Justice Renders to Everyone His Due...

I think that you are reading into this the wrong way. He was obviosly very frustrated with the way things were or at least how he percieved them as being. A utpoia of any kind is a praxis, it cannot work as it is contingent on unreachable hypotheticals i.e. finding accurately who is bronze, silver or gold in society. If a golden one who first appears bronze is placed with the bronze masses, he will most likely see through what is happening and be wasted or incite chaos. Thus, to fix this, compromise must be made. The best we can do is mitigate natural law with logical frameworks to minimize loss and negative consequences such as loss of human life.
Pakka eric made a most painful realization, that some cannot fully appreciate life and destroy in their ignorace things ment to be held dear so that they might taste a sweeter berry than the last and be happy on the surface. But the surface is all that exists for some people.
Pakka eric saw the weak masses as a commodity to serve the more able but a case can be made to the opposite effect. These masses are in a sense disabled and to be pitied, you would nto hate someone for not having two legs to stand upon would you? No, the few strong must help the many weak, progress is the beuatiful though many and chaotic views of the strong mitigated by the slowly changing hand of the masses.
My conclusion in reguards to Pakka Eric is that he did not fully undertand the literature he read as he could not see the opposite point of it. There are two sides to every coin, the universe is more balanced than a single subjective view can encompass and the radical answer is rarely the correct one.
People often speak of idealism but the answer to our problems lies not in subjective ideals but scientific and logical rigor, a problem can be modeled and solved with increasing accuracy and decreasing negative or unaccounted for outcomes. This is our physical salvation but not our spiritual one, the spirit is a very personal thing and is an illusion to some extent but still must be adressed as real.
The underlying rot in society many idealists speak of is more personal than they realize. Some can delve into the seas of uncertianty and remain unharmed and in fact strengthened in having broken the bonds of dissillusionment, but some cannot swim quite so well and sink to madness. Others do not even realize that there is not objective truth and stay safely in the obelisk of sand that rises and falls in the tides build by those of strong will and mind. This is how things are. It is not for everyone to reach a new level of understanding, and yes many who might be able to swim if they only tried are out there but it is not so bleak as it seems, things have always been such.

Dear Zetetic11235,
Thanks for the reply but...before I answer further would you mind restating in your own words what you think I said in my first post? I suspect you may be misinterpreting me though I can't be sure.
-The Prof.

I was really just saying that he and other thinkers of his kind are merely idealists who have a view of society which is exceedingly romantic but truely are praxis. They cannot be put into play because the try to change nature and are based in false or incomplete(in the sens that they are not thouroghly thought through) assumtions.
Essentially, I wanted to convey that he may be an adept critic when the pieces are put together, but I don't think that he holds any great new answers.
The answer is in your view of things once things are broken down so far. Society is not really different than it was a thousand years past, it is a cycle of ups and downs revolution and peace , progress and stagnance. There will always be a balance of radical change and stagnance, this is progress, the few at the top are mitigated by the masses and it creates an order to things Pakka does not acknowledge. Plato's and other utopian ideas are in the same violation of natural flow as the ideas of marxism and any other synthetic form of institution.
Does that clarify at all?

I should make clear at this point that I don't (and never did) support viewing Pekka-Eric's utopia or any other as anything but a praxis. Would his caste system work in practice? I think not. Do I know for certain? No, because I have no idea what sources he was drawing on when he wrote the "Three Kinds of Humans" section of his manifesto.
And even if I knew the sources that's no guarantee I'd agree with them. I am wide open on this issue.
-The Prof.

But, masters, remember that I am an
ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not
that I am an ass. - Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing, Act 4, Scene 2

I guess what made this fuzzy was question number 3 in your initial post which seemed to me to point towards quite the opposite, namely that his system is potentially valid and applicable, I apologize but it seemed reasonable clear that such a conlcusion could be drawn in asking that question and this lead to my assumption of your intent.

So where would you like to take the discussion from here? I was thinking we might talk about specific components of Auvinen's philosophy, e. g. deindividuation theory.
- Frost

I am not sure. He clearly dispised those who become caught up in groupthink and deinviuation as they were weak and dangerous in his mind, which I can agree with. I see it all too often overtake the rational mind in cliques, small groups, people interacting through a medium such as the internet, I do my best to counter it. I consider every person that I interact with, I see them as people and wonder about their lives. This is not a value that is instilled in people as it was in centuries past as the christian morality demanded it and interaction was much more direct. There needs to be a social shift in perspective over the next hundred years and I think that there will be. The public is always slow to react to intellectual suggestion but ultimately they do. This sluggishness creates a balance, a padding really. It prevents ideas from coming into practice too quickly and this is good as seemingly sensible changes can have disastrous effects.

[CENTER][CENTER]So do you believe that apathy specifically causes herd-think?[/CENTER]
[CENTER]- The Prof.[/CENTER][/CENTER]

Not apathy, but a certain obliviousness that is a result of a mental cushion provided by consideration of things at a superficial level which is promoted by our society. The occupation with similar things promotes groupthink, same school, run by the government, same T.V. and entertainment, same opinions given to you by the same celebrities ect.

I agree that society is cursed by superficiality. What I'm not sure about is how to set about overcoming it. Pekka-Eric apparently believed it couldn't be done: the shallow are (supposedly) shallow because of their innate nature. I disagree with that but where does one start to find a cure?
- The Prof.
Reform this world O Lord, beginning with me - Source Unknown
Nothing needs correcting so much as other people's faults - Mark Twain

Edit: My apologies. That question wasn't needed as you've already answered it above.