Ecofascism an Aberrant Branch of Leftism

The “ecofascists,” as I understand that term, share, at a minimum, two traits:

1. They do not advocate total rejection of modern technology; instead, they want to create a society in which technology will be “limited and “wisely” used in such a way as to ensure the ecological health of our planet.
2. They support, if not white supremacism, then at least white separatism.

First let’s take trait I. In essence, the ecofascists want a planned society, which means quite simply that they are socialists, for the fundamental idea of socialism is that of the planned society.¹ The illusion of the planned society originated in the Enlightenment, when certain philosophers, misled by the successful application of scientific rationality to the physical world, imagined that scientific rationality could be applied with equal success to the development of human societies. This illusion should long since have been dispelled by what we have learned since the 18th century; but the leftists of today, including the ecofascists, persist in clinging to it.

Back in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, many people on the left referred to my writings as if I were an ideological comrade of theirs. They were able to do this only as a result of selective reading: They failed to perceive or failed to remember the parts of my work that were radically inconsistent with their ideology. These ecofascists who cite my work today, or claim me as an inspiration, are similarly engaged in selective reading: They completely overlook crucial parts of my work; for example, Chapter One of Anti-Tech Revolution, wherein it is demonstrated that the development of a society can never be subject to rational human guidance. On this basis alone, one can predict with perfect certainty that any attempt on the part of ecofascists — or anyone else — to establish and maintain a stable, worldwide balance between technology and ecological health will fail.

Now let’s look at trait II. The true anti-tech movement rejects every form of racism or ethnocentrism. This has nothing to do with “tolerance,” “diversity,” “pluralism,” “multiculturalism,” “equality,” or “social justice.” The rejection of racism and ethnocentrism is — purely and simply — a cardinal point of strategy.

Any movement that aims to limit technology has to be worldwide because if technological progress is cut back in one part of the world while another part of the world continues to follow the path of unrestrained technological development, then the fully technological pact of the world will have a vast preponderance of power over the less technological part. Sooner or later (probably sooner) the fully technological part of the world will take control of the other part in order to exploit its resources. To mention only the most obvious example, if technological progress is restrained in the United States while China continues down its present technological path, then China will dominate the world and will take whatever it wants of America’s natural resources — regardless of the wishes of Americans.²

For obvious reasons, a white-supremacist movement cannot be worldwide. Even if a movement does not claim superiority for any one race or culture, but merely insists on keeping the world’s various races or cultures separate and distinct, it will not be able to bring technology under control, because its separatist attitude will inevitably promote rivalry and/or suspicion among the various races or ethnic groups. Each race or ethnic group, for the sake of its own security, will try to make sure that it has more power — and therefore more technology — than other races or ethnic groups. It follows that any movement that seeks to limit technology must make every effort to minimize divisions or differences among races or ethnic groups.³ Purely as a matter of strategy, racial and cultural blending must be promoted.

The ecofascists need to read ISAIF, Technological Slavery, and Anti-Tech Revolution CAREFULLY. Doing so will not change their beliefs — which are based solely on emotion, not on reason — but at least it may prevent them from calling me an “inspiration” and citing my works in support of their ideology. It should show them that I am their adversary.

The ecofascists’ fixation on race puts them in the same family with the leftists, who likewise are fixated on race. The difference between the two is only that to the ecofascists the “white” race is the hero of the story, whereas the ordinary left makes the same race into the villain. The ecofascists and the ordinary leftists are only two sides of the same (counterfeit) coin.

Ted Kaczynski

September 29, 2020