The Self-Genocidal Impulse: Vol. VI
“To my mistress the bridge, I don’t feel well.
I’ll be leaving and you can’t stop me.
We’ve been carrying on too long,
I’m sorry, but I’m gone…”-Every Time I Die, “Floater”
In this final installment of “The Self-Genocidal Impulse” I will attempt to assemble the various “parts” I’ve introduced in the preceding pieces into a coherent whole. We understand the symptoms, but what is the cause? What is it, ultimately, about the white race unique among races that makes it want to abolish itself? For Peter Frost:
The amygdala is larger in extraordinary altruists—people who have donated one of their kidneys to a stranger. In that study, we were told that a larger amygdala is associated with greater responsiveness to fearful facial expressions, i.e., a greater willingness to help people in distress. Conversely, psychopaths have a smaller amygdala and are less responsive to fearful faces (Marsh et al., 2014)… Hmm … That’s a tad different from the spin in Psychology Today. Are liberals the ones who don’t care about others? Are they … psychopaths? It would be more accurate to say that “liberals” come from populations whose capacity for affective empathy is lower on average and who tend to view any stranger as a potential enemy. That’s most people in this world, and that’s how most of the world works… As for “conservatives,” they largely come from Northwest Europe, where a greater capacity for affective empathy seems to reflect an environment of relatively high individualism, relatively weak kinship, and relatively frequent interactions with nonkin. This environment has prevailed west of the Hajnal Line since at least the 12th century, as shown by the longstanding characteristics of the Western European Marriage Pattern: late age of marriage for both sexes; high rate of celibacy; strong tendency of children to form new households; and high circulation of non-kin among families. This zone of weaker kinship, with greater reliance on internal means of behavior control, may also explain why Northwest Europeans are more predisposed to guilt than to shame, whereas the reverse is generally the case elsewhere in the world (Frost, 2014).
Healthy empathetic feelings are predicated in some part on reciprocity, as George W. Dent writes:
Trust in others is essential to human interaction, especially in dealings too complex for the parties' rights and duties to be detailed in writing. Trust grows when each side's contribution is reciprocated by the other's, but not if reciprocity is withheld, and trust shrinks rapidly if one party abuses the other's trust by acting opportunistically. People often eschew gain and help the needy, but altruism also dwindles if the recipients do not seem truly needy, or do not try to help themselves, or if others who could help refuse to do so and "free ride" on those who are altruistic.
I wrote about the various dynamics at play in “Enlightened Free-Loaders and the Pathological Altruists Who Love Them,” but the reciprocal instincts whites have founded their civilization on have become largely one-sided, in part through pathological altruism, but also through a disabled guardian function (which I will discuss later), a perversion of the “motherly instinct” (which I will also discuss later), and through complementary projection. As Gerald from The Burning Platform writes:
Adding fuel to the fire is one of the most dangerous of our mental biases I’ve written about: Complementary Projection “in which people believe that more people share their beliefs and values than actually do. We ‘project’ our beliefs and values onto other people and overestimate the extent to which other people also have them.” Complementary projection is treacherous because of its similarity to one of our greatest human foibles, self-deception. The more we fool ourselves, the more deceivers will profit from our gullibility much to our detriment. How else do we explain well-intentioned Europeans welcoming refugees who end up raping their hosts?
There are fundamental reasons why the Orient has been able to resist demographic replacement and its terrible costs while most of the Occident has not. One aspect in which the developed Northeast Asian nations in particular differ greatly from ours (with the possible exception of the Nords) is in their cultural and biological predispositions to conformity/uniformity. Cultural “cues” are crucial to consider as we are social creatures; when one group has an “elite” hostile to its own people (or presumably its own people as much of this elite is comprised of Jews and their philo-Semitic sycophants and quislings) and the other does not, this helps explain some of the incentives for self-dispossession and dis-incentives for fashioning a racially- or ethnically-oriented basis for in-groups versus out-groups. As Kevin MacDonald explicates, the elites are cultivating:
Feelings of moral rectitude resulting from subscribing to the moral dictates of the society as defined by media and academic elites. Since these elites unanimously regard the traditional people and culture of the West as uniquely immoral, dissenting from these views results in shame and guilt, whereas going with the flow results in very positive feelings that one is a member in good standing of the mainstream society…Without elite control, there is no infrastructure that makes displays of guilt and abasement profitable. Social learning only becomes a weapon against Whites after the forces opposed to Whites control the elite media and the academic world; the same can be said for the creation of moral ingroups.
While it is tempting to cite culture as the lone culprit, culture is at its heart the product of biology—a culture is comprised of its people. So while the Jews impress an alien anti-morality upon us, if we were not receptive or at least susceptible to it, then I would not be running this website, quite frankly. The issue of white (self-) genocide would be as ludicrous as the idea of Chinese or Arab self-erasure. I have erroneously I now realize described the black impulse to seemingly exterminate itself via terrible intra-racial violence and a 61% abortion rate (in the US) as a self-genocide, but their birthrate is such that despite those two factors, plus other lifestyle and health considerations, it is enough for the “home-grown” American black population to generally preserve its population share. Globally the black population is such that we may be reaching critical mass for earth’s human carrying capacity, which is itself a terrible consequence of whites’ pathological altruism, as high-time preference Africans continue to pump out six to eight kids while we prevent the starvation and inoculate them against the multitude of lethal diseases on the continent that would keep the population of low-IQ, violent, and impulsive blacks at a manageable number. They return the favor by hating us and wanting to kill us. Indeed, it is a Malthusian nightmare of our own design.
Returning to the concept of “altruism-plus,” there is very obviously a racial component. This concern—altruism-plus—has been instrumental in the West’s evolution from frigid backwater to global shaper as kinship ties among whites are generally weaker and individual, “contractual” relationships are more emphasized than among other races. This enabled the West to have a greater degree of societal and economic complexity, and also to conceptualize—and trust in—more variegated forms of government beyond the strongman or Oriental despot. The biologically-driven cultural differences between whites and Asians, for example, are embedded deep in our neural wiring, and though there is clear evidence that all races are neuro-chemically wired to feel greater empathy toward their racial in-group, this response seems to be weakest among whites. Additionally, whites, unique among races, appear to have an elevated empathetic response, and it is not limited just to human beings. We know that, for example, “Race results suggested a comparative lack of interest in, and concern and affection for animals among nonwhites.”
There are significant psychological mechanisms of white dispossession at play here. One is weak racial consciousness/ethno-centrism. From the human bio-diversity blog Not Politically Correct (but anatomically so, making us kindred spirits):
Sacrificing your life for your nephew ensures that 25 percent of your genes are preserved, whereas sacrificing yourself for your offspring ensures that 50 percent of your genes survive and have the opportunity to reproduce. Clearly, the percentage of the shared amount of genes is a good predictor on whether or not an individual will act altruistically. It’s clear that what natural selection actually selects for is not individuals, but genes. Those genes that are advantageous to the group then pass on to the next generation, ensuring the group’s survival. Evolution selects for any social behavior that increases the likelihood of whatever group/culture that will spread its genes on to the next generation.
Could the weak racial consciousness of whites in the presence of more racially-conscious groups be one reason for the cratering birthrates? After all, as E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas states:
It is biological law that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area...To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.
There’s certainly more to it, but group competition, scarcity, and conflict are ingrained in our very being. Nowhere has this been better illustrated in the metacognitive than in Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers:
All wars arise from population pressure. (Yes, even the Crusades, though you have to dig into trade routes and birth rate and several other things to prove it.) Morals — all correct moral rules derive from the instinct to survive; moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level — as in a father who dies to save his children. But since population pressure results from the process of surviving through others, then war, because it results from population pressure, derives from the same inherited instinct which produces all moral rules suitable for human beings.
Check of proof: is it possible to abolish war by relieving population pressure (and thus do away with the all-too evident evils of war) through constructing a moral code under which population is limited to resources?
Without debating the usefulness or morality of planned parenthood, it may be verified by observation that any breed which stops its own increase gets crowded out by breeds which expand. Some human populations did so, in Terran history, and other breeds moved in and engulfed them. Nevertheless, let’s assume that the human race manages to balance birth and death, just right to fit its own planets, and thereby becomes peaceful. What happens?
Soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off this breed which "ain’ta gonna study war no more" and the universe forgets us. Which still may happen. Either we spread and wipe out the Bugs, or they spread and wipe us out — because both races are tough and smart and want the same real estate. Do you know how fast population pressure could cause us to fill the entire universe shoulder to shoulder? The answer will astound you, just the flicker of an eye in terms of the age of our race.
Try it — it’s a compound-interest expansion.
But does Man have any "right" to spread through the universe? Man is what he is, a wild animal with the will to survive, and (so far) the ability, against all competition. Unless one accepts that, anything one says about morals, war, politics — you name it — is nonsense. Correct morals arise from knowing what Man is — not what do gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be. The universe will let us know — later — whether or not Man has any "right" to expand through it.
Framed in our present time, from Chateau Heartiste:
If one race is less able to empathize with an individual’s suffering or perspective, that race likely has evolved a moral impulse that is incompatible with the morality that governs societies created and maintained by races with greater empathetic ability…We have a disease in White Western societies. It’s a condition called empathobesity, and in a globalist world with open borders and cheap airfare it will mean the self-annihilation of the West if a cure isn’t found soon…Consequently, if we let more of these inwardly deaf races of people into the Anglosphere, they will remake their new nations in the image of their morally primitive homelands, and the morality that self-righteous White liberals take for granted as a foundation for their system of law and informal rules of social interaction will slowly, inexorably, disappear from the face of the earth, leaving their cherished constitutions worth no more than the memories evoked in old-timers who lived through the Dispossession Wars. Because I’ve got somber news for liberals reading this: Don’t expect history to be on your side for much longer. In game theoretic match-ups, low-empathy ethnocentrism reproductively out-competes high-empathy humanitarianism. The fate of people who believe in leftoid equalism isn’t one world; it’s a world without them.
Whites especially are inherently dynamic in vision and thinking: without goals whites sink into a spiritual malaise, wither away, and die, both metaphorically and literally. Presently we have a civilization on the retreat from having subdued most of the globe, and we have a culture that is alien and utterly vapid; divorced from real meaning, people turn to escapism, often in very unhealthy ways. Literally millions of people die globally from alcohol abuse every year. In the United States, as in so many other Western nations, rampant opioid and anti-depressant abuse has given rise to a shocking number of deaths by despair, otherwise leaving individuals even more hollowed-out than before they began, numb and non-threatening. SSRI abuse may be one reason we seem incapable of resisting our demographic destruction (I discussed the role of serotonin in Vol. IV); regarding the opioid epidemic (fueled in no small part by the Jewish-owned Purdue Pharma), Jim Goad has an interesting theory, which draws the parallel between an opium-addicted China in the 19th century and its carving-up by the “Great Powers.”
Another factor to consider is the recently-introduced and –researched concept of “superhumanization bias,” where whites “preferentially attribute superhuman capabilities to blacks versus whites.” Primarily, though, the pathologization of altruism seems to be the root of these maladaptive psychological mechanisms. As Eva Ritvo informs us, “The altruism center of the brain is considered a ‘deep brain structure,’ part of the primitive brain.” Our brain’s ability to process emotional influences is directly tied to our genes; according to lead author Rebecca Todd of a recently-conducted study by the University of British Columbia:
“People really do see the world differently,” says lead author Rebecca Todd, a professor in UBC’s Department of Psychology. “For people with this gene variation, the emotionally relevant things in the world stand out much more.”…The gene in question is ADRA2b, which influences the neurotransmitter norepinephrine…Carriers of the gene variation showed significantly more activity in a region of the brain responsible for regulating emotions and evaluating both pleasure and threat... The ADRA2b deletion variant appears in varying degrees across different ethnicities. Although roughly 50 per cent of the Caucasian population studied by these researchers in Canada carry the genetic variation, it has been found to be prevalent in other ethnicities. For example, one study found that just 10 per cent of Rwandans carried the ADRA2b gene variant.
Another Danish study conducted on children found that non-Westerners were significantly less empathetic than their white counterparts. Two other studies found the gene to be found at an incidence of 50% in Swiss participants (de Quervain, 2007) and an incidence of 56% in Dutch participants (Cousijn et al., 2010). Blacks have consistently been found to have the fewest carriers of the ADRA2b gene variant; in two American studies, Small et al. (2001) and Belfer et al. (2005) found a higher incidence in whites at 31% and 37%, respectively, versus that of blacks at 12% and 21%, respectively.
There are other measurable as well; blacks give less than all other races in gratuities. According to study conducted by Lisa Leslie at the University of Minnesota, women donate more to charity than men, and minorities donate less to charity than whites. Even in death blacks are less charitable, seldom listing themselves as organ donors—apparently because “It’s hard to make a case for the altruism in organ donation when our medical system has historically not been altruistic to us.” This is a pathetic “justification,” but one which has all of the basis in biological predisposition, not some misguided “Unforgiveable Blackness” protest bullshit. Blacks are simply not as altruistic or empathetic as whites. Empathy is vital to be able to imagine things from others’ perspectives—which might well explain why high-empathy whites are significantly better at crafting narratives than blacks, especially ones that do not revolve specifically around their race, something almost no blacks appear capable of, or are at the very least willing to attempt. Other studies have found very low levels of affective empathy in Pacific Islanders and the Chinese.
While ADRA2b is not necessarily the be-all end-all to understanding affective empathy, the consequences of these findings are extremely significant. White liberals believe themselves to be given the duty of “global uplift”—“The White Savior Industrial Complex”—and the “White Man’s Burden” has long been a trope in Western ventures foreign and domestic. Combined with maladaptive ethno-non-centrism/racial consciousness (or worse, an ethno-masochistic pathology, as the term was first coined by Alain de Benoist, or “white submissives” as Spencer Quinn calls them) and an Orientalizing of the Other (xenophilia), racial White Knighting has founded itself on a perversion of a natural biological impulse: an increasingly feminized discourse saturated in saccharine platitudes of “compassion” also funnels white women’s “motherly instincts” into the Third World instead of the babies these women refuse to have. Maternal investment is one of the factors in whites developing the way they do; nuke the family and the entire civilizational apparatus breaks down. This hyper-individualism wears the mask of caring, nurturing compassion but it is instead a sensualistic narcissism which, imbued as it is with puritanical moralizing, renders the barren Western womb, devoid of any true femininity, nothing but a childless prude in epicureans’ clothing. This is the archetypal “cat lady.”
From cat ladies to Jim Goad’s “New Church Ladies,” the concurrent secular theology of Social Justice and a reversion to Christian universalism and abandonment of the native European pagan infusion of what is essentially an alien faith, often unconsciously received, has become a significant hindrance to whites’ foregrounding of in-group interests (I discuss said infusion here) as this universalism aids in the disabling of whites’ guardian function by “playing on” our naturally elevated levels of altruistic behavior and instincts. To quote Barbara A. Oakley:
For cooperative behavior to continue in complex biological or sociological entities, that is, for entities not to fall prey to ever-present, ever-evolving defectors, some form of evolving active guardian function must be present that detects when debilitating or destructive advantage is being taken of cooperative or altruistic behavior. The guardian system must not only detect but also disable such noncooperative behavior or render the entity immune to the pernicious effects. Without such detection and mitigation mechanisms, we see modeled evolutionary entities that are wiped out by defectors (note: emphasis added).
With Christianity increasingly the gospel of Social Justice—and Social Justice the repudiation of Christianity—we are at once spiritually devoid of the animating energies of the uniquely European version of Christianity from our “middle age” while at the same time, for those seeking guidance in Christianity’s doctrines, the ancient/modern form encourages, paradoxically, the radical and the defective while simultaneously belonging to the masses. We have these competing-yet-intertwined models of universalism and individualism, pride in the herd and the sanctity of the collective but racial denialism for whites only. The entire orientation of Western civilization has become centered on its own self-destruction as a uniquely evil force in the world—a mindset diametrically opposed to the actual truth of the matter.
Through a devastating combination of fear, guilt, apathy, nihilism, narcissism, affluence, cultural amnesia, pathological altruism, incentives to virtue-signal, irreligiosity and Christian meekness, psycho-pharmacology, a disabled guardian function, the scars from and the loss of two generations from the two World Wars, plus more than a little help from our Jewish “friends,” ultimately it seems that it’s no one thing but rather the synergistic effect of these afflictions that’s created the perfect storm of “privilege-abdicating,” civilization-dismantling whites. Ted Sallis asks us to:
Imagine a scenario in which the USA is majority non-White, many of the major nations of Western Europe are majority non-White, other European nations are rapidly headed for similar status, Whites are a subaltern minority in what used to be their nations and homelands, a minority ruled by sneering aliens and step-and-fetchit White traitors. The grand dream of a White resistance to “turn the tide before it is too late” has failed to come to pass. The mainstreaming nationalists have failed to cash in on their groveling slithering toward the political center. The game is up and the White Man has lost. What then?
Will the world really be a better place without us?
 Lepowsky, M. (2011). The boundaries of personhood, the problem of empathy, and “the native’s point of view” in the outer islands, in D.W. Hollan, C. J. Throop (eds).The Anthropology of Empathy: Experiencing the Lives of Others in Pacific Societies, (pp. 43-68), New York: Berghahn.