do you have the faintest idea what I mean when I call you the heir to Heidegger? Or what Archaeofuturism is?

I am perfectly aware. But both of those things are completely irrelevant to the discussion which is why I ignored them. You brought them up because you are totally unable to understand what I am telling you. Not my fault

You are clearly laboring under the delusion that Communism and Fascism are two absolute opposites, rather than two variants of the same thing.

Not at all. That in practice totalitarian states were built under both ideologies does not mean that the philosophies are the same. It’s actually very strange that someone would recite names and terms like the ones above and in the same time make such a statement.

But this is once again completely irrelevant, all you are doing is trying to apply the tried and true tactics of applying labels that carry a lot of negative connotations to someone’s views that you don’t like in the hope that the labels will somehow invalidate those views. It doesn’t matter whether the labels apply or whether the ideas and conclusions you attack are valid for not. As I already mentioned, what I have been saying so far has absolutely nothing to do with communism, fascism or any other -ism, and is by no means motivated by any of them. But you lack the necessary knowledge and reasoning abilities to comprehend it so you resort to such methods to try to make it go away.

Which is very easily spotted by anyone with just a little such abilities of his own, but unfortunately such people are rare so I am sure there are many reading this now who think you have scored another incredibly meaningful win against the “deep green” pests (for the record, I am not even “green”, but again, we have to fit things in the standard categories we know well and have standard arguments against)

As I said, we are entirely in agreement with this fascist nitwit. Incidentally, 1985 do you have the faintest idea what I mean when I call you the heir to Heidegger? Or what Archaeofuturism is? Of course not. You are clearly laboring under the delusion that Communism and Fascism are two absolute opposites, rather than two variants of the same thing.

I usually only do the motive stuff when provoked – and I’m never very serious about it even then. TTT and I have had many previous conversations about it.

Actually, I thought it was a remarkable bit of luck to get a Deep Green turn up like that – I could have argued for hours trying to make the case that such people exist. 1985′s views are quite typical of the breed, and I think it’s far better to have one explain their views for themselves than have me give my external (and possibly biased) version of them. Free speech allows all views to be expressed and debated, so that we have the clearest possible view of the options and their consequences. It’s a lot more important that everyone know what their views are, than that we tell them how much we don’t agree. (They already know that, anyway.)

Given that he’s just provided almost as perfect a demonstration as we could ask for, why get annoyed about it?

#21,

I’m still interested in your answers for #18. (You don’t have to take my suggestion – you can offer one of your own.) Or if you want to give me your rational reasons for thinking it’s all true, I might have a go at giving you mine why I think it’s not.

No, the classification system has not broken down. This is the first paragraph of Ted Kaczynski’s Manefesto.

I somewhat doubt that anything can get you out of your cocoon of self-congratulatory ignorance about the world around you, after all it is precisely that kind of ignorance that I am talking about above and that has forced me to make those conclusions. And that’s tough to swallow for the vast majority of people. But it has to be pointed out.

Again, rest assured, absolutely nothing is going to ever be done and you will live to happily see how we reap the consequences. What I said above is basically a futile exercise in trying to figure out what the most likely to succeed way to get us out of the mess would be by taking into account the factors that got us into it in the first place and how they can be countered. Just as nobody owes us the existence of imaginary beings in the sky that care about us and nobody owes us meaning in life, nobody also owes the existence of pleasant solutions to our sustainability crisis and nobody owes us the existence of reasons for it that do not involve deep flaws in our psychology, very poor reasoning abilities and low individual intellectual development.

That said, I am completely in agreement with you about this wannabe gauleiter here. 1985, let me make this crystal clear: the reason that I say what I say is because I know history enough to mean it when I say “Never Again” – and if I ever suspect that you or any of your ilk are getting close to succeeding, you little heirs of Heidegger will learn what the wrath of a true son of the Fatherland looks like.

Incidentally, this rather underlines a point I made elsewhere about the nature and importance of the confrontational and dialectic.

Oh, and Nullius? Major props for getting this fascist pest to reveal his true colors. This is stuff right out of Archeofuturism

I see a lot of subjective bias in “stop the unnecessary consumption”. Who gets to decide what is necessary? Who gets to designate the people who make the decisions? What do you propose to do to the people that don’t behave as you wish?

It is much more likely that we will be wiped out by warfare and disease rather than starvation, running out of energy, or global warming.

Excellent! Thank you.
I presume “Committees of experts in subjects other than economics, business, and law” would be a fair summary.

And now, how about those few who stubbornly fight the new system in the face of the planetary emergency? What should be done to prevent them blocking progress?

You said earlier that many people “would readily volunteer to live under the kind of Soviet-style rule that right-winger so love to demonize as long as they get the same standard of living that people in the Soviet Union had.” (I presume you mean the early Holodomor years reported on so favourably by the likes of Walter Duranty.) Would you say that the Soviet approach to those who resisted the essential redistribution of resources also has some justification?

Not that there’s any chance of it happening – because of those demonic right-wingers – but in an ideal world where all the necessary action was being taken, would it be a price worth paying?