U.K.’s Repulsive Reality: Reflections on Leftist Witch-Hunting and the Andrew Sabisky Affair

“Ah, the rare happiness of times when you can think and speak as you please!” So said the great Roman historian Tacitus and two thousand years later his words still ring true. Just ask the crime-thinker Andrew Sabisky, who has resigned as an adviser to the British government after what the Guardian described as “fierce criticism across [the] political spectrum.”

Facts vs fantasies

In fact, Sabisky was criticized only by leftists and their cuckservative allies, but the Guardian has always preferred fantasy to reality and will always misrepresent reality when it can. That’s why it was so horrified by Sabisky’s ideas: “In one post from 2014, he suggested that politicians should pay attention to ‘very real racial differences in intelligence’ when designing the immigration system, and another from that year suggested black people on average have lower IQs than white people.” Sabisky also supported eugenics and other attempts to improve the intelligence, health and behaviour of the human race. As Steve Sailer commented, the Black-White IQ gap is “likely the single most well-confirmed fact in the history of the social sciences.” What causes the gap and how to fix it (zero success after 50 years and huge amounts of money) are other matters, but if Britain had paid attention to the gap when “designing the immigration system,” we would have been spared a whole heap of misery.

The consequences of Third-World immigration: startling rape statistics in Denmark

That is, Britain wouldn’t have allowed mass immigration by Blacks and other groups with low average IQs. And so we would have avoided the vastly increased murder, rape, corruption and welfare dependency that inevitably result from such immigration. We would also have avoided the endless rancour and recrimination of anti-racism, which incessantly criticizes Whites for the failures of these low-IQ non-Whites and seeks to destroy traditional White freedoms like free speech, free enquiry and free association. The Andrew Sabisky affair proved once again that non-Whites from “across the political spectrum” will unite against White interests. The Black Labour politician David Lammy said that Sabisky’s views were “dangerous claptrap,” while the Black Conservative politician Kwasi Kwarteng said that they were “racist, offensive and objectionable,” and “totally unacceptable.”

Repulsive and obnoxious

Lammy and Kwarteng were not interested in whether Sabisky was speaking the truth, but in whether what he said was good for Blacks such as themselves. It wasn’t, so they wanted Sabisky thrown out of government. Elsewhere, the Guardian approvingly reported that “several Tory politicians from black and minority ethnic backgrounds … made representations to No 10 about how the row of Sabisky’s appointment was damaging for the party’s relations with the black community.” But Britain has a “black community” only because of mass immigration. And like the Republicans in America, the Tories never win a majority of non-White votes, no matter how much they pander and fawn.

Libertarians for state power! Open borders → crime and terrorism → police state

None of Sabisky’s critics made any attempt to rebut the truth of what he said. They simply held it up as self-evidently wicked and worthy of exemplary punishment. You expect that from open leftists like David Lammy, but the supposedly libertarian Brendan O’Neill revealed his true leftist psychology when he condemned Sabisky’s “outright repulsive views ([Sabisky] thinks blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites)” and said that it was right to throw Sabisky out for his “obnoxious views.” Myself I’ve never understood how statements about reality can be “repulsive” or “obnoxious.” All that should matter is whether they conform to reality – that is, whether they’re right or wrong (or somewhere in-between).

“Don’t debate — defenestrate!”

I think that Sabisky’s ideas are right and accurately reflect reality. If they’re “repulsive,” that’s because reality is repulsive. But the left doesn’t care about the accuracy of Sabisky’s ideas, because the left is interested in power, not in truth. The left’s settled policy in these matters is not to debate but to defenestrate. It has been destroying the careers and livelihoods of stale pale male crime-thinkers like James Watson, Jason Richwine and Noah Carl for decades. And the defenestration of Andrew Sabisky might seem like yet another victory for the left. But you can find good news in the story, all the same. First of all, it’s clear that Boris Johnson’s new Conservative government did not want Sabisky to go. He was appointed as an adviser by the very interesting Dominic Cummings, whom I discussed at the Occidental Observer last year:

[Dominic Cummings] is not a typical Western bureaucrat or official, trained in the slippery evasions of law or the nebulous abstractions of the humanities. Instead, he recognizes the vital importance of mathematics and science in the analysis of reality and the enhancement of what he calls “performance.” As his blog lays out in great detail, he wants to draw inspiration for better governance from hard sciences like physics and great technological feats like the Moon landings. And Cummings will now be “advising” Boris Johnson at No. 10 itself. His advice will not be conventional, because Cummings despises and disdains the Civil Service and official government bureaucracy.

He’s quite right to despise and disdain them. And he’s provided hard evidence of his own greater competence and abilities. Cummings was, in the view of many on the Left, the “evil genius” behind the successful campaign for Brexit. As he’s written at his blog: “But the fact that Cameron, Heywood (the most powerful civil servant) et al did not understand many basic features of how the world works is why I and a few others gambled on the referendum — we knew that the systemic dysfunction of our institutions and the influence of grotesque incompetents provided an opportunity for extreme leverage.”

One very “basic feature” of “how the world works” is of course human genetics and its influence on cognition, psychology and “performance.” Does Cummings understand that feature? Well, he seems very careful to avoid the topic of racial and sexual differences in his public statements, but he is a good friend of the similarly interesting Chinese physicist Steve Hsu, who is not only a race realist but an actual and unabashed eugenicist. Cummings may be a eugenicist too, but he is certainly not a White nationalist. And he must have been certified fully kosher to become Johnson’s advisor. Nevertheless, his appointment is a very interesting development.

At the very least, we can hope that he will be a fox among the chickens of the Civil Service and government bureaucracy. And once ideas like his are loose in the body politic, who knows what may follow? (A Government of Grovelling Goys, The Occidental Observer, 2nd August 2019)

We now know some of what followed. Cummings called for “misfits and weirdos” to join him at the heart of government and Andrew Sabisky answered the call. Cummings must have been aware of Sabisky’s “outright repulsive views,” because Sabisky has hardly kept them secret and was posting “obnoxious” comments at Cummings’ own blog as far back as 2014. My conclusion? Cummings didn’t merely tolerate Sabisky’s crime-think but actually shares it. That is, Cummings himself recognizes the importance of genetics, the promise of eugenics, and the insanity of importing and subsidizing low-IQ populations from the Third World.

Self-serving moralism and hot air

Like all sensible people, Cummings and Sabisky are not leftists or libertarians, but realitarians. They base their ideas on repulsive reality, not on self-serving fantasies. And Sabisky has proven his competence and intelligence in a truly scientific way: by accurately predicting the future based on his observation and analysis of the past and present. He was hired by Cummings because he had already been successful “as a forecaster on defence and other policy areas.” How many of Sabisky’s self-righteous critics have been successful as “forecasters” of reality? None at all, from what I can see. David Lammy fills the typical role assigned to non-Whites in modern Western politics and culture. Like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States, he’s a self-promoting moralizer who endlessly criticizes Whites for the failures of non-Whites. And like the supposed libertarian Brendan O’Neill, Lammy emits hot air, not solid predictions by which the accuracy of his ideas can be tested against repulsive reality.

Where Marxist fantasies lead: the horrible reality of famine and mass-murder

But I’ll criticize Sabisky myself for one thing: his naïve behaviour. He made it far too easy for leftists and cuckservatives to track his “outright repulsive views.” It was not wise of him to post at HBD Chick’s blog and the Unz Review under his own name, for example. As the SJW anti-racist Joe Mulhall commented at the Guardian: “Looking at the evidence, it starts to appear that Sabisky may not just hold unacceptable and abhorrent views in isolation but that he may actually be a neo-reactionary or alt-right believer. The idea that someone from these movements managed to become an adviser to Downing Street, if only briefly, is genuinely shocking and further evidence of how once marginal alt-right ideas have crept towards the mainstream.” Mulhall may be shocked, but crime-thinkers should be pleased. And I don’t think Mulhall wants to admit that Cummings must share Sabisky’s views on race and genetics.

BoJo didn’t cuck!

Indeed, it’s likely that many or even most of those now working with Cummings share those views and have been reading crime-think from the Unz Review, Steve Sailer and HBD Chick (and perhaps even the Occidental Observer). Cummings’ fellow crime-thinkers undoubtedly include the part-Jewish prime minister Boris Johnson, who has often been excoriated by the left for his racism, sexism and homophobia. But Cummings’ crime-thinkers obviously don’t include the fully Jewish transport minister Grant Shapps, who said that Sabisky’s words “[are] not my views and those are not the views of the government.” Unexpectedly but refreshingly, a spokesman for Boris Johnson responded by saying that “Shapps was speaking only for himself when he made that statement.”

The spokesman also “refused to say whether the prime minister thinks black people have lower IQs on average, or agrees with eugenics.” In short, BoJo didn’t cuck! He wanted to support Cummings and keep Sabisky as an adviser. And although Sabisky himself has departed from government, his “outright repulsive views” have not. The “evil genius” Dominic Cummings has the same views and will continue to act on them. That’s good news for everyone who believes in repulsive reality and supports the interests of Whites.