Pathological altruism,continued

Australia hostage siege: Muslim leaders condemn 'criminal' act as IllRideWithYou trends worldwide - Australasia - World - The Independent:

'via Blog this'

Worth repeating

A post from Jan 2014

A avidity with which White liberals and cuckservatives both get caught up in "caring" and "being concerned" about hostile strangers --both domestic and foreign-- continues to amaze me.

It is sickness, the disease of Christianoid decline, pathological altruism...based on ethnomasochism.

For the sake of people who would never in a million years do the same for you, you condemn your own to death. Cruelly painful to watch.

---

Reality based?

Reviewing a philosophy book about whether nations have a right to exclude others...

If I were to attempt my own analysis of what Profs. Wellman and Cole are pleased to call “racism,” I would begin by pointing out that Homo sapiens evolved for many thousands of years in small kinship-based hunter-gatherer bands. Survival under such circumstances depended on cooperation within the group, even extending to a willingness of individuals to sacrifice themselves for the group. 

On the other hand, survival also depended on success in competition with other hunter-gatherer bands. Relations between such bands, therefore, fluctuated between deep suspicion and murderous hatred. Any mistake in one’s perception of group boundaries was likely to be punished with death. 

Over the ages, humans became adapted to this state of affairs through natural selection. They developed a deep sense of the distinction between “our people” and “outsiders.” A dual pattern of behavior developed, involving cooperation and altruism within the group and suspicion or hostility toward those outside. This evolutionary adaptation is still visible in its rawest form among man’s nearest evolutionary relatives, African chimpanzees, which unhesitatingly kill intruders found within the territory of their troop. 

We have inherited all of this. But because of our higher cognitive development, the raw tribal instinct is flexible and educable to some extent: men genetically programmed for loyalty to a band of not more than a hundred kinsmen can be taught loyalty to a larger nation. Such education, however, is an entirely different matter from the eradication of all sense of group distinctions recommended by “antiracists” such as Prof. Cole. Group loyalties of some sort are as natural to man as economic self-interest, and attempting to abolish them through exhortation and punishment is about as likely to succeed as the Soviet attempt to make people selfless through enforced collectivization. 

A vast scientific literature exists to back up the extremely brief sketch I have just given. It has been produced by students of genetics, animal behavior, childhood development, evolutionary psychology, and even sociology. None of it was produced by philosophy departments. A quick look at our authors’ references makes clear that most of their reading is devoted to the work of other contemporary academic philosophers. Most of this seems to consist of armchair speculation as to what a perfectly fair world of universal love would look like. The work under review is, therefore, likely to reinforce the very worst prejudices against the authors’ own discipline. Political and moral philosophy would find a firmer basis in the careful study of human nature.

Secondary gain

For you benighted souls
who may not recognize this image,

click here.

One of the ex post facto reasons I've discovered for liking my friend Bill is that he is such a seething bundle of contradictory opinions that he makes me feel consistent and integrated by comparison.

Chatting at dinner last night with my ex T, as we typically do on Friday nites, Bill opined about the virtues of direct democracy, like the Athenians had, and about the decrease in real democracy suffered by large representative republics like ours, on which grounds he found American self-congratulation about our democracy quite hollow.

In any other context, Bill has a view of homo sapiens so low and so hostile that on my worst day I would be acclaimed a liberal humanitarian by contrast. To imagine that he would want to be governed directly by our loathesome species, in a universally suffraged voting mob no less, is laughable.

And of course he neglected to note that Athenian "democracy" was severely limited to non-slave adult male citizens who had completed military service, no more than 20% of the city's actual population.

But then, part of his charm is his ability to passionately hold inconsistent, even antagonistic, nay, massively contradictory positions simultaneously. From a self-described Christian Nihilist*, who would expect less? Being the well-read fella that he is, when I point this out to him, he just smiles and quotes Walt Whitman:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then I contradict myself,
I am large, I contain multitudes.



*Not a bad monicker for liberals in general: all the martyred and selfless high-minded perfectionism of Christian morality with not an ounce of groundedness either in nature, history, race, metaphysics or divinity. As recently described, it is the politics of pathological altruism. The Island of Laputa as a cultural program.

---

Pathological altruism

Family confirms American aid worker held by ISIS is dead | New York Post:

A White disease.

'via Blog this'

Religion and Power

I am, let's be clear, in favor of both. As long as it's the right kind of religion with the right kind of power.  Pope Evita's fraudulent mirage of "a poor, dirty, servant Church" is dishonest crap. And every call he makes for this kind of humility is a way for him to inflate his own ego. Typical.

One of the contemptible contradictions within liberals --women especially-- that I noticed many years ago, even before my conversion, was their simultaneous depreciation of power as an evel and their ravenous hunger for it. When White Males had it, it was oppression or "power over", as they liked to say. Especially if it made them feel "less than." But if Official Sacred Victim Groups gained it, it was "empowering." The whole thing was BS. Still is.

Anyway, most people and most peoples, I suspect, embraced their religions precisely as sources of power in the world. Maybe not the original believers, but once a movement got going and you could smell its future, yes.

Why did all those barbarian kings in Europe convert to Christianity? Surely not out of entrancement with the Sermon on the Mount? For the same reason that Constantine had the ChiRho painted on his soldiers' shields: power. They could see that this was the religion of the strong.

When Europe was Christian, even though the very same requirements of love and mercy and forgiveness and blah blah blah were in place, it would never have entered their minds to let Muslims flood into their lands. They didn't even like it when Jews showed up.

Why? Because more important than the actual moral content of The Faith was the moral status they had as the possessors of The Faith. That was the nexus between religion and power. They were God's special people. In real terms, belonging to the One True Church was more important than living out the mendicant lifestyle of the Gospels. And it was right and natural and even theologically correct.

Once Europeans jettisoned the Old Faith for the New One --Enlightened Liberalism-- all that remained was the (impossible) moral content without the protection afforded by the Church and its (quite rational) self-aggrandizing dogmas of exclusive access to truth and God.

And now we are being swamped by the Jihad and the Reconquista and the consummate moron on the throne of St Peter abandons his own people, the tottering children of a spectral Christendom, because for him, as for all liberals, his  public moral performance and pathological altruism means more to them than the survival of his own kin.

To hell with them all.

----

Apophthegmata non patrum

Two good thoughts, altered in form,  via Greg Johnson.

Equality: creationism for liberals.

White guilt and White grandiosity: two sides of the same coin.

---

A

When it comes to human origins, liberals are Darwinian fundamentalists. Evolution via natural selection, absent any hint of a spiritus rector, is the required POV for admission to polite society.

When it comes to human actualities, however, "equality!"  And actual evidence be damned. Equality, the counterfactual status of which is evident to anyone who can unblind themselves to the mantras, must be chanted endlessly, lest the actual consequences of Darwin be revealed. 

And as I have written before, we then have the ludicrous spectacle of liberals, who believe that we are just clever apes, requiring us to live more like angels than the Church ever did.

B

Whites take vastly disproportionate responsibility for the world. Didn't we invent the silly idea of "humanitarianism?"  Certainly a good part of that pathological altruism and its leapfrog morality is a greatly inflated sense of our own power and worth hiding underneath all the Lenten self-flagellation. Once you take a Christian conscience and erase the Christian God, you have to take His place as the One Responsible For Everything (the grandiose part) but since you are manifestly sinful flawed and limited, then you are in a perpetual state of repentance with no one to forgive you (the guilty part).

When foolish college girls run off to perform some saving work for Africans (in Africa, of course; Baltimore seems not to be on the exhibitionist menu), the underlying assumption is that she, as a privileged Caucasianette "global citizen", has something to offer them that they can't get by themselves. Her foreground motivation is guilt-inspired responsibility but the background belief is in her special snowflakeness. 

There are many theories of the origins of this sad condition, but it does lead to the pathetic sight of highminded Whites traitorously competing for moral status by proclaiming and denouncing the sins of their people before a tribunal composed entirely of their envious and resentful enemies. Who the hell else would engage in such bizarrely suicidal antics? The Chinese? The Muslims? The Blacks? La Raza? Who?

Do you see why I think Whites are The Most Foolish People On The Planet ©?

____

The awful truth, continued

Another fine line from Chateau Heartiste --who's been quite helpful in enabling me to work smarter with my straight guy clients, btw--

What does it mean to be white? To construct a civilization whose decline is marked by outgroup altruism and ingroup malice.

---