I think it's strange that people accuse Hanania of shifting his views to avoid cancellation. His views are still much more extreme and controversial than are acceptable to pretty much anybody left-of-center. In any case, what would the cancellation of Richard Hanania consist of? It's not like he's an actor or a politician or somebody. His public-facing activity consists of posting on twitter. Musk owns twitter now, and you can be a full-on Nazi on there now, let alone whatever Hanania is. The most parsimonious explanation for Hanania's shift is that his views actually changed.
On another note, I wrote the above before actually clicking the link and seeing who this guy was. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time lmao. I'll never forget his racist cover of "On The Open Road" from A Goofy Movie ("the left are the real racists, to Mexicans they lie/'cause family values cross the Rio Grande! (¡Hola!)/you'll still get on a hate list, let's go to NPI/stop burying your heads into the sand!") 2016 really was a hell of a ride.
Unfortunately Walt was a terrible singer.
EDIT: Also the "Be Prepared" parody where Scar is an Elder of Zion and the hyenas are blacks and browns ("Be prepared for the end of the white man!/Be prepared for his daughters and wealth!")
EDIT 2: now that I've actually read it, extremely funny that the primary impetus for Walt's ceasing to identify as a WN was that he moved to the midwest, and got so annoyed that midwesterners refused to be as based and redpilled as he expected that he decided they were a race of servile undermen.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Well BAP at least is (23&Me results and everything), Martin tends to get really defensive around the Jews/Israel but yeah RW twitter is generally just a huge welter of "you're jewish" accusations and counteraccusations so I'm not 100%. My favorite is the absolute refusal of a large number of users to accept that self-declared mass immigration advocate and Klaus Schwab enjoyer Richard Hanania could possibly be a gentile.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I think so, but Groypers call everybody who disagrees with them Jewish, so it's kind of hard to tell sometimes.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
The Jewish RW e-celebs (BAP, russiancosmist, FbF, etc.) also tend to go in the hardest on the hardcore hatred of blacks and browns, presumably to take a little heat off of themselves since they know a huge portion of their audience is Jew-hating wignats.
I can barely think of any women with any capability to be interesting.
It doesn't sound like you like women that much beyond wanting to fuck them.
I've always liked hanging out with girls, even (or especially, since it can get weird otherwise) ones I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not really bothered by the dearth of female CEOS or substack pundits.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
The men I know who seem to hate women, very obviously genuinely love women--but are angry that they have been denied access to women, by whatever means and for whatever reason.
It's not impossible to hate someone you want to fuck. My experience is that a minority of men do in fact hate women, insofar as they have visceral contempt for the interests, behaviors, habits, and mannerisms of women, and if you zapped these men with a ray that made them gay or asexual they would never interact with another woman again if they could help it. My experience is also that women are much freer with casual "men suck" and "I hate men" talk but women who actually walk the walk and really seem to hate men on a gut level are rarer than the reverse.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
In what universe was a "combined Anglo-Franco-German force fighting a total war for national survival with the cooperation of all the anticommunist CEE governments" ever going to exist? Where did I even imply that? Of course that's ridiculous! And its' not what I meant.
Because the whole genesis of the question is VinoVeritas belief that Hitler was cool because he fought the bolsheviks, and that without Hitler the Red Army might have marched to the English Channel. But without Hitler causing WWII in the first place, a Soviet invasion of Europe would have faced an Anglo-Franco-German (and everybody else in Europe) alliance, with no aid from the US or anyone else, and been completely screwed.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
So did the Red Chinese but I wouldn't give them props for that.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It's interesting because we have a much better example of reactionary "we don't do globalism here"autarky from the 1940s - Franco, who carefully avoided entanglement in either WWII or the postwar international order. That didn't work either, but he failed with more grace and less bloodshed than Hitler.
It's darkly funny that the first thing Franco did after (according to Franco) preventing a communist revolution in Iberia was implement a disastrous, ideologically motivated economic policy, causing a massive famine which killed hundreds of thousands of people and miring Spain in dire poverty for two decades. It's like that Spongebob meme where they're celebrating while the city burns in the background, "we did it, Hitler, we saved Spain from bolshevism!"
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
No, because Stalin, bad as he was, was not as bad as Hitler. If Germany had not attacked the USSR, chances of the Red Army taking even half of Europe (let alone all of it) are basically zero. He did attack Soviet Russia, which in a roundabout way, led to Soviet domination over half of the continent, which they never would have achieved otherwise, and yet was still a preferable outcome to Nazi domination over the entire continent. Hitler did far more damage to Poland in four years than the Soviets did in forty.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
In real life, the Soviets only reached even as far as Berlin because of copious American and British assistance. Without that, they might have at best fought the Germans back to Barbarossa start-lines. On their own, they barely beat Finland. The Red Army marching all the way to the Atlantic is ridiculous. "If it wasn't for us, the communists would have taken over!" was a useful bugbear for everybody from Hitler to Mussolini to Franco but Bolshevik conquest of Europe was always a fantasy.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Maybe the Bolsheviks would've won in Spain and then later pushed through all of Europe to the Atlantic.
You think if the Republicans had won in Spain this would somehow have led to the Red Army conquering all of Europe Command and Conquer style?
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Churchill was not prime minister when England and France declared war on Germany.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
"Ancient aliens" was never really left-wing, and it isn't popular with leftists now. The idea of precursor races who taught man secret knowledge and left their crumbling monumental works behind* comes out of the fin-de-siécle welter of new spirituality, Blavatsky, Steiner, Liebenfels, etc. which was in turn tied up with the Völksich nationalist movements of the day.
*Really it goes back to stuff like the Watchers in Hebrew myth and the Golden Age of the Greeks but that's it's modern permutation.
This place is right-wing twitter (insert "always has been" meme) but verbose and you're not allowed to call stuff gay or retarded. Accept that and you'll have more fun.
EDIT: Come on guys, you know it's true. Don't shoot the messenger.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Where can I read about this?
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Well it was stunning and brave. That seems pretty inarguable.
There are a bunch of action movies with female leads that are widely considered good or at the very least have mass appeal. See: Aliens, Fury Road, Kill Bill, Terminator, Hunger Games, Underworld (not actually very good but a box office hit), etc. That expands further when you include movies that don't have female leads actually beating guys up but still taking aggressive, active roles. See: Zero Dark Thirty, Silence of the Lambs, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoos, Sicario, half of all horror movies ever made, etc.
An action movie featuring a thin woman punching, shooting, or otherwise overpowering men is not only wildly unrealistic, but also just aesthetically revolting on a primal level.
Humans have had warrior goddesses for thousands of years. Surely the ancient Canaanites did not find Anat aesthetically revolting.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Luck matters.
Right.
The correlation in modern times between national IQ and wealth is a modern correlation.
IQ tests didn't exist prior to the 20th century so it's hard to say whether the correlation is a recent development or not.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Well you're saying that East Asians abandoned inefficient economic policies and adopted the efficient ones of Europeans, but that's besides the point. If you accept the premises that inborn genetic ability (however it is measured) is the primary determinant of national prosperity, and that Asians are equal to or higher than Europeans in measured ability, then it becomes strange that East Asians had to play "catch-up" at all. Why was it the Europeans who in the first place developed the technology and industry necessary to generate unprecedented wealth?
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Well basically I either don't care about or actively dislike conservative values and therefore don't want to live according to those values and don't want them to be those according to which society is shaped. I think it's pretty simple. Does that mean I hate conservatives? Not on a personal level.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Have you seen the studies on how in places like china, people who were part of the regime were, after the communists took over, much poorer, worse off socially, etc., but in two generations, they now are again the ones in power?
The study on this topic that I'm familiar with also found that economic success of the children of pre-revolutionary elites was mediated by an expressed belief that "hard work is critical to success" (when it was controlled for the gap dropped by 75%) and that this expressed belief was in turn mediated by having a living parent. Among the children of pre-revolutionary elites whose parents were dead (and who thus were not raised by them), there was no significant difference in expressed belief from the general population.
I can't interpret the math for myself because I'm bad at statistics but the authors say:
One could attribute part of the persistence and rebound to innate traits and characteristics, such as genetics, personalities broadly defined, intelligence, and emotional intelligence. The pattern that the pre-revolution elite’s rebound may be affected by the co-residence with their parents suggests that such innate characteristics are unlikely to be the primary driver.
This would actually seem to suggest cultural transmission rather than genetic.
Likewise (with the same caveat on my end that I'm bad at statistics) the authors of the study on the rebound of southern slaveholders after the Civil War which has been cited elsewhere in the thread claim:
This rapid recovery suggests that slaveholding households held some input— beyond monetary resources—that contributed to their descendants’ ability to accumulate wealth. We consider various explanations in turn using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative sources. We conclude that inherited ability, entrepreneurial skills, or specific human capital are unlikely to explain the recovery of slaveholders’ sons. First, results are unchanged when including surname fixed effects to control for extended family networks and other (unobservable) differences between families, including inherited ability.
(They end up concluding that social networking was the most important factor)
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I misread the comment and assumed we were talking about the races on a global scale.
Why do you think east Asia was significantly poorer and more underdeveloped than Europe for so long if east Asians really have more "raw" intelligence (g or whatever) than Europeans? What do you think the barrier was in that case; why did they need to adop European tech and institutions rather than developing their own equivalent (or superior) ones?
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I don't think heritable intelligence doesn't exist.
I meant "left"
More options
Context Copy link