Answer: when it is adaptive.
In Salter’s On Genetic Interests (First Edition), pgs. 307-308, there is a brief discussion of how calls by moralists for completely disinterested, self-sacrificing altruism by others can serve the selfish interests of the moralists. Salter cites “one leading evolutionary theorist” who contends that “only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.” Salter then cites someone else, called Alexander, who scoffs at this by suggesting that “this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.” Salter then states that “by definition such behavior will tend to reduce the relative fitness of the genetic altruist.” Salter then says it is unfortunate that Alexander did not discuss why the moralist’s arguments would not affect his own kin and offers no evidence that such moralists do not preach the same to their own families.
I’ll take a crack at this. I think Alexander fails by stating that the altruism has to be “indiscriminate” and thus the advice in favor of “self-sacrificing altruism” meant for universal consumption. From a WN point of view, when mainstream moralists call for such altruism, what they really mean is for (specifically) Whites to practice pathological self-sacrificing altruism for (specifically) non-Whites (including Jews). These calls can be explicit, or can be implicit using code-words, or simply using the realization that some ethnies are more or less ethnocentric than others, and that calls for such pathological altruism, while seemingly “universal,” will only affect less ethnocentric Whites while sparing non-Whites “immunized” by higher levels of ethnocentrism.
Note that dual morality raises its head here, with Jews promoting miscegenation across wide racial lines for Whites, while moaning that inter-marriage is “worse than Hitler” for Jews. And the allegedly “high” Jewish inter-marriage rate is probably not only overestimated, but I note that it is overwhelmingly conducted with White Gentiles, who are genetically and phenotypically relatively similar to Jews, while Jews promote miscegenation of White Gentiles with Negroes, Asians, and other genetically and phenotypically distant (and in some cases low-IQ etc. – e.g., Negroes) groups. So, yes, there is evidence that these moralists do not practice what they preach, and have a different message for familial and ethnic kin. Also see the Jews’ different opinions about diversity and immigration as it applies to the West vs. how it applies to Israel.
The problem also occurs within Der Movement, where it is sometimes suggested that “inferior” White ethnies and individuals should sacrifice their interests to altruistically promote the well-being of “superior” White ethnies – with such calls usually coming from “superior” ethnic individuals or by non-Whites with an axe to grind against Whites in general (or who are simply deranged and/or influenced by writings by “superior” ethnics calling, explicitly or implicitly, for such altruism). Also see page 109 of Salter’s book, where he states that calls for a special status for certain groups – e.g., that they are particularly deserving of having their EGI cared for – could be a “competitive move” by individuals from such groups.
I for one take the adaptive approach and would suggest that folks incorporate their own personal, familial, and (narrower) ethnic genetic interests in any activism in favor of more general EGI. The two do not have to be in opposition, and I see no special truth or nobility in self-sacrificing altruism that is one step removed from the general pathological altruism that is helping to destroy the White race.
By the way, objectively speaking, one cannot find fault with the position of Derbyshire, who has to balance his English/White EGI with the fact he has intertwined his personal/familial genetic interests with that of China. Hence, the promotion of anti-WN Jeurasian “race realism” and the HBD cult that grovels before the Altar of Asia, whole throwing a few bones in the direction of Whitey. However, subjectively, Derbyshire’s interest conflict with mine and with that of most White Americans; therefore, from our adaptive standpoint, we are justified in opposing him. That’s our “truth.”
I would propose that the only self-sacrificing altruism that is truly noble and moral is that which serves genetic interests. It is not noble to sacrifice one’s interests for someone else’s ethny. Indeed, when such sacrifice is done at the expense of one’s own ethny, it is commonly known as treason. The ultimate solution is to sacrifice along a continuum, or within a concentric circle, of interests. Thus, if a White person sacrifices for the White (European race), an entity that contains within in it whatever narrower identifies this person also has, then the sacrifice is noble, moral, and adaptive – indeed, adaptiveness should be a criterion for nobility and morality. After all, ultimate interests – which are genetic – by their very name trump all else.