Thank you for concisely expressing all of my inarticulable frustrations with Hanania and his ilk. The whole worldview is gay, weak, stupid, dangerous, and sad.
I don't know whether I have any issues with Hanania's worldview or not....although he used to give my comments a lot of 'likes'......before he banned me. But I do have a problem with his egomania. So why did he ban me? A few months back he did a post called 'Shakepeare is Fake'....a click-baity title but one which - although I disagree - is fine by me. My crime? I commented that his way of arguing that Shakespeare is fake sounded like something written by a bureaucrat. Oh did he not like that!....banned and "for a hundred years".
Richard Hanania is human trash. In any just social order what happens to a person whose openly stated goal is to make people isolated and miserable by importing hostile foreigners? They should be expelled or destroyed.
When I first came across Hanania I thought he was brilliant for pointing out some of the civil rights law stuff. A few years later, he clearly has no principles at all and the takes I admired turned out to not be original to him.
Beefs are where I think Twitter has an advantage over Substack. Instead of writing a 2500 word rebuttal, you can save a lot of time by just calling him a f@g and move on with your life.
I think your strongest point is that RH says that the plebs should find meaning in family/jobs/relationships rather than making a fool of themselves philosophizing (imo true) but his economic policies don't optimise for any of these things, and instead optimise for consumption, which even he doesn't pretend is fulfilling. RH's way out of this is basically by saying that if you can't cope in liberal society without becoming some lonely opioid addict we are better off without you. Most people find that pretty off-putting, but even leaving that aside, it only works if we are talking about 10% of the population. If it's anything bigger than that then his whole Nietzschean-utilitarian argument for liberalism falls apart. So this is really an empirical question, and RH has an unfair advantage because the dissident right is a bit allergic to statistics.
It would be better to empirically demonstrate the prevalence of human failure under modern liberalism or at least point to others who have done so already. Instead, you decided to kick this off by attacking a thing that doesn't exist based on grouping together people whose only commonality is entirely justified disgust at the insane asylum that is the online right.
you say "the insane asylum that is the online right". I see it that way too, but what scares me most is the mirror-like reflection of those people who think that WE are the insane ones who can't see the truth.
When political dialog descends into I'm Right and You're Wrong on both sides, then what we have is a failure to communicate. And there are such large problems that need civil discussion and search for compromise in solving those problems.
It's like the pro-choice vs anti-abortion (or the pro-Palestine vs pro-Israel) crowds screaming at each other across a barricade of blue-shirted local police: there's just never gonna be a solution coming out of that situation. So how are we going to solve problems?
There used to be a philosophical approach called "pragmatism" that focused on solving problems rather than venting ideologies; we need to get back to that.
Hanania is fundamentally dishonest (despite arrogantly claiming to be the most intellectually honest person in existence), so I’ll be interested to see how he responds (if he does). He has never responded to AA’s complete obliteration of his muh gdp, line-go-up worldview. https://youtu.be/LtJRn-FWDqU?si=CFOFhcY8TtVd-lCH
As far as I can tell, he is simply insecure and wants to have high-status, smarter-than-thou beliefs and therefore paints himself into incoherency. You are too magnanimous (a compliment I assure you) too accuse him as such, but it’s quite obvious. Shame.
“ But even with these convenient fixes, none of Hanania's views fit together coherently, much less resemble a consistent worldview. Instead, Richard’s philosophy always appears to be a jumbled patchwork pieced together, post hoc, from a set of attention-grabbing article headlines. It's impossible to find a motivating internal logic or an under-girding moral ethos that might be followed by other people.”
In an era where corporations and governments have paid *billions* to “influencers” to spread propaganda, it’s not hard to see why Hanania’s positions are incoherent. He’s not intellectually honest. He knows it, I know it, and you know it.
As effective an evisceration as I’ve ever read. Also, this is brilliant:
“ People require more than consumer products to feel fulfilled. And liberty without a specific understanding of human thriving does not create a sense of purpose for anyone. It doesn't create meaning for your average or below-average citizen, and it certainly doesn't create meaning for your society’s elite who ask deeper questions. And that’s a problem because if your ruling class doesn't feel like they have a moral ethos outside their own concept of choice and pleasure, it will manufacture one.
Vacuums of meaning are like vacuums of power. Nature abhors them. And they eventually get filled by something. Most often something that is not conducive to long-term human thriving.”
You cannot replace a moral system with consumerism. I mean, you technically can, but it doesn’t end well.
I find it odd to consider that of all the hundreds or presumably thousands of people who have been unjustly (in my opinion) canceled, somehow Hanania gets to survive having committed far worse sins than all of them (at least of which I'm personally aware).
1. Timing, mostly. His attempted cancellation came well after the fever pitch of 2020 and COVID, and in particular, at a point when the right was utterly fed up with the bullshit and just didn't care anymore.
2. Related to #1 in the sense that, by the time it happened to him, we'd all seen it happen a billion times, and so he knew how to handle it properly. He didn't get on his knees and beg for forgiveness and he didn't stubbornly try to defend his past behavior either. Correct response.
3. His audience was mostly only right-wing people anyways, or at least "heterodox, the-left-left-me" types. If your entire audience was mostly outside the mainstream bubble to begin with, a mainstream journo cancellation attempt can't hurt you much.
You know what Dave. As a "member" of the secular "right", I am with you on this one. These people are not actually right wing, and they are intentionally obfuscating the more controversial issues. I don't think religion is an exit though, as your own Christianity is deeply universalist and empathetic to the struggles of the marginalized. Same for Islam, even.
In the end, people will not have the courage to go full hierarchy enjoying, because it sucks to be slave to somebody that can crush you at will.
My "spiritual ethos" is what's best for ME and MY people, and for my allies, as for the rest - heh.
Oh, and almost forgot.
Jewish influence is... undesirable. I'll never forget you delivering a beating to Wokal Distance.
I hope the next time you will go far, far harder on these folks.
Nope. I think any religion is better than none. I am just tired of seeing endless pagan confidence online followed by no pagan practice IRL. I want people to ante up.
When I used to listen to people like him, there was always this problem I had with them and could not put my finger on it. It boils down to this: Libertarianism, in its purest form, is soulless and dead.
At one time, I listened to that guy Styx. He would say things like: 'I don't fcking CARE if you're gay or want a sex change or want an abortion. I just want low taxes, guns and to be left alone'. There is no depth or substance to any of that, his intelligence notwithstanding. Values like that do not build civilizations or things of beauty or cherish the good and untarnished innocence of life. I grew up like that and am now paying the consequences.
Libertarianism is the ideology of people who don't want to be pinned down and forced to defend anything. If you adopt any kind of actual belief system, now you'll be asked to answer for it. It's much easier to just spend your time shitting on everything else.
This can be an effective way of thinking for getting clout on social media. Obviously, it doesn't translate well into a more general life philosophy.
Ugh! I long for the day when Hanania loses his patrician sponsorship, and fades away into the abyss. I’m so sick and tired of hearing about him. It ought to be obvious to everyone by now that he is nothing more than a bought and paid for intellectual huckster; He is merely a slick sophist who will mine the data in an effort to build empirical support for whatever ideological fetish his paymaster requests.
As long as this guy continues to be considered an online mainstay, no true ‘progress’ can be claimed. He is such a loathsome figure.
On twitter most companies have a Pride logo for western countries and a not pride logo for third world countries. It’s not internally consistent, but it’s exactely what you would expect from an HR department.
That’s Richard Hanania. His positions are cobbled together HR talking points for the elite status quo, and will change as that elite consensus changes.
It could be taken as a good sign. People who previously never would've left the liberal reservation are now willing to openly brand themselves as "right-wing." Gate keeping is an inevitable issue in any movement that gains mass appeal.
Thank you for concisely expressing all of my inarticulable frustrations with Hanania and his ilk. The whole worldview is gay, weak, stupid, dangerous, and sad.
I don't know whether I have any issues with Hanania's worldview or not....although he used to give my comments a lot of 'likes'......before he banned me. But I do have a problem with his egomania. So why did he ban me? A few months back he did a post called 'Shakepeare is Fake'....a click-baity title but one which - although I disagree - is fine by me. My crime? I commented that his way of arguing that Shakespeare is fake sounded like something written by a bureaucrat. Oh did he not like that!....banned and "for a hundred years".
Richard Hanania is human trash. In any just social order what happens to a person whose openly stated goal is to make people isolated and miserable by importing hostile foreigners? They should be expelled or destroyed.
When I first came across Hanania I thought he was brilliant for pointing out some of the civil rights law stuff. A few years later, he clearly has no principles at all and the takes I admired turned out to not be original to him.
Beefs are where I think Twitter has an advantage over Substack. Instead of writing a 2500 word rebuttal, you can save a lot of time by just calling him a f@g and move on with your life.
also known as The James Lindsay strategy
I think your strongest point is that RH says that the plebs should find meaning in family/jobs/relationships rather than making a fool of themselves philosophizing (imo true) but his economic policies don't optimise for any of these things, and instead optimise for consumption, which even he doesn't pretend is fulfilling. RH's way out of this is basically by saying that if you can't cope in liberal society without becoming some lonely opioid addict we are better off without you. Most people find that pretty off-putting, but even leaving that aside, it only works if we are talking about 10% of the population. If it's anything bigger than that then his whole Nietzschean-utilitarian argument for liberalism falls apart. So this is really an empirical question, and RH has an unfair advantage because the dissident right is a bit allergic to statistics.
It would be better to empirically demonstrate the prevalence of human failure under modern liberalism or at least point to others who have done so already. Instead, you decided to kick this off by attacking a thing that doesn't exist based on grouping together people whose only commonality is entirely justified disgust at the insane asylum that is the online right.
He hasn't read, and certainly can't understand, Nietzsche.
Maybe so, as to the second, but he definitely considers himself a Nietzschean. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-reactionary-case-for-democracy
you say "the insane asylum that is the online right". I see it that way too, but what scares me most is the mirror-like reflection of those people who think that WE are the insane ones who can't see the truth.
When political dialog descends into I'm Right and You're Wrong on both sides, then what we have is a failure to communicate. And there are such large problems that need civil discussion and search for compromise in solving those problems.
It's like the pro-choice vs anti-abortion (or the pro-Palestine vs pro-Israel) crowds screaming at each other across a barricade of blue-shirted local police: there's just never gonna be a solution coming out of that situation. So how are we going to solve problems?
There used to be a philosophical approach called "pragmatism" that focused on solving problems rather than venting ideologies; we need to get back to that.
This is a good write up Dave.
Hanania is fundamentally dishonest (despite arrogantly claiming to be the most intellectually honest person in existence), so I’ll be interested to see how he responds (if he does). He has never responded to AA’s complete obliteration of his muh gdp, line-go-up worldview. https://youtu.be/LtJRn-FWDqU?si=CFOFhcY8TtVd-lCH
As far as I can tell, he is simply insecure and wants to have high-status, smarter-than-thou beliefs and therefore paints himself into incoherency. You are too magnanimous (a compliment I assure you) too accuse him as such, but it’s quite obvious. Shame.
“ But even with these convenient fixes, none of Hanania's views fit together coherently, much less resemble a consistent worldview. Instead, Richard’s philosophy always appears to be a jumbled patchwork pieced together, post hoc, from a set of attention-grabbing article headlines. It's impossible to find a motivating internal logic or an under-girding moral ethos that might be followed by other people.”
In an era where corporations and governments have paid *billions* to “influencers” to spread propaganda, it’s not hard to see why Hanania’s positions are incoherent. He’s not intellectually honest. He knows it, I know it, and you know it.
As effective an evisceration as I’ve ever read. Also, this is brilliant:
“ People require more than consumer products to feel fulfilled. And liberty without a specific understanding of human thriving does not create a sense of purpose for anyone. It doesn't create meaning for your average or below-average citizen, and it certainly doesn't create meaning for your society’s elite who ask deeper questions. And that’s a problem because if your ruling class doesn't feel like they have a moral ethos outside their own concept of choice and pleasure, it will manufacture one.
Vacuums of meaning are like vacuums of power. Nature abhors them. And they eventually get filled by something. Most often something that is not conducive to long-term human thriving.”
You cannot replace a moral system with consumerism. I mean, you technically can, but it doesn’t end well.
I find it odd to consider that of all the hundreds or presumably thousands of people who have been unjustly (in my opinion) canceled, somehow Hanania gets to survive having committed far worse sins than all of them (at least of which I'm personally aware).
Hanania has a few advantages.
1. Timing, mostly. His attempted cancellation came well after the fever pitch of 2020 and COVID, and in particular, at a point when the right was utterly fed up with the bullshit and just didn't care anymore.
2. Related to #1 in the sense that, by the time it happened to him, we'd all seen it happen a billion times, and so he knew how to handle it properly. He didn't get on his knees and beg for forgiveness and he didn't stubbornly try to defend his past behavior either. Correct response.
3. His audience was mostly only right-wing people anyways, or at least "heterodox, the-left-left-me" types. If your entire audience was mostly outside the mainstream bubble to begin with, a mainstream journo cancellation attempt can't hurt you much.
You know what Dave. As a "member" of the secular "right", I am with you on this one. These people are not actually right wing, and they are intentionally obfuscating the more controversial issues. I don't think religion is an exit though, as your own Christianity is deeply universalist and empathetic to the struggles of the marginalized. Same for Islam, even.
In the end, people will not have the courage to go full hierarchy enjoying, because it sucks to be slave to somebody that can crush you at will.
My "spiritual ethos" is what's best for ME and MY people, and for my allies, as for the rest - heh.
Oh, and almost forgot.
Jewish influence is... undesirable. I'll never forget you delivering a beating to Wokal Distance.
I hope the next time you will go far, far harder on these folks.
Take care not to confuse universality with collectivism, a common mistake.
well said
100% agree
lean in hard next time
take no prisoners
I disagree with both Hanania and Greene, but Greene is intellectually honest. Hanania is a snake that writes clickbait.
Pagan revival is inevitable!
Cool then. I've been hearing about how paganism is coming back since 2016. You guys might want to get on that IRL because I only ever see it online.
Guess I struck a nerve? I enjoy your writing, and I'm doing my part.
Nope. I think any religion is better than none. I am just tired of seeing endless pagan confidence online followed by no pagan practice IRL. I want people to ante up.
When I used to listen to people like him, there was always this problem I had with them and could not put my finger on it. It boils down to this: Libertarianism, in its purest form, is soulless and dead.
At one time, I listened to that guy Styx. He would say things like: 'I don't fcking CARE if you're gay or want a sex change or want an abortion. I just want low taxes, guns and to be left alone'. There is no depth or substance to any of that, his intelligence notwithstanding. Values like that do not build civilizations or things of beauty or cherish the good and untarnished innocence of life. I grew up like that and am now paying the consequences.
Libertarianism is the ideology of people who don't want to be pinned down and forced to defend anything. If you adopt any kind of actual belief system, now you'll be asked to answer for it. It's much easier to just spend your time shitting on everything else.
This can be an effective way of thinking for getting clout on social media. Obviously, it doesn't translate well into a more general life philosophy.
Ugh! I long for the day when Hanania loses his patrician sponsorship, and fades away into the abyss. I’m so sick and tired of hearing about him. It ought to be obvious to everyone by now that he is nothing more than a bought and paid for intellectual huckster; He is merely a slick sophist who will mine the data in an effort to build empirical support for whatever ideological fetish his paymaster requests.
As long as this guy continues to be considered an online mainstay, no true ‘progress’ can be claimed. He is such a loathsome figure.
I agree- he is one of the most obvious intellectual prostitutes in the entire space, even more obvious than James Lindsay. Lindsay at least made me
laugh with all of his “Christian Nationalism is the devil, and he’s gonna getcha!!!” rhetoric.
Lindsay seems to believe some of his bullshit, Hanania is purely cynical.
You’re spot on.
Dave, my friend, you didn't need to bulldoze mr Hanania's entire existence like that. Joking aside, great essay
On twitter most companies have a Pride logo for western countries and a not pride logo for third world countries. It’s not internally consistent, but it’s exactely what you would expect from an HR department.
That’s Richard Hanania. His positions are cobbled together HR talking points for the elite status quo, and will change as that elite consensus changes.
It’s a massive exercise in double think.
Thanks to Gurwinder for that post.
Dave, this was a surgeon-like dissection of Hanania’s incoherent world view! Well done!
Do you think 2024 has revealed a gate keeping issue in the DR? Seems like there are many thinkers who hold mainstream views taking the DR label.
It could be taken as a good sign. People who previously never would've left the liberal reservation are now willing to openly brand themselves as "right-wing." Gate keeping is an inevitable issue in any movement that gains mass appeal.
They seem more or less subversive. Glad your pointing it out.