The Self-Genocidal Impulse: Vol. IV
“Stepped off a building to find some concrete evidence he’d ever make an impact
Fiction splattered into fact
Stepped off the platform and he briefly made,
Yeah, he briefly made the news
It made the news and he made the trains run fifteen minutes late
Oh, what a price to pay, the trains were fifteen minutes late
Oh, what a price to pay, to be the author of your fate.”-Protest the Hero, “C’est la Vie”
Charitable giving feels good—it floods our neural pathways with dopamine from the “reward circuit” in our brains, causing a “helper’s high.” There’s additional evidence that oxytocin may also be released; oxytocin is associated with an elevated mood, and in the presence of higher oxytocin, dopamine and serotonin levels also rise. This has the effect of creating a positive feedback loop, whereby the neural circuitry rewards us for “doing good” and thus being rewarded emotionally. This loop can be self-perpetuating as the promise of the “helper’s high” leads one to continuously seek that “hit.” The loop may even be self-elevating as well, for the greater the levels of oxytocin, the more altruistic and “giving” one feels. It is entirely possible one may become addicted to giving—resulting in what is called “pathological altruism.” Metapedia defines pathological altruism as: “Sincere attempts to help others that instead harms others or oneself and where this harm could have been reasonably anticipated. It is often caused by cognitive and/or emotional biases that blind people to the potentially harmful consequences of their actions.” In these instances such “charity,” explains Barbara A. Oakley, is often terribly destructive:
In foreign aid, $2 trillion dollars have been provided to Africa over the past 50 years. As chronicled by economist and former World Bank consultant Dambisa Moyo, a native of Zambia, such aid has resulted in measurably worsened outcomes in a broad variety of areas, supporting despotism and increasing corruption and a sense of dependency in Africans. In some cases, the money has been directly responsible for extraordinary damage. Experienced foreign aid worker Ernesto Sirolli echoes many when he notes that much Western aid arises from narcissistic paternalism and patronization.
In the case of the so-called “elite,” it isn’t even effectiveness that’s measured, but the amount of money donated. The amount-as-indicative-of-degree-of-caring metric is similarly employed by many when evaluating governmental programs, aid, and welfare. In such an environment, the damage done to Africa as outlined in the previous quote is of little consequence: merely the appearance of helping—and a quantifiable measurement, devoid of a rational consideration of its positive or negative impacts—affords one immense favor, prestige, and a serious dopamine hit. Oakley continues:
Unscientific approaches toward altruistic helping can have the unwitting effect of ensuring that the benefits of science and the scientific method are kept away from those most in need of help. In the final analysis, it is clear that when altruistic efforts in science are presented as being beyond reproach, it becomes all too easy to silence rational criticism. In modern times, with the mass outreach potential of a few well-intentioned individuals or influential groups, who often have little or no ultimate accountability for programmatic failures or other detrimental effects, pathologies of altruism can assume enormous importance. It is reasonable to help shift the scientific and cultural paradigm and set the stage so that it becomes culturally acceptable, even expected, that one should attempt to quantify objectively purported claims of altruism.
Humans are social creatures, and in finding ample social approval and external validation for their giving (and tax write-offs!), individuals or groups of individuals may become trapped in a prison of their own socially-condoned and federally-underwritten giving. Let’s be honest, though—not all charity comes from a selfless place or is given with the recipient(s) in mind; in addition to the “high,” one is also afforded tremendous accolades for their charitable donations. They may have buildings or streets named after them, statues erected, and numerous other perks such as the ability to wield their purchased moral authority over others. There are many examples of failed charitable ventures of both the genuine kind (Bill Gates) and the self-serving kind (LeBron James).
That our entire cultural zeitgeist is superficially-oriented toward empathy and compassion while simultaneously encouraging consumption, selfishness, and extreme narcissism while tied together with a neat bow of instant gratification renders critical examination impossible. As Oakley elucidates, the sanctification of the Holy Trinity of Diversity, Inclusion, and Compassion, having in some senses taken the place of religion, is in its essence pathological, based on doctrines of faith and, where relevant, no longer confined by rational parameters:
Our empathic feelings for others, coupled with a desire to be liked, parochial feelings for our in-group, emotional contagion, motivated reasoning, selective exposure, confirmation bias, discounting, allegiance bias, the Einstellung (“set”) effect, and even an egocentric belief that we know what is best for others, can lead us into powerful and often irrational illusions of helping. In other words, people’s own good intentions, coupled with a variety of cognitive biases, can sometimes blind them to the deleterious consequences of their actions…[There is] potential harm from cognitive blindness that arises whenever groups treat a concept as sacred.
We’ve spent $22 trillion in this country on various aid and welfare programs that have been at best ineffective, and always the call is for more funding, another program, etc. A lack of caring is demonstrated by the desire to cut funding or cut a program—even if it is having severely deleterious effects. This is the politics of “giving,” and the Democrats have mastered it. It is more or less emotional blackmail, with charity and aid as a kind of guilt-based pay-off, coupled with a racial spoils system.
It’s almost as though a collective switch has broken and the West is just staring dumbfounded as the Third World swarms around them, while the managerial elites and multi-national executives golf clap at this most virtuous of population replacements. The un-elected bureaucrats in the European Union believe Europe is “too white” and needs to color itself up a bit (a lot). Can you imagine a more preposterous claim? Europe is “too white”? I’m sorry, is the Ivory Coast “too black”? Leftist indoctrination has been devastatingly effective, and there is tremendous social benefit to be had for toeing the party line, but Eastern Europe lived under the Soviet yoke for half-a-century and they haven’t developed such extreme self-loathing. Western and Northern Europe, conversely, were (ostensibly) free to chart their own course and they remain committed to their suicidal “EUtopian” vision, secure in the belief that they’re on “the right side of history.” It’s pretty easy to be smug and sanctimonious when the U.S. bank-rolls the majority of your military budget, but fat lot of good that’s doing them when millions of fighting-age males can just land on a beach and disperse, unopposed. As Dr. Andrew Joyce writes, “Boatloads of what looks like a casting call for Boyz N the Hood won’t suffice, so the narrative is skewed away from reality in order to stoke the moral panic.” He continues:
The sober reality of the situation hasn’t prevented the majority of White Europeans from incorporating the latest collateral damage of the African invasion into an increasingly frenzied moral panic about the Continent’s reception of ‘refugees.’ Pathological Whites are clamoring for it to be made extremely easy and safe for those trying to enter Europe illegally and they are basing this on an incredibly dysfunctional set of precepts:
· That Africans have an innate and unchallengeable ‘right’ to enter Europe.
· That Europeans have an ‘obligation’ to ensure illegal Africans can enter Europe safely.
· That African deaths in transit are a result of European indifference rooted in racism, and that this somehow ties in with European ‘responsibility’ for Jewish deaths during World War II.
· That the illegal African invading force is saintly, and consists largely of women and children.
These people are operating in a dreamscape entirely detached from reality. Going solely by statistics, these invaders set sail in order to take the resources bequeathed to Europeans by their ancestors, to rape European women on an unprecedented scale, and to speedily fasten themselves like ticks upon European social welfare provisions. Pathological Whites are beholden to the image of boats filled with saintly men, women and children seeking peace, prosperity and inter-ethnic harmony. This is due mainly to the fact that much of the media propaganda circulating on the Mediterranean deaths attempts to convey the image of drowning families, women, and children. CNN screeched about ‘pregnant women,’ while other news sources peddled tales of toddlers waiting to depart Libya for European shores.
But what still gets at me is why are we so easily jolted into a moral panic, and why is such obvious nonsense so readily accepted by a majority of whites? It’s one thing to be compassionate, but quite another to sign your civilization away for effectively no good reason. Is there not an ounce of incredulity in our DNA? Why do we succumb to an image of one drowned brown child on Turkish shores who died from parental neglect, but turn a blind eye to millions of our mothers, sisters, and daughters abused, accosted, raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered by feral pre-modern peoples? Why do we actively facilitate our own demise, so eager to denounce our own legacy and accomplishments as somehow unfounded or illegitimate? Why are we so quick to bow down to the false idols of multi-culturalism and post- (Western) nationalism, to willingly accept the mantle of global whipping-posts? Pathologies being of course irrational, we are now in a realm where otherwise-positive attributes such as charitableness and conscience have mutated into destructive forces. We have not only allowed our own ideals to be weaponized against us, but many of our number are all too eager to pull the trigger themselves.
There must be something deeper, something profoundly corrupted and diseased at the very core of Western civilization. Even the internalization of the most extreme propaganda, even the pathological altruism that leads whites to pursue destruction-by-virtue, can only explain part of our frenzied craze for dispossession; that is to say, pathological altruism and the social currency gained by virtue-signaling is just one side of the coin—the drive to help, whether for genuinely altruistic though deeply misguided reasons, or to be seen to help for other material or social reasons, can’t fully encompass our existential malady. Our epitaph might read: “They cared too much,” but it would fail to consider the dark undercurrent that represents the perverse and pervasive impulse, seemingly shared across massive swathes of the West, from continent to continent, to wallow in undeserved guilt, and as penance to utterly and completely dissolve our culture, our heritage, our homelands, our civilization, and, finally, our entire race.
 Oxytocin also lowers one’s suspicion of strangers and outsiders; in a particularly insidious iteration, one recent study conducted by American and German researchers on German subjects recommended that the German people be dosed-up on oxytocin to make them more amenable to their population replacement at the hands of Fuhrer Merkel’s decision, with the backing of the EU supra-state and the multi-nationals, to “elect a new people,” suggesting, “Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup reaction.” In the coming Fourth Reich of Multi-Culturalism, it will not just be Germans dosed to the gills with oxytocin, either. No: This time the world!