Last week a number of people were in shock about the news that James Delingpole had his last column at the Telegraph. It was all rather abrupt. As to why, I have the inside scoop.
I asked James directly, and in a nutshell it was three things.
1. They paid him poorly, ’nuff said.
2. They never seemed to appreciate the kind of traffic and exposure he’d brought. Remember, Delingpole was the first MSM columnist to break Climategate, and I’m pleased to say he got the scoop from WUWT. But, they didn’t really recognize the asset, even though he won an award for his Climategate coverage. When Delingpole’s column won the Bloggie award for “Best Weblog About Politics“, they didn’t even mention it in the print edition or in the online main page. Usually when a columnist or writer wins such an award, the paper crows about it.
3. Often, they didn’t like the content. As we know, James skewers the left and in particular greens. He reports he was getting increasing pressure over his environmental essays.
Usually when people are the most angry at someone for something they’ve said or written, it’s because what they’ve said or written has some truth in it. While Delingpole pulled no punches when it came to describing (with great flourish) the defective nature of some aspects of the environmental movement, some ‘proper’ folks found it hard to stomach.
Of course, then we have this, which I find even harder to stomach:
Andrew Montford cited this as an example of Delingpole’s prescience.
So, now, the Telegraph’s loss is Breitbart’s gain, and just three days later, James has come out swinging:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Lefty-Lies-UK-Floods
All in all, quite an exit mirrored by a grand entrance.
Finally, all this leads me to something I’ve been remiss at doing simply because the day to day business of running WUWT often gets in the way, and that’s to recommend James most recent book. He kindly sent me a copy, and while the title admittedly made me cringe, once I started reading it, I found it lighthearted and hilarious. It reads a bit like a dictionary, except every definition has a punch line. Highly recommended, click the cover to have a look.
Also, be sure to add Breitbart London to your bookmarks. Delingpole’s latest is: Whose Life Is More Important? Yours, Or A Shark’s?
Oh, and what essay on Delingpole by yours truly would be complete without this photo courtesy of our friends at “Skeptical Science”?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting how the question of what words mean has come up repeatedly. “Climate Parasites” is a clever idea as it attacks the concept of state-funded science being impartial.
On the political side-track: Left-wing and Right-wing do have specific meanings. They derive from the 1st Republic in Paris.
Many here want to redfine what the words mean. Unsurprisingly no-one wants to redefine what the words mean in a way that is unflattering to themselves.
More surprisingly, they also claim to have read Animal Farm.
If your version of Left-wing or Right-wing politics is libertarian then I am glad. Authoritarianism is dangerous. Rastech’s comment at February 19, 2014 at 4:31 pm is a good place to start on that subject.
But it is a fallacy to say that “my version of Left-wing or Right-wing politics is libertarian” therefore “all opposite versions of Right-wing or Left-wing politics must be authoritarian”.
Left-wing and Right-wing are not the same as Libertarian and Authoritarian.
I’ve always wondered what these three blokes would look like in leather undies? 🙂 Shame. Dissapointing 🙂 LOL 🙂
said, “I live in a Constitutional Monarchy”
Yeah, what was her last ruling she made?
If you believe that, no wonder you think I disrupted this thread by answering your question.
Ox AO:
As part of your campaign to ensure this thread does not address its subject, at February 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm, you write
It is hard to imagine a more clear example of psychological projection than that!
At February 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm you cited and quoted the words of Joseph Goebbels and asserted they are “correct”.
And that was the best evidence you could provide to support your Orwellian claim that the politics you support – and as you claim are “correctly” explained by its greatest propagandist – is not right wing.
Your offensive misrepresentations have disrupted this thread by using the very tactics perfected by your hero whose ideas you proclaim to be “correct”.
Richard
Gotta say, for a thread that’s gone OT, this is really interesting, so I’ll add my 2 cents worth.
All the arguments about what “right wing” does or does not mean suggests to me that it is an amorphous term that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
From the comments on this and many other threads and blogs a simple pattern emerges. To those who define themselves as socialist or “left” right wing it is associated with the BNP, fascism and Hitler. To those who call themselves free marketeers, right wing is libertarian – the antithesis of Hitler and Fascism.
How can two groups have two completely different definitions of right wing? I don’t know, but one thing is clear. It is impossible to engage in debate if there is no accepted definition of what the term being debated means.
M Courtney is correct though, that right wing derives from the first French republic and referred to where the groups were seated at the table. However, as not many people know that or if they did know it, probably don’t know what their ideologies were, the term is bound to be abused to serve rhetorical ends. .
Since royalists don’t exist and never will exist again the term ‘right-wing’ has no meaning yet the left gave us that label. go figure
The way most of us view left and right wing today is very simply.
Leftists are collectivists. right wing are individualists.
Loosely put socialists and capitalists.
said, “your version of Left-wing or Right-wing politics is libertarian”
Leftest are not individualists and can not be considered libertarians.
With the exception of maybe the contradictory term “Libertarian communists” which they call themselves Anarchist today. They are a confused group of people.
All the other types of libertarians really hate each other. Their differences are based on how to handle the banking system. Personally I would rather call myself a classic liberal then a libertarian.
Ox AO:
As part of your campaign to ensure this thread remains deflected from its topic, at February 20, 2014 at 2:43 am you write this blatant falsehood.
I live in a Constitutional Monarchy in which the Crown has great power and the present monarch is rightly held in great respect.
Please desist from your campaign.
Richard
Mods:
More than two hours have passed since my post at February 20, 2014 at 1:10 am. I would be grateful if it could be rescued from moderation limbo.
Richard
Mods:
Thankyou for finding my post at February 20, 2014 at 1:10 am which is here.
Richard
Richardscourtney – if you like your monarchs you can keep your monarchs….
Box of Rocks:
re your post at February 20, 2014 at 6:05 am.
By your standards that is a very poor effort at flaming and waving a Red Herring.
I would be impressed if you were able to make a comment concerning the subject of this thread.
Richard
Box of Rocks says:
February 20, 2014 at 6:05 am
“if you like your monarchs you can keep your monarchs….”
As an alternative to Presidents? I think that a constitutional monarchy where the power is in the hands of someone who has only final veto powers and is under no election pressure is a truly excellent balance myself.
The public is deluged with CO2 sensitivity greenhouse gas alarmism. Steadily it loses ground.
It is a rare man in media who has the courage to actually stand in the face of Academics who
practice fraud and character assassination by way of normal everyday business.
I know a man who was sent a snotty email by an AGW believer who threatened to contact his employer if he didn’t stop poking holes in his online stories.
Richardscourtney –
What did you expect? “Welcome, sonny”? “Make yourself at home”? “Marry my daughter”? You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… americans.
kinda goes w/
Monarchs? We don’t need no stinking monarchs.
Box of Rocks says:
February 20, 2014 at 7:46 am
“Monarchs? We don’t need no stinking monarchs.”
Given the alternatives you have decided to elect, I’m sure you don’t.
Maybe, but the history of the Climate Alarmist movement is short, dating back at most to the 1970s, and really got going in the media after the steamy 1988 Congressional hearing with Jim Hansen. We may not be able to “control the narrative,” but we can change its direction. The media is fond of quoting Alarmists who denigrate “d*niers”; if those who are so labeled respond with “Parasites,” the media will have to take notice, and so will the public.
Yes, I know that name-calling has nothing to do with Science, but the Climate Parasites are not really scientists, and the debate is over politics and ideology, not empirical reality.
/Mr Lynn
Bart says:
February 19, 2014 at 10:30 pm
“DirkH says:
February 19, 2014 at 6:03 am
“The Brits surely did “help to start the fire”.”
Not exactly Molotov-Ribbentrop though, is it?”
WW 2 started earlier.
IMHO, WWII started in 1918.
dbstealey says:
February 20, 2014 at 8:52 am
“IMHO, WWII started in 1918.”
Well that well known authority on everything WikI has it thus….
“Some academics[who?] examine World War II as the final portion of a wider European Civil War that began with the Franco-Prussian War on July 19, 1870.[citation needed] The proposed period would include many (but not all) of the major European regime changes to occur during the period, including those during the Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War.”
ok
Vince Causey says:
February 20, 2014 at 2:21 am
The political terms Left & Right derive from the early revolutionary French National Constituent Assembly before the First Republic, ie before overthrow of the king, & refer not to seats at a table but where delegates of differing views stood or sat in the Versailles tennis court or subsequent meeting places. Excuse my nit-picking.
said to me, “This thread does not exist for you to promote, cite and quote Naz1 propaganda”
Wow! I could only laugh. I should never had answered your question.
Sorry
Ox AO says:
February 20, 2014 at 10:07 am
“Yeah, what was her last ruling she made?”
The last time any act of parliament was made. A month ago as I remember.
Royal Assent (no debate) | 30.01.2014
or see Hansard for a more up to date ref.
Mr Lynn
I agree with you.
Thanks
richardscourtney says: Assume for a moment the definition of Joseph Goebbels and the term propaganda means to lie and not to influence.
OK, assume the communists and Nazi’s are not similar Goebbels lied. Why where they even discussing terms of a merger? That was the narrative of the meeting. It failed very badly but that was what hundreds of Nazi’s and Communists were there for and why theirleadership made the meeting.
Here is another example of very similar people with similar ideology that hate each other. Which are both on the other side of the fence of socialism:
Ayn Rand talking about Milton freedman:
RichardLH says:
Sense George V withheld his signature of the Royal Assent dealing with the Parliament Act 1911 no other Royalty has used this power because they couldn’t if they wanted to. Today it is meaningless.
Thank you.
Ox AO says:
February 20, 2014 at 11:00 am
“Sense[sic] George V withheld his signature of the Royal Assent dealing with the Parliament Act 1911 no other Royalty has used this power because they couldn’t if they wanted to. Today it is meaningless.”
You are wrong. If the monarch was to decide that an act was against the national interest – such as, say, extending a parliament beyond its legal term – then they could and would not sign it.
It is the ultimate in check and balance.
It is the ‘nuclear’ option but it is still there.
RichardLH Ok, assuming it still exists and it has never been used in over 100 years.
Obviously not much control by the Monarchy part is it?
The point is the right wing that supported a strong king that existed back at the time of Versailles tennis court when Louis XVI was around does exists today. The left wing exists in theory but not the right.
The terms left-wing and the other side of the fence the right-wing have new meaning. Just the way it is.