467 words 
“Look, Mom! They have 10 pound bags of rotten apples on sale for 75% off. I bet there are a few good ones in there. We should buy a bag.”
“Not all ‘X’ are like that,” is the equivalent to buying a bag of rotten apples because there are a few good ones in the bag.
While perhaps you got a bargain on the few edible apples in the bag, the remains of the rotten apples will stink up the trash can and produce an annoying fruit fly infestation in the house for the weeks to come. Furthermore, selling produce in larger batches at a discounted rate is how producers are able to profit off of imperfect produce; their waste becomes your waste at a discount to you, and a profit to them.
Nationalism is a collective, homogeneous concept: a simplified idea being, “birds of a feather flock together.” Speaking of birds, if blue jays and cardinals came together and figured out that they both have red blood, and that ignorant discrimination based solely on the color of their feathers was keeping them from being stronger birds, then perhaps at some point there wouldn’t be anymore blue jays or cardinals, there would just be a purplish mixed species of bird that was a product of social engineering. Some might see that as evolutionary progress, others might see it as extinction.
NAXALT is liking someone outside your in-group. In the diverse melting pot known as America, that probably isn’t too hard to do. There are literally millions of people outside your in-group (regardless of who you are). But just the simple fact that NAXALT has validity gives credibility to nationalism. It doesn’t debunk stereotypes; it reinforces them. The edible apple in the rotten bag of apples doesn’t make the rotten apples edible. So-called nationalists who resort to NAXALT as an argument against nationalism aren’t really nationalists, they’re just fundamental meritocracists (“If they were all like ‘X’ I wouldn’t have any complaints.”). It’s the premise of America’s slogan, “give us your best and brightest”. But we’ve already seen how that plays out: it leads to demographic replacement the likes of which the modern world has never seen.
Nationalism isn’t about hating other people, it’s about loving your own. Nothing viable is sustainable if it isn’t based on love. The world isn’t getting any whiter, and if “X isn’t like that,” then they know that, too. Good people don’t support genocide.
Nationalism puts the group above the individual (all individuals, including “X”). The idea is that what’s good for the group, is good for everyone. Nationalism doesn’t debunk NAXALT, anymore than NAXALT debunks nationalism. They’re two mutually exclusive concepts based on subjective perspectives. In analogous terms, one is football, the other is boxing. Thus, the question arises: are you a team player?
This article is part of the Counter-Currents NAXALT Contest. Submit yours before the October 2 deadline!
11 comments
Good summary of excellent counter-points to NAXALT and White racial masochism.
I think though, that even if the Xs are 20 times as likely to rape or murder, people could make the case that it’s still pretty rare. I.e. instead of there being “a few good apples in a bag of rotten ones”, the reality is probably “a few bad apples in a bag of mediocre ones”. And with humans, it’s probably not the case that “a few bad apples spoil the bunch”.
In other words, I think our enemies can make a legitimate case that “Not all ‘X’ are like that,” is not the equivalent of buying a bag of rotten apples because there are a few good ones in it.
Countering NAXALT is one thing but it’s even more important to have a suite of arguments against model minorities. Otherwise the elite programme to destroy the aryan race will succeed in the form of a managerial class of affable and able Eurasian hybrids. Such a programme can only be argued against if one has a belief in the beauty and necessity of continuing an exclusively European lineage and culture. It’s hard because many westernised Asians are extremely compatible with our modern cosmopolitan societies. We need to develop a culture which is much less accepting of difference if we are to avoid oblivion. Perhaps something which will have to wait until we have some access to the education system.
The thing is, it is all about IDENTITY, not MERIT.
Hence we should call ourselves IDENTITARIANS, as many Europeans already do.
Yes. Even if East Asians are smarter, more orderly, and have more merit in modern civilization in some ways, we still don’t deserve to be replaced by them in our homelands any more than blacks in Africa do.
A country is not just an economic zone, it’s a home. We don’t displace our children just because some stranger’s child happens to be smarter or more beautiful than our own.
Asians, East Asians and South Asians, may be smart, sometimes even smarter, in some merely technical sense. But they are fundamentally incurious. When was the last time you were made aware of a Chinese or an Indian who studied, say, medieval German or French history, who learned Homeric Greek or Anglo-Saxon? Then think of all the whites who study or who have studied, say, the poetry of the Tang dynasty or Sanskrit or Buddhist thought. The list of the latter is endless. Only the West is truly open to the “other,” which is obviously both its blessing and its curse.
I agree with you in general. Of course some of this may be related to the fact that almost all Asians in America are recent migrants or children thereof and seeking the security of banking and the professions ahead of indulging academic curiosity. There’s a sort of cultural contempt for money-grubbing amongst Whites which may or may not rub off on Asians who live among us over time. If I’m being honest though, some of the most able problem-solvers I’ve met have been European-oriental hybrid men. As per Mr Ryckaert above, our core arguments must stem from identity, history, tradition and conservation, the very things which the liberal minority coalition are determined to deny us.
“A country is not just an economic zone, it’s a home. We don’t displace our children just because some stranger’s child happens to be smarter or more beautiful than our own.”
^^ I really, really like that! It would make a great bumper sticker — in a good way.
“So-called nationalists who resort to NAXALT as an argument against nationalism aren’t really nationalists, they’re just fundamental meritocracists“
im looking at you Ramz Paul . I was so disappointed to hear Ramz several times mock white nationalism. I’m frequently annoyed by dissent commentators or what have you by things they say, but I usually stop being butthurt abs then start reading/listening again. But I havnt gone back to Ramz Paul since he made it clear that he was not a white nationalist and carefully explained why. Why, you ask, is Ramz Paul not a white nat?
NAZALT. Wud yuh gonna do kick out Candice Owen, Clarence Thomas, Ron unz?
havnt listened to him since and don’t think I will again , hurt butt or no.
Nationalism isn’t about hating other people, it’s about loving your own.
this is such an important idea. What has been left out of white culture since wwii is piety. It’s impious to prefer others over your own, whether you actually like outsiders or not. It’s impious to impose outsiders on your own group. If you want to help outsiders or prefer them, move to their homeland, and help them there.
How you know NAXALT is mere sophistry is that you never ever hear “Not all White people are like that”.
All you ever hear is white privilege, white supremacy, and whatever else. You never hear whataboutery defending us.
The best response to NAXALT is an eye-roll.
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.