It is interesting that 'dehumanization' is always used to refer to the crimes of those who were the most consistent 'humanitarians' of all.
Hitler, Stalin, Blair did not act against the imaginary interests of "Humanity," this horrible abstraction, this atrocious blank check for tyranny.
They served 'Humanity' without remorse.
Who is a greater 'lover of Humanity' than one who desires to assimilate all of Creation into his master plan of a unified race?
Pol Pot or Khoemeini were not wicked because they betrayed 'Humanity.' On the contrary, they were all too faithful!
To accuse Hitler of 'Crimes Against Humanity' is a most curious thing, given that Hitler himself was being one of the most consistent humanitarians of all. Hitler did what any remotely committed lover of 'humanity' would do.
Humanitarianism is nothing other than an allegiance to an abstract vision of the 'good of Humanity.' There is no moral hierarchy between this blank check, or the various other blank checks: such as the national interest, the global village, the caliphate, the manifest destiny of the pure Aryan race.
Humanitarians accuse Hitler or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of cynicism and chauvinism; and yet, their basic premises are actually identical:
1. The good of the All is the only thing that matters.
2. Any individual interest that threatens the inviolable harmony and unity All must be rejected, and its bearer must be destroyed.
The only legitimate political stance is one of staunch opposition to 'humanitarianism.' At least, to the ideological sense of this word as discussed here. For only when the individual reigns supreme and without another, will human beings ever be free to prosper and to flourish upon this earth.
Those dictators and brute beasts who 'dehumanized' others were actually doing precisely the opposite.
Which are worse?
Crimes against Humanity or Crimes against the Individual?
You may judge for yourself.
Your choice is not inconsequential.