I followed the second link and while I can't evaluate all the claims made there (many of which seem to be substantive), there are enough that are silly and tran

I followed the second link and while I can't evaluate all the claims made there (many of which seem to be substantive), there are enough that are silly and transparently political so as to cast doubt on the project of "discrediting" his work. Stuff like this: "Arguments such as these have made him a darling of bourgeois intellectuals, who have grown tired of looking meanspirited and self-serving when they make their transparently desperate efforts to displace histories of imperialism back on its victims. They need a pseudointellectual explanation for inequality in order to sustain the bourgeois social order that guarantees their privilege. This they found in Guns, Germs and Steel." This kind of psychologizing looks pretty silly to me and I'm not sure what any of it has to do with the arguments made in the actual book.