Top products from r/DebateAltRight

We found 32 product mentions on r/DebateAltRight. We ranked the 91 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/DebateAltRight:

u/sweets0ur · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> I don't know what you're talking about, the world at present is more peaceful and productive than it has ever been before. Life is still difficult for plenty of people, but the world is a complex place and life is a balancing act.

I'm referring to individual states, not the world in general. Also check your facts. World is at less peace today than any time in the last decade. Also proving my point with these facts:

  • The broad trend in Europe has been a convergence in peace with the most peaceful, predominately those in Western Europe, declining in peacefulness, while those with weaker scores, many of them in Eastern Europe, improving.
  • In North America, the level of peacefulness in the United States has declined for the second consecutive year and is now at the worst level of any time since 2012. Canada suffered a deterioration in its terrorism impact rating after the Quebec City and Edmonton attacks.

    >It's simplistic and childish to just blame all your problems on diversity.
    > Like what?

    Diversity is pretty much the root cause for many problems the west is facing right now. Economy, politics, education, crime...

    Ethnic diversity also has a negative relationship with economic success. In general, the richer a nation is the less ethnically diverse it tends to be.

    Another unfortunate effect of racial diversity is that it sets the stage for political tribalism. People vote based on the interests of their ethnic group rather than the interests of the country at large. This likely plays a role in why Blacks and Hispanics in America are more likely than Whites to support higher taxes on the rich. Such taxes are largely a redistribution of money from the hands of White people into the hands of minorities.

    Ethnic diversity also has a strong negative effect on schools. For instance, one analysis of 3 million students over a 7 year period found that students had higher test scores when their teacher was of their own race (Egalite and Kisida, 2015). This was true even after controlling for poverty, past grades, and other variables.

    While that effect applies to all races, many aspects of diversity are especially bad for Whites. For instance, a report by the department of education looked at how the proportion of a school that is black predicted student performance on achievement tests given in the 4th, 8th, and 12th, grades. The report found that, on average, both whites and blacks did worse in school the larger the school’s black population was.

    Furthermore, several studies have shown that minorities are more likely than Whites to bully kids at school and that they disproportionately target White kids as the victims of their bullying (Faris, 2006; Hanish and Guerra, 2000; Tippettt et al., 2013)

    As if all this wasn’t enough, perhaps most damningly, research has shown, that (regardless of race), attending a school with high concentrations of minorities significantly increases a student’s probability of committing suicide (Faris, 2006).


    > Humans, being a single species, generally have the same basic needs. I don't see where you're coming from on most of these points.

    I mean I can't believe you think I was referring to basic needs. Even so celibacy rates will only continue to skyrocket, as a result of female hypergamy and preferred race of men. It is projected that 50% of Indians in the US will be celibate.


    > Yes, which is why I think it's the height of foolishness for you guys to try and sow division over arbitrary differences. What if Washington had ousted Lafayette because he was a different nationality? What if Truman had ousted Einstein? Promoting meaningless conflict is just pissing all over your own opportunities.

    A White American is European, just like Einstein and Lafayette. Even if Einstein was Black, I doubt Truman would pass the opportunity on a one in a million born genius. There's nothing wrong with limited immigration (though it would be rather difficult for an ethnic to integrate).


    But your also missing a huge point about social harmony and functioning.

    The most well-known study in this literature is Putnam (2007). Putnam, a Harvard political scientist, analyzed a set of over 40 regions across the united states and looked at how ethnic diversity related to various measures of “social capital”. He held regional differences in age, poverty, crime, and other variables, constant and found that the more ethnically diverse a region was the lower its level of social capital was. In particular, Putnam found that the more diverse a community was the less trust residents reported having in their neighbors, the less people trusted local government and media, the less people voted, the less people gave to charity, the less people worked on community projects, and the fewer friends people had. Perhaps most strikingly, people in diverse communities were less happy overall and less satisfied with their lives.

    There is a wealth of literature showing that people tend to get along better when they are alike rather than different. Research has repeatedly found that friends and spouses are more similar, in just about every way imaginable, than average (Bryne, 1971Myers, 2008 pg 399). Moreover, the more similar spouses are the more satisfied they tend to be with their marriage and the less likely they are to get a divorce (Luo and Klohen, 2005Bryne, 1971Caspi and Herberner, 1990).

    Experimental evidence backs up this data too. In these studies, researchers measure various traits of individuals before they meet and then see whether pre-meeting similarity predicts who ends up liking who. The finding, repeated over dozens of studies, is that the more similar people are the more they end up liking each other (Bryne, 1971NewComb, 1961Lee, 1996Myers, 2008 pg 400).

    Furthermore, when people do succeed at forming friendships across racial lines, those friendships are far more likely to fail. One found that after controlling for sex, race, age, parental SES, family structure, immigration status, shared extracurricular activities, grade point averages, school attendance, drug abuse, friendship reciprocity, and friendship closeness, that interracial friendships were far more likely to fail relative to monoracial friendships (Rude and Herda, 2010).

    I mean there is so much overwhelming evidence I didn't decide to add to keep things to the point and that hopefully you might read some of it.
u/RedHermit1982 · 1 pointr/DebateAltRight

> Placing something on a spectrum doesn't invalidate the application of categories, in this case race, to spots on said spectrum

The application of categories (taxonomy), in general, isn't invalidated. What's invalidated is the use of race, which is primarily defined by a narrow set of phenotypes, in particular skin color, as the method for defining these categories because it obscures greater genotypical similarities between groups and also has less predictive power than groupings based on other genetic differences, such as clines and clusters.

Even if you use continental origin based on AIMs to match self-identified race and ethnicity with most recent ancestry, that doesn't yield a grouping that has any utility whatsoever as a unit of analysis for biology and genomics.

For example Michael Jackson's daughter is self-identified black. So is Barack Obama. Both have one white parent and one black parent, but Obama looks black and Paris Jackson looks white, like really white. Blue eyes and everything. You could trace both of their genetic ancestries to Africa and group them on that basis, and it would match their SIRE 100 percent, but if you put them in the same environment, same SES, etc., Paris Jackson would be treated like a white person.

> By this reasoning you can't distinguish between red and green because there is no clean dividing line as you move through the electromagnetic spectrum from one to the other.

I would say that this is a clever bit of sophistry were it not for the fact that it's totally unoriginal and I've heard it used so many times that it has become cliche.

It's a false analogy. Color is defined by one specific property, i.e. wavelength, that is fixed and uniformly agreed upon to be a set value 510 nm. Phenotypes are influenced by thousands upon thousands of different alleles, most of which—particularly the ones for intelligence— have not even been identified. Even skin color involves hundreds of genes.

A difference on the electromagnetic spectrum between green (510 nm) and red (650 nm) is not analogous to the genetic difference between any given population, even defined in the most narrow sense, i.e. clines, much less in a broad sense using archaic 19th-century folk taxons like Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid.

The genetic difference between any two groups or individuals is less than 10 percent, so a more accurate analogy would be a comparison of two different shades of green at 510 nm and 515 nm, which would be indistinguishable.

> The far ends of the spectrum can't interbreed

Yeah, isolation-by-distance is a thing but it hasn't existed as a phenomenon for long enough to actually result in substantial differences between say Native Americans and Bantus, except for certain specific climate-related adaptations, like sickle-cell anemia.

> So if you want to throw out race because of this you'd have to throw out species too.

No, I don't have to throw out the concept of species or the concept of subspecies but in order to apply the taxonomies in a useful way, biology requires a non-arbitrary genetic threshold for defining them, and race doesn't meet this criteria (between 17 percent and 25 percent genetic difference). Again, there is only one subspecies of Homo sapiens. It's called sapiens and like it or not, we're all part of it.

> It means exactly what I think it means, it's a ratio between genetic and environmental variation. So, yes, it changes in different environments

OK, so if you understand it so well, then you also understand it only applies to differences between individuals in the same population with the same environment and it can't be generalized to apply to average group differences between populations.

To do so is a misapplication of the concept in the same way that Rushton abused r-K selection, using it in a way that no respectable biologist would.

As I already noted elsewhere in the thread, Mackintosh, the author of "IQ and Intelligence," notes that at the lowest SES, heritability approaches zero.

And even Rushton and Jensen, the most vociferous proselytizers of hereditarianism, had to acknowledge: "A high heritability within one group does not mean that the average difference between it and another group is due to genetic differences, even if the heritability is high in both groups."

Of course, that didn't prevent them from trying to push this argument over and over and over and coming up short each time when their theories were put to the test by other more scrupulous researchers.

In fact this statement by Jensen directly contradicts his earlier statement in which he critiqued Lewontin's seed and soil analogy. Jensen said in 1970 that a high heritability increases the probability that genetics play a role in average group differences. And repeated this claim in his 1998 book.

So what happened in between 1998 and 2005 that caused Jensen to qualify his statement?

In a little more than three decades, we see Jensen walk back his position from "differences in IQ are mostly genetic" to "differences in IQ are about half and half" to "differences in IQ are partially genetic but in some unquantifiable amount that can't be 100 percent falsified with existing research methods.

Respectable scientists like Wicherts don't a priori rule out the role of genetics in between-group difference, but that's just good science. In other words you retain a healthy amount of skepticism until empirical evidence can tell you with a degree of certainty the cause of an observed phenomenon.

Race reductionists use this uncertainty to keep the dream alive much like creationists.

> If I control for environment tightly enough to yield a high heritability and I still have a gap, then a large chunk of that gap is likely due to biological factors not the environment.

Now we are getting into the limitations of social science. What I find most ironic about "race realism" is that many of its proponents frequently malign the social sciences as not "real science," yet the entirety of the argument is based on a few psychologists that I can count on one hand all drawing from the same tainted well.

This disdain for the social sciences also manifests in an inability to actually understand social science methodology and interpret the results of research accurately. It also causes them to erroneously assign equal weight to studies that make highly speculative claims that fail to achieve consistency with the bulk of scientific literature (Lynn and Rushton) as studies that do (Nesbitt et. al)

And here's the rub: You're never going to be able to control for the social effects of blackness, such as stereotype threat, stigma and institutional racism/discrimination. And to dismiss those factors offhand as irrelevant or non-existent is unscientific.

Even if you control for SES and differences remain, it doesn't necessarily follow that the basis of those differences is purely genetic.

As anthropologist John Ogbu observed, there is a difference between "caste-like minority groups," such as blacks who immigrated involuntarily and voluntary immigrants like Chinese and Jews who carried with them a culture of self-respect..

In the social sciences, one could conceivably construct an experiment in which you compared the educational outcomes of half-black white-presenting students from similar backgrounds as half-black black-presenting students, and measure the effect of the appearance of blackness on social outcomes. But it would be hard to get a big enough sample size and to replicate.

I much more prefer the relatively straightforward (and falsifiable) tales that genetics tells. Namely that variation within species is very small.

The only way to test differences between races in a concrete falsifiable to determine how much is genetic would be to identify all or most of the thousands of genes that contribute to intelligence and to define get a massive DNA sample that is representative of the various population clusters that exist within the black and white races. Then you would have to compare the samples for allele frequency.

The cost of doing this is prohibitively expensive at the moment even as GWAS costs go down. But given the overall low variation between population groups, the default position has to be that differences in IQ are mostly, if not entirely, environmental.

u/send_nasty_stuff · 9 pointsr/DebateAltRight

I'll start.

1.Our American Pravda by Ron Unz

It's hard to choose from Unz's amazing collection of articles. This one is a great dive on how the United States media system has been bought out by marxism and corporate interests.

2.The Cause of the Second Civil War by Taylor Mclain

Interesting take on why the civil war was fought and how the unresolved issues and lost capital and lives have affected the United States.

3.Biological Leninism by Bloodyshovel

Analysis on what really motivated the Bolshevik revolution and how we are still in the throws of these misguided ideologies.

Ok so I just realized how hard this is to narrow down three articles so since I'm the OP I'm going to cheat and post a few more.


4.Was Aaron Swartz Killed By An
MIT Satanic Child Porn Ring? By Yoichi Shimatsu

A friend of Aaron Swartz investigates his suspicious suicide that was memory holed by the press. What he discovers is horrifying.

5.Book Review: Albion's Seed by Scott Alexander (of Slate Star Codex)

Scott is a liberal but a wicked smart one. Here he does an outstanding summary on a long book called Albion's Seed: 4 British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer and gives his personal views on the author's thesis about the founding stock of the country. If you love history this is an awesome read and it's like taking an entire course in 60-90 minutes of reading. The details and cultural understandings outlined in this article have really helped me understand some of our wacky politics and disagreements in the modern age.

6.The Amazing Warnings of Benjamin Freedman

I've posted this transcript frequently in comments on this sub but still want to include it here. It was one of the texts that really broke me away from liberalism and into dissident right thinking. It gives an entirely different perspective on the first and second world wars and the motivations of the countries and ethnic groups involved in those conflicts. Academia in collusion with media and western liberal governments have systematically covered up this perspective from the public conscientious.

7.The 3-ladder system of social class in the U.S. by Michael Church

This is another essay not written by a dissident right person but does a good job on outlining how the american class system has manifested and calcified. There's no discussion on jewish involvement but you can see from the article how it would be easy for an elite class to be co-opted as they are less and less connected to the lower classes.

edit. if this thread gets some traction we could do it monthly and try not to repost articles shared in older threads. In a few months we should have a really great body of writing to share with new users. I look forward to reading all of your wonderful submissions!!

u/Desay · 4 pointsr/DebateAltRight

We shouldn't need science, since basic observation and understanding tells us everything we need to know, but cucks worship science as the new religion so it's useful to have on hand to hammer them with.

Some of the science, btw

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source:

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source:

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source:

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source:

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source:

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source:

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source:

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source:

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source:

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source:

Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to. Source:

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons. Source:

u/VraiBleu · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

This is a great read on the topic of anti-protestant discrimination in the south post independence. It’s not hard to see why the ‘siege mentality’  was/is still so strong in the Protestant community after what happened there.

The Faithful Tribe by Ruth Edwards (an Irish Catholic) while focussing on the Orange Order is also a great insight into the general loyalist mindset & their history.

u/CertifiedRabbi · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 by Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame).

Alt-Hype made a great video which referenced Charles Murray's work and convincingly debunked the popular leftist argument that non-White civilizations greatly surpassed White Europeans technologically in the past. As you'll see in the video, virtually all of the technological developments that were made before the White European Industrial Revolution were relatively insignificant in comparison. And even the so-called "Dark Age" of European history really wasn't as backwards and primitive as popularly claimed by the left. As soon as civilization reached Europe, Europeans have pretty much always been on par with India, China, and the Middle East. And then White Europeans left everyone in the dust with the Industrial Revolution. And only a couple of Northeast Asian countries have caught up to White Western countries in the last few decades.

u/MuchStore · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

It's like asking why a woman would start a fight with her husband based on what seems like nothing in the eyes of the husband.

After the smoke has cleared and things have settled down, you can ask the woman why she started the fight, and she'll say "I don't know."

Now imagine if there existed an environment of evolutionary adaptedness which selected for women that exhibited a greater than average tendency towards this kind of fight-starting. In non-technical terms, imagine if these specific women had more babies than other women, and their babies also out-reproduced the next generation, and so forth.

Then imagine the kind of man that can succeed in an environment where the women are overwhelmingly domineering passive-aggressive gaslighters.

Surprise surprise, the men will turn out to be neurotic.

TLDR, don't assume "the Jews" really know why they support the policies they do.

Some of them really are consciously anti-white, but for a lot of them, it's just instinctive behavior.

(above is from

If you really want to go deep on this subject, the authors are Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones.

The Culture of Critique

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit

u/Skepticizer · 6 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> But true neoclassical economics has actually never been tried.

Yes it has, and it sucks every time.

>Keynesian economics is bad enough

It created the greatest rise in living standards in Western history. It was called the "golden age of capitalism" for a reason.

>on what possible basis can you really believe that a state acting on national interests can make a better choice than a system which automatically reacts to market forces?

Read this book:

>See China. Our state managed economy only really grew after they relaxed their control.

No one here is arguing for communism. By the way, China has more state-owned enterprises than Venezuela.

u/MortalSisyphus · 7 pointsr/DebateAltRight

A good summary of the origins of Australian Aborigines, as well as much of early human history, can be found in Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade.

u/sylla94 · 6 pointsr/DebateAltRight


Ethnonationalist talking points are rising all throughout the West and permeating into the underground cultural discussion with no signs of slowing down. People are waking up to the medias blatant bias and dishonesty (which you yourself admit exists) and White people in particularly are becoming more sympathetic and receptive to our ideas. We likely won't be called the alt-right in the future when this stuff starts to come to a head but we are an inevitability.

By the way if you're going to write this shit can you at least try and format it? Have some consideration, please.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/DebateAltRight

the source was The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich by Ian Kershaw.

From my understanding, Hitler did in fact serve in the army of the Bavarian Socialist Republic. To what degree is the question. Some people say he defected immediately. Others say he was sympathetic and only left later once things devolved. Either way, my point was that many Germans sympathized with the Communists, only to switch later to the Nazi side. This was very common- Communists becoming nazis. So jumping to the conclusion that Jews were responsible for this seems like a cheap tactic to dilute one's own responsibility while effectively blaming an out-group.

as for your other examples, I truthfully don't know enough about them to say. I know that Boas was allies with Margaret Mead, a White woman whose fame far outlasted his. typically, you'll notice that upon closer inspection many 'suspicious' scenarios involving Jews actually include Whites too. the question is then whether it's the Jewish person in charge (with a duped White ally), or the White person in charge (with a duped Jewish ally). or perhaps they're both involved as co-equals? hard to say. all I know is that under Kevin MacDonald's narrative, the Jew is always to blame no matter how extensive the support of the White person. this is a criticism that Nathan Cofnas just pointed out in his refutation.

just to give a contemporary example-- when it comes to Donald Trump, who is really the person responsible for his hardline immigration stance? is it Donald Trump, the White businessman? or is it Stephen Miller, the Jewish advisor? is Trump the frontman for Miller's policy ideas? or is Miller just another mouthpiece for the president in a cadre of anti-immigration activists? it's impossible to know. but imagine Trump was a far Left president instead of a far Right one, and imagine how the altright would interpret his actions. everything would be seen through his Jewish advisors, and he'd just be a pawn

u/KonoKuba · 2 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> we should not be questioning weather we should use it, but how we should use it.

Have you read JFs book? He makes a very convincing argument to be afraid of gene editing.

u/Ethnocrat · 4 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> would have to compare standards of living across North Korea and subsaharan Africa to get an idea.

North Korea can make nukes.

>That was demography.

No, you need some sort of planning. The Soviets industrialized much faster than the more market-driven system that industrialized the West.

>Still, the outcomes speak for themselves.

Except that the West, especially after WWII, had much more state-driven capitalism than most people know. This book explains beautifully why the state is the biggest innovator by far, and why neoliberalism is a sham. Here's a great picture from the book that perfectly demonstrates the main thesis.

>Would broadly agree with that sentiment. We're supposedly going to be seeing Nigeria (or was it Niger?) develop rapidly in the coming decades due to foreign investment and a favorable demographic profile, but until that happens, we don't really have anything disproving the rule.

It's Nigeria, and that country is already failing. They've lost 96% of their forests...

u/brgrss · 0 pointsr/DebateAltRight

This is how we have ended up in the current situation. Give an inch here, an inch there, and we now have women forcing their children to get sex changes

Rampant homosexual drug abuse

Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men. Source:

And child abuse

46% of male homosexuals report being molested, as compared to only 7% of heterosexual men. Source:,

Normalizing pedophilia culturally

And other harmful increasingly common practices.

Saying 'it doesn't matter to me' is nihlistic because it effects the rest of society and probably you more than you would think. And not everybody is like you where they have a strong supportive structure to fall back on. I thought you liberals were aware of that. Not everyone can be counted on to stay strong in the face of the onslaught:

Two-thirds of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later. Source:

Homosexual men are more likely to have been abused by their partners than straight men. Source:

28% of homosexuals have had sex with over a thousand men. For straight men? Just 25% have had sex with more than 10 women. Source:

75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men. Source:

Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to be stalked or physically abused by their partners. Source:

America has spent $700 million promoting gay rights abroad – an “integral” part of American foreign policy. Source:

u/Paranoid_Android3 · 5 pointsr/DebateAltRight

Anyone that's read much of The g Factor will immediately dismiss the notion that Jensen was some racist crank. You can borrow it here, not sure how that works.

u/FiveofSwords · 1 pointr/DebateAltRight

> "Oh there just stupid, because they have low IQ." * they're

" The test has been debunked as a myth by scientist " sorry, just false.

"and even the Guinness Book of World Records, " lol

"Secondly, you also ignored the fact that Watson found that the variation between individuals of the same race is substantially larger than the difference between the averages for each race. "

...why would I ignore that? it contradicts nothing ive said.

"When to these factors a county's development sky-rockets."


"just because you have a high IQ, it doesn't automatically translate towards success or usefulness."

who said otherwise?

"I've met numerous black people I KNOW are smart. Definitely smarter in some areas than both me and you."

speak for yourself please.

"W.E.B Du Bois? George Washington Carver? Dr. Daniel Hale Williams? Albert Turner Bharucha-Reid? Langston Hughes? Ralph Ellison? Fredrick Douglas? Sylvester James Gates? Shall I go on for 15 hours?"

john washington carver is issac newton?

"I guess all those black scientist, artist, and philosophers I just listed are all outliers in the bell curve, right? But, wait can't the same be said for Newton, Einstein, Locke, Shakespeare, and Galileo? "

You would need to be stupid to think issac newton was not an outlier. what is your point? China, the middle east, india, and africa all had enough information available to them to produce calculus, the theory of gravity, newtonian mechanics, and optics. but they didnt. the person who did happen to produce those things was white. And that is not unusual in history. I know it hurts your soul but the crushing horrible truth is simply that white people over and over again were responsible for the major breakthroughs in human knowledge...and only an insane sort of revisionist history could claim otherwise.

"What genes makes a person more genetically predisposed to kicking a fucking ball around or slapping a ping-pong ball. You can't be serious here dude."

I can be very serious. I suggest you take a glance at the theory of genetics.

" Do you know any actual classical musicians? "

I am a classical pianist.

"How? Prove this."

"Explain how America is so successful when its racial make-up is so diverse when compared to other success countries?" It used to be less diverse.

u/Zanyion · 2 pointsr/DebateAltRight

I appreciate you taking the time.

Biological determinism is a very scary notion in our society. Everything is build on equality, "tabula rasa". This undermines everything.

This is what we are up against. It can not be talked out.

>institutional factors

I don't have any studies on hand. I have seen one done in the 70s comparing twins, which proved the point. I can't find it though. This video does go into this.

Here is also a famous scientific book on the matter
>Once upon a time eugenics and race theory was the leading school of thought but has been largely discredited due to lack of evidence or data.

Straw man. Red herring.

>Make sure you're belief in these theories doesn't come from any of your own preconceived biases but instead from hard scientific fact.

It's very limiting to rely solely on this. Truth can not only be represented by empiricism. What if there is theory but no one wants to study it. It may be clear it's the truth but no one want to study or fund it and therefore it's not the Truth.

This is the issue with taboo science, which critical theory(Cultural Marxism) hinders. It can't be Truthed yet people may still have a piece of the truth.

This is the case here. This information supports notions people have had for a long time. This is what is commonly called a redpill. A tough piece of information to swallow which destroys ones world view, which completely makes sense, based on past suppressed "anecdotes".

It's not out of malice these things are finally accepted. It just explains all past information and interactions, where you always felt you were missing something. Like why are there no "successful" society made up of all blacks, when other people too have endured similar fates yet are fully functional societies. Why have all black people I encountered behaved so differently from Asians and whites? Why are most successful blacks half white? Neil deGrasse Tyson, Obama etc?

And this

I wouldn't care if whites were the dumbest ones. I still would like my society made up of my people.

If this was 100% proved wrong, my views politically wouldn't change one bit.

u/heil-fasces · 41 pointsr/DebateAltRight

It's a mental illness and people who are "gay" need to go to therapy.

>1/4 gay men in America have had over 1000 sex partners. (src)

>28% of homosexuals have had sex with over a thousand men. For straight men? Just 25% have had sex with more than 10 women. (src)

>Gay men are 10-15 times more likely than straight men to have eating disorders. (src)

>40% to 60% of serial killers are homosexuals. (src)

>79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers. (src)

Why are people gay? Mostly because of molestation and lack of attention.

>46% of male homosexuals report being molested, as compared to only 7% of heterosexual men. (src)

>99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years. (src)

More Facts

u/downt0wnman · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

His father has experience: jewish source

> In 1991, Bush lashed out at pro-Israel activists who had flooded Congress in response to the president’s reluctance to approve loan guarantees requested by Israel to help absorb hundreds of thousands of Jews from the just-collapsed Soviet Union.
> Bush called himself “one lonely guy” battling “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” Jewish leaders resented the insinuation that the pro-Israel community was possessed of a power sinister enough to unsettle the leader of the free world as borderline anti-Semitic. The “one lonely guy” comment haunted Bush thereafter, with even Republican Jews apt to use the first Bush presidency as a signifier of how far they had traveled in attracting Jewish support.

Despite doing their bidding anyway, he got a lot of shit for that one remark. this read is relevant on how they took their revenge by shifting political funding. I wonder how he felt explaining to his son in 2003 (after lobbiest already pushed him into Iraq) that he is a tool, and a dumb tool.

Look at all that "anti-semitism" I can bring to the table with just citing jewish sources.

u/FB-22 · 6 pointsr/DebateAltRight

Similar but not the same.

Racial Differences in Crime Holding IQ Constant

Two studies have looked at what happens to racial crime differences after IQ is held constant. First, Beaver et al. (2013) looked at the degree to which racial differences in crime disappeared after controlling for self-reported life time violence and verbal IQ. Their sample consisted of  3,029 males.

African American men were 43% more likely to be arrested than White men. However, this dropped to a statistically insignificant 13% after controlling for life time violence and IQ. Before applying the controls, Black men were 56% more likely to have been incarcerated. After applying controls, this figure dropped to a statistically insignificant 18%. Finally, once arrested Black men were 50% more likely to end up incarcerated and, after applying these controls, that value dropped to a statistically insignificant 24%.

Secondly, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) analyzed a large nationally representative data set and found that the Black-White incarceration gap decreased by nearly ¾ after simply controlling for age and IQ.

Thus, racial differences in IQ probably explain a good deal of the Black-White crime gap, though not all of it.