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.

23 replies
  1. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    As a Catholic, I reject the notion that the government should compel teenagers to consume chemical agents to render them sterile. However, what is the alternative? The “progressives,” the smart people who have seized control of the culture, have taken the Moral Law off the table. Self control, discipline, saving sexual behavior until marriage, marriage as a vital institution to promote the health of children, living within your means and other forms of disciplined living have been taken off the table with epithets like “bourgeois morality” and “Victorian morality.” Immigration policy would have to abide by the same criteria. However, sexual liberation is the rule of the day and the only answer to sexual liberation is mandatory sterilization, abortion and eugenics. Apparently, that is coming. That is the band-wagon which the progressives are driving even though they refuse to admit it and prefer distractions like Sabisky.

  2. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    This is a useful introductory article to the Andrew Sabisky affair and the subsequent media hysterics over eugenics, including the routine confusion between eradicating disabilities from future humans and eradicating existing humans with disabilities, and refusal to publish contrary comment or factual correction.

    Yes, Grant Shapps is “fully Jewish” (Jewish Chronicle, September 2, 2010), but what about Jason Richwine (Michelle Malkin, Jewish World Review, May 10, 2013)? Is it possible, just occasionally, to judge people by what they say or do rather than how they or their grandmothers were born?

    A good example of eugenics in action is Tay-Sachs screening. An example to us all?

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Trenchant
        Thank you for that reference.
        Any ideas on how those who defend the European heritage and its intellectuals can gain political power and reproduce like kind?

    • Songerheim
      Songerheim says:

      ‘A good example of eugenics in action is Tay-Sachs screening. An example to us all?’

      A veritable light unto us all.

      I really wish you would not post here: you are just so see-through it is incredible.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        Oh dear, sorry poor Mr “Songerhem”, to have “offended” you! Maybe you could just skip the posts from me, and only read the others. Or refute anything I write, if you wish – or can. Maybe you could persuade the Moderator to ban my comments completely (instead of sporadically as in the past). After all, TOO published once some nonsense claiming that I was a Jew trolling from Israel and denied me a reply, while the “Daily Mail” accused me of being a “conveyor belt” of evil antisemitism, likewise denying me a reply. Perhaps I should hide in a cupboard with a skeleton or under a bed with a Red. No pleasing some people.

        Or another thought: why don’t YOU shut up, instead?

        [mod. comment: as one of the more intelligent and literate commenters at TOO, you should set yourself higher standards, Mr Ashton. And note that various people moderate here, none of whom ban comments without good reason.]

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        Not an endorsement of Isaiah 49.6, of course, but a reference to the irony that Jewish critics of eugenics like Professor Lord Winston bypass the current successful Israeli screening for Tay-Sachs disease (though not absolutely confined to Ashkenazi Jews), and the desirability of similar eugenic policies being extended to other hereditary disabilities among “the nations”. What is so objectionable about making this point? Is there anything so “incredibly see-through” about reference to Jewish “eugenics” by (say) Anthony Ludovici, Anthony Smith or Richard Lynn, none of them, so far as I am aware, cryptically bar mitzvah or in the pay of the Elders of Zion.

  3. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    I would prefer it if people like Andrew Wotsisname would go back to their own countries and try out their schemes there. They would not work in the West
    I had a Great Uncle who was a Godson of Dr. Barnardo.
    They both were Jews suffering from Christian Socialism.
    My Great Uncle had the job of collecting orphans from the streets and railway stations and taking them to the orphanage.
    He also had the job of collecting young children from the rich families whose mothers were maids who had been make pregnant by the sons of the house.
    A donation was made to the orphanage.
    A direct descendent of William the Conqueror used to drive a bus in London!
    I have forgotten the other names, but with a Bar Sinister many people would be enttitled to a Coat of Arms throughout the English Speaking World and beyond.
    The tragedy of the American Civil War and WW1 and WW2 was that so much good blood was lost forever.
    All white people are much more closely related than people think.
    The men at the top could help themselves to the women, over the Centuries.
    I detest this class nonsense among the people of European Origin.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      While I somewhat understand your sentiment, I find your conclusions unconvincing. I am no expert on Dr. Barnardo, but have never heard that he, himself, identified as a religious Jew, rather an evangelist, like his mother and wife. Yes. his father’s family was Sephardic in origin, but had converted several hundred years previously. I believe most people on this site understand that references to “Jews” and “Jewry” applies to organized Jewry, and its very self centred brand of socialism, not every single Jew, every single time.
      As for “A direct descendent of William the Conqueror used to drive a bus in London!”, I counter with the following: About 50 years ago, my cousin’s best friend discovered that she (and her mother) were direct descendants. The unimpressed mother sniffed ‘he had bastards all over Europe.’
      I have found, in my background, a 13th century Norwegian princess. Big deal.

    • Jake
      Jake says:

      I understand your viewpoint, but the chinless wonders of the (true) aristocracy of centuries ago couldn’t have made such a mess of things as “democracy” has done.

      The current British royals are just tools of globalists and not worth a cracker. Let them keep the blood money they purloined over the centuries. Cut their legs out from under them. Get rid of them. They can then trot all over the world with their true soul mates, the Soros’s and their like.

  4. Titus
    Titus says:

    Just in time, now that jews control information and academia, and the SUPERIOR ashkenazi IQ is a well stablished “fact”, we can start sterilizing those dumb goyim.
    The sterilization train left in 1945.

  5. Michael Fury
    Michael Fury says:

    In Europe as well the planned invasions
    Of homelands for millennia Aryan
    Were his sudden “humanitarian”
    Emergencies, against whose dark legions
    And convoys could be no moral defense.
    In Albion brutal, Mohammedan gangs
    Used poor British girls for their playthings
    With all the arrogant impunity
    Of occupiers whose immunity
    His captive authorities trembled to expose
    Lest their angered master’s media choose
    to slander them. So their servile silence
    Had approved for these girls a life sentence
    Of terror, torture, rape and addiction.


  6. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    “Like all sensible people, Cummings and Sabisky are not leftists or libertarians”

    The State is the primary vehicle for the disenfranchisement of whites. Sensible people recognize it as a mortal threat and wish it greatly diminished. Ideas of reform from within are tragically misguided. The Swamp drains you, not you it.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      “The State is the primary vehicle for the disenfranchisement of whites.”
      That depends on “the state”. It was “the State” through Royal Warrants that created Craft and Trade Guilds, which for the most part prevented Jews from monopolizing, and in most cases participating, in anything other than money lending and its related activities as gold and silversmiths. As “democratic” states, those same nations began dismantling the Craft Guild capitalist system, thereby disenfranchising those who owned the means of production. The beneficiaries were the moneylenders, who became enfranchised at the expense of the disenfranchised, and led the way to the current system of finance capitalism which is dominated by (((the victims))).
      In a different vein, it is more difficult for forms of direct democracy, like Switzerland, to disenfranchise Whites, as opposed to the “best democracy money can buy” models in the rest of the (((Western liberal democracies))).
      While extremely unpopular among republicans, I have long maintained that the medieval royalties did less to screw their populations than “democracies” have. The reigning monarch understood that invasions were always a risk, and as standing armies were virtually non-existent, they had to retain the loyalty of the subjects in order to recruit in order to repel invasions. Yes, there were exceptions to this, but that was generally the model.
      Interestingly, as I see it the Founders of the US were opposed to standing armies, (not clear about the navy) and that is the reason for the Second Amendment.

  7. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    Interesting article . There appears to be some hope yet for the Brits .

    The DNA encoded biological imperative for reproduction , which manifests simply as sexual desire , is a much too powerful fundamental natural force for any government or deity to attempt to successfully regulate this imperative among the poor . Many have tried and many have died from attempted impositions of reproductive prohibitions and/or penalties on the operation of this imperative which is the most fundamental and powerful of all social forces known to man — procreative sexual activities .

    The real political issue is : who should pay for human reproductions ? If the government decides to pay , as many governments do ( especially the more socialistic/communistic govs of the West ) , then the next question is how much to pay or how much to tax the public to pay for the exponential population growth function which is inevitable pursuant to governmental subsidized reproductions ? The math is wellknown — governments will ultimately bankrupt the public to pay for the inevitable population growth , which not even the tyrannical Chinese Communist Government can fully suppress that growth , unless there are serious prior constraints on the subsidies so that parents retain a proper measure of financial responsibility for their infant mortality rate .

    The historical record , on the political issue of whether the government or the parents have primary responsibility for infant mortality , is very clear — peoples will literally slaughter each other over that issue .

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Please note that in this chaotic era of humanity it is necessary to make the following clarification wrt the preceding post __

      ” sexual desire ” refers especially to [ heterosexual desire ] ; and the ” imperative ” is likewise [ heterosexual ] — not any other kind .

  8. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    Speak anyway. Speak quietly, but firmly and resolutely. State the truth. State it again and again. There is no moral imperative for the West to be erased. There is no moral imperative for us to refrain from resisting our displacement. There is no reason for us to embrace our loss of self-determination. There is every reason to fight back.

  9. cecil1
    cecil1 says:

    The issue with ‘other groups with low average IQs.’, while true, completely misses the point.

    So if we have another high IQ group, or heh, someone superior to Brits in some way, then endless immigration and hence destruction is just fine??

    NO. It isn’t. And THAT implicit argument would not be made for any other group. Indeed it isn’t made when claiming that blacks or Amerindians or AustraIindians are mistreated.

    Whites have a right to exist and defend their homelands period. Importing another people, high IQ or not, IS Genocide.

    It amounts to implicitly accepting the anti-White side.

    STOP IT!!

    [mod. comment: no, it doesn’t “completely miss the point.” like most articles, this one doesn’t discuss every possible aspect of the topic in the finest possible detail. your brilliant insight about high-iq immigration is not the revelation you seem to think it is.]

    • Anon
      Anon says:


      The commenter is right. If you read through articles in our far-right spheres, all you will see is writers complaining about “third world” immigrants and how they will make life hell, and crumble economic success of our countries. It is everywhere. The white supremacist angle is everywhere. The “shithole countries” angle is everywhere. And it is something that REALLY drives people from our cause.

      If you look at opinion surveys, you will find that belief that “my country is better than other countries” is correlated with dislike of immigration, etc.

      Normal people realize that you CAN escape high-crime areas. There is always a way to get out. Even in really bad countries. So we are not under THAT great a threat from immigration. It is not like we are in a Holocaust. So this is not good enough to justify massive changes to policy.

      Furthermore, the realization that high-IQ immigration is bad IS a big deal, because it forces you to come to terms with a more genuine thesis of what we are really trying to do.

  10. Anon
    Anon says:

    Most/All evidence seems to indicate that black people in the UK are as successful as whites. This is due to selective immigration policy. It seems, however, that the poor black people are more likely to commit crimes.

    [mod. comment: shalom, guardian-reader! as the article points out, your community don’t like reality. see Unemployment by ethnicity, Location: England, Wales and Scotland, Time period: 2018. you can look up black crime stats for yourself, if you like.]

Comments are closed.