The NAXALT argument is an attempt to discredit criticism of group X by pointing to particular members of the group, who may be atypical or exceptional, as evidence that “Not All (members of X) Are Like That.”

The key to the NAXALT issue is imitation. All humans imitate, but it is our respect for individualism and individual endeavours which makes white men unique in inventing virtually every modern amenity for the world.

Darwin, ever eloquent, wrote that it was “generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man” and that “some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation” (Descent of Man, 2nd ed., p.858).

Suppose there is a body of workers, all white men. One leaves and is replaced by a non-white or a woman. Immediately a common (usually tacit) bond is broken between the men, since the group will split between those who object to the change and those who do not. The latter can use the opportunity to “White Knight” i.e. express protective instincts toward the newcomer which under normal circumstances would be directed toward subordinate women and children.

Giving ammunition to the faction who favour (or at least acquiesce to) the change, the behaviour of the newcomer will in most instances be indistinguishable from the white men. The newcomer will adopt the norms of their role and convincingly imitate. The situation changes when other newcomers join; as their proportion increases, so will they revert to kind. In the case of women, innate feminine concerns will be reinforced and voiced. In the case of non-whites, the situation will progressively resemble the place from which they originated.

Since they have a naturally collectivist or ethnocentric bent, the isolated individual who is held up as an example of NAXALT can safely be assumed to be an advance scout for others.

These observations have been verified to a very limited extent by differences in automatic in-group bias and studies of independent and interdependent cultures, for example comparing Euro-American and East Asian reactions to group consensus.

While I enjoy reading the onslaught of essays against the fallacies of NAXALT, there is a blind spot that these attacks cannot argue against: model minorities.

Attacking NAXALT when it is used to defend the behavior, existence and presence of non-whites in white countries is effective when there are significant parts of these populations that have an obviously negative impact on the West. For example, while most Arabs are not terrorists and most blacks are not murderers, both of these demographics are vastly overrepresented as perpetrators of these respective crimes. Hence, it’s not hard to oppose the NAXALT protestations of the average anti-racist liberal.

But anti-NAXALT arguments only work when speaking negatively about clearly dysfunctional races or ethnicities. It’s pretty easy to oppose the presence of, say, Haitian immigrants in your neighborhood. They have low IQs, come from an impoverished failed state founded on anti-white racism, and as the Springfield debacle has shown us, are reckless drivers as well. There is simply little upside to having Haitians in white countries. Hell, they wouldn’t even be an upgrade for most African countries, but I digress.

As a white nationalist, I need a way of arguing against the increasing presence of people who aren’t bad immigrants. For example, when I was discussing the problems the recent influx of Indian immigrants to Canada with my sister-in-law, she said that she wanted them to go home. However, she said the Filipinos could stay. She gets along with them and sees them as kind people and good Canadians.

Come to think of it, I get along with them, too.

There are about a million Filipinos in Canada, yet they are less conspicuous than most other minority groups. They are fairly quiet people, but not unfriendly. They can speak English fairly well, unlike other Asians. They don’t flaunt material possessions. They don’t commit a lot of crime like black people do. They’re easy to work with, unlike Indians. They’re not rude, they don’t act like they run the place, they’re not ungrateful, and they rarely cry “racist.” They’re small, Christian, hardworking and good neighbors. In a sense, Filipinos are like swarthier Mexicans who don’t smuggle in fentanyl or join street gangs.

And yet, even with all of the good traits Filipinos have, I still don’t want more of them here. Here’s where YAXALT (Yes, All ‘X’ Are Like That) comes in.

Filipinos are all not white. Their culture is alien and they do not add to our culture in any significant way. They are historically irrelevant here and they all did not contribute to the development of Canada. Canadians owe Filipinos nothing.

What’s a pro-NAXALT liberal going to say? Not all Filipinos are brown? Sorry, kaibigan [comrade], but yes, all Filipinos are brown.

Not all Filipinos arrived after Canada’s founding in 1867? Actually, yes, they did all arrive after 1867, and most of them arrived in the 21st century.

Not all Filipinos come from an impoverished country? They come from the Philippines!

Ultimately, the fact Filipinos in Canada are largely decent people does not mean Old Stock Canadians have to accept infinite numbers of Filipino immigrants, or any for that matter. Why? Because AFANC: All Filipinos Are Not Canadian.