Me: Blacks are only about 13% of the population but do 50+% of the murders and a massive chunk of the violent crime, period.Liberals and normiecons I know: Not all Blacks are like that! [The standard NAXALT (not all X are like that) “argument.”]
Me: Technically true, but most of them are at least accessories to it.
At any point in the game of life, it is totality of results (and risks) that counts. After all, you likely wouldn’t prefer buying a book on an online store with a price of $20 and $15 shipping if you could find the same one (both title- and condition of wear-wise) on another internet store with a $25 price tag but free shipping; you likely wouldn’t quit your current 150K a year job as an engineer in a company in Pennsylvania to take one paying $200,000 if you found out it would be the exact same type of work . . . just in an active war zone; and you likely wouldn’t want to marry a woman who though stunningly beautiful and very smart has an odd history of taking out substantial insurance policies on her husbands and partners—who by sheer coincidence often die within two years of the purchase. With any case in which characteristics and things are so inextricably bound up with each other as to be inseparable and thus must by necessity be taken in their totality, it is the statistically significant downsides or risks that define it; the exceptions thus establish the rules by which you deal with or avoid the case before you: this is merely a rational approach to any aspect of life, and in a sane nation (i.e., one not clown world) this would be especially the approach taken with regard to any public policy—which more often than not is both compulsory and done on a scale that makes any consequences, both positive and negative, widespread and profound in their impact. Obviously, this would include, if not especially apply to, the approach taken to immigration, citizenship, and any policies which exert a strong influence on which members of society have more kids relative to others (i.e., those having significant dysgenic or eugenic potential).
The potential for evil arising from a lack of thinking in terms of overall effects, either from a lack of mental wherewithal to do so or from the ideological blinders that too many of us allow ourselves to wear, can be seen just by looking around us at the American circus scene, with our crumbling (or, rather, exploding) cities and our overrun borders as the main attractions. We in the Dissident Right well know how deeply the nature of racial differences cuts to the heart of the matter and the degree to which nature/genetics rather than nurture determines the fate of nations, but as far as I can tell there is to some degree a lack of appreciation even on our side of the role that epigenetics plays in the ongoing (at least for now) downfall of our race and nation. The same is true of many normiecons, though they tend to keep the knowledge in their subconscious, well below the surface, with the Con Inc. ideological package they accept serving as ballast to keep it from rising to the surface.
To put it extremely concisely for readers who are unfamiliar with the term, the science of epigenetics deals with the portion of our DNA that bridges the gap between nature and nurture, with those portions of our DNA which are activated or deactivated by certain conditions in our environment. Absent those conditions, they are not expressed, although they remain part of our DNA. This produces ranges of physical and behavioral characteristics that two organisms with identical or near-identical DNA could exhibit based on environmental differences.
To give a quick example, take the size of goldfish. When I was little, my family had a small kiddie pool in our basement in which we kept goldfish (not any fancy koi kind, just the common ones from the pet store); they grew to much larger sizes than did those of my friend who kept his in a small fishbowl, despite their being the very same species. As explained on The Fish Vet’s Blog: All about Fish Vetting by Dr Richmond Lohhat:
Goldfish are one [of the species] that produce growth inhibitory hormones (e.g. somatostatin) and in nature it’s their way of reducing intraspecific competition by suppressing growth of other goldfish. This is a particularly useful survival mechanism especially if you’re a “big fish in a small pond.” In a tank situation, and if partial water changes are not performed regularly, this hormone can build up and suppress the goldfish itself. And in this way, it is also a survival mechanism whereby it will not outgrow its pond!
Other fish do not produce such potent hormones and this is why they can outgrow the aquarium they live in. These fish tend to be “big fish in a big pond.” Their survival strategy is to get as big as they can to avoid being eaten by someone else. The barramundi and Murray cod are great examples of such fish.
Fish wastes are generally not ideal for fish to live in. They would have anti-nutritional effects and nitrates are known to suppress the immune system. If conditions are not optimal, fish will not thrive and will not grow.
In poor environmental conditions goldfish still grow, but they don’t get half as big as they could. They would, of course, never attain the size of silver arowana, another fish sometimes found in aquariums (“they are predatory and require a very large tank”), since that is outside of the range that their DNA allows. But they can grow from to 18 inches to 2 feet if they have the space, clean water, and food.
It is the very same with humans. They have ranges of environment and behavior which they prefer or can adapt to: at one end are circumstances and people which make them feel as happy and at ease as much as anything earthly can, with such a milieu making them most likely to work, play, and breed to their full potential; at the other extreme are those which cause them such misery and anxiety that it’s all they can do to keep from giving in to the urge to throw in the towel and rush headlong to the hereafter—and, as you can guess, they will be underperforming in virtually every way while in such situations; and, of course, there are plenty of gradations between the two. With any of us, there are conditions under which we can thrive, conditions under which we can be content though not extremely happy, and then there are those under which we can just barely scrape by.
Having these ranges allows humans and even some others among the higher mammals to adapt and survive within unpleasant circumstances until the time when they can gain a better environment and begin to thrive once again. As long as they remain within the range of what is pleasing or tolerable to them, they can adapt their behavior without it wearing on them to a significant degree: extremely gregarious people might be fine with a life in which their social circle is rather small and meets only on the weekends, but they’d likely go mad as an ascetic monk living in a cave away from the nearest city; likewise, a scholarly introvert who has a university job and normally likes to spend summers alone engrossed in research might not mind helping out with a few freshman orientation mixer-type events but would very much mind being asked to spend a good deal of time interacting socially with large numbers of people. Going somewhat outside of their epigenetic comfort zones for a short time is nothing that normal, healthy people can’t weather—and maybe become stronger for. But ask them to stay well outside of their comfort ranges indefinitely, and you have a recipe for continual discomfort, depression and despair, lost productivity, breaking of ties to traditional institutions, and maybe even mental breakdown if not shooting sprees; ask an entire society to do this and you have a recipe for a failed state.This is why that pernicious phrase “a nation of immigrants” is half-accurate and fully deadly: the deadliest lies have enough sweet sugar of truth to get us to swallow and absorb them; if they didn’t, we’d spit them right out and likely give the person who tricked us into trying them a stern kick in the rear. It’s also why America can survive and even thrive with immigrants of various European stocks tossed together but not for Whites with non-Whites: European peoples have similar (though not identical) overlapping epigenetic ranges of behavior and mental habits that allow them (on average) to happily adapt to life among each other relatively free of stress or conflict. Though likely each group would be happiest among their closest ethnic kind. Why else would Italians, Irish, etc., tend to settle in the same states, cities, or neighborhoods? They would just as likely be happy enough among other Whites of European ancestry, allowing the American experiment to work, up to that point.
The problem arises when you try to mix peoples such as Whites and Blacks whose epigenetic ranges of behavioral characteristics have very little overlap: in such cases, you are going to be de facto forcing one or both groups to keep their behavior within a range or endure behavior that causes them some degree of stress, anxiety, and discomfort for which they will (accurately) blame the other. Outside of even extreme behaviors by those worse than the average within the group (e.g., Blacks shooting up a place over a really petty matter), this is destructive in that it causes one or more groups to endure a kind of cultural Chinese water torture that gradually takes its toll on everyone involved. Asking a group of Blacks in a movie theater to not talk and shout advice to characters on the screen is a pain to them; not asking them to stop doing it is a pain to everyone else.
The case can be slightly different with very small numbers of non-White immigrants who come by themselves (i.e., absent chain migration) and live within the White areas of an overwhelmingly White society: these might well be epigenetic outliers whose range of desirable behavior has more overlap with that of Whites than with that of their own kind. And when these non-White outliers find themselves among Whites, they will be most likely to stay within the White range of behavior, thus creating in the minds of White liberals a false impression of what all non-Whites are like. But I would bet a large sum of money that many if not most of even these would easily revert back to something within their native (i.e., average among their own kind) range if placed in a group of coethnics.
We can even see this in lesser animals: when you have one dog, cat, or parrot with you, it tends to act more like a person than the average of its kind (it stays quieter, it sits with you, etc.); but get a second one, and both immediately begin to act more like dogs, cats, or parrots than either would in the company of a human alone. And, of course, we see this in humans: one of those rare, right-side-of-the-bell-curve Blacks almost always acts much more Black among Blacks than among Whites.
Because the epigenetic ranges of desirable or undesirable behavior vary even within a group and the group as a whole contains extremes which would otherwise not overlap by themselves but have slight outliers within the average which can bridge those extremes, when taken together they form a kind of socio-cultural staircase with which the worst exceptions ascend to and impress themselves upon White society, working their destructive effects on it; in other words, although top-tier Blacks might fit in well with the White average, since top tier Blacks have a higher tolerance for the Black average than do average Whites and the Black average has a much higher tolerance for violent ghetto Blacks than do top tier Blacks or average Whites, those overlaps allow the worst Blacks to make their way into and pollute the average White areas.
What do I mean by this?
Think about the nature of White flight. The first Blacks of the bell-curve-right-tail variety to move into a White neighborhood might not be so bad and themselves might even be able to stay within the behavioral range that Whites prefer, but they will almost always have a tolerance for Blacks whose behavior falls within the Black average (and thus outside of the acceptable range for Whites); moreover that right-tail Black will likely stand up for his average friends and family against Whites and (when combined with the kind of anti-free association “civil rights” laws that have shackled White America since their passage) gradually make the neighborhood a cesspool of average Black behavior, to which the talented tenth will then adapt—at least until the average brings in the worst. You see, just as the right-tail Blacks have a higher tolerance for, and thus bring in their wake, average Blacks, so average Blacks have a higher tolerance for, and thus bring in their wake, those Blacks that liberals consider the exceptions: the full-blown drug-dealing, offspring-abandoning, gang-banging, ghetto POS Blacks whose proclivity for violence, low IQ, and negligible impulse control put them outside the right-tail Blacks’ acceptable range, putting the latter to flight to seek Whiter pastures in newer White suburbs and thus starting the whole cycle over again.
When the exceptions are not in total isolation from the average that forms the rule, they become the rule by nature of their being surrounded with and embedded in a culture that finds their behavior more tolerable than it finds the behavior of Whites protecting and enforcing the average that they find desirable or even acceptable—especially if those violent Black exceptions direct their behavior more at Whites than at their own kind. To paraphrase that famous Mao quote, the exceptions (often even the worst) move among the (average) people as a fish swims in the sea. Though the groomers/killers among the largest British Moslem communities made up only a minor fraction of its total, they could never have gotten away with their crimes against working-class White girls were it not for the aid and comfort given them (if only passively) by the average Moslems around them.
With all peoples the range of acceptable behavior is often contextual in nature: you might not find your idiot cousin’s loud, boorish behavior to be within the acceptable range, and you might not want to have him around very often if at all. But it’s quite likely you would instantly and instinctively jump up to defend him if someone outside your circle of family and close friends complain about him at a party for being too loud. Different peoples have different levels of ethnocentrism, with Whites having rather low levels compared to virtually all non-Whites. This can change the range of what they consider acceptable depending on whether it’s being done to or by their own group or another group. While Blacks might wish one of their own dead if he shot a fellow Black (though they likely still wouldn’t cooperate with White cops even to get the bastard jailed), they might not care if the man he shot were White—hell, they might even defend him in that case, even without knowing anything of the circumstances under which the shooting happened. Those non-Whites who seem to be so well behaved, intelligent, honorable, etc. when among Whites can very quickly regress to the ethnocentric, White-despising mean if they are among their average kin who make it clear that not falling into the average range will be severely frowned upon.
Writ large, this is what makes the difference between nations and empires: the latter are often judged by their greatest area and the amount of resources they command, while the former are often judged by what they were able to accomplish within themselves and how long they were able to endure through time. This is because nations, in the true sense, are countries made up of homogeneous peoples with the same epigenetic ranges who are for the most part extremely happy to live among themselves and have at least stronger cohesion to each other than they do to any other people and thus are willing to fight and sacrifice for their nation at least against others; this is what makes true nations so resilient to external pressure and internal stresses.
Empires, on the other hand, may be impressively large and expansive but fragile— both characteristics often owing to their being a motley hodgepodge of various nations and peoples, peoples who have no loyalty to each other and can be used by the powers in control at the center via a divide and conquer strategy: the Romans could use Germanic troops to put down a rebellion in the Balkans, while using ethnic Romans to suppress Germanic resistance; and the ancient empires, notably the Assyrian and Babylonian, were famous for moving entire populations around to keep them working for the benefit of the ruling dynasty while being too disoriented and disunited to effectively rise against it.
This is indeed the result that the smarter among our elites (think more along the lines of shadowy, 3-letter agency types and less of AOC types) are actively seeking in their bid to open the floodgates of the third world to inundate heritage Americans in a sea of Brown and Black: they are creating what you might call an intra-national empire, a country (if you can even call it that anymore) with the characteristics of an empire, including the ability of the ruling classes to use the divide and conquer tactic against Whites, the only group that consistently stands in the way of gun confiscation, elimination of free speech, and the other prerequisites for obtaining despotic power. An intra-national empire might have far less potential to endure long term, but it does convey immense short-term advantages for the Jews and treacherous Whites who form the ruling elites.
More often than not, the fate of nations, including our own, hinges upon the average, an average which under the kind of soul-trying situations which litter every page of the history books in our fallen world engulfs and assimilates (or destroys if it can’t) those beautiful exceptions that liberal and normiecon idealists pin their hope upon; this is why true nations endure and empires crumble. And even outside of such interesting (in the alleged Chinese curse sense) times, the average can at the very least make or break a nation’s ability to live up to its full potential.
When the exceptions are as extreme and deadly as they are with the criminal segment of the Black population, they actually become the rule in terms of behavioral influence; they act as a kind of inverse of the role that apex predators play in the trophic cascade of their ecosystem: sharks protect their ecosystem from the destruction that would result from their prey (such as sea turtles) overfeeding on the kelp forests that so many other species depend on for survival and thus keep the whole thing in balance, not by the number of turtles they eat but by the fearful behavior that they induce in all turtles, since if the price of gorging yourself on the tastiest kelp is getting yourself eaten, no turtle will eat too much at once at any time; inversely, that relatively small number of criminal Blacks has the potential for throwing the entire human ecosystem off kilter by the behavioral changes it induces in all Whites, and even most Blacks for that matter—the money they could have spent on the kind of innovations that made the US the most powerful nation on earth when it was mostly White now goes to such expenditures as buying higher-priced suburban real estate and paying private-school tuition that enable them to flee Blacks, since (as I discussed earlier) even the noncriminal Blacks often provide a kind of milieu in which the worst Blacks can thrive and be protected from White attempts to stop their criminality. This wreaks havoc on the nation for all groups.
As Robert Putnam the author of Bowling Alone pointed out, diversity leads to individual isolation (even among co-ethnics), loss of trust, loss of social capital, and increased overall stress levels for all. A diverse society makes none except our depraved elites happy: this has always been and always will be the case when you mix peoples with incompatible epigenetic ranges of what is acceptable or not; unless the ranges are very wide and mixed with historic antagonism, you might not get the kind of gruesome bloodletting seen between Hindus and Moslems during the Partition of India, but you will get the kind of slow, grinding stress and misery that can under the right circumstances lead to violence. But even if it doesn’t, it will cause destruction and loss (if only a passive kind and in terms of potential) on a massive scale.
It is quite possible that the only reason those good exceptions are able to stand out as they do is if they have a White milieu in which they can feel comfortable straying from the average. To not keep society overwhelmingly White would be to destroy them as well as you—not that that should be foremost or even close to it in your mind. It is also possible that those fiendish exceptions are allowed the tolerance they receive among their own kind thanks only to their having White society angry at them. Were Blacks in isolation, where the “snitches get stitches” rule would be rendered moot, it’s likely they would simply kill many of the more egregious criminals in theirs ranks and in a way that is more in line with their temperament and tolerance for violence (and thus would get the desired result of discouraging that type of behavior). To give a real-life example: the eastern parts of Nigeria in 2000 through 2001 experienced such an epidemic of crime, one which the White imperialist-imported legal system (which under native control turned into just another racket of graft and incompetence) utterly failed to make a dent in. The result was that some locals who became known as the Bakassi Boys turned vigilante to deal with the problem, catching criminals and herding them into the middle of town before hacking them with machetes and finishing off any partial survivors with gasoline-filled tires set alight—and, voila, the problem of street crime virtually disappeared and the Boys became immensely popular with the local population! T
his is not to say that such barbaric standards would be the norm with all Blacks were they to achieve separation from Whites, but if they find that such methods succeed where Western ones have failed, then more power to them to live according the ranges they desire or find acceptable. In all likelihood, we’re all epigenetically hardwired to various degrees to calibrate our competitive behavior to what we see to be at stake: When there’s nothing but our race around, we focus on differences in family ideology (like religion) and morality; on the other hand, if the competition is inter-racial, preservation of race often becomes the focus, sometimes to the detriment of the other concerns. In the case of highly ethnocentric groups such as Blacks, separation would put them in a situation in which they would see no reason to defend the scum within their ranks—and in that limited respect, White nationalism is actually to their benefit as well.
Under any universally applicable standard of morality, it would be unethical to force any group to endure the kind of slow grind that mixing epigenetically incompatible peoples leads to. To force the races together based on good and/or bad exceptions is both foolish and immoral; whereas allowing for and encouraging their voluntary separation in a way that minimizes the potential for loss of time, blood, and treasure would be to the ultimate benefit of both.
NAXALT is the mental wainscoting used to hide the deep fissures that form within any state that, from tragic circumstances or foolish or immoral leadership, has mixed those with too little epigenetic overlap to meld; it is the ultimately immoral cope of those whose sentimentalism or cowardice has led them to ignore the larger implications of focusing on exceptions rather than averages—exceptions which will either wreak havoc or be swallowed up in the chaos that arises when the forces of division and diversity finally overwhelm the ties that bind (at least for a time). Such diversity is attractive to people who do not realize that personal tragedies are the (unfortunate) price we must pay for preventing civilizational ones.
Notes
https://thefishvet.com/2012/02/28/do-goldfish-grow-to-the-size-of-their-tank/
“30 No Condition Is Permanent.” The Fate of Africa: From the Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of Despair: A History of 50 Years of Independence, Public Affairs, New York, NY, 2005, pp. 584–584.
