A brief analysis of pathologically altruistic writing

I recently read an article that stands out to me as a great example of pathological altruism. Benjamin Reuter, Executive Editor of HuffPost Germany, wrote the following. Please give it a read:


The author of this article is another shining example of a self-righteous, virtue signaling, moral supremacist. The kind of delusional leftism he espouses is truly fascinating. His argument, like that of so many other pathologically altruistic leftists, is based on the premise that what is of paramount importance, is to offend nobody, and make concessions to whatever and every force that will eventually and invariably change the definition of the European identity, beyond reverse, save for the geography of the continent.

It’s basic game-theory – it’s common sense; if you facilitate an environment that is conducive to the proliferation of any given group, without any form of moderation whatsoever, there is nothing to prevent any given group from slowly taking majority status over time. The argument for this is a compelling one, based on recent trends and statistics. Many major cities in Europe are becoming unrecognizable due to changing demographics. Foreign immigration is a largely one-sided affair, in that being on the receiving end of millions of economic migrants and refugees is not something we see reciprocated from Europe into such countries that are the source of these mass influxes. Furthermore, these people have much, much higher birth-rates than native Europeans. European governments play a hand in this. Somehow, there is room in the budget for native European tax payers’ money to fund a state-sponsored social welfare program that fosters the proliferation of these foreign-sourced demographics. Please reflect on this in context with the following paradox: Many Europeans feel that they can not afford to raise children while maintaining an acceptable standard of living. As a result, birth rates across Europe are at an all-time low. The European government’s stance on this? Rather than creating incentives to stimulate healthy, sustainable birth rates among the native European populations, they opt for the following:

The use of transient “economic benefits” as a pretext to implement population replacement. That, somehow, it economically makes sense to spend as much as ten times more to deal with all the problems that arise from trying to “integrate” them in European countries, than what it would cost to integrate foreign economic migrants and refugees into the similarly-cultured neighboring countries of their own. To make the European people pay both financially, culturally, and demographically, to risk the lives of thousands who perish in the journey to reach Europe.

And Benjamin Reuter? He’s thrown the baby out with the bath water, forsaken his roots, and pathologized Europe’s right to defend herself from this. He’s let moral posturing take precedent over the preservation and continuity of a precious and unique form of cultural, ethnic, racial, and historical expression. He is a sellout, a member of what I call “sellout culture”, which is itself a symptom of globalization. He’s addicted to delicious poisons. He’s a tiny component in the machine of his own deconstruction. And he feels great about it. He draws his sense of self-affirmation from his participation in the destruction of his heritage. Frankly, one really has to say – that’s completely fucked up.

As I wrote in my previous article, there are people out there who have, in selfish, egoic, narcissistic fashion, integrated moral supremacy into the fabric of their identity, and formed a destructive addiction to feeding it. The author is a perfect example of this. For him, the glorification of foreigners’ victim status takes precedent over what little shards of a backbone Europe has left. Him, and legions of beta-leftists like him, are willing and eager to destroy what’s left, beyond repair.

He is akin to Nero, who plays the fiddle in haze of delight while Rome burns.

Because of these people, one day we will compare pictures of Europe from 1950, to pictures of Europe in 2050, and wonder what happened, as we look at two different worlds. The natural one we destroyed out of apathy, and the artificial one that was created under pretexts such as “diversity” and “tolerance”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s