Against Sohrab Ahmari-ism
How the 'Third New Right' leader, once known for his valiant condemnation of David French, became just like him.
Sohrab Ahmari is a strange figure. Born in Iran, and being repulsed by the theocratic tyranny which he grew up in, he now seems to want the same kind of thing for America… just for Catholicism instead of Islam. His economically left-wing, statist, religiously conservative vision seems right in line with the ‘Islamic Modernists’ in the Iranian Revolution, before they were purged. If he represents Adolhassan Banisadr, then his friends Adrian Vermule and The American Postliberal would represent Khomeini and Khamenei.
He has also been on quite an intellectual journey. Starting off as a Marxist, he then became a Neocon, then a Catholic Integralist… and now, a sort of Socially Conservative Social Democrat who always attacks conservatives and brings every discussion back to… ‘economic leftism’.
He came to fame for his brilliant article in First Things ‘Against David French-ism’, which correctly tore apart the liberal-conservative approach of constant appeasement towards the unhinged, reality-denying, civilizationally corrosive LGBT movement, that had become a pattern since Obergefell. If there was any article which was the viral rocket that brought the ‘Third New Right’ to prominence, it was that one. David French, once a somewhat respected figure on the American Right, became a name synonymous with treason and self-debasement. If I may use a Boomer Truth label, he became David ‘Vichy’ French.
What Ahmari represented was a Right that was going not going to accept losing the culture war, that would aggressively clamp down on the social sicknesses that plagued the West. It was not going to sit idly by when trans extremists mutilated their children and laughed about how they were powerless to stop them. And just like the Woke did with their big tech censorship and educational indoctrination, having already proved that a ‘neutral public square’ was impossible, it would ‘make’ people agree with them through making ‘their’ values the socially favoured ones, and LGBT ideology once again rightfully shunned and ostracised.
This was an important development in the Right’s evolution away from the ‘Free Speech Absolutism’ that characterised the anti-SJW movement and the Intellectual Dark Web. It predominated in the early Biden years, before Musk bought Twitter, and where Woke Capitalism seemed a leviathan, in need of state sanction if it ever were to be brought to heel.
But the scepticism of capitalism has lessened somewhat since Elon Musk and Marc Andressen definitively defected to the anti-Woke side. Musk’s takeover of Twitter/X and the emergence of Substack has seemed to somewhat restore the online space as it existed prior to 2016 (at least on certain platforms). At the same time, Richard Hanania’s essays and book blaming Civil Rights Law for Woke Capitalism have become more influential, and Javier Milei has revitalised a latent Paleolibertarian streak on the American Right.
Repulsed by these developments, throughout the past few years, Sohrab Ahmari has increasingly alienated himself from those, like myself, who once cheered him on. From dismissing the Bud Light Boycott, to defending the Civil Rights Regime and Martin Luther King, and writing his economic leftist book ‘Tyranny Inc’ (which, funnily enough, is not on the NatCon book list whereas Deneen’s books are), he has increasingly directed his punches towards right-wingers who are not 100% focused on economic leftism. Meanwhile, he has abandoned talking about cultural issues in favour of trying to win approval from said economic left.
His magazine, Compact, that he edits with Matthew Schmitz and Nina Power, is a postliberal, economically Social Democratic, and anti-neoliberal publication that attempts to build a bridge between 2016 Bernie Sanders-style economic leftism and the Third New Right.
It does occasionally write some good articles, and I was previously a paid subscriber, as I had a similar sort of worldview at the time. However, the magazine became increasingly repetitive, constantly bashing the culture-war focused Right and trying to say what they ACKUALLY should be concerned about is not the mutilation of children but ‘industrial policy’ and ‘multi-racial working class coalition’.
But the reason he has been trending on X, is because of his latest article in the New Statesman. Whilst on the surface mostly just a criticism of the extreme Manosphere and Groyper types, that I would more-a-less agree with, the article must be seen in the context of what Ahmari’s approach has been for the past two-years or so: dismiss that the Right has any legitimate concerns about Wokeness, and say that the problem is ‘really’ that they are still in thrall to neoliberal economics.
Now, I don’t believe the economic left is as bad as the cultural left. The economic left’s valorisation of the male, blue collar worker, and sympathy for his genuine material plight and sense of pride, was a far less decadent and destructive force than the Woke left that exists today. At the time, it was a necessary corrective for exploitive capitalists, and was responsible for uplifting millions of people from poverty.
But as I mentioned in my article on Margaret Thatcher, why is it that the economic left so overwhelmingly became intermerged with the cultural left? Why did the ‘Old Left’ fade into obscurity? It is for the pure and simple reason that both the economic and cultural sections of the left believe in using the state to promote ‘equality’, and to reduce the power and prestige of the naturally successful. For a movement that, from the very beginning, was predicated on weakening the strong and elevating the weak, is it any surprise that it would betray the White male blue-collar worker who had once been it’s champion, in favour of those that were morally beneath him?
Whilst the Old Left may have pretended to care about the blue collar worker, the actual record of Social Democracy/New Deal Liberalism was to do much to erase him from existence, as university expansion was pushed, and with it the imposition of 1960s countercultural values onto the whole of society. Harold Wilson closed down more mines than Margaret Thatcher, whilst expanding university access and forcing through culturally liberal measures like abolishing the death penalty, that the working-class Labour base opposed, but yet was endorsed by smug elite liberals who thought that ‘human rights’ were more important than popular opinion. And whilst it was natural that society would progress and old industries would be made redundant, the economic leftism Ahmari promotes, by expanding the middle-class and being motivated by an ideal of ‘equality of opportunity’ in its various policy measures, ensured that it would become a victim of its own success, and fade away by the 20th century’s end.
The doctrine of Thatcher/Reagan allowed the blue collar male worker to, whilst being forced to accept changes to the economy, carve our a new sense of masculine dignity, as the self-made man able to buy his council house and go on holiday abroad. In contrast, the left, even the Sanders/Corbyn left, despite still claiming to champion him, occasionally bringing back nostalgic imagery of the days when the ‘Old Left’ of the working-class was a formidable force, in actual fact would take his votes to constantly degrade and humiliate him for being a ‘straight White male bigot’, and even then… still not turn back the clock in regards to the economy, as such a thing is impossible.
Ahmari has no concept of Carl Schmitt’s ‘Friend/Enemy’ distinction. The culture-war trumps everything; and whilst there may be agreements with opponents on technical matters of policy, these people HATE you, they HATE your values, and will use you merely as a stooge to implement their cultural extremism. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, CHIPs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act (much of which Ahmari supported)? Guess what? They were littered with hidden DEI laws and patronage schemes. This is why ‘Bipartisanship’ is frowned upon by conservatives, it is because it is a means by which the Democrats can use seemingly ‘pragmatic’ legislation to really use it as a means to reward their client groups and punish straight, White men.
And like how David French is a convenient stooge for mainstream liberals, Sohrab Ahmari has become a convenient stooge for the economic left. They have said, time and time again, that they reject his ideas, that they will never compromise on social issues, that ‘LGBT rights are not up for debate’. Yet, he is still content to be their lapdog, to endlessly attack the Right (his real ‘friends’) for their economic impurity, and go on about how Wokeness is simply a by-product of phenomenon like the ‘decline in trade unions’.
Whilst trade unions may in the past have served a role in protecting the interests of blue collar workers, they have been completely Longhoused. The trade union movement has become a majority female, white collar enterprise, serving as a vanguard of the most radicalised members of the Managerial Class. They are at the forefront of the most extreme cultural leftism, ‘Intersectionality’ their creed. The Jacobin crowd that Sohrab Ahmari loves so much cheer how disconnected the unions are from the concerns of domestic workers and how they bow down to the fads of entitled students, like their ‘Stand for Palestine’. And even the small amount of blue-collar unions that still exist in the United States, like the United Auto Workers, have been hollowed out from the inside, their leadership class totally in thrall to the cultural left.
As Scott Greer brilliantly put it, Ahmari’s romanticised ideal of the blue collar, traditionalist worker in some mid-century Socialist Realist propaganda film that he imagines a ‘multiracial working-class populism’ would be, is nonsense, and what it really would be is somebody like Andrew Tate, an ultra-individualistic, hedonistic, yet aspirational ideal. I don’t like Tate, but it’s clear he has far more of a mass following, and connects with young men’s (of all races) real grievances, than Sohrab Ahmari’s dry lectures on the New Deal.
It’s not surprising to know that Compact has received donations from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and why could that be? It has become increasingly obvious why… to deflect the Right from talking about taking on Wokeism and instead dedicating its time to ‘safe’ targets like ‘neoliberalism’. To find out who holds power over you, find out who you aren’t allowed to criticise, and it’s clear that there is a great deal of interest from the Woke managerial class at redirecting anger at their disgusting, evil values towards obstacles in their quest for total power: like private business that they want to regulate.
Neoliberalism is not our enemy; rather the university-educated managerial class is. Those with large amounts of wealth are indifferent to hostile to Wokeism, they are instead constantly pushed by their university-educated, Longhouse employees and the whip of Civil Rights Law to accede to their demands. Those doing ‘marketing research’ who say that ‘DEI’ and ‘taking a stand’ increases profits, are not impartial actors; but are instead activist groups posing as neutral researchers, whom by pushing corporations to go Woke in the false belief it will enhance profits, ‘make’ it true, as the masses are brainwashed.
But yet Sohrab Ahmari, instead of condemning the actual enemy; Woke activists and the managerial class whom, for self-interested reasons, are sympathetic to their worldview, condemns Elon Musk, like he frequently does in the New Statesman. This is despite the fact Elon Musk lets him speak freely, and if it was up to the self-described Marxists who he is currently associating with, would permanently ban him for ‘homophobia and transphobia’, as such is modern Marxism, as whilst it’s not entirely accurate to blame Wokeism on Marxism, modern Marxists are some of the most militantly Woke activists.
As people have pointed out, the condemnation of ‘right-wing antisemitism’ in his latest article is utterly hypocritical, as he has consistently published the work of Third Worldist antisemite Malcom Kyeyune, whilst knowing about his real views and anonymous X accounts. No, this was just an excuse, to say how any focus on fighting Wokeism is bad, and how we really just need to talk about trade unions and neoliberalism.
At this point, Ahmari should be seen as an ‘economically leftist David French’. He may claim to still be a ‘social conservative’, but so does David French… the latter does genuinely support ‘religious liberty’ and is a conservative Evangelical, pro-life and believing any sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. But he always punches to his Right, adamant to appear respectable and be able to be published in establishment news outlets, the New York Times for French, the New Statesman for Ahmari. And even though they may be temporarily useful, even if they might be polite to their faces, and even if they may, occasionally, defend them against attacks from their Right… ultimately, French and Ahmari will always just be ‘bigots’ to them.
I discussed Sohrab Ahmari in my ‘Factions of the Rightosphere’ series and described him as the chief ‘Catholic New Dealer’, but I believe that this latest article was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ in showing his allegiance to the left-wing establishment. He should be seen just as much as a gatekeeper as the IDW personalities like James Lindsay or Helen Pluckrose… a leftist at heart and therefore having no influence in genuinely right-wing circles.
Oh, and he also blocked me for some mild criticisms when I was still an overall fan of his. So fuck him!
Great article. I’ve never found him consistent and I watched a youtube
of him taking questions from people, he sounds VERY arrogant.
But his crux is identity. Right or wrong, we are seeing the emergence of ethnic politics. Due to BLM, mass immigration, anti- white sentiment, woke political ineptitude and inflation, whites are starting to become aware of their identity.
This places Sohrab in a very difficult spot, his wife’s Chinese, he’s Iranian and his kids are half with Prussian names. So this is why Sohrab is always critical of right wing aspects which unite whites.
This is why he is ping ponging around with no consistency.
The west is changing. Liberalism is dying. But I’ve noticed a MASSIVE change since October, 7. The world’s gone tribal and it’s hard if you don’t fit within a secure tribe, let alone a tribe at all…
I intended to write a comment here, but it was too long so I published it as a separate piece. Please see the link below, and good work!
https://open.substack.com/pub/sjtucker/p/on-sohrab-ahmari-and-safe-dissent?r=1lyqk5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true