By Daniel Brouse
March 2, 2026
This paper documents how an investigation into climate science denial led to the identification of ecofascist ideology embedded within elite networks.
I did not set out to become what some now call a “fascist hunter.” The investigation began narrowly, focused on institutional influence and regulatory manipulation. It evolved into something far larger — the exposure of an ideological framework that treats environmental collapse not as a crisis to prevent, but as a mechanism of selective survival.
The investigation began with a focused institutional question:
Were challenges to the EPA’s Endangerment Finding and coordinated regulatory rollbacks driven primarily by economic motives — specifically the fossil fuel industry’s long-documented strategy of financing climate denial narratives?
The CO₂ Coalition and the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG) were central nodes of analysis.
The economic motive was clear and well documented: protect fossil capital, delay regulation, manufacture doubt.
That part of the investigation was straightforward.
As correspondence, affiliations, and rhetoric were analyzed, a second pattern emerged.
This was not merely economic denialism.
It was ideological normalization of ecofascism.
Ecofascism reframes environmental collapse as beneficial — even desirable — if it reduces populations deemed inferior, excessive, or expendable. It merges environmental crisis with authoritarian hierarchy, racialized survival logic, and elite domination theory.
This is not speculation. It is evidenced in language.
The release of the Epstein Files provided explicit confirmation of ideological alignment between climate minimization and eugenic framing.
Publicly released materials include statements attributed to Jeffrey Epstein such as:
“I liked the argument that more CO₂ is good for plants.”
“Maybe climate change is a good way of dealing with overpopulation — the earth’s forest fire. Potentially a good thing for the species.”
Combined with statements reflecting explicit eugenic ideology:
“Executions of the elderly and infirm make sense.”
“African music has lots of beats and little development — no accident. It mirrors their learning process.”
This is not conventional policy disagreement.
This is eliminationist logic.
Where traditional denial protects capital investment, ecofascism rationalizes unequal human survival.
My climate work dates to the 1990s, when we analyzed whether sea-level rise and temperature increases were accelerating.
The core question was mathematical: Is climate change linear, or is it nonlinear and accelerating?
Rather than assuming constant growth, we examined second-order rate-of-change — whether the rate itself was increasing.
When feedback amplification increases the growth constant over time:Td(t)=k(t)ln(2)
Where:
When k(t) increases due to feedback loops, doubling times collapse.
By the early 2000s, multiple independent datasets supported nonlinear acceleration:
Observed impact doubling times declined from roughly ~100 years (pre-industrial baseline), to ~10 years by 2010, and to approximately 2–5 years by 2024 in certain high-sensitivity indicators.
Under compressed doubling intervals of ~1.5–2 years, cumulative impacts can increase by a factor of 64 (2⁶) within a decade.
That is not linear change.
That is system instability.
Until February 2026, I had not encountered ecofascism as an operational category in my investigative work.
Now it is central.
The convergence point is this:
Ecofascism
If someone promotes demonstrably false climate claims — not out of ignorance, but with the intent to delay mitigation while expressing indifference toward disproportionate harm to vulnerable populations — that is not mere misinformation.
That is ideological weaponization.
There is no rational basis for saying 1 + 1 = 89.
Likewise, there is no empirical basis for claiming modern anthropogenic climate change is purely natural. When such claims are made repeatedly, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, intent must be examined.
The lie becomes structural.
And when the structural outcome of that lie disproportionately harms populations already deemed inferior by those promoting it, the ideological alignment becomes clear.
In the 1990s, we independently analyzed acceleration dynamics in climate indicators. Our work examined doubling times and nonlinear feedback compression using empirical datasets.
This was not speculative modeling. It was data-driven analysis of observed acceleration.
I hold a philosophy degree, graduated with a 4.0 GPA, and was inducted into Phi Sigma Tau, the international honor society for philosophy, with formal expertise in ethics, logic, and linguistics.
I have investigated organized crime, municipal corruption, and institutional misconduct. I understand retaliation, intimidation, and disinformation tactics.
This investigation fits the same structural pattern.
It was not my intention to uncover what appears to be an international ideological network.
So far, ecofascist patterns have been identified in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., EU member states, Russia, Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand.
Exposure carries risk.
Publishing quickly and publicly is not theatrical — it is strategic documentation. Transparency is protection.
Based on two years of combined denialism and ecofascism analysis:
This is ongoing research.
The dataset now includes tens of thousands of observed interactions.
Fortunately, a growing network of citizen scientists has begun assisting in documentation and data collection.
This was not a chosen role.
It emerged from evidence.
When denial transitions from economic self-interest to eliminationist indifference, the moral frame changes.
We are no longer debating policy cost curves.
We are confronting ideological frameworks that treat ecological collapse as selective purification.
Identifying that shift is no longer optional.
It is necessary.
RESOURCES: