Clarkson gets Mamboed, finally

Clarkson facing the Mambo's rhetorical hurricane

Oh how we have waited for this moment. You have no idea how cathartic it’s been to finally put pen to paper and stick the boot into that execrable dog, Jeremy Clarkson. Since we started this blog we have been waiting. Impatiently. We at the Mambo knew something would happen, and there have been plenty of low-level “send disabled children to the gas chambers” type comments we could have used as a pretext, but nothing really major. Until now. So thank you Jeremy. You fat, disgusting, loathsome, witless, plug-ugly, sickening abomination of a man.

A screed condemning the man as the scabrous, inadequate cliché he is was going to appear shortly in any case, with the focus being on the superinjunction he had taken out preventing his ex-wife spilling the beans about his sexual shenanigans (yes, there appear to be women falling over themselves to bed him, who can only be motivated by their own deep-rooted self-loathing), but obviously events have rendered that particular line of attack somewhat passé.

Clarkson has become a huge national story with his ‘shoot the strikers’ comments which I’m sure you are now familiar with. He has been forced into a public apology and the BBC has, at the time of writing, received over 20,000 complaints about his pre-planned performance on the One Show (the fact that it was pre-planned is hugely significant, as I will discuss later)

The response from Clarkson’s army of fans, running dogs and lickspittle apologists to the controversy has been entirely predictable:

“It’s just a joke”

“It’s just banter”

“He didn’t mean it”

“Lighten up”

“Grow up”

“It’s all part of his routine”

“He’s so daring and edgy”

“He’s sticking it to the man. Keeping it real. Standing up for the little man against the left-wing establishment”

“The people objecting are boring/humourless/take themselves too seriously”

“His obsession with sports cars compensates for his sexual inadequacy”

“He looks like a troll, don’t you think?”

“If there was any justice in the world Richard Hammond would have died in that crash”

“James May is a smug cunt. What he has to be smug about is anyone’s guess as even his co=preseenters clearly despise him”

“My name is Dave England and Richard Hammond is my hero”

“Top Gear gives me something to watch when I’ m bored of slapping my wife about”

The phrase ‘flies around shit’ has never been more accurately deployed than when it was used to describe Clarkson’s retinue of semi retarded arse licking hangers-on in the Top Gear studio during filming”

You knew they were going to say all that. They have reacted entirely as I thought they would. Their guru was under attack, and like kamikaze pilots throwing themselves and their planes at the American battleships at the end of World War II, they have rushed to his defence. You have to admire their almost dog-like loyalty to their master. It is especially touching as he not-so-secretly despises them all.

He is a voice of sanity amidst the daily barrage of PC garbage that all of the white-alpha males have to endure on a daily basis. You can understand where they are coming from. Everything about the world points to the fact that the worldview they hold to is repugnant and just plain wrong, but ‘our Jeremy’ is fighting the good fight. A selfless, spartacus-like hero fighting and sticking it to the communist paedos at the BBC and Labour Party for the white/homophobic/casually racist good people of Britain England. Clearly the £1milion+ he earns for sucking off his reactionary corporate paymasters doesn’t enter into his thinking when he does these things. He is authentic. Real. Straight-talking. Off the cuff. He’d be just as strident even if there wasn’t a huge salary dangling in front of him. Wouldn’t he. He speaks to and for white man van and all those Tory-voting southerners who hate the public sector and believe in rugged individualism. The BBC is a communist conspiracy…..oh no..wait a second…. he works for them doesn’t he……

His definition of ‘the establishment’ seems to be anyone who reads The Guardian, the disabled, ethnic minorities, cyclists, trade unionists, women, gays, the Welsh and any other minority. That is to say the opposite of the establishment. He picks on people too polite or marginalised to fight back. His boorish stupidity and carefully selected choice of victims (i.e no one with the the ruthlessness to make him pay for it) is little better than that of a second-rate school bully.

He speaks to a particular set of English people. Usually southern (even though he is from Doncaster, the sort of town normally on the receiving end of one of his hugely amusing barbs), white, fixated with other people’s cars, earning a decent salary but probably not with a very high IQ,  hateful towards women, possibly semi-aware of their own pitiful inadequacy and very angry at the world, although they probably aren’t sure why. It’s probably something to do with fuel prices and the Nazis not finishing off all of the Jews.

The Top Gear males who like speed for its own sake and mastrurbate over pictures of sports cars. Boring fucks with jeans, sensible but expensive shoes, shirts with button down collars and leather coats that are probably the wrong size. The kind of people who listen to Yes, ELO and think Supertramp are the height of good musical taste. They think Two and a Half Men is funny and are entertained by rugby. Meat and two veg, ‘mine’s a pint of Carling’ Sunday Times reading tossers.

Naturally it would great to hear Clarkson dying or being paralysed from the neck down in a horrible car accident but there is also something slightly tragic about the man. He stands there with his pot belly, excessively tight faded light blue jeans and increasingly grey, thinning afro and one just thinks; who could see him as a charismatic, heroic figure? Who really believes that what he says is the height of good sense? How lobotomised would one have to be? He is a walking, talking mid-life crisis.

The truth is of course, the whole quasi-fascist shtick is an elaborate and lucrative routine that has sadly proved so popular with our less intellectually capable brothers and sisters who loyally buy his books and DVDs. Everything he says is calculated to advance his career and make him money. He was on The One Show to promote his latest DVD, and the publicity the row has generated should lead to increased sales. Or that was the plan anyway. He may have gone too far this time though, and his latest remarks in his Sun column about suicides seemed to border on the suicidal themselves.

Interestingly, Clarkson as managed to blow away some of the mystique (if you can call it that) around him by stating that the producers of The One Show knew in advance he was going to say that. We thought Jezza shoots from the hip! I presume he thought he was trying to cover his arse with the admission, though if anything he has discredited himself further. It was pre-medidated. His act is just that, a pre-planned routine designed to generate controversy and DVD sales. It also illustrates how hopelessly unfunny he is. That was the best he could come up with despite having time to think of something witty to say.  And who were the people laughing in the background? Shills?

One of the more credible crticisms levelled at those of us foaming at the mouth about his latest outburst is that we are taking it too seriously, playing his game and allowing the hugely important strike action to descend to a row about Clarkson’s views on trade unionists.

There may be some truth in this, but I still think the story was significant. It may be a media storm in a teacup, and not the most important thing going on in the world right now, but there are aspects of the story that are worthy of comment, and go beyond Clarkson. I also think it is high time that all good men and women came to the aid of the party and devoted some effort to getting him sacked by the BBC and organising a truly poisonous hate campaign against him. And maybe even throw him in front of a train. Preferably a re-nationalised one as that would really piss him off.

Doesn’t it say something about the debased state of our public discourse that Clarkson felt within his rights to go on national TV and condemn in the most vindictive terms millions of hardworking, ordinary working class people taking action to protect their futures? We could ignore him, but wouldn’t we then leave him free to spout his poison without anyone to challenge it? The only reason he has issued a (half-hearted) apology is because of the outcry his remarks caused. Ditto his admission that it was pre-planned. If it hadn’t been challenged, some of the millions who watch The One Show might not have reflected on the sheer barbarity of what he was saying. Maybe some of of the people watching weren’t sure of their views on the strikes, and seeing him on there may have tipped them into not joining future actions if they were considering it, or thinking that he represented mainstream, sensible opinion. The idea that clearly articulated political views aired on national TV have no effect on the population is ludicrous. If it were true, then why are the political class so obsessed with how they are represented in the media? Why would The Sun pay Clarkson to write a column every week if they thought everyone ignored it?

When it suits him he likes to suggest that no one takes him seriously, but the thousands of supportive messages on comment pages and votes in online polls would suggest to me that lots of people hang on his every word. If his words had no impact on what people thought then why bother utter them? I’m sure we all know people who subscribe to his idiotic, selfish worldview and take what he says literally, and vote at election time accordingly.

The BBC are not my favourite public body at the best of times but they have really not covered themelves in glory over this. They are nauseatingly indulgent towards one of their most popular presenters. Firstly, he was given the green light to say it on national TV. Second, they have leapt to his defence, as they always do when he says something offensive, saying there will be no huge inquest when he gets back from filming the latest series of Top Gear in China

“There will be no formal inquisitions,” a BBC insider said. “There’s only so much you can do on live TV. There is a feeling he went further [than advised]. He knew where the line was and overegged it.”

Leaving aside the rather depressing mixing of metaphors, what sort of an argument is that? Because it was on live TV there isn’t much you can do about it? So presumably if he’d pulled out a Kalashnikov and mown down everyone in the studio, because it was “on live TV” they’d just leave it at that?

The BBC, in the interests of impartiality, obviously, are always very quick to defend a man who ironically enough does slag them off quite a lot. It’s the usual bollocks about his remarks being flippant, wonderfully and satirically controversial, great for ratings, a huge money-spinner, saying what a lot of the wankers who run the BBC actually think, especially about the organised working class, a welcome antidote to the mainstream consensus, etc etc. Funny how their impartiality doesn’t stretch to allowing someone on that they know would say that the bankers should be fed alive into a sausage making machine. In front of their families.

The sorry tale of Clarkson’s doormat ex-wife and the superinjunction

The story that we were originally going to base our unbiased assesment of Clarkson around points up the fact that I’m sure that you know already, that Clarkson is a piece of dogshit. In this case, the Mambo is happy to kick a man when he is down. I’d happily kick him to death in fact. Which is just banter.

Clarkson, that great believer in plain speaking and straight talking, didn’t want the details of the affair with his ex-wife getting into the public domain. So he used that favourite weapon of the rich and powerful, the super-injunction, to stop her.

However the truth will out, as I’m sure he has been wont to remark on numerous occasions, and when the details of his hypocrisy started spreading over the internet he gave up, and now his ex-wife/current mistress is going to publish a book detailing the years with Jeremy. Which I’m sure will be on everyone’s christmas reading list. The Daily Star, a paper determined to focus on the major issues of the day, had a prominent story a few weeks ago which featured Clarkson’s ex-wife spilling the beans on their continued sexual relations after their divorce nearly 20 years ago.

It’s quite an amusing little tale actually, especially considering Clarkson apparently has allegedly been very forthright in sticking the boot into celebrities who cheat on their spouses. How deliciously ironic.  Sadly I haven’t been able to find any proof of this anywhere online, and so in the Clarksonian spirit I’ll just have to assume it’s true.

Clarkson comes across as an unpleasant, spiteful, bullying, vindictive, misogynistic, hypocritical scoundrel (shock horror), and as this appears to be a view shared by his ex-wife one has to wonder why she married him in the first place, and continued to allow him to pork her after they had got divorced. Maybe I’m not a great reader of people but he doesn’t strike me as someone who would be a sensitive or thorough lover.

The Chipping Norton Set

Clarkson is of course a leading member of the now-infamous Chipping Norton Set, a group of media powerbrokers and political heavyweights living in close proximity to each other in and around, you guessed it, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire (David Cameron is Clarkson’s MP). The set, incorporating amongst others Clarkson, Cameron, Rebekah Brooks, Matthew Freud (PR guru and husband of Elizabeth Murdoch) are described by Peter Oborne as “an incestuous collection of louche, affluent, power-hungry and amoral Londoners, located in and around the Prime Minister’s Oxfordshire constituency.” Clarkson is big pals with Cameron, who was clearly loath to join in the near-universal condemnation of Clarkson after his pre-planned One Show outburst as apparently they spend a lot of quality time together.

There is plenty of decadent socialising, parties and high-jinks at each others houses, christmases around the fire together, days out at wanky ex-members of Blur’s cheese festivals and hugely ironic, satirical conversations about how much they’d like to bring in public flogging for people who sell the Big Issue. There is something about all of these media and political big-wigs and their symbiotic relationship that tells us something is profoundly rotten at the heart of our democracy. Politicians and the fourth estate should not be in each others pockets in such a way. It was this hopelessly overlapping, mutually reinforcing relationship that gave us the years of Murdoch omnipotency and phone-hacking.

Our political and media classes are rotten to the core. Clarkson is a living, breathing emblem of that. If there are so many people too stupid to see that is why people are angry about what has transpired this week, then more fool them. As a story it crystallizes everything wrong with Britain, it’s ruling class, it’s poisoned values, it’s shitty, corrupt media and perverted political discourse. A well-paid beneficiary of the public purse felt able to take a dump on millions of ordinary people from a great height. It wasn’t a joke. He was expressing what the elite in this country really think of the people they rule, but dare not say.

jc

About these ads

3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Nev Hardwick
    Dec 04, 2011 @ 20:23:16

    Good article; all of it. The BBC will not do anything about JC – he makes too much money for them. You are absolutely correct in what you say about how the majority of the populace is regarded by the Chipping Norton set. They (the establishment) care only about money and how they can redistribute it from the poor to the rich. I just wish that the same populace would wake up and see it for what it is. The real shame is that the Labour Party was/is almost as bad.

    Reply

    • representingthemambo
      Dec 05, 2011 @ 20:44:47

      Hi Nev, thanks for your comments. It’s been pleasing to see that this article seems to have gone round the web despite being a little late and far too long!
      The BBC’s attitude to Clarkson and constant defence of him, whatever he says, makes my skin crawl.
      jc

      Reply

  2. Trackback: Why do so many people hate Yasmin Alibhai-Brown? « Representing the Mambo

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers

%d bloggers like this: