This is an introduction to special sections in the Summer and Fall issues of The Occidental Quarterly focused on White pathology. Whatever blame for our situation that we place on others, the bottom line is that we are allowing the unfolding disaster to happen. It is unprecedented for a civilization to voluntarily cede political and cultural hegemony to others, particularly when so many of these people harbor hatreds and resentments toward our people and our culture.
The entire issues are available to subscribers to the electronic versions. (For print subscribers, the Summer issue has been mailed, and the Fall issue is in press.) Click here to subscribe ($30 for electronic subscriptions, $60 for hardcopy subscriptions).
Before I get to the special sections, I want to highlight another recent paper. Ricardo Duchesne, a professor of sociology at the University of New Brunswick and no stranger to these pages (e.g., here), has an article in the Fall issue on historians who are falsifying history in order to make it more amenable to their multicultural, anti-Western agenda. His title says it all: “Multicultural Historians: The Assault on Western Civilization and Defilement of the Historical Profession.” As we are all aware, the academic world has become a seething cauldron of anti-White sentiment, and right now World History is Exhibit A. It is particularly important is that he is writing under his own name. All good writing is important, but in the long run it’s critical to have people who are out there in the open and willing to take the heat.
The purpose of TOQ is to develop an alternative intellectual universe in opposition to the current dispensation. With the addition of Prof. Duchesne and some of the other writers I will mention (the Summer and Fall issues also have excellent articles by F. Roger Devlin, Andrew Fraser, Nelson Rosit, and Jared Taylor), we are well on the way to achieving a critical mass of smart, well-informed writers able to mount an intellectually rigorous, honest critique of the current multicultural zeitgeist—indeed, the emerging multicultural police state.
Also in the Fall issue, Alex Kurtagic focuses on the antifa which he portrays correctly as a violence-prone, completely irrational, anti-intellectual movement. He writes:
it is not interested in thought, but in the physical prevention of thought. Indeed, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Left anarchist ideology permeating the movement serves as little more than a moral justification for engaging in the simple animal pleasures of physical violence—for venting pent-up anger and frustration, arising from feelings of envy, inadequacy, and inferiority.
This seems logical, for antifa militants are failures in life, with little or nothing to lose except through another’s loss of what has been denied to them. Beneath the platitudes hides the desire of a talentless nobody to lash out against a society that has otherwise relegated him to powerless anonymity.
Another paper in the Fall issue, by K. Friedrich Amelang, discusses an anxiety disorder he labels “the White disease,” “a common malady in the American workplace. Its pathology—that is, its causes, development, and its consequences—are rooted in irrational, illogical beliefs about racial equality.” Based on his experiences working with White employees, his essay outlines remedial techniques aimed at countering White guilt, self-abasement, and irrational beliefs about racial equality that are so common these days (e.g., “Whites must understand that the emotional disturbances suffered by minorities are not their own fault, but rather the result of external causes [like White oppression].”).
Writing in the Summer issue, Robert S. Griffin, professor of education at the University of Vermont, points out that Whites are not behaving pathologically given the present system of rewards and punishments. He begins with the fact that the contemporary world has been constructed so that Whites who participate in the destruction of the West are often handsomely rewarded for doing so and punished for dissenting from the anti-White zeitgeist. They have also been propagandized from an early age that identifying as a White and believing that Whites have interests as a group are signs of psychopathology. Their behavior is thus self-interested, even if short-sighted. Of course, ultimately this state of affairs must be attributed to the triumph of a new elite hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West.
Yet another aspect of White pathology is the failure of elites to have a sense of loyalty and commitment to other Whites. In the Fall issue, Yggdrasil notes of the period from the 16th to the 18th century in England:
The key point here is that the vast majority of Englishmen at the time were slaves in all but name, but since they were not chattel property, no one was bound by law or resale value to take reasonable care of them. Say what you like about the evils of slavery, as chattel property, slaves had a place and a value in society. In effect, the majority of “free” Englishmen at the time were an alien race with no place or value in society and no rights whatsoever.
The small minority in control feared and hated them, to a much greater degree than modern White liberals despise hillbillies, and sought to expel them to distant colonies as a means of suppressing future rebellions.
But there was a major shift beginning in the 18th century that led to the destruction of that world but which has led to another aspect of White pathology—pathological altruism. In the Summer issue there are three papers on this topic, leading off with Jared Taylor’s very incisive review of a collection of academic papers on pathological altruism.
PA is generally defined as a sincere attempt to help others that instead harms others or oneself—“an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one’s own needs.” … 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.
Pathological altruism has a strong emotional core based feelings of empathy and righteousness. 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.
When mother nature wants you to do something, it makes it pleasurable. Taylor points out that “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.’”
It’s noteworthy that one of the authors 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, although “some other cultures consider this Western quality to border on madness.”
Taylor comments: “Of course, it is madness, but Europeans who point this out are punished.”
Another very valuable member of the TOQ brain trust is Andrew Joyce. He is a particularly talented young writer who has been a regular contributor. Joyce’s article in the White pathology issue discusses the Morant Bay rebellion of 1861 in Jamaica. This was a horrifically violent episode, with gruesome, extremely painful murders motivated by hatred of Whites. The town of Bowden was plundered, and the island curate “had his tongue cut out while he was still alive, an attempt is said to have been made to skin him.” Another individual “was ripped open and had his entrails taken out.” Others were “roasted alive” and “had their eyeballs scooped out.” According to the London Times, the mob then indulged in alcoholic excess, harboring the “drunken dream of negro mastery and white slavery. It was Africa, hitherto dormant, that had broken out in their natures. . . . They desired the extermination of their emancipators.” Joyce comments:
To the clear-thinking individual, it was a plainly criminal, and unimaginably brutal series of actions, carried out for malicious reasons against a population targeted for being White. And yet, there was a liberal faction in England convinced not only that it was the Black population that were the true victims, but also that their fellow Whites were reprehensible monsters who deserved the fate which befell them. This pathological response, laden with a misplaced hyper-emotionality, would shake the Empire to its core, sapping its confidence, and bequeathing a legacy which is still felt to this day.
The main warriors on behalf of the Blacks were “Christian philanthropists who believed that these races could be raised to standards of education and conduct which would place them alongside Europeans. Members of this group tended to be Non-Conformist, middle-class, and liberal or radical in their politics.” Crucially, most had never travelled outside Britain, and had little or no experience with the races they so emphatically and persistently eulogized.”
The movement was centered around Exeter Hall, a residence in London. The term “Exeter Hall” became synonymous with what Charles Dickens described as “platform sympathy for the Black and . . . platform indifference to our own countrymen.”
The Jamaica insurrection is another hopeful piece of business. That platform sympathy with the Black—or the Native, or the Devil—afar off, and that platform indifference to our own countrymen at enormous odds in the midst of bloodshed and savagery makes me stark wild.
The indifference of these universalist elites to the plight of the working classes of their own people is striking, and highly reminiscent of what we see today. It’s also hard to explain simply by invoking empathy on steroids. These people have empathy, but not for anyone that looks like himself.
Exeter Hall was largely responsible for the production and dissemination of a range of anti-slavery and pro-Black propaganda which, with its heady emotional characteristics, thrived on those under the influence of the Romantic movement. It was of course highly idealistic:
There was also significant involvement in the movement from the Protestant churches. It was the religious arm of Exeter Hall which was responsible for sending mission upon mission to the colonies with the aim of not only saving souls but of “regenerating whole races,” and it was this religious arm, in conjunction with the mainstream propaganda effort, which popularized the idea of the “noble savage” among the congregations of Britain’s churches. …
The idea that Whites, particularly Anglo-Saxons, had a divinely ordained mission to raise up the backward peoples of the earth was driven by Exeter Hall’s most basic article of faith—that all peoples could be raised to the same high level of civilization as themselves. Liberals always have a very strong self-concept as morally superior.
Moral posturing is of course front and center in the contemporary West. Joyce calls attention to an author who watched Steven Spielberg’s Amistad, recalling Whites “squirming in their seats,” and that afterwards a White couple emerged from the theatre “clinging to each other in a desperate attempt to manage the tragedy that had unfolded before them in graphic and picturesque fashion.” Joyce comments:
What we are thus seeing, in this and myriad other instances, is the emotional abuse and torture of a generation of Whites too ill-informed to generate appropriate intellectual or emotional responses to the fictions they are presented with. The dreamscape of Exeter Hall, in which traitors and murderers become national heroes, is entrenched. It has been absorbed, integrated, and assimilated into the White consciousness, and we, the ideological and psychological descendants of Dickens, are relegated to a much-maligned periphery for daring to suggest that the emperor has no clothes.
My article, which I summarize extensively (based on a recent talk) describes the movement to end slavery in the late 18th century which finally succeeded in ending the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in the 1830s. This material fits exactly with Jared Taylor’s review and Andrew Joyce’s article, and I attempt to develop a theory of why Whites are uniquely prone to pathological altruism and create moral ingroups composed of people who are racially different from themselves, in some cases even to the exclusion of their racial kin, as in the case of Exeter Hall. In fact, the historical data on the anti-slavery movement are completely redundant with Andrew Joyce’s findings on the reaction of Exeter Hall to the Morant Bay rebellion. We see the same crusading moral universalism and idealism, often couched in specifically Christian religious terms. And as mentioned in the Jared’s review, the movement to end slavery was a uniquely Western phenomenon.
My thesis is that this campaign of moral vilification relies on pre-existing tendencies among a great many Whites toward moral universalism and creating ingroups based on moral qualities rather than kinship.
Empathy: The abolitionist movement appealed to their audiences by emphasizing the suffering of slaves. The movement realized that “the way to stir men and women to action is not by biblical argument, but through the vivid, unforgettable description of acts of great injustice done to their fellow human beings. The abolitionists placed their hope not in sacred texts, but in human empathy.”
Moral universalism: Abolitionist appeals to mass audiences also emphasized the universalist ideology aimed at combating the idea that slaves were an outgroup rather than members of a common humanity. A famous medallion with a kneeling slave was inscribed “Am I not a man and a brother?” “Reproduced everywhere from books and leaflets to snuffboxes and cufflinks, the image was an instant hit.”
Western uniqueness: One does not see Chinese people agonizing over the fact that the Han Chinese greatly expanded their territory at the expense of other peoples—a point brought out by Ricardo Duchesne in his groundbreaking The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. Nor does one see the Bantu peoples of Africa worrying about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa, including into South Africa where their treatment at the hands of White South Africans became Exhibit A for White evil during the apartheid era; nor do the Bantu-speaking peoples agonize about the widespread practice of slavery in Africa. Arabs do not apologize about their conquests in the name of Islam or their centuries-old role in slavery and the slave trade.
Only Whites have been made to feel moral disgust at their own past of conquest and expansion. And as elaborated below, only Whites—not all, to be sure, but a significant and important proportion—have felt moral outrage about slavery, to the point of banning it despite its material benefits to the society as a whole and to a great many individuals quite a bit like themselves.
The Psychology of Altruism and Moral Universalism
Within an evolutionary framework on personality, empathy is linked to Nurturance/Love, the personality system underlying close relationships of intimacy and trust that evolved in order to cement close family relationships. On average, women are more altruistic, nurturing, and empathic than men, but of course there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, just as there is with any trait—height, for example.
However, recent research shows that empathy tends to be directed at ingroup members. There is substantial research linking empathy to levels of oxytocin, but oxytocin operates to make people more altruistic and defensive toward their ingroup.
This research suggests that a good strategy for abolitionists would be to frame the African slaves as members of a common humanity—as members of an ingroup rather than an outgroup. In fact, as described below, abolitionist activists did indeed appeal to the common humanity of the African slaves. For example, for Reverend James Ramsay, the leading intellectual light of the Evangelical Anglicans, the point of opposition to slavery was to “gain to society, to reason, to religion, half a million of our kind, equally with us adapted for advancing themselves in every art and science that can distinguish man from man, equally with us capable of looking forward to and enjoying futurity.”
I also discuss Moral Idealism and the Ideology of Moral Universalism. Psychologically, this implies the ability of higher brain processes to suppress selfish tendencies that conflict with their ideals. Research has shown that people who are motivated can suppress ethnocentric tendencies and sexual urges via top-down control centered in the prefrontal cortex. People who are strongly motivated by empathy are particularly prone to moral idealism because their empathy motivates them in the same direction of their moral ideals, so that it would be easier to suppress egoistic desires.
Moral ideals may thus motivate people to control selfish behavior. Such a framework may be found in the abolitionist literature. For example, the seminal abolitionist writer Anthony Benezet, a Quaker, emphasized the need to suppress human pride and desire for worldly success by engaging in charitable works.
This implies that altruistic behavior is made easier because of the power of explicit processing over implicit processing—the worldly temptations implied by slavery may be suppressed, just as it is possible to suppress reward-oriented behavior, aggression, and ethnocentrism. For example, this implies that when people adopt ideologies of the left they see in the elite media and the educational system, having such an ideology motivates them to suppress healthy selfish tendencies.
Because it was the 18th century, such attitudes were embedded in religion:
Quakers: The Quakers were at the center of the movement to abolish slavery in England. Quaker networks and Quaker money were “of critical importance” in the early campaigns of 1787–1788; they were “the foremost champions of liberty for enslaved Africans.” In 1783 Quakers, with around 20,000 members, started an energetic campaign against slavery, responsible for the first petition to the House of Commons in 1783, the first anti-slavery committees (beginning in 1783 and including the very influential Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade established in 1787), and the printing and distribution of antislavery literature. Quakers did the vast majority of the practical, day-to-day work of the Society and were a major source of funding.
Quaker religious ideology is the apotheosis of moral universalism—an ideology in which moral principles trump self-interest. A basic Quaker belief was that “the ‘Inner Light’ of God’s revelation shone equally on human beings of any race or class.” Like many contemporary leftists, for Anthony Benezet, an important Quaker writer, human equality “was an ontological fact rather than a philosophical doctrine or maxim”; in addition to his African slaves, he extended his interest to the welfare of Native Americans and the poor in Philadelphia. A statement by a Quaker subcommittee submitted to Parliament was titled The Case of Our Fellow-Creatures, the Oppressed Africans.
With the Quakers, we don’t see the tendency to despise the lower orders of one’s own race, as with Exeter Hall.
Quakers were also highly egalitarian: they were “democratic and nonhierarchical”; there were no bishops or ordained ministers, and any person (including women) could speak. As with hunter-gatherer groups policy was passed by consensus of the entire meeting. Quakers were economically successful, a merchant class capable of devoting substantial resources to the cause of anti-slavery activism.
John Woolman, the “Quintessential Quaker,” was an eighteenth-century figure who opposed slavery, lived humbly, and, amazingly from an evolutionary perspective, felt guilty about preferring his own children to children on the other side of the world. Like other Quakers, Anthony Benezet certainly did not see opposition to slavery in terms of personal ambition: “Like most Quakers, Anthony Benezet showed little interest in self-promotion. Unprepossessing and lacking in charisma, he had a greater interest in charity than in burnishing his reputation.”
By their actions, the Quakers created a moral ingroup in which those outside the ingroup were seen as immoral, while being inside the moral ingroup fed into their self-esteem. In short, their brain circuits underlying morality and self-righteousness were activated.
Puritanism as a Prototype of “The Age of Benevolence”: Quakerism was an offshoot of Puritanism, developing in the context of the Puritan revolution and sharing many attitudes and ideas. This includes attitudes on the moral basis of society (“purify the world” and “visible sainthood” among believers.
These attitudes had strong repercussions throughout eighteenth-century England. Although Puritans per se were not at the forefront of the movement to abolish slavery, Jones’s work shows that the Puritan ethic was at the roots of what she describes as the eighteenth century’s “sustained humanitarianism and generous philanthropy.” Besides foundling homes, education for poor children, and other programs for the lower orders of British society, there was also a great deal of concern for African slaves.
Other religions, notably Methodism and some members of the Church of England had similar attitudes on slavery.
The Affective Revolution in England: An Ethnic Hypothesis
An ethnic hypothesis proposes that the eighteenth century saw the emergence of an ethos of egalitarianism that reflected the evolutionary past of an important segment of the British population as Northern hunter-gatherers. European groups are part of what Burton et al. term the North Eurasian and Circumpolar culture area. This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of monogamy.
There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). Historian John Hajnal has established that the simple household type based on a single married couple and their children is typical of Northwest Europe. It contrasts with the joint family structure typical of the rest of Eurasia in which the household consists of two or more related couples, typically brothers and their wives and other members of the extended family. An archeological excavation of a 4,600-year-old site in modern Germany found evidence for monogamy and exogamy, both strong markers of individualism.
The data thus show that Europeans, and especially Northwest Europeans, tend toward individualism. These societies were relatively quick to abandon extended kinship networks and collectivist social structures when their interests were protected with the rise of strong centralized governments..
Egalitarianism is a notable trait of hunter-gatherer groups around the world. Such groups have mechanisms that prevent despotism and ensure reciprocity, with punishment ranging from physical harm to shunning and ostracism. David Hackett Fischer emphasizes the egalitarian ethic that developed in New Zealand and Australia during the “Second Empire” in the nineteenth century: the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” (envy and resentment of people who are “conspicuously successful, exceptionally gifted, or unusually creative”). “It sometimes became a more general attitude of outright hostility to any sort of excellence, distinction, or high achievement—especially achievement that requires mental effort, sustained industry, or applied intelligence. . . . The possession of extraordinary gifts is perceived as unfair by others who lack them.”
This egalitarianism enforced by shunning that is so common today in Western countries is entirely reminiscent of the Jante Laws of Scandinavia which “mandate” that no one can rise above the others in the group. In my experience, the 10 commandments of Jante Law are well-known among Scandinavians as an aspect of self-identity.
- Don’t think you are as good as us.
- Don’t think you are smarter than us.
- Don’t fancy yourself better than us.
- Don’t think you know more than us.
Reflecting this pattern, Scandinavian society in general has a history of relatively small income and social class differences, including the absence of serfdom during the Middle Ages. A recent anthropological study of hunter-gatherers found that the economic inequality approximated that of modern Denmark. Moreover, socialist economic practices (including national health care) and women’s rights came relatively easily to Scandinavia as well as to “Second Empire” societies such as New Zealand. The movements discussed in here may be seen as the beginnings of the trend toward the far more advanced social welfare practices of twenty-first-century Western societies.
Anthropologist Christopher Boehm describes hunter-gatherer societies as moral communities in which women have a major role. In such societies, people are closely scrutinized to note deviations from social norms; violators are shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized. Decisions, including decisions to sanction a person, are by consensus. Adult males treat each other as equals.
All of these features are characteristic of Quakers and other groups discussed here. Like the original Puritans, the Quakers formed a group apart, where group membership was based on moral/ideological conformity. They were a “holy nation” who, also like the Puritans, desired that England become a Holy Commonwealth—the nation as moral ingroup. Indeed, the beliefs of the Quakers “were often the same as those of the Puritans. Even characteristically Quaker teachings were often puritan attitudes pushed to severe conclusions.” Membership was not based on kinship but was open to anyone who accepted the moral/ideological basis of the group. There was
a watchful regard for morals of the society, and a strict determination to bring all misdemeanors to account. Friends were regularly appointed to examine into and to report on the state of the society. Did a member neglect to attend on the means of grace, or was he guilty of “disorderly walking,” he was exhorted in a brotherly way.
The hunter-gatherer ethic implies that one’s moral character becomes the most important aspect of ingroup status. Individuals maintain their position in society by subscribing to its moral norms. Fundamentally, the movement to end slavery operated by defining abolitionism as a moral ingroup psychologically analogous to the situation in a hunter-gatherer ingroup. Those who continued to advocate the slave trade and slavery were shunned as moral pariahs, just as “racists” are today. The moral basis of the anti-slavery ingroup was firmly grounded in genuine empathic responses to the suffering of the slaves.
The logic connecting these tendencies to the individualist hunter-gather model is that like all humans in a dangerous and difficult world, hunter-gatherers need to develop cohesive, cooperative ingroups. But rather than base them on known kinship relations, the prototypical egalitarian-individualist groups of Northwest Europe are based on moral reputation and trust. Rather than being based on known kinship relations or ingroup/outgroup relations based on ethnicity, they are open to other reputable and trustworthy individuals. Egalitarian-individualists create moral-ideological communities in which those who violate public trust and other manifestations of the moral order are shunned, ostracized, and exposed to public humiliation—a fate that would have resulted in evolutionary death during the harsh ecological period of the Ice Age.
Ethnic Origins. As David Hackett Fischer notes in Albion’s Seed, the Puritans and Quakers both originated mainly from groups that had emigrated from Scandinavia in prehistoric times, and their cultures reflect the strong egalitarian universalist tendencies of Scandinavia described above and apparent in the antislavery movement. Puritanism originated in East Anglia, which was settled by Angles and Jutes (both from the Jutland Peninsula) in prehistoric times. They produced “a civic culture of high literacy, town meetings, and a tradition of freedom,” distinguished from other British groups by their “comparatively large ratios of freemen and small numbers of servi and villani.”
There was a strong strand of moral universalism and concern with fairness apparent in the Puritan-descended intellectuals who dominated American intellectual life in the nineteenth century and formed the intellectual force behind the American abolitionist movement. In the nineteenth century, these intellectuals placed a high value on fairness—for example, strongly opposing slavery on moral grounds. They tended to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues. Opposing sides were painted in stark contrasts of good versus evil. Whereas in the Puritan settlements of Massachusetts the moral fervor was directed at keeping fellow Puritans in line, in the nineteenth century it was directed at the entire country and focused on the evils of slavery and capitalism.
One example among many is Orestes Brownson, an important nineteenth-century intellectual and orator. He admired the Universalists’ belief in the inherent dignity of all people and the promise of eventual universal salvation for all believers. He argued for the unity of races and the inherent dignity of each person, and he was fiercely opposed to Southerners for trying to enlarge their political base.” Writing in 1840, Brownson claimed that we should “realize in our social arrangements and in the actual conditions of all men that equality of man and man” that God had established but which had been destroyed by capitalism.
Like the Puritans, the Quakers stem from a distinctive, ethnically based British subculture originating in Scandinavia. The predominant region for Quakers in England was the North Midlands colonized by Viking invaders who prized individual ownership of houses and fields; they spoke Norse into the twelfth century. They were seen by others as independent and egalitarian, dressing alike and eating together. “Their houses were sparsely furnished, and their culture made a virtue of simplicity and plain speech.” In 1654, a Quaker described their philosophy of living as
the strippings of all needless Apparel, and the forsaking of superfluities in Meats [and] Drinks; and in the plain self-denying Path we walked, having the fear and dread of God in our Souls, that we were afraid of offending in word or deed: our Words were few and savory . . . our Countenances Grave and Deportment Weighty. . . . Indeed we were a plain broken-hearted, contrite spirited, self-denying people.
Quakers tended to be relatively poor farmers working poor, rocky soil. Historically, they were dominated by an oppressive foreign elite and made virtues of simplicity and hard work in a harsh environment.
There is a clear continuity between the moral communities that emerged in the eighteenth century and the contemporary world. The logic of moral universalism based on empathic concern is now ubiquitous, rationalizing everything from wars of liberation against oppressive dictators to alleviating the suffering of animals. It is a lynchpin for policy on immigration and refugees, ethnic relations, poverty, and much else.
These tendencies toward egalitarianism and moral universalism were presumably adaptive within small hunter-gatherer groups in the environment Northern Europeans evolved in. In the contexgt of freeing slaves by a dominant group whose dominance was not threatened by the action, one might certainly argue that it was not pathological altruism. However, moral universalism is not adaptive in the modern world where migration is cheap and easy, and where empathy and altruism toward migrants are routinely manipulated by hostile elites to serve their material and ethnic interests.
In this regard, a particular feature of the modern world bears mentioning: although the anti-slavery movement beginning in the late eighteenth century certainly took advantage of the available media (newspapers favored abolition at least by 1792), the reach and power of the mass media are far greater today. Because of the power of higher brain centers, media messages can be used to frame events in a way that evokes empathy and therefore rationalizes actions that may cynically serve other interests.
Perhaps most crucially, the media continues to create messages of White guilt, so that for many Whites, being opposed to any positive form of White identity and any sense that Whites have legitimate interests have become moral imperatives. This is a disaster.
White guilt is central to the ideology of the new elite. This ideology pathologizes the people and culture of the West—it makes Whites into moral pariahs, deprives Whites of moral capital, and makes Whites a people for whom there is no legitimate basis for having a sense of White interests or even identifying as a White person. It is no secret that Jews are a prominent component of this new elite. Andrew Joyce describes “a Jewish academic and cultural stance which places Jews outside “Whiteness” and Western civilization, and therefore outside its past, despite strong Jewish involvement in the slave trade and in slave ownership.
Andrew Joyce provides an appropriate conclusion for this train of thought:
I do not subscribe to the opinion that the past can help us to discern the future, but if I could venture one suggestion, it would be this: to end the monopoly of morality enjoyed by the inmates currently running this asylum. The White man is currently in a degraded state, and never before has he been presented as such an immoral creature. Nativism in the United States in the 1920s was successful in large part because they attached themselves to moral causes—they opposed criminality, they joined in the temperance movement, they were moral crusaders. I am not by any means advocating a drive for prohibition, but if concern for morality is at the heart of White pathology, if it is the source of our weakness, it must be turned to our strength, it must be reclaimed to our advantage.