How to identify Eco-fascism, for dummies.
The title is self-explanatory: I won’t go past the basics today, but with the information here, you should be able to spot this ideology with ease.
“Fascism” is definitely a buzzword. There’s a lot of content available, and this content comes from a very diverse pool of authors and bloggers — from those who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about, to experienced political scientists, and everything in between.
I’m no political scientist, I just…uh…have connections, so you can consider me in-between. There are a lot of lessons in politics I have learned “by osmosis” in a way, without looking for them, so I guess you could say I’m a “street smarts” kind of source on this topic. Some of these lessons came in handy when dealing with deceitful people who espoused fascist ideas but wanted to hide that fact from me. I bet you’ve met similar people yourself, they’re quite common in the world. These encounters motivated today’s article.
First things first: what was, is, and will be Fascism (judging by observable collective patterns)?
As common as the use of the word “fascism” online is the criticism of this same phenomenon — usually by a bunch of know-it-alls whose political education is in fact frozen in time and refuses to update. Don’t listen to them. The English language is alive, whether you love it or hate it. You can cling to your 1940s dictionary definition like a shipwrecked clings to a piece of wood all you want, but it won’t change the fact that outdated meanings are outdated, and you’d better leave your hermit cave already if you want to catch up with the times. Now, what you choose to do with this information is your own decision. All I can say is: choose wisely.
Romanticism and nostalgia for “simpler days when people followed the precious dictionary” aside, let’s get to what actually matters:
What it was, then:
The first use of the word “fascism” was by Benito Mussolini in 1915. As you may know if you received a decent primary education, Mussolini was the leader of a totalitarian political movement in Italy at the start of last century, and chose the word because of its connection to a symbol that dates back to the Roman Empire, the fasces. Click for a very unsurprising definition, linked to authoritarianism and punishment of dissidence.
Now contrast that to the Communist symbol of a hammer and sickle, which may look just as menacing but have a totally different intention: the hammer represents industrial workers, and the sickle, rural workers. So, they’re tools of the trade, not tools of torture. The communists are conveying an image of hitting metal and crops, not hitting people. Not to defend Communism, which in every single real-life manifestation ALSO led to destructive authoritarianism, but I’m just making a distinction here for dummies. Or in other words: yes, symbols get similar, but what matters is the intention, or “why” they were chosen, instead of “what” was chosen. (See also: Nazi swastika vs the Eastern tetraskelion and St Brigid’s cross. 3 entirely different things, but similar looking. Intention matters!).
Anyway, the Fascist political movement in 20th century Italy was conceived in order to promote ultranationalism, dictatorship, and natural superiority of a specific group (the insiders) over all other groups of people (the outsiders) — hence the desire for the insiders to conquer the outsiders. Similarities to previous phenomena, such as the Roman Empire, are not a coincidence.
Originally, Nazism (short for German National Socialism) was born as a subset of fascist ideology focusing heavily on race, whereas Italian Fascism “cared” more about behavioral conformity (but was not without its own holocausts down the line, so…eh…the distinction gets muddy depending where you look). One could say, therefore, that Fascism is more all-encompassing. It’s the bigger circle in the venn diagram, if you will, but both ideologies are connected.
What it is, now:
It is no wonder that modern scholars have chosen to ressurect the word “Fascism” when describing today’s far-right political cults (yes, they’re cults. Minus religion). These political cults, after all, bear a very uncanny resemblance to the bygone early 20th century movements. Here are some key similarities:
- Perhaps the most obvious iteration of modern far-right political cult is the crowd that openly admits espousing the same ideas as Mussolini and Hitler: the Neonazi. They are revivalists and have themselves decided to use the word, so it’s pretty straightforward.
- On a less obvious side of the modern-day fascist spectrum, you’ll find the radical isolationists. Usually including the word “Freedom” in the name of their political parties, these folks aren’t always focused on racial or ethnic superiority (although sometimes they are), but they definitely favour closed borders and zero to minimal diplomacy with the outside world. They’re fringe in most places of the world, but actually rose to power in a few countries, notoriously Turkmenistan (predictably, with disastrous consequences). To a lesser extent, early proponents of Brexit can be classified here too.
- Even muddier waters will take you to the Jihadist, the Christian authoritarian, the Zionist, and the Anarchic-primitivist (or Anprim, for short). I’m grouping them not by whether or not they have achieved measurable political power, but by presence of a fascist-adjacent ideology instead: the idea that insiders are superior and need to either conquer or exterminate outsiders. The fact my examples are all based on religious ideologies (the latter, neopagan, very nazi occultist-adjacent) is a mere coincidence (or isn’t it? Feel free to discuss in the comments).
Note that modern fascism is no longer concerned with cults of personality, unlike its 20th century counterpart where a lot of original fascists were simply idolising Mussolini and Hitler. Today, these movements are increasingly indifferent to who is in leadership, as long as their basic ideology of close-knit group identity and superiority is followed by this leader.
Disparities aside (and believe me, there are A LOT of disparities among scholars who try to define modern Fascism!), one general theme which seems to remain constant is that it prioritises a collective goal in detriment of individual dignity. Fascists will throw anyone under the bus if they’re too much of an inconvenience in the way of achieving the romanticised vision they have of a “perfect world”. This is important to remember, because it distinguishes the Fascist from, as I mentioned already, the Communist. After all, Communists aren’t saints, they create huge social problems too and are super authoritarian too. What is the ONE thing that distinguishes them from Fascists, then? — Why, of course, the focus on [forced] equality for all regardless of race, looks, or background (which is very different from justice, but at least prevents them from considering anyone inherently disposable or subhuman). Or in other words, if you live in a communist place, you’re given exactly the same as your peers and neighbours (which usually amounts to, uh, not enough); in a fascist regimen, on the other hand, you must “prove yourself” to be an insider to the cult, the regimen won’t include you automatically with the worthy-of-survival just because you happen to exist in their midst. This is why I didn’t include North Korea here, however authoritarian and close-knit they are, they’re communist nonetheless.
Still keeping the above in mind — the fact Fascism prioritises a collective goal over individual dignity — we can confidently say neoliberals are NOT Fascist. No, not even the arseholes among them, such as Donald Trump. Fascism must necessarily carry within it the idea of prioritising the collective (a specific collective, but still collective), whereas neoliberals — even if they’re racists and liars like Trump and try to fool fascist followers into voting for them — are always ultimately pursuing a dog-eat-dog world where individual status matters more than achieving a specific idealistic goal of uniformity and cult-like group-think for the collective.
If I had to summarise Fascism in one phrase, it’d have to be “us vs them”.
This brings us to…
How Fascism made its way into green politics, and what we can say about the future of Fascism.
First of all, let me link you to this article for the gazillion time. If you’re a new follower and haven’t seen it, have fun. It explains in more detail than I ever could how and why most eco-fascists (in the West anyway) can be found in Occultist and Neopagan communities — often disguising themselves as super friendly and wholesome reconstructionists… Until you see what’s underneath their facade.
The thing about eco-fascists is… They don’t always admit (or notice!) they ARE eco-fascist. It’s very mind-boggling to talk to them, because you’re always left with the impression that they think their ideas are wholesome and genuinely need to be embraced by all. In truth, these people are simply dressing up textbook Fascism in green new robes.
Let’s recap:
- Fascism, modern and past alike, is an ideology whereby human rights come second in importance to whatever collective goal the cult has decided it needs to achieve. It’s very Machiavellian like that: the ends justify the means, and the means often involve turning a blind eye to some people’s basic needs. It’s as if everyone was expected to sacrifice themselves for “the greater good” (which leaves you wondering… uhhhh… what greater good IS IT, really?).
- In a fascist group, dissidence is severely punished, like with any authoritarian regimen (left and right-wing alike). What distinguishes it as fascist, specifically, is the fact dissidence can also sometimes be natural, and not a matter of choice, ie, you’re born a certain way, oh well, tough luck, you’re an outsider because of that.
- Inequality outside of the ruling class is not punishable in Fascism (unlike Communism), as long as the rule about working together to achieve the cult’s collective objective remains unbroken. So, for example, if someone happens to be wealthier than others in the crowd, but they’re still devoting themselves to the collective goal, they’re spared — and even admired.
- Special needs, in Fascism, are either denied or punished. Nobody is “allowed” to have disabilities, reduced capacities, or any other kind of specific scenario that would grant them lenience. That’s for 2 reasons: 1) Fascists see the people who struggle as “inferior”, and this can taint their image of superior collective for the world to see, and 2) did I mention they prioritise a collective goal in detriment of individual dignity? Aye, but I’ll repeat it once more. The human doesn’t matter to them. The goal is all that matters.
When you look at the bullet points above… Does it ring a bell? Perhaps there are specific people who claim to be ecological activists coming to mind, whose ideology and “vibe” in general fits into the above. Yup. They’re all eco-fascist.
Climate change is a reality that is becoming increasingly harder to deny or ignore. People are paying attention to it across the entire political spectrum, it’s not just a bunch of hippies anymore. So… why wouldn’t the Fascists follow suit?
Eco-fascism is nothing other than a subset of Fascism (like Nazism), but it focuses on tackling climate change instead of tackling racial diversity (the Nazi goal). Although their collective goal can be considered okay, it’s their approach that isn’t okay: they oversimplify the issue, automatically conclude that anyone who isn’t succeeding at the goal is “them” and need to be fought by “us” (us vs them, as I said). What if the people just need a helping hand or more lenience because they’re disabled? — It doesn’t matter, let’s “other” them. What if a second group of people aren’t succeeding because of complex socio-economic problems? — It doesn’t matter, let’s “other” them too. What if a third group of people needs special healthcare, or more education to catch up with the majority, or more resources or whatever? — It doesn’t matter, none of that human “sensitivity” matters! Why can’t we all sacrifice our dignity for the greater good already? Why can’t we turn off our human needs like we turn off a light switch, and become automated, faceless, soulless robots for once? Geez!
Yeah… It sounds absurd when I put it like that, but I’m simply exposing the truth eco-fascists don’t want to admit: they don’t care about human rights. They don’t care about the human. All they care about is achieving a goal, by whatever means necessary. They’re no strangers to misanthropy, either (pro tip: watch out for “overpopulation” discourse, or cries of “animals are better than people”).
I’ve even met eco-fascists who very smugly said to me, “we’re part of nature too”, but turned suspiciously silent when asked to support indigenous tribes. Oh, so we’ll only say we’re “part of nature too” if we’re talking about acquiring technologies and ideologies labeled green in our industrial imperialistic society and/or which revive primitive ways of the white man, huh? POC whose lifestyle contributes greatly to preserving biodiversity and natural resources are too “other”, too “them”? Interesting. We’re willing to appropriate their religious and spiritual practices, but when it comes to giving their social causes a dime, that’s suddenly “not important”?
Oh, look, animals suffering somewhere. Let’s save them first.
Oh, look, a tree got cut in an urban park. Let’s protest that first.
Oh, look- You get the idea.
The human always comes last. Humanity is despised.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not “against” the above causes. I just find it soooooooooo funny that there’s always something else, there’s always something other, that precedes even LOOKING at social problems that afflict human beings. How convenient. Yeah, right.
It’s quite sad, in a way. It leads me to realise that Fascism is, ultimately, a very attractive ideology for people who hate themselves, hate their own fallible humanity, wish they were perfect, and in realising they aren’t, turn to hatred and projection. I hate myself, therefore I’ll hate on the world, they probably think. It’s a lot of misery.
The way I see it, the future of Fascism is one of deceit and smoke curtains everywhere. Labels will be used based on wishful thinking and lies, not on actually describing the Fascist movements that accompany them. I’m only covering eco-fascism in this article, but you can extrapolate that to other similar ideologies emerging as we speak. Gone are the days when people could stay politically relevant by openly admitting to their Machiavellian agendas.
Anyway, I hope this introductory article helps you identify eco-fascists even when they’re trying to deceive you into thinking they’re perfectly sane and even “wise”. Stay smart.
