Three-parter on PBS. (1) Studying the inequalities of societies around the world. (2) Why the Conquistadors conquered the Incas instead of the other way around. (3) European colonization of Africa is explored.

I remember reading the book when it first came out. In the introduction, it wasted no time explaining that race had nothing to do with it. I guess he had to throw that in to get published.

It should be interesting to see how the TV program avoids the race question while being anti-white at the same time. Check local listings. It starts 3 PM Sunday where I live.

The writer is a jew.

Of course race has nothing to do with success, that's why orang utangs, gorillas, gibbons and chimpanzees built thriving civilizations.

This show should convince anyone to give up TV. It is presented as a deeply researched scholarly work. The show's point: Europeans are no more intelligent, civilized, or capable than the many races they have conquered. They are merely luckier. This kind of propaganda, masquerading as history, is more destructive to white minds, particularly to bright young minds, than MTV, cartoons, and idiotic sit-coms.

Enkidu

I only caught the Africa Colonization episode. It was funny watching Diamond shed crocodile tears for the baby niglets dying of Malaria.

Hmmm. Let's see. The Native Injuns had a temperate climate, plenty of rain and lots good wood. How come the wheel eluded them??

Some Asians live in the tropics. They came up with a cure or two for malaria and built some decent civilizations. Yet it continues to elude some Africans.

Maybe I.Q., biology and evolution count for more than luck. It's hilarious that a "respected" scholar can get away with a thesis like: "Europeans dominated because of luck."

Jesus! What Cuntz-pah!

I remember reading the book when it first came out. In the introduction, it wasted no time explaining that race had nothing to do with it. I guess he had to throw that in to get published

No No. Jared Diamond is a noxious anti-white kike. He didn't throw anything in "to get it published." His whole schtick of the past 10 years or more has been running around using specious psuedo science to degrade whites and enmesh them further in the web of guilt that our friendly neighborhood kikes spin for us.

Believe me, he was happy to do it.

-Brian

Yes, please, everyone should understand EXACTLY what Jared Diamond is and what he's doing. He didn't throw in the equality thing "to get published."

Jared Diamond writes for the "intelligentsia." The kikes know that only a fraction of the population will actually take the time to sit down and read a book like GG&S, but they spare no effort in propagandizing the smarter goyim with pseudoscientific nonsense about equality among the races.

Diamond is a kike who is doing what "anthropologist" kikes like Montagu and Gould have always done - lie about race to keep the brighter goyim pacified and unconcerned about the racial issue. Never underestimate the ability of intelligent people to believe really stupid things. It just takes a lying kike to construct a towering logical argument based on a single fallacy (with a lot of media backing along the way, of course).

The New Science of Man
(http://www.amren.com/0303issue/0303issue.html#article1)
The struggle between biology and liberalism.
(http://www.amren.com/0303issue/0303issue.html#article1)
reviewed by Samuel Francis
(http://www.amren.com/0303issue/0303issue.html#article1)

(http://www.amren.com/0303issue/0303issue.html#article1)
March 2003 ... It was in the Boasian school of anthropology that the blank slate denial of human nature was most influential, and it reached what was perhaps its reductio ad absurdum (in American academic quarters, at any rate) in the concoctions of Boas’s student, Margaret Mead, about the sex lives of Samoans. Despite their transparent absurdity, both the blank slate theory and its bizarre applications in scholarship and thought have been taken seriously by psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and most other academics, as well as journalists, creative writers, and even by Hollywood, whence they have come to infect the minds of otherwise sensible people who are not professional intellectuals. Politically, much of what the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society did or tried to do was justified in terms of blank slate doctrine. In the Soviet Union, not only the forced redistribution of property and the attempt to abolish class and other forms of social hierarchy but also the disastrous dogmas of “Lysenkoism” were applications of blank slate theory.

Prof. Pinker argues that the blank slate concept is closely related to two other ideas with which he takes issue: the idea of the “Noble Savage” (essentially, that human beings are naturally good or peaceful, non-dominating, non-aggressive, and non-acquisitive) and the idea of the “Ghost in the Machine” (essentially, that a non-material mind exists distinct from the material body), a concept he firmly rejects. Margaret Mead’s depiction of cute and harmless little Samoans copulating with no guilt, fear, or jealousy is one of the better-known examples of the former concept, which she managed to combine with the blank slate doctrine she picked up from her mentor Boas.

Prof. Pinker slaughters the noble savage mythology with little trouble. “As the anthropologist Derek Freeman later [after Mead] documented,” he writes, “Samoans may beat or kill their daughters if they are not virgins on their wedding night, a young man who cannot woo a virgin may rape one to extort her into eloping, and the family of a cuckolded husband may attack and kill the adulterer.” As for “peaceful” or “gentle” primitives, anthropologists have found that “the !Kung San [of the Kalahari Desert] have a murder rate higher than that of American inner cities,” while the “gentle Tasaday,” a tribe discovered in the Philippine rain forest that supposedly lived “with no words for conflict, violence, or weapons,” turned out to be an outright fraud concocted by the crooked government of Ferdinand Marcos.

The death rates from primitive warfare may sound low compared to those of modern wars, but many of the intellectuals impressed by them “do not notice that two deaths in a band of fifty people is the equivalent of ten million deaths in a country the size of the United States.” Prof. Pinker cites data that show that the proportion of male deaths caused by war in primitive cultures dwarfs that of the United States and Europe even in the bloodiest of all centuries, the 20th. It is civilized man who reduces the number of war deaths, not primitives.

Prof. Pinker is firm and clear about the “inherent” or “innate” characteristics and behavior of human beings—human nature—that exist before anyone has a chance to scribble on the blank slate. Not only aggression and sexual differences but also intelligence he acknowledges to be in large part genetically grounded, but on the Big Taboo—race—he is vague and even contradictory.

He endorses the environmentalist theories of the origins of civilization of Jared Diamond and Thomas Sowell as opposed to racial ones, and tells us that “My own view . . . is that in the case of the most discussed racial difference—the black-white IQ gap in the United States—the current evidence does not call for a genetic explanation.” Yet, six pages later, he tells us that “. . . there is now ample evidence that intelligence is a stable property of an individual, that it can be linked to features of the brain (including overall size, amount of gray matter in the frontal lobes, speed of neural conduction, and metabolism of cerebral glucose), that it is partly heritable among individuals, and that it predicts some of the variations in life outcomes such as income and social status.” Combined with the different scores of blacks and whites on IQ tests, of course, this implies that the “most discussed racial difference” has a significantly genetic and not an environmentalist explanation.

Prof. Pinker also tries to evade the implications of racial differences by emphasizing the universal meaning of human nature. “Discarding the Blank Slate has thrown far more light on the psychological unity of humankind than on any differences,” and, further: “People are qualitatively the same but may differ quantitatively. The quantitative differences are small in biological terms, and they are found to a far greater extent among the individual members of an ethnic group or race than between ethnic groups or races. These are reassuring findings. Any racist ideology that holds that the members of an ethnic group are all alike, or that one ethnic group differs fundamentally from another, is based on false assumptions about our biology.”

That’s all swell, except that (a) the members of an ethnic group are all alike, in that they are closer genetically to each other than to members of other groups and (b) no one seriously claims that every black is intellectually inferior to every white, let alone that blacks and whites “differ fundamentally.” The point is that modern psychology (and increasingly, biology) shows that blacks on average have significantly lower intelligence than whites. If the norms of a society are to be determined by what is true on average of its members (as social norms almost always are), then the racial differences in IQ are socially significant. How the society will define and institutionalize that significance is another matter, and not one necessarily determined by science.

What is perhaps more important about Prof. Pinker’s book than what he says or contrives not to say about race, however, is how he tries to wiggle out of the implications of discarding the blank slate/noble savage ideology. That ideology has implied that human beings are malleable and that human society can be reconstructed along utopian lines; its proponents, Prof. Pinker writes accurately, “saw the malleability of humans and the autonomy of culture as doctrines that might bring about the age-old dream of perfecting mankind. We are not stuck with what we don’t like about our current predicament, they argued. Nothing prevents us from changing it except a lack of will and the benighted belief that we are permanently consigned to it by biology.”

But if the blank slate concept is not true, it follows that not only the political agenda that sought a perfected mankind and society but also the very ethic that championed such perfection as the morally obligatory ideal is without foundation. If a classless, pacific, racially and sexually equal and non-discriminatory, and far less acquisitive society is not possible, then the moral ideal that demands that we try to create and realize that society becomes at least meaningless and at worst dangerous—for the simple reason that trying to reach such a goal merely undermines or destroys the existing society with its traditions, institutions, moral values, and disciplines, and enhances political power to the level of outright tyranny....

Pinker is also a kike and probably not worth reading. Good perhaps to slap a few of the stupider intellectuals out of their dogmatic belief in equality.

Diamond's ultimate goal is an anti-racist one.

Despite that, I believe the way he gets there is quite informative and definately holds truth. "RACE LOL" is not an acceptable way to describe the history of man. It is my opinion that geopolitics plays a much more substantial role in history than race.

The "RACE LOL" theory is (even it can be even called that) is oversimplified and takes into account no variables. The world is a complex place. Diamond's thesis explains why some Europeans stagnate while their genetically identical brethren prospered. Same with asians. Under the "RACE LOL" theory, any where one would find whites or eastern asians, there should be prosperity and advancement, which was certainly is/was not the case.

bullshit. East_asians = 4000 years of stagnation.

bullshit. East_asians = 4000 years of stagnation.

That's not really supported by the past hundred years of facts is it? Maybe you might think that in the last half of the nineteenth century but given the past 100 years of inventions and technological advances by northeast asians, that's not right.

Doesnt mean we should breed with Asians, we shouldnt, but there's nothing which harms our cause by recognizing their cognitive abilities. Indeed we weaken our cause by ignoring provable facts.

PS of course Diamond is a kike. Do you know anybody named after a rock that is not a kike?