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.

I don't know who George Eaton is; never heard of him prior to this — Maw

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.

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.

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?



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

helping to create a tyranny over unpopular minorities. — unenlightened

Is that brewing in the UK? I'm asking.

Yes. Especially since Brexit negotiations started.

Edit: usual disclaimers about causation, correlation, post hoc, observational data and so on.

You mean of an irritating, non-institutionalized sort. Just a greater tolerance for intolerance. Not dispossession, disenfranchisement, or lynching. Right?

Eh, people voted for the dogwhistle parties, Brexit leave campaign was full of racist dogwhistles, not so surprising really. There's a coalition between the populist right and the (possibly latent) racists which is rather unpleasant and certainly bodes ill. Half of the reason Brexit legislation keeps failing to go through parliament is a bunch of Tory assholes who don't want the bloody rag-heads coming in from Europe.

Nothing formal yet, but still pretty bad.

I see. It's exactly the same in the US.

"The ragheads and Pakis are worrying yer dad but yer dad's favourite food is curry and kebab...'

That’s a slight exaggeration. It is not like people voted purely on immigration (which wouldn’t effect immigration from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh in the slightest as they’re not EU countries).

There is always certain opportunists pushing this or that agenda though when it comes to playing on people’s often irrational fears. A great number voted simply because they wanted complete sovereignty ... whether or not the fears are legit is another matter.

It is not like people voted purely on immigration (which wouldn’t effect immigration from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh in the slightest as they’re not EU countries). — I like sushi

I know that. UKIP voters and the worst parts of the Tories didn't.

You mean of an irritating, non-institutionalized sort. — frank

Not entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office_hostile_environment_policy

A great number voted simply because they wanted complete sovereignty — I like sushi

And what a sick joke that turns out to be. The sovereignty of a parliament that is the least democratic of the EU countries, and about as functional as a thing that has no function and is broken. As if making deals with other countries can ever be done without making concessions - unless you 'send a gunboat'. But we stray from the topic.

I reiterate; Scruton is smart. He knows how things resonate; he knows exactly what associations he is leading people to make, and he has no scruple about doing it. He is malevolent.

Not entirely. — unenlightened

Is a desire to limit illegal immigration necessarily a manifestation of racism? I realize the two become entangled, but there are practical reasons for wanting to control immigration, aren't there?

Anyway, fdrake's answer is something I can understand. The targets for the dog-whistles are voters. The whistle is supposed to advance a feeling of unease about the darkification of the UK population. That adds up to power in the hands of the whistlers, which inspires the question: who fired him? And why?

We live in a thick cloud of exaggeration and bullshit in my part of the world. You get so you don't believe anybody about anything.

That adds up to power in the hands of the whistlers, which inspires the question: who fired him? And why? — frank

The usual function of dogwhistles is to go largely unnoticed and tacitly accepted, they're supposed to create a consensus or work through the myth that the 'average person' agrees with the connotations of the whistling. Scruton's remarks contain dogwhistles that are already known, so regardless of personal belief in what he said (some politicians are like that, others probably aren't), the party has to distance themselves from the person who made the problematic remarks for PR reasons; to present a veneer of respectability.

Edit: they also work to normalise the connotations. People sometimes resist this fact, but it's the same kind of thing that happens when people think quantum observers are humans from pop-sci articles or that eggs both cure and cause cancer at the same time from the vulgarisation of scientific studies.

In the US, the well-known racist dog-whistle is "law and order," which Trump explicitly used during his campaign. His success put Republicans into a schizoid state. The respectable part did try to stand against him, but the less powerful legislators can't because he's so popular at home. They're stuck standing with him in order to be re-elected. As the faint-of-heart drop out, the more racist Republicans step up to lap up the support Trump continues to create with his continuous stream of fear-mongering.

So even though firing Scruton might be motivated by the need to protect the veneer, he was still fired. The veneer is intact. The US is going down a more virulent path where the veneer is getting scuffed up, but not quite ready to crack. It's now that people like Hanover should stop fooling around and face the truth. I kind of doubt his type will, though. Weird times.

So even though firing Scruton might be motivated by the need to protect the veneer, he was still fired. The veneer is intact. The US is going down a more virulent path where the veneer is getting scuffed up, — frank

:up:

Trump removed the need for a lot of euphemisms, you're right.

... about as functional as a thing that has no function and is broken. — Unenlightened

Wouldn’t a thing with no function that is broken therefore have a function? Accidentally functional then? Haha!

All governing systems are partially functional and I’m neither inclined towards complete democracy nor a non-existent one. Due to increasing global pressures - from numerous areas - I think the scales are tipping everywhere and we’ve been caught unawares by some extreme social shifts as the world becomes ‘smaller’ compared to what it was merely a half century ago.

As for Scruton, he sounds and looks like your typical bond villain and this may make what he says seem much harsher than it would coming from a more doe eyed person. I just remain on guard with what people say in public because the media sphere is not necessarily reflective of an individuals cares and concerns and in an age where vilification is more easily applied than ever I prefer not to jump on the bandwagon finding it more useful to listen to what people from all sides have to say regardless of how abhorrent I may takes their words to be.

The main concern being voiced here is nothing new:

“All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.”

- John Stuart Mill, ‘On Liberty,’ ‘Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual’ (Penguin Books, Great Ideas p.112)

What do you think the catalyst was for this resurgence in sensationalism and identity politics? I can't think of a single event or trend that would have given reactionaries so much pull.

"Racist dog-whistle" sounds like a racist dog-whistle. Curious.

What do you think the catalyst was for this resurgence in sensationalism and identity politics? I can't think of a single event or trend that would have given reactionaries so much pull. — Not Steve

I don't know.I came across the idea somewhere that we just naturally swing back and forth. Maybe Trump marks the point where we swing back.

I consider this conversation over. — Maw

Interesting how much mental gymnastics ssu... — Maw

Interesting to end the conversation and then continue. Well, I've tried to make my point that Scruton is a scruffy old conservative and tried to explain why and you stick to your line that I'm evading the issue.
I think that you have already played the Worlds smallest violin already for a very long time...

Interesting to end the conversation and then continue. — ssu

Yeah super interesting

Talking of paradox, Soros, Poland, Zionism, and stuff, here are some more dots from opposing universes seeming to join up.

https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2019/04/easter-celebrations-in-poland.html?fbclid=IwAR11wcXqAR_-8PLqeZu9yShOphkb80soagSGh5g7pr9H9euXX_9mZ0ZkchY