The Ubsurdity Of Humanitarianism
Boasting about being a “humanitarian” is similar to being proud for being born in one country instead of another. Humanitarians believe that their actions deserve special attention simply because they choose to relate to the needs of a specific group of people. Thing is, we are all humanitarian in respect to our scope of interest and the people we choose to relate.
Means Can Justify Anything
What is “good” for humanity cannot be determined with an objective measure. We all try to help some people instead of others whether we like or not. One could easily nuke half the planet because they believe that we are currently overpopulated. Reducing the population could serve humanity’s long term interests. Whether this belief has merit is irrelevant. All it matters is the number of followers who will believe the argument.The ancient Egyptians, and recently Hitler, tortured and killed millions for medical experimentation. They argued that it was for the best of the human rance. Today, through their medical discoveries, we are in position to save billions. Should we also call them humanitarian because they eliminated the weak while at the same time torturing many in order to unlock the mysteries of our nature? An outside observer watching humanity's evolution unfold would only record progress—not the horrific clusterfuck that gave rise to it. This also applies in our daily lives. Once a goal is accomplished succesfully we soon forget all the bad things that came along. The human ethos is extremely naive and palpatable and humanitarians know this very well.
image credit
Shilling thou self
People who aspire to so called “humanitarians” get caught up with the illusion of self-sacrifice. Those who choose to advertise their deeds in the social media make sure to promote this perception to their audience. We get christian humanitarians, atheist humanitarians, anarchic humanitarians. The matter of fact is that these people are merely self-promoting to elevate their name’s worth. They use an over-generalised ideology that is able to bind feel-good-groupies into loyal customers of their identity. Business as always.Humanitarians’ self proclaimed victim-hood—like throwing themselves in front of the police, or volunteering is a simple act of marketing promotion. Even corporations do that in order to avoid taxes and improve their image. Many people forget the other side of capital that is manifested through intellectual and social interactions. Often It proves to be even more valuable than monetary rewards. Common folk though who never had their own business, don’t really think about the capital dynamics in elaborate terms so they end up seeing humanitarianism as a selfless act. Politicians also do this all the time because they understand that most people are willingly idiots, ready to buy their cheap shilling. “Humanitarians” know this very well as well and so they capitalise on their greater abstract idea, avoiding talking about the money that comes fills their pockets.
There is no such thing as bad fame
Actors and humanitarians use cost/benefit analysis to shill their persona. For example they get arrested or indicted for petty felonies just to make the front page of the news. Often this is enough to get some sheeple following them while it saves on advertising. When an actor falls out of popularity they make sure to find some sex or drug scandal to bring them back to the scene. Whenever a “humanitarian” wants to cash some attention he throws himself in front of the police. Even if the crime ends up being a major one, upon exiting the sentence, the individual will have nothing else to do other than to justify the conviction as part of his greater ideals. Really, it’s that simple. It is an act that the groupies are ready to buy into and you don’t need that many to set up the whole thing. From what I learned by being a leader all you need is a few crazy idiots to create a movement and those are very easy to find. The pareto principle applies. 20% of the people can move the entire pack and all you need is the crazy and stupid. In addition to this, when it comes to defying authority and “trying to save the world” everybody likes a hero story. Considering Hollywood’s themes I can safely say that most people are stupefied enough to follow along. Most humans adore to be fooled.
image credit
Despite all the lessons from history, it is believed that if you attach a humanitarian ideology next to someone’s name they are magically transformed into defenders of freedom, liberty, justice, truth, glory ….yada yada yada. The lexicon of the “humanitarians” is not different than that of a preacher or a door-to-door salesman. Their sheeple, made up of mainly beta-tier individuals, look up to these people because they are too weak to act for themselves. The whole thing becomes even more pathetic when one realises that most people's actions rhyme with the “facebook likes to feed children in Africa” momentum. The masses believe that if they support someone who supports an action that “looks good’ they can immediately gain ethical kudos by proxy. Talk about a giant jerk-circle.
The same ol’ trick
Religious leaders and politicians used the argument of humanitarianism in order to “better humanity” because “they knew better”. Every single ideology that was shilled on this planet was promoted as “humanitarian”, fighting against the “evil others”. We have become so detached with reality that we chase illusions of grandeur, reassuring each other that we are the good guys while those who don’t agree with us are the assholes. This is what the statement “I am humanitarian” states. You are basically boasting to everybody else that they are not as awesome as you are.Self Deception
75% of people on this planet live in shitholes in comparison with our “poor” western class. We get most of our stuff for pennies because others are born into slavery providing for us. We complain about our politicians and corporations for not giving us enough while they provide us with almost everything. In the eyes of most of the inhabitants of this planet we are really spoiled whiny brats. What do we do with our awesomeness? We turn the computer on and through the tiresome act of moving the computer mouse around we click on something "humanitarian", perhaps "share our prayers", so we can alleviate all the guild from our hypocrytical existence.Stating The Obvious
It doesn’t matter if the humanitarians are politicians, priests, anarchists, atheists or technological gurus. Those who are trying to “fix the world” are expressing a desire to control people. Those who want to control other people, have already lost control themselves. At it’s best, humanitarianism is nothing but an act of social desperation. There are no selfless acts. Our "humanism" is always conditional.
What amazes me is no matter how good one tries to be, no matter how much one gives away, there are always those who will poison the minds of others against giving and doing good, helping and loving others.
Since the most influential of great thinkers of all time all advocate giving and serving as a means to develop one's self and warn that failure to do so is virtually guaranteed self destruction, I tend to follow the teachings of such men rather than those who preach against these principles.
Here are some statements made on the subject by one of my esteemed heroes of well doing.
Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community. Andrew Carnegie
It is more difficult to give money away intelligently than to earn it in the first place. Andrew Carnegie
The man who dies rich dies disgraced. Andrew Carnegie
I resolved to stop accumulating and begin the infinitely more serious and difficult task of wise distribution. Andrew Carnegie
Neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving. The best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise. Andrew Carnegie
Even your guy did what he did to enhance his persona by accumulating social capital.
We are all humanists in our own way. We all want to help others and we do so.
The real charity is anonymous.
By the way - @all - you can show your click through charity here: H.O.P.E. Anonymously, of course ;)
This is my favourite humanitarian organisation and the one to which I turn when I feel over-privileged to live where I live.
May be they give everything to you in the Western country where you live but in mine they do not give too much. I have to pay the taxes to get something.
I agree about the fact humanitarianism is just towards black people, it is a new form or racism but this time against whites. It is all around us a form of anti-caucasian racism, where everything going on around the world is the fault of whites and their countries.
In reality someone want to destroy the western countries because their people are the only one around the world who fought to get freedom and destroy the slavery create by the aristocrats. They did not love this great achievement too much those who loves to own a crown.
A great new thing is being taught to kids in America now in their schools and colleges: racism against whites is impossible. Logic: it's only racism if the discrimination is habitual, embedded in the culture at large, and our culture is too biased toward the whites already. Therefore, whites are just being stupid, evil, and whiny when they bring up "racism" against them, and it really is an offense against the sufferings of "people of colour" under white oppression to even speak of it.
This wise new policy or "sensitive" upbringing as they call it in America, results in such delicious ironies as the following:
"Give their innocent minds to me before age 7, and I will turn them into anything you want."
According to Godwin's law, so far in the discussion you would be losing the debate:
I'm just messing with you. ;-P
You know, since I started to read your debunking posts, an idea about some debating game as started to flourished in my mind. I think the formula of that game would be as simple as posting about a basic question and letting people make one argument in comments. People upvote the arguments and whoever has more votes wins. Or it could be a yes or no question, people choose their side make their only one argument, just the same, then the two person with the most votes on each side of the answer go into a final one on one debate where they can answer each other back during 24 hours and whoever as the most cumulative votes wins. Do you think it could work?
I could only mention the ancient Egyptians in my argument really.
Interesting game but you see, truth is never democratic. I can see it work as a game though. Steemsports works much the same way. You should speak to @thecryptodrive in steemit chat.
Brilliant; as usual.
What really irritates me are the kind of people who as you mention make a big show of all their charitable efforts. As you state they are doing it for reasons of fame and it is BS. They are all fakes and bug the hell out of me. That is another reason I can't stand all these celebrity types like Bono going around the world pontificating about the problems of the world and how we all need to do something about it. Strange that these people have all their hundreds of millions of dollars and don't really seem to use them to make a difference yet preach to everyone else.
Don't worry about Bono and the rest, they've a big job to do and are doing it just fine.
And "helping humanity" ain't it.
Thing is, we all do something about these problems since we are all humanitarians towards our groups of preference
I've noticed some people label themselves as Humanitarian, like it's a job description. This is one thing that has always annoyed me. What is being implied here - that the rest of us are anti-humanitarian? We all are, in our own ways, from what I can see. The very vast majority just don't make a song-and-dance show about it.
We are all humanitarian in respect to our selected group. "We are all humanitarians" was my alternate title
I'm curious to now how you came to add the Ancient Egyptians.
And why only these two?
"The ancient Egyptians, and recently Hitler, tortured and killed millions for medical experimentation. ..."
I mean, Hitler was funded by the U.S. Operation Paper clip, being more recent, was a U.S. operation to collect those "bad" Nazi scientists.
Western technology largey comes from regions of the Congo (and other parts of Africa) that have the minerals needed to make these things. European conquest of this part of the world, could we not say, has been once big medical experiment.
What about the massive amounts of dangerous chemicals found underneath of most people's kitchen sink here in the U.S.? What about the Medical industy? These are "white" people experimenting on the population at large, not to mention the rest of the world. Am I misinformed? (I could go on with fluoride and many others.)
Yes, I could add all those things but I guess that would be another post. I used ancient Egyptians and something contemporary just to demonstrate an ethical example in regards to how humanitariniasm can be perceived. It was not the point to lay out all the fuck ups of humanity.
If you wouldn't mind, I'd still love to know why you included Ancient Egypt. Resource. I'm genuinely interested.
Great post. Where I Iive, most people are helpful to others, and nobody shouts about it, it is considered normal within this particular group of people, and sometimes extends to people outside the group. It does work the other way around, though: if someone, for instance, doesn't help a child that fell off his bike hard, he is considered an arsehole, and people advertising their helpfulness as something great are laughed at. I never really gave it much thought until you posted this. There's one thing I noticed though: people constantly and overtly helpful to far-away people in need in distant lands are often rather less helpful to those close to them. I don't know if that is a universal thing.
There's one thing I'm not sure of, though: you say that "there are no selfless acts". Even though I know all supposedly selfless acts can be explained from selfishness, I'm not sure that "there are no selfless acts" is a knowable fact, as it would require looking into the heads and finding the motivations of each and every person performing such an act.
Even if we take a religious person that believes in selfless acts they will be doing it because of a)community approval (b)fear of religion/following the rules (c)feeling good about themselves.
The last one pretty much sums everything up. Humans are social animals that get pleasure from helping one another. All animals do it. In biology you can find it framed under "reciprocal altruism". Although not fixed for all species same patterns seem to emerge in almost all mammals.