Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less