Richard Hanania's Career of Coal

[torifalkes657]

say whatever you want about Hanania but at least he has a good and nuanced take about sexual morality better than trads and feminists https://www.richardhanania.com/p/hitler-...pedophiles

"My view of traditionalism is that we should pay long-existing values and norms some respect when they are the products of cultural evolution selected to deal with consistent aspects of human nature in circumstances that haven’t changed all that much throughout history."

"In the realm of sex, the one major technological development that must be taken into account is birth control. It would be strange to have the same opinion about ideal social arrangements for both before and after the pill was invented — obviously, the consequences of sex have changed, and norms and laws should take that into account. That being said, no scientific advancement has fundamentally changed male or female nature, and certain tensions inherent in the human condition, particularly related to what individuals find attractive in the opposite sex, remain with us. Men desire to monopolize sexual access to a committed partner, but only when she’s young and ideally would like to be free to find other women themselves. Women want to somehow have their own autonomy respected, and also to find men who are able to take control and make them forget they ever thought in such silly terms in the first place."

[anthony]

say whatever you want about Hanania but at least he has a good and nuanced take about sexual morality better than trads and feminists https://www.richardhanania.com/p/hitler-...pedophiles

"My view of traditionalism is that we should pay long-existing values and norms some respect when they are the products of cultural evolution selected to deal with consistent aspects of human nature in circumstances that haven’t changed all that much throughout history."

"In the realm of sex, the one major technological development that must be taken into account is birth control. It would be strange to have the same opinion about ideal social arrangements for both before and after the pill was invented — obviously, the consequences of sex have changed, and norms and laws should take that into account. That being said, no scientific advancement has fundamentally changed male or female nature, and certain tensions inherent in the human condition, particularly related to what individuals find attractive in the opposite sex, remain with us. Men desire to monopolize sexual access to a committed partner, but only when she’s young and ideally would like to be free to find other women themselves. Women want to somehow have their own autonomy respected, and also to find men who are able to take control and make them forget they ever thought in such silly terms in the first place."

The Bananiaism in here is 'The Fascist-Feminist Synthesis'. "Everyone who disagrees with me to the right is the dumbest Alex Jones listener". The willful selective conflation of retarded boomer conspiracy theorists with all historic examples of rightism and any non-libtard who disagrees with him makes his writing mostly worthless. The correct parts in this, as always, are the parts Richard Hoste could have written.

[The Green Groyper]

We have had the pill for now sixty years I believe. The effects have been uniformly negative in every conceivable way. It might be impossible to ban it*, but I see no reason why any RW government should keep things as they are.

Hanania implies herein traditional sexual ethics and intuitions no longer apply-because the pill is a new technology which introduces new consequences(or lack thereof). I do not see why this need be the case, given the uniformly negative effects the pill has had on western society.

The pill could be strictly regulated, or outright banned. There is no reason why we must accept female promiscuity(which in its current form is a consequence of the pill), and the cascading problems it causes.

Hanania takes it as a given, this state of affairs is permanent and can't be reversed, or at least strictly managed. There is no reason to believe this.

*How feasible it being banned would be depends on where and how easily it is manufactured, how well it could be acquired illegally, and also the political will of any government in enforcing a ban. Perhaps a total ban is impractical, presuming it is sufficiently easy for any whore to get online-but even so, reducing its use by a substantial amount would net many benefits. Why modern tracking technology couldn't be applied here I see no reason.

Incentives such as raising the price, requiring a buyer to verify their marital status, and so on could also regulate its use if a total ban proves unfeasible.

Hanania presumes the rot of modern society compounded by technology is unsolvable. 

This is not the case.

[womanobliterator]

The thing that makes Hanania so frustrating is that as someone who was part of the pre-/pol/ era alt-right he's obviously aware of everything that's going on that's making society so gay (you don't just discover all that shit and then immediately go back on it, unless you get blackmailed into becoming a federal informant/take drugs, go insane and become antifa). This means that every now and then between obvious troll bait and appeals to Caplan-Bux he does share some insights on the plight of the mainstream right and cultural decline, some of my favourites include "Liberals read, conservatives watch TV", "Women's tears win in the marketplace of Ideas" and basically any post he makes regarding black crime and trannies. Hanania's grand solution to the woes which ail western society is that if we import enough brown people from different countries and repeal/minimize the effects of the civil rights act we'll dilute negrolatory and create a society focused around free-trade and pure capitalistic interests which will destroy identity politics through the sheer amount of freedom and money productive people will be making, completely ignoring the fact that:
a. In every multi-ethnic society throughout history the entire political meta has revolved around forming blocs based on ethnic grievances to outcompete the opposing blocs ethnic grievances
b. all non-whites know that the easiest way to gain money and prestige in the west is to complain about how hard it is being brown and retarded in white countries and they have zero incentive to oppose this (Stop AAPI hate complaining about phantom white men committing hate crimes against asians during the Floyd riots comes to mind)
c. The wealth and achievements of the west were built on the backs of intelligent white men and brown people absolutely hate this so no matter how much money they're making they will always vote for the anti-white party because magic dirt theory dictates that every 3rd world shithole was a glorious paradise until whitey showed up and made everyone poor and retarded and forced them to produce 300 billion children which they can't sustain on their own without billions in foreign aid money (from whitey of course)

Of course Hanania is right in a way that the removal of civil rights alone would upend the current system to some degree as the boot on the neck of intelligent young white men would be lifted and the natural biological hierarchy would be able flex its muscle again somewhat, but at the end of the day the problem with Hanania is that he's a regime approved store brand version of some Steve Sailer/Scott Greer Hybrid and none of his observations are particularly unique or original. Hanania's entire selling point/claim to fame is that he has a few eccentric Gen-X tech billionaires from the Paypal mafia who like his writing and resent that Obama era liberalism turned their homeland (San Francisco) into a 3rd world homeless zombie infest shithole so instead of getting blacklisted/cancelled like Greer and Sailer he gets to stay on the air as long as he keeps talking about how great H-1B1 visas are. It's also worth pointing out that Tucker Carlson took a lot of the original hits from the usual suspects (ADL, NYT, MSNBC) by exposing the mainstream right to a lot of this stuff first, allowing the Overton window to move to a point where Hanania could post his stuff freely on twitter/substack without fear of cancellation, if anyone should be given credit for the cultural shift on the right it's Carlson and his team of autoadmit addicted millennial writers.

Hanania also seems to suffer from a case of Hyper-contrarianism, which I can sympathise with seeing 90% of people's taste in everything is utter dogshit, but it does explain his brand to some degree. In 2020 during the Saint Floyd riots the most contrarian thing you could possibly be is a race-realist, earning you the ire and scorn of every "respectable" publication of earth. Fast forward 4 years later when everyone is tired of state mandated negrolatory and just wants a non-country bumpkin hick reason to hate blacks and all of a sudden your edgy screeds which would have gotten you 3 weeks of straight hit pieces from every major cable news channel and newspaper in America are basically mainstream amongst the average conservative voter. As a result, Hanania has had to shrink to even greater methods of contrarianism as since there's no way he would ever be allowed on the left (even amongst the most moderate Yglessian-ites) and evidently doesn't want to move there he's instead rebranded toward pushing for mass immigration and opposing any form of abortion restrictions as white America and Abortion are the sacred cows of the modern mainstream right.

If there is one thing I can give credit to Hanania for it's that he was smart enough to get out of the Alt-Right early, considering the wrath that fell down upon the alt-right post Charlottesville, and was smart/lucky enough to lie low until 2022 when everyone had become burnt out on 24/7 MSM caterwauling about secret white supremacist Neo Nazis. Of course Richard was kind enough to thank this change in culture against a lifting of cancelling everyone to the right of 2008 era John McCain by complaining about how anyone to the right of him isn't instantly cancelled for making the right look dumb and embarrassing, this coming from a professional troll whose highest engagement ever came from a tweet about whether Epstein should be allowed to sex traffic minors if he got the consent of the teenagers and their parents before pimping them out (not moralizing about this btw it's just this isn't exactly the type of stuff that would endear you to polite company around intelligent white liberals)

[anthony]

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/hanani...rvin-feb-9



Where does Richard Hanania fit into Middle Earth? Can't wait to find out.

[The Green Groyper]

Hanania is a low level functionary of the steward, arguing that the return of the King is not desirable for modern Gondor, and that vassalage to Mordor is Gondor's best chance of maximizing its prosperity-given its population decline and the lack of reliable allies. The Easterlings and Haradrim he argues should be allowed to migrate freely to Gondor, because their hostility is a result of brainwashing and envy of the Gondorians wealth-so allowing them in, will calm them down. 

He does argue full stop for total Orc death though.

[capgras]

Hanania is a useful idiot, suggesting that the return of Mermaid Man is not desirable for modern Bikini Bottom, and Bikini Bottom has no practical alternative to Plankton's economic support. He defends squirrel and squid migration, arguing difficulties assimilating both are easily solvable.

However, he explicitly excludes starfish from his proposal.

[august]

[FlyWithYou]

Why is Hanania debating Tommy Ramone?

[capgras]

Inside you there are two wolves. One is Jewish and one is Palestinian. They're both Retarded and Gay.

[Yamaneko Butai]

Speaking of gay, it seems he's come out of the closet.

[isotope]

"Why I'm no longer a White Nationalist"

I think this article should be posted here. It has gained some popularity recently, especially this excerpt:

In 2018 I moved from a racially diverse swing state in the Sun Belt to a homogenous red state up in corn country. This decision was largely motivated by politics—I was looking to retreat to an imagined Hyperborea free of crime and degeneracy where my volk had political autonomy.
The next two years were the most miserable of my life. But they were also among the most instructive, and ultimately were what made me leave WN on an emotional level.
To put it bluntly, most of my white neighbors and coworkers basically resembled hobbits. They had no ambition to them, nor any aspirations of greatness. Nor did they think about the world in a dynamic way—the more educated among them certainly stayed informed about the wider world, but they largely took it for granted that their immediate universe was a static place where nothing would ever happen.
And the horrifying thing is that’s how they liked it.
I quickly discovered that Midwesterners had no sense of imperial destiny and “right to rule” like you see in New Yorkers, Texans, or Californians. They had nothing like the feisty Faustian individualism of Floridians or “fuck you” pride of Appalachians. They didn’t even have the air of faded glory and gothic tragedy you see in the Deep South. It was nothing but aggressively bland conformity everywhere you looked.

[Golden Birch Groyper]

"Why I'm no longer a White Nationalist"

I think this article should be posted here. It has gained some popularity recently, especially this excerpt:

In 2018 I moved from a racially diverse swing state in the Sun Belt to a homogenous red state up in corn country. This decision was largely motivated by politics—I was looking to retreat to an imagined Hyperborea free of crime and degeneracy where my volk had political autonomy.
The next two years were the most miserable of my life. But they were also among the most instructive, and ultimately were what made me leave WN on an emotional level.
To put it bluntly, most of my white neighbors and coworkers basically resembled hobbits. They had no ambition to them, nor any aspirations of greatness. Nor did they think about the world in a dynamic way—the more educated among them certainly stayed informed about the wider world, but they largely took it for granted that their immediate universe was a static place where nothing would ever happen.
And the horrifying thing is that’s how they liked it.
I quickly discovered that Midwesterners had no sense of imperial destiny and “right to rule” like you see in New Yorkers, Texans, or Californians. They had nothing like the feisty Faustian individualism of Floridians or “fuck you” pride of Appalachians. They didn’t even have the air of faded glory and gothic tragedy you see in the Deep South. It was nothing but aggressively bland conformity everywhere you looked.

This is such a funny article. It's not even wrong really, it's just a giant "what did you expect". There's also some really fantastic choice lines in here that make it clear that this guy is just a 2015 Sargon of Akkad "anti SJW" who hasn't grown out of it since.

Consider:

I am only interested in working with people who exhibit what I call vitality, which I define as the will to live and prosper.

Followed quickly by: 

It turns out affordability also produces a dearth of luxury and vastly less impressive elites. Gas stations and convenience stores in the Midwest are much nicer than where I grew up, but the city centers are equally less glamorous.

Real Nietzcheanism is getting an extra 2% return on your tech startup before having dinner at Dorsia.

Another choice bit:

When we smashed Dixie we were also smashing the feudal lord-peasant fixation on some cheesy loyalty to “the land”.

Emphasis on "we" being contrasted with an explicitly caste based aristocratic white society. 

Another amazing juxtaposition:
This...

In my opinion the only people who can lead us out of this epistemic jungle are mischievous contrarians who love throwing grenades into circlejerks—guys like the Richards Hanania and Spencer, or even Matt Yglesias and Nate Silver

Followed by:

The Left no longer holds any moral authority over the Right on matters of race and identity. We’re at a point where you no longer need to care how liberals feel about your most controversial views. 

Only someone who either doesn't hold controversial views at all, or whose idea of "controversy" is mind-numbingly puerile, could hold these two views. 

Pot calling the kettle black:

This culture has turned everyone into a mushy unserious relativist, whether they’re nihilistic hucksters....In my opinion the only people who can lead us out of this epistemic jungle are mischievous contrarians who love throwing grenades into circlejerks—guys like the Richards Hanania and Spencer, or even Matt Yglesias and Nate Silver

He knows what nihilism is, and it's definitely not making Razorfist-tier YooToob contrarianism into a worldview.

[Margatroyper]

Walt Bismarck should take some time to consider whether his experiences with midwesterners invalidate the things he made the singing Disney candle say about nonwhites.

[Aizen]

Hanania's grand solution to the woes which ail western society is that if we import enough brown people from different countries and repeal/minimize the effects of the civil rights act we'll dilute negrolatory and create a society focused around free-trade and pure capitalistic interests which will destroy identity politics through the sheer amount of freedom and money productive people will be making, completely ignoring the fact that:

a. In every multi-ethnic society throughout history the entire political meta has revolved around forming blocs based on ethnic grievances to outcompete the opposing blocs ethnic grievances

Well, there are exceptions such as the case of an Imperial State like Rome--but, the Romans were masters of Statecraft and were able to mitigate this by means of absolute rule and just being better than those they conquered on one hand, and on the other by allowing a high degree of freedom of religion and culture to the conquered (I say this against those who seek a monoreligious America, an impossibility).

Even then, however, the Romans were never able to fully integrate middle-easterners into "Romanitas" as they had thousands of years of history of "belonging" to some other civilization. Against the idea that Christianity was some kind of final victory of the Jews over Rome, the Jews and other semites quickly rejected Roman Christianity in whatever form it took in favor of Judaism, some form of tribal Christianity, or Islam.

Banania must explain how America--a very ideologically confused nation since at least 1865--will have better success integrating brownoids into American society than the Romans did with their brownoids, while also maintaining some semblance of a Republican form of government.

This is actually possible in reality, but the means of doing so are beyond his thought, and probably beyond his morality if he truly believes what you say. Plus I don't think this would even be favorable, considering it would mean a continuation of the liberal-moral "Pax Americana" which has stifled Life for at least 50 years.

[Muskox]

Correct. "The Origins of Woke" is carried at my local big-box bookstore. What benefit is there to attacking him?

I retract this statement