well as you know i did not know you were hoste, who tbh always seemed unbalanced in some way (ok, let's be honest, genocidal), and now it is clear you were just a prototype of the teen-20something anon LARPer that is ubiquitous now. a cautionary tale of why ppl should be very careful about using anon identities online unless they have self-discipline because the performance overtakes the real persona. that being said, many people have 'evolved' in various directions over 15 years so it is what it is.
you are what you always were from when i saw you first on twitter, weird but interesting.
I am sure tons of woke people fall into this category too and it is also a cautionary tale of too much moral panic around crazy woke things people say.
As a single example of Hoste’s writing, it sounds quite reasonable. Most of the examples of Jewish grifting he presents comes by way of Finkelstein anyway. But I can’t resist mentioning that although Hanania’s turn away from white nationalism is undoubtedly sincere, his boast that he positioned himself to be uncancellable looks a bit different now when you realize that gaining entry into mainstream society wouldn’t be nearly as possible if he didn’t repudiate his former self.
About the description of the Holocaust as a religion. I met a lot of people of Palestinian (also Syrian, Lebanese) descent when I was in University and those kinds of opinions were common among them at the time. It was probably natural considering their opinions about Israel, and their parents’ opinions about Israel. I assume they have a much more nuanced opinion now that they’re in their 40’s.
What did he specifically write? A problem with the HuffPo piece is that it is often difficult to separate the journalist's sometimes tendentious interpretations and paraphrases from what Hanania actually wrote. For example, Hanania proposed that everyone with an IQ under 90 should be sterilized. That's an insane proposition, but as a matter of arithmetic, it is not true that such people are "most often Black".
Frankly, you would be more sympathetic despite (or because even) changing your views, often dramatically, if you weren’t so aggressively arrogant and contemptuous about whatever your views are at this moment. A rational person typically infers from having changed his views often that his current views are less certain, and he’s likely going to have to change them again in the future, rather than thinking “now this time I’ve got it 100% right and it’s obvious” after each iteration.
This is the problem. Richard thinks that by applying self-criticism that comes out of a self-loathing (for a previous self), he is practicing proper humility. However, self-loathing is still a form of pride.
"I sucked, but now I fixed it, and have the right answer, so my previous wrong self was bad," is still prideful, particularly when it comes to political/ideological engagement.
"I sucked, and maybe still suck now, so I should be careful. At the same I have not sucked, too, both then and now, so it is good to be gentle with myself and others," is humble.
By castigating himself so harshly, he maybe thinks he is laying out a path for others to avoid the pain he put himself through. But, that's not gracious, either. If anything, if he should encourage others to take the path that he took *even more* – including all the icky elements – so that they come to grow in the same way he did.
There's others problems, too, of course. Richard assumes that because he was much more radicalized because he was lonely and poor, everyone else who is radicalized is the same way.
But, of course, one can be popular and rich – and still be radical. Indeed, it is often the security from love and wealth that offers one the opportunity to finally be openly radical, in a way they otherwise couldn't.
Putting aside that you're attacking a strawman, if you've followed the Sherriff Chitwood/4chan drama at all, you'll see that many of the angriest anonymous people with political interest are not particularly successful or rich.
What am I strawmanning, exactly? That's literally the view Richard has, as he states it in this article.
> "I’m convinced that most of them are just projecting their personal unhappiness onto the rest of the world, just as I once did. I can understand seeing flaws in the modern West, but I can no longer comprehend looking at any other alternative and thinking it’s likely to be better."
Sure, there are many anonymous politicos that are poor and lonely, and being dick online is a way to cope. But, many are *not* poor nor lonely. They are quite comfortable and they still think the modern West is fundamentally flawed.
Furthermore, Richard spends significant time and effort attacking those RW/anons (as he himself admits) even though those are the very ones who are most vociferously denouncing the fact that he was doxxed.
> "I just told you that I see myself in many anonymous writers and twitter accounts, and instead of that eliciting sympathy, I just write them off as hopeless cases. I have the least empathy in situations where I should probably have the most."
Yes. The whole thing is prideful and presumptuous on his part. His attitude is: "I used to believe X, and then I became happy, and realized X was wrong, so now I'm doing a good thing for the world by criticizing X, because most people who believe X were probably unhappy like me."
That, combined with his online arrogance, is frankly repulsive.
Whether or not he is truly liberal, or how he views race, or his personal need to come clean -- none of that particularly matters to me. Right-wingers & anons can sense the false humility and are correctly grossed out.
Richard admitting that he was less good when he was lonely and poor is not a statement that ALL people are radicalized that way. He clearly even carves out an exception when he says "most", and the context is anonymous political commentators (e.g. Twitter anons, Groypers, /pol/ regulars, etc), not extremism as a whole (e.g. those with institutional power).
I'm curious what makes you think that many radicals have comfortable/happy lives. When the government sets out to scapegoat people into conspiracy of terrorism charges, it usually involves poor lonely Muslim men used as examples for "radical Islam", or poor lonely incel/NEET/autistic men used as examples for "the alt-right/Nazis".
What Richard is displaying with that last statement is outsider-preference, which while perhaps a character flaw in some contexts, is certainly a real thing. The left often accuses the right of having no empathy because they were already comfortable and never needed to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps". But there are many, like Richard apparently, who instead of wallowing in self-pity, did pull themselves out of that and became something better. When one achieves something and knows intimately all the steps and effort that went into doing so, it becomes easy to dismiss those unwilling/unable to do the same as lazy. I don't see it as false humility, I think the overall message is that he's proud of where he is today and doesn't want to waste time on crabs in buckets.
I think we could keep going back and forth for a while, and I'm not so interested in that. I'll just say this.
You seem to be proposing a more positive frame onto his actions: "Richard is holding himself accountable in certain ways, especially as it relates to personal growth, which is a mark of maturity. He's made something of himself coming from a dark place so it's good for him to share his journey out loud."
One implication is along the lines of that he ought to be applauded for issuing a public 'apology'.
I have a much more skeptical and cynical frame: "Richard is acting out of nefarious self-interest – a need to be accepted (by whom?) – which he doesn't seem to be aware of. He also wants to act as a guide toward others who he perceives as less sophisticated and inferior, when, in fact, these are merely parts of himself that he has disowned."
'Taking ownership' of one's past (by e.g., disavowing misogyny and racism and whatever else is 'radical/extreme') to a large audience isn't that valuable, in my opinion. I can really only imagine someone would do such a thing because he wants to send the 'right' signals to the 'right' people while distancing himself from 'the bad ones'. That's not trustworthy behavior.
I certainly can't imagine Richard Hanania (in particular!) is doing this because he thinks he is somehow a good role model and will actually help anyone substantively who struggles in a similar way by sharing his story.
I'm not saying my view is 'correct' or 'good' or 'helpful', but I trust my inner discernment, which is telling me to be highly suspicious.
There's always the chance this is just an act and he's still a cryptonazi, but I lean against this, because if it were a pose, he would be at least somewhat friendly in his current writings to collectivist economic solutions, anti-immigrationism, and cognitive overperformance, whether presented in individuals or in groups.
If it's a pose, that's a lot of needlessly difficult and unpopular positions to add to the cover. As opposed to someone like Michael Tracey, who could replace his entire next week's Twitter feed with Mein Kampf quotations and nobody would notice.
How do you know that? The evidence is quite clear that he changed his mind before the Huff Post piece came out. The articles speak for themselves. Yet, even if he were secretly a White nationalist or Nazi, his articles go against those views, so can hardly serve his interests in that regard. He’s for immigration!
Yeah he's a total cuck now unfortunately but has sperts of being semi based at times to maybe total cuck is a bit far but definitely leans cuckservative.
A very mature post, and a good example of why I - probably among the 10% most liberal of your readers - continue to find you to be often worth reading. And defended doing so on Twitter. It is precisely your desire to be heterodox, and to listen to new sources of information and reflect on and reconsider your opinions, which both leads to you being able to show us a different side of an issue, as well as for you yourself to grow as a person.
I like to think, and I follow you because I find you to be an incredibly interesting thinker and writer. It doesn't shock me that someone who argues with such unique, often contrarian positions would've held much more crude and radical views in the past. I judge your value by your current work, not your past.
People learn and develop more nuanced views as they get older and more experienced??? Color me shocked!!
Yeah. He bloody well does, and he's still flogging all of his delusional race Theory crap. He still holds the same beliefs, he's just learned how to say it a little more quietly.
This really isn't an apology, though, it's just an explanation. Why would he apologize - pre-emptively or otherwise - when it won't change how people view him? Nobody who thinks he's an evil racist would've been persuaded by proactive groveling. It's utterly pointless.
When people show you who they are, believe them. There's not really much opinion about this. His vile past is pretty much out there for everybody to see. Not really much to debate. So you are right, opinions won't change. People who tend to hate racists continue to hate racists. The math is very simple here.
I don't really care about peoples' past opinions, especially ones from over 15 years ago. The person who wrote the HuffPo article supports violent communist revolutionaries as well as genocidal chants against ethnic minorities (as long as they're white). None of that, though, is relevant to what he's writing.
Thanks for explaining this, Richard. I wasn’t too worried that you were some secret white supremacist today (based on your writing, it’s clear you’re not), but it’s interesting to have an explanation for why your views have changed so much.
The kind of criticism you make towards the right is so incisive that this kind of background makes some sense.
This is very helpful. I wasn’t completely sold on you to begin with, and while I initially thought the leftist substack writers pillorying you were exaggerating, or misrepresenting, I then saw these recent “NOS” revelations and was thrown.
But--
1. you’ve been friendly with me on here in the past, even when I disagree with you
2. I don’t share the left’s tantrum-based opposition to statistics, reality, etc.
This last is a big part of why I’m a leftist, but I’m still constantly frustrated with my own side. I care more about integrity and accountability than tribal loyalty.
So-- I’ll dig into this further later, but to me it comes across as self-aware in a way that partisans almost never are.
I didn't actually read the HuffPo hitpiece, so I don't really know *specifically* what you are apologizing for in this article, but from the reaction it provoked, I gather it was really bad stuff.
I read this reply and I have sympathy for the fact that whatever you wrote was 12-15 years ago. That is a long time. Time brings change, and no one remains static throughout the years.
I understand many people say "never apologize to the mob!" but it can sometimes be the right thing to do, if it is sincere. When I first became "redpilled" like 5+ years ago, for example, I definitely wrote stuff in e.g. /pol/ threads that the current, maturer version of myself would be repulsed by and apologize profusely for. I have forgiven myself for writing those things. Forgiveness and personal growth is possible.
You cannot argue your way out of a bad-faith character assassination hit job. These are the same pundits who make excuses for mobs of South Africans chanting about genociding whites. They are not serious people. Treat these clowns like the joke that they are.
Blacks view Hanania as non-black but he's middle eastern, so he can't identify with whites, or only partially identify. Which is fine since nowadays there are plenty of whites who can't seem to identify as white either. So, he has no choice but to apologize because as he says he's a liberal, e.g., everybody's the same, except when it's to do with real estate, schools, doctors, airline pilots, etc.
Arabs have always identified as white, until very recently, after decades of stigmatization against all things white by the activist class of western society.
And biologically speaking, they absolutely are. "White" is a very broad term that covers hundreds of races of people, and many have different definitions for it, but the specific morphological features the large subgroupings of the human races share, right down to what percentage of our DNA is Neanderthalic, are still quite discernable in everyone from Btitian to Bangaladesh.
Also, the whole idea that "white" is an arbitrary term created by white people for people they can't be racist against has always been nonsense. Brutal, even genocidal violence between groups that are genetically much more similar than they are to most other groups on Earth has always been by far the most prevalent type of racial conflict in human history. European colonialism, Jim Crow, and Apartheid-era South Africa just get the most attention, but they are not representative of the majority of racial conflicts.
Interesting comment, thanks. I always thought Arabs were a Semitic or Hamitic people although Carthage was Phoenician and I'm not sure what group they belonged to. Also, I just read that a tribe of Berbers had a Basque-connected language, and the Basque are now considered caucasian.
Generally, I tend to look at the religion, literature, art and architecture of a place besides the people. Islam would put them outside the Caucasian/Christian group, but blacks in the US have been Christian for a few centuries and have a radically different spiritual relationship to the divine than whites (or anyone else for that matter). Arab art is not generally within the western tradition and would be considered iconoclastic; and Arab architecture seems beautiful but not particularly European-inspired. There are many borrowings from one culture to another over centuries but eacb major racial group created its own unique images, gestures and sounds in time.
It's nature/nurture with me, with a genetic pre-disposition.
"White" and "Western" aren't synonymous. Black Christianity is also not just a New World and colonialism phenomenon. One of the oldest group of Christians in the World is the Ethiopian Church. They're probably not the first Christian country, though they like to claim such, but they date back to at least the Fourth Century, and almost assuredly earlier, assuming the trajectory of Axum was similar to the Roman Empire, which I feel is fairly likely.
And Semites absolutely are white just as much as the Basque and Hungarians. Or whatever term you want to use for our particular Neanderthalic mixture of DNA. "White" is honestly a flawed term, as every shade of skin exists between the Indian subcontinent, Northern Africa, and the British Isles. There are thousands of minor races of man, but as for major races, there are only between three and five, and of those major races, hundreds of them have enough commonalities to where we can say that them being a thing is a thing, just as we can say that wolves, dogs, jackals, and coyotes are all things despite all four having many commonalities and being able to produce viable offspring with eachother.
And Semites absolutely are white just as much as the Basque and Hungarians.
Their perceived kinship and historic relations with Europeans aren't exactly stellar. And that's where you go off the rails. Perceived kinship. Rachel Dolezal thinks she's a black person but she is rejected by the black Ummah. You're never going to get around that. LOL.
And then you're going to have the problem with victim group hierarchy. How are you going to stop all the racisms in The Age of Kneeling Nancy? Racisms are like voodoo spirits. They are everywhere and can appear as if by magic, as we see with our host's current problems.
It's not "perceived". We have actual biological and genetic evidence, down to our Neanderthalic admixture, that the French, Basque, Hungarians, Hindustanis, and many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other races of man, are part of a larger microrace which we now call "Caucasian". None of which has anything to do with the Shaun Kings and Rachel Dolezals of the world, who are simply fraudsters and conartists seeking to weaponize societal guilt for their own benefits, who lack any compunction about whatever ridiculous lies they have to tell to take advantage of such.
I think this would be a total non-story if not for your previous expressed hostility to online anonymity, and in particular your bragging about how brave you are for writing wrongthink under your real name. Personally, I don't really give a shit what you wrote for VDARE 10 years ago or whatever, and if anything I find it funny. But I don't think anonymous online right wingers are the greatest evil of all time either.
What I find notable is that, at the same time that you told us how brave you are for posting about black crime statistics under your real name and how cowardly we are for using screennames, you were sitting on this the whole time. You didn't feel the need to share your previous views and activities with the world as part of your professed bravery? One can't help but notice that you only went from anonymous to self-identified after your views likewise evolved into something more tolerable to social sensibilities (relatively speaking--you're controversial by mainstream standards, but still a far cry from "we should literally sterilize the low IQs" which you apparently wrote in the past).
If you're acknowledging that your hostility towards the anons is in part self-criticism, why didn't you tell us about this sooner? Why didn't you show your bravery by putting it out in the open and saying "look guys, I've been there myself, I have personal experience with this?" Why did it have to be dragged into the open by the Huffington Post? It seems to me that the only possible answer is because of the likely social consequences, no? In which case, how is that really much different from people who post anonymously out of fear of exactly this sort of cancel attempt targeting them?
Since you're trying to emphasize your capacity for "nuance" a lot here, I think maybe we can have some nuance on anonymity. Yes, a lot of anonymous posters are unhinged trolls, but in the same way that the heavily flawed "conservative" movement remains a less bad option than the race-communist left, maybe having some tiny semblance of actual free speech allowed online is still a better alternative than the deafening silence which would be the only other option.
Oh, and "the media are still good" remains one of your worst takes. IIRC, that was the article where you defended the media by pointing out that they write lots of factually accurate things with zero accounting for whether those things were about politics or not. Again: Writing twenty million factually accurate articles about irrelevant curiosities like cuisine trends in Southeast Asia or something, does not in any way compensate for lying about race, crime, COVID, etc. This should be self-evident if you really think "concerns over disparate impact" are actually that big of a deal. Trust me, you can still get your quirky little food blogs from plenty of other places online if the Huffington Post goes out of business.
You wrote: "I [Person Online] think this would be a total non-story if not for your [Hanania's] previous expressed hostility to online anonymity, and in particular your bragging about how brave you are for writing wrongthink under your real name."
Don't you consider there's something of a political dimension to HuffPo's doxxing? Seems like the people and organizations mentioned in the piece—I encourage everyone to read the piece again and make careful note of those tenuous but useful associations—happen to be the most effective and direct threats to rolling back officially-sanctioned DEI initiatives and the woke/left-liberal nexus more generally. Surely the opportunity for the left to pull down the pants of one of the leading right-wing intellectuals in the country was irresistible, inevitable, and totally predictable.
Of course it's a political hit job? Like I said, I don't care what Richard wrote years ago. I hope the cancel attempt totally fails. Not sure what your point is.
We all change our beliefs as we and the world change. Cancel culture is increasingly becoming less potent. It will take a lot more than a HuffPo antifa hatchet man to take you down. Stand strong Richard!
If you'd actually manifested some kind of change in beliefs over this time you wouldn't have been tweeting overt racism mere days ago. There is no reason anyone should believe you, because your behavior has never changed and you have not manifested any evidence of halting these vile beliefs.
If even a scintilla of what right wing scumbags have claimed about our "cancel culture" is true, let it be true here, and now, with this evil.
Rightwing scumbag here. Please explain why a house and lot, same distance to the federal triangle, in SE quadrant Washington DC is half the price of a similar one in Upper Caucasia NW quadrant. In 100% Democrat-run DC. Sounds very racist to me. If that's the case pretty much every white person is racist, no?
"every human is an individual entitled to basic dignity, and that includes being judged as an individual and having the same opportunities as others"
Apparently non-whites need white people in order to have these same opportunities (and be judged as an individual). Otherwise, what's stopping them from finding these opportunities in their own part of the world?
In general HBD is used as a counter argument to the thesis that all disparities in the United States (however defined) are the fault of White people. And before you say 'this is a strawman' - you can just read the literature in Whiteness studies (or even older Marxist/Race Baiters like Davis). It's pretty much exactly what they believe.
Can you read? Did I say that's the 'only reason' people talk about HBD? Or did I say 'In general..' and then proceed to state what is indeed the general reason people bring up HBD in 2023?
>I wonder how it got such a bad rap.
I wonder why people associate IQ testing with Nazis despite them explicitly rejecting it due to Jews scoring higher than Germans and Slavs scoring about the same. I wonder why people who bomb the Capitol are allowed to become professors at some of our most prestigious universities years later. I wonder lots of things, Graham!
I mean, this is just a true statement. Ironically, blacks would benefit most from policies like this as they are disproportionately victimized (as well as perpetrators). In case you haven't noticed, black Americans are one of, if not the most, hot button political topic in America for the past several years; having frequent mentions of them in your twitter posts isn't surprising whatsoever.
Read David Zimmer's analysis of White vs Black crime rates vs arrest rates in Minnesota in the aftermath of Saint Floyd's martyrdom. If we are to have racial equality, let alone stopping crime where it is strongest, it is necessary to increase the arrest rate for Blacks.
“I’m convinced that most of them are just projecting their personal unhappiness onto the rest of the world, just as I once did.”
Given the research showing that depressives have more accurate perceptions of reality, do you ever consider whether they are correctly seeing the world as it is whereas you are merely projecting your smug complacency onto a world that is obviously awful for most people? The British phrase is “I'm alright, Jack”: you're now alright personally, so the system must be a good one, even though nearly everyone else isn't alright.
What made me hostile to mass non-white immigration was attending a majority black school. I was appalled by the behavior I saw. Although I also noticed that many blacks were/are kind and decent (and am truly grateful to those who protected me from their fellow blacks), I don’t think it’s “collectivist” per se to have an overall negative view of blacks (or other groups).
Re: Mass immigration: It seems very contradictory to me to celebrate deteriorating social cohesion because it stops whites--the (WEIRD) group that has built an incredible civilization that draws millions of non-whites--from voting in “socialism” (aka welfare + markets) and then attack MAGA whites for opposing the loss of their homeland (a massive cost for those who actually count *all* costs of immigration) under PC regimes--even though the hostility they display is at least partially the result of the loss of social cohesion you celebrate. In addition, you still recognize the possibility that shifting demographics could lead to a Hugo Chavez-style government. Which is more risky? A Swedish-style “socialism” under a mostly homogeneous, socially cohesive, white population (consider that Sweden reformed itself somewhat in the 90s) or Hugo Chavez? The demographic shift is not even fully complete and we already have a PC bureaucracy that abolished freedom of association 75+ years ago. If anything, less social cohesion has brought even more nonsense like DEI and CRT. Yes, many whites are to blame for supporting this stuff things but things look a bit different when you consider that many of these “whites” were/are Jews who were instrumental in overthrowing the Darwinian paradigm in the social sciences. (This is also the result of immigration.)
Re: Crime: CATO-types claim immigrants have a lower crime rate than natives but natives include higher crime blacks and Hispanics. A bit of sleight of hand here. Bukele is policing his own but it’s much harder to police other groups (as you’ve noticed). But you think the solution is more low IQ people. I don’t see it (yet).
I recall Tony Blair (?) getting in hot water in the 90s for lamenting the fact that so many criminals in the UK were black. But we shouldn’t be surprised if Africans are similar to US blacks given that they are genetically similar.
I don’t think that’s so. There are greater levels of genetic diversity within Africa than outside it (birthplace of humanity etc), and African immigrants are a rather strongly-selected group.
Just looking at state-level crime statistics alone, by far the worst rate of Black homicide is in deindustrialized Midwestern regions, which also happen to be regions with the lowest rate of immigration (other than pockets of Hispanic slaughterhouse workers). Nigerian Americans have a median income above the White American median, which is indicative of lower crime rates as well. I'm not sure that there is any direct analysis which conclusively measures ADOS Black vs immigrant Black crime, but there are enough correlates to make it pretty obvious, particularly if you've ever tried interacting with both groups. Even in infamous Minneapolis with its large Somali population, it wasn't Somalis burning down the city.
True, but those are first generation Nigerians, Somalis, etc. After a couple of generations being programmed to hate white people they will conform to pattern. The Age of Kneeling Nancy will capture them. They will have no choice because they need quotas to compete, even the smart ones. Otherwise, it's racism.
Besides, look at what's happening in South Africa.
It's true that the existence of a Black American Identity will sometimes subsume African Immigrant identity, and that is a big problem. I'll also add that to the extent that African migration is expanding away from meritocracy of 99th percentile Nigerians and towards refugee-pitying, it will also lower the quality of African immigrants, and make the problem worse. But it's predominantly an elite academic clique that promotes intersectionality in opposition to the upcoming White plurality, which ultimately facilitates horrors like disparate impact consideration.
A quick google is telling me that Blacks made up a strong majority of South Africa even 100 years ago. That's not to say it was always that case, of course, the early settlements and civilization were Dutch/Boer and Anglo. But it's a rather different situation here, and ironically, the existence of Orania at all shows a degree of White identity tolerance in South Africa beyond anything that exists in America, in spite of the obvious dangers Afrikaners face. If Whites want to survive in America, it's definitely valid to criticize unrelenting immigration from the third world, but the administrative/academic/journalist classes are the ones pushing policy and lies that excuse the aforementioned Black crime problems.
well as you know i did not know you were hoste, who tbh always seemed unbalanced in some way (ok, let's be honest, genocidal), and now it is clear you were just a prototype of the teen-20something anon LARPer that is ubiquitous now. a cautionary tale of why ppl should be very careful about using anon identities online unless they have self-discipline because the performance overtakes the real persona. that being said, many people have 'evolved' in various directions over 15 years so it is what it is.
you are what you always were from when i saw you first on twitter, weird but interesting.
Thanks for the revelations about your journey. It was enjoyable! I think I am a classic liberal. How would define a classic liberal?
I am sure tons of woke people fall into this category too and it is also a cautionary tale of too much moral panic around crazy woke things people say.
Your opinions are irrelevant, you cannot even withstand a mild anime avi attaq
you're a subhuman retard
You're streetshitting oligophrenia sufferer, Razib
Weird but interesting is good, some of us only manage the first part. And good for you for being straight and honest like always, Razib.
Article about the Holocaust was pretty good. https://counter-currents.com/2011/10/norman-finkelsteins-the-holocaust-industry/
As a single example of Hoste’s writing, it sounds quite reasonable. Most of the examples of Jewish grifting he presents comes by way of Finkelstein anyway. But I can’t resist mentioning that although Hanania’s turn away from white nationalism is undoubtedly sincere, his boast that he positioned himself to be uncancellable looks a bit different now when you realize that gaining entry into mainstream society wouldn’t be nearly as possible if he didn’t repudiate his former self.
About the description of the Holocaust as a religion. I met a lot of people of Palestinian (also Syrian, Lebanese) descent when I was in University and those kinds of opinions were common among them at the time. It was probably natural considering their opinions about Israel, and their parents’ opinions about Israel. I assume they have a much more nuanced opinion now that they’re in their 40’s.
"Wignat"?
What did he specifically write? A problem with the HuffPo piece is that it is often difficult to separate the journalist's sometimes tendentious interpretations and paraphrases from what Hanania actually wrote. For example, Hanania proposed that everyone with an IQ under 90 should be sterilized. That's an insane proposition, but as a matter of arithmetic, it is not true that such people are "most often Black".
I think it is true that they are most often male, and it would be weird to argue that such a view is anti-male by design.
I asked for what Hanania wrote, i.e. a direct quote, not what the journalist wrote about Hanania. The HuffPo article says:
"He expressed support for eugenics and the forced sterilization of 'low IQ' people, who he argued were most often Black."
The "most often Black" is not a quote from Hanania. The claim is arithmetically incorrect and I'm skeptical that Hanania actually made it.
Frankly, you would be more sympathetic despite (or because even) changing your views, often dramatically, if you weren’t so aggressively arrogant and contemptuous about whatever your views are at this moment. A rational person typically infers from having changed his views often that his current views are less certain, and he’s likely going to have to change them again in the future, rather than thinking “now this time I’ve got it 100% right and it’s obvious” after each iteration.
This is the problem. Richard thinks that by applying self-criticism that comes out of a self-loathing (for a previous self), he is practicing proper humility. However, self-loathing is still a form of pride.
"I sucked, but now I fixed it, and have the right answer, so my previous wrong self was bad," is still prideful, particularly when it comes to political/ideological engagement.
"I sucked, and maybe still suck now, so I should be careful. At the same I have not sucked, too, both then and now, so it is good to be gentle with myself and others," is humble.
By castigating himself so harshly, he maybe thinks he is laying out a path for others to avoid the pain he put himself through. But, that's not gracious, either. If anything, if he should encourage others to take the path that he took *even more* – including all the icky elements – so that they come to grow in the same way he did.
There's others problems, too, of course. Richard assumes that because he was much more radicalized because he was lonely and poor, everyone else who is radicalized is the same way.
But, of course, one can be popular and rich – and still be radical. Indeed, it is often the security from love and wealth that offers one the opportunity to finally be openly radical, in a way they otherwise couldn't.
Putting aside that you're attacking a strawman, if you've followed the Sherriff Chitwood/4chan drama at all, you'll see that many of the angriest anonymous people with political interest are not particularly successful or rich.
What am I strawmanning, exactly? That's literally the view Richard has, as he states it in this article.
> "I’m convinced that most of them are just projecting their personal unhappiness onto the rest of the world, just as I once did. I can understand seeing flaws in the modern West, but I can no longer comprehend looking at any other alternative and thinking it’s likely to be better."
Sure, there are many anonymous politicos that are poor and lonely, and being dick online is a way to cope. But, many are *not* poor nor lonely. They are quite comfortable and they still think the modern West is fundamentally flawed.
Furthermore, Richard spends significant time and effort attacking those RW/anons (as he himself admits) even though those are the very ones who are most vociferously denouncing the fact that he was doxxed.
> "I just told you that I see myself in many anonymous writers and twitter accounts, and instead of that eliciting sympathy, I just write them off as hopeless cases. I have the least empathy in situations where I should probably have the most."
Yes. The whole thing is prideful and presumptuous on his part. His attitude is: "I used to believe X, and then I became happy, and realized X was wrong, so now I'm doing a good thing for the world by criticizing X, because most people who believe X were probably unhappy like me."
That, combined with his online arrogance, is frankly repulsive.
Whether or not he is truly liberal, or how he views race, or his personal need to come clean -- none of that particularly matters to me. Right-wingers & anons can sense the false humility and are correctly grossed out.
Richard admitting that he was less good when he was lonely and poor is not a statement that ALL people are radicalized that way. He clearly even carves out an exception when he says "most", and the context is anonymous political commentators (e.g. Twitter anons, Groypers, /pol/ regulars, etc), not extremism as a whole (e.g. those with institutional power).
I'm curious what makes you think that many radicals have comfortable/happy lives. When the government sets out to scapegoat people into conspiracy of terrorism charges, it usually involves poor lonely Muslim men used as examples for "radical Islam", or poor lonely incel/NEET/autistic men used as examples for "the alt-right/Nazis".
What Richard is displaying with that last statement is outsider-preference, which while perhaps a character flaw in some contexts, is certainly a real thing. The left often accuses the right of having no empathy because they were already comfortable and never needed to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps". But there are many, like Richard apparently, who instead of wallowing in self-pity, did pull themselves out of that and became something better. When one achieves something and knows intimately all the steps and effort that went into doing so, it becomes easy to dismiss those unwilling/unable to do the same as lazy. I don't see it as false humility, I think the overall message is that he's proud of where he is today and doesn't want to waste time on crabs in buckets.
I think we could keep going back and forth for a while, and I'm not so interested in that. I'll just say this.
You seem to be proposing a more positive frame onto his actions: "Richard is holding himself accountable in certain ways, especially as it relates to personal growth, which is a mark of maturity. He's made something of himself coming from a dark place so it's good for him to share his journey out loud."
One implication is along the lines of that he ought to be applauded for issuing a public 'apology'.
I have a much more skeptical and cynical frame: "Richard is acting out of nefarious self-interest – a need to be accepted (by whom?) – which he doesn't seem to be aware of. He also wants to act as a guide toward others who he perceives as less sophisticated and inferior, when, in fact, these are merely parts of himself that he has disowned."
'Taking ownership' of one's past (by e.g., disavowing misogyny and racism and whatever else is 'radical/extreme') to a large audience isn't that valuable, in my opinion. I can really only imagine someone would do such a thing because he wants to send the 'right' signals to the 'right' people while distancing himself from 'the bad ones'. That's not trustworthy behavior.
I certainly can't imagine Richard Hanania (in particular!) is doing this because he thinks he is somehow a good role model and will actually help anyone substantively who struggles in a similar way by sharing his story.
I'm not saying my view is 'correct' or 'good' or 'helpful', but I trust my inner discernment, which is telling me to be highly suspicious.
But if you do not sell your views like that, you won't get people to read it.
He hasn't changed his views he's just desperately trying to avoid consequences.
He certainly appears to have.
There's always the chance this is just an act and he's still a cryptonazi, but I lean against this, because if it were a pose, he would be at least somewhat friendly in his current writings to collectivist economic solutions, anti-immigrationism, and cognitive overperformance, whether presented in individuals or in groups.
If it's a pose, that's a lot of needlessly difficult and unpopular positions to add to the cover. As opposed to someone like Michael Tracey, who could replace his entire next week's Twitter feed with Mein Kampf quotations and nobody would notice.
How do you know that? The evidence is quite clear that he changed his mind before the Huff Post piece came out. The articles speak for themselves. Yet, even if he were secretly a White nationalist or Nazi, his articles go against those views, so can hardly serve his interests in that regard. He’s for immigration!
Yeah he's a total cuck now unfortunately but has sperts of being semi based at times to maybe total cuck is a bit far but definitely leans cuckservative.
I don't know how you could come to this conclusion without thinking you're a mind reader. Nothing he writes now is like what he wrote then.
This is a good comment.
A very mature post, and a good example of why I - probably among the 10% most liberal of your readers - continue to find you to be often worth reading. And defended doing so on Twitter. It is precisely your desire to be heterodox, and to listen to new sources of information and reflect on and reconsider your opinions, which both leads to you being able to show us a different side of an issue, as well as for you yourself to grow as a person.
Gayest thing I've ever read
name checks out
I like to think, and I follow you because I find you to be an incredibly interesting thinker and writer. It doesn't shock me that someone who argues with such unique, often contrarian positions would've held much more crude and radical views in the past. I judge your value by your current work, not your past.
People learn and develop more nuanced views as they get older and more experienced??? Color me shocked!!
He doesn't owe it to anyone to apologize for things he said 15 years ago. Grow up.
Yeah. He bloody well does, and he's still flogging all of his delusional race Theory crap. He still holds the same beliefs, he's just learned how to say it a little more quietly.
Do you think people who were tankies and communists in college or grad school should have to publicly apologize for their past insanity?
You made an account for just this purpose? LMAO
This really isn't an apology, though, it's just an explanation. Why would he apologize - pre-emptively or otherwise - when it won't change how people view him? Nobody who thinks he's an evil racist would've been persuaded by proactive groveling. It's utterly pointless.
When people show you who they are, believe them. There's not really much opinion about this. His vile past is pretty much out there for everybody to see. Not really much to debate. So you are right, opinions won't change. People who tend to hate racists continue to hate racists. The math is very simple here.
I don't really care about peoples' past opinions, especially ones from over 15 years ago. The person who wrote the HuffPo article supports violent communist revolutionaries as well as genocidal chants against ethnic minorities (as long as they're white). None of that, though, is relevant to what he's writing.
Same judgment apply to criminals, troubled kids in school, addicts of sundry substances/practices, etc.? You look to be a hanging judge—are you?
Thanks for explaining this, Richard. I wasn’t too worried that you were some secret white supremacist today (based on your writing, it’s clear you’re not), but it’s interesting to have an explanation for why your views have changed so much.
The kind of criticism you make towards the right is so incisive that this kind of background makes some sense.
This is very helpful. I wasn’t completely sold on you to begin with, and while I initially thought the leftist substack writers pillorying you were exaggerating, or misrepresenting, I then saw these recent “NOS” revelations and was thrown.
But--
1. you’ve been friendly with me on here in the past, even when I disagree with you
2. I don’t share the left’s tantrum-based opposition to statistics, reality, etc.
This last is a big part of why I’m a leftist, but I’m still constantly frustrated with my own side. I care more about integrity and accountability than tribal loyalty.
So-- I’ll dig into this further later, but to me it comes across as self-aware in a way that partisans almost never are.
I didn't actually read the HuffPo hitpiece, so I don't really know *specifically* what you are apologizing for in this article, but from the reaction it provoked, I gather it was really bad stuff.
I read this reply and I have sympathy for the fact that whatever you wrote was 12-15 years ago. That is a long time. Time brings change, and no one remains static throughout the years.
I understand many people say "never apologize to the mob!" but it can sometimes be the right thing to do, if it is sincere. When I first became "redpilled" like 5+ years ago, for example, I definitely wrote stuff in e.g. /pol/ threads that the current, maturer version of myself would be repulsed by and apologize profusely for. I have forgiven myself for writing those things. Forgiveness and personal growth is possible.
Here is the article....you should read it...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-hanania-white-supremacist-pseudonym-richard-hoste_n_64c93928e4b021e2f295e817
no one should ever read the huffpo under any circumstances
It's bad on purpose to make you click
He is actually 6'2, which makes him correct about everything.
We found the HuffPost writer
He's a dude, Rithik. He's not being hypocritical at all.
Wuzzup, my racist! https://substack.com/@barsoom/note/c-15102391
You cannot argue your way out of a bad-faith character assassination hit job. These are the same pundits who make excuses for mobs of South Africans chanting about genociding whites. They are not serious people. Treat these clowns like the joke that they are.
learn the lessons from our enemies
has this NYT moron have to explain anything or apologize?
https://twitter.com/jeligon/status/1687195660683182080
Im sure he simply disables comments or messages and moves on
Blacks view Hanania as non-black but he's middle eastern, so he can't identify with whites, or only partially identify. Which is fine since nowadays there are plenty of whites who can't seem to identify as white either. So, he has no choice but to apologize because as he says he's a liberal, e.g., everybody's the same, except when it's to do with real estate, schools, doctors, airline pilots, etc.
Arabs have always identified as white, until very recently, after decades of stigmatization against all things white by the activist class of western society.
And biologically speaking, they absolutely are. "White" is a very broad term that covers hundreds of races of people, and many have different definitions for it, but the specific morphological features the large subgroupings of the human races share, right down to what percentage of our DNA is Neanderthalic, are still quite discernable in everyone from Btitian to Bangaladesh.
Also, the whole idea that "white" is an arbitrary term created by white people for people they can't be racist against has always been nonsense. Brutal, even genocidal violence between groups that are genetically much more similar than they are to most other groups on Earth has always been by far the most prevalent type of racial conflict in human history. European colonialism, Jim Crow, and Apartheid-era South Africa just get the most attention, but they are not representative of the majority of racial conflicts.
Interesting comment, thanks. I always thought Arabs were a Semitic or Hamitic people although Carthage was Phoenician and I'm not sure what group they belonged to. Also, I just read that a tribe of Berbers had a Basque-connected language, and the Basque are now considered caucasian.
Generally, I tend to look at the religion, literature, art and architecture of a place besides the people. Islam would put them outside the Caucasian/Christian group, but blacks in the US have been Christian for a few centuries and have a radically different spiritual relationship to the divine than whites (or anyone else for that matter). Arab art is not generally within the western tradition and would be considered iconoclastic; and Arab architecture seems beautiful but not particularly European-inspired. There are many borrowings from one culture to another over centuries but eacb major racial group created its own unique images, gestures and sounds in time.
It's nature/nurture with me, with a genetic pre-disposition.
"White" and "Western" aren't synonymous. Black Christianity is also not just a New World and colonialism phenomenon. One of the oldest group of Christians in the World is the Ethiopian Church. They're probably not the first Christian country, though they like to claim such, but they date back to at least the Fourth Century, and almost assuredly earlier, assuming the trajectory of Axum was similar to the Roman Empire, which I feel is fairly likely.
And Semites absolutely are white just as much as the Basque and Hungarians. Or whatever term you want to use for our particular Neanderthalic mixture of DNA. "White" is honestly a flawed term, as every shade of skin exists between the Indian subcontinent, Northern Africa, and the British Isles. There are thousands of minor races of man, but as for major races, there are only between three and five, and of those major races, hundreds of them have enough commonalities to where we can say that them being a thing is a thing, just as we can say that wolves, dogs, jackals, and coyotes are all things despite all four having many commonalities and being able to produce viable offspring with eachother.
And Semites absolutely are white just as much as the Basque and Hungarians.
Their perceived kinship and historic relations with Europeans aren't exactly stellar. And that's where you go off the rails. Perceived kinship. Rachel Dolezal thinks she's a black person but she is rejected by the black Ummah. You're never going to get around that. LOL.
And then you're going to have the problem with victim group hierarchy. How are you going to stop all the racisms in The Age of Kneeling Nancy? Racisms are like voodoo spirits. They are everywhere and can appear as if by magic, as we see with our host's current problems.
It's not "perceived". We have actual biological and genetic evidence, down to our Neanderthalic admixture, that the French, Basque, Hungarians, Hindustanis, and many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other races of man, are part of a larger microrace which we now call "Caucasian". None of which has anything to do with the Shaun Kings and Rachel Dolezals of the world, who are simply fraudsters and conartists seeking to weaponize societal guilt for their own benefits, who lack any compunction about whatever ridiculous lies they have to tell to take advantage of such.
So you're cool with genocide, as long as the perpetrators aren't immigrants? Interesting.
The Bantu ruling majority are in fact immigrants who arrived after the Boers first settled around Cape Town
The Boer Immigration Service seems to have made a grave error...
I think this would be a total non-story if not for your previous expressed hostility to online anonymity, and in particular your bragging about how brave you are for writing wrongthink under your real name. Personally, I don't really give a shit what you wrote for VDARE 10 years ago or whatever, and if anything I find it funny. But I don't think anonymous online right wingers are the greatest evil of all time either.
What I find notable is that, at the same time that you told us how brave you are for posting about black crime statistics under your real name and how cowardly we are for using screennames, you were sitting on this the whole time. You didn't feel the need to share your previous views and activities with the world as part of your professed bravery? One can't help but notice that you only went from anonymous to self-identified after your views likewise evolved into something more tolerable to social sensibilities (relatively speaking--you're controversial by mainstream standards, but still a far cry from "we should literally sterilize the low IQs" which you apparently wrote in the past).
If you're acknowledging that your hostility towards the anons is in part self-criticism, why didn't you tell us about this sooner? Why didn't you show your bravery by putting it out in the open and saying "look guys, I've been there myself, I have personal experience with this?" Why did it have to be dragged into the open by the Huffington Post? It seems to me that the only possible answer is because of the likely social consequences, no? In which case, how is that really much different from people who post anonymously out of fear of exactly this sort of cancel attempt targeting them?
Since you're trying to emphasize your capacity for "nuance" a lot here, I think maybe we can have some nuance on anonymity. Yes, a lot of anonymous posters are unhinged trolls, but in the same way that the heavily flawed "conservative" movement remains a less bad option than the race-communist left, maybe having some tiny semblance of actual free speech allowed online is still a better alternative than the deafening silence which would be the only other option.
Oh, and "the media are still good" remains one of your worst takes. IIRC, that was the article where you defended the media by pointing out that they write lots of factually accurate things with zero accounting for whether those things were about politics or not. Again: Writing twenty million factually accurate articles about irrelevant curiosities like cuisine trends in Southeast Asia or something, does not in any way compensate for lying about race, crime, COVID, etc. This should be self-evident if you really think "concerns over disparate impact" are actually that big of a deal. Trust me, you can still get your quirky little food blogs from plenty of other places online if the Huffington Post goes out of business.
You wrote: "I [Person Online] think this would be a total non-story if not for your [Hanania's] previous expressed hostility to online anonymity, and in particular your bragging about how brave you are for writing wrongthink under your real name."
Don't you consider there's something of a political dimension to HuffPo's doxxing? Seems like the people and organizations mentioned in the piece—I encourage everyone to read the piece again and make careful note of those tenuous but useful associations—happen to be the most effective and direct threats to rolling back officially-sanctioned DEI initiatives and the woke/left-liberal nexus more generally. Surely the opportunity for the left to pull down the pants of one of the leading right-wing intellectuals in the country was irresistible, inevitable, and totally predictable.
Of course it's a political hit job? Like I said, I don't care what Richard wrote years ago. I hope the cancel attempt totally fails. Not sure what your point is.
"I think this would be a total non-story if not for..."
You wrote it, not me.
Lol just ignore these commies dude
We all change our beliefs as we and the world change. Cancel culture is increasingly becoming less potent. It will take a lot more than a HuffPo antifa hatchet man to take you down. Stand strong Richard!
If you'd actually manifested some kind of change in beliefs over this time you wouldn't have been tweeting overt racism mere days ago. There is no reason anyone should believe you, because your behavior has never changed and you have not manifested any evidence of halting these vile beliefs.
If even a scintilla of what right wing scumbags have claimed about our "cancel culture" is true, let it be true here, and now, with this evil.
Rightwing scumbag here. Please explain why a house and lot, same distance to the federal triangle, in SE quadrant Washington DC is half the price of a similar one in Upper Caucasia NW quadrant. In 100% Democrat-run DC. Sounds very racist to me. If that's the case pretty much every white person is racist, no?
"every human is an individual entitled to basic dignity, and that includes being judged as an individual and having the same opportunities as others"
Apparently non-whites need white people in order to have these same opportunities (and be judged as an individual). Otherwise, what's stopping them from finding these opportunities in their own part of the world?
In general HBD is used as a counter argument to the thesis that all disparities in the United States (however defined) are the fault of White people. And before you say 'this is a strawman' - you can just read the literature in Whiteness studies (or even older Marxist/Race Baiters like Davis). It's pretty much exactly what they believe.
Can you read? Did I say that's the 'only reason' people talk about HBD? Or did I say 'In general..' and then proceed to state what is indeed the general reason people bring up HBD in 2023?
>I wonder how it got such a bad rap.
I wonder why people associate IQ testing with Nazis despite them explicitly rejecting it due to Jews scoring higher than Germans and Slavs scoring about the same. I wonder why people who bomb the Capitol are allowed to become professors at some of our most prestigious universities years later. I wonder lots of things, Graham!
Have you followed racial politics in the US at all in the past 50 years?
You haven't thought this through.
Can you please link to the overtly racist tweet(s)?
I mean, this is just a true statement. Ironically, blacks would benefit most from policies like this as they are disproportionately victimized (as well as perpetrators). In case you haven't noticed, black Americans are one of, if not the most, hot button political topic in America for the past several years; having frequent mentions of them in your twitter posts isn't surprising whatsoever.
Read David Zimmer's analysis of White vs Black crime rates vs arrest rates in Minnesota in the aftermath of Saint Floyd's martyrdom. If we are to have racial equality, let alone stopping crime where it is strongest, it is necessary to increase the arrest rate for Blacks.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/magazine/article/facts-versus-fiction
What do American crime statistics reveal about the demographics of crime, especially homicides?
“I’m convinced that most of them are just projecting their personal unhappiness onto the rest of the world, just as I once did.”
Given the research showing that depressives have more accurate perceptions of reality, do you ever consider whether they are correctly seeing the world as it is whereas you are merely projecting your smug complacency onto a world that is obviously awful for most people? The British phrase is “I'm alright, Jack”: you're now alright personally, so the system must be a good one, even though nearly everyone else isn't alright.
Richard, No liberal pundit has ever had to issue a sob public apology for going through their Commie stage in their youth.
Also, that NYT "journalist" that supported the "kill the Boer" chant ... has he apologized or even, explained himself?
learn the tactics of your enemies.
NEVER apologize to the left, you dont owe them any kind of explanation.
He's not apologizing to the left, you fascist retard. He's apologizing to his readers for covering up his neonazi past.
Not all apologies are insincere and unwarranted, nor do they need to be. We've just gotten too used to such.
says the commie retard
The point stands
Now get lost
"Everyone I disagree with is a fascist..."
An excellent response.
What made me hostile to mass non-white immigration was attending a majority black school. I was appalled by the behavior I saw. Although I also noticed that many blacks were/are kind and decent (and am truly grateful to those who protected me from their fellow blacks), I don’t think it’s “collectivist” per se to have an overall negative view of blacks (or other groups).
Re: Mass immigration: It seems very contradictory to me to celebrate deteriorating social cohesion because it stops whites--the (WEIRD) group that has built an incredible civilization that draws millions of non-whites--from voting in “socialism” (aka welfare + markets) and then attack MAGA whites for opposing the loss of their homeland (a massive cost for those who actually count *all* costs of immigration) under PC regimes--even though the hostility they display is at least partially the result of the loss of social cohesion you celebrate. In addition, you still recognize the possibility that shifting demographics could lead to a Hugo Chavez-style government. Which is more risky? A Swedish-style “socialism” under a mostly homogeneous, socially cohesive, white population (consider that Sweden reformed itself somewhat in the 90s) or Hugo Chavez? The demographic shift is not even fully complete and we already have a PC bureaucracy that abolished freedom of association 75+ years ago. If anything, less social cohesion has brought even more nonsense like DEI and CRT. Yes, many whites are to blame for supporting this stuff things but things look a bit different when you consider that many of these “whites” were/are Jews who were instrumental in overthrowing the Darwinian paradigm in the social sciences. (This is also the result of immigration.)
Re: Crime: CATO-types claim immigrants have a lower crime rate than natives but natives include higher crime blacks and Hispanics. A bit of sleight of hand here. Bukele is policing his own but it’s much harder to police other groups (as you’ve noticed). But you think the solution is more low IQ people. I don’t see it (yet).
Shouldn't Bukele be considered an "ethnic outsider", in El Salvador, considering he's not part of the majority ethnic group there (AFAIK)?
I don’t know anything about him but he has the support of many El Salvadorans who are essentially the ones policing their own.
I recall Tony Blair (?) getting in hot water in the 90s for lamenting the fact that so many criminals in the UK were black. But we shouldn’t be surprised if Africans are similar to US blacks given that they are genetically similar.
I don’t think that’s so. There are greater levels of genetic diversity within Africa than outside it (birthplace of humanity etc), and African immigrants are a rather strongly-selected group.
immigrant blacks don’t have the same level of crime.
Source?
Just looking at state-level crime statistics alone, by far the worst rate of Black homicide is in deindustrialized Midwestern regions, which also happen to be regions with the lowest rate of immigration (other than pockets of Hispanic slaughterhouse workers). Nigerian Americans have a median income above the White American median, which is indicative of lower crime rates as well. I'm not sure that there is any direct analysis which conclusively measures ADOS Black vs immigrant Black crime, but there are enough correlates to make it pretty obvious, particularly if you've ever tried interacting with both groups. Even in infamous Minneapolis with its large Somali population, it wasn't Somalis burning down the city.
True, but those are first generation Nigerians, Somalis, etc. After a couple of generations being programmed to hate white people they will conform to pattern. The Age of Kneeling Nancy will capture them. They will have no choice because they need quotas to compete, even the smart ones. Otherwise, it's racism.
Besides, look at what's happening in South Africa.
It's true that the existence of a Black American Identity will sometimes subsume African Immigrant identity, and that is a big problem. I'll also add that to the extent that African migration is expanding away from meritocracy of 99th percentile Nigerians and towards refugee-pitying, it will also lower the quality of African immigrants, and make the problem worse. But it's predominantly an elite academic clique that promotes intersectionality in opposition to the upcoming White plurality, which ultimately facilitates horrors like disparate impact consideration.
A quick google is telling me that Blacks made up a strong majority of South Africa even 100 years ago. That's not to say it was always that case, of course, the early settlements and civilization were Dutch/Boer and Anglo. But it's a rather different situation here, and ironically, the existence of Orania at all shows a degree of White identity tolerance in South Africa beyond anything that exists in America, in spite of the obvious dangers Afrikaners face. If Whites want to survive in America, it's definitely valid to criticize unrelenting immigration from the third world, but the administrative/academic/journalist classes are the ones pushing policy and lies that excuse the aforementioned Black crime problems.