Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The ‘great replacement theory’ is nonsense

Opinion

Memorial for victims of Buffalo shooting

Mourners light candles on Tuesday at a memorial in Buffalo, N.Y. A gunman killed 10 people and allegedly cited the "great replacement theory" in his manifesto.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Let’s look at historic migration and demographic shifts. All humans descended from homo sapiens in Africa, spreading across the globe and growing from family nomadic groups to larger tribes; then to regional communities and now nation states. Through it all, we have fought over land, wealth, political power and prestige.

Our ancestors were no better and no worse than our neighbors; some were oppressed or supplanted, others oppressors and plunderers.

The “great replacement” nonsense (GRN), the idea that the white race will be relegated to minority status and lose power, is myth-making of the highest order. There are good guys (white people), damsels/children in distress (sex trafficking) and bad guys (migrants, supported by liberals and socialists). It’s the classic, if perverted, hero’s journey. We worship heroes in Western culture, so much so that we are easily manipulated by this perverted story that “those people” are out to get “us and our livelihood.”


The book that outlined the demise of “white-centered culture” misses the point. We are all human, descended from Africa. And the projected demographic shifts are a modern fairy tale about land, wealth, political power and prestige; who has it and who doesn’t deserve it. It is based on a myth that our physical characteristics define us. They don’t.

Taken from a historical perspective, our fellow humans are doing what we’ve always done: migrate and propagate. It’s not about replacement. It’s about desire and ambition for something better. Something better for our children.

human migrationPutative migration waves out of Africa. Saioa López, Lucy van Dorp and Garrett Hellenthal/ Wikimedia

If migration is part of the human experience, how could we prepare for it? Instead of retreating into our bunkers of ideology and groupthink of victimhood, how can we manage migration better?

In the United States, the answer might be an immigration policy overhaul. Creating a system that is coherent and not contradictory. Of course, people who are fighting over land, wealth, political power and prestige don’t want the competition. They like our society as it is. And fear becoming a minority in their own nation.

Which leads me to wonder what it would look and feel like to protect minority rights, instead of stripping them away. If we could reach a point where we are all protected, being in the minority doesn’t matter. But what about the land, wealth, political power and prestige? At least we are addressing the real issues instead of the fake differences. And we will continue to fight about these things, because we are human.

And this brings up another human behavior – our tendency towards group-think as a way to belong. I recently wrote about how easily we can be manipulated by our sense of belonging. And the GRN is another example of providing a story that some people would prefer and then manipulating people to take action that could lead us into a dystopian reality. Unfortunately, and with growing frequency, we are seeing people take violent action against the "other." Just look at what happened in Buffalo last weekend.

Then I ask myself, how do we move forward? Loretta Ross suggested The New York Times that we need to develop an attitude to co-create a better future, through calling-in instead of calling out:

“As it turns out, all of that shaming may be counterproductive. Multiple studies,” Ms. Crockett said, “have found that shaming can make people more resistant to change.”

“When you ask people to give up hate, you have to be there for them when they do.” said the Rev. C.T. Vivian to then new employee Loretta Ross.

“We have a saying in the movement: Some people you can work with and some people you can work around. But the thing that I want to emphasize is that the calling-in practice means you always keep a seat at the table for them if they come back.”

This is our challenge. Using our hearts to connect and belong, our minds to persuade others to share with a sense of dignity for all, and our bodies to produce acts of kindness and demonstrate love to our fellow humans. We all come from shared ancestors and we cannot be replaced.

Read More

The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

Generative AI and surgical robotics are advancing toward autonomous surgery, raising new questions about safety, regulation, payment models, and trust.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

In medicine’s history, the best technologies didn’t just improve clinical practice. They turned traditional medicine on its head.

For example, advances like CT, MRI, and ultrasound machines did more than merely improve diagnostic accuracy. They diminished the importance of the physical exam and the physicians who excelled at it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital Footprints Are Affecting This New Generation of Politicians, but Do Voters Care?

Hand holding smart phone with US flag case

Credit: Katareena Roska

Digital Footprints Are Affecting This New Generation of Politicians, but Do Voters Care?

WASHINGTON — In 2022, Jay Jones sent text messages to a former colleague about a senior state Republican in Virginia getting “two bullets to the head.”

When the texts were shared by his colleague a month before the Virginia general election, Jones, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, was slammed for the violent rhetoric. Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican candidate for governor, called for Jones to withdraw from the race.

Keep ReadingShow less
A U.S. flag flying before congress. Visual representation of technology, a glitch, artificial intelligence
As AI reshapes jobs and politics, America faces a choice: resist automation or embrace innovation. The path to prosperity lies in AI literacy and adaptability.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

America’s Unnamed Crisis

I first encountered Leszek Kołakowski, the Polish political thinker, as an undergraduate. It was he who warned of “an all-encompassing crisis” that societies can feel but cannot clearly name. His insight reads less like a relic of the late 1970s and more like a dispatch from our own political moment. We aren’t living through one breakdown, but a cascade of them—political, social, and technological—each amplifying the others. The result is a country where people feel burnt out, anxious, and increasingly unsure of where authority or stability can be found.

This crisis doesn’t have a single architect. Liberals can’t blame only Trump, and conservatives can’t pin everything on "wokeness." What we face is a convergence of powerful forces: decades of institutional drift, fractures in civic life, and technologies that reward emotions over understanding. These pressures compound one another, creating a sense of disorientation that older political labels fail to describe with the same accuracy as before.

Keep ReadingShow less