365 words
Pitbulls make up about 13% of the dog population, but they are responsible for more than than 60% of fatal dog attacks. So pitbulls are the most dangerous dogs. But before you can recommend any policies for dealing with this menace, you will hear the inevitable objection, “But not all pitbulls are like that. Indeed, most pitbulls never maul or kill anyone. So how how dare you recommend treating the whole breed as a bunch of baby killers.” This argument is commonly referred to with the acronym NAXALT (“Not All Xs Are Like That”).
One reason Counter-Currents is polling our readers is to improve our outreach and argumentation. We discovered that for our readers, the #1 argument against White Nationalism is NAXALT, specifically, “Not all non-whites are like that.” Indeed, fully 50% of respondents in the 100 to 114 IQ range (which encompasses one third of our race) reported NAXALT as their number one impediment to accepting White Nationalism.
Obviously, it would be useful to clear away the #1 impediment to the acceptance of our ideas. Hence the Counter-Currents NAXALT contest.
- Thanks to a generous donor, Counter-Currents will award a first prize of $500 to the best refutation to the NAXALT objection.
- We will also award $100 each to four runners up.
Entries should take the form of short essays — the shorter the better — explaining what NAXALT is, giving examples, and then offering arguments, analogies, and other talking points to counter it. Entries can include illustrations and memes. Indeed, they can be simple commentaries on illustrations.
- Since memes are one of the most effective ways to combat NAXALT, we are also having a NAXALT meme contest. You can create your own original memes or just clean out your meme folders. For every meme you submit, you will be entered into a drawing for a prize of $100.
- There is a total of $1000 in prize money for the contest as a whole.
The best essays and memes will be published at Counter-Currents. We will also create a page which links all of the essays and a gallery for the best memes as a resource for combatting NAXALT.
- The deadline for the contest is October 2, 2024.
Please send all submissions to: [email protected] with NAXALT in the subject line.
13 comments
Not all vermin carry disease, and indeed most don’t, and we do a lot to keep them away.
I have had the argument so many times, and NAXALT usually rears itself by my opponent accusing me of saying that all black people are murderous savage animals and I always reply with some version of “Of course I’m not saying ALL of them, I’m saying that an UNACCEPTABLE percentage are”
If you swim in shark infested water you will usually not be eaten. Conclusion: sharks not dangerous
You can also steam full speed across the north Atlantic at night, and usually not strike an iceberg. Conclusion: only paranoia would lead one to fear ice bergs
A decisive majority of paratroopers who jumped in to Normandy survived
I can go on but I’m sure none of this is helpful.
‘…..I always reply with some version of “Of course I’m not saying ALL of them, I’m saying that an UNACCEPTABLE percentage are”’
I get so tired of having this argument with my more liberal minded white friends who live on the Whitopia side of my city. I usually just tell them that since they have no history of or aren’t currently dealing with living around Section 8 dysfunction and black pathology, then they have no business criticizing me for pointing out what I see around me every day and have for most of my life. If they lived in my neighborhood it would only take a few weeks and a missing bicycle or two for them to realize it isn’t racism on my part but just pattern recognition.
“pattern recognition” – exactly.
What is the moral significance of devising public policy based on statistically predictable group behavior, even if … NAXALT? This, I think, is another way to inquire into the scope or rigidity of individual rights.
The answer must involve some sort of cost/benefit analysis. Why should tenth generation white American grandmothers from Iowa have to go through the same arduous airplane embarcation procedures as recent Middle Eastern immigrants, given that the latter group is perhaps 100Kx more likely to engage in airline terrorism (which the aforementioned procedures are set up to prevent)? This is an issue of basic justice (for the oppressed Americans, suffering time wastage and inconvenience due to an alien group’s behavior), but also economics, dealing as the latter does with questions of scarcity.
The inferences you make from direct observation are about like what those types call “lived experiences”. I say that we get to have lived experiences too.
Damn straight. Like the fella who came to my yard two weeks ago at 11:40 pm with a five gallon bucket and stole my eight garden lights that line my sidewalk up to my front porch. I knew before I watched the video which group he belonged to. Call it a hunch.
Behavior
If not all X’s are criminal/whatever then where are those people protesting? Where aren’t those people calling out and policing the behavior of the bad ones of their community? Why aren’t they out demanding justice for the victims of the few bad ones of their group? Why are they always making it about their community and how they’re the real victims? If they don’t support the actions of the bad apples of their group, why are we deafened by their silence? Is it because while they may not behave that way, they do support it?
(I was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s )
My counter-NAXALT: “And Whites aren’t all privileged colonizers born in the v.i.p. lounge either, but you phony bastards care not for that inconvenient truth.”
Statistical generalizations are not refuted by counter-instances, that is, the subject not having the predicate/property in question. ‘Most swans are white’ is not refuted by ‘There are black swans’. Our generalizations, about disproportionate representation, group averages, etc., are of the statistical, not the universal (‘All swans are white’) variety, and hence are not damaged by counter-instances, ‘Xs that are not like that’.
That is way beyond the grasp of someone in the target IQ range (100-114). And those of us who can understand what you’ve written with ease are unaffected by NAXALT prima facie, so I don’t see that line of argument as very effective. It’s difficult to think like a normie and with average IQ, but it’s necessary for this exercise to have any purpose.
In the past when having such discussions I’d inevitably concur that there are good and bad people in every race, but the fact of the matter is that people generally prefer their own kind. Then I’d give my spiel on why racial separation is best for all parties (excluding a chosen party, but that’s another spiel). Thankfully our instincts haven’t been tamped down completely by schools, churches, media, government, etc., because miscegenation rates aren’t as high as you would think. But in my darker moods I wonder if people can even imagine what a homogeneous White society would be like. If you were born in a world with filthy air you might not fathom what clean, fresh and invigorating air is like. I’m not suggesting that an all White society would be utopia, but it wouldn’t resemble the hellscape we’ve got today.
Oh yeah, another argument I find annoying, but important is the one about America having never been a White country. These brain-raped Whites repeat the pat lines about how people of color were here from the beginning blah, blah, blah. As though the natives and cotton pickers wrote the constitution and created the institutions, etc.
One of my favourite essays on this site is ‘Confessions of a Reluctant Hater’ by Greg Johnson written years ago, originally under a pen name. This is my go-to redpill essay and essentially argues against NAXALT. It should definitely be revisited although it might be counted as cheating if it were to win.
Now if only my family would read the things I send them, that would be great…
There is a anti-NAXALT argument in Maurice Samuel’s book YOU GENTILES, near the beginning of Chapter 7:
It is not meaningless to say, “This nation is parsimonious, this nation is treacherous, this nation is cruel.” It is irrelevant to answer, “You must judge by the individual, not by the nation.” When we say, “Scotchmen are parsimonious,” we simply mean that out of a thousand Scotchmen a larger number are parsimonious than out of a thousand Englishmen. A Scotchman whom I do not know has therefore more probability of being parsimonious than an Englishman whom I do not know. If therefore I have to choose for generosity between two men, an Englishman and a Scotchman, both of whom I do not know, I would choose the Englishman. I stand a better chance of being in the right. Naturally the entire assumption may be wrong, and that is another matter, but it is ludicrous to deny that tendencies or characteristics in nations exist. Only the shallow demagogue insists that a thousand Englishmen, a thousand Frenchmen, a thousand Germans, a thousand Jews, picked up at random (or ten thousand or a hundred thousand) would react similarly to the same stimulus. Assuredly if I have the opportunity to check up on the individual I will do it. But if I must take him on trust I shall sensibly assume him to possess his race characteristics.
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.