Third base!
The best thing about using Muslim killers is that they often politely kill themselves off as well with suicide bombings. It’s a twofer.
“Humanism is the mental habit of looking at the world as if it existed only for human beings.”
Anti-humanism is … well, some kind of belief that “the health of the whole [of the humanity organism] in the context of its environment, [is important] because if the environment dies, the whole dies, and then the individual is nothing”.
Am I the only one who doesn’t see a whole hell of a lot of difference in the basic value here?
In general I have a lot of respect for anti-materialist neo-Luddites, but this is just wrong.
My take on it is that humanism grants some basic dignity to every individual, whereas anti-humanism says that’s the whole problem - ie: that we need to get past that sort of sentimental claptrap and start exterminating masses of individuals to give humanity a chance.
I didn’t get that from the sections you quoted. I thought it was a rather rough attempt to impose enlightened self-interest on the adage 'to walk lightly over the earth."
I thought the point was to get rid of cars and slash and burn agriculture, not lots and lots of people.
More quotes from the blog:
[Quote=Creepy People]
How does Anti-Humanism Work?
You stop thinking in terms of “rights” and “freedoms” and other individualistic, moralizing nonsense. You start thinking in terms of practical survival of your species. **You open your mind to the possibility that most people are stupid and useless and that, if we terminate them, we will notice absolutely zero loss and no one of importance will care. **
[…]
How can I practice Anti-Humanism?
Repeat after me: Human life is not sacred. Not every life is important. **Most people are functionless bovines devoid of redeeming qualities. **Our environment is dying because, thanks to humanism, we overpopulated and have polluted, destroyed, maimed, overused, until we’re at global catastrophe levels. In this light, every dead human is a victory. Stop screwing around and start thinking seriously about killing all those but our most valuable members of society. We don’t need movie actresses, **we don’t need democratic politicians, we don’t need people with IQs of under 120. **We need smart, strong, capable people who can think outside the mental confinement called humanism
Who are Humanists?
**Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, most Buddhists, every businessperson. Remember, respecting the individual pays and makes you popular, with the only glitch being that you murder us all and our world. Good work. **
You’re so Bloodthirsty…
Listen, idiot, if we don’t fix something we all die. Which would you rather have: a few smart survivors, or all of us die for humanistic equality?
[/quote]
Bolding mine. Why is it that folks like these never see themselves on the losing end of someone else’s crazy ideology?
Ah, damn, what is wrong with people.
So… if they hate people, why are they concerned with the survival of the species?
Obviously, atheistic secular humanistic education has destroyed their reasoning ability.
Sounds like what I would call (approvingly) eco-fascism. Transcend individualism, embrace the brutality of physical reality. If humans are damaging the sustainability of the rest of the biosphere, then we need an ethic that can manage that.
Clearly the humanistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Kant, Bentham, Descartes, classical liberalism, Rousseau, the Rights of Man) are incompetent to cope with that scenario, & minds have to be changed.
I don’t have a problem with it at all.
If you hate tomatoes so much you pick and eat them, why are you concerned with the propagation of next year’s crop? Oh, you don’t hate tomatoes.
I don’t think that’s clear at all, but it’s a bit early in the morning to get into a heavy philosphical discussion.
So, you don’t have any problem with the notion of murdering a large fraction of the world’s population in pursuit of a questionable goal. Got it. Got any particular percentage in mind, and are you willing to sacrifice yourself to make room for the (presumably) fittest?
Well, I said, “I don’t have a problem with it at all,” before I read what the guy actually said. I do have some quibbles with his priorities. That said…
Sooner or later humanity will be forced to become its own form of environmental resistance. I’d like a global family planning régime, but the most likely outcome is ethnic violence and genocide.
So if it’s a choice between mass murderers, & knowing that my particular sense of priorities will not be matched by whatever asshole gains power, this guy’s attitude seems, on balance, for the good to me. Or for the relatively lesser evil in a world with no nice choices. This guy may be an ass, but at least he’s looking in mostly the right direction, which is conservation. He at least sounds closer to what this world needs than the typical mass murderer.
What? Are you saying these characters don’t hate people–er, “functionless bovines devoid of redeeming qualities”?
Do you agree with them that “rights” and “freedoms” are “moralizing nonsense”?
I don’t know, I don’t really see the point of saving humanity on those terms.
Oh, some of them do. It’s usually a doomsday scenario where widely accepted values like tolerance, equality, and nonviolence end up being terrible for our “character” (!) and make helpless namby-pambies of us all, whereupon civilization gets fucked in the ear by more primitive races. (These thinkers do typically believe in races.)
amerika.org is one place where you hear from a slightly smarter and more rational strain of apocalyptic wingnut. It claims to promote “sustainable” or “green” conservatism - no outright kill-'em-all rhetoric - but the stance against, and strawman portrayal of, humanistic values is basically the same.