A caustic criticism of the previous post by a Reptilian Socialist

Greetings, fellow lizardes.

This 'Zero' evidences a peculiar liking for fascist action, all this time ignoring the fundamental character of reptilian socialism. Regardless of the further results, reptilian socialism - and some might call us sectarian for this - are insistent about the reptilian nature of our cause being uncompromised. We do not advocate actions which might compromise us, such as publically listing active reptilians. The more people rush forwards, the more easily they can be manipulated by us reptilians. Although they do us a useful service in disseminating our propaganda, we must avoid elevating mere 'action' without determination - which is a chimera - into a virtue. Further, we cannot lapse into an arbitrary sophism - we must have reasons for choosing this way or that, we cannot both support sophism and then restrict the available sophisms. We cannot speak of an 'action' without abstraction until it is done. We might well then prefer to eschew such talk. We are surprised that 'Zero' can say such things in a serious manner.

Quite apart from the virtues of fascism and our moral objections to it, it diverges from the true reptilian form. It might be said that fascism is like a lizard - if you cut off its tail, it keeps on going, just as defining 'fascism' proves difficult. It might also be said that 'Zero Nowhere' does not declare themselves a Nazi or fascist in the article. They do not even declare their support for death camps, or write '88' everywhere. That is true, and you might ask why we are then spending so much time on this one element. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that fascists are not to be applauded for spreading 'fascism,' enacting genocide and so on. Nor are we to participate in public displays of mourning which are covert means of promoting bourgeois politicians. People have many intentions that we do not support, we would therefore rather avoid these. We would therefore rather demand people of beliefs that will not harm or annoy us, before we demand they enact these.

We contend that attacking people for not doing 'something' is merely a dishonest attempt at having them do something for you. All beliefs limit certain actions. It is hence not 'socialism,' but the lack of beliefs, which holds this limitation to be bad per se. Yet to type, just as to do anything else, is to act with a purpose - and often a more sophisticated one. It is only this kind of action that allows us to determine our actions or whatever else in a way which is not merely passive. Hence, we must not disparage socialists for being - socialists. If we did, one might well question our purpose. However, we are true-blue reptilian socialists, and hold dogmatically to the tenets of lizard socialism. We are not reptilian Nazis, whatever they may be called.

Hence, if you would request something of us lizard socialists, then be careful. Although reptilians might seem innocuous due to our control of pop music and favouring of it as a means of propaganda, we are actually quite ferocious. If a person or group declares themselves 'socialist,' they will first have to qualify this in several ways or they will be conflated with other things. Yet they were attempting to explain their beliefs, and must hence continue on. One would conclude that they cannot truly have a problem with such things. Our use of music has often been attacked and rebuffed, and eventually we discovered that it was - like bourgeois politics - flashing lights which encourage people to continue on in the system. Hence, we merely coquette with it - as it is more fit for prostitutes than true reptilians. Besides, despite its claims the call to 'action' as such has little clear appeal: in a political and partisan context people are 'talking,' they are not running into each other. Hence, the range of 'actions' involved is limited. We feel that all action to get 'what people want' tends to be mediated, and otherwise spills out into crime. We would rather avoid 'action' which is consequential but problematic. We make few demands, but stringent limitations. Hence, we hope that the article's author understands our reluctance about the article and what it advocates.