• fdrake
    2k


    I mean, I don't want to downplay how inauspicious the remarks are, but I don't think Scruton is actually as prejudiced as the connotations suggest. A vehicle for systemic injustice, which could be used to normalise such prejudice through a bait and switch, and close to dogwhistles for their vulgarisations, but I'm going to stop at attributing personal prejudice to Scruton for the role Scruton's remarks might play in discourse. Without that distinction you end up treating garden variety liberals and conservatives as far right.
  • Bitter Crank
    7.6k
    I'm glad to see this forum's owner is more balanced than that.Judaka

    The TPF owner is on a lithium drip, so he's very balanced.
  • unenlightened
    3.5k
    Rumours of Scruton's de-platforming have been greatly exaggerated. He's been all over the media, especially the BBC radio and television for years and years well as his involvement in politics and his university career. It would not be unbalanced if he took a vow of silence and was never heard from again. Even in the current controversy, it is his words that are repeated more so than those of his critics.
  • Amity
    238
    It would not be unbalanced if he took a vow of silence and was never heard from again. Even in the current controversy, it is his words that are repeated more so than those of his critics.unenlightened

    :smile:
    You know him well then ?

    Here are some critics of his bias. Perhaps nearer the scene of relevance as to his suitability for the job in question.

    From:

    http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/uk-architects-celebrate-sacking-roger-scruton-hous/

    'At RIBA we also argue for better building quality but our doubts about the impartiality of this commission were clearly justified. Time and effort has been wasted and we should now move on from stylistic obsessions to the issues that lie at the heart of solving the housing crisis.”

    Tamsie Thomson, director of the London Festival of Architecture, called Scruton’s appointment “ludicrous” in the first place.

    “Time-wasting and division seems to be the Government’s stock in trade, and it was entirely foreseeable that the ludicrous appointment of Roger Scruton would end badly,” she said, according to AJ. 

    “Our housing crisis is very real and very pressing, and the Building Better Building Beautiful agenda was flawed from the outset thanks to its narrow focus on subjective notions of beauty.”

    Former RIBA president Angela Brady told AJ: “May Scruton’s replacement be a knowledgeable competent architect with housing expertise, who champions new ways of providing a rich and diverse choice of housing options and who encourages innovation and creativity in great design and place making".
  • unenlightened
    3.5k
    But philosophers have long been renowned for their expertise in this area.

    UNDERSTANDING, n. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant, who lived in a horse. — Ambrose Bierce

    Have you even enquired what the Jockey Club position is?
  • ssu
    1.1k
    Use your brain, I know you have one, I've seen you use it.Maw
    You might also use it too for a while. I really enjoy your thoughtful and insightful leftist responses in the forum, which aren't the typical kind of kneejerk learnt responses people in the left typically have.

    I don't know what else Scruton has said or, of course, thought about Jews, but his comments above are an undeniable antisemitic canard, as I've pointed out.Maw

    And of course as you have made your opinion about him, you don't see any reason to dwelve further, but to go along the sentence of him being anti-semite. One could easily look at from WHERE this quote is from and at the sentences BEFORE and AFTER the quote about the Jewish intelligentsia and Soros:

    Ordinary uneducated Hungarians are therefore isolated from their immediate neighbours by their language. They have also been isolated from each other by the forcible division of their territory at the end of the First World War. The remnant of territory that they still enjoy is shared with a substantial minority of Roma, whose unsettled ways are often resented by their neighbours, but whose cause inevitably gathers support in the wider world. The Jewish minority that survived the Nazi occupation suffered further persecution under the communists, but nevertheless is active in making its presence known. Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire. People in these networks include many who are rightly suspicious of nationalism, regard nationalism as the major cause of the tragedy of Central Europe in the 20th century, and do not distinguish nationalism from the kind of national loyalty that I have defended in this talk. Moreover, as the world knows, indigenous anti-Semitism still plays a part in Hungarian society and politics, and presents an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty among ethnic Hungarians and Jews.

    Of course, those parts of the talk highlighted are not quoted, which clearly show the tendentious bashing and mudslinging the whole thing is about. You see, at least I think that usually anti-semites DO NOT talk about the persecution of the Jews and anti-semitism being 'an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty'.

    But of course what actually Roger Scruton said isn't at all important, it doesn't matter for those who want to bash him and go on their attack against the 'evil right'.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    And of course as you have made your opinion about him, you don't see any reason to dwelve further, but to go along the sentence of him being anti-semitessu

    Hey ssu, I would strongly recommend actually reading what I wrote prior to posting. As I explained here, I didn't explicitly say that Scruton is an antisemite (I'm hesitant to do so), but that his commentary was loaded with antisemitic canards, etc., which you conveniently haven't acknowledged, much less disputed.

    Of course, those parts of the talk highlighted are not quoted, which clearly show the tendentious bashing and mudslinging the whole thing is about. You see, at least I think that usually anti-semites DO NOT talk about the persecution of the Jews and anti-semitism being 'an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty'.ssu

    Yes, I'm familiar with Scruton's quotes here, having actually read his full commentary before posting, but as I pointed out, this doesn't excuse what he said (which you are disinclined to acknowledge, much less defend). But sure, pay no attention to one of the few people of actual Jewish decent here, and please, let's have all the non-Jews who clearly know jackshit about antisemitism explain to me what it entails...
  • Maw
    1.2k
    Btw folks, don't think Roger Scruton gives a fuck about any of you. You aren't required to defend his honor.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    Btw folks, don't think Roger Scruton gives a fuck about any of you. You aren't required to defend his honor.Maw

    haha, no one suggested he cared about us. Nor is this about 'defending his honour' lol, its more about the ideas surrounding his circumstances. Don't be so eager to oversimplify.
  • ssu
    1.1k
    Hey ssu, I would strongly recommend actually reading what I wrote prior to posting.Maw
    I did read your posting.

    As I explained here, I didn't explicitly say that Scruton is an antisemiteMaw
    Oh yes, you just said that his comments are an undeniable antisemitic canard and you can't imagine he has a rosy view of Jews. Again, that he in his talk referred to Jews being prosecuted in Hungary and anti-semitism being a problem there doesn't naturally matter to you. Nope, you have found your trope!

    Btw folks, don't think Roger Scruton gives a fuck about any of you. You aren't required to defend his honor.Maw
    Of course not, why should he? Scruton is nearly this caricature of an old conservative British academician, whose whole demeanor can feel to many to be condescending. But that doesn't make him a spokesperson/ a front for anti-semites (or malevolent, as unenlightened defined him). As fdrake noted well, you "end up treating garden variety liberals and conservatives as far right".

    And it's not about his dishonor here, it's about the ease how loosely defined accusations are enthusiastically hurled and accepted without critical thinking. I've learned that today when someone is called either a 'fascist', 'socialist', 'anti-semite' or an 'islamophobe', you really have to be critical about the accusations and really have to find out to yourself if the person truly is like that. Some might be, but typically you find out that the person is either right or left-leaning, has criticized Israeli policy or has worries about terrorism, yet aren't at all the ideological firebrands or bigots they are portrayed to be.

    But the political tribalism of the present doesn't accept this view.
  • whollyrolling
    229


    You're preaching, not philosophizing. It's not just obvious, it's overt. I see people doing this regularly with impunity from behind the veil of some religions but not others.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    You're preaching, not philosophizing.whollyrolling

    which bit in particular is preaching? And whats obvious and overt? You've not highlighted anything I've said so I can tell you that what ever you're referring to is certainly not obvious. Give us a hand here me old chum. Explain yourself a bit more concisely, maybe point to things I've said. Other wise I don't know what to defend, or admit I was wrong to.
  • whollyrolling
    229


    I'm differentiating between obvious and overt because one has intent and one doesn't. Honestly I don't know how to highlight quotes yet, I'm fairly new to the site. I've read some of your entries and have noticed patterns, but I would need some time and knowledge of the functionality of the site in order to quote them.

    You do philosophize, and don't get me wrong, I have no complaints about your character, and some of your comments are entertaining, but there is a definitive bias toward a religion of choice that is often voiced unprompted amid comments. There is a belonging to a collective that you express that implies you perceive not yourself but a group you belong to as an intellectual authority.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    Honestly I don't know how to highlight quotes yetwhollyrolling

    lol, don't worry, just highlight the writing you want to quote like you would if you were going to copy and paste, and when you do a little button should pop up that says "quote", and when you click it, it should transfer the text to the comment box.

    but there is a definitive bias toward a religion of choice that is often voiced unprompted amid comments.whollyrolling

    Yeah I'll happily admit I'm biased. I try to avoid it but alas, every now and then it pops out of me. Feel free to pull me up on it. If it is an obvious bias I'll admit it when it is.

    There is a belonging to a collective that you express that implies you perceive not yourself but a group you belong to as an intellectual authority.whollyrolling

    What do you mean by this exactly? I think I have an inkling of what you mean. I try to avoid it, but when it comes to reading some of the claims people make here about Islam, its usually on something I've been considering very intensely for over a decade, and so have formed some pretty strong and sincere beliefs with regards to it as the result of a lot of reading and conversations with islamic authorities. I've attended classes, and made a lot of effort to get my head around the most controversial parts. This, I guess, can lead me to being a bit overly zealous at times. So I'll apologise for that. Feel free to point it out to me when it happens. And I'll try to tone it down a bit.

    Although just to point out, I'm not sure I did much defending islam in this thread? lol so not sure what your comment would be referring to.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    1.2k
    and thanks for the feedback.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    Oh yes, you just said that his comments are an undeniable antisemitic canard and you can't imagine he has a rosy view of Jews. Again, that he in his talk referred to Jews being prosecuted in Hungary and antisemitism being a problem there doesn't naturally matter to you.ssu

    Yes, he mentioned the historical fact that Jews were prosecuted under Eastern European Communists, and that indigenous antisemitism continues to be an obstacle for the emergence of a nationally shared Hungarian identity between Jews and non-Jews, which of course seems odd to me given his friendship with Orban who has leveraged antisemitism for political purposes, while Scruton has said such accusations were "nonsense". So when the only "problem" of antisemitism is because it's a barrier to shared nationalism, rather than a problem in itself, I'm somewhat skeptical for his sincerity here.

    Regardless, you continue to dodge the issue I brought up, which is that Scruton made antisemitic comments, which of course hasn't been disputed.

    And it's not about his dishonor here, it's about the ease how loosely defined accusations are enthusiastically hurled and accepted without critical thinkingssu

    I'm frankly less interested in what epithets we apply to people, as oppose to what they actually say, and in this particular case, if it's acceptable for someone in a government position to say them. Personally, I don't think it's acceptable for someone in a public position to say that Islamophobia isn't a valid term, or to refer to immigrants and refugees as "Muslim tribes" who are "invading".
  • csalisbury
    1.7k
    He's also really got a thing against the Roma. The settled/unsettled distinction that runs through the essay is unpleasant and has unpleasant implications.

    I know the essay on nationalism, per se, isn't the focus of this thread, and I don't really have an opinion on whether Scruton should be tarred and feathered, but I think it's interesting how he proceeds in his essay, because it's wildly incoherent.

    The whole first part is about how the EU is bound to fail because it's artificially imposing economic and political homogeneity on a deeply heterogeneous group of cultures. This can only be disastrous. What must be attended to are particular cultures, what makes them distinct. This must be the basis for unified, organic goverment

    So, what makes Hungary distinct?

    All that is distinctive of the Hungarian experience – the shock of the Treaty of Trianon, which divided the Hungarian people from each other, the distinctive culture of a land-locked country in which a large population of Roma has never properly settled, the still present record of the country's struggle against Islamic domination – all this too has been ignored. — Scruton

    Disunity and political shock, apparently.


    Later, Scruton makes a distinction between nationalism and national loyalty.

    Nationalism is an ideological attempt to supplant customary and neighbourly loyalties with something more like a religious loyalty – a loyalty based on doctrine and commitment. Ordinary national loyalty, by contrast, is the by-product of settlement. It comes about because people have ways of resolving their disputes, ways of getting together, ways of cooperating, ways of celebrating and worshipping that seal the bond between them without ever making that bond explicit as a doctrine.

    The undercurrent here is Burke. Customs, culture etc are built up over time, organically - Centuries of trial and error streamline them in a sort of evolutionary process. Those customs which work survive; those which don't, die out. This makes them much more resilient and successful than any kind of organization imposed top-down.

    This is what Scruton wants, not 'nationalism.' That's great, but, by Scruton's own conception, it can't simply be implemented. It can only come about as a by-product of something else.

    So what does Scruton really mean when he says the following?

    For there is no alternative to nationality. If the government in Budapest is to enjoy legitimacy, that legitimacy must come from below, from the people whose unity and identity is expressed in the workings of government. This legitimacy must be inherited by each government, whether right or left, whether minority or majority. It must not be a loyalty of cliques, or a reprimand to the peasantry issued by the intellectuals of Budapest, or an edict issued by the true Hungarians in the villages against the traitors in the city.


    -----
    Recap:

    The EU is traumatic for Hungary because it doesn't govern according to the particular, settled culture of Hungary, which is characterized by unsettled Roma and historical trauma. Hungary should instead be governed according to its shared culture of not having a shared culture. This shared culture can only develop very slowly over time, and we need it right now.
  • StreetlightX
    3.5k
    The EU is traumatic for Hungary because it doesn't govern according to the particular, settled culture of Hungary, which is characterized by unsettled Roma and historical trauma. Hungary should instead be governed according to its shared culture of not having a shared culture. This shared culture can only develop very slowly over time, and we need it right now.csalisbury

    Seems reasonable.
  • ssu
    1.1k
    Regardless, you continue to dodge the issue I brought up, which is that Scruton made antisemitic comments, which of course hasn't been disputed.Maw
    Oh I'm dodging now comments?

    How about first saying that you aren't explicitly saying that he is an anti-semite and then saying he is making antisemitic comments?

    That (dodging) must be that he talk about Soros Empire and jewish intelligentsia? Well, I did quote the line. Now I do agree that anything Soros has done or presumably done makes the the far-right bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorists in the way as the Koch Brothers do to the left in the US, yet that Scruton is really saying here similar comments as anti-semites is doubtful. You simply have to give the example, not just say the interpretation of what he had in mind is obvious.

    What I gather is that Scruton has known personally the intelligentsia in Hungary, where he has been visiting since 1985. So is the issue that Scruton is a friend of of Victor Orban? Oh yes, a friend that Scruton describes as following to Hungarian media:

    he (Orban) doesn’t have the American approach to the division of powers, that’s undeniably so.

    On the other hand, he’s not the kind of demagogic tyrant that the liberal establishment in Europe want to make him out to be. He has not arrested all the judges, he allows the constitutional court to overthrow decisions of Parliament. He is a democrat, but not a liberal-democrat.

    It’s a matter of degree; you can say that perhaps he throws his weight around more than most Western politicians would. And he has an oligarchic approach to civil society. But whether Bálint Magyar is right in condemning Orbán’s Hungary as a ‘mafia state’ I very much doubt. After all, has Bálint been arrested? Let’s say at least that the question remains an open one.

    Now I don't make Hungarian politics so well to think if Scruton is correct or false, but at first glance the above doesn't seem as an appraisal for Orban, really. A politician that doesn't have the American approach to the division of powers, isn't a liberal-democrat and throws his weight around more than most Western politicians sounds to me somewhat critical.

    Anyway, yet let's look at just what this was: This was just a typical leftist character assassination campaign, which was successful. They got their scruffy old conservative philosopher. It was indeed so successful job that Scruton's interviewer (of the interview that lead to this scandal) George Eaton, posted afterwards jubilant photo of himself on Instagram drinking champagne from a bottle with the caption: "“The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.” Great example of objective investigative journalism.

    Screen-Shot-2019-04-10-at-18.32.13.png?auto=compress,enhance,format&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=620&h=378

    You'll probably drink to that too.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    Oh I'm dodging now comments?ssu

    God damn, can you please read what I actually write? I said you dodged the "issue" i.e. the content of the antisemitic comments, not that you dodged the comments themselves. Congrats, ssu, you "quoted" them, but you didn't actually directly explain why his comments weren't actually antisemitic canards, you had merely tried to highlight the quotes around them in order to excuse them. As I pointed out, they don't.

    You simply have to give the example, not just say the interpretation of what he had in mind is obvious.ssu

    I literally posted a very good article in the previous page explaining how Soros has come to embody the centuries old archetype of the "manipulative Jew". Here is a salient point:

    Matthew Lyons, a researcher and the author of several books on rightwing populism and far-right ideology, said that commonly circulated narratives about George Soros resonate with a long history of antisemitic myths and stereotypes.

    “One of the central antisemitic themes for a thousand years, at least, has been the notion that Jews represent this evil, super-powerful group that operates behind the scenes,” Lyons said.

    “Often, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories don’t explicitly talk about Jews or ‘the Jews’ as a group. There’s some kind of code word or symbol that’s used in place.”

    Here is another good article on how Soros has become a boogeyman for right-wing conspiracies, and which discusses Hungary at length. Here is another salient point:

    The Hungarian prime minister, on course for re-election next month, now calls Soros “an American financial speculator attacking Hungary” who has “destroyed the lives of millions of Europeans”, and has based his election campaign on attacking a supposed “Soros plan” to flood Hungary with Muslim migrants.

    Further, it is important that this is taken against the backdrop that, as of 2015, 59% of Hungarians think it's "probably true" that Jews have too much power in the business world; 57% that they have too much power in financial markets; and 49% that they have too much control over global affairs.

    So when someone says, "Many of the Budapestintelligentsia are Jewish, andform part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire" do you still sincerely think this has nothing to do with antisemitic tropes?

    How about first saying that you aren't explicitly saying that he is an anti-semite and then saying he is making antisemitic comments?ssu

    These are very much two separate things. Soros made an antisemitic trope. Do I think everyone who has made a racially stereotypical comment or trope racist? No, not necessarily. Just as I think it would be absurd to call someone a liar because they've lied once. It would be a whole other matter if he repeated it multiple times, or had made additional antisemitic comments, or stated it more explicit terms, such as "Jews manipulate the world" or something to that effect. But he didn't, and as I explained earlier, I wasn't going to call him an outright antisemite because I'm not aware of any other comments he's made towards Jews.

    This was just a typical leftist character assassination campaignssu

    LOL he said that "tribes" of Muslim refugees were "invading" Hungary for fuck's sake! It's not "character assassination", he merely quoted him! I do love when right-wingers do this, they accuse others of "character assassination" when their own fucking words are thrown right back at them.
  • ssu
    1.1k
    God damn, can you please read what I actually writeMaw
    God damn yourself. I have read your post and answered to it.

    you had merely tried to highlight the quotes around them in order to excuse them.Maw
    Well, I assume that the whole response that people give to something should be considered. You don't think so: uttering the J-Word means you are a bigot. As I've already said, the alt-right does indeed talk of a Soros empire. Just how you talk about it is important. But if Scruton mentions Soros, is obviously he is part of the alt-right, not the traditional right.

    I do love when right-wingers do this, they accuse others of "character assassination"Maw
    When the interviewer literally celebrates with drinking champagne that the "right-wing racist homophobe" he interviewed is fired from a position thanks to his interview, I think the objectives for the interview are quite evident.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    When the interviewer literally celebrates with drinking champagne that the "right-wing racist homophobe" he interviewed is fired from a position thanks to his interview, I think the objectives for the interview are quite evident.ssu

    I don't know who George Eaton is; never heard of him prior to this, but damn he must be an extremely talented interviewer to get Scruton, a public servant in a country with nearly three million Muslims to say things like, "The Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," or that Islamophobia was “invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue” or that many Jewish-Hungarian intellectuals form networks around a "Soros Empire". Crazy!

    Well, I assume that the whole response that people give to something should be considered. You don't think so: uttering the J-Word means you are a bigot. As I've already said, the alt-right does indeed talk of a Soros empire. Just how you talk about it is important. But if Scruton mentions Soros, is obviously he is part of the alt-right, not the traditional right.ssu

    Insofar as you're, once again, unwilling to directly confront Scruton's remarks that I've highlighted and the loaded antisemitism that they contain, I consider this conversation over.
  • ssu
    1.1k
    I don't know who George Eaton is; never heard of him prior to thisMaw
    Eaton made the article that got Scruton scrutiny so much that he was fired from a committee.

    to say things like, "The Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East,"Maw
    So your argument why Scruton is islamophobic is the wording "huge tribes" basically.

    Right.

    I wouldn't use myself a word tribe, but does that make Scruton such a malevolent Islamophobe, really? Would it have been outrageous if you would have simply used "a lot of"? Like if I would use the term that "Finns were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of a lot of Muslims from the Middle East", am I an Islamophobe if I would say so? Because that is what did happen. A lot of Finns were alarmed. Others weren't and I do assume that some Hungarians weren't either. Personally my first thoughts in the time period was that relations between the native Finns and the new immigrants will sour in the country as many of my fellow countrymen have xenophobic tendencies.

    or that Islamophobia was “invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue”Maw
    I already earlier did note this that we can argue if this is really so. Yet I think that Scruton referred more to one way that the word Islamophobia is used, not that there hasn't been fear of Muslims earlier than the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood. And he does have a point, at least partially: Pascal Bruckner has argued that the term emerged "At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term ‘Islamophobia’ formed in analogy to ‘xenophobia’. The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist." Yet it was Claire Berlinski in 2010 that argued of the use of the term by the Muslim Brotherhood:

    Now here’s a point you might deeply consider: The neologism “Islamophobia” did not simply emerge. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word.

    So used the term Islamophobia was before the 1970's or the 1990's can be debated.

    Insofar as you're, once again, unwilling to directly confront Scruton's remarks that I've highlighted and the loaded antisemitism that they contain, I consider this conversation over.Maw
    Insofar I've noticed, you are unwilling to approach my point that Scruton isn't spreading anti-semitism, but is simply a scruffy old conservative. And I agree 100% with what fdrake:

    I don't think Scruton is actually as prejudiced as the connotations suggest.fdrake

    This is my view also. But no, you are willing to go with sentence that Scruton is a right-wing racist anti-semite islamophobe, which is so obvious to you that you want to stop the conversation now.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    your argument why Scruton is islamophobic is the wording "huge tribes" basically.ssu
    I think it is more the word 'invasion'. To describe a stream of desperate, terrified, hungry refugees as an invasion strikes me as heartless at best and quite possibly dog-whistling. The current government in Australia has form in using that word to try to garner the racist vote. Then when challenged they claim that their harsh border control measures are only for the benefit of the refugees - 'to save them from drowning at sea'.

    I am not persuaded that there was any anti-Semitism in what Scruton wrote, but I find that 'invasion' sentence deplorable. The 'huge tribes' bit is secondary, but makes it worse. He could have said 'sudden flood of desperate Syrian refugees' and still conveyed the stress the Hungarians felt, without the associated dog-whistling.
  • ssu
    1.1k
    That's a good point you are making, andrewk.

    Yet you shouldn't forget that the media at the time tried to make it as intense as possible. So when (here in Finland) conscripts were used to basically assist the movement of the immigrants to refugee centers, the local media screamed about this with media tabloids like "ARMY DEPLOYED TO THE BORDER". This is a fact. And the photo used was of soldiers in full combat gear with assault rifles. Not a small contingent of unarmed soldiers helping the asylum seekers to carry their bags, which was the reality. And btw, we got the stream of immigrants in 2015-2016 only because Sweden had vowed to close it's borders.

    So, when you were fed with the following kind of news reporting, it isn't so far fetched to talk about an invasion. Which btw did stop after 2015-2016. Notice that the reporter uses the word "war" to describe the events:



    And basically, what does this map look like with the pointers?

    1024px-Map_of_the_European_Migrant_Crisis_2015.png

    I should add that the American media has been more critical of going into this kind of alarmist narrative with questions about the Trump's caravan.
  • unenlightened
    3.5k
    He's also really got a thing against the Roma. The settled/unsettled distinction that runs through the essay is unpleasant and has unpleasant implications.csalisbury

    So he's a right wing conservative nationalist who refers to refugees and migrants as an invading tribe, a Jewish capitalist (but no others) as having an empire, islamophobia as a myth while also talking about real muslim atrocities, and has a thing about the Roma, and another slight thing about homosexuals.

    But apart from that, What's he ever done for fascism? Does he hate jazz and degenerate black music? I couldn't bothered to find out, though he does go on about music.

    But thus Wiki:

    Scruton wrote several articles in defence of smoking around this time, including one for The Times,[71] three for The Wall Street Journal,[72] one for City Journal,[73] and a 65-page pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs, WHO, What, and Why: Trans-national Government, Legitimacy and the World Health Organisation (2000). The latter criticized the World Health Organization's campaign against smoking, arguing that transnational bodies should not seek to influence domestic legislation because they are not answerable to the electorate.
    The Guardian reported in 2002 that Scruton had been writing about these issues while failing to disclose that he was receiving £54,000 a year from JTI

    So not much scruple about spreading damaging propaganda for money, under the guise of political philosophy, which to my mind is a step or two beyond selective quoting to embarrass a political opponent.

    Scruton further argued, following Burke, that society is held together by authority and the rule of law, in the sense of the right to obedience, not by the imagined rights of citizens. Obedience, he wrote, is "the prime virtue of political beings, the disposition that makes it possible to govern them, and without which societies crumble into 'the dust and powder of individuality'".

    I wonder how far he followed Burke?
    Burke was a leading sceptic with respect to democracy. While admitting that theoretically, in some cases it might be desirable, he insisted a democratic government in Britain in his day would not only be inept, but also oppressive. He opposed democracy for three basic reasons. First, government required a degree of intelligence and breadth of knowledge of the sort that occurred rarely among the common people. Second, he thought that if they had the vote, common people had dangerous and angry passions that could be aroused easily by demagogues; he feared that the authoritarian impulses that could be empowered by these passions would undermine cherished traditions and established religion, leading to violence and confiscation of property. Third, Burke warned that democracy would create a tyranny over unpopular minorities, who needed the protection of the upper classes.

    "common people had dangerous and angry passions that could be aroused easily by demagogues;"

    Undoubtedly there is a deal of arousing of angry passions going on, on all sides. Eaton seems to be guilty of this, perhaps I am guilty of it, but we are common people, and ignorant. Scruton is exactly that kind of demagogue that Burke warns of, helping to create a tyranny over unpopular minorities.
  • fdrake
    2k
    This is my view also. But no, you are willing to go with sentence that Scruton is a right-wing racist anti-semite islamophobe, which is so obvious to you that you want to stop the conversation now.ssu

    To be honest @unenlightened, @Maw and @andrewk have made me a lot more suspicious of his behaviour. I had him pegged as a benign, educated version of a racist grandpa. He still might be, but I think he's sufficiently rhetorically aware to know how to avoid the problem statements if he wanted to. I'm left with the opinion that he knew precisely what crowd he was playing to.
  • Baden
    7.6k
    The Guardian reported in 2002 that Scruton had been writing about these issues while failing to disclose that he was receiving £54,000 a year from JTI

    So not much scruple about spreading damaging propaganda for money, under the guise of political philosophy, which to my mind is a step or two beyond selective quoting to embarrass a political opponent.unenlightened

    Moral high ground rug pulled from beneath cloven hooves then.
  • Baden
    7.6k


    Strikes me (and still haven't had time to look into it in detail, so just an impression), he's a kind of British Jordan Peterson. Capable of making sensible criticisms of the worst of the left but incapable of not playing footsie with the worst of the right.
  • Maw
    1.2k
    But no, you are willing to go with sentence that Scruton is a right-wing racist anti-semite islamophobe, which is so obvious to you that you want to stop the conversation now. — ssu

    Interesting how much mental gymnastics @ssu is willing to do to deny that Scruton's comments are problematic, yet he'll repeatedly accuse me of painting Scruton as an outright anti-semite, which, as I've argued, is demonstrably untrue.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.