That time i was just referring to was a time as most of you remember it for conservatives it was a time of great hope, we were very young and inducted into this movement but it was extremely exciting to be part of something to be fighting for something that seemed to us to be cohesive and good and clear and fighting actual opponents. We knew who the good guys were and so on. What is funny about the passage of time over the decades the clarity of those years becomes more and more blurry, what i remember as is not what other people remember. And thats interesting and significant. I remember a conservative movement that Irving Kristol of modern conservatism is religion, conservativism and Economic Growth. There had been many of the tripod formulations. For us it was a towering figure. And thats it i what i thought i was joining. What is interesting about religion nationalism and Economic Growth is that crystal was very clear to be an american conservative is not simply about Freedom Freedom has a tremendous place in conservatism but is its not all about freedom. Its not a libertarianism or a liberalism. In fact two chairs for capitalism another one of his slogans. Everyone i knew in the conservative movement was for capitalism but why only two chairs. Much of his career kristol maintained this argument the argument that perfect freedom that giving freedom to do whatever you want his license, and the freedom to do ill and evil. In scripture there is a famous saint from the book of judges each did according to what was right in his own eyes. In scripture this is considered to be the epitome of evil. Not a claim that no good can come out of that. In scripture in the political theory of the bible every single one according to his own eyes. It leads to disintegration. Two no one being able to stand by. No cohesion in society. No one is willing to stand up. There is no loyalty to your neighbors and there is no loyalty to god. It embraces both your neighbor and god. Urban Irving Kristol did this. He said look. It creates extraordinary wealth. We need the power. We want those things. We want the creativity and we want innovation. But we should not be foolish about this. You can see that it corrupts. He means that if your Business Practices you decided to change to a different product. That may not be loyalty. But lets say we can handle it in the market because it brings efficiency. And each husband or wife. I no longer approve. Where i found someone better. I found someone better. We are all traders here lets trade. When the ethic of the market penetrates all other spheres than those spheres are destroyed. The absolute part of it is the description of human beings. They are fundamentally about their freedom, their quality their capacity to reason. And they are entering into agreements by consent. Its a pretty darn good description of the marketplace but a terrible description of almost every other things that human beings you. When you take that enlightenment view and you say thats what i meant to teach to my High Schoolers than low and behold lo and behold you create a society thats not capable of what i think is really the heart ive been a human being. Someone challenges or someone threatens or challenges or its as though its happening to me. Its as though it is happening to them. As is an extraordinary talent. Its an unbelievable talent that each of us is capable of joining into a family or a clan or tribe or nation or community and feeling that an attack that takes place on the other side of the country is something that happened to me. This is not a minor piece of human psychology. This is a core piece which f without this you can understand nothing about human relations about politics and is even a question as to how much you can understand about economics. I will set that aside. We cant understand what holds a nation together lets match as a nation into pieces so can be recovered. We train them to be blind on the basic loyalties to the rise and fall that we need has public influencers or statement that we need in order to be able to take care of our country and see that at last. We must educate almost all of our young people about politics because we teach them that this mutual loyalty is something with the characteristic of legalism. Is not defeated and gone. Its not disappearing. If youre properly educated. It is a learned disability. It seeks to provide an alternative. It did not last when this award. The philosophy has many interesting things that they can look at. Its actually kind of a prelude to this book. Thats for another evening. The virtue of nationalism beginning with the fundamental understanding that human beings are sticky and cohesive. To learn all and respect for the things that are have that her parents have things for. Religion is passed through i want our children to revere or honor in their families or their church. Some individuals they dont like their families and they rebel against them. But they will still go find another clan or tribe. They will cohere. They will become up cohesive part of some thing. It could be within the family. Very often it is. I get along with my uncle but not my father. When they come and tell you that is a profitable nation, we hear this all the time its not the people its the proposition. It may be the best proposition in the world. But no child will revere the proposition unless the parents revered him. Regardless of whether you think that its a universal truth and whether you are right or not, it is quality as something that is capable of being passed on. Nothing to do with the proposition alley. Its all been a depend on how will do we build this mutual loyalty. Arguments about diversity. The competition the competition between tribes can contribute to the strength of a nation. But take diversity the uncertain point and you lose that mutual loyalty. America is beginning to feel that now. It is an extraordinary tragedy. If that mutual loyalty starts to fry if people no longer feel that what is happening for the others in my country is happening to me the only thing that could then hold the country ultimately is force. There is no mutual loyalty that unites all of the people in iraq. We may give them the western powers. Give them off like and they called the nation. The different people in iraq, each of them has its own and heritage. This is true throughout the world. Your business can become a nation and doesnt make any difference how much they want to be a single. They cease to have the importance that we used to have. We have never experienced anything like this before in the history of the world. It was called the holy roman empire. The austrian empire could impose order by force. There was not order. We dont want america to end up Something Like that. Then we have to focus on cohesion. This is what america head. A generation ago we still have it. I dare to say means that a generation from now it could happen again. It is a little bit hopeful. But it could. Let me just say finally, something about the conservative movement. This formula religion nationalism with Economic Growth. I would be willing to sing with us today. There is nothing in our theories that will generate having a cohesive nation. There is nothing in her economic theory that generates the need for a respect for the inherited religion of this country. Of christianity. There is nothing in economic theories that will get us there. You need other theories. You need other theories in without that nationalism and religion you can have the flourishing quantum quality. There be Something Else some other thing. The place where we are today and i speak now as conservatives in the frain god for bid that it should be a collapse. With the mutual loyalty in america which is also you see the same thing happening in the uk. This is not only an american problem. But i will speak to america. Conservatives have a very special role to play here. But we conservatives are not playing that role. The left generation has seen an deterioration. I really only mean it to be helpful. The last generation has seen a flourishing of conservatives institutions there is many wonderful institutions that do many things. But if you look at the level of ideas i think that there has been an disintegration. I think the promise of the Reagan Thatcher years has not been fulfilled. I think if we look over the last generation we see that conservatism gradually falters the reasons. What was called conservatism in america for the most part abandoned religion as a general take a look at that public posture of the conservative movement i think it generally abandoned religion. The last few years since brexit and trump. There is no question there will be a big revival. Could be. The last generation i think to over simplify the conservatives abandon it. And they put everything on the market mechanism. And Economic Growth which i fully support and where we are today as a movement and intellectual power is that most conservatives at least most of the not necessarily about the students or rank and file but most of the institutions that are conservatives are populated by people who have moved in that direction that we would call libertarian. You could say classical liberal. Whatever it is. They are focused on individual freedoms as the key to almost every political question. Is roughly where is. Institutional conservatism there is an alternative in that alternative i find even less attractive than the pure libertarianism. There is a growing movement especially among young people i see this among people are in the future. In the direction of a white identity politics which is fundamentally racialist and its not just us small sliver of kooks who dress up in hoods. Im talking about people they say if there why should we be allowed the group interest. The more educated segments. All of the latest population genetics. Coming out of the universitys and they can to spout all of this scientific stuff to backup this is much more prevalent among the young than you think it is. Im not saying this is a leftist criticism. If we conservatives want to return to a really powerful intellectual agenda that is capable of being attractive and attracting many different people to a Larger Movement to have that have the capacity to influence politics, and institutions. We need to look at the space between libertarians who are losing their influence rapidly and the white identity politics which is gaining influence rapidly. Im in a give a name. Lets call it national conservatism. Its really the old conservatism. The conservatism. A people who recognize that nations are based on mutual loyalty. Unhuman cohesion. And handy down, conservatism. It doesnt exist. Many good people have this intuition. But the work needs to be done the magazines dont yet know that we are supposed to be doing this. The universities forget about it. This is the challenge for our generation. The virtue of nationalism i hope is a challenge to you. I hope it is a good book but it doesnt answer all of the questions. Now im posing to the broader question that this book is supposed to contribute. What is national conservatism. I think everything depends upon it. Thank you. [applause]. We will open it up for some questions. I hope that there has been some thoughts going on here. [indiscernible] longterm but after he wrote some of those things he also said the culture war is over. And most of our movement i agree with you. Many of our friends left wing and everything. Forget about the culture we lost that one. One of the only things that we had left. Its entirely possible i missed something. But the last time i dove into this. And i dont remember anything like that. I believe you. People say all sorts of things. It depends on the context. I only knew him in the last years. The irving i knew wasnt principally concerned with the fact that the United States was the cold war was over. He was concerned the lease and conversations with me. That the United States was was not understanding that it was at home and that that all of the major threats were. I think he already saw clearly that that the country was beginning to come apart. Can it be put back together again. He want them spending their time and energy and the resources trying to run the world when they cannot run their own home. You will send me what you read. I will comment on it. That is as i remember him. I wrote a book called the israel test. In which said the real test of all of these issues was a response to israel and wonder what your view is of israel and its message as it attempts to integrate a population of 5 million that really uphold the soraya principal . Israel is not attempting to and is not going to try to integrate 5 million arabs. Israel certainly has an extraordinary variety of Political Parties in positions but one thing i think is hard to miss about israeli politics is that the leadership of the country regardless of whether they are left or right we have terrible fights about terrible things. There is nobody in israel who is in favor of open borders. Of all of the political figures across the spectrum you cant find a single one is not considered racism. They are just not already there. Within the borders we have roughly Something Like 6 million jews in Something Like 2 million arabs. And those arabs are integrating every nation has boundary problems. They had questions about where to draw out the borders. They have irish problem which is bedeviling them until now and the indians fight over cashmere. There is no Political Party in the state of israel that is interested in reaching some kind of parity between the jewish and arab populations within our state. In the second happen. Thank you so much for tackling this very timely topic. I had two related observations that i wanted to kind of get to see this having at the disadvantage of not having read your book just yet. Some of my friends had been talking about the emergence of this nationalism fairly recently and one conclusion that we came to is that instead of being a case of an anomaly or something that is rearing its have once again we did notice that there were certain times that there were certain ideologies. An example in this case could be socialism managed to go ahead and knock themselves out for about a lifetime as socialism did after the french resolution. After about a lifetime or 70 years. In a bit of a different form. And we were wondering if nationalism might be doing the same kind of thing related to that in to into use a bit of your terminology combined with the terminology of the wikipedia. We noticed a lot of parties in europe label themselves as liberal conservatives. In the case of germany and austria we see the party of the christian democrats managed to basically followed two different paths in the two different countries. In austria they seem to be going along a more conservative path so along those lines i was wondering if you have any thoughts as to what the future might hold for europe in that regard and i think you very much for taking my question. Look. Parties can call themselves all sorts of things and hear what im trying to do is im trying to address ideas and try to give them to the extent that its possible labels that are useful so we cannot be confused. Let me not address what they call themselves but talk to the idea. Since the fall of the berlin wall roughly every major Political Party in america and europe. Democrats and republicans conservative and labor they have all been one or another in the form of liberals. They can call themselves whatever they want but they are all liberals almost no conservatism to be found when i say that they are all liberals what i meet as all of them whether they are socialist or libertarian they are all basing their worldview on what we had been discussing. On the assumption that there is no fundamental issue of whether your Society Needs to be cohesive or not. Its just irrelevant. It doesnt matter what the American Party is called. If she doesnt see the question im not telling you what the answer is. Im not proposing a certain policy but if she did not see the question involved in importing a million or 2 Million People from middle eastern traditions into germany if she does not see the question is raised with regard to what will happen to the cohesion of her society than she is a liberal. If there were conservative parties and im not talking about racist or that the conservative party that has eye on the question of what is can hold the society together and prevent it from literally turning into multiple hostile societies they hate each other and are scared of each other. And can only be reconciled by force if you have your eye on that ball then you can call yourself a conservative. The rest of them there does all liberals in the question is can we get good for europe too. Can we get responsible competent intelligent minimally decent National Conservative parties into being the neil fascist or the stalinist say enough. Two points of the question. First, let me say that i much appreciate the opportunity to hear what you have said about nationalism it is in my judgment a fundamental principle of the conservative movement in the United States to support national sovereignty. And globalism is known to be a very dangerous thing by Movement Conservatives but i think you have insights and i think im interested in reading your book. You suggested that there is a growing and Serious Problems of White Nationalism among the conservatives in the United States. I suggest i suspect you have probably watched this too much i happened to be personally acquainted with the leaders of almost every significant conservative organization in the United States and i can type that an isi in in my organization in every other significant urbanization i know a White Nationalism that attempts to get into the organizations last seen departing out the window with a foot print on his behind. Third thing is my question i am impressed about what you said about cohesion. I think almost everybody that is here. What agr