The Hanania Show

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comI was going to call this “From Mosul to McKinsey,” but Rana Mallah (X, Substack) suggested this title instead. I replied that no wonder she works in consulting, since that’s pretty good! Rana and I met at Manifest a few weeks ago and I was deeply impressed with her story. She was born in 1997 in Iraq, which was probably the most…

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comToday I have the pleasure of talking to Daniel Hess, a father of six who goes by the name “More Births” on X. Pronatalism in the US as far as I can tell remains mostly an online movement, largely promoted through Elon Musk tweets and the work of the Collinses. To people who spend a lot of time online, this can make it seem more powerful than it actually is in the real world. Nonetheless, nearly all contemporary ideas that end up taking the world by storm start out online, and in the last few years I’ve seen more and more mainstream acknowledgment that falling birthrates are a major problem.There’s always been a straightforward utilitarian argument, which holds that life is good, and the more people the better. I would also say that there is something spiritually wrong with not continuing your line and having a stake in future generations. As one grows older, you become increasingly aware that you are disconnected from cultural and technological developments young people take for granted, and there are events happening today that will have consequences you will not be around to see. Aging without leaving something behind I think of as a miserable experience because every other part of growing old involves decay and is at its root a march towards death. There are of course more pedestrian issues with low fertility, of the kind that might get talked about in The Financial Times or The Economist like future worker-to-retiree ratios and how a younger economy is a more dynamic one. All that stuff is true, and provides a more politically palatable way to express concern about collapsing fertility, though I’d say having more people to actually enjoy growth and technological development is the main issue. We start off by Daniel telling me a little bit about himself and how he got into pronatalism. We proceed to discuss the state of the movement, and how people outside our bubble think about birth rates. The conversation goes on to cover different regions of the world, my article on low Asian fertility, possible policy responses, the Georgian miracle, the role of culture, different American states, North Korea having more official births than South Korea, religion, the causes of the Baby Boom, what makes Israel and Mongolia different, and much more. Note that Daniel shares graphs and charts about the fertility crisis throughout the conversation, which obviously won’t be available if you choose to only listen to the audio. You’ll want to watch the video to get the full experience.My favorite image he shared was the one below. In some European countries, around half of 25-34 year olds still live with their parents! The numbers range from 1.8% in Denmark to 56.6% in Hungary. These are completely different kinds of social organization, and this is just a map of Europe and the US. Seeing it made me reflect on living at home while I attended law school in my twenties and how that takes you completely out of the mindset needed to find and attract partners.As Daniel points out, the fertility issue is not going anywhere. East Asia in particular will in the coming decades be facing serious geopolitical and economic challenges as a result of not having enough young people. Daniel and I agree that this is primarily a cultural issue, which means that it can potentially be fixed by more people talking about it and spreading the good news about the personal, social, and spiritual benefits of having children. LinksMore Births on XBirth Gauge on XWorks in Progress on the Baby BoomMe on low Asian fertility and social conservatism as 4D ChessAnatoly Karlin on selection for higher fertility, part I, part II, part III, and part IV

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comBrianna Wu is not someone I would have necessarily wanted to talk to 10 years ago. Not that I would have refused to be in the same room with her or anything, but I would have been skeptical that she had much interesting to say, and so hostile to her identity as a trans woman that I would have barely been able to get over it. I wouldn’t have even called her “her,” instead standing strong for the principle that there are two sexes god damnit and you can’t change yours or force me to say otherwise!In the years since, I’ve come to take a more balanced perspective. Much on the right I’ve come to find distasteful. There’s of course the cruelty to animals and the desire to regulate some of the most intimate areas of life. But beyond that, there’s a general small mindedness and anti-intellectualism that I’ve come to loathe. This of course doesn’t mean that I’m on the left, as being pro-market remains central to my worldview, but I see factions and individual figures that I sympathize with on both sides. The freedom-totalitarian axis is not the same as right-left, and that is something that has become clear to me in recent years.Brianna was someone I’d previously vaguely heard of as being part of the Gamergate controversy, probably responsible for us not being able to see boobs in video games anymore. Recently, I’d seen her on X making spirited defenses of Israel, and standing up to leftists more generally. We started talking and decided to do a podcast together. Along the way she assures me that no, she didn’t have a problem with women’s bodies, and even shares my sorrow at what they have done to the female characters in Mortal Kombat. Over a wide-ranging conversation, we cover trans issues, public education, covid, the horseshoe of the far right and left sympathizing with enemies of the West, abortion, Trump as a threat to democracy, why progressives get Israel wrong, and of course Sydney Sweeney’s boobs. Some may be surprised to find out that Brianna rejects the idea of gender being on a spectrum, and to me this is the only way the concept of “being trans” can make any sense, since if there is no male or female essence in the first place, how can an individual say that they are trapped in the wrong body? In a more meta sense, we discuss what it is like to always be challenging your own side and the need for more conversations across political and ideological lines. I ask Brianna why leftists are always trying to police who others engage with, something that conservatives, despite their other flaws, don’t do. See here for a very well crafted troll of her haters. I used to cringe at those who argue that our problems could all be solved if we simply talked to one another. But given how little open-minded discourse between conservatives and liberals there is now, we’re probably well below the optimal amount. Hopefully people will learn something from this discussion, and it can be a model for others on how to engage with those they disagree with. All that being said, given what is in the news and the fact that we were getting along so well, looking back I feel that I tended to steer things towards the places where we are on the same page, like Israel, Trump, and Sydney Sweeney. When she told me that her favorite politician is Elizabeth Warren, that’s perhaps something that I should have explored a little bit more. We talked a little about public education, and Brianna seemed to end up agreeing with me that people should have more choices, and I granted to her that I’m open to direct redistribution for some small part of the population. We reached bipartisan consensus! Nonetheless, we could have explored actual disagreements more, and I’m sure we will in future conversations.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comNote: Reminder that I’ll be live streaming on X tonight, and every Thursday from now on starting at 9PM ET. I’ll go over some news of the day and also answer your questions. Submit anything you would like to ask here. I’ve previously had Walt Bismarck on the podcast, which served as a kind of announcement of his return to (anonymous) public life. This week he invited me on his own show, and I was happy to oblige. He released the conversation to his paid subscribers on Monday, and Walt is kindly letting me make it available for my own subscribers here. If you like what you hear and are interested in reading more from Walt and listening to his other podcasts, subscribe to Walt Right Perspectives.Rather than write my own show notes, below I’m reproducing those of Walt, since he did such a comprehensive job.On today’s episode of Walt Right Perspectives I speak with the man, the myth, the legend… Richard Hanania.I owe a lot to Richard—he was hugely responsible for amplifying me here on Substack and helping me become a public figure again.He also provided a successful model for deradicalizing from edgy right wing politics and entering the public discourse as a more mainstream rightist thinker, which I have been able to emulate.Topics include:* Did Richard remember to call his mom?* What is the biggest misconception people have about him?* Why do conservatives understand him less accurately than liberals?* Extremely direct nature of conservative rhetoric vs. Richard’s provocative and bombastic style on Twitter* Richard’s model that one can have heretical views without being fully “canceled”* His heritage as a Palestinian Christian* Typical perspective of Arab Christians on the Israel-Gaza war* Do Arab Christians and Arab Muslims in the US see themselves as the same group or as different people?* Is Hanania descended from Crusaders or the native Levantine population?* Did Jesus actually look like Richard Hanania?* The new proposed MENA racial category—does this reflect a genuine feeling of distinct identity? Is there a difference between Arab Christians / Muslims here?* Richard’s article The Promises and Pitfalls of RETVRN and general perspective on “Trad” ideology—how does he propose saving people from addictive dopamine traps like social media and porn?* Can social reaction to negative trends keep pace with innovation in these realms?* Is there no room for paternalism or a different standard for elites?* Is it possible to inspire a change in social behavior without changing antecedent material and legal incentive structures?* Regan’s article advocating that women exhibit more agency and accountability in their sexual choices vs. Walt’s idea that you need to change the incentive structure—who does Richard agree with more? Do women need to be protected?* Would it be practically possible to raise the legal standard of rape without coming across as anti-woman?* Walt’s proposal to introduce a new civil offense called “rakishness” to protect women from “coerced consent” situations and absorb false rape accusations.* Endocrine disruptors — women are going through puberty too soon and men are suffering from falling testosterone levels—is Richard concerned about this?* Has Richard ever done steroids?* Are humans becoming elves?* The worthlessness of most research performed in academia* Would Richard be interested in returning to the original mission of CSPI and organizing alternative research programs?* How Richard has promoted and amplified people in his community* Are too many people forming paid Substacks that people can’t afford in aggregate? Is monetizing one’s own content a good way to offset this?* How does Richard want Substack to develop? Should it scale up or remain more bigbrained and esoteric? Can Substack expand without degrading the experience?* What is the best strategy for monetizing one’s Substack?* Walt’s overtures to white nationalists vs. Richard’s greater reluctance to engage with them — does Richard feel any desire to deradicalize white nationalists or give them an “offramp” back into the mainstream?* Metapolitical sensibilities like “no enemies to the right” and “don’t punch right”* Has white identity actually taken over?* Richard’s advocacy on behalf of moderate white identity figures like Jared Taylor whose views are mainstream today but are “grandfathered into cancellation”* Richard’s pro-immigration stance — Is there a need to abolish the civil rights infrastructure before opening the borders? Is there any need to adjust immigration rates based on macroeconomic conditions?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comMatthew Adelstein is a sophomore studying philosophy at the University of Michigan. You might know him from the Bentham’s Bulldog Substack. I originally invited him on to talk about my recent article taking a maximalist pro-choice position, and his response, along with my responses to his response. We meant this to be a discussion mostly about abortion, but instead we went in all kinds of other directions.Matthew begins by pretty much convincing me to become a moral realist. We also discuss the “fine tuning” argument for the existence of God. He informs me of a critique that his friend, an official “Hanania hater,” makes of me, which I found interesting. The idea is that I reject, or at least don’t care that much about, the low hanging fruit of utilitarianism, like giving money to effective charities. At the same time, I’m very eager to bite the bullet on utilitarian arguments that make people more uncomfortable, like with my staunch defense of euthanasia. Listen for my response.This leads to a conversation about how we decide which topics to focus on, how we divide our time in life, and how rational or utilitarian we choose to be. I reiterate my theory about how each individual thinks that everyone more utilitarian than him is an autistic weirdo, and everyone less utilitarian is an overly emotional moron driven by primitive instincts. And like everyone else in the world, I happen to like exactly where I’m standing right now. I particularly enjoyed the part where we talked about how I can’t get as excited about Émile Torres versus Peter Singer debates as I do about regular politics. I find this kind of introspection fun, which is a trait I share more with liberals and EAs than conservatives, who I’ve noticed have a particular aversion to it. We also cover animal rights, why you should eat beef instead of chicken, what philosophy majors at the University of Michigan are like, and whether Matthew can hope to find a job in academia given the internet profile he already has.One administrative note: since I’ve started posting the videos here along with the podcasts, it seems people are confused over whether these discussions are still available in podcast form. They indeed are. You should see the option to listen near the top on the desktop viewer, and on your phone you just need to click on “More options.” I don’t see this on the app, so make sure to copy and paste the link into a browser on your phone

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comZiho Park is a professor of economics at Taiwan National University. He grew up in Korea and received his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago.Ziho joins me to talk about the strange world of Korean feminism, and the backlash to it. The last time this came to my attention was when Korean feminists recently got a “sex festival” shut down. Ziho also talks about another controversy, where a pop star wore a quite modest “sexy nurse” costume and this became a major political issue. Judge for yourself its level of offensiveness.Unlike in many other countries, the backlash to feminism among young men in Korea pops out clearly from the data. In fact, Korea might have the most massive political gender gap between young people anywhere in the developed world. Along with record low birth rates, all of this looks extremely unhealthy from my perspective. Yet Korean gender controversies don’t exactly map on to our own, so I thought I would have a native come on the show to explain to me what exactly is going on.Antifeminists in the US tend to be religious, or at least traditionalists of some kind. They believe in different responsibilities and roles for men and women. In Korea, according to Ziho, young men simply demand legal equality, and things like abortion and gay marriage aren’t really issues.Another difference is that Korean feminists are extremely prudish. There’s of course a sex negative wing of feminism in the West, but censorship appears to be a top priority in Korea in a way that it isn’t here. While I agree with Ziho that Korean feminism sounds horrifying, I also find much to dislike about the backlash to it. In the West, one of the main motivations behind antifeminism is that many of us want a society where men and women have different roles and responsibilities. In Korea, the men seem to rebel against the cultural expectation that they should be breadwinners, and there are even some who think it’s unfair that they are the ones being drafted. No antifeminist in the West would demand equality in war fighting! This leads me to ask Ziho whether those of us who hate feminists in the West should actually cheer for them in Korea. Listen to hear his response. Liberalism as a political project is fine, and one I wholeheartedly support. But a liberalism that puts disproportionate focus on what women do to men strikes me as at least as culturally unhealthy as every other form of identity politics. If young Korean conservatives were consistent liberals and applied their worldview to a wide range of issues that would be one thing, but this does not seem to be what is going on here. There needs to be a positive vision of male-female relations at the heart of any antifeminist movement, and this is especially true in a country that has gone this far down the path of giving up on reproduction.Ziho tells me how much he thinks the US is to blame for exporting these ideas to the rest of the world. We also discuss K-Pop and feminism, the degree to which a Christian right exists in Korea, whether the gender war intersects with the geopolitical climate, and much more. This was a fascinating and far-reaching conversation into a completely different culture that has in a sense been mind-colonized by America but nonetheless maintains many of its unique attributes.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comI cover two topics this week. First of all, there is Mike Johnson finally deciding to bring to the House floor bills on providing aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. As things stand, the texts of the bills have been released, and votes are expected to happen as early as Saturday.I’m fascinated by the role Trump has played in all this, and argue that it provides insight into what his second term foreign policy will look like. Ukraine gets $61 billion in aid. MAGA doesn’t like aid to Ukraine, so for Trump to bless it, they make $10 billion of that a loan. But the president gets to negotiate terms and can cancel the loan at any time. I argue that this represents what we saw in Trump’s first term. The man has two instincts: isolationism and wanting to look tough. The latter always wins out in policy debates, and we have no reason to think this would change if and when Trump returns to office. For some context, see Greg Sargent on Mike Johnson’s pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago.In the second part of the monologue, I discuss the film Anyone But You (2023) starring Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney. Don’t worry, this isn’t going to be more Sydney Sweeney analysis. The movie is worth mentioning because I think it represents where the dead center of American popular culture is at this point. Conventional looking and attractive white people as leads, with magical blacks and gays sprinkled in. Romance, fun, and living a good life are allowed. Contrast with the delusional views of many right wingers, who believe every cultural product is promoting pedophilia and polyamory. The movie isn’t very good or necessarily worth watching, but I think it demonstrates why it is good to pay attention to popular films and shows to get a grip on where the culture is rather than thinking that what one sees on the internet is everything.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comI first discovered Farha Khalidi, who has 1.8 million followers on TikTok, through seeing clips of her shutting down red pill and manosphere type influencers on something called the @whatever podcast, which a friend described to me as material from the lowest level of content hell. I was impressed, as before this the women in these kinds of debates seemed to serve as little more than punching bags. Yet Farha was interesting because she had the voice and affectation of a condescending leftist but the words that were coming out of her mouth were actually sensible. We connected through X and decided to meet up for a podcast when she was in town. I did a studio interview for the first time, which you can watch below. Farha brought along her friend Jazmen Jafar, a law school graduate who also makes money on OnlyFans while debating right-wing weirdos and usually coming across as smarter than them. If you’re not a paid subscriber, you can get a free preview of the discussion through the RSS feed. Both girls agree with me that while sex work might not be for everyone, for some women it makes sense. I am very privileged, getting to make a living enjoying what I do. I don’t feel I’m in the position to tell someone they have to work a normal job when they can avoid it. That’s a utilitarian argument, but not the same as Bug Man-ism where we turn into bean counters. Rather, when we diverge from utilitarianism it can only be because we are guided by a moral and spiritual commitment to freedom, whatever the consequences might be.I asked the girls about what books they read, and Jazmen replied that the only reason she has time to read books at all is because she works as an OnlyFans girl rather than a lawyer. This reminded me of an idea that has been associated with both reactionaries and leftists, which is that individuals need to be freed from the drudgery of everyday work in order to undergo moral, intellectual, and cultural development. Other topics covered include* What did their Muslim families think of their chosen profession?* In what ways do I agree with manosphere influencer types and where do they go off the rails?* In an ideal world, would more or fewer women be sex workers?* Is Farha still a virgin?* What is it like to date with an OnlyFans?* Is Farha still as woke as she seemed to be when she was writing for the Women’s Media Center?* Have the girls ever had stalkers?* What exactly is a “Jack-Off Instruction” video?* What it’s like to debate manosphere influencer types, along with the differences between Muslim-bros, Christ is King, Groypers, and other factions within that space.* Are manosphere types sincere in their views or consciously grifting? How do they treat Jazmen and Farha when they’re on their shows? * Would they encourage their daughters to become OnlyFans creators? As we discuss during the podcast, I think that a world of content creators reaching their audiences directly naturally takes us away from gender fluidity, blank slatism, and other ideas that are strongest in hierarchical institutions insulated from market forces like academia. Once people realize how easy it is for women to make money on OnlyFans, how can anyone deny sex differences? Open conversations between men and women naturally lead to discourses around things like age gaps, at what age women are most attractive, and whether having kids leads to a fulfilling life. Much of this discourse is quite stupid, but it’s not subject to top-down control, nor liable towards being funneled into a certain direction in the way that conversations always are when they’re occurring in the context of a highly institutionalized environment like the university or an HR training session. If you’re a trad, there’s much not to like with regards to the free availability of porn and how it is merging with other types of content creation. But all of this makes human nature much more difficult to lie about, and I’m inclined to see the emergence of the job category of “OnlyFans girl/public intellectual” as a step in the right direction. LinksFarha Khalidi: Twitter, TikTok, and InstagramJazmen Jafar: Reddit, Twitter (NSFW), TikTok, and Instagram

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comMy friend Brian Chau joins the podcast to talk about how life in DC is going. A few weeks ago we chatted on the CSPI podcast, and this can be seen as a followup to that discussion.Our last conversation focused on the specifics of AI doomerism and why he’s not worried about the technology killing us all. This time, we go into detail about how things have been working out for him in DC. We begin by discussing the recent conversation between Tyler and Jonathan Haidt, which I posted thoughts about on X. The discussion then moves to its main part, which focuses on what things are like in the nation’s capital. Brian whitepills me a bit on DC. The people there seem to be better than both the voters and the punditocracy. This makes me wonder whether I should move to the area, and he presents a compelling case that I should, given that I’m getting sort of sick of the online discourse space, which is often depressing. Now that the conversation is over, I feel like this is a “grass is always greener” kind of thing. Whenever I talk to someone closer to the policy arena, I want to do something similar to them, but then when I reflect for even a little bit I decide that what I’m doing is quite enjoyable. But who knows? Maybe Brian planted a seed that will eventually grow. I ask Brian about the influence of AI doomers in think tanks and government, and we discuss the landscape of the regulation debate. Part of me wonders whether regulation is something we don’t need to worry about too much due to policy inertia, but he makes the case that the danger is real enough to be a concern. We close with a grab bag of topics, including the relationship between the punditocracy and the policymaking class, and why I can’t stand to read articles about sex differences, though I promised to give Carole Hooven’s recent piece on why men dominate chess a try. To update everyone, I ended up liking it. As always, make sure to subscribe to Brian’s Substack, where you can follow his work, including what he’s been doing with Alliance for the Future. I didn’t turn on the video recording this week, so unfortunately all we have is audio. And it seems that Substack transcripts aren’t working at the moment. I’ll see if I can add it later.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comWalt Bismarck (follow on X) became internet famous in 2015 for his Disney parody videos in support of Alt Right ideas and causes. Recently, he remerged on a new Substack called Alt Right 2.0, where he writes about how his political views have changed and the kind of movement he’d like to help build in the future. I found two essays he wrote, “Why I’m No Longer a White Nationalist” and “How the Alt Right Won,” to be particularly entertaining and insightful, and would recommend everyone read them. Walt and I have had somewhat similar journeys, so I invited him on the podcast to talk about his past and current thinking. He has come to realize that in many ways, his psychological profile is closer to that of liberal elites than it is to the regular Americans he once believed he was fighting for. Friend of this Substack TracingWoodgrains posted some excerpts of Walt’s article on this point that are very funny and ended up going viral. We talk about different factions of the conservative coalition, how the far right has changed over time, the political futures of Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom, and what comes after Trump. It’s easy to underestimate the ultimate influence of the Alt Right, as it’s not as if those prominent in the movement became major political figures, and practically nobody identifies with the term today. But for those of us who’ve been paying attention over the last decade and a half, we’ve seen, for better or worse, ideas, talking points, and memes that were once considered beyond the pale become completely normalized on the right, to the extent that young people might be unaware that things were ever different. See also my “How to Not Get Cancelled” for more on the relevant history. Walt was part of this transformation, and I’m glad to see that he has moved away from white nationalism. I also welcome his contribution to the discourse. The right has a human capital deficit, and Walt is playing some role in solving that problem by returning to the public arena. I encourage people to subscribe to his Substack, and continue to follow his work going forward.