The Solipsism of NAXALT

933 words

The NAXALT fallacy (“Not All [members of group X] Are Like That”) is one of the most common objections to White Nationalism. Its proponents insist that generalizations about groups must be resisted on the grounds that stereotypes do not apply to every individual member of a group. I would like to raise the point that the NAXALT worldview harms the vulnerable and reflects the myopia of its proponents, many of whom are affluent, educated white liberals. Since white liberals are sensitive to accusations of this sort, this line of attack may cause some of them to re-evaluate their beliefs. Using the rhetoric of social justice to undermine the Left can be an effective strategy (as long as it doesn’t descend into “you’re the real racists!” territory).

White liberals’ interactions with non-whites disproportionately occur in professional and academic contexts. These environments are not representative of the general population. The average college graduate is of slightly above-average intelligence and is presumably more conscientious and agreeable than average as well, at least when controlled for age. It is easy to dismiss the fears of “racist” white people when the non-whites with whom you interact are pleasant and studious. White liberals who move in affluent, white-collar circles may not fully realize that the non-whites with whom they interact are merely a slice of the non-white population.

It is easy to say that white people should not make generalizations about other groups if you live in a cozy suburb or a gated community. If you are not insulated from threats, however, you must take precautions to ensure your safety, which involves forming judgments about which individuals pose the greatest danger. Making generalizations is evolutionarily adaptive and promotes survival. Failure to heed stereotypes could mean the difference between life and death, so it is better to err on the side of false positives.

The white people most directly impacted by the demand not to make “racist” generalizations are those whose interests the Left claims to defend—women, children, and the urban working class. The reluctance of police to tackle grooming gangs in England illustrates that the fear of being “racist” comes at the expense of the safety of white children.

Liberals are actually not opposed to the concept of making generalizations about groups. Since the early 2010s, feminists have roundly mocked Men’s Rights Activists’ assertion that “not all men are like that,” which they see as a dismissive non sequitur. “TV idea,” proposed one Twitter user, expressing a popular sentiment: “Men who say ‘Not All Men’ are introduced to a variety of snakes. Not all of them are venomous.” This makes the Left’s silence on the matter of non-white crime even more despicable and craven. Deep down, they know NAXALT is a poor argument. But they refuse to address the topic of group differences for fear of committing the sin of “racism.” It is perfectly acceptable to make unflattering generalizations about men, but non-whites are sacred.

Proponents of NAXALT would perhaps reply that the incidence of crime among non-Asian minorities, although elevated in comparison to whites, is not pervasive enough to bring race into discussions about crime. Yes, most non-whites are not criminals, but this does not change the fact that they are more disposed to criminality and anti-social behavior on average, and their increased presence in white societies correlates with societal unrest, rising crime rates, and lack of social trust. Why is it necessary to import them in large numbers? It doesn’t have to be this way. The onus is on the pro-open borders Left to explain why the social costs imposed by immigration are worth it. They take non-whites’ presence in white societies as a given, and NAXALT is a flimsy attempt to justify it.

Proponents of NAXALT might also argue that the alleged harm caused by stereotypes (increased policing of racial minorities, being “othered” and misjudged etc.) outweighs the costs of non-white misbehavior. In other words, one group’s welfare comes at the expense of the other’s. Given that criminality and anti-social behavior have a strong genetic component, how is this sustainable? If anything, this is a good argument for racial divorce. Does the Left have any workable solutions to this dilemma, apart from telling white people to suck it up and deal with it?

At this point, the NAXALT crowd might irritably retort, “well, I live in a diverse area, and I have never had any bad experiences.” Liberals often lampoon the narcissism and pig-headedness of Baby Boomers who make remarks like “I was beaten, and I turned out fine.” How is this any different? It is the height of solipsism to assert that simply because you happen to have emerged from something unscathed, the phenomenon is not a net negative. One could draw an analogy to a malfunctioning roller coaster responsible for the deaths of a handful of children. Whether you personally enjoyed the roller coaster is beside the point. This way of thinking betrays an indifference toward one’s fellow citizens, which is fundamentally at odds with the communitarian ethos the Left claims to espouse.

The Left frequently characterizes White Nationalists as chauvinists who peddle racial stereotypes out of a pathological need to assert the superiority of the white race. I believe this stems from intellectual laziness and an unwillingness to acknowledge that white people are under attack and that the binary “oppressor/oppressed” framework does not capture the complexities of the present. In reality, the White Nationalist rejection of NAXALT stems from our awareness of threats to our biological survival and our civilization. It is a healthy and adaptive response given the circumstances we face.