The final speaker of the morning session was Yoram Hazony. It was an interesting performance to behold. He started out criticizing neoconservatives, making the absurd claim that the current crop of neocons are not the real neocons. They have strayed from the original into imperialism. Then he let it be known that one of the sponsors for this show was The public Interest, a neocon quarterly founded by Irving Kristol. The fact that he said this without laughing was quite remarkable.
He then moved onto libertarianism. It’s interesting to hear these guys criticize libertarianism, because they don’t really know why they oppose it. They just associate it with the cultural decline, so they assume it is the cause. There’s also a reactionary vibe to their fight with the libertarians. These new nationalists don’t like the libertarians, because libertarians oppose nationalism. For their purposes, maybe that’s enough to dismiss the economic arguments against their brand of nationalism.
The third part of his speech was a trade about white nationalism. He fumbled around trying to say something about biological reality, but that made him sound like a nut from the flat earth society. Then he warned about the threat of white nationalism, especially among young people. Then he made the claim that there is no such thing as tribal loyalty, which is an odd thing, given that he claims a nation is a collection of tribes. As in his book, it’s clear he terrifies himself when he follows his logic to its conclusion….
The funny thing about this event is not a single person has bothered to mention that conservatism, whether neocon or Buckley, managed to conserve nothing.
They managed to derail the Tea Party, but I very much doubt they’ll be successful in jumping in front of the nationalist parade. I addressed this very topic in last night’s Darkstream.
Politics in America, Britain, and other Western nations have taken a sharp turn toward nationalism—a commitment to a world of independent nations. This has been disorienting to many, not least the American conservative movement, which has, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, grown increasingly attached to a vision of a global “rules-based liberal order” that would bring peace and prosperity to the entire world while attenuating the independence of nations.
The return of nationalism has created a much-discussed “crisis of conservatism” that may be unprecedented since modern Anglo-American conservatism was formulated by Russell Kirk, William Buckley, and their colleagues in the 1950s. At the heart of this crisis is a question: Is the new American and British nationalism a hostile usurper that has arrived on the scene to displace political conservatism? Or is nationalism an essential, if neglected, part of the Anglo-American conservative tradition at its best?
The conference on “National Conservatism” will bring together public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing.
We see this public conference as the kick off for a protracted effort to recover and reconsolidate the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race. Our aim is to solidify and energize national conservatives, offering them a much-needed institutional base, substantial ideas in the areas of public policy, political theory, and economics, and an extensive support network across the country.
Conservatives couldn’t conserve the ladies room. Don’t count on them to save the American nation. They’re not nationalists, they’re Neoclowns 2.0.
Epstein’s connection to intelligence, whether foreign or domestic, almost certainly explains the special “deal of a lifetime” that Epstein related to his 2006 plea bargain.
I also noted that it appeared his real job was to run a blackmail operation to ensnare some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth. I alluded to the possibility that he was collecting this priceless information on behalf of a third party, and then just today we learn the following via the Daily Beast:
“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)… For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves is well-known in his circle, remained untouchable.
It should be noted the reason I attach credibility to the above is based on who wrote it, Vicky Ward. She has an extensive history of digging into Epstein, and wrote one of the earliest profiles on him back in 2003. As she notes in today’s article:
I spent many months on his trail in 2002 for Vanity Fair and discovered not only that he was not who he claimed to be professionally, but also that he had allegedly assaulted two young sisters, one of whom had been underage at the time. Very bravely, they were prepared to go on the record. They were afraid he’d use all his influence to discredit them—and their fear turned out to be legitimate. As the article was being readied for publication, Epstein made a visit to the office of Vanity Fair’s then-editor, Graydon Carter, and suddenly the women and their allegations were removed from the article. “He’s sensitive about the young women,” Carter told me at the time. (Editor’s Note: Carter has previously denied this allegation.) He also mentioned he’d finagled a photograph of Epstein in a swimsuit out of the encounter. And there was also some feeble excuse about the article “being stronger as a business story.” (Epstein had also leaned heavily on my ex-husband’s uncle, Conrad Black, to try to exert his influence on me, which was particularly unwelcome, given that Black happened to be my ex-husband’s boss at the time.)
Many people had assumed Epstein was untouchable merely because he had so much dirt on so many powerful people, but it increasingly looks far bigger than that. It appears he may have been untouchable because he was systematically collecting this information on behalf of an intelligence agency. If so, we need to find out precisely who he was working for.
There isn’t too much doubt concerning the most likely intelligence agency, given the way in which Epstein’s background and connections are being scrubbed as we speak. But the effort is pointless, given the way in which more and more people are noticing the obvious patterns.
BS: From a Jewish point of view, where we don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. There you can make an argument, that the Gospels which were written significantly-
JR: He was just a prophet.
BS: No, no, no. We don’t even think he was a prophet.
JR: What do you think he was? What do you guys think he was?
BS: Well, I, I, I, what do I think he was historically? I think he was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble. Just like a lot of other Jews at that time who tried to lead revolts against the Romans and got killed for their trouble.
JR: So he became legend, and story, and it became a bigger and bigger deal as time went on.
BS: Yeah, he had a group of followers and that gradually grew.
JR: Do you think he was resurrected?
BS: No. That’s not a Jewish belief.
JR: Okay. I just wanted to check.
BS: We’re not into miracle stories, no. That’s not.
JR: You don’t have any miracles?
BS: Not by Jesus. There was in the Old Testament. Yeah, you’ve got Moses splitting the sea and all that.
JR: What do you think happened there?
BS: What do I think happened there? I’ll go with my Maimonidean explanation. There was, it says in the Bible, there was a strong east wind. So there was a naturalistic explanation for a physical phenomenon.
JR: That makes sense.
BS: That’s what Maimonides is constantly trying to do.
Big Bear sums up Shapiro and the so-called conservatives who are foolish enough to support him against the interests of their nation, their families, and their faith in a succinct manner: If you’re a Christian and you just heard that and you ever support him again, you’re a liar, you’re a satanist, and you’re evil.
The inescapable historical fact is that Muslims have FAR more in common with Christians than Jews do. It is considerably more accurate to talk about shared Islamo-Christian values than Judeo-Christian values. Notice that Shapiro’s Maimonidean answer about Jesus Christ is very, very different than even the non-believers of Jesus’s day, as well as being very different from whom we believe Jesus Christ to be.
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. – Matthew 16:13-17
It is a mystery why Shapiro has any audience at all, considering his highly irritating way of speaking, jabbering away like angry chipmunk, but some powerful people REALLY want these views out there, so they push him hard, … but we digress.
Shapiro’s audience are boomers, Jews, and other assorted not too bright conservatives who have a high tolerance for nails scratching on a chalk board.
And even they aren’t buying his warmongering.
He really is getting completely DESTROYED in the comments. The negative ratio is nearly 9:1. And these aren’t people who realize that the Littlest Chickenhawk has been calling for war with Iran since 2005!
The intensity of the ongoing neoclown campaign against Western nationalism and the shamelessness with which they are attempting to redefine the perfectly straightforward concepts of “nationalism” and “Western civilization” indicates that they know they are on their way out. Again. In his recent column, (((Dennis Prager))) offers the precise opposite of “clarity” about nationalism:
Nationalism is beautiful when it involves commitment to an essentially decent nation and when it welcomes other people’s commitment to their nations. Nationalism is evil when it is used to celebrate an evil regime, when it celebrates a nation as inherently superior to all others and when it denigrates all other national commitments.
One should add that nationalism is evil when it celebrates race, but that is not nationalism; it is racism. Nationalism and racism may be conjoined, as German Nazism did. But they are not definitionally related. While some Americans have conjoined American nationalism with race (such as the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and currently various fringe “white identity” movements), American nationalism, based as it is on the motto “e pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally “white.”
Notice the way in which the horrifically deceptive devil’s son completely omits both the most relevant definition of nationalism from the dictionary as well as its etymological roots. He is truly of his father, the deceiver.
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
Nationalism is, by logic, linguistics, and definition, a subset of racism because nation is a subset of race. The only “nationalism” that is not intrinsically related to race is civic nationalism, which is not nationalism at all, but an ersatz paperwork substitute for it.
The irony, of course, is that these neoclowns are attempting to destroy American nationalism in the interests of their own nation. They are pure and unmitigated evil, all the more so for their attempt to disguise themselves as intellectual wolves in sheep’s clothing. But they are not particularly bright intellectual wolves, as it is more than a little amusing to see how (((Prager)))’s own definition of evil nationalism obviously applies to the Jewish variety.
UPDATE: Phelps points out that (((Prager))) also lies about “e pluribus unum“.
This is an ABSOLUTE lie. It never meant, “out of many races”, it explicitly meant “out of many states, one confederation.” That is why it is the United STATES, not United Races.
It’s beyond obvious that Yoram Hazony is attempting to create a new gatekeeping outpost in between civic nationalism and genuine nationalism, but he’s not anywhere nearly smart enough to do so effectively. His posited distinction between “nationalism” and “racialism” is not only absurd, it is very, very easily exploded.
Yoram Hazony I think it’s as clear as daylight. I wrote a book drawing parallels between Jewish-Israeli nationalism and American, British, and other nationalisms, and arguing for their legitimacy. The book rejects racialism across the boards. All you need to do is to read it.
Yoram Hazony But my opposition to mixing nationalism with race theories has been explicit every step of the way. It’s explicit in the conference announcement and on the website. You don’t have to agree with me. Still, it takes some nerve to pretend I’ve been anything but open about this.
I read Hazony’s book. Unlike many on the nationalist Right, I saw through him immediately and pointed out that his “National Conservative” conference was an obvious attempt to set up yet another neoclown gatekeeping organization, this one focused on nationalists. Hazony’s further attempts to “defend his ideas” readily reveal him to be not only a gatekeeper, but a shameless liar of the Ben Shapiro variety for two very obvious reasons.
First, to the extent there is any distinction between two terms that have historically been used in a synonymous manner, nation is a subset of race. Necessarily. So to base an argument on the idea that nation is actually a broader category than race is worse than dishonest, it is deeply stupid. It’s a total nonstarter.
Second, the etymology of nation makes it obvious that racialism is, and always will be, an element of nationalism.
1250–1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion
One’s nationality derives from one’s birth, not one’s geographical location or paperwork. It is an identification based on DNA, blood, and family, not ideology, confession, documents, or current location in the space-time continuum. By appealing to the fact of adoption, Hazony is stupidly attempting to derive a rule from its occasional exception.
UPDATE: Hazony is also a true son of his father:
Yoram Hazony@yhazony Sorry, there is no such thing as “genetically Jewish.” Jews are a nation, not a race. Anyone on earth can join the Jewish people, as Ruth the Moabite did—by accepting our people as her people, and our God as her God.Yoram Hazony added,
owen cyclops@owenbroadcast so atheist jews, who reject your god, arent jews then?
Yoram Hazony@yhazony Atheist Jews remain Jews. We were talking about non-Jews who want to join the Jewish people and what’s involved.
This personal invitation arrived in my email inbox recently:
Naturally, I was delighted. I had been very impressed with the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism and had even had an affable exchange with him via Twitter Direct Message about his publisher’s curious failure to release the book in audio form:
So Lydia and I duly paid our $285 fee (each) to register. But we got this response:
It’s a form letter. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who tried in his frugal way to get press credentials, got exactly the same thing.
Jared very reasonably wrote back to ask if would he be denied press credentials if he were “a socialist or Open-Borders advocate” a.k.a. a typical member of the Main Stream Media.
Needless to say, Hazony and Brog did not have the courtesy to reply.
I’m not even a little bit surprised. You may recall that despite his protestations in his book, Hazony appeared to be more civic nationalist than genuine nationalist, and that has proved to be the case. In spades.