Yes, but he’s right, isn’t he, Brendan?

Dangerous, obnoxious, nutty, perverted, repulsive, weirdo, mad. These are the adjectives that Brendan O’Neil applies to Andrew Sabisky. Who he?

In December, [Dominic] Cummings, chief adviser to Boris Johnson, put out an article cum job advert calling for ‘misfits and weirdos’ to apply to work with him in Downing Street. Thousands of people applied, including one Andrew Sabisky.

He got the job, but not for long. After it was revealed that he has some nutty views (he has said forced contraception should be used to prevent the rise of a ‘permanent underclass’), some perverted views (he has a thing for ‘incest erotica’), and some outright repulsive views (he thinks blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites), he was sent packing from Downing Street. The next weirdo will need to be a little less weird, clearly.

So, the Editor of the online magazine that for 20 years has banged the drum for freedom of expression, diversity of thought and opinion, and the sovereignty of the individual now chooses to indulge in sneering condemnation of a very clever – if unconventional – man for his preparedness to consider ideas that most people won’t touch out of fear.

And to judge a man for his reported sexual predelictions is always asking for trouble. I’m sure Brendan wouldn’t want anyone casting aspersions on his character extrapolated from the last thing he clicked on YouPorn.

He leaves aside that these are, in all likelihood, just topics on which Sabisky was conducting thought experiments. We have no evidence that he’d have gone to the wall for any of these things as devout and unshakable beliefs. They probably weren’t. All free thinkers conjour with ideas from across the spectrum, to see what works, based on how much sense it makes and how much empirical and scientific evidence supports it.

The thing is though, no-one – least of all Brendan O’Neil – is explaining why Sabisky’s thoughts on race, genetics and eugenics are wrong.

Every outlet is simply waving their arms, rending their garments and screaming ‘HE SAID BLACK PEOPLE ARE LESS INTELLIGENT THAT WHITE PEOPLE!!!’, and God help anyone who even asks the question, ‘well, is it true?’

The left wing Fabian society advocated eugenics, until the day that Hitler started slaying people, at which point they all looked up at the ceiling, started whistling Little Bo Peep and nonchalently shuffled off. Most of the modern Labour party and most of Blair’s government from 1997 onwards were exponents and advicates of the Fabian tradition.

Fawcett feminists Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt had a well-documented history of flirting with deeply controversial ideas.

Marie Stopes, hero of women’s sexual liberation, was a eugenicist. She wanted to stop poor people breeding more poor people and she was especially keen on doing so in Africa. Why? Because you are your genes. She knew it. So did the Swedes. The Swedes only stopped their national programme of eugenics in 1975.

And yet when someone like Andrew Sabisky suggests that there is a correlation – maybe weak, or maybe strong – between genes and intelligence, and outcomes across a whole bushel of metrics, all hell breaks loose amongst the indignant.

They know that you cannot be allowed to even consider these ideas. Not because the ideas are wrong and stupid, but because they have a kernel of truth – they agree with the observable realities of our society – and they undermine the whole castle of sand on which our multicultural clusterfuck is built.

Brendan above goes to great lengths to paint the ideas that Sabisky was toying with as completely beyond the pale. So disgusting as to not merit the effort of debunking them. It would be laughable to even go to the trouble. Hahahah silly boy. The only thing O’Neil carefully avoids when he is busily smearing Sabisky is another highly likely reality – that Sabisky is high-functioning autistic. He probably is. But then Brendan would be condemning someone’s immutable characteristics, and he’d be destroyed by the identitarian left. But the fact is that if Sabisky is, as I suspect, on the spectrum, then this explains why he’s prepared to toy with highly unconventional views, and Brendan is, de facto, pillorying a man for the way he was born and how that manifests itself.

It’s entirely possible that Sabisky has decided that he himself shouldn’t have children because of the heritability of autism.

It is self-evident when blinkers are removed that there are links between race, genetics and intelligence. It is self-evident that the tax-and-spend welfare state has dysgenic effects when it encourages the mentally feeble to reproduce with impunity, while making it cost-prohibitive for the diligent, moderately affluent couples to start families. It is empirically obvious that criminality is an emergent property of these phenomena.

But the left has been destroying people for decades for positing this view, even when supported by serious scientific research. Because it undermines everything that has been driven towards, by and out of to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the USA. It gives the lie to the whole grand plan.

They’ve forced us as nations into a completely untenable position, and they can only keep all the plates spinning as long as we’re not allowed to point out that the emperor has no clothes because a man called Ntunde just stole them at knifepoint to sell to Mohammed for a rock of crack cocaine.

They always were terrified that we’d collectively wake up and say, ‘you know what, fuck you. We’re not playing this game any more.’ For a long time, it was just a theoretical concern. But the rise of Trump, Brexit, Orban and Salvini has scared the absolute fuck out of these people. The masses may be bovine, but if you are standing between a herd of cows, and where that herd wants to be, those 500KG lumps of beef are going to properly fuck you up on the way to their destination.

As the multicultural experiment has proceeded, it has become increasingly obvious that we are not a melting pot. We are groupish. We like people like us. We glom together. White people like to live around and do business with whites. We trust our own more than we trust the other. Blacks with blacks, Muslims with Muslims, Jews with Jews etc.

It’s not a wish, but it is an observable reality of every city in every Western country. We can wish all we like that Blue Mink were right when they sung Melting Pot. But they were not. How ever hard we stir the pot and however much we heat it over, the ingredients won’t stay mixed.

So even knowing that the jig is up and their grand patrician experiment in homo sapiens husbandry has failed, they must collectively stamp out any and all attempts to point to the truth.

They have defiantly built every structure out of gunpowder, so they must destroy anyone who dares play with matches, however grotesque and disproportionate that might seem.

They have had the hubris to defy all the evidence, our every instinct and conventional wisdom, and now they must prevent the inevitable consequences, just for long enough that they can live out their days in comfort and peace. To hell with the rest of us after that.

It cannot end well, and they know it cannot end well. That’s why they’re so jumpy.

AJ

UPDATE: Tangential but related, I found this piece by Tom Chivers interesting, even if he does shy away from the rather more contentious points he might have made.

The analyst John Nerst, who writes a fascinating blog called “Everything Studies”, is very interested in how and why we disagree. And one thing he says is that for a certain kind of nerdy, “rational” thinker, there is a magic ritual you can perform. You say “By X, I don’t mean Y.”

Having performed that ritual, you ward off the evil spirits. You isolate the thing you’re talking about from all the concepts attached to it. So you can say things like “if we accept that IQ is heritable, then”, and so on, following the implications of the hypothetical without endorsing them. Nerst uses the term “decoupling”, and says that some people are “high-decouplers”, who are comfortable separating and isolating ideas like that.

Other people are low-decouplers, who see ideas as inextricable from their contexts. For them, the ritual lacks magic power. You say “By X, I don’t mean Y,” but when you say X, they will still hear Y. The context in which Nerst was discussing it was a big row that broke out a year or two ago between Ezra Klein and Sam Harris after Harris interviewed Charles Murray about race and IQ.

I’m obviously interested in Murray’s theories, and his demonisation and ‘cancelling’ in the wake of their publication, and I hadn’t heard his discussion with Sam Harris (about whom I have deep suspicions underpinned by a logic and conviction I share with Vox Day).

Anyway, here is the discussion. I haven’t listened to it yet, but later today when I’m on the road, trying my best not to grind my teeth at the multicultural driving experience, I’ll give it a whirl.

By the way, what Chivers calls ‘low-decoupling people’ is a very inventive euphemism for ‘stupid people’. Which, as we know, is more simply expressed as ‘most people’.