So, Why the First “A” in NAXALT?

2,821 words

To claim that measures and precautions should not be taken towards a group of X’s just because NAXALT (Not All X’s Are Like That) is such an absurd argument that it is hardly used except to justify ―in an artificial, finalistic way― politically correct causes. This argument is hardly taken into consideration in fields in which the ideologies of the System have no interest. So much so that the first thing that comes to anyone’s mind when they hear that sentence with no context is the issue of non-white criminality.

But saying that doing something isn’t fair because “Not All X’s Are Like That” is like saying, “Since not all drunks cause problems, no action should be taken against alcoholism.” Or “Since some people drive drugged without getting into accidents, we shouldn’t hinder their right to get high behind the wheel.” Or “Since not all smokers develop cancer, we shouldn’t restrict tobacco use.”

Refutation of NAXALT

The core of this fallacy lies in the arbitrariness of the chosen percentage: 100%. It is assumed that, morally, the minimum proportion required is the totality. But, simply put… where is it written that, in order to take preventive measures with respect to a collective, it is necessary that absolutely all individuals of that group be a certain way?

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that there are other equally arbitrary variants of the same type of fallacy. One of the most common is what we might call MXANLT (Most X’s Are Not Like That). In other words, many people understand that it is preposterous to demand 100%… and set the limit at 50%. Thus, as long as the majority of the members of a group do not meet a certain requirement or standard, we would not be entitled to take action with regard to that group.

Justifying that we should not distinguish between whites and non-whites since “most non-whites are not criminals” may be a bit more reasonable than justifying it on the grounds that not all of them are, but it is still equally arbitrary. Obviously, if we were to allow the mass entry of a community in which roughly half of its individuals were criminals, we would not be living in any other kind of society, but in the world of Mad Max. No civilization would be able to survive with such a colossal proportion of thugs, be it 55% or 45%.

That the majority of non-whites are not criminals does not prevent no-go zones on the European continent. That the majority of blacks are not rapists does not prevent them from committing almost all the interracial rapes in the USA. That the majority of the population is not involved in drug trafficking in South America does not prevent the narcos from being able to rival in strength the regular army of some mestizo countries. There are places where almost no one is willing to travel to, even if it is a known fact that the majority of the local population does not meet a certain stereotype. Why would it be any better if those people were to permanently replace us in our own neighborhoods and towns instead?

So, likewise, where is it written that, in order to take preventive measures with respect to a collective, it is necessary that the majority of the individuals in that group be a certain way?

On the other hand, whether or not the majority of a community is criminal or not is going to depend mainly on how strict the laws are, how controlled society is in case of breaking them, and how prosecuted an offense is (who has not broken the law by jaywalking, for example?). Therefore, on its own, that kind of percentage does not provide us with any relevant information.

What is the proportion that should matter to us, and why?

Any other arbitrary percentage will be part of the same kind of fallacy. However, there is a simple way to be sure that we are not falling into arbitrariness.

The reality is that such proportions are relevant only in a comparative framework. What good would it do to say that “all” or “51%” of foreigners commit crimes if our population also did so to the same extent? Would that be meaningful in any way, as an argument in favor of their expulsion? Clearly not. It is nonsense.

That is why the only percentages that objectively matter are the differentials between one population and another. From the moment that group A has a higher crime rate than group B, the latter would be fully entitled to expel the whole of group A.

Most non-whites may not be criminals, but most criminals are non-whites. And this, by definition, in a majority white country, is simply intolerable. Bringing in these people is an assault on the interests of our societies, and those responsible for that invasion deserve to be shamed and treated as the public enemies they are.

And, assuming it is necessary to clarify this, why is it not arbitrary to set as a limit the same proportion as that of our own population? Because we know without a shadow of a doubt that, if we put in a group with a higher crime rate than our own, we will be objectively making our society worse. And it is sick and unhinged to aspire to make it worse.

Progs dismiss the NAXALT fallacy all the time

In order to be functional, every society needs to generalize. We constantly make generalizations and, based on them, take action towards others, both collectively as a society and in our individual lives. In fact, our weak social species could never have survived to this day if it had not known how to make generalizations, such as what kind of plants or animals to avoid, doing some taxonomy long before this science existed, or recognizing potential friends and foes. Discovering patterns is the very basis of knowledge accumulation. Thus, generalization is also indispensable for the proper functioning of Artificial Intelligence, whether for translation, conversing with humans, or driving vehicles.

There may be many minors who are more responsible than many adults. Anyone knows examples of this. However, we know that this is not the norm, and we have no qualms about discriminating against minors on the basis of their age, preventing them from driving, owning weapons or buying alcohol. We deny them their right to all of these things preemptively, rather than revoking their license or authorization after the fact if they misuse it.

We also deprive people with criminal records of some employment rights when it comes to working in certain roles, even though theoretically their debt to society has already been paid. Depending on the occupation, we limit the right to protest and assembly to certain groups. And we do not complain when insurance companies discriminate us on the basis of health status, sex and age when offering their prices. All of this is logical and reasonable, and we understand it.

Generalizations such as talking about “dangerous neighborhoods”, “unhealthy food”, “police profiling”, etc., help us to survive and are easily understood by anybody. We cannot handle with the same means an agglomeration of soccer hooligans as an audience of classical music, it is not the same to go to a junkie park as to a nursing home, etc.

And, certainly, segmenting the population and analyzing it as collectives and not as individuals is something that can hardly shock progs. Cultural Marxism does not just make some generalizations, it inherently consists in making generalizations. Sure, false ones ―not arising naturally from the bosom of the people, but inculcated from above, from the Jewish media empire, high finance, and all spheres of Power; but generalizations, after all. They have been manipulated to believe in wrong generalizations through biased information; but they do not question the logic behind it.

NAXALT is not an obstacle to anti-white hatred. NAXALT does not stop progs from targeting whites, males and heterosexuals. Believing in NAXALT does not prevent others from applying collective measures against you, it only weakens you in front of them. NAXALT does not stop them from creating discriminatory laws against these collectives, in the face of pathetic ―and always time-bound― complaints from conservatives. They are not even stopped by the fact that such laws are unconstitutional.

They have no difficulty in acknowledging that the Church has a pederasty problem, but they will not acknowledge that homosexuals have a much more serious pederasty problem, starting with those same priests they criticize, who are in the habit of taking male children as victims.

They see no problem with the police creating profiles based on age, or with the media criminalizing “youths”―when the truth is that they are recurring offenders from “Youthland”, i.e., non-whites. In fact, according to data provided by the state of California, within the 10-17 age range, blacks commit robbery at a rate almost 30 times higher than whites.[1]

So, one of the best ways to get a prog to see the fallacy of NAXALT is to draw parallels to other cases of NAXALT that they have been indoctrinated not to buy; for example, the case of domestic violence against women.

There are women who abuse, maim or kill their husbands. However, it only seems to matter when the contrary takes place, because the progs adduce a notable difference in incidence between male violence against women and the opposite (though rather less than people are led to believe).[2] As is often the case, here the right and the left swap roles. The right usually says that violence has no sex, but the left insists that it does, to the point of decriminalizing or legally punishing much more leniently the same action depending on whether the perpetrator is a woman against a man or the other way around. They have already done it in several countries.

As we can see, progs go much further than anyone else in their anti-NAXALT radicalism. No white racist would claim that white murderers should receive a lighter penalty than non-white murderers; however, mainstream progs do exactly that with respect to females, as opposed to males. They also demand decriminalization of certain offenses especially committed by non-whites. They demand all sorts of perks and privileges for non-whites, females and homosexuals, and discrimination against the opposite collectives, embellishing it with adjectives like “positive” or “affirmative.”

Thus, there is no rational reason why the average postmodern leftist should have any more trouble than others in seeing the falsehood of the NAXALT fallacy. And if a prog can be convinced with arguments, anyone can be convinced.

Normal people also disregard NAXALT

People take precautions all the time for things that there is much less than a 100% or 50% chance of ever happening in a lifetime. What percentage of the country’s population gets killed? Yet people take their precautions. What percentage of women are raped? Yet they take precautions.

Only a marginal fraction of strangers might want to harm our children. However, NAXALT stands no obstacle to all of us teaching them not to talk to strangers. Even if the potential aggressors are few, we don’t care that they may be rude or inconsiderate to potentially good people (by ignoring them or refusing to speak), because we know it is fully justified.

Life is simply too short and too important to practice the method “trial and error” with everyone, especially in fields where the consequence of a mistake is fatal. Even a libertarian individualist can understand that.

Well, in the case of collectives, not taking action is even more unjustifiable, because unlike in the private field where only a limited number of trials can be tried, in the group field this does not work like a lottery that can go well or badly depending on our luck (like Russian roulette), but we already know statistically the incidence of certain behaviors in populations, and we know exactly and in advance what effects the influx of a certain type of population will bring to our society. No one can plead ignorance.

And it is precisely for this reason that lying about these effects or preferring to ignore that they exist implies a burden of shared criminal responsibility on the part of those who use NAXALT as an excuse to ruin our society, because those who suffer these effects are not numbers, but a set of real people.

Looking only at individuals and not at groups entails a criminal responsibility

The most tragicomic aspect of the situation is that people who fall for the NAXALT fallacy hide behind moral reasons, without realizing that it is using NAXALT as an excuse for not taking action what is morally criminal, because of the lethal consequences it implies.

Let us take for reference such a rare crime as murder. There is no race in which 100% of its members are murderers, or even 50% or 10%. However, there are human races that, even when they live in the same country, have a murder rate almost 10 times higher than that of other races.

Well, let’s make some calculations to weigh the dimension of this tragedy to which some are willing to lead our society, and let’s see what lies behind this cold statistic. Let us imagine that race Y has a homicide rate of 1 per 100,000 inhabitants (i.e. 0.001%), and race Z has a homicide rate of 10 per 100,000 inhabitants (i.e. 0.01%).

What would happen if a brainless or diabolical ruler of a country of originally half a million people of race Y were to allow the massive influx of another half million people of race Z?

Despite the fact that we are comparing two societies with the same number of inhabitants, the homicides produced would total 10 deaths per year in the case of an exclusive society of race Y, while in the second, mixed case, the deaths would be 55 (5 produced by the race Y and 50 by the race Z) each year; that is, 5.5 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, or a homicide rate 5.5 times higher than that of the first case.

In addition to the importation of hundreds of murderers,[1] this amounts to the absolutely unnecessary consummation of exactly 45 murders per year, which could have been spared to society if the country had simply increased its population with locals of race Y, instead of invaders of race Z.

Of course, if instead of talking about two hypothetical countries of 1 million inhabitants we were talking about two hypothetical countries of 330 million, the number of avoidable deaths to the national population would be 14,850… per year. Again, the rulers would be entirely responsible for the pain of each and every one of the deaths that such an import of race Z causes among race Y.

Figures like that are the deadly result of the NAXALT fallacy, even about something as relatively unusual as the crime of homicide. Little more than 1% of U.S. blacks may become murderers at some point in their lives; however, about 16% of the entire black population commits some crime during their lifetime that lands them in prison. This is not to mention other types of crime and social problems that are much more common among them.

On the other hand, given that the national achievement and wealth depend strongly on the intelligence of its population, when groups with an IQ of 70 (such as pure blacks) inhabit a white society with an IQ of 100, this means that a percentage much higher than 50% of that foreign population is a burden for that country, for its social services and for its taxpayers. Specifically, that means two standard deviations away, meaning that 98% of them will be below the white average. But hey, they are “not all”!

In summary

Since the core of this type of fallacy lies in the arbitrariness of the percentage chosen, the answer can only be: who told you that this is the proportion necessary to take action with regard to a community? Then, it is enough to give examples of generalizations and legal discriminations that are socially accepted (also by the interlocutor, whether a prog or a conservative) in favor or against different groups. And finally, it only remains to explain what the truly relevant percentage is, and why.

Notes

[1] California Dept. of Justice, “Crime in California,” 2013, Table 33 (arrests by offense, age, race, and ethnicity); California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Report P-3, December 14, 2014 (population by age). For more statistics on crime and race, see the classic The Color of Crime at: https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/

[2] The arguments of the sexist victimhood narrative are inherently irreconcilable with those of the racial (and transsexual) victimhood narrative. It could be argued that men commit more crimes than women in similar proportions as blacks commit more crimes than whites, but it is impossible to have a viable society without men and women living together, a condition that, unlike the sexes, does not apply to races.

[3] This is because, although a killer may commit several murders on his own (less than 2 on average), they live much longer than a year.