So what part of

many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire — Maw

is antisemitic? That Jews are part of the intelligentsia, or that they form a network? That they are in Budapest? That they are associated with the "Soros Empire"? Can't Soros have an empire?

Would we say that "many of the Budapest intelligentsia are [GAY], [ENGLISH], [CHINESE], and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire" is homophobic, anglophobic, or sinophobic?

Slightly off-topic but I'm glad to see this thread.

One of your mods thinks Australia has a rape culture, another thinks the modern extreme left is benign. I thought perhaps I was dealing with some kind of extreme left-wing forum owner but I don't know if someone like that could make a thread like this, it seems that way to me. I'm glad to see this forum's owner is more balanced than that.

Use your brain, I know you have one, I've seen you use it.

His exact quote was, "many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire," and which is a hairsplitting distinction from outright saying, "Jewish intelligentsia networks", and committed or even casual antisemites wouldn't see any significant difference. — Maw

I disagree. To me the gulf between the two is unfathomably large.

The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though.

In the unsympathetic/outrage ladened media narrative and most reactions there won't be much of a distinction between Scruton's remarks and their vulgarisations, however. In that regard they're already co-opted and should be treated with suspicion; though how much suspicion depends heavily on the context of discussion.

Government sacks Roger Scruton after remarks about Soros and Islamophobia — jamalrob

Do governments sack their housing advisers because of them being [something]-phobic? Of course not. They sack them because what they uttered makes them look bad in the eyes of someone else who holds power whatever needs to be held power over. As much as discussing validity of his claims can be interesting, it is useless when it comes to politics.

The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though. — fdrake

That's pretty much my view on it too.

I don't want to step too far away from the issue, but I've been flailing against this kind of over-sensitive censorship for a few years now.

When thinkers/writers/academics/speakers that we value listening to are de-platformed or otherwise marginalized (unfairly), it's not just the individual being de-platformed that is harmed, it's us as well (our right to hear the ideas of others).

Free-speech is also meant to protect our right to listen if we want to. I'll be the first to point out that nobody is entitled to the private platforms of others, but we've managed to create a situation where individual private platforms (and governments) are absolutely terrified of being socially sanctioned for making an incorrect decision about who should be allowed to use them (making them inaccessible in practice to people with opposing views).

Nobody cares about seeing both sides of an argument anymore. They want the other side to go away, and if they don't get what they want they'll make unending fuss. The result is that platforms now have to cater to specific political niches, because exposing their audience to opposition would garner outrage from either polarized end. Are there any major news networks that still have politically diverse viewer bases?

It has a very chilling effect on democratic health. Instead of finding a coherent middle, the chasm between the left and the right just keeps growing...

The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though. — fdrake

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. I would assume a public intellectual would be familiar with such tropes. Scruton is, it should be noted, friendly with Viktor Orbán, who is an antisemite, despite having said accusations against Orbán as an antisemite were "nonsense", so I can't imagine he has a rosy view of Jews. Wouldn't surprise me coming from a man who said Islamophobia isn't real.

Having an antisemitic friend doesn't make you an antisemite, though I do agree that it is weak evidence (not in a derogatory sense, it is still evidence) in favour of Scruton having little sympathy for Jews, which is in turn weak evidence for him having little sympathy for Muslims.

Though I don't buy the inference, I can understand why someone would be suspicious, and such suspicion probably warrants his sacking.

Having an antisemitic friend doesn't make you an antisemite — fdrake

Sure, but I didn't say that, I said that he described accusations of antisemitism against Orbán as "nonsense". I would also add that suggesting Islamophobia isn't real is more than having "little sympathy" for Muslims, especially when you add other comments of his, such as, "sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," when describing refugees and immigrants.

Sure, but I didn't say that, I said that he described accusations of antisemitism against Orbán as "nonsense". I would also add that suggesting Islamophobia isn't real is more than having "little sympathy" for Muslims, especially when you add other comments of his, such as, "sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," when describing refugees and immigrants. — Maw

The connotations of those things aren't particularly good, I agree. And yes, I also agree that it is quite unfortunate that he said those things and also that those things could be dogwhistles. I just think this is more of a case of an educated bloke being an unwitting vehicle for prejudice he would sincerely condemn if asked about it.

The connotations of those things aren't particularly good — fdrake

I think one could reasonably go so far as to say they are very bad actually!

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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'.

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 — ssu

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...

Btw folks, don't think Roger Scruton gives a fuck about any of you. You aren't required to defend his honor.

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 antisemite — Maw

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.

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.

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.

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 thinking — ssu

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".

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.

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.

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.



You'll probably drink to that too.

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 campaign — ssu

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.

God damn, can you please read what I actually write — Maw

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.