I listened to the clip and his point was spot on. Since they do not offer anything better to replace the current system, they are out to destroy, which if accomplished does lead to totalitarianism, anarchy and bloodshed.
However, Beck saying the destruction sought "leads" to gas chambers and guillotines was a pretty big exaggeration, and although such actions could lead to the deaths of millions, the chances of it happening here are virtually nill. The key word there was "leads", which implies that those things still happen in modern times and therefore are possible outcomes today, which is over the top for sure.
Beck should have said that the accomplishment of such actions "have lead" to gas chambers, guillotines, the death of millions, etc... In that case, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. But since we are discussing this, I have to ask you all, did it ever occur to you that he was in fact talking about history and simply made a grammatical error? Isn't it at least a likely enough possibility, that it deserves consideration?
I realize that the goal of the left and those who don't like Beck, is to: a) discredit his opinions, views and what he stands for, by portraying him as a fear mongerer that lies and deliberately tries to mislead his audience, and to b) stifle his message and discourage people from tuning in to his shows, by claiming that he only appeals to easily manipulated, uneducated people that not only can't think for themselves, but also lack the common sense and intelligence to know they are being brainwashed and duped.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but speaking of common sense, I think grammatic error sounds more logical to me, than believing Beck intentionally listed all those things as possibilities in todays world. He would either have to actually believe those were possible outcomes today in America, and/or believe his audience was stupid and gullible enough, that they would believe him... Both of which I disagree with, especially when it comes to his audience.
My conclusion... I believe he was referring to past historical consequences, not likely consequences today, and simply failed to phrase his statement in the past tense. Now in most instances when someone's words are misspoken, it's inconsequential and a retraction is either optional (for clarity or courtesy purposes), or not necessary at all... In this case however, I believe he definitely needs to acknowledge and correct that mistake on the air... Not for the benefit of the main stream media and far left organizations like Media Matters, because they will continue attacking him either way... It's to maintain his credibility with his audience, just in case a select few took his words liberally.
