All Episodes
Previous
Nov. 12, 2025 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
57:48
IVF, Jeffrey Epstein, & Elite Human Capital

Thank you Nathan, Luke Croft, Yusri, Herodias, Napollyon, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'll look at the sub-second because I'll see the note of E.
All right, everyone.
Welcome in.
I hope we're live on Snipstack.
Am I?
Ah, we are live on Substack.
Wow.
Awesome.
It actually worked.
It worked.
Wow.
Well, yeah.
So I hope everyone can join in.
And so we have a special guest, Richard Hanania.
How are you doing, Richard?
Good to be back.
Doing good, Richard.
I'm just in the midst of, let me share this on social media because now I have a link within, oh, I can get on Twitter.
Got both the Richardson for streaming on IVF, Epstein, and liberal Zionists.
Maybe H-1B.
Yeah, I wanted to start on racial matters.
Okay.
Along with, I'll put the tag.
RFH always gets a big, a lot of people on Twitter interested in RFH.
So just okay, there.
Now.
She's universally beloved.
Yes.
You know, very innocent.
Yes.
Well, Richard, first off, you seem to have fully switched sides at this point.
You are a card-carrying Democrat.
You voted for Donald Trump, which is interesting for understandable reasons.
But this is, I guess, what I make of it is that, first off, there are some policies that might very well bother you, the tariffs and so on.
But my sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, is really about elite human capital in the sense that non-elite human capital is accumulating in MAGA.
And even if it's not directly affecting policy, it will at some point.
And at the very least, the MAGA media sphere is so embarrassing that it's difficult to want to be a part of this team.
Am I right about that?
And you can certainly expand or correct me.
I mean, we could, yeah, we could talk about policies.
You're right.
But the idea is like, I've seen this for a while.
I've seen what's going on with right-wing media.
I see, you know, you look at the top podcasts in the country news podcast, New York Times, NPR, Tucker, and Candace.
I mean, this is not a right-left thing.
What's interesting between those categories is not one is more conservative, one believes at a lower marginal tax rate than the other, right?
One category is like real news and where serious human beings gather to share information.
And another is just kind of crazy people.
And, you know, like there's a kind of zombie Reaganism that is still there that I think has some good policy ideas that does good things at the state level, like make housing affordable and keep taxes low.
I mean, you know, that's good stuff.
You know, at the same time, we're getting to a place where you, you know, it is, it isn't infecting policy and it's getting worse over time.
Like I thought the Maha thing, I thought Trump would toss RFK to the side after the election.
We have, I just saw this morning, there's a Maha conference where Vance is speaking and he's like, well, you know, I don't like to take Tylenol.
Sometimes my back will hurt, but there's no reason to take medicine when we don't need it.
I mean, he's just like, it's just so overwhelming.
This thing is just kind of swipe, you know, a tidal wave on the right.
The party is becoming overtaken.
There's this human capital educational polarization more than there is a right left thing.
And I don't know, like in five, 10 years, what, what?
What policies, what are these people going to be doing, right?
What kind of crazy things will they believe in five, 10 years?
There's no like natural limit here.
There's no Pope.
There's no William F. Buckley here to kick the Berchers out of it.
You know, who's going to tell Tucker or Candice or Joe Rogan or their audience that they're out of their minds, right?
This could spiral and get much, much worse.
So I'm just looking at kind of what's happened to the American right.
I think it's not going in someplace good.
And it needs to, you know, it needs to fix this.
I don't know how it fixes.
Maybe it needs to be politically destroyed and then something needs to emerge from the ashes.
But I don't see much reason to be optimistic here.
Yes, I feel like policymakers are responding to the online sphere and influencers and podcasters, et cetera, in a way that I don't think we've ever seen previously.
I think we might have actually crossed a Rubicon for better and for worse.
I mean, you could say that this is great.
It's democratic.
They're responding to the people.
I think you would say that this is absolutely for the worst.
There's a lot of pandering directly to the online right from official government accounts.
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE and all that are the most dramatic.
They're making like fash wave bath sphere edits circa 2017, but it's coming from the government this time.
I mean, it's truly a remarkable situation.
But yeah, I think the Tylenol thing was an absolute disgrace.
And I think it directly showed influence from those people towards policymakers.
It seemed like, obviously, politicians always pander, but their pandering is different than in some ways being channeled by the media.
I mean, I think it's genuinely a new thing.
I don't think you can look back on the 20th century and see the influence of grassroots people affecting politicians in the way that that's occurring now.
So I think what you're getting at is very real.
And I don't think we've seen the worst from the Maha crowd or the Tucker crowd or so on.
I mean, is Trump going to investigate chemtrails?
I mean, I think he almost has to if this trend is going to continue.
The EPA administrator said that they were going to look into it, actually.
So they're ahead of you.
Yeah.
The things that you think are going to happen soon have already happened.
Yeah, there was one after the Charlie Kirk assassination, Patel was on Twitter talking about basically like signaling to these like Candace Owens people who think TPUSA was in on it, basically saying, you know, well, we'll turn every rock and we'll see what's going on here.
The Epstein thing, it's funny because they stepped on the rake with this one.
They're like Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, we're going to get to the bottom of this.
And then Trump was like, wait a minute, this is just all about me.
And then they had to backtrack.
And you're right.
No, it is, it is, you're right.
Democratic is the right word.
This is the perfection of democracy.
Politicians have always pandered.
It's the question is who are they pandering to?
They're pandering to, I don't know, some kind of community leader who has some kind of organic support or maybe like a trade group or some ethnic group or something.
This is, this is literally who leaves the most comments?
Who has the most likes and retweets?
It's who gets dunked on by the biggest influencers who gets pushed around by them.
Yeah, there's never been anything like this.
There's never been just a direct line from what the people think to their elected representatives.
It's overwhelmingly, it could have been both sides, but it's overwhelmingly concentrated on the right.
I mean, the left, you'll find some examples of this, but the right is kind of the people who are very online or less irregular people, while the left still has like scientists and like journalists that they actually listen to.
Oh, the left, the liberals are listening to NPR and the New York Times daily podcast, which I listen to every morning.
Yeah, you might listen to if you're like a, you know, a serious human being.
You wouldn't listen to Tucker and like get anthropological curiosity.
Yeah.
No, I would hate listen or listen to him ironically to examine what he's doing as an anthropologist or something, but no, I would not take him seriously.
And so you have the liberals who are sort of, you know, on the one hand, but then on the other hand, and, you know, are these facts contested?
Let's get to the bottom of it.
And then you have Tucker Chemtrails.
Like it really is a stark divide.
And I agree with you.
It goes beyond left to right.
Do you think that Vance might accelerate this?
Because just thinking back, like the history of the alt-right or the dissident right, we projected onto Trump, like he was a screen and so many things could be projected upon him.
Like he's a fascist.
He's the next George Washington.
He's like an anime hero.
He's a god emperor.
Like a lot of fantasy was projected onto him like a screen.
With someone like JD Vance, the natural successor to Donald Trump, it seems to be the reverse.
He seems to desperately like try to repeat things he saw on Twitter.
And he might, you mentioned before we went on air, you mentioned Rob Dreer or Dreer, who I've known for 15 or 20 years or I've known of at the very least.
And he's he seems to like go, Rob Dreer seems to pick a new religion every about four or five years.
Like he's an evangelical Christian.
He's a Catholic.
He's an Orthodox.
You see a little bit of that with Vance as well, who changed religions.
But also it's like, you know, he's a liberal millennial white Obama.
And then he's like a mainstream neocon, or he was a neocon first, I guess, with From.
He was a neocon, and then he's a mainstream neocon, and then he's pro-Trump, and then he's the religious right, and then he's post-liberal, and then he's like a Twitter shit poster of some time, and then he's anti-Ukraine.
He doesn't really seem to have a core.
And whereas fantasies were projected onto Trump, it's almost like JD Vance is a fantasizer himself.
Like he takes on a new meme or way of thinking every three or four months.
That's just my read of him.
So I think it's going to get worse, actually.
Yeah.
I mean, I think that's probably right.
Trump is kind of a limit to their craziness.
I mean, we see this all the time.
We see Trump talking about, oh, the Chinese students are great.
Oh, the vaccine, you know, worked.
I mean, he'll say stuff and they'll push back on him.
You can't imagine like Vance has, you know, some of these people really have had their brains melted by the internet.
Like, I think when Vance was picked as the vice presidential nominee, like these kind of like red scare types, like just not just them, but like people of that type, people who have like, you know, this just like highly partisan worldview that they pretend to be like actually cool, but they're just kind of partisans.
They love Vance.
They see him as one of them because he thinks like them.
He's mind-melded with them.
Like if somebody, some Nazi, you know, some Nazi group chat comes out, Vance's first instinct is the same as everything.
oh, he's a kid.
And look at what they did with Russia Gate.
I mean, it's just this kind of like hollow, whataboutism, always ready to hit back, never acknowledging a point, always having this partisan line.
And so I think he is like, he's probably convinced himself like to be, you know, to be one of these people.
And like, you know, I don't know if he's like, you know, who knows?
He's a good, he's a good politician.
He's smart.
He could, 2028, he could realize that it's his best interest to triangulate against Fuedz and Tucker and try to be a president and maybe become a moderate guy, maybe because circumstances change.
I think he's kind of a chameleon and he could change under those circumstances.
Or maybe he's just kind of, his brain has been fossilized by like 2019, 2020 internet memes.
He's just going to be like this post-liberal based guy, regardless of what happens.
I don't know.
I think the first scenario is more likely.
But the, you know, the second scenario of him becoming kind of assimilated back into the elites is also possible.
And in that case, he's going to have a real, real problem with his right flank.
Absolutely.
So you mentioned Epstein a little bit back, and I did want to bring him up.
We were thinking about talking about IVF, but let me go to something very different than that.
So we've had this shutdown, and we now, Congress is back.
Thank goodness the government is here to help us.
And it's back, but they have to, they released interesting emails that seem to indicate that Trump knew exactly what was going on.
They also show Michael Wolf, this famed journalist and fixer type, I guess, who has been podcasting about Epstein back for a year with Vanity Fair or something.
I've listened to a few of those that he was sort of helping out Epstein as a spin doctor of sorts.
There are just a lot of very interesting tidbits that are coming out.
Now, you're sort of colleagues or friends at the very least with Michael Tracy.
He has gone very hard against what he calls the Epstein mythos.
And how would you represent what he's doing and maybe give us a sense of your perspective on what this actually was?
Yeah.
So I'm pretty much at the same place where Michael is on this.
So his belief is that, okay, Jeffrey Epstein was a guy who made a lot of money.
And Michael doesn't take a position on how he made his money because that's something people, at least last time I talked to him about it.
He liked young girls, young women.
He wasn't always carding them to see, make sure that they were over 18.
He had some kind of, you know, they gave him massages and so forth.
He doesn't think there's any evidence.
And I think this is right that there was trafficking in the sense that, you know, for put aside like to get to spy on Israel or something, in the sense that they were, they had sex with any men who were not Epstein through Epstein, people who were under 18, right?
And so you can go into the claims of these women and it's, it's remarkable.
Like some of them are like, you know, they stayed in contact with him for 10 years and then they decided they had been abused.
Some of them are just, you know, fabulous.
Like one is Virginia Gouffrey, who was the big one who is, I think, the main person who says I was trafficked to this person and that person was sued by Alan Dershowitz.
She had to admit that basically that it didn't happen.
She says she misremembered someone else.
So basically went to court, didn't hold up.
There's not, I mean, there's not much there.
She was 17 when she met Epstein.
I think she was, I don't know if it's been confirmed.
She was actually with Prince Andrew, but she was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom, which is, which is 16.
And so there's really once you strip away, once you take away these claims from these women who a lot of them had a real, real financial interest, like when this, when this thing came out, basically you could go to like whichever bank, JP Morgan, and be like, you dealt with a sex trafficker, right?
Okay, they're all like, okay, here's a big pot of money, right?
Let's like, you know, show your claim to be a victim.
You get that money.
So there's a huge, there's a huge incentive in terms of financial interest for these women to get money.
Nobody is questioning.
Nobody is checking these claims.
When you do dig into some of these claims, they fall apart.
And basically, like, this is, this is a paido moral panic.
Like how few pedophiles there are in the world that like people like having sex with 17 year old girls is like something that like overturns our entire politics.
So I'm with Michael.
I don't, I think that these accuser, I think it's a moral panic.
I think he might have had sexual contact with people under 18.
I don't think there was a larger conspiracy.
And I think most of these supposed victims are cashing in.
Well, Pam Bondi at one point at a press conference said that the reason why she can't release the Epstein files is that she has, I'm trying to do a Pam Bondi impression.
She's rather breathless and often, you know, there are videos of Jeffrey Epstein abusing children, child porn.
And we need to go through every minute of these before we release.
It was a very odd statement because it seemed to be conflating what was happening with something that is more obviously criminal, which are just actual pedophiles and child abusers and things like this.
That's sort of an open and shut case in terms of is this wrong or not.
And she seemed to be conflating that.
Yeah, I think they just, they like, you know, they don't have a high opinion of their mega audience, but even like their opinion might have been, they still, they still might have underestimated them because when Pam Bondi brings them in, brings in like Jack Pesobic and lips of TikTok and says, here's the finders.
And like, she thinks they're so dumb, like anything she gives them, they'll be like, whoa, thank you, ma'am.
You know, we're insiders now.
And like even they realize this was stuff that was already released.
She didn't do the basic, she just thinks they're idiots that you're going to play to.
And it's kind of backfired on her.
So like what Pam Bondi is saying at like different points of time, I just think she's probably not thinking too much about Epstein, like until it blew up into a thing and then thought she could just say whatever she wanted and whatever sounded good in the moment.
And then it kind of all blew up because these people really care about Epstein.
Yes.
And I don't think what she was claiming actually occurred, but it still is begging the question of what it actually was.
Is your position, which is a reasonable, plausible position, that it was basically just Wall Street, rich people, sex parties?
It's not that different from middle class or working class people going to Cancun and engaging in similar behavior.
There was no there there.
Or because it also like Michael Tracy has brought some skepticism towards the idea that this was a child trafficking pedophile ring.
And I think he makes some excellent points and pushback.
And I think a lot of people are afraid to push back because it's almost like you're endorsing what's happening.
And so you just basically nod your head when any claim is made.
That being said, there's another question.
And for me, that's the only question I'm interested in is what was it all about?
Was it just fun?
Or because Tracy also seems to push back on the idea that it was a blackmail ring.
And there are all of these, these have been published in the New York Times.
So it must be true, but there are all these cameras in his New York home.
When some of the people, I'm forgetting his name at the moment, when the person first worked on this, they opened a closet and discovered hard drives and material.
So was he just a pervert?
And I mean, I have cameras filming.
I mean, a lot of people have cameras in their home these days.
I mean, it's a pretty common thing, especially if you're a rich person and you have security.
It's not a hidden camera in your bedroom.
I mean, you have that.
I mean, have kids.
Yeah.
We have like nanny cams and stuff.
And there's.
Oh, we're not talking about a nanny cam here.
No, like you have a burglar, you have alarm system.
You might worry about someone breaking in.
You might, someone might just steal your stuff.
I don't know.
Like, it's like not that shocking.
Like, it's not that crazy to have a camera, you know, in a bedroom.
Like, it's not that insane.
Okay.
So you don't think it was a blackmail ring.
That, that is the idea.
No, I see.
There's weird things.
Like Jeffrey Epstein, like there's one where he kind of sounds like he's trying to blackmail Bill Gates, or there's an email where he's like, you know, I know about your girl, something like that, just something implying that he knows about his extramarital affair.
There's a few things that seem weird like that.
But the thing that got people spun up and like, this is a Zionist, you know, conspiracy to silence critics of Israel or blackmail them, that all comes from like this one crazy woman, Virginia Gufray.
And I think there's one or two others who are, you know, literally out of their minds.
And so, yeah, I don't know why you would, why you would think that.
Like, what is there when you take away the kind of claims of crazy women?
What else is there?
Well, I, I, what else is there is what exactly was going on.
Why is it that Alan Dershowitz and Bill Gates and Donald Trump and Steven Pinker are all because he's a rich guy and like a rich guy says, come to my party and there are girls and like, you know, there's other famous people there.
People will go to that party.
I would go to that party.
That's not right.
He had a lot of money and wanted to be a socialite.
And yeah, I get it.
So I interviewed Deep Left, who has a substack and I would encourage people to check him out at the very least.
And he made a very interesting argument.
And I felt like it brought the puzzle pieces together because that was one thing that I would often say about Epstein is, you know, what is it?
What exactly is going on is going on here?
Is it a mossad spiring?
You know, at one point, he was interested in fertility, basically like a like almost Nazi eugenics program of like rich elite people impregnating all these, you know, women and so on.
But that didn't go anywhere.
Jeffrey Epstein himself died childless.
And he made a compelling case, which is that the people who were brought to the island, they weren't just rich people.
They were liberal Zionist types.
And what he means by that is that they are certainly Zionists.
They support Israel at the end of the day.
However, they don't like the settlements in the West Bank.
They wouldn't like the bombardment of Gaza.
They wouldn't like outright seizure of the West Bank.
They're not the Likud, greater Israel religious fanatic types.
And they actually see those people as harming the interest of Israel, which I think is a quite more than plausible notion that basically you let Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition get their hands on power and they are going to make Israel look horrible.
They're going to create perhaps regional nuclear war.
They're going to destroy Israel ironically by being its greatest supporters.
And so, what we actually need is a two-state solution, removal of settlements in the West Bank, etc.
And that these were the people.
So, you see, like Ehud Barak, Steven Pinker, I mentioned earlier, Dershowitz is a little bit of a Steven Pinker's noted for for being a liberal Zionist.
I don't know.
He's not known for being a liberal Zionist, but he is a liberal Zionist.
Well, everyone elites, if you just hung out with elites, you throw a rock.
Like, most of them will be liberal Zionists of one form or another.
I mean, that was like the same position of the time.
Fair enough, but let me just put it out there.
So, what he was suggesting is that the origin of the Epstein scandal and Trump's first term was basically Lakudites being like, Hey, why don't you look into Ehud Barak, our political adversary, and all this Epstein stuff?
And it's sort of blown up in their face in the sense that Trump was roped into all this.
And so, it was basically a way of team building.
It wasn't blackmail.
Like, do we have any evidence of someone being blackmailed by the Epstein ring?
I mean, maybe we wouldn't have evidence because it would all be done secretly, but it was more about team building.
It was like a Wall Street drug and sex party for these types of people to get everyone on the same page so that they could pursue their perception of Israel's best interest.
I mean, it's a story.
I mean, you know, I like Deep Left.
I encourage people to read a substack.
He has some good insights.
You know, it's a story you could tell.
Is there evidence for it?
What's the evidence that a lot of these people were liberal Zionists?
Okay, in 2000, 2010, you were a rich elite Jew.
You were probably a liberal Zionist or someone who was in politics.
The idea that you need some explanation, like Nanyahu was like, go after, you know, Ehud Barak.
I don't think that's necessary because this all happened during Me Too.
And Me Too was just a case where we went through like every single man who'd ever had an accusation, basically, you know, Bill Cosby, stuff that was decades old came up, you know, R. Kelly, like there's, you know, famous people, Harvey Weinstein.
A lot of people ended up in jail over this.
And so it was kind of natural that people would look at the Jeffrey Epstein case, which had been known and kind of been thought about and written about before.
And so there was this big piece in, I think, in the Miami newspaper in 2018, 2019.
I don't think you need an explanation of like Trump said, you know, I think that Trump at the time, also his health secretary was Acosta, who was the guy who ended up getting blamed for giving Epstein the deal.
So like immediately there would be some political risk of Trump bringing this thing up.
And then Trump himself was always, you know, was always the closest person to Epstein of all these famous people that we know of.
And so like, it's a story.
It's a fun story.
But like, you know, there's other explanations for what's happened.
Okay.
Do you want to jump in on this, RFH?
I mean, whether or not it's blackmail and all these other sort of theories, I just, I think there's something sinister about very wealthy men bringing 17-year-old girls to parties, even if it is above the age of consent.
So from a feminist point of view, I still do find it very scandalous.
I would not deny that Epstein is problematic from a feminist point of view.
Yeah. Yes.
Um, okay.
So.
So I'll just to tie a bow on this, do you think this might be the magic bullet that somehow ends the Trump presidency?
You know, it looks like.
Yeah, go ahead, finish.
Well, precisely because of this, because he got away with grab them by the pussy stuff and all of that stuff is water well under the bridge.
The difference here is that it's a wild conspiracy theory that his own people love.
So when it's just like bad policies or bad behavior, his people can just be like, ugh, they can shrug.
Who cares?
But when it's their own thing, when QAnon turns on Trump, that's when the dynamic changes and this actually brings him down.
Yeah, it looked like that.
This had a lot of momentum at one point.
I don't know.
It's like these emails that just got released today, they weren't even emails.
They were like snippets of a conversation.
And there was one, you know, it was like one, one, you couldn't even tell what the quote meant because it was so weird.
I sent it to, like I had it here.
Is it one email Mr. Epstein wrote to Mr. Wolf?
Of course he knew about the girls as he asked Jelaine to stop.
I don't know what that means.
As he asked, like, we don't even know what the context of this is.
It's just like a sentence fragment that makes no sense in its own terms.
And then Republicans, I just saw that New York Times headline.
I wasn't able to read it.
They released their own, you know, their own thing.
So maybe there's like some snippet of like Bill Clinton, you know, whatever, high-fiving Gaddafi or something like that.
And it's just kind of, it's like, it's such a stupid thing.
It's like, if I like, we know that he was around these people.
There's always going to be new stuff that comes out.
There's going to be emails mentioning Trump and maybe Bill Clinton and Bill Gates and so on.
The funniest, I think the funniest one, I don't know if anything will top the birthday letter.
Yeah, I was going to ask, what do you make of that weird letter?
Yeah, this one I disagreed with Tracy about because it was, he, he, he put like this like story where it's like, you know, age is just a number, Jeffrey.
You're an ignorant, you're an enigma.
You never, you never age.
We share our secrets together.
It's like some, it's like that level.
It's like you couldn't, if you thought there was an inside joke of them like having sex with young girls, like that, that's what you would write.
It's like perfectly scripted to be that.
I don't know what else it would be.
Now, does that mean underaged girls?
It doesn't imply that they were underage.
It doesn't imply they were 14 or 15.
They probably liked, you know, ribbing each other and they liked 18 and 19 year old girls.
And, you know, Trump liked it.
He would say stuff about 13s and 14 year olds back on like Howard Sturd in those days.
So does that mean that they had, you know, they had sexual relations with underage girls?
I don't know.
But at least they were like, you know, the Trump thing is much closer to what these conspiracy tards think it is than any other person.
Like there's no, nothing of Bill Gates like writing, you know, writing letters to Epstein saying, you know, we share the secret.
There's nothing like that.
And so, yeah, I mean, they were Trump and him were, you know, buddies.
They were into the same stuff, obviously.
You know, what else is there?
I don't know.
Like, if is there going to be anything else released that gives us anything beyond that?
Anything connected to, like, look for something connected to intelligence, connected to Israel, connected to underage girls, connected to trafficking, connected to bribery.
Like, okay, like they're going through the files, like give us whatever in there that's, that's, that's something beyond, you know, Trump and Epstein like underage girls, which we know and which we'll see more evidence for, I'm sure.
Yeah, I think the letter, because they're being so like they're implying a lot there.
They're not just coming out and saying it.
I think the implication is pretty clear that the girls are underage.
That's my read of it.
Is that other, I don't know.
Otherwise, you're just going to kind of laugh like, haha, don't we love 19 year olds?
Yeah.
Because that's not illegal.
There's no reason to really hide that, especially when you're that wealthy and this is like 20 years ago or something.
Woman looked more like a girl as well.
Then, yeah, you know, if I were to, when I heard the letter described, I imagined, you know, a curvaceous female form, hourglass, but it sort of looked like a not pre-pubescent, pubescent girl.
Just verging on what you will.
That could just be chalked up to the model artist.
Yeah, I like seeing the model look.
Maybe they don't like the curvaceous look.
I think maybe that's what Trump and Epstein were into.
Yeah, it's Trump is a kind of like secret gay man.
Like he's a very sassy heterosexual.
So he agrees with the gays and their female preferences, which is boyish.
Yeah.
Who knows?
It's kind of hard to, I mean, it's kind of hard to imagine Trump like appreciating.
I mean, obviously, he's had kids.
I'm not saying he doesn't have a sex drive or something like that, but it's like kind of hard to imagine him like appreciating a woman other than like, I'm Donald Trump.
Like, here's my supermodel wife.
Like, I just think it's the most, you know, just completely unable to connect to people at that level.
Yes.
There's a scene in Maggie Haberman's biography of Trump where he was in Atlantic City and he got out of a limousine and he told all of his friends, this is what a perfect 10 looks like.
And he brought out Marla Maples.
And I do, yes, I do think he might very well be a psychopath who quite literally sees other human beings as objects.
Just a suggestion, perhaps.
Well, yeah, he's a Gemini.
So Gemini.
Astrology.
Okay.
Not all Gemini.
I would just.
Why are you being defensive?
Well, I don't know.
I am a bit of a Taurus.
I'm kind of a bull that goes after people, stubborn.
I mean, it makes some sense.
You have a lot of Taurus qualities.
It's real.
That's fair enough.
You believe in this stuff?
Whether or not it's real.
It's fun.
Was that to me or?
No, that was, I assumed you were.
I assumed to me.
You do too.
I don't know.
Yeah, that was my sexism.
Well, I mean, it's sort of, I don't know.
Yeah.
I mean, there was some experiment where a psychology class, a person, the teacher gave them all note cards and it had these very seemingly insightful, but very vague statements about their personality.
Like, you overcame a trauma in childhood and learned to appreciate the struggle.
Like it just, just things like that.
And they handed these cards to people.
And the teacher or the instructor said, oh, yeah, we had a astrologer come and do a reading of each of you.
And he came up with this little, you know, 50-word snippet.
And this is who you are exactly.
And all of the students were just amazed.
They're like, he knows me.
He nailed it.
This is me.
And then the instructor said, please pass the note card to the person to your right.
And it was the same statement.
So they all, like all hundred people got the exact same wording.
But if you can word it in a sort of vague way, you're like, yeah, I am a Gemini.
I get it.
Yeah.
Well, let me really quick defend it in a way that'll kind of appeal to both of you here.
Because you've had this take before, Richard Spencer.
Sorry, it's confusing.
You're both Richard.
That, you know, there needs to be a certain amount of like moralizing or whatever in society.
I think maybe people need a certain outlet for their quote racism or like prejudice.
And if Hanania, if you feel that racism, real racism is really bad, then maybe astrology is kind of a better way to get that impulse out.
That's a, you know, it's a relatively cynical.
Let the girls have their fun little life race.
Maybe it's a rival, rivalry for the demons.
You've been paying attention to the demons people on Twitter.
Seems much, it seems like the people who believe in demons have deep psychological problems.
Well, yeah.
So would you rather have Tucker talking about a demon attacking him in the middle of the night or like looking at a sign and yeah, thinking the songs or Democrat women being like, oh, he's such a Gemini, he sucks.
Like, I think it's, I think it's telling that dens kind of prefer astrology and right-wingers prefer demons.
I rarely see these right-wing women, these ethos.
I really rarely see them talking about demons.
Every time I think of someone speaking about demons on Twitter, it's always a right-wing male.
Maybe it's females.
Maybe demons are too scary for women.
I don't know.
I haven't seen one, even though they buy into other right-wing BS.
Interesting.
That is true.
It seems to be a very male phenomenon, the demon thing.
Yeah.
Because he wrestled with a demon.
Who wrestled?
You know, Tucker Carlson.
I mean, it's undoubtedly correct what he said.
I mean, he was like Jacob and the angel.
I mean, he wrestled with the demon and came out the other side, a new man.
He was inspired to read the Bible immediately, and then he opened up his shirt and he had scratch marks.
Yeah.
I mean, I believe it.
His wife was clearly trying to kill him.
Yeah.
Only she'd gotten away with it.
Okay.
Let's move on to a little more of a serious issue because I was curious about your thoughts in this matter.
And that is IVF, embryo selection writ large and this whole issue basically of reproduction beyond the traditional sexual union and so on.
Now, perhaps I simply have some romantic capital R and lowercase R, romantic hang-ups about IVF.
It gives me the ick and I'm being irrational, but I can at least make some logical arguments against it.
And I would be curious to hear your responses.
So IVF emerged in the 70s, and it was actually a woman whose fallopian tubes were blocked in some way.
And they were able to create this, you know, a Petri dish baby, a test tube baby.
And so there were problems just with the mechanics of a woman's reproductive system and they were able to overcome it.
But here's the problem is that the journey of the sperm to the egg is evolved in a way that I don't think we fully appreciate.
The journey of that sperm is something like Odysseus's journey home after the Trojan War.
Like it, it can take wrong turns and get lost and just die there.
The immune system is attacking it.
I mean, it millions of sperm go in and maybe like a dozen are near the egg.
I mean, it's sort of an incredible thing.
And not only that, the egg seems to select the sperm in a way that we don't quite understand.
Maybe it is random, but maybe we don't fully understand it.
And so there's all of this selection that is going on in that process.
With in a petri dish with an egg and a sperm, you are originally kind of pouring sperm onto the egg.
And I think now there's a way that they can inject sperm.
I think you might very well have seen this video that was all over Twitter of these like, this is horrible, these like nanobots like bringing the sperm and putting it into the egg.
So this is my very strong take here is that millions of years of evolution is more intelligent than your science.
You don't know what you are doing.
You are very likely going to be engaging in malselection of sperm.
You're, you know, the evolved system is going to pick out the best sperm, the top athlete, maybe the luckiest to be fair, but the greatest sperm survives and millions die.
You go into these labs and who knows?
You just randomly select a sperm and it gets in there.
And so we're losing this accumulation of intelligence that went into reproduction.
And we're putting forth this.
So first off, do you, what do you think of this like sort of initial critique of IVF that it is dysgenic in effect?
It's dysgenic on the level of sperm selection.
So there's some, look, so if the so there are some people who are big boosters of this technology, who are big boosters of IVF and embryo selection, who say that basically like you should just stop breeding the old-fashioned way.
Everyone should just do IVF and then we'll like get you your predicted IQ and your predicted disease burden of the person and then pick the best one.
Now, for your argument, I think you're right.
I think that there's too much we don't know.
So if you can reproduce naturally, go ahead and reproduce naturally.
You might get a few IQ points, maybe.
It's like, it's very hard to know if this is, you know, like they have these models and they haven't run the experiments.
We haven't seen kids grow up and, you know, some of them were embryo selected and some of them are.
So we don't, we don't have, we don't have good evidence.
There's GWAS studies where big data with they try to predict stuff from your genome.
That's that science is kind of disputed, but I think you're, I think you're right on this.
And so I would not, I would not do IVF for people who are able to conceive natural, unless maybe you have some kind of genetic disability.
If you have, you know, some Huntington's disease or something, one of those things that might get passed on.
Sure, do it in that case if you're high risk for something.
The case of most people who are getting IVF though are not doing that.
They're people who would not reproduce.
Now, if they're genes.
It's not a big problem.
I mean, we'll be able to do that.
Don't you think the liberal, like liberal?
These are smart people with money.
If you're worried about the dysgenics, this is the least of your problems.
Maybe they will all come out and all have IQs like, you know, the mountains of Appalachia, maybe.
I think there's been enough IVF people on board that like, even if you are IVF, if you have two upper class parents and they had you, your life is probably going to be okay.
Like we should look at that evidence.
And so.
Well, I get that, but what, what is wrong with you?
If you are some smart elite human capital working at a law firm, what is wrong with you that you can't conceive?
Well, some people have, some people have medical.
I mean, i'm sorry, I I mean not to be a total jerk here, but like I mean, isn't there more to being a successful human being beyond just Iq?
And if we keep allowing these weak nerds to do this, we're going to end up generation upon generation of this compounding interest of fertility treatment.
We are gonna end up with people who can't even they can't like to be as blunt about it as possible.
What in the hell is wrong with you if you can't do that?
And three generations down the line, we're gonna have some crippled nerd race.
I mean, I think it's just a terrible thing.
I think it should be banned.
To be honest, we will have the crippled nerd yes, compounding interest.
Their children are going to use Ivf too.
They're going to think the same way.
They're going to have the same mechanical problems as their parents.
They're going to think like their parents because of heritability and it's just going to compound.
But we have this with everything we have.
Three generations of imbeciles are we have.
We have dumb people and defective people.
And you know the guy who has a low sperm count and is like a successful, you know businessman or something i'm not worried about okay, he has a low sperm count.
Maybe he's not good in bed, maybe his next generation won't be right.
If you're worried about people who are having kids, like there are people with much worse, socially undesirable traits who are having lots of kids.
So like, start from there.
If this is a problem, we'll, we'll eventually realize it.
I mean it won't be that long.
We'll see that, like they did.
Three generations of Ivf oh my god, you could tell this guy's got, you know, something really really wrong with him.
If that turns out to be the Oliver Wendell Holmes of like 2100, three generations of nerds, it's more than enough.
I don't know nerds.
I mean I don't know if that's like even true that they're just like nerds.
Like I don't know, they're just kind of it seems that way.
What is the point of existence if it's not reproduction?
You can't.
It's like, do you struggle?
Breathing too, like is, is walking a problem for you?
Like, why can't you ask me, like it's the choice?
These people i'm not, i'm not, i'm directing this at you, of course.
I mean you in the general sense.
I'm talking to these, these nerds who are spending tens of thousands of dollars.
Some people have low spur, some people could just as good as you Richard, they have just have low sperm counts or the woman can't get pregnant.
It's not.
You're taking it seriously doubt you're taking.
You're taking it as like an indication of, like you know, male potency, or like a poetic like well yeah fertility yes, a vital sign.
It's a signal of your overall health.
Why are all, why are we helping all these sick people by three different women?
They are the pinnacle of humanity.
Well I, I understand that criticism and i'm, and i'm thinking of idiocracy, with the guy who like, impaled his genitals on a gate after jumping Ojetsky into a swimming pool and they say, like I and he's had like 12 kids.
I get it, but isn't there something to the fact that that idiot is vitalistic?
Yeah, I can, I give it to you.
Do you understand like, even if he is like a total just buffoon, i'll grant you that, but like he, he has the life force flowing through him and that is something it is.
It is something Yeah, it is something.
And I mean, whatever.
I mean, it is, you know, you're acting, you know, there is like a thing is just like numbers and like being agnostic and waiting and seeing what happens.
You know, if 95% of kids were born IVF, I would say, you know, what are we doing here?
If it's like a few percentage of like people who can afford it and who are rich and who are well off and seem to have okay outcomes, like whatever.
If there's, if there's a, you know, if there's a bad effect down the line, you know, that's, that's, I'm not like like nature, even if we're not, haven't overcome nature yet, there will be a point.
And I hope humanity does get to the point.
I don't think we should just breed naturally.
We should probably have a combination of like biotech and like breeding naturally.
We should probably keep some populations breeding naturally just for the sake of genetic diversity in case something goes wrong.
But like eventually we'll be able to like go in and, you know, actually like know the genes, the CRISPR to take out and, you know, genetic engineering to improve your IQ to make you healthier or live longer.
That's great.
Like I would be in favor of that.
So we need kind of like, we need experimentation.
We need to see what works.
That will be valuable information.
If all the IVF babies after three generations all die when they're 10 or they all become impotent, that'll be good scientific information to know.
Like we just, we shouldn't just sit here and forecast the future 100 years and say ban this and allow this on that basis.
Like, you know, we'll find out.
So RFH actually sent me a very interesting video that was from CBS News.
And they were doing a report on an individual woman, but this actually raised a lot of important questions.
And this woman was abusing IVF in effect, and she was just in surrogacy, actually, at some point.
So she was just having children.
I think she had 18 at some point, and she was using these surrogates.
And there seemed to be no limiting factor to this woman just creating children willy-nilly.
And there was even in this report indications that goes back to Epstein, child sex traffickers might begin farming children this way as just horrifying through surrogacy and IVF.
It at least raises these questions.
But I would make two other points before I ask you to respond.
Two things.
First off, when it comes to something like a luxury product, like a Rolls-Royce or a Rolex watch or something, those are not being democratized.
No one thinks that you have a right to drive a Rolls-Royce or something.
When it comes to health matters, anything that touches on health matters, those, the trend is that those will eventually be democratized.
And so it's not just rich nerds who are going to get their hands on this technology.
Donald Trump himself wanted to force insurance companies to cover IVF.
Tim Waltz was talking about how he used IVF or something like this.
And it's this great, good old American family thing, just, you know, just do babies.
Yeah.
So it's going to be democratized.
So maybe right now it's like the Collins family are using IVF, but it's not going to be that way for long.
And this is my other point about CRISPR, which would be gene editing and embryo selection, which there are companies now that are saying, oh, we think that there's like with this child, there's like an 80% chance he won't have your diabetes.
And then we can look at the IQ of this embryo and within this range.
First off, something like human intelligence is deeply complicated, polygenic.
And no doubt, the whole nature and nurture thing is a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle, I guess you could say, but it's a deeply complicated trait, intelligence.
But secondly, we don't know enough.
You don't know what you're selecting for.
And you might say, oh yeah, let's just get rid of that diabetes, but you don't know why diabetes might be there in the first place.
The classic example of this is something like sickle cell anemia, which affects African Americans.
There's a reason why that disease is prevalent in African Americans, and then it allows them to survive malaria carried by mosquitoes in their native environment.
What I'm saying is, is that you think that you can like correct a typo like in a paper, you know, oh, I just misspelled that word.
I'll create it you don't in fact know what you're selecting for.
There are massive, not only is the accuracy debatable, but there might very well be massive trade-offs or opportunity costs that we don't understand that we are going to be engaging in with IVF and embryonic selection.
And again, I'll go back to my initial point.
Millions of years of evolution is more intelligent than your current science.
There's a case for caution, but look, if you take this mentality, what would you say about birth control, right?
A woman has her period.
She gets needs to get pregnant at certain times of the month.
Why do we have birth control?
I mean, you know, you don't know what you're doing when you're screwing with that.
Ozempic, you could say, you know, we are, we get fat when we eat too much for a reason.
Maybe God is trying to teach us.
I would say these things, Richard.
You would.
So you're just against science and technology.
There's nothing about genetics, right?
And I think that that's, you know, I think that is like not the experience of human history.
Like we've had progress.
We've gotten healthier and smarter.
Like we just don't throw up our heads every point and say, evolution is smarter than us, you know, but, you know, that's it.
Like we're just going to stay here and do nothing.
We do stuff.
We get, you know, we get healthier.
We get it, we get better.
We come up with cures for diseases.
And you're right.
I mean, there's a case to be cautious.
Like if you can have a child naturally and there's no like, there's no disease that you expect to pass on, you're not a high risk for anything.
Yeah, go ahead, breed the normal.
It's easier.
It'll save you money.
It's more fun, right?
Do it, do it that way.
But then this idea like, oh, you know, I'm going to have Huntington's disease.
I'm going to have Down syndrome.
Do we really know if we want to get rid of that?
I think we know enough to say we'd rather not have that.
Yeah, I just, I don't think it'll stop at that point.
It seems that at some point, like Richard said, it will be democratized and it's going to be like taboo to conceive naturally.
I think we're so far from that.
I mean, we're so far from that.
There's like a lot of people who are going to be able to do that.
Yeah, maybe we are far from that.
But yeah, you have to think all the way through.
The people who are having kids now are the people who don't have a lot of them.
Like there aren't a lot of columns as compared to like religious fundamentalists who don't do any of this stuff, right?
So like you're worried about like the nerds using IVF outnumbering.
It's probably going to be the opposite.
Well, no, I mean, I, I, I'm, I'm worried about the development of a sickly nerd race.
Yeah.
I mean, there are kind of, I think you're just reacting to the Collins's.
I don't know if they even did IVF.
I think they might have done them all naturally.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did do IVF.
No, they've done it.
They did IVF and Embryo selection.
Wait, are you talking about the problem classes woman?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, they did IVF.
Nerdy handmaid's tale kind of situation.
I don't think they've ever had sex.
I doubt they've ever had sex.
They're not the type.
They can't have sex.
They're total nerds.
No.
I like different.
Let's have different races.
Let's experiment.
Let's see.
Let's have a race of people who can't have sex.
They're not supposed to exist.
Actually, he could have sex, actually.
Maybe he might have been good at it.
But, you know, you get the fork of someone that couldn't have sex.
I don't want to go like whatever.
They still might be able to contribute something.
Maybe there'll be a bunch of sterile nerds and they'll like invent stuff and like, you know, the football players will have fun, you know, whatever.
It's like, we can't, we can't foresee, like, we can't plan this stuff.
Like, if we're at the KISS IVF being all babies being born, okay, but like we're way, way, way far, way, way.
Well, I understand that, but like, I can imagine within 20 years of CRISPR technology maybe using some sort of AI or something being democratized.
And we think of designer babies in the sense of like, oh, this couple, they can afford to spend, you know, 200 grand on fertility treatments.
They're going to create this like high IQ baby who will get into Princeton.
And yeah, I sort of get problems people might have with that.
But I'm worried about something else.
I'm worried about this kind of technology being democratized and put in the hands of idiots who are going to select for like gigantic asses.
And you were just, but you were just spending millions of dollars on silicon asses now.
Of course they're going to do this.
And it's going to, Trump will be like, it's an American tradition.
IVF.
We got to democratize this.
This world sounds fun.
You have your nerds here.
You have your giant shaking asses over here.
I mean, it's like you have your naturals here.
You have your religious communities who don't want any part of it.
Well, you know, it'll be, it'll be diversity.
Oh, my.
Okay.
Well, fair enough.
Fair enough.
So, so is there anything else on your radar, Richard, that we should mention?
I was thinking about just doing sort of a brief live stream, an hour or so, but is there anything else that, you know, has, you know, has a B in your bonnet?
Not really.
I mean, you know, the thoughts, they go straight from my mind to the Twitter.
So you could follow that and see what I'm thinking of, but no, nothing in particular.
Yes, that is definitely true.
All right.
Well, thank you for being here.
And we should definitely do this again.
And I continue to enjoy your Twitter and Substacks.
So likewise, Richard.
Yeah, I would enjoy dunking on the same people.
I enjoy your insights.
I enjoy your demonology and your kind of tucker take.
So yeah.
Good.
Well, I will talk to you soon, Richard.
And yeah, thanks for being here as always, RFH.
And I will see you guys soon.
▲
Export Selection