As I have explained many times before on PoFo, hatred is a primitive reaction resulting from fear.
1. Defend this claim.
2. I do not hate Americans.
Technocracy, however, is a sustainable system with a non-expansion based economy. Since it does not require expansion, and is self-sustaining, the need for external exploitation, whether peaceful or not, is nonexistant. Thus, you do not even have this excuse to suggest that anyone deserves to "...be blown to smithereens."
This does not follow at all from anything you have said. You get this
conclusion out of nothing. The previous premisses are totally disconnected
from the conclusion that I have "no excise to .." etc. You have not
demonstrated at all how that conclusion follows from your previous claims.
Seond, killing people is not exploitative. Exploitation is living off the labour
of others. Lastly, destroying America is not necessarily expansionistic. I
suppose destroying the enemy is against technocracy? The belief that the
Nazis had to be got rid of is contrary to technocracy? The Nazis posed a
threat to civilisation. Is technocracy possible without civilisation? There is
no difference between the need to get rid of the Nazis, in the name of
civilisation, and the need to get rid of the Americans.
As for what you have to say about violence - mere rhetoric. Violence
works, has worked, and will continue to work. You are a hopeless idealist.
I read the main articles at technocracy.ca and some other website
the URL of which I cannot remember. This was quite some time ago now.
Now define technocracy, and show how the definition conflicts with my
rather trivial statement, or risk losing this argument
- By Rich
- By Fasces
- By Unthinking Majority
- By QatzelOk