Has altruism ruined the West?

Completely aside from Christianity, we let the altruism which seems to be unique to our people run wild. It is wonderful that we care about one another, that more than in any other race there are among us individuals who really do feel the pain of others. It is wonderful that many of us want to preserve the rain forests of South America and the great wild beasts of Africa for their own sake. Whenever one of these United Nations commissions is organized to protect some part of our natural environment on this planet, I have a strong suspicion that all of the non-White members on the commission are there strictly for window dressing and for the stipend they receive for lending their non-White faces to the commission. Certainly, were it not for specifically White sensibilities, there would be no one combating the fur trade or trying to save the whales or the redwoods or anything else.

All of that is wonderful, but it is not wonderful that so many of us who are able to feel the pain of others do not seem to have the farsighted understanding which should go along with that empathy. We seem to have achieved that understanding when it comes to things such as forest and wildlife management. We understand that it often is good to permit Nature to take its course in the case of forest fires, or in maintaining the natural balance between predator and prey, and so on. But we need to apply the same considerations to the non-White races. We never should have permitted medical intervention in the non-White world. We should not be trying now to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa. We should not even consider famine relief for Ethiopia. We should not interfere in the mutual genocide between Hutus and Tutsis. Unless we temper our altruism with intelligence — and especially, unless we limit it to our own race — it will destroy us rather than help us achieve a higher civilization and a higher grade of humanity on this planet.

What rules us now is a soft-headed, mushy, egalitarian, feminine sort of altruism, where we are more inclined to feed the starving picaninnies of Africa than to take account of the fact that every picaninny who doesn’t starve to death now will grow up to breed more picaninnies. We feel sorry for the disease-ridden Blacks and Browns of the world, and instead of keeping them and their diseases strictly confined to their part of the world, we bring them into our part of the world so that we can share their diseases — as in the case of New York’s current outbreak of West Nile encephalitis imported from Africa.

What we need is a hard-headed, masculine sort of altruism, which makes us as concerned for the preservation of our own racial quality as for the stamping out of the fur trade, the sort of altruism which leads us to sterilize our own defectives rather than permitting them to breed a White welfare class, just as it leads us to thin out the two-legged population of Africa rather than permitting it to continue encroaching on the four-legged populations.

And you know, whenever I say something like that I can hear the screams of protest in the background. I can hear the softheaded altruists screaming that I am advocating genocide, and oh, isn’t that awful. But as a matter of fact, it is their policies which are leading to a far more terrible genocide, with our race as the victim.

When one has a world overcrowded with races competing for a limited living area and limited resources, there will be genocide. The feminine altruists cannot face that hard fact, and their activities simply guarantee a bloodier and more destructive genocide in the end. The masculine altruists, on the other hand, should be capable of imposing a necessary discipline in order to preserve the health of a beleaguered planet and permit its most valuable life forms to continue developing, instead of being dragged down by the least valuable.

Of course, this whole discussion is academic at this point. The masculine altruists are outgunned now by those who, for one reason or another, oppose the imposition of any discipline. Certainly, many more White people, and not just in New York, will die from West Nile encephalitis, from drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis, and from a hundred other exotic diseases which the shortsighted, feminine altruists have inflicted on us. Instead of banning the carriers of these diseases from our continent, we will continue wringing our hands over the fact that so many Africans are dying from AIDS, and we’ll continue trying to find a cure. And many, many more of our people, like the National Alliance medical worker in Phoenix will come to hate their jobs, hate the neighborhoods in which they live, hate the schools they attend.

I have mentioned some of the historical causes of our problem: causes for which we ourselves are largely to blame. But there also are more recent causes. Within ourselves we have both regressive and progressive tendencies — both feminine tendencies and hardheaded, masculine tendencies.

Yes

Itsa gooda pasta

The real problem is that there is no way for the electorate to veto the decisions of bent imbecile politicians such as Tony Blair.

Throwing the bums out does not reverse the evil decisions they made or undo the damage done.

altruism = masochism

We never should’ve gave women the right to vote. We never should’ve desegregated blacks. We never should’ve allowed mass immigration. But yes, liberalism is the source of the feminine altruism you describe. There should be a way to combat it, but no one has a found an effective way. Our policies are becoming more liberal every passing year

Europe hates the concept of popular government.

christcucks must die an masse to save western civilization

they must die so we can live

Cameron was worse than Blair

It's the brain-damaged pastors who should be shunted off to concentration camps.

Yes.
But, altruism as a concept logically includes pathological altruism. It's possible to help others at your own expense while being sensible enough not to be self-destructive.
This will be a hard lesson to learn. I hope we see some correction before reaching the point where future generations for a thousand years learn the lesson that compassion and wanting to help others is a suicidally stupid mistake.
I want a world of altruism, and the blind do-gooders motivated by self-congratulatory cool points and in-group accolades are the biggest threat to that happening.

So? The point applies as much to Cameron as it does Blair or any other politician.

Altruism is good, but, it has been hi-jacked by malevolent men whose aim is the destruction of white Europe. Giving Third Worlders a better life is of no real concern to them.

The West has been defeated in a psychological war. This Third World invasion is a consequence of that defeat.

I want you to know. OP, that I did read this all and I appreciate you typing this out.

>Whenever one of these United Nations commissions is organized to protect some part of our natural environment on this planet, I have a strong suspicion that all of the non-White members on the commission are there strictly for window dressing and for the stipend they receive for lending their non-White faces to the commission.

This hit me hard. It really does feel this way.

Overcivilized, yes.

NO altruism is good and normal.
BUT! you're supposed to be altruistic towards people of your own tribe. Altruism for your friends, family, or people who look like you is normal...Same goes for animals. You can also have altruism for animals. (even if you're not a vegetarian). And yes, you can also have altruism for other races.

But problem arises when you inverse your altruistic priorities.

Ex: There's a fire in your flat. But there's people left in the building. You have the choice to either save your kid or your neighbor's kid. But not both. What do you do?

If you save your neighbor's kid, then you are mentally ill. Either that or you never loved your own flesh and blood. Or you have such a monumental ego, that you'd rather have your kid dead...Just to be praised and labeled as a saint. Because for whatever reason, what gets your dick hard is to project the image of someone who's "morally noble". (i.e. virtue signaling".

People who virtue signal are mentally ill. They don't do it out of pure love or generosity. or even self-sacrifice. They do it out of egocentrism. That's why you have people who are willing to travel to the other side of the world to "save the poor", yet will ignore bums right across their streets (from the same race & culture)...They don't have their priorities in check, because what truely matters to them is the image they're projecting to the rest of the world. It's like an intellectual masturbation of the ego if you will.

And yes, these types of people have no limits. They're willing to destroy their own country, race, civilisation just to masturbate their own egos. "Look how noble i am!" , "look how morally superior i am!"... They're mentally ill. But that's not the scariest thing.
These people have the right to vote. That's the catastrophic thing about it.

...

The most dangerous enemy libtards face is other libtards. If a libtard goes off message other libtards have a license to turn on them like a shoal of piranha.

Altruism is really about assisting people who are more genetically related to you than other people.