*4.2. Philosophical Concerns*

There have already been some discussions about Hazony's interpretation of Locke as a strict rationalist and Kant as imperialist cosmopolitan and his use of Burke and other classical conservatives to construct National Conservativism (cf. in particular Yaffe 2021; Schaefer 2021). Especially with regard to Burke, one might bear in mind Onora O'Neill's (2014) warning that there is no consistent theory in Burke. He is used for many sides. This is particularly true for the human rights discourse in theory and practice. Applebaum (2020, p. 20) warns about the abuse of Burke for projects of the new right in Europe. These projects call themselves conservative, but have actually "broken with the old-fashioned, Burkean small-c conservatism that is suspicious of rapid change in all its forms", they would be "more Bolshevik than Burkean" in the sense of destroying existing political structures.

Within the project of National Conservativism, human rights are depicted as an imperialist strategy of liberalism, deeply connected to a Kantian cosmopolitan regime that destroys the sovereignty of national states. There is some legitimate concern in the secularliberal abuse of human rights for imperialist projects of the West, as has been analyzed by postcolonial critics such as Talal Asad (2003). Liberalism and its too often hypocrit-

ical stance towards human rights need to be put under scrutiny. However, in the case of Hazony's concept of National Conservativism, human rights per se are delegitimized as a violent instrument of liberalism, destroying the sovereignty of closed communities. The arguments brought forward very much resemble Carl Schmitt's political theology without quoting the ideological father. For Schmitt (1991, esp. pp. 54–56), the concept of humanity excludes enmity and thus destroys the political. For both, "humanity" is nothing but an ideological instrument of imperialism without any political legitimacy. There is no humanity, only its liberal delusion. "Whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat" (Schmitt 1991, p. 55, transl. MQN), thus reads his famous dictum. For both Schmitt and Hazony, there is no political legitimacy of humanity and human rights, respectively. References to a universal humanity are declared to be imperialist, violent and in contradiction to the concept of the political, i.e., the fight of a homogenous collective against an exterior enemy.

#### *4.3. Historical Misreadings*

Hazony idealizes a Protestant post-1648 state order with homogenous national states that guarantee for peace and prosperity. This has to be put into question. Were the emerging states really religiously and ethnically homogenous and what was the prize for achieving this purported homogeneity? The process was accompanied by severe violence against the identified religious others, ranging from forced conversion to migration or even death. Many religiously persecuted communities found a new home in the Americas, where they had to arrange with practical pluralism and contributed to the emergence of the concept of an inclusive civil religion, while pushing the non-establishment of any institutional religion. The intention was to bring together diverse religious sentiments and foster an encompassing patriotism. Consequently, the de-institutionalization of religion became a key concept for the idea of a secular state that fosters religious pluralism and public religion. Currently, intellectuals such as Martha Nussbaum (2013) recall a religiously inspired, inclusive patriotism against the shortcomings of a too rationalist liberal tradition and the danger of exclusivist populism. Moreover, Pope Francis (2020) supports an inclusive, solidary patriotism that has to be in accordance with integral humanism and a global engagement for human rights, especially for the most vulnerable.

It is important to remember that even after 1648 and the famous "cuius region, eius religio", there were rarely any homogenous states in Europe. Especially the French Revolution was accompanied by massive waves of terror against particular communities within the territory, especially in the Vendée. Indeed, how homogenous was Europe before the atrocities and genocides of World War I and II?

However, according to Hazony, German National Socialism was not nationalist, but due to its war of conquest, was anti-nationalist and thus imperialist, such as liberalism, the European Union and Jürgen Habermas (Hazony 2018, p. 201). In this context, Hazony draws highly simplistic and dangerous comparisons, especially when he suggests that Europe depicts and thus delegitimizes the State of Israel as the continuation of "Auschwitz" (see above and Hazony 2018, p. 206). For Hazony, nationalism is the way to peace and nonviolence, but "is it possible to sever nationalism from the tendencies to xenophobia and even aggressive imperialism as Hazony wishes to do?" (Schaefer 2021, p. 16). He completely ignores the problematic historical and contemporary use of the term "nationalism" and the entanglement of actual aggressive imperialism and nationalism: "On what ground can one distinguish the apparent imperial designs of contemporary Russia and China from purely 'nationalistic' policies, considering that each of those regimes relies heavily on appeals to nationalism?" (Schaefer 2021, p. 15)
