7 thoughts on “The Crucifixion of Roger Scruton: Britain’s Pivotal Moment”

1. I first came across Roger Scruton as editor of the Salisbury Review in the mid-1980’s and he and a few other were the mentors of my conversion from pink (left of centre) to deep blue conservative (UK colours).

   It was he who first informed me that National Socialism and Communism were twins, not opposites.

   The left has been out to get him for many years – Et tu Teresa, May it be your political epitaph too!

2. Please explain: if Scruton isn’t an antisemite, why did Britain’s Conservative-voting Jewish community ask for him to be dismissed from his post? Fighting bigotry and hate is a core Judeo-Christian value, people!

   Roger Scruton fired as government housing adviser after speaking of ‘Soros empire’ , The Jewish Chronicle

   Academic Roger Scruton has been fired as a government housing adviser after an interview in which he claimed George Soros had an “empire” in Hungary and that the word Islamophobia was “invented”.

   A Board of Deputies spokesperson said: “As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard.

   “We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.”

   Shortly after Prof Scruton’s appointment in November, a speech he had given resurfaced in which he told a Hungarian audience: “Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire.”

   https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/roger-scruton-fired-as-government-housing-adviser-after-interview-about-antisemitism-and-islamophobi-1.482871

   • This is a good example of politically correct speech silencing flim-flam.

     Soros does have an empire.
     ‘Islamophobia’ is a neologism invented by Iran in the 80s and glommed onto by Leftists.

     I have no information on Soros’ henchmen, except for his Italian-American employee from Open Society who was hustled up in Obama’s first election to be the congressman for our district. He lasted one term and went back to Soros’ employ.

     If what he said is offensive, why is Corbyn still extant??

   • Roger Scruton is perhaps too difficult to follow for those of limited intelligence, which sad to say would seem to include the editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Sir Roger’s words were taken out of context, but if you read the entire paragraph from his speech, it would seem he is sympathising with patriotic Jews in Hungary. Quote:

     “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.”

     His entire speech should really be read properly, in order to fully understand the context. In the link following this, please note the English translation follows the Hungarian text, so please scroll down to find it. https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/276-the-need-for-nations

     • Thanks for the clarification.

       • And here is the summation to that erudite, moving lecture (my emphasis added):

         In conclusion I must say something about the situation of Hungary today, as I understand it, and the relevance of the national idea to the Hungarians. That Hungary is a special case is evident. The Hungarian language is an isolated remnant of a linguistic group that was for the most part extinguished by the Indo-European migrations, and bears little or no relation to any of the surrounding tongues. 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.

         Those are only some of the factors that stand in the way of a collective pre-political attachment in this part of the world. The European Union offers an idea of citizenship which is, in fact, a citizenship of nowhere. It encourages people to move from their homeland and to settle elsewhere in the Union, and inevitably those who move are the educated class, whose departure deprives the country of its teachers, doctors, lawyers and surgeons, and provides no replacements for them. The EU also encourages the sale of land to foreign nationals – so building a non-resident landlord class, which has no personal interest in the beauty and moral order of rural life, and which sees land merely as an investment, to be put to use. This has led, and will lead, to tensions of a kind that can be resolved only by a firm political will.

         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. The electorate itself must be identified in territorial terms, since the jurisdiction is territorial, not ethnic or religious. The alternative is fragmentation, as competing ethnic groups or factional interests form parties whose purpose is not to rule in the interest of everyone, but to pillage for the sake of the group. I don’t wish to comment here on the existing political parties in Hungary or to raise the question whether any of them has seen government as an opportunity for plunder rather than a duty to secure the common good. But I do know that, until the institutions of government are seen by Hungarians as representing the country, rather than some faction within it, the government will suffer a deficit of legitimacy. It will then lose its principal advantage over the EU in its battle for the affections of the Hungarian people.

         So he describes reality and is called an antisemite.

         The whole lecture is worth your attention. As is his body of work on that site.

     • Read it, thanks- nothing “racist” or antisemitic there.

Comments are closed.