As debate rages over the vitriol of the right in the US, racist climate denier Richard North suggests taking up arms because "our rulers have lost their fear".
With the debate raging in America about over the top political rhetoric following the attempted assassination of US congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, one would think this week would be a time of sensitivity from commentators in the media over here. However, with astonishingly bad timing, controversial ‘journalist’, global warming denier Richard North, decided that his article in the Mail would be a great occasion to suggest taking up arms because “our rulers have lost their fear”.
As previously reported on Left Foot Forward, North, who last month referred repeatedly to recipients of Third World Aid as ‘Jungle Bunnies’, is for some unknown reason now being allowed to spout his vitriolic language in a widely read national newspaper.
The article starts as a somewhat understandable rant against lack of rubbish collection from local government. Clearly this is an issue for a lot of people, however the nature of North’s argument becomes clear when he begins to define his plan for dealing with incompetent government:
“It is my belief that the rot starts at the top. But for answers, you need to go back to the great Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
“He saw how the people and their governments should relate, declaring: ‘When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.’ There lies my conclusion, gained from a lifetime of experience at all levels of government. Our ‘rulers’ have lost their fear.
“Jefferson supported the right of citizens to bear arms, not in self-defence but as the final resort. The arms gave the people the means to overthrow tyranny. Unsurprisingly, from a position before the First World War when any citizen could freely buy arms over the counter, the British government has disarmed its population.
“Yet the State itself relies on violence. Try not paying your council tax and you will quickly see what I mean. The police will come to get you. Attempt to resist and you will be forcibly removed from your home. You will be jailed… by force if need be. The whole State apparatus is underpinned by force – or the threat of force – applied against its own citizens”
Of course North will inevitably be outraged by people equating his article with a call to arms. Yet he states that the government has “lost its fear” before fear mongering that “the state itself relies on violence”. Subsequently he goes on to argue that “when governments fear the people, there is liberty”. The fact that he then goes on to praise the right for all citizens to bear arms proves he is not using his article as a figure of speech about a battle at the ballot box, he means what he says.
At the very least North is writing another disgraceful article that is insensitive to this week’s political atmosphere whilst unintentionally stirring up the small minority of his readers who may take a lot of his comments seriously. A discussion over the right to bear arms must be considered a reasonable debate, but if it is framed in a manner as as purported by North it becomes less a conversation and more a rallying cry.
There is a difference between arrogant incitement and disagreement in opinion; why North is given a platform in the mainstream press remains unclear. Let’s hope his comments are not taken literally because Saturday’s tragedy showed we want our politicians to fear us at the ballot box, not through the barrel of a gun.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
16 Responses to “Climate denier Richard North takes his vitriol to a new low”
13eastie
Readers might not be entirely convinced that writers here (and elsewhere) actually know the meaning of “rhetoric”, a piece such as this ought to be celebrated as an example of the diametric opposite.
Why, Chris, are you so unable to present a coherent argument without conflating manifold irrelevances? What has race or climate change got to do with the 2nd Amendment?
Is this not the kind of “over the top” hysteria that you bemoan in your opening paragraph?
There is a quotation you neglected to cite that would, when you consider it was used in the US presidential campaign, appear to deal with the topic in hand far more succinctly than either you or Mr North.
“If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.”
The speaker, of course, was Barrack Obama.
Doug
@SGallagher I think that anyone who sets themselves up as an evidence based blog should let the information speak for itself, rather than stacking up differing and disparate claims on top of each other. This post tends towards hysteria with regards how nasty he is by doing so, it’s not rational evidence based writing, it’s tabloid shrieking, and this blog can do better.
It doesn’t come as much surprise that you support this, seeing as you then go on to describe North as a hero of mine because I’m asking for a better quality of writing about him. Nothing I’ve said confers support for him or anything he has said, and I categorically don’t support him or anything he has said – your response is yet more over simplified hysteria.
Anon E Mouse
This article really stoops to a new low for this fine blog.
Left Foot Forward is in danger of becoming irrelevant if it continues to have bile and smearing of this nature pretending to be any form of journalism…
Daniel Pitt
RT @leftfootfwd: Climate denier Richard North takes his vitriol to a new low: http://bit.ly/if8A0Q reports @ChrisTarquini
Murray
This really is poor, I’m really disappointed in LFF. It is now quite clear that this blog is prepared to step to a new low to try to discredit Richard North. I disagree with a huge number of his views, but this is little short of a lazy attack piece lacking in analysis or critique.
As a left blog I would hope that writers here would have a sound understanding of the arguments made that the state’s power is enforced and underpinned however subtly, with the use of force. To not acknowledge this, or acknowledge that its an argument that holds significant weight and should be taken seriously, does this blog, and the many protestors battered by cops over the years a great disservice.
North’s timing in writing this might have been ill-advised, but what he’s writing is hardly vitriolic. In fact comparing an argument about the relevance of the right to bear arms and oppression by the state to climate change denial and an abhorent approach to racism devalues the importance of tackling climate change and anti-racism.