Please support The British Resistance and help keep this site running.
Use the Donate Button below to send your donation using either Paypal or Cards shown.
Or Subscribe to make regular payments via PayPal ONLY.
It is no surprise to learn that Vincent Tabak, the sexual pervert who murdered Jo Yeates, was a ‘Guardian’ reader. It was in fact through that Journal’s ‘Soulmates’ dating site that he met his girlfriend, the unsuspecting Tanja Morson.
Tabak – Left-Wing ‘Extremist’ ?
After Tabak’s conviction, someone who knew him E-mailed the Daily Mail saying that Tabak was ‘a left-wing extremist’ who ‘could not see the difference between right and wrong’. Actually, there is nothing extreme about not seeing this difference, if that is what is meant by being ‘extremist’.
And Guardian-reading Leftists are by no means the only ones who take Tabak’s view. For example, in a recent article in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ on the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik, Boris Johnson was extremely equivocal to say the least about the existence of ‘evil’ as an absolute.
The Denial of any absolute Standard of Right and Wrong lies at the Heart of the Guardian’s Ideology
Moral relativism lies at the very heart of the ideology of the Guardian, the ‘House Magazine of the BBC’ as it has been called, which has it that we construct such notions as Right and Wrong out of thin air according to our personal preferences and self-interest. It is for example the foundation of the left-liberal belief in multiculturalism and lies at the heart of its preference for the undifferentiated treatment of ‘lifestyle choices’ and sexual relationships and the ‘unjudgemental’ approach to criminal behaviour.
(Oddly but conveniently, for reasons never explained and actually inexplicable within the framework of moral relativism we are supposed to make an exception of the Guardian’s own preferred moral framework, ie Cultural Marxism).
Tabak Practiced what the Guardian Preaches
So Tabak practiced what the Guardian preaches. If he took this teaching to its logical conclusion and horrified Guardian readers as well as the rest of us, it is because he is highly intelligent and understands the implications of moral relativism and they do not, although they practice it within the constraints of what for the time being they have left of Christian ethics.
Dostoevsky and Tabak. A Murderer explains himself
The 19th century Russian novelist Dostoevsky though did grasp the implications of Guardianesque thought.
Here is an extract from his masterpiece ’The Brothers Karamazov’ between the murderer and the sophist who instructed him. For ‘sophist’ one can now substitute ‘The Guardian’ -
‘All things are lawful. That was quite right what you taught me. For if there’s no everlasting God, There’s no such thing as virtue.’
Ragnar Redbeard and why leftist Nihilism can say there is no such thing as ‘Virtue’
Also in the 19th Century, an individual writing under the nom de plume of Ragnar Redbeard explained why there is no such thing as Right and Wrong in terms that a Guardianesque left–liberal - and a Nazi, with whom nihilist left-liberals have so much in common - would immediately recognise:-
‘Common sense provides no precise solution of Right and Wrong. ‘All moral philosophy is false and vain’. For MAN is unlimited. In the realm of ethics, most modern wiselings are fanatical and unreasonable bigots.
They really believe that ethical principles are as a house built on Rock;
whereas the ‘house’ is an unfounded hypothesis and the ‘Rock’ non-existent. Good and Evil liveth only in mens’s minds. They are not Realities but shadows–credos-ghosts–and only the maddest of the mad worship their own shade.’
Right and Wrong – Human Inventions
‘What is Right and what is Wrong? These elemental interrogacies have been asked in every age, and every age formulates replies to suit itself. De Facto Right and Wrong are no more than arbitrary algebraic signs, representing hypnagogic phantasies. They are mere symbols emblematic of belated fragments of insolent ecclesiastical crudities. In nature, all developments are essentially one and the same phenomenon infinitely transfused and intermingled.
Good and Evil are human inventions, born of human foolery, narrowness and short-sightedness.…We can no more establish an infallible system of ethics than we can establish infallible systems of religion, philosophy or politics’.
We are a swarm of querulous snivelling heat—evolved insectivores living aimlessly on the top of a floating cork’
‘ All the Universe is in a state of flux and men are but a swarm of querulous snivelling heat—evolved insectivores living aimlessly on the top of a floating cork that whirls and darts and rolls over and over and over amid the scum and froth and slime of a boiling, bubbling alembic. Within his own sphere individual man is, and ought be the supreme determinant. Outside of that sphere he knows absolutely nothing – and philosophy less than Nothing’.
(‘Might is Right or the Survival of the Fittest’. ‘ Ragnar Redbeard’ Ed. Darrell W Condor p62. Pickle Press, Springfield Missouri 2005).
Tabak murdered according to the Guardian’s Reasoning
Like it or not, when Tabak murdered, according to the Guardian’s own reasoning he was doing no wrong, only exercising his personal preferences. True, what he did was against the law and against the present preferences of most. But these majority preferences are just that: They have no imperative force on their own, all they have is the backing of the power of the majority to enforce them.
They are only temporary phenomena. For who is to say that not very far down the line and thanks to the influence of such as the Guardian, Tabak’s behaviour will become just as socially acceptable as, say, was murder for whatever reasons in the circles in which moved Mohammed , Stalin, Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler who gladly murdered when it suited them?
Moral Traditions and Habits: The Light of a Dead Star and the Smile of the Cheshire Cat.
For, as Sir David Livingstone remarked in the 1940’s,
‘We are left with traditions and habits of conduct inherited (from the Victorians) as the earth may for a time receive light from an extinct star. But that light will not continue to shine, not can those habits and traditions long survive the beliefs from which they grew.’ (Quoted in Longley 1988)
Or as Bishop Tom Butler more succinctly if less elegantly said recently,
’Morals in the absence of faith are like the smile on the face of the Cheshire Cat: the last thing to fade, but fade they do.’
The Future has been seen – And it doesn’t work
So what of the future? Without the civilising Christian God, Nietzsche wondered what the future would hold. ‘The story I have to tell’, he wrote in 1882, ‘is the story of the next two centuries’.
He was remarkably accurate about the Twentieth Century. Its godlessness would excrete ‘wars such as have never happened on earth’. But what about the Century which we have now entered – the Twenty-first?
In the ‘arena of the future’, the world would be divided into brotherhoods with the ‘aim of the robbery and exploitation of non-brothers.’ It would be a time even worse than the Twentieth. The wars of the Twentieth Century were fought according to the remnants, the ‘mere pittance’ of the vanishing Christian moral code. But this century would see ’the total eclipse of all values’.
Man would attempt a ‘re-evaluation’ as the West has surely done through multiculturalism, sexual liberation, eco-fetishism and so on. But you cannot have an effective moral code, Nietzsche pointed out, without a God who says, 'Thou Shalt not’.
Multiculturaliam. The West’s last moral Throw
Multiculturalism as preached by the Guardian was the West’s last throw at a moral system. Its final set of values accorded all values equal value. So it then had no values, for if all are equal, none are worth anything.
If all are of equal worth then none are. It’s the leftist mistake all over again. The one it makes about everything, from persons to race to prizes for all in the education system to council estates to nations.
And it’s bringing down civilised life in the West.