By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Why Do Whites Hate their Own Ethnicity? By Brian Simpson
The issue of a supposed “white pathology,” a product of “pathological altruism”: https://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572, is a concept closely related to Garrett Hardin’s notion of “promiscuous altruism”: Garrett Hardin, “Discriminating Altruisms,” Zygon, vol. 17, 1982, pp. 163-186. The central argument here is that the present behaviour of whites, such as with open borders immigration, is a universalism quite inconsistent with evolutionary biology. Here is the abstract from Hardin’s classic paper:
“Reliable Darwinian theory shows that pure altruism cannot persist and expand over time. All higher organisms show inheritable patterns of caring and discrimination. The principal forms of discriminating altruisms among human beings are individualism (different from egoism), familialism, cronyism, tribalism, and patriotism. The promiscuous altruism called “universalism” cannot endure in the face of inescapable completion. Information can be promiscuously shared, but not so matter and energy without evoking the tragedy of the commons. Universalism is not recommended even as an ideal. Survival now requires the creation of an intellectual base for a new patriotism.”
Hardin was not the first evolutionary biologist to think along these lines, of course. Charles Darwin (1809-1892), entitled his great treatise, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), which gives a clear sense that the struggle for life is a zero sum game, with winners and losers. That is something which the universalists, who have swallowed the ideal of the brotherhood of man, or what now would translate to “the personhood of human beings,” or something equally meaningless, must reject.
Sir Arthur Keith in The Place of Prejudice in Modern Civilization (Being the Substance of a Rectorial Address to the Students of Aberdeen University, John Day, 1931) made essentially the same Darwinian argument as Hardin. However, writing before the age of tyrannical political correctness, he had a racialist view of the matter, saying that the supposed universalist ideal of creating peace by race mixing will self-destruct.
“If this scheme of universal deracialization ever comes before you as a matter of practical politics – as the sole way of establishing peace and good will in all parts of our world, I feel certain both head and heart will rise against it. There will well up within you an overmastering antipathy to securing peace at such a price. The antipathy or race prejudice Nature has implanted within you for her own ends – the improvement of Mankind through racial differentiation. Race prejudice, I believe, works for the ultimate good of Mankind and must be given a recognized place in all our efforts to obtain natural justice for the world.”
Unfortunately, the power elite chose not to follow this sensible evolutionary approach, and pursued the globalist agenda of white genocide. However, the price paid for this strategy is a high one, that of the production of dysgenic societies:
“without competition mankind can never progress; the price of progress is completion. Nay, race prejudice and, what is the same thing, national antagonism, have to be purchased, not with gold, but with life. Nature throughout the past has demanded that a people who seeks independence as well as peace can obtain these privileges only in one way – by being prepared to sacrifice their blood to secure them. Nature keeps her human orchard healthy by pruning; war is her pruning-hook. We cannot dispense with her services.”
Sir Arthur Keith went on to develop his ideas about ethnocentrism having biological survival value, by contrast to the destructive effects of universalism, where groups that are not universalist can ruthlessly exploit those which are, in his A New Theory of Evolution (G. P. Putnam’s New York, 1948). See also http://www.context.org/iclib/ic07/schmoklr/. Keith also argued for the idea that a nation is a race “in the original meaning of that term,” an ideal which the modern globalists are strongly opposed to. According to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame, the fight against nationalism is the “struggle of out time”: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/27/zuckerbergfacebooknationalism/. Presumably the nationalism of Israel does not fall under his critique, which is not to say that such nationalism is bad, only that we all need it, for what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The present fragile status quo in the West, while terrifying to isolated individuals who can easily be bullied by the thugs of the state, is one based on sociological illusions, and is falling apart as we read. Human evolutionary behaviour is not changed merely from mouthing nice platitudes or brainwashing in schools and universities, for the realities of ethnocentrism are strong: R. A. Hammond and R. Axelrod, “The Evolution of Ethnocentrism,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 50, 2006, pp. 926-936; J. M. Whitmeyer, “Endogamy as a Basis for Ethnic Behavior,” Sociological Theory, vol. 15, 1997, pp. 162-177; J. Lopreato and T. Crippen, “The Clannish Brain,” in Crisis in sociology: the need for Darwin, (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1999), pp. 247-277. As Lopreato and Crippen say in concluding their chapert on the sociobiology of ethnocentrism:
“Ethnic wars will be the constant of human history. …History shows that ethnic groups have been the building blocks of nations and civilizations. …In large measure, the history of the human species has been, and will continue to be, a history of ethnic assemblies, ethnic collisions, and ethnic disorders.” (p.277)
The paradox then arises that the Northern European (Nordic) people have allowed their own kind to be demographically displaced in their own lands, and that this displacement is celebrated as a victory of diversity, even up to the point of replacing Western liberalism with sharia law, as seems to be occurring in many places: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10380/sharia-australia. These horror stories are well known, discussed here regularly, so let us turn to the issue of causality.
Ricardo Duchesne “The Great Fear – Why Do Whites Fear their Own Ethnicity?” http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/06/why-whites-fear-own-ethnicity.html, gives an interesting discussion around the point, but apart from mentioning self-delusion by those championing the demographic swamping of the West, does not, as I see it, go to the heart of the problem, or recognise the sheer extent of it, which dominates the institutions and pollutes the culture, totally: http://takimag.com/article/the_wages_of_pathological_altruism_jim_goad/print.
Kevin MacDonald has discussed the problem of white pathology in some depth: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/03/24/psychological-mechanisms-of-white-dispossession/; http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/10/28/recently-in-the-occidental-quarterly-special-sections-on-white-pathology/; http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/04/25/whats-wrong-with-the-swedes-and-so-many-other-whites/; “Empathy and Moral Universalism as Components of White Pathology: The Movement to Abolish Slavery in England,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 13, 2013, pp. 39-63.
MacDonald makes many insightful points about the issue of white pathology. In one sense, Whites are not acting in a social pathological fashion in destroying their race, because they are aiding the ultimate power elites who are seeking to do this, and thus are rewarded with their 30 pieces of silver. Academics in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences fit this scenario. As selfish individualists, they would say anything for self-promotion, and thus follow a culture of increasing absurdity to find new ways of promoting political correctness. Nevertheless, that does not give an ultimate explanation for white pathology.
Then there is the framework of moral universalism, which has been a rich fruit waiting for the elites to use for their own ethnocentric gain, and against Northern Europeans. Historically Nordics, at least for the past thousand years, have embraced universalistic philosophies and theologies. There can be legitimate debate about whether or not Christianity is intrinsically universalistic or not, but it is clear, that Christians of the past would be astonished at what is justified in the name of Christian religion today, just as the universities have crumbled.
MacDonald sees universalism as arising in Northern Europeans from their evolutionary past:
“An ethnic hypothesis proposes that the eighteenth century saw the emergence of an ethos of egalitarianism that reflected the evolutionary past of an important segment of the British population as Northern hunter-gatherers. European groups are part of what Burton et al. term the North Eurasian and Circumpolar culture area. This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of monogamy.
There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). Historian John Hajnal has established that the simple household type based on a single married couple and their children is typical of Northwest Europe. It contrasts with the joint family structure typical of the rest of Eurasia in which the household consists of two or more related couples, typically brothers and their wives and other members of the extended family. An archeological excavation of a 4,600-year-old site in modern Germany found evidence for monogamy and exogamy, both strong markers of individualism".
The data thus show that Europeans, and especially Northwest Europeans, tend toward individualism. These societies were relatively quick to abandon extended kinship networks and collectivist social structures when their interests were protected with the rise of strong centralized governments.
Egalitarianism is a notable trait of hunter-gatherer groups around the world. Such groups have mechanisms that prevent despotism and ensure reciprocity, with punishment ranging from physical harm to shunning and ostracism. David Hackett Fischer emphasizes the egalitarian ethic that developed in New Zealand and Australia during the “Second Empire” in the nineteenth century:
the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” (envy and resentment of people who are “conspicuously successful, exceptionally gifted, or unusually creative”). “It sometimes became a more general attitude of outright hostility to any sort of excellence, distinction, or high achievement—especially achievement that requires mental effort, sustained industry, or applied intelligence. . . . The possession of extraordinary gifts is perceived as unfair by others who lack them.”
Thus, egalitarianism and moral universalism arose in Northern Europeans as adaptations to the cold and challenging environments in which they lived, but in interaction with collectivistic group with a much stronger sense of racial identity, Nordics are easily defeated because of their individualism and deluded sense of fair play. I think that this position is best developed by positing a “race suicide” gene, which many Nordics have, but some like me do not. Those with the race suicide gene happily accept universalism even if it means the destruction of their own kind, and they ignore other ethnic groups acting in an ethnocentric fashion because of the culture of false and deluded moralism which Nordics have embraced which gives their elites a sense of moral superiority.
There is no doubt that other groups have an evolutionary interest in defeating Nordics and displacing them, but the “bad guys” scapegoat hypothesis does not go to the heart of the problem, explaining how Nordics have become an active force in destroying their own kind.
In summary, White pathology arises as an evolutionary distortion from a once adaptive set of traits, that in a modern environment become racially toxic. Nordics are not adapted to survival in the multicultural, multiracial mass societies of today, and that is why we see all of the horrors that are reported at this site.
Those writing about White pathology, usually have no answer to the disease. But I think the answer is given intrinsically in the disease metaphor. Of course people should fight hard against this malady and refute all of the politically correct arguments. But in the end, talk is cheap, and at the end of the day things will be decided by historical circumstances. The over-civilised culture of decadent affluence which has enabled ideologies pathological to the White race to flourish is collapsing. When that environment changes, the race suicide gene will be less powerful, since it operates primarily in such an environment. And, those who are pathologically altruistic, are simply likely to be eliminated by natural selection as Sir Arthur Keith noted.
Thus, the cause of White pathology lies in evolution, and the solution also lies in evolution, primarily in natural selection once more working when the protective cocoon of modern society breaks down. That too, is happening right now and is set to accelerate in the near future.