The term Eco-Fascism is a subversion

Pretty

Fucking

Woke

Lad.

Tedpilled morons should go back to either /fascist/ or Reddit.
Environmentalism is rooted in New Age postmodernism, and yuppies were never left-wing, it is disgusting to see how socially accepted it environmentalism is with its idealist Gain rethoric.

I highly doubt that. Most people don't even WANT to fuck underage girls. Unless fucking young teens is a requirement to move up in the world, there's no way it's THAT widespread..

He's a fascist, of course he does.

Hello reddit. There is a reason 18 is so popular, because what they actually want lies below that. People adapt what they and maybe even believe say to avoid being ostracised but they made some tests using unlabelled images and measuring penile blood pressure that told another story. Fucking young teens is the reward to for rising in the hierarchy.

Attached: markiplier.png (399x163 390.44 KB, 12.04K)

we want to see teens not little girls fucking pedo

most environmentalism should be tossed in the garbage though.

stuff like the water protectors protesting an oil pipeline is good, because it's dealing with real things and natives being stomped on by oil oligarchs, but guess where the Greens were during that - that's right, nowhere. there are a lot of environmental causes that we can fight here and now and could win, that are undeniably worthwhile causes to fight, when the only beneficiaries of environmental despoiling are rich corporations and occasionally their middle class functionaries. but the environmental cause which has mainstream support is purely intended to impose austerity on the poor, and seeks to justify the class relations of present society as permanent, unchangeable, and part of a natural order (with the bourgeoisie and old aristocracy portraying themselves as the rightful stewards of the Earth, rather than the bunch of thugs and rapers they actually are).

thirTEEN

Ultimately, the Earth speaks through the people, so no person is really in charge. Just as the natural order shouldn't be confused with the present or the past, those who harm the planet are assured a future cosmic, or atleast planetary, justice.

This is the just world fallacy which is the essential component of every religion but also neoliberal ideology. People do not get what they deserve and they get what they don’t deserve. While the priests preached how the suffering peasants would be rewarded in heaven and sinners punished in hell they themselves were living a life of hedonistic decadence as they knew it was bullshit.

Whether you believe karma and stuff like that exists or not, the fact remains that the Earth and the people on it are part of the same system and if humanity should carry a precedence in that relationship then you have to believe that we have a responsibility to protect the planet and environment in the same way we protect our countries or families.

This is literal blood and soil shit and tells you a lot about where liberal environmentalism comes from.

Ensuring a clean environment is not a matter of appeasing some nature god or attaining some idealized balance with the unvierse, but a pragmatic matter of survival. It makes no sense to dump toxic waste in rivers, and maybe we should ask ourselves why we're producing so much toxic waste in the first place. The planet itself though is nothing special, just a ball of dirt with life crawling all over it. There is no planet-mind, that shit comes straight out of idealist philosophy and the ideology of slavery.

Saying the planet is nothing special is like saying your home or family is nothing special.

As you said, it doesn't make sense dumping toxic waste in rivers, but that is beyond the pragmatic matter of survival of humans on earth.

Believe whatever you want to believe about the planet, but I happen to think there's a good reason for caring about the only place you and everyone else is destined to live and die, unless you count the steel floor of a space station in orbit.

The primary reason we don't pour toxic waste in rivers is because that water supply comes back to our bodies and kills us, or makes the environment unlivable in the long term. It's not because the river spirit needs to be appeased, or out of some idealist notion of preserving the holy balance of nature.

If we really wanted to appease the balance of nature, we'd kill every human, and indeed all life on earth, because the natural tendency of life is to exhaust itself and annihilate itself. That's what life is, if we're going to rely on some appeal to nature argument. This is a completely valid argument to make, kill all life now to prevent untold generations of suffering, but if you point out this obvious conclusion from the dominant logic of today, you're ostracized and declared insane, even though the ruling class shows open disdain for the people it rules over, openly regarding them as a disease to be exterminated. Of course, the ruling class themselves, and their middle class functionaries to an extent, are exempted, and are able to buy indulgences (which is what carbon tax credits are, the scientist equivalent of the Church selling indulgences).

First. It is not pragmatic for anyone to dump toxic waste into rivers. That is something we can both agree on.

Second. The real issue here is you and other supposedly unironic "eco-fascists" seem to think that humanity is something outside of nature when it is a fundamental part of nature. You say to kill all life and yet make distinctions between the ruling classes and middle class, and compare carbon tax credits to church indulgences which shows laziness and incoherency in your philosophy.

Humanity is part of nature, and extermination of life by itself is an affront to nature.

I'm calling THEM eco-fascists, dolt. I fucking hate eco-fascism and think it's adherents should all be dragged out and shot, which is likely more than you're going to do to any fascist.

I never denied humanity was a part of nature, only that enshrining "the state of nature" as some holy of holies is ridiculous and complete ruling-class garbage. The Green movement relies on such religious ideology.

My argument in second paragraph is basically to illustrate the futility of these "appeal to nature" arguments, because in the end we all die and the universe reaches a heat death, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Any argument to tell us how we should live that is rooted in nature as an end unto itself, or man as an end unto himself, is fatally flawed from the start and should be thrown out. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what we want to do with our lives, and how we want to cooperate with each other, rather than engaging in some faggotry about how our way of life is in accord with nature as the eco-fascists want.

The middle class - that is, the educated strata of workers that are legally and psychologically separated from the pool of unskilled labor - is not the ruling class under capitalism, but is necessarily dependent on ruling class institutions and ruling class ideology of some sort. These people do not want a "workers revolution" of any sort, and the lower classes have no reason whatsoever to trust them, because the middle class has always abused the lower class and sold them out for cheap political privileges every single time in developed capitalist societies.

First, I can agree that the state of nature concept is specious. But that doesn't preclude a nature which always has state.

In your appeal to nature, you say everytthing is futile because we die and the universe will end in the future, but what is the alternative?

Cooperating with eachother is nice, but only attenable on the long-term when there is some shared vision, but what shared vision is there if it's nothingness? Unless we believe what we are doing is in accord with nature, nature being a catch-all term for the shared present, then there is no reason for any cooperation outside of meaningless short-term goals.

In your last part: previously you made reference to a middle class and a ruling class, but now you assimilate them again into the boug vs the proles and that they don't want to a workers revolution, but what is your point exactly?

As a collective, though, fucking with the environment will eventually fuck over humanity if the wrong set of feedback loops happens. this can happen without humanity doing anything like from cosmic events or events inherent to geological processes but humanity is a factor here

"Legally and psychologically separated" quite explicitly means that the middle class and the "working class" are quite different classes with quite different goals and mindsets. No unity is possible between the middle class of educated workers and the lower classes of uneducated workers (in their own various strata) and the unemployable. The middle class goes along with ruling class beliefs about environmentalism because it serves their class interest, the suppression of the low, would do so with little prompting from capitalists, and the middle class itself has been often at the forefront of this brand of environmentalism (they want reforms that the capitalists don't want, because such reforms would hamper profits). The lower class worker or unemployable hears (if they understand things correctly) that environmentalism declares that their very existence is itself the environmental problem, and that no austerity will ever be enough. Indeed, the middle class rails hardest against the lowest of the low, even though their carbon footprint is often far less than the middle class, since the lowest of the low don't even have cars any more, and many are skipping meals and going on meatless days. I know I have skipped meals and cut my meat intake considerably, because it's cheaper.

ALL goals are meaningless in any objective sense. There is no purpose to life, and trying to read a purpose into nature is just ruling class mythology at its worst.
It's up to you to make a good argument for cooperation instead of the senseless Social Darwinism that defines the present order. Beating people over the head with biological imperatives or the law of nature or the notion of humanism doesn't work, and the latter of these has visibly and obviously failed for the past 50 years in a big way.
I take it as a given that most people like living, and that they have no reason to end their life because some other asshole declares that Nature's order demands it. Savage competition for the sake of competition doesn't serve that purpose, as human history and prehistory certainly demonstrate, and thus - regardless of whatever natural tendencies humans may have - we must cooperate, build tribes and eventually civilizations. Co-operation thus is probably a natural human tendency and a tendency of intelligent life that can recognize the problem of competition for competition's sake, but it is not a given nor is there some Spirit of Man that will compel humans to come together.

Not our fault you have bad taste, user.

Attached: on.jpg (656x767, 57.22K)

Ok, so your point is that the middle class hates the poor, the poor has no horse in the game, and the middle class will work against the rich and the poor for the environment's sake. I can't say that's wrong, but I have to ask: what is the degree of difference between the middle and rich vs the middle and poor?

In your second point, you seem to be against any sort of Spirit or soul, and thats understandable, but if everything is strictly about survival and the failure of humanism, then what you do you have to say about the fact that we are communicating via electrical signals from hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles away about the rights of the Earth and it's inhabitants?

I thought that was a Utah Phillips quote

It's not "strictly about survival". People can choose to sacrifice themselves for some thing or some reason, and sacrifice is something that humans can process quite easily. People can kill themselves if they are bored. There is not an argument to make that the biological imperative to survive is even a reason in of itself. I merely state that people, generally, like living, and don't want to die, and that there is no argument to make that this decision must be stripped from them because of some ruling-class belief. Because people want to live, that entails cooperating to an extent, since humanity in its savage state isn't going to last very long, especially when other humans are cooperating and build organizations with technology.

As for why I'm talking about this, it's mostly because it's something intrinsically interesting to me, and because I know I'm right and enjoy the satisfaction of being right in arguments. The reasons why this computer network exists are not difficult to divine. I don't know why you're stuck on a mental loop and can't break the ruling-class ideology of Natural Law, nothing I have said is particularly controversial.

I'm not making some argument for nihilism (that argument is something quite different, and I disagree heavily with the kind of faggotry where "nihilism" is just an excuse for degenerates to suck up to whatever ruler lords over them, which infests /pol and a lot of imageboard culture). My opposition is to ruling class ideologies which purport to read the logic of Nature and seek some final judgement about how it, and us, ought to be ordered.

You didn't answer any question, and you are coming across as somewhat infantile when you say it's just interesting and that you know you're right.

The only thing you seem to have a handle on is your opposition to the establishment and the pervasive common narrative, which is the only thing for which I can commend you.

Ecofascism is a real thing, and goes back to the green wing of the nazis with Richard Walther Darre, as well as the romanticists and volkische movements.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/janet-biehl-and-peter-staudenmaier-ecofascism-lessons-from-the-german-experience

Attached: ecofascists.png (2738x1204, 1.9M)

You levelled a false accusation against me, I responded to that accusation.
Your implication is that if there weren't some human nature (itself a ruling class construct) that is spooky and airy, humans couldn't have technology. Humans, like any life, developed organically and learned cooperation. This led to technology in the long term, after many fits and starts. The origin of technology is not exactly a mystery, and does not require spooky natures to explain. You were just engaging in mystification of human reason and the human mind, trying to assign it some sort of special status.

Mystification is interetesting. More of a philosophical question. I was just wondering why you wouldn't answer the question of what the degree of difference is between poor, middle, and ruling class.

Eco-fascism is fucking stupid, obviously. Environmentalism and the protection of the planet and the life upon it takes precedence, we can agree on that.

A lot. A very lot. Like, the middle class will kill people in large numbers to retain their class privilege, even when they know they're just subject to rulers in some form. That's why Social Darwinism really took off. It couldn't persist solely on bourgeois arrogance.
It isn't so much a question of wealth, but of one's relation to the institutions and society, Wealth is only particularly relevant when you have enough of it to enter the capitalist class in a meaningful sense. Between the lower and middle class, the greatest (but not sole) signifier is educational status, and if you don't believe the lower class doesn't have doors slammed in their face every single day, I don't know what world you live in. This is a world where the uneducated are literally told they ought to be grateful for being allowed to continue living by both major parties in America, where socdem parties can only offer sniveling comments about how capitalism or fascism is mean. The middle class, on the other hand, is given all sorts of privileges, and doors open depending on how high you rise in the system. You really do only get in this system what you are allowed to get, and that is true of every social stratum. You can't enter the capitalist class proper even if you meet the wealth requirements, because you need to play ball with the old boys' network, and one of the qualifiers they use for new members is educational attainment. There aren't a lot of robber barons that build themselves from nothing any more, and those who tried would see themselves relieved of their capital very quickly and kicked back into the street. (That we have a system where the super rich corporations get infinite free money and concessions from the government, of course, is another thing to consider.)

So in what cases will the middle class kill everyone to retain their class privilege?
"middle" doesnt seem like much of a privilege to me. Is the middle simply whistling past the graveyard while they attain riches or fall to poverty? Is this the capitalist fairy-tale story of middle believing they may one day become ruling if they simply work hard enough?

The class warfare they indirectly (and occasionally directly) engage in every single day to preserve their status, through the intermediary of the police and the military and the legal system. They know damn well their status is contingent on the masses of the lower class being actively suppressed, and have always enthusiastically supported every police state proposal put forward (even when they feign ignorance).

Is the survival of the current iteration of police, military, politicians, and judges necessary to the survival of the planet or the human species?

I agree

This sounds like a fedbait question, but if there wasn't the spectre of nuclear weapons I would say probably say no when it comes to the survival of the human species, but given that immense danger there is a necessity for stability, as well as the fact that a civil protection apparatus is generally a good thing even if the current iteration isn't that great, so to avoid going full posadist, I would say yes.