Guns germs and steel

Because Yid Kikeman the author says there's no such thing at race and yet applauds scientific evidence to show there's such a thing as a Jewish race. Because he says magical horse power = good and yet niggers had zebras to domesticate, not to mention they could've used horses from the Arabs, not to mention the Inca empire - one of the biggest empires in human history - had no horses.

Just another kike trying to guilt the west into becoming an oriental bazaar so he feels less threatened. Hope he gets knifed in the guts by a stray nigger

The animals could be domesticated, it's the local niggers that couldn't be. kek

...

One of my best friends is obssessed with horses, he rides, trains, and takes care of them at the local stable. He told me that the deal with zebras was not that they can't be domesticated but that their hearts are not strong like horses. I'm not sure if that's true or not but I'm sure he knows his shit.

Stopped reading right there.

I'm reading a summary of it and it seems like his argument is that europe got lucky with it's environment and available resources. But his main presumption is that people evolve separately from nature.
Unless he's implying that if Africans or anyone else was put in Europe that they too would have conquered the world.
But if they evolved in Europe they most likely would have developed traits that are very similar to Europeans over time.

...

This should be enough to convince the average person that Diamond's views are either disingenuous or he's completely insane.

Yes, that's exactly it, nevermind that there's shitton of differences in Europe as there are in any other continent geographically, for example the Vikings had really shit-tier quality iron yet they managed to wreck shit and the fact that Africa as a continent is way richer than Europe when it comes to natural resources.
I could go on with calling out its shit but is a great picture.

But I'm talking about fast, long distance running. If zebras were good for this then why doesn't anybody ride zebras?

Doesn't anybody ride them competitively, and in place of a regular horse I mean.

The real argument is that Europeans and Africans are the same and thus interchangeable and thus you shouldn't worry about all those wogs coming into your country goyim, they're just as capable of western civilization as you (and if you diasgree you're a racist like Hitler)

No one here has shit on the book in approximately a year because this has been discussed to death and is general slide thread material.

...

I don't know about natives of Papua New Guinea, but as Stone-Age cultures go, West Papua (basically the west portion of the same island) natives are less retarded than some. I watched a documentary where they built a bridge over a fairly wide, high-certainty-of-death river. These virtually uncontacted natives wearing nothing but penis gords planned it out in detail and built a mock-up, just to be clear on the process. Pretty sure no sub-Saharan Africans are into bridge-building. No cuck just sayin.

That doesn't mean that everyone has had a chance to see a GGS thread. Let the newfriends learn.

No, he does not.

I am an amateur zoologist, and have been since a child, and I'm an actual biochemist by trade.

Zebras have no issue with their hearts in this vein; however, even if such WAS the case, this is the sort of issue domestication and selective breeding corrects.

Do you think the original horses tamed by humans were fucking Clydesdales?

No, they were wimpy lil shit horses, that couldn't even carry a man's weight.

Over thousands of years, humans shaped horses - as we did with basically all domesticated animal forms - to serve our needs, producing the creatures you see today.

Zebras could absolutely be domesticated, have been domesticated, and there is absolutely zero physiological cause for the absence of such on behalf of the African people.

The Africans basically domesticated nothing.

They didn't domesticate dogs, despite several canid-esque creatures inhabiting Africa.
They didn't domesticate zebras, the local equine equivalent.
They didn't even domesticate the local bovine or porcine equivalents - no tamed cape buffalo or wildebeest, no tamed warthog.

They domesticated nothing - because they didn't have to, so they didn't both to.

Africa is basically the garden of Eden - far more than half of the local plant species are edible, and animal matter (whether gathered directly or obtained from large predator's kills) is plentiful.

There is no excuse for this shit - niggers didn't domesticate shit, because they had no need to domesticate shit, because the environment did not require it of them in order to survive, just as it did present selective force towards intellectual development that would lead one to such behaviors in the event it wasn't a necessity to do so.

Bottom line: Niggers never developed beyond where they were thousands of years ago, because they didn't have to - and so, when confronted by clades of hominid who DID have to experience such conditions, and evolve as a result (with heavy selection upon intelligence and cooperation), they were utterly defeated and generally look like what they are, pseudo-boon subpar hominids.

Forgot my post Kek.

Incorrect. Vikings (and Celts tbh, they're both shit on by Christcucks) had methods of forging and working metal that we to this very day can't match the quality of.

Bog iron is a fine material if it's worked correctly.

Because domestication takes time, and we have horses who are already selectively bred to suit our needs in that regard.

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from domesticating zebra, and if we so desired, we could selectively breed a variant of zebra which is more-than-suitable as a mount within a few hundred years, no question.

That's correct, should've elaborated that the iron ore was shit-tier all things considered, but with knowledge that they possessed they could make more than servicable weapons and tools out of it.

come on, you sound like a katana loving weeb

TECHNIQUES.
Which niggers never dreamed of.

Thank you for the well written answer.

This. The opposite is actually true, Vikings had amazing metal smiths. They were using crucible steel. At that time, the only steel that rivaled it was perhaps Wootz steel or Damascus. Legendary shit, some samples even used hypoeutectoid steel. One example from a 10th century grave in Nemilany, Moravia, has a pattern-welded core with welded-on hardened cutting edges.

People make fun of weebs because katanas are shit and inferior in every way to other cultural swordsmithing traditions. It's not solely the fault of Japan, but it is partially.

If you tried to attack a knight with that, it would not pierce his armor. Fuck, if you strapped the breastplate down and dried thrusting and slashing it, it would slide off.

I heard they just recently domesticated some kind of rat. Lol.

>because Zebras are genetically prone to violence and ill temperament we will not expand genetic predisposition of behavior to humans though

I think this is also a big reason why higher faculties are dulled in knee grows, on average. Their environment didn't challenge them as much as the Europeans were challenged by theirs. Now there is a regression, all people are being shaped into unthinking idiots who don't do anything other than what falls in their lap.

In short, It ignores evolution and IQ stats. If you can keep that in mind and take things with a grain of salt it might offer a new perspective.

Don't be a lemming and do own thinking instead of accepting whatever is written and the book is alright.

Europeans survived in a much harsher environment than blacks, I've seen some theorize that's what forced us to develop superior cognitive planning abilities, because winter will kill you. Perhaps the opposite stagnated niggers evolutionarily?

(checked)

Capped for posterity, Satan. Thank you for the insights.

Japanese iron deposits are of poor quality so in order to make proper swords they were required to go through their folding process which works out impurities.

Anyway their swords were primarily used in civilian personal defense capacity against unarmored opponents. Same is true in Europe spears pikes and bows were the primary weapons of war. Swords are a side arm.

...

This.

True, that's why I mentioned it wasn't all their fault.

nips would still get fucked to superior European strategies :^)

The book works backwards, starting with the conclusion that Europeans were lucky and it's not Africa's fault that it hasn't improved since the rest of humanity first left, and then makes up a bunch of shit to justify it.

Like that the Africans didn't have good animals to domesticate, or good crops to grow. As if that stopped the Asians, or the South Americans. He draws attention to how the environment shapes the evolution of culture, but then turns around and denies that it affects human evolution as well.

The fact of the matter is that life in Africa is too easy because there's so much freely available food, and there are no harsh winters, so the Africans were never forced to adapt or die. They're exactly like they were when the rest of humanity left a long long time ago. All humans used to be like Africans, but they migrated to very different environments and evolved accordingly.

The human family tree would look like a normal tree, except Africans are a single branch near the bottom that lead to nothing, and every other race branches in different directions near the top.

I heard once that South Americans never domesticated any animals, yet still built their civilizations, also that that's why they didn't have any diseased like smallpox.

Even if you assume all of Diamond's conclusions about the relative ease of civilizing each region of the globe are correct, that would not undermine the legitimacy of the racial evidence common on this site. Diamond does not demonstrate that the races are equal, but claims to do so while avoiding any study of racial differences.

In other words: if you give a retard pen and paper and you give a genius a typewriter, the genius will write a better essay. No reasonable person would conclude that this was due primarily to the discrepancy between their writing tools.

It's not just environmental austerity in general.

Cold temperatures reshape and forge skulls in ways that can support larger and better developed brains.

Europeans are special because they survived both cold temperatures and very low sunlight conditions - hence their light skin, hair, and eyes, bigger eyes to see in the dark, etc.

They had alpacas and llamas for wool, food and load carrying uses. Hard to say whether they were completed 'domesticated' though. My friend has a couple of each and those things simply do not give a fuck.

His argument is basically that the highly competitive environments of Eurasia selected for human populations with highly competitive cultures and tools. He completely rules out the possibility that these highly competitive Eurasian environments might have also selected for more competitive genes, in fact, he argues that primitive 60 IQ Papuan negroids are probably genetically smarter than Europeans.

(checked)
I just got the weirdest sense of de ja vu.

Maybe I've already had this conversation

The main advantage afforded to Europeans was harsh winters, in my opinion. This was a strong evolutionary pressure selecting for people who were not only resourceful and resilient, but that could plan well ahead. You couldn't just eat all your food anymore, you had to set some aside to survive the winter.

Even today in Africa, they just can't wrap their heads around it. Whites go there and bring them seeds and try and teach them how to farm but it just doesn't work. Most of them just don't get it. And the ones that do, the Africans with potential, get dragged down by the rest. They may be intelligent enough to understand why they shouldn't just eat all their seeds, and how to store them safely, but that doesn't stop the rest of Africa from kicking their door in and eating them.

The inability to think long-term, delay instant gratification and cooperate for the benefit of the group is why Africans make such shitty farmers.

It's worth noting though that the modern hyper-stimulating environment is also stripping people of the ability to plan long-term and delay gratification. The modern abundance of food and entertainment is quite similar to the environment the Africans evolved for.

this thread again?
1/10 stale

OY FUCKING VEY.

The early infanticidal childrearing mode of Austrian Aboriginals has been arguably the most abusive and neglectful of all tribal cultures. It is possible that the poor environment of the Australian desert is partially responsible for their lack of progress in childrearing, though New Guinea was nearly as stuck as they are in early infanticidal mode childrearing and they have had a far better environment than Australia. The origins of the very violent personalities of Aboriginals are, of course, in no way caused by genetic differences, only developmental. Thousands of Aboriginals have been removed from their parents and brought up by modern city parents and they turn out to have personalities indistinguishable from others in their adoptive families.
The custom of raping Aboriginal children, eating “every second child” and making the older children also eat them is termed “a quite favorable picture” by Roheim. [96] Mothers regularly forced their children to eat their newborn siblings “in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.” [97] Sometimes the fetus would be “pulled out by the head, roasted, and eaten by the mother and the children” and sometimes “a big boy would be killed by the father by being beaten on the head” and given to the mother to eat. [98] Since most newborns in the Pacific area, from Hawaii to Tahiti, were murdered by their mothers, [99] and since their siblings were forced to participate in the killings, all adults had Killer Mother alters implanted in their amygdalan fear networks which they were compelled to reenact. Hippler says Australian children “attacked infants unceasingly” while “the mother rarely intervenes… Children’s attacks become so common that one often hears adults saying ‘Don’t kill the baby.’ But no one interferes and the child is increasingly made subject to violence and stress.” [100] He also says “children are abused by their mother and others…routinely brutally…jerked roughly, slapped or shaken…verbally abusive using epithets such as ‘you shit’ [frightened by] a dangerous world full of demons, though in reality the real dangers are from his caretakers…children are terrified to leave the presence of their mothers.” [101] Fusion with the Killer Mother is guaranteed by all these practices, plus the mother’s choking the infant with her milk during nursing, the constant masturbation by mother of her children’s penis and vagina while she lies on top of them, twisting and pinching them as we saw was the practice in New Guinea. [102]

The mutilation of young girls’ vaginas is also practiced by the Aboriginals, “in which old men roll emu feathers with a loop of hair. This device is put into the vagina and then removed, pulling away a large part of the womb. The rest of the womb is then cut horizontally and vertically with a stone knife. When this wound is healed, the girl is then circumcised and made to have intercourse with many young men. The mix of blood and semen is collected and given to frail tribesmen as a fortifying elixir.” [103] Again, the fusion with the Killer Mother’s blood is imagined to increase the strength of the male who is uncertain of his masculinity. Males marry many wives and even rape their own daughters [104] in order to fortify their masculinity, and fathers often have “boy-wives” to absorb some of their maleness. [105] It is not surprising that with both boys and girls “almost their only, and certainly their supreme, game was coitus,” particularly “licking the vagina of girls” to increase their strength. [106] Gang raping is constant among Aboriginals, as it is in all tribal cultures. [107] Roheim calls the constant rape of Aboriginal children “far more ‘normal’ than the sexuality of the European male” since “their repression of sexuality need not be as deep as it is among Europeans.” [108]
The initial ritual of Aboriginal boys is accomplished by throwing them into a trench called “The Old Woman” with a bull-roarer called “The Mother” (her womb), repeating their birth by going through a birth tunnel with an umbilical rope attached, being covered by “the menstrual blood that can cause you to die,” and then sub-incising them with “a slit made on the underside of his penis” that is said to create a powerful vagina. [109] The men then have intercourse in the split on the underside of the penis, “like a split-open frankfurter.” [110] Equipped with a vagina and with the powerful blood of the “Old Serpent Woman” who roams the desert in search of people to eat, warriors go out to kill anyone they can find, living “in dread of enemies” who are Killer Mother serpents, creating Faked Provocations of some fancied wrongs that might justify the killing, either individually or in small groups. Many Australian tribes ate their dead enemies, including their neighbors, though “not for the sake of food.” [111] Australian Aborigines also “never neglect to massacre all strangers who fall into their power.” [112] “Men, women and children are massacred indiscriminately.” [113] A majority of adult men are killed by homicide and over a quarter are killed in warfare. [114] These patterns have not changed in millennia: “fighting scenes are extensively depicted in Aboriginal rock art dating back at least 10,000 years.” [115] When childrearing doesn’t change, economies and cultures do not change.

97. Geza Roheim, Children of the Desert: The Western Tribes of Central Australia. Vol. 1, New York: Basic Books, 1974, p. 71
98. Ibid., p. 72
99. Eli Sagan, At The Dawn Of Tyranny, pp. 75, 196-197, 200
100. Arthur E. Hippler, Culture and Personality Perspective of the Yolngu of Northeastern Arnhem Land: Part 1—Early Socialization, Journal of Psychological Anthropology 1 (1978): 221
101. Ibid., pp. 229-244
102. Ibid., pp. 235; Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 264-267
103. Cathy Joseph, Compassionate Accountability: An Embodied Consideration of Female Genital Mutilation, The Journal of Psychohistory 24 (1996), p. 12
104. Geza Roheim, Children of the Desert, pp. 22, 54
105. Ibid., p. 117; Edward Brongersma, Loving Boys, Vol. I. Elmhurst: Global Academic Publications, 1986, p. 89
106. Ibid., pp. 119, 120, 102, 97
107. Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 699, 700
108. Ibid., p. 255
109. Ibid., p. 400; Robert Tonkinson, The Mardudjara Aborigines, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978, p. 23
110. Rosalind Miles, The Women’s History of the World, Topsfield: Salem House, 1988, p. 38
111. Maurice R. Davie, The Evolution of War: A Study of Its Role in Early Societies, Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003, p. 69
112. Ibid., p. 13
113. Azar Gat, War In Human Civilization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 22
114. Richard J. Barnet, Roots of War, New York: Penguin, 1973, p. 93
115. Azar Gat, War In Human Civilization, p. 18

Not everyone can be on Holla Forums 24/7. And with the transient nature of threads on chans, you should be used to some repeats of important topics by now.

Quads confirm, some of us have lives.

The pictures show that you can train an Zebra, That's not necessarily the same thing as domesticating them. You can also train lions, yet they would make shitty work animals.

Zebras have one huge down side compared to horses and that's that they are horde and not family animals. A zebra doesn't give a shit about another zebra, being a swarm is what keeps them alive while horses are smaller, more pack like animals. If you get the leading animal to trust or submit to you, you get the rest of them.
Not everything is black and white, beside the zebras maybe. The book has some decent points, europe certainly had some luck, heck, even when we had bad luck and cultivated all the pocks in the world in our cities we were lucky as soon as we brought them to the americas because they killed all the natives.
But there is more to the story, there is a lot of hard work involved in all of this and the book doesn't give enough credit to that point. Europe had one of the better starting positions but that's not the answer to everything there is.

How is it better than the resources in Africa and all the animals there?
Even Indians could domesticate Elephants, much less other animals.

...

ffs, even the Mexicans can do that.

I'm pretty sure that's just a painted donkey.

I know more about the Zebra example and by no means I know all about the african animal kingdom.
Elephants suck major balls for domesticating unless you are already a rich motherfucker. They are a pain in the ass to first capture and train, that's really risky if you run around with stone tools. In addition to that elephants eat a lot and have insanely long gestation to work animal time. If you are rich they are great, but they are the Lamborghini of the farm animals, probably not even worth it for plowing the fields because they would eat more than they would help.
In the later stages of a civilization sure, that works but not if we are talking early stage farmers.

Both zebra and elephant are hard to domesticate, I'm not going to say impossible because I don't know for sure but for entry level society it's tricky.

That been said, they could have traveled to places with better farm animals. From africa to europe isn't that hard.

The only ones who got really shafted when it came to that were the americas because they really didn't have a lot but they still managed to build huge cities and a somewhat high culture. So I'm not going to say that nignogs were just unlucky. My point is just that there is indeed something to the book.

That's what's so dangerous about the book. It's not 100% bullshit, more like 80-90%.

The best lies have some truth mixed in.

I didn't say Europe wasn't a cold place during the Ice Age And after

I'm just saying Europe isn't as cold as Asia, and that Asians are better equipped to handle those super low temperatures.

Whites can fare cold temperatures and low sunlight conditions.

I don't buy it. But Asians clearly evolved well also, evidenced by the Chinese empire and the success of other Asian nations. Plus all their ancient technological achievements, like discovering gunpowder, writing, and their advancements in shipbuilding. I think they even had a sort of printing press. I've read that rice cultivation was actually quite beneficial for the Asians because of the techniques they had to perfect to do it well, and the math and engineering involved with building a productive rice paddy. They did some really clever shit to grow rice.

And as we all know, the Jew fears the Samurai.

Honestly he's not wrong when he says that Europeans got lucky with their enviroment, he's just right for the wrong reasons. In my opinion, it is not that our environment is abundant in resources that made us advances, but rather that our enviroment is difficult to survive in that forced us to adapt. Only the strong people that could plan survive the winter by planning crops, building suitable shelters and clothing, domesticating animals, etc, survived. Niggers have no need to adapt, so they don't. Seems pretty lucky that we bred in such a rough enviroment to me.

Damn if we don't want to devolve into niggers we are going to have to simulate a hard environment to survive in. Ouch.

How many Whites can live above the Arctic Circle like Inuits do?

Or fucking Siberia?

Asians survive extremely low temperatures, but Asia also happens to have alot of sunlight.

Snow + Sunlight = Snow Blindness, hence the development of Epicanthral folds.

pseudoscience the book

Yeah I forgot about the Inuits and all those other ice Asians that Russia took Siberia from. Still though, I don't think they represent the average Asian. Of the same blood clearly, but they've evolved a little bit differently. The average Asian today is Chinese, and I don't think it gets that could there.

–

I looked it up, and the record low in China is just a little bit higher than Sweden, and lower than Germany and Britain. Color me surprised. Dunno if that represents the average winter or not, but it's still surprising. They are still of very different climates though.

I found this article and image pretty interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_climate

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/World_Koppen_Classification_(with_authors).svg

Because it provides a rational explanation as to why Europeans conquered the world rather than "GOD WILLS IT". Dead kike on a stick worshipers hate that.

If there were a reason to do so, yes. Africans just didn't bother, if they had a complex understanding of animal husbandry and domestication they would have chosen the zebra over the horse because zebra can resist many of the insects, bacteria, viruses and parasites native to Africa whereas the horse cannot.
The reason we didn't bother is because by the time we began colonizing Africa our system of supply trains, taming nature, travel and medication were so good that we could deal with using horse, and only a hundred years after that we invented the motorized vehicle which is how long domesticating the zebra would have taken.

Kinda of topic but what is a lot more interesting is that most asian nations also simply stopped evolving. Look at japans martial tradition. For around 500 years hardly anything changes in their weaponry and armor while europe improved and changed every few decades.

This might be connected to the book again. The japanese had really crappy steel and not a lot of it. That's why their swords were made like early viking swords.
But steel became fairly cheap and we had some really high quality iron and smelting in europe thus we could put chain mail and steel helmets on most of our soldiers. I think it was medieval toledo steel that changed everything but I'm not sure if I remember that correctly.

Well if you're talking about Eskimos etc. they domesticated caribou and wolves. Look at the Siberian reindeer herders and dogsled teams.

They still can't function in a modern economy though and didnt move much beyond nomadism.

I think part of that is that the countries and peoples that made up Europe were basically engaged in constant warfare, which caused an arms and technology race. Asia has had its fair share of conflict also, but it was usually on a smaller scale and less constant than Europa. Their battles also involved a lot more water than Europe, which was why their ships were the best in the world until England got up and running. Many of the best naval commanders in history are Asian.

Jesus Christ, how the fuck can a race be THIS dysfunctional.

...

...

It appears that the Mexican is also an imitation.

But weren't the japanese at war with each other all the time? That's kinda what they are famous for. One would expect that they would try go get every advantage they could.
European middle ages battles were also fairly small and were mostly sieges. Small of course in comparison to ancient european battles.

Though there probably is also a philosophical aspect to it. Japan and if I remember correctly also China had chosen isolationism and were consciously against change and "progression".

I'm thinking about taking up camping as a hobby. Do you think such a thing would help to rewild ourselves?

this reads like some guro doujin.

Yeah, Asian culture is and always was very very different than European culture. China definitely settled into a status quo. And yeah you're right, Japan did have constant conflicts between the different clans.

Sure. As a whole, though, lifelike VR that can simulate pain or space exploration are the only viable, long-term situations in which 'hard times' can be used as a bulwark to deevolution.

there has been an influx of redditfags of late that need to learn our ways

Yes, if you start camping you will magically turn into an ancient Saxon conqueror.

Seriously though, camping, especially wilderness survival, is one of the most rewarding hobbies out there.

go away you fucking shill. Jared Diamond is a race-denying kike. There have been plenty of valid criticism of his shit work.

It's inaccurate or weebish to say we can't match the quality of what they did, it's more accurate to say that we don't fully understand how they accomplished it with the resources and knowledge once believed to be contemporaneous to the period.

It's the same with longboats, actually. Scandinavia is not particularly close to the Americas and yet they set foot on North American soil half a millennium before the advent of the modern caravel. They even reached Persia.

I'm glad there are some anons able to reach a higher level of truth rather than simply deny undesirable correct information.