Hanania is a troll who will say whatever will get most clicks. Anatoly Karlin never had an original idea in his life. Started as a Bay Area rationalist, tried to do some HBD analysys, then went unhinged russian ultranationalist. I have no idea what he is doing now as I stopped paying attention to him years ago.
Libertarianism is dead because it obsessed about preserving freedom by limiting state power and defending strong property rights only for the woke cultural revolution to take over businesses and NGOs even faster then it did public institutions.
I agree that Hanania is mostly a troll, but he has written some great essays and one great book.
To be fair, in many cases Wokeness is literally required by law, particularly on race and gender (LGBT is more of a cultural takeover). But I don’t think we can say Wokeness is the fault of true libertarianism, especially not the paleolibertarians, when Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequent acts and court rulings expanding them are still in place.
Hanania is wrong though. Laws are downstream of morality. Acts and court rulings are produced by the elite according to their already existent beliefs. It's true that laws served as tools for the woke takeover but that's just one of the ways wokism spread from the elite to low level institutions, not how and why it was created in the first place.
Wokeness is not the fault of libertarianism but libertarianism is useless against it when most of the censorship and cancelling is done by private institutions. The attack on freedom didn't came from where libertarians expected which is not surprising, the movement was created in a period when marxism-leninism was the enemy.
That is true, but the vagueness of certain pieces of legislation allowed it to be exploited by bad actors, especially the laws expanding the 1964 CRA.
Of course the elites were on board with it. The Cold War and the taboo around biological explanations for racial differences after WW2, meant moderate liberals were very susceptible in to Woke manipulation. The period of bipartisanship meant that the ‘uni party’ was even more of a phenomenon.
But in a more polarised period like ours, with the GOP far less susceptible to giving civil rights expansions a blank cheque already, and the court in nominally conservative hands and prepared to strike down various precedent, if conservatives were committed to abolishing civil rights law, they could do it.
I’m not entirely with Hanania, I think we should retain Title VII and the EEOC temporarily, and should be used to sue corporations engaging in DEI and anti-straight white male discrimination. A period of ‘correction.’ But I do acknowledge we got to this point due to civil rights law and businesses’ fear of lawsuits.
The Supreme Court was prepared to pass the equivalent of the 1960s Civil Rights Act by judicial fiat if Congress hadn't acted.
Hanania clearly decided that "invade the world, invite the world" was just a bullet he needed to bite if he was going to survive getting doxxed as an internet Nazi.
The Supreme Court is the most corrupt institution in American history. The Warren and Burger courts are to blame for the current polarisation.
The Presidency and Congress should have just refused to obey the dictates of the Warren Court, and declared its rulings 'only advisory'. They would have meant nothing without the exercise of state force, which Eisenhower did for mostly geopolitical reasons, as Jim Crow was a PR disaster.
The Supreme Court, and various vague clauses of the constitution, need to be deeply reformed to prevent liberal activists ever getting to set 'precedent' again.
> then went unhinged russian ultranationalist. I have no idea what he is doing now as I stopped paying attention to him years ago.
Then you'll be tickled to hear that Karlin has most recently adopted the garb of Russian Russophobe, having totally reversed his previous position.
Hanania did something similar with respect to foreign policy, having become a hardline ZIonist and neocon interventionist.
In both cases their willingness to adopt positions not merely different from, but diametrically opposed to, their previous beliefs bespeaks a fundamental weakness of character that goes beyond mere slipperiness. They are both outsiders, desperately eager to be in with the in-crowd, and will say anything to make that happen. (The tragedy is that it never will).
"They are both outsiders, desperately eager to be in with the in-crowd, and will say anything to make that happen. (The tragedy is that it never will)."
The best in the series so far! Your section dedicated to the Paleocons was a worthwhile read, and I'll be sure to read some of the books you had referenced.
Seconded. I felt myself getting lost going through the National Conservative factions but the Paleocon and Paleolibertarian sections were really clear and engaging.
Not sure the techno-optimists belong. This group, with the possible exception of Thiel, feels very progressive.
The techno-optimists remind me of the type of people running Valar Atomics, if you've ever heard of that. Very go-getter entrepreneur mindset which I can appreciate. Main thing that could tarnish it is if grifters take over that space, but at the moment it seems pretty genuine.
As someone who is paleolibertarian adjacent, it might be worth addressing their general approval of national divorce/secession as well as nullification. Given paleocons view on the south and the civil war, I'm not sure where they stand on secession today, but I am quite confident that paleolibs are in support of a more decentralized approach to politics across the board — not quite the same as subsidiarity because it is characterized by an opposition to high-level decision making as opposed to just a predilection towards low-level decision making.
And as a point of contrast between paleolibs and paleocons, you could point out that paleolibs take the notion of "states' rights" to its logical conclusion by privileging the decisions of smaller states over those of larger ones encompassing them. I don't say this to "dunk" on paleocons, just to point out that libertarians in general are more autistic about their principles, but it could very well be that there is something about certain arbitrary arrangements that just works for some reason which conservatives make an effort to distill.
Lastly, while a lot of Chicago economists are more alike to the Cato or Reason types of libertarian, their economic theory does seem to be a bit more robust due to its more quantitative nature. As someone who started with Austrian economics, I'm sure they will object to this because they think the subjectivity of human action makes quantification impossible, but I think Bryan Caplan made a convincing argument against this. Plus, those who haven't done serious math (I come from a pure math background) can't quite comprehend just how tricky rigorous reasoning can be in the absence of quantitative measures to act as falsifying methods. That's not to say the Austrian tradition isn't valuable; it still informs how I perceive the world, but I would say it's more ideological than the Chicago school. This ideological bent makes it excellent for binding groups together, and Hoppe has some worthwhile takes regarding strategy, but I understand also why many intellectuals would be turned off by its virtual anti-empiricism. That said, it is very strong where economic history and political economy are concerned, so one could make an argument that the Austrian school is the "right brain" to the Chicago school's "left brain" in true McGilchrist fashion. Still, David D. Friedman is very much worth reading as he gives models of anarcho-capitalism which are consequentialist in nature instead of deontological.
Fascinating. I find myself somewhere between paleoconverative and the protestant one you dealt with in the last post (along with Doug Wilson). Indeed I think Doug Wilson shares a lot in common with Paleo.
A great series of articles. It would be nice if someone could work up a questionairre on the issue, ie if you believe A, B and C you are an X, if you believe D, E, and F you are a Y.... etc
I think many Catholics in America are still Catholics, but a lot are anti-Vatican II and don’t recognize Francis as Pope for being to post-modernist. There are two types of Catholics that have been accused of being in schism with the church. They would be SSPX and Sedevacantists.
As for Paleoconservatism, this is what I probably call myself. Peace ✌🏻
When people say they support "legal immigration" they don't really mean that we should make it possible for all these low IQ third worlders to immigrate legally. They just want it easier to get H1B programmers.
Yeah, this is the view of people like Elon Musk. From a British point of view, seeing the US as a 'nation of immigrants' already, it kind of makes sense.
I just find it funny that Americans #1 top dog immigrant spends his days talking about Great Replacement Theory on Twitter and how we don't want to end up like South Africa because genetics, and yet Open Borders people will still cite him as evidence in favor of Open Borders.
I don't know if this is worth including in the article, but I feel it's worth noting here, at least, that the Techno-Optimists are likely the only faction you will cover in this series to have a major, acclaimed musician proudly in their camp: Grimes, who has been loudly (if not particularly intelligently) proclaiming herself part of the sphere in every interview for years now.
I'm surprised you didn't mention William Lind when talking about paleoconservatism. Do you consider him one, or do you think he belongs in another category?
Hanania is a troll who will say whatever will get most clicks. Anatoly Karlin never had an original idea in his life. Started as a Bay Area rationalist, tried to do some HBD analysys, then went unhinged russian ultranationalist. I have no idea what he is doing now as I stopped paying attention to him years ago.
Libertarianism is dead because it obsessed about preserving freedom by limiting state power and defending strong property rights only for the woke cultural revolution to take over businesses and NGOs even faster then it did public institutions.
I agree that Hanania is mostly a troll, but he has written some great essays and one great book.
To be fair, in many cases Wokeness is literally required by law, particularly on race and gender (LGBT is more of a cultural takeover). But I don’t think we can say Wokeness is the fault of true libertarianism, especially not the paleolibertarians, when Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequent acts and court rulings expanding them are still in place.
Hanania is wrong though. Laws are downstream of morality. Acts and court rulings are produced by the elite according to their already existent beliefs. It's true that laws served as tools for the woke takeover but that's just one of the ways wokism spread from the elite to low level institutions, not how and why it was created in the first place.
Wokeness is not the fault of libertarianism but libertarianism is useless against it when most of the censorship and cancelling is done by private institutions. The attack on freedom didn't came from where libertarians expected which is not surprising, the movement was created in a period when marxism-leninism was the enemy.
That is true, but the vagueness of certain pieces of legislation allowed it to be exploited by bad actors, especially the laws expanding the 1964 CRA.
Of course the elites were on board with it. The Cold War and the taboo around biological explanations for racial differences after WW2, meant moderate liberals were very susceptible in to Woke manipulation. The period of bipartisanship meant that the ‘uni party’ was even more of a phenomenon.
But in a more polarised period like ours, with the GOP far less susceptible to giving civil rights expansions a blank cheque already, and the court in nominally conservative hands and prepared to strike down various precedent, if conservatives were committed to abolishing civil rights law, they could do it.
I’m not entirely with Hanania, I think we should retain Title VII and the EEOC temporarily, and should be used to sue corporations engaging in DEI and anti-straight white male discrimination. A period of ‘correction.’ But I do acknowledge we got to this point due to civil rights law and businesses’ fear of lawsuits.
The Supreme Court was prepared to pass the equivalent of the 1960s Civil Rights Act by judicial fiat if Congress hadn't acted.
Hanania clearly decided that "invade the world, invite the world" was just a bullet he needed to bite if he was going to survive getting doxxed as an internet Nazi.
The Supreme Court is the most corrupt institution in American history. The Warren and Burger courts are to blame for the current polarisation.
The Presidency and Congress should have just refused to obey the dictates of the Warren Court, and declared its rulings 'only advisory'. They would have meant nothing without the exercise of state force, which Eisenhower did for mostly geopolitical reasons, as Jim Crow was a PR disaster.
The Supreme Court, and various vague clauses of the constitution, need to be deeply reformed to prevent liberal activists ever getting to set 'precedent' again.
> then went unhinged russian ultranationalist. I have no idea what he is doing now as I stopped paying attention to him years ago.
Then you'll be tickled to hear that Karlin has most recently adopted the garb of Russian Russophobe, having totally reversed his previous position.
Hanania did something similar with respect to foreign policy, having become a hardline ZIonist and neocon interventionist.
In both cases their willingness to adopt positions not merely different from, but diametrically opposed to, their previous beliefs bespeaks a fundamental weakness of character that goes beyond mere slipperiness. They are both outsiders, desperately eager to be in with the in-crowd, and will say anything to make that happen. (The tragedy is that it never will).
Tickled, but not surprised.
"They are both outsiders, desperately eager to be in with the in-crowd, and will say anything to make that happen. (The tragedy is that it never will)."
Spot on.
The best in the series so far! Your section dedicated to the Paleocons was a worthwhile read, and I'll be sure to read some of the books you had referenced.
Thanks for reading!
Seconded. I felt myself getting lost going through the National Conservative factions but the Paleocon and Paleolibertarian sections were really clear and engaging.
Not sure the techno-optimists belong. This group, with the possible exception of Thiel, feels very progressive.
The techno-optimists remind me of the type of people running Valar Atomics, if you've ever heard of that. Very go-getter entrepreneur mindset which I can appreciate. Main thing that could tarnish it is if grifters take over that space, but at the moment it seems pretty genuine.
As someone who is paleolibertarian adjacent, it might be worth addressing their general approval of national divorce/secession as well as nullification. Given paleocons view on the south and the civil war, I'm not sure where they stand on secession today, but I am quite confident that paleolibs are in support of a more decentralized approach to politics across the board — not quite the same as subsidiarity because it is characterized by an opposition to high-level decision making as opposed to just a predilection towards low-level decision making.
And as a point of contrast between paleolibs and paleocons, you could point out that paleolibs take the notion of "states' rights" to its logical conclusion by privileging the decisions of smaller states over those of larger ones encompassing them. I don't say this to "dunk" on paleocons, just to point out that libertarians in general are more autistic about their principles, but it could very well be that there is something about certain arbitrary arrangements that just works for some reason which conservatives make an effort to distill.
Lastly, while a lot of Chicago economists are more alike to the Cato or Reason types of libertarian, their economic theory does seem to be a bit more robust due to its more quantitative nature. As someone who started with Austrian economics, I'm sure they will object to this because they think the subjectivity of human action makes quantification impossible, but I think Bryan Caplan made a convincing argument against this. Plus, those who haven't done serious math (I come from a pure math background) can't quite comprehend just how tricky rigorous reasoning can be in the absence of quantitative measures to act as falsifying methods. That's not to say the Austrian tradition isn't valuable; it still informs how I perceive the world, but I would say it's more ideological than the Chicago school. This ideological bent makes it excellent for binding groups together, and Hoppe has some worthwhile takes regarding strategy, but I understand also why many intellectuals would be turned off by its virtual anti-empiricism. That said, it is very strong where economic history and political economy are concerned, so one could make an argument that the Austrian school is the "right brain" to the Chicago school's "left brain" in true McGilchrist fashion. Still, David D. Friedman is very much worth reading as he gives models of anarcho-capitalism which are consequentialist in nature instead of deontological.
Fascinating. I find myself somewhere between paleoconverative and the protestant one you dealt with in the last post (along with Doug Wilson). Indeed I think Doug Wilson shares a lot in common with Paleo.
A great series of articles. It would be nice if someone could work up a questionairre on the issue, ie if you believe A, B and C you are an X, if you believe D, E, and F you are a Y.... etc
Yeah that’s in the works. I will do a DozenValues type test after this series is finished, but I need to get somebody to programme it.
There are places on the web that allow you to form polls, if that's what you have in mind. I would love to see the questions.
I think many Catholics in America are still Catholics, but a lot are anti-Vatican II and don’t recognize Francis as Pope for being to post-modernist. There are two types of Catholics that have been accused of being in schism with the church. They would be SSPX and Sedevacantists.
As for Paleoconservatism, this is what I probably call myself. Peace ✌🏻
The devolution of Hanania's writing is sad. I'm glad you mentioned it.
When people say they support "legal immigration" they don't really mean that we should make it possible for all these low IQ third worlders to immigrate legally. They just want it easier to get H1B programmers.
Yeah, this is the view of people like Elon Musk. From a British point of view, seeing the US as a 'nation of immigrants' already, it kind of makes sense.
I just find it funny that Americans #1 top dog immigrant spends his days talking about Great Replacement Theory on Twitter and how we don't want to end up like South Africa because genetics, and yet Open Borders people will still cite him as evidence in favor of Open Borders.
I don't know if this is worth including in the article, but I feel it's worth noting here, at least, that the Techno-Optimists are likely the only faction you will cover in this series to have a major, acclaimed musician proudly in their camp: Grimes, who has been loudly (if not particularly intelligently) proclaiming herself part of the sphere in every interview for years now.
I think I’m going to mostly focus on writers, politicians, and commentators. I only included Elon Musk because he’s such a good example.
I'm surprised you didn't mention William Lind when talking about paleoconservatism. Do you consider him one, or do you think he belongs in another category?
Thanks for reminding me of the omission, I’ll add him.
Added.
This is one of the best political pieces of the last few years. Can't wait for the next entry!
Thanks. Yeah, the next is going to be on the NRx-adjacent Dissident Right, which should be interesting.