Fabianism

[Walker]

So we should expect their immigration policy to be directed to that goal, no matter what other reasons they give for it. Like everything else they do, they'll be pro-migration when it suits them, and demand limits when it does not. Migrants that unsetttle the existing order, increase the demand for centralized governance, and are directable to Fabian goals, they want; migrants that, say, come from places that are educated and advanced, where immigration would lead to larger bodies of informed people aware of their own power, options and democratic rights, they are not going to want at all...unless the same are prepared to become Fabian Socialists, as well, of course.

Bingo. Is that working? Is England getting the educated and advanced, or like the US is England getting the unvetted, unprocessed and thus illegal, needy? As I recall from the pamphlet that was modeling as a sheep, Fabians say that seeking economic opportunity is not sufficient reason to accept an immigrant. However, US immigration policy says the same thing and that policy was ignored many millions of times because an illegal only had to learn how to pronounce the word, amnesty, and that was only if questioned. In this day and age though, sheep pamphlets can get quoted as reality on the basis that the words really do exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I'd say the Fabians are quite clear on their overarching goal:it's the achieving of power for the Fabian elite, through the imposition of Socialism at the lower level and the preserving of themselves as the elite. They're not shy about saying that their whole purpose is to reshape the world, and that they believe they are just the people capable of doing it right.

Feel free to believe that if you wish. Not unreasonable if you believe humans by their very nature are sinful/evil.

Well, I'd certainly say they have it in them, wouldn't you?

And if you don't think so, what would be the alterate explanation for "wolves" existing in this world? How would any such come about, seeing as mankind is assumed to be good? Evil would have to have some source or cause, or it wouldn't exist at all, right? So what is the source of things like wolfish ambitions?

But of course Fabians do not share that belief.

I think they do. But it seems obvious that they think they're the wolves, and the rest are the sheep. So it doesn't trouble them much. They expect to end up winning.

They do not expect to remain alone as "the people capable pof doing it right" once progress has been made toward this reshaped world.

So...they think they're the ones to do it right NOW, and they think that manipulating and being wolfish is the way to get it done, but afterward, they're simply going to yield sweetly to the common good? Do you really suppose that's how it's going to happen?

It is a sad reality that pretty much all of our "politics" is unable to deal effectively with problems requiring a long time to solve. It is hard enough for a five year plan, but what if the problem needs a 50 year plan or a 500 year plan.

Now, on that, you and I completely agree. But as with all political "solutions," what we discover, when we think about it, is that there really isn't a "solution" to that problem.

If we give somebody the power to generate a 50 year plan, or a 500 year one, what imparts to them the wisdom to know what the world of 50 or 500 years in the future is going to be like, or to have in it, or to require? And if we give them perpetual power (for even 50 years is pretty much an adult lifetime), what's our assurance that they won't abuse that power, or at least misunderstand what is best, and become an impediment to real solutions?

Yet you're not wrong: some situations definitely require a longer run-time than the four-to-eight years an average democratic/republican administration can stay the course. For example, any general solution to public education cannot even be empirically tested for a minimum of about a dozen years, plus however many cycles are necessary to confirm the repetitive success of the results: no political administration has anything close to that amount of time in power guaranteed to them. So each successive administration generates new programs of "reform," which are never tested, and then are "reformed" again when the next administration or even the next cabinet minister takes office. And the guinea pigs that are subjected to endless educational experimentation in the absence of any reliable testing of results or controls are the children.

So it's a genuine problem, but not one we can solve. What we end up doing is compromising between what is ideal in one respect and what is ideal in another, because the ideals are irreconcilable with each other. We have term limits to limit the scope of political wolves; but we thereby have to accept that there will be no stable, scientifically-verifiable, long-term plan for public health, or education, or foreign policy, or any number of other areas in which longer term planning might be desirable.

Yet democracy, with both its checks and balances, is the best option. There really isn't an alternative, I would suggest.

Because wolves.

[Immanuel Can]

So we should expect their immigration policy to be directed to that goal, no matter what other reasons they give for it. Like everything else they do, they'll be pro-migration when it suits them, and demand limits when it does not. Migrants that unsetttle the existing order, increase the demand for centralized governance, and are directable to Fabian goals, they want; migrants that, say, come from places that are educated and advanced, where immigration would lead to larger bodies of informed people aware of their own power, options and democratic rights, they are not going to want at all...unless the same are prepared to become Fabian Socialists, as well, of course.

Bingo. Is that working?

Yes...for Fabian goals. Not for anybody else's.

[MikeNovack]

It is a sad reality that pretty much all of our "politics" is unable to deal effectively with problems requiring a long time to solve. It is hard enough for a five year plan, but what if the problem needs a 50 year plan or a 500 year plan.

Now, on that, you and I completely agree. But as with all political "solutions," what we discover, when we think about it, is that there really isn't a "solution" to that problem.

Isn't a solution to the problem, which can be very sad. I am not disagreeing with you but there are consequences.

<< you know.should know I would want to see discussion of "environmental ethics"
OK, let us assume that there are NO solutions to the human population far exceeding the long term carrying capacity of this planet. So pour population WILL end up being reduced. That's what unsustainable means.

Now there are two ways this can happen, a CRASH (which would be VERY unpleasant, violent, lots of people actually being killed, etc. ) or a gentler reduction over time. How fast MIGHT be possible. I take the 14t Century Plague pandemic as a bound, it was a rate of decline the people living through it experienced as :everyone is dying. For example, four generations PLUS a human lifetime at an average birthrate of 1,5/woman would get us to about one quarter of the current population*. That MIGHT allow for sustainable solutions. But four generation plus a lifetime is more like 150 years, POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The conclusion: We WILL crash. (no political solution can prevent this so if ONLY political** solutions considered, inevitable)

* That's what it was in the 1930's. You would have to follow birthsa vs death year by year to see that in there would be a period when the rate of reduction comparable to the rate during the 14ty Century pandemic. China's failed "on child" policy would have led to experiencing periods where the die-off rate much greater, and for what? Save two generations of time (take about 100 years instead of 150). It's the "plus a human lifetime" that keeps getting forgotten.

** NONPOLITICAL still possible. For example, in many places women are choosing 1.5 children. The WHY Currently being studied

[Immanuel Can]

It is a sad reality that pretty much all of our "politics" is unable to deal effectively with problems requiring a long time to solve. It is hard enough for a five year plan, but what if the problem needs a 50 year plan or a 500 year plan.

Now, on that, you and I completely agree. But as with all political "solutions," what we discover, when we think about it, is that there really isn't a "solution" to that problem.

Isn't a solution to the problem, which can be very sad. I am not disagreeing with you but there are consequences.

<< you know.should know I would want to see discussion of "environmental ethics"
OK, let us assume that there are NO solutions to the human population far exceeding the long term carrying capacity of this planet. So pour population WILL end up being reduced. That's what unsustainable means.

Well, first, Mike, be sure that the problem you're being told to fear is real and impending. The so-called "population bomb" of Paul Ehrlich, that was predicted in the late '60s and early '70s did not materialize. Nor have many of the dire predictions of environmental collapse. Most of the "crisis" models are built on bad mathematics and bad sociology.

For example, they suggest that world population increases at a steady rate; which it does not. It turns out that when people become affluent, they have, on average, 1.6 births per woman, which means the population of prosperous countries falls substantially BELOW replacement level (which is 2.1 births per couple, the .1 accounting for early mortalities). So one solution is to make sure people have opportunity to prosper, so that the overall birth rate falls. Another variable is the presence of birth control and abortion, which hugely impacts the reproduction rate. War, disease, and drug crises are other variables that affect such rates, though those are much more grim. And lately, the newfound disinclination of young men to commit to young women, and the reluctance of young women to establish homes much prior to their reproductive "geriatric" years stand to have a cataclysmic impact on the rate of reproduction in the West. Rather than having too many people, we may well end up with far too few.

So we're not sitting on the sort of crisis "time bomb" so much Leftist propaganda would make us believe. Their aversion to facts and empirical data are never more evident than in their climate predictions, almost none of which ever turn out to be right.

Ironically, the Left then turns and sings out of the other side of its mouth. For our falling birth rate in the West becomes their rationale for uncontrolled migration. They claim we "need" the "workforce" or our economy will collapse. Perhaps so: but if so, then it is the exact opposite of the alleged "population bomb" problem they were trying to sell us a minute ago. So we should ask which of their twisted, self-serving stories they really wish us to believe. There's no way it can be both. So something other than a concern about population is really going on with them, and it's pretty clear what it is: both stories create a useful panic for them, so they can push the polices they find useful to their own power.

...a gentler reduction over time.

Well, this sort of euphemistic language expresses a thing called "malthusianism." It's the belief that we've got to deliberately reduce the population somehow. But the fun question to ask a malthusians is, "Who gets to decide, who is surplus, and by what methods do you intend to reduce them?" That's when it gets really ugly. What malthusianism really means is, "Let's kill/sterilize/circumscribe the freedoms of real people who are alive today, in the alleged interests of a future generation that does not yet exist, and which many of us would be happy to abort anyway." Ugh.

The conclusion: We WILL crash.

That's what the Leftists want us to believe. But only because it rationalizes us having to give them control of things like our reproduction and child-rearing. The facts simply don't support that conclusion.

I think we need to take a hard look at the select "statistics" the Left is using to push malthusianism on us. Their predictions simply do not bear the test of a more complete scientific analysis. Moreover, we should always make them explain precisely WHAT they are proposing to make us do in order to address the alleged crisis they're shouting about...because it's in that, that we find the Fabian-type motives that are really at the root of "cliimate" panic.

[Gary Childress]

Now, on that, you and I completely agree. But as with all political "solutions," what we discover, when we think about it, is that there really isn't a "solution" to that problem.

Isn't a solution to the problem, which can be very sad. I am not disagreeing with you but there are consequences.

<< you know.should know I would want to see discussion of "environmental ethics"
OK, let us assume that there are NO solutions to the human population far exceeding the long term carrying capacity of this planet. So pour population WILL end up being reduced. That's what unsustainable means.

Well, first, Mike, be sure that the problem you're being told to fear is real and impending. The so-called "population bomb" of Paul Ehrlich, that was predicted in the late '60s and early '70s did not materialize. Nor have many of the dire predictions of environmental collapse. Most of the "crisis" models are built on bad mathematics and bad sociology.

For example, they suggest that world population increases at a steady rate; which it does not. It turns out that when people become affluent, they have, on average, 1.6 births per woman, which means the population of prosperous countries falls substantially BELOW replacement level (which is 2.1 births per couple, the .1 accounting for early mortalities). So one solution is to make sure people have opportunity to prosper, so that the overall birth rate falls. Another variable is the presence of birth control and abortion, which hugely impacts the reproduction rate. War, disease, and drug crises are other variables that affect such rates, though those are much more grim. And lately, the newfound disinclination of young men to commit to young women, and the reluctance of young women to establish homes much prior to their reproductive "geriatric" years stand to have a cataclysmic impact on the rate of reproduction in the West. Rather than having too many people, we may well end up with far too few.

So we're not sitting on the sort of crisis "time bomb" so much Leftist propaganda would make us believe. Their aversion to facts and empirical data are never more evident than in their climate predictions, almost none of which ever turn out to be right.

Ironically, the Left then turns and sings out of the other side of its mouth. For our falling birth rate in the West becomes their rationale for uncontrolled migration. They claim we "need" the "workforce" or our economy will collapse. Perhaps so: but if so, then it is the exact opposite of the alleged "population bomb" problem they were trying to sell us a minute ago. So we should ask which of their twisted, self-serving stories they really wish us to believe. There's no way it can be both. So something other than a concern about population is really going on with them, and it's pretty clear what it is: both stories create a useful panic for them, so they can push the polices they find useful to their own power.

...a gentler reduction over time.

Well, this sort of euphemistic language expresses a thing called "malthusianism." It's the belief that we've got to deliberately reduce the population somehow. But the fun question to ask a malthusians is, "Who gets to decide, who is surplus, and by what methods do you intend to reduce them?" That's when it gets really ugly. What malthusianism really means is, "Let's kill/sterilize/circumscribe the freedoms of real people who are alive today, in the alleged interests of a future generation that does not yet exist, and which many of us would be happy to abort anyway." Ugh.

The conclusion: We WILL crash.

That's what the Leftists want us to believe. But only because it rationalizes us having to give them control of things like our reproduction and child-rearing. The facts simply don't support that conclusion.

I think we need to take a hard look at the select "statistics" the Left is using to push malthusianism on us. Their predictions simply do not bear the test of a more complete scientific analysis. Moreover, we should always make them explain precisely WHAT they are proposing to make us do in order to address the alleged crisis they're shouting about...because it's in that, that we find the Fabian-type motives that are really at the root of "cliimate" panic.

So human overpopulation isn't a growing problem? Is that correct? What world are you living in? Is it the religious world where God ensures that humans don't destroy ourselves. God wouldn't let that happen so it's not going to happen? We can pollute and reproduce without limits and everything will be fine? Is that correct?

I hope you are right but it's going to take miracles to rein in increasing human environmental damage. Let's hope there's a God and he's going to come to our rescue. Because it doesn't seem possible to restrain ourselves.

[Immanuel Can]

So human overpopulation isn't a growing problem? Is that correct?

Absolutely. The West has a shrinking population.

Now, do you want to discuss the places with a high birth rate, and how to kill or sterilize some of them, or stop them from choosing to have families? Because you're not going to like the truth: the people in all those places aren't white. And because they're not in the West, we don't have jurisdiction over them, so we're going to have to do something pretty extraordinary to get them to "see things the malthusian way."

What do you recommend?

I hope you are right...

You'll find out that I am. The West is not in a population crisis, so even if we were running out of space and resources on a world scale, there would be absolutely nothing the West could possibly do in the West to address any overpopulation crisis, if there is one. They'd have to start doing something awful to people in other countries.

Again, what would you suggest?

...it doesn't seem possible to restrain ourselves.

Well, Mike says that people are basically good. So that means they're going to suddenly wake up and start doing something different, right?

Of course, that wouldn't explain why they ever did the wrong thing in the first place, since they're all supposed to be good...so somebody's got to get that story straight before we can believe it.

[Gary Childress]

So human overpopulation isn't a growing problem? Is that correct?

Absolutely. The West has a shrinking population.

Now, do you want to discuss the places with a high birth rate, and how to kill or sterilize some of them, or stop them from choosing to have families? Because you're not going to like the truth: the people in all those places aren't white. And because they're not in the West, we don't have jurisdiction over them, so we're going to have to do something pretty extraordinary to get them to "see things the malthusian way."

What do you recommend?

I hope you are right...

You'll find out that I am. The West is not in a population crisis, so even if we were running out of space and resources on a world scale, there would be absolutely nothing the West could possibly do in the West to address any overpopulation crisis, if there is one. They'd have to start doing something awful to people in other countries.

Again, what would you suggest?

...it doesn't seem possible to restrain ourselves.

Well, Mike says that people are basically good. So that means they're going to suddenly wake up and start doing something different, right?

Of course, that wouldn't explain why they ever did the wrong thing in the first place, since they're all supposed to be good...so somebody's got to get that story straight before we can believe it.

I agree. There's possibly nothing we can do in the West about the current trajectory of human civilization on Earth. None of us wants to do the unthinkable. But you seem to get defensive when someone brings up the topic and start to accuse others who recognize the problem of wanting to do the unthinkable. Why do you do that?

So you agree that there is a problem brewing. At least we're on the same page in that respect.

[Immanuel Can]

So human overpopulation isn't a growing problem? Is that correct?

Absolutely. The West has a shrinking population.

Now, do you want to discuss the places with a high birth rate, and how to kill or sterilize some of them, or stop them from choosing to have families? Because you're not going to like the truth: the people in all those places aren't white. And because they're not in the West, we don't have jurisdiction over them, so we're going to have to do something pretty extraordinary to get them to "see things the malthusian way."

What do you recommend?

I hope you are right...

You'll find out that I am. The West is not in a population crisis, so even if we were running out of space and resources on a world scale, there would be absolutely nothing the West could possibly do in the West to address any overpopulation crisis, if there is one. They'd have to start doing something awful to people in other countries.

Again, what would you suggest?

...it doesn't seem possible to restrain ourselves.

Well, Mike says that people are basically good. So that means they're going to suddenly wake up and start doing something different, right?

Of course, that wouldn't explain why they ever did the wrong thing in the first place, since they're all supposed to be good...so somebody's got to get that story straight before we can believe it.

I agree. There's possibly nothing we can do in the West about the current trajectory of human civilization on Earth.

We can do something about our own lives.

None of us wants to do the unthinkable. But you seem to get defensive when someone brings up the topic and start to accuse others who recognize the problem of wanting to do the unthinkable. Why do you do that?

I'm not "defensive," Gary. I'm just being honest. Malthusianism is about manipulation, not about solving the world's problems. But the lie is too obvious: there's nothing we can do about climate or population in the West. So why are their liars around, trying to convince us we can? And why do they only care about making us nervous, and not about addressing the situation where it's happening?

[phyllo]

Now, do you want to discuss the places with a high birth rate, and how to kill or sterilize some of them, or stop them from choosing to have families? Because you're not going to like the truth: the people in all those places aren't white. And because they're not in the West, we don't have jurisdiction over them, so we're going to have to do something pretty extraordinary to get them to "see things the malthusian way."

What do you recommend?

Actually it's fairly easy.

Help them increase their level of education and help setting up medical care and old age security systems.

When women increase their level of education, they decrease the rate of reproduction.

When there is a system in place, which takes care of people in their old age, they don't have to rely on having a large number of children who would take care of them.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, do you want to discuss the places with a high birth rate, and how to kill or sterilize some of them, or stop them from choosing to have families? Because you're not going to like the truth: the people in all those places aren't white. And because they're not in the West, we don't have jurisdiction over them, so we're going to have to do something pretty extraordinary to get them to "see things the malthusian way."

What do you recommend?

Actually it's fairly easy.

Help them increase their level of education and help setting up medical care and old age security systems.

Well, old-age security systems are unlikely to prove helpful in reducing or even affecting reproductive rates, of course. But that's another subject altogether. I don't know if expecting old-age security is any factor in reducing earlier reproduction, either...and I don't know how one would be able to show it ever is.

However, you have to be careful with welfare programs. Some can be helpful, but some can be unhelpful. When you provide for your people that which they cannot get for themselves, that's good; but when you provide for them things they ought to get themselves, it can be bad.

Furthermore, what you subsidize, you incentivize. And sometimes, that's a bad thing. If you give people free wages, they very naturally won't work. Why work, when your income arrives anyway? And if you subsidize single motherhood and penalize fatherhood, as has been done to the US black community, you produce the single biggest factor in the destruction of the African-American community -- single motherhood. It's the factor that accounts most for things like gang behaviour, criminality, inability to form new families, teen pregancy, drug abuse, dependency, low-education results, poverty, abortions, and just about every other social dysfunction in that community. And it's all been sponsored by the Dems misguided programs of subsidies to single mothers, subsidies which disappear if a father is in the home. It's created the phenomena of the "baby-mama" and "baby-daddy," meaning people who are reproducing without forming a bond. Anybody who cares about "black lives" should be ardently opposed to subsidizing single-motherhood. (And by the way, exactly the same results issue in all white and hispanic communities in which single-motherhood is common, so it's not even a racial issue.)

When women increase their level of education, they decrease the rate of reproduction.

Yes, that's true. And they do it voluntarily, and without any dependency on the State to make it happen. So investing in education for young women would make sense.

But still, anything to decrease population still has to be done in places like India and China, or South and Central America. The problem is the opposite in the West, so we can't fix it by fixing ourselves. We have no such power. We'd have to invest in women's education overseas, in places in which the government may not be perfectly happy with us involving ourselves, like the Middle East or Africa.

So that remains difficult. Not at all easy, either way.

[MikeNovack]

The conclusion: We WILL crash.

That's what the Leftists want us to believe. But only because it rationalizes us having to give them control of things like our reproduction and child-rearing. The facts simply don't support that conclusion.

This is why we really need an environmental ethics section of the forum.

IC, you appear to know little/nothing about the "environmentalists" (who the players are, etc.). No it is NOT "the left". Yes the left-right conflict among the "environmentalist" is/was real. Before you open your mouth again:

a) Examine in detail the history of say EarthFirst! in the period 1980-2000 (and then perhaps 2015 to present). Who got pushed out? Why?

b) probably more accessible to you -- In between these time periods, the fight within the Sierra Club for seats on the Board over the issue of the P word being declared taboo (no discussion of population allowed). Who were the players, which considered left or right. You should be able to access the candidate statements of those running for the Board -- and who "by petition" rather than by nomination by the existing board so who outside vs inside. Start with the late David Brower re-entering the fray.

c) Who are the "ecosocialists" and what is their argument? ( WHY "ecosocialsm" -- hint: to exclude "ecofascists")

By and large the "left" is NOT environmental. Especially the traditional left, Marxists, believe all evils are the result of capitalism and if only we did away with capitalism all these other problems would vanish (by magic? But of course traditional leftism is a quasi religion).

[Impenitent]

It is hard enough for a five year plan, but what if the problem needs a 50 year plan or a 500 year plan.

The US Constitution is such a plan. It even allows for amendments revealed as necessary by time. However, as with the constitutionally illegal lack of a budgetary process, the US government doesn’t even follow the amendment process anymore. The constitutional way is too much trouble, too uncertain of a desired result, and it exposes the incumbent in Congress to alienation by special interests.

It’s interesting that in the US, The Supremes will likely punt the anchor baby issue* to the legislature, when in fact the anchor baby issue was created by opinions of past Supremes rather than the constitution, and the anchor baby precedent is now set in stone and coasting along under the authority of case law rather than constitutional intent, intent as gauged by The Declaration of Independence. Thus, the need for a government clean-up back to original intent. If the US fails it won’t be because of the constitution or capitalism but by the corruption of each. That’s a claim that could also be made by socialism, if socialism had ever worked.


From the information in the first video, The Fabians go so far back in history that they in fact just might be the original intent for England in the modern era since England lost the pole position.


*Without getting into the weeds, the anchor baby policy is insane.

only because boat production has virtually stopped...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

The conclusion: We WILL crash.

That's what the Leftists want us to believe. But only because it rationalizes us having to give them control of things like our reproduction and child-rearing. The facts simply don't support that conclusion.

This is why we really need an environmental ethics section of the forum.

IC, you appear to know little/nothing about the "environmentalists" (who the players are, etc.). No it is NOT "the left".

Actually, all the sources I've been able to locate says it IS the Left...particularly in response to Carson's now-disproved thesis in Silent Spring. The anarchists are late to the party. And the Sierra Club is famously Leftist.

But the important point, as with all these neo-Socialist movements, is not merely what they say they stand for, but what they get used for...Fabian-style. What's happened with environmentalist panics is instructive: it's shifted a ton of government money around, into failed "green" projects, from "The Green New Deal" to windmills, solar panels, and electric cars. Again, the rich are getting rich, and the poor are getting...legislation, and taxes, and additional expenses, and shortages, and austerity measures, and less freedom.

Meanwhile, all the environmental clucking and fluffing in the West is not doing even one tiny bit of good, compared to the vast environmental impact of bad governance in the Developing World, which is industrializing as fast and as recklessly as it possibly can. So when will the so-called environmentalists get around to addressing the countries that are really going to do the most destruction?

The environmentalists behave like todays "women's rights" advocates: the only places where they do their whining and griping is in the affluent, post-Protestant West. They don't care what happens in Asia, or in the Middle East, or in Africa, even though the problems they claim to care about are astronomically worse in those locations than at home, by orders of magnitude. Both allegedly-morally-earnest groups capitalize (and I mean "make capital") on the low-hanging fruit of the soft-conscienced West, and duck all the hard work of addressing the Socialist dictatorships and totalitarian regimes that create the real problem.

c) Who are the "ecosocialists" and what is their argument? ( WHY "ecosocialsm" -- hint: to exclude "ecofascists")

Fascists are Socialists. They're definitionally and programatically, "National Socialists," Socialist foil to the Commies' "International Socialists." Remember? It's a Coke-Pepsi game they're playing. It's not an authentic choice. You're supposed to think that you've done something when you've evicted the "ecofascists," and not notice that you're still stuck with Socialism, either way. The only thing that has actually changed is which wolf is going to get to eat.

By and large the "left" is NOT environmental.

Oh, that's true. Much Leftism is hugely environmentally destructive...China, for example, is an environmentalist's nightmare, and yet thoroughly Socialist. Zimbabwe is an agricultural and economic wasteland, and...Socialist. North Korea is starvationland, and...Socialist. The list goes on and on. Give the Socialists control of your environment, and they'll destroy it for sure.

So yeah, the Left is not inherently environmentalist. But environmentalists are mostly Leftist.

[MikeNovack]

Look, sorry IC, but you really have to look at the data, not selected opinions of what the data means.

The "fascists" pushed out of EF!, Sierra, etc, NOT actually fascists (in the sense you mean). The people actually being excluded by the Ecosocialists not either. The REAL PEOPLE affected were/are being called fascist because "not left" and unwilling to exclude anybody, even real fascists should any actually show up.

In other words, people who feel the ONLY criteria for people being part of an environmental movement should be their ENVIRONMENTAL positions, not whether they are PC on this or that non-environmental issue. NOT whether they are also on the right side with regard to HUMAN issues like racism, homophobia, social justice, etc.

My PERSONAL position is what matters is ability/willingness to work together on the issue at hand even recognizing that we might be on opposing sides of some other issue. In other words, can we TOLERATE each other as long as working together on a project. Not allow our differences to get in the way of that for some of us the answer is no (we cannot overcome our differences even temporarily). But if your answer is yes, then I feel I can work with you.

PS --- you are both right and wrong about fascism being socialist. Fascism covers a RANGE, including what would be no more socialist than free market capitalism typically is (I would argue contains significant amounts of socialism --- look at analysis from the point of view of the right wing/individualist anarchists to see that clearly)