Not All Bullets

1,688 words

If you play a game of Russian Roulette, there’s a one in six chance it’ll be your last. Now if I were to try and sell it to you by saying, “There’s a five in six chance you’ll make it out alive,” does that change the nature of the game? Of course not. It doesn’t matter if not all the outcomes end badly because it only takes your luck going south once for it to be your last breath. The fact that there are rounds where no one dies does not change the reality that eventually there will be a bullet waiting in the chamber. Add all the outcomes together, and it will average out to something negative: one large number representing death and five zeros. Playing can only end in a loss.

Take another example of these sorts of morbid games. A hundred M&Ms are put in a bowl, ten are poisonous and the rest are not, do you choose to eat one? This time there’s only a ten percent chance of adverse consequences and conversely, a ninety percent chance everything ends well. Despite a reduced chance from our previous game of roulette it’s still unnecessarily gambling with one’s life, this time with a debatable upside of processed chocolate as a reward.

Now take that analogy and rather than evenly distributing the poison between these colors, say there are 10 green, 13 brown, 17 yellow, 20 red, 20 blue, and 20 orange and of this combination five of the brown M&Ms are poisoned, among one red, yellow, green, orange, and blue respectively. The result is that some colors offer a one in twenty chance of death, while one offers a five in thirteen or using percentages a 5% chance to a ~38% chance. There is a clear wrong answer, and those who actively encourage such an approach are complicit in the horrors that are wrought.

Whenever these sorts of statistical arguments are brought up, where X group is more likely to do Y% of bad things compared to A, B, and C groups, one gets the classic that goes something like this: even if they are disproportionately represented, there are some exceptions within the wider groups thus no judgment should be made despite available evidence, or simply surmised as NAXALT (not all X’s are like that). Often, it’s a knee-jerk, followed by a myriad of objections and rebuttals as to why these analogies do not hold when applied to groups of people.

“Victims of circumstance,” they say.

“Racism,” they screech.

“Socioeconomic disadvantage,” they holler.

Using the aforementioned analogy, no doubt the liberal will say that likening humans to objects does not account for other factors that cause the crime and thus absolve the group of all responsibility. I submit these charts as my response:

If crime is a product of poverty, as the left often claims, looking at this, the expectation is that both lines would be identical, or nearly so. Instead, black men in the tenth percentile are three times more likely to be in prison (and by extension commit a crime to land them there) than their white counterparts. The homicide rate is worse, with blacks nearly ten times more likely to commit homicide than whites, with both sharing the lowest income bracket. Finally, using the second chart blacks from the 75-90th percentile in income had a higher homicide rate than whites in the 0-10th percentile, evidently showing class, wealth, or whichever marker of economic status one uses is not the reason for these divergent rates. This does not consider the myriad of other crimes, welfare abuse, etc…, that occur regularly and thus exemplifies why this NAXALT argument is indefensible. To the critics who wish to know why, I’ll say this: my take is not particularly novel—the differences are innate and thus explained largely by the genetic differences between whites and non-whites.

This is the gap between them and us, between the majority and the rare exception. If a family adopts a pet, it is for good reason that more domesticated animals are favored over creatures like wolves and pythons. It is farcical to shame a family for getting a golden retriever over a python. To claim that at one particular moment, a python was not actively eating a child, that we should therefore cease to pass sweeping judgments and thus one would make a great pet, would be laughed at. Likewise, any rational person would point out that just because the whelp looks cute, doesn’t change its nature as a predator who must be treated accordingly. The difference is that anyone advising on how to rear animals knows which can be trained, can be trained with difficulty, and cannot be trained at all, whereas when applied to one particular mammal, suddenly it becomes discriminatory to not adopt a python, because some python may exist that hasn’t devoured a toddler.

Yet even by its own terms the so-called “diamonds” are closer to cubic zirconia than actual diamonds, wherein the tangible benefits are subpar doctors, scummy judges, plagiarism-prone academics, and the like, this being the exceptions NAXALTers must cite to justify a series of policies that deprive one race the expense of others. In computer science, Americans from non-elite schools outperformed Asians and Russians from elite institutions, and no doubt if African universities were included it would make even India look good.

Beyond the importance of safety, it is evident that while whites are the sole group with the least ingroup preference, assuming that twenty-five percent of all whites are liberals (the number is taken from a Gallup), then the average white ingroup preference is roughly 5.4425, with every other race possessing one that is more than doubled comparably. Even among moderates and conservatives it’s less than all featured races. The result will be that non-whites when in positions of authority will seek the proliferation of their own, to the detriment of whites, where even if their hiring is that one in a thousand example based solely on merit, the sorts of people they’d favor would inevitably be their ilk with a less than stellar record. Empowering these groups further, under the guise that some individuals may not display every bad quality, still means giving carte blanche to those subversives who will proceed to empower all the net-negatives listed above. They will defend their pack regardless, while the NAXALTer by necessity runs cover for them and thus harms everyone, whether financially or physically.

The last line of defense is to bargain, to accept innate differences yet appeal to a sense of fairness. Those born with low intelligence and its many symptoms did not ask for these traits, yet isn’t it unfair to hold them accountable for these conditions of birth? Of course, that is only one side of the transaction, and just as it would be absurd to hold trials only considering the accused’s sentiments, so too is it farcical to not consider the many harmed by the perpetual perpetrators. If they cannot behave reasonably as a collective due to innate characteristics, then isn’t it fair to take precautions, just as we would for any aggressive predator? After all, humans are just extremely intelligent mammals, and those lacking upstairs can be treated as we would for other less intelligent mammals. Again, just because there may exist some less aggressive lions doesn’t mean the zoo is obliged to let them wander around, to the contrary it would be gross negligence to allow such an event to occur. Such paternalism is even beneficial for the other groups in question, it reckons with reality rewarding the trainable lions while weeding out the more aggressive breeds who pose a danger to everyone—even other lions.

Denying reality brings consequences, often felt by those without the wealth to insulate themselves from these delusions. Integration was foisted upon the lower and middle class—those who couldn’t afford private schooling. They dealt with the brunt of the elite’s fetish for “racial brotherhood,” alongside a two-tiered system that has long since refused to punish colored offenders, receiving a reduced quality of public services at the expense of hostile groups who openly disliked them for innate traits such as being white. Trillions have been spent and have managed to somehow worsen race relations in a place like the United States, not to mention foreign aid that would have been better served by being lit on fire. In Europe, it’s no better, though the tumorous growth is more recent, already many foreigners only serve to siphon money to themselves at the expense of the native populace. If it’s desirable to have a functioning social safety-net, bringing in or allowing the persistence of populations who on net failed to contribute will only serve to spread resources thinner, rewarding takers at the expense of givers instead of creating a system where one utilizes benefits to improve his lot and pays back the system that provided this opportunity.

Does the liberal pause and think about those impoverished whites who must contend with this system, thus suffering every disadvantage because there exists a one in ten thousand minority who may marginally contribute more than he takes? How many more must suffer before this project is revealed to be a farce? In search of a diamond, is it right to make hundreds choke on coal? What of the poor whites living in urban areas, who must suffer under the heels of those who let off criminals because they may be the sacred, ‘reformed,’ minority? What of the middle-class whites who sought to hire on merit, yet are rebuffed for foreigners with half their wits? What of the propagandized women who fall for their lies and bring a python home, only for it to do what they do best? What of the men— robbed, beaten, and imprisoned if they dare fight back against these protected parasites? The advocates of NAXALT plead the fifth because to reckon with those forced to pay the price for their folly shatters their race-blind delusions.

Not all games of roulette involve death, so care to play a game?

This article was part of Counter-Currents’ Naxalt Contest, which was held in the autumn of last year.