HBD and (the Lack of) Novel Predictions
2250 words
a predicted fact is a novel fact for a theory if it was not used to construct that theory — where a fact is used to construct a theory if it figures in the premises from which that theory was deduced. (Musgrave, 1988; cf Mayo, 1991: 524)
Introduction
Previously I demonstrated that the HBD movement is a racist movement. I showed this by arguing that it perfectly tracks with John Lovchik’s definition of racism, which is where “racism is a system of ranking human beings for the purpose of gaining and justifying an unequal distribution of political and economic power.” There is, however, a different issue—an issue that comes from the philosophy of science. So a theory is scientific if and only if it is based on empirical evidence, subject to falsifiability and testability, open to modification or rejection based on further experimentation or observation and—perhaps most importantly—is capable of generating novel predictions, where a novel prediction goes beyond existing knowledge and expectation and can be verified through empirical testing.
Here I will show that HBD doesn’t make any novel predictions, and I will also discuss one old attempt at showing that it does and that it is an example of a degenerative research programme. Effectively, I will argue that contrary to what is claimed, HBD is a degenerating research programme.
On so-called novel predictions
HBD and evolutionary psychology falls prey to the same issues that invalidate both of them. They both rely on ad hoc and post hoc storytelling. In a previous article on novel predictions, I stated:
A risky, novel prediction refers to a prediction made by a scientific theory or hypothesis that goes beyond what is expected or already known within an existing framework (novelness). It involves making a specific claim about a future observation or empirical result that, if confirmed, would provide considerable evidence in support of the scientific theory or hypothesis.
So EP and HBD are cut from the same cloth. John Beerbower (2016) puts the issue succinctly:
At this point, it seems appropriate to address explicitly one debate in the philosophy of science—that is, whether science can, or should try to, do more than predict consequences. One view that held considerable influence during the first half of the twentieth century is called the predictivist thesis: that the purpose of science is to enable accurate predictions and that, in fact, science cannot actually achieve more than that. The test of an explanatory theory, therefore, is its success at prediction, at forecasting. This view need not be limited to actual predictions of future, yet to happen events; it can accommodate theories that are able to generate results that have already been observed or, if not observed, have already occurred. Of course, in such cases, care must be taken that the theory has not simply been retrofitted to the observations that have already been made—it must have some reach beyond the data used to construct the theory.
HBDers promote the tenets that intelligence (IQ), along with behavior and socioeconomic outcomes are strongly associated with genetic differences among individuals and groups. They also use the cold winter theory (CWT) to try to intersect these tenets and show how they evolved over time. According to the CWT, the challenges of surviving in colder climates such as the need to hunt, plan ahead, and cooperate exerted selective pressures which favored genes which fostered higher intelligence in populations that inhabited these regions. I have previously shown years back that the CWT lacks novel predictive power, and that there are devastating response to the CWT which show the invalidity of the theory. Rushton used it in his long-refuted r/K selection theory for human races. Further, for example Jablonski and Chaplin (2000) successfully predicted that “multiple convergences of light skin evolved in different modern human populations and separately in Neanderthals” (Chaplin and Jablonski, 2009: 457). This was a successfully predicted novel fact, something that HBD doesn’t do.
Urbach (1974) (see Deakin, 1976 for response) in criticizing “environmentalism” and contrasting it with “hereditarianism”, claimed that hereditarianism made novel predictions. He also claimed that the “hard core” of the hereditarian research programme was that (1) cognitive ability of all people is due to general intelligence and individual and (2) group differences are due to heredity. We know that (1) is false, since general intelligence is a myth and we know that (2) is false since group differences are due to environmental factors since Jensen’s default hypothesis is false (along with the fact that Asians are a selected population). Further Urbach (1974: 134-135) writes that 4 novel facts of hereditarianism are “(i) of the degree of family resemblances in IQ, (ii) of IQ-related social mobility, (iii) of the distribution of IQ’s, and (iv) of the differences in sibling regression for American Negroes and whites.”
But the above aren’t novel predictions.
(i) Hereditarianism predicts that intelligence has a significant hereditary component, leading to similarities in IQ scores among family members. (Nevermind the fact that environments are inherited by these family members as well.) The prediction appears specific, but it’s not novel in the framework of hereditarianism. The idea that IQ is heritable and that family members share similarities in IQ has been a main tenet of hereditarianism for decades, even in 1974 at the time of publication of Urbach’s paper,rather than offering a new or unexpected insight.
(ii) Hereditarianism also suggests that differences in IQ also have implications for social mobility, with people with higher IQs having a greater change for more upward social mobility. This, too, isn’t novel within the hereditarian framework since even in 1974 and the decades before then this was known.
(iii) Hereditarianism also predicts that IQ scores follow a normal distribution, with a majority of people clustering around the middle. This, too, isn’t a novel prediction, since even Binet unconsciously built his test to have a normal distribution (Nash, 1987: 71). (Also note that Binet knew that his scales weren’t measures but thought that for practical measures they were; Michell, 2012.) Terman constructed his test to also have it. Urbach (1974: 131) states that “even if researchers had set out to obtain a particular distribution of IQ’s, there was no divine guarantee that their efforts would have been successful.” But we know that the process of building a normal distribution is done by choosing only items that conform to the normal distribution are selected, since items most are likely to get right are kept while on both ends items are also kept. In their psychometrics textbook, Rusk and Golombok (2009: 85) state that “it is common practice to carry out item analysis in such a way that only items that contribute to normality are selected.” Jensen (1980: 71) even stated “It is claimed that the psychometrist can make up a test that will yield any kind of score distribution he pleases. This is roughly true, but some types of distributions are much easier to obtain than others.”
(iv) Lastly, hereditarianism predicts that differences in sibling regression or the extent to which sibling IQ scores deviate from the population mean could vary between racial and ethnic groups. The prediction seems specific, but it reflects assumptions of genetic influences on psychological trait—which already were assumptions of hereditarian thought at that time and even today. Thus, it’s not a new or unexpected insight.
Therefore, the so-called novel predictions referenced by Urbach are anything but and reflect existing assumptions and concepts in the field at the time of publication, or he’s outright wrong (as is the case with the normal distribution).
Modern day hereditarians may claim that the correlation between genetics and IQ/educational attainment validates their theories and therefore counts as novel. However, the claim that genes would correlate with IQ has been a central tenet in this field for literally 100 years. Thus, a prediction that there would be a relationship between genes and IQ isn’t new. Nevermind the fact that correlations are spurious and meaningless (Richardson, 2017; Richardson and Jones, 2019) along with the missing heritability problem. Also note that as sample size increase, so to does the chance for spurious correlations, (Calude and Longo, 2016). The hereditarian may also claim that predicting group differences in IQ based on genetic and environmental factors is a novel prediction. Yet again, the idea that these contribute to IQ has been known for decades. The general prediction isn’t novel at all.
So quite obviously, using the above definition of “novel fact” from Musgrave, HBD doesn’t make any novel predictions of previously unknown facts not used in the construction of the theory. The same, then, would hold true for an HBDer who may say something along the lines of “I predict that a West African descendant will win the 100m dash at the next Olympics.” This doesn’t qualify as a novel prediction of a novel fact, either. This is because it relies on existing knowledge related to athletics and racial/ethnic demographics. It’s based in historical data and trends of West African descendants having been successful at previous 100m dash events at the Olympics. Therefore, since it’s not a novel insight that goes beyond the bounds of the theory, it doesn’t qualify as “novel” for the theory.
Why novel predictions matter
Science thrives on progress, so without theories/hypotheses that make novel predictions, a scientific program would stagnate. The inability of hereditarianism to generate risky, novel predictions severely limits it’s ability in explaining human behavior. Novel predictions also provide opportunities for empirical testing, so without novel predictions, hereditarianism lacks the opportunity for rigorous empirical testing. But a proponent could say that whether or not the predictions are novel, there are still predictions that come to pass based on hereditarian ideas.
Without novel prediction, hereditarianism is confined to testing hypotheses that are well-known or widely accepted in the framework or the field itself. This then results in a narrow focus, where researchers merely confirm their pre-existing beliefs instead of challenging them. Further, constantly testing beliefs that aren’t novel leads to confirmation bias where researchers selectively seek out what agrees with them while ignoring what doesn’t (Rushton was guilty of this with his r/K selection theory). Without the generation of novel predictions, hereditarianism lacks innovation. Lastly, the non-existence of novel predictions raises questions about the progressiveness of the framework. True scientific progress is predicated on the formulation of testing novel hypotheses which challenge existing paradigms. Merely claiming that a field generates testable and successful novel predictions and therefore that field is a progressive one is unfounded.
Thus, all hereditarianism does is accommodate, there is no true novel predictive power from it. So instead of generating risky, novel predictions that could potentially falsity the framework, hereditarians merely resort to post-hoc explanations, better known as just-so stories to fit their preconceived notions about human behavior and diversity. HBD claims are also vague and lack the detail needed for rigorous testing—the neck isn’t stuck out far enough for where if the prediction fails that the framework would be refuted. That’s because the predictions are based on assumptions they already know. Thus, HBD is merely narrative construction, and we can construct narratives about any kind of trait we observe today have the story conform with the fact that the trait still exists today. Therefore hereditarianism is in the same bad way as evolutionary psychology.
I have previously compared and contrasted hereditarian explanations of crime with the Unnever-Gabbidon theory of African American offending (TAAO) (Unnever and Gabbidon, 2011). I showed how hereditarian explanations of crime not only fail, but that hereditarian explanations lack novel predictive power. On the other hand, Unnever and Gabbidon explicitly state hypotheses and predictions which would follow from. The TAAO, and when they were tested they were found to hold validating the TAAO.
Conclusion
In this discussion I have tried to show that hereditarian/HBD theories make no novel predictions. They are merely narrative construction. The proposed evolutionary explanation for racial differences in IQ relying on the CWT is ad hoc, meaning it’s a just-so story. Lynn even had to add in something about population size and mutation rates since Arctic people, who have the biggest brain size, don’t have the highest IQ which is nothing more than special pleading.
Urbach’s (1974) four so-called novel predictions of hereditarianism are anything but, since they are based on assumptions already held by hereditarianism. They represent extensions or reformulation of existing assumptions, while also relying on retrospective storytelling.
I have provided a theory (the TAAO) which does make novel predictions. If the predictions wouldn’t have held, then the theory would have been falsified. However, tests of the theory found that they hold (Burt, Simons, and Gibbons, 2013; Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016; Herda, 2016, 2018; Burt, Lei, and Simons, 2017; Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019). The hereditarian dream of having the predictive and explanatory power that the TAAO does quite obviously fails.
Therefore, the failure of hereditarianism to produce successful, risky novel predictions should rightly raise concerns about its scientific validity and the scientific credibility of the program. So the only rational view is to reject hereditarianism as a scientific enterprise, since it doesn’t make novel predictions and it’s merely, quite obviously, a way to make prejudices scientific. Clearly, based on what a novel prediction of a novel fact entails, HBD/hereditarian theory doesn’t make any such predictions of novel facts.
Strengthening My Argument that Black Americans Deserve Reparations
2350 words
Introduction
In February of last year I constructed an argument that argued since the US government has a history of giving reparations to people who have suffered injustices brought about by the US government (like the Japanese, Natives and victims of sterilization), and since black Americans have suffered injustices brought about by the US government (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation), then it follows that black Americans deserve reparations. But while discussing the argument on Twitter, someone pointed out to me that I can’t derive an ought from an is—which is known as the naturalistic fallacy. Though one can do so if they have an empirical premise and a normative premise which would guarantee a normative conclusion. The normative premise is implicit in the argument. Then, before we derive the conclusion that black Americans deserve reparations, we need a premise that justifies that a rectification of the historical injustices entails that reparations need to be given in order to rectify the historical injustices. I will give the revised argument below, then I will give the argument in formal notation, defend the premises, the validity and soundness of the argument, and show that black Americans indeed deserve reparations from the US government to right the historical wrongs that were inflicted upon them.
(P1) The US government has a history of giving reparations to people who have suffered injustices brought above by them (like the Japanese and Natives).
(P2) The US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices.
(P3) Black Americans have historically suggested from slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation (systemic along with individual discrimination).
(C) So black Americans deserve reparations from the US government.
Constructing the argument and defending the premises
Variables:
R: Black Americans deserve reparations.
J: Japanese Americans have recreational reparations.
N: Native Americans have received reparations.
O: The US government has a history of giving reparations to people who have suffered injustices.
M: The US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices.
S: Black Americans have historically suffered from slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation.
So here’s the argument:
(P1) (J^N) -> O
(P2) M
(P3) S
(C) R
P1 asserts that if Japanese Americans and Native Americans have received reparations, then the US government has a history of giving reparations to people who have suffered injustices—specifically people who have suffered injustices brought about by the US government. This premise is based on historical evidence. Since they have received reparations, then the premise is true. P2 asserts that the US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices. Many believe that the US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices and past harms, and since we have the historical precedence of past harms being rectified by the US government, then there is an argument to be made that black Americans deserve reparations from the US government. P3 asserts that black Americans have suffered injustices brought about by the US government like slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation (which is a combination of individual and systemic racism). Like P1, this premise, too, is supported by historical evidence. Thus, given that the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows—black Americans deserve reparations from the US government.
“But wait RR, how is P2 true?” P1 states that J and N have received reparations, so the US government has a history of giving reparations to people it has wronged in the past. There is obviously a moral precedent embedded in P1: If a group of people have suffered injustices, and the US government has provided them reparations, then there is a historical precedent or acknowledgment that rectifying past wrongs is a legitimate action. So P2 builds on this moral principle—it posits that the US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices, and that the obligation arises from the recognition that historical injustices have occurred while having been redressed through reparations for other groups which was indicated in P1.
It can also be put like this: X1 and X2 received reparations because they were wronged. Y was wronged. So Y deserves reparations. Y experienced similar to worse injustices. So due to the precedent set for X1 and X2, Y therefore deserves reparations. I can also further strengthen the argument with a sub-argument for P2 that goes like this:
(P1) If a group has been wronged by a governmental body, then there is a moral obligation for the government to rectify the harm caused.
(P2) If there is a moral obligation for the government to rectify the harm caused, then reparations are necessary to address the wrong.
(C)Thus,if a group has been wronged by a governmental body, then reparations are necessary to rectify the harm caused.
“But wait RR, doesn’t the argument commit the naturalistic fallacy (the is-ought fallacy) since it derives a normative conclusion from empirical premises?” No, it doesn’t. As I argued recently in my article that crime is bad and racism causes crime so racism is morally wrong, if there is an empirical premise and a normative premise, one can derive a normative conclusion and that’s what I did. The argument doesn’t directly derive an ought from an is; it presents the moral premise (the US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices) and factual premises (historical instances of reparations given to other groups and the historical suffering of black Americans), which then allows me to derive the normative conclusion. So the naturalistic fallacy occurs when someone attempts to derive a moral or normative conclusion solely from descriptive or factual premises without any moral premise to bridge the gap. So the moral premise (P2) serves as the bridge between the empirical premises which then allows me to infer the normative conclusion.
So each premise contributes to supporting the conclusion and the logical connections between them guarantee the validity of the argument. Further, not only is the argument valid but it is also sound since it has all true premises. Each premise is well-supported and grounded in historical and ethical considerations which then guarantees the conclusion that black Americans deserve reparations.
I can also put it like this:
(1) If Japanese and Native Americans received reparations, then the US government has a history of giving reparations to people who have suffered injustices.
(2) The US government has a moral obligation to rectify historical injustices.
(3) Since Japanese and Native Americans received reparations, it implies that the US government indeed gives reparations to those who have suffered injustices (conclusion from 1 and 2).
(4) Given that black Americans historically suffered from slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation, they are included among people who have suffered injustices.
(5) Therefore, based on the established pattern of reparations given by the US government and the moral obligation to rectify historical injustices, black Americans deserve reparations (conclusion from 3 and 4).
For example, Howard-Hassmann (2022) states that “all political entities and all citizens should be willing to offer reparations for activities that would now be considered horrendous crimes, even if they occurred in the far distant past.” While Muhammad (2020: 124-125) states that “apologies are also necessary components of reconciliation, the reality is that monetary compensation is also of vital African nations which participated in the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade have similar legal obligations as European nation states to provide reparations.” I agree with both of these arguments, and they only strengthen my initial argument on reparations for black Americans due to slavery and the US government’s role in the Trade.
Therefore, due to these considerations, reparations are not only a matter of justice but also a response to the persistent legacy of historical racial discrimination in America along with the legacy of slavery. Although there are some arguments that the US should pay Africa reparations for the slave trade, while acknowledging that other groups like Africans themselves and Arabs also participated in the slave trade, (Howard-Hassmann, 2022) and that African nations should pay reparations to black Americans (Muhammad, 2020), it’s not relevant to my argument (although I do agree with both of these arguments) that the US government should pay reparations.
Post-traumatic slave syndrome and intergenerational effects of slavery and Jim Crow
The impact of slavery not only had effects on contemporary birth weights of African Americans (Jasienska, 2009; also see Jasienska’s 2013 book The Fragile Wisdom for an in depth discussion on slavery and it’s intergenerationally-transmitted effects). Furthermore, Jasienska (2013: 117) states that her hypothesis “is that too few generations have elapsed for African Americans living in improved energetic status to counteract the tragic multigenerational effects of nutritional deprivation.” Jasienska (2013: 116) explains:
African Americans suffered nutritional deprivation that lasted much longer, both within each generation and across generations. Even though their caloric intake was higher than that of women during the Dutch famine, slaves’ levels of energy expenditure were extreme. Hard work alone during pregnancy is capable of reducing an infant’s birth weight, regardless of the mother’s caloric intake. Multigenerational exposure to harsh energy-related conditions may change the maternal physiology’s assessment of the quality of environmental conditions. Even when the mother is well nourished herself, as an organism she receives an additional intergenerational signal. The signal may be integrated into her own maternal metabolic processes, and it may cause her organism to follow a specific physiological strategy. This strategy results in the reduced birth weight of her children.
There are a few possible causal physiological mechanisms which may have come into play here that have caused this. For example, epigenetic modifications due to exposure to adverse environmental conditions of slavery like their nutrient deprived environments, the stress they underwent, and the associated inflammatory responses could persist which then influences the intrauterine environment and feral development which ultimately affects birth weight. This then can be exacerbated by post-traumatic slave syndrome (PTSS).
Slavery also led to psychological harm like PTSS—it also makes predictions above violence and health (Halloran, 2018). So quite obviously, there is a body of evidence of the intergenerationally-transmitted effects of slavery and Jim Crow (see Krieger et al, 2013, 2014; Lee et al, 2023). Thus, quite obviously, there are effects of slavery and Jim Crow which have persisted across the generations and—for descendants of both these groups—reparations is a valid way to address these historical wrongs brought about by the US government. This combined with PTSS is yet more evidence that there are grievances which are the outcomes of slavery which led to inequitable outcomes in the modern day, and that reparations can—while not actually fixing the issues (which is up to public health)—can serve as a form of acknowledgement, redress, and restitution for the historical injustices experienced by black American slaves and their descendants.
Conclusion
I have restructured my argument that black Americans deserve reparations by adding a normative premise which bypasses a claim that the argument is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy. I then provided a sub-argument which justifies P2. The sub-argument breaks down the broader concept of moral obligation into specific premises, which makes the argument clearer and more comprehensive. So by explicitly outlining the logical steps in justifying and establishing moral obligation, the sub-argument strengthens the overall argument by addressing a specific objection while clarifying the underlying reasoning. It also highlights the logical connection between moral obligation and the necessity of reparations by showing that if there is a moral imperative to rectify historical injustices, then reparations become a necessary means to fulfill the obligation. This linkage, then, helps to solidify the conclusion that black Americans deserve reparations from the US government.
So the argument for reparations for black Americans rests on a solid foundation of empirical and moral principles. I’ve established that the historical precedent for other marginalized groups establishes a pattern of governmental acknowledgement and rectification of past wrongs. Therefore, this historical context—combined with the moral imperative for the US government to address past systemic injustices—shows the necessity of reparations as a means for redress. So by synthesizing ethical and empirical premises the argument transcends mere appeals for sentiment and political expediency. It represents a genuine recognition of historical injustices—which was shown in P1—and a commitment to address the historical wrongs—historical wrongs that quite clearly have had effects that we see today in America today like low birth weight of black American babies and the effects of PTSS.
Reparations is about the rectification of past wrongs like systemic discrimination against blacks along with attempting to right the wrongs of 400 years of slavery. While descendants of American slavery have inherited psychological, economic, and social burden of their ancestors slavery and oppression along with the injustices of what occurred after (segregation, Jim Crow), there are obviously 2 groups of individuals who deserve such restitution. One group who can trace their ancestry back to American chattel slavery and others who were victims of Jim Crow and segregation.
So providing reparations to black Americans isn’t only a matter of righting past wrongs, it is also a crucial step in addressing the deep-rooted historical injustices that still plague black Americans today. This would then right some wrongs on wealth accumulation as well. One Pew poll shows that 57 percent of black Americans report that their ancestors were enslaved. The Wikipedia article African Americans states that most African Americans are descendants of slavery. Obviously the argument isn’t just about people who self-identify as black Americans, since that implies immigrants would be valid recipients of reparations from the US government. But, if and only if one can show they are descendants of American chattel slavery, and if and only if one identifies as a black American should one be able to be considered for reparations.
So while reparations may not directly address all inequities that derive from slavery and Jim Crow, they can therefore symbolize a commitment to rectifying past wrongs. I have tried, with the renewed argument I made along with the reasoning for my premises, to show that there are indeed effects of slavery and Jim Crow that persist today. Therefore, if one can show they are descendants of either of these two groups then they deserve reparations.
Racism Disguised as Science: Why the HBD Movement is Racist
2600 words
Introduction
Over the last 10 years or so, claims from the human biodiversity (HBD) movement have been gaining more and more traction. Proponents of HBD may say something like “we’re not racists, we’re ‘Noticers'” (to use Steve Sailer terminology – more on him below). The thing is, the HBD movement is a racist movement for the following reasons: it promotes and justifies racial hierarchies, inequities, is justified by pseudoscience, and it’s historical connections to the eugenics movement which sought to use pseudoscientific theories of racial superiority to justify oppression and discrimination.
But ever since 1969, Arthur Jensen and others have tried to intellectualize such a position, the discussion around racism has moved on to things like not only overt examples of racism but to systemic inequities along with unconscious biases which perpetuate racial hierarchies. But despite a veneer of scientific objectivity, the underlying motivation appears to be that of upholding some groups as “better” and others “worse.” This is like when hereditarians like Rushton tried to argue in the 90s that they can’t be racist since they say Asians (who are a selected population) are better than whites who are better than blacks on trait X. We know that views on Asians have changed over the years, for example with the use of the term “Mongoloid idiot.” Nonetheless, it’s obvious that the HBD movement purports a racial hierarchy. Knowing this, I will show how HBD is a racist movement.
Why HBD is racist
I have previously provided 6 definitions of racism. In that article I discussed how racism “gets into the body” and causes negative health outcomes for black women. I have since written more about why racism and stereotypes are bad since they cause the black-white crime gap through the perpetuation of self-fulfilling prophecies and they also cause psychological and physiological harm.
One of the definitions of “racism” I gave came from John Lovchik in his book Racism: Reality Built on a Myth (2018: 12), where he wrote that “racism is a system of ranking human beings for the purpose of gaining and justifying an unequal distribution of political and economic power.” Using this definition, it is clear that the HBD movement is a racist movement since it attempts to justify this ranking or human beings to justify and gain different kinds of power. This definition from Lovchik encompasses both systemic racism and overt acts of discrimination.
HBD proponents believe they we can delineate races not only based on physical appearance but also genetic differences. This is inherent in their system of ranking. But I think the same. Spencer’s (2014, 2021) OMB race theory (to which I hold to) states that race is a referent denoting a proper name to population groups. But that’s where the similarities end; OMB race theory is nothing like HBD. The key distinction between the two is in the interpretation of said differences. While both perspectives hold that population groups can be sorted into distinct groups, there is a divergence in their intentions and conclusions regarding the significance of said racial categorization.
Spencer’s OMB race theory emphasizes the declination of races based on physical differences as well as genetic ones using K=5 and how the OMB defines race in America—as a proper name for population groups. But Spencer (2014: 1036) explicitly states that his theory has no normative conclusion in it, since “the genetic evidence that supports the theory comes from noncoding DNA sequences. Thus, if individuals wish to make claims about one race being superior to another in some respect, they will have to look elsewhere for that evidence.” So the theory focuses solely on genetic ancestry without any normative judgements or hierarchical ranking of the races.
Conversely, the HBD movement, despite also genetically delineating races, differs in the application and interpretation of the evidence. Unlike Spencer’s OMB race theory, HBD states that genetic differences between groups contribute to differences in intelligence, social outcomes and behavior. HBD proponents use genetic analyses like GWAS to show that a trait has some kind of genetic influence and that, since there is a phenotypic difference in the trait between certain racial groups that it then follows that there is a genetic difference between certain racial groups when it comes to the phenotypic trait in question.
So this distinction that I have outlined shows the principle ways in which OMB race theory is nothing like HBD theory. So while both ideas involve genetic delineation of races, Spencer’s doesn’t support racist ideologies or hierarchical rankings among the races while the HBD movement does. Thus, the distinction shows the relationship between genetic analysis, racism and racial categorization is nuanced and that, just because one believes that human races exist, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are a racist.
Furthermore, the attribution of social outcomes/inequality to biological/genetic differences is yet another reason why HBD is racist. They argue that most differences (read: outcomes/inequalities) between groups can come down mostly to genes, still leaving room for an environmental component. (This is also one of Bailey’s 1997 hereditarian fallacies.) It is this claim that socially-valued differences between groups are genetic in nature which then leads to systemic discrimination. So by attributing differences in outcome and resources, to biological differences, HBD attempts to perpetuate and legitimate systemic discrimination against certain racial groups. “It’s in their genes, nothing can be done.” Therefore, by ranking humans based on race and attributing differences in outcomes between groups—in part—to biological differences, the HBD movement justifies and perpetuates systemic discrimination against certain races, making HBD a racist movement.
Eugenic thinking arose in the late 1800s and began to be put into action in the 1900s. From sterilization to certain people deemed inferior, to advocating the enhancement of humanity through selective breeding of certain groups of people, some of the ideas from the eugenics movement are inherent in HBD-type thinking. The HBD movement then emerged as a more “respectable” iteration of the eugenics movement and they draw on similar themes. But why does this connection matter? It matters since the historical connection between the two shows how such pernicious thinking can penetrate social thought.
Lastly the HBD movement relies on pseudoscience. They often distort or misrepresent scientific findings. Most obvious is J. P. Rushton. In his discussion of Gould’s (1978) reanalysis of Morton’s skull collection, Rushton miscited Gould’s results in a way that jived with Rushton’s racial hierarchies (Cain and Vanderwolf, 1990). Rushton also misrepresented the skull data from Beals et al (1984). Rushton is the perfect example of this, since he misrepresented and ignored a ton of contrary data so that his theory could be more important. Rushton’s cherry-picking, misrepresentation of data, and ignoring contrary evidence while not responding to devestating critiques (Anderson, 1991; Graves 2002a, b) show this perfectly. This is the perfect example of confirmation bias.
They also rely on simplistic and reductionist interpretation of genetic research. By doing this, they also perpetuate stereotypes which can then have real-world consequences, like people committing horrific mass murder (the Buffalo shooter made reference to such genetic studies, which is why science communication is so important).
In his 2020 book Human Diversity the infamous Charles Murray made a statement about inferiority and superiority in reference to classes, races, and sexes, writing:
To say that groups of people differ genetically in ways that bear on cognitive repertoires (as this book does) guarantees accusations that I am misusing science in the service of bigotry and oppression. Let me therefore state explicitly that I reject claims that groups of people, be they sexes or races or classes, can be ranked from superior to inferior. I reject claims that differences among groups have any relevance to human worth or dignity.
Seeing as Chuck is most famous for his book The Bell Curve, this passage needs to be taken in context. So although he claims to reject such claims of inferiority and superiority, his previous work has contributed to such notions, and thus, it is implicit in his work. Furthermore, the language he used in the passage also implies hierarchical distinctions. When he made reference to “groups of people [who] differ genetically in ways that bear on cognitive repertoires“, there is a subtle suggestion that groups may possess inherent advantages or disadvantages in cognitive ability, thusly implying a form of hierarchy.
Murray’s work has been used by alt-right and white nationalist groups, and we know that white nationalist groups use such information for their own gain (Panofsky, Dasgupta, and Iturriaga, 2020; Bird, Jackson, and Winston, 2023). Panofsky and his coauthors write that “the claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new). They’re the basic, tired evergreens of ancient racist thought.“
Next we have Steve Sailer. He may claim that he is merely observing (or as he says “Noticing”) and discussing empirical data. So his focus on racial differences and how they are driven mainly by genetic differences aligns with Lovchik’s definition of racism, since it involves the ranking of races based on perceived genetic differences, in both IQ and crime. Therefore, by emphasizing these differences and their purported implications for socially-relevant traits and their so-called implications for social hierarchies, Sailer’s work can be seen as justifying social inequalities and therefore justifying systemic discrimination.
Lastly, we have Bo Winegard’s Aporia Magazine essay titled What is a racist? In the article he forwards 5 definitions (while giving a 10-point scale, I will bracket the score he gives each):
Flawed:
1: Somebody who believes that race is a real, biological phenomenon and that races are different from each other. [1/10]
2: Somebody who believes that some races have higher average socially desirable traits such as intelligence and self-control than others. [3/10]3: Somebody who treats members of one race differently from members of another race. [5/10]
Plausible:
4: Somebody who dislikes members of other races. [8/10]
5: Somebody who advocates for differential treatment under the law for different races. [10/10]
Note that the first 2 encompass what, for the purposes of this article, I call racist in the HBD parlance. Nonetheless, I have tried to sufficiently argue that those 2 do constitute racism and I think I have shown how. In the first, if it is used to justify and legitimate social hierarchies, it is indeed racist. For the second, if someone holds the belief that races differ on socially values traits and that it is genetically caused, then it could perpetuate racist stereotypes and the continuation of racist ideologies. The third and fourth constitute racial discrimination. These 2 could also be known as hearts and minds racism, which operate at the level of individual beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. But the fifth definition that Bo forwarded is the most interesting one, since it has certain implications.
About the fifth definition, Bo wrote that (my emphasis) “a racist is somebody who advocates for differential treatment under the law for different races, [it] is the most incontrovertible and therefore paradigmatic definition of racist that I can imagine.” This is interesting. If it is not able to be denied, disputed, and serves as a typical example of the referent of racism, then this has implications for the views of certain hereditarians and the people they ran with.
We know that Jensen ran with actual racists and that he lent his name to their cause. (Jackson, 2022; see also Jackson and Winston, 2020 for a discussion). We know that hereditarians, despite their protestations, ignore evolutionary theory (Roseman and Bird, 2023). Nonetheless, we know that there is no support for the hereditarian hypothesis (Bird, 2021). But the issue here is the fifth definition that Bo said isn’t indisputable.
In his 2020 article Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry, philosopher Nathan Cofnas noted that hereditarians call for a kind of “tailored training program“, which John Jackson took to be “a two-tiered education system.” Although Cofnas didn’t say it, he cited hereditarians who DID say it. Thus, he showed how they ARE racists. And Cofnas states that we can’t know what would happen if race differences in intelligence would be found to have a genetic basis. But I argued before that since the hereditarian hypothesis is false and if we believe it is true then it could—and has—caused harm, so we should thusly ban IQ tests. Nonetheless, Cofnas’ passage in his article can be seen as racist under Lovchik’s definition, since he advocates for tailored training programs, which could result in unequal distribution of resources and further entrench inequities based on genetic differences between groups in their so-called intelligence which hereditarians argue is partly genetic in nature.
Prominent hereditarians Shockley and Cattell said some overtly racist things, Cattell even creating a religion called “Beyondism” (Tucker, 2009). Shockley called for the voluntary sterilization of black women (Thorp, 2022) and proposed a sterilization plan to pay anyone with an IQ a sum of money to get sterilized. I have also further documented the eugenic thinking of IQists and criminologists. It seems that this field is and has been a hole for racists ever since it’s inception.
Conclusion
Throughout this discussion, I have argued that the HBD movement is a racist one. Most importantly, a lot of their research was bankrolled by the Nazi Pioneer Fund. So financial support from a racist organization is pivotal in this matter, since these researchers were doing work that would justify the conclusions of the racist Fund (see Tucker 1996, 2002). So since the Fund had a history of funding research into eugenics, and of promoting research which could—implicitly—be seen as justification for racial superiorityp and inferiority, and therefore attempting to justify existing inequities.
Relying on John Lovchik’s definition of racism, I’ve shown how the HBD movement is a racist movement since it seeks to justify existing inequalities between racial groups and since it is a system of ranking human beings. I’ve also shown that mere belief in the existence of race isn’t enough for one to be rightly called a racist, since theories of race like Spencer’s (2014) OMB race theory is nothing like HBD theory since it doesn’t rank the races, nor does it argue that the genetic differences between races are causal for the socially important differences that hereditarians discuss. Racism isn’t only about individual attitudes, but also about systemic structures and institutional practices which perpetuate racial hierarchies and inequities.
I showed how, despite his protestations, Murray believes that races, classes, and sexes can be ranked—which is a form of hierarchy. I also showed how Steve “The Noticer” Sailer is a racist. Both of these men’s views are racist. I then discussed Winegard’s definitions, showing that they are all good definitions of the term under discussion. I then turned to how Jensen ran with racist Nazis and how Cofnas cited researchers who called for tailored training programs.
That the HBD movement promotes the idea that differences in socially valued traits are genetic in nature through pseudoscientific theories along with the fact that it quite obviously is an attempt at justifying a human hierarchy of socially valued traits means that there is no question about it—the HBD movement is a racist movement.
(P1) If the HBD movement promotes and justifies racial hierarchies and inequities, then it is a racist movement.
(P2) The HBD movement promotes and justifies racial hierarchies and inequities.
(C) So the HBD movement is a racist movement.
Strategies for Achieving Racial Health Equity: An Argument for When Health Inequalities are Health Inequities
2100 words
Introduction
Health can be defined as “a relative state in which one is able to function well physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually to express the full range of one’s unique potentialities within the environment in which one lives” (Svalastog et al, 2017). Health, clearly, is a multi-dimensional concept (Barr, 2014). Since there are many kinds of referents to the word “health”, it is therefore essential to understand and consider the context and perspective of each person and group when discussing health-related issues and also while implementing healthcare policies and practices.
Inequality exists everywhere on earth and it manifests in numerous forms like in income, health, education, and healthcare access. So the existence of inequality is undeniable, since we can see it with our own eyes, but understanding the mechanisms that lead to inequality should be multifaceted. Central to the understanding of inequality is the relationship between inequality, unfairness and the role of empirical investigations in uncovering not only the implications for societal outcomes, but also in discerning what is an inequity (which is a kind of inequality that is avoidable, unfair and unjust). According to Braveman, (2003: 182):
Health inequities are disparities in health or its social determinants that favour the social groups that were already more advantaged. Inequity does not refer generically to just any inequalities between any population groups, but very specifically to disparities between groups of people categorized a priori according to some important features of their underlying social position.
Talking about health is the best way to understand what inequity actually is. The issue is, true equality of health is impossible, but what is possible is addressing the actual social determinants of health (SDoH). What is also important is understanding what equity is and what equity isn’t, as I have argued in the past. Grifters like James Lindsay and Chris Rufo (along with well-meaning but still wrong institutions) believe that equity is ensuring equal outcomes. This is incorrect. What equity means—in the health sphere—is when “the opportunity to ‘attain their full health potential’ and no one is ‘disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of their social position or other socially determined circumstance’” (Braveman, quoted by the CDC).Therefore, health equity is when everyone has the chance to reach their fill potential, unabated by social determinants. Social conditions and policies strongly influence the health of both individuals and groups and it’s the result of unequal distribution of resources and opportunities. Empirical investigation is pivotal in understanding if a certain inequality is an inequity. And although inequities are a kind of inequality, “inequality” and “inequity” are conceptually distinct (Braveman, 2003).
In this article I will discuss the SDoH, give my argument that we can identify inequity (a kind of inequality) through empirical investigations (meaning that they are avoidable, unfair and unjust). I will then pivot to a real-world example of my argument—that of low birth weight in black American newborns and argue that racism and historical injustices can explain that since non-American black women have children with higher mean birth weights. I will then discuss how blacks who have doctors of of the same race report better care and have higher life expectancies. I will then discuss what can be done about this—and the answer is to educate people on genetic essentialism which leads to racism and racist attitudes.
On SDoH
SDoH include the lack of education, racism, lack of access to health care and poverty. Barr (2011: 64) had a helpful flow chart to understand this issue.
So when it comes to variation in health outcomes, we know that only 20 percent can be attributed to access to medical care, while a whooping 80 percent is attributable to the SDoH:
(Ratcliffe, 2017 also states that about 20 percent of the health of nation is attributed to medical care, 5 percent the result of biology and genes, 20 percent the result of individual action, and 50 percent due to the SDoH.)
The WHO (2010) also has a Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) with a conceptual framework:
This is staggering. For if the social determinants of health are causal for health outcomes, then it comes down to how society is structured along with how we treat certain people and groups. This also could come down to environmental racism—which is the disproportionate exposure of minority groups to environmental hazards. One pertinent example is lead in paint uses in houses in the 80s, where groups actually used blacks as a kind of experiment in seeing the effects of lead. The issue was further exacerbated by Big Lead in trying to argue that the families had a “history of low intelligence” and that it couldn’t be proven that lead had the damaging effects on the children. Not only does environmental racism cause negative health effects, but so does individual racism which is known to have a negative effect on black women. (Racism and stereotypes which lead to self-fulfilling prophecies also cause the black-white crime gap.)
So empirical research—grounded in data and evidence—can help us in understanding whether a given inequality is an inequity. Certain disparities could reflect historical disadvantages which then perpetuate cycles of disadvantage which then reinforce existing power structures and further continue to marginalize certain communities.
The argument
I have constructed an argument that shows what I am talking about:
UO: Unequal outcome
I: Inequality
A: Avoidable
F: Unfair
J: Unjust
E: Empirical investigation
I involves A, F, J. E may reveal instances where I leads to UO and I is associated with F, J, and A.
Premise 1: E -> (A^F^J)
Premise 2: I -> (A^F^J)
Conclusion: E -> ((I -> UO) ^ (A^F^J))
(P1) If empirical investigations (E) reveal instances where avoidable factors (A), unfairness (F) and injustice (J) are present, and (P2) if inequality (I) leads to conditions involving avoidability (A), unfairness (F) and injustice (J), then (Conclusion) empirical investigations (E) could reveal instances where inequality leads to unequal outcomes (UO), and whether or not they are avoidable (A), unfair (F) or unjust (J). Effectively, since inequities are a kind of inequality, then this can identify inequities where they are, and then we can work to fix them.
For instance, birth weight has decreased recently and the effect is more pronounced for black women (Catov et al, 2016) and racism could as well be a culprit (Collins Jr., et al, 2004). There is also evidence that structural racism in the workplace can and has attributed to this (Chantarat et al, 2022). It’s quite clear that racism can explain birth outcome disparities (Dominguez et al, 2010; Alhusen et al, 2016; Dreyer, 2021). Not only does racism contribute to adverse birth outcomes but so too do factors related to environmental racism (Burris and Hacker, 2018). This also has a historical precedent: slavery (Jasienska, 2009). Hereditarians may try to argue that (as always) this difference has a genetic basis. But we know that African women born in Africa are heavier than African American women; black women born in Africa have children with higher mean birth weights than African American women (David and Collins, 1997). Cabral et al (1991) also found the same—non-American black women birthed children that weighed 135 more grams than American black women. Thus, the difference isn’t genetic in nature—it is environmentally caused and it partly stems from slavery. Clearly this discussion shows that my argument has a real-world basis.
How do we reverse these inequities?
Clearly, racism has societal consequences not only for crime and mental illness, but also low birth weight in black American women. The difference can’t be genetic in nature, so it’s obviously environmental/social in nature due to racism, environmental racism. So how can we alleviate this? There are a few ways.
We can improve access to pre-natal care. By ensuring equitable access to pre-natal care, and by expanding Medicaid coverage, we can the begin to address the issue of low black birth weight. We know that when black newborns are cared for by black doctors, they have a better survival rate (Greenwood et al, 2020). We also have an RCT showing that black doctors could reduce the black-white cardiovascular mortality rate by 19 percent (Alsan, Garrick, and Grasiani, 2019). We also know that a higher percentage of black doctors leads to lower mortality rate and better life expectancy (Peek, 2023; Snyder et al, 2023). This isn’t a new finding—we’ve known this since the 90s (Komaramy et al, 1996; Saha et al, 1999). We also know that people who have same-race doctors are more likely to accept much-needed preventative care (LaVeist, Nuru-Jeter, and Jones, 2003). This could then lead to less systemic bias in healthcare, since we know that some of the difference is systemic in nature (Reschovsky and O’Malley 2008: 229, 230). We also know that bias, stereotyping, and prejudice also play a part (Smedley et al, 2003). Such stereotypes are also sometimes unconscious (Williams and Rucker, 2000). The medical system contributes to said disparities (Bird and Clinton, 2001). Blacks who perceived more racism in healthcare felt more comfortable with a black doctor (Chen et al, 2005)—minorities also trust the healthcare system less than whites (Boulware et al, 2003). Lastly, black and white doctors agree that race is a medically relevant data point, but they don’t agree on why (Bonham et al, 2009).
We know that systemic and structural racism exists and that it impacts health outcomes (Braveman et al, 2022). Some may say that systemic and structural racism don’t exist, but this claim is clearly false. They are “are forms of racism that are pervasively and deeply embedded in and throughout systems, laws, written or unwritten policies, entrenched practices, and established beliefs and attitudes that produce, condone, and perpetuate widespread unfair treatment of people of color. They reflect both ongoing and historical injustices” (Braveman et al, 2022). Perhaps the most important way that systemic racism can harm health is through placing people at an economic disadvantage and stress. Environmental racism then compounds this, and then unfair treatment then leads to higher levels of stress which then leads to negative health outcomes.
Lastly a key issue here is the prevalence of racism. We know that it has a slew of negative health effects and that it affects the incidence of the black-white crime gap. But what can be done to alleviate racist attitudes?
Since many racist ideas have a genetically essentialist tilt, then we can use education to ameliorate racist attitudes (Donovan, 2022). We also know that racial essentialist attitudes are related to the belief that evolution has an intentional tilt and that it’s negatively correlated with biology grades (Donovan, 2015). Much of Donovan’s work shows that education can ameliorate racist attitudes which are due to genetic essentialism. We also know that such essentialist thinking is related to misconceptions about heredity and evolution and is correlated with low grades at the end of the semester in beginner biology course (Donovan, 2016). Thus, by providing accurate and understandable education on race, genetics, and evolution, people may be less likely to hold racial essentialist attitudes and more likely to reject racist ideologies. So there are actionable things we can do to combat racism which leads to crime and negative health outcomes for minority groups.
Conclusion
The SDoH play a pivotal role in shaping the health outcomes while perpetuating health inequities. We can, through empirical investigations, ascertain when an inequality is avoidable, unfair and unjust (meaning, when it is an inequity). We can then understand how historical injustices like racism impact marginalized communities which then contribute to negative health outcomes like low birth weight of black American babies. We know that it’s not a genetic difference since non-American black women have children with higher mean birth weights than black American women, and this suggests thar historical injustices and racism are a cause (as Jasienska argues). Further, studies show that when black patients have black doctors, they report better care and have higher life expectancies. Research has also shown that education can play a role in ameliorating genetic essentialist and racist attitudes which then, as I’ve shown, lead to negative health outcomes. The argument I’ve made here has a real-world basis in the case of low birth weight of black American babies.
In sum, committing to social and racial justice can help to change these inequities, and for that, we will have a better and more inclusive society where people’s negative health outcomes aren’t caused by social goings-on. To achieve racial health equity, we must address the avoidable, unfair and unjust factors that contribute to these inequities.
The “Great Replacement Theory”
2550 words
Introduction
The “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT hereafter) is a white nationalist conspiracy theory (conceptualized by French philosopher Renaud Camus) where there is an intentional effort by some shadowy group (i.e., Jews and global elites) to bring mass amounts of immigrants with high TFRs to countries with whites where whites have low TFRs in order to displace and replace whites in those countries (Beirich, 2021). Vague statements have been made about their “IQs” in that they would be easier to “control” and that they would then intermix with whites to further decrease the IQ of the nation and then be more controllable, all the while the main goal of the GRT—the destruction of the white race—would come to fruition. Here, I will go through the logic of what I think the two premises of the GRT are, and then I will show how the two premises (which I hold to obviously be true) don’t guarantee the conclusion that the GRT is true and that there is an intentional demographic replacement. I will discuss precursors of this that are or almost are 100 years old. I will then discuss what “theory” and “conspiracy theory” means and how, by definition, the GRT is both a theory (an attempted explanation of observed facts) and a conspiracy theory (suggesting a secret plan for the destruction and replacement of the white race).
The genesis of the GRT
The idea of the GRT is older than what spurred it’s discussion in the new millennium, but it can be traced in its modern usage to French political commentator Renaud Camus in his book Le Grand Remplacement.
But one of the earliest iterations of the GRT is the so-called “Kalergi plan.” Kalergi was also one of the founders of the pan-European union (Wiedemer, 1993). Kalergi, in his 1925 book Practical Idealism, wrote that “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” Which is similar to what Grant (1922: 110) wrote in The Passing of the Great Race:
All historians are familiar with the phenomenon of a rise and decline in civilization such as has oc- curred time and again in the history of the world but we have here in the disappearance of the Cro-Magnon race the earliest example of the replacement of a very superior race by an inferior one. There is great danger of a similar replacement of a higher by a lower type here in America unless the native American uses his superior intelligence to protect himself and his children from competition with intrusive peoples drained from the lowest races of eastern Europe and western Asia.
The idea of a great replacement is obviously much older than what spurred it on today. Movement was much tougher back then as the technology for mass migrations was just beginning to become more mainstream (think of the mass migrations from the 1860s up until the 1930s in America from European groups). Even the migration of other whites from Europe was used as a kind of “replacement” of protestant Anglo-Saxon ways of life. Nonetheless, these ideas of a great replacement are not new, and these two men (one of which—Kalergi—wasn’t using the quote in a nefarious way, contra the white nationalists who use this quote as evidence of the GRT and the plan for it in the modern day) are used as evidence that it is occurring.
Kalergi envisioned a positive blending of the races, whereas Grant expressed concerns of replacement by so-called “inferior” groups replacing so-called “superior” groups. Grant—in trying to argue that Cro-Magnon man was the superior race, replaced by the inferior one—expressed worry of intentional demographic replacement, which is the basis of the GRT today and what the GRT essentially reduces to. The combination of these opposing perspectives of the mixing of races (the positive one from Kalergi and the negative one from Grant) show that the idea of a great replacement is much older than Camus’ worry in his book. (And, as I will argue, the fact that the 2 below premises are true doesn’t guarantee the conclusion of the GRT.)
The concept of the GRT
The GRT has two premises:
(1) Whites have fewer children below TFR
(2) Immigrants have more children above TFR
Which then should get us to:
(C) Therefore, the GRT is true.
But how does (C) follow from (1) and (2)? The GRT suggests not only a demographic shift in which the majority (whites) are replaced and displaced by minorities (in this case mostly “Hispanics” in America), but that this is intentional—that is, it is one man or group’s intention for this to occur. The two premises above refer to factual, verifiable instances: Whites have fewer children; immigrants coming into America have more children. BUT just because those two premises are true, this does NOT mean that the conclusion—GRT is true—follows from the two premises. The two premises focus on the fertility rates of two groups (American whites and immigrants to America), but acceptance of both of those premises does not mean that there is an act of intentional displacement occurring. We can allow the truth of both premises, but that doesn’t lead to the truth of the GRT. Because that change is intentionally driven by some super secret, shadowy and sinister group (the Jews or some other kind of amalgamation of elites who want easy “slave labor”).
The GRT was even endorsed by the Buffalo shooter who heniously shot and killed people in a Tops supermarket. He was driven by claims of the GRT. (The US Congress condemned the GRT as a “White supremacist conspiracy theory“, and I will show how it is a theory and even a conspiracy theory below.) The shooter even plagiarized the “rationale section” of his manifesto (Peterka-Benton and Benton, 2023). This shows that such conspiracy theories like the GRT can indeed lead to radicalization of people.
Even ex-presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy made reference to the GRT, stating that “great replacement theory is not some grand right-wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform.” Even former Fox News political commentator Tucker Carlson has espoused these beliefs on his former show on Fox News. The belief in such conspiratorial thinking can quite obviously—as seen with the Buffalo shooter—have devestating negative consequences (Adam-Troian et al, 2023). Thus, these views have hit the mainstream as something that’s “plausible” on the minds of many Americans.
Such thinking obviously can be used for both Europe and America—where the Islamization/Africanization of Europe and the browning of America with “Hispanics” and other groups—where there is a nefarious plot to replace the white population of both locations, and these mostly derive on places like 4chan where they try to “meme” what they want into reality (Aguilar, 2023).
On theories and conspiracy theories
Some may say that the GRT isn’t a theory nor is it even a conspiracy theory—it’s a mere observation. I’ve already allowed that both premises of the argument—whites have fewer children below TFR while immigrants have more children above TFR—is true. But that doesn’t mean that the conclusion follows that the GRT is true. Because, as argued above, it is intentional demographic replacement. Intentional by whom? Well the Jews and other global elites who want a “dumb” slave population that just listens, produces and has more children so as to continue the so-called enslavement of the lower populations.
But, by definition, the GRT is a theory and even a conspiracy theory. The GRT is a theory in virtue of it being an explanation for observed demographic changes and the 2 premises I stated above. It is a conspiracy theory because it suggests a deliberate, intentional plan by the so-called global elite to replace whites with immigrants. Of course labeling something as a conspiracy theory doesn’t imply that it’s inaccurate nor invalid, but I would say that the acceptance of both premises DO NOT guarantee the conclusion that those who push the GRT want it to.
The acceptance of both premises doesn’t mean that the GRT is true. The differential fertility of two groups, where one group (the high fertility group) is migrating into the country of another group (the low fertility group) doesn’t mean that there is some nefarious plot by some group to spur race mixing and the destruction and replacement of one group over another.
As shown above, people may interpret and respond to the GRT in different ways. Some may use it in a way to interpret and understand demographic changes while not committing henious actions, while others—like the Buffalo shooter—may use the information in a negative way and take many innocent lives on the basis of belief in the theory. Extreme interpretations of the GRT can lead to the shaping of beliefs which then contribute to negative actions based on the belief that their group is being replaced (Obaidi et al, 2021). Conspiracy theories also rely on the intent to certain events, of which the proponents of the GRT do.
Some white nationalists who hold to the GRT state that the Jews are behind this for a few reasons—one of which I stated above (that they want dumber people to come in who have higher TFRs to replace the native white population in the country)—and another reason which has even less support (if that’s even possible) which is that the Jews are orchestrating the great migration of non-whites into European countries as revenge and retaliation for Europeans expelling Jews from European countries during the middle ages (109 countries). This is the so-called “white genocide” conspiracy theory. This is the kind of hate that Trump ran with in his presidential run and in his time in office as president of the United States (Wilson, 2018). This can also be seen with the phrase “Jews/You will not replace us!” during the Charlottesville protests of 2017 (Wilson, 2021). “You” in the phrase “You will not replace us!” could refer to Jews, or it could refer to the people that the Jews are having migrate into white countries to replace the white population. Beliefs in such baseless conspiracy theories gave led to mass murder in America, Australia, and Norway (Davis, 2024).
One of the main actors in shaping the view that Jews are planning to replace (that is, genocide) Whites is white nationalist and evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald, more specifically in his book series on the origin of Jewish evolutionary group strategies, with A People that Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and it’s Discontents (1998a), and The Culture of Critique (1998b). It is a main argument in this book series that the Jews have an evolved evolutionary group strategy that has them try to undermine and destroy white societies (see Blutinger, 2021 and also Nathan Cofnas’ responses to MacDonald ‘s theory). MacDonald’s theory of a group evolutionary strategy is nothing more than a just-so story. Such baseless views have been the “rationale” of many mass killings in the 2010s (eg Fekete, 2011; Nilsson, 2022). Basically it’s “white genocide is happening and the Jews are behind it so we need to kill those who the Jews are using to enact their plan and we need to kill Jews.” (Note that this isn’t a call for any kind of violence it’s just a simplified version of what many of these mass killers imply in their writings and motivations for carrying out their henious attacks.) One thing driving these beliefs and that jd the GRT is that of anti-Semitism (Allington, Buarque, and Flores, 2020). Overall, such claims of a GRT or “white genocide” flourish online (Keulennar and Reuters, 2023). In this instance, it is claimed that Jews are using their ethnic genetic interests and nepotism to spur these events.
Conclusion
I have discussed the GRT argument and with it so-called “white genocide” (since the two are linked). The 2 premises of the GRT are tru—that American whites have low TFR and those who are emigrating have high TFR—but but that the premises are true doesn’t guarantee the conclusion that there is some great replacement occurring, since it reduces to a kind of intentional demographic replacement by some group (say, the Jews and other elites in society who want cheap, dumb, easily controllable labor who have more children). The GRT is happening, it is claimed, since the Jews want revenge on whites for kicking them out of so many countries. That is, the GRT is an intentional demographic replacement. Those who push the GRT take the two true premises and then incorrectly conclude that there is some kind of plan to eradicate whites through both the mixing of races and bringing in groups of people who have more children than whites do.
I have scrutinized what I take to be the main argument of GRT proponents and have shown that the conclusion they want doesn’t logically follow. Inherent in this is a hasty generalization fallacy and fallacy of composition (in the argument as I have formalized it). This shows the disconnect between both premises and the desired conclusion. Further, the classification of the GRT as a conspiracy theory comes from the attribution of intention to eliminate and eradicate white through the mass migration of non-white immigrant groups who have more children than whites along with racial mixing.
The Buffalo shooting in a Tops supermarket in 2022 shows the impact of these beliefs on people who want there to be some kind of plan or theory for the GRT. Even mainstream pundits and a political candidate have pushed the GRT to a wider audience. And as can be seen, belief in such a false theory can, does, and has led to the harm and murder of innocent people.
Lastly, I showed how the GRT is a theory (since it is an attempt at an explanation for an observed trend) and a conspiracy theory (since the GRT holds that there is a secret plan, with people behind the scenes in the shadows orchestrating the events of the GRT). Such a shift in demographics need not be the result of some conspiracy theory with the intention to wipe out one race of people. Of course some may use the GRT to try to understand how and why the demographics are changing in the West, but it is mostly used as a way to pin blame on why whites aren’t having more children and why mass immigration is occurring.
All in all, my goal here was to show that the GRT has true premises but the conclusion doesn’t follow, and that it is indeed a theory and a conspiracy theory. I have also shown how such beliefs can and have led to despicable actions. Clearly the impact of beliefs on society can have negative effects. But by rationally thinking about and analyzing such claims, we can show that not only are they baseless, but that it’s not merely an observation of observed trends. Evidence and logic should be valued here, while we reject unwanted, centuries-old stereotypes of the purported plan of racial domination of certain groups.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 