HP: Richard Hanania, Rising Right-Wing Star, Wrote For White Supremacist Sites Under Pseudonym

I don’t know how Richard Hanania can emerge unscathed from this, but he seems tough enough to keep going the best he can.

He’s one of my ten favorite public intellectuals (along with people like Christopher Caldwell, Steve Sailer, Nathan Cofnas, Rony Guldmann, and Charles Murray).

I’ve never been offended by anybody in my life and so I’m not starting with Hanania. I go to Orthodox shuls and we say un-PC things about out-groups all the time. It’s normal, natural and even healthy to have some negative views of out-groups, but these negative feelings should motor along with an intensity under 5/10 in most circumstances if you want to lead a productive life in a multicultural society.

The desire to say what you want and the desire for social acceptance are at war with each other. Saying exactly what you think is like playing tennis with the net down. Saying what you think in ways that are most likely to get a hearing from the public is difficult. Steve Sailer and Charles Murray are as good as anyone at this.

Hanania tried to have the best of both worlds and he played the game as effectively as anyone for years. His apology is solid.

Trying to phrase things so that they have the best chance of achieving social acceptance is the best way to go for most people most of the time. So if you have a strong in-group identity, enjoy it, but also take time intermittently to consider how your words and deeds might be perceived by those outside of your group.

A through-line in all of Richard Hanania’s work, from the pseudonymous to the up-front, is smarty pants attention-seeking. He’s an equal opportunity provocateur.

One problem with this approach is that you incentivize people to take you down.

I don’t think Hanania is neuro-typical. He typically approaches the camera with a smirk. He has an exaggerated sense of his own brilliance.

I wonder about the quality of Richard’s relationships while he was writing under the Richard Hoste persona.

I try to follow this advice:

Always assume five people will watch when you broadcast:

* Your best friend
* Your worst enemy
* Your boss
* Your mother
* A lawyer

I create from the person who thinks freely, but I strive to broadcast with my most important relationships in mind.

It’s easier to say what you think when you don’t value your relationships, but down that easy path lies destruction and death.

You’re going to be judged by the company you keep even when your own conduct is exemplary.

It sounds like Richard fell into the unforced error of saying that some races are better than others. It’s normal and natural to think your own group is best, but it is rarely wise to broadcast this.

I notice right-wingers on Twitter protesting this Richard Hanania “doxxing.” That abuses the term “doxxing” which means broadcasting somebody’s home address and other private information. Richard Hanania published in public under a pseudonym. There’s no moral obligation to protect his double life.

Hanania chose to play in the big leagues and this investigation is fair game.

Like Richard Hanania, it is important to me to be a hero. This is not something you’re supposed to admit publicly. Nobody like status-seekers and yet we all seek status. The pro-social aka those with secure attachment seek status in ways that are usually pro-social.

Selling my soul online is hard, so when I do it, I want to contribute to my community.

The most important parts of my life I don’t talk about online because my happiness is more important to me than my blogging.

Ernest Becker wrote in his 1973 classic The Denial of Death:

* Society itself is a codified hero system, which means that society everywhere is a living myth of the significance of human life, a defiant creation of meaning.

* When we appreciate how natural it is for man to strive to be a hero, how deeply it goes in his evolutionary and organismic constitution, how openly he shows it as a child, then it is all the more curious how ignorant most of us are, consciously, of what we really want and need. In our culture anyway, especially in modern times, the heroic seems too big for us, or we too small for it.

We disguise our struggle by piling up figures in a bank book to reflect privately our sense of heroic worth. Or by having only a little better home in the neighborhood, a bigger car, brighter children. But underneath throbs the ache of cosmic specialness, no matter how we mask it in concerns of smaller scope. Occasionally someone admits that he takes his heroism seriously, which gives most of us a chill… We may shudder at the crassness of earthly heroism, of both Caesar and his imitators, but the fault is not theirs, it is in the way society sets up its hero system and in the people it allows to fill its roles. The urge to heroism is natural, and to admit it honest. For everyone to admit it would probably release such pent-up force as to be devastating to societies as they now are.

* The fact is that this is what society is and always has been: a symbolic action system, a structure of statuses and roles, customs and rules for behavior, designed to serve as a vehicle for earthly heroism. Each script is somewhat unique, each culture has a different hero system. What the anthropologists call “cultural relativity” is thus really the relativity of hero-systems the world over. But each cultural system is a dramatization of earthly heroics; each system cuts out roles for performances of various degrees of heroism: from the “high” heroism of a Churchill, a Mao, or a Buddha, to the “low” heroism of the coal miner, the peasant, the simple priest; the plain, everyday, earthy heroism wrought by gnarled working hands guiding a family through hunger and disease.

It doesn’t matter whether the cultural hero-system is frankly magical, religious, and primitive or secular, scientific, and civilized. It is still a mythical hero-system in which people serve in order to earn a feeling of primary value, of cosmic specialness, of ultimate usefulness to creation, of unshakable meaning. They earn this feeling by carving out a place in nature, by building an edifice that reflects human value: a temple, a cathedral, a totem pole, a skyscraper, a family that spans three generations. The hope and belief is that the things that man creates in society are of lasting worth and meaning, that they outlive or outshine death and decay, that man and his products count.

* To become conscious of what one is doing to earn his feeling of heroism is the main self-analytic problem of life.

* The social hero-system into which we are born marks out paths for our heroism, paths to which we conform, to which we shape ourselves so that we can please others, become what they expect us to be. And instead of working our inner secret we gradually cover it over and forget it, while we become purely external men, playing successfully the standardized hero-game into which we happen to fall by accident, by family connection, by reflex patriotism, or by the simple need to eat and the urge to procreate.

* The whole thing boils down to this paradox: if you are going to be a hero then you must give a gift. If you are the average man you give your heroic gift to the society in which you live, and you give the gift that society specifies in advance. If you are an artist you fashion a peculiarly personal gift, the justification of your own heroic identity, which means that it is always aimed at least partly over the heads of your fellow men… To renounce the world and oneself, to lay the meaning of it to the powers of creation, is the hardest thing for man to achieve — and so it is fitting that this task should fall to the strongest personality type.

Dysfunctional people, such as myself at times, often bid for heroism at a cost to their well-being. When you don’t think you have much to lose, it is easy to get caught up in your own heroism and ignore the damage you are inflicting on yourself, and possibly others.

The Wall Street Journal reports today:

He Thought He Saw Wrongdoing on Wall Street. It Took Over His Life.

Years ago, Peter Clothier thought proxy firms were counting shareholder votes incorrectly. His life fell apart after he reported it.

Peter Clothier checked into a Santa Fe, N.M., hotel in 2017, alone and suicidal.

Drunk on red wine, uninterested in the opera festival he had come to attend, Clothier fumed. For years, he had been trying to call attention to what he believed was wrongdoing in his corner of Wall Street. He felt unheard by his former employer, and the government.

Clothier emailed a former colleague, saying he intended to kill himself and laying the blame on other former co-workers. He didn’t follow through, but one thing was clear: Clothier’s life was falling apart.

Whistleblowers sometimes win widespread acclaim, as when an Enron employee appeared on the cover of Time or when Russell Crowe starred in a movie about a former Big Tobacco executive. The U.S. government believes in rewarding tipsters who call attention to misbehavior. This year, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its biggest ever whistleblower award, for $279 million.

But most whistleblowers don’t become rich or famous. Many destroy their relationships, lose their jobs, turn disillusioned when their big revelations are greeted with ambivalence. Since the SEC launched its whistleblower program more than a decade ago, the agency has received more than 64,000 tips. By late 2022, 328 of those whistleblowers had received financial awards.

Richard Hanania, when writing under a pseudonym, probably thought of himself as America’s whistleblower.

You’re most likely to misjudge things when you are not bonded to others and you are not sharing your thoughts with people who care about you. I wonder how many people Hanania told about his online persona?

The wise man balances his desires to be a hero with what those he loves considers to be heroic and makes choices balancing his own best interest and their best interests. No man should be an island. There’s nothing we do that doesn’t affect other people (I don’t believe in the modern liberal buffered strategic autonomous identity), including how I chose to spend my time at 3:50 a.m. today (which was to work on this blog post).

From the HuffPost:

A prominent conservative writer, lionized by Silicon Valley billionaires and a U.S. senator, used a pen name for years to write for white supremacist publications and was a formative voice during the rise of the racist “alt-right,” according to a new HuffPost investigation.

Richard Hanania, a visiting scholar at the University of Texas, used the pen name “Richard Hoste” in the early 2010s to write articles where he identified himself as a “race realist.” He expressed support for eugenics and the forced sterilization of “low IQ” people, who he argued were most often Black. He opposed “miscegenation” and “race-mixing.” And once, while arguing that Black people cannot govern themselves, he cited the neo-Nazi author of “The Turner Diaries,” the infamous novel that celebrates a future race war.

A decade later, writing under his real name, Hanania has ensconced himself in the national mainstream media, writing op-eds in the country’s biggest papers, bending the ears of some of the world’s wealthiest men and lecturing at prestigious universities, all while keeping his past white supremacist writings under wraps.

HuffPost connected Hanania to his “Richard Hoste” persona by analyzing leaked data from an online comment-hosting service that showed him using three of his email addresses to create usernames on white supremacist sites. A racist blog maintained by Hoste was also registered to an address in Hanania’s hometown. And HuffPost found biographical information shared by Hoste that aligned with Hanania’s own life.

Hanania did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story, made via phone, email and direct messages on social media.

The 37-year-old has been published by The New York Times and The Washington Post. He delivered a lecture to the Yale Federalist Society and was interviewed by the Harvard College Economics Review. He appeared twice on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News’ former prime-time juggernaut. He was a recent guest on a podcast hosted by the CEO of Substack, the $650 million publishing platform where Hanania has nearly 20,000 subscribers.

Hanania has his own podcast, too, interviewing the likes of Steven Pinker, the famous Harvard cognitive psychologist, and Marc Andreessen, the billionaire software engineer. Another billionaire, Elon Musk, reads Hanania’s articles and replies approvingly to his tweets. A third billionaire, Peter Thiel, provided a blurb to promote Hanania’s book, “The Origins of Woke,” which HarperCollins plans to publish this September. In October, Hanania is scheduled to deliver a lecture at Stanford.

Meanwhile, rich benefactors, some of whose identities are unknown, have funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a think tank run by Hanania. The think tank doles out cash to conservative academics, and produces political studies that are cited across right-wing media.

Hanania’s rise into mainstream conservative and even more centrist circles did not necessarily occur because he abandoned some of the noxious arguments he made under the pseudonym “Richard Hoste.” Although he’s moderated his words to some extent, Hanania still makes explicitly racist statements under his real name. He maintains a creepy obsession with so-called race science, arguing that Black people are inherently more prone to violent crime than white people. He often writes in support of a well-known racist and a Holocaust denier. And he once said that if he owned Twitter — the platform that catapulted him to some celebrity — he wouldn’t let “feminists, trans activists or socialists” post there. “Why would I?” he asked. “They’re wrong about everything and bad for society.”

Richard Hanania’s story may hint at a concerning shift in mainstream American conservatism. A little over a decade ago, he felt compelled to hide his racist views behind a pseudonym. In 2023, Hanania is a right-wing star, championed by some of the country’s wealthiest men, even as he’s sounding more and more like his former white supremacist nom de plume: Richard Hoste.

Unmasking Richard Hoste

Starting in 2008, the byline “Richard Hoste” began to appear atop articles in America’s most vile publications. Hoste wrote for antisemitic outlets like The Occidental Observer, a site that once argued Jews are trying to exterminate white Americans. He wrote for Counter-Currents, which advocates for creating a whites-only ethnostate; Taki’s Magazine, a far-right hub for paleoconservatives; and VDare, a racist anti-immigrant blog.

In 2010, Hoste was among the first writers to be recruited for AlternativeRight.com, a new webzine spearheaded and edited by Richard Spencer, the white supremacist leader who later organized the deadly 2017 neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. (“Little fucking kikes,” Spencer reportedly told his followers at a party after that rally. “They get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octaroons. My ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit.”)

Spencer bestowed Hoste with the honor of writing one of the introductory articles for the launch of AlternativeRight.com, which would become a main propaganda organ of the nascent “alt-right,” the online fascist movement that exploded into the public consciousness due to its ties to former President Donald Trump. (Spencer shuttered the site in 2013, and it was later relaunched under another name.)

“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,” Hoste wrote in the 2010 essay, titled “Why An Alternative Right Is Necessary.”

He lamented that Republicans hadn’t done enough to stop Democrats’ “march of diversity” despite “irrefutable evidence” that some races are “better than others.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on HP: Richard Hanania, Rising Right-Wing Star, Wrote For White Supremacist Sites Under Pseudonym

Tablet: The Obama Factor: A Q&A with historian David Garrow

David Samuels begins with an anecdote from David Garrow’s Obama biography Rising Star, the only book I’ve read about the former president:

At the time that Obama and Sheila visited the Spertus Institute, Chicago politics was being roiled by a Black mayoral aide named Steve Cokely who, in a series of lectures organized by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, accused Jewish doctors in Chicago of infecting Black babies with AIDS as part of a genocidal plot against African Americans. The episode highlighted a deep rift within the city’s power echelons, with some prominent Black officials supporting Cokely and others calling for his firing.

In Jager’s recollection, what set off the quarrel that precipitated the end of the couple’s relationship was Obama’s stubborn refusal, after seeing the exhibit, and in the swirl of this Cokely affair, to condemn Black racism. While acknowledging that Obama’s embrace of a Black identity had created some degree of distance between the couple, she insisted that what upset her that day was Obama’s inability to condemn Cokely’s comments. It was not Obama’s Blackness that bothered her, but that he would not condemn antisemitism.

No doubt, Obama’s evolving race-based self-consciousness did distance him from Jager; in the end, the couple broke up. Yet it is revealing to read Obama’s account of the breakup in Dreams against the very different account that Jager offers. In Obama’s account, he was the particularist, embracing a personal meaning for the Black experience that Jager, the universalist, refused to grant. In Jager’s account, the poles of the argument are nearly, but not quite, reversed: It is Obama who appears to minimize Jewish anxiety about blood libels coming from the Black community. His particularism mattered; hers didn’t. While Obama defined himself as a realist or pragmatist, the episode reads like a textbook evasion of moral responsibility.

In evaluating the truthfulness of these two competing accounts, it seems worth noting that Jager is something more than a woman scorned by a man who would later become president of the United States. Obama asked her to marry him twice; she refused him both times, before going on to achieve her own high-level professional successes. A student of the great University of Chicago anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, Jager is a professor of East Asian Studies at Oberlin College whose scholarship on great power politics in Southeast Asia and the U.S.-Korean relationship is known for its factual rigor. In contrast, Dreams from My Father, as Garrow shows throughout Rising Star, is as much a work of dreamy literary fiction as it is an attempt to document Obama’s early life.

Scholarship aside, there is another reason to assume that Jager would be less likely to misremember an incident involving race and antisemitism than Obama. As it turns out, Jager’s paternal grandparents, Hendrik and Geesje Jager, were members of the Dutch resistance, whose role sheltering a Jewish child named Greetje in their home for three years led to their recognition as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem. In that context, at least, it seems quite likely that Jager would remember the particulars of a fight with Obama related to antisemitism, and be turned off by his response—while Obama’s version of the fight has the feel of an anecdote positioned, if not invented, to buttress the character arc of the protagonist of his memoir, which in turn positioned him for a career in public life.

The episode reads to me like the beginning of Obama’s in-group identity and how it clashed with the moral universalism of his girlfriend, Sheila Miyoshi Jager. The higher your in-group identity, the less likely you will be to see flaws in your group and the less likely you will be to condemn them.

Perhaps the most revealing thing about Jager’s account of her fight with Obama, though, is that not one reporter in America bothered to interview her before David Garrow found her, near the end of Obama’s presidency. As Obama’s live-in girlfriend and closest friend during the 1980s, Jager is probably the single most informed and credible source about the inner life of a young man whose election was accompanied by hopes of sweeping, peaceful social change in America—a hope that ended with the election of Donald Trump, or perhaps midway through Obama’s second term, as the president focused on the Iran deal while failing to address the concerns about rampant income inequality, racial inequality, and the growth of a monopoly tech complex that happened on his watch.

The idea that the celebrated journalists who wrote popular biographies of Obama and became enthusiastic members of his personal claque couldn’t locate Jager—or never knew who she was—defies belief. It seems more likely that the character Obama fashioned in Dreams had been defined—by Obama—as being beyond the reach of normal reportorial scrutiny. Indeed, Garrow’s biography of Obama’s early years is filled with such corrections of a historical record that Obama more or less invented himself. Based on years of careful record-searching and patient interviewing, Rising Star highlights a remarkable lack of curiosity on the part of mainstream reporters and institutions about a man who almost instantaneously was treated less like a politician and more like the idol of an inter-elite cult.

…Russiagate had not originated with the Bureau, but with the Clinton campaign, which having failed to get even sympathetic mainstream media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post to bite on its fantastical allegations, was reduced to handing off the story to campaign press apparatchiks like Slate’s Franklin Foer and Mother Jones’ David Corn. The fact that the story only got bigger after Clinton lost the election was due to Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, who in November and December of 2016 helped elevate Russiagate from a failed Clinton campaign ploy to a priority of the American national security apparatus, using a hand-picked team of CIA analysts under his direct control to validate his thesis. If Brennan was the instrument, the person who signed the executive order that turned Brennan’s thesis into a time bomb under Trump’s desk was Barack Obama.

That strikes me as spot on.

…who was actually making decisions in a White House staffed top to bottom with core Obama loyalists. When Obama turned up at the White House, staffers and the press crowded around him, leaving President Biden talking to the drapes—which is not a metaphor but a real thing that happened.

That Obama might enjoy serving as a third-term president in all but name, running the government from his iPhone, was a thought expressed in public by Obama himself, both before and after he left office. “I used to say if I can make an arrangement where I had a stand-in or front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in, and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and I could sort of deliver the lines while someone was doing all the talking and ceremony,” he told Steven Colbert in 2015, “I’d be fine with that because I found the work fascinating.” Even with all these clues, the Washington press corps—fresh off their years of broadcasting fantasies about secret communications links between Trump Tower and the Kremlin—seemed unable to imagine, let alone report on, Obama’s role in government.

Obama was detached as president. It’s hard to believe he’s pulling the strings behind the scenes.

…the problems that are inherent in having a person with no constitutional role or congressional oversight take an active role in executive decision-making. Near the end of June, for example, Politico ran a long article noting Biden’s cognitive decline, with the coy headline “Is Obama Ready to Reassert Himself?”—as if the ex-president hadn’t been living in the middle of Washington and playing politics since the day he left office. Indeed, in previous weeks Obama had continued his role as central advocate for government censorship of the internet while launching a new campaign against gun ownership, claiming it is historically linked to racism. Surely, the spectacle of an ex-president simultaneously leading campaigns against both the First and Second Amendments might have led even a spectacularly incurious old-school D.C. reporter to file a story on the nuts and bolts of Obama’s political operation and on who was going in and out of his mansion. But the D.C. press was no longer in the business of maintaining transparency. Instead, they had become servants of power, whose job was to broadcast whatever myths helped advance the interests of the powerful.

When Trump was president, he was power, and the press wasn’t interested in broadcasting myths to advance his interests.

Obama’s campaigns against the First and Second Amendment haven’t gained any traction and don’t strike anyone as particularly effective.

There is another interpretation of Obama’s post-presidency, of course—one shared by many Republicans and Democrats. In that interpretation, Obama was never the leader of much of anything, neither during the Trump years nor now. Instead, he was focused on buying trophy properties, hanging out with billionaires, and vacationing on private yachts while grifting large checks from marks like Spotify and Netflix—even if his now-stratospheric levels of personal vanity also demanded that every so often he show up President Biden for the sin of occupying his chair in the White House.

In the absence of what was once American journalism, it is hard to know which portrait of Obama’s post-presidency is truer to life: Obama as a celebrity-obsessed would-be billionaire, or as a would-be American Castro, reshaping American society from his basement, in his sweats.

The idea of Obama as a would-be Castro seems absurd. So I’d share the first opinion — Obama was never the leader of much of anything.

What I could never understand was Obama’s contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism. Even as president, Obama insisted on poking exceptionalists in the eye, saying that he believed in American exceptionalism “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Why would the president of the United States feel the need to disabuse his countrymen of the idea that they are special?

I suspect that Obama’s contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism is not exceptional among people with his level of education. That Samuels finds it strange is strange. The more left you go, the less nationalist you go. The further left you go, the more you believe in centralized rule by experts (who tend to come from places like Harvard).

What made Obama’s rejection of American exceptionalism seem particularly weird to me was his attachment to Abraham Lincoln, whose cadences and economy of language he urged his speechwriters to emulate. As a historian, one might plausibly argue that Lincoln was a saint who saved the Union or a monster who shed rivers of blood—or that he didn’t go far enough. But there is no arguing with Lincoln’s belief in the uniqueness of the American destiny, for which he sent hundreds of thousands of young men to die. Of all men, Abraham Lincoln would have been baffled by an American president who denied that America was exceptional. What did all those people die for, then? And what exactly did Obama think that Lincoln’s speeches were about?

Obama wanted Lincoln’s reputation. That doesn’t mean he wanted all of Lincoln’s beliefs or felt that they were necessary in a different America at a different time. A time of war is usually a time of greater nationalism. Lincoln was more of a war president than Obama.

Obama’s hostility to American exceptionalism also seemed linked to his hostility to Israel, or more specifically to America’s identification with Israel, which finally resulted in his determination during his second term to reach his agreement with Iran—an agreement with the main objective of integrating that country into America’s security architecture in the Middle East, while limiting Israel’s power in the region. Again, why?

Because it was in America’s interests to reach some sort of agreement with Iran, and Obama got about the best deal possible.

There’s no objective reason for America to identify more with Israel than with New Zealand.

The sheer amount of political capital and focus Obama put into achieving the JCPOA during his second term, to the near-exclusion of other goals, suggests that the deal was central to his politics.

Obama put an appropriate level of focus on the deal to reduce the chances of a Middle East conflagration.

I have never seen any evidence that Barack Obama has the slightest personal animus toward Jews as individuals. But from his denial of American exceptionalism, and his sourness toward Israel, going all the way back to Sheila Miyoshi Jager’s account of their breakup, there does seem to be an awareness of the underlying problem posed to his politics by Jews—that is, the problem posed by Jewish group survival and their continuing insistence on Jewish historical particularity.

Progressive theology is built on a mythic hierarchy of group victimhood which has endured throughout time, up until the present day; the injuries that the victims have suffered are so massive, so shocking, and so manifestly unjust that they dwarf the present. Such injuries must be remedied immediately, at nearly any cost. The people who do the work of remedying these injustices, by whatever means, are the heroes of history. Conversely, the sins of the chief oppressors of history, white men, are so dark that nothing short of abject humiliation and capitulation can begin to approach justice.

I suspect that to Obama, Jews are white. Almost all Jews in America regard Jews as white.

Ghettos were invented for Jews. Concentration camps, too. How can Jews be “privileged white people” if they are clearly among history’s victims? And if Jews aren’t white people, then perhaps lots of other white people are also victims and therefore aren’t “white,” in the theological sense in which that term gains its significance in progressive ideology. Maybe “Black people” aren’t always or primarily Black. Maybe the whole progressive race-based theology is, historically and ideologically speaking, a load of crap. Which is why the Jews are and will remain a problem.

Every group can make the case that it is a victim. All strong in-group identity depends, in part, upon victimization. All nationalisms depend upon a sense of victimization. If you believe your group was victimized, and deserves reparations from out-groups, you’re not going to be deterred by the suffering of out-groups.

David Samuels says to David Garrow:

I can make the case that Obama’s public life was the amoral part, beginning with the toleration of genocide in Syria and the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens, and extending to wide-scale illegal surveillance and spying, and his now becoming the spokesperson for gutting the First Amendment in favor of government censorship of large tech platforms.

The defense of the Obama people when you talk to them is he was never touched by scandal, meaning personal scandal. And you’re like, “Well, I’m sure all those people who got gassed to death in Syria or are growing up in American towns with no jobs feel just great about the fact that he never got a blow job in the Oval Office.”

What does it mean that Obama tolerated genocide in Syria? Genocides are going on all over the world. Is it America’s job to stop them? Obama approved the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who had turned their backs on America and were organizing terror attacks on Americans. Samuels believes it was Obama’s job to stop Syrians getting gassed. If Syrian were gassed, how is that any worse than getting shot?

David Garrow: “I think a major turning point in his presidency was that whole thing where he and Denis McDonough walk around the White House grounds and he changes his mind about Syria.”

Changing his mind means walking back his red line comments on Syria, which were stupid comments to make in the first place. Walking back stupid comments strikes me as wise.

Samuels: “I do kind of cherish the idea of Bibi and Obama in the same room, each competing in an effort to demonstrate that they are each indeed the most brilliant person on earth. The other big thing they have in common, aside from their belief in their own genius, is that they are both products of the periphery of the American empire.”

Garrow: “Doc [Martin Luther King] always believed that he was not essential, that he was accidental, and that if he hadn’t ended up as him, that Ralph Abernathy or Fred Shuttlesworth or someone else would’ve been him instead.”

True.

Garrow:

Doc’s essential nature is, to a significant degree, because the white press elevates him. The press makes him this symbol, and as I say in BTC [Garrow’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Bearing the Cross], he realizes this is not really him, that there’s him and there’s this projection.

Let me say one other thing. Doc always 100 percent retained his individual self, even while realizing that there was this press creation. And when he’s wearing that uniform of the black suit, little tie, and he’s being so relentlessly sober whenever he’s in the public eye, that’s not him. That’s him playing the part that he’s been called into.

With Barack, I’m not sure I like the word binary, but with Doc, Doc was very clear about himself and the role. With Barack, there’s an extent of intertwining, there’s an absence of keeping the two selves separate.

That rings true.

Garrow:

With Alex [McNear, Obama’s girlfriend at Occidental College], I think she wanted to have her role known. So when Alex showed me the letters from Barack, she redacted one paragraph in one of them and just said, “It’s about homosexuality.”

…Barack writes to Alex about how he repeatedly fantasizes about making love to men.

Garrow: “Barack starts calling Sheila again.”

Samuels: “Do you think that he starts calling her again because he needs to keep her close because she knows too much of his story, and she becomes a wild card if she no longer feels a tie to him?”

Garrow: “I think that’s accurate.”

“When I start reading about Barack in early ’08, I read Dreams and thought, “This is a crock.” It’s not history. It’s all make-believe. Who knows what the real story is?”

Samuels: “Barack’s love letters to Alex, if they are actually love letters, are hard to read. Not just because they’re so poorly written, but because of the clear lack of any human interest in the person he’s writing to. The letters are completely performative. She may as well have been a tree or some kind of theater backdrop. Maybe all young men are guilty of this fault, but these examples seem pretty egregious.”

Garrow: “It’s pretty clear to me, and this is me putting little pieces together with Alex and with Sheila, but I’m 97 percent convinced that Barack either drafted all those letters in his journal and then made them into letters, or he wrote the letters and then copied them into the journal.”

“He wants people to believe his story. For me to conclude that Dreams from My Father was historical fiction—oh God, did that infuriate him.”

Samuels: “I’ve gotten the sense, from my read of him and from people close to him, that the pose of being a writer is actually one that he prefers in many ways to being a politician.”

Garrow: “Oh God, yes. Yes, yes, yes.”

Samuels: “So why wouldn’t he want his writerliness to be revealed?”

Garrow: “He doesn’t want the writerliness challenged. It’s my story and I’m sticking to it. The book [Dreams] is so fictionalized.”

Samuels: “So is Barack Obama the prime mover in the transformation of the American society we are living through now? Or was he simply a mannered observer, or a huge narcissist who couldn’t care less about anything outside himself?”

Obama was too passive to move much of anything. He’s both a mannered observer and a narcissist who doesn’t care much about anything outside himself.

Garrow: “I think Barack in that winter of ‘08, ‘09, realized there was no way that his presidency could actually live up to the expectations. And I think even the fanboy journalists would acknowledge, under a little bit of pressure, that it ended up being an underwhelming, disappointing presidency. It will, in the long run, be seen as a failed presidency because of the international failures.”

What international failures?

Garrow: “[T]he number one legacy of the Obama presidency is going to be the failure to intervene in Syria and the failure to object to Russia taking Crimea and the Donbas.”

That’s absurd.

Samuels: “[The] best way to understand Barack Obama is that he is a literary creation of Barack Obama, the writer, who authored the novel of his own life and then proceeded to live out this fictional character that he created for himself on the page.”

Garrow: “Something that comes from an electronic intercept is 99.9 percent reliable because they were very good transcriptionists. Where FBI records are bullshit is when it’s coming from human informants.”

“The number one thing about Barack this past five years is how completely he’s vanished.”

Samuels:

I think future historians are going to look at the Obama presidency and see it as the moment when this new oligarchy merged with the Democratic Party and used the capacities of these new technologies and the power of this new class of people, the oligarchs and their servants, to create a new apparatus of social control. How far they can go with it, what the limits are … you see them trying to test it out every week or so.

So my question is: Is Barack Obama the author of this new machine? Did he create it purposefully? Does it report back to him?

It’s absurd to think of Obama creating and running this machine.

Garrow:

He has no interest in building the Democratic Party as an institution. I think that’s obvious. And I don’t think he had any truly deep, meaningful policy commitments other than the need to feel and to be perceived as victorious, as triumphant. I’ve sometimes said to people that I think Barack is actually just as insecure as Trump, but in ways that are not readily perceived by the vast majority of people. I think that’s probably my most basic takeaway.

But it does go back to Dreams being a work of fiction, that the absence of an actual personal story makes him need to compose one. For every time he says, “Oh, I spent years reading the history of the civil rights movement,” I know he read BTC, but I don’t think he read much else. This is someone who … 98 percent of his reading has always been fiction, not history…

He’s not someone who retains people. Even Valerie [Jarrett] and [David] Axelrod only go back to, like, 2003 with him. There’s no real history. The only person who’s a little bit of a through line is Rob Fisher, who I think is the brightest person I’ve ever met in my life. Rob would argue with him, and the second book, when Barack is trying to get the second book finished during the campaign, Audacity [The Audacity of Hope], Rob at one point tells him that it’s a mess. And Barack is angry. You can’t tell a U.S. senator that his book’s a mess. Rob would disagree with him in intellectual, academic ways, which had been a whole part of their closeness, and Rob put lots of time into Dreams—or into the earlier, right version of Dreams.

Now, Rob and his wife went to the White House a few times. I’ve got all the details on this because I remember Rob describing them to me sitting out on that Truman Balcony. But again, and this is not the usual sort of thing I say, but Barack doesn’t want to be close with people who are his equals. None of the people who are ostensibly his best friends are anywhere close to his equal.

…If one compares how he gets elected to the [Harvard] Law Review presidency and then how he functions as president of the Law Review to his U.S. presidency election and term in office, at the review, he’s seen as the least ideological figure.

And he’s perfectly comfortable with the incipient, sort of Federalist Society folks like Brad Berenson. And it’s a distant, light-touch management system. He has no investment in what the content of the volume ends up being. He doesn’t write his own note because he’s not that interested in producing a work of student legal scholarship.

…So, the Law Review presidency is like going to Harvard itself; it devolves to being a credentialing enterprise—just like what he’s doing in the state senate in, particularly, 2003, once the Dems take the majority. It’s now a credentialing process rather than an actual, personal investment in the policy substance.

…He’d be terrible [on the Supreme Court] because he’s too lazy. This is in the book. It goes back to him being Hawaiian. At one point, he says, “I’m fundamentally lazy and it’s because I’m from Hawaii.” That’s close to the actual quote.

…I’ve always found their need to hang out with celebrities bizarre. Because the people they both were, all the way up through at least 2000, would’ve had no desire to do that. It wouldn’t have crossed their minds to be with Beyoncé and Jay-Z or Richard Branson, or you name it.

…I do find the Iran deal offensive and puzzling, yes. I mean, it’s an explicitly antisemitic state.

What does it matter to a deal that Iran is antisemitic? What matters for America are American interests.

Why is it surprising that once the Obamas become celebrities they want to hang around other celebrities? We all want to be with people like ourselves.

Barack once said to him that the only two things he wanted were a valet and an airplane.

Everybody, especially white folks, thought that having a Black family in the White House would be cure for the legacy of American racism. Now there’s no question in anybody’s mind that on that score, that scale, the presidency was a total failure. But why are race relations, at least as people perceive them or imagine them, ostensibly well worse today post-Floyd than they were in 2008?

America’s race problems are mirrored everywhere in the world where you get similar combinations of races. Only a silly person would have thought that one person could solve America’s race problems. One person such as Obama certainly had the ability to make them worse, which he did.

Anyone who thought that electing a black nationalist would heal American race problems was naive.

Samuels: “They’re all hollow. That’s what the system produces.”

David Samuels is a smart and accomplished writer. Everything he publishes is thought-provoking. On the other hand, he doesn’t make much of an effort to substantiate most of his points nor does he seem particularly interested to know much about what he’s pronouncing on. His epistemics are lousy. He’s essentially asking us to accept his points on faith.

In his previous interview, he promoted JFK Jr’s worldview.

I wrote June 11, 2020:

David Samuels, who normally publishes great work, fails to advance the Kevin MacDonald story one inch. What a waste. A day after publication, nobody but me has written about this story (except for a few mentions on Twitter).

Tablet refused to consider any of Nathan Cofnas’s penetrating essays on Kevin MacDonald, instead they publish this nothing burger by the husband of Tablet’s Editor Alana Newhouse. David apparently hasn’t even read the Cofnas critique (he links to an article by Cofnas responding to Ed Dutton’s critique of the Cofnas critique).

Samuels writes: “Rural Oregon has many of the same problems as any American inner city, except it is overwhelmingly inhabited by people with white skin.” He provides no evidence for this assertion. How on earth does rural Oregon resemble American inner cities? By which metrics?

Medford averages fewer than a murder a year. That’s hardly inner-city levels. What’s the crime rate in rural Oregon? What’s the percentage of felons there? What’s the average education level? What’s the average IQ level? What’s the out of wedlock birth rate? Is it close to inner city life or not? Or is Samuels just lying? The evidence says he’s lying.

He seems to hate the goyim and that may motivate his bizarre lies about rural Oregon. Report: “According to SafeWise, Oregon is well below the national rates for both property and violent crime. The national crime rate is 4.49 incidents per 1,000 people. Oregon has an average of 1.43 incidents per 1,000 people. The city with the lowest violent crime rate was Monmouth, which ranked the third-safest on the list.”

Oregon is 85% white and 2% black. According to Wikipedia, “As of 2015, Oregon ranks as the 17th highest in median household income at $60,834.” That’s hardly an inner-city rate of household income.

Posted in Barack Obama | Comments Off on Tablet: The Obama Factor: A Q&A with historian David Garrow

Decoding Decoding The Gurus, Part Two (8-2-23)

01:00 Decoding Decoding The Gurus, Part Two, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149545
10:20 The Valley Exposed: Luke Ford, the outsider, https://www.dailynews.com/2007/06/06/the-valley-exposed-luke-ford-the-outsider/
16:00 Column: A Democratic and Republican battled for Congress. They became unlikely friends, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149613
19:00 Chris Mooney Discusses “The Republican Brain” with Jonathan Haidt and Chris Hayes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6d_NBtxA1o
35:00 How an Amateur Diver Became a True-Crime Sensation, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/07/how-an-amateur-diver-became-a-true-crime-sensation
1:14:20 Elliott Blatt joins
1:23:00 Working from home
1:28:00 Elliott took Deep Left Jokkul out of the degeneracy and into the hills
1:35:00 The effect of alcohol on Elliott Blatt’s brain
1:38:00 Why is the right so gay?

Posted in Guru | Comments Off on Decoding Decoding The Gurus, Part Two (8-2-23)

Column: A Democratic and Republican battled for Congress. They became unlikely friends

I was good friends with Republican political consultant Rob Stutzman at Placer High School.

This article captures the bloke I knew. Rob was always civil. He played hard but he played by the rules. He valued our institutions. He valued friendship. He had all the traits you would expect for success in politics. Not only did he never cross the line into the socially unacceptable, he didn’t even get close. He was a difficult guy to dislike. He was a fair dinkum Christian but he carried his religiosity lightly and I don’t recall anybody who hated him.

Even in high school, I often operated outside the lines of decency. I was my school’s bookie. In the summer of 1983, I led a trip of my mates through San Francisco’s tenderloin to find the porn theaters. I said shocking things. I was unpredictable except for my attention seeking. I challenged my teachers.

While my life fell apart in my early 20s from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Rob built a good life. He married. He had kids. He developed a good reputation.

He was always a solid bloke. He was predictable and stable. And around him, I calmed down a little bit.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob never lost a friend. I’ve lost over a dozen. I always put a priority on self-expression over connection. Rob took other people’s feelings into account and he preferred his relationships to attention-seeking.

Many people in my life have been disappointed that I put more value on my pursuit of truth than on loyalty to my friends.

According to Chris Mooney, conservatives are “less willing to pick a fight with their friends, less likely to issue a corrective when they need to issue one, less motivated to step out of rank and call out bogus assertions.”

Rob was always willing to play the game established by the powers that be while I tended to rebel against authority. He went on to success within the system and he was appalled by Donald Trump. I’ve largely played outside the system and I was on board with Trump from July of 2015.

From The Los Angeles Times column by Mark Z. Barabak:

It helped that Bera tends toward the center-left, with a business-friendly bent. (“Organized labor does not like Bera and neither do we,” the liberal group Progressive Scorecard asserts in giving the six-term congressman a thumbs-down rating).

Stutzman, for his part, is no longer as socially conservative as he once was. (After running a 2000 campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California, he has long since renounced that position.)

It also helped that both are self-described institutionalists: people who fundamentally believe in our government and political system and want to see them function better than they have in recent years.

Which means more maturity and pragmatism and less performative bombast and schoolyard antics.

“This next decade, I believe, you’re going to have very narrow majorities” controlling both houses of Congress, Bera says. Whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, a relatively small group of extremists can grind things to a stop unless more lawmakers are willing “to negotiate toward the center … each side getting a little of what they want and each giving up something.”

Stutzman nods in assent.

“At the end of the day, we’re all for the same type of success for the state, the country, local government,” he says. If a willingness to recognize that and seek common ground “makes us an odd couple” — he refers to his friendship with Bera — “I think that’s a sad commentary on today.”

Posted in California | Comments Off on Column: A Democratic and Republican battled for Congress. They became unlikely friends

SMH: Let’s draw a line through a bill of rights

James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at Queensland University. He writes in the Sydney Morning Herald Sep. 6, 2005:

Compare the constitutional structures of Canada and Australia. Both are federal systems. Both share the English common law tradition, the Westminster parliamentary form of elected government, and a great deal of history. Yet there is a significant constitutional difference: in 1982 Canada opted for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Australia, pretty much uniquely in the Western world, doesn’t have a constitutional or statutory bill of rights.

But to my mind, one of the many attractions of Australia is that it does not have a bill of rights. These instruments are far from obviously desirable. I’ve had first-hand experience with the bills of rights in Canada, the United States and New Zealand, and I think all three jurisdictions are the worse for having them. Britain is, too, for that matter, with its Human Rights Act of 1998.

The case against bills of rights in a successful liberal democracy comes on many fronts but at core it is that these instruments undercut citizens’ participation in social decision-making. They transfer too much power to unelected judges.

The rights set out in these bills – the right to freedom of expression or of religion or to equality – enunciate very general standards about the place of the individual in society. Bills of rights offer us all an emotionally attractive statement of entitlements and protections in vague, very broad terms. Up in the Olympian heights of abstract rights guarantees, nearly all of us can and do support them. Who, after all, would say he or she is against free speech?

The problem, however, is that the effects of bills of rights are not felt up in these Olympian heights. They are felt down in the quagmire of detail, of where to draw the line when it comes to hate speech or campaign finance rules or defamation. Repeating the mantra that we have a right to free speech doesn’t change the fact that down in the quagmire of drawing these lines there is no unanimity. Tough calls have to be made about where to draw lines.

Enshrining some right to free speech in a bill of rights nowhere in the world means one can say anything he or she wants any time he or she wants. No, there is always disagreement and dispute about how this and other rights should play out.

And those who happen to disagree with you cannot be easily dismissed as unreasonable, morally blind, evil or in need of re-education. Despite the sanctimonious sermonising of some bill of rights proponents, it is simply a fact that how rights should play out is highly debatable, and not self-evident.

So adopt a bill of rights, as Canada, the US, Britain and New Zealand have done, and you transfer a chunk of power to unelected judges to draw some of these contentious lines, under the cover provided by the amorphous, appealing language of rights.

Without a bill of rights in place, these difficult, debatable social policy lines are drawn on the basis of elections, voting and letting the numbers count. With a bill of rights in place the unelected judges decide – though ironically they, too, decide by voting; four justices’ votes beat three. Victory does not go to the judge writing the most moving judgement or the one with the most references to moral philosophy.

What makes a bill of rights, and its transfer of power to judges, appear attractive is the unspoken assumption that the moral lines drawn by judges are somehow always the right lines, that a committee of ex-lawyers somehow has a pipeline to godly wisdom and greater moral perspicacity than secretaries, plumbers and regular voters. A good many judges, human rights lawyers and legal academics may happen to think this. I do not. Most Australians so far do not.

Australians should be very glad that they have resisted the siren call of a bill of rights. They should be wary of those who advocate the need for one, , pretending that judicial power can be easily contained. It cannot. Thus far in Australia, we have decided not to throw in our lot with an aristocratic judiciary. I hope this continues to be the case. It is one of the great attractions of this country.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on SMH: Let’s draw a line through a bill of rights