You must log in or register to comment.

Fool wrote (edited )

I am convinced that <nameless> is not an eco-fascist, because eco-fascism is impossible, as fascism is civilisation epitomised and ultimately hates what is ecological and wild, which resists being tamed. <nameless> is undoubtedly a fascist, and perhaps a green-nationalist, who might like the idea of white communities with houses covered by solar panels

So the argument boils down to thinking eco means nature in a good way and green means nature in a way that they're not associating themselves with.

Comparatively ecological means

relating to or concerned with the relation of living organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.

I think fascists are very concerned about "the relation of living organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings" at least in relation to themselves.

Overall I think it's a pretty weak argument, since we have a name for it, eco-fascists do exist as a concept. Though I do agree Green-nationalists are probably a better name for them.

But overall the New Age / Back to Nature fascist has been a core subset of their base since before the name fascist has existed. This subset was far more closely linked to the Nazis than with the Italian Fascists.

It's silly to pretend that Nature Idolatry and Fascism are incompatible.

Word games.


GoddamnedVoodooMagic OP wrote

I mean, I've read fascist theory, and they worship industrial might far, far more than Nature. By a helluva lot. At most, you get some ideas on agrarianism and working the land, but I don't see agriculture as "eco". Not to mention, ecofascism isn't taken seriously by other fascists. I think Langer's right; ecofascism is a smear word used mostly by conservatives and communists to demonize antitech, pro nature types, like the ALF and ELF.


mjem wrote (edited )

though i have only insufficient knowledge about the contemporary political movement, i'm pretty sure that "authoritarian back to nature" ideas have been around for a very long time.

tao te ching is a fair example of this; written in a distinctly lobbyist tone, the collected essays argue that the philosopher king (treated as a given) can "rule better" when the death penality, the border, the weapons and armed force (all as givens) are kept "minimal/tranquilized", while property, politeness, civil order are upheld as sacred


idkalice wrote

maybe off topic but i dont really like julian from what i know of them, and id guess this is yet another one of their things i dont really buy. i think theres also a case to be made for them being transphobic

i dont mean to say you cant like their stuff or find it useful, i havent rly engaged with them enough 2 have any real critique beyond this i just don't like em


GoddamnedVoodooMagic OP wrote

I've admittedly never read this before. It is worded quite strangely, but someone who is non binary, I don't think Langer is anti trans.


Fool wrote

I was about to say this is the only thing I've read from them but they did write "Against the Grey Squirrel Cull", which I have read, but didn't pay attention to the author.

As far as calling them a terf, the linked post is literally doing what they were calling out in the quote - being ostracized for criticism of the rigid authoritarianism that is often being pushed as part of popular queer culture. There may be worse stuff, or I may have missed part, but I don't see anything there.

I also feel he is using the same logic against ego-fascists as many people do when arguing pro-trans... So... More word games.