such omissions. The Mongols conquered China and half of Europe and they were a nomadic, non-agricultural people. Diamond gives them exactly one sentence ("Mongol empire stretched 6,000 miles"). African tribal societies had farming and domesticated animals for centuries before the Europeans arrived. China had all the advantages Europe had, yet according to Diamond lost out because (get that!) its smooth coastline allowed no refuge to dissenters from the government that suppressed innovation (and why would it do that?). European coastline is convoluted, so such dissenters could hide. No mention of European governments which encouraged innovation (culture again!) and prospered as a result.

As for Diamond's claim early in the book that New Guineans are more intelligent that Westerners, that's just pure racism - especially in view of his repeated claims elsewhere in the book that no humans groups innately differ in intelligence. Except these two, apparently. He thinks that the violence of New Guinean society - that any encounter with a stranger could turn deadly, - bred out the stupid ones. Assuming that is true, one wonders why did New Guineans never grow smart enough to END such violence?

Even worse is Diamond's mention of his experiences on a Midwestern farm where all white farmhands were hard-drinking scum, and the only decent person was a Native American. That's just gratuitous white-bashing, so common on liberal college campuses. Without that and the "New Guineans must be smarter" bit, I would have given the book 2 stars ("intriguing idea, poorly executed"). As is, it deserves the lowest rating possible.

Apologist, October 28, 2003
Reviewer: A reader

You will read that all cultures are equivalent, except for one, which is loathsome, Western culture. You will then read that intelligence cannot possibly be higher among some ethnic groups than others, except for one which actually is smarter, New Guinea cannibals.
You will then learn that conceptions such as humanism, the renaissance and that most hated of words nowadays, morality, had nothing to do with Western domination at all, but that it was just "geography".
You will weep by the end of this work, for the wicked conceit of a savage's apologist.

My Friends, The New Guinea Headhunters, June 28, 2002
Reviewer: A reader

The year was 1901 and although the ideas and impressions I will now relate will soon become "outdated" I couldn't help but be impressed by the large intelligence being demonstrated by my New Guinea guide as he found his way through some wild shrubs.
Let me tell you exactly what my friend was like - His hair was shaven well back from the forehaead and his face and body painted brick red and picked out with markings in white, black and yellow. A long nasal shell was thrust through the septum of his nose and a fine cassowary feather head-dress adorned his head. Guantlets of plaited cane, decorated with cowrie shells and white feathers, were fastened to his arms and legs, and a bark belt fitted around his body with a white, triangular, pubic shell hanging from it.
Still, I couldn't help but admire the intelligent way he could tell the correct shrub from the incorrect shrub, it was stunning really and proof to me that these people would soon take their rightful part in the white man's world and at a very high level.
He asked if I might not like to enter his tribe's great house, or 'mene'.
Beneath the fierce looking figure of Iriwaki, a veil of raffia-like fibres hid the interior of the mene which was about fifty feet tall at the highest point of a sharply sloping roof. To both the right and left of the entrance, in front of shields and totems cut from canoe wood, were the skulls of pigs and crocodiles, while above the shields, rows of pigeon holes had been constructed from the midrib of sago palms. In each of these was a human skull: most had been painted and worked up with clay or bees-wax and given eyes of cowrie shells so they looked like hideous faces.
I was again drawn to the unbelievable intelligence of my host. A couple of days ago I had given him a message written on a piece of bark to relay to my wife. Upon his return, he had rushed off to a large group of his friends, waving the slither of wood. "Look what the white man has done," he shouted. "See this wood: he made it talk! I took it up the hill and it told his woman everything. It talked!"
Since it was his wedding day, the 'buguru' was reaching a climax and each man in the village was compelled to take my host's new wife, each making a gift of an armshell or necklace or some tobacco in return for her favors.
Just then, to my horror, I realized that the great men's house, or dubu-daimo had just been completed - for such places were often dedicated with the blood of human victims, the slain bodies of which were dragged along their length. The New Guinea natives then commenced to club spear and stab to death my entire party.
At once the clothes were stripped and the heads cut off. Braves dragged out the headless bodies and began to cut them up as women and girls rushed from their houses to carry off the cut up pieces to roast on fires for a cannibal feast.
I don't know why they spared me, but I was once asked how many converts to Christianity I had made while in New Guinea, for I was a missionary, and I replied, "Converts? None. But if we can reduce the appalling infant mortality and induce them to adopt some of the rudimentary rules of sanitation; and generally make them happier and healthier natives, our work will not be in vain."
I didn't yet realize then, of course, that my native guide was hiding the native intelligence of Albert E. Einstein beneath his shaven and painted head! That is until Mr. Jared Diamond revealed it a mere hundred years from now.

Slick egalitarian propaganda, June 20, 2002
Reviewer: A reader

Helpfully, Diamond sums up his work:

"Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: `History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."

His purpose is political: to convince us that present-day disparities in social, economic, and intellectual achievement among population groups is not attributable to biological differences. The glaring problem with the thesis: biological differences follow from environmental differences.

According to the "Out of Africa" theory, modern humans arose in Africa and migrated from there about 100,000 years ago. If we accept Diamond's uncontroversial premise that Southwest Asia was a markedly different environment, that's an awfully long time for natural selection to work to fit the emigrants to a non-African environment. While the population that remained in Africa was evolving resistance to malarias, for instance, the emigrant population was adapting to its new environment(s) as it spread further across Asia and Europe. (The gene for sickle cells -- distorted red blood cells -- in the heterozygous condition protects against some of the malarias; but it does so at the cost of causing a serious anemia when it is present in the homozygous condition. Malaria is such a serious disease that a human population can afford the anemias in some individuals as long as other individuals are protected against malaria.)

Environmental differences were crucial to biological/genetic differentiation as each new environment created a feedback loop that selected for fitness for that environment. Diamond's notion that after 100,000 years of such differentiation there are no significant genetic differences that affect success in present-day environments is inherently implausible and contrary to scientific observation of human biodiversity.
"It seems that the American idea of democracy is rape and murder" Iraqi News Correspondent
Old November 28th, 2005 #3
Alcoholic Racist Hater
Fenrir's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 407

How nice to see that the intelligent goyim are waking up to the Jewish problem and the incessant lies the kikes have been shitting out for the past fifty years about the "inherent equality of all peoples."

Diamond is a mendacious kike who has done nothing but repeat the same old line of shit we've heard from Boas, Montagu, Gould, and countless others since the skeevy juden got their hands on the academic and publishing world back in the 1940s. Hopefully an intellectual revolution is poised to take place, and Jews like Diamond will be swept into the dustbin of history as "one more lying 'intellectual' Jew" along with all the others.
"It's about time for those of us still capable of thinking tribally to begin doing so." - WLP
Old December 20th, 2005 #4
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Oy Ze Hate

I tried reading Guns, Germs, and Steel back when I was fully jew-wise but didn't know Mr. Diamond was in fact a jew. I can't see how anyone could plod through such a pedantic, inaccurate, and boring book. I mean after a few chapters I was like "this guy has to be a kike". And lo and behold, he is.

In the jews' mind, everything about human differences is to be blamed on environment. From this supposition, the jew will play every trick in his repertoire. The jew just cannot accept that some people are born lucky, to a higher order of existence, than others. He can't accept the natural aristocracy. His egalitarian soul simply knows nothing but to tear down that which is better to equalize it with what is worse, because what is worse cannot be built up to that which is better, no matter how much he spins reality with words. No child left behind=no child gets ahead. He can't accept the natural order of things. Every visible and quantifiable reality is merely something to be talked away with lies, distortions, and twisted logic. Which is why the jews are a people of the word. EVERY single jewish accomplishment has occurred within the realm of language manipulation. Outside of a tiny handful of scientific advancements or discoveries a la Salk and his (probably stolen) vaccine and Einstein and his (definitely stolen) theory of "relativity". Creating new realities, thatz the jew. How? WITH WORDS!

I've been forced to accept my shortcomings and flaws, but you don't hear me proselytizing about how I'm just as good as anyone else and the only real problem is the circumstances I was born into. I'm a white man and I take my lot in life and I do the best I can with what I've got. The jew takes the lesser races and weaves his magic spell of bullshit and we're all supposed to revel in our equality. It just isn't so. He's so obsessed with making life more fair for his untermensch charges. Lifting up niggers means destroying whites and bringing them down several notches. Everything about the jew is anti-nature and anti-reality.

Nature doesn't care about equality. Nature doesn't care about anything. Nature just IS. Death is the only sure thing. The rest is fighting for your survival in an indifferent, and quite often hostile, world.

fake science, jew science


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 AM.
Page generated in 0.14462 seconds.