1,833 words
On Friday, the Huffington Post exposed Substack writer Richard Hanania, a prominent media personality in mainstream conservative/center-Right circles, as a “white supremacist” who wrote for several dissident Right websites, including Counter-Currents, in the early 2010s under the pseudonym “Richard Hoste.” “Hoste” wrote about race realism and human biodiversity (HBD) and advocated for eugenics and immigration restriction. His subsequent transformation into an advocate for multiracial capitalism and open borders illustrates why we must supplement race-realist arguments with a philosophical defense of White Nationalism that undermines the moral legitimacy of multiracialism and globalism.
The Huffington Post article — no doubt intentionally — leaves the reader with the impression that Hanania’s worldview has remained unchanged and emphasizes his connections to tech billionaires such as Peter Thiel, fueling Leftist paranoia about the existence of a secret cabal of powerful White Nationalists. It neglects to mention that today, Hanania spends most of his time attacking the Right and (much like Richard Spencer) revels in mocking conservatives and espousing contrarian viewpoints. He supports Biden and hates Trump, defends the CIA/FBI, describes the mainstream media as “honest and good,” and is pro-immigration.
In his response to the article, Hanania denounces his former views and asserts that he “firmly believe[s] in classical liberalism.” He claims that he was “trolling” and that being anonymous made him “more extreme and uncivil” than he otherwise would have been. He also blames his former views on the fact that he had “few friends or romantic successes and no real career prospects” at the time, which led him to arrive at the “only logical conclusion” that he was “naturally superior to everyone else and women in particular shouldn’t have any rights.”
On the one hand, Hanania (again like Spencer) comes across as the sort of megalomaniac who would reason in this manner, but this rote apology rings hollow. It is a transparent attempt to deflect responsibility and demonstrate his loyalty to the establishment. A troll would not write lengthy, well-crafted book reviews. Ascribing his views to mere emotional impulses and harping on the dangers of anonymity also conveniently excuses him from having to describe his views on race in detail. He does not say he was persuaded by actual arguments because he would then have to discuss the arguments that convinced him to abandon his views — which he cannot do, because there are no arguments that single-handedly undermine race realism, and he knows it.
It is clear that Hanania was a bona fide race realist who arrived at his positions through reason. He even stated as much in an article at Counter-Currents entitled “Why I Write”:
I never was robbed or beaten up by a black person, nor has a Mexican ever taken one of my jobs. If there were a movie made about my life, some bad experiences with NAMs [non-Asian minorities] would have to be put in there, because a story about a guy coming to his life philosophy through reading books and thinking wouldn’t make for interesting viewing.
It is also clear that Hanania has not repudiated his race-realist beliefs. In a recent tweet, he pointed out that Hispanic children in America have higher IQs than the children of black African and Caribbean immigrants despite the fact that the latter are more likely to be well educated, insinuating that he believes there is a biological basis for this gap. The data he cited was from Human Varieties, an HBD blog that makes frequent mention of race and IQ. A few months ago, he critiqued the mainstream conservative argument that “culture” and “values” are responsible for East Asians’ high levels of academic achievement and economic growth and low levels of crime. Hanania has also written about black crime and mocked the notion that racism is the cause of black criminality. It makes sense; once one has become aware of racial differences, it is impossible to return to a state of blissful ignorance. But whereas Hanania’s race-realist beliefs once compelled him to oppose immigration, they now have become integrated into a classical liberal, capitalist, pro-open borders worldview.
In a 2010 article at Counter-Currents, Hanania expressed opposition to immigration on the grounds that Hispanics have low IQs compared to white people:
This goes back to our reasons for opposing immigration in the first place. Hispanics are a bad fit for America not because they have the wrong values or are putty in the hands of Leftist activists, as some mainstream conservatives may argue. They simply as a group don’t have the requisite IQ to be a productive part of a first world nation. . . . The ultimate goal should be to get all the post-1965 non-White migrants from Latin America to leave.
What changed Hanania’s mind on immigration was not the revelation that Hispanics have the same cognitive potential as whites, but rather the notion put forth by libertarian economists Bryan Caplan and Alex Nowrasteh that “we can benefit from the division of labor” afforded by a diverse citizenry. Hanania elaborates on his reasons for supporting immigration in a recent article entitled “Diversity Really Is Our Strength.” The influx of low-IQ Hispanic immigrants does not faze him because “it all approximately balances out” if we import high-IQ Asian immigrants as well, the alleged subsequent economic gains from immigration could subsidize genetic engineering research, and, he argues, our national gross domestic product is higher than one would predict based on the national average IQ thanks to free-market economics and the suppression of unions and workers’ rights. He further contends that the social cohesion that comes with homogeneity facilitates the welfare state. (This is the most interesting argument to me. He acknowledges that diversity results in a lack of social cohesion, but somehow the big, bad “welfare state” is worse than widespread social unrest, crime-ridden cities, and alienation.) And last but not least: We need Mexicans to mow our lawns and do our gardening. You can’t make this up.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s In Defense of Prejudice here
Hanania is not deterred by the crime rates of blacks and low-IQ immigrants either. His proposed solution is “heavily policing, surveilling, and incarcerating more black people.” His multiracial state would essentially entail a mixed Asian, Jewish, and high-IQ white elite violently suppressing and exploiting a mixed black, Hispanic, and low-IQ white underclass, resulting in extreme instability. An important and under-discussed benefit of homogeneity is that elites are much less likely to exploit a populace to which they are genetically and culturally bonded. Thus, although Hanania commends the “noblesse oblige” that compelled John F. Kennedy to serve heroically in the Second World War, it would not happen in his multiracial utopia.
The shortcomings of Hanania’s worldview were already evident in the essays he wrote as “Richard Hoste.” In his review of Richard Lynn’s Eugenics that was published at Counter-Currents in 2011, he discusses the possibility that the Chinese will genetically engineer high-IQ embryos and “take over the world.” He admits this is not “the most comforting idea in the world,” but concludes the review on an optimistic note: at least “intelligence and civilization will continue somewhere.” He cannot articulate his vague discomfort with this outcome because his worldview does not allow it. From a strictly cognitive elitist/HBD perspective, there is no reason why one should not be perfectly content with a high-IQ Chinese global empire that would enslave the rest of the world.
Similarly, in his review of Frank Dikötter’s Imperfect Conceptions, also published at Counter-Currents in 2011, Hanania muses that China’s existence as a lone high-IQ, anti-liberal nation “should give us hope” — for “humanity,” I presume — and that the “silver lining” of the decline of the West is that we are powerless to weaken the Chinese.
In “Why I Write,” Hanania states that he supports White Nationalism because “truth, classical music, freedom of speech, capitalism, beauty, science, and technological innovation” have historically been championed by white people. This is all well and good, but it means his support for White Nationalism was conditional. He probably came to the conclusion that preserving the white race was not necessary in order to secure the continued existence of capitalism, science and technology, and so on, just as he came to believe that depriving women of the right to vote was not necessary in order to preserve free speech.
It’s tempting to wonder if Hanania’s current persona is an elaborate 4D-chess maneuver or publicity stunt, or if he is perhaps controlled by his donors. But given that the seeds of his current worldview are present in his “Richard Hoste” articles, the most likely possibility is that he is simply a reptilian with a monomaniacal fixation on IQ and GDP who is uninterested in other measures of societal wellbeing. His fundamental premises have remained the same over the years; only his conclusions have changed.
Race realism is important because the reality of racial differences negates the egalitarian myths at the heart of Leftist social policies. (I myself have written about racial differences.) At the same time, although becoming acquainted with race realism and HBD can, and often does, lead one to embrace White Nationalism, race-realist talking points can be assimilated into classical liberalism and can even be used to justify positions that are anathema to White Nationalists. One could argue that white-Asian marriages are “eugenic,” for instance, or that miscegenation is necessary in order to erase racial differences. I also suspect that there are millions of white Americans who are quietly aware of racial differences on some level, but who still believe in the moral rightness of a multiracial America founded on the notion that “all men are created equal,” and hold out hope that we can make it work.
The Alt Right’s endless fixation on race and IQ was a symptom of its intellectual impoverishment (Counter-Currents being a major exception to this trend) when compared to its European counterpart. Mere factoids are useless unless they are contextualized within a larger worldview and can be weaponized by intellectuals to support the most valuable narratives. The only thing that can ultimately defeat a dangerous worldview is a competing worldview.
As the reality of racial differences becomes more difficult to ignore, I predict that the establishment will promote Hanania’s fusion of race realism and multiracial capitalism in center-Right circles in order to siphon racially-aware conservative and libertarian intellectuals away from White Nationalism and direct them toward positions that do not pose a threat to globalism, international finance, and elite institutions. This is more or less what happened with Hanania: Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University and a close colleague of Tyler Cowen, befriended him and “won him over.” Hanania writes that he hopes to do the same with young Right-wingers himself.
Hanania is important to address because, as Greg Johnson pointed out, an astonishingly high number of White Nationalists were once libertarians. The libertarian-to-White Nationalist pipeline is real, and the establishment will try to hijack it. We need to stop the impending wave of Hanania clones and focus on crafting appeals to libertarians that make an intelligent case for the necessity of white collectivism.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
24 comments
As someone who transitioned straight from old-school leftism to white nationalism, I have never understood the appeal of libertarianism and market-based philosophies in general. Can anyone suggest any articles that explain the libertarian-to-White Nationalist pipeline?
I kicked the liberal habit when I was 14 and never looked back. Since then, I’ve read plenty of Ayn Rand – lots of good stuff there. Even so, she packaged her ideology as an “all or nothing” deal, and I never went into all that with both feet. It has some missing pieces, some of which are the same as what this article documents.
As for the pipeline, the following is a pretty good place to begin:
https://counter-currents.com/2015/10/the-refutation-of-libertarianism/
Thank you!
The greater the genetic similarity of a society, the greater its chances of successfully being libertarian (the opposite is clearly true, too). Of course, culture also plays a role. The English-speaking peoples were always the most libertarian among the nations. This was clearly a product more of culture and history and the strength of liberal ideas there than of mere genetic similarity. Why weren’t the Germans or French or Swedes equally as libertarian? The French and Germans produced many noted classical liberals in both philosophy and politics.
Classical liberalism / libertarianism tends to be the last refuge of the neutered white nationalist. It’s easy to see why. But we shouldn’t be so dismissive of the libertarian tradition. It’s a very powerful and, unlike all variants of the left, internally coherent ideology posing what I hold to be the very best challenge to white nationalism. An ideology rooted in radical individualism and anti-coercionism has a natural appeal to both whites and Christians. WNs need to demonstrate why libertarianism is not enough, and is not viable over the longest term. Dr. Johnson’s article is an excellent start, but I don’t think it would be the last word for a committed, intellectual libertarian.
The elevator pitch is that libertarian society would require sustained and radical anti-libertarian means to prevent it from falling into warlordism or being conquered by strong groups with no qualms about defecting from libertarian orthodoxy.
Libertarians would probably object to Rwanda, Somalia, Detroit or the state of Sinaloa being held up as gold-standard libertarian implementation, but why? Another question is, what place(s) would be ideal to establish a libertarian zone, and how would the libertarian propose to transform it from its current state to the desired one?
Most true believers will furnish answers that the race realist can blow apart like grenaded fish in a koi pond.
Edit: Just reread Dr. Johnson’s article. It may not be the final word, but it’s the grammar that will contain it.
Even in the early/mid 80s, when I was most intrigued by libertarianism and hadn’t yet discovered anything resembling an intellectual ethnonationalism, I thought that anarcho-capitalism (AC) was silly. The AC territory would simply be defeated and pillaged and/or colonized by what the libertarians themselves recognize as highly organized “robber bands” –> ie, foreign states. The world will never, at this stage of its technological development (who knows humanity’s situation in a thousand years, or a million?), rid itself of enterprises of organized coercion. In the Darwinian struggle for life and resources, especially when combined with what Christians believe to be man’s ontologically, ineradicably sinful (sociobiologists might say, genetically self-interested) nature, tribal units, coercively maintained, will outcompete voluntary assemblages (or so I believe, and such has been history; the burden of proof for the contrary rests with the libertarian).
You might wish to consider, however, what I have to say in a comment lower down the page wrt minarchistic libertarianism. As long as a polity deploys sufficient coercion to maintain a world-class military – and both the racial and genetico-cognitive bases for it – I think it could meet any of your objections to its long term viability.
I’ve read Hans Hermann Hoppe, great stuff. And Von Mises’ socialist calculation problem is an all-time-great critique. Libertarian heavyweights might accidentally crush 1,000 Marxists getting out of bed. A lot of it would probably make a wonderful society under ideal conditions. But street libertarians blinded by race neutrality are the last people who are going to get us there.
Your cousin’s reply from the other thread is IKAGO, then trying to derive rules from wild exceptions. You say he’s not dumb. And no doubt most in his camp aren’t. But let’s pull the pin and toss the grenade in the pond just in case.
We can ask him if he’s familiar with mean reversion, and that the more extreme an outlier, the starker the likely reversion. Dot indian #724,340,237 of 1B with IQ 150 is overwhelmingly likely to be a freak. He marries Dunkin Donuts Lady, and their kid, who is no better than middling intellect, rides rich dad’s high-status turban into the ruling class, where he becomes an ethnowarrior ala South Africa, Fiji, Microsoft, Disney etc etc, destabilizing society and institutionalizing further libertarian defection. This is not pointing at outliers but pointing to means and large-scale observed behavior.
Nor did Cousin answer the question I posed as to why he doesn’t live in any of those mentioned libertarian Shangri Las — where one can pay zero taxes, own heavy artillery, smoke meth walking down the cop-free street or catch a good old fashioned donkey show then, for a premium, elope with either star. Sounds like perfection.
The bottom line is that Whites create societies Whites want to live in. Indians create societies indians want to live in, or not. And everyone with a high IQ thrown onto the same overcrowded hillside creates San Francisco, where U-Haul trucks to Austin cost 10x the return trip. In what approximately high IQ libertarian place would Cousin most like to live?
Where does high IQ multiracial society work in practice, Singapore? Is that minarchism or iron-clawed dictatorship? Where does minarchist, open-borders, high IQ, multiracial, unsegregated society exist? These simple questions unanswered become devastating rejoinders.
Engineering is the art of what testably works in a stable way over long periods. Even the best governance rises nowhere near the dominion exerted by a shade-tree duct-tape mechanic; his advantage lies in cars not being comprised of millions of largely autonomous parts, Von Mises’ exact critique.
Political theories that are not remotely demonstrated are not remotely possible.
As a former Ron Paul libertarian (lolberg) I always saw libertarianism as an indirect version of fascism or by other means, whereas I saw fascism as ‘applied libertarianism.’ So the goal in both is segregation.
One obvious reason that wasn’t mentioned in the article or in the comments is that Hanania is not White as he is often reminded in the comments on Twitter.
Libertarian, ethnically diverse, police state dominated by Jews and high-IQ Asians is far more appealing than a White ethnostate if you’re a high-IQ Arab.
Jewish money also doesn’t hurt. I hear that he has a sponsor who drops a six-figure donation every year to his bank account.
Had a feeling someone would bring that up. I didn’t mention Hanania’s ethnicity because there are many would-be white nationalists who are naturally low in ethnocentrism and would be just as likely to reason their way into supporting a multiracial libertarian state. In a sense his ethnicity is irrelevant; my argument stands regardless.
I knew whites had better genetics and thought we would naturally rise to the top if there was simply an even playing field. The fallacy in this is that nobody else believes in fair play like we do and so we will never get an even playing field unless we can separate ourselves.
The appeal of libertarianism to proto-white nationalists is due to the fact that the state has been implementing anti-white policies since the 1860s, i.e. this is a top-down phenomenon. So a smaller state would allow for “racism”, segregation, and being left alone to live among our folk.
Also, in North America our traditional heritage is of swashbuckling pioneers who went into the wilderness and built civilisation, all on their own. You can see why young white men would find ideas of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and weak state power appealing and familiar. Even today when in theory a white man would be more successful by obsessively specializing, most of us still have that handyman can-do-everything knowledge, from being a car mechanic to building one’s own patio deck.
Damn, Alex Graham, what an exceptional article.
I peeked at the man’s Twitter; the anti-racist types are, shall we say, not as forgiving as an erstwhile WN might wish they were.
This is the most interesting argument to me. He acknowledges that diversity results in a lack of social cohesion, but somehow the big, bad “welfare state” is worse than widespread social unrest, crime-ridden cities, and alienation.
It’s idiotic, not interesting. Low social trust societies are the norm throughout the third world and none of them are libertarian utopias, or even politically liberal. They are invariably poor, corrupt, authoritarian, heavily statist and not the sort of places that anyone is eager to live. Low social trust leads not to individualism, but to what Edward C. Banfield called in his study of a low trust village in South Italy ‘amoral familism.’ Individualism is the product of a high trust society, low trust societies are clannish for strangers are distrusted and family bonds the only reliable ones—hardly ripe soil for the free market to flourish.
Individualism is the product of high-trust WHITE societies, you should say. Where else has real individualism flourished except white societies?
I was once attracted to libertarianism, though I always recognized that mass immigration is a Big Government Program of totalitarian social engineering. I used to argue for “Liberty in One Nation”, or “Liberty For One People”.
Listen carefully, nationalists: immigration is NOT a libertarian value. Many libertards favor ‘generous’ immigration policies, but such a stance is not logically necessitated by foundational libertarian precepts. If one is an anarcho-capitalist, immigration policy becomes a “second-order” issue. In their ideal society, there would be no state into which immigrants could migrate, nor any citizenship they could acquire. Migration would be wholly at the discretion of private property owners. (Note: I am not nor ever was an anarcho-capitalist.) Thus, what immigration should be allowed within our current non-ideal governmentalist system is up to each individual’s discretion. Some libertards might choose open borders; others, zero immigration; others, various migrant policy mixes.
Now suppose one is what most libertarians are in fact: a minarchist, one who believes in the necessity of some government, but wants it radically minimized, or at least restricted to a few areas, usually national security and law enforcement. I still am a minarchist, albeit an ethnonationalist one: I want a white ethnostate to ensure the ultimate preservation of the white race and Occidental civilization, but, in terms of the governing structures of that future ethnostate, I remain as always vitriolically anti-socialist, as well as anti-liberal and anti-progressive (of course, I have a vastly greater sense of ethnonational security imperatives, especially in the state’s early years, and thus favor a far higher degree of ‘coercion’, extending to the eugenic realm, than most libertarians would tolerate; but I still consider myself to be an ethnonationalist libertarian, albeit with strong morally and culturally conservative tendencies).
I feel similarly to you about state socialism but traditional rural European societies had extensive parish-based ‘socialism’. I believe it was often required by the central government. Nineteenth century novels are full of soft-hearted gentlewomen visiting the poorest homes to give succour. There was then, of course, the notion of the deserving and undeserving poor and universal health care was limited to leeches and laudanum.
I’m certainly not opposed to private charity and poor relief, though I would recommend to any whites that they restrict such altruistic exercises to suffering fellow whites, of whom there are many. Other races do nothing for us (and much to us); apart from acts of Good Samaritanship (helping someone in need in your immediate, accidental vicinity) directed towards nonwhites, which I myself have performed, why should we aid them – especially when they endlessly slander us; often prey upon us; and return our generosity with predictable ingratitude?
I would not necessarily oppose some kind of statist welfare provision within an all-white ethnostate, though I still would want the deserving vs undeserving distinction to be rigorously upheld (I once knew an able-bodied white welfare scrounger, and it annoyed me no end, too). And when I refer to socialism, I’m mainly thinking of central economic planning and state ownership of the means of production, not wealth redistribution per se. But in today’s multiracial Western polities, the welfare state should be uniformly opposed, as it is yet another illegitimate (and enormous) mechanism for weakening white power, and strengthening nonwhite power.
My larger point, of course, is that libertarianism is not a ‘joke’ ideology (like influential and destructive, but also illogical and ludicrous, ‘wokism’), but, rather, an enormously important tradition of political thought and practice, as well as, imo, one of the two chief rivals of ethnonationalism (the other being Christianism).
All three of those co-existed in Australia, New Zealand and no doubt North America until the early twentieth century. They are not mutually exclusive. Christianism’ is only a big problem when it’s not counterbalanced by ethno-nationalism and libertarianism, which counteract the universalist and socialist aspects of Christianity.
What changed Hanania’s mind on immigration…
Did it? He may not be trolling. But it’s highly unlikely imo that he’s being honest about what he actually believes.
I should disclose that I didn’t even know who this guy was until yesterday and have read not one word of his work. That said, it’s highly unlikely that anyone who is an economist, like this mentioned Caplan, or who is familiar with the HBD sphere would willy nilly assume that low-IQ populations could somehow become a net economic benefit rather than a stark liability.
And this is without even broaching the considerable externalities that a LatAm-times-AfricaPOCs third-world population would impose. Look at representative places in Brazil, Bolivia, Panama or Mexico. Not even a foam-mouthed ADL gimp could honestly say those are places they would choose for themselves or their families. They might imagine themselves living in some cosmopolitan sky shtetl with armed security. But that’s probably out of sheer ignorance of how bad being a constant target of motivated and skilled kidnappers and extortionists can get.
Reality checking Hanania’s reported claim, hispanics are a net tax liability in pure internal revenue terms. Oh, it looks like the blog “The Alternative Hypothesis” has been jewed off the net by Caplan’s collective. No one can see it. So I guess it’s not true anymore.
The blog determined blacks are a $10k per capita-year net tax liability and hispanics come in at around a $2k liability iirc. This shouldn’t be too hard to believe given relative work habits and a mean black IQ of around 85 and mean hispanic IQ of around 90.
It can also be checked against the fact that the lower recruiting bound for the US Armed Forces is around 90. This is one of the most desperate organizations in the world to recruit talent, spending billions per year on that task while fanatically trying to expose its ranks to more POCs. But even Uncle Samuels has determined that those falling below IQs of 90 cannot be trained to make a net contribution in any job.
Since the US military is representative of advanced technological society and probably has among the most effective training capabilities of any organization, it would be crazy to bet that society at large could manage those populations any better. Linda Gottfredson’s work also strongly indicates that those falling below the 90 IQ threshold are unlikely to be moldable into productive workers at anything above the level of menial labor. As those jobs continue to be automated away, the experience most likely to arise from deliberately importing this toxic dreg stew will be nasty, brutish and short.
My mind is open on precisely where the above numbers lie. But they’re almost certainly conservative. You don’t play Russian roulette with the whole of society for no good reason. And it’s hard to believe Hanania or Caplan are unaware of the exact arguments I just made.
…he argues that our national gross domestic product is higher than one would predict based on the national average IQ…
One thing IQ skeptics like Ron Unz and Fred Reed are right about is that studies like “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” are highly sensitive to small samples and careless methodology. That is, bad methodology creates a larger randomness component. And this needs to be accounted for. Does Caplan calculate the statistical significance of his contention?
“Stoicism should be our way. Courage should be our way. When somebody pushes you, you push them back. When somebody’s false to you, you’re false to them. When somebody’s friendly to you, you are to them. You fight for your own country, and your own group, and your own culture, and your own civilization, at your own level, and in your own way. And when somebody says, “Apologize for this, or that” you say: “No. I regret nothing.”
-Jonathan Bowden
Hanania writes in a very clever and dishonest fashion. Is he a Jew?
Immigration is good… if you are a CEO worried about how the numbers are going to look for the next quarterly profit report. It’s often cheap labor advertised as ‘jobs American’s won’t do’. Nations and civilizations need long-term strategic planning besides quarterly conference calls with investors.
I guess Dr. H is in some hot water because the word on the street is that this site isn’t ‘nice’. I can agree that some of the scribes are too often screeds.
But it doesn’t seem ‘nice’ to say we are going to import people to do shitty jobs. They and their progeny don’t want this job forever. Sooner or later they want your job or your kids job or your grandkids college admittance. And are they going to compete fairly for it? Or is there going to be some affirmative action styled ‘equity’ handed to them. Even if the supreme court race-based college admissions, there are always workarounds. Columbia law school is now requesting 90 second (!) videos of the applicants to aid the selection process. I imagine they would forbid wearing something like a Hijab to obscure race and gender.
The pro-immigration economists can produce an algorithm that shows the shitty job immigrants will graduate to good jobs and that new immigrants will take the crap jobs for a generation… and all will be good. Of course that sort of modeling requires all sorts of mathematical ‘assumptions’. When you tweak the debatable assumptions you get the opposite result. Behavioral ecomonists are fun, but rely a lot on small scale artificial ‘experiments’. Sometimes this needs to be balanced with ‘natural experiments’. Like how has Japan managed to preserve itself all these centuries?
At the crux of it, Hanania is a Palestinian Arab. This ethnicity exists on the edge of “whiteness”, perhaps far enough to not even cause any feelings of racial solidarity. It is often fruitless to expect meaningful assistance from non-Europeans, especially after the self-sacrificial idealism/naivety of youth passes and pragmatic (or egotistic) self-interest sets in. Fellow minorities taunt them with slogans like “you will never be white” and “they will throw you out of the ethnostate”, and these worries may also discourage those ethnically on the fringes from determined white advocacy.
Great article.
“His multiracial state would essentially entail a mixed Asian, Jewish, and high-IQ white elite violently suppressing and exploiting a mixed black, Hispanic, and low-IQ white underclass, resulting in extreme instability. An important and under-discussed benefit of homogeneity is that elites are much less likely to exploit a populace to which they are genetically and culturally bonded. Thus, although Hanania commends the “noblesse oblige” that compelled John F. Kennedy to serve heroically in the Second World War, it would not happen in his multiracial utopia.”
I think in this largely correct reason why this irreversible experiment will fail lie the properties that can be inverted to assert our positive vision.
There is also the radical leftist argument and their international law that we have a right to exist in our homelands and that the multi-racial forced invasion robs us of our sovereignty. We assert our rights as another pillar of the positive vision/reasoning.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.