I think the academy is biased AND Diamond is a dunce. Have you read any of the responses to his work from actual historians? There are deep methodological flaws

I think the academy is biased AND Diamond is a dunce. Have you read any of the responses to his work from actual historians? There are deep methodological flaws. Fundamentally, what he is doing is not history. He has no interest in engaging with other academics, or in systematically analyzing all of the data. He starts with his conclusion and then cherry picks the facts, and it's popular because it appeals to people's preconceived notions. It's "lead caused the fall of the Roman Empire" level thinking. Plenty of academics hate Foucault. Ask an analytic philosopher what they think of him. And yet, those people still get to be part of the academy. Are some people shut out unfairly? Sure. Are many people shut out fairly because they aren't interested in rigor, they are only interested in exposure? Well, ok, academia has a lot of those. But at least it doesn't have Jared Diamond.