Sir Roger Scruton

For a more regulation summing up by Dellers, see here.

This is a bit different, seeing him in the light of Andrei Sakharov and way back, Alexis de Tocqueville, each in his own way.

Sir Roger was known for his activism in Communist-controlled eastern Europe during the Cold War, and supported underground education networks. For his work in supporting dissidents in Czechoslovakia, he was awarded the Medal of Merit by the Czech government in 1998.

A less worshipful take was by commenter Schrödinger’s Cat:

I had been a fan of Scruton for some four decades and for very much the same reasons and background which he had.

He was surrounded by a veritable sea of Communism and Socialism at Birkbeck but it never deterred him.

He retired from academia and bought and lived on a farm in the Cotswolds where he threw himself into the rigours of traditional farm life – it seemed such a healthy thing to do and one imagined he would have carried into old age with ease – unfortunately, that was not to be the case.

There was just one point on which I felt he was gravely mistaken and that was in his reading of TRUMP. As a gentleman academic, he could not read the President well. He did not see that some of TRUMP’s moves were disguised plays to draw the opposition out onto the wrong ground. It is well recorded and there is a video of him expressing his distaste. So I mention this here as it is bound to get out.

I am sure that, had he lived, he would have been a major supporter of the outcomes that TRUMP has and will achieve. The Ivory Tower, from which I had imagined him to be immune, still hold traps.

RIP Roger Scruton. One of my leading lights.

Yes and no. As a tweeter with Deplorable in the handle, I’m primarily pro-Trump and yet even the enemy can get it right now and then:

CFR Pres. Richard Haas: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.” – AND, Trump Hasn’t a Clue!

I replied:

And the SPPNA? Scroll past my opening guff until you get to the organisation itself:

Essentially, North America, with the collusion of Bush, Martin and Fox were to be under the guidance, in the areas listed in that post, of the North American Advisory Council who were, essentially, the CFR itself.

Any pundit worth his blogging knows the background to the CFR and TLC, the latter tied in with all the major baddies on the continent [posts passim].

So, though the CFR are seen by many of us as baddies, nevertheless, by being integrally involved with the NAU and its successor the SPPNA, which was essentially NAFTA with tweaks, as CFR Pres Haas, said.

And if anyone knows NAFTA, Haas would.

The writer at American Policy Center, Rich Loudenbach, said:

Trump’s signing the USMCA will, in fact, be the biggest mistake of his presidency to date and unfortunately will probably become his enduring legacy. He will be ‘The US President That Signed Off America’ to be run by the UN/globalist community steered most largely in America by the clandesant deep state managers at the Council on Foreign Relations in lockstep with their UN/globalist comrades.

Now, if we revisit Schrödinger’s Cat’s take on Trump knowing and playing the enemy, that does not align with a document actually signed off on, which Haas mentions.  Meanwhile, we have Iran and Hal and Sparkle dominating the media, plus my own posts on same.

The DemRats have cooperated with Trump’s people on USMCA – that alone is a worry … or should be … to him.  But it’s not because he trusts his advisors, or so it seems.

Which then brings us to this:

Which brings us back to a version of TTIP because Boris has not left the EU in the least – look again at the terms of WA2 which impression he did nothing to dispel in his recent meeting with Ursula van Whatever.

Now – what would Sir Roger have made of all this, had he gone beyond philosophy and looked at the fine print?  It’s an interesting one.  Where would he have been on a variety of issues and would he equate globalism with communism?

My feeling is that if he could have lived, all faculties intact, he would play a major part in conservative thinking and his list of heroes and villains may well have had a few surprises in it.

2 comments for “Sir Roger Scruton

  1. January 13, 2020 at 2:01 am

    A great British mind. Vale.

    No-one gets everything absolutely right.

    • January 13, 2020 at 7:41 am

      “No one gets absolutely everything right.”

      I prefer to call it events overtaking the view we had earlier. In terms of postwar eastern Europe, SRS was probably right. He may well still be right on the Donald, given what’s about to happen. Fundamental values turn out to be right, e.g. family, ethics, inheritance, communism or whatever they currently call it, e.g. “democratic” socialism, is always ultimately wrong.

      Valentine Grey pooh-poohs Polly and brings in the old chestnut fluoridisation, which has huge pitfalls. Yet her approach is sound – she lists connections and quotes the source but then must join some dots, saying it’s her take, not saying it’s gospel truth.

      An example is the neural pathway from outside the body [Mindful Infusions] which that crowd in Utah says works a certain way. The obvious question is – how would they know? The only way they’d know it works is experiments on humans, e.g. the type by Cameron and Leeks. That raises questions of oversight of these monsters.

      Which then brings us to people judging from their incomplete knowledge base, even if of the investigative kind. Things move on, snippets appear.

      Or else Polly is plain wrong, not on the evidence presented but from her overview of just what the overall game plan is.

      An example is a Dilbert cartoon we’re running today at which, a woman asserts guilt by association. Dilbert then takes a selfie of the two of them.

      My suggestion is don’t categorically refute unless you’re a troll. If a seeker though, then put what can be confirmed on the table, step back and see if it makes any sense at that point in time. If not – keep gathering and ferreting.

Comments are closed.