Since the days of Thomas Malthus, we have known a simple truth, which is that humanity has triumphed over nature enough that it has been growing in size faster than our ability to govern it. This creates a tragedy of the commons where all natural resources are exploited.
Liberal democracy proves unable to rein in the resulting overpopulation, causing a race to the end. Whoever has the most people will win the land wars, and therefore everyone is breeding as fast as they can in order to beat their neighbors. India and China provide a vital example.
No matter how much we limit people — eating vegan, driving electric scooters, living in 200 square foot apartments, and recycling condoms — the rising population obliterates any savings achieved there. We are in a death spiral from our lack of social order, facing a doom of too much of us.
Ecofascism adopts a simple concept: people will act in self-interest, which means to have as much material comfort and as many children as possible, unless restrained. Liberal democracy cannot do this, so we need a strong authority which forces them to obey.
In specific, this authority would apply eugenics, or limiting the births of low-value citizens (lower IQ, lower moral character, lower productivity) in order to emulate natural selection and increase the number of our best people. This is “good to the good, and bad to the bad” in genetics.
Ecofascism also implicates nationalism via “blood and soil.” An extension of the conservative doctrine of localism or particularism, this holds that people who identify strongly with a single ethnic group and its accompanying country will do their best to maintain the lands it holds. This relates closely to kin selection, or the idea that people will promote others like them so that genes shared by both will survive. For that to happen, the land occupied by these people must be safe, prosperous, and not devastated by ecocide and resource wars.
In addition, an ecofascist state could cut down the excesses of consumerism. Perhaps we do not need 300 brands of grape jelly where only ten might suffice. Perhaps hair salons, strip clubs, nail salons, fast food, and other unnecessary blight could be limited or eliminated.
Ecofascism possess two sages, Pentti Linkola and Ted Kaczynski, both of whom pointed out that our Enlightenment™-era ideology, which lives on in egalitarian Leftism, prevents us from doing what is necessary.
The Left will not restrain overpopulation and consumption despite its surface level environmental activism; if anything, this was regulatory capture by the crowd in order to prevent the most viable critics of its reckless expansion to have a voice.
For those of us of a traditionalist bent, the debate seems overblown since we want to return to an agrarian aristocratic society where most people work in service to the manorial feudal estates. This would naturally limit both population and consumption.
However, it seems that as the resource wars are intensifying out there, people are noticing the overlap with un-democratic ideas like nationalism (ethno-centricism), eugenics, and strong power, all of which are taboo to both the Left and the modernist regime.
In particular, some find themselves appalled that ecofascism is popular among those who oppose immigration:
Anti-immigrant ideology has been part and parcel of the whole of American conservationism since the first national park was founded, in part to protect wild yet white-owned nature from Mexicans and Native Americans. National purity and natural purity were inextricably linked.
The current rise of eco-minded white supremacy follows a direct line from the powerful attorney, conservationist and eugenicist Madison Grant – a friend of trees, Teddy Roosevelt, and the colonial superiority of white land stewardship. Grant, along with the influential naturalist John Muir and other early Anglo-Saxon conservationists, was critical in preserving the country’s wildlands for white enjoyment. Muir, who founded the Sierra Club environmental group in 1892, was disturbed by the “uncleanliness” of the Native Americans, whom he wanted removed from Yosemite. Grant successfully lobbied, in equal measure, for the creation of protected national parks and the restriction of immigration by non-whites.
“Environmentalists were hardcore eugenicists. They were as committed to racial thinking as they were to protecting the great redwoods in California,” said Heidi Beirich, intelligence project director at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Unlike the “watermelon” — Green on the outside, Red on the inside — nature of environmentalism after the 1960s, Rightist conservationism aims to simply set aside as much land as possible for nature, usually around half of all land.
This naturally forces a reduction in population and consumption by making the remaining land more valuable and thus, more expensive. That in turn tends to squeeze out the lower-paid labor that typically supports unions and which we are now replacing with illegal immigrants and automation.
Slowly the mainstream media understands why strong national culture is necessary for this; it cannot occur in the anti-culture of entitlements-based, consumerist, diverse, and permissive liberal democracy. That causes fear and trembling among the Left:
The two mass shootings appear to be extreme examples of ecofascism – what Hampshire College professor emeriti Betsy Hartmann calls “the greening of hate.”
Many white supremacists have latched onto environmental themes, drawing connections between the protection of nature and racial exclusion. These ideas have shown themselves to be particularly dangerous when adopted by unstable individuals prone to violence and convinced they must take drastic actions to stave off catastrophe.
Before the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017, for example, white nationalist leader Richard Spencer published a manifesto that had a plank on protecting nature.
Ecofascism has deep roots. There is a strong element of it in the Nazi emphasis on “blood and soil,” and the fatherland, and the need for a living space purified of alien and undesirable elements.
The connections between Nazism, conservatism, environmentalism, and ecofascism extend beyond even the founding of the NSDAP:
Germany is not only the birthplace of the science of ecology and the site of Green politics’ rise to prominence; it has also been home to a peculiar synthesis of naturalism and nationalism forged under the influence of the Romantic tradition’s anti-Enlightenment irrationalism.
At the heart of the völkisch temptation was a pathological response to modernity. In the face of the very real dislocations brought on by the triumph of industrial capitalism and national unification, völkisch thinkers preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature’s purity.
This fits within the conservative perspective of thinking of life in biological terms, from emphasizing the health of civilizations, ideals, behaviors, and individuals to wanting to adopt social Darwinism in society to encourage upward breeding.
Conservatives desire to conserve the best of human civilization, after all, and this requires a familiarity with the ancient as part of a quest for a timeless order to life. Not surprisingly, within Romanticism this emerged as a desire for a naturalistic order:
Nature worship in Germany goes back to the origins of modern romanticism. It was felt almost everywhere, from the writings of Goethe to the symphonies of Mahler. Students at the University of Heidelberg had hiking clubs through the entire 19th century. The Social Democracy had such clubs as well and they were viewed as an integral part of the character development of young Marxists. A recent biography of Walter Benjamin points out how important such nature hikes were to him. It was part of the general German culture, which influenced the both socialist and ultraright parties, including Hitler’s.
It is important to understand that the feeling of loss that the industrial revolution brought on was very widespread throughout Europe and was not peculiar to Germany. Thomas Carlyle articulated this feeling of loss and the pre-Raphaelite school was a movement based on such a desire to return to pre-industrial roots. Carlyle influenced John Ruskin and William Morris, two important anti-capitalist thinkers. He also strongly influenced Frederic Engels’ “Condition of the Working Class in England” and is cited frequently.
In this worldview, socialism and entitlements work against natural selection, but capitalism must be managed by something above it, namely culture and strong leaders. This identifies it as both anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist, in that it dislikes unions and other collective reward schemes.
This even overlapped with the anti-Semitism of such Romantic thinkers up through the Nazis, who viewed Judaism as a conspiracy against nature:
In Hitler’s mind, the humanistic “nonsense” of the Jews was that they tried to live above Nature through global capitalism in the West, or through global communism in the East – both of which were hopelessly based on the modern emptiness of economic materialism. Worse, such materialism allowed the weak to live and leech off the strong so that Germany was being sapped from within in the face of an inauthentic universal culture alien to the Aryan man – i.e., the German volk. For Hitler and the leading Nazis, “[t]he solution was to expose the Jew to a purified nature, a place where bloody struggle rather than abstract thought mattered, where Jews could not manipulate others with their ideas because there would be no others.”
Thanks to a robust anti-Semitic romantic-existentialist movement that predated National Socialism by well over 100 years, the Nazis made Germany the greenest regime on the planet in the 1930s. With the exception of Martin Bormann, virtually every leading Nazi had his finger in a green pie that represented everything from nature protection to animal rights, from vegetarianism to organic farming, from sustainable development to green hunting laws, from stormwater concerns to green building, from environmental bureaucracy to a “local only” Aryan green farming campaign, from recycling madness to sustainable forestry, and a concern over invasive species. While Hitler was by no means a deep ecologist, nor an extreme environmentalist, he was most certainly an environmental fascist with totalitarian goals that would have even gone so far as to include some vegetarian diet plans for the Reich had Germany won the war.
Not only were the Nazis conservationists, but they were also agrarians who wanted a return to something like manorial feudalism:
During the war, the SS had grandiose plans to use research garnered from the Office of Spatial Planning to create an eco-imperial empire in the conquered eastern territories. Inspired by SS planners Konrad Meyer (1901-1973), Emil Meynen (1902-1994), and Walter Christaller (1893-1969) , sustainable development as an applied political policy was to be implemented on the eastern front behind advancing German lines. Shockingly, under the SS, Ratzel’s lebensraum came to mean living space for sustainable development.
The SS planned to use industry in the conquered eastern territories along with slave labor to pay for and build master planned communities. The eastern territories would also be filled with socialistic green garden villages and farms, together with national parks, forests, and many cockamamie renewable energy projects. Behind enemy lines, the living space of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and western Russia would be cleansed of unnatural Jews and Slavs who were unworthy of the soil they lived on.
After WW2, humanity assumed that the ideas of the Nazis died along with National Socialism, which was hopelessly flawed because it attempted to restore traditional civilization through modern methods, despite traditional civilization being opposed entirely to modern methods and becoming corrupted by them.
Now that liberal democracy has ruled the world for seventy years, we see how its promises were deceptive. It has not ended warfare, nor brought about equality, and instead has created a culmination of failures.
At the same time that the debt bomb will go off, the resource wars will kick in, as will the health crisis of pollution, and the consequences of the breakdown of the family. Even if Hitler was not right, some of his ideas have been not only vindicated but made essential for the future.
Not surprisingly, ecofascism represents a first venture into this realm of thought. If Western Civilization comprised only ethnic Western European people, it would be mostly environmentally stable, and could work on the rest without someone feeling their civil rights were violated.
Since diversity has revealed itself to be non-functional, and the resulting lack of social trust and high taxes crushing our ability to have normal lives, ecofascism as a sentiment — more than a policy — has again entered our lives as commonplace and desired.