The Third Totalitarianism

It is a generally recognised fact amongst historians that there exist two totalitarian ideologies: Nazism and Communism. When looking at Nazism and Communism one will see that they have one thing in common: They do not recognise the importance of the single human being. The only thing that matters to them is a big group (i.e. the Aryan Race, the working class). It is this aspect of these two ideologies that make them so-called totalitarian ideologies.

In this piece however, I will contest the fact that there are only two such totalitarian ideologies. I will try to authenticate my belief that there exists yet one more totalitarian ideology: The ideology of modern 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 emphasises 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, aspiritions 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 "globalisation" with the Coca-Cola-culture as loadstar.

Now think through that idea again: that people should give up their desires for a gigantic community (in this case humankind). Doesn't that sound like something we have heard before? Yes, indeed, this idea is a main trait in Nazism and Communism and constitutes the very thing that makes an ideology totalitarian.

So clearly humanism has become (if it has ever been anything else) a totalitarian ideology in line with Communism and Nazism/Fascism. In fact the Humanists are even worse as the groups whose individual rights they slap down is even bigger.

The totalitarian tendencies within Humanism have not yet revealed themselves in the form of mass-murder or other such atrocities. But that it is certainly capable of that can be seen from several examples. The very fact that many Humanists wish to see a world government really shows the dangerous, totalitarian tendencies of Humanism.

Also notice the way that Humanists insist that human beings should treat each other well merely because, yes, we are all human beings. This line of argument is basically the same as that which was used by the nazis - just applied more broadly. The Nazis believed that people of the same race should be kind to each other and stick together. The argument that humans should be good to each other just because they are of the same species is based on exactly the same way of thinking: whether it is applied to the Aryan Race or humankind it means that people should be kind to each other simply because of their shared genes.

The danger of humanism lies in the fact that it can so easily slip into that the worst of deeds are being seen as acceptable as long as they are done for the greater good of humanity. This is also an argument which been used in the debate over mass-murders in the Soviet Union: Humanists have claimed that because the Communists intended the best for humanity their mass-murders were somehow less terrible than those of the Nazis.

So mark my words: the great atrocities of the 21th century will not be commited in the name of the proletariat or any race but in the name of humanity. It gives me the creeps when I hear someone talk about humanity . . . it's not that Humanism is evil. When one is aware of its totalitarian tendencies so that they can be countered it is probably an okay ideology. But it is not so much better than other ideologies either. Just like any ideology it has its good and bad points. What worries me however is the tendency to regard Humanism as especially flawless. Whenever something is said to be in the name of Humanity everybody just seems to accept that things are in order.

This is dangerous! We must not close our eyes to the totalitarianism of modern Humanism. The world is not so simple that there is one good ideology and one or more bad ones.

So is there any answer, any alternative, to the totalitarian way of identifying put forth by Nazism, Communism and Humanism? Yes, surely there is an answer. So, is the answer the cold and selfish individualism of today's ultra-liberalism? No, the answer is to recognise that one's personality is made up of several different but equal identities.

I recognise that I have something in common with all living beings, but yet that I have more in common with humans than with members of the other species on this Earth. I also realise that I have more in common with a white person than with members of any other human race. In turn, I understand that I share more in common with white people of my own nation than with foreign whites.

It also seems logical to me that I have more in common with the men of my nation than with the women of my nation. Finally I also see that I harbour a special core which is different from that of any other human being, making me unique and not exactly like any other being in the world.

In short: I recognise that my personality is created within an interplay of different identities. Such a realisation is the way out of narrow-mindedness.

So what do I really want to say with these philosophical thoughts? Really just that people should treat each other kindly. Not because we "are all humans" or because we share the same chromosomes, but because of a deeply-felt recognition that peace and co-operation is what's best for everyone. So I resent those humanists or socialists who say that we should be oh-so-sweet to each other because "we are all human". At the same time I am at odds with those right-wingers who spread hate and think that all alien people are just bad.

We, the European peoples, should be open towards others and try to collaborate because in the end that's what gets us all the most. Never should we hate or resent anyone merely because of their creed. But yet when being trampled upon and met with hate or contempt we should not turn the other cheek because "we are all humans", but - after double-checking that it really was a hatefully meant insult and not just a mistake - respond in kind.

Actually this should be ordinary commonsense and not something that needs to be made clear by philosophical explanations.

June 2003