RevDem Podcast · Review of Democracy

Radical Ecologies of the Right and Left: A Conversation with Ashton Kingdon and Balša Lubarda

·36 min·3 clips

The same AK-47 image promotes violence against corporations on the left and ethnic protection on the far-right.

This episode features Aleksandra Kardos interviewing researchers Ashton Kingdon and Balsa Lubarda about their paper on radical environmental argumentation. Kingdon is a criminologist specializing in online radicalization, while Lubarda studies far-right ecological politics in Central Europe. Their collaborative research examines how environmental discourse is used across ideological divides. The analysis draws on 24 qualitative interviews with far-right actors from Hungary, Poland, and other European countries, plus over 300 memes and images from public environmental groups. Visual materials were collected from platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and VK, spanning groups such as Green Line Front and the Hyperborean Garden. The researchers employed a methodology combining argumentation theory with multimodal discourse analysis to dissect these materials. A key finding is that both far-right and anarchist-left groups frame capitalism as a primary enemy of the environment, using nearly identical anti-capitalist iconography. Both sides strongly endorse localism, decentralization, and the creation of small, self-sufficient communities. The research identifies the AK-47 rifle as a recurring visual symbol in propaganda from both spectrums, representing armed resistance to protect nature. Interestingly, the same rural, pastoral aesthetics and minimalist color palettes are used by both sides to romanticize agrarian life and evoke nostalgia. The paper argues that environmental concepts are inherently "contested" and flexible, allowing them to be reshaped for different ideological goals. A significant insight is that imagery and aesthetics can often attract individuals to a community before they fully grasp its underlying ideology. The researchers caution against interpreting these overlaps as evidence of a "horseshoe theory," where extremes converge. They emphasize that similar aesthetics can mask opposite goals: left-wing visuals often advocate for indigenous and marginalized communities, while right-wing versions promote ethnic exclusion and "blood and soil" nationalism. The viral, cross-platform circulation of memes dangerously erases context, making ideological origins hard to trace. The conversation touches on how the far-right strategically uses scientific language to position its environmentalism as a "rational" alternative to mainstream activism. For democracy, these discursive overlaps create challenges for public discernment and can legitimize exclusionary politics under a progressive veneer. The tone is academic and analytical, grounded in the guests' extensive fieldwork and data. The style is a detailed, research-focused conversation, explaining methodological choices and theoretical frameworks. Listeners interested in political communication, visual culture, or the intersection of extremism and environmentalism will find this episode compelling. Those seeking a casual discussion or definitive policy solutions might find the academic terminology and nuanced arguments less engaging.

As heard by us

A careful look at how ecological argumentation moves across the far right and far left, and why visual context matters.

This episode follows a paper on ecological argumentation as it travels across the far right and far left, with resistance, cooptation, and multimodal analysis at the center.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

If you want to trace how ecological rhetoric can travel across far-right and far-left argumentation, start here.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from RevDem Podcast