It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto).
“Michelle Chan, vice president of programs for Friends of the Earth, said, “The key thing to understand here is that ecofascism is more an expression of white supremacy than it is an expression of environmentalism.””
just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
Something doesn’t have to be correct or honest to be an ideology. It’s a shared doctrine among a significant part of the far right that “protection of the environment” is their purported motivation for exterminating undesirables. That’s absolutely an ideology, even if they’re wrong about its effects or even dishonest about it. I don’t believe it’s all said cynically and knowingly either, and I don’t think that Michelle Chan, in that quite accurate quote, is saying that they never believe in the stories they’re telling themselves about it. Just that the deeper cause for their actions is actually white supremacy. It would be like saying a religious ideology wasn’t an ideology just because it’s motivations are not the actual existence of some supernatural entity but instead cultural forces, bonding, the comfort of rituals etc., and I don’t think that makes much sense.
How is it a subtype? It has nothing unique to environmentalism and all to do with ethnic supremacy. They’re simply using racism to wedge themselves into actual world problems.
White supremacy also has nothing to do with white people actually being supreme, it’s about the narratives that shape the worldview of the people subscribing to the ideology.
“Michelle Chan, vice president of programs for Friends of the Earth, said, “The key thing to understand here is that ecofascism is more an expression of white supremacy than it is an expression of environmentalism.””
In other words, it isn’t an ideology.
Something doesn’t have to be correct or honest to be an ideology. It’s a shared doctrine among a significant part of the far right that “protection of the environment” is their purported motivation for exterminating undesirables. That’s absolutely an ideology, even if they’re wrong about its effects or even dishonest about it. I don’t believe it’s all said cynically and knowingly either, and I don’t think that Michelle Chan, in that quite accurate quote, is saying that they never believe in the stories they’re telling themselves about it. Just that the deeper cause for their actions is actually white supremacy. It would be like saying a religious ideology wasn’t an ideology just because it’s motivations are not the actual existence of some supernatural entity but instead cultural forces, bonding, the comfort of rituals etc., and I don’t think that makes much sense.
White supremacy is the ideology.
Sure, that’s the overarching category. It is a subtype of that.
How is it a subtype? It has nothing unique to environmentalism and all to do with ethnic supremacy. They’re simply using racism to wedge themselves into actual world problems.
White supremacy also has nothing to do with white people actually being supreme, it’s about the narratives that shape the worldview of the people subscribing to the ideology.
Yeah no duh