In response to the ‘non-manifesto’ penned by David Chandler, Stephen Hobden and Erika Cudworth, we advance five points in the coming pages. First, we deal with questions of nomenclature. We grapple with what is at stake in using the term ‘the Anthropocene’ and in bringing human politics into geological processes and timescales. Second, we counter Chandler et al.’s erroneous claim that ‘Planet Politics’ advances an occult liberal-imperialist agenda. Third, we refute their charge that our work smuggles in transcendentalism – a ‘God trick’ – by reiterating and underscoring the far-reaching notion of reflexivity that animated our original essay. Fourth, we defend the global-plural ethics of the Manifesto against the charge of ‘high-flying abstraction’, with our important argument – drawing on multiple cosmo-visions – that recognizes earth and its changes as communicative. Fifth, we challenge their ‘bottom up’ vision of politics, explaining both that the Manifesto asserted a multiple politics that includes both resistance and governance, and that eco-centric reforms of international environmental law remain one important line of change. We conclude with a reminder about the ethos of the Manifesto.