Delingpole, Jack Aspinall, the Conservatives and Eco-Fascism

Commend him for announcing the Savile investigation

Michael Gove: Believes Global Warming is another piece of ideology dreamed up by academics. This time their ‘activists’ not ‘Left-wing’, but same anti-intellectual drivel.

Looking through the politics section of Waterstone’s the other day, I found James Delingpole’s Ecofascism. I didn’t buy it, because its author’s name pretty much told me what I could expect. Delingpole is a columnist for the Telegraph and Spectator, who specialises in pieces describing at length how disgusting and depraved the underclass are. I am not remotely surprised Delingpole has also decided to produce a lengthy diatribe against the Green Movement. Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have a bitter hatred of the Green movement. they dislike the way it seeks to limit the activities of industry in order to stop humanity fouling the planet even further. They also resent the Green tariffs levied on polluting industries, like the notorious ‘carbon tax’ to limit carbon dioxide emissions, as a form of Socialist redistributive taxation by stealth. Hence the attacks on anthropogenic global warming by the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, and Michael Gove’s attack on it being taught in the class room. The Conservatives have also tried to block Green initiatives through the foundation of fake grass-roots, ‘astroturf’ pressure groups, like Wise Use in America.

As with the Right’s attempt to link Socialism with Fascism, because of the latter’s inclusion of some Socialist or anti-capitalist policies, so Conservatives also link the Green movement with Fascism because Hitler also favoured certain Green policies. In his Table Talk, for example, Hitler discusses the need to protect the German natural environment and develop renewable energy supplies. Of course, simply because Hitler shared these ideas does not automatically mean they are in any sense Fascistic. Much of the Green movement is left-wing in political orientation. A large part of the Anarchist movement is very Green. There was a Green Anarchist group and magazine in Britain in the 1990s. The German Green party had, amongst its leaders, the Baader-Meinhof Gang’s former lawyer.

There is, however, a problem in that some parts of the Fascist extreme Right is also Green, or presents itself as environmentally concerned, because of Hitler’s own Green inclinations. Neo-Nazis have attempted to infiltrate the Green movement. A little while ago the Anarchist publishers, A.K. press, produced a small book describing the way various Nazi groups and organisations were attempting to do this. Murray Bookchin, one of the leading ideologues of modern, post-scarcity Anarchism, walked out of one conference after a former East German dissident declared that we needed a ‘Green Adolf’. Unfortunately, some parts of the Green movement also echo the genocidal rhetoric of Nazism in their desire to limit the growth of the human population. David Attenborough, who is very definitely not a Nazi, was criticised by a Tory local councillor a year or so ago after he made an appalling comment about the West sending aid and food to the Developing World. Attenborough had said that we must be mad to send food to Starving Africans, when the lack of resources meant that there was no food to support them and the local wildlife in their overpopulated area. He later apologised for his statement and said that he was more concerned with the survival of human children than with animals.

Such sentiments, however, are not limited Nazis, Left-wing or ‘Deep’ Greens or ecologically-concerned scientists and television presenters. They can be also be found amongst figures, whose politics is probably best described as extremely reactionary Conservative, like the millionaire zoo-keeper, Jack Aspinall. Aspinall runs a number of private zoos around the planet. He has one in Australia, which appeared on one of the animal programmes on ITV several years ago. The programme showed the late Australian zoologist and TV presenter, entering the gorillas’ enclosure so he could enjoy some quality with these majestic apes. It was great television, with some fascinating and delightful shots of Irvine being accepted by and playing with these animals, just as David Attenborough himself did all those decades ago in Life On Earth. It’s definitely not safe for everyone, however. When the late Johnny Morris entered a cage with some aggressively boisterous young males, they ran at him several time, knocking him over and leaving him with several broken ribs.

Aspinall himself is extremely Right-wing, and definitely seems to prefer animals to people. He was in the news several times in the 1990s after his animals killed two or three of their keepers, and a tiger badly mauled a model’s arm. Brian Masters, in his biography, The Passion of John Aspinall, quotes him as saying that the world, including Britain, was vastly overpopulated. Here in Blighty we needed to cut our population down from about 60 million to eight. He also declared that we need a Right-wing counter-revolution, ‘Francoist in spirit and determination’. Franco was indeed a Fascist dictator, but his regime also included other groups in order to counterbalance the Phalange’s radicalism. His regime has therefore been described as essentially palaeo-conservative, using the trappings of Fascism to give it a more modern guise. Aspinall’s own political beliefs appear to be the same – extreme Right-wing, illiberal anti-democratic Conservative, rather than Fascist. Nevertheless, he clearly identified with that part of Fascism.

This doesn’t affect Green politics as a whole, however. There is still an ecological crisis of immense proportions facing the planet, and whatever Gove or Lawson say to the contrary, by far the vast majority of scientists are convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming. It is the Green movement’s Conservative detractors, who are ideologically driven, not the Greens themselves. And regardless of ‘Green’ varieties of Nazism and Fascism that appeared during the 1990s, at least one of those, who could be described as Eco-Fascist, Jack Aspinally, was an arch-Conservative. But somehow I doubt that’s something Delingpole or Gove would really like to admit in their campaigns against the ecologically conscious and Left-wing academics and intellectuals.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Delingpole, Jack Aspinall, the Conservatives and Eco-Fascism”

  1. Mark Attwater Says:

    Quite possibly, the worst researched article that I have read in ages.

    • beastrabban Says:

      No, it comes from my experience of reading what Libertarians and the Right actually say in their books and blogs. And you haven’t actually produced any counterarguments of your own, just made an assertion.

      • Mark Attwater Says:

        I wasn’t questioning the thrust of your argument and the word ‘research’ might give you a clue to that. What I was pointing out, was that your piece contained more major factual errors in six paragraphs than I have ever read before. To the extent, that I never even considered your conclusion.

        If your fact checking is that lazy, why would I even consider your argument?

  2. beastrabban Says:

    My point still stands: you’ve simply made an assertion, and have not produced any facts to back this up. No facts, no counterargument, just an assertion that I’ve got my facts wrong, while actually not producing any of your own.

    So in the absence of anything like facts and argument, I can only conclude that you don’t actually have them, and are just being a troll.

  3. Mark Attwater Says:

    Headline: “Delingpole, Jack Aspinall, the Conservatives and Eco-Fascism” (the name is JOHN Aspinall).

    “Aspinall runs a number of private zoos around the planet” (He doesn’t. He ran two. In Kent).

    “He has one in Australia” (He doesn’t).

    “which appeared on one of the animal programmes on ITV several years ago” (Even if he had one, which he hasn’t, he [JOHN Aspinall] was dead by then).

    “delightful shots of Irvine” (the name is Irwin [Steve]).

    Not being a troll, I have already given up checking your text (I can assure you that more errors do crop up). If I were you, I’d withdraw it and do a thorough rewrite.

  4. beastrabban Says:

    Thank you for correcting his name and that of Steve Irwin. However, you still need to check your facts. He is indeed quoted in Brian Master’s book ‘The Passion of John Aspinall’ declaring that what was need a Francoist counter-revolution. And you can see in the Wikipedia page that he did have far-Right views – he stood for parliament for James Goldsmith’s referendum party. The Wikipedia article also states that a couple of his keepers were killed by the animals in his care.

    • Mark Attwater Says:

      Oh good grief, this is the end of this. Where did I claim that Aspinall didn’t hold right wing views? I would go further than you and say that he was a full on Fascist.

      And yet you still get it wrong. “couple of his keepers were killed by the animals in his care”. Actually five died and three of those were in the 1980’s not the 1990’s.

  5. beastrabban Says:

    ‘Oh good grief, this is the end of this. Where did I claim that Aspinall didn’t hold right wing views? I would go further than you and say that he was a full on Fascist.’

    Thank you, but that is the point of my article. Now I admit, you didn’t state that he didn’t hold Right-wing views. You merely asserted that ‘this is the worst researched article’ that you had read in ages, but supplied no facts to back up that assertion. This suggested that you were objecting to the whole thrust of the article. My article was, after all, making a political point about ultra-Conservatives and Fascism, of which Aspinall was one. Most people, who object to articles generally object to their arguments or conclusions. When they merely feel that some of the facts are wrong, but don’t otherwise object to what’s being said, people – in my experience, anyway – generally adopt a more conciliatory approach. You didn’t. You simply commented about how badly researched it was, and then compounded this in your subsequent comment by stating that because of the mistakes you never bothered with the conclusion.

    ‘And yet you still get it wrong. “couple of his keepers were killed by the animals in his care”. Actually five died and three of those were in the 1980′s not the 1990′s.’

    Okay, mea culpa – I was going from the review of Aspinall’s biography in ‘Private Eye’, which was published in the 1990s. This lists two or three deaths and a number of ‘near misses’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: