379 words
“Not all [x] are like that.”
Of course that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. Most blacks are nice people, and neither criminal nor corrupt, but virtually every majority-black city, school district, and country in the world is dangerous, decrepit, or dysfunctional. Most Arab and African migrants in Europe are decent enough, but there’s not a single European neighborhood where the quality of life has improved following a large influx of them. In every case it has declined, often sharply. The varied and unpredictable behaviors of individuals nonetheless lead to regular and predictable patterns when those individuals form groups, and the larger the groups the more predictable they become. These patterns are consistent all over the world, regardless of the presence or absence of poverty, slavery, colonization, racism, or any other politically correct explanation.
It’s tempting to parody the NAXALT statement as “not all scorpions will sting you, so let’s bring them into our homes and judge them as individuals”, but that would be unfair. Why would it be unfair? It’s because probabilities matter; it’s reasonable to fear something that’ll hurt you 50% of the time, but much less reasonable to fear something that’ll hurt you only 1% of the time. Black men and Syrian migrants are the 1% case, not the 50% case.
But large groups of black men and Syrian migrants are the 100% case. They might fit perfectly well into their ancestral societies, but their effects on Western societies are harmful and absolutely predictable, with regularly tragic results. All social policies are informed by group behaviors and group statistics, and when the influx of a particular group is guaranteed to be detrimental, it’s not only reasonable to prevent it, it’d be madness not to!
If you want nice, clean, safe neighborhoods in the Western style, they simply cannot be allowed to become majority black, Pakistani, Syrian, Afghan, or anything of the sort, because it has never worked, and there’s no evidence that it ever will work. Such places have always fallen into decay. And in your heart you know this, because you would never choose to live in a majority-black neighborhood or send your child to a majority-black school, even though “not all X are like that.”
This article is part of the Counter-Currents NAXALT Contest. Submit yours before the October 2 deadline!
13 comments
This is my favorite kind of article: it’s terse, unimpeachable, and doesn’t rely on “muh peer-reviewed study” (which literally no one is persuaded or dissuade by, despite pretending otherwise).
Whoever wrote this, good job.
Really nice piece! Jared Taylor reported somewhere that 40% black seems to be the percentage at which an elementary or high school flips and becomes a black school in terms of norms. It’s group averages + overall numbers + intense and combative racial consciousness on the part of blacks.
With respect to Mr Taylor, especially after the post-Floyd “racial reckoning”, Blacks have massively increased social power. Far few than 40% destroys anything Whites have built.
I recall masculinist Jack Donovan suggesting that in the case of the sexes, a mere 10% female portion of a group significantly alters its dynamics.
Official Sacred Victim groups need very few of the canonized to change things for the worse.
Not all men are stronger than women, but we understand the truth of the statement ‘men are physically stronger than women,’ to be true.
Not all men are rapists, but we don’t allow them in women’s prisons, because we understood the innate difference in the collective average
You’re right, but I think the first argument is vulnerable to being turned around on itself. Men who are weaker than the average woman are rare, so “men are stronger than women” is generally true, but illegal migrants who rape, rob, or murder are also rare, so is it therefore generally true that “illegal aliens are not dangerous”? (Maybe it is!)
Perhaps we can’t really defend the generalization that illegal migrants or blacks pose a direct threat to life or safety. Even though they might be ten times as violent as whites, you’re still much more likely to be killed by a lack of exercise or an unhealthy diet, I’d guess. Other generalizations may face a similar fate.
Ultimately we have to defend our existence for its own sake rather than arguing about the specific merits and demerits of the people flooding into our countries. I’m not saying you don’t! But if it wasn’t identified as a major stumbling block, this whole NAXALT argument should be little more than a distraction…
“The varied and unpredictable behaviors of individuals nonetheless lead to regular and predictable patterns when those individuals form groups, and the larger the groups the more predictable they become.”
Well put. Excellent piece.
I understand that scorpions have to be scorpions but I wish that White people would stop being the frogs.
Well, I certainly would not say most blacks are nice people, nor that most Moslem “refugees” in Europe are decent enough. But it is indeed true that when they are in large groups their behavior changes drastically. This is especially true for blacks. I have known many blacks over the years who while interacting with them one on one are pleasant and agreeable, but who once around other blacks act like completely different people. Loud, obnoxious, aggressive.
I don’t really think you can consider people like that to be “decent enough.” They’re clearly problematic.
The best response to Not All X Are Like That (NAXALT) is, Yeah, But Enough Of Them Are That It Becomes A Problem. (YBEOTATIBAP??) we need to fine tune this acronym so that it’s as snappy as NAXALT.
After having experienced living in an overwhelmingly black area, I am not prepared at all to concede your opening statement that most blacks are nice people. I would confidently say that nice blacks are the exception, and most of the nice blacks I knew would readily tell you as much.
I also think the essay overestimates normies’ ability to think on a sociological scale. They are selfish because that’s the default for people who lead unexamined lives. In my mind, the collapse of Western morality has made clear that people of even average intelligence can tend towards rank sociopathy unless there are very clear social mores forcing them to adhere to prosocial values. When you say that there’s only a one percent chance that you’d be hurt by a black or Arab in your home, a normie reads that as an argument for diversity. The follow up that it expands to 100 percent on a sociological scale depends upon empathy for imagined others, which involve multiple layers of abstraction for normies.
Congrats to the winner!
Though he may be a pompous fart with a COVID gas mask, but every once in a while NN Taleb writes something good. Pondering the tainted M&M’s and that 40% figure being a possible over-estimate, I couldn’t help but think of this old chestnut: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
Congratulations. This is an awkward topic at best to spread around. To the point and avoiding ‘hate’ cliches. Good fences make for good neighbors.
It’s very good, in terms of logic, but it’s too short for the prize essay. It’s a comment, a blog post.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.