|The original cover of Bleak House by Charles Dickens (1852). Then Mrs Jellyby was a figure of ridicule, but now she is the model for our politicians.||
Altruism and Insanity
– or –
Madness by Media
Published in Heritage and Destiny issue 84, May-June 2018
Not long ago (H&D 81) I wrote on ‘Mass Madness,’ how mental illness has befallen the Western world. This is a crucial topic and there have been some enlightening developments, so giving further and better particulars of the malady is in order.
Much of what follows isn’t original, since “liberalism is a mental illness” has been proposed on numerous internet forums, and other ideas below have been similarly discussed. Nonetheless it will be helpful to draw some common themes together. This will enable us to recognise the prevailing derangement and see how it has been inflicted upon us. A few original concepts will also be detailed, not because I want to plug my own theories particularly but because they are highly relevant. Indeed I recognised several of these behaviours before they came to the fore, though they are now known by different names. They are documented in The Tyranny of Ambiguity, which I finished writing in 1995 but was not published until 2002 (and is currently out of print).
One concept which has risen in awareness recently is pathological altruism. This seems to be a common manifestation of the madness. To appreciate pathological altruism, imagine that a man were so affected by the images of starving black children on TV that he was moved to a supreme act of generosity. He decides to sell everything he owns – his home, his car, all the rest of his property – and give the proceeds to Oxfam. Perhaps he thinks that his supreme display of virtue will inspire admiration, plus earn him other benefits. However it turns out that before long he is homeless and soon after he is dead of pneumonia, being discovered in a makeshift cardboard hovel down a dark alley. In this extreme case, his altruism has destroyed him: it was pathological. The Metapedia.org webpage on pathological altruism is a good reference.
Our politicians are also engaged in this. They are giving away citizenship, living space and many other resources, even borrowing money to give away in foreign aid. The outcome will be the same as the man above – death. With the likes of “Sharia May” in charge, our civilisation will disintegrate and the remaining British minority will endure a ghastly existence living in dhimmitude.
The actions of the self-abnegating man above and of our politicians follow the same pattern and have the same outcome, but there is one important difference. The man is giving away his own property: he is free to be a fool with his own wealth. However, what our politicians are giving away is not theirs, it is ours: our heritage and civilisation. Western societies are the product of centuries of development and toil, and the fruits of our ancestors’ struggle is our birthright, our patrimony. Politicians do not own these common resources, we only entrust them with their supervision, and they are betraying that trust massively. They are giving away what is not theirs to give.
To the cat ladies, purple-haired snowflakes and the like, the plight of refugees etc. is genuine, and the obligation to accommodate them is equally heartfelt. That is not our perception of course, and reality may not be in conflict – if one perception is valid, the other is not.
Since we are dealing with a “conflict of differing realities,” we need an objective measure to determine which is really real. Nature is our standard, and fortunately we have Hamilton’s rule, an actual mathematical formula which describes altruism in nature.
This rule is the legacy of Bill Hamilton, the great biologist who died in 2000 following a field trip to Africa. Hamilton’s rule states that altruism is proportional to relatedness. Indeed this is the basis of the long tradition that the property of a man who dies passes to his nearest relatives. It is ubiquitous throughout nature: it explains why birds give alarm calls, a problem which troubled Darwin. The actions of the pathologically altruistic man of our example are equivalent to a gazelle walking up to a pride of lions so the poor things can eat.
We are suffering from a decades-long campaign of emotional manipulation by the media. A component of this process is associative conditioning, famously first used in advertising by Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays. However associative conditioning doesn’t just involve imagery, such as photographs of rebellious women smoking cigarettes or TV ads featuring smart men drinking a particular brand of whisky. A more basic form of associative conditioning is word association. We have all heard the pat phrases: “nasty racist”; “vicious anti-Semite”; “virulent anti-Semitism”; “rape and murder.” The purpose in each case is to fuse the words in association, setting them almost in equivalence.
Then there is a “coaxing of concurrence.” Inflections of speech, approving or disapproving tones, make it clear which opinions “all right-thinking people” are supposed to hold. So they do. After all, who doesn’t want to be a “right-thinking person”? The audience is subtly but effectively drawn in to their worldview.
Another trick is using what I call AMRM’s: artificial media role models. These also will be familiar. The sensitive, talented homosexual; the competent, assertive female leader. These and their variations are frequent motifs in film and TV. AMRM’s provide a model and instruction for imitators to copy. The denial of sexual and racial differences is a particular delusion and detachment from reality. The proper psychological term for detachment from reality is psychosis.
Humans naturally think in categories. We cannot help but categorise people by the style of clothes they wear, the type of car they drive, or the football team they support. When a stereotype is established, it is possible for us to unconsciously ignore observed behaviour that is inconsistent with the stereotype. It does not fit into the reality that has been established, so our brains can blank it out. I don’t know if anyone has given a name to this phenomenon.
Women have a weak grasp of reality, and I contend that this is even more true of Jews. A sentiment need not be valid (soundly based) to be advantageous. A chip on one’s shoulder, or a conviction of being hard done by, can be profitable even if groundless. Such sentiments have also been exploited and magnified in a further divorce from reality.
As malevolent as the media is, it is unable to encourage traits and behaviours which do not exist. There must be something there to encourage. One can amplify a small thing to make it bigger, but multiplying anything by zero still gives zero.
Almost every behaviour has an evolutionary origin. Imagine a man and his wife living in a crude dwelling in a small settlement, the circumstances in which we have spent the great bulk of our evolutionary past. Under the complete authority of her husband, the woman was vulnerable. She might anger her mate and be ejected, which in a certain season or territory could be fatal. So she curries favour among the other members of the village with gifts of food or materials, so that if she is in dire need she can fall on them for shelter and perhaps intercession with her husband.
However, the wealth she gives away is not the product of her labours. It was her mate who built the dwelling and hunted for the food, and created the environment by which she is able to produce anything at all. It is males who create wealth, not females. This is still true today, though it was more stark in former times when physical strength and practical ability were essential. This is the putative origin of Vicarious Generosity: Giving away, often enthusiastically, something which is not one’s to give. It is just something that women do, and encourage. Our politicians’ actions could be more Vicarious Generosity than pathological altruism.
Whatever the mechanism, there may be another of yet greater significance. This is a procedure I termed the Challenge. Evidence for its importance is provided by its having achieved wide recognition and acceptance into the vernacular. Nowadays it is called a “shit test.”
The simplest and best example of the “shit test” is this actual incident. A couple were walking along a road and came to a junction. The young man wanted to go one way, the girl the other. Words were exchanged, until eventually the man said “I’m going that way, come with me if you like, otherwise goodbye.” Later the girl confessed that she didn’t really want to go the other way, she was only testing to see whether she could make her boyfriend go the way she wanted him to.
As such tests go, this is pretty innocuous. The thing about Challenges though is that if the male fails to respond appropriately, the tests become more flagrant and outrageous.
Women need and desire strong men. Evolutionarily, a woman needed a strong man to support her, to defend her from being stolen by other men, and to sire strong offspring. Since women are weak, she certainly needed a man that is stronger than herself. This is the origin of the Challenge: the female tests the strength, i.e. the resolve and will, of the male.
This may explain why women will defend immigrants and downplay crimes that Whites would be crucified for, like gang-raping under-age girls and other sex attacks. Women act collectively, and their promotion of immigrants is a gigantic, collective test. Their muted response to these crimes is simply an extension of the same execrable test. Mass immigration is a “shit test” of almost nuclear proportions.
Another element played upon by the media, not explored here, is female xenophilia, a perversion with far worse outcomes than paedophilia. It was the realisation that practically every modern social policy is feminine that inspired my notion of ‘Big Sister.’
Contributing to the degradation of our civilisation is the rise in emotionality, the elevation of feelings over fact. When confronted with an argument, the cat ladies (I use the term generically) will launch into displays of indignation and a torrent of smears, non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks. Rare will be an attempt to logically refute anything. At times it seems that their beliefs resemble a religious faith, held with comparable sanctimony and conviction.
In the feminine mind, feelings are paramount. Sometimes the emotions are so fervently expressed that the observer cannot help but think that there is some legitimacy to these emotions, even when there is none at all.
If the cat lady is challenged as to how many of Africa’s teeming (and rapidly growing) millions our country can comfortably take in, the answer is never a number, an upper limit. It’s invariably “more,” we should take more. This will always be the answer, regardless of the circumstances. This is really just feminism writ large: just as women will advocate for themselves without limit, so they will advocate for immigrants without limit. That is, until an opposing force is forthcoming.
It’s possible that there is also an underlying biological origin behind the rise in emotionality, the phenomenon of men pushing prams, and the almost complete absence of male authority. There is no shortage of contenders: constant contact with plastics, toxoplasmosis, hormones in the water. What is evident however is that anything which threatens this onward march of feminisation will be vilified by the media, while anything which advances it will be promoted. The object is to soften us up for our destruction.
No evolutionary origin can be conceived for the influential power of the mass media. Such power has never existed before. There is no evolutionary precedent for radio, TV and film, and thus we have no evolved defence against it. It’s similar to our susceptibility to hearing damage: the hair cells in the cochlea are permanently destroyed by excessively loud music because, save volcanic eruptions and similar exceptional events, such high sound levels don’t naturally occur. Amplified sound is a very recent innovation.
By their policies, Western governments are enacting genocide of their own populations. This is not hyperbole: I am using the official definition of genocide, as drawn up by Raphael Lemkin and adopted by the United Nations. Some may prefer to call it “ethnic cleansing” or “White displacement” but it amounts to the same thing. This is madness, which is what the media, especially via feminism, has inflicted on our people.