Yoram Hazony

Yoram Hazony

Parroting squawkbox Pundits

And a dirty dozen more

Tucker Carlson Bjørn Lomborg Reason (magazine) Judith Reisman Roger Stone Dana Loesch Bradlee Dean Katie Hopkins Thom Hartmann Owen Jones Sargon of Akkad SyrianGirl v - t - e

Yoram Reuben Hazony (June 6, 1964–) is an Israeli-American nationalistic, conservative political pundit and philosopher. Hazony was born in Rehovot, Israel and moved with his family to Princeton, New Jersey, where he was raised and educated receiving his PhD from Rutgers University in political philosophy in 1993 before returning to Israel.

He is the brother of David Hazony, an American-born Israeli writer, translator, and editor as well as the founding editor of The Tower’s magazine.^{[citation needed]} Yoram is married to Yael Hazony, and they have nine children together.

PragerU appearances

If you have seen Hazony anywhere, it was most likely through his two videos on PragerU. Although PragerU is not known for its level of intellectual discourse, these videos still have numerous issues that show Hazony to be a dishonest person with little idea of what he's talking about.

Why You Should Be a Nationalist

His first appearance on PragerU was through his 12/17/2018 video "Why You Should Be a Nationalist," where he talks about why nationalism is a worthwhile political philosophy. Here, some particularly nonsensical statements will be highlighted.

But it wasn’t long ago that great political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, David Ben-Gurion and Mahatma Gandhi, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher recognized what I call the virtue of nationalism.

First off, just because those political figures agree with something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Woodrow Wilson was a proponent of eugenics, as was Theodore Roosevelt. Obviously, this does not mean these ideas should be implemented in the modern day.

Also, Roosevelt hated the foreign policy of Wilson, even saying in one letter from 1916 that his motto was "My wife is dead! Long live my wife!" How could both people be led by the same philosophy when one had such harsh criticisms of the other? This point especially becomes odd given Wilson's status as a bogyman for certain factions of the isolationist right, dating back to when he was President and isolationists campaigned against the League of Nations. The conflict between Wilson and nationalism is something Hazony even notes in his book The Virtue of Nationalism when he wrote that "Woodrow Wilson’s 'sovereignty of mankind' similarly proposed . . . establishing an international regime to decide disputes among them and, where necessary, impose its rulings by coercion," and he goes on to discuss "the irrelevance of Wilsonian idealism to world affairs."

A nationalist believes that the world is governed best when nations are free to chart their own independent course, cultivating their traditions and pursuing their interests without interference.

Then under what definition was Ronald Reagan, who "decided that he would do everything possible to overthrow the Sandinista pro-communist regime in Nicaragua" to the point of selling weapons illegally to an anti-Sandinista group called The Contras, a nationalist? Under what definition was Theodore Roosevelt, who created a new nation and overthrew its government to create the Panama Canal and is known among historians for his dedication towards American imperialism, a nationalist?

True to its biblical roots, the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century made the independent nation-state the political cornerstone of the modern world. When Henry VIII declared that England would no longer obey dictates from Rome, he became Europe’s first true nationalist.

Again, Hazony says that nationalism is about allowing nations to chart their own course, and then praises a man who invaded France and is seen as the person who laid the groundwork for the British Empire.

Adolph Hitler was no nationalist. He was an imperialist. If his ambitions had been limited to ruling Germans, it would have been terrible for Germany, but the French, the British, the Russians, and everyone else would have been spared a world war.

Hazony said this as if he didn't cite known imperialists like Theodore Roosevelt as nationalists earlier in this video.

What Was the Enlightenment?

"John Seldon" was not a person, Hazony was most likely thinking of John Selden, who died in 1654, three decades before the Enlightenment started.

His other work for PragerU was released on 12/30/2019 and had the title "What Was the Enlightenment?" Similar to the last video, it is full of various dishonest statements.

Although the Enlightenment started in the late 17^th century, it was primarily based on the scientific revolution, which started around a century and a half before. This is important because throughout the video Hazony talks about how certain concepts did not originate during the Enlightenment, and even as early as the first sentence he discussed concepts like scientific and medical progress. However, nobody attempts to claim those ideas as concepts of The Enlightenment, they are part of a different movement which led into the Enlightenment.

However, although the issues with this video are more esoteric, this is not to say some general factual errors aren't present, such as here.

The claim that all good things come from the Enlightenment is most closely associated with the late-18^th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. For Kant, reason is universal, infallible, and independent of experience.

Kant did not believe this. In fact, one of his most famous works is Critique of Pure Reason, and it is filled with criticism of Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, which also shows why Hazony's statement about the Enlightenment make so little sense. Hazony is discussing a rather large group of people, many of whom disagreed with one another on important issues, so painting them with such broad strokes makes little sense.

What Hazony believes

As mentioned above, Hazony considers himself a conservative nationalist, however his understandings of both of these concepts are rather ahistorical. One common criticism of his book The Virtue of Nationalism, for example, is that his understanding of nationalism has little in common with the historical understanding of the term. Micheal Shindler notes that "many folks who’ve adopted Hazony’s notions might be surprised to learn that there exists a robust body of nationalist theory that’s been developing since the 19th century" because of Hazony's primary focus on an understanding of nationalism coming from the Old Testament of The Bible. However, Mark Koyama notes in his article that "very few national states conform to this creation myth" meaning Hazony is forced to defend a form of nationalism that bares no resemblance to what most people mean when they use the word.

None of this is even getting into his various forms of selective nationalism Hazony subscribes to. For example, in his interview with Ben Shapiro, Hazony attacks the idea of an independent state for the Kurds and the Scottish (along with the Navigo, for some reason), on the basis that these nations would be unable to defend their borders militarily and that doing so would involve untangling centuries of already existing laws and regulations.

The first argument shows how truly selective Hazony's nationalism is, as it can only exist so long as no nation decides to become imperial. The second one makes it clear Hazony has barely thought his idea through. Remember, Hazony's first video on PragerU began with him talking about how wonderful Brexit was, but Brexit has a massive impact on the legal system of the United Kingdom. When does the impact become too big for the separation to be worth it? Hazony does not answer, but he has not even considered the impact of his ideas onto the world if implemented.

His views on conservatism are also rather flawed. One article sees him criticizing John Locke, noting that "most defenders of these freedoms were justly appalled" while also praising John Adams as one of many people who would "have placed themselves in this conservative tradition rather than with its opponents." However, Adams was a fan of Locke, saying in one letter to his wife from 1775 that "Newton and Locke are examples of the deep sagacity which may be acquired by long habits of thinking and study."