Podcast

Quillette Podcast 27 – Sir Roger Scruton on being sacked by the British Government for politically incorrect remarks about George Soros, China and Muslim immigration

Toby Young talks to Sir Roger Scruton, the conservative philosopher, about getting sacked as an advisor to the British Government after making some politically incorrect remarks, and the implications of his defenestration for intellectual freedom more widely.

11 Comments

  1. Jean de Valette says

    Wonderful man. Never mind the Chinese – I wish we could replicate Scruton. Thanks for this.

  2. AntonyG says

    The people creating all of these inclusive identities are not doing so out of being inclusive. It might sound like they are but they are actually excluding. The act of creating a group so that certain individuals are intentionally excluded is a well known form of behavioral intimidation. Marginalizing conservatives and Christians i.e. classical liberals is all part of the neo-Marxist agenda. The far-left have essentially switched to a strategy involving mass-level fakery.

    The act of pretending to care about minority groups e.g. fake virtue signaling, has fooled so many people. Far-left activists welcome ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ with open arms with a full agenda in mind. Signalling to conservatives & Christians that their way of life is being destroyed, and rubbing it in with glee. Fake tears and fake cries of oppression used to shutdown opposition speech. They have even created fake areas of sanctuary i.e. safe spaces, so that the full image of an oppressor can easily be created. Roger Scruton and Toby Young are clueless about neo-Marxism. Totally stuck in the past.

    • scribblerg says

      Antony – Note they don’t actually “welcome them” into their communities. The people making these policy choices live in Whitelandia, send their kids to private schools and socialize in ways that they’ll never run into a newly arrived impoverished immigrant.

      No, that’s left to the poor and working classes to deal with. Or in Canada, even more strangely, they live in many hotels that aren’t part of any real communities, isolated from the rest of society. But be clear – no Progressive is going to want to welcome these people into his/her home.

      Rebel Media just did a great vid on this. They interviewed people on the street, many who were good progressives who said, “Yes, of course I’d take an immigrant into my home.” Then the interviewer would introduce them to the immigrant they wanted to go home with them today and they all declined.

      • ... says

        I apologize for my bad English anyway, the same thing happens in Italy, all the familiar faces more favorable to immigration have said that they would never host an immigrant, asking for it is stupid because for them it is up to the State to find a place, we have places like Capalbio where we find the people of the left who are in favor of wild immigration, they are the ones who say we welcome them all, they tell us that we must not have closed borders, they are supportive and make statues about migrants, they accuse others of racism, however, they do not want migrants on their territory, we also have neighborhoods for rich people like the Parioli in Rome full of left-wing people but with a wallet on the right that explains to us that those who want walls are racist, however, they don’t even want migrants or gypsies.
        Everything ends up in the suburbs, in small towns, and sometimes there are problems with people getting angry, but immediately these people are called racist Islamophobic xenophobic fascist, so immediately the “antifascists” arrive they make a march shout “open the borders, no to the walls, death to Salvini “, the media are happy, the left is happy, our intellectuals smile, and the problems of the middle class poor and even the immigrants who live there … who cares.
        Ah, to be precise, I have always voted left, and the liberal Americans were my point of reference.
        They were.

  3. Great interview, with Sir Roger’s signature welcome dry humour.

  4. An interesting podcast and one I would recommend.

    I do think Sir Roger is slightly off the mark in criticising modern left wing politics. I think the problem falls outside the left/right dichotomy and is the result of victim/greivance politics which is arguably a tactic more than a political philosphy.

    Inherent contradictions mean it falls apart under any sort of examination not only the infinite permutations and conflicts between different vicimhood groups but the fact that it is inherenelty racist and sexist while claiming to fight racism and sexism. This is more common on the left than the right but Sir Roger has ironicalaly fallen victim to a right wing version of it by being accussed of being anti-semitic. This is arguably the predecessor and template for all identity politics due to its sucess. Obviously anti-semitism does exist but most commonly it is as a weapon to suppress criticism of Israel or more broadly jewish individuals or institutions.

    This ican be quite overt. I have no idea whether the labour party does or doesn’t have a genuine anti-semitism problem. It may or may not but it was noticeable that all of the initial demands to address ‘anti-semitism’ were for them to adopt a definition of anti-semitism which prevented describing Israel as a racist state. A few weeks later Jeremy Corbyn was criticised for being anti-semitic and provocative by attending a passover meal with Jewish left wing activists who were critical of Israel. I think Jeremy Corbyn to be both morally dishonest and incompetent but that he wishes to meet left wing Jews can not be taken of evidence of anything but that he is sympathetic to left wing political groups.

    The point is that the accusation of victimisation which is central to all identity/victim politics is divorced from its original meaning, logic or evidence as long as it is made by a member of the supposedly victimsed group. This is its strength logic and argument don’t matter it is simply an emotional appeal by a ‘victim’ aganst a ‘victimiser’. Sir Roger can be accused of anti-semitism simply because he criticised a Jew, anyone arguing against a woman can be accused of misogyny and so on. The natural reaction to any one who appears upset by something said is to apologise for casuing offence but thsi is taken as admission and confirmation of wrong doing thereby strengthening the power of whatever group is claiming to be victimised.

    None of this is inherently left or right wing but it is destructive with competing claims to victimisation atomising communities/society and the promotion of emotion above logic preventing debate and the possibility of consensus.

  5. X. Citoyen says

    Scruton’s remark about the shallowness and crassness of people who fancy themselves the smart and enlightened set is the most disturbing part of his story, and the most disturbing part of the social justice movement generally. They have to know a reckoning is coming at some point.

  6. Donald Collins says

    Anti semites use the word Jews also, should the world quit using that in their speech. How about the word cars, I have heard racist use that word also, should we all quit using the word cars?

    That the person took empire to mean Jews says more of him than the word empire, which means what it means in any context

  7. Stephen Sinnott says

    Religious dogma divides,sex divides,we are sectarian and division is natural. My sect is idiosyncratic,me myself and I. Courtesy of Joan Armatrading.

  8. Geoge Tyrebyter says

    Is this available as a transcription in any place? I dislike podcasts, as they are usually a huge waste of time and the actual important stuff is buried in a sea of blather.

Comments are closed.