The answer Kevin Tucker gave on what eco-fascism is and what its significance today is, in his interview with Anti-fascist News, perplexed me in various different ways, and disappointed me in others.
I am sharing my thoughts here because my desire is the destruction of totalitarian repression, authoritarianism and oppression, as I am certain Tucker’s is too, as well as those involved in Anti-fascist News. This is not intended as horizontal hostility, or an attack against someone whose thoughts I appreciate.
I wrote in my essay An Eco-Pessimism Revolt Against Fascism, published by Warzone Distro, that I do not believe in the existence of eco-fascism. I still don’t. Fascism signifies to me the epitome of totalitarian repressive machinery. Ecology – as wildlife – signifies authentic freedom, or primal anarchy(to borrow Kevin’s term).
There are green-nationalists, like Tarrant, and thinkers like Pentti Linkola, whose advocacy of population decrease through mass warfare would seem to require some form of ultra-nationalistic confrontation as a catalyst. They are no doubt revolting, intolerable and worthy of attention – attention as in, I desire that this line of thinking be challenged, deconstructed and destroyed.
However, I find the use of the term eco-fascist, to describe individuals advocating these types of politics, to be less than helpful – in the context of liberation struggle. The term seems most useful to dishonest Marxist and green ideologues, techno-utopians and climate change deniers, as a smear term with very little content.
Fascism is monoculture, in the most intense form within the relevant context – all life reduced to maximum simplicity. Ecology, on the other hand, is pure difference, diversity – ever complexifying heterogeneity. They are like steam and ice, the difference between normalisation and non-conformity. I am convinced that eco-fascism cannot exist, in the same way that I do not believe in the warm blooded ice cube or in hairy hairless panthers. (I have written about this more in other places, so will leave this here.)
This leads me to my next thought –
Do fascists control what you say Kevin?
Tucker states (in as many words) that We should stop fascists from controlling the discussion.
On the face of it, this is an agreeable notion. Fuck fascism and fuck any attempt for fascists to control ANY discussion.
But, considering this in a “deeper” way (as Tucker appeals to the reader to do), I wonder if the statement is not likely to have the reversed impact Tucker desires.
In my second book, Feral Iconoclasm, one of the chapters is devoted to the idea of tearing down and destroying demonic iconography, as a means of challenging authority and liberation. Take Donald Trump as an example – the image of him as both “bad boy” and terrifying evil with the power to do so much, raised him culturally to become such a symbol of strength, which helped enable him to take his current position of authority. Donald Trump the pathetic, weak and idiotic man does not hold the same power. Another example is that of eco-extremist groups, whose authority and influence now exists primarily as a result of their being elevated to positions of demons by left-wing and liberal groups/individuals, who were largely unprepared to present critiques on the level of; it is extremely saddening that you feel so powerless that you feel you need to use bombs and do these things; I am also disgusted by what has happened to the world where you live and wish healing for it, including you! (If anarchists could have done this with sincerity and no racist culturally supremacist dogma, the situation might be a little more desirable!)
Bad faith and ressentiment only succeeds in disempowering individuals and weakening revolt against Leviathan. Fascists cannot control the conversation, because they cannot control what you or I say. They do not have power to dictate the words that you use or what you think.
Tucker also states (in as many words) that we shouldn’t let fascists initiate conversations. What he means is that, we shouldn’t allow fascists to cause conversation so it becomes part of their Cause. But the conversation was never initiated, subscends and is greater than cause and Cause, not ending at the last full stop, or when we take a second to breathe. Again, I do not desire that we allocate them the power to be the dictators of discussion, as I do not want to give them any power what-so-ever.
A few final words.
There is a great absence, a void, No-thingness, which is wild and free. Please do not let nothing become something and hold authority over you, out of existential anxiety.
I will state that this is in no way written as a support for those Tucker and I hate, and again that this is not intended as hostility. I will leave links to Tuckers interview, the aforementioned essay and my second book underneath this paragraph.