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 swear that everytime I find someone who I can champion as an advocate for multi-racial whiteness, he finds a way to betray that hope with a vicious and ridiculous slander.
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.
Fair point, if that's what Khan was referring to, as opposed to his desire to get post-1965 latinos to leave than it's close enough to not be slanderous. I apologize Khan for the acusation. That being said Richard did not explicitly say blacks but supported sterilization of under 80 to 90 IQ people a category that includes plenty of whites, hispanics and others but is disproportionately black.
I don't think "genocide" is appropriate except for mass murder or sterilization intended to exterminate the group. I know many disagree, including the original coiner of the term, but by Lemkin's explicit definition every war in modern history qualifies as genocidal.
When normal people hear "genocide" they think extermination. If a person would subject their own ethnic group to the same treatment, I don't think it qualifies as a genocide.
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 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.
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.
They won’t because political views are heritable. Reagan has already made that mistake and Conservatives in Canada, Britain and Australia are doing the same thing, but guess what?
Minorities aren’t voting for them lol
And besides the main opposition towards importing non-Whites is that they will make a society a much shittier place. Less cohesion, more Crime, poor institutional performance, bad infrastructure, income inequality and etc is what to expect when we become enriched by them. I’m not even talking about differences in group evolutionary strategies and inherent group conflict between them. Before their importation the political debate was about class. Now thanks to them it shifted into a political “race warfare”.
The argument for rejecting your previous work is peer-pressure. There is no logical argument that could lead you to abandon your previous views.
Do you know states with the lowest percentage of foreign born population - West Virginia and Mississippi. I live in Palo Alto, our neighbourhood is mostly white and Asian, I like it here. I would not want to live in West Virginia, where there are high rates of opioid abuse and extremely poor schools and crime rates much higher than California. Nor do I want to live in Mississippi where the crime rate is extremely high.
America never had cohesion to begin with, we were a nation with Anglo Saxons, Africans , Southern Europeans etc. The crime rate among immigrants from Asia and Latin America pales in comparison to African Americans living here for centuries. As Hanania argues rightly, we should not assign collective guilt. Liberalism is the way out, punish crime, pooh-pooh silly ideologies like socialism but do not assign collective guilt. Judge the individual and not the group.
In the US I would expect immigration to be anti-correlated with crime. Immigrants (but not refugees) tend to be selectively filtered, and the groups with the highest crime-rates are native born. I would expect things to be different in Europe.
Depends on the immigrants and which native group you're comparing them to. If you look at whitopias which bring in Sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs, then the picture is different compared with the US bringing in the most selective North-East Asians and then comparing their crime rates to American blacks.
Immigrant Arabs & SSAs in the US also tend to be selectively filtered. African-Americans are mostly not descended from immigrants, but instead slaves brought over involuntarily.
Indians and Chinese are one the biggest immigrant groups in CA and they are well integrated into white middle class. Hispanic immigrants in CA integrate into white middle class within a generation too.
It depends on the immigration. If we're bringing in Asians or Europeans obviously not. If we're bringing in blacks, arabs or brown Latinos it is. Especially blacks...even if those immigrants dont have high levels of crime their kids will. Blacks and less so Latinos have much higher crime rates than whites and Asians
We did have cohesion relatively speaking though blacks aside but blacks where immigrants too they just came as slaves. Not to mention many blacks aren't descendants of slaves they're new immigrants.
Its not about collective guilt, its acknowledging trends within groups. Certain groups are more prone to certain behaviors and actions. It you want low crime you dont bring on blacks for example. If you want high text scores in schools you bring in Asians. Obviously not every black person is a criminal nor every Asian good at school but generally speaking that's the trend you're going to get from these groups. Reality is we dont have the time to get to know every single person well enough to know what kind of person as an individual and because of that acknowledging racial trends is important.
Liberalism is how we got here. The only way out is some degree of illiberalism.
“Liberalism is the way out, punish crime, pooh-pooh silly ideologies like socialism but do not assign collective guilt. Judge the individual and not the group” you and those who oppose these things will be swamped out demographically
Yes we should, I agree that civil rights era rules has been greatest tragedy for our country. I just want policies that punish crime severely. I want merit to be center of our education system. If it disproportionately affects African Americans or Latinos, we should not care. Because individual matters more than the group and because the outcome of reducing crime, rewarding hard work and merit is much more important than hurt feelings.
The problem is just because you dont look at race, doesn't mean others wont. That's the problem, other groups have no issues with caring about race. We're in this position to Begin with because white people where forced to just be individuals. Once that happens you're going to lose every single to a cohesive collective which is we have all these benefits for non-whites to begin with. You also cant win a game when you're willing to pass to the other team.
Not to mention of we didn't have certain racial groups here we wouldn't need tough on crime policies. Hell we would barely need police. Sure tough on crime policies lock up the criminals but then we have to pay for room and board for these people in prison. It gets expensive. There is data somewhere showing how much black people cost just based on their prison time, Its maddening. Why should white people have to suffer the economic burden for black criminals?
You’re not judging the individual by judging the group. If Hispanics and blacks have higher crime rates, lower IQs, etc. than whites, this is a fact about the group, not any particular individual. Then, if you are allowing for mass non-white immigration, the issue becomes what are the costs of this immigration for the natives who own the country. Part of these costs--rarely ever discussed even by economists who should know better--is the loss of a homeland for whites.
Richard TBF thinks that racial conflict is better than the success of the proletariat or whatever. Which I guess is true, except for the part where the imported races are themselves a proletariat.
His argument is basically the same at the classic Alternative Right critique of elite-driven immigration, but with 'that's a good thing' at the end. Only problem is that to any remotely normal person it doesn't sound like a good thing at all.
Well yes, but if it were up to normal people we'd still be feudals; with set prices for bread, guilds of bread-makers, and the complete absence of economic freedom in order to 'protect our local producers, avoid price gouging...' etc.
Correct. Luddites were fundamentally right that since we spend most of our waking lives producing rather than consuming, it doesn't make sense to make producers miserable to benefit consumers. On the other hand, liberals turned out to be right that it was possible to expand the pie beyond anyone's imagination (though this was partly luck, since without fossil fuels, it probably wouldn't have been possible and they didn't know that in advance).
The key is as always, moderation, we're long past the point where maximising utility by making consumption cheaper hit diminishing returns (with social media and many modern products we appear to be into absolute negative returns). It's time to rebalance and focus on giving people reliable and reasonably enjoyable jobs.
Yes, he does seem a bit contradictory when he dunks on low IQ conservatives and then backs low IQ immigration in the millions. It’s odd to dislike the thing you say you want more of.
I think Richard likes latinos only because they make it less likely for him to have a deal with black people, and lost his racial loyalty because other whites, including conservatives were perfectly willing to subject him to the indignity of dealing with black people. So why not flood cities with latinos to get the blacks out?
I find his view on this self-contradictory. In this very article he correctly points out that targeting bad behavior or ideas directly is better than beating around the bush with proxies, yet he argues that immigration is good because it makes socialism less likely in a roundabout way (basically by ethnically dividing the labor force and thus weakening organized labor). What if, instead of using this convoluted method that is likely to have lots of unforeseen consequences, you just attacked and banned socialism directly?
The analogy doesn't really work. Violent crime (for instance) is done by individual people, so (unless there is severe corruption) the government can suppress them without diminishing its own power. On the other hand, socialism is usually imposed by the government (I suppose you could disagree with this if you include worker-owned businesses &c as 'socialist', but those aren't a huge threat to economic freedom), which means if there's a danger of socialism being imposed, then the government is probably already partly controlled by socialists, or likely to become so. So to "ban socialism directly" you'd have to make it illegal for the government to impose socialism, in a way that can't easily be avoided; there are two obvious ways of doing this. First, you can make socialism unconstitutional; I think some European countries have done this, but this isn't already the case in America (under the post-New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause), & there's little chance of passing a constitutional amendment to do it. The other is to make sure the voters are unwilling to vote for socialism; making the voters not trust each other as much is one way of doing this, although there are others (e.g. the requirement to teach about the disastrous results of historical communism in public schools which some Republican states have imposed).
Teaching people that socialism is bad seems, again, highly preferable to this roundabout method of mass migration. If the government can be wielded to convince people that there are no differences between men and women, it can certainly be used to convince them that socialism is bad.
Low IQ people don’t think much about politics but, to the extent that they vote, they can be led to vote for welfare goodies by demagogues who can possibly deliver such things. However, there are hot button issues like trans that Republicans can capitalize on.
Some will. But the Democrats have been the party of immigrants since the days when Hamilton was blaming them for Jefferson winning the presidency. I think that generalization is too robust to expect much change.
It's not about party of immigrants, it's about party of race. Once we have the security of citizenship, most don't really care (or they care to the extent that they can help family).
I think that as long as immigrants tend to settle in cities dominated by Democrats, that's the party one should expect them to join. And if later generations move out of those cities, if their relatives in the US still tend to be Democrats, they'll likely lean that way as well.
Asian Immigrants tend to settle in suburban areas these days. They usually are married/have kids who are citizens. They are usually pro-education, for less taxes, for less crime, pro-business, and usually investors. They were not in favor of affirmative action, and are pro-choice, but it is nowhere close the single voter issue. They basically align on white politics on everything but race.
It's probably not even about race. It's more to do with education levels. The GOP currently doesn't have much of pro platform of anything these days. From my experiences with the 2nd generation (who are my age), both men and women, subscribe to the idea of an America where race should not matter, because for a lot of them, it did, but not to the extent that it may have for other races. Granted, this is not California, but the Midwest.
Young people hate racism, but can still be swayed by a more race neutral approach, especially as millennials become holders of wealth.
Should be an easy for for both conservatives (in the old sense) and republicans to capture a large part of this demographic, and I think they already are (I expect Indians who are super democratic, to vote for more moderate republicans down ballot).
Robin Hanson has written "Politics is not about policy". And while Bryan Caplan has been arguing that Republicans could win immigrant voters, his own writing on urbanites having an inherent partisan preference beyond policies undermines that. There's certainly scope for change on the margin, but again something robust enough to go back to the founding is unlikely to go away.
The racial composition has changed dramatically over time and Republicans and Democrats still closely compete with each other at all levels national and state.
Democrats have also shifted the Overton window substantially to the left on social issues in a single decade. It's not impressive to say "Hey we've still got a 50/50 split!" when the debate used to be gay marriage and today is whether or not school psychiatrists have the right to convince your children that they're trans without parental consent. Obviously, the racial argument is overstated by many on the idpol right; the FDR through Nixon era was far more left-wing in an illberal way than the current era, when the country was still ~85% White, but that doesn't disprove the existence of racial voting blocs.
And both the Republicans and the Democrats have shifted far more left/egalitarian/redistributionist/etc. with elections determined significantly by identitarian demographics due to 3rd world immigration. Both parties would be beyond the pale insane for the different types of people living in the US even 50 years ago, not to mention 100 years ago.
Any reading of American history shows identarian issues were extremely important even in 1920s. In Midwest it was common for German immigrants to vote as a group. In the south, Democrats would win 90+ percent of the vote. That was mainly due to identity issue as well. The most redistributionist policies were created by great society programs from 1965 which was pre 3rd world immigration. In fact Clinton was able to scale back Welfare, which was post 1965.
Of course identity issues are always important because it's human nature. That doesn't mean amplifying one giant source of identity, race, via multiracialism is good. A predominantly white (85-90%) multiethnic America of the past was far more genetically and thus culturally homogenous than America now. Most people were thus socially and fiscally conservative racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, white nationalists basically. That's a lot in common! The same is true of all countries. As an Estonian, Estonians are far more similar to each other than Americans because they share far more in common, including the core genetic elements. White Americans behave far more like white Europeans than black Americans, which is why they share far more in common with each other and like each other more. How many white leftists holiday in black countries or live in black cities/neighborhoods and send their children to black schools? Race, ethnicity, class, religion, language, moral values, etc. are all important markers of identity, with race being the strongest. That's why prisoners/churchgoers/etc. form spontaneously into race-based groups if they are legally allowed to.
All the slight deviations from the overall trend, like Clinton, are not important in the long-term. The great society was exacerbated by the multiracialism of the past without which the effects of the Great Society in the US would make it more like Switzerland. The US has had the disability of having blacks and Amerindians within it forever, and it was never able to solve this problem since multiracialism cannot be solved. As long as the voters are overwhelmingly white, things can change, but every year, voters are becoming increasingly nonwhite. The voting demographics are even more important than the general demographics, I think. The demographics will make the US, I think, into smth more like it is today than smth more like a libertarian stronghold that Hanania envisions. But Hanania likes the way it is now, just like most middle and upper class people, since they don't suffer from the consequences of their own policies, so it makes sense for him to be pro-open borders.
>Now thanks to them it shifted into a political “race warfare”.
Political debate today is more about a "cold civil war" between different groups of white Americans. Without post-1965 immigration, that likely still would have happened, as wokeness is mainly driven by pre-65 whites, particularly white women and Jews.
I'm not convinced. The cold civil war seems to be concentrated in those countries with high levels of Third World immigration. The reason that Poland, Hungary, Japan etc. aren't going through such a civil war may be due to an absence of such immigrants. After all, they also have women and (the first two) Jews.
It's not immigrants but Anglo-based societies that always put mercantilism and trade and wealth ahead of ethnic homogeneity. And that is what makes it the best culture.
Well, for guys like you, Rithik Jain, it's a sweet deal for sure. For white guys who get raped in divorce court and live in a van down by the river, not so much.
How does divorce court or their conditions have anything to do with me? If anything I'm paying more in taxes than I take out? Or are you talking about Anglo-based cultures in general?
America never had ethnic homogeneity. As a white guy living in Bay area, I like the fact that we have many Asian ( Indian and Chinese) immigrants. However, I would not like to live in a nightmare society of cohesion imagined by many on the right. I would never live in a mixed neighborhood of African Americans and whites.
Also, most of Poland's Jews either died in the Holocaust or left at the end of WW2, & most of the rest were forced out by the Communist government's "anti-Zionist" purge in 1968; according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland#Ethnic_groups , at the last census in 2011, Jews made up only 0.01% of Poland's population.
I've done canvassing for Democrats in Virginia and it pretty easy to know which group of immigrants will be sympathetic or not sympathetic to one appeal. I think it woud be monstrous to try to use that "knowledge" to determine who should be admitted under a merit-based system.
No they aren't. They're increasingly voting Republican. The Overton window has simply shifted such that your average "I just wanna grill" working-class Hispanic who likes Trump's charisma, the concept of low gas prices, and would prefer to see illegal immigration reduced from 2m a year to 200k a year might vote red.
Depends what you mean by 'far-right'. You can believe in differences between groups without actually supporting white supremacy--plenty of the IQ surveys show even higher values for East Asians, for example. You could argue the USA could use its lack of a historic connection to a particular ethnicity to acquire the smartest and most driven people from around the world and raise the quality of the American gene pool. That's eugenics, but it wouldn't pass muster at Counter-Currents.
It's interesting he seems to have dropped his antisemitism, for instance (a quite understandable prejudice for a Palestinian!).
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.
There's a difference between apologizing for being a neonazi who supported abolishing all political rights for women, mass compulsory sterilization on tens of millions of American citizens, and a jihadistic race war against anybody his clique deems sufficiently indesirable, and apologizing for having white people voice cartoon Bengalis, Japanese, and African Americans and forcibly removing them from their jobs to be replaced with literal diversity hires.
Just because most apologies are either insincere, unwarranted, or a combination of both, doesn't invalidate the entire practice. If you legitimately feel what you did was bad, even if you're primarily apologizing because you got caught, and though many will dismiss you outright for that reason alone, an apology can still be both sincere and warranted.
LIMITING foreign immigration, encouraging the locals to have kids
Do you not think maybe some white people in Sweden might decide they find some black people from Ethiopia attractive when someone takes a flight from Addis Ababa to Stockholm?
great!!! go live in Ethiopia then !
Or are you just going to ban all travel and also ban people from finding other people attractive?
No need to do that
You have the mental capacity and intellectual ability of a severely mentally disabled 4 year old.
LOL poor lil child triggered that people have preferences
If you love blacks, live with them, hire them, educate your kids with them. No one's stopping you. I don't see liberals like Kneeling Nancy doing much of that, let alone the denizens of Upper Caucasia, NW DC.
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!
You were 28 years old writing about sterilizing black people. Supported eugenics into your 30s. You were old enough to know better, and the behavior you had online persisted for years. Why would anyone trust a thinker who had this type of history? People change, and maybe you did. But even if you did change, this Huff Post article signals something about your thinking. It signals that you were a poor judge of ideas very late into adulthood. You exhibited bad reasoning, a tendency for lazy thought. You were uncritical in searching for the truth and you chose to defend evil ideologies presumably because you enjoyed being contrarian more than being ethical. You need to look inwards. Ask yourself why you believed in the wrong things for so long. What about you made you get excited about those ideas? Do you, Hanania, believe you’ve purged that tendency to get excited about those ideas? Do you trust yourself to be an honest voice for tolerance, liberalism, and capitalism?
Nobody's "old" enough to know better. People of every age have nasty, wrong beliefs. The difference is that Richard's wrong, nasty beliefs were beliefs were also hugely unpopular from pretty much any time in the West post-WWII.
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.
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.
Where exactly was Hoste genocidal again, Razib?
I swear that everytime I find someone who I can champion as an advocate for multi-racial whiteness, he finds a way to betray that hope with a vicious and ridiculous slander.
CC publishes a lot of thoughtful stuff
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"?
Fair point, if that's what Khan was referring to, as opposed to his desire to get post-1965 latinos to leave than it's close enough to not be slanderous. I apologize Khan for the acusation. That being said Richard did not explicitly say blacks but supported sterilization of under 80 to 90 IQ people a category that includes plenty of whites, hispanics and others but is disproportionately black.
I don't think "genocide" is appropriate except for mass murder or sterilization intended to exterminate the group. I know many disagree, including the original coiner of the term, but by Lemkin's explicit definition every war in modern history qualifies as genocidal.
When normal people hear "genocide" they think extermination. If a person would subject their own ethnic group to the same treatment, I don't think it qualifies as a genocide.
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.
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.
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.
But if you do not sell your views like that, you won't get people to read it.
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.
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.
“If you import non-Whites they will vote for you”
They won’t because political views are heritable. Reagan has already made that mistake and Conservatives in Canada, Britain and Australia are doing the same thing, but guess what?
Minorities aren’t voting for them lol
And besides the main opposition towards importing non-Whites is that they will make a society a much shittier place. Less cohesion, more Crime, poor institutional performance, bad infrastructure, income inequality and etc is what to expect when we become enriched by them. I’m not even talking about differences in group evolutionary strategies and inherent group conflict between them. Before their importation the political debate was about class. Now thanks to them it shifted into a political “race warfare”.
The argument for rejecting your previous work is peer-pressure. There is no logical argument that could lead you to abandon your previous views.
Do you know states with the lowest percentage of foreign born population - West Virginia and Mississippi. I live in Palo Alto, our neighbourhood is mostly white and Asian, I like it here. I would not want to live in West Virginia, where there are high rates of opioid abuse and extremely poor schools and crime rates much higher than California. Nor do I want to live in Mississippi where the crime rate is extremely high.
America never had cohesion to begin with, we were a nation with Anglo Saxons, Africans , Southern Europeans etc. The crime rate among immigrants from Asia and Latin America pales in comparison to African Americans living here for centuries. As Hanania argues rightly, we should not assign collective guilt. Liberalism is the way out, punish crime, pooh-pooh silly ideologies like socialism but do not assign collective guilt. Judge the individual and not the group.
> crime rates much higher than California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate
WV homicide rate: 6.9
California homicide rate: 6.4
Seems quite similar
So, does that not dispute the hypothesis that immigration causes more crime. When in fact, immigration rates have no relationship with crime.
In the US I would expect immigration to be anti-correlated with crime. Immigrants (but not refugees) tend to be selectively filtered, and the groups with the highest crime-rates are native born. I would expect things to be different in Europe.
Depends on the immigrants and which native group you're comparing them to. If you look at whitopias which bring in Sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs, then the picture is different compared with the US bringing in the most selective North-East Asians and then comparing their crime rates to American blacks.
Immigrant Arabs & SSAs in the US also tend to be selectively filtered. African-Americans are mostly not descended from immigrants, but instead slaves brought over involuntarily.
Indians and Chinese are one the biggest immigrant groups in CA and they are well integrated into white middle class. Hispanic immigrants in CA integrate into white middle class within a generation too.
Hunter "Hispanic immigrants in CA integrate into white middle class within a generation too."
That's the diametric opposite of the truth. hispanic "immigrants" get worse the second generation.
For heaven's sake, Hunter. If you import gang-bangers crime rates go up. If you import Rithik Jains crime, at least violent crime, goes down.
It depends on the immigration. If we're bringing in Asians or Europeans obviously not. If we're bringing in blacks, arabs or brown Latinos it is. Especially blacks...even if those immigrants dont have high levels of crime their kids will. Blacks and less so Latinos have much higher crime rates than whites and Asians
We did have cohesion relatively speaking though blacks aside but blacks where immigrants too they just came as slaves. Not to mention many blacks aren't descendants of slaves they're new immigrants.
Its not about collective guilt, its acknowledging trends within groups. Certain groups are more prone to certain behaviors and actions. It you want low crime you dont bring on blacks for example. If you want high text scores in schools you bring in Asians. Obviously not every black person is a criminal nor every Asian good at school but generally speaking that's the trend you're going to get from these groups. Reality is we dont have the time to get to know every single person well enough to know what kind of person as an individual and because of that acknowledging racial trends is important.
Liberalism is how we got here. The only way out is some degree of illiberalism.
“Liberalism is the way out, punish crime, pooh-pooh silly ideologies like socialism but do not assign collective guilt. Judge the individual and not the group” you and those who oppose these things will be swamped out demographically
Judge the individual and not the group.
Great, let's get rid of race and sex quotas.
Yes we should, I agree that civil rights era rules has been greatest tragedy for our country. I just want policies that punish crime severely. I want merit to be center of our education system. If it disproportionately affects African Americans or Latinos, we should not care. Because individual matters more than the group and because the outcome of reducing crime, rewarding hard work and merit is much more important than hurt feelings.
The problem is just because you dont look at race, doesn't mean others wont. That's the problem, other groups have no issues with caring about race. We're in this position to Begin with because white people where forced to just be individuals. Once that happens you're going to lose every single to a cohesive collective which is we have all these benefits for non-whites to begin with. You also cant win a game when you're willing to pass to the other team.
Not to mention of we didn't have certain racial groups here we wouldn't need tough on crime policies. Hell we would barely need police. Sure tough on crime policies lock up the criminals but then we have to pay for room and board for these people in prison. It gets expensive. There is data somewhere showing how much black people cost just based on their prison time, Its maddening. Why should white people have to suffer the economic burden for black criminals?
Not acknowledging racial trends is retarded though. We shouldn't ignore reality
You’re not judging the individual by judging the group. If Hispanics and blacks have higher crime rates, lower IQs, etc. than whites, this is a fact about the group, not any particular individual. Then, if you are allowing for mass non-white immigration, the issue becomes what are the costs of this immigration for the natives who own the country. Part of these costs--rarely ever discussed even by economists who should know better--is the loss of a homeland for whites.
Richard TBF thinks that racial conflict is better than the success of the proletariat or whatever. Which I guess is true, except for the part where the imported races are themselves a proletariat.
His argument is basically the same at the classic Alternative Right critique of elite-driven immigration, but with 'that's a good thing' at the end. Only problem is that to any remotely normal person it doesn't sound like a good thing at all.
Well yes, but if it were up to normal people we'd still be feudals; with set prices for bread, guilds of bread-makers, and the complete absence of economic freedom in order to 'protect our local producers, avoid price gouging...' etc.
Correct. Luddites were fundamentally right that since we spend most of our waking lives producing rather than consuming, it doesn't make sense to make producers miserable to benefit consumers. On the other hand, liberals turned out to be right that it was possible to expand the pie beyond anyone's imagination (though this was partly luck, since without fossil fuels, it probably wouldn't have been possible and they didn't know that in advance).
The key is as always, moderation, we're long past the point where maximising utility by making consumption cheaper hit diminishing returns (with social media and many modern products we appear to be into absolute negative returns). It's time to rebalance and focus on giving people reliable and reasonably enjoyable jobs.
Yes, he does seem a bit contradictory when he dunks on low IQ conservatives and then backs low IQ immigration in the millions. It’s odd to dislike the thing you say you want more of.
I think Richard likes latinos only because they make it less likely for him to have a deal with black people, and lost his racial loyalty because other whites, including conservatives were perfectly willing to subject him to the indignity of dealing with black people. So why not flood cities with latinos to get the blacks out?
I prefer to take him at his word rather than speculate. But it’s true that Hispanics have an upside that he has previously mentioned.
South LA didn't riot too much during 2020
I find his view on this self-contradictory. In this very article he correctly points out that targeting bad behavior or ideas directly is better than beating around the bush with proxies, yet he argues that immigration is good because it makes socialism less likely in a roundabout way (basically by ethnically dividing the labor force and thus weakening organized labor). What if, instead of using this convoluted method that is likely to have lots of unforeseen consequences, you just attacked and banned socialism directly?
The analogy doesn't really work. Violent crime (for instance) is done by individual people, so (unless there is severe corruption) the government can suppress them without diminishing its own power. On the other hand, socialism is usually imposed by the government (I suppose you could disagree with this if you include worker-owned businesses &c as 'socialist', but those aren't a huge threat to economic freedom), which means if there's a danger of socialism being imposed, then the government is probably already partly controlled by socialists, or likely to become so. So to "ban socialism directly" you'd have to make it illegal for the government to impose socialism, in a way that can't easily be avoided; there are two obvious ways of doing this. First, you can make socialism unconstitutional; I think some European countries have done this, but this isn't already the case in America (under the post-New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause), & there's little chance of passing a constitutional amendment to do it. The other is to make sure the voters are unwilling to vote for socialism; making the voters not trust each other as much is one way of doing this, although there are others (e.g. the requirement to teach about the disastrous results of historical communism in public schools which some Republican states have imposed).
Teaching people that socialism is bad seems, again, highly preferable to this roundabout method of mass migration. If the government can be wielded to convince people that there are no differences between men and women, it can certainly be used to convince them that socialism is bad.
Low IQ people don’t think much about politics but, to the extent that they vote, they can be led to vote for welfare goodies by demagogues who can possibly deliver such things. However, there are hot button issues like trans that Republicans can capitalize on.
In the US, lower educated voters tend to favour the GOP...
With the exception of one major and notable voting bloc...
We don't vote for your party because your party makes it a big deal to show how much they dislike us. Change your tune, the rats will follow.
Some will. But the Democrats have been the party of immigrants since the days when Hamilton was blaming them for Jefferson winning the presidency. I think that generalization is too robust to expect much change.
It's not about party of immigrants, it's about party of race. Once we have the security of citizenship, most don't really care (or they care to the extent that they can help family).
I think that as long as immigrants tend to settle in cities dominated by Democrats, that's the party one should expect them to join. And if later generations move out of those cities, if their relatives in the US still tend to be Democrats, they'll likely lean that way as well.
Asian Immigrants tend to settle in suburban areas these days. They usually are married/have kids who are citizens. They are usually pro-education, for less taxes, for less crime, pro-business, and usually investors. They were not in favor of affirmative action, and are pro-choice, but it is nowhere close the single voter issue. They basically align on white politics on everything but race.
It's probably not even about race. It's more to do with education levels. The GOP currently doesn't have much of pro platform of anything these days. From my experiences with the 2nd generation (who are my age), both men and women, subscribe to the idea of an America where race should not matter, because for a lot of them, it did, but not to the extent that it may have for other races. Granted, this is not California, but the Midwest.
Young people hate racism, but can still be swayed by a more race neutral approach, especially as millennials become holders of wealth.
Should be an easy for for both conservatives (in the old sense) and republicans to capture a large part of this demographic, and I think they already are (I expect Indians who are super democratic, to vote for more moderate republicans down ballot).
Robin Hanson has written "Politics is not about policy". And while Bryan Caplan has been arguing that Republicans could win immigrant voters, his own writing on urbanites having an inherent partisan preference beyond policies undermines that. There's certainly scope for change on the margin, but again something robust enough to go back to the founding is unlikely to go away.
The racial composition has changed dramatically over time and Republicans and Democrats still closely compete with each other at all levels national and state.
Democrats have also shifted the Overton window substantially to the left on social issues in a single decade. It's not impressive to say "Hey we've still got a 50/50 split!" when the debate used to be gay marriage and today is whether or not school psychiatrists have the right to convince your children that they're trans without parental consent. Obviously, the racial argument is overstated by many on the idpol right; the FDR through Nixon era was far more left-wing in an illberal way than the current era, when the country was still ~85% White, but that doesn't disprove the existence of racial voting blocs.
Not "all levels", the GOP isn't really competitive at the municipal level. David Schleicher has written about why:
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2008/12/the_puzzle_of_o.html
And both the Republicans and the Democrats have shifted far more left/egalitarian/redistributionist/etc. with elections determined significantly by identitarian demographics due to 3rd world immigration. Both parties would be beyond the pale insane for the different types of people living in the US even 50 years ago, not to mention 100 years ago.
Any reading of American history shows identarian issues were extremely important even in 1920s. In Midwest it was common for German immigrants to vote as a group. In the south, Democrats would win 90+ percent of the vote. That was mainly due to identity issue as well. The most redistributionist policies were created by great society programs from 1965 which was pre 3rd world immigration. In fact Clinton was able to scale back Welfare, which was post 1965.
Of course identity issues are always important because it's human nature. That doesn't mean amplifying one giant source of identity, race, via multiracialism is good. A predominantly white (85-90%) multiethnic America of the past was far more genetically and thus culturally homogenous than America now. Most people were thus socially and fiscally conservative racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, white nationalists basically. That's a lot in common! The same is true of all countries. As an Estonian, Estonians are far more similar to each other than Americans because they share far more in common, including the core genetic elements. White Americans behave far more like white Europeans than black Americans, which is why they share far more in common with each other and like each other more. How many white leftists holiday in black countries or live in black cities/neighborhoods and send their children to black schools? Race, ethnicity, class, religion, language, moral values, etc. are all important markers of identity, with race being the strongest. That's why prisoners/churchgoers/etc. form spontaneously into race-based groups if they are legally allowed to.
All the slight deviations from the overall trend, like Clinton, are not important in the long-term. The great society was exacerbated by the multiracialism of the past without which the effects of the Great Society in the US would make it more like Switzerland. The US has had the disability of having blacks and Amerindians within it forever, and it was never able to solve this problem since multiracialism cannot be solved. As long as the voters are overwhelmingly white, things can change, but every year, voters are becoming increasingly nonwhite. The voting demographics are even more important than the general demographics, I think. The demographics will make the US, I think, into smth more like it is today than smth more like a libertarian stronghold that Hanania envisions. But Hanania likes the way it is now, just like most middle and upper class people, since they don't suffer from the consequences of their own policies, so it makes sense for him to be pro-open borders.
>Now thanks to them it shifted into a political “race warfare”.
Political debate today is more about a "cold civil war" between different groups of white Americans. Without post-1965 immigration, that likely still would have happened, as wokeness is mainly driven by pre-65 whites, particularly white women and Jews.
I'm not convinced. The cold civil war seems to be concentrated in those countries with high levels of Third World immigration. The reason that Poland, Hungary, Japan etc. aren't going through such a civil war may be due to an absence of such immigrants. After all, they also have women and (the first two) Jews.
It's not immigrants but Anglo-based societies that always put mercantilism and trade and wealth ahead of ethnic homogeneity. And that is what makes it the best culture.
Well, for guys like you, Rithik Jain, it's a sweet deal for sure. For white guys who get raped in divorce court and live in a van down by the river, not so much.
How does divorce court or their conditions have anything to do with me? If anything I'm paying more in taxes than I take out? Or are you talking about Anglo-based cultures in general?
Sure, I mean the culture. I just like your name.
America never had ethnic homogeneity. As a white guy living in Bay area, I like the fact that we have many Asian ( Indian and Chinese) immigrants. However, I would not like to live in a nightmare society of cohesion imagined by many on the right. I would never live in a mixed neighborhood of African Americans and whites.
"America never had ethnic homogeneity." It kinda did when whites made up 90% of the population and blacks were basically second-class citizens.
Convenient you forgot US, the most successful Anglo Saxon society which also has a significant minority population.
I'm pretty sure that Poland is politically more polarised than most Western European countries...
Also, most of Poland's Jews either died in the Holocaust or left at the end of WW2, & most of the rest were forced out by the Communist government's "anti-Zionist" purge in 1968; according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland#Ethnic_groups , at the last census in 2011, Jews made up only 0.01% of Poland's population.
I've done canvassing for Democrats in Virginia and it pretty easy to know which group of immigrants will be sympathetic or not sympathetic to one appeal. I think it woud be monstrous to try to use that "knowledge" to determine who should be admitted under a merit-based system.
Hispanics are increasingly voting conservative.
No they aren't. They're increasingly voting Republican. The Overton window has simply shifted such that your average "I just wanna grill" working-class Hispanic who likes Trump's charisma, the concept of low gas prices, and would prefer to see illegal immigration reduced from 2m a year to 200k a year might vote red.
If he views his role as arguing against the people parodied in his Unz post, it would make perfect sense for him to still follow them.
In this very post he links to arguments he's been making, as well as Sean Last expressing skepticism about such arguments.
Depends what you mean by 'far-right'. You can believe in differences between groups without actually supporting white supremacy--plenty of the IQ surveys show even higher values for East Asians, for example. You could argue the USA could use its lack of a historic connection to a particular ethnicity to acquire the smartest and most driven people from around the world and raise the quality of the American gene pool. That's eugenics, but it wouldn't pass muster at Counter-Currents.
It's interesting he seems to have dropped his antisemitism, for instance (a quite understandable prejudice for a Palestinian!).
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.
If you are apologizing for racism - you have already lost
There's a difference between apologizing for being a neonazi who supported abolishing all political rights for women, mass compulsory sterilization on tens of millions of American citizens, and a jihadistic race war against anybody his clique deems sufficiently indesirable, and apologizing for having white people voice cartoon Bengalis, Japanese, and African Americans and forcibly removing them from their jobs to be replaced with literal diversity hires.
Just because most apologies are either insincere, unwarranted, or a combination of both, doesn't invalidate the entire practice. If you legitimately feel what you did was bad, even if you're primarily apologizing because you got caught, and though many will dismiss you outright for that reason alone, an apology can still be both sincere and warranted.
hierarchy? this is a cartoonish view.
Not surprsing from the left, all the have is this strawman
now, however, MANDATORY mingling based on a non existant equality is bad
All has to be based on preferences
How do you achieve homogenous european nations?
LIMITING foreign immigration, encouraging the locals to have kids
Do you not think maybe some white people in Sweden might decide they find some black people from Ethiopia attractive when someone takes a flight from Addis Ababa to Stockholm?
great!!! go live in Ethiopia then !
Or are you just going to ban all travel and also ban people from finding other people attractive?
No need to do that
You have the mental capacity and intellectual ability of a severely mentally disabled 4 year old.
LOL poor lil child triggered that people have preferences
If you love blacks, live with them, hire them, educate your kids with them. No one's stopping you. I don't see liberals like Kneeling Nancy doing much of that, let alone the denizens of Upper Caucasia, NW DC.
Try not to get hysterical.
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!
You were 28 years old writing about sterilizing black people. Supported eugenics into your 30s. You were old enough to know better, and the behavior you had online persisted for years. Why would anyone trust a thinker who had this type of history? People change, and maybe you did. But even if you did change, this Huff Post article signals something about your thinking. It signals that you were a poor judge of ideas very late into adulthood. You exhibited bad reasoning, a tendency for lazy thought. You were uncritical in searching for the truth and you chose to defend evil ideologies presumably because you enjoyed being contrarian more than being ethical. You need to look inwards. Ask yourself why you believed in the wrong things for so long. What about you made you get excited about those ideas? Do you, Hanania, believe you’ve purged that tendency to get excited about those ideas? Do you trust yourself to be an honest voice for tolerance, liberalism, and capitalism?
Nobody's "old" enough to know better. People of every age have nasty, wrong beliefs. The difference is that Richard's wrong, nasty beliefs were beliefs were also hugely unpopular from pretty much any time in the West post-WWII.
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?