The terminally stupid Richard Littlejohn deserves our sympathy

I know it is not news that Richard Littlejohn has no compassion or empathy for anybody deemed foreign to him – or unworthy of life in his eyes – but his column today demonstrates just how deep his misanthropic xenophobia runs in that he cannot even comprehend how anyone else could be compassionate about somebody living in another country. It was perhaps inevitable that Littlejohn would pass comment on the rescue of the Chilean miners and it was certainly inevitable that in doing so he would be demonstrating once again his staggering misanthropy and ignorance.

I have known people to argue in the past that Littlejohn isn’t the deeply ignorant racist that appears in his columns, but that actually he was a fairly intelligent chap who was just writing this stuff for the money; knowing that he can earn more writing trash than he could writing anything intelligent on any given topic. I could always see their point, perhaps he was happy to play this character – after all, he does earn nearly £1m a year for knocking out a few hundred words based solely on flicking through the Daily Mail twice a week.

However, the more I read of Littlejohn’s body of brain vomit the more I really feel that this just isn’t the case.
Littlejohn is not a talented writer, he is not capable of purposely mimicking the writing of an ignorant buffoon, he just happens to be one. He confesses as much on his website by claiming that he believes that journalists:

should be in a state of permanent opposition and scepticism, opposed to vested interests of all political persuasions and fiercely protective of civil liberties.

Before undermining this point by confessing what it is that he really does:

His job is to sit at the back and throw bottles.

As we should all recognise from our school days, the classroom skeptic gained their reputation through intelligent analysis of the classroom / teacher dynamic and smart-ass comments during the lesson – they were, in short, defined by their words / thoughts, not physical actions. Whereas the person throwing bottles was the frustrated student who was utterly unable to understand what was going on around them, thus they had to resort to physical acts to compensate.

Throwing bottles is not the act of an intelligent person, it is the last resort of the terminally stupid.

The description of Richard Littlejohn as the terminally baffled, disinterested idiot throwing bottles from the sidelines is perhaps the only accurate sentence on his entire website – but its accuracy is amusingly unintentional.

Anyway, the point is that Richard Littlejohn’s musings on the rescue of Chilean miners were never going to be
insightful or intelligently provocative, they were just going to be another bottle thrown from the intellectual
wilderness. After his stupidity (and arrogance for believing himself anything but) perhaps Littlejohn’s greatest
failing is his complete lack of humanity. Being completely devoid of empathy for his fellow man allows Littlejohn to live in America as an immigrant but to still hate all other immigrants. He also cannot understand how anybody can exist that looks or acts differently to him – he finds any kind of diversity utterly baffling because of this.

He genuinely does not understand how any person can have any sympathy for a person that they do not know, especially if that other person happens to be a different nationality. His infamous statement about the Rwandan Genocide (in which around 800,000 people were murdered) demonstrates this:

Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them.

He just cannot understand why anyone would care about black people in a distant land, in the same way that he writes today of the Chilean miner rescue:

I don’t know any of these people. Nor does anyone else in Britain. So why invest so much time and emotional energy in the fate of total strangers?

The answer that I think Richard is striving towards is that most people have a shred of human decency and are able to understand that we all share a common humanity irrespective of our arbitrary geographical locations. We can understand the plight of men being trapped underground, the frailty of life and the awful uncertainty of the waiting loved ones on the surface. It is a very human story, one that demonstrates that as a species we go to great lengths to save those in trouble, even if in the great scheme of things those miners may not find a cure for cancer or live the life of Mother Teresa. We believe – bizarrely according to Littlejohn – in the sanctity of all human life.

Littlejohn’s lack of humanity and human decency allows him to objectify the value of a human life and actively
campaign against equality. Equality, for example, would ensure that prostitutes have as much right to life as nurses. Richard Littlejohn does not agree with this, he is firmly of the opinion that prostitutes are less deserving of life and ‘no great loss’ when they are murdered, after all he considers murder as being merely ‘an occupational hazard’ for a prostitute.

Because he has no compassion, no humanity and no understanding of the human condition Littlejohn has to create other reasons why people would want to watch the Chilean miners being rescued. Rather than the viewer sharing an emotional journey with a fellow human being, they instead become ‘armchair ghouls’ and ‘disaster tourists’ who watch only because there:

was the ever-present possibility that it might all go horribly wrong.

If it had been clear from the off that it was only a matter of time before every last miner was brought out alive, television viewers outside Chile would soon have lost interest and the camera crews would have left in search of some more bankable human misery.

Presumably the search for human misery would have done well to seek out the nearest news agent to pick up a copy of the Mail. Like all Littlejohn columns you are never more than a paragraph away from his rampant xenophobia, in this case he is upset that we care about Chilean miners, but what about the IGNORED BRITISH VICTIMS of accidents at work:

I discovered this week that twice as many men have died in accidents on British building sites since 2001 as have been killed in action in Afghanistan. But you won’t be seeing a Panorama special on them any day soon.

Unlike the Chilean miners, there won’t be any movies made about these unfortunate construction workers, nor any book deals or newspaper serialisations.

Littlejohn’s strange belief that somehow the poor white victim is being ignored once again is perfect fodder for his BNP readership, yet Littlejohn still claims not to be aligned with them. Strangely Richard does not muse over his own newspaper’s reluctance to report these deaths, nor his and its ongoing campaign against ‘elf ‘n’ safety’. As if he was seeking a perfect score of his usual disinformation Littlejohn continues his amazingly oxymoronic statements and campaign against ‘elf ‘n’ safety’. In one paragraph (above) Richard bemoans the amount of deaths on British Building sites since 2001, yet move forward just two paragraphs and you get this:

Call me callous, but I couldn’t help wondering what would have happened if 33 men had been trapped down one of our few remaining British mines.

Under our modern elf ‘n’ safety culture, the emergency services are actively discouraged from risking their own lives to save others.

Well, Richard, which is it? Is Britain just as dangerous a place to work as Chile or is it a country in which ‘elf ‘n’ safety culture’ is all-powerful? You cannot have it both ways, either ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ is wrapping up the entire country in cotton wool, or ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ is failing because twice as many men are still dying on building sites than are dying on active service with the Army in Afghanistan.

In the past I have probably been guilty of saying nasty things about Richard because I mistakenly assumed he knew roughly what he was writing. However, I think I should not give him that credit anymore. His writing – wild inconsistencies, constant oxymorons, complete lack of rational arguments or any understanding of logic – always asks a few questions which I think absolve Richard of a lot of blame.

When he asks questions like: ‘I don’t know any of these people. Nor does anyone else in Britain. So why invest so much time and emotional energy in the fate of total strangers?’ he isn’t being satirical, provocative or rhetorical he’s genuinely confused and desperately seeking some sort of answer. He really does not understand.

If he were back in the classroom he would be hurling a bottle at the blackboard* in frustration and being asked to leave the room again. Remember, Richard Littlejohn’s only crime is being terminally stupid, luckily it is also his punishment. The real blame should be aimed squarely at the newspapers that have paid him handsomely over the years to publish his desperate cries for help.


* Now banned by the PC brigade of course.

13 Comments

  • Rather than the viewer sharing an emotional journey with a fellow human being, they instead become ‘armchair ghouls’ and ‘disaster tourists’ who watch only because there:

    “was the ever-present possibility that it might all go horribly wrong.”

    I think Dicky may have been projecting his own feelings onto the rest of the world when he wrote that. Every time he writes a new column I remain utterly astonished that Paul Dacre’s Daily Mail is willing to pay him nearly £1 million a year to churn out such vitriolic, hateful bile, lacking any sort of human decency.

  • Malcolm Armsteen says:

    The blame should also be shared with other journalists who have lauded him as a ‘polemicist’ – a word he couldn’t pronounce, let alone comprehend. He is just the visible carbuncle on a corrupt corpse.

  • Back in 1941, Grandpa Littlejohn’s column for the Daily Mail said:

    “Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Germany? If the Aryans want to wipe out the Jews then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them.”

    It’s true, I read it on Wikipedia!

  • Paul United Kingdom says:

    That quote about twice as many deaths on building sites was taken from the “Insurance Times” from a few years ago. If I mention it to some people they suddenly answer with the excuse “Well more people work on building sites” Next thing is when insurers try to make it part of the contract that safety standards are enforced or rates are raised it is “com-pen-saysoun” culture gone mad!

  • Given that LittleJohn compiles a lot of his columns from the comfort of his villa in America he should have plenty of first hand experience about how people can get all emotional about things happening thousands of miles away from them.

  • Atomic Spin says:

    I don’t remember many people being interested in the story because they wanted to see human misery. They wanted to see the best of humanity had to offer – courage, solidarity and ingenuity. Nothing that would interest Littlejohn then.

    Incidentally, the death rate in the British construction industry is roughly half what it was 10 years ago, in large part due to improvements in health and safety. Curiously, I don’t think Littlejohn will ever mention this fact in his columns.

  • Kez says:

    Littlejohn’s hateful – and hate-full – views, and the fact that they are deemed worthy of a wide readership, make me want to weep. I just have to assure myself that they are not genuinely shared by the majority – that most people don’t truly believe that the lives of prostitutes, or distant black people, have no value; that most of us don’t watch one of the few positive, life-affirming good news stories in the hope that something goes tragically wrong. I believe, even if Littlejohn doesn’t, that most of us, even the readers of the Daily Mail, are better than this.

  • Press Not Sorry: you’re spot-on, we’ve seen time and time again that when RLJ makes an observation of others he’s unwittingly communicating his own feelings. He talks of others wishing things would go wrong, which means he himself wished this. When no-one cares about prostitutes, he means he himself doesn’t care about them.

    This seems to be how he copes with the world. He doesn’t have the balls to state his own opinion, nor the brains to argue reasoning behind one. He just distances himself from his own comments to the point where I don’t think he even realises they’re his. It’s the kind of gutless attitude you get from an overt racist who can’t accept that that’s what they are.

    Funny that he says his role is to sit at the back and throw bottles. I always think of him as a particularly thick chimp at the back of a cage, defecating into his hands and throwing it at anything he doesn’t understand.

    Here’s the b3ta RLJ challenge entries once again, in case you missed enjoying them the first time around http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/richardlittlejohn/

  • Meee says:

    He’s right though, in a way.

    If the first story about the mine incident was simply “Mine collapse traps 33 mine workers. They’ll all be out in 10 weeks, absolutely no doubt or complications”, the media coverage of the event would’ve been minimal. Maybe a few days at the start, and a few days after they’re all out.

    That said, I think his comments apply far more to the media coverage itself than to the people reading said coverage. The press *loved it*, like they love all disasters, and I’m willing to bet several media outlets had prepared “tragedy strikes chile mine rescue attempt” page layouts over a month ago, just waiting for the sales bonanza when something went wrong.

    That it was Littlejohn saying this (in the daily mail, even) did make the irony strike me pretty hard.

  • Kate says:

    Is it just me or do other detect a potential trend here? His more recent columns – certainly those post-election – are seriously bad, in the sense that he was arguably good at producing crap (I’m stretching it a little I know), whereas now he’s just, well, crap. All of the time. It’s getting beyond parody.

    Sure, there’s a obvious explanation in what’s now politically off-topic – he was never going to write about Coulson for instance – however, there seems to be a growing change in the tone of the comments. This week (Friday) is possibly the best example yet of a consensus: posters who disagree, dissent or just mock him for laughs.

    At one level Mail Online won’t much care about this – traffic is traffic and flame bait is part of their business model – but I do wonder whether his credibility is declining. I wouldn’t be that surprised to see his profile start to fade quite quickly and can see that Dacre might start to wonder whether that outrageous salary is a future saving…

  • Many people misunderstand the role of Little Dick. He’s not the attraction at the Daily Mail. He’s the Barker at a Freak Show. There to catch the attention of passing trade. “could there really be a bizarre half-man, half wombat in the tent? I’ll risk my 50p and have a look.”

    Unfortunately, Little Dick seems to have started believing his own schtick. More importantly, the commenters on he posts seems to have turned, and a more and more they’re calling him on his bullshit.

    I suspect that the DM bosses are beginning to realise he’s turned from Asset to Liability. I’d give him six months before he’s gone, replaced by a new version of Little Dick.

  • Steve says:

    Tepid Halibut – good synopsis of this hateful clown. My bet is he’s replaced with someone just as odious and vacular – Jon Gaunt…

    Anytime I read Little Dick’s comments now I just feel sorry for him. He’s obviously reasonably wealthy, yet has so much hate and disdain for anything remotely humanitarian. He’s a coward and a guttersnipe. He was never a serious journalist. I wake every morning glad I’m not him.

  • Les says:

    I do not understand why those commenting here are so intolerant of an opposing view? Being right of centre is NOT a crime against humanity! It is an opinion! I note that those who despise the right are far more aggressive and hateful in their language than those they claim to despise … It seems they seek to muzzle those who disagree with them.

    I find that much more objectionable than anything Richard Littlejohn says!

    I have read much of what Richard Littlejohn has written and there is a connection that some people here appear to be unable (or unwilling) to recognise: What he says strikes a chord with many people (no not bigots!) throughout this country.

    For example, it isn’t racist to say mass immigration is not what most people in this country want – it is just a statement of fact. It isn’t callous, nor draconian to say a career criminal should be locked up and the key thrown away; it is what many people think.

    In terms of everyday life, Richard Littlejohn simply underlines much of the stupidity of modern life (e.g. the “elf n safety” stories (yes, we all know some of them are exaggerated, but then some are not!) and these provide a brake to the over zealous and some amusement for the rest of us.

    So rather than seek to muzzle those who disagree with your points of view, why not enjoy the differences in people’s views? Right isn’t necessarily all bad any more than Left is!

    I thought “the left” were in to “live and let live”?

    Regards all

    Les :)

2 Trackbacks