1,217 words 
Since I began to discuss and debate political and cultural issues publicly, I have been relentlessly pursued by midwits and their incessant “NAXALT” refutation of my points. Nearly any assertion made about a group is met somewhere with, “well, to be fair, not all Jews / blacks / women / Hispanics / immigrants / politicians, et cetera, are like that!”
The simplest refutation of NAXALT is to reply that exceptions rarely disprove a rule. If I assert that swans tend to be white, the existence of a black swan, or even several black swans, does not disprove the general rule that most are white. So long as most swans remain white, my statement remains true.
In this same vein, general statements of fact never claim to apply to every single member of a group or classification. I once cited a statistic that revealed on average, each black in the United States uses around $750,000 more dollars in public funds and services than they contribute to the tax base.[1] The same data set revealed that whites contribute an average of $220,000 more dollars in a lifetime than they use. Meaning it takes several whites working and paying taxes their entire lives to pay for one black. Not long after citing this information, I was receiving messages from people telling me that many blacks, such as rappers and NBA players, pay a lot of money each year in taxes. And that many whites are on welfare and sending children to public schools, taking much more in taxes than they pay. Right. Those are outliers, and a statistic such as the lifetime use and contribution of taxes necessarily includes the outliers and “exceptions” to the general averages within the dataset. Pointing that out does nothing to disprove the statistic or general rule being posited. The high-earning blacks are already counted, and even still, the net average per black is woefully negative.
The NAXALT argument also conflates broad, macro statements and conditions, with specific and micro conditions or examples, and likely reveals a misunderstanding of how averages work among those using the argument. For example, if I posit the fact that “more blacks in a city or neighborhood will increase the crime and social dysfunction,” this does not mean all blacks need to be criminal or dysfunctional. Arguing that most blacks may not be criminals or that specific blacks they are friends with are good folks, does not do anything to refute the fact that if the crime rate among one population is higher than the other, introducing the higher crime rate group into the lower crime rate group, will necessarily cause the rate of crime and social dysfunction to increase.
I have often seen NAXALT used in an admittedly clever way regarding crime rates per capita. Whites murder at about a rate of 5 per 100,000 and commit robbery at 126 per 100,000 people whereas the black murder rate is 43 per 100,000 and 1,343 per 100,000 for robbery.[2] The clever tactic is not to refute this massive discrepancy, but to point out that this also means 98,000 or so blacks per year are not robbing and killing anybody. “Not all blacks are criminals, most are not,” is the reply I would sometimes hear from liberals who are slightly better with statistics than most of them tend to be. And this could be true, but it still does not change the fact that introducing more blacks into an area will increase the likelihood of being killed, raped, and robbed compared to an area being all white. We are looking at broad trends as a way to better society, quality of life, and safety of the people we are most about, our in-group. And since we have no way of knowing exactly which members of the population will turn out to be criminals in any given year, it makes sense to craft public policy in a way that takes into account massive differences in group behavior. Whether or not the majority of blacks, or every black, is a criminal is not relevant to the idea that more blacks in an area always increases the crime and social dysfunction and thus odds of becoming a victim of their criminality.
Worth noting, NAXALT never seems to apply to whites and anti-white liberal concepts such as “white privilege” and the alleged “systemic racism” that is allegedly always favoring whites. NAXALT is a one-way street when it comes to generalizing men and their “toxic masculinity” as well. There are rarely, if ever, any exceptions offered. Just the opposite. If one brings up the existence of many downtrodden whites who are passed up for scholarships and jobs due to affirmative action or diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, the liberals will argue that all whites still benefit from the specter of white supremacy, “unearned” white privilege, and that the entire system remains in our favor.
Regarding statements that are difficult to statistically quantify such as “Jews push for open borders,” I will often be met with somebody pointing to an exception such as former senior Trump advisor, Stephen Miller. Miller is a Jewish man who seems to be hardline anti-immigration. I like Mr. Miller and appreciate his work. With that said, one or a small handful of Jewish anti-immigration activists does not disprove the existence of the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, the fact that it was Jewish senators Emanual Celler and Jacob Javits that pushed for decades to pass the Immigration and Nationality of Act of 1965 to radically redraw the racial makeup of the country, it does not change that 1,500 rabbis signed a letter urging the US government to welcome more “refugees” into the USA, or that Jewish journalist Jonathan Weisman wrote in the opening lines of his book Semitism: Being Jewish in the America in the Age of Trump, that, “The Jew flourishes when borders come down, when boundaries blur, when walls are destroyed, not erected.” My original statement remains true so long as the majority of Jews in the USA support open borders and more migration. A few trending oppositely will not disprove the general trend or render my claim that “Jews push for open borders,” false.
NAXALT is a tacit admission that the truth of the asserted statement is correct. We are not saying they are all like that when we say blacks are more prone to criminality or Jews are pushing for open borders. But we are saying those groups trend towards certain things, such as crime and open borders, among other issues. The NAXALT enthusiasts are simply attempting to sidestep the fact of the matter asserted while attempting to subvert or short circuit truthful stereotypes developed by people observing reality as it is. When formulated by observant people, these patterns and heuristics properly mirror the truth about group behaviors. Those who argue NAXALT are merely trying to undermine these correct observations.
NAXALT is an attempt to blur and obfuscate which is the rule and which is the exception and always tries to give more weight to the one that works in favor of their worldview that is detached from reality. The exceptions to a rule almost never disprove the rule.
Notes
[1] Paul Kersey. “Quantifying the Burden of Black America: Vox Day Documents Racial Socialism and White Dispossession in the USA.” July 1, 2017. The Unz Review. https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/quantifying-burden-of-black-america-vox/ [https://archive.is/9iRaO]
[2] Jared Taylor. “Race and Crime in America.” June 1994. American Renaissance. https://www.amren.com/news/2020/05/race-and-crime-in-america-statistics/ [https://archive.is/gsPKR]
24 comments
NAXALT truly is the final, frustrating cope of people who refuse to accept genuine facts when confronted. They reveal themselves as being more concerned with the illusion of obvious differences being merely superficial than actually interested in solving problems or making things better. Great article!
Great article, Richard!
I wish Jews who opposed mass migration like Stephen Miller and Darren Beattie would openly call out the larger organized Jewish community for supporting such destruction of our countries.
I’ve seen Beattie do that
They are all inherent racial/sexual predators because they don’t believe they can be told no. We can’t communicate with them. We shouldn’t have to live like this, and soon we won’t.
I don’t take any joy in this statement, but I have for a long time given up on good faith argument as effective means of communication with people who fundamentally disagree about how we want to live. It’s like the argument over the second amendment (right to bear arms) in the USA. It’s not a good faith disagreement between interpretations of the law. Its a fundamental disagreement between people who believe in private ownership of firearms, and people who believe that any means are justified in disarming the population. Discussions of racial difference are the same. Your opponents are not just dumb. They believe races SHOULD be equal and that the alternative is an unthinkable evil. The arguments to justify that position are post-hoc necessity.
YEEEEEEEEEES!!! Now someone is seeing the matter clearly.
Being a good white man who once believed in the possibility of rational discussion (at least among whites) in the dispassionate pursuit of truth, it took me decades to realize this. There is no arguing over the most fundamental (genetically determined) beliefs. And there is an enormous proportion of the white population that is “genomically defective” (ie, persons whose deepest, genetically determined beliefs are harmful to white interests and survival). These people are called “liberals”. Eventually, their own behavior will remove their defective genomes from the collective white gene pool (either via non-reproduction, like, sadly, me, or descendant miscegenation). But we normals need to hasten this process by formally separating from such defectives wherever possible.
It’s actually much worse, because these ‘good’ outliers almost invariably choose their own side in an identity politics conflict and will defend members of their group that perform criminal actions, the way cops cover for each other. So, for example, a good jew would only be a decent jew that speaks out against jewish supremacist ideology and recognizes the legitimacy of white nations to sovereignty. Otherwise, you’re a silent accomplice if you don’t speak out against an evil when confrontes with it.
Spot on. Nice also to bring up the anti white and anti male applications of NAXALT.
Great article, Rich! I think NAXALT is used by normie conservatives more than liberals. For example, when bringing up black crime or immigration, they’ll say “but I know a good black guy” or “Some immigrants are hard workers.” They use it as a cop out to avoid discussing uncomfortable topics.
This is a great point of nuance. I often lump all of those who are in some way against these truths as “liberals.” But there is a difference between a race-blind GOPer and a Hillary / Kamala enthusiast. The Conservative leaning will often resort to NAXALT, while the liberal argument is often about socio-economics or some other way to avoid biological realities.
Another great article from Rich Houck.
They’re all like that.
Just a bunch of outlier essays 🙂
Not all essays are like that
So when you state a statistic such as ‘blacks commit most of the crimes in the USA’
and the dork responds: ‘but not all blacks are like that’
the response can be: ‘good, so you agree with me and recognize the problem’
Well written and dead accurate.
Personally though I’m blackpilled on things like facts or truth mattering anymore. From what I remember about IQ studies, the ability to even comprehend abstractions like per capita stats (weighted averages), outliers/standard deviations, or such is directly tied to IQ/brain hardware much like the ability to see objects in your mind (or colorize and rotate them as well). They’re AP high school or college freshman level concepts but our institutions are catastrophically congested with civilization ending midwits, morons, or subverters who know better but prioritize their ideology over such pesky things as facts with postmodernist rationale like “facts don’t paint the whole picture” which can be true but you won’t get that whole picture when data is filtered through a nigh-homogenous group of censorious, anti-white leftists.
Tl;dr A WildRich banger, a great summary on the entry level stats whose comprehension should be prerequisite to even be considered a human being, open one’s mouth with an opinion let alone *screams internally* be allowed to weigh in the process or make decisions on. Good ammo for our guys out there in the trenches not yet burned out on arguing w the mouth breathers. Pretty much all of Rich’s work should be part of a required reading syllabus of our side if we ever made one.
Right, it will always be “lost” on much of the population. I think the genesis of this writing competition was to help along the folks who want to agree with us naturally, but struggle to overcome some of these prior hang-ups, NAXALT being a big one.
I appreciate you and the kind words, Jonny!
…our institutions are catastrophically congested with civilization-ending midwits, morons, or subverters who know better but prioritize their ideology over such pesky things as facts….
I would call people who act this way willful and perverse. These people represent cultural, social, and civilizational rot and degeneracy. They do know better but prefer to indulge in destructive attitudes. They don’t have to suffer the consequences and don’t care about anyone who does. Edward Dutton refers to these people as “spiteful mutants.”
Nearly any assertion made about a group is met somewhere with, “well, to be fair…”
“well, to be fair…” A dead giveaway that the speaker is White, the only practitioner of the practice of not taking one’s own side in an argument. No one is burdened with this rootless and myopic moral assumption but poor us.
Fairness has been the almost death of us.
Right. Anytime i see the phrase “well, to be fair” i know it’s about to be some insane pandering to an out-group who never grants us the same deference.
Maybe so, but not all Ohioans think this way.
Not all of the Manson family were murderers. They were mostly peaceful.
Not all homosexuals are pedophiles
I think I can have only a superficial idea of how agonising it must be for Americans to see their country consumed by negroes and now Amerindian hybrids. Mine is being submerged by Chinese and Indians, neither group particularly violent. Identity is the only issue which can be used to argue against these groups replacing us. Also, in Australia, ALL swans are black…
I’ve decided if I need to write a follow up book (for clarification of *reality*) after my sister writes her autobiography, I’ll likely entitle mine NAXALT.
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.