The Littlejohn Syndrome

[display_podcast]

I don’t suppose Richard Littlejohn was the first to suffer but he was one of the first and he remains one of the most prominent. And as he’s been loudly exhibiting the symptoms for years, and making a damned good living out of it, it seems fitting that the syndrome should carry his name.Of course he’s not the only one. Peter Hitchens, Leo McKinstry, Melanie Phillips and Minette Marrin display similar symptoms, and there are others, and their number grows. And they’re not confined to the written mass media, although that’s where the symptoms first began to express themselves. Now we see evidence of them in politicians, and members of the public are showing signs too. Something’s catching.

Littlejohn made his mark as a critic come satirist of liberal-left thought processes. And he played an important part in making criticism of political correctness socially acceptable, and he continues to play it. The others I’ve referred to might not necessarily walk in step with him but they take the same route and they too undermine pc by questioning its logic.

It’s not that opposition to pc is symptomatic of the Littlejohn Syndrome - although I’m sure there are plenty of liberals and lefties who’d argue that it’s a sign of ill health. But pc is the opposite of what’s natural so it’s healthy to oppose it. What one can’t do is oppose political correctness whilst supporting the logic that underpins it - that’s irrational. And as my granddad used to say, “Tha can be one thing or t’other; tha can’t be both.” The Littlejohn Syndrome is characterised by this behaviour; it is a function of the struggle to compromise the fact of political correctness and the theory of universal equality.

Pc is the result of a way of thinking; it is universal egalitarianism in action. And opposition to it leads logically to opposition to the world view that brought it into being. Yet for all their opposition to pc and the liberal mindset, perversely, Littlejohn et al are unwilling to make the connection between it and its purpose. They confine themselves to the safe side of the argument. They attack the symptoms, political correctness, yet accept the virus, egalitarian thinking; it’s textbook Littlejohn Syndrome.

Littlejohn is an ‘acceptable extremist’, and not far behind him are Peter Hitchens, Leo McKistry, and Melanie Phillips, and then Minette Marrin with her middle class common sense - no doubt you have others to add to the list. These people have made a success out of being politically incorrect. Isn’t Littlejohn one of the highest paid in journalism?

And that’s odd. You’d think the highest paid journalists would be those most in tune with convention. In the age of the internet newspapers are struggling to balance their two functions - earning a living and maintaining the status quo. Simply, the stuff they report on doesn’t gel with their explanation of it; the facts contradict their theory. One would have thought that the highest paid journalists would be those with the ability to most mirror reality in terms that are consistent with the liberal elite’s explanation of it.

But apparently not. The most handsomely rewarded amongst establishment journalists are those who, on the face of it, do most to undermine the establishment’s grip on society.

How can this be explained? Is it an example of freedom of the press? Is it about readership and money? Are Littlejohn and the others safety valves? Or is it a matter of credibility; newspapers can’t completely ignore reality even if they’d like to.

Each of these factors plays its part, but do they explain the paradox? Do they fully explain the venom and cutting accuracy in particular in Littlejohn’s and Hitchens’ assaults on the status quo? These people get paid for saying what others could get fired for. Their assaults on political correctness call into question its foundations; if the action is nonsensical then so is the thinking that inspired it. And the thinking that inspires pc is the thinking that underpins society, a belief in universal equality that the newspapers themselves subscribe to and have a vested interest in maintaining.

Perhaps we’ve reached a position where newspapers can only maintain credibility by attacking their own world view - or at least the politically correct manifestations of it. Maybe this explains the contrast between their comment and news sections; whereas columnists must at least go some way towards reflecting reality, the news is what the establishment wants us to know, no more no less.

Nevertheless there’s been a shift in thinking and now hardly anyone wants to be seen as ‘politically correct’. Pc thinking is losing credibility. Even liberals distance themselves from certain aspect of political correctness, but of course they still talk equality talk.

And that’s their biggest problem - how to disassociate the equality cult from its manifestations.

But the self styled no nonsense brigade in the press that has built a career on telling it like it is has a funny way of telling it. Their skill is in convincing their readership that a conclusion has been reached when in fact they’re only half way down the road to it. It’s a skill the newspapers are prepared to pay for, but it must take a toll on its practitioners; it’s like they’re avoiding finding what they can’t stop looking for.

It’s bizarre. But then behaviour characterised by the Littlejohn Syndrome is bizarre.

Sufferers are in a state of denial. They can’t admit the illogic of their stance because then their position becomes untenable. So they deny the obvious. In severe cases such as that of Littlejohn himself the denial borders on hysteria.

The problem with assaults on political correctness (and allied disciplines) is that they attract the wrong kind of people, the ‘unmentionables’. Members of the BNP, its supporters and others tending towards its understanding of society are more likely to read the ‘acceptable extremists’ than they are to read anyone else in the establishment media. Their writing comes closest to articulating a lot of what the BNP believes in.

And this is a pretty uncomfortable position for members of the establishment to be in. So every now and again the ‘acceptable extremists’ make a token effort to distance themselves from the conclusion that their writing points to. In the case of Richard Littlejohn a good half a dozen times a year he launches into an absurd tirade against the ‘knuckle-dragging BNP’, presumably in the hope that somehow it will erase the fact that much of what he says is compatible with much of what the BNP says.

Littlejohn uses the party also as a means of drawing a line under the discussion. He develops his argument up to a point and then some sort of trip switch is activated and the next thing he’s screaming gibberish at the BNP. It’s his way of saying the argument stops here. The next day the process will start over again and he’ll be back to giving pc absurdities a good kicking. And you’ll be waiting for another Littlejohn anti-BNP outburst.

Similarly with Peter Hitchens. This periodic ‘cleansing’ is pure charade. Littlejohn et al know perfectly well that their assaults on their audience have no effect and that the same people will continue to read what they write because it’s what they want to read. It’s odd. They’re denying the connection between what they write and who reads it; if they don’t like who their writing attracts maybe they should write something else.

So every now and again they put on a show of putting distance between themselves and that section of their readership they consider (publicly that is) undesirable, safe in the knowledge that just so long as they continue writing what they’re writing the same people will continue reading it and their all important readership numbers will be maintained.

The Littlejohn Syndrome isn’t confined to journalists of a certain outlook. It’s just that the symptoms are more pronounced there than anywhere else. Political correctness has arrived at its logical conclusion - a parody of itself that only the wilfully blind fail to see. It defies common sense. Few want to be associated with it yet all must offer public support for the thinking that brought it about or suffer the consequences.

But although it’s become acceptable to criticise political correctness the establishment is working flat out to ensure that criticism of the equality idea remains strictly taboo. 21st Century Britain is founded on universal equality and the establishment has no choice but to defend it to the death.

The absurdities of pc are impossible to ignore because they intrude on every aspect of our lives. Even the establishment must acknowledge their existence and criticises their excess. Yet criticism of pc cannot help but lead to criticism of the equality cult.

Much of the establishment and most of the people are struggling with this dilemma. Political correctness makes no sense; most everybody says so - even establishment people, and openly too. Yet the idea that spawned it, ethnic equivalence, is beyond question; everybody says so. The facts of the multiethnic multicultural society must never be brought to bear on the thinking behind it.

For instance, note how often politicians soften any criticism of political correctness with criticism of the BNP or what they term ‘the extreme right’. For credibility’s sake they must be critical of political correctness, but for their career’s sake they’ve got to be politically correct. A couple of days ago I listened to some bigwig from local government taking a swipe at political correctness - now that’s a laugh! Local government is the essence of pc, yet it too struggles with the contradiction between the realities of political correctness and the theory behind it. Politically correct isn’t logically correct.

Significantly television remains remarkably free from the Littlejohn Syndrome. There are no telly equivalents of the press’s ‘acceptable extremists.’ Jeremy Paxman has a bit of a reputation for speaking his mind, but he’s politically incorrect in attitude only. Comedians sometimes poke fun at pc but there’s never any cutting satire from them - and it’s not as if there’s a shortage of material. Littlejohn is funnier, and closer to the mark. TV doesn’t have its own Hitchens. It doesn’t even have its own Minette Marrin - it doesn’t have anyone who come close to questioning liberal orthodoxy.

Television works to convince us that all is well in the world of pc -it’s clear that that’s its primary function. It acts as though there’s no conflict between the establishment’s theory of universal equality and its practical application. Television is primarily a conduit for promoting political correctness; whatever the subject matter the common denominator of all television programmes is support for the equality idea. The Littlejohn Syndrome is the result of unresolved conflict between fact and theory. But as television is concerned more with theory than with fact, the conflict remains outside its sphere of reference and so TV is immune to its effects.

Not so with the general population who are very much in touch with the realities of political correctness. Our lives are as they are because of it. It defines our relationships with state and employer and with each other and it has shaped society. That’s its purpose. And there is a growing dissatisfaction with the product of its endeavours.

Political correctness is coming under increasing attack, and more importantly people are beginning now to criticise its effects. They’ve gone from poking fun at pc stupidities like ‘ethnic minority, disabled, lesbian, outreach worker’ to criticising the impact that mass third world immigration and the subsequent development of multiculturalism has had on British society. The one logically leads to the other and people are beginning to make the link. People’s experience of this brave new world that the liberal elite have created clashes with the liberal elite’s description of it.

The establishment is concerned that this line of reasoning leads ultimately to liberal society’s foundation stone, the idea of universal equality, and it is doing all it can to halt its progress. Television, radio, and the education system endlessly inculcate in the population a support for the idea of universal equality which they reinforce with a guilt-induced aversion to questioning it. The law has been shaped to protect the idea from criticism, and every arm of the state (and most of industry too) projects itself as if universal equality was a readily observable fact.

And it’s got to be said that thus far the establishment has been successful in its objective. People generally are afraid to follow their own reasoning to its logical conclusion. A psychological barrier has been constructed between the symptoms, which are pc and everything allied with it, and their cause, which is belief in universal equality, and most people are as yet unwilling to proceed beyond it.

There’s a snowball rolling here. The increase in pc creates resentment of pc which threatens the equality cult which increases the pc… Snowball!? Or melt-down?

The legal system and bureaucracy both play a part in defending universal egalitarianism, but self censorship is the major bulwark. Pc is concerned primarily with the consequences of mass immigration: The law makes criticism of immigration and its effects difficult, government agencies favour immigrants over the indigenous population, and a climate of guilt has been created to make people feel bad at questioning ‘diversity’.

Political correctness is an assault on the British way of life. It seeks to limit our expression of our culture in our country so as to create space for the expression of other cultures within our own, and it justifies this, in a round about way, by arguing that our country is not our own. So as you’d expect, pc is starting to get on people’s nerves. People are complaining about it.

But that’s all the vast majority of them are doing, complaining about political correctness in isolation. They’ve not gone that one step further to examine the thinking behind pc, why it’s being used against them, and what its ultimate purpose is. It would be a natural step to take - hence the establishment’s all-out effort to condition us not to take it.

They’re working hard to have us believe that it’s ‘racist’ to take that step, that you’re a ‘hater’ and a ‘fascist’ if you allow the realities of 21st Century multicultural Britain to colour your appreciation of universal egalitarianism. And their efforts do have an impact. How many times have you heard an ethnic Brit open a sentence with “I’m not a racist but…”, and then refer to an example of the racism (in whatever form) that ethnic Brits are subject to in their own country? The establishment’s mind games have got some people thinking it’s racist to be white and to perceive it!

This is classic Littlejohn Syndrome, where people refuse to think clearly and logically about matters to do with culture and ethnicity. In the case of the ‘acceptable extremists’ their reluctance to follow their own line of reasoning to its logical conclusion has a lot to do with self preservation. But in the case of most of the rest it’s because they’ve been ‘schooled’ that way. It’s like Pavlov’s dog but in this case the stimulus is race and culture, the reflex action is an immediate halt to the discussion, and the anticipated reward is feeling good about oneself. We’ve been taught to feel good when bowing to liberal orthodoxy.

The question is how long this tension can be maintained before something gives. Orthodoxy exists only for as long as it can answer the questions asked of it. The orthodoxy of universal egalitarianism acts as if it’s beyond question, but that’s bravado - the reality is it’s hiding from questions. The liberal elite have a strict policy, no platform for anyone who questions them - which is a measure of the confidence they have in their own thinking. It makes you wonder how many of them are just going along for the ride.

Universal egalitarianism might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but universal egalitarianism in practice, that is the multiethnic multicultural society sustained by political correctness, tends to make one question the theory behind the practice. And in a desperate effort to keep those awkward questions at bay, the liberal elites were forced to erect a legal, bureaucratic, and psychological barrier behind which their seriously flawed idea could hide.

But the hiding place is temporary respite. All theories are undone eventually by questions that they themselves prompt; universal egalitarianism is no different. And whatever its effort the liberal elite will not be able to shield its world view from the harsh stare of reality.

We’re witnessing the collapse of a world-defining idea. Egalitarianism has given us political correctness and the multicultural multiethnic state, and in spite of the massive pretence, everyone can see it’s falling apart. The practical application of egalitarianism doesn’t work therefore egalitarianism is flawed. And the more the liberal elite argue otherwise the more idiotic they become. Egalitarianism has had its day; a paradigm shift is taking place and the rug is being whipped from under the establishment’s feet. This shift is causing confusion which manifests itself as the Littlejohn Syndrome.

We’re still at the stage where the majority are denying the relationship between the malign influence of political correctness and egalitarianism. It’s hard to leave the security of accepted belief; it requires a complete evaluation of who we are and what we understand to be true. And some have more difficulty with it than others do. Most people prefer the simple life and would rather not have to struggle with grand ideas. But grand ideas are being forced on them. The collapse of the multiethnic multicultural model and the tyranny of political correctness lead inescapably back to the idea of universal egalitarianism. It doesn’t require any analysis, it’s as clear as day, everyone can see it - it’s just a matter of admitting it to ourselves for it to become immediately obvious. And once that step’s been taken there’s no going back.

Egalitarianism is on the slide.

The Littlejohn Syndrome is part of the process of coming to terms with the demise of a grand idea. It’s a sort of half way house if you like. It’s an attempt to compromise the realities of life with a theory of life that they contradict. And it seems a perfectly natural thing to do. We tend to prefer that which we know. But there comes a time when the realities of life demand a reappraisal of accepted beliefs. And it’s this reappraisal that terrifies the life out of the establishment. That’s why they’re so keen to keep people stuck at the Littlejohn stage - not knowing which way to turn.