PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Humanism


prozak
June 14th, 2005, 01:37 AM
Anti-Humanism
Humanism is death disguised as life. When you are a humanist, you think only of humans. You see the world as existing only for human consumption. It is more important to save every life than to produce better beings, in your view. You think any death is a tragedy.

This sort of thinking is antiquated. While it is delusional under any circumstance, it was allowed to flourish because of the wealth of humanity. Now it is obsolete. Since we have polluted our oceans and air, overused land, overpopulated the earth with excess humans, killed off many natural species, destroyed most forests, and paved almost everything else, we are no longer able to be concerned with humans. We are on the verge of destroying our environment and the primary cause is that we're too humanistic to restrict our own numbers.

"You can't do that," they say. "Because everyone has the right to freedom, and to buy whatever they can, and to build a house, and eat whatever they can, and... and..." It's a neverending list of wants. Everyone wants to look like the good guy who tells us all that we can have whatever we want. But that's an illusion, and they know it, but they don't care. They're only thinking about themselves, while they claim to be thinking about others; it makes them feel good to tell us we can have whatever we want, it makes them feel good to "care" about others, to cry over any death, etc.

That behavior has turned humanity into a cancer. Seven billion and no end in sight. Can't eat fish more than once a week because it's toxic with heavy metals. Where did the forests go? Well, we can have a fun drive down the pavement, surrounded by signs advertising cheap consumer goods, and then we can go someplace and buy something. It's this "freedom" that keeps us equal. The logic behind all of this is humanism. Humanism pleases the crowd. It justifies itself as "equality." All of the people out there who cannot do anything useful, and therefore fear someone will tell them what to do, love equality. They are addicted to it. They crowd into spaces, breed out of control, eat all the food, and never think about the consequences. Why? They are mediocre.

Anti-Humanism is a belief system for those who think humans are not the entirety of what we should be considering. We want to live on as a species, and we realize that requires thinning the herd. Problem: conventional morality, aka humanism, is totally opposed to that. Answer: do away with the obsolete morality, and slaughter the 90% of our species who do nothing productive and never will. Breed better humans, and fewer of them, and then some humans live on instead of all of us facing certain death because of the stupidity of the humanists.

http://www.antihumanism.com/

_DC_
June 14th, 2005, 09:18 AM
When you are a humanist, you think only of humans. You see the world as existing only for human consumption.

I don't think so. Humanists are usually liberal and tree-huggers.


But this is true:

It is more important to save every life than to produce better beings, in your view. You think any death is a tragedy.

So what this essay looks like to me is a National Socialist message that is trying to stave off the usual criticism by mixing its message with a pro-green stance.

SheerTerror
June 14th, 2005, 09:29 AM
NS has always been very pro-Nature. In fact, its the very foundation of NS...its based off of Nature. You do realize that NS was originally a leftist racial movement, right? It ain't part of the conservative blight-wing, thats for sure.

I don't think so. Humanists are usually liberal and tree-huggers.


But this is true:



So what this essay looks like to me is a National Socialist message that is trying to stave off the usual criticism by mixing its message with a pro-green stance.

prozak
June 15th, 2005, 05:22 PM
NS has always been very pro-Nature. In fact, its the very foundation of NS...its based off of Nature. You do realize that NS was originally a leftist racial movement, right? It ain't part of the conservative blight-wing, thats for sure.

It's important to understand this when talking about National Socialism. It isn't left or right; it's traditional. Tradition could be expressed in rightist or leftist ways, but the ultimate goal of traditional politics is to replace our current political outlook with something that works.

Antiochus Epiphanes
June 16th, 2005, 03:01 PM
It's important to understand this when talking about National Socialism. It isn't left or right; it's traditional. Tradition could be expressed in rightist or leftist ways, but the ultimate goal of traditional politics is to replace our current political outlook with something that works.

At its best it is Traditional, at its worst it was obsessed over tinkering with gadgets, building more superhighways, and other materialisms, and organizing society to maximize production just as surely as its Jew-dominated materialist opponents the USA and USSR.

NS in Germany did not have time to mature into a moderate balance between material and more intangible factors. The Jews tried to choke the baby in the cradle.

But did they succeed?

_DC_
June 16th, 2005, 03:24 PM
NS has always been very pro-Nature. In fact, its the very foundation of NS...its based off of Nature. You do realize that NS was originally a leftist racial movement, right? It ain't part of the conservative blight-wing, thats for sure.

When we WNs talk about Nature we talk about the natural way of behaving. You twist that into meaning pro-eco-fanaticism. Clever.

No, I agree completely with Linder when he says nationalism is part of conservatism. Conservatism is Traditional; it's our way, what we had before Jews came along with their Marxism. That today's so-called conservatives are pussy-footing around the Jew doesn't change that.

Leftist movement? They got most of their voters from the working class, so of course they had to portray themselves as another brand of socialism. The German workers had long ago abandoned their folkish ways in exchange for Marxism/socialism and wouldn't join anything without the name "socialism" in it. Like Hitler said, you adapt your message to the sensibilities of your day. But no, there's nothing leftist about caring for your race and family and country.

Are you leftist just because you care about workers? Untrue. And the NSDAP cared about ALL Germans, not just one class, pitting it against the other.

You do know that "Die Internationale", not "Die Nationale", was the leftist fave song, right? And that the NSDAP's enemies in the streets were Marxist workers, not conservatives?

And you do know that it was conservatives the NSDAP formed a governing coalition with, not socialists? It was the conservatives who finally accepted them, while the socialists fought them every bit of the way. Because the conservative policies of the NSDAP were anathema to the socialists. Policies such as protecting your country with a strong military, caring for family, weeding out the sick liberal stuff from culture and especially nightlife, cherishing German history and German heroes such as Peter the Great, punishing criminals severely, discipline in schools, etc.

The socialists were against all that. Anyone who doesn't think the socialists were just a lighter form of the Marxists needs to check up on history a bit.

_DC_
June 16th, 2005, 06:32 PM
Tell you what, my racial brethren, I am not inclined to quarrel about this. Instead I will start a new thread and selflessly copy a part of The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds, about Commander Rockwell's take on National Socialism. I think it is a take we all enjoy reading. I think I will place it in the civil forum, or the main forum.