Today, everyone knows that Europe is at a crossroads. The rise of nationalism in Europe and America, and throughout the democratic world, is seen by many as a threat to the post-War liberal order. But others regard the renewed emphasis on patriotism and the freedom of nations as a continuation of the best political traditions of the last century. So is the new national conservatism a menace or is it—on the contrary—a virtue?
This international conference in Rome will seek to answer this question. It is John Paul II’s centennial year, and we will begin by revisiting the historic alliance between an American President and a Polish Pope that defeated Communism and succeeded in re-establishing national independence, self-determination, and religious freedom in Eastern Europe after 1989.
The conference will then shift its focus 40 years forward, to our own day, examining the fate of the national independence, self-determination, and religious freedom under the rule of the European Union. In particular, we will ask: Is the freedom of nations that was promised a generation ago still desirable in our time? And if it is, what must be done to achieve it?
Is the new national conservatism a menace or is it—on the contrary—a virtue?
By "national conservatism", do you mean nationalism? I define nationalism as government in the national interest which I imagine would be universally, internationally and globally desirable.
If nationalism is patriarchy, then the status quo is matriarchy.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.
Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who casually conceived and casually parented their illegitimate offspring.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents
If the West were ever to reach the state of the perfect matriarchy, it would regress into a time before marriage was invented, before Homo Sapiens superseded the Neanderthal Man. There are suggestions that the Neanderthal Man was in fact the Amalekite that Jews are religiously obliged to exterminate.
The Modern Amalekite would be elements in society that wish to undermine patriarchy and promote globohomo. It cannot be denied that Amalekites are now both Jew and gentile who cannot be individually identified by appearance, only by word and deed eg when feminists declare their intention to undermine the patriarchy and propose policies that would destroy marriage and family values.
Since they cannot be individually identified, the best way for Jews to fulfill their religious obligation of exterminating the gentile would be to promote the Noahide laws without fear or favour. The quickest way to do this would be to declare which gentile Abrahamic faith is more in conformity with the Noahide laws - Christianity or Islam?
If Jews are frightened to this all by themselves in case they are accused of hate speech by Christians, perhaps they could persuade Muslims to jointly with Jews declare Christianity to be idolatry under quran.com/18/4 and announce a press conference for a senior rabbi and senior Muslim scholar to make this joint announcement in each Western nation.
Once it is acknowledged that Islam is the only rational and moral choice for the gentile who does not want to be guilty of the abomination of idolatry, it only remains for the West to have their respective Islamic Revolutions in Europe the way they had their 1848 Revolutions, with EU member states leaving the EU in order to establish an Islamic European Union.
As for nationalism being a menace, you would expect patriarchy to be a menace to matriarchy. The point is that a matriarchy is a danger to itself because its model is unsustainable - creating a parasitic class at the top and the bottom that will devour the middle class and all that is good and productive about society, and then each other.
The matriarchy and its supporters could be regarded as Amalekites since such societies operate dysgenic policies that would result in regression back to a time before cities existed and before the invention and practice of marriage - to a time of barbarism and primitivism.
If nationalism could be regarded as pesticide and Transnational Progressivism/globohomo/matriarchy a pest, then it would be a good thing that it is a dangerous to the matriarchy.
There is no need for Jews to exterminate anyone, however. All that is necessary for them to do is declare Islam to be Noahide but not Christianity because of its idolatry. Once Christians are put on notice that they are not only guilty of idolatry, but have been guilty of it for 2000 years, they will be put on the defensive.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, like a duck, then it is a duck. This also applies to the idolatry of Christianity, which is theologically, morally and intellectually indefensible.
Once the Post-Christian Westerner finally admits that Christianity is kaput and that all societies need a religion, the dish of Secular Koranism put before him will seem more tempting. If Israel also adopted it, it should put Israelis in better standing with God, since Secular Koranism is technically a theocracy. If Israel adopted Secular Koranism, it is highly probable that it would be adopted globally after its success, making the world a better place.
If matriarchy is caused by Amalek, then the solution must be patriarchy.
If the solution is patriarchy, the vehicle can only be theocracy, because belief in an immortal deity who is perfectly moral, omniscient, omnipotent and supreme would make it more likely for God's laws to be obeyed and for longer.
The virtue of nationalism can only be enabled by theocracy protecting the patriarchy.
Patriarchy cannot exist without the practice of commanding marriage before children and forbidding children before marriage.
This is what slut-shaming Secular Koranism will do with quran.com/24/2
If the freedom of nations that was promised a generation ago still desirable in our time, what must be done to achieve it?
What is meant by "freedom of nations"?
Does Yoram Hazony mean the right of nations not to be part of the American empire?
Does this include the right not to be a liberal democracy?
And does this mean the right to reject Transnational Progressivism AKA "globohomo" AKA turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah and attracting the same punishment?
Does this also mean a right to become the theocracy Israel was meant to be?
Would America impose regime change on Israel if it became a theocracy ?
Yoram Hazony was an acolyte of the late Rabbi Kahane, the only rabbi who wanted Israel to be a theocracy and was not afraid to say Israel would go it alone without America if need be. It promises to be an interesting conference!
