Richard Hanania's Career of Coal

[BillyONare]

Russian population is 143 million. 71 million women. TFR of 1.5 means they lose 37 million per generation. TFR of 3 means they gain 71 million per generation. Delta of 108 million white people.

Now you’re right, maybe if they banned abortion the TFR wouldn’t go up that much blah blah blah. Still! 108 million white people. Does that mean nothing to you? Is it not worth trying or looking into this? This is what you are minimizing and saying we should cede this ground to the libs and that there are more important issues.

Yes there are other factors. Whites don’t have as many kids as Mexicans. But saying that makes millions of abortions per year insignificant is like (American moment) you stealing half of my Small French Fries and saying there are other factors as to why I do not have many fries left.

[august]

Invert the food analogy a bit. It's not uncommon for small children to refuse to eat, for example, vegetables. Something that, though good for them, they don't like. They'll sit there at the dinner table and stubbornly go hungry. The bad parent will ultimately give in, and give them their favorite tasty slop instead of putting their foot down. Naturally, the same is true of women, because they themselves are children. If the child was never exposed to shitslop in the first place, they wouldn't know of such alternatives to the healthy foods, and further, they wouldn't have as much of a reason to dislike and refuse to eat them. When given a choice, or exposed to the (seemingly) more attractive option, both children and women, being of the same nature, will always choose what satisfies their immediate desires over what is better for them in the long term. Obviously then, the cause of this problem is the last century or so of very bad parenting. The solution will involve a lot of crying. So what? A child's tantrum doesn't last long. Their preference for baubles, however, usually does, because they're incapable of knowing any better.

[Guest]

Primary issue of abortion is the same as birth control in general. When people are given control, they make poor choices. Asking the average human to decide on when they will have a child is foolish. Better to leave it to chance and prevent a large amount of neuroticism and stupidity. Ideally, the average human would answer very few questions of life trajectory like this.
The current form of it (espoused) is simply a way of passing the buck anyway. "I want to eliminate x,y,z group. But I will just let them do it themselves ha ha ha!" This is not a good way of doing things for obvious reasons. 1.) It does not teach the lesson to the rest of your citizens. 2.) It allows nasty lies to perpetuate and cause all manner of strange perversions.
If one wants to stop a group from breeding, there is historical precedent. Said precedent does not involve empowering a corrupt and worthless medical faction.
Now, racial argument aside, look at the average age of childbirth for whatever group you want in any first world country. It is a grim number. Two middle-aged people cannot make anything of great merit. This can be fixed without an abortion debate or change, but abortion and birth control are a part of the issue at present. In other words, the likely solution would involve curtailing the ease of access (and installing social shame, low status signifiers) onto abortion and birth control again. With condoms it has already happened, as nobody enjoys them. The pill (and all it's deleterious effects, observed, short-term and long-term) should also fall to this at some point in the future naturally. But it will incur a greater cost the longer it goes on. Abortion also has deleterious effects. Recently mentioned "deleterious" is purely on the basis of physical health. There is obviously a psychological effect too, although I am sure one could argue in both directions for it.
It is a strange issue.
Expecting some racial reconfiguration to come from abortion is silly. If Americans are to live with the strange melting pot they have, it would be better if at least all of those specimens were more healthy (physically). To me, this is obvious. I don't think it is especially realistic to expect some policy like this to change the racial demographics one way or the other -- especially when mass immigration is the far greater issue. If Americans (or whoever) is not to live with the strange melting pot, then abortion is still not the solution, as it does not do the job well.

[Guest]

Whites are ~13% of the global population. In america a little under half of kids born are white. When SHTF the number of whites in a particular jurisdiction is not going to be as important as the ratio worldwide. So America is about 4x whiter than the world, so american abortion is 4x whiter than global abortion. Still might not be a priority issue once you consider racial/IQ/etc tendencies inherent to abortion.

[Hamamelis]

Russian population is 143 million. 71 million women. TFR of 1.5 means they lose 37 million per generation. TFR of 3 means they gain 71 million per generation. Delta of 108 million white people.

Now you’re right, maybe if they banned abortion the TFR wouldn’t go up that much blah blah blah. Still! 108 million white people. Does that mean nothing to you? Is it not worth trying or looking into this? This is what you are minimizing and saying we should cede this ground to the libs and that there are more important issues.

Yes there are other factors. Whites don’t have as many kids as Mexicans. But saying that makes millions of abortions per year insignificant is like (American moment) you stealing half of my Small French Fries and saying there are other factors as to why I do not have many fries left.

@calico to you as well:
I read some studies, expecting to easily demonstrate my conjectures above, but literally all of them showed that, all else being equal, permissive abortion laws lower the TFR. So I yield and admit defeat. Some caveats to that, because I only invested some 20 mins in this: all of the studies were of ex-Sovjet states or Eastern Asia, so I still have suspicion of hidden effects (permissive abortion laws came at the moment of economic upheaval). And I still find the argument as presented by Billionaire above unconvincing, exactly because it compares something as fickle as the birth rate to some easily produced good. But that doesn't change that I have now become unsure of my position and will not argue pro or con until I read more.

EDIT in case somebody reads this later: I read some more, most recent paper is about Texas: https://docs.iza.org/dp16608.pdf
As far as I can tell by now, abortion bans increase fertility a little, and one reason the effect is not larger is that women look for ways not to get pregnant when they can't abort freely. So I was not completely off in the posts above. I'm going to read more about this, maybe even make a thread summary at some point.

[Sunspot]

Brandishing the words "white babies" in reference to abortion is emotionally charged.

There are more White Europeans today than throughout almost all of White European history. Whether there are 1000 or 1000 billion congoids in the Congo makes little difference, except in which cases the latter serves as a rhetorical tool to convince other Whites to advocate in their own interests, or to demonstrate principles of R/K Selection. The existential threat our civilization faces is for others to outnumber us in our own nations and to seize control of the "democratic" machinery and other institutions of power. Since abortion tends to be used by nonwhites more than by whites, prohibitions thereof do not help us here either.

Forcing white fertility will never be a "winning strategy". Whites reach sexual maturity later, have later optimal fertility, later age of reproduction for optimal childhood outcome, invest more in their offspring, and are more thoughtful about partner selection. The most effective avenue is to make raising children as fulfilling and desirable as possible for white couples, eliminating stress and obstacles along the way.

Obstetrically relevant pelvic dimensions (in White and East Asian women) increase until 25-30, when they reach their max, which persists for about 10 years. I believe this may be prolonged with optimal lifestyle and nutrition.

Developmental evidence for obstetric adaptation of the human female pelvis

The analogy @august uses is interesting because of how poorly it corresponds to reality. Women are far more likely to care for nutrition and food choice than men (which, given the poor quality of preponderant nutritional advice, may work to their disadvantage).

There is a tendency to approach this issue without considering the second order consequences, such as those implied earlier in this reply of mine. Many, for example, adopt the attitude to which @Hamamelis refers: "all of god's creatures are sacred". In line with the beliefs of many users of this forum, there is then a progression to "as long as there are more white people," and then to "as long as white people reproduce more than blacks". We cannot however limit ourselves to crude arithmetic without any care for the quality of individual species.

Children will have better outcomes if their parents' intend, plan for, and desire their existence. Most women who receive abortions already have children, and most women who receive abortions are low income, which means that in most cases families are not flatly opposed to children but make a cost-benefit analysis with their current situation in mind. Otherwise, resources are taken away from the already existing children, which could have gone towards nutrition and tutoring. In many cases, abortion postpones childrearing: A couple decides now is not the right time. Later, when they are less stressed and better able to provide, they conceive.

Let us consider Russia! Children given up for adoption in Eastern European countries often have cognitive impairments, likely because the mother was in rough shape. These children if adopted may then become a burden for conscientious white families, often abroad, which take them in. If their impairments do not constitute dead ends, they will nevertheless affect partner selection and quality as a parent.

[august]

The analogy @august uses is interesting because of how poorly it corresponds to reality. Women are far more likely to care for nutrition and food choice than men (which, given the poor quality of preponderant nutritional advice, may work to their disadvantage).

I wasn't really alluding to mate choice, if that's what you're implying here. It was more so that, when given the choice between (a) doing the one thing that they alone are biologically designed to do, or (b) larping as professionals or independent women or whatever else they feel like playing dress up as, observable reality shows clear as day that they will generally choose the latter because they are children (mentally) that don't know what's good for them. At least as things currently stand. The basic point being that aside from only very recently, to my humble knowledge, this "choice" was essentially entirely nonexistent.

[T. L.]

Any thoughts on a russian HBD-adjacent blogger Anatoly Karlin?
He has recently undergone an ideological transformation similar to that of Hanania and started calling right-wingers subhumans (low human capital).
https://akarlin.com/jail-for-rightoids/

[anthony]

Any thoughts on a russian HBD-adjacent blogger Anatoly Karlin?
He has recently undergone an ideological transformation similar to that of Hanania and started calling right-wingers subhumans (low human capital).
https://akarlin.com/jail-for-rightoids/

I skimmed this piece and found it sort of sociologically interesting. I never paid any real attention to Karlin before so I don't know to what extent this is a turnaround or if he was on a kind of natural trajectory that led here.

Hanania still tries to post in a chud-coded way. He understands how male reason works and seems to try his best to try to spin that into his new sellout ideas fairly often (when he's not putting on his stupid cool-nigger irony shield). This Karlin piece though, it reads like RationalWiki. If his name weren't on it I would assume it was written by a woman.

I just remembered now, is Karlin the one who said that a sufficient biomass of algae could have its interests prioritised over those of a human because of a potential slight ability to feel pain multiplied by massive numbers?

[Unformed Golem]

Karlin has written some good things in the past, such as his "Malthusian Industrialism" articles on what the world might look like during/after recovery from subreplacement fertility, and I found his Russophilic writings worthwhile as well. I skimmed the linked manifesto, and it drastically lowered my opinion of him.

Prior to his current tack, he had been saying a couple of interesting things -- basically, his idea was that the world was on the edge of a fertility/immigration driven "realignment" (collapse), and the question was how to preserve some sort of civilization through this time. Karlin has always been something of a rationalist/transhumanist, but he also recognized the threat posed by the Second Bantu Expansion, which remains something many of these types of have their heads in the sand about.

He (correctly) noted that there is a minimum population size for a self-contained high-tech civilization, and came up with a number of about 100 million being a bare minimum with 250 million being preferable. Any smaller than that, and you will either be relegated to being a periphery/vassal state to such a civilization, or -- if there isn't one -- you will inevitably regress to something like a 19th century tech level or worse. Russia was right on the limit here, and Karlin believed that adding Ukraine's ~40 million undervalued inhabitants would provide a comfortable margin of error. Further, this could be accomplished pretty easily because of cultural similarity + high corruption/mismanagement in Ukraine. Peacefully, that is -- basically by encouraging emigration from Ukraine to Russia via scholarships and the like. Karlin believes this opportunity is lost because of the Ukraine war, and my reading of his shift was a combination of resigned trolling and hoping that the Anglosphere might muddle through the coming bottleneck.

Some of Karlin's screed is understandable given his familiarity with the Slavic/East Euro world, where his description of midwit thugs hiding extortion rackets behind nationalist rhetoric is more true (he had a good expression for this, the "swine right", with an emphasis on the piggish physiognomy of these characters). Unfortunately this entire wall of text is mostly just ranting about how anyone who dissents from orthodoxy is ipso facto a "low status" retarded nigger sheep. He doesn't really bother to engage with counterarguments or difficult examples (even fairly lame and obvious ones like Trump), it's literally just "if you're so smart why don't you rule the world huh?" Even more bizarre is his much more easily rebutted contention that there is no means to resist globohomo Elite Human Capital and its inevitable Total Victory. As I noted above, I had thought his position was that Turbo American Globohomo was simply the last best chance for humanity/the white race regardless of its shortcomings so might as well get on the bandwagon, but his post has dispelled this charitable interpretation.

[T. L.]

https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status...9740024889
This is the essential part of Karlin's and Hanania's problem. They come from white, non-Anglo societies that are not as rich and modern as Western European countries and the Anglosphere. They are buckbroken into thinking that only embracing "Elite Human Capital" can make a country rich and successful. Many such cases in Eastern Europe.
Karlin always have had weird and retarded takes, but I did not expect him to go full globohomo. I thought that exposure to various dysfunctions of the USA would permanently redpill him.

[The Green Groyper]

How similar do you Hanania’s “sell out” “uh women’s rights and faggot marriage is the winning ticket” to Richard Spencer’s “Aryan Atlanticism”?

The cynic in me thinks both men simply want to status climb(or escape a low status perception), or they feel at some level that victory is impossible in a revolutionary way, so you may as well join Globohomo.

[Zed]

How similar do you Hanania’s “sell out” “uh women’s rights and faggot marriage is the winning ticket” to Richard Spencer’s “Aryan Atlanticism”?

The cynic in me thinks both men simply want to status climb(or escape a low status perception), or they feel at some level that victory is impossible in a revolutionary way, so you may as well join Globohomo.

About the only hope of reform (rather than revolution) is the integration of certain dissident ideas within a centrist liberal consensus. Can one sell anti-immigration from a pro-labor perspective, and argue that it hurts existing minorities? Can one oppose the DEI regime on the grounds that it is fundamentally racist and negatively impacts certain groups (Asians - one cannot say white)?

From a broad perspective - this is the goal of Rufo, Hanania, and even modern Spencer. They do not hope to overturn the elite, but win them over on a few key issues.

Gays and jews, due to their distribution amongst the elite (themselves, their friends, sympathizers, etc) are off-the-table issues. As with abortion, anti-gay shit is not a winning issue in 2024 and it fundamentally appeals to the wrong crowd, largely (older) powerless peasants. Call it cucking, but it is price one pays for mainstream reintegrabiity. People can speak what they wish on the topic, but their audience is going to be a few thousand Rumble viewers on a good night.

[The Green Groyper]

I don’t see that happening-maybe anti affirmative action? Maybe? I can’t see much beyond that though. Maybe Vermuele and some of the Catholic respectables could convince the elites of the need for pro marriage and family policies.

But one thing I’ve realized is those in charge aren’t just cynical-many are fanatical believers in libtardism or worse. Even Rufo gets a lot of pushback.

So I’m honestly confused, as to what they all think they are going to achieve. Spencer hasn’t cleansed himself of Charlottesville, and Hanania is still pilloried by the “smart competent” liberals he praises as a racist.

Once you are marked as “racist” the worst thing you can be in the Jew ruled west-you may as well go full Hitler. If not in public, at least in your heart. Because the system will never let you back in.

[Zed]

So I’m honestly confused, as to what they all think they are going to achieve. Spencer hasn’t cleansed himself of Charlottesville, and Hanania is still pilloried by the “smart competent” liberals he praises as a racist.

Once you are marked as “racist” the worst thing you can be in the Jew ruled west-you may as well go full Hitler. If not in public, at least in your heart. Because the system will never let you back in.

Spencer is a fed (in part because of Charlottesville, in part out of sheer hatred for his Kremlin-asset ex-wife) and Hanania made a good deal of money and got mainstream attention for his book. The incentives are there - like it or not. They are allowed a deal of wiggle room, so long as they are Correct on the issues that matter: Russia and China.

[The Green Groyper]

So why exactly does Spencer keep ties with Mark Brahmin with? Is it just to pass the time or does he really think he will convince Biden voting liberals to worship le Apollo?

I mean I get the Fed accusations, but Spencer’s connection to Brahmin, Radix journal and the like never really fit in with that claim, at least to me.

[august]

Maybe Vermuele and some of the Catholic respectables could convince the elites of the need for pro marriage and family policies.

Are you trolling?

[The Green Groyper]

Half facetious asides.

[The Green Groyper]

Anyways, Hanania just did a blatant anti Christian tweet “uh why does religion still exist, Darwin…”

I realize Hanania was always indifferent to religion but there’s no way he’s not trying to status signal here.

These sorts of tweets almost seem designed to convince some imaginary liberal he is in fact a smart cosmopolitan thinker-not a rube.

It never works of course.

But it’s fascinating to see this sort of shameless social dancing for libtard approval in action.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status...9740024889

Greek government is pushing for same sex marriage. They promise it won’t lead to gay surrogacy but this will certainly make it more likely. Increasingly seeing gay marriage as a necessary stop on the march of progress. Good luck to Greece. 🏳️‍🌈

Don't know enough about Karlin but Hanania's post is cynically constructed bait. The non sequitur about surrogacy offers a free opportunity for low IQ refutation. Using "the march of progress" buzzphrase and capping it off with the sodomy flag emoji, aims to piss off conservatives as much as possible.

Looking at his page, the majority of his posts are also transparent bait. Here's some really obvious recent ones:

https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/statu...8268218504
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/statu...3120858342
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/statu...9000051983

A 110 IQ milady avatar feeling smug at having seen through Hanania might say these posts are "masterful bait" and "you gotta hand it to him", but you actually don't. That many among the masses take this bait speaks to their stupidity, not to Hanania's talent at gaming social media algorithms (not an especially difficult or worthwhile thing to do).

How similar do you Hanania’s “sell out” “uh women’s rights and faggot marriage is the winning ticket” to Richard Spencer’s “Aryan Atlanticism”?

The cynic in me thinks both men simply want to status climb(or escape a low status perception), or they feel at some level that victory is impossible in a revolutionary way, so you may as well join Globohomo.

Anyways, Hanania just did a blatant anti Christian tweet “uh why does religion still exist, Darwin…”

I realize Hanania was always indifferent to religion but there’s no way he’s not trying to status signal here.

These sorts of tweets almost seem designed to convince some imaginary liberal he is in fact a smart cosmopolitan thinker-not a rube.

It never works of course.

But it’s fascinating to see this sort of shameless social dancing for libtard approval in action.

He does want to status climb, but he's not "status signalling" to impress libtards. Begging the system to accept him is a non-starter considering his current position (as you notice), he's not that stupid and isn't doing that. Hanania is a mere tabloid journalist who posts shitty bait constantly in an attempt to make people who take him seriously (like you) confused and mad, and convert this engagement into money via substack subscriptions and book sales.

There isn't much evidence that he actually holds political beliefs. A lot of the bait Hanania posts is blatantly wrong and presented in direct, flat terms that a true believer hoping to persuade others would never use. His posts often lack emotional affect because he doesn't care about the ideas he pretends to believe. He clearly knows what kind of reaction he's going to get before he posts the next retarded contrarian countersignal to the consensus RW opinion on <current event>. Ignore him and he'll die off eventually.