Never in my entire journalistic career have I seen the BBC so obsessed with a story. In fact I'm totally wiped out with all the interviews I've done this last two days with the BBC's various tentacular offshoots - BBC Wales, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, BBC World News, etc - talking about it.

Is it Iran you ask? Or Climategate 2.0? Or the implosion of the European Union?

Nah. Something WAY more important than that, as far as the BBC is concerned.

Jeremy Clarkson - the poodle-headed loud-mouth who presents Top Gear (you've seen Top Gear, surely? It's everywhere: boys driving fast cars fast and being boys-ie about it) - said on a BBC television program that striking public sector workers should be taken out and shot. In fact, he went on, they should be executed in front of their families.

Guess what? Jeremy didn't mean it. He's a funny guy, of a conservative/libertarian persuasion, and if you've any way of seeing the clip (I'm not sure how easy it is to view BBC stuff from the US) you'll realize straight away from the tone of his voice that he is not really inviting death squads to go round offing frontline hospital workers. Joke? Got that. Joke!

Anyway, I have my own theories as to why the BBC went big on this, which I explain in more detail here. It seems to me that this is the case of the left up to one of its favorite tricks: trying to create moral equivalence between the hate-filled and genuinely murderous snarlings of its own side and the much more metaphorical turns of phrase use by the likes of Rush, Steyn, Clarkson et al.

To whit: when a liberal-leftie wishes death on his right-wing enemies, that's exactly what he'd like to do them given the opportunity.

When a conservative/libertarian does so, it's more likely a figure of speech.

How do I know this? Well for a start, look at the left's track record: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China.

There are no right wing equivalents. That's because being right wing (by which I mean the conservative/libertarian school which believes in small government) is about leaving people alone. Not about controlling them - and then killing them if they show signs of not wishing to be controlled.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

FeliciaB
Joined
May '10
FeliciaB

I love how you placed Nazi Germany firmly in the it's proper place as a leftist government, contrary to the years of incorrect indoctrination we get from the education mafia. 


Joined
May '11
Larry3435

When Alec Baldwin screamed on television, regarding Republicans who supported impeachment of Clinton, "we should go to their homes and kill them, and then kill their families," it wasn't much of a story.  Of course, he wasn't joking either.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

One reason that extreme rhetoric, hyperbolic rhetoric, tends to appear when arguing with a liberal is that they never really believe that you're serious. "You think Barack Obama is not every bit as smart as Bill Clinton? You can't be serious." "You think that corporations pay enough taxes? You can't be serious." What does one have to do in those cases to convince a liberal that you're not just pulling his leg? You want to reach for the grenade launcher--the rhetorical one--to prove that yes, you're deadly serious.

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

Clarkson fills the same spot that Don Cherry fills in Canuckistan - the one right-winger employed by the state-owned broadcaster. They'd love to fire him, but his viewers love him so they don't dare.

PJS
Joined
May '10
PJS

I understand that things are running much more smoothly in UK airports since the strikes began.

Kelly B
Joined
Oct '11
Kelly B
PJS: I understand that things are running much more smoothly in UK airports since the strikes began. · Dec 2 at 1:11pm

So maybe he's just hoping that they don't go back to work?

FeliciaB
Joined
May '10
FeliciaB
PJS: I understand that things are running much more smoothly in UK airports since the strikes began. · Dec 2 at 1:11pm

You can't be serious!  

;-)

Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel

I respectfully disagree.

First, after watching the clip, I find the comment in poor taste. Jeremy Clarson was obviously being sarcastic, but even a sarcastic call to brutally murder several thousand fellow citizens is out of place on national television.  He did apologize, so I think all's well that ends well, but I wouldn't want to defend what he said as simply a "joke" (as Mr. Delingpole does here).

Second, and more importantly, I see absolutely no basis in the claim that lefties today "really mean it" when they voice death threats.  Most Americans on the political left today are against guns rights, against military interventions, and generally seem to run away from any potentially violent situation.  It is true that socialism was responsible for more violent deaths in the 20th century than anything else, but I simply don't see Alec Baldwin as a serious threat to my, or anyone's, personal safety.

I agree that the backlash against Mr. Clarkson's comments was far worse than the furor over similar comments from someone on the left.  Beyond that, though, this line of reasoning makes us look like cranks.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

The Left certainly has a habit of falsely accusing the Right of everything that is true about the Left.

We are intolerant. We are out to control people's lives. We are hateful and belligerent. We are selfish and greedy. We blindly follow authorities. And so on.

James Delingpole
Mendel: I respectfully disagree.

Well Mendel, that's a heck of a sight more pleasant a form of disagreement than I get from the ravening leftist trolls wishing death and violence on me in my blogs every day. And I'm sorry but - with respect - I see no right-wing equivalence in this matter.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

Mendel:

...

I see absolutely no basis in the claim that lefties today "really mean it" when they voice death threats.  Most Americans on the political left today are against guns rights, against military interventions, and generally seem to run away from any potentially violent situation.  It is true that socialism was responsible for more violent deaths in the 20th century than anything else, but I simply don't see Alec Baldwin as a serious threat to my, or anyone's, personal safety.

...

Leftists have no problem with Castro's gun rights and shooting people in the back who just want to get out of Castro's hell on Earth. They have no problem with their own bodyguards carrying guns. 

The are not against military interventions if it's against Israel nor going into Kosovo to save Muslims. It's only if it's in America's interest that they are against interventions -- this is how they fool people like you to think there is a principle here they are adhering to. You gotta look a little more deeply.

You and Ann Coulter are right that leftists (liberals) don't want to have personal violence around themselves. But, if someone on the left does if for them then no problem.

You've been conned.

Edited on Dec 2, 2011 at 2:00pm
C. U. Douglas
Joined
Apr '11
C. U. Douglas

While I'd agree that comedy suggestion a certain group be summarily executed is too crass for me, if anything this example clearly demonstrates the hideous bias of liberals in general.

Death threats and public suggestions like this are common with the Left, and we on the right are supposed to take it all in stride, but if someone perceived on the right should do the same, it's bandied about as evidence of how violent and horrible we are.

Modern Progressives have assumed for themselves the side of the angels, and therefore in their minds all they do is acceptable for the better world they envision.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

I'll agree with the claim that the left is very unforgiving of conservatives making these kind of statements, while they quickly dismiss and forget when a lefty does it.

But the left makes the titular charge, that "we make mean-sounding jokes but you guys on the right are truly vicious", against the right all the time.  Enough words are produced every week, month, and year that one can always find examples of violent-sounding rhetoric from left and right.  Whether it's hyperbole or sincerely vicious is usually in the eye of the beholder, and there is no winning such arguments.

HVTs
Joined
Oct '10
HVTs
Mendel: I respectfully disagree.

Please ... can I buy you a funny bone for Christmas?

The only thing that this story about Jeremy Clarkson demonstrates is that it’s really hard to fill a 24-hour news format with meaningful things to talk about.  REALLY hard … no one has yet succeeded and I doubt they ever will.

Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel

Larry Koler

 

You and Ann Coulter are right that leftists (liberals) don't want to have personal violence around themselves. But, if someone on the left does if for them then no problem.

I disagree.  If we're talking about an average American self-identified liberal, I don't think they're out for blood, be it here or abroad.  One of my constant peeves with my friends on the left is their naive insistence that we can solve all the world's problems without resorting to violence.

If we're talking about the extreme left, there are doubtless some who would have no qualms about watching their political enemies meet a gruesome fate, through their own hands or someone else's. But painting the entire left with the same brushstroke only makes the right look unhinged.

And lest you think I'm a shill or have been brainwashed, I also don't see any propensity towards violence from the right in America. We are blessed to live in a time and place of extraordinary peace, if not necessarily civility.

Edited on Dec 2, 2011 at 2:51pm
James Delingpole

@mendel Also I think you're missing the point of my point which perhaps I did not express as exactly as I should have done, viz: sure, most of the leftists making death threats do so idly. But this is because they currently inhabit a culture where it is not possible to kill people without being put in prison. What I mean is that the moment a situation arose in which they gained power and freedom to impose their will on others - eg Nazi Germany - they would kill very eagerly and without compunction. Whereas those of us on the right, I suspect, wouldn't.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson
James Delingpole: What I mean is that the moment a situation arose in which they gained power and freedom to impose their will on others - eg Nazi Germany - they would kill very eagerly and without compunction. Whereas those of us on the right, I suspect, wouldn't.

When you say "they" and "their will", do you mean collectively "the Nazis, the Soviets, Pol Pot, Mao, and the small-minded leftist talking heads on the BBC"?  One of these things is not like the others.  I think it's quite a stretch to argue that "leftists mean it when they use hyperbole" on the basis that a few 20th century tyrants had a mishmash of political views that partially intersect with modern leftism.

Edited on Dec 2, 2011 at 2:56pm
Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

Mendel ...

If we're talking about an average American self-identified liberal, I don't think they're out for blood, be it here or abroad.

...

If we're talking about the extreme left, there are doubtless some who would have no qualms about watching their political enemies meet a gruesome fate, through their own hands or someone else's. But painting the entire left with the same brushstroke only makes the right look unhinged.

...

I agree with you in principle, but answer my question of their continued support for a gun-toting, mass-murdering Castro. Why do even the "average American self-identified liberals" love Fidel? 

I can answer that question. I want to know: can you?

QuickerBrownFox
Joined
Oct '11
QuickerBrownFox

Larry Koler

Why do even the "average American self-identified liberals" love Fidel? 

I feel like a lot of libs are coming around on the big murderers like Mao, but their continuing mainstream love of Fidel really bothers me. There's a video/computer game series called Tropico where you act as president/dictator of a Latin American island, and can choose between Fidel, Che, Pinochet, and a few other monsters (not holding my breath on Uribe making the cut in Tropico 5). It's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but still romanticized, and I wonder if pop-culture adoptions like this hurt us in the long run. Can you imagine a game called Hotsy-Nazi where you manage a 1930's Germany with that goofball Adolf, or From Russia with MuchoLove with our homeboy Broseph Stalin?

Robert Lux
Joined
Nov '10
Robert Lux

Liberals want to make war against those who make war not love. This is the distilled essence of left-liberal incoherence and intolerance from the French Revolution on.

"Those who make war" -- the core essence of the right is that it is oppositional. Harvey Mansfield gets at this in his Uncommon Knowledge interview* viz., conservatives are far more tolerant than the Left because conservatives know there will always be the Left; whereas the Left, because they believe history is progressive, do not think there is any reason for people to remain conservative. The Left somehow realizes that their evolving, historically progressive standards of decency do not get an exemption from the acid-hose of skepticism they train on either nature or God as the basis of the principles of society. Thus, the great story of the 20th Century is the demise of progress as a meaningful category of human thought. Progress becomes strictly a form of faith (especially post Nietzsche), rather than progress being an objective or given reality. The Left's politics is vastly more "faith-based" than anything on the Right.

Ergo their rage is often that of Captain Ahab.

----------

* Two minute video excerpt here.

Edited on Dec 2, 2011 at 7:07pm

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In