Politics

The Virtue of Nationalism

The Virtue of Nationalism

  • Downloads：7501
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-11-18 08:53:22
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Yoram Hazony
  • ISBN：1541645375
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

A leading conservative thinker argues that a nationalist order is the only realistic safeguard of liberty in the world today

Nationalism is the issue of our age。 From Donald Trump's "America First" politics to Brexit to the rise of the right in Europe， events have forced a crucial debate: Should we fight for international government？ Or should the world's nations keep their independence and self-determination？

In The Virtue of Nationalism， Yoram Hazony contends that a world of sovereign nations is the only option for those who care about personal and collective freedom。 He recounts how， beginning in the sixteenth century， English， Dutch， and American Protestants revived the Old Testament's love of national independence， and shows how their vision eventually brought freedom to peoples from Poland to India， Israel to Ethiopia。 It is this tradition we must restore， he argues， if we want to limit conflict and hate -- and allow human difference and innovation to flourish。

Download

Reviews

Charlie Keeble ，

This was a very good insight into something that I had been looking for that can give a positive case for nationalism。 I had heard of this book from PragerU and I wanted to see if I can use an example of a case where nationalism is positive and friendly without all that negative hate and vitriol that SJWs use in describing a love of one's country。 Yoram Hazony has created a great book that explains that nationalism is not as hostile to diversity as you think it is。 In comparison to most other co This was a very good insight into something that I had been looking for that can give a positive case for nationalism。 I had heard of this book from PragerU and I wanted to see if I can use an example of a case where nationalism is positive and friendly without all that negative hate and vitriol that SJWs use in describing a love of one's country。 Yoram Hazony has created a great book that explains that nationalism is not as hostile to diversity as you think it is。 In comparison to most other countries that support world governments and supernational bodies that have strong religious and leftist politics， nationalism is virtuous in that it recognises a diversity of nations that when they have their own autonomy they can provide self-determination and freedom for people and families to better themselves。 The idea of celebrating individual achievements within independent states is through nationalism unto the nations themselves。 。。。more

andrea ，

Wow。。。excellent

Wallace Wilson ，

Pros:- this book changed my mind about the possibility of a nation state being a better alternative to globalism or imperialism。 I'd swallowed whole the idea that nationalism was petty， defensive and never a means by which to achieve the best for humanity。 - I also never thought about the idea of humanity as an abstract。 This was quite an insight for me and a whole different way of thinking about what it means to care for others。 Under a globalist or imperialist order， man's loyalty is to this a Pros:- this book changed my mind about the possibility of a nation state being a better alternative to globalism or imperialism。 I'd swallowed whole the idea that nationalism was petty， defensive and never a means by which to achieve the best for humanity。 - I also never thought about the idea of humanity as an abstract。 This was quite an insight for me and a whole different way of thinking about what it means to care for others。 Under a globalist or imperialist order， man's loyalty is to this abstract meaning of humanity。 It's always something 'out there' to be defined by the powers that be。 Under the nation state， as Hazony argues， your loyalty is to the people you actually know and tangibly care about。 - after witnessing the hysteria around the Brexit vote in the UK， this book helps explain （for me anyway） the hatred amongst the 'liberal internationalists'。 Cons - overall， I found the arguments made by Hazony were just not backed up enough。 There is a lot you have to swallow whole to be able to accept Hazony's arguments and I found a lot of them far too simplistic。 I actually found some of the assertions quite child-like and， whilst they probably had some truth， I felt that the conclusions he was making were based upon some very shaky foundations。 - I didn't walk away convinced that the nation state is a better alternative as described by Hazony。 Perhaps the real issue is the ambition of this book and the fact that it is a whirlwind tour of political history。 I would definitely recommend this book for anyone looking for some good conceptual arguments on why the European Union and the liberal internationalist agenda does not and cannot work。 I also think this needs to be approached with an open mind but because of the subject matter I can see some people outright rejecting some of its assertions。 。。。more

Joe Galietta ，

Wrong on one key point。 Nationalist and socialists always misunderstand Locke。 He did not atomize the individual。 People who put his ideas into practice did not atomize the individual。 They always came together in bonds of mutual loyalty， and they regarded service to the community as the highest virtue。

Nick ，

The central thesis is that the historical opposite of nationalism is imperialism， a world governed by a single order imposed on others versus one of independent sovereign states defined by common particular cultural ethnic and religious ties。 Hazony is critical of liberalism even of the classical sort。 Against the social compact theory is a discussion of society beginning with families and tribes which unite into nations vis a vie others， but law is distinct from mere association in that it has The central thesis is that the historical opposite of nationalism is imperialism， a world governed by a single order imposed on others versus one of independent sovereign states defined by common particular cultural ethnic and religious ties。 Hazony is critical of liberalism even of the classical sort。 Against the social compact theory is a discussion of society beginning with families and tribes which unite into nations vis a vie others， but law is distinct from mere association in that it has authority over all persons not just citizens in a territory and Hazony admits tribal structures do not resemble a state which is what the classical thinkers were writing about。 Kant’s proposed federation was not a world state but more a voluntary federation of nation-states bound by a categorical imperative while a world state would be superfluous where there are states and the goal of such federation was to renounce aggressive war and interference with other countries。 Mises did advocate a world state in his book Liberalism but also paradoxically a right to peaceful secession。 Hazony is actually critical of a right of self-determination for every nation as this can undermine states and invite foreign intervention。 The United Nations declaration of human rights both acknowledges a right to a nationality but not to a state and stops short of open borders by only mentioning free movement within a state and to leave and return to their country。 The biblical Israel is invoked as the original nationalism and while the modern state is often singled out for illegitimacy in a way other nations （which have questionable origins） aren’t， more valid critiques are about its conduct towards existing nations and states。 。。。more

Dan ，

Substantial contribution to political philosophy。 Not the mainstream opinion， but many good points。

Sarede Switzer ，

Challenged my political identity and paradigm。 In a good way。 Still processing it all but overall I think he's on to something。 Challenged my political identity and paradigm。 In a good way。 Still processing it all but overall I think he's on to something。 。。。more

Lucas Ebel ，

I think Hazony makes an excellent argument， although I do not entirely agree。 I think he could provide more connections between his clan and tribe explanation of politics and the modern world， as the western world rarely organizes or thinks of themselves in such a manner， and we rarely have strong ties of mutual loyalty with our neighbors as he seems to assume。 Nevertheless， the book offers a healthy skepticism of the liberal order which is not discussed enough in academic circles。

Mike ，

This book is a gift to the authoritarian leaders / countries world wide。 There are many leaders who would find solace in the rational of the desirability of nationalism。 The author also argues that it’s ok and even desirable that many minorities do not create separate sovereign states。 No wonder this model is appreciated in Hungary， Poland， Turkey and even Trump’s America。 There is every reason to believe that Boris Johnson and Benjamin Netanyahu would find chapters in this book very comforting。 This book is a gift to the authoritarian leaders / countries world wide。 There are many leaders who would find solace in the rational of the desirability of nationalism。 The author also argues that it’s ok and even desirable that many minorities do not create separate sovereign states。 No wonder this model is appreciated in Hungary， Poland， Turkey and even Trump’s America。 There is every reason to believe that Boris Johnson and Benjamin Netanyahu would find chapters in this book very comforting。 What I find especially appalling is the author an Israeli Jew does not even mention Palestine or the Palestinians。 Total fantasy world， a world which he finds especially comforting。 。。。more

Peter Wickenden ，

Fascinating take that runs counter to the commonly held negative view of nationalism as narrow and divisive。 The author shows that on the contrary， nationalism is the only model that allows free development of varying characteristics without external forces of compliance dictating conformity with some universal principle。 Also some particularly useful analysis shows that the malevolent force behind WWII， so often described as nationalism， was in fact the opposite: imperialism， where Germany and Fascinating take that runs counter to the commonly held negative view of nationalism as narrow and divisive。 The author shows that on the contrary， nationalism is the only model that allows free development of varying characteristics without external forces of compliance dictating conformity with some universal principle。 Also some particularly useful analysis shows that the malevolent force behind WWII， so often described as nationalism， was in fact the opposite: imperialism， where Germany and Japan intended to bring their continents to heel under an universal model。 Ironic then that the EU， with its claim to have brought peace to Europe through the transcendence of nationalism， is actually imperialist in nature。 。。。more

Loren ，

I enjoyed this book。 Before reading it， I would have agreed with the thesis， however， my reasons would have been general。 （I hail from a low-population state， so my suspicions of big government and federalism run deep， not to mention broader sorts of imperialism。 I am strongly orientated towards states' rights。） This book filled a gap: an analysis of types of government， and in particular the optimal size of government。 It's certainly not comprehensive， but provides a lot to think about。 Thesis I enjoyed this book。 Before reading it， I would have agreed with the thesis， however， my reasons would have been general。 （I hail from a low-population state， so my suspicions of big government and federalism run deep， not to mention broader sorts of imperialism。 I am strongly orientated towards states' rights。） This book filled a gap: an analysis of types of government， and in particular the optimal size of government。 It's certainly not comprehensive， but provides a lot to think about。 Thesis and summary （page 226）: "The institution of the national state， I have suggested， offers a number of advantages over the alternative forms of political order that are known to us: The national state， like empire， drives war to the borders of a large， politically ordered region， establishing a protected space in which peace and prosperity can take hold。 But unlike empire， the independent national state inculcates an aversion to adventures of conquest in distant lands。 Moreover， an order of national states offers the greatest possibility for the collective self-determination。 It establishes a life of productive competition among nations， each striving to attain the maximal development of its abilities and those of its individual members。 And it provides the state with the only known basis for the development of free institutions and individual liberties。" 。。。more

Brad Belschner ，

An excellent book。 I should've known that if Doug Wilson and Brad Littlejohn BOTH highly recommend a book， then it must be good。 I have been intellectually struggling with the question of empire vs。 independent nation states for a few months。 I never liked the idea of empire， but part of me wondered whether it was inevitable in the violent world we live in。。。 and if empire is inevitable， perhaps we just need to focus on building the best one possible？ This book addressed my concerns and answered An excellent book。 I should've known that if Doug Wilson and Brad Littlejohn BOTH highly recommend a book， then it must be good。 I have been intellectually struggling with the question of empire vs。 independent nation states for a few months。 I never liked the idea of empire， but part of me wondered whether it was inevitable in the violent world we live in。。。 and if empire is inevitable， perhaps we just need to focus on building the best one possible？ This book addressed my concerns and answered my questions in a satisfying manner。 I can now unreservedly be in favor of the nation state as an excellent political structure。 Thank you， Hazony。 。。。more

Arup ，

Argument for the system of nation states as opposed to the allure of either imperialism （think pre WW2 empires or modern day EU， pax Americana） or anarchy。 Author looks at the concept of the nation state from multiple dimensions - what legitimises a state （why was colonial america freeing itself from imperial britain the right thing but the same national self determination loving americans not let confederate south create a new state for themselves）， how to maintain internal cohesion （balance be Argument for the system of nation states as opposed to the allure of either imperialism （think pre WW2 empires or modern day EU， pax Americana） or anarchy。 Author looks at the concept of the nation state from multiple dimensions - what legitimises a state （why was colonial america freeing itself from imperial britain the right thing but the same national self determination loving americans not let confederate south create a new state for themselves）， how to maintain internal cohesion （balance between cultural dominance of the majority and protection of the minority）， how to conduct foreign policy etc。 Overall， a strong pushback against Kantian "perpetual peace" or today's neoliberal insistence to achieve global optimum through a super state （like in Star Trek）。 。。。more

David ，

A thoughtful meditation on the 'virtues' of nationalism as opposed to imperialism/trans-nationalism。 Readers interested in the distinctions between imperialism and nationalism should read this book。 The best book on the subject I've read over the last decade。 A Must Read！ Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars A thoughtful meditation on the 'virtues' of nationalism as opposed to imperialism/trans-nationalism。 Readers interested in the distinctions between imperialism and nationalism should read this book。 The best book on the subject I've read over the last decade。 A Must Read！ Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars 。。。more

Rodrigo Pereira ，

Um grande livro com ótimos ideias e explicações do estado atual da política internacional。 Hazony explica com muitos exemplos e de forma muito bem fundamentada do que constitui um Estado nacional e os motivos dele ser a melhor forma de organização representativa de famílias， tribos e comunidades。 Hazony também consegue tocar no ponto central dos problemas da União Europeia， desde sua concepção。

R。 Gabriel Esteves ，

Found this informative， if largely unconvincing。 The conceptual framework that it presents seem useful， but the demarcations unclear。。。 are tribes， nations and empires differences in scale？ in aspirations？ If the argument against "federated states" or "community of nations" are， resp， the Confederate South， Serbia and Apartheid South Africa the defense seems。。。 questionable。 Also， the framework for collaboration among nation states seems to be bi- and multi-lateral agreements， rather than relian Found this informative， if largely unconvincing。 The conceptual framework that it presents seem useful， but the demarcations unclear。。。 are tribes， nations and empires differences in scale？ in aspirations？ If the argument against "federated states" or "community of nations" are， resp， the Confederate South， Serbia and Apartheid South Africa the defense seems。。。 questionable。 Also， the framework for collaboration among nation states seems to be bi- and multi-lateral agreements， rather than reliance on international institutions， which I can buy。 But， the Trump administration， which the author supports， has done little of either， so not sure how this works in practice。 In any case， I'll need to re-read this for clarification。 。。。more

Tommy Johnson ，

Caricatures the ideas he opposes rather than actually， effectively dismantling them。 While treating nationalism as an orientation， an Aristotelian mean， he makes an interesting philosophical point that is on the whole unconvincing when accompanied by such little evidence and such blasé accounts of the longstanding schools of thought he seeks to bring down。 Moreover， historical and anthropological accounts of the nation and the family seem to run counter to his religiously inspired rosy pictures。

Josh Ehrich ，

A timely book as the narrative of nationalism as an evil is being jammed down our throats。 The imperialism vs nationalism dichotomy makes for a strong case。 While I don’t agree completely with his conclusions or understanding of the Mosaic law or how man comes to truth， the idea of all nationalism as hatred is a false narrative。 The idea that Nazis are nationalist is laughable。 The very name third reich harkens back to the two previous empires who sought domination。 It’s conduct explicitly rejec A timely book as the narrative of nationalism as an evil is being jammed down our throats。 The imperialism vs nationalism dichotomy makes for a strong case。 While I don’t agree completely with his conclusions or understanding of the Mosaic law or how man comes to truth， the idea of all nationalism as hatred is a false narrative。 The idea that Nazis are nationalist is laughable。 The very name third reich harkens back to the two previous empires who sought domination。 It’s conduct explicitly rejected the right of nations to exist independently。 Overall a very thought provoking book。 。。。more

Étienne-Alexandre ，

Un livre nécessaire， sans être spectaculaire， à la défense du modèle westphalien d’États-nations et contre l’utopie de gouvernance supranationale en vogue depuis le début du siècle。 En guise de petit point négatif， la perspective israélienne est omniprésente dans l’ouvrage， ce qui empêche Hazony d’avoir une théorie réellement globale sur l’État-nation en Occident， à mon sens

Paul ，

An interesting read。 Hazony argues that the national state is superior to a collection of tribes and clans， as well being superior to empires。 Not a fan of the EU and an interesting reflection on the European's typical attitude to Israel。 An interesting read。 Hazony argues that the national state is superior to a collection of tribes and clans， as well being superior to empires。 Not a fan of the EU and an interesting reflection on the European's typical attitude to Israel。 。。。more

Marcio Atz ，

O autor faz uma interessante defesa do nacionalismo e dos estados nacionais autônomos e soberanos。 Trata das origens do espírito nacionalista bem como do pensamento universalista。 Discorre um pouco， mas de maneira muito precisa sobre a influência Kantiana no espírito universalista europeu， analisa o desastre do nacionalismo imperialista alemão que com Hitler， Mussolini e outros deram mau nome durante o século XX ao estado nacional independente， como forma de organização das nações em nosso plane O autor faz uma interessante defesa do nacionalismo e dos estados nacionais autônomos e soberanos。 Trata das origens do espírito nacionalista bem como do pensamento universalista。 Discorre um pouco， mas de maneira muito precisa sobre a influência Kantiana no espírito universalista europeu， analisa o desastre do nacionalismo imperialista alemão que com Hitler， Mussolini e outros deram mau nome durante o século XX ao estado nacional independente， como forma de organização das nações em nosso planeta。 Excelentes reflexões em um momento em que vemos que o universalismo da união européia， assim como as organizações globalistas comandadas por burocratas profissionais， não parecem ser como modelos eficientes para a gerir a humanidade no longo prazo。 Ótima leitura， 。。。more

Jan Goericke ，

Yoram Hazony's "The Virtue of Nationalism" is well written， easy to follow and understand。 However， I fought to get through the book the entire time since I disagreed with the basic premises of Hazony's arguments。Firstly， his argumentation was based on the premise that the Israeli state is a template for an independent nation state since it was based on the political arguments as laid out in the Old Testament （the Jewish Tora）。 In the chapter on the virtues of Israel， he discussed that there are Yoram Hazony's "The Virtue of Nationalism" is well written， easy to follow and understand。 However， I fought to get through the book the entire time since I disagreed with the basic premises of Hazony's arguments。Firstly， his argumentation was based on the premise that the Israeli state is a template for an independent nation state since it was based on the political arguments as laid out in the Old Testament （the Jewish Tora）。 In the chapter on the virtues of Israel， he discussed that there are only two opinions on Israel; Israel as a consequence of Auschwitz or as an equivalent to Auschwitz。 With that， he quenched any discussion on the subject， especially by Germans like me。His second premise was the equivalence of the imperialism by the U。S。A。 and the European Union。 His anti-German writing may be understandable given his background， but picturing the EU as a （paraphrasing） 'fourth German Reich when completed' is disgusting and below someone with the author's level of education。The third premise of the book is that Universalists （people， who believe in universal human rights， etc。） are naive idealists。 At the same time the author is advocating for a world of independent nation states that compete， collaborate， and peacefully coexist。 That too is a very naive argument without precedence。 This book will be great for a nationalists since they will fine "intellectual reasoning" for their cause。 They won't see the huge omittances in the book。 The human psychology with its urge to attach to immortality projects of the State （E。 Becker）。 The centuries of Christian Antisemitism， especially the global antisemitism in the 19th century， including in his favorite nation states: Great Britain， USA， and the Netherlands， leading up to the holocaust。 This book does not cater to right wing nutcases， since it does not elaborate on fascism as such。 I would not recommend this book。 。。。more

Clayton ，

An absolutely outstanding work of nonfiction。 I will not call it a "page turner"， sometimes it felt just a wee bit repetitive / redundant。 But （perhaps for the aforementioned reasons） the information and the argument were crystal clear and accessible。 And being an excoriation of the Imperial impulse which is celebrated always and everywhere one looks in our world today -- it is at the heart of popular culture！ -- I felt like I was being educated in aspects of politics and history almost complete An absolutely outstanding work of nonfiction。 I will not call it a "page turner"， sometimes it felt just a wee bit repetitive / redundant。 But （perhaps for the aforementioned reasons） the information and the argument were crystal clear and accessible。 And being an excoriation of the Imperial impulse which is celebrated always and everywhere one looks in our world today -- it is at the heart of popular culture！ -- I felt like I was being educated in aspects of politics and history almost completely absent from my daily life。The thrust of the book's argument is to demonstrate the compelling history and characteristics of the community of independent nation states （what we used to call "Western Civilization"） against the surreptitious and insidious agenda of "globalism": just old time Imperialism with a veneer of politically correct socialism。 My world view feels both educated and simplified。My only quibble is that I believe his offhand treatment and dismissal of anarchism felt bookish and ungrounded in the real world。This short book is a must read for anyone trying to sort out the politics of today's world。 。。。more

Fleur ，

I read this book because I'm fascinated by nationalism and have enjoyed a number of books on similar themes; I also wanted to try and find a convincing anti-globalism argument as I was yet to encounter one。 There's no doubt that nationalism is very topical but my overwhelming feeling as I read this book was that it was a quick publishing job to cash in on a broader political conversation。 My overriding feeling was that the book was rushed， even careless， and the author has a strong voice which c I read this book because I'm fascinated by nationalism and have enjoyed a number of books on similar themes; I also wanted to try and find a convincing anti-globalism argument as I was yet to encounter one。 There's no doubt that nationalism is very topical but my overwhelming feeling as I read this book was that it was a quick publishing job to cash in on a broader political conversation。 My overriding feeling was that the book was rushed， even careless， and the author has a strong voice which comes across as incredibly vexing。 I approached this book with curiosity and an open mind but before long the sweeping statements began to get exhausting。 I agree with the writer's argument that British and American concepts of individual liberty are not universal truths that can be immediately understood and desired by everyone， as is often claimed。 They are themselves the cultural inheritance of certain tribes and nations。 Americans or Brits who seek the extension of these concepts around the world continue to give voice to the age-old desire for collective self-determination， which moves them to want to see their own cultural inheritance grow in strength and influence。 However， I was frustrated by the fact that the writer defined globalism as the new imperialism and then spend the whole book re-writing history in accordance with his own diagnosis of globalism and nationalism。 If you are interested in some convincing arguments in favour of nationalism I would recommend Why Nationalism？ by Yale Tamir or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson。 。。。more

Jon Trainer ，

Hazony makes a compelling case for embracing the virtue of a mature nationalism in the face of orthodox imperial liberal internationalism。 It is better to conserve and be loyal to one's own traditions， people， territory， and articulated values， than to bend the knee to the modern globalist who promises peace and prosperity to all of humanity if only the masses will bend the knee to their utopian values （and this includes those who articulate some form of American imperialism or Pax Americana）。 T Hazony makes a compelling case for embracing the virtue of a mature nationalism in the face of orthodox imperial liberal internationalism。 It is better to conserve and be loyal to one's own traditions， people， territory， and articulated values， than to bend the knee to the modern globalist who promises peace and prosperity to all of humanity if only the masses will bend the knee to their utopian values （and this includes those who articulate some form of American imperialism or Pax Americana）。 The conditions of humanity are improved， Hazony argues， as mankind exists in a world of independent nation states。 。。。more

Philipp Hartmann ，

The theme of the book is undoubtedly an important one， particularly in this day and age when several nations call into question the very legitimacy of international bodies。 What it comes down to is the ideal political order - is it a supranational empire （even though its adherents would never call it that， for obvious PR reasons） or a multitude of sovereign， independent nations which do not necessarily agree on many fundamental issues。 While the idea to challenge the current orthodoxy that nat The theme of the book is undoubtedly an important one， particularly in this day and age when several nations call into question the very legitimacy of international bodies。 What it comes down to is the ideal political order - is it a supranational empire （even though its adherents would never call it that， for obvious PR reasons） or a multitude of sovereign， independent nations which do not necessarily agree on many fundamental issues。 While the idea to challenge the current orthodoxy that national states are obsolete and international， all-encompassing institutions and laws are the future is a very pertinent one， the author fails to make a compelling argument for his contention。 Although he does deliver some arguments that make the reader doubt the virtues of internationalism， pointing out its failures and weaknesses， his conterproposition to praise the national state as a functioning entity between tribal anarchy and imperial claims of omnipotence is unconvincing。 As he admits in his conclusion， even sovereign states commit heinous crimes against their peoples and outsiders， so that argument can be dismissed as invalid。 While I do agree with Hazony's general assertion， I think he falls short of making a convincing case in favour of the national state。 。。。more

Joshua ，

Yoram Hazony's book is a much-needed book。 He presents an account of nationalism in such a way that it avoids the problems of imperialism on the one hand （such as the European Union and United Nations） and tribal anarchy on the other。 We see both impulses in the world today， in the form of utopian liberals and libertarians。 Hazony does not argue that nationalism will lead to peace or absence of prejudice or violence。 Rather， he positions it as the best path between tribalism， which leads to cons Yoram Hazony's book is a much-needed book。 He presents an account of nationalism in such a way that it avoids the problems of imperialism on the one hand （such as the European Union and United Nations） and tribal anarchy on the other。 We see both impulses in the world today， in the form of utopian liberals and libertarians。 Hazony does not argue that nationalism will lead to peace or absence of prejudice or violence。 Rather， he positions it as the best path between tribalism， which leads to constant warfare between tribes， and imperialism， which seeks to impose a universal rule on all nations， which leaves no room for error。 A nationalist is thus positioned between the particular （family， tribe， clan） and general （nation， other nations）。 They are， by this means， to remain grounded in the face of rationalist utopian schemes， while at the same time cultivating some detachment from the particular concerns of tribe。 The imperial perspective is positioned too high to pay attention to the concerns of particular people， and thus leads to arbitrariness in who receives attention。 Also， because it lays claim to a universal political order， it leads to the vilification and hatred of anyone who disagrees with the claim that they have found the solution to all political problems。 A community of nations， each committed to their own path of self-determination， provides the world with a variety of experiments in political governance。 It offers the chance to see what works and what doesn't， while minimising the scale of damage that would be maintained at an imperial level。 Hazony is Jewish and deeply committed to the Jewish religion and to the nation of Israel。 He draws his support for nationalism from the Hebrew Scriptures， where Israel is a nation of twelve/thirteen united tribes。 In addition， he points out that Israel was appointed to be a light for all nations and that this light was to be spread not by conquest， but by example。 I would put a Christian twist on this: the New Testament also affirms a world of self-governing nations， each bringing to the Church their unique gifts and offerings。 The Church does make universal claims， but it does so in non-political way， recoginising a distinction between temporal power and spiritual power。 The former is the domain of nation states， the latter the domain of the Church。 Under this arrangement， the Church influences politics by functioning as a prophetic voice who may be consulted or give voice to spiritual or moral concerns， rather than in the direct formulation of legislation and policy， or their interpretation and enforcement。 In this context， the Church can thus safely make universal claims， since she is prevented from resorting to forcible coercion on the one hand， and also by the religious assertion that love of God cannot be forced。 。。。more

John Minster ，

I have mixed feelings about this book。 There's a lot to like here。 I think Hazony is incredibly thoughtful in his reframing of political order into a battle an order of competing nation states and of imperialism。 I also think his emphasis on mutual loyalty and communal commitment are very cogent。 His critiques of the social contract are powerful。 With that in mind however， I think there IS some validity to social contract theory that he doesn't give it。 Furthmore， mutual loyalty is not the ONLY I have mixed feelings about this book。 There's a lot to like here。 I think Hazony is incredibly thoughtful in his reframing of political order into a battle an order of competing nation states and of imperialism。 I also think his emphasis on mutual loyalty and communal commitment are very cogent。 His critiques of the social contract are powerful。 With that in mind however， I think there IS some validity to social contract theory that he doesn't give it。 Furthmore， mutual loyalty is not the ONLY motivator for people， which he seems to make it out to be。 There's more to the story than what he's telling。 I wasn't blown away by the writing， but there were some passages that really elevated his thought。 Overall I enjoyed the book and it made me think。 。。。more

James ，

I for one would be up for reading an articulate， well-argued presentation of the idea that the Nation state is the best solution to humankind's political structuring。 Unfortunately， this isn't it。 Harzomy bases much of his argument on Mosaic law， which is all well and good for an Orthodox Jewish scholar but will hardly convince most of the rest of us。 Next， he invents two extremes - the Nation state and the Imperial state - and forces everything he disagrees with into the latter category， even t I for one would be up for reading an articulate， well-argued presentation of the idea that the Nation state is the best solution to humankind's political structuring。 Unfortunately， this isn't it。 Harzomy bases much of his argument on Mosaic law， which is all well and good for an Orthodox Jewish scholar but will hardly convince most of the rest of us。 Next， he invents two extremes - the Nation state and the Imperial state - and forces everything he disagrees with into the latter category， even though ancient Babylon， the Roman Empire， the medieval Catholic Church， the Third Reich and the EU are all quite different entities。 Some of his criticisms of each might well hold water but the argument is such a broad strokes one， it becomes increasingly boring， straw-mannish and unconvincing as the book goes on （and on）。 The technological， trade and climate issues that we face today are particularly challenging， and any argument on political organisation should be based in a close reading of current situations。 As Harzony argues that the "return" to a Nation state based around a common history， language and religion， one can't but help think that he's never actually travelled in Britain， the Netherlands or America， and so has no idea of the problematics of imposing such a state in Nations in which that particular horse has pretty much already bolted。 There's also， for a book which stretches back to the Bronze Age for its arguments， a distinct lack of a long-term view。 Surely such nations as China， the US and indeed the UK are themselves unifications of various states， which makes Harzony's categorising of them as typical Nations pretty odd。 As is the constant exampling of Israel， which is a special case if there ever was one。I have to confess I only read about 100 pages of this closely。 By then， it had become clear that the arguments don't stand up to any real scrutiny （I flicked through the rest， but it doesn't get better）。 A shame， as I would very much like to read a mature book on the subject of the title。 。。。more

Andrew Figueiredo ，

Hazony makes a credible argument for the persistence of the nation-state model， but not without some issues。 His better points include the importance of national states and the associated principles of such states， the importance of mutual loyalty， and the discussion of why Israel faces a double standard， which I found particularly illuminating。 I also really enjoyed the discussion of the linkage between national liberty and personal liberty。 I definitely came away with a stronger defense of the Hazony makes a credible argument for the persistence of the nation-state model， but not without some issues。 His better points include the importance of national states and the associated principles of such states， the importance of mutual loyalty， and the discussion of why Israel faces a double standard， which I found particularly illuminating。 I also really enjoyed the discussion of the linkage between national liberty and personal liberty。 I definitely came away with a stronger defense of the nation-state model than I had previously thought about， so in that sense， the book fulfilled its mission。 That aid， it was imperfect in many ways。 Hazony's biggest issue is that he plays with the definitions of words to suit his answers。 Nationalism is used in a context rather different from the one we tend to encounter， which allows Hazony to dodge objections to it。 It represents a clever use of terminology to craft a decent argument， but it also limits the way these arguments can be easily transferred to other discussions。 He's also prone to hyperbole at times。 The implication that the UN is somehow a coercive body， as one example， strikes me as misleading。 Hazony draws these extreme contrasts between the national state on one side and imperialism on the other， ascribing "imperialism" to movements that may be nuanced than anything。 This book would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of what coercion means because Hazony's argument for nationalism is predicated on a natural learning process through experimentation。 Some of the examples he calls coercion seem to instead be examples of his national learning process at work。 Overall， a good book and a principled defense of the national state。 It's just hard to take in all of the arguments when some of them look like just moving the goalposts and some seem to rely too much on hyperbole。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Virtue of Nationalism

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Virtue of Nationalism&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Virtue of Nationalism&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0