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

Person on a smartphone.

The digital public square rewards outrage over empathy. To save democracy, we must redesign our online spaces to prioritize dialogue, trust, and civility.

Getty Images, Tiwaporn Khemwatcharalerd

Rebuilding Civic Trust in the Age of Algorithmic Division

A headline about a new education policy flashes across a news-aggregation app. Within minutes, the comment section fills: one reader suggests the proposal has merit; a dozen others pounce. Words like idiot, sheep, and propaganda fly faster than the article loads. No one asks what the commenter meant. The thread scrolls on—another small fire in a forest already smoldering.

It’s a small scene, but it captures something larger: how the public square has turned reactive by design. The digital environments where citizens now meet were built to reward intensity, not inquiry. Each click, share, and outrage serves an invisible metric that prizes attention over understanding.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman typing on her laptop.

Pop-ups on federal websites blaming Democrats for the shutdown spark Hatch Act concerns, raising questions about neutrality in government communications.

Getty Images, Igor Suka

When Federal Websites Get Political: The Hatch Act in the Digital Age

As the federal government entered a shutdown on October 1st, a new controversy emerged over how federal agencies communicate during political standoffs. Pop-ups and banners appeared on agency websites blaming one side of Congress for the funding lapse, prompting questions about whether such messaging violated federal rules meant to keep government communications neutral. The episode has drawn bipartisan concern and renewed scrutiny of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that governs political activity in federal workplaces.

The Shutdown and Federal Website Pop-ups

The government shutdown began after negotiations over the federal budget collapsed. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, needed Democratic support in the Senate to pass a series of funding bills, or Continuing Resolutions, but failed to reach an agreement before the deadline. In the hours before the shutdown took effect, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, posted a full-screen red banner stating, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.” Users could not access the website until clicking through the message.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Lead On AI While It Still Can
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

Congress Must Lead On AI While It Still Can

Last month, Matthew and Maria Raine testified before Congress, describing how their 16-year-old son confided suicidal thoughts to AI chatbots, only to be met with validation, encouragement, and even help drafting a suicide note. The Raines are among multiple families who have recently filed lawsuits alleging that AI chatbots were responsible for their children’s suicides. Their deaths, now at the center of lawsuits against AI companies, underscore a similar argument playing out in federal courts: artificial intelligence is no longer an abstraction of the future; it is already shaping life and death.

And these teens are not outliers. According to Common Sense Media, a nonprofit dedicated to improving the lives of kids and families, 72 percent of teenagers report using AI companions, often relying on them for emotional support. This dependence is developing far ahead of any emerging national safety standard.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person on using a smartphone.

With millions of child abuse images reported annually and AI creating new dangers, advocates are calling for accountability from Big Tech and stronger laws to keep kids safe online.

Getty Images, ljubaphoto

Parents: It’s Time To Get Mad About Online Child Sexual Abuse

Forty-five years ago this month, Mothers Against Drunk Driving had its first national press conference, and a global movement to stop impaired driving was born. MADD was founded by Candace Lightner after her 13-year-old daughter was struck and killed by a drunk driver while walking to a church carnival in 1980. Terms like “designated driver” and the slogan “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” came out of MADD’s campaigning, and a variety of state and federal laws, like a lowered blood alcohol limit and legal drinking age, were instituted thanks to their advocacy. Over time, social norms evolved, and driving drunk was no longer seen as a “folk crime,” but a serious, conscious choice with serious consequences.

Movements like this one, started by fed-up, grieving parents working with law enforcement and law makers, worked to lower road fatalities nationwide, inspire similar campaigns in other countries, and saved countless lives.

Keep ReadingShow less