Friday 29 June 2018

The morality of the Guardian

This short article, by someone called Udham Singh, is worth reading. It makes a rather persuasive case that writers for The Guardian newspaper are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt, rather than simply deeply misguided.  

He thinks the Guardian is flat-out wicked, rather than mistaken, but I am not sure what the distinction is. Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were misguided but sincere in their ideals. 

Mr Singh says:
When it comes to straight, white men, no generalisation is sweeping enough, no bad statistic is dodgy enough, no amount of abuse is severe enough when directed at The Guardian’s favourite enemy. However, when it comes to non-English cultures, no excuse is feeble enough and no atrocity bad enough for The Guardian to bring itself to condemn.

For thirty years, white working-class children have been systematically groomed and raped in English towns and cities by gangs of predominantly Muslim men. Just because the BNP first raised the alarm, The Guardian was very keen to dismiss these allegations as racist. In 2011 it published an article claiming that these claims were “dubious”. To quote directly from the article: “Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse. But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested”. All of this, according to the paper, was the “ignoble tradition of racialising crime”.
The Guardian is written by people who, for reasons they may or may not fully understand,
see white men as oppressors and brown-skinned people as the oppressed. It goes back to the Vietnam War but long before, to Lenin's critique of colonialism. 

The workers let the left down but the world is full of toiling, oppressed people. 

In fact, though, the leftists do not care that much about the disadvantaged groups they champion but are using them to help create the society the leftists want. 

The left is a twentieth-century (wrong) answer to a nineteenth century problem. Everyone imagined the left was finished by the 1970s, thanks to the economic miracle starting in the 1950s that brought about a huge and unexplained rise in West European workers' living standards. 

In fact the left swerved course and has achieved more of its goals since then than before and may sideline tradition and conservatism forever.

Now, at long last, the politically correct thesis is starting to be confronted by its antithesis. We shall see what the synthesis is.


  1. David in Belgrade29 June 2018 at 17:20

    Thanks for the link.

    Udam Singh writes well, I shall look out for more of his pieces.

    I think he is correct - the so called progressive left as exemplified by Guardian contributors are amoral.

    "Immorality requires an awareness of morality and a deliberate choice of following an action that goes against what morality demands. Amorality is different. Amorality is indifference to morality. The editorial choice of publishing those two pieces on 2nd March stems not from allowing different opinions (The Guardian would never allow a piece written by BNP) but a convenient bending of moral principles, an expedient use of arguments: white men raping is wrong, Muslim men raping must be seen in a cultural context and be dealt with cautiously."

    For those on the progressive left, the ends justify the means.

    1. The link in my article takes you to more articles by Udam Singh. The titles look promising.

    2. The link in my article takes you to more articles by Udam Singh. The titles look promising.