The Morality of The Guardian

On 2nd March 2018, The Guardian published online two articles on a similar theme. The first was about another mass abduction of young girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. The author cautioned against viewing the entire country through this narrow lens or considering Nigerian women to be devoid of agency. The article concluded: “Seeing only women and girls as victims plays into gendered stereotypes that we must move away from. It also presents a highly distorted version of reality”.

The second article was about the current “rape epidemic” on British campuses.  It was based on a survey response of 4500 students from 153 universities. Without telling us what proportion of the total student population this 4500 represent (20%.,10%. 1%, 0.1%, 0.001%?), and the inherent bias in conducting surveys with leading questions that invite a particular kind of response from a particular kind of individual, the author made sweeping generalisations, concluding that “Universities should be ashamed” for not doing more.

You could argue that these are opinion pieces and reflect opinions of different people. But if you know The Guardian well, you will also know that these two pieces represent the fundamental intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy at the heart of this newspaper.

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”.

Over the next few years, as the scale of the problem became too big to ignore or dismiss, the Guardian tried other tactics. The problem is not of rape or racism, it is all about misogyny. The attempt was to steer the discussion away from race and ethnicity and to constantly remind people that most paedophiles in the UK are white. Given that 87% of the UK population is white, this is a meaningless statement, since what matters is proportions not absolute numbers, and in particular the modus operandi of the Muslim gangs which clearly pointed to exploitation of White and non-Muslim Asian girls who are considered fair game; in Jack Straw’s description “easy meat”, outside the protection of honour and purity codes.

Two articles from 2107 claimed that this was all a “moral panic” and the focus on race and religion were “a distraction”.; Even Dennis McShane admitted that no one had wanted to rock the cultural boat, hence no action had been taken for years. But such details don’t matter to the Guardian. The real panic for the Guardian was that this “played into the hands of the right-wing”; party politics is more important to the Guardian than protecting children.

Are The Guardian team oblivious to the pain and suffering of white working-class children? Do they enjoy knowing that white children are suffering, and consider it just desserts for the supposed white atrocities on the rest of the world? Do they feel that sacrificing white children at the altar of political expediency is a fair price to pay since the party The Guardian supports depends upon the biradri vote banks that the perpetrators represent?

Is The Guardian immoral or 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.

Personally, I prefer an immoral person to an amoral one. With the former you know where you stand, and you can argue with them. The latter are endlessly inventive in their pursuit of ideology, regardless of morality. Many Guardian readers consider themselves compassionate, objective and morally superior. However, self-righteousness does not make you right. Mark Twain famously said: “it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure but it just ait so”.   Guardian writers and the editorial team know exactly what they are doing. They are the truly wicked.

Udham Singh Written by:


  1. March 22, 2018

    I don’t believe that Guardian editors or those who write for them are wicked, but sincerely believe themselves to belong to a morally superior elite, just as most communists used to (and probably still do). It is what sustains them. It can also be of considerable personal and professional advantage. If you want to make a living from the “liberal” media, which very much includes the BBC, you have to have the correct political views, especially in regard to race, immigration and DIVERSITY.

    Divergent views are immediately dismissed as “far right” or outright “racist”. This is why we have never been able to openly discuss these issues. And it is not just the Guardian that is to blame. It goes all the way back to an overreaction to the evils of Nazi ideology, which went to the opposite, but equally insane extreme, before becoming an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control.

    DIVERSITY is now part of the West’s age-old strategy of divide and rule (largely subconscious or obsured by Orwellian doublethink), whereby society is divided into a morally superior, now supposedly non-tribal, unprejudiced, “colour-blind” and xenophilic elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) tribal, prejudiced, not colour-blind, but nativist and xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their “moral superiors” (a moral animal like ourselves can be manipulated and control by a regime of moral rewards & intimidation as well as by one of material/physical rewards & intimidation).

    It is, in effect, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology. Original sin (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) has been replaced by “racial prejudice” (the natural human inclination – like original sin – to identity with members of one’s own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was made responsible (wrongly) for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), and which only submission to priestly/academic/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes, nativists or racists.

  2. Udham Singh
    March 25, 2018

    Dear rogerahicks

    Thank you for your comment.

    I agree with a lot of what you say. Liberals have replaced Christianity with their own secular religion. They are as convinced of their truth as any biblical prophet. Once homosexuality was a sin; now homophobia is.

    You are also correct in pointing out that tribalism and bowing to authority are deeply ingrained human attributes. There is plenty of evidence from evolutionary biology on why these traits exist and how they confer selective evolutionary advantage.

    I came to England as an immigrant because in the England there had been, to my then naïve perception, a genuine advance whereby the value of enlightenment and universalism had overcome primitive tribalism. Sadly in the time that I have been here, the Guardian (and to a some extent the BBC) have reversed that gain.

    With respect, I have to disagree with you on one thing. You feel that the Guardian editors sincerely believe themselves to be correct and morally superior. At one level this seems right. But think of it another way. Guardian Board is entirely public school educated (where is the diversity?). They paid Alan Rushbridger truckloads of money while bemoaning excessive corporate pay. They have complicated off-shore tax arrangements. Polly Toynbee & Zoe Williams condemn affluence and privilege (while extremely affluent and privileged themselves); Sonia Sodha, Gary Younge, Afua Hirsch, Aditya Chakravarty et al have extensive political power gained entirely from bemoaning how terrible things are for minorities and women.

    I cannot accept that they never have moments of self-doubt. They must know at some level deep inside that they are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. I agree with you that what sustains them is their belief in their innate superiority. But I feel that there must be times, 3 am in the morning on some troubled night, when they wake and find the demons of their corruption standing by their beds.

    If they are absolutely insight-less and feel no remorse for their part in, for instance what happened to white children in the hands of grooming gangs, then they are psychopaths. The fundamental pathology in psychopathy is inability to empathise and lack of remorse.

    If they feel for what happened to those white children but still want to protect the perpetrators, then they are morally compromised.

    Either way my friend, they are wicked.

  3. May 15, 2018

    “They are the truly wicked.”

    This article is written by someone quite disturbed. The whole piece is so awkward and poorly argued, where would one start?

    his must be a revenge attack by the right-wing, perhaps from Daily Mail…

  4. Keith
    June 27, 2018

    In the words of father jack they are” a shower of bastards”

  5. Valentine Smith
    June 28, 2018

    The most enlightening blog and comment I have read in ages. 1 new subscriber and a suggestion to my small but committed Twitter followers to do the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.