by Paul Cudenec, who reads the article here

It has now been eight years since I set out, in some detail, the utter absurdity of the oft-heard suggestion that there is something “fascist” about opposing modern industrial society.

Since writing that 2018 article, I have repeatedly seized the opportunity to show that industry, technology, development, “planning” and “modernisation” have consistently been central to the agenda of fascists – not just dictators Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler but also British wannabe-dictator Oswald Mosley.

Indeed, it has become clear to me that fascism, like communism, was created by the global industrial-imperialist mafia precisely for the purpose of bulldozing through its nightmarish agenda against the wishes of the people and with no need to respect even the semblance of democratic scrutiny.

So it makes me a little angry to see that this ridiculous smear – a literal inversion of the truth – is yet again being wheeled out to attack contemporary critics of the industrialist megamachine.

Even worse is that it is being used by individuals and groups on the “left” here in France who actually claim to be “green”.

Before going any further, I should explain that I completely respect the right of anyone, in any milieu, to voice their disagreement with anti-industrialism, which is obviously a very minority position at the moment.

But what is toxic here is that those launching this latest smear do not so much disagree with a radical pro-nature stance as declare it heresy against which they are urging their supporters to take up arms.

And rather than criticising anti-industrialists in the way that you might expect – as unrealistic daydreamers, as people who take environmentalism too far for their liking or as support-losing anti-system outliers – they elect to call them/us “fascist” and “reactionary”.

This is simply because these are the trigger terms that, regardless of their accuracy, will be sure to make a certain kind of gullible “left-wing” foot-soldier start frothing at the mouth with outrage.

This matter has come to my attention via an article from the techno-critical outfit Pièces et mains d’oeuvre (PMO), based in the French Alpine city of Grenoble.

And the dishonest “communiqué” was issued in the northern French city of Lille, targeting both PMO and the local Anti-Tech Résistance group.

It is signed by the Lille representatives of Les Soulèvements de la Terre, an eco-activist network which I had hitherto considered sound, along with Extinction Rébellion Lille, L’Offensive, Action Antifasciste NP2C, OnEstLaTech and Lille Antifasciste et Autonome.

The heading is “ATR — mi faf(s) mi réac(s) ?” [spelled differently in print and online versions] which means, in their hip activist-speak, that they are accusing Anti-Tech Résistance of being “half-fascist, half-reactionary”.*

They weigh straight in with a familiar weapon with which opponents of the industrial machine are frequently assaulted – the fact that such views were held by the late Ted Kaczynski (1942–2023), the USA’s so-called “Unabomber”.

Merely thinking similar things to him, from the other side of the Atlantic, apparently implies some kind of complicity in his actions!

This ridiculous technique of guilt by association of ideas, so favoured in smearmongering “cancel culture”, is the equivalent of arguing that because a cow has four legs, two eyes and a tail, then that cat over there, which also has four legs, two eyes and a tail, must necessarily be a cow. A crypto-cow, no doubt!

The inquisitors then then fire off a volley of deadly woke missiles, identifying those they do not like as “antiqueer”, “sexist” and “transphobic”.

BAM!! ZLAM!! BAM!!

They also feel threatened by the fact that ATR has evidently seen the bigger picture of the techno-tyranny menacing humankind and declares itself to be “neither of the left nor of the right”.

This is regarded as nothing less than thoughtcrime, because the rebels of ATR “deliberately choose to ignore class struggle and feminist, anti-racist and anti-ableist struggles”.

The Woke Inquisitors have a further serious allegation to level against ATR: “This movement professes an ideological purism that essentialises Nature”.

Oh no! The ultimate heresy! Purity! Love of nature!

They then attempt an outrageously duplicitous ideological manoeuvre by claiming that “it is this ‘ecology’ that inspired the creation of African national parks and evicted (and is still evicting) indigenous African peoples”.

Anyone who knows anything at all about the phenomenon of neo-imperialist fake-conservation will know full well that it has nothing at all to do with radical anti-industrialists.

This claim is merely another devious and dishonest attempt by the smear merchants to associate their targets, in the eyes of their support base, with something of which they strongly disapprove.

In truth, the phoney “ecological” assault on Africans is an entirely corporate phenomenon, spearheaded by the very dodgy WWF.

As Brussels-based academic Frédéric Leroy has explained: “Geneva-based WWF Intl has received millions of dollars from its links with governments and business. Global corporations such as Coca-Cola, Shell, Monsanto, HSBC, Cargill, BP, Alcoa and Marine Harvest have all benefited from the group’s green image”.

In other words, it is part of the same old global mafia whose venal activities are opposed by the anti-industrialists whom the Lille communiqué is attacking!

Furthermore, as I wrote in January 2020: “One of the many big corporations to which the WWF is close is Unilever, the massive transnational consumer goods company.

“Paul Polman, former Unilever CEO, was one of the ‘XR business leaders’ who signed their support for Extinction Rebellion last year”.

So the real culprits behind fake-green neo-imperialism are not anti-industrialists but the corporate backers of (at least) one of the Lille groups making the false accusations against them!

If you want more info on this fake-green issue, which was the main topic on which I was concentrating before Covid forced a change of direction, there is a veritable library of links on the Winter Oak site.

Incidentally, “green” industrialist Polman later featured in my 2024 booklet The Single Global Mafia, because of his place on the board of trustees of the zio-globalist Rockefeller Foundation.

Holding our noses and diving once more into the mendacious cesspit of the Lille communiqué, we learn that the authors are shocked that anti-industrialists “propose nothing less than a reactionary return to the technology used before the industrial revolution”.

They fail to explain what they mean by “reactionary”, but I have to assume that this language reflects an allegiance to the same industrialist ideology of “progress”, “development” and “modernisation” that, as I said, was enthusiastically embraced by fascism.

So how can we explain supposedly “green” and “anti-fascist” groups being on board the industrial-fascist bandwagon of glorious technological advance?

The answer is simply that they adhere to the other great totalitarian movement manufactured to push forward the industrial machine, which uses its fanatic “anti-fascist” rhetoric to obscure the fact that it is serving the very same agenda as fascism.

The Lille signatories declare: “Division of labour and socialisation of production are not essentially anti-democratic. The problem is not the complexity of the machine but its money-orientated management and appropriation.

“Let’s not destroy the tool. Let’s seize it… Let’s democratically plan a rational use of natural resources. Let’s use automation. Not for profit, but to work less and better”.

It is quite incredible that, in the 21st century, people are still peddling the 19th century Marxist lie that more and more industrialisation would lead to more and more free time and well-being!

But then, perhaps they are simply following the line set out by Chinese Communist Party bigwig H.E. Wang Yi, who, as I described in a recent article, is trying to sell us a dystopian ultra-industrial hell featuring the “modernization” of Africa (there you go again!), along with “Global AI Governance”, as being nothing less than “a future of fairness”.

Hard line industrialism and hostility to anti-industrialism have, of course, always been central to the communist ideology devised to serve the ends of the global mafia, as I pointed out in The False Red Flag.

In PMO’s response to the Lille communiqué, authors Tomjo and Mitou illustrate the outlook that lies behind it by quoting Lenin – I tracked down the English version on the marxists.org website.

The Bolshevik leader wrote in Pravda in May 1918: “Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science.

“It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution.

“We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries)”.

The Lille inquisitors – aptly characterised by Tomjo and Mitou as “neo-Bolshevik techies” – have to carry out some formidable feats of mental contortion in order to encourage their target readership to hate and fear groups and individuals with whom they would naturally have some sympathy.

For instance, they claim that the Luddites in early 19th century England “were not fighting against technology but against its capitalist use”.

So are we supposed to believe that those feisty rebels would quite happily have submitted to a life of grim industrial slavery if the factories had all been owned by a Bolshevik British state, with red flags flying proudly from the smoke-belching chimneys?

Pushing this flimsy logic still further, the inquisitors insist: “ATR activists are not neo-Luddites, but they disguise themselves as comrades to infiltrate our spaces and to recruit”.

Their inversion of reality (so typical of the global mafia and its little helpers everywhere) reaches a frothing fever pitch with statements such as “Anti-Tech Résistance are not comrades and are not welcome at our events” and “We are sounding the alert: the repressed fascist aspect of ecologism is taking shape, so no pity”.

Tomjo and Mitou point out that this latter line is quite clearly intended to encourage physical attacks on anti-industrialists and, I would say, it reveals the hidden hand ultimately behind this witch-hunt.

After all, who else has an interest in inciting hatred and violence against opponents of the global industrial system other than the global industrial mafia itself?

Standing up against the relentless advance of their nature-destroying and freedom-denying industrial “progress” is not being “reactionary”, let alone “fascist”, but is rather trying to open the way for a different future, one infinitely more desirable than the techno-totalitarian New World Order they want to impose on us all.

As the PMO authors rightly say: “We are not reaction, we are the resistance”.

* Translations from French are my own, obviously.