perplexed in peoria

That is one valid viewpoint on the theory, and perhaps the simplest one.
But one can also adopt a purely organism-centric viewpoint. Organisms
carrying genes for altruism (with rb>c) benefit too. They have, on
average, higher fitness than organisms which do not carry the genes.

They don't benefit by BEING altruistic - that carries a cost c. But
they do benefit by having more altruistic relatives than do organisms
which don't carry the genes. As a result of this, carriers are
recipients more frequently than non-carriers. They receive extra
benefits amounting to rb. Therefore, they have a net increment to their
fitness proportional to (rb-c). That is the logic of the 1964 paper.
That logic seems to say nothing about the gene's eye view.

The "gene's eye view" IS necessary when investigating phenomena in
which the interests of the gene and the interests of the organism
are in conflict. Meiotic drive is a real, though rare, phenomenon.
But the "gene's eye view" IS NOT necessary in explaining kin selection.