The depressing story of the American continent.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (60 children)

Multiculturalism has nothing to do with those nations not being as prosperous as America and Canada.

The most violent places on Earth are mixed raced. All of which Latin America and the Caribbean dominate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:World_murder_rate_map_2.svg

It's impossible to build a 1st world society when your main export are liveleak videos.

[–]ShalomEveryone✡️ 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (58 children)

Poverty begets violence, those countries are poor because they lack Jewish leadership. South Africa used to be a wonderful place to live until Israel ended relations with South Africa. Your map helps prove my point. Angola has less homicides than South Africa and Brazil, Angola and Israel currently have strong relations with one another.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (54 children)

those countries are poor because they lack Jewish leadership

You're a fucking retard.

[–]Node 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

More like novelty account or troll. I'm betting on troll, whether it's an actual jew or just a hateful leftist.

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (52 children)

Wow, you guys descended from supposedly rational arguments into belligerent name-calling but right quick. I haven't got a horse in this race, just here to see both sides, but they say that the side which resorts to this 'argument' first is the one with the losing rhetoric, and it sure looks that way from here. Even if he is a troll, did you not have a better retort? Will you spout profanity at me now, too? How far your 'proud' race has fallen! You don't come across as proud so much as bitter and jaded. Are you mixed?

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (46 children)

Looking at your post history, you already decided we were wrong because we correctly identify Europeans as White and visa versa. You have a very strange and poor understanding of race. Watch some alternativehypothesis/peoplesveto on YouTube or Odysee and try again.

https://impute.me/ethnicity/

Use the code id_613z86871. Go to advanced settings. Select European and individually compare to every other category one at a time and then all at once. Tell us what you learned.

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

Please, educate me on race. I'm published on the subject--I'm an anthropological geneticist.

What race are you, and what is your justification for the claim? Your link there, unfortunately, is not scientific. Do you know what a SNP is? Do you know what an 'ethnically dependent' SNP is (hint--it is not a scientific term)? Do you know how we do these cluster analyses, and did you know that the assumptions involved in performing this kind of analysis actually invalidate your point before you even try to make it?

You didn't think that's how this research worked, did you? Do you know how we perform these studies? Do you know what software we use, and what markers we look at to make our 'race' designations, and do you know why we do it? These are very important questions, but most people who are not professionally involved with the science don't know the answers.

Please, let's have a discussion about this. This is what the sub is for, after all! I have seen people on the alt-right say, "academics please respond!" Well, here I am :)

I am especially hoping that we get as far as the mythical ML 'objective k.' I would be impressed!

[–]shilldetector 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bragging about being published on the subject isn't helping your case any. We all know the only way to get published on this subject is to tow a particular line, so you are basically admitting that this is what you've done. I'm far less knowledgeable on the subject than you, but there are many people who are almost certainly more knowledgeable and accomplished on the subject who vehemently disagree with you. They just aren't able to be as open about it.

One of the ways I differ greatly from the alt right is their obsession on race and genetics. I see it as largely irrelevant. Regardless of whether being white is a social construct it is very much a thing, as the media continually remind us. If you are white in our increasingly anti white society, there's pretty much no way to weasel out of it, despite millions of whites attempting to do exactly that.

To me being white means being of indigenous European ancestry. Period. Sure Europeans differ from each other to a fairly large extent, but they are still more genetically related to each other than they are to non Europeans, and more importantly they have a shared history with each other, even if much of it was warring with each other. Denying that shared heritage and now shared discrimination isn't going to work out well for those who do it in the long run.

I also differ from the alt right in that I don't stress too much about declining numbers. As our numbers grow smaller, those that are prone to hating themselves and other whites will breed out or die out, which is fine, that is their choice, but we aren't going away. We are simply trimming down to fighting weight.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Proof or ban for misrepresenting yourself. (Rule 3)

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But I would have to dox myself in order to prove it. Are you asking me to dox myself?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

If you're a public intellectual why would you care about discussing your own work? Unless of course you're just lying to try to stifle discussion.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm no public intellectual. I am an anthropological geneticist employed by a university. If they knew I was debating alt-right folk at all, it would create professional problems for me. I can only request that the mods see my post below as a proxy for 'proof'--you might disagree with me, in fact I expect that you do, but only educated researchers have that much knowledge of this subject. Certainly, at the very least, a talented graduate student.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

Finally, I would love to have this debate if you want to do that in good faith.

The best argument for race is that when we put the genetics of different populations into a clustering algorithm we see that the clusters closely relate to what we consider races. Blacks cluster together, Europeans cluster together, East Asians cluster together, Oceanians cluster together and american indians cluster together etc.

If race didn't exist we wouldn't expect that to happen. It could've just as well have been eye colors, hair color or some other random attribute or combination of attributes that would best represent the clusters, but what we find is that RACE is what the generic clustering algos produce.

Another argument is that if you take 2 whites or 2 blacks they will always be more similar than say 1 random black and 1 random white. This indicates that races are surprisingly well seperated. The famous saying: "more distance between than within populations" (tongue in cheek)

Now of course you will have mixed race people like a color spectrum between the races/colors. Arguing against races is like arguing against blue, red, green, yellow etc.

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

The program we usually use is called STRUCTURE. It's likewise the program where nearly all of the data from your link came from. STRUCTURE is hardly equipped to perform objective scientific analysis--it is, like many things in social science, a program which draws upon some scientific data to infuse it with social hypotheses and answer a specifically formulated, purposeful question. We can't use STRUCTURE to figure out true things about reality, the way we can use astronomical analysis packages to derive conclusions based on the data that a space probe collects. STRUCTURE requires a human element--the data, on its own, speaks for itself, as far as it can. We need to tell STRUCTURE what to look for, and in doing so, we tell it what is important to us, personally.

Take racial clusters, for instance. Those uneducated in genetic sciences see your link and assume that racial clusters are real, that they are true, and located in the data. They mistakenly believe that STRUCTURE draws this truth out of the data for all to see. However, STRUCTURE has no way to determine the correct number of racial clusters. We actually have to tell it how many we want to see. If you want to believe that there are 7 racial clusters, you can tell STRUCTURE to look for 7. It will find 7--after all, that's what you told it to do. If you ask it to find 12, it will find 12. The simplest operation is to tell STRUCTURE to find 1 cluster, and this is presently the most widely accepted number of racial clusters that exist. Sometimes the data looks more visually appealing to us, looks like it 'ought' to be 7, or 12, or 23. But we can always use a sharper magnifying glass, or take a step back, and see that, in terms of genetic science, there are only as many 'races' as we choose to see. Usually, we choose a certain number because we have a specific question, often epidemielogical, that we want to answer. The 'correct' number of races in each instance is whatever helps us answer that particular question.

I should point out that I am providing you the courtesy of pretending that 'race' is a legitimate taxonomic category. It is not. 'Race' typically refers to subspecies, which is likewise not a defined classification. There are hundreds of studies that use hundreds of different definitions of what qualifies as a subspecies. Historically, the definition has only had glimmers of consistency across specific areas of research, for specific species and genera. For example, wolf researchers tend to use 'subspecies' in the same way, because they cite other wolf researchers who used it that way. It is a totally different story for drosophila researchers. So, again, before we have started, your premise is non-scientific. But I don't even need to win on that point--this is my job, I could give you free points all day and still win.

You should be aware: your link is very misleading, and has hoodwinked you. These 'ethnically dependent' SNPs? My, that sounds impressive! Damning, even! How could I possibly argue with 'ethnically dependent' SNPs? Easy.

These SNPs are specifically derived from unexpressed remnants of viral DNA (retrotransposons) that mutate very rapidly. Because they do not have an effect on our phenotype, these mutations are not 'pruned' by natural selection. They are then able to proliferate and diversify, and allow us to compare samples of aDNA (ancient DNA) to modern samples, and match up who is related to what groups based on the pattern of mutations.

Do you see an obvious problem? Humans are so incredibly closely related, so lacking in genetic diversity compared to most animals, that we have to go far out of our way to be able to detect differences at all. We actually need to look at genes that don't do anything. We need to look at genes that have no effects on us, because if we try to find genetic diversity elsewhere, we come across too many stumbling blocks. Your 'ethnically dependent' SNPs, the keystone upon which your link depends, are quite precisely the LEAST MEANINGFUL genes in the human genome. That isn't a coincidence. That's the only way we can reliably distinguish our personally preferred number of races--by looking at genes that don't do anything. You are using genes that don't do anything and saying that they enable us to distinguish race. If race is so self-evident, why don't you look at genes that DO things? Because you can't. The analyses will be inconsistent. You would have to pick and choose genes that make your point, and ignore that vastly higher number of genes that don't. Or, you could perform a genome-wide analysis, which will put you in exactly the same position--the differences will be so small relative to the whole of the genome that, by definition, they will fail to meet the standard of statistical significance. I've been doing this for a long time.

I'm not naive on this science. There are certainly genes that have an effect on IQ, testosterone levels, impulsivity, etc. These genes are predictably distributed in various popilations. We all know where they are prominent, and where they aren't. But you aren't talking about that. You are trying to shoehorn in Biblical 'kinds' into modern science, under the same guise of 'race' that the racialists of the 19th and 20th century used. Your fundamental hypothesis is Biblical, not scientific. And, the anthropologist in me sees your conflict with the Jews for precisely what it is--family squabbles. Jealousy of the more 'successful' big brother, who isn't letting you in his clubhouse.

To be clear, you led with your BEST argument. I didn't characterize it as such, you did. I demonstrated why that argument is, scientifically, nonsense. It is one I have heard many times, and proliferates on boards like this. It is actually a running joke in the genetics community.

Pleaze recognize what has happened here. Your BEST argument (your characterization) was bunk. Total drivel. Useless. 'Pseudoscience' is too decent a label for it. This is why I was hoping you would invoke machine learning as a means of possibly determining an objective k (cluster) value. But we didn't even get that far.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (35 children)

Ok, did you read my last post or did you go autopilot? Did you notice that the clusters correspond to races, not eye color, not hair color, not some other random combination of attributes? This fact alone should tell you that the concept of race has a significant categorical meaning. The clusters could've been completely unrelated to the races but they are not. In fact the clusters correspond very surprisingly to exactly how humans perceive races (okay, exactly is an exxageration, but you get my point, swedes lie close to danes, greeks close to italians, whites far from blacks and so on, exactly as we would expect). Please try your best to explain away this phenomenon, because you failed to do that so far.

Okay, now I will adress your concern of the arbitrary k. The first point is that it does not matter "how many races you choose", you can pick 10, you can pick 3, you can pick 23 if you want. This is how race is defined and understood in the alt right anyway (and in our genetics circles too).
Now if you have trouble choosing the number of k, I can refer you to this article: https://medium.com/analytics-vidhya/how-to-determine-the-optimal-k-for-k-means-708505d204eb
I personally use the elbow method but either works. This is basic 1 year undergraduate stuff.
I don't use STRUCTURE, I use python.

'Race' typically refers to subspecies, which is likewise not a defined classification.

Again, I already adressed this with the color spectrum fallacy. This is not a very advanced idea that you have. Its a common misunderstanding that is widespread in social sciences because they want everything to be as "subjective" as possible.
With this type of logic, you can make the concept of "species" meaningless, which is simply absurd. We use categorization to say something meaningful about the data. In the case of genetic clustering, we are using a similarity measurement as the target function to optimize. "How similar is this individual that individual", "Sort them into k similar groups", "Here you are".
Your problem is that k is not as arbitrary as you want it to be and also that the clusters correspond perfectly to what people think of as race.
If the clusters didn't correspond to our understanding of race, you might've had a point, but that's not the case.

But I don't even need to win on that point--this is my job, I could give you free points all day and still win.

Your point is that you can use different measures for categorization. You don't ever prove that these measures don't result in racial clusters. But with that said I will gladly say that it seems reasonable to think that you could find some arbitrary clustering measurement (not genetic similarity) where the the clustering does not end up corresponding race, but I don't think this has any relevance for this topic.

If race is so self-evident, why don't you look at genes that DO things? Because you can't.

This is what I call ceding ground. You already acknowledge that races do exist. That whites are genetically more similar to other whites than they are to blacks.
Your strategy now is to claim that the racial clusters aren't "useful enough" and that we should only use a predetermined subset of the genome to create the clusters...
How many loci are you talking about here? How few should we use for you to think it is "useful enough"? Is it curiously so few that it makes the lewontin fallacy relevant? Is that it?

Or, you could perform a genome-wide analysis, which will put you in exactly the same position--the differences will be so small relative to the whole of the genome that, by definition, they will fail to meet the standard of statistical significance. I've been doing this for a long time.

Genome wide clustering seperates the races well. Am I misunderstanding you here? I think I am, if you could reformulate it, because I didn't get your point.

I'm not naive on this science. There are certainly genes that have an effect on IQ, testosterone levels, impulsivity, etc. These genes are predictably distributed in various popilations. We all know where they are prominent, and where they aren't. But you aren't talking about that. You are trying to shoehorn in Biblical 'kinds' into modern science, under the same guise of 'race' that the racialists of the 19th and 20th century used. Your fundamental hypothesis is Biblical, not scientific. And, the anthropologist in me sees your conflict with the Jews for precisely what it is--family squabbles. Jealousy of the more 'successful' big brother, who isn't letting you in his clubhouse.

I don't know why you had this garbage paragraph. Lets keep being on topic, thanks. You're published, so no need to divert attention elsewhere. Would be appreciated.

To be clear, you led with your BEST argument. I didn't characterize it as such, you did. I demonstrated why that argument is, scientifically, nonsense. It is one I have heard many times, and proliferates on boards like this. It is actually a running joke in the genetics community.

No, you had a misunderstanding how clustering algos work that a 1st year undergraduate wont ever have. I think this is included in chapter1 in a lot of books and I just pulled up the first medium post on the search engine. Let's cut the arrogance a bit. I treated you with respect in my initial response and I hope that you will reply properly going forward, otherwise I will return in kind.

Pleaze recognize what has happened here. Your BEST argument (your characterization) was bunk. Total drivel. Useless. 'Pseudoscience' is too decent a label for it. This is why I was hoping you would involve machine learning as a means of possibly determining an objective k (cluster) value. But we didn't even get that far.

I look forward to your next reply. Please keep the arrogant attitude to a minimum. I know you've been taught that we're dumb, so if that is true, less talk and show your knowledge through your presentation of your arguments. They were sorely lacking so far.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I may be reading this whole process between the two of you incorrectly, and am somewhat skimming, but it looks like she's trying to make the point to you that the systems they use are different than what you keep bringing up. SNP runs quite a bit deeper than just general ethnic analysis, but there are SNPs that they're able to use to relate towards ethnicity. It's like parsing out each little code within your genetic makeup instead of a broad picture. Ethnicity analysis is the cliff notes version, from what I understand. I'll let her explain, she's the one with the education stats and experience.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Dragonere, I dismantled your point completely. Let me try to explain it again.

Your 'clusters' are literally human opinions. They do not exist as scientific data. You are talking about a research package called STRUCTURE which I and other scientists use. In order to get ANY clusters from this program, we must put the desired number of clusters in ourself. You are acting as if these clusters are real data. They are not. Every time you talk about any number of clusters, you are referencing a specific researcher who decided to arbitrarily use a given number of clusters. You actually have to open STRUCTURE and TELL it how many clusters you want. It can't give you ANY clusters, none at all, until you tell it to give you a specific number. Your clusters, literally, are arbitrary opinions. They are not in the data. They never were. There is no 'race' to correspond to, either. Race is not a defined scientific concept. I am talking about science here.

Here is what you are doing: without realizing it, you are choosing to use a number of clusters that corresponds to the 'races' you want to see. You say they 'correspond.' They do not. You have to first choose an arbitrary number of clusters (a k value) for STRUCTURE to give you. Then, you backwards-rationalize that number into alignment with the racial categories that you want to believe in. What about two races? You can tell STRUCTURE, 'give me an output with two clusters,' and it will. What would your preferred two races be? You can ask it to give you 3, 4, 5, literally any number that is equal to or less than the number of individuals. Hell, you could use data that includes multiple samples from single individuals and ask STRUCTURE to give you more clusters than there are individual humans in your sample!! And it WOULD! You are only talking about a program, STRUCTURE, that you are only just learning about from me. I have been using this program for years.

Finally, the ML k values. I read your link. Honestly, I'm not sure why you would use this when I quite literally taunted you to use it in my first post. I asked you to bring this up. Don't you know a trap when you see one?? The first problem is that it assumes a single level of magnification for the sample. It decides to look at the data at one level of magnification--not closer, not further. This is precisely what I said in my previous post. Of course, at a specific level of magnification, it 'looks' like there are 3 clusters. So, again, you arbitrarily choose 3, and just pass the buck to an algorithim which you have chosen in advance. You have not gotten away from the arbitrary nature of the k selection at all. You simply loaded up your data at one level of magnification, chose the number 3, and ran an algorithim that would give you 3, based on your hunch. If you zoom out, you will see 2, or 1. If you zoom in, you will see 4, 5, 6, up to as many individual points of data that you have. This is how cluster analysis works. There is no one 'true' or 'correct' algorithim that will give you an objective k value, and I can prove it right now. I actually found this tidbit in a paper by a researcher who runs exactly this analysis, who used this argument to debunk your claim in advance, because he knew people would make it.

Take your Magic Algorithim, the one that gives you your Objective K. Let's say it's 7. Ok, now an algorithim gave you the k value of 7, and you can pretend that you didn't choose that number, that The Gods of Science did. Wow! What a great algorithim. It is so great, let's run it on the same sample again!

Whoops. 49. Get it?

Algorithims to magically 'justify' k values are not an escape to your problem of arbitrary k designation. They just pass the buck to an algorithim that was likewise developed by a person. You see that graphic in your link, it is obviously 3 clusters at that scale, so you run the algorithim that you already know will give you 3. You are abusing the function of that algorithim. Its intended function is very much like an ANOVA or MANOVA. It is a confirmation test, a way to say: "Hm, I am pretty sure I see 3 clusters here, at this scale, and I do indeed want to use 3 clusters in my analysis. However, I worry that if I eyeball it like this, the peer reviewers will take issue with that. What I can do instead is use this algorithim to confirm that, at this scale, the computer also sees 3 distinct clusters. It might seem obvious, but this way, my reviewers won't be able to chastise me for eyeballing the chart. It is obvious that I see 3 clusters here, but this is just one little test I can use to not make it seem like I am choosing to see the 3." This is common. The more we can seem like we have a test to back us up, that it isn't our opinion, the more likely we are to get through peer review. You seem to think of science as more rigorous and monolothic than it actuall is. Hard reality check, my friend, we are just a bunch of stressed and overworked peons like everyone else. In a way, your idealism is invigorating, and reminds me of my more energetic graduate students. You would have made a decent geneticist, with a proper superviser, of course :)

It's great that you use Python. Wonderful. I am glad you are developing skills. That does not change the fact that your data, the data you cited, with your first link, mostly came from studies which used STRUCTURE. I am quite familiar with those studies, having cited them myself. The same researchers who published them would tell you the same things I am telling you now. I learned much of this from their papers myself.

You didn't address the issue of the taxonomic nonexistence of the race concept. You handwaved it away and made reference to the color spectrum argument, which I didn't use. I understand if these arguments may be new to you, but please respond to the arguments I make rather than the ones you feel you are prepared to debunk, that I never invoked.

You are incorrect that my argument could be used to nullify the species concept. There are several species concepts, each well defined, with conventional classification criteria. This does not exist with the race concept. Actually, this is rich! YOU are using the equivalent of the color spectrum argument to say that my correct designation of the race concept as an undefined taxonomic classification, is tantamount to denying species classification wholesale!! Brilliant! It's as if you are saying that if I throw away the subspecies concept as a scientifically robust taxonomic criteria because it is inconsistent, then I must also throw away the species concept because there are moments when its consistency flickers. But that IS the color spectrum argument, which you already reject!

You then again claim that k is not arbitrary, but fail to recognize that a human told STRUCTURE, or your analysis package in Python, how many clusters to find. At best, you can arbitrarily choose a specific scale where you see 3 clusters, and run an algorithim that will show you 3 clusters. Zoom out, adjust the parameters of the algorithim, and you will see 1 cluster. Zoom in, adjust, you will see 10. Or 100. Arbitrary. Or, just run the algorithim on the clusters it produced. Why not? If it worked so well the first time, why not learn more. And all this on selectively chosen SNPs that do not express in phenotypes, not a random sample of genes. Hell, if you did choose a random sample of genes, you analysis would look overwhelmingly Chinese.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Clutch your pearls if you must.

Go read this guy's last 10 posts, they're all the same thing; "Jews are responsible for all the good in the world and none of the bad". Next thing he'll be saying they're God's chosen people.

[–]shilldetector 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He's so far claimed that Jews built Britain, Germany, South Africa, and the US. He's your typical Jewish supremacist. We can laugh at it, but it really is the default view of many Jews, especially Israelis. It might seem like he's an alt right troll trying to make Jews look stupid, but I once wasted a lot of time trying to debate them on reddit and his views are very much part of the Jewish mainstream. They just aren't typically openly displayed to goys. Even amongst themselves they usually aren't discussed so blatantly, outside of maybe Israel.

This is likely the only alt he uses that is remotely honest. I'd be willing to bet he has other alts on several platforms, most of which are dedicated to getting them shut down or otherwise subverting them in some way. You'd be amazed how many Jews do this. They have a spectacularly large and well organized army of shills and trolls. Its extremely rare to see one of them go off script, like this dude, who seems to be doing the equivalent of an end zone dance because his coethnics now pretty much own the internet. They usually keep the mask on at all times.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

default view of many Jews

yup

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you expect this guy literally just posts his Jewish version of 'We Wuz Kangz' over and over again. He's just the Jewish equivalent of those Afrocentric 'scholars' who are always claiming Beethoven was Black, Negroes taught those Greek homosexuals in caves philosophy and Blacks had flying pyramids in Egypt.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Being able to call someone a retard on the internet is freeing. You should genuinely try it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol. Shut up kike.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Poverty begets violence, those countries are poor because they lack Jewish leadership.

Never to the same extent many of these black and mixed raced societies find themselves in. Many poor Eastern European countries exist, but they lack the 8x homicide rate that Jamaica pushes.

Angola has less homicides than South Africa and Brazil, Angola and Israel currently have strong relations with one another.

Based on what? Angola was actually on the side of the Communists during the Cold War, including hosting many of Cuba's troops who were fighting Apartheid South Africa.

And Brazil has a pro-Zionist Prime Minister. Their homicide rate dropped under his tenure, but I chalk that up to him giving more power to the police and clamping down on crime, rather than any magic pixie powder in the air that's Israel.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do so many on here take this obvious troll seriously?