Pathological Altruism

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July 6, 2012

The psychology of white dispossession.

Barbara Oakley, Et. Al, Pathological Altruism, Oxford University Press, 2012, 465 pp., $55.00.

Pathological Altruism is a fascinating book. As a long-time student of the most common and dangerous of all pathological altruisms—the willingness of whites to give up their homelands to non-whites—I was hoping at least one of the 48 contributions would mention this problem. None does, but several throw useful but indirect light on it. The book is also filled with eye-opening observations about human nature and how the brain works, and its main editor, Barbara Oakley of the University of Michigan, has done a wonderful job of eliminating repetition and contradiction. Even Edward O. Wilson of Harvard has written that this book taught him something completely new, and I believe him.

“Pathological altruism” (PA) is a relatively new concept; the term entered the scientific literature only in 1984. There has been very little written about it, partly because altruism is so highly regarded in the West that few scientists dare criticize it. This book makes it clear that PA is a problem well worth studying.

PA is generally defined as a sincere attempt to help others that instead harms others or oneself, and is “an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one’s own needs.” Several of the contributors offer tantalizing definitions: PA is likely when people “falsely believe that they caused the other’s problems, or falsely believe that they have the means to relieve the person of suffering.” Or, it is “the false belief that one’s own success, happiness, or well-being is a source of unhappiness for others.” PA “often involves self-righteousness,” and can result in “impulsive and ineffective efforts to equalize or level the playing field.”

Together, these definitions are an almost perfect description of white liberal attitudes towards non-whites, yet none of the contributors seems to be aware of this.

A typical case of PA is the battered wife who thinks her own behavior makes her husband violent, and who stays with him because she fears he will commit suicide if she leaves. Another would be a depressed person who mistakenly believes that if he kills himself he will no longer be a burden on his family—and so he kills himself. Some people falsely think their own success comes at the expense of family members or co-workers, and try to make amends for their undeserved achievements.

What is known as co-dependency, or helping someone who is obviously hurting himself, can be another kind of PA. Examples would be giving too much food to a morbidly obese child or lying to a spouse’s employer to cover up his alcoholism. Co-dependents often have low opinions of themselves, and sacrifice their own needs for the person they are caring for. Sometimes they are driven by an inability to tolerate unhappiness or anger from the object of their PA; again, a good description of how whites treat non-whites.

“Animal hoarders” are another example of PA. They fill their houses with “rescued” pets but fail to look after them. They declare their love for animals even as they step over the bodies of dogs and cats that have died of malnutrition. They often neglect their own health, living in tumble-down houses filled with animal filth. Hoarders usually started out with a strong childhood attachment to animals but were neglected or abused by their own parents. They often start hoarding after they suffer some kind of personal setback, such as a divorce or losing a job.

People who have chronically sick family members sometimes become pathological altruists, devoting themselves to serving the patient. If they, themselves, get sick, they tend to believe they are a painful burden to others and to refuse seek help.

Anorexics have a streak of PA in them. Most are women, who were unusually considerate and giving when they were children. As they get older they want to feed and look after people, even as they starve themselves. Some refuse sleep or medical care in addition to food. People with eating disorders are very good at reading the needs of others, and clinics for them are full of women trying to take care of each other. Most anorexics are white.

Human Nature and Biology

Empathy and altruism can clearly get out of hand, but they are part of human nature. Even infants and toddlers show signs of empathy, and try to help people in distress. When babies hear other babies crying, they cry in sympathy. However, if children have been abused or live in tense households they may be hostile to people who are suffering.

Almost all adults sympathize when they see suffering—those who do not are psychopaths—and this instinct appears to have evolved for two reasons. Altruism within the family or kin group makes evolutionary sense because the beneficiaries carry many of the same genes as the altruist. Also, our evolutionary environment was one in which we could easily find ourselves face to face with people who had less food than we did. We probably evolved an impulse to share, both because this improved social relations, and because those we helped might someday help us. This is probably why beggars make people uncomfortable; they stimulate our built-in urge to share. Some people give in to that urge but others just try to get away from beggars.

Experiments in which people are tested to see how altruistic they will behave under controlled conditions suggest that we are a lot more altruistic than we need to be—and in fact people often do return lost wallets, donate blood, and do favors for people they will never see again. One of the contributors, Satoshi Kanazawa, theorizes that this is because the brain has a hard time comprehending things that never happened in the small-band evolutionary environment: “Contemporary humans may cooperate with genetically unrelated others, mistakenly (and unconsciously) thinking that they are kin or repeated exchange partners.”

There is no genetic or material payoff for being nice to total strangers, but we are nice to them anyway because our distant ancestors rarely had to deal with total strangers. Cheating and stealing would make better sense, but we treat strangers like members of the tribe.

What makes altruism go off the rails? One theory is that it can simply be an extreme example of a personality trait we all have. Psychologists talk about the Five-Factor Model of personality, which measures neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Pathological altruists may be too agreeable, and therefore let people take advantage of them. The graph below (from page 89) is the personality profile of a woman who lived entirely for her husband and her family. She was self-sacrificing, docile, and had no ideas of her own. She was more like a servant than a wife, and her husband beat her. Whites, as a race, are excessively “agreeable” to other races.

We can detect agreeableness and friendliness, even in strangers. Studies of rapists suggest that they target women who seem open and agreeable. People who are considerate also tend to marry each other—though some givers end up enslaved to takers.

Another theory about the origins of PA is that it can be seen as the result of an excessively female brain. Women are more likely than men to be co-dependents and have eating disorders. Girls are more compliant than boys, better behaved, and more eager to please. They are better able to figure out the needs of others. They are politically more “liberal,” and more likely to think that an important function of government is to take care of people. Low levels of testosterone in the womb during fetal development is associated with higher levels of empathy in both sexes.

PA may be the mirror image of autism, which is far more common in boys than in girls, and is characterized by an inability to sense the feelings of others. One author speculates that there are probably as many female pathological altruists as there are males with autism.

There are parts of the brain that light up and signal sympathy when we see people in pain or being punished. Psychological studies have been set up in which the brains of subjects were scanned while they watched the punishment of people who had cheated in a game. The sympathy circuits in women’s brains lit up; those in men did not. Men appear to lose their instinctive sympathy for pain when they think it is deserved, whereas women remain sympathetic.

There is very strong evidence that altruistic behavior is under genetic control. The genetic abnormality known as Williams Syndrome has been called “the pathology of overfriendliness,” and people who suffer from it are excessively trusting and sympathetic. They are somewhat retarded and easily become victims of sexual abuse. They have abnormalities in the part of the brain known as the amygdala, which is involved in reading facial expressions and assessing threats. They are perhaps the only known group of people who show no racial bias.

People with Williams Syndrome can be recognized by these facial deformities.

The amygdala, anterior temporal cortex, and insula are parts of the brain involved in sensing the pain of others. Psychopaths have less brain matter in these locations than normal people, and it may be that people with more brain matter in these areas have a tendency towards PA.

The neurotransmitter serotonin appears to alter moral judgment, making people less willing to offend others, while oxytocin increases sociability and trusting—within the group. According to one study, oxytocin makes people more likely to sacrifice for their in-group and oppose those in the out-group. The genes known as DRD4, IGF2, and DRD5 have been associated with altruism and selflessness. As one of the contributors notes, “It seems safe to conclude, then, that traits behind costly altruistic behaviors are under a substantial biological influence that manifests itself through a variety of neurohormonal pathways and mechanisms that have only just begun to be understood.”

Addictive States of Mind

Altruism is also linked to the limbic system, meaning that doing good is related to the brain’s system of rewarding itself. When people are generous, they get the same kind of pleasurable jolt as from music, sex, exercise, and performing a skill. Psychic self reward of this kind is normal. It appears, however, that some people become addicted to the sensation of altruism. This is the kind of person who throws himself into self sacrifice, sainthood, or martyrdom.

Mother Theresa: altruism addict?

Two of the most fascinating chapters in this book describe the way the brain thrives on self-righteousness and the conviction of being in the right. Contributor Robert A. Burton of the UC San Francisco Medical Center issues a warning that is worth quoting at length:

Despite the fact that a moral conviction feels like a deliberate rational conclusion to a particular line of reasoning, it is neither a conscious choice nor a thought process. Certainty and similar states of ‘knowing that we know’ arise out of primary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, function independently of rationality or reason …

What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient, or bombing an Israeli school bus. It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control.

In other words, just because you are convinced something is right does not make it right. The sensations of rightness and nobility are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or consequences. Dr. Burton continues:

Talk to an insistent know-it-all who refuses to consider contrary opinions and you get a palpable sense of how the feeling of knowing can create a mental state akin to addiction … [I]magine the profound effect of feeling certain that you have ultimate answers … Relinquishing such strongly felt personal beliefs would require undoing or lessening major connections with the overwhelmingly seductive pleasure-reward circuitry. Think of such a shift of opinion as producing the same type of physiological changes as withdrawing from drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes.

Science writer and novelist David Brin writes about the same thing, noting that “dogmatic self-righteousness is often an ‘addiction’.” He adds that “sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”  He calls this need to stimulate the brain with self righteousness “self doping,” and defines it as follows:

The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence.

This is the kind of conviction that can lead to acts of altruism that are clearly pathological. At the same time, whether these authors know it or not, they have provided a strikingly vivid portrait of mental state of anti-racism and of the motives that drive it. In the West, there is nothing that offers more ecstatic self-righteousness than denouncing “racism.”

The Un-Fair Campaign ( is an example of pathological altruism in action.

In past ages, there have been different ways to gorge on blinkered, hateful, joyous denunciation: Religious fanatics burned heretics, commissars executed kulaks, Muslims beheaded apostates (and still do). Today, liberals hate “racists”—and “homophobes” and “sexists” and “fascists”—with the same Old Testament hatred. They are so drunk on self-righteous denunciation they are impervious to reality. Religion has not declined in the West; it has only taken new forms. Communism was religion for Communists, and liberalism is religion for liberals.

Of course, people at all points of the political spectrum can hold self-righteous beliefs in direct contradiction to the facts. As Dr. Brin points out, scientists get interesting results when they use committed Democrats or Republicans as test subjects. They have them watch a persuasive presentation that argues against their beliefs, and monitor their brains to see how they react. The parts of the brain involved in normal, logical reasoning are not active. Instead, the brain reverts to sucking its thumb, with the reward circuitry firing away, just like an addict getting a shot of cocaine. Strong conviction seems to turn off the brain’s logic circuits.

This effect is especially strong in the case of altruism, because people both “self dope” with it and win the praise of others. One chapter raises the question of whether most foreign aid is not PA, especially the kind practiced by celebrities. The singer Madonna claims she wants to “literally transform the future of an entire generation.” Bill Clinton says, “There’s a whole world out there that needs you, down the street or across the ocean. Give.” Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Warren buffet, are other showy examples of what could be called “philanthrocapitalism.”

Over a trillion dollars has been sunk into black Africa since 1960, with not much to show for it. Why do people keep giving? As this chapter explains, people get a huge psychological boost from administering aid: “While charity has a mixed record helping others, it has an almost perfect record of helping ourselves.” The authors note that “staring at pictures of starving children can, in some sense, hijack the analytical portions of the brain,” resulting in “altruism” that is nothing short of crazy. After the 2004 tsunami did so much damage in South Asia, “altruists” sent Viagra, Santa suits, high-heeled shoes, evening gowns, and loads of other junk. After an earthquake in Pakistan, Westerners sent so much completely inappropriate clothing that people burned it to stay warm.

Journalist Linda Polman has pointed out that foreign aid can even provoke atrocities. Warring gangs in Africa or elsewhere know that bounty follows headlines, so they do something especially horrible and wait for truckloads of relief to show up—which they steal. The leaders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone made a name for themselves in the late 1990s by cutting off the arms of women and children. The RUF’s leaders knew this would bring caravans of booty.

The authors of this chapter note that poorly thought out foreign aid has repeatedly had disastrous effects. They suggest that if aid is to continue, it should be run by engineers, not the current glory seekers.

Some of the authors in this book argue that there is no such thing as genuinely disinterested altruism, and that even the most seemingly generous acts are self serving. Mother Theresa may have been a “saint,” but she was just doing what she wanted to do. In the case of government foreign aid and non-profits, the people who ladle out uplift and bask in praise are not even spending their own money.

Altruism and Groups

Some of the chapters in this book touch on group differences. Dr. Brin notes that glorifying altruism is both recent and Western. He believes that a society must have a certain level of material wealth before it can value certain kinds of altruism. Only when people have enough to eat do they shift “from predation to inclusion” and think about animal rights rather than the next chicken dinner. He points out that only Europeans have decided “to elevate altruism above other culturally promoted ideals, such as tribal patriotism and glory-at-arms, which our ancestors considered paramount.” They have gone even further, extending tribal altruism to the entire world, though “some other cultures consider this Western quality to border on madness.” Of course, it is madness, but Europeans who point this out are punished.

Some preliminary research suggests that people of different ethnicities and religions have different levels of guilt and show different levels of altruism. No doubt what is considered normal social behavior in one culture may be seen as extreme self-sacrifice in another. When Koreans and Americans act altruistically different parts of the brain appear to be involved. Could this also be true for Koreans adopted as children and reared in America?

A few of the contributors write about “parochial altruism,” or acts that are meant to benefit one’s own group by harming another group. The clearest example of this is suicide bombers, who die in order to advance the cause of their people. The authors recognize suicide attacks as “a rational option when a weak insurgent group is opposing a very powerful group.” They are high-value missions in a war that some combatants are prepared to fight with any means available.

This is one form of altruism that is overwhelmingly male; scholars find that only about 20 percent of suicide bombers are women. Otherwise, biographical reconstructions of successful bombers and interviews with captured bombers show that aside from high altruism and devotion to a cause, they fit no profile and come from all walks of life.

Probably not women.

Some of the contributors to this volume recognize that in-group loyalty is part of human nature, but they worry about it leading to persecution of outsiders and wish it would go away. As one argues:

[D]efection from local in-groups is the highest form of altruism. Humanity as a whole might benefit the most if individuals made no sacrifices for their local group.

This is precisely the thinking that leads to oblivion: We will turn our backs on our own group in the hope that members of other groups will do the same—despite clear evidence that other groups have no such intention.

A somewhat less deceived writer advises that if groups want to act altruistically towards other groups they should at least look for groups that follow the same rules. But this is as far as the book goes. Group pathology leads only to mistreatment of out-groups. Apparently none of the authors can conceive of pathology in which the in-group mistreats itself for the benefit of strangers. Perhaps this was inevitable in the evil times in which we live.

For the most part, however, this book is comprehensive and even bold, but there are other lapses. The first example of pathological altruism, which appears on the first page of the first chapter, is the Buck v. Bell Supreme Court decision in which Oliver Wendell Holmes justified forcible sterilization because “society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Adolph Hitler appears in the next sentence.

There is also a chapter on something called “therapeutic jurisprudence” that says courts should heal and affirm and never humiliate people. This is also a mercifully short chapter by the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi that says nothing. These are rare exceptions. This is an insightful, provocative, beautifully edited book that will teach you a great deal you did not know.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anan7

     “Pathological altruism” is an intriguing way of looking at it, I never would have thought that way.  It is very accurate, a “shoot yourself in the foot” neurosis.

    I only wish people would see us for who we are and not the “racist” and “hatemongers” that Obama, et al. would paint us as.

    We defend our family/race from amalgamation.

    If blacks, Asians, Jews, etc., said what we say, no one would say anything bad about it.  What is so special about Whites?

    • Hitler’s curse. No matter how much blacks beat their chest and claim superiority, no one really fears that blacks could take over the world and kill off the other races. Pretty much the same with Asians, Jews, and Muslims.

      Whites, however, are a much different story. We have proven that if we beat our chests, claim to be the chosen ones and mobilize our resources, we can potentially take over the world. This is too much for some weak minded whites to handle.

      • mikejones91

        Blacks no—Jews, yes. Asians, probably. Whites, definitely. 

        • The Jews have the capacity, but not the numbers, there are only 13.5 million of them worldwide.

          Asians would seem to have the capacity, but historically they have not held up very well against Western armies. Japan was defeated single-handedly by the US despite the fact we dedicated most of our resources to fight the war in Europe. Same with China during the Korean war. Even in full retreat, we gave them a pyrric victory.

          • mikejones91

            Good point, and well put my friend. Your right about the Jews, I guess I missed that point lol.

      • Hirschibold

         One thing I know about Jews, they don’t bowl on certain days. And their wives make them bring Pomeranians to the lanes.

        • robinbishop34

          One thing I know about Jews, they don’t bowl on certain days.

           Is this a reference to ‘The Big Lebowski?’

          • Hirschibold


          • robinbishop34


      • Birger_Skruddusvingen

        “Whites, however, are a much different story. We have proven that if we beat our chests, claim to be the chosen ones and mobilize our resources, we can potentially take over the world.”

        Then let’s prove in again. ASAP on the double.

    • Birger_Skruddusvingen

      “If blacks, Asians, Jews, etc., said what we say, no one would say anything bad about it. What is so special about Whites?”

      Whites campaigning for their interests? Dat be rayciss! Rembema da terrubel legacy ob da terrubel slabery.

  • JohnEngelman

    The white liberal guilt complex can be seen as an aspect of pathological altruism. Many liberals think whites are responsible for black poverty in the United States and everywhere else blacks live. When one mentions black social pathology and inferior intellectual performance, liberals either try to shout the person down, or they blame those problems on whites too. 

    • The black population of the United States is predominantly only in the United States because of slavery… the descendants of that enslaved population were barred from attending college, many public schools, and even from public facilities like drinking water until the mid 1950’s.

      So remind me how white people aren’t responsible? The majority of black people alive in the US today are first-generation descendants of victims of intense racial segregation, who themselves are descendants of slavery.

      It takes more than a few generations for a population to recover from that type of treatment, even when there aren’t racial differences — women’s suffrage in the US started more than a hundred years ago and women are still struggling to be compensated as well as men working in the same roles.

      • JohnEngelman

        As soon as blacks were not discriminated against athletically they excelled. As soon as Jews were not discriminated against intellectually and academically they excelled.

        After the civil rights legislation was signed black rates of crime and illegitimacy increased. There was a slight convergence in black and white academic performance, but that has stopped. The race gap in SAT scores between blacks and whites has grown since 1986- 1987.

        The failure of No Child Left Behind lends fresh credence to the assertions of Professor J. Philippe Rushton in his essay “RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR.”

        The evolution of racial differences is brilliantly explained in “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution.”

  • University of Minnesota at Duluth has canceled its association with the “Unfair to be White” propaganda:

    Housekeeping:  Many of you (this moderator included) had problems logging on to Disqus accounts from the front end, so you were probably unable to post for most of yesterday afternoon and evening using the screen names of your registered Disqus accounts.  The problem seems to be fixed now, at least for me, so I presume it’s fixed for everyone else.

    Sometimes during the mid-afternoon and early evenings of weekdays, Disqus likes to go through something I call “evening crazies.”  Comments take a long time to appear on the backend even though registered users’ comments appear immediately on the front end, the delay can be as long as 50 minutes.  If you’re a non-registered user, whose comments need moderation, your comment will go into purgatory, where it will be neither visible on AR’s front or back ends, until Disqus catches up.  At some point in the mid-evening, the problem self-corrects.  I think the reason for the evening crazies is that Disqus can’t handle the evening rush.

    We had this problem yesterday, on top of the problem with people being unable to post.  Needless to say, yesterday was not a good day for this moderator.  I attribute this gray hair and that gray hair I found new this morning to yesterday.

    • Anan7

       hope your back feels better!

    • Hahhh….comments on the article could be written here.
      Btw, take care of your back.

    • NM156

      The stress from this heat isn’t doing anyone’s spine any good.

      • Now I can understand why people get addicted to opiates.

        I have thought this for a long time, so this is not a new and immediate insight for me thanks to my back.  (Which I think I hurt on the bench press).  But if God gives me one choice to cure just one human malady, pathology, disease or affliction, I’m picking arthritis.  Mainly because the pain is almost constant, and people who suffer it turn insufferable themselves not because of their personality per se, but because of the constant pain.

        And I come home today to find ye olde internets not working, but thankfully the cable company was fixing it and got done not long after I got home. I’m really having a wonderful week.

        • I’m confused, is there only 1 moderator for this whole site? or are we interacting with multiple moderators? if so, how do we tell which moderator is which?

          • More than one, the exact number or identity of the other moderators is unknown even to me (or even to any of the other moderators), and as far as “how do we tell which is which,” well, need to know basis.

        • holyflower

          Moderator with the back problem, here’s some hope:

          I’m 67.  When I was 55, I severely injured my lower back lifting something.  It did not get any better for weeks and weeks.  I went to an orthopedic surgeon who did an X-ray.  He showed me the X-ray of the lower spine and it looked horrible.  I wish I’d never seen it.  He recommended spinal fusion.

          Somehow — and just in time to avoid surgery— I heard of another alternative (and on the fringes) approach offered by a rheumatologist-orthopedic surgeon team in Santa Barbara.  It was called “prolotherapy”.  It involved injections of the ligaments holding up the spine with something like saline solution. The purpose was  to inflame the presumably over-stretched ligaments  supporting the lower spine in the hope that as the ligaments healed from the injection, they would thicken and tighten and tus better support the spine. Whatever the theory, it worked. After ten or so weekly treatments my back was much better.BUT a key part of the treatment was to attempt to do 50 straight-leg toe-touches each day.  These were excruciatingly painful at first and I could only get to my knees.  But slowly — over many weeks — I could  go deeper and  deeper until I could touch the floor.   Also they insisted I walk a mile every day, preferably up hill.  The motion of the spine caused by walking — and the toe touches — help get nutrition to the discs which have few (or no) blood vessels. 12 years later I can lift heavy objects with no fear.I would  bet you could get similar results just by doing the (easy-at-first) toe touches and the walking each day.   Good luck.

          • Upper back.  Thankfully it’s subsiding, and so is Cranky Moddy.

          • holyflower

            Time heals all (many, at least) wounds.

            In a message dated 7/7/2012 4:05:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:


            Moderator wrote, in response to holyflower:
            Upper back. Thankfully it’s subsiding, and so is Cranky Moddy.

            _Link to comment_ (

          • Tried some osteopaths ? They’re not all cranks. Plus- “spine people” should practice every day specially designed set of exercises.
            Swimming helps, too. 

    • JohnEngelman

      I am sorry about your back. When my comments did not get posted I was afraid I had been banned. 

      •  I had the same problem through all of yesterday afternoon and evening, and Bon of Babble says she did, too.  I tried on many different browsers on many different operating systems, Firefox, Opera, IE, Chrome….Android, Windows, Fedora Linux…nothing worked.

        And you know how addicted I am to posting to AR.  One click on the community box will prove that.   More than 15,000 likes as I write this….”spiking the football.”

        • Carney3

          QD, not only do you have the coolest nick ever, but knowing you use Linux impresses me even more.  By the way, try PCLinuxOS.

          Are you as annoyed as I that Linux has been dominated by Ubuntu, a distro run by a self-hating South African white, who picked a black African word for it?

          •  First off, I think I owe you an apology.  I think you know the reason.  I’ll leave it at that.

            My first distro was Linspire, which like Ubuntu, was supposed to be the “for dummies” distro.  Unfortunately, what hurt Michael Robertson’s business model is Ubuntu started when I first installed Linspire.

            It doesn’t bother me per se about Ubuntu.  Anything that introduces people to the Linux world is fine by me.  Obviously, as we both know, Android is basically a Linux distro for the mobile platform.  What does bother me is the brain dead Unity UI that Ubuntu rolled out just as Gnome 3 went gold.  Of course, Gnome 3 isn’t perfect, and I would rather use the 2.x line (but it’s not easily available in Fedora anymore, what seems to be 2.x GUI isn’t really), but Gnome 3 is way more useable than Unity, and lot more spry than KDE.  Ubuntu nor any of its derivatives gives you the chance to do custom partitioning upon install, but that’s a trade-off for simplicity.  My only use for Ubuntu is as a live CD, which I need fairly often either for my own SNAFUs or helping other people with their computer problems.

            Shuttleworth’s rancid politics…of course that bothers me.  But there’s no avoiding that.  Almost everyone in the tech field is left wing, and even the “conservatives” aren’t really.  You may think you’re avoiding the H-1Bs by running a Linux distro, but many of the firms most responsible for kernel check-ins use H-1Bs, in general and for hacking the kernel specifically.

          • Carney3

            I don’t remember why you think you owe me an apology.

            And I get that Silicon Valley leans PC left, but Ubuntu, the sound of it, plus the collectivist name and symbol and entire ethos, to me is like nails on a chalkboard.

            I prefer the look of KDE. The great think about Linux is that it’s so customizable to taste.

          •  Carney,

            See below for my response.  I can’t reply to you directly.

  • Kurt Plummer

    As pointless as it may be, I am curious if the ‘O’ on the figure of the faceless foreground fellow is short for Omega (rather than say ‘L’ for loser…)

    On the bottom rung of the ladder, you have the omega wolf. As the name implies, the omega wolf is the weakest and the least cared for in the pack. Bullied by other members, the omega wolf will receive the brunt of the aggression in the wolf world, particularly during inter-pack fighting [source: Busch]. Sometimes, this antagonism climaxes to the point that the omega wolf will leave the pack and go it alone. Aside from being the pack’s punching bag, the omega wolf also instigates play among the wolves to ease tensions.

    If so, something isn’t complete here because there has to be reinforcement behavior from within the respected ingroup to make the pathological altruism have force of law amongst the outgroup in a racial sense.

    If doing what you do as a pathological altruist doesn’t beget competition and reward but is ‘simply expected’ as a neutral behavior, there has to be an alternate source of reinforcing behavior.  And I don’t see it.

    If you follow the wolf pack doctrine, PA Omegas are -ignored- by successful members of society which is what renders their behavior both useful (unrewarded = free) and pathetic, all at once.

    Which means that reinforcement of ingroup destructive behaviors has to be both external and occuring in a way that doesn’t directly influence alpha exploitation modeals in their own success patterns.  Omegas are subservient.  But they -need- interactive recognition.

    Cut the Omegas loose and they get bitter and start to wake up.  Deny the Alphas their exploitation source as uplift and they too start to look around ‘for cause’.  Whether it be competition or interdiction.

    Could this be a way forwards into preempting the destructive collapse with a mini-quake wakeup call?

    • One major issue in Western society is that the Alphas are legally muzzled. Klansmen, Neo-Nazis and the extreme right in general are the true Alphas. This is because they put their “tribe” before all others and have no trouble taking from or conquering other tribes in order to enrich their own. Thanks to laws against “hate speech” only Betas or lower can make policies or even engage in political discussions.

      The Alphas of other “tribes” like the Black Panthers, La Raza, or the Muslim Brotherhood are not only allowed to say and do whatever they like, they are legally protected and exulted by the West.

      Without White Alphas to temper the natural altruism of our race, we become a society of Betas and are at the mercy of the Alphas of the other races. I’m not saying we should elect a Neo-Nazi as president, but their voices and opinions should rightfully be a part of our political conversation. 

      Unfortunately, only when our resources run out and we can no longer give to others will the Alphas take their rightful place and put the Betas in their rightful place.

      • Hal K

        There are still white alphas, but they have the wrong priorities, like in the recent picture of George W. Bush hugging a little African kid.

        • Its hard to classify any politician since the civil rights movement as an “Alpha.” More like Betas in an Alpha’s position.

          Ever since it became against the law to be racist, White Alphas are essentially illegal. Once you say “diversity is strength” you admit that you are putting the interests of other tribes over the interests of your tribe, something a true Alpha would never do.

          • robinbishop34

             “More like Betas in an Alpha’s position.”

            You got that right.

  • Berkeley Redneck

    “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

  • Vil

    So liberals are not mentally healthy? Tell me something I didn´t know.

    That remark aside, even I remember acting like a “pathological altruist” sometimes.
    Though I despise the weak, the poor, those unable to take care of themselves, I still help them sometimes in any way I can… I still have no idea why I do that.
    I don´t really have the urge to save the world or anyone, I think it´s more of an impulse like when I see someone that needs (a little) help. But consequently looking to help others is something don´t nor want to do. Guess I will have to read the whole book.

    •  What you’re describing, Vil, is just being a decent human being.  You are in control of your kindness.  Don’t sweat it.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Un-Fair Campaign ( is an example of pathological altruism in action.          
    – Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July 5, 2012     
    The behavior of the Un-Fair Campaign activists exceeds pathological altruism, and is masochistic. Nevertheless, they do not really blame themselves for the situation blacks are in. They blame us. As Eric Hoffer wrote of people like that, “It is our breasts they are beating to a pulp.” 

  • anmpr1

    ” What makes altruism go off the rails [ie, pathological altruism]? One theory is that it can simply be an extreme example of a personality trait we all have.”

    This is really a tautology, and doesn’t explain much.  It is saying that PA is an extreme example of A, but that is what we already know by definition.”

    Also, I am not happy to call this behavior “pathological” since to do so uses a misguided metaphor from medicine.  It would be better to simply call it an example of self-destructive (or more accurately, group destructive) behavior.

    “Altruism within the family or kin group makes evolutionary sense because
    the beneficiaries carry many of the same genes as the altruist.”

    We should also be careful of using biological reductionisms for which hang on our behavior.  Especially when the entire notion of PA is that it, indeed, does NOT make good selective sense.  This is not to imply that all behavior is rational (who would make such an absurd statement?), however complex behaviors are not simply reflexive, either.

    “Another theory about the origins of PA is that it can be seen as the result of an excessively female brain. ”

    Again, one must be on guard against biological reductionism, however it is certainly true that this sort of liberal behavior and thinking is feminine by nature [here, by nature, we mean to highlight essence, a metaphysical ground which is not reducible to naturalism.].

    “…doing good is related to the brain’s system of rewarding itself. When
    people are generous, they get the same kind of pleasurable jolt as from
    music, sex, exercise, and performing a skill.”

    And yet in traditional society, the same could be held for masculine behaviors, such as fighting and conquering the enemy.  Or providing for one’s own family.  Also, to state that altruism is “doing good” rather begs the question, in that it is not clear that PA is good at all. 

    “Strong conviction seems to turn off the brain’s logic circuits.”

    And “weak conviction” is therefore scientifically better?  That is the implication.  This is one of the problems when “science” attempts to displace moral sentiment.  Also, here we go from a medical metaphor (pathology) to that of integrated circuits.  Moral issues cannot be reduced to this sort of simplicity; they rely on judgment, etc.

    “Over a trillion dollars has been sunk into black Africa since 1960, with
    not much to show for it. Why do people keep giving? As this chapter
    explains, people get a huge psychological boost from administering aid…”

    What people?  Certainly not those on Amren.  Foreign aid can in many cases be better explained politically, political assumptions instead of altruism.   For us, the African case also seems to be based on white guilt, and not any particular altruistic impulse [altruism is not the same as guilt].

    It is clear that the West suffers from wrongheaded thinking, and misplaced sentiment.  Yet it has many likely explanations: political, religious, psychological (guilt, self-loathing, envy and resentment), along with social and historical factors.  We must remember that it was not always like this.  What is needed is a recovery of group sensibility, and an abandonment of liberal ethno-globalism.  Whether this can ever happen is a big question.  One thing for sure, it will not be settled by academics writing in a text.

  • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

    He adds that “sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so
    intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it,
    again and again.”

    Hmm. Sounds like most of our detractors; holier-than-thou Christians; brainier-than-thou atheists; and the entire line-up of MSNBC. Glad to see someone else finally noticed what AmRenners have known all along (though in fairness, a lot of AmRenners fit that bill too).

    Defection from local in-groups is the highest form of altruism.
    Humanity as a whole might benefit the most if individuals made no
    sacrifices for their local group.

    If the bulk of humanity suddenly begins following this advice, the world will be inherited by those who ignore it.

  • KenelmDigby

    I’m not too sure about all this.
    Many of the blood-and-soil, meat-and-potatoes men that I encounter are absolutely unsentimental and completely hard-headed with regards to what needs to be done with third world immigration.
     No, the problem seems to liw with the power people, the political class, the elitists – those in the west that hold all the keys to power but are, in fact, totally unworthy of it.
    As F. Scott FitzGerald put it  “The very rich, they are different to us”, likewise I would claim “The political class, they are different to us”. Another dynamic is working here, something that is probably connected with these very priveleged and pampered people being completely estranged from the reallity of the harshness of life and its struggles. Add to this fact of folly of over-intellectualising and intellectual self-deceit. You see to be considered ‘smart’ in those circles is the highest accoade sine non qua. The way to be considered ‘smart’ is to regurgitate garbage spewed out by leftist ‘social science’ and law professors – you know the stuff, a lot of cutesy, cutesy word play , long words, a few nuggets of Marx, emotional histrionics, ‘clever’ syntax and the like, politicians being inherently vain and shallow creatures (why else do they enter politics?) are eager keep their allegiance to their little tin lefty gods.
       And of course you have the big b*stards, the Wall Street Journal and ‘The Economist’ the kings of the dung-heap, the rabid, snarling attack dogs, sitting upon high on their dung-heap watching the politics like hawks and growling with disapproval if the voice of reason dares to pipe up.
     ‘Casting out devils from a herd of swine’ is the analogy that springs to mind.

    • NM156

      Good post. I’m keeping this one for the phrasing. Thanks.

    • Agreed. Simply, they have reached the state of decadence similar to the paralyzed French aristocrats from 1750s to the 1789, or Russian aristocracy & ruling classes before WW1. Class historically doomed, but still powerful enough to hold on for some time.

  • Good thing- many interesting points (say, male and female brains during punishment of cheaters/criminals). Also, Korean % American “brains”.

    Not so good- it’s hardly plausible, since it amounts to psychologizing social behavior, or even further reduction to evolutionary psychology surmises. IMO, evolutionary psychology is- horribile dictu- similar to Freudian psychoanalysis: one feels that there are many valuable insights, yet the entire edifice is shaky, if not outright wrong. But, this is not the chief weakness.
    This approach seems to fall into category of numerous reductionist approaches frequently found in history: for instance, Marxists tried to “explain” everything in terms of class struggle & material, “tangible” interests. Marx himself wrote that Spanish uprising against Napoleon’s French occupation had been caused by economic blockade, i.e. Spaniards rose in wrath because they had been deprived of- tea. Common sense explanation that no one wants occupying strangers, that traditional Spanish national culture was endangered by French revolutionary ideas & practices, that even sight of Muslim troops-Moors- French had deployed provoked primordial Iberian revulsion against everything Islamic & Arabic.

    Also, I find it barely acceptable that liberalism is sort of religion- unlike Communism (which  indeed was mala fide). There is a simple test: are you prepared to die for your ideas ? A few casualties among liberals when they are beaten or raped by Blacks or Muslims are simply coincidences & instances of stupidity, not liberals’ eagerness for martyrdom. Communists, on the other hand, in their wars & revolutions  were both ready to kill & to risk torture and execution. No modern liberal is capable of that.

    Plus- this kind of behavior is relatively recent & geographically rather restricted. You won’t find  these attitudes among Whites in working class, in ex- Communist countries, in Latin America. It’s actually morbus anglosaxonicus-although not exclusively: hence hysterical humanitarianism one frequently finds in Italy, France & Sweden. Until 1950s Whites didn’t care much about colored suffering. So, I don’t think it’s anything “White” about it, both historically and biologically.

    Is there anything about PA that can be saved for societal pathologies ?

    I think yes, but the order of causation should be more socio-economico-cultural than biological. Simply, mostly White societies- some of them- have, due to unique combination of Christianity, Enlightenment & history (burden of WW2 & Hitler’s racial ideologies) have become affluent & more cosmopolitan than others. I’m not talking about Africa or autistic Islamism, but high cultures in the East (Japan, China,..). Although theoretically Chinese have, in Confucianism, highly altruistic religion-worldview (jen = humanity, commiseration) – they were neither universalistic nor expansionist enough to conquer the world & to see it as the interconnected whole. So, IMO, PA traits one can see in segments of wealthy White societies are perhaps necessary side-effects of Western successes & recent history (Christian universalism, colonialism, globalism, psychological & ideological baggage of WW2, genocides & racism).

    • seymoore

      Mr. Kaldian, have you ever considered blogging or contributing to an online publication? I find your comments very interesting. 

    • Anna Tree

      Hi Bardon, about your “are you prepared to die for your ideas” ‘s simple test re. if liberalism is a religion: I think liberalists are.

      Liberalists are willing to die for their faith of multiracialist/moral relativism/political correctness dogmas, or maybe more correctly, as often it is the cases with religious elites, they are ready for the flock whom they control, to loose their life: multiculturalism and multiracialism they advance, bring murders and eventually wars and anyway, isn’t miscegenation a readiness to die?

      Mixed marriage kills half of one’s genes and one’s image (skin color, facial features etc changed in descendants). It’s Avraham smashing the idols all over again: this time whiteness being a false god or false gods (different white skin tones, eyes colors, hair color, freckles and no freckles etc) that has to be destroyed to give place to the new/”real” gods: the colored/non-white children. The “non-religious” can redeem himself by brainwashing his kids to miscegenate or at least adopt non-white children to take white children’s place. Almost like with circumcision, if one doesn’t follow himself
      liberalism, he will have a child who will or again, other whites,
      victims of the liberalist propaganda, will.

      Liberalism’s martyrs are not only those beaten by blacks or muslims, the best martyrs commit cultural and/or racial suicide by adopting, converting or marrying other races for the glory of the faith, or promote all of this strongly, by brainwashing new victims or giving their money to the cause.

      They may not kill but will have no children or adopt non-white children or miscegenate, same results.
      They may not be ready to be tortured or executed but they are very ready that others will be tortured or executed: their actions (in elections, opinions, pathologicalaltruism, through their work – from the judge who free illegal immigrant criminals to the teacher who brainwash our kids, etc) will put others in those situations, those poorer whites who don’t have the money to live in white neighborhoods or send their kids in white schools etc, notably because their jobs were outsourced to non-white countries by… liberalism.

      Other religious aspects: evangelism, new world view, new institutions or converting existing, universities as the temples, new morals, quasi witch hunts/inquisitions of dissidents, censuring of their books etc… liberalism is pretty a set of beliefs that all races are equals, diversity is sacred, whites are evil, mixing is the purpose of the universe and so on.

      • That’s ideology with something fake in it. Things are not so convoluted, and petty liberal tyrants wouldn’t have the guts to put up a good fight for their cause.

  • WmarkW

    To the extent that the politics of diversity is rooted in psychology, I believe the best position for race realists to take is to call our view “though love.”  A child being punished often can’t tell though love from hate; and blacks who think they deserve  societal interventions on their behalf, aren’t going to appreciate being told “you need to discipline your kids to pay attention in school, stop having kids outside marriage, and learn to participate in the capitalist economic system.”

    Whites who’ll never accept genetic APTitudinal differences, still could accept that there’s are  ATTitudinal, behavioral and cultural deficits.  And they won’t be solved through the current liberal paradigm that those deficits are caused by socio-economic disparities, which as long as they exist whites owe blacks whatever interventions the latter prefer until they disappear.

  • F.Y.I. : “Barbara Oakley, Et. Al” should be “Barbara Oakley, et al.”

  • Sheila Dinehart

    This article is so cool!  Thanks JT…just moved to the top of my reading list.  Wonder if the Adam Smith Society funded the studies for it and the publishing as well…also wonder how the left (democratic globalization/mundialization, Free Trade, Paul Krugman, cosmopolitanism,  and The World Citizen) will attack it…no doubt through PA tactics…ha.

    This review caused me to think of a recent interview of Ted Turner.  TT stated that it was obvious that if America promptly got rid of its nuclear weapons that China would do the same thing and Iran would not seek them, and there would be peace in the world..who knew he would turn out left of Fonda.

    Your comments were great.

    We live in interesting times.

  • Hirschibold

    Regarding this phenomenon, it reminds me of something someone once said about funerals: “They are for the living, not the dead. The dead are gone, the living need some kind of reassurance.” I’ve read an interview with Brad Pitt, where he basically said he was embarrassed to be making tens of millions of dollars pretending to be someone else. Cuddling African babies isn’t going to make African despots or AIDS go away, but for whatever reason it seems to make him feel less shameful for making $20 million to show off his abs for a couple of hours on-screen.

    Mr. Taylor has hit on a larger point, with this piece, though, that all white nationalists need to take to heart. We should not be an echo chamber, reading only the views of those who agree with us or are in our camp. The author of this book would probably find white nationalism “evil” and “racist” based on knee-jerk principle alone. But that does not mean that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, or that Ms. Oakley doesn’t have some valuable things to say.

    • Know thy enemy and know thyself and one need not fear the result of 1,000 battles.

  • Today, in the Buffalo News, there was a story about youngsters helping paint houses on Buffalos’ black ‘east side’:

    Take note of the number of white volunteers and the number of black volunteers. Keep in mind these are white teenagers going to a black neighborhood to help black residents.

    Where are all the black teens to help black east side residents?

    It drives me mad to hear the black mans’ LIE about how white people don’t care about blacks.

    If whites didn’t help blacks, blacks would have nothing because they sure don’t help each other.

    • “Where are all the black teens to help black east side residents?”

      I don’t even… They ARE the black east side residents. Buffalo is incredibly segregated — those white teenagers were coming from predominantly white areas. I’m baffled by the lack of logic here.

  • There’s also the parasite theory. In the first case, a parasite infects an ant which causes it to engage in suicidal activity:

    Dicrocoelium dendriticum

    Yet another parasite which causes self-destructive behavior in humans:

  • Captian Obvious

    I’ve read all the comments so far and amazingly many of them display the kind of PA that is killing whites RIGHT NOW.  “Oh, gee, isn’t kindness and compassion what makes us great?” is the general thought I gather from lots of these posts. 

    Did you not  read  the article?  Part of PA is helping others to one’s own detriment.  GOD!

    Yes.  Be kind TO YOUR OWN KIND, WHITES!  Shake off the guilt chains already, grow a pair, and cope with the reality that you might have to shoot back someday to save yourself – at a poor bownie, or blackie. 

    It’s high time we had some ‘Alpha’ group fill the void and DO something about our sad situation.

    • Amen!

      No more Welfare except for our own and No more Education for anyone except our own and on and on.  I hear ya.

  • Anorexia is a Disease.  You can’t compare a Disease to deliberate brainwashing. (media)

  • The best thing about this Article is knowing that my ‘hard’ and ‘cold’ feelings about non-whites is right.  I have every Natural Right to feel for and Defend my own.

  • mikejones91

    I can tell you that the people who take the most advantage of 3rd worlds, are first class 3rd worlders. There is this pizza shop in my neighborhood owned by Mexicans. The owner is legal but NONE of the employees are. He pays the 3 dollars an hour and they work 10 hours a day/363. I guess being broke in America is “better” than being broke in Mexico…>They come here for a better life ?

  • Without question, this is the most proficient summation I’ve read on the topic.

    Still puzzling is why white people fail to be altruistic in defending their own race. Confirmation bias and self preservation (or tribal preservation) is natural and universally observable. That phenomenon — self-hatred —  is a relatively new component, evidence of tampering with our cultural mindset, that is, brainwashing.

  • I’m not sure I should broach this topic but years ago. American Renaissance did a cover story on Competitive Altruism:,8599,1902361,00.html

    The idea was that companies were increasing their public profile by engaging in fashionable displays of politically correct behavior; competing for the hearts (and money) of people (their customer base) by appearing to care about social/political/environmental issues.

    I was never fully satisfied with this claim. I believe it’s less about competitive altruism than it is about what I call Preemptive Public Relations

    Companies are well aware of public trends. These companies engaged in preemptive politically correct campaigns so they can’t be labeled ‘racists’ or merely profit-driven. While they’re competing for customers, it’s not because of real or fake altruism. It’s pure selfishness; they’re jumping on the PC bandwagon so no one can denounce them as greedy and uncaring.

    •  Of course. Benetton is an example.

    • Sheila Dinehart

      a personal friend who owned an international billion dollar a year private for profit company (before he sold it) had a pr guy just for the specific purpose of making sure his company name got out there for just the reasons you list…image equates with profit…personally, he could care less

  • “One chapter raises the question of whether most foreign aid is not PA, especially the kind practiced by celebrities. The singer Madonna claims she wants to “literally transform the future of an entire generation.” Bill Clinton says, “There’s a whole world out there that needs you, down the street or across the ocean. Give.” Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Warren buffet, are other showy examples of what could be called “philanthrocapitalism.””

    If these people waste their money on foreigners, when their own people go needy, there’s surely nothing wrong with the state confiscating and redistributing their wealth for the common good.

    Which brings us back to how Communism is a religion, Communism failed because its crackpot economic theories were harmful to society, not because the redistribution of wealth is evil if its done pragmatically (what is the terms to ownership of private property?). And western anti-Communism, which was itself theoretical (Rothbard, Thatcher etc) has itself been destructive through non-pragmatism, like theology – individualism is toxic to the collective unity and co-operation of a country.

    And of course Christianity isn’t harmful to the west, for its stances on issues like reproductive or sexual behaviours – those are the positive aspects of the Christian religion because they deal with pragmatic concerns. The harm comes from theology, which predisposes ‘conservatives’ toward embracing people advocating sklavenmoral agendas, such as Civil Rights since the 1960s – the secular left have a morality that’s rooted in Christian theology, and can’t be refuted in theological terms.

    •  People say liberalism is a mental disorder, and I agree.

      But using those same grounds, you would have to conclude that conservatism is also a mental disorder.

      The real pathology isn’t liberalism, conservatism or any ism, it’s the inordinate and almost cult-like devotion to any abstract ideology, even if doing so and/or its consequences are harmful to you either individually or collectively.

  • Agreed. It’s a state of degeneration, decadence when the time for fundamental change of social order & hierarchies is close- but not yet here.

  • This is simplistic. I’m a man, but I would probably have the empathy centers lit up like (most) women. There were instances when I gave some money to an acquaintance who had fallen on hard times mostly due to his arrogance, stupidity & extravagant luxuriousness. He was a wreck after a few apoplectic strokes. When reproached by a few (male) friends why I’m wasting time & money with this parasite- which he was- I would answer them with the story about Aristotle and a beggar. When Aristotle was, somewhere on Athens’ squares, conversing about philosophical matters with other philosophers (and wannabe philosophers), a beggar approached & begged for money. Aristotle gave him a few drachmas. After the guy left, other philosophers started to rebuke Aristotle, saying that the beggar had been spreading about him nasty rumors & lies. Aristotle calmly replied: ” I know. Just- I didn’t feel sorry for his character, but for the suffering human being in him.”.  Btw. , this guy whom I sometimes gave money to- who was indeed simultaneously a sufferer & a parasite –  tried to leech me, but I told him to sod off- in short, I showed empathy, but not a pathological sort. He has in the meantime succeeded in getting additional social assistance & has remarkably physically recovered (doesn’t beg any more).

    What’s the moral of the story?

    It isn’t bad sometimes to give more than what’s prescribed as the accepted norm of behavior. But, it doesn’t entail that the giver will ineluctably ruin themselves in acts of self-destructive generosity.

  • To clear some things: universal altruism is characteristic of the West. It began with Stoics & their cosmopolitanism and later was incorporated into Christianity, at least as an ideal. In practice, universal humanitarianism wasn’t too common a behavior until the 2nd half of the 19th century. Then it spread globally, along with Western & European global dominance. Also, it must be said that it’s correlated with middle-class values & with wealth- poor White countries, as a rule, don’t give a hoot about starving masses in Africa or Asia.

    What about non-Western high cultures ?

    Islam- no, the charity is reserved for Muslims, infidels be damned. China- they have, in principle, universal humanitarianism as the dominant trait in their culture (Confucius, Mencius), but the combination of extreme ethnic nationalism, isolationism, poverty & a sense of humiliation stemming from historical defeats in past 2 centuries, prevented them to show anything similar. India- too much poverty & fragility of the middle class are not conductive to organized humanitarianism (btw- India is too chaotic & does not possess significant secular humanitarian tradition & organizations). AFAIK-the only non-White country which showed this kind of behavior is Japan in past few decades, probably as a result of Westernization, wealth & global success.

    The biggest global benefactor remain the US, plus affluent Western European countries. As for US liberals & pathology- this is a mixed bag. Some are indeed PAs; most are- Brangelina- just showy narcissists. All are out of touch with reality.

    • Charity by Muslims is not restricted to Muslims. After 12 years on the Arabian Peninsula, I ought to know.

  • razorrare

    There are several theories proposed to explain this. One, argued by Kevin MacDonald, is that Jews have had a corrosive effect on white group identity. Jews, he argues, have promoted intellectual systems, such as Freudianism, Marxism, and deconstruction that pathologize expressions of white group identity, such as Christianity, patriotism, and traditional family life. He writes that Jews have made movies and television programs that ridicule Christianity and patriotism, and have been among the most powerful advocates of immigration and liberalization in America. They support pro-minority activism of all kinds. Jews, according to this theory, have helped equate any expression of white self-interest with “fascism.” “Generosity Bestowing her Gifts” (1734), by Giovanni Tiepolo. Another explanation of the white race’s lack of a sense of its interests is Jared Taylor’s theory about white altruism, which he outlined in his American Renaissance article, “The Ways of Our People” (Sept. and Oct. 1996). Mr. Taylor believes whites have a unique sense of reciprocity and an inclination to acknowledge the points of view and the interests of other people. He cites the humane treatment of enemy soldiers and rules of sportsmanship that value generosity towards competitors more highly than beating them.Mr. Taylor argues that the distinguishing and desirable features of Western civilization are based on this deep sense of reciprocity. The elimination of hereditary class status gives everyone an equal chance. Democracy is the belief that the other person’s political preferences ought to count as much as one’s own. Freedom of expression requires the protection of opposing viewpoints. Thus, the generosity whites show towards other races is an extension of this inherent generosity.While Prof. MacDonald’s and Mr. Taylor’s theories may go part of the way in explaining white behavior, they do not fully account…

    Excerpt from Ian Joblings article…Competitive Altruism & White Self-Destruction…why Whites dont promote their own self-interests…

  • razorrare

    There are several theories proposed to explain this. One, argued by Kevin MacDonald, is that Jews have had a corrosive effect on white group identity. Jews, he argues, have promoted intellectual systems, such as Freudianism, Marxism, and deconstruction that pathologize expressions of white group identity, such as Christianity, patriotism, and traditional family life. He writes that Jews have made movies and television programs that ridicule Christianity and patriotism, and have been among the most powerful advocates of immigration and liberalization in America. They support pro-minority activism of all kinds. Jews, according to this theory, have helped equate any expression of white self-interest with “fascism.” “Generosity Bestowing her Gifts” (1734), by Giovanni Tiepolo. Another explanation of the white race’s lack of a sense of its interests is Jared Taylor’s theory about white altruism, which he outlined in his American Renaissance article, “The Ways of Our People” (Sept. and Oct. 1996). Mr. Taylor believes whites have a unique sense of reciprocity and an inclination to acknowledge the points of view and the interests of other people. He cites the humane treatment of enemy soldiers and rules of sportsmanship that value generosity towards competitors more highly than beating them.Mr. Taylor argues that the distinguishing and desirable features of Western civilization are based on this deep sense of reciprocity. The elimination of hereditary class status gives everyone an equal chance. Democracy is the belief that the other person’s political preferences ought to count as much as one’s own. Freedom of expression requires the protection of opposing viewpoints. Thus, the generosity whites show towards other races is an extension of this inherent generosity.While Prof. MacDonald’s and Mr. Taylor’s theories may go part of the way in explaining white behavior, they do not fully account…

    Excerpt from Ian Joblings article…Competitive Altruism & White Self-Destruction…why Whites dont promote their own self-interests…

  • If race isn’t part of the discussion in this book than what use is it? I would much rather read Jared Taylor review this new book I saw at B & N called ‘Pax Ethnica’ supposedly proving that diversity works around the world.

  • Sheila Dinehart

    Well, *incidently* yourself…I can’t believe I am actually responding to this post but if you are not a certain type of white male (men who make comments like this eventually ruin any credibility they might have because it is such a silly and unintelligent thought and it divides memberships in groups, runs off thinking and powerful women who have wealth, and simply keeps whites from uniting in a race realist manner…can you imagine a black man saying such a thing about the women of his own race?  They do not…they are black men first and foremost, that is their identity… can you imagine a black man putting a white man above the women of their own race, absurd) you might think this and you are not worthy of the women of your own race, or a woman of any race for that matter. If you are a female, then you really aren’t female at all.  You would be a sad throw-back, and atavistic self-hating morally and mental defect.  I mean this in a purley objective sense…nothing personal.  I am reminded of a quote from  a Faustwork:

    Letter of Conrad Mutianus Rufus to Heinrich Urbanus                                       October 3 1513

    (excerpts from letter)

         Eight days ago there came to Erfurt a certain soothsayer by the name of George Faust…a mere braggart and fool…his claims are idle…and has no more weight than a water spider.  The ignorant marvel at him…I heard him babbling at an inn…but what is the foolishness of other people to me? 

    •  Although the comment you reacted to is rubbish, you’re wrong about blacks. They are embroiled in constant war of sexes/genders, where black men demean black women as ugly and whorish, and black women ridicule black men as immature thugs & white massa’s slaves. Both sides claim that the other should be “dumped” & they should “date” exclusively with whites (or Hispanics).

      • Sheila Dinehart

        I don’t think I am “wrong about blacks”, as you say, because I am speaking of black men and women in the context of racialistic identification  only.

        If you think black men talk badly about black women have you ever contemplated what they say about white women (wonder why Nat Turner just popped into my mind)?  We see more and more black men in power choosing the women of his own race, consider the current President of the U.S.  Most black men prefer the women of this own race, few black men choose to go outside his own race.

        Blacks (and whites as well as others) may do all the things you say in terms of present contemporary music (the sad state of pop culture) for example but when the white man attempts to  label in a negative manner either gender of the black  race they always unite to attack the white outsider. 

        It has been the history of the white man and woman (in their differing ways) to allow the genders of their own race to be divided thus weaken in a racialistic manner i.e. no cohesion within the white race which is greater in number in America and Europe (that is the reason for the need to bring in all other peoples of color from  around the world to America and Europe…that is the promise that was made by Lenin to deconstruct and destroy the *white race*/America) and all others know whites cannot be permitted to unite on the basis of gender…otherwise they (the other peoples of the earth) are done for in this world, in a manner of speaking  that is…it is the superiority of the colored peoples of the world that haters of Western Civilization desire for what in their mind will be a better world in the future. 

        This is a unique thought and never happened prior to WW I except for the French Revolution and things like that that were reactions to monarchy….absolutism…I could be wrong., there was the Persian Empire, the Islamics, the Mongoloid invasions…but they were nothing at all like communism in terms of modern global rule…but maybe there is no difference and I am wrong altogether…ha, who cares?

        You said “Both sides claim that the other should be “dumped” & they should “date” exclusively whites”…I can’t imagine what Black Islamic Temple you attended in order to hear that one…ha ha ha.

        No, collectively blacks fight it out in all directions with each other within their own racial group.  They choose to live in their own communities,  they are comfortable with their own.  Blacks never wanted, as a group, to abandon their racial identity in order to become white. It is a natural instinct for survival.  Whites have been on top of the world heap for so long they forgot about the instinct for survival because they never thought they would have the need for it AGAIN.

        Is it my imagination or does the picture of the UNFAIR woman from the article look like the drawing of the WILLIAMS SYNDROME sufferer?

        I hope I remember to come back here…I usually forget what I say and where I say it, although this is the only place I make comments…perhaps one or two elsewhere. I have been attracted to the ideas of JT since 1994…I have never heard him make a racist comment and yet the SPLC has targeted him and his collegues as racist…I understand why they think it is necessary…it is all very interesting to me.

        Sorry for being so obnoxious in writing such a long post…I am bored with myself now…


        • You’re simply wrong, go to Black forums & discussion groups. As for other contentions- this is a too long post.

  • Sheila Dinehart

    Yes, and the dark ages would be exactly where a brain or I should say mind like that should be.

  • Sheila Dinehart

    pretty good

  • Sheila Dinehart

     I’m pretty sure only Upper Middle Class whites who grew up in the suburbs (like me) suffer from pathological altruism.(i am pretty sure you are right, but don’t forget to include some very wealthy whites and  especially reformed jews…jeepers that turned out to be a real mistatke for lots of those people…nothing less than they deserve)

  • realman63

     This sounds like an interesting book and I think I’ll add it to that growing list (sigh) of books I intend to read. As with any subject he treats, Mr. Taylor’s analysis adds both intrigue and insight that I always find enjoyable. But I must say that one small thing bothers me in this review: The statement that “Barbara Oakley of the University of Michigan, has done a wonderful job of eliminating repetition and contradiction…” Now, I can understand how any compendium would benefit from eliminating repetition, but eliminating contradiction seems like a very negative value that I would normally associate with an enforcement of some kind of “correct” viewpoint that is unworthy of science and philosophy. While racial diversity is something those of us who have experience with can see as problematic, diversity of opinions and theories in intellectual matters is something that should not be “eliminated.” Isn’t this one of the pathologies in academia and society we face today as we try to bring people to our view? Or to put it another way… life is paradoxical, why shouldn’t we be?

  • crusader00

    Some points in the reviewed book sound interesting, but do we really need another speculative commentary on the evolutionary roots of behavior? Why should I care what cavemen acted like? I have known some liberals that still believed in eugenics and sterilizing the stupid. Why shouldn’t liberals simply conclude from this that people with the genes for altruism should be favored in breeding? The reviewer hasn’t shown why a tribe with men oozing testosterone out of their eye sockets would be a better place to live than our more docile world, if the takers and cheats could be bred out.

    The (predictable) swipe at Bl. Teresa of Calcutta was quite unjustified. As a sister religious who lived in the world but not of it, there is no sense in preoccupation with her race over another; I don’t think a case could be made that she was at fault for helping poor Indians when she was Albanian. Furthermore, while she was an altruistic, the pathological element remains undemonstrated. While she was White Albanian, the Missionaries of Charity she founded are not simply a bunch of Europeans draining their resources for others; many Indians are also taking up the slack. The current superior is a native, as are many of the sisters, as you may see on the Wikipedia page. It may be unwise to endlessly send our money to the Third World, but you cannot simply conclude that charity to their poor always hurts the White race.

  • How many of these countries had aircraft carriers and submarines that crippled the Japanese fleet? How many carried out an island hopping campaigns that forced the Japanese army to retreat back to the mainland? 

    Some of the nations you mentioned were captured early in the war an actually provided resources to the Japanese under occupation. (China, Philippines, Singapore) Other Pacific nations contributed, but the US liberated the Pacific with their aircraft, submarines, and foot-soldiers.

  • godzillabloggs

    Governments who call for military intervention in foreign conflicts appear to basing their arguments on altruism,  although they are usually careful to promise that the humanitarian bombing and shelling will be short and victorious.   Usually, those who are quickest to respond to the appeal do not intend to take part in the fighting themselves – so they can enjoy the feelings of righteousness without risk to themselves. 

  • Kurt Plummer

    Single-handedly?! I think you need a history lesson

    No.  He’s largely correct.
    With the exception of the Australians who were noted compatriots and certainly ‘had motive’ in New Guinea, all the European powers were either unable to object to Japanese overrun of their colonial territories or put up very weak defenses of them.  Hong Kong and Singapore were -lost-, in a matter of weeks, along with two RN Battleships and roughy 140,000 men, in what Winston Churchill called the largest debacle of the war.
    The Jungle won the war in Burma and yet even so, the Japanese had 1.6 million troops in China (Kwauntung Army) and another 900,000 or so spread elsewhere from Korea to SEA _as we went into Okinawa_.
    That these troops were not in the Home Islands was only partly due to transport interdiction, the Big Six war cabinet were actually looking forward to holding onto key territorial gains or trading them for peace table conditions very favorable to maintaining Japan’s own sovereignity _because we still didn’t have enough men to evict them_.
    Had they wanted to, they could have made mopop operations in these ex-Colonial regions very painful and prolonged as we had literally -no- plans beyond Operation Olympic (as the invasion of Kyushu) that could be deemed more than provisional.
    This was largely because the majority of the U.S. JCS at the time were hanging their entire reputations on the invasion of Kyushu ‘changing everything’.
    At a time when ‘unconditional surrender’, as seen in Germany, spelt the potential for displacement of the entire Japanese culture after the firebombings of March and April 1945 essentially wiped out 60 square miles of Tokyo, the Japanese were having none of it.
    The key note here being that, even with the war in Europe finished not many troops were being released for redeployment.  Indeed, of the 8.3 million U.S. forces, over half were scheduled to demobilize via the ‘Point System’ which was robbing the U.S. of it’s best veteran infantry and making the transfer of ETO forces something of an exercise in paper shuffling (most replacements were very green, fresh from CONUS training depots, sending them to Europe instead of straight to veteran VI and VIII Armies already in the PTO was pointless).
    MacArthur was concentrating on an all white and all U.S. invasion force at a time when the first blacks were showing up in our combat forces (93rd IIRR) and he hated the thought of their ineffectiveness.  The same attitude was held against the European powers who were largely seen a Johnny Come Lately’s wanting to reassert their rights to colonial territories based on performance in battle. 
    Most of the European Contingent were in fact naval based with a single Canadian division being held as a decoy force in the Aleutians.
    Of roughly 680,000 troops, half of which would be going ashore in the first 10 days on Kyushu, 39% would be dead or incapacitated if the casualities followed the Okinawa
    And what MacArthur refused to admit from either his own G2 staff studies or the Magic codebreaking (Naval = Bad Blood) was that -as things stood-, the allies were at parity with the professional military troops and outnumbered, sometimes as much as 2:1, by the combined irregular forces of some 500,000 in three tiers.  Just on Kyushu alone.  An island roughly the size of Hawaii would have seen one MILLION combatants slugging away over very hilly country.
    Macarthur put casualties at 40,000 for Southern Kyushu and squelched reports of 106,000 from his own medical evacuation/replacement system anticipated numbers.
    It was this lack of numeric honesty, along with 3:1 and 5:1 exchange ratios that involved almost total wipeout of Japanese forces in prior island battles (Tarawa etc.) that caused Truman to ignore MacArthur’s God Complex attempt to set himself up as an American Caesar.
    And go with the bomb.
    Point Being: Europe -never could- contribute the kinds of numbers we needed to make the Pacific a viable conventional fight.  Stalin couldn’t (135,000 in sixty days) either and had a long ways to come with territorial ambitions of his own.  And while China could, they were generally lousy fighters caught in the midst of a ChiCom/Nationalist civil war (one where the Communists held what little coastline remained in Chinese hands) so that there was little way to battle the Japanese where they were stongest as well.
    The Pacific War is essentially the story of the greatest attritionary meat grinder never fought.  Largely because of logistical isolation by distance and a effective submarine/mining effort.  But also because we simply never had the numbers to fight the Japanese ‘100 million lives for the Emperor’ numbers, straight up.
    Why do you think we let Stalin play tag with Hitler all through 1943 (Kursk, Kharkov) when the Atlantic Wall was a phantom?
    The key to victory is often a contempt of engagement.  Certainly on your enemy’s terms.

  • Church_of_Jed

    The modern European world has a nightmarish quality to it because there is no room in the nations of Europe for the people and the culture of Europe. If you go out into a major European city you will see large groups of colored barbarians determined to infuse their cultural values of rape, murder, and mayhem on the Europeans. If you wander into a European church, any denomination will do, you will not hear anything about the Christ of the European people. You will hear of the social worker Christ who died to make future generations free to worship the noble black savage. And lest you think you will escape from your nightmare into leisure sports, the liberals have made it clear that all sporting events must be connected to the religious life of the people, so no sporting event is valid that doesn’t have negroes in it.

    • KingKenton

      I enjoy and recommend the Cambria Will Not Yield blog also.

  • KingKenton

    A bit tangential, but what is the opposite of pathologic altruism? Would it be pathological selfishness? Has it been written about (more specifically, what causes pathological selfishness)?

    •  I know a few such people: IMO, this is a manifestation of extreme, unrealistic fear of poverty. Freudians call this “anal character” (or similar)- keeping everything to themselves & not giving others a bit. One guy I now is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Other traits may stem from extreme self-centredness, lack of empathy ..

    • Mark Tenney

      Goldman Sachs employee manual.

  • Shawn_thefemale

    “I placed my own altruistic tendencies in check long ago. In the presence
    of multiculturalism, I am quite guarded, reserved, and selfish with
    myself, my abilities, and my resources, because I innately sense danger
    to my genome”

    Well said. And the very philosophy I subscribed to myself  several years ago. Our politeness has destroyed us.

    Excellent post, John.

  • Carney,

    I’ll let the sleeping dog lie then.  If you ever do run across it, remember that I did apologize.

    I read the “ubuntu” (as in philosophy, not distribution) philosophy:

    Ubuntu is recognised as being an important source of law within the
    context of strained or broken relationships amongst individuals or
    communities and as an aid for providing remedies which contribute
    towards more mutually acceptable remedies for the parties in such cases.
    Ubuntu is a concept which:
    is to be contrasted with vengeance;dictates that a high value be placed on the life of a human being;is inextricably linked to the values of and which places a high
    premium on dignity, compassion, humaneness and respect for humanity of
    another;dictates a shift from confrontation to mediation and conciliation;dictates good attitudes and shared concern;favours the re-establishment of harmony in the relationship between
    parties and that such harmony should restore the dignity of the
    plaintiff without ruining the defendant;favours restorative rather than retributive justice;operates in a direction favouring reconciliation rather than estrangement of disputants;works towards sensitising a disputant or a defendant in litigation
    to the hurtful impact of his actions to the other party and towards
    changing such conduct rather than merely punishing the disputant;promotes mutual understanding rather than punishment;favours face-to-face encounters of disputants with a view to
    facilitating differences being resolved rather than conflict and victory
    for the most powerful;favours civility and civilised dialogue premised on mutual tolerance.

    How many blacks does this sound like?

    This isn’t a product of black people, either now or in the past.  Dippy dorky white liberals wrote this.

  •  David Ashton:

    Joseph and Mary weren’t immigrants, they were Roman subjects in Roman territory, going to Bethlehem for the census because the Romans imposed direct capitation taxes on Romans.

    Funny, I just talked about that sort of thing right here in AR about ObamaCare.

  • NM156

    Looks as if the Olympics will be drenched. Long-term forecast for the UK is for rain, rain, rain until September. My friend in London, who suffers with seasonal affective disorder, is tearing her hair out from the absence of summer sun, the only regular sun the UK can count on.

  • NM156

    The price for the Kindle version of the book and the print is almost the same. What the heck is that about? Though the Kindle version of any book purchased at Amazon exists forever in “the cloud” for retrieval, I can’t fathom paying $50 for a book that I can’t possess physically. They’re nuts.

  • Jake Darwin

    People here seem a bit naive about ‘Mother Teresa’ the tiny Albanian who made a fortune and consorted with corrupt leaders.

  • Magnemdad

    excellent post, John

  • ” I do not want to directly or indirectly aid those who pose a threat to my genome.”

    I don’t know which part of the internet I just stumbled into, but there’s an awful lot of crazy in it.

  • Birger_Skruddusvingen

    “What we need today is a reverse-Jesus”

    Wouldn’t that be the same as Antichrist?

  • Benjamin Martens

    Diana S. Fleishman wrote a review of ‘Pathological Altruism’. It
    suggests that altruism, as a rule, does not exist, due to evolutionary
    adaptations to the contrary. Altruism should be seen as “enlightened
    self-interest” (I hear Ayn Rand readying her horn to recoup her
    dissembled cavalry!). It implies that those who speak of altruism as a
    pathology are too near-sighted to see the far-future benefits of said
    “altruistic” behaviours. Even the phenomenons of animal hoarders and
    Stockholm syndrome wives have a basis in optimific self-preservation.
    The review is here:

  • Smilin

    “There is no genetic or material payoff for being nice to total strangers, but we are nice to them anyway because our distant ancestors rarely had to deal with total strangers.”

    I disagree. Have you never heard of social capital? Obviously, the smaller the group the more direct influence one individual’s actions can have on the group but even in a society of millions of people, the actions we choose influence social capital.

    You of all people should be familiar with this concept. Social capital is what makes good communities good. In these communities, one can reasonably expect that a stranger will be helpful and not predatory. The lack of social capital is what makes the ghetto so terrible: people can’t trust strangers.

    • Nathanwartooth

      “There is no genetic or material payoff for being nice to total strangers, but we are nice to them anyway because our distant ancestors rarely had to deal with total strangers.”

      I think he meant outgroups, like members of another race.

      Of course being nice to total strangers is one of the things that makes White countries so nice to live in.

  • Anan7

    lol how did you find this discussion? I commented here more than a year ago.

  • AZbyNM

    The current definition of “Tikkun olam” that is. Among the original interpretations of the “Tikun olam” concept was more akin to rearranging the world the way one sees fit. That definition didn’t necessarily imply PAism. But how on going about re-arranging life more favorable to a Jew’s liking. Or according to a few scholars of a Talmudic persuasion, to put it bluntly: molesting the world.

  • AZbyNM

    $1 trillion sunk in africa since 1960, much of it going right to local rulers swiss bank accounts or else to his army. Most of that ‘Aid’ were really bribes to the rulers of the newly independent nations in order for them to stay on our side of the Cold War, as Africa was as much of a cheese board in the superpower rivalry between the USA & the USSR as anything else. Sounds like ‘enlightened self-interest’ @ best to me, if that.

  • Anna Tree

    Just to add another article related to white (Pathological) Altruism:

    amren com/news/2014/09/affective-empathy-an-evolutionary-mistake/

    People have been selected for their ability to function in a certain
    cultural environment, just as they have been selected for their ability to
    function in heat or cold.

    Certain characteristics of character display moderate to high heritability, like empathy 68% heritability (Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen, 2013). There has thus been a potential for gene-culture co-evolution.

    Gene-culture co-evolution seems to have been widespread. About 10,000 years ago, human genetic evolution accelerated by over a hundred-fold, yet by that time our ancestors had colonized this planet from the tropics to the arctic (Hawks et al., 2007). They were evolving primarily in response to different cultural environments, and only secondarily to different physical environments.

    That answers the “how” question, but what about the “why”? Why was
    affective empathy more advantageous at the northwestern end of Eurasia?

    Together with empathic guilt, it may be part of a larger behavioral adaptation called the Western European Marriage Pattern, which seems to reflect a culture where kinship ties are relatively weak and thus
    insufficient to enforce rules of correct behavior.

    The WEMP predominates north and west of an imaginary line running
    from Trieste to St. Petersburg and has the following general

    – men and women tend to marry relatively late and many never marry
    – children usually leave the family to form new households
    – a high proportion of non-kin circulate among different households (Hajnal, 1965)

    This zone of relatively weak kinship existed before the Black Death
    of the 14th century and is attested by fragmentary evidence going back
    to the 9th century and even earlier (Hallam, 1985; Seccombe, 1992, p.
    94). I suspect its origins go back to a unique Mesolithic culture that
    once existed along the North Sea and the Baltic (Price, 1991).
    At that time, an abundance of marine resources drew people to the coast
    each year for fishing, sealing, and shellfish collecting, thus creating
    large but fluid settlements unlike anything seen in other
    hunter-gatherers. Social interactions would have largely involved
    non-kin, and there would have thus been strong selection for mechanisms that could enforce social rules in the absence of kin obligations.


    Through their high capacity for affective empathy and empathic guilt,
    these Northwest Europeans had an edge in adapting to later cultural
    environments that would be structured not by kinship but by other ways
    of organizing social relations: the State, ideology, and the market

    This has been one path that leads to advanced societies, but it is
    not the only one. East Asian societies have pursued a similar path of
    cultural evolution while having relatively low levels of affective
    empathy and empathic guilt. They seem to have done so by relying more on external means of behavior control (shaming, family discipline,
    community surveillance) and by building on cognitive empathy through
    learned notions of moral duty.