In English tradition, the farthest right represents subservience to the laws and ways of foreigners (Rome), while the messianic revolutionary left represents subservience to the laws and ways of foreigners (Geneva).

Moderate Whigs and Tories represent national independence.

/1
Burke in his day stands for Britain as an independent country. He stands for the traditional British constitution, traditional English laws and freedoms, the monarchy and the English national church.

He also stands for alliance with the Tories to preserve all these things.

/2
Furthermore, he represents what he called the “Old Whigs” against the new: In favor of experience and tradition. Against the revolutionaries with their abstract deductive systems uprooting all things before them.

And so against Jefferson and Paine and Price and Turgot.

/3
To me, Burke stands for the possibility of maintaining our own nation and our own inheritance against all odds.

Had it not been for Burke and his allies, Britain might quickly have fallen to the insanity of the revolutionaries in Paris.

/4
I am troubled by those who wish to resurrect the myth of a universalist rationalism. Whether it is called “Roman law” or the “Universal Rights of Man and the Citizen,” it is the same mistake.

There is no legal system that is fit for all nations. Burke understood this.

/5
I don’t know if Britain and America will make it. The Revolution is on the verge of victory.

The abandonment of Burke and tradition by many self-proclaimed conservatives is a mistake from which there may be no recovery.

But if there is a recovery, it will be with Burke.

/end
PS: For those who don’t know my views yet, you can read more here:

americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-i…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Yoram Hazony

Yoram Hazony Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @yhazony

27 Dec 20
I have to agree with this point. I can’t figure out what’s supposed to be wrong or frightening about being a “Christian nationalist” (although that graphic does bother me—we Jews don’t place guns, or anything else, on our Bibles). stream.org/why-im-a-chris…
There are bad apples in every bushel. But *on average,* Christian nationalists are going to be a whole lot better to have around, and to be around, than Christian imperialists.

And Christian nationalists are much more likely to know what’s what than atheist nationalists.
So I guess the only way there’s going to be something really bad about being a Christian nationalist is if you’re the kind of person who figures that being a Christian is really bad, and that being a nationalist is also bad—so it’s like a badness double feature of some kind.
Read 5 tweets
17 Dec 20
My thoughts on the EU Court of Justice upholding new Belgian laws banning kosher slaughter:

1. Yet another good reason to avoid giving EU courts the power to rule on the laws of *your* country.

/1


hamodia.com/2020/12/17/eu-…
2. Frankly, neither Belgium nor the EU seem terribly excited about having Jews living there.

It seems like the post-Shoah willingness to make amends with Jews is running out.

2/
3. I’m tired of people telling me the purpose of these laws is to deter Muslims from living in these places—as if that’s an excuse.

If you’re willing to have Muslims, let them eat Halal.

If you’re not willing to have Muslims, say so and leave the Jews alone.

/3
Read 9 tweets
4 Nov 20
Wise words from a Republican veteran thinking about national conservatism tonight:

"Even if Biden wins fair and square, it will be a squeaker, and he will be hemmed in by a GOP Senate.

/1
"That is very different from virtually all of the mainstream predictions of a day ago, a week ago, a month ago. Today it is the left that is dazed and confused. Trump’s much stronger showing than most expected means that the 2016 election was not a fluke.

/2
"Hillary was awful, and then Biden weak. But the overriding fact is that nationalism is much stronger in the American electorate than almost anyone in the two parties realized until Trump came along. It is now a demonstrably durable, major part of U.S. politics.

/3
Read 4 tweets
15 Oct 20
What does “power corrupts” mean?

It means you get drunk on your own sense of vast strength. You no longer fear to cross boundaries that morality and prudence used to set for you.

You lose the ability to *feel* where the red lines are.
Two years ago, Facebook banned advertising for my book. They sent a few automated messages.

I remember thinking: These creeps don’t that know that they’re the abusers. They don’t know that they’re becoming the super-villains in a story they wrote themselves.
Step by step, they’ve grown more powerful. Step by step, they’ve grown more corrupt.

Now they’ve reached the point where they would publicly steal an election if they could get away with it.

They have no red lines. They don’t even know it’s wrong.
Read 5 tweets
13 Oct 20
This says adding liberal judges to the US Supreme Court will save the Court’s legitimacy.

This is true: It will make the Court legitimate in the eyes of those who think that only liberal institutions are legitimate. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The question is: Why should liberals get to decide that only liberal institutions are legitimate?

The whole point of democracy is that some institutions are liberal and some are conservative—and yet both kinds are legitimate.
The problem is that the US Supreme Court has been a liberal institution since at least the 1960s. In all that time conservatives have granted legitimacy to that liberal institution.
Read 8 tweets
21 Sep 20
I'm amazed how many people think "separation of church and state" is in the US Constitution, or that it was the theory behind the 1st Amendment, or that it was America's founding "purpose," or that the founders generally believed in it.

None of this is true.
If any of you are interested in learning the actual history of the theory of "separation of church and state" in America, Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School wrote the best book on the subject:

amazon.com/Separation-Chu…
The bottom line is that "separation of church and state" didn't become the law of the land in the United States until the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education applied the 1st amendment to the states. That was in 1947.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!