You Really Couldn’t Make It Up…
Time and time again, the subject of Richard Littlejohn crops up. Whether it be in discussion, in criticism, in laudation or simply the man himself in one of his many columns for the Daily Mail, Littlejohn is vastly becoming inescapable in today’s fractured society.
In case you happen to be unfamiliar with the man, here’s his Wikipedia page, and here’s a great example of the kind of articles he writes.
Wikipedia aside, let’s focus on the article. The emphasis is clear: celebrating Gay History Month would equate to subversive gay propaganda, being ‘peddle’ to children, and how the legal right to exclude children from religious and sex education lessons has been circumvented by simply changing the name of the subject to history. He also suggests (sarcastically) the inclusion of a ‘Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month’, presumably to cover all bases.
Littlejohn then draws attention to several devout Christian and Muslim parents who are removing their children from school as a protest against the lessons. Muslims who, in other columns, Littlejohn has no issue with vilifying or criticising (whether or not this is justified is not the topic du jour). Double standards become apparent here. And the use of minority to groups to fulfil one’s own ends, before no doubt discarding them as the enemy.
He then also shows astounding insensitivity by declaring that most children probably believe that ‘the Final Solution is some kind of washing powder.’ Admittedly, it is in response to the alleged results of a survey that ‘an alarming number of children believe that Auschwitz is a type of beer’, but there are some things that one should never joke about. Mind you, given his views on the Rwandan Genocide, is it any wonder that these comments seem par for the course for Littlejohn, even if the Jews are (apparently) one of the only minority groups he doesn’t attack on a regular basis? Perhaps he’s suddenly remembered that some homosexuals were murdered too, not to mention a few million Poles, and quite a few Gypsies too. The last two can be transposed to ‘job-stealing asylum seekers’, and ‘thieving Gypo scum’ respectively.
I digress. The main thrust of the article is this: that teaching LGBT History Month in schools would corrupt the youth of today, and the whole movement is tantamount to the Gay Agenda, subversively brainwashing our children, making them Left Liberal Footsoldiers, slaves to poovery and the like. Ok, so I’ve embellished a little bit at the end there.
Perhaps Mr Littlejohn has not considered the following aspects of the history month: that eventually it will not be simply a History Month, but that it will become fully integrated into society, giving recognition to the LGBT members of society that have contributed in a positive way. Much like it does now, but with a passing mention on their sexual orientation. Perhaps focusing on legends of history like Alan Turing, William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault, Alexander the Great (in fact the vats majority of Ancient Greece), and countless others in film, music and literature.
Now I’m not suggesting that these figures should be given special preference, nor should their sexuality be focused on in any excessive detail, but give these people their dues: Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde were punished and eventually killed for their sexual orientation, and Turing in particular had served the country magnificently, developing machines that could crack the Engima code, and derailing all manner of German intelligence. But as soon as it was discovered he was gay, he was treated like a criminal and given electro-shock therapy. he eventually died a broken man.
To Littlejohn, however, this does not matter. Gays are evil. Any mention of gays in history equates to ‘Cultural Fascism.’ It’s also interesting to look at how many times Littlejohn mentioned the homosexual spectrum in his column in 2004.
Maybe he needs some therapy.
The main reason why I dislike Richard Littlejohn is his hypocrisy. He claims to despise the BNP, calling them ‘knuckle-scraping scum’, and yet his views are almost entirely aligned with theirs, and his exposure to the same standpoints allows their views to flourish. (again, not a discussion on the BNP, but they do appear quite honest in comparison to Littlejohn)
This argument with Johann Hari sums up the situation quite well. The BNP man (I think it’s Richard Barnbrook) looks quite embarrassed by the whole affair.
In short, it is my opinion that Richard Littlejohn is racist, sexist, homophobic, judgmental, reactionary, hypocritical and full of bluster. It’s the arrogance of his writing that puts me off, and the swaggering cocksure winking of his political views that infuriates me. I’m not saying his views are inherrently wrong: without conservative views the whole sense behind liberal views would crumble. But to bullishly slap them around like Littlejohn does? To compare people to animals if they happen to be part of the liberal mindset? To write for a paper with a known history of supporting fascism? That’s just stupid. And if enough peoplestart listening to his bigoted bluster, dangerous.
Will Self summed it up perfectly in response to Littlejohn describing John Prescott as a ‘chimp’, along with other derogatory slurs (again, no fan of Prescott, but no-one needs this kind of abuse, especially from Littlejohn).
Self said the following: ‘Well he doesn’t say he’s a human being, does he? He uses the classic form of demonisation which is to say he’s a chimp, in other words he’s bestial. So he’s actually dehumanised the subject of his abuse before he even moves on to piling on the pejoratives, and I think that’s very psychologically interesting, of course we’re all familiar with the kind of people who demonise other human beings by turning them into bestiary…we all know who does that.’
Hit the nail on the head.