Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines the term HUMANISM as such:

“A devotion to the humanities; literary culture; the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance.” 

This same text defines SECULAR HUMANISM as:

“Humanistic philosophy viewed as a non theistic religion antagonistic to traditional religions.”

To the casual idealist, humanism, as a personal and communal pursuit, would seem a noble cause.  Compelled by its very definition to the preservation of human achievement (literary culture) and potential (individualistic and critical spirit), humanism would seem, on the surface, to be our most imperative need; for what species can survive who has not made imperative the preservation of its most compelling qualities?  Unfortunately, as an ideal humanism has failed itself, first by forgetting the INDIVIDUALISTIC (not “universal”) QUALITIES cultures of classical letters were born of, and secondly by refusing to commit itself to an adamance that would permit it to reject any arguments that might suggest that purity was not as important as purpose.  In short, when humanists elected to align themselves with universalists, they betrayed the very spirit of human potential.
 
When we examine the issue of antagonism toward traditional religion we too find modern man ill-equipping himself for the idealist field, for the common man has no concept of
his Tru traditional religions these days, nor the awareness that conception would lend him (his CRITICAL spirit!) in a more honest antagonism of the elements most preventive of his potential.

As Indo-European Pagan Traditionalists (Odinists, Asatruar, Druids, Mithraists, etc) we possess instinctual individualistic spirits attuned to the Natural World in ways that no “idealist” of the Egalitarian Age CAN comprehend. Having removed themselves from the Truest traditions, “secular humanists” become lost in temporal trivialities hopelessly at odds with Natural Divinity.  One cannot heed the voice he will not hear, and one will not hear the voice he does not hail.  The ancient Gods and Goddesses called upon by their Tru Children, however, communicate clearly the comprehension necessary to recognition (and appreciation) of their unique (and thus Sacred) creations.  Universalism respects not the sanctity of those distinct creations (ie; different races) rendering humanism, as practiced by modern idealists, irrespective (indeed DISRESPECTFUL) of the INDIVIDUAL SPIRIT it purports to promote the revival of.

As has been the case with much of Western Philosophy’s fall, Tru humanism (that would be: the Tru pursuit of preserving humanity’s BEST qualities, all of which are known by the honest man to belong to the Aryan People, was some time ago taken hostage by universalist indoctrinators masquerading as educators.  These malfeasants, abusing the privilege of punditry, and under the pretense of moral continuity, deliberately ignored the inherent and indelible truths of Indo-European strength, beauty and experience.  Thousands of years of common sensibility, to say nothing of the plethora of self-evident practicalities, were cast aside to “theorize” about ‘probabilities” our experiences had long concluded to be IMPOSSIBILITIES.  While philosophical men may indeed have an intellectual obligation to CONSIDER ALL ideals, FEALTOUS men have an INSTINCTUAL obligation to understand that philosophy is a “means” with which to draw thoughtful conclusions, not an “ends” (or should I say the “endless”?) exercise in the futility of putting square pegs into round holes.  “If only we can discuss it a little more perhaps we’ll all accept that this life is all an ‘illusion’”; “If only we denounce it long enough the evidence of Celestial Synchronicity will all be ‘proven’ false”; “If only we debate boisterously enough, the ‘ideals’ that so obviously degrade our cultural integrity and continuity will eventually be embraced by the people, accepted without regard to their absurdity, since we all know we don’t ‘really’ exist anyway!”  If these malfeasants are content to accept that they are only figments of their own imaginations then so be it, but it can no longer be acceptable, if sensibility - indeed humanity itself—is to survive, the notion that we can somehow save our future by destroying our past must be relegated to the Orwellian furnace to which such an absurdity belongs.

The humanist error, therefore, is one of definition and misconception.  You see, those who PROFESS to be HUMANISTS, by virtue of their universalist and absurdist philosophies, think and act in ways that undermine the VERY objective of their purported ideal, again, preserving the best that humanity has to offer.  The ‘humanist’ who would suggest that the definition of HUMANITY itself were debatable, in the sense that distinctions were somehow “irrelevant”, have either no Tru interest in the preservation of that “humanity’s” collective QUALITIES, or no Tru understanding of the historically recorded qualities that have made “humanity” worth saving to begin with.

I am of a primal forest
Where the flora know their name
Where the soil need not implore us
For our roots are all the same
I am of a deep, wide ocean
Waters teeming, yes, it’s true
But I never take the notion
To be anything but blue
I am of a folk, unique
Content, that too, to stay
May that be which I ever seek
In Odin’s name, I pray