Drowning in Altruism: Thoughts on White Pathology and the Invasion of Europe

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


‘The worst of charity is that the lives you are asked to preserve are not worth preserving.’
     Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conduct of Life (1860) 

Here at TOO we are increasingly concerned with the origin, nature, and expression of pathological altruism in Whites. While there are a number of causes behind our rapid biological and cultural decline, this is surely one of the most potent, and it requires urgent and ongoing attention. I recently spent an evening reading a large amount of material on the deaths of Africans attempting to illegally enter Europe. It wasn’t long before I was confronted with an outpouring of White angst over the drowning of a disputed number of African invaders. On webpage after webpage, in one of the strangest contortions of logic imaginable, I witnessed Europe being slandered with murder for failing to facilitate an entirely risk-free method of invasion. All of the tropes about evil Whites were brought into play. The Maltese Prime Minister said the deaths were “nothing less than genocide,” and Swedish MEP Cecilia Wikström compared the deaths to “the Holocaust”:

I think that my children and grandchildren are going to ask why more wasn’t done to help people running away from Isis, or violence in Eritrea or wherever, when we knew that people were dying in their thousands. People will ask the same question they did after the war, ‘if you were aware, why didn’t you do something?’ In Sweden we allowed our railroads to be used to transfer Jews to Nazi death camps.

The hand-wringing of the politicians was matched by an outpouring of fashionable grief from White social justice types. On social media platforms Whites are straining to display their moral credentials, and thus increase their social status among peers, by trying to express the most indignation at ‘Europe’s failure.’ Academics, along with the media one of the main sources of cultural control, joined in the European festival of self-hate. Consider the remarks of Dr Tom Vickers, of Northumbria University’s Department of Social Sciences:

The people drowning in their hundreds in the Mediterranean are the victims of securitised immigration controls, imperialist wars, and an approach to immigration policy that places profit before people. Of course we should demand that EU states do everything possible to save people from drowning, and we should also demand a safe means for them to cross into Europe and equal rights with citizens when they arrive.

What Vickers is proposing is nothing less than the obliteration of European borders, and the subsidization of the African usurpation of the European peoples. It is a blueprint for Europe to abolish itself, especially given Africa’s 1 billion plus population, their high fertility, and the violence and poverty that are endemic to the region. Vickers’ ill-informed comments would be comical in their naivety, and scandalous in their implications, if they were not so widely held and endorsed by millions of like-minded Whites. On England’s Brighton beach, around two hundred of these maladaptive imbeciles, evidently with nothing better to do, climbed into body bags as part of a protest organized by Amnesty International.

I hasten to add that, amidst the tears, Facebook ‘sharing,’ and other trend-following nonsense indulged in by espresso-sipping White ethno-masochists, a number of vital facts have been left unaddressed. For a start, last year’s UN figures showed that the annual death rate for would-be invaders was less than 1.5%. To put this into some kind of perspective, the number of Africans who die annually trying to reach Europe is around the same number killed each year by a hippopotamus. These are just the recent figures that have whipped Whites into a self-hating frenzy — in 2012 an African was six times more likely to be killed by a hippo than die while trying to enter Europe.

Making an attempt to cross and enter Europe is seen by would-be invaders as exceptionally easy and, for an illegal endeavor, very safe. In fact, the crossing is a victim of its own success. As it became more and more attractive, it eventually became slightly less safe due to the increase in numbers attempting to make the crossing, fuller and less stable boats, and a rise in demand enticing more unscrupulous people traffickers. The key to stopping the flow, and reducing any danger, is not to make it safer for invaders, but rather to stop them at their point of departure or decimate demand for crossings by making it known that Africans have no place in Europe. Instead, Europe is shaming itself because it isn’t able to ensure the same previous levels of safety and assistance that brought about the invasion boom in the first place.

The sober reality of the situation hasn’t prevented the majority of White Europeans from incorporating the latest collateral damage of the African invasion into an increasingly frenzied moral panic about the Continent’s reception of ‘refugees.’ Pathological Whites are clamoring for it to be made extremely easy and safe for those trying to enter Europe illegally and they are basing this on an incredibly dysfunctional set of precepts:

  • That Africans have an innate and unchallengeable ‘right’ to enter Europe.
  • That Europeans have an ‘obligation’ to ensure illegal Africans can enter Europe safely.
  • That African deaths in transit are a result of European indifference rooted in racism, and that this somehow ties in with European ‘responsibility’ for Jewish deaths during World War II.
  • That the illegal African invading force is saintly, and consists largely of women and children.

These people are operating in a dreamscape entirely detached from reality. Going solely by statistics, these invaders set sail in order to take the resources bequeathed to Europeans by their ancestors, to rape European women on an unprecedented scale, and to speedily fasten themselves like ticks upon European social welfare provisions. Pathological Whites are beholden to the image of boats filled with saintly men, women and children seeking peace, prosperity and inter-ethnic harmony. This is due mainly to the fact that much of the media propaganda circulating on the Mediterranean deaths attempts to convey the image of drowning families, women, and children. CNN screeched about ‘pregnant women,’ while other news sources peddled tales of toddlers waiting to depart Libya for European shores.

This fabrication cleverly appeals to the Titanic-like ‘women and children first’ heartstring that appears to be so easily plucked in Whites. However, it remains a calculated misrepresentation — UN statistics confirm the vast majority of illegal African invaders are male. Even a cursory glance at photographs of the invasion fleet reveals the personnel to be overwhelmingly young males — precisely the demographic profile one would expect of an invading force. However, the controllers of the media want the maximum emotional impact for their tale of woe. Boatloads of what looks like a casting call for Boyz N the Hood won’t suffice, so the narrative is skewed away from reality in order to stoke the moral panic.

What do these illegal male African immigrants do once they have safely arrived on European soil? Well, according to statistics, in Denmark they have a crime rate 73% higher than the Danish male population average. In Finland they will form 2.2% of the population but commit 21% of rapes. In Germany they will commit crimes five times more often than natives. In Greece they will be responsible for half of all criminal activity. In the Netherlands their youth will be responsible for 63% of juvenile crime. In Norway, they committed all assault rapes in 2007, 2008 and 2009. They comprise 69.7% of the Swiss prison population, and have a crime rate 600% higher than the Swiss average. In Sweden they will commit 25% of all crime, and are five times more likely to commit a sex crime than natives. In England they will commit a third of all sex crimes. In Italy they will be responsible for 40% of rapes.

Nevertheless, pathological Whites want it to be made easier for these men to get to Europe. Once here, the pathology continues as the invaders are greeted by Whites who are indoctrinated to see them as no different from anyone else. The invaders are trusted. Relationships develop. Relationships like that of English nurse Kate Cullen, who extended her own welcome to ‘asylum seeker’ Iman Ghaefelipour by involving herself romantically with him. Ghaefelipour reciprocated by stabbing her in the head 130 times.

But no lessons were learned, and the pathology continues. The saintly seafarers must be rescued. These Whites are agonizing over the safety of African invaders who will inevitably bring misery to themselves and their progeny.

Why are so many Whites seemingly incapable of seeing the situation as it truly is? Despite all facts to the contrary, they clearly persist in seeing self-interested crime-prone invaders as saintly victims traversing a terrible sea in search of peace and harmony with their new White friends. According to the pathological narrative, the peace-loving ‘women and children’ drown as victims of a heartless, racist ‘fortress Europe.’Part of the reason for White blindness is that Whites are very consumed with the emotive qualities of the false narrative. The ‘women and children’ fantasy, together with an emphasis on Europe’s moral ‘obligations,’ is very prominent in discussions of this issue. It appeals to Whites on an instinctive level.

However, these putative White instincts are redundant without triggers, and these have been ably provided by the media and its direction and manipulation of public opinion. There is thus a potent mix of manipulative media narrative and emotive triggers which combine to move the sensibilities of Whites. Exactly the same situation prevailed in the West in the early 1880s when Whites were fed false narratives of the Russian pogroms. Then, Whites rushed to protest against Russian violence and support the innocent Jews (women and children were prominent in the narrative of Jewish victimization), oblivious to the fact the violence was invented. The Jews weren’t peace-seeking ‘refugees’ at all, but were flooding the West in search of wealth and power. The reason for White ignorance was a contemporary media monopoly, Jewish propaganda, and the careful control of the popular narrative.

It is true that Whites appear exceptionally altruistic at times, but it must be acknowledged that this is exacerbated and directed to a great extent by media and cultural influences which dictate to Whites where the moral boundaries lie. It’s no coincidence that examples of White suicidal altruism, in issues of ethnicity and race, began around the mid-nineteenth century, precisely the same period that witnessed the rise of the modern mass media.

The concept of a ‘moral panic’ may be useful for our understanding of the interaction between a manipulative media, cultural Marxism, and White sensitivity to moral issues. Moral panics are traditionally conceived as intense feelings expressed in a population about an issue which appears to threaten the social order. Common examples provided in this context are the panic over video games in the early 1990s, and panics in several countries over ritual satanic abuse. In these cases, the media is said to be volatile and play a large role in stoking a level of public concern about the issue which is disproportionate to the true level of the threat. There is normally also a sense of hostility towards an identified ‘folk devil.’ The concept has been readily accepted and pushed by Jews and the Left because Leftist academics commonly associate moral panics with allegedly irrational Right-wing or traditional beliefs. Some have even attempted to construct ‘anti-Semitism’ as little more than a moral panic. I believe the model remains useful, but not in the way it has been utilized by Jews or the Left.

I think the best conception of a moral panic is to see it as intense feelings expressed in a population about an issue which appears to threaten the moral order, rather than the social order. This allows us to better understand the manipulation of the immigration debate, and the recent White reaction to the deaths of African invaders is a classic example. Suicidal White altruism on behalf of African invaders is brought about and encouraged by the framing of African deaths by the media and the controllers of culture as a simple and explicitly moral issue. There is an overwhelming focus on European ‘obligations’ in current discussion and this is accompanied by maudlin ‘it’s the right thing to do’ chattering. The deaths are carefully quarantined from discussions about the impact of immigration or immigrant crime. We are instead encouraged to focus just on the ‘women and children’ and the boats.

The intensity of European public feeling is thus stoked by a false narrative, including continuous stories about ‘pregnant women’ and children, until the feeling of concern is greatly disproportionate to the actually quite minimal risk taken by African men. The issue, as it exists in the public mind, is thus greatly different in scale and content from the situation as it actually occurs. The resultant extreme moralism on the issue is thus a product of the European concern with morality as social currency (an internal factor), together with a significant amount of manipulation and direction via domination by hostile elites of the media and intellectual high ground in the West (an external factor). The ‘folk devil’ in this case, as in all others involving race, is European man himself. He is encouraged to keep pushing his government to introduce ever more lenient border measures (which are designated as inherently immoral) until they are finally abolished altogether. Only when non-Whites have unfettered access to his land and resources will his internal guilt be assuaged.

The seed of the notion of Europeans as folk devils is sown from a young age in European minds through ‘Holocaust’ education and skewed lessons on the history of slavery and race relations. The eradication of the White’s sense of ethnocentrism (indeed, the cultivation of his active disdain for it) is completed with his college education, where he is exposed to the radical critique of his culture and its past. Throughout his education and growth into adulthood he is surrounded by a rapidly degenerating culture in which there are no certainties, no traditions. He unthinkingly absorbs the prevailing dogma: gender is a construct, race is a construct, sexuality is fluid, and the traditional family unit is despotic. Stripped of all sense of pride and identity, the young (often successful and educated) are then primed to begin a life of conscious or unconscious self-hatred. Kevin MacDonald has pointed to young, childless, 30-something Whites who fit exactly this profile. They join organizations like Doctors without Borders, where they risk being murdered and work for peanuts helping non-Whites. They then return home where they showcase their inter-ethnic altruism for social approval.

This self-hatred can be relatively dormant, to the extent that it is often sub-conscious, but will spike when the media or other cultural influences discover a suitable issue and build a false narrative around it. When the false narrative goes mainstream, replete with emotive moral triggers, White self-hate translates into activism which then takes on a life and momentum of its own. The moral crusade quickly becomes fashionable, spreading on trend-facilitators like social media, gaining more and more blind followers. The true facts behind the original issue are by this point buried under layers of socially constructed debate, stunts, and protests of the ‘body-bag-on-a-beach’ variety. Counterarguments are at this stage designated as subversive, and as an extension of the folk devil of Europe’s ‘racist’ past. Even ‘indifference’ and any mention of the costs of immigration are treated with contempt. Those individuals who are alert to the ruse and actively organize behind a counterargument, such as PEGIDA or nationalist political parties, are designated as folk devils incarnate. Confronted with these folk devils, White moralism reaches its zenith.

An excellent example of reaction to a specific ‘folk devil’ in this instance is the furore caused by Katie Hopkins, a journalist for England’s The Sun. Hopkins refused to accept the false narrative, and sent pathological Whites into a tailspin by writing a piece titled ‘Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants.’ She wrote: “NO, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don’t care. Because in the next minute you’ll show me pictures of aggressive young men at Calais, spreading like norovirus on a cruise ship.”

Hopkins’ crime here was her refusal to display the expected emotional response to the trigger propaganda, along with her refusal to adopt the tunnel-vision of events advocated by the media. She refused to see only the bodies and the boats. She stuck to the bigger picture — the picture of a Europe invaded by “aggressive” Africans who are “spreading like norovirus” across Europe. Hopkins refused to accept the false image of vulnerable, victimized women and children. She wrote, “Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches…they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors. Once gunships have driven them back to their shores, boats need to be confiscated and burned on a huge bonfire.”

Reaction against Hopkins was swift. A petition calling for her to be fired from her job has now gathered well over a quarter of a million signatures on Change.org, that cesspit for pathological White activism. The page pertaining to Hopkins proudly announces it has raised around $50,000 for the African invaders, and features ‘Twitter mentions’ for self-important White moralists who have condemned Hopkins as ‘vile,’ ‘evil,’ ‘a Nazi,’ ‘loathsome,’ and ‘repulsive.’ The United Nations, urged on by the social outrage fashion-followers, described her comments as “pro-genocide propaganda (!).”

Finally, after a complaint by the Society of Black Lawyers, who alleged that Hopkins was guilty of incitement to racial hatred, the ‘specialist crime and investigations directorate’ of the Metropolitan Police is now considering whether Hopkins should be prosecuted under the Public Order Act (the racial aspect of which, as I have previously documented, was introduced thanks to Jewish efforts). We thus see the full performance of a trifecta of White handicaps — the destruction of White culture, the manipulation of White opinion and moral outrage, and the repression of pro-White counterargument through cultural and legal controls.

Aside from active factors in the White malaise, we must also consider the passive factors. It is an unfortunate reality that the majority of people in any given society are relatively unthinking. Many are intellectually lazy or are otherwise pre-occupied with other aspects of their lives. These people, and we all know many of them, unquestionably accept widely circulating information as factual, acceptable, and rational. Many either can’t or won’t engage in independent thought, and it is therefore unsurprising that many Whites are happy to ‘like’ and ‘share’ and ‘comment’ on the invader deaths in the manner commensurate with their indoctrination, but refrain from ever conducting independent research into the matter.

If they did possess such initiative, they would find that many of the deaths are murders committed by the migrants themselves. This would undoubtedly have an impact on their view of the situation. It appears that the majority of cases of invader deaths on the Med are murders, carried out for tribal or religions reasons, or by unscrupulous smugglers. For example, less than two weeks ago fifteen Muslim invaders threw twelve Christian invaders into the Mediterranean, where they drowned. Was Europe to blame for this? Of course not, but the twelve will be quietly added to the death toll, which will then be used by Europeans for self-flagellation. Last year, according to the New York Times, “smugglers deliberately rammed a boat carrying some 500 refugees who refused a transfer to a smaller boat they felt was not safe. The smugglers reportedly laughed as terrified men, women and children sank into the sea. Only nine people are thought to have survived.”

Is this an example of a ‘genocide’ carried out by Europe? Pathological Whites believe so, and they are rushing to give assuage their guilt by devoting their time, energy and resources to assisting the African invasion.

On such couple is Chris and Regina Catrambone. These millionaires are spending an average $445,000 each month operating a 40-meter floating medical center. Their operation has helped more than 3,000 Africans reach Europe since launching late last year. The case of the Catrambone’s illustrates the array of social and cultural influences bearing down on Whites and encouraging their activism on behalf of African invaders. The couple say there were inspired by a sermon from Pope Francis in which he criticized what he called the “global indifference” to the ‘refugee crisis.’

This brings us to another contributing factor of White pathology — the total failure of modern Christian religious institutions to protect the ethnic group that brought the Christian religion to its greatest fulfilment. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, a lot of this has to do with the corruption of the Church by the secular Left, and the fact that after the 60s eventually even Christians adopted a lot of the attitudes of the era. But a major failing of Christianity is that, unlike Judaism or comparable racialist religions like the Nation of Islam, is has no ethnic component whatsoever. Christianity is fundamentally universalist and this renders it completely ineffective as the driving force for a White group evolutionary strategy.  Christianity may have worked in the past, but it is not going to help us now. Christian moralism, when combined with Christian universalism, is a death sentence for White ethnic interests. When morality is defined as essentially universal, it can have no ethnic application. In fact, in the context of intense ethnic competition, such a moral scheme will inevitably contribute to the rapid decline of the universalists. As I have written previously,

In the past, when Europe, North America and other White homelands were ethnically homogenous (and confidently so) some of the fundamental conflicts between ideas of the “universal man under God,” and an acknowledgement that one was part of a specific ethnic community with concrete interests, could be masked. Not so in this brave new world. Only since the 1950s can we assess the utility of the Christian faith in acting as a boon to the folk who for centuries granted it lordship over them. And in the assessment of this writer, it has been found wanting.

I have no real hostility to Christianity. I believe simply that it will only be an asset to White ethnic survival when it recognizes the genocide of Whites and designates it as a moral evil and contrary to the wishes of God. Unfortunately, I see no signs of this occurring.

Morality is not, in itself, a bad thing. But history is replete with examples of mankind perpetrating evil in the conviction that ‘the right thing’ was being done. A great evil is underway in Europe — the slow but steady genocide of an indigenous people — and it is being carried out under superficially ‘moral’ precepts. All one needs to do in order to engineer such an evil among a people prone to altruism and sensitive to moral concerns, is to redraw the moral boundaries of that people — to make them their own folk devil. We at TOO know better than most how and why our society has been transformed and its values inverted. And we know who lies behind it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.