altruism and race

Altruism is usually defined as the willingness to place the interest of others above one’s self-interest. Over the ages, philosophers have tended to argue against the theory of altruism, believing instead that, in the end, all human action is self-serving. Recently, psychologists have entered the discussion, and some have concluded that altruism does exist. One such psychologist, Daniel Batson, has devoted much of his career to studying altruism. In his book “A Scientific Search for Altruism,” Batson gives a detailed account of that study. He frames the book somewhat as a detective story. Batson uses a Sherlock Holmes quote as a guiding principle: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” He goes over each of the egoistic theories, one by one, and seemingly disproves them all.

In the end, Batson concludes that altruism exists and forms what he calls the Empathy Altruism hypothesis – the idea that empathic emotion produces altruistic motivation. In other words, if an individual is induced to feel empathy for another person, his helping behavior will be genuinely altruistic, rather than self-centered. Why would one human feel empathy for another? Batson seems to think empathy is an extension of the parental instinct present in all mammals.

Of all the egoistic theories for helping behavior Batson discusses and dismisses, one stands out above the rest for its uniqueness—the theory of self-other merging. The idea is that when you feel empathic concern for another, you no longer see yourself and the other as distinct individuals; the two of you merge in your mind, and you see the other’s needs as your own. So, empathy-induced helping is helping yourself.

There is more than one theory here, but the most serious was proposed by Bob Cialdini and colleagues in the 1990s. Cialdini thought that helping behavior occurred when individuals perceived part of themselves in the other. This self-merging, in Cialdini’s view, was an outward expansion of self into the other, and, as a result, individuals were willing to provide care to their now “extended” selves. Batson rejected these views because he said research did not support them.

In many religions, such as Buddhism, it is thought that if you follow the right path and meditate for long enough, you can quiet your mind to the degree that your brain waves essentially stop. Into this vacant place where your personality used to reside, the external world now enters, and you experience the external world as self(IE., Nirvana). What Cialdini proposed seems to be the exact opposite. Instead of including the other in the self, the self is projected into the external world.

Is Cialdini right? Is this the easiest way to explain modern altruistic behavior? Is all human behavior inherently selfish, but only appears altruistic because the self can be mentally extended, at least partly, into the other? Or is Batson’s theory correct? The idea is that humans can act altruistically but only when motivated by empathy. In the end, it doesn’t matter. It’s a moot question. It’s just a fun question for psychologists to argue. Pro-social behavior is a precious human trait and likely the foundation of civilization itself. The important thing is that this trait does not disappear.

If Cialdini’s theory is correct, one thing immediately becomes obvious: all humans are not endowed with this trait equally. Some have more of it than others. An easy way to grasp this might be to visualize two side-by-side radio towers – one with a strong signal and one with a relatively weak signal. Tower A’s signal is more robust than Tower B’s and, therefore, at close distances, it is clearer. Since A’s is more robust, it also travels further than B’s. So, tower A gives more clarity at close distances and can reach distances that tower B cannot, though its signal gets weaker the further it travels.

The individual with a higher self-merging nature, let’s call him citizen A, has a more robust “signal” than citizen B and will, therefore, likely behave differently from B. At the closest distance, that of immediate family, he might be less likely to neglect or abuse his children than B. He may practice behavior like high-investment parenting(having fewer children but providing those children more care). Why, as an example, would one mother, under stress, neglect or abuse her children while a different mother would never dream of doing so? Could it be that the latter views her children as an extension of herself and is loath to harm the child because she would experience the child’s pain as her own, while the former views her child as a separate person and thus would feel no pain?

At the intermediate distance, the society he lives in, he might show more concern for his fellow citizens than B. He might structure his entire society around fairness toward his fellow citizens. He might treat his fellow citizens as he would want to be treated himself. Why is one man honest with his fellow citizens while another is not? Could it be that the former views his fellow citizen as an extension of himself, at least partly, and thus would feel the pain of the other as his own should he mislead him, while the latter views the other as a completely separate person and thus would feel nothing from his dishonest actions?

At the furthest distance, that of the natural world, citizen A receives a signal, albeit a weak one, whereas citizen B gets none. So, A might exhibit behavior that B does not. He might, for example, show concern for the treatment of domestic animals, the treatment of wild animals, or even larger systems such as forests or oceans. These are subjects B is likely oblivious to. His concern for these things does not reach nearly the level he would show for his children, but he is aware of them and willing to offer them some care. Why is it that one person views the natural world and feels alarm when it is abused, while another views the same actions and feels nothing? Could the former view the natural world as an extension of themselves, at least distantly, and thus be willing to offer it some care, while the latter views it as something wholly separate and feels nothing for it?

He might even experience his physical self differently from Citizen B. If so, he might exercise regularly, eat healthy foods, or engage in other positive behaviors with the idea that he can control his destiny with his behavior. Is it possible that when citizen A’s confidence in providing for his needs reaches a high enough level, his ego expands beyond its boundaries into the other? Might his willingness to extend care be due to seeing part of himself in the external world? This would seem to explain Citizen A’s behavior. Batson’s theory of empathy-induced altruism does not explain it so well. Maybe his dismissal of the self-merging hypothesis(SMH) was premature.

Not only does this self-merging behavior vary between individuals, but it is also distributed unequally among the races. The Nordic[1] type mirrors the behavior of citizen A’s above – at least his more gifted members do. The Nordic type seems to have self-merging built into his nature.

White Nationalists often laud the white (Nordic) type for his “civilization-building ability” but frown on his attempt to extend care to almost everything around him. They don’t realize these are different expressions of one underlying nature. His civilization-building ability and his need to extend care stem from the same underlying nature, which expresses itself differently under differing circumstances. His willingness to mentally extend himself into the other, at least partly, leads him to give the other the same concern he would give himself. This trait is the social basis of civilization.

His willingness to extend himself mentally into the natural world, at least to some degree, makes it seem warm and inviting, not cold and distant as it might appear to other races.[2] Thus, the natural world invites him to interact with it, and he interacts with it more frequently than other races.[3] From this increased interaction with the natural world, he gains the self-confidence to modify it, and this eagerness to alter the world around him is the basis of industrial civilization. At any rate, no matter how you try to explain it, the Nordic feels closer to the external world than other races, and this closeness, not high IQ, is the foundation of civilization itself.

If Cialdini’s theory is correct, then the future evolution of man might be the continued evolution and expansion of self. If man(or at least a Nordic subset of man)continues this trend of mastery over the natural world, would his sense of self continue to expand? And if so, then what next? What would the future look like under such a path? While the future is unforeseeable, many fantastic outcomes could be imagined here. This positive future is much different than our current trajectory, though, which is highly damaging.

Altruism(I use altruism here because the equivalent SMH term does not exist)only exists because, in the past, when human groups were more isolated, the altruistic type sacrificed itself for other altruistic types. Hence, the trait continued in the next generation. Everything changes when you start to mix large groups of people. When you mix the altruistic with the nonaltruistic type, the former instinctively sacrifices itself for the latter. Since the latter does not carry this trait, over time, it’s just the end of altruism.

This is precisely what is happening in America today; the altruistic Nordic type is sacrificing itself for and being replaced by the nonaltruistic ‘other.’ As the Nordic type is diminished in the population, the concern for the other will also diminish. Concern for the rights of others will disappear, and so will a culture based on fairness. As the country darkens, concern for Mother Nature, endangered species, and the environment will disappear, and the population will take on a somewhat desperate ‘me first’ attitude. This attitude is growing daily. Over time, this will lead to the collapse of the country, and the ‘Western liberal democracy’ that was once America will transform itself into something more primitive, more desperate, and infinitely crueler. People who realize this can get pessimistic. There is a constant stream of influencers writing America’s eulogy on social media. Some seem to have given up all hope.

White nationalist types will tell you the only solution to this is an ethnostate. White Americans should separate from nonwhites and have their own ‘living space.’ Some of these plans call for deporting nonwhites back to their homelands, while other plans involve separating America into several racially based states. While this may be the best solution in the long run, the WN’s overlook several points.

The first and most obvious is the fact that an ethnostate is not practical at this time. Any attempt to separate the races, against their will, would likely end in disaster. It would take a decade or more of propaganda to convince Americans this is necessary. The WN’s also seem to take an isolationist view in that the white man should tend to his affairs while leaving the rest of the world alone. An isolationist policy would be a mistake because the modern world is his creation. Natural science is the product of Nordic man’s self-merging nature, and science’s offspring, technology, is also his creation. It is modern technology, such as disease control and hybrid food crop production, that gives life to most of Earth’s population.

Looking at population graphs, we can see Earth’s population shot up by 900 percent after the Industrial Revolution. It is, therefore, safe to say that the modern technological world, along with 90 percent of human life in it, is his creation – a result of Nordic man’s increased closeness with the external world. To abandon this creation would be the peak of irresponsibility. Nordic man has the right and the duty to govern his creation. Since almost all of the third world population is his creation, he needs to be allowed to care for them, even if this ‘care’ involves lowering their population. So, an isolationist policy here is not appropriate.

Another point the WNs seem to overlook is leadership. Nowhere in the white nationalist literature is any leadership plan outlined. They seem to have no idea what to do next once they take back their country.

An alternative to an ethnostate would be a hierarchy designed so that the citizens with the highest self-merging nature have the highest birthrate and societal influence. Such an arrangement, as outlined on the Noble Republic website, would solve the leadership problem. Because this leadership class would reselect itself every generation, it would allow for conscious evolution.

The proponents of the ethnostate idea seem to think that once “whites” have a living space of their own, some kind of paradise on Earth will ensue, and this is where their thinking stops. They have no idea what to do next. The danger here is that an ethnostate could devolve into stagnation. Picture a nation afraid of change. Because what’s new can be scary, at least for some people, the country may avoid anything new and stick only with what is known and comfortable. A conservative nation is afraid of change because change scares them. This is the danger. A nation stuck in the mud.

There is no such danger with a hierarchy explicitly designed to avoid this. For every generation, the self-merging nature of the population gets a little higher. With the ethnostate, all the focus is on who is “white” or not. With the hierarchy, it’s not so much the starting point but the direction that is important. As long as the most altruistic have the highest birthrate and the least have the lowest, all is good, and no one necessarily has to be deported.