I am pleased to see you commenting here once again. Although it seems an obvious contradiction what you tell me—:
So you are proud of your ‘exterminationism’, but at the same time you keep on complaining about the crimes of the Allies against Nazi Germany and about cruelty against children and animals. Is that not a contradiction?
—there really isn’t.
Have you read what I say in the fourth of my eleven books about pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the clash of psychoclasses with the Europeans that destroyed it? If my books were already all translated into English, I would suggest you read them. In context, they explain the difference between ‘unnecessary suffering’ and ‘necessary suffering’, especially the last book (see, e.g., the translation of the final chapter of the fourth book here).
For example, from the point of view of the priest of ‘the four words’ (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’), the Carthaginians and their culture had to be exterminated so that those Semites would not be roasting their children alive (bibliographical references on the reality of infanticide can be found in another part of my book, translation: here). My exterminationist passion has to do precisely with compassion for those who suffer, especially animals and children at the mercy of human monsters, and the draconian measures that must be taken to save them from such unnecessary suffering.
But that to save them it is sometimes necessary to leave no gene upon gene of a race, no stone upon stone of their horrible civilisation (as happened in the Punic Wars—Carthago delenda est!), seems obvious to me. Otherwise, those Semites might even now be burning their children alive. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Mesoamerican civilisation, which lasted three thousand years, was fortunately destroyed by the Europeans. But even before the Mesoamerican civilisation, the Peruvian Indians committed atrocious human sacrifices, as I reported a year ago (here).
That destroying one of these cultures makes those who belong to a lower psychoclass (say, the Carthaginian Semites, the Amerindians) suffer at the time of the Conquest is not a matter of doubt. Nevertheless, those conquests represented necessary suffering to save their children, literally, from the torment of the flames. See for example what I wrote about the Maya in one of my eleven books (English translation: here).
It all has to do with the distinction between necessary suffering (the Spanish Conquest made some Amerindians suffer, although it saved others) and unnecessary suffering (e.g., it’s unnecessary to martyr cows at the slaughterhouses). It may seem paradoxical, but my exterminationist passion has to do with my compassion for those who unnecessarily suffer because of others.
In a nutshell, the overman’s hatred of what he calls ‘Neanderthals’ is directly proportional to his love for those who suffer.