"But aren't the far right as much of an issue as the far left?" When every major corporation and government institution has a white pride month you might have an argument
Yes. I clocked that knee-jerk response. We have been conditioned to look for right wing bogeymen for years and years, whilst remaining blind to the possibility of the terror coming from the left. I believe an incredible sleight of hand has been played on the people of the west since the end of WW2. Somehow the received wisdom has been fully embedded into our subconscious that left = good and right = racist. Hitler was on the left, he was a centraliser, he was for overthrow and seizing power for the workers (well, for himself really - bit hey, megalomaniacs). Pre-war, race essentialism and eugenics were solid, left wing ideas peddled by self-styled progressives. Bang! After the war and after the world realises that racism ends in hellish genocide, somebody had the bright idea of calling Hitler right wing. All Patriots, conservatives, traditionalists and pro family, pro nation, earnest grafters were suddenly suspects; we were Nazi Lite. It was a sick joke. The Nazi Party was an acronym of The National Socialist Workers Party. How is that NOT on the left? We've all been suckered on this point. And it's not a small problem either; Hitler casts the longest shadow.
Beautiful episode! I'm much more to the right and ethnic nationalism than these two, but I love both these men. 🥰 So nice to see Winston's style of interview, how he asked for a deeper explanations and definitions.
Yes, but one would think that going all over the world and bringing Britain everywhere will obviously result in people wanting to come to the "homeland". Same in France or Belgium. Less so in the Netherlands, weirdly enough Germany and Sweden have a fetish for muslim migrants.
Thanks to Winston for interviewing Hazony and letting him flesh out and explain his ideas & conclusions (based on so much knowledge of history and the great works of philosophy and economics and, obviously, Torah) & for asking for clarifications. A joy to see honorably behaved (and somewhat formally dressed) gentlemen in such deep and respectful conversation. And I must add that the theme music for The Spectator is the best on the ‘net (IMHO).
I think of myself as a conservative, and there are difficulties in co-operating with others who may not also be conservatives, for these reasons - we have become used to the liberalisation of our culture. Liberals have pushed for radical negotiability of all values, leading towards the review of all traditions and the widespread loss of a good many of them. A conservative has nowhere to turn for the defence, or conservation, of important traditions. This means that the observance of many values between people is now reliant upon the good luck of finding agreement with others, because there is, now, only a very weakened tradition to point to as a reference point for settling differences - even for agreeing to differ. Add to this an exotic cultural mix comprising new elements which are actively antithetical and the prospect for the conservative becomes bleaker by an order of magnitude.
The root of the problem with leftist friendships is that they require 100% agreement with them. Conservatives don't need 100% agreement. Implicit in not needing 100% agreement is that we all can have intelligent, evidence- based conversations about the areas where we disagree. French are generally able to debate among themselves this way. And that's likely one reason there is such a huge rejection of le Wokisme - it basically criminalized debate, in a nation where love of debate is a cultural trait. Leftists gonna gauche, and do support wokeisme, but they are guarded about it in mixed company. And they know any funny ideas involving pronouns in the already most sophisticated Romance language is a non starter. I suspect even trans radicals don't want any more conjugations to memorize.
21:55 the answer is no. How could it? The founding of a nation can accept or co-exist with minority groups, but only if they’re slowly Intergraded or if those groups implicitly agree to be in a lower caste or in some sort of asymmetrical economic exchange, otherwise a minority group will eventually rival the main group in size and fight in their groups self-interest. This is something Hazony knows and should be upfront about. Why does it matter? Because you’re currently seeing that struggle for power dynamic in real-time with in western countries as a result of mass immigration. The brilliant author Yascha Mounk talks about this and goes into great detail in his book The Great Experiment. I like Hazony’s ideas, but a lot of it can only be validated if groups of different races/ethnicities, religions or languages didn’t naturally grow contemptuous with each other. That’s something that Hazony skirts around. Almost like he’s trying to redefine the word nationalism. The politics and aims of a nation and a religious group is wholly different too, so I don’t know how I feel about him claiming they’re analogous and using that as a foundation for his ideas.
I'll give props to the Spectator for interviewing an actual conservative. I've heard the Spectator described as a conservative magazine before, but that just shows how narrow the Overton window is in the UK...
I think in biblical antiquity, nations were more centered on dynastic lineages, rather than ethno states. Modern nations are more centered around constitutions.
For some odd reason, Western Europeans after WW2 decided that nationalism unbound was a dangerous thing and opted for a robust EU system instead. Today most identify themselves not only in terms of natl allegiance but as EU citizens as well. What is Hazony's considered response to Hedley Bull's "Anarchical Society"?
I've got to hand it to the host for their intellectual take on politics; it's impressive stuff. But you know what? Politics, in the real world and in the broader scope, often dances to a different beat. It's not just about highfalutin theories; it's about the quirky, everyday decisions of people like you and me, who like or don't like the way a certain candidate speaks - not because of our understanding or lack thereof of John Locke's fundamental texts. Sometimes, it feels like we tune in to these podcasts to feel smarter, to grasp the intricate web of politics. Yet, deep down, we know that it's often the simple, sometimes even baffling stuff that steers the ship.
Conservatism is NOT absolutely NOR universally defined, lectured then practiced, for always relative to preserving or conserving preferences whether national, societal, tribal and/or personal. Often throughout history, conservatism was (and still is to some degree) the preservation or conservation of the current societal and governmental structure, or the resurrection of a past societal and governmental structure perceived as a return to something orthodoxic. The perceived orthodoxy usually consist of modified or propagandized history along with the conjured elevation of preferred leaders and/or politicians as founding fathers or ideological patriarchs. In short, whether democratically, popularly elected thus imposed versus oligarchically, monarchically determined thus imposed, Conservatism as well its counter Neo-Liberalism always transgress the one ism as logically, consistently, ethically defined... INDIVIDUALISM; to regard hence respect each and every person's Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on all matters as manifested per each and every person's Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. Without exemption or exception, all considerations must rest upon the aforesaid, else the unethical dilemma remaining unjustifiable ergo unresolvable till resumed and revered the one ethos and creed as determined then established since humanity first reasoned. The below ism the sum of all politically motivated thus governmentally enforced isms... PERVERSIONISM; to consent or dissent on all matters per his/her preference, yet remain discontented, disconcerted even disturbed until others act, speak even think compatibly, similarly by force legal or illegal thus force governmental, social or personal. It is critical to include in consideration and understanding the word and sentiment Covetousness as the indisputable perquisite to such perversion. Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice. Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
I’ve followed Hazony for a while. I initially thought he was right, but on reflection i don’t think he fully understands English Conservatism. The English version does not have the same 1789 root as almost all other varieties - and especially with what he calls National Conservatism. The English version is NOT a species of nationalism. Fundamentally it is rooted not in the idea of the nation or ‘national identity’. It is a disposition rooted in such things as tradition, scepticism and organicism. It thus long predates 1789 and the ideas which are derived from it, including nationalism. Having just re-read Margaret MacMillan’s ‘The War that ended Peace’ i am more than ever convinced that nationalism, which has been responsible for more division and bloodshed than almost any other idea in recent history, is not the answer. Perhaps it’s time to rehabilitate an idea of Socrates, who is reported to have said that he was a citizen not of Athens but of the world; by which of course he meant that as well as the obvious truth that he was politically a citizen of Athens, he was also and most importantly, a member of the human race.
A minority that becomes the majority (at least in civil war fighting spirit and fighting man power) will topple the system. The small, honoured minority that no longer wishes to live under the majority only wins, if it undermines the spirit of the majority piece by piece, and turn them into morally wrong, antisemitic, islamophobic, NAZI....., what only works, if the elite of the majority consists of many, the own people hating quasi foreigners, that wish for nothing else. The more I think it over the less sure I am.
German nationalism nearly conquered the world. Only the 'good' nationalism of English-Speaking countries was strong enough to stop that. Why have we undermined the antidote?
Conservatives (GOP) in America became notoriously obstructionist from Newt Gingrich (ca 1994) on. Hazony has things backwards (leaving to one side fringe extremists on the right and left). Since Trump, the GOP has become downright reactionary. Failure to recognize this makes Hazony seem woefully out of touch.
I'm sceptical but tbh he seems fairly sincere. He's a long way to the right of most mainstream conservatives" and explicitly rejects liberalism, which is a start. Wouldn't have a problem with what he says if he accepts that shared ancestry is one of the components of nationhood
@@StormDAlpha Thank you for your response. I found him humble. Maybe because he's such a contrast to those arrogant Just Stop Oil demonstrators, oblivious to their ignorance of STEM knowledge, where the 'T' is for Theology. :) NET Zero policies are creating a nightmare, and are being implemented by Arts and Humanities graduates that think intelligence is a substitute for knowledge. And the certainty of CO2 being the major agent in Climate Change is far from proved, but if the BBC says it's true, what else can one say? :)
The uk population is growing faster than any other major European country and is predicted to do so for sometime yet. The EU may like the idea of no borders and free movement but they have a large land mass and therefore can readily absorb mass migration which will distribute over time. The UK has a very clear physical border defining a much more finite area, already densely populated with crippling demands imposed on infrastructure and services.
"But aren't the far right as much of an issue as the far left?"
When every major corporation and government institution has a white pride month you might have an argument
Yes. I clocked that knee-jerk response. We have been conditioned to look for right wing bogeymen for years and years, whilst remaining blind to the possibility of the terror coming from the left.
I believe an incredible sleight of hand has been played on the people of the west since the end of WW2. Somehow the received wisdom has been fully embedded into our subconscious that left = good and right = racist. Hitler was on the left, he was a centraliser, he was for overthrow and seizing power for the workers (well, for himself really - bit hey, megalomaniacs).
Pre-war, race essentialism and eugenics were solid, left wing ideas peddled by self-styled progressives.
Bang!
After the war and after the world realises that racism ends in hellish genocide, somebody had the bright idea of calling Hitler right wing. All Patriots, conservatives, traditionalists and pro family, pro nation, earnest grafters were suddenly suspects; we were Nazi Lite.
It was a sick joke.
The Nazi Party was an acronym of The National Socialist Workers Party. How is that NOT on the left?
We've all been suckered on this point. And it's not a small problem either; Hitler casts the longest shadow.
It doesn't have to be a race thing. Just being pro 1st and 2nd amendment would be too right wing
@@dances_with_incels - Precisely my thought.
Beautiful episode! I'm much more to the right and ethnic nationalism than these two, but I love both these men. 🥰 So nice to see Winston's style of interview, how he asked for a deeper explanations and definitions.
I am delighted to see Prof. Hazony patiently educating the interviewer.
I never voted for Britain to be a multi ethnic or multi religious society.
Yes, but one would think that going all over the world and bringing Britain everywhere will obviously result in people wanting to come to the "homeland". Same in France or Belgium. Less so in the Netherlands, weirdly enough Germany and Sweden have a fetish for muslim migrants.
But it always was
And is it the anglos, the saxons, the normans or the celts that you'd like to leave the island first?
@@Andinov02why don't we start with you and go from there?
@XvonPocalypse and not like tomorrow
Thanks to Winston for interviewing Hazony and letting him flesh out and explain his ideas & conclusions (based on so much knowledge of history and the great works of philosophy and economics and, obviously, Torah) & for asking for clarifications. A joy to see honorably behaved (and somewhat formally dressed) gentlemen in such deep and respectful conversation. And I must add that the theme music for The Spectator is the best on the ‘net (IMHO).
And now 1 year later, the urgency of Hazony's arguments are more apparent than ever!!!!
I think of myself as a conservative, and there are difficulties in co-operating with others who may not also be conservatives, for these reasons - we have become used to the liberalisation of our culture. Liberals have pushed for radical negotiability of all values, leading towards the review of all traditions and the widespread loss of a good many of them. A conservative has nowhere to turn for the defence, or conservation, of important traditions. This means that the observance of many values between people is now reliant upon the good luck of finding agreement with others, because there is, now, only a very weakened tradition to point to as a reference point for settling differences - even for agreeing to differ. Add to this an exotic cultural mix comprising new elements which are actively antithetical and the prospect for the conservative becomes bleaker by an order of magnitude.
The root of the problem with leftist friendships is that they require 100% agreement with them. Conservatives don't need 100% agreement.
Implicit in not needing 100% agreement is that we all can have intelligent, evidence- based conversations about the areas where we disagree.
French are generally able to debate among themselves this way. And that's likely one reason there is such a huge rejection of le Wokisme - it basically criminalized debate, in a nation where love of debate is a cultural trait.
Leftists gonna gauche, and do support wokeisme, but they are guarded about it in mixed company. And they know any funny ideas involving pronouns in the already most sophisticated Romance language is a non starter.
I suspect even trans radicals don't want any more conjugations to memorize.
Yoram Hazony is a huge voice in conservatism. Thanks for this.
Mr. Marshall, just a suggestion - it’s a shame to waste all those nice shirt buttons.
"A conservative argument for immigration"
>gives liberal argument
21:55 the answer is no. How could it? The founding of a nation can accept or co-exist with minority groups, but only if they’re slowly Intergraded or if those groups implicitly agree to be in a lower caste or in some sort of asymmetrical economic exchange, otherwise a minority group will eventually rival the main group in size and fight in their groups self-interest. This is something Hazony knows and should be upfront about.
Why does it matter? Because you’re currently seeing that struggle for power dynamic in real-time with in western countries as a result of mass immigration. The brilliant author Yascha Mounk talks about this and goes into great detail in his book The Great Experiment.
I like Hazony’s ideas, but a lot of it can only be validated if groups of different races/ethnicities, religions or languages didn’t naturally grow contemptuous with each other. That’s something that Hazony skirts around. Almost like he’s trying to redefine the word nationalism. The politics and aims of a nation and a religious group is wholly different too, so I don’t know how I feel about him claiming they’re analogous and using that as a foundation for his ideas.
Winston needs to button up his shirt.
Brilliant talk, Yoram. The closing was magnificent.
Thank you. You didn't mention one of my favorite Hazony books, "The Dawn: a political analysis of the Book of Esther". It is profound.
Such a great conversation!
I'll give props to the Spectator for interviewing an actual conservative. I've heard the Spectator described as a conservative magazine before, but that just shows how narrow the Overton window is in the UK...
Winston seems to have found one of his missing buttons but has apparently yet to locate his errant t-shirt...
Yes you're a liberal. There's nothing wrong with ethnic identity.
I think in biblical antiquity, nations were more centered on dynastic lineages, rather than ethno states. Modern nations are more centered around constitutions.
For some odd reason, Western Europeans after WW2 decided that nationalism unbound was a dangerous thing and opted for a robust EU system instead. Today most identify themselves not only in terms of natl allegiance but as EU citizens as well. What is Hazony's considered response to Hedley Bull's "Anarchical Society"?
Good interview.
This is brilliant.
Word.
I've got to hand it to the host for their intellectual take on politics; it's impressive stuff. But you know what? Politics, in the real world and in the broader scope, often dances to a different beat. It's not just about highfalutin theories; it's about the quirky, everyday decisions of people like you and me, who like or don't like the way a certain candidate speaks - not because of our understanding or lack thereof of John Locke's fundamental texts. Sometimes, it feels like we tune in to these podcasts to feel smarter, to grasp the intricate web of politics. Yet, deep down, we know that it's often the simple, sometimes even baffling stuff that steers the ship.
Conservatism is NOT absolutely NOR universally defined, lectured then practiced, for always relative to preserving or conserving preferences whether national, societal, tribal and/or personal. Often throughout history, conservatism was (and still is to some degree) the preservation or conservation of the current societal and governmental structure, or the resurrection of a past societal and governmental structure perceived as a return to something orthodoxic. The perceived orthodoxy usually consist of modified or propagandized history along with the conjured elevation of preferred leaders and/or politicians as founding fathers or ideological patriarchs. In short, whether democratically, popularly elected thus imposed versus oligarchically, monarchically determined thus imposed, Conservatism as well its counter Neo-Liberalism always transgress the one ism as logically, consistently, ethically defined...
INDIVIDUALISM; to regard hence respect each and every person's Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on all matters as manifested per each and every person's Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. Without exemption or exception, all considerations must rest upon the aforesaid, else the unethical dilemma remaining unjustifiable ergo unresolvable till resumed and revered the one ethos and creed as determined then established since humanity first reasoned.
The below ism the sum of all politically motivated thus governmentally enforced isms...
PERVERSIONISM; to consent or dissent on all matters per his/her preference, yet remain discontented, disconcerted even disturbed until others act, speak even think compatibly, similarly by force legal or illegal thus force governmental, social or personal. It is critical to include in consideration and understanding the word and sentiment Covetousness as the indisputable perquisite to such perversion.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
I’ve followed Hazony for a while. I initially thought he was right, but on reflection i don’t think he fully understands English Conservatism. The English version does not have the same 1789 root as almost all other varieties - and especially with what he calls National Conservatism. The English version is NOT a species of nationalism. Fundamentally it is rooted not in the idea of the nation or ‘national identity’. It is a disposition rooted in such things as tradition, scepticism and organicism. It thus long predates 1789 and the ideas which are derived from it, including nationalism. Having just re-read Margaret MacMillan’s ‘The War that ended Peace’ i am more than ever convinced that nationalism, which has been responsible for more division and bloodshed than almost any other idea in recent history, is not the answer. Perhaps it’s time to rehabilitate an idea of Socrates, who is reported to have said that he was a citizen not of Athens but of the world; by which of course he meant that as well as the obvious truth that he was politically a citizen of Athens, he was also and most importantly, a member of the human race.
Its so strange that rightist intellectuals can't seem to rationalize without using religion.
that interviewer is lucky to be so hot, the man stutters a lot when he is asking questions
What happens when the small, honoured minority no longer wish to live such under honours bestowed by the majority?
A minority that becomes the majority (at least in civil war fighting spirit and fighting man power) will topple the system.
The small, honoured minority that no longer wishes to live under the majority only wins,
if it undermines the spirit of the majority piece by piece, and turn them into morally wrong, antisemitic, islamophobic, NAZI.....,
what only works, if the elite of the majority consists of many, the own people hating quasi foreigners, that wish for nothing else.
The more I think it over the less sure I am.
German nationalism nearly conquered the world. Only the 'good' nationalism of English-Speaking countries was strong enough to stop that. Why have we undermined the antidote?
Good interview, as always. I was rather surprised and unimpressed by Hazony, his overview of what conservatism is was rather confused.
Conservatives (GOP) in America became notoriously obstructionist from Newt Gingrich (ca 1994) on. Hazony has things backwards (leaving to one side fringe extremists on the right and left). Since Trump, the GOP has become downright reactionary. Failure to recognize this makes Hazony seem woefully out of touch.
Thumb up for Hazony. Marshalls self righteous, to much intelligence, left leaning makes me angry.
Just a rebranding of neo-con egalitarianism
of course a man in a small hat wants to redefine conservativism and nationalism, i'm sure he's totally sincere
Don't be a nazi.
I'm sceptical but tbh he seems fairly sincere. He's a long way to the right of most mainstream conservatives" and explicitly rejects liberalism, which is a start.
Wouldn't have a problem with what he says if he accepts that shared ancestry is one of the components of nationhood
@@StormDAlpha
Thank you for your response. I found him humble. Maybe because he's such a contrast to those arrogant Just Stop Oil demonstrators, oblivious to their ignorance of STEM knowledge, where the 'T' is for Theology. :)
NET Zero policies are creating a nightmare, and are being implemented by Arts and Humanities graduates that think intelligence is a substitute for knowledge. And the certainty of CO2 being the major agent in Climate Change is far from proved, but if the BBC says it's true, what else can one say? :)
The uk population is growing faster than any other major European country and is predicted to do so for sometime yet. The EU may like the idea of no borders and free movement but they have a large land mass and therefore can readily absorb mass migration which will distribute over time. The UK has a very clear physical border defining a much more finite area, already densely populated with crippling demands imposed on infrastructure and services.
@@StormDAlpha - Nailed it!
Yoram Hazony doesn’t have any clear ideas about anything.
Were there particular concepts that you thought he struggled to articulate?
@@tobyyorke2539 no, I was left with no clear idea of what concepts he was trying to articulate.
He political philosopher, not a pundit or policy maker
And I think, you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand him.