Friday, March 16, 2018

We should have picked our own damned cotton

Feral.

It's not okay to be white
No two-story buildings? No wheel? No surprise. The self-evident glee on their faces is the same sadistic glee their cousins experience when they're carving up the faces of Afrikaner toddlers.

Jared Taylor has said that if the founders could do it over again, he'd suggest Jefferson replace the second comma in the second paragraph of the Declaration with the word "in".

Z-Man's advice is even better: "Pick your own cotton".

(A parenthetical contemporary corollary to today's plutocrats: "Clean your own toilets").

Consider the cities of Nagasaki and Detroit in 1940 and today. In the interim, Nagasaki had an atomic bomb dropped on it and Detroit became majority-black. Which city is better off now? Rhetorical.

When the black population reaches critical mass, maintaining--let alone constructing--civilization effectively becomes impossible. Be it Baltimore, Haiti, or Zimbabwe, the outcome is never in doubt.

Oh c'mon, AE. I'm no Pollyanna but our future is Brazil, not South Africa!

Don't be so sure. We're looking at 4,000,000,000 sub-Saharan Africans incapable of feeding themselves by century's end. Those currently fleeing the dark continent are headed to Europe rather than North America in no small part because Donald Trump is in the White House. But that need not remain the case.

Is it difficult to imagine a president Kamala Harris browbeating us into taking in millions of teenage African refugees on account of it being Who We Are? The median ages in these 5.0+ TFR countries are in the high teens and early twenties, so 20 million 'refugees' becomes 100 million of someone else's babies a generation later.

30 comments:

Sid said...

A huge segment of the black population enjoys hurting people just for a kick. The guys in that video found beating the other guy to be an amusing joke.

There are two ways we can get this exploding problem under control in a civilized manner:

1. No more open borders, not for shithholes.

2. Tie the gibs (both domestic welfare and foreign aid) to population control and responsible demographics.

We must remain vigilant and support immigration restrictionists. We already have examples blooming in Trump and the Visegrad countries.

When it comes to tying foreign aid to demographics, a lot of work still needs to be done. What's striking is that China is becoming ever more powerful in Africa, and they may ultimately tie their infrastructure projects in Africa to responsible fertility. I don't know if there are any trends in that direction, but I hope they can pull that off.

Jim Bowery said...

The network effect powers civilization and that power corrupts. That's the true cause of the rise and fall of civilizations. I'm preparing locally with a foundation of men whose hands are tied and manhood sacrificed by that corruption.

Glen Filthie said...

Well, we've seen Whitey hit critical mass too.

Consider the Germans, who literally went from rubber boots and horses to jack boots and Messerschmidt fighter planes in 5 years and started kicking the living pooh out of Fwance, Britain and Russia - almost all at once! America - caught with its pants down - was in the theatre and fighting back at full strength alongside it's allies within 2 years. They were caught again by the Japanese in Pearl Harbour. They got an even bigger chit kicking than the Germans got.

This isn't the end, AE. These are just the preliminaries. It isn't going to be easy, but the fall and rebirth of empires never is. With 40% of blacks being literally retards... and most of their sycophant liberals the same way... this cannot end well for them. There is a growing fury among whites, and guys like you and Z are the polite tip of the iceberg that everyone can see. Because of media censorship, there is a seething tide of resentment the media will never see until it is too late. We are in for some interesting times. We will survive, I assure you.

Felix Krull said...

Pick your own cotton.

But who would be cracking the whips, then?

Bill Muhr said...

It is easy to get disheartened, when nothing is- and nothing can- change within the two party system. It is easy to get angry when people seem to seriously suggest that we can win within universal H. Sapiens suffrage.

But let's not forget. The awakened white man is the most dangerous predator on Earth. Those who claim allegiance to the 'alt-right', or 'white nationalism', but promote gay Beltway Republican shit, are either tools of the traditional enemies of the truth, deceived, or are actually promoting the building of underground Bolshevik-type resistance groups while pretending they are 'democracy' supporting faggots.

There aren't many in the first group. There are no serious people in the second group. It's sad that those in the third group have to lie and pretend 'media' and 'democracy' are serious solutions, but it probably has to be done to avoid terrorism conspiracy charges.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Anyone who thinks that we're going down the Brazil route rather than South Africa is fooling themselves. Brazil didn't have a certain (((tribe))) who kept agitating the non-whites to kill all the whites like South Africa and now the United States. White disenfranchisement is the core plank of the Democrat party (not explicitly said of course) and you have dozens of millions of non-whites who are just waiting for the moment where they can act on their base instinct against whites.

Feryl said...

"Anyone who thinks that we're going down the Brazil route rather than South Africa is fooling themselves. Brazil didn't have a certain (((tribe))) who kept agitating the non-whites to kill all the whites like South Africa and now the United States. White disenfranchisement is the core plank of the Democrat party (not explicitly said of course) and you have dozens of millions of non-whites who are just waiting for the moment where they can act on their base instinct against whites."

Conquistadors were decadent dirt bags who trampled and slept with every enemy/foreign tribe. The Anglo-Dutch settlers of the New World were often idealistic and really did believe they were spreading Jayzus to the Injuns and the blacks. Racial mixing in the Anglo New World was much less common than it was in the Latin New World, since Anglo culture was protective of pedigree and keeping one's family tree "clean", for lack of a better word. I'm sure this sound like Nazi stuff to modern cucks, but the reality is that concern for pedigree was about respecting one's family and tribe, which really is quite wholesome. On the other hand, the more "progressive" Conquistadors were hedonistic and narcissistic, being that they didn't have any concern beyond getting rich and getting laid. Therein lie the roots of fundamentally debased and rootless Latin American culture, quite possibly the most utterly nihilistic culture in the world (at least Africans and Arabs defend their tribe for reasons of history and pedigree).

RDI: 95% of white Anglo liberals have no clue how Latin American culture really works. Liberals see the racially mixed population and think "utopia". When in reality lighter skinned elites tend to hate and fear the generally darker skinned masses, who from time to time rise up and violently oppose elites. Political instability and highly factional politics are the rule in Latin America, more than the exception, unlike countries with a historical NW European majority. The reason Latin elites aren't as retarded as Anglo white elites (wrt inflaming racial tensions) is because Latin American elites have dealt with centuries of instability and uprisings. Whereas in the Anglo world such things are rare to non-existant (racial uprisings were impossible in pre-1990 America, on account of the dominant white population, and many Western Euro (and all Eastern European countries) are still far too white to make a racial uprising possible.

Feryl said...

California is the canary in the coal mine. White California liberals from older generations still think of darkskins as their cute pets, even as California's whites have dwindled in their proportion of the population since the 70's. Among Deep Southern whites, you don't see this kind of naivete due to the history of violence between whites and the area's substantial black population. In the continental US, California is by far the most "diverse" (in terms immigrants, different tribes, and a declining white population) state, and every group in the state (barring some of San Diego's military population, and some whites in the hinterlands of the state) is cheer-leading insurrection against Trump's FedGov, which represents by proxy America's historical Anglo-Celtic-Teutonic majority.

Conservative leaning whites sensed the growing tension and already were leaving the state in great numbers by the late 90's/early 2000's.The remaining whites are trying to channel the underclass's animosity towards whites in other states, but what if this backfires? There's no guarantee against a Latin America style revolt eventually being staged by populist underclass champion in California itself. Certainly not when California has become the state most hostile to TradWhite values and white people as a whole, as the state becomes darker by the day. Paul Kersey says that we ought to be keep any eye on Kamala Harris prepping "minorities" for a 2020 (or 2024) revolution, which itself will initially be cheered on by dumbass white liberals who always think that they will be safe if they do enough pandering. Little did they anticipate.....

Anonymous said...

the only good thing is that the u.s. is a big country and there's a lot of space to hide out in (non-urban midwest, new england, appalachia, some of the rocky mountain states).

Feryl said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America

Wikipedia, hell, even they can't sugercoat how much the region stinks. The article mentions how extraordinarily terrible crime, violence, and income inequality are in the region. Might this have something to do with the depravity of the region's founders, the high levels of diversity, and rampant sense of cultural dissolution that comes from too much racial mixing? Thus far the remaining legacy of NW Euro (and Jewish) whites, their mores, and their institutions, are still holding California together. But what does the future hold? As the mass population of the state grows more hapless, so too will the elites decline. It used to be the Deep South that we needed to jettison for the sake of protecting Anglo whites, now it looks like the West Coast needs to take a hike (WA state's white population once made up well over 80% of the state, as recently as 1990, but as of 2012 it had declined to around 67%).

Points further East have grown more diverse, but both elites and the general pop. of the Northeast, South, and Midwest are more rooted, less flaky, and more.....American than the Western US. Among native-born Americans, those in the Pacific states were most likely to consider themselves "citizens" of the world (per the GSS), with Mountain states not doing much better. Most porn is made in California.....A decent amount of porn was made in the 60's and 70's in New York (due to Italian and Jewish dirtbags), but after the authorities hammered the mob in the 80's, porn stopped being made in the East. The Western US has produced tons of serial killers and pedophiles, adjusting for pop. size. As usual, all forms of deviance and lawbreaking are tied to rootlessness and ethnic character, with Anglo-Teutonic people in the Northeast and Midwest being the most well-behaved. Ellis Island peoples do worse, as do Celtic Southerners. But at least Southern Celts admit they have problems and don't make excuses for their idiots and scuzzbags, whereas amongst blacks, Ellis Island people's, and those in the West, there's a much more flippant attitude towards deviance.

Fun fact: Jews have curiously, in the face of a generally well-deserved reputation for superficially "respectable" behavior (just ignore their presence in the sleaze-realm of "entertainment", porno included), actually produced more than a few violent asshole deviants. Joel Rifkin (serial killer) and David Berkowitz (likewise) among them. Amongst the actual Ellis Islanders, Jews produced tons of con-men, gangsters, and the like. Decades of development and "assimilation" later, the good Jews tend to stay in the East and the black sheep are out West preying on goy boys and girls. Not that the Eastern ones are perfect (see the aforementioned killers), but certainly, Jews from California aren't "sending their best", as Trump would say.

Feryl said...

Agnostic and Ann Coulter have done good work on mass murders being an obvious sign of rootlessness, as over 1/3 of mass murders since 1970 have been committed by immigrants or those born here but with immigrant parents. Given that the native-born population has always heavily outnumbered immigrants in those decades, that's quite an indictment on the dangers of open borders. And whereas Ann Coulter stops short of explicitly noting the deviance of Ellis Island peoples (at most she says that America's population was British-Dutch, and other groups ought to respect that), Agnostic has on many occasions pointed out that Ellis Island peoples often don't live up to the standards espoused by Anglo-Teutonic-Scots/Irish Americans, as evidenced by the Ellis Island heritage of quite a few white American mass murderers (like Tim McVeigh).

The San Ysidro McDonald's rampage in 80's California portended the growing epidemic of mass murder, which arises to a large extent from too much diversity and rootlessness. Had California been allowed to be mainly NW European for many generations, it could have headed off the problems they continue to deal with, and have always dealt with. But chronic rootlessness, and/or depraved taste makers, will always screw things up.

Not a bad time to remember that 3 of the 4 big grunge singers, who all grew up on the West Coast, are now dead from self-inflicted problems. People out West are poorly socialized and prone to anomie.

Anonymous said...

Feryl: Kurt Cobain, Layne Staley and Chris Cornell, with Eddie Vedder the survivor?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

How worried is China about African fertility? They don't suffer from the same self destructive universalistic and egalitarian impulses that NW Europeans do. China's a big country. Keep the dumb Africans outside the walls and everything is fine. Illegal African immigration into China is nearly impossible since they stick out like a sore thumb. If they try a Camp of the Saints move into China, the Chinese navy sinks a bunch of refugee ships and that's that.

What is probably more likely is that China uses its influence in the UN and other global bodies to talk up universalism and egalitarianism in a general sense, making verbal gestures in the direction of taking part themselves with absolutely no intention of doing so. Just like with the Paris Accords, they won't actually make good on anything they say, but they know the idiot Westerners will, and the Chinese position will become even stronger as the West suffocates under low IQ, feral dark hordes.

The more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes to imagine the 21st century as anything other than the Chinese century. The best we can probably realistically hope for in the West is that the US politically dissolves and we get an implicit (no welfare) or explicit (no non-whites) rump ethnostate in the mountain and/or upper midwest that, with nuclear weapons, is able to protect itself from any external military (Asian) threats.

Jim,

And if we can't even manage that, then we have Jim's options.

Glen/Bill,

I hope you're right. Watching South Africa subsumed, though, makes it hard to be optimistic. If whites won't fight when things get that bad, when will they ever fight again?

Random Dude,

A lot of us who are positively predisposed towards Jews are fighting more and more cognitive dissonance by the day. Maybe if Feinstein gets her ass kicked in the California primary it will wake some of the 2%ers up. I'm not holding my breath.

Feryl,

Leon, Feinstein's brown/yellow challenger, just appointed an illegal invader to a state government position. The faster this escalates, the better.

Wrt the West Coast rootless nihilism:

Grunge zombie #1: Here comes that cannonball guy. He's cool.

Grunge zombie #2: Are you being sarcastic, dude?

Grunge zombie #1: I don't even know anymore.

krusty,

The interstate system means white flight can't work forever. Yeah, it slows things down, but the white farm murders aren't happening in the cities, they're happening in the exurbs and rural areas.

Feryl said...

"Kurt Cobain, Layne Staley and Chris Cornell, with Eddie Vedder the survivor?"

Yep.......And Vedder's childhood actually was spent mostly or entirely in Illinois, then he lived in California as a teen. so there ya go. He didn't grow up totally around miserable and nihilistic people, unlike the other three. Also, both Cobain and Staley were blonde and mostly/entirely of typical white American ancestry, but that made little to no difference in their long-term prognosis. Cornell was more "ethnic" but he ended up outliving the two blondes.

"The interstate system means white flight can't work forever. Yeah, it slows things down, but the white farm murders aren't happening in the cities, they're happening in the exurbs and rural areas. "

Right, "modern" attitudes toward American race relations and living arrangements have their roots in the 50's/60's, when black mischief was almost exclusively limited to the urban North....And quite a bit of the Deep South, where blacks have always been most numerous. The inner and eventually outer suburbs were a consequence of the aforementioned interstates that were built in the 50's, and also the racial unrest and rising crime of the 60's. But whereas Celtic whites and blacks in the South developed social customs to keep the peace, Northern busy bodies are still eons away from learning how to deal with blacks, as you can tell by how timid and avoidant white Yankees are. Meanwhile, many of these same Yankees pat themselves on the back as "progressives" for the way they pander to black angst. Which is the mirror of angst felt by Northern whites.

All this being said, right now it's foreignertown USA in California that is the primary threat, since the growing numbers of immigrants and those descended from recent immigrants feel so much animosity towards "Anglo" whites......In a place that's never been good at assimilating people into wholesome culture, not ever really and certainly not right now. Sailer likes to point out that most of America's most important elites, who live in the Northeast, still look at things in literally black and white and don't appreciate that America's cultural and racial future is most resonant in California....If we don't play our cards right. The future of the US is going to much more resemble Mexico and Brazil than 1960's USA, wherein America's 85-90% white population (and 100% white authorities) successfully overcame the agitation of the country's 7-9% black population and the angst of white Boomers.

Also worth noting is that ethnic unrest in the early 1900's was centered around the Mid-Atlantic (e.g., Ellis Island), because that's where immigrants primarily settled. After WW2, California became a magnet for American whites and even to some degree blacks. Then immigration levels soared in the 80's and 90's, and Los Angeles became the successor to Ellis Island. And similar to how the initial WASP-Dutch population let New York slip through their grasp by the time of Jewish and Italian terrorism in the early 1900's, L.A.s WASP-Celtic-Teutonic-Jewish white pop. let L.A slip through their grasp by the time of increased foreigner agitation in the 2000's and 2010's.

The Eastern US is too white (in the North) and too Celtic (in the South) to ever become like, say, South Africa. But much of the Western US is too rootless, too individualistic, and too brain-dead hippie to stop Californication....Which increasingly resembles the decadent culture of Latin America. And at least New York can trace it's history back to the 1700's, giving it's inhabitants something to grasp onto and defend. But what sense of history is their in Denver or Portland?

Feryl said...

"Leon, Feinstein's brown/yellow challenger, just appointed an illegal invader to a state government position. The faster this escalates, the better."

Yeah, it's not the good old days anymore, when whites could merely avoid ghetto blacks while buying off other blacks with affirmative action and token political representation, as the racial peace was kept up.

"Hispanic" (at times Conquistador) and Asians may be less headstrong than blacks, but they're also much less hapless than blacks at attaining power, money, and eventually, representation. Right now Latins, Asians, and Arabs are effectively meaningless outside of California and Texas, but as we're beginning to see in California, let them be around for 2 or 3 (or 3 or 4) generations and they'll begin to desire greater influence and representation. Whites, blacks, and Asians banded together in the early 90's to cut off "illegals" (e.g. Mexicans) from goodies, with older (e.g. whiter) voters from the GI and Silent Generation being the most likely to bother to show up and vote for the cut-off. That's also how CA got a white Republican governor in the early 2000's (albeit he was quite liberal and, wait for it....Not born and raised in America). By this point CA's remaining whites are from newer and much more liberal generations, yet they of course are even more liberal than these generations in other states.

Something that's come up on Sailer's blogs is legacy black California elites still retaining political power as blacks and whites dwindle in many districts. As is often stated, only whites and blacks care about propping up blacks, as a legacy of keeping the racial peace in old-school America. But that America doesn't exist anymore in California, and it may not survive much longer in other places. Evidence shows that blacks and whites tend to be fairly reliable at showing up to vote compared to other groups, but just how long will that be the case? And given that later generations of non-Caucasians invariable become Dem. whores, particularly outside of Texas, as time goes by more and more whites might be drawn to the GOP for racial bloc voting.

Corvinus said...

"No two-story buildings? No wheel? No surprise."

Clearly, people do not know about world history. Jared Diamond has a cogent response. I will summarize.

Now, some would argue that since these important innovations was not found throughout Africa, it is a sign of intellectual weakness. Wheeled vehicles appear in late 400 B.C., near simultaneously in Mesopotamia and Central Europe. The wheel and axle was barely used in Sub-Saharan Africa (except Ethiopia and Somalia) until colonial powers arrived in the 19th century. Though not independently invented, the wheel was known to African societies.

Why was it not adopted? Reasonably, it was not perceived to largely increase efficiency, considering this region had no drought animals (until European contact) or lack of suitable terrain in dense forests and mountainous areas. Where systems of slavery and forced labor were prevalent, it may also have reduced incentives to upgrade labor efficiency.

So why did it take some parts of Africa longer use the wheel for travel? To a number of groups of people, they already had efficient means like the canoe. For instance, in the desert, riding on a camel may be better than being pulled on a carriage. Its height makes it less suitable for drought purposes than oxen, but from perhaps 1000 B.C. it was used in Asia and North Africa for drawing wagons and for plowing.

In South America, the wheel and axle appear in sculpture and toys, but were not applied to transport. Lacking a suitable beast of burden here posed a limitation on the usefulness of any cart, and even following the introduction of the horse by the Spanish, the travois for tribal groups in North America was lighter and easier to assemble for a nomadic people.

Even today pack animals have been used in places like Colorado in preference to wheeled carts. As for the native Australians, there was no beast of burden, there was unsuitable terrain, and the nomadic lifestyle produced no incentive to make use of rollers or wheels. It is like asking why the Swiss never developed a catamaran, or why intensive cultivation of rice never took place outside of Asia.

Inventions must fulfill an urgent need if they are to gain widespread use. Their absence is to be expected if new technology introduced is deemed other than important. Diamond notes that Africa and the Americas were predominantly hunter-gather societies living in an environment where wild game was plentiful, edible plants grew prolifically, and the climate was moderate. There was no incentive to change what was an idyllic lifestyle. However, it did not mean they lacked a sophisticated civilization.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The Eastern US is too white (in the North) and too Celtic (in the South) to ever become like, say, South Africa. But much of the Western US is too rootless, too individualistic, and too brain-dead hippie to stop Californication....Which increasingly resembles the decadent culture of Latin America.

Agree given current trends. We may be too strongly discounting the possibility of a large sub-Saharan 'refugee' influx into the US, one that is sanctioned by the federal government. The doomsday scenario is coming into view--a severe, international economic/financial downturn leading first to a Democrat blowout in the mid-terms and recapturing the presidency in 2020, with a corresponding disaster in Africa set into motion from said international economic downturn (but lagging by a few years--long enough for Dems to have taken all three branches).

Corvinus,

Just because zebras haven't been domesticated doesn't mean they can't be. I doubt steppe horses were easy to domesticate at first, either.

Temperate climate, easily available food, etc has biological consequences, as culture and biology are engaged in a constant feedback loop.

The point is that what we see on display here are behavioral tendencies that are incompatible with populations that built and evolved alongside of modern civilization.

chedolf said...

Greg Cochran (anthropologist, University of Utah):

"[Jared Diamond is] unconvincing. Sure, there were places where this was true: what were the Maori in New Zealand going to domesticate – weta? And Australia didn’t have a lot of large mammals, at least not after people wiped out its megafauna. But there are plenty of large animals in Sub-Saharan Africa, yet none were domesticated. He argues that zebras were wilder, more untameable than horses – but people have tamed zebras, while the wild ancestors of horses (tarpans, which survived into the 19th century) were usually described as untameable. The wild ancestors of cows (aurochsen, which survived into the 17th century) were big and mean. They enjoyed impaling people on their horns and flinging them for distance. The eland is a large African antelope, and by Diamond’s argument it must be untameable, since the locals never tamed it. But in fact it’s rather easy to tame, and there’s now a domesticated version.

"The key here is that one can select for disposition, for tameness, as well as obvious physical features, and an animal can go from totally wild to cuddly in ten generations – remember the selection experiment with Siberian foxes. In the long run disposition is not a big obstacle. Selection fixes it – selection applied to above-neck traits.

"... We could use more serious work on macrohistory and the rise of civilization: it’s an interesting and important subject. In particular I’d like to see a really smart and detailed comparison of the two totally independent births of civilization in the Old and New Worlds. But this book isn’t serious. The thesis is a joke, and most of the supporting arguments are forced ( i.e. wrong). Perhaps the most important thing we can learn from Guns, Germs, and Steel is that most people are suckers, eager to sign on to ridiculous theories as long as they have the right political implications."

James said...

Jared Diamond is a (((fraud))).

He admitted in his book that he started out from a position of refusing to acknowledge the possibility of racial differences in intelligence. Then, having rejected the proper answer for essentially religious/political reasons, he desperately searches for evidence to SUPPORT (not disprove) an alternative theory. In other words, he is doing the OPPOSITE of what science does: looking for the simplest explanation and testing it by trying to DISPROVE it.

Diamond's basic thesis is that Whites were successful because of geographic luck and an inherent greed/violence/ambition not present in other races. In other words, he believes in racial differences when they are UNFLATTERING to Whites, but not when they are flattering.

The geographic differences Diamond focuses on include latitudinal consistency of climate, and the presence of domesticable plants and animals. Diamond willingly overlooks the fact that the climates of various regions on earth have changed significantly in the last fifty thousand years and that large linear stretches of consistent climate are readily found on every continent, but only Whites seem to have made good use of them. He tries to interrupt these in other continents by pointing out deserts that would not have existed twelve thousand years ago, for example. He misses the fact that our ancestors migrated into the LEAST habitable regions then known to our species.

Diamond fails to mention countless domesticable species never domesticated by Asians, Africans, and Oceanians because they don't fit his theory. He mentions that Whites domesticated horses, but ignores the fact that North America had horses too at the same time (at which point the continent was dominated by American Indians): They simply killed them and ate them. There were plants that could be turned into stable crops, animals that could be penned or herded. Moreover, he ignores the herculean task Whites undertook for a hundred generations to gradually breed the creatures around us into the forms they hold today that serve our interests so well. Consider a dachshund, and how much it has been changed from a wolf: It is a creature created by Whites through a fantastic investment of time and effort to become a creature capable of burrowing after and successfully killing badgers, hence the German name: Dachs Hund (badger hound). He makes it sound like we found these useful creatures just standing around and we put them to work.

James said...

Finally we come to the guns, the germs, and the steel of Diamond's theory. He basically claims that we evil Whites used these inventions to our advantage because we are cruel and violent. He ignores the Aztecs butchering tens of thousands of their own people each year to appease the gods. He ignores the bloody tribal conflicts of the other American Indians, the Zulu wars, the never-ending conflicts of the ancient Asians. Guns in Asia were expensive, inefficient, and undependable. Whites innovated better weapons because we were smart enough to do so. These are tools to be used for doing the same thing that ALL humans do: settle irreconcilable conflicts by force. We are simply better at it. He ignores the fact that we ourselves had to survive every plague we carried with us, and that we survived plagues of other human populations as well when we traveled, but those get ignored in favor of pretending that we were knowingly using germ theory to our advantage when no one on earth knew what disease really was.

He also mentions that Europeans, due to oceanic access, eventually learned how the Atlantic currents worked, and improved their shipbuilding skills due to Atlantic storms. What, did black Africans not have access to oceans? Why were they incapable of noticing both the Atlantic and Indian currents? China, India, and Arabia took advantage of the Indian Ocean currents, but blacks didn’t. Did Africans lack wood to build ocean-going vessels? Some claim that Africans didn’t have decent harbors, but the creation of great African ports by Whites shows this to be a lie.

When one looks at all of these flaws in his theory, it completely falls apart.

Audacious Epigone said...

Chedolf/James,

The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran and Harding and 1491 by Charles Mann, both written after GG&S, blow different aspects of Diamond's thesis out of the water.

Corvinus said...

Chedolf...“He argues that zebras were wilder, more untameable than horses – but people have tamed zebras, while the wild ancestors of horses (tarpans, which survived into the 19th century) were usually described as untameable.”

AE..."Just because zebras haven't been domesticated doesn't mean they can't be. I doubt steppe horses were easy to domesticate at first, either."

Proper context is required here. Zebras have been tamed by individuals. But domesticating them long-term—breeding captive herds specifically for human use—has proven to be impossible. Zebras by their very nature are easily agitated, aggressive when cornered, and ill-tempered.  Even Sir Francis Galton, acolyte of Charles Darwin, uses the zebra as an example of an unmanageable species, stating the Dutch Boers repeatedly tried to break zebra to harness with limited success over a long-period of time. Domesticating the eland has also shown to be rather challenging, as their survival rate is low and the young need to be separated from their mothers to ensure health and adequate feeding. And under natural farming conditions, this animal is inferior to cattle due to their spatial requirements and their social hierarchy.

James...

“He admitted in his book that he started out from a position of refusing to acknowledge the possibility of racial differences in intelligence. Then, having rejected the proper answer for essentially religious/political reasons, he desperately searches for evidence to SUPPORT (not disprove) an alternative theory. In other words, he is doing the OPPOSITE of what science does: looking for the simplest explanation and testing it by trying to DISPROVE it.”

Clearly you have not read the book, or are purposely misrepresenting how Diamond crafted it.

“Diamond willingly overlooks the fact that the climates of various regions on earth have changed significantly in the last fifty thousand years and that large linear stretches of consistent climate are readily found on every continent, but only
Whites seem to have made good use of them.”

Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians made “good use of them” through commerce and trade compared to other groups . Please be accurate here.

To my recollection, Diamond is not stating that geography "determines" the cultural trajectory of a people or civilization, but rather that certain environmental conditions "made it possible" for human living in regions like the Fertile Crescent and China to domesticate wild plants and animals. In other words, he is writing about uneven affordances, not determinism. In turn, the development of agriculture "afforded" (but did not determine) over time independent cultural innovations such as writing and cities in precisely those regions.

“He tries to interrupt these in other continents by pointing out deserts that would not have existed twelve thousand years ago, for example.”

Do you have the exact citation here? Because from what I gather, African and American civilizations were isolated by mountains, deserts or rainforests and often unable to share in the advances of other cultures. In other others, he acknowledges deserts were around at that time.

Corvinus said...

Continued...

“He mentions that Whites domesticated horses, but ignores the fact that North America had horses too at the same time (at which point the continent was dominated by American Indians): They simply killed them and ate them. There were plants that could be turned into stable crops, animals that could be penned or herded.”


Europeans, not whites. And large mammals like elephants and horses had become extinct in the Americas by 11,000 BC (pp. 46-47). It would make sense since these groups were nomadic hunters.

“Diamond willingly overlooks the fact that the climates of various regions on earth have changed significantly in the last fifty thousand years and that large linear stretches of consistent climate are readily found on every continent, but only Whites seem to have made good use of them.”



How are you certain that he “willingly overlooks this fact”?

“Moreover, he ignores the herculean task Whites undertook for a hundred generations to gradually breed the creatures around us into the forms they hold today that serve our interests so well.”

Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians, not whites. And Diamond did not “ignore” this task, he discussed their efforts and the factors why these groups focused on this activity.

“He basically claims that we evil Whites used these inventions to our advantage because we are cruel and violent.”

Actually, Diamond has little to say about the political decisions made in order to pursue European imperialism, to manufacture steel and guns, and to use disease as a weapon. That was not the emphasis on his book. Of course, the moral issues are a separate and much more difficult discussion, Some cultures subjugate other cultures immediately before being themselves subjugated. The Maori were slave-owners and inflicters of systematic genocide (of Moriori) who eventually were at risk of subjugation by Europeans. As they were able to, the Maori would co-opt the resources of the Europeans to further their own advantage over the groups of people they were “jackbooting”. So you have a group who simultaneously occupied the moral high ground and sunk to the depths of moral depravity.

“What, did black Africans not have access to oceans? Why were they incapable of noticing both the Atlantic and Indian currents?”



Diamond addresses this point in his work—it was not about noticing, but it was about practicality. There simply was little need, and a lack of sustained vision, for them to venture further out and explore over a vast ocean.

Corvinus said...

Continued...

“He ignores the fact that we ourselves had to survive every plague we carried with us, and that we survived plagues of other human populations as well when we traveled, but those get ignored in favor of pretending that we were knowingly using germ theory to our advantage when no one on earth knew what disease really was.”


Actually, Diamond specifically references this fact in his work. Smallpox, measles, and influenza are a consequence of people living in close proximity with animals. Hundreds of years of exposure to these diseases enabled Europeans and Asians to develop resistances toward them. As each group traveled, they took these diseases where ever they went-- and when they came into contact with people who never were exposed to them, the deaths of millions resulted.

“The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran and Harding and 1491 by Charles Mann, both written after GG&S, blow different aspects of Diamond's thesis out of the water.”

AE...

"The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran and Harding and 1491 by Charles Mann, both written after GG&S, blow different aspects of Diamond's thesis out of the water."

They certainly offer stiff challenges, but they also have their own issues in their presentation. For example...

http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/03/exploding-nonsense-review-of-cochran_8.html

"The point is that what we see on display here are behavioral tendencies that are incompatible with populations that built and evolved alongside of modern civilization."

If one holds strictly to a biological/evolutionary perspective, sure. But one must also carefully consider the environmental point of view as well.

Dan said...


What one must realize is that the West (and the far East) have not even begun to fight back. An order of magnitude more is spent on athlete salaries in any give year than on the 2016 presidential election. The only Western country that looks remotely like it is has survivalist mindset on a national level is Israel, and it holds back the billion-strong Muslim world which seeks its destruction. So far Boers in SA are mostly hanging on against overwhelming numbers. With the exception of what happened in Haiti in 1804, there usually isn't an actual genocide of whites when colonization or settlement reverses.

Instead you usually get huge retreats of whites to safer areas. These huge retreats out of dangerous areas cannot be good for world GDP. Zimbabwe is the purest example. According to World Bank it lost something like 85% of its GDP after 2001.

Do stupid economists take THAT into account? Apparently the fall of Rome featured massive retreat from the cities, combined with big decreases in interconnections, due to, well lack of trust from diversity.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

If one holds strictly to a biological/evolutionary perspective, sure. But one must also carefully consider the environmental point of view as well.

Genetics is exploding at the moment. It is probably not hyperbolic to speculate that in a decade we will be able to approximate someone's IQ within 5-10 points simply by having them spit into a cup. That may provide a definitive answer to a lot of these speculative questions.

For what it's worth (not much), I'm more skeptical that we'll be able to effectively improve IQ scores through gene editing like CRISPR, at least not nearly as soon as we'll be able to assess IQ, because understanding all the gene interactions will be a lot more complicated.

Corvinus said...

"It is probably not hyperbolic to speculate that in a decade we will be able to approximate someone's IQ within 5-10 points simply by having them spit into a cup."

Indeed, there has been tremendous advancement in this research. And perhaps your scenario will play out.

"That may provide a definitive answer to a lot of these speculative questions."

Not necessarily.

"This potential future is coming into view largely because of the plummeting cost of genome sequencing. That has allowed researchers to examine the genetic code of larger and larger groups of people in genome-wide association studies, or GWAS. This method involves gathering huge numbers of people with a certain trait — say, tens of thousands of people who have taken IQ tests and scored within the normal range — and scanning their entire genomes...What makes Johnson so skeptical is the utter complexity of intelligence. Obviously, the environment influences intelligence: A kid deprived of basic care and stimulation is not likely to thrive. But there’s no clear dividing line between the influence of genes and the influence of environment. For example, high-IQ parents tend to take their children to museums, do science experiments with them, and read them a dozen picture books a day. That simulating environment is created, in part, because of the same “smart” genes that mom and dad pass down to their kids. Disentangling the contributions of genes versus environment isn’t easy...And it gets weirder. The environment might also influence how heritable IQ is. When kids are well off, with their basic needs met and plenty of cognitive stimulation, genes often explain much of the variation between them. Against a backdrop of deprivation, however, genes sometimes recede into the background, at least according to some research. It’s not only that both nature and nurture matter, but that they influence each other in different ways in different people."

https://medium.com/neodotlife/intelligence-genes-eb18c5ef759c

Feryl said...

"Apparently the fall of Rome featured massive retreat from the cities, combined with big decreases in interconnections, due to, well lack of trust from diversity."

Americans fled from cities in the 60's, 70's, and to a lesser extent in the 80's due to the baby boom and civil rights revolution causing crime to soar to unprecedented levels.

After Boomers started aging out of crime in the 90's, and after Gen X-ers became the most incarcerated generation of juvenile offenders ever in the 90's, more and more people started easing back into urban life even as McMansions continued to pop up in the exurbs. While some areas are still almost as bad as they were in the 70's and 80's, many other urban areas are much better than they used to be. It's true that some of the urban revival is over-hyped, but then again, the revival really is remarkable considering that in the early 80's, many urban areas east of the Mississippi had a post-apocalyptic reputation. Most areas of the American West were too new and lightly populated to have zombie hordes and bombed out ghettos like the East did; still the overall crime rate in the West was quite bad in the late 60's-early 90's, and if anything the West exceeded the East in producing serial killers and pedophiles when you adjust for population. During the safety nadir of the late 70's, there were at least 4 different prolific serial killers dumping bodies on or off of L.A.s highways, with three of the perps being homos. Thuggish blacks and prole whites back East can get temperamental and territorial, resulting in fights and shootouts, but the really pervy sex maniac stuff seems to be more common in the West. And Texas and Florida are somewhat better than the Mountain and Pacific states, but are more decadent and rootless than the Northeast, Midwest, and the "real" South that doesn't include airheads from TX or much of FL.

One could make the argument that the Boomers trashing our cities in the 60's and 70's was a prelude to the civilizational decline that's been undeniable since the late 60's. Because of Millennials and an aging population, things aren't as dangerous as they may have been several decades ago, but there's plenty of else going on to be troubled about.

James said...

Corvinus:

You said on multiple occasions that Diamond did not ignore or overlook something that did not support his pre-fabricated hypothesis. But, if he did, he bulldozed over it to support his fictitious dogma. You seem to be a fan of someone that specifically admitted he could not acknowledge something that serious DNA researchers admit is responsible for AT LEAST 50 % of cultural, behavioral, and intellectual differences. And probably more than 50% when you admit that cultural and social relationships are also due to genetics. However, you want to give an outsized focus on "environmental" factors. You can believe whatever you want. But, I think you give the game away with one of your statements. You stated that, in response to why black Africans never developed sea-going technology:

"Diamond addresses this point in his work—it was not about noticing, but it was about practicality. There simply was little need, and a lack of sustained vision, for them to venture further out and explore over a vast ocean."

A lack of sustained vision, huh? You mean black Africans are deficient in innate curiosity and initiative? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Yes, black Africans are deficient in innate curiosity and initiative. And creativity. You say it was not about noticing. Yes, it is. And the noticing leads to "I wonder what would happen...", or, "What's just over the horizon?" Something that blacks are still deficient in. All the money and laws thrown at them to disprove this has only proven it. To those with intellectual honesty

Corvinus said...

"You said on multiple occasions that Diamond did not ignore or overlook something that did not support his pre-fabricated hypothesis. But, if he did, he bulldozed over it to support his fictitious dogma."

It wasn't a prefabricated hypothesis, just a hypothesis. And there wasn't any bulldozing, just research and interpretation.

"You seem to be a fan of someone that specifically admitted he could not acknowledge something that serious DNA researchers admit is responsible for AT LEAST 50 % of cultural, behavioral, and intellectual differences."

That wasn't the point of his work.

"And probably more than 50% when you admit that cultural and social relationships are also due to genetics."

Genetics and environment, assuredly.

"However, you want to give an outsized focus on "environmental" factors."

No, I want to put it in the proper perspective.

"A lack of sustained vision, huh? You mean black Africans are deficient in innate curiosity and initiative?"

No. As I stated, inventions must fulfill an urgent need if they are to gain widespread use. Their absence is to be expected if new technology introduced is deemed other than important. Diamond notes that Africa and the Americas were predominantly hunter-gather societies living in an environment where wild game was plentiful, edible plants grew prolifically, and the climate was moderate. There was no incentive to change what was an idyllic lifestyle. However, it did not mean they lacked a sophisticated civilization. It did not mean they were other than curious of their surroundings or lacked initiative to improve their civilization. It just meant that Africa and the Americas took a different approach. Both regions had abundant natural resources, so there was not a compelling economic reason to conquer other continents for raw materials.

"And the noticing leads to "I wonder what would happen...", or, "What's just over the horizon?"

Absolutely. But it does not mean a person nor a group of people who neglected or failed to build vessels to sail the seven seas lacks vision or creativity.

"Something that blacks are still deficient in."

That would be Fake News on your part.