7 Comments
Apr 12·edited Apr 12

Sohrab Ahmari like Ben Shapiro, Charles Kirk and the other "conservative bros" carpetbagger talking heads, are paid to move the discourse back where it was 12 years ago before the race realism and the J questioning became a thing, and before the Alt Right achieved so much tremendous online success that it had to be censored and suppressed.

The nature vs nurture debate on social welfare felt so interesting, refreshing and taboo-breaking in 2012-13, now this clown has to bring it back while disingenuously overlooking all that has been said or written about it in the last 12 years

These are relentless covert attacks to push back the Overton window where it was before 2012

Expand full comment

Pretty damn stupid thesis.

Expand full comment

Pretty damn stupid thesis.

Expand full comment

If state policy is not explicitly eugenic, state society will become implicitly dysgenic. History has demonstrated this dozens of times.

Expand full comment

I normally like Ahmari’s takes on social and economic issues but disagree completely with his views expressed in The New Statesmen. People are not biologically equal whether individually or within groups. This is simple fact.

Expand full comment

Not surprised Ahmari is opposed to White Identity Nationalism.

Expand full comment
Apr 13·edited Apr 13

I agree with all of this, with the caveat that eugenics of some form or other is both inevitable and a necessary prerequisite for any long-term sustainable civilisation. But yes, the "by your bootstraps" argument evaporates once the extent of genetic influences on life outcomes is acknowledged.

(Not that any of this should be considered even slightly relevant to the evaluation of fundamental facts about reality. We might as well reject the theory of gravity because it implies limits on our ability to fly.)

Expand full comment