Why does Sup Forums hate this book again?

Why does Sup Forums hate this book again?

It's liberal fairy tales. Ancient Aliens is more realistic.

KEK HATH SPOKEN

>484
Thoth too, apparently.

It's a "grand theory", it's not really falsifiable so it's not science. Interesting lens to view the world with though, there is probably quite a lot of truth in it.

...

He claims Papua New Guineans are the master race (along with Jews)

Because Rushton's book best explains why niggers are naturally stupid, greedy rapists.

I think a more interesting question is why leftists hate this book now.

Checked

Leftists love this book. They always cite it when you ask them "If we're all equal, how did white men end up on top?"

Checkmate Jared Damond

Found the book interesting in parts where he talk about animals.

Don't know why so many people hate.

And once again confirmed by Kek

not even liberals like it anymore

CARGO
A
R
G
O

He ignores a lot of data that basically refutes his point entirely and avoids a lot of straightforward data that has more explanatory power as to the differences in outcome between groups in order to construct this extremely complicated narrative that requires a lot of suspension of skepticism in order to come to a feel-good egalitarian narrative you were supposed to come to and have in the first place.

You see, evil white men had it super easy durring centuries of war and winter on their resource sparce peninsula with a dirth of yearly sunlight thanks to far northern latitude. Blacks by contrast had it super hard living hand to mouth with all the fruit falling off of trees, large and plentiful hunting animals, year round warm weather and a quarter of all global land. After several year of liberal indoctrination, it's pretty easy to read this book and confirm that white men are in deed evil racists who only got their success by stealing African technologies.

>He ignores a lot of data

Such as? Pictures of people riding tame zebras?

Because it makes the White race look like they succeeded not because for some inherent innate quality.

>Pictures of people riding tame zebras?

Diamond claims that Africa had no domesticable animals.

He is very wrong. It's just too bad that it's easier to domesticate a zebra than a nigger.

While the book contains certain facts, it's written as an argument and is certainly not comprehensive.

The whole book is basically "This is why non-whites failed to create a civilization as dominates as European whites".

"Guns Germs" and "Why Nations Fail" (which is much more influential in Econ circles but not as mainstream) are both garbage bullshit that try to pin country's failures to anything but the most obvious: their human capital.

Based Sailer has dismantled both those piles of shit many times.

Daily reminder: demographics is destiny. A country's success is literally tied to its human capital which is based on IQ which is all genetic

I stopped reading it at Chapter 1. First he said that all races are equal, but then he said that Papua New Guineans are literally smarter than everyone else because they don't watch TV like the filthy west. lol okay

I don't hate it, it's an interesting take on the differences in development between parts of the world.
He just draws too large a conclusion from too little evidence and people treat it as if it's proper scientific literature.

Triple threes are moloch get

>He just draws too large a conclusion from too little evidence and people treat it as if it's proper scientific literature.

Like most liberal science, he started with his conclusion (Everyone is the saaaaaaaaaame--except for white people, they suck) and then tried to justify it.

Liberals believe in evolution except when it comes to people.

Which African beasts of burden (such that can drag a plow) are domesticable?

>I do not know the definition of domestication

Don't lefties hate this now? Something about its geographical determinism must have contravened their neo-Marxist dogma.

I have a history degree from a liberal college and no professor takes this book seriously.

They didn't teach you what an argument ad populum is or why it's not a valid argument at your liberal college?

>leaf

>Which African beasts of burden (such that can drag a plow) are domesticable?

Niggers, with enough effort. They can go feral quickly though.

Camels and buffalo would be good choices, but someone in Africa would have had to be capable of inventing a plow.

I mean I don't see how you can deny the parts about geography, it's very obviously true. Different latitudes show similar features ecologically. The major jungles of the world are along about the same latitude from the amazon, to sub sahara africa, to south asia. Same with most other ecological features really.

Also he's right in some part about animals and livstock, the americas didn't have shit. What, llamas? That's it?

Camels don't exist below the Sahara, and Buffalo are not domesticable. Would you like to try again?

Wuz Kangs. N shit.

But....but...muh feels!

>muh blacks are just as intelligent as whites because rap
i can't think of more jewy bullshit than that

>Buffalo are not domesticable

Just because prairie niggers and spearchuckers didn't do something doesn't make it impossible, cupcake.

And don't pretend that domestication happens within 100 years or not at all.