Scruton: Another reason to see off the Tories at the next poll

The sacking of our most eminent conservative philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton, from his post as chair of the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful’ Commission for having expressed opinions about the validity of the term Islamophobia, the influence of George Soros, and the brainwashing of the Chinese – opinions with which most conservatives would agree – tells us all we need to know about the modern Conservative party.

Of course, he had to go. The Party subscribes to, and rigorously enforces, the doctrines of multiculturalism, identity politics and social justice according to which any expression of opinion which causes offence (on account of a person’s disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour – most notably if they are from a group considered to be an oppressed or marginalised minority) is designated a hate crime. Number Ten put it succinctly in its customary Newspeak. Sir Roger’s remarks were ‘deeply offensive’ and ‘completely unacceptable’.

But has Scruton not been a touch naïve in some of his recent pronouncements? In the past, he has written with matchless eloquence and sensitivity about the English, their culture, their history, their church, their sense of national identity. Much of his writing is in elegiac vein, a lament for a lost culture, a culture that the elite has repudiated. In Where We Are, his most recent work, Scruton defends the right to free speech, including to satirize and ridicule, including about matters of faith; and he argues the need to address radical Islam by promoting ‘free and public discussion of Islam and its meaning’. Again, most conservatives would agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. They are hardly ‘extreme’. They are not even especially conservative. Atheists like Christopher Hitchens have advocated them with far more vehemence.

However, Scruton also holds out the hope of a more inclusive British identity encompassing multiple ‘aspects of belonging’ – so that you can be a ‘British Nigerian’ or a ‘British Pakistani’. And it is precisely this new all-inclusive culture-free British identity, with its concomitant British values of compulsory tolerance and diversity, that Scruton has insulted (by causing offence to minority groups) and consequently fallen victim to.

Scruton, until now, has put his political faith in the Conservative Party as the political movement that best embodies the English tradition, the English settlement, the English way of doing politics. Is it not time he recognised that the modern Conservative Party represents completely the opposite, the active destruction of this precious inheritance?   


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

19 Comments on Scruton: Another reason to see off the Tories at the next poll

  1. A key problem is the 2010 Equalities Act, the late offspring of three parents – H. Marcuse, A. Gramsci & T. May.

    It will not be repealed by Bojo, Mogg or any others from that stable.

    The Holocaust Centre alongside Parliament will stand as a Perpetual Warning.

  2. It astonishes me that people cannot be moved to rage at the Pakistanisation of a town like Blackburn that has become Karachi transplanted, complete with shop signs in Arabic, and the universal hijab and niqab for women. I will admit that this is hearsay.

    As to British Nigerians or Pakistanis, their nationality, once they have a British passport is – British, and their native language is English, and all documents in the local authorities should be universally in English and no other language (except perhaps Welsh, Gaelic.Cornish etc etc). But is there a single speaker of these ancient languages a non-English speaker?

    Finally, Islamophobia is not appropriate – we do not fear Islam – we reject its values in our society. Homophobia, similarly, is nonsense as it translates (from the Greek) as fear of the same.

    Islam prefers that we use the word “racist” against them. It is not – it is a religious matter, but the catch-all phrase is useful in law.

    • With respect, it’s not shop signs that are the issue. The USA has such quarters in abundance. What has changed is the unwillingness to meet the welcoming culture even half way or to acknowledge the evils from which they have escaped. The repressive dress adopted by men and women is a case in point. Young women are savagely whipped and raped for not wearing such garments in Iran, Saud and other Islamic ruled countries. You would think British women would be ashamed not to sympathise with them.

      • It is important to not treat migrants in a monolithic, binary way. Many migrants like myself are fleeing persecution etc. in their home countries and are grateful to their host countries for the sanctuary, protection and strong borders they provide. What we fear most is the open borders and mass immigration policies that white liberals are so fond of (e.g. the FT and The Economist journalists) because they allow the very people we are fleeing from to follow us.

    • Perhaps our problem lies with the legacy of Christian morality in Western society. The Christian virtue of self abnegation and unceasing critical examination of one’s own thoughts and actions has carried over into the post-Christian world. Now that God has been dispatched as a primitive superstition all that is left of the Christian legacy is a soft socialist drive toward universal niceness. What could be more noble (it seems) than facing up to your inherent xenophobia, sexism etc? If you are a conservative there are plenty of “redeemed” souls on the left who will help you confront your moral shortcomings having been cleansed of the sins of political incorrectness themselves.

      Even when others, from career criminals to brutal religious fanatics show no interest in examining their consciences our political and administrative class are reluctant to condemn them outright. As has been said many times, you can’t have a true conservative government in a liberal culture.

      The “Suicide of the West” is often mentioned but perhaps we should see it as death by dogooder.

  3. So what if a minority group is offended.

    It’s open season on white people (‘The Cancer of History’ according to the ‘philosopher Susan Sontag) and white makes in particular, with total impunity for those who smear us and our Civilisation.

  4. We agree that the Conservative Party deserves chastisement. But the fissiparous nature of the alternative is a weakness and a worry:
    The Brexit Party
    For Britain

  5. Scruton has been libelled by the distortion of what he said and the accusations of white supremacy from the usual quarters. Not engaging in discussion of Islam with infidels and claiming victimhood is the first stage of Jihad, all clear from scripture. Nasser had trouble with the Muslim Brotherhood (NB the sisters are not mentioned and keep their traps shut if they know what’s good for them). After taking control he made a speech to a laughing cheering crowd in which he mocked the MB’s demand that he make a law that every women walking in the Egyptian streets wear a hijab. Such progress we have made since then.

  6. One more piece of evidence that the Tories have been swamped by Lib Dems. only a few stout characters like Bill Cash or Rees Mogg still flying a conservative banner. Furthermore, what this presages is May ordering the government to adopt the Mulsim Council’s policy to have “Islamophobia” ranked as a “hate” crime;

  7. The Conservative party has become cowed by accusations of “Islamophobia”. Winston Churchill was outspoken in his criticism of Islam. No doubt that he would also be expelled from the modern Conservative party if he were alive today. This is how far it has sunk.
    Farage is great regarding EU matters. However, he will not speak out about Islam. Islam is the next major matter to be addressed, beyond Brexit.
    UKIP under Gerard Batten does speak out. However, my understanding is that he will step down as the leader, and then who knows whether UKIP will flip flop on this again.
    The For Britain party under Anne Marie Waters, although less well known than UKIP, is building on solid foundations. If you are concerned about the matters raised by Sir Roger, then do see what this party has to offer.

    • The white leaders of the CoPINO (“Conservative Party In Name Only”) are merely acting rationally in anticipating the mass auto-da-fé that will start when Europe is overrun and the new leaders take over. They know that the days of the battle to save Western civilization has been lost from within – its institutions (mass media, education, the military, the civil service) have been completely infiltrated and controlled by the cultural Marxists – and are simply saying all the right things in order to to save their own skins.

      • Sheilagh,
        Churchill said, “never give up”. Of course, Churchill would surely be expelled from the modern Conservative party, for his so-called “Islamophobic” views.
        By my calculation, we have until sometime in the decade 2030 to 2040 to the point of no return of the Islamisation of the UK. I shall give up in 2040 if we have not turned it around by then.

        You can see my reasoning here regarding the demographic transition:

  8. I agree entirely with the author’s assessment of the Conservative party: conservative in name only, with its philosophical and political thrust in the exact opposite position. (Or, to quote Garet Garrett paraphrasing Aristotle, we have witnessed ‘a revolution within the form’.)

    I only ask: If not the Tories, then who? (I take it the new ‘Brexit party’ — admittedly an unknown quantity — has only been formed to fight the election to the (Egad!) European Parliament.

    Can the European Research Group (by no means a perfect organisation) coalesce sufficient numbers to make an honourable showing?

    • Good question. Maybe a crisis will provide an opportunity for reconfiguration. A Labour government (that can’t be ruled out) will introduce blasphemy laws and such other assaults on freedom and free speech that a reaction might be provoked and after 5 years of hell a chance to roll back. Horrifying prospect, but hard to see what else is possible.

  9. “… that Scruton has insulted (by causing offence to minority groups)…”

    What offence? What insult? The Chinese Communist Party is not a minority group anymore than is the Muslim Brotherhood. It was not these groups who complained of insult but a left wing editor of the New Statesman celebrated getting Scruton sacked by tweeting truncated version to distort the meaning of what Scruton said.

    The failure of this article’s author to explain the background reflects very poorly on the Salisbury Review.

    • I meant it ironically, which ought to be clear from the rest of the piece. Salisbury Review readers are intelligent and informed enough to know the context and background. In any case, the new diversity-mongers don’t do background or context – they just take offence. And questioning the validity of the terms ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘multi-culture’ in any shape or form is quite enough to get one condemned as a fascist and racist.

    • Chinese are not white or Western. They are therefore an honorary minority.

      Many ethnic groups are majorities in the areas where they live, but are still classed as minorities by the broad left. It should be noted that support for ‘minorities’, like support for ‘the working class’, like support for ‘environmentalism’, are not movements aimed at helping their nominal subject topics, but rather movements aimed at removing the current Establishment and substituting their own people into positions of power.

      Once this is understood the behaviour of the Establishment makes sense. Rather than being ‘removed’, they support whatever mad scheme these revolutionaries propose, in order to take the wind out of their sails.

      Thus we get the ability of people to change gender on a whim, positive discrimination in favour of the incompetent, the acceptance of criminals into Parliament and the destruction of the country’s educational system, health system, energy production and sovereignty.

      You couldn’t make it up. Though Chesterton had a good try in his ‘Flying Inn’…