ANGRY MOB

In 2001 Richard Littlejohn appeared on Nicky Campbell's show on BBC Radio Five Live show, alongside Will Self [full transcript here]. Self was there to discuss his book How the Dead Live whilst Littlejohn was there to discuss his book To Hell in a Handcart. Littlejohn states that he was not aware that Will Self would be there, and has therefore not read any of his book, but Will Self had managed to read the first 200 pages of Littlejohn's book.

During the discussion of Littlejohn's book, Campbell refers to the comments made by David Aaronovitch: 'He says Richard Littlejohn's novel is a 400-page recruiting pamphlet for the BNP'. It is here we see the kind of man that Littlejohn is, rather than defend the book using an eloquent or rational argument, he instead attacks the person that made the comment: 'What else do you expect from an overgrown student union leader who used to be a member of the Communist Party?'

Such as riposte is a basic logical fallacy: the background, beliefs or mental state of the person behind the argument is irrelevant and only those who cannot discredit the arguments put forward are forced to attack the person putting forward the argument. It is, in many ways, the kind of response you would expect in the schoolyard.

Will Self immediately picks up on this, pointing out to Littlejohn that Aaronovitch in his opinion is right. Littlejohn questions him further and Self states: 'I've read 200 pages of it and that is a 200 page recruiting leaflet for the BNP'.

Once again, Littlejohn avoids answering the argument, instead weakly stating that: 'you can't comment until you have read the other 200'. This soon leads to Richard taking up a angry and defensive position:

SELF: Why? Does it suddenly turn into Tolstoy?

LITTLEJOHN: You'll have to read it and find out, won't you.

SELF: Well it won't take me long.

LITTLEJOHN: This is typical of the self-regarding, self-appointed metropolitan elite. If you don't agree with them they don't engage you in argument, they throw slogans at you. If you disagree with them on immigration or asylum, you are a Nazi. If you disagree with them on Europe, you are a racist or a xenophobe or a little Englander. That is all they have got - they have only got slogans - they haven't got arguments.

It seems here that the penny has dropped and Richard realises he has brought a steaming turd of a book onto a show with someone who has a smidgen of literary ability and an intellect larger than that of a teabag. At this point he starts a rant that is really quite familiar to anyone that has listened to Littlejohn, or read any of his articles. His argument essentially distorts reality, he accuses other of applying labels or shouting slogans instead of putting forward rational arguments, yet this is exactly what he is consistently guilty of. The argument backfires here because Will Self is able to put forward rational arguments, and dissects Littlejohn's book very well - and on the spot.

As Self is keen to point out with his immediate response to Littlejohn's rant: 'I don't have slogans, I have reasoned opinions and I am sitting no more than 2ft 6ins away from you, Richard'. Littlejohn response is to request a reason why his book is recruiting pamphlet for the BNP, and Self answers:

Because it is the kind of book... I don't actually think it is a very important or serious book and I don't think you really inflame the issue very much and I am grateful for that. I don't think it has got a lot of reach. It is actually a fairly light romp, funnily enough, for a book that is based on really a procession of stereotypes of situations - exaggerations and stereotypes cobbled together into a totally implausible and bizarre kind of moral fable or anti-moral fable. So I am not too worried about your book Richard but I do think that it represents a kind of gross distortion of reality. In a sense, I suppose if you could say it is just a light comic novel then it is allowed to be a gross distortion of reality. It is like a kind of Tom Sharpe for the far right really. Is that fair?

Self puts forward a very reasoned, considered argument in a very polite way. Littlejohn, again, fails to respond to the argument being made:

I wouldn't take the far right because you haven't read the book, clearly. You have read parts of it. The fact of the matter is I wouldn't expect anything else from you. You people, you conduct - [here he is interrupted]

He ignores the argument put forward, makes no attempt to defend his book and instead relies on schoolboy arguments. Interesting that Littlejohn - even when debating face to face with an individual - feels the need to homogenise and stereotype his opponent and impose his own distorted paranoia onto that group and person: 'I wouldn't expect anything else from you. You people, you conduct...' - would have been interesting what distorted paranoia he was about to spout here.

The arguments move onto other areas and Self describes other elements of the book that are 'vaguely impossible' and again Littlejohn responds with his same argument, leading to the famous Tolstoy declaration:

LITTLEJOHN: But you haven't read the book in its totality and you have to read the book in its totality.

SELF: Why?

LITTLEJOHN: In order to understand it.

SELF: Does it turn into Tolstoy at page 205?

LITTLEJOHN: No it doesn't turn into Tolstoy. I don't set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that.

Wonderful. Littlejohn is clearly someone who prefers to write rubbish for his sycophants than actually engage with anyone who criticises him. In a discussion about British identity Self argues that:

SELF: I don't regard myself as British, I dissent from that.

LITTLEJOHN: Well I do.

SELF: What does it say on the passport - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - that is actual latest constitutional formulation of what Britain is. I regard myself as a citizen of an archipelago that happens to be called Britain.

Now, whatever you may think of Self's reasoning, it is perfectly logical and indeed many people have started to question the value of be belonging to a 'race' that is essentially a geographical label that has no intrinsic value (take India for example, India has only ever existed on a map drawn up by the British Empire, in truth it is simply a massive land mass of diverse races, the label to many inhabitants is meaningless). Littlejohn's response is predictable and sums up his intellectual capacity: 'You are not still on heroin are you?'

You can read the transcript in full to see how Littlejohn fails at any point to even engage with any of the arguments put forward to him. But I'll close this article with one final point by Self:

CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?

LITTLEJOHN: Nah.

[laughter]

SELF: 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.

David Rowan interviewing Littlejohn two years after the incident comments that Self identified in Littlejohn: