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.