The Great Replacement Consciousness Test: Part II – Positive Stereotyping, Interracial Crime, and The You-Know-Who’s

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses

Wikimedia Commons: Malcolm X (see quote below)

“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don't think it will be based on the color of the skin...” – Malcolm X [emphasis added]

Jordan Henderson has put out a note asking that I make the reference to his piece more prominent so that readers can easily see for themselves the work that I am criticizing: Here is his full essay that was republished by Nevermore Media:

The Great Replacement - Is it a Thing?

---

How it all started – positive group stereotyping and discovering that the natives are revolting

Henderson explains that the first milestone on his journey of acceptance of The Great Replacement was that he had erroneously idealised indigenous people. It gradually dawned on him that indigenous people were no different from the rest of humanity – flawed humans, just like Whites. After digesting the evidence for this, such as, shock-and-horror, the discovery that brown and black people also dabbled in slavery, poor old Henderson “was crestfallen to learn that the indigenous peoples were generally not the moral superiors of white Europeans”.

The subtext of Henderson’s not-so-Damascene revelation, of which he is blissfully unaware, is that positive group stereotyping is quite problematic if you’re trying to avoid accusations of racism. Positive group stereotyping is no different in principle to negative stereotyping, and leads to the same result – different treatment of the group and others outside it, as admitted to by the author. Positive stereotyping is a bridge to negative stereotyping. He had identified a period in history during which indigenous people were harmed, and White people had done the harming, and used skin colour as a proxy for interpreting the behaviour of the victim and perpetrator groups.

So, Henderson started out positively stereotyping indigenous populations and negatively stereotyping his own group. But, instead of cancelling both stereotypes, his course-correction involved a reversal of each. He continued to seek out evidence to make generalised assumptions about non-white populations in the West, manifesting in ideas about interracial crime, which I discuss below, as well as religion, to be discussed in the next piece. He also started to positively stereotype his own group. He decided that Whites were really worth sticking up for after all “because, well . . . look at white people. That whites have been so naive and trusting in recent times is almost endearing”. No sweeping generalisations there at all.

And so he went from being on the back foot, so to speak, vis-à-vis Western culture, to defending “the long list of successes that whites and their culture (broadly speaking Western culture) have had in art, architecture, music, clever inventions, and society building.” [See Part I on my arguments on the futility of invoking culture as a net good and using it in a defence of the group.]

Relieved that indigenous people had turned out to be as revolting as anyone else, Henderson began his search for more evidence that certain non-white groups now inhabiting the West are a health and safety issue for whites. The apparent objective of such a search being to cast rays of light onto rehabilitated Whites, while casting a shadow over non-white people.

Interracial crime

Only in 2024 did poor Mr Henderson find out that “black people kill a lot more white people in the USA than whites kill blacks.” “Why doesn’t everyone know that?”, he screams. Had he received this life-changing memo a lot earlier, he could have spent a lot more time stereotyping in the right direction. Life is so unfair.

There seemed to be no purpose to raising interracial crime other than to point out the hypocrisy of BLM protests when, according to him, “it’s actually white people who are victimized the most in these interracial homicides”.

Readers should not interpret the analysis that follows as a defence of BLM protests. As you all know, that is a whole other minefield on which books have probably been written, and because I really don’t like writing about racial arguments (I really don’t), I haven’t read them. What I will try to prove is that there is nothing to be gained from trying to defend yourself by pointing out the flaws in others. I don’t have a problem with whataboutery if the whataboutery is relevant to the cause you are defending. Henderson thinks there is a Great Replacement – what’s interracial crime got to do with it? (Try singing that to the tune of that great Tina Turner hit.) Unless the Black-on-White homicides that take place are part of the nefarious plot to replace White people, what is to be gained from just throwing it out there to “face the facts”, as he says?

Let’s examine what Henderson’s idea of “a lot” is, and let’s also examine which group is more at risk of being killed by the other. Anyone who has dabbled in statistics, at even the most basic level, understands that statistics are dangerous weapons when placed in the wrong hands. As we peel the onion on this one, some interesting interpretations emerge.

Henderson’s supporting link for his revelation uses figures up to 2015. I’m going to reference an analysis done in May 2023 that uses figures up to 2019. That’s okay because the overall trends and figures don’t change that much for the purposes of digging into Henderson’s headline reporting of Black mischief. To be clear, the difference between his time frame and mine is not the factor that leads to a different interpretation. Rather, the key factor is straightforward statistical analysis.

Using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Noahpinion finds that the number of Black-on-White homicides is 566, and the number for White-on-Black is 246. This broadly ties in with Henderson’s claim – Black-on-White murder is about 2.3 times as common as White-on-Black murder. This does not mean that a White person is more likely to be murdered by a Black person than vice versa.

To find out how likely you are to get murdered by someone of another race in the US, you have to divide the total homicide numbers by the respective populations. With the White population estimated at 258.65 million, and the Black population estimated at 48.22 million, it turns out that:

· Black-on-White murders as a percentage of the White population means that there are 0.22 per 100,000 White people murdered by Black people (566/258,646,488).

· White-on-Black murders as a percentage of the Black population means that there are 0.51 per 100,000 Black people murdered by White people (246/48,221,139).

Bottom line: Black people are at greater risk of being murdered by White people in America than vice versa. Put another way, when it comes to the crime of homicide in the US, Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people.

More perspective: If you’re a White person in the U.S., you’re probably less likely to get murdered by a Black person than a South Korean person is to be murdered by another South Korean. Or, Americans are as safe from interracial murder as Danish people are from murder in general.

What about using the characterisation of “a lot”? Both of these interracial homicide numbers are very small, which makes interracial murder very rare. They’re comparable to the overall murder rates in South Korea or Japan. Homicides in which the offender and victim were of the same race vastly outnumber the interracial homicides, but then Henderson is perfectly fine with killing as long as it doesn’t cross the colour boundaries. And even when it does cross over, he’s not too hot on peeling away at the numbers. He’s decided to focus on a rare event – interracial murder – and compounded it by not asking the right question, or at least a different question.

With statistics, the truth often lies not in the numbers that are presented to you as the whole story, but the numbers that are hidden from sight. In this case it was a very simple figure – total population of each group.

Henderson attempted to enlighten his audience with sections on White flight and immigrant crime in Sweden which I did not bother to deconstruct. After seeing his two-sentence Principia Mathematica on Black Fright, I didn’t feel I needed to wrestle with any more of his statistical revelations.

Fighting ethnocentrism with ethnocentrism

Having delivered a low blow to Blacks in the US, and sucker-punched immigrants as far as Sweden, Henderson did not disappoint if you were sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for him to sock it to the you-know-who’s. He tackles the really big fish under the heading Ethnocentrism and Racial Solidarity: Everyone Else’s Not So Secret Weapon.

Carefully following Dave Chappelle’s advice about the two words you should never utter in the same sentence – “the” and “Jews” – he takes aim at a “certain minority” dominating Hollywood. You know…the ones who produce “an endless stream of movies and shows about the thing that is best for portraying that minority in a very sympathetic light – the Holocaust”. Dave Chappelle would have been proud.

He suggests that: “If whites push back by organizing on their own behalf then there will be no more easy marks to pushover for satisfying the ambitions of organized minorities, and more ethnic tension will arise.” It’s not clear whether he sees more ethnic tension arising as a good thing, but it’s clear that it’s irrelevant to his strategy. With fear dripping from his words, he elaborates on his grand plan:

“If the white majority (for now) remains the one group that does not organize on their own behalf they will just continue to lose ground. The longer whites wait to push back the weaker their position will be when they do. We might not ever get to cash in on minority rights even if we become a minority of the population. The coalition of minorities is already preparing the groundwork to switch from talking about minority rights to instead talking about the rights of the global majority, which means everyone but whites.” [emphasis added]

First, let me put Henderson’s fevered imagination to rest on this frightening thing he calls “the global majority” that’s supposedly conniving to expunge the rights of whites. It’s a fiction. If he took off his dark ethnocentric glasses, he’d be able to see that the distinction between white and non-white people means nothing in terms of power alignment or cooperation. Some examples:

· Centuries-long tensions between two ethnicities in Rwanda, both black, that erupted into a genocide in 1994. The Rwandan regime is more of a friend to Israel than it is to its fellow Africans. The Tutsi minority there regard themselves as the Jews of Africa.

· Arab unity is a longstanding oxymoron, as recently demonstrated when Sunni factions who professed to be pro-Palestinian celebrated the fall of the Alawite led al-Assad government, a disaster for the Palestinian resistance to Zionist genocide.

· Pakistan and India harbour more animosity towards each other than Henderson does towards the you-know-who’s, murderous US Blacks, and Swedish immigrants combined.

The freedom movement pipe dream should be to achieve a global majority based not on skin colour but shared values. Henderson and his band of Great Replacementers are moving us further away from that ideal.

Henderson may well be right in pointing out “that many minority groups are not working for high minded universal ideals (despite proclaiming those ideals) but instead are working for their own group’s interests, along racial, ethnic, and religious, lines”. The question is: why does he think sinking to that level is the answer to the problem?

Henderson, like all replacementers, is thoroughly confused. He is simultaneously repelled by the Hollywood model and inspired to replicate it. If, as he claims, there is an ethnocentric clique running showbiz for their own nefarious ends, his answer is to use their blueprint. In Henderson’s warped moral universe, the answer is to form rival ethnocentric gangs and engage in a Hobbesian racist race to the bottom.

Of course I agree that we should walk away from Hollywood. I did that in around 2008 for the reason that I couldn’t stomach the drivel they were serving up. There is plenty to oppose in Hollywood based on what it does. However, his attack on an institution based on who runs it is identity politics and therefore a form of oppositional wokeism. He embodies the essence of what he thinks he is fighting.

Ultimately, the principle of voluntaryism (which he obviously doesn’t aspire to, but which his pal Qu’appelle claims to) means that when something does not serve you, you vote with your feet. And yes, as Henderson suggests, you may choose to build a competing version. But whether what you build will be successful depends on the soundness of the ethics that go into the construction. On that basis, I would bet on Henderson’s rival Hollywood gang certainly being a different colour, but merely serving up a different type of shit.

Replacementers, without exception, view it as their ideological duty to reflexively attack and undermine non-white groups and anything they perceive as sympathetic to non-whites. The logic is simple and crude – whiteness is under attack; therefore non-whiteness is the enemy; therefore attack non-whiteness. But non-whiteness and all the allegations against it are strawmen. The real enemy is Western culture itself, and the ruling class it has spawned [see Part I and the upcoming conclusion for my explanation of that.]

The Great Replacementers adopt ethnocentric rhetoric to complain about a supposedly racist agenda affecting them, which is quite perplexing but perfectly understandable when you review Henderson’s journey to “replacementism”. Before coming around to “replacementism”, he engaged in positive stereotyping, which is a latent form of more hostile racism. Once he perceived a non-white tide rising, he chose to swim against it using the psychological tools he had already built up in his armoury prior to “coming around” to the Great Replacement.

---

In Part III I’ll look at two more replacement straw men: religion and diversity.