Keith Preston: conflating one-worldism with humanism

I like AltRight but this misuse of language is not helpful ...

Keith Preston, Totalitarian Humanism Versus Qaddafi

In past blog postings for AltRight, I have discussed the phenomenon of what I call “totalitarian humanism,” a particular worldview that I regard as being at the heart of the most serious political and cultural problems currently facing the modern West. Specifically, I consider totalitarian humanism to be an intellectual and ideological movement among contemporary Western elites that serves as a replacement for older worldviews such as Christianity, nationalism, cultural traditionalism, Eurocentrism, or even Marxism. Such features of modern life as political correctness and victimology serve as a representation of the totalitarian humanist approach to domestic policy. The present war against the Libyan state provides an illustration of what the totalitarian humanist approach to foreign policy and international relations involves.

Note the glaring contradiction: "I consider totalitarian humanism to be an ... ideology".

Humanism = "A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values".

Ideology = "A set of doctrines or beliefs".

Hence humanism is human-centred (needs, values, desires, emotions) whereas ideology is literally anything that humans can dream up in our heads.

There is a totalitarian ideology ruling the Western world, but it most definitely is not human-centred. That ideology is one-worldism, diversity, globalisation, open-borders, liberalism, non-discrimination, etc. But that is a distinctly inhuman ideology that grates against our natural preferences for homogeneity and sovereignty.

It's a common attack by Christian conservatives against atheist conservatives to conflate humanism with atheism and nihilism, liberalism, chaos, anarchy, Hitler, baby eating, etc. Whilst it's true than most humanist organisations are nauseatingly pro-diversity and, granted, the conservative atheist movement is relatively small, nonetheless to conflate humanism with one-worldism and diversity is to bastardise the English language and to contradict science which shows that humans prefer their own kin.

I suggest using a term like "totalitarian one-worldism" or "totalitarian liberal atheism" rather than totalitarian humanism. Otherwise you're just making it harder for atheist conservatives to get our own humanist message out there.

Here Preston quotes the source of the term totalitarian humanism:

When one looks up the word 'Humanism' in an encyclopedia it states that Humanism is an ideology which focuses on the importance of every single human being. That it is an "ideology which emphasizes the value of the individual human being and its ability to develop into a harmonic and culturally aware personality". This sounds fair enough, right? Indeed it does, but it is my firm belief that the explanation here does not match the humanism of our time.

The so-called Humanists I have met have been putting a strong emphasis on humanity as a gigantic community rather than on the individual. Often one will even find alleged humanists who insist that the views, aspirations and basic happiness of indigenous Europeans is of no importance. Instead, these Humanists say, indigenous Europeans should bow down and forget about their own wants and desires for the greater good of humanity. The greater good of Humanity usually seems to be to take no interest in Europe's cultural heritage and integrate into a grey, world-wide, uniform "globalization" with the Coca-Cola-culture as loadstar.

Now what would be the right thing to do? Revert to the original individual-centred use of the word, or to propagate the bastardised one-worldism use of the word?

File under: smearing atheism with the stench of one-worldism by misrepresenting the spectrum of disbelief through bastardisation of the English language.

Jared Taylor: is diversity a strength?

Is Diversity a Strength? from AltRightTV on Vimeo.

Craig Bodeker: What are some of the most dangerous myths in American society today?

Jared Taylor: ... There's a whole host of beliefs in the United States today that I would categorise as so obviously wrong and stupid that only very, very intelligent people could persuade themselves that they're true. And one of them is the idea that diversity is a great gift for America. Diversity, of the kind we're all supposed to be celebrating, whether it's religious, or racial, or linguistic, or cultural - all of that - they are sources of tension and conflict, all around the world wherever you look. People are slaughtering each other with great diligence because diverse people are trying to share the same territory. And for us to think that that's a strength for the United States it's completely cuckoo...

Craig Bodeker: What are the policy consequences of believing in these myths?

Jared Taylor: Well, the whole notion of diversity, the notion that if you fill the United States with people as unlike each other as possible, that is somehow going to produce a great nation? That's very dangerous and it is particularly unfortunate for whites - the people who built and established this nation. Whites are supposed to celebrate diversity. What does that mean? They're supposed to celebrate their dwindling numbers and their dwindling influence. It's not as though you can fill the country with Haitians and Guatemalans and turn them into the moral heirs of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. It's simply not going to happen.

... the idea that you can get all these people from around the world and hold hands and sing kumbaya and live happily ever after? Crazy, and it will reduce whites to a minority. Frankly, I don't want to be a minority. I don't want my grandchildren to be a minority. So, the implications are bad for the country as a whole, because diversity is a source of conflict, and they're particularly bad for whites because they will be reduced to a minority in which they are likely to be a despised remnant. All of this story about how whites oppressed the third world, how they oppressed and enslaved blacks, they're not going to stop talking about that, not at all. No, I won't want to be here a hundred years from now if current trends continue.

Craig Bodeker: Are you saying that when whites become a minority, they might be treated differently?

Jared Taylor: ... this may be a very unfashionable thing to say but if you look at American history of the last 50 years, whites have treated minorities with the kind of munificence and a kind of generosity that is unprecedented in the history of the world. Whites are still the majority in this country and yet whites have instituted institutions that discriminate against their own people... And this kind of unfairness... Blacks and Hispanics vote in overwhelming numbers to keep those preferences... Well when they become a majority do you think they're suddenly going to suddenly think "gee, this is just not fair to those wicked white racists who oppressed us all those hundreds of years"?

No, once they become a majority, what's going to happen to the white minority? ... If I were expecting the coming non-white majority to treat whites the way whites have treated non-whites for the last 50 years I'd say "go right ahead" ... not going to happen.

Craig Bodeker: Care to predict the future for whites?

Jared Taylor: ... there are really two possibilities. If whites continue to sleepwalk in this brow-beaten bamboozled state in which they think that anything that they do to preserve a white a majority or to promote their own interests, if they continue to think that that's somehow wrong, then the United States will become like Brazil. It'll be a nation in which there's a small number of people who live in gated communities and they helicopter from their gated communities to their gated swim clubs and to their gated schools, while the rest of the brown and black mass below is seething and bubbling. I can imagine the United States turning into a Brazil of that kind.

On the other hand, if whites wake up to the fact that they face a real crisis, that their civilisation, their continuation as a people, a distinct people with a distinct culture - that existence is at stake - they may do something about that, and preserve at least part of the United States or some system in which they can affirm themselves as a majority people and culture.

I think it is one of those two, and I think you can imagine which is the one that I would prefer for the United States. I don't want my descendants to be living in a Brazil. I want them to be living in some country in which they can be proud of their ancestors, proud of their culture, and that they live in a society which reflects that culture, not some crazy mishmash where everything from all around the world has come in a mutually uncomprehending, perpetually hostile state. Which is what I think we will end up with unless whites wake up.

File under: so obviously wrong and stupid that only very, very intelligent people could persuade themselves that they're true.

SBS: Propaganda Nation - The Revised History of Us

The diversity propaganda goes into overdrive on the SBS documentary Immigration Nation: The Secret History of Us. The previews mock white people as stupid and racist. And, to the sounds of dramatic music, the program revises history to new heights of absurdity. So grab a bucket, but don't fill it with popcorn, because you'll need it for something else:

Modern Australia is an immigration nation, but a hundred years ago this wasn't the plan. The Commonwealth of Australia was built on a paradox.

"The paradox was they were going to realise a utopia, but they were going to do it through excluding the vast majority of humanity".

From 1901 this meant tough restrictions on immigration: The White Australia Policy.

"We would be an exclusively white community. There would be no-one in Australia other than members of the white race. This was the objective."

The consequences were devastating. "Had my sister and my brother been allowed to come to Bendigo, they wouldn't have died. They died because of a policy".

Ironically, the utopian dream not only torn families apart, it also threatened Australia's economic future, and may even have turned an ally into an enemy...

This is the secret history of us. How modern, multicultural Australia was forged against the odds.

The story of how Australia became the immigration nation we live in today is a story that starts at Federation. It's a sunny Autumn day in May 1901 and half a million people cheer the future king of England, the Duke of York, as he makes his way to the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne.

"You've got all this pageant and pomp and ceremony of dukes and the military and people waving streamers and grand arches. Here we all are at the beginning of something incredible".

It is here that Australia's first federal parliament will be opened. The nations founders are about to be sworn in before a packed crowd of 12,000 dignitaries. But this is not simply a ceremony. Led by Australia's first Prime Minister Edmund Barton the architects of this brand new nation are designing a country unlike any other.

"Australia would learn from the mistakes of other countries and create a society that was just so much better than the societies of Europe, England, United States".

The foundations are already strong, in some states women have the vote and workers are protected by legislation guaranteeing fair pay and conditions. But Australia's leaders want to build on this and create a working man's paradise. Quite simply, the most progressive and democratic society the world has ever seen.

"They see themselves as creating a brave new commonwealth in which equality will rule and in which they'll be at the forefront of democratic, social, industrial advance."

"This whole federal apparatus is going to protect the social laboratory that Australia was, to create a kind of utopia."

But the dream also masks a deeply held fear. The founders of the nation feel threatened. Ironically, this means the bold and noble plan is designed to safeguard democracy, equality and freedom for one race.

This program is so absurd and mocking that I'm speechless. It is pure propaganda lies for the diversity ideology. To say that a homogeneous country is a utopian dream "unlike any other" is a ridiculous lie. Homogeneity is a historical norm. There is nothing "secret" about it. Diversity is the ahistorical utopian against-all-odds fantasy. And as if Japan was offended by our White Australia Policy. Utter nonsense.

Here is a preview of episode 1, or watch here for a larger view.

Here's just a couple of quotes to show the absurdity of their propaganda...

Pat Buchanan, The Return of Ethnic Nationalism

... peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.

Professor Jonathan Haidt, What Can Liberals Learn From Conservatives?

... liberals desperately need to read some conservative theory to understand that a world of freedom, mobility and diversity is a recipe for a world of chaos, anomie and social disillusion.

File under: those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Auschwitzphobia: the origin of a suicidal ideology

A new term for liberalism--and a new way to put liberals on the spot

Let me suggest a new word that could flow from conservatives' lips and perhaps reverse the tide of the all important "no discrimination" rule.

The word: Auschwitzphobia.

To illustrate its use, here is a scene from a family gathering or cocktail party:

Man #1: Isn't it terrible how those intolerant rightists want to stop the building of that mosque?

Man #2: But aren't sharia law and Islam incompatible with Western societies?

Man #1: Oh, so you too discriminate between different peoples. You sir, are part of the problem that prevents world unity and peace.

Man #2: Yes, I DO discriminate. You don't, because you, sir, are an Auschwitzphobian.

Man #1: What in heavens name are you babbling about? What's Auschwitzphobia?

Man #2: It's really quite simple. Auschwitzphobians are people who can not discuss or even think about today's complex issues in a rational way, because they have been so traumatized by the media and so called education, that they equate any hint of discriminatory thinking with the horror of the worst sin imaginable. You are paralyzed by your fear of being part of another Holocaust. You may not be aware of this because it seems so far fetched, but, what makes you shut down mentally, the moment you think you're on any topic that doesn't take for granted the automatic sameness of all humans? What makes you react to me as if I was the incarnation of the devil? It's your Auschwitzphobia!

Extend this to millions of small conversations. Then, imagine that this terminology is used by talk show hosts, newsmen, and interviewees. Pretty soon, it becomes part of the language. Before you know it, we're actually having rational discussions. Sort of like VFR becoming mainstream. We're on our way to a sane civilization once again.

Lawrence Auster:

... a principle which, if applied consistently to any institution, society, or culture, would make the existence of that institution, society, or culture impossible. The suicide of the West thus began with the post World War II birth of Auschwitzphobia.

File under: the brain-dead projections of ideologues who equate all outgroup-aversion with Nazism and thus, by definition, extinguish the group. (But who strangely only apply this principle to white people).

Here is a video of a journalist suffering from Auschwitzphobia. Whilst Diana West explains the well-founded reasons for the rise of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, the journalist is fixated on only one issue: how far will the Wilders movement go? Is it a sign of Europe returning to its hateful anti-immigrant "roots"? Yet she is strangely incapable of projecting: how far will Muslim immigration go?


UPDATE: on second thoughts, I think any terms associated with Nazism are not worth using. Even though they may be true, such emotional topics shouldn't be used to win an argument. They are so emotionally charged that you lose the instant that you use them.

NPI: The Cost of Diversity

Edwin S. Rubenstein and the Staff of NPI (PDF):

Putnam is hardly the first learned man to weigh in on the culture-trust relationship. An overwhelming anti-diversity consensus, backed by data quantifying the negative impact of diversity on economic development, is found among serious scholars:

There are scholars who have assessed empirically the influence of cultural diversity on economic development. The primary argument—which can be traced to Aristotle—suggests that diverse states are more susceptible to development-inhibiting internal strife than their homogeneous counterparts are…. Following Tocqueville (1873), Duetsch (1953), and Banks and Textor (1963), Adelman and Morris (1967) gather the data for 74 less developed countries from 1957 to 1962 and rank each country on a 10-point ordinal scale of diversity. Their results, based on factor analysis, support their hypothesis: homogeneous countries typically had higher growth rates. Haug (1967) finds a negative correlation between per capita GNP and cultural diversity based on the data of 114 countries in 1963. Reynolds (1985) compares 37 less developed countries from 1950 to 1980 and, again, indicates that cultural diversity results in lower growth rates. He suggests that this may be due to a sense of alienation among peoples. In other words, reaching a consensus on policies favorable to economic development, especially for the long run, may be difficult when groups have different interpretations of the past and different goals for the future. 25

Culture includes learned patterns of behavior, socially acquired traditions, ways of thinking and acting, attitudes, values and morals. Culture standardizes relationships by allowing people to make reasonably confident assumptions about the reactions of those with whom they interact. There are many dimensions of culture, but race, religion, ethnicity and language are the principal sources of diversity.

When societies are multicultural, the ethnocentric differences of race, religion, ethnicity and language often lead to enmity. Even if different groups live together peacefully, the lack of a common language and common norms reduces cooperation and increases the cost of economic transactions.

Economist Gerald W. Scully summarizes the benefits of mono- as opposed to multi-cultural societies in a 1995 paper:

Cultural relativism has made the study of the role of culture in human controversial. But there is little disagreement that intergroup enmity is widespread in culturally heterogeneous societies. 26

Free markets, private property, rule of law and eventually representative democracy and universal suffrage arose in culturally homogeneous Western societies where all members of society had equal rights to compete in the marketplace. On the other hand, culturally heterogeneous societies are less likely to adopt the institutions of liberty. Since control of economic resources is essential to political control, dominant cultural groups structure economic institutions to serve their self-interest. And when private property and economic rights are allocated along cultural lines, economic inefficiency is inevitable and societies are less prosperous. 27