Substack’s Heart of Darkness (Vol. 2)

Content Warning: Disturbing and graphic material ahead.

Six Degrees of Separation

Recently I suggested tackling a fun activity for the whole family: Use Substack’s built-in social media features and see how long it takes to triangulate to a bona fide Nazi. I fully expected to reach a Nazi within four moves, and I’m thrilled to report the platform smashed expectations.

But first, some backstory.

On June 23, on the possibly defunct The Active Voice podcast, our boy Hamish Christie engaged in a lovely conversation with reactionary dipshit and Incel Champion Richard Hanania. Topics included “enlightened centrism” and the horrors of wokeism. The episode also served to promote the forthcoming launch of Hanania’s book The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics.

The previously obscure Hanania rose to culture war prominence during the pandemic years. His shtick? Putting a dainty, respectable spin on nuanced ideas like eugenics and the superiority of the Y-chromosome.

On August 4 Christopher Mathias, a journalist for the Deep State, wrote an exposé for The Huffington Post which revealed Hanania used to pen virulently racist and sexist alt-right blogs under the pseudonym “Richard Hoste.”

According to the HuffPo report, some of “Hoste’s” greatest hits included these gems:

“We’ve known for a while through neuroscience and cross-adoption studies...that individuals differ in their inherent capabilities. The races do, too, with whites and Asians on the top and blacks at the bottom.”

“If the races are equal, why do whites always end up near the top and blacks at the bottom, everywhere and always?”

“Fat people not only are disgusting to look at; their obesity reflects some ugly personality traits.”

“Women simply didn’t evolve to be the decision makers in society.”

“Women’s liberation = the end of human civilization.”

“If we want to defend our liberty and property, a low-IQ group of a different race sharing the same land is a permanent antagonist.”

“For the white gene pool to be created millions had to die. Race mixing is like destroying a unique species or piece of art. It’s shameful.”

“Telling a race with an IQ of 85 that they can do whatever they set their mind to is cruel.”

“The biggest enemies of the Black Man are not Klansmen or multinational corporations, but the liberals who have prevented an honest appraisal of his abilities and filled his head with myths about equality and national autarky.”

On August 6, our buddy Hanania wrote a piece titled “Why I Used to Suck, and (Hopefully) No Longer Do.”

The breathtaking post delivers a masterclass in the non-apology apology, and reveals how complete fucking morons with utterly gross ideas fashion themselves as “intellectuals” by strategically deploying fancy words.

I can’t in good faith encourage anyone to read this “essay”—I’m anti-traumatic brain injury—so I’ve summarized below.

To kick off, Himmler Hanania doesn’t reference HuffPo or the report and instead says:

“Recently, it’s been revealed that over a decade ago I held many beliefs that, as my current writing makes clear, I now find repulsive.”

Note the syntax: He doesn’t say he disagrees with his previous views, only that he thinks they’re repulsive.

He then acknowledges his past writing “encouraged racism, misogyny, misanthropy, trolling, and overall bad faith.” Better. Next, he also concedes he “crossed the line” and says he no longer holds such views. Okay, tell me more.

Swerve alert!

At this point Captain Race Realist pivots to discussing the “nature” of the “journalistic attack” perpetuated against him and why it’s bound to fail, which leads him down a winding road where he accuses the reporter of supporting antifa, goes on a soliloquy about the threat of cancel culture, complains the mainstream media is unwilling to “engage with ideas,” and claims the HuffPo’s primary objective was “unpersoning.”

From there, he does some particularly impressive linguistic gymnastics and says he owes his readers “an explanation of how I came to the positions that I once held, and why I now find many of them so repugnant.”

This is boring language, beautifully crafted.

Which positions does he find repugnant, exactly? Also, why not all the positions? Also, just because you “once held” a belief doesn’t mean you don’t currently hold said belief. Also, you can wholeheartedly endorse repugnant things. For example, I root for the University of Michigan and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Nonetheless, he spends the next few paragraphs explaining how he used to be a sad incel, briefly flirts with playing the “mental illness” card, then concludes he’s all better now since he finally got his dick wet.

“Strangely enough, now that I have a fulfilling personal life and objective career success, such ideas don’t appeal to me anymore.”

Non sequitur alert!

The next few paragraphs dive into the perils of writing anonymously (#tone-deaf), how being extremely online makes people more extreme online (#tone-deaf), why many non-Whites also become big eugenics fans, how he pivoted to “classic liberalism” as his preferred ideology via “process of elimination," and why the political path forward isn’t systemic change but sensible reform of “civil rights law.”

Eugenicist judo alert!

The next section opens with:

“Other writers have shifted my views on specific issues. Bryan Caplan and Alex Nowrasteh have convincingly argued that even if groups differ in skills or cognitive abilities, we can all still benefit from the division of labor.”

Don’t let the academic veneer distract you. That’s eugenics talk.

He then links “migrants” to socialism and crime and rambles through an argument which I’ll distill as follows: A “perfect” demographic mix (e.g., a higher proportion of White devils) would create a better society, but implementing those policies is unpractical. Better to admit Black people disproportionately commit more crime and create a police and surveillance state to corral them. Unfortunately:

“The reason we can’t do this is because of concerns over disparate impact, a cancerous idea that needs to be extirpated from the law and our broader culture more generally.”

Remember, this is the part of his “apology” where he’s supposed to be explaining how his thinking has evolved, and why he no longer supports his previously abhorrent views.

And lest you think I’m exaggerating or misrepresenting, his very next paragraph starts with:

“The reason I’m the target of a cancellation effort is because left-wing journalists dislike anyone acknowledging statistical differences between races. My mistake in a previous life was assigning collective guilt based on certain undeniable facts.”

I’ll stop there, because his remaining “thoughts” are even more disjointed and nonsensical. Ultimately, he cautions “LARPers” against being too overtly vile—which can get them canceled—then pats himself on the back for his personal growth.

The comments section—never read the comments!—proves humanity is doomed. I skimmed the 457 responses and found myself captivated by the straight talk from a visionary thinker named Brian. He, at least, had the guts to say what Hanania dances around nowadays.

Like this:

“It depends on the immigration. If we're bringing in Asians or Europeans obviously not. If we're bringing in blacks, arabs or brown Latinos it is. Especially blacks...even if those immigrants dont have high levels of crime their kids will. Blacks and less so Latinos have much higher crime rates than whites and Asians”

And:

“Its not about collective guilt, its acknowledging trends within groups. Certain groups are more prone to certain behaviors and actions. It you want low crime you dont bring on blacks for example. If you want high text scores in schools you bring in Asians. Obviously not every black person is a criminal nor every Asian good at school but generally speaking that's the trend you're going to get from these groups. Reality is we dont have the time to get to know every single person well enough to know what kind of person as an individual and because of that acknowledging racial trends is important.”

And:

“Not to mention of we didn't have certain racial groups here we wouldn't need tough on crime policies. Hell we would barely need police. Sure tough on crime policies lock up the criminals but then we have to pay for room and board for these people in prison. It gets expensive. There is data somewhere showing how much black people cost just based on their prison time, Its maddening. Why should white people have to suffer the economic burden for black criminals?

Liberalism is how we got here. The only way out is some degree of illiberalism.”

And:

“Not acknowledging racial trends is retarded though. We shouldn't ignore reality”

And finally:

“Wokeness is about stealing white people's country's and and giving them to non-whites. How is acknowledging statistical realities and wanting to act based on those statistical realities a mere image of wokeness? Me not wanting more blacks to come into my country or neighborhood is to keep my country and neighborhood from not only not becoming crime ridden but also so white people get to keep their country's just like every other group gets to. Just because some black people don't commit crime doesn't mean that generally speaking you're not going to get a shithole crime ridden society if you bring in enough blacks.”

On August 10, Substack management released a post titled “A better internet for readers.”

The self-important and self-congratulatory announcement explained how we’re all victims of a “Big Social-dominated media economy that is making us angry and stupid.”

Management then discussed newly planned features which would make Substack the best reading experience on the internet. And that’s critical, because:

“What we read matters.”

On September 15, Adam Serwer of The Atlantic published a piece titled “The Young Conservatives Trying to Make Eugenics Respectable Again,” which focuses largely on Hanania, his Substack newsletter, and his links to the Silicon Valley billionaires underwriting the new eugenics movement.

On September 19 Harper Collins threw in the towel and published Hanania’s book, which includes the following ridiculous blurbs by the following Bioshock-worshipping shitheads:

“DEI will never d-i-e from words alone—Hanania shows we need the sticks and stones of government violence to exorcise the diversity demon.”

PETER THIEL, entrepreneur and author of Zero to One

And:

“Richard Hanania is unafraid to transcend the Overton Window on issues of race and gender because he is grounded in irrefutable facts and history. This book delivers a devastating kill shot to the intellectual foundations of identity politics in America. A must-read for liberals and conservatives alike.”

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, cofounder of Strive Asset Management and bestselling author of Woke Inc., Nation of Victims, and Capitalist Punishment

So, with all that said, let’s circle back to our game. How many steps does it take to get to a bona fide Nazi on Substack?

One.

Knowing is Half the Battle

If you traffic on Twitter or Substack Notes you’ve probably seen or heard allusions to Hanania. Many people have covered or are covering his grotesque “eugenicon” movement, but I still felt it was worth digging a bit deeper and contextualizing the narrative. If nothing else, when you come across people hyperventilating about him you’ll now know the horror is justified.

At the end of the day, it’s sickening to see Substack actively and enthusiastically promoting a eugenicist. Because that’s what this clown is espousing. He’s not a “conservative,” because modern conservativism has lost all meaning. He’s not a “libertarian,” because modern libertarianism has lost all meaning.

Hanania’s ideas are legitimately dangerous.

Substack can’t stop him from thinking them, but they don’t have to endorse them.