I think you have something here, but hanania does not strike me as a person who has learned new facts about the world and therefore changed his views, he strikes me as someone who doesn't really believe in much of anything beside himself and his own social standing. He strikes me as someone who adopts whatever stance is conducive to currying favor with the people he's currently trying to suck up to. What you are here portraying as evidence of personal growth a lot of us consider to just be cynical opportunism. I don't know that's the case, I definitely agree that he is hard to pin down, and not in a good way.
One other nit I have about this otherwise good essay is conflating the dissident right with MAGA. Certainly there is a lot of overlap, but the dissident right is much bigger than the current moment in US politics. Many are critical of the maga movement, and many more agree with it instrumentally but have no real attachment to it. It is a mistake to characterize the entire scene as being part of Trump's cult of personality, it is simply not true.
People are complex, I think you could accuse me or any other writer of having ambiguous motives. We can't peer into a person's heart and know truly if they are acting out of a pure martyr-like devotion to the truth, or whether they are trying to score points in an ego-ecosystem. I will be the first to admit that I aspire to the first, but often am seduced by the temptation of the second. People claiming that Hanania is uniquely selfish in this regard aren't being honest about the nature of the beast, which is social media. Attacking his motives without engaging with the arguments is ad hominem by definition.
I just don't find it very interesting to belabor that point, and think this sort of argumentation is just downstream of existing opinions. We are suspicious of those on the other team; we give benefit of the doubt to our own team. But yes I acknowledge that this is the impression people have of him, and I think even 20 years from now there will be some old-timers complaining about how "Hanania is a traitor" and so on.
I disagree; I think MAGA is bigger than the dissident right, and that MAGA precedes the dissident right. MAGA has just been getting worse since Reagan and Buchanan. The dissident right is specifically an anti-semitic faction within MAGA. This is sort of a semantic disagreement about political taxonomy which would require a historical investigation to determine which perspective is more useful.
I think anyone calling themselves dissident right who is meaningfully anti-Trump is just totally irrelevant. Fuentes, for example, road to success by being a Trump cultist. You could sort of view these people as parasites who have been sucking Trumps teet and now have become fat and fallen off to do their own thing, but they aren't independent from the cult, just defectors.
There are genuine white nationalists who have always opposed Trump since 2016, but that's a different and even more marginal thing.
Rachel Lu, a conservative coming from a more traditional background, echoes similar sentiments in a review of a book he was involved in for which I forget the name, seeing Hanania as somewhat of a stealth nihilist that goes with the winning horse and has little use for "liberty" or the "dignity of the individual." I think that partly explains his willingness to jettison alot of normie conservative takes in favor a fashionable status quo. There's no dignity for him in throwing his lot in with unorganized, unintelligent losers, even if they're directionally correct on things at a high level.
It'd be like a so-called Free Speech warrior refusing to come to the aid of a repulsive chud's speech rights. A Free Speech principle overlooked in favor of the principle of not dealing with people one finds distasteful in a kind of technical sense, i.e. "low human capital."
He has a Quietist proof-is-in-the-pudding approach. If those currently upset at elites were worthy of being elites, *they'd already be elites*. His EHC notion is lacking in an explanation of elite transition, though I'm largely sympathetic to EHC, in a descriptive sense if not prescriptive to the degree it is for him.
“Hanania Derangement Syndrome isn’t about hating a “gay liberal who loves open borders and hates Trump.” There are plenty of those, and none of them inspire this level of derangement. HDS comes from an existential crisis of faith: he took the sacred redpill. He should know better. He is an apostate from Trumpism”
Funny how 90% of comments vindicate this statement
To be honest, my soft spot for Hanania has disappeared. He was funny and had good takes in the early 20s, but two things really changed him. First, he was massively wrong about the Russian invasion and reacted by rooting for GAE, and he changed quite a bit after he got doxxed: more attention-baity and less into ideas. If you read between the lines of his actions, he's also quite neurotic.
Agree w Kitten that Hanania doesn't seem to be a super nuanced or learned thinker who has gone beyond the dumb and antisocial fashies, he just seems to have embraced nihilism and stopped caring about anything but himself. Which I am somewhat sympathetic to on a personal level, but it's made him a bore to read.
Most importantly, he's gotten worse as a writer. Contradict me if you'd like; name something within the last year that Hanania has written that is on this level:
>Although the theory of “Elite Human Capital” causes mass derangement among populists and nationalists, to my knowledge, there is only one person who has ever bothered to try to critique the theory:
This was a reply to Cofnas, but it works as a reply to Hanania as well:
>“Social status on the right is determined mainly by how much attention you can generate, regardless of the quality of that attention. People who appeal to the lowest common denominator rise to the top.”
Social status is always a noisy measurement of value, regardless of hierarchy. It's not much better on the left.
>But as Scott Alexander argues, Moldbug “got corrupted by power and tried to use his philosophy to endorse right-wing populism.”
Don't know Moldbug very well (all I have is a photo and some shared time), but Moldbug's turn looks more like embracing the lesser evil than selling out. May write on this later.
I never knew Hanania at all before 2023 -- just wasn't on my radar at all. I was also wrong about the Russian invasion and thought Putin would win, so I guess Hanania and I are on the same boat on that factual error. But I was never rooting for Putin, I guess that's a big difference.
I was familiar with Moldbug's arguments from before 2014 and they seem significantly different from what he's saying in 2025. I think people give Moldbug a pass on his lies and contradictions because they like him on a personal level. He will switch from endorsing Tim Cook to claiming to being more radical than the SS, depending on the audience. Everything to everyone is nothing to me. Hanania is consistent as far as I can tell, in that he says the same things to everyone, like them or not.
Kaschuta slandered and misrepresented the people in her network. If she had a problem with Fuentes and Tate, don’t say the entire dissident right is the problem, especially because they don’t make up the intellectual side. She walked it back somewhat, but when you air out laundry to NYT, then the damage is done and no one will respect you anymore. Dave has been honest about this
She's been pretty clear from the beginning that her frustration is with the meme space as a whole and Dave is too blinded by his "loyalty" to this movement which will do nothing for him except exploit his intelligence to sell the same tired old unexamined tropes. There is no "movement" to betray to the NYT. In fact the Dissident Right is nothing but a bunch of hot air and has been captured by cynical grifters. It will achieve nothing but continue to shill for the GOP.
Richard Hanania as the future of the Democratic Party. What a great insight!
MAGA's distasteful name-calling as a "critique" of their opponents should come as no surprise, given that this is one of Trump's most disgusting habits. Monkey see, monkey do.
Its so counterintuitive that Hanania pisses us off so much when pissing us off is his job and his entire reason for living and he spends every waking minute thinking about it and doesn't think about anything else.
If the parties do actually realign, I’d rather vote Rich’s Democrats over Trump’s Republicans, but I really can’t do it until the Democrats make some major steps. ie. Primarying a lot of problem figures, many of whom are worshipped in that party.
The Republicans are also a long way from losing me, but it is possible. There was an interesting WSJ article about Trump refusing to tax the rich, in spite of some ideas the party has pushed. If they did try taxing would nail the coffin shut on the “low tax low regulation” brand of the GOP. This is one way that Trump is far from the worst of the GOPs stupidity, but I could see a post trump GOP going economically populist, and only if the Democrats are willing to embrace their status as the party of the elite and work on gutting the welfare state and excessive taxes, while quietly leaving Trump’s anti DEI orders intact (especially the ones related to disparate impact)
Alternatively, the Democrats could push even further left, while the “tech right” takes control of the Republican Party, I’d rather see that happen and keep voting Red than any other scenario.
At a gut level this seems more likely to me. The Democrats made a Faustian bargain embracing DEI for power and Satan will come to collect. The octogenarian boomers wield enough institutional power to stay put until they retire or die, but the hyper-competent millennials who should replace them can't stand up to all the psychotic "squad" types who are salivating to get their hand on the button.
I suppose a measure of hopium could be imbibed from the idea that once the Tech Right is strong enough to consolidate power, they'll start to purge the reprobates that the EHC crowd goes on about. The chuds will complain, but there won't be anything they can do about it.
The Squad gaining power is the result of Millennials more than Boomers. Younger voters are more socialist and less pro Israel than the boomers. Of course, it’s Boomers’ fault that happened, but Millennials have already found enough voting power to put some of their own in Congress, and their representatives are worse than anything the Boomers seem to have voted for.
I’m not suggesting that I would switch parties immediately. Democrats would have to fundamentally reverse their outlook on tax policy to fill the role that Republicans would abandon in that hypothetical you proposed. But ideas based on “raising taxes on the 1%” are usually based on the idea that high incomes and wealth are undeserved, that such wealth should be punished, and that the rich should be their brother’s keeper.
All those views underpin communism, which I intended to vote against, so if the GOP adopts those tenets, it would rather defeat their purpose in being a party at all.
No. Read my actual post. Only by raising taxes would I switch and ONLY if the Democrats reverse course on that tax the rich philosophy you’re decrying. We’re on the same side here.
Richard Hanania has become a special target of excoriation, because that's that happens to heretics who have fallen away from their former doctrinal allegiance. Additionally, he's an articulate writer. His most persistent critics try to dismiss everything he's written since his departure from the True Trumpist Faith by picking apart his occasional weak points, as if that serves to discredit every word out of his Heretic mouth.
"MAGA has transcended the milquetoast mannerisms of mainline Christianity, and has even surpassed the apocalyptic snake-handling of Evangelicals. MAGA is full-blown White Sharia."
I think Hanania and you both have this tendency to use "MAGA" and "dissident right", or even the "white nationalist" right, interchangeably. The average boomer MAGA cult loyalist is far from being a white nationalist or even a Christian nationalist.
Ironically, it's the Christian/white nationalist right (apart from the BAP/Yarvin sphere) that is maybe the most critical of Trump.
As a lifelong Democrat, I always longed for my party to be Rockefeller Republicans. Now I'm getting what I want, and it's a complete nightmare.
I'm skeptical Hannania is the future of the party, because he's explicitly, vehemently racist, and I have trouble seeing the party that commands the overwhelming majority of minority votes turning back on that. Even if minorities migrate to the Republican Party (even in 2024, they overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, and they are the most disillusioned with Trump's first 100 days), I don't see Democratic elites regressing on racism. While Hanania's explicit sexism is less advertised, that seems like an even bigger problem, given that women are not only Democrats, but becoming markedly more so every cycle.
I also don't know if "Rockefeller Republicans" are a big enough coalition to win the presidency and the Senate. Our geographic distribution is poor.
That being said, Hanania used to be a hate-follow for me on Twitter, and now I subscribe to his Substack. His paeans to smug liberals like myself are deeply validating.
Vehement racism doesn't describe Hanania's views. You're misinterpreting my hyperbolic statement and not reading the context of the words that I am writing.
You're on the money. Hanania hates anyone who has an IQ below 115, and could care less if they starved. As someone on the right I hope he becomes the avatar of Democratic policy. He loves democracy but his ideology has no chance in a democratic system.
I think you underestimate the personal, which is that many people also hate him because he's just personally a very unpleasant person. Every story I've heard from anyone who has interacted with him has been deeply negative in ways that have nothing to do with politics.
I think that does manifest in the "self-serving nihilism" thing that other comments have mentioned.
Hanania is vile, not just in his past but even in his present, he mocked the United health CEO for being “unattractive” and “overweight” days after he had just been gunned down. His delights in the suffering of Gazans in a way that would make most hardcore Zionist’s wince. It is clear that there has been no moral evolution in him since his days writing under a pseudonym, even if his actual beliefs have changed he is still objectively an awful person.
What a bizarre non-sequitur. Also Hanania thinks black people are literal sub-humans but you want to defend his honor because his fellow racists/eugenicists also don’t like him, whatever have fun doing that
You have an odd collection of sacred cows. I couldn't tell if you were a far leftist against fat shaming, or a far-right antisemite. Your style of communication makes it hard to tell because you emulate the hysterical stupidity of both.
I think you have something here, but hanania does not strike me as a person who has learned new facts about the world and therefore changed his views, he strikes me as someone who doesn't really believe in much of anything beside himself and his own social standing. He strikes me as someone who adopts whatever stance is conducive to currying favor with the people he's currently trying to suck up to. What you are here portraying as evidence of personal growth a lot of us consider to just be cynical opportunism. I don't know that's the case, I definitely agree that he is hard to pin down, and not in a good way.
One other nit I have about this otherwise good essay is conflating the dissident right with MAGA. Certainly there is a lot of overlap, but the dissident right is much bigger than the current moment in US politics. Many are critical of the maga movement, and many more agree with it instrumentally but have no real attachment to it. It is a mistake to characterize the entire scene as being part of Trump's cult of personality, it is simply not true.
People are complex, I think you could accuse me or any other writer of having ambiguous motives. We can't peer into a person's heart and know truly if they are acting out of a pure martyr-like devotion to the truth, or whether they are trying to score points in an ego-ecosystem. I will be the first to admit that I aspire to the first, but often am seduced by the temptation of the second. People claiming that Hanania is uniquely selfish in this regard aren't being honest about the nature of the beast, which is social media. Attacking his motives without engaging with the arguments is ad hominem by definition.
I just don't find it very interesting to belabor that point, and think this sort of argumentation is just downstream of existing opinions. We are suspicious of those on the other team; we give benefit of the doubt to our own team. But yes I acknowledge that this is the impression people have of him, and I think even 20 years from now there will be some old-timers complaining about how "Hanania is a traitor" and so on.
I disagree; I think MAGA is bigger than the dissident right, and that MAGA precedes the dissident right. MAGA has just been getting worse since Reagan and Buchanan. The dissident right is specifically an anti-semitic faction within MAGA. This is sort of a semantic disagreement about political taxonomy which would require a historical investigation to determine which perspective is more useful.
I think anyone calling themselves dissident right who is meaningfully anti-Trump is just totally irrelevant. Fuentes, for example, road to success by being a Trump cultist. You could sort of view these people as parasites who have been sucking Trumps teet and now have become fat and fallen off to do their own thing, but they aren't independent from the cult, just defectors.
There are genuine white nationalists who have always opposed Trump since 2016, but that's a different and even more marginal thing.
Rachel Lu, a conservative coming from a more traditional background, echoes similar sentiments in a review of a book he was involved in for which I forget the name, seeing Hanania as somewhat of a stealth nihilist that goes with the winning horse and has little use for "liberty" or the "dignity of the individual." I think that partly explains his willingness to jettison alot of normie conservative takes in favor a fashionable status quo. There's no dignity for him in throwing his lot in with unorganized, unintelligent losers, even if they're directionally correct on things at a high level.
It'd be like a so-called Free Speech warrior refusing to come to the aid of a repulsive chud's speech rights. A Free Speech principle overlooked in favor of the principle of not dealing with people one finds distasteful in a kind of technical sense, i.e. "low human capital."
He has a Quietist proof-is-in-the-pudding approach. If those currently upset at elites were worthy of being elites, *they'd already be elites*. His EHC notion is lacking in an explanation of elite transition, though I'm largely sympathetic to EHC, in a descriptive sense if not prescriptive to the degree it is for him.
“Hanania Derangement Syndrome isn’t about hating a “gay liberal who loves open borders and hates Trump.” There are plenty of those, and none of them inspire this level of derangement. HDS comes from an existential crisis of faith: he took the sacred redpill. He should know better. He is an apostate from Trumpism”
Funny how 90% of comments vindicate this statement
To be honest, my soft spot for Hanania has disappeared. He was funny and had good takes in the early 20s, but two things really changed him. First, he was massively wrong about the Russian invasion and reacted by rooting for GAE, and he changed quite a bit after he got doxxed: more attention-baity and less into ideas. If you read between the lines of his actions, he's also quite neurotic.
Agree w Kitten that Hanania doesn't seem to be a super nuanced or learned thinker who has gone beyond the dumb and antisocial fashies, he just seems to have embraced nihilism and stopped caring about anything but himself. Which I am somewhat sympathetic to on a personal level, but it's made him a bore to read.
Most importantly, he's gotten worse as a writer. Contradict me if you'd like; name something within the last year that Hanania has written that is on this level:
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/why-is-everything-liberal
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-case-against-most-books
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/america-has-black-nationalism-not
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/are-men-smarter-than-women
On specific points:
>Although the theory of “Elite Human Capital” causes mass derangement among populists and nationalists, to my knowledge, there is only one person who has ever bothered to try to critique the theory:
This was a reply to Cofnas, but it works as a reply to Hanania as well:
https://www.sebjenseb.net/p/does-the-right-have-a-stupidity-problem
>“Social status on the right is determined mainly by how much attention you can generate, regardless of the quality of that attention. People who appeal to the lowest common denominator rise to the top.”
Social status is always a noisy measurement of value, regardless of hierarchy. It's not much better on the left.
>But as Scott Alexander argues, Moldbug “got corrupted by power and tried to use his philosophy to endorse right-wing populism.”
Don't know Moldbug very well (all I have is a photo and some shared time), but Moldbug's turn looks more like embracing the lesser evil than selling out. May write on this later.
I never knew Hanania at all before 2023 -- just wasn't on my radar at all. I was also wrong about the Russian invasion and thought Putin would win, so I guess Hanania and I are on the same boat on that factual error. But I was never rooting for Putin, I guess that's a big difference.
I was familiar with Moldbug's arguments from before 2014 and they seem significantly different from what he's saying in 2025. I think people give Moldbug a pass on his lies and contradictions because they like him on a personal level. He will switch from endorsing Tim Cook to claiming to being more radical than the SS, depending on the audience. Everything to everyone is nothing to me. Hanania is consistent as far as I can tell, in that he says the same things to everyone, like them or not.
Dave is also deranged unfortunately. Sad to see given that he's such a smart guy, but all he can do is slander and misrepresent people like Kaschuta.
Kaschuta slandered and misrepresented the people in her network. If she had a problem with Fuentes and Tate, don’t say the entire dissident right is the problem, especially because they don’t make up the intellectual side. She walked it back somewhat, but when you air out laundry to NYT, then the damage is done and no one will respect you anymore. Dave has been honest about this
She's been pretty clear from the beginning that her frustration is with the meme space as a whole and Dave is too blinded by his "loyalty" to this movement which will do nothing for him except exploit his intelligence to sell the same tired old unexamined tropes. There is no "movement" to betray to the NYT. In fact the Dissident Right is nothing but a bunch of hot air and has been captured by cynical grifters. It will achieve nothing but continue to shill for the GOP.
Imagine if people obsessively researched world hunger instead of antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Wow, that's such an edgy, hot-take. I'm stunned by your intellectual prowess and nuanced understanding.
Richard Hanania as the future of the Democratic Party. What a great insight!
MAGA's distasteful name-calling as a "critique" of their opponents should come as no surprise, given that this is one of Trump's most disgusting habits. Monkey see, monkey do.
Its so counterintuitive that Hanania pisses us off so much when pissing us off is his job and his entire reason for living and he spends every waking minute thinking about it and doesn't think about anything else.
This needs a companion piece, on Hananiah derangement on the left
I was considering but the left is self-quarantined in such a way that they are not easy to engagement farm.
Heh good idea
If the parties do actually realign, I’d rather vote Rich’s Democrats over Trump’s Republicans, but I really can’t do it until the Democrats make some major steps. ie. Primarying a lot of problem figures, many of whom are worshipped in that party.
The Republicans are also a long way from losing me, but it is possible. There was an interesting WSJ article about Trump refusing to tax the rich, in spite of some ideas the party has pushed. If they did try taxing would nail the coffin shut on the “low tax low regulation” brand of the GOP. This is one way that Trump is far from the worst of the GOPs stupidity, but I could see a post trump GOP going economically populist, and only if the Democrats are willing to embrace their status as the party of the elite and work on gutting the welfare state and excessive taxes, while quietly leaving Trump’s anti DEI orders intact (especially the ones related to disparate impact)
Alternatively, the Democrats could push even further left, while the “tech right” takes control of the Republican Party, I’d rather see that happen and keep voting Red than any other scenario.
At a gut level this seems more likely to me. The Democrats made a Faustian bargain embracing DEI for power and Satan will come to collect. The octogenarian boomers wield enough institutional power to stay put until they retire or die, but the hyper-competent millennials who should replace them can't stand up to all the psychotic "squad" types who are salivating to get their hand on the button.
I suppose a measure of hopium could be imbibed from the idea that once the Tech Right is strong enough to consolidate power, they'll start to purge the reprobates that the EHC crowd goes on about. The chuds will complain, but there won't be anything they can do about it.
The Squad gaining power is the result of Millennials more than Boomers. Younger voters are more socialist and less pro Israel than the boomers. Of course, it’s Boomers’ fault that happened, but Millennials have already found enough voting power to put some of their own in Congress, and their representatives are worse than anything the Boomers seem to have voted for.
I’m not suggesting that I would switch parties immediately. Democrats would have to fundamentally reverse their outlook on tax policy to fill the role that Republicans would abandon in that hypothetical you proposed. But ideas based on “raising taxes on the 1%” are usually based on the idea that high incomes and wealth are undeserved, that such wealth should be punished, and that the rich should be their brother’s keeper.
All those views underpin communism, which I intended to vote against, so if the GOP adopts those tenets, it would rather defeat their purpose in being a party at all.
No. Read my actual post. Only by raising taxes would I switch and ONLY if the Democrats reverse course on that tax the rich philosophy you’re decrying. We’re on the same side here.
Richard Hanania has become a special target of excoriation, because that's that happens to heretics who have fallen away from their former doctrinal allegiance. Additionally, he's an articulate writer. His most persistent critics try to dismiss everything he's written since his departure from the True Trumpist Faith by picking apart his occasional weak points, as if that serves to discredit every word out of his Heretic mouth.
This also kind of parallels how the Democratic party went from being partially a southern racist party to the anti-racist entity it is today.
I am absolutely willing to debate Hanania on the facts. He just blocked me.
Hey Dave I'll gladly debate you but maybe I don't confer as many social status points as the Big Guy
"MAGA has transcended the milquetoast mannerisms of mainline Christianity, and has even surpassed the apocalyptic snake-handling of Evangelicals. MAGA is full-blown White Sharia."
I think Hanania and you both have this tendency to use "MAGA" and "dissident right", or even the "white nationalist" right, interchangeably. The average boomer MAGA cult loyalist is far from being a white nationalist or even a Christian nationalist.
Ironically, it's the Christian/white nationalist right (apart from the BAP/Yarvin sphere) that is maybe the most critical of Trump.
they are inter-related phenomena.
I like that the terms are becoming increasingly interchangeable.
Wow based my criticism was of Banania was ignored 🧲💯🚀
I quoted you and linked to your article; very prissy
yet you didn’t address the argument
As a lifelong Democrat, I always longed for my party to be Rockefeller Republicans. Now I'm getting what I want, and it's a complete nightmare.
I'm skeptical Hannania is the future of the party, because he's explicitly, vehemently racist, and I have trouble seeing the party that commands the overwhelming majority of minority votes turning back on that. Even if minorities migrate to the Republican Party (even in 2024, they overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, and they are the most disillusioned with Trump's first 100 days), I don't see Democratic elites regressing on racism. While Hanania's explicit sexism is less advertised, that seems like an even bigger problem, given that women are not only Democrats, but becoming markedly more so every cycle.
I also don't know if "Rockefeller Republicans" are a big enough coalition to win the presidency and the Senate. Our geographic distribution is poor.
That being said, Hanania used to be a hate-follow for me on Twitter, and now I subscribe to his Substack. His paeans to smug liberals like myself are deeply validating.
Vehement racism doesn't describe Hanania's views. You're misinterpreting my hyperbolic statement and not reading the context of the words that I am writing.
You're on the money. Hanania hates anyone who has an IQ below 115, and could care less if they starved. As someone on the right I hope he becomes the avatar of Democratic policy. He loves democracy but his ideology has no chance in a democratic system.
I think you underestimate the personal, which is that many people also hate him because he's just personally a very unpleasant person. Every story I've heard from anyone who has interacted with him has been deeply negative in ways that have nothing to do with politics.
I think that does manifest in the "self-serving nihilism" thing that other comments have mentioned.
Hanania is vile, not just in his past but even in his present, he mocked the United health CEO for being “unattractive” and “overweight” days after he had just been gunned down. His delights in the suffering of Gazans in a way that would make most hardcore Zionist’s wince. It is clear that there has been no moral evolution in him since his days writing under a pseudonym, even if his actual beliefs have changed he is still objectively an awful person.
what I find ironic is the right-wingers who moralize when they gleefully spam the n-word in my comments. Not sure if you can see the irony.
What a bizarre non-sequitur. Also Hanania thinks black people are literal sub-humans but you want to defend his honor because his fellow racists/eugenicists also don’t like him, whatever have fun doing that
You have an odd collection of sacred cows. I couldn't tell if you were a far leftist against fat shaming, or a far-right antisemite. Your style of communication makes it hard to tell because you emulate the hysterical stupidity of both.