Due to the ease with which information can be shared on the internet, a large number of discussion groups focusing on biological anthropology have popped up over the past few decades. Individuals were drawn to these websites from a variety of backgrounds. Some were interested in the patterns and aesthetics found in human face and body shapes, others were interested in the emerging field of genomics, and some were intrigued by the the works of pre-1950s physical anthropologists which had been given new life due to being uploaded to the web. But others were attracted to these discussion groups for a more insidious purpose--to promote racism and find scientific data which appeared to bolster their ideas.
The prevailing narrative of Political Correctness (PC) has made it taboo to have any frank discussion on "race," differences between ethnicities (or even individuals), and the significance that genetic and phenotypic differences between individuals might entail. PC refusal to seriously examine these topics has ensured that the many individuals who are sincerely curious about human variation (without any racist ulterior motives) will sooner or later end up on HBD-influenced blogs and forums, simply because HBDers are the only ones openly discussing these subjects.
Originally, a number of blogs and forums criticized the PC narrative while at the same time criticizing racist narratives which have come to fall under the umbrella of HBD. Many of these websites--embittered by years of constant attacks by well-meaning anti-racists who wrongly assumed they were racist for merely discussing "race"--have since succumbed to the influence of the HBD movement in one way or another. Some anti-racists have begun catching on to the fact that the PC narrative is powerless to stop racism, but few seem to take the threat seriously enough to take on HBD head on.
What is the Human Biodiversity (HBD) "movement"?
In 1999, Steve Sailer formed an invitation-only online discussion group called the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI) and invited numerous biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and others who examined topics such as race, human variation, sex & gender issues, and IQ. The HBI raised alarms in 2003, when it was discovered that nearly all of the positive reviews of Michael Bailey's anti-transgender book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism could be traced back to members of the HBI. (Bailey himself was also an HBI member).
For more detailed examination of the early days of the Human Biodiversity Institute, Bailey supporters' connections to it, and the group's connections with various tribalist groups, see the following links:
https://www.transgendermap.com/politics/human-biodiversity-institute/
https://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyAssociates/HumanBiodiversityGroup.htm
Some who accepted the invitation and were placed on the HBI membership list did not condone Sailer's political views relating to HBD (such as Jonathan Marks, who Sailer credits with coining the phrase Human Biodiversity), and some appear to not have actively participated in the group. However, it was from this network that the nucleus of 21st century HBD authors and ideas was formed. Sailer's original HBI website appears to have become defunct around 2006, but he continues to be an active propagandist for HBD views. While he is no longer the head of a unified HBD organization, many of those from the original membership list continue to be active writers, with views shaped strongly by the original HBI's views.
Oftentimes, HBDers like to disingenuously claim it is not a "movement," but it is clear that those who choose to write under the banner of HBD share a common trajectory and spectrum of bigoted ideas which were shepherded into popularity by Sailer.
Major characteristics of HBD include fetishizing IQ scores; promotion of ethno-centric classifications of race (either highly-detailed anthropometric typologies from the early 20th century or a doubling down on the crude "white"/"black"/"Asian" classification), as opposed to quality-centric classifications of race where ethnicity is irrelevant; calling their views "racialism" or "race realism"; urging for ethnic separatism or ethno-preservationism on the basis of 'saving human genetic bio-diversity'; promoting anti-immigration laws restricting "low IQ" or genetically undesirable foreigners; and promotion of eugenics (typically using IQ or ethnicity as a determining factor).
***
While many of the core ideas of HBD did not originate with Sailer* (heated discussions on IQ and "race" had been a popular subject since at least the 1970s, for example), his organization of like-minded individuals under one banner gave HBD ideas enough momentum to break into mainstream discussion--and upgraded the scope of HBD far beyond just IQ.
No longer were racists restricted to the small corner of the abstract world of intelligence testing. They were now ready to infiltrate the discussion of the "hard science" of genetics, as well as dig up centuries-old anthropometric typologies, poised to steamroll the confused jumble of PC views on "race." Meanwhile, adherents of PC were too busy arguing amongst themselves whether "color blind" anti-racists were actually perpetuating racism, whether race absolutely had zero biological backing or if social isolation and stress along socially-constructed "racial" lines was enough to say race sort of existed, or if race actually didexist merely because enough people believed it to exist (even though it doesn't really exist biologically), and so forth, to care about the threat HBD posed...
Many HBD supporters claim that they are not "racists," but "race realists" or "racialists". Some go on to imply there is a 'conspiracy' or systematic bias perpetuated by PC academics against recognizing biological variation in humans, and HBD merely seeks to innocently study this variation. As is evident by the samples of HBD propaganda above, HBD is not so innocent in its motivations. Their distaste for PC actually stems from its anti-racist attitudes, and they merely use its irrational refusal to seriously discuss human biological variation as a convenient cover for their motives.
* (Therefore, in the broadest sense, any historic figure who advocated comparable views can be labeled as a HBDer. In the narrowest sense, HBD as a "movement" refers to the 21st century network which can be traced back to Sailer.)
***
If HBD was merely an innocent narrative seeking to find "the truth" and nothing more, why do they feel the need to create the ingroup/outgroup distinction of "racialists" and "race realists" vs everyone else who studies biology?
There is already a field called anthropology (including subfields such as physical anthropology and human genetics) whose entire purpose is to study the biological diversity which exists in humans. Social and academic views on the concept of "race" and human variation may have changed throughout time, but it's certainly incorrect to say all biologists are part of a conspiracy to ignore biological differences between humans... (Indeed, they would be out of a job if we were all identical or if all our differences were without any meaning, since there would be nothing to study). Biology as a field has not intellectually withered or become so disemboweled by PC as to necessitate abandoning it; it has in recent decades made large strides, most notably in the field of genomics.
So, why has the HBD "movement" decided that it, above all others, was fit to study variation within humans? HBDers will often point to the political biases, stemming from PC, which can be seen in many academic biologists' attitudes. Do HBDers really expect us to believe their attitudes are somehow less biased than PC? Were HBD supporters merely interested in biology free from any political motives, they would not feel the need to specifically identify themselves as an ingroup separate from mainstream biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, etc., nor would they feel compelled to build a support network of likeminded people under the banner of HBD to get more political clout for their ideas (which is the very definition of a movement).
***
Science is not about separate factions which fight each other. The truth is the truth, and, if mainstream theories and scientists are mistaken, they will eventually come around to it. Politically-motivated ideologies, on the other hand, will always exist in abundance, because people hold fundamentally different moral inclinations and temperaments. As annoying as that might sound, we must realize that conclusions reached from empirical data are always colored by the interpretation of the observer to some degree, and in the field of anthropology we--humans--are the subjects being studied. Therefore, it is utterly impossible to ever completely separate ourselves from the system being studied and operate with complete objectivity.
Scientists therefore have a moral duty to prevent the data they collect from being perverted by racists, but they also must not let their anti-racist moral views become a dogma which is used to arbitrarily decide whether the data itself is "correct" or "incorrect". (What PC fails to realize is that their fiercely egalitarian narrative, when forced upon the data, is essentially just as biased and "unscientific" as that of the HBD racists they oppose!)
It's not about the data in and of itself, it's about which particular data points we humans decide to consider significant and how we ultimately decide to act using the conclusions drawn from the data. Racial idealism gives us a new lens from which to look at the data; a lens which focuses on the traits which truly matter--those for ETHICAL QUALITY--and finally takes our eyes off those which don't (ethnicity, skin color, and all other traits which have no bearing on an individual's QUALITY).
The Alternative to the PC and HBD narratives
Just as we must demolish the PC notion that pre-1950 physical anthropologists were "pseudo-scientific racists"--thereby opening up the possibility for anti-racists to use these anthropologists' work to counter racist arguments--we must ultimately retake the phrase "human biological diversity" from contemporary racists and "racialists" who claim to study it. There is nothing inherently ideological or insidious about this phrase--humans really do have biological diversity/variation! By using this phrase as a counter to the PC egalitarian idea of meaningful and classifiable "diversity" existing, while simultaneously having no meaningful and classifiable biological basis (despite ethnic diversity being the most prominent type of diversity in PC propaganda), HBD "race realists" have easily gained the upper hand in the "war of words".
Human biological diversity is immediately visually apparent to everyone--even so-called "colorblind" PC opponents of racism--but racists are the only ones who are willing to have an open discussion about the biological aspects of human ethnic variation. Suggesting that any meaningful ways to group/classify biological traits might exist or that the biological usefulness of the concept of "race" should be re-examined are the ultimate taboos to supporters of PC.
However, PC is correct when it asserts that racial classifications which are based on ethnicity (i.e. the HBD way of doing things) are a terrible way of doing things (both in terms of accurately representing genetic and physical variation, in addition to the inter-ethnic strife these classifications have historically caused). PC's error lies in refusing to propose any better way of classifying variation, and instead putting their fingers in their ears and pretending the problem will go away on its own. As the rise of HBD has shown, racists using scientific data to bolster their arguments (not to mention the phenomenon of racism in general) are not going away any time soon.
Aryanists propose a solution to stop HBDers and other racists from commandeering scientific data to support their narrative, while at the same time providing a more meaningful classification of race than the traditional ethnic-based typology could ever do. Namely, a classification of race which is based upon moral quality (using traits such as empathy, selflessness, and tendency towards universalism rather than tribalism) instead of ethnic identity. Just as other psychological traits (e.g. sense of humor, inclination towards anger or sadness, and artistic acumen) in part have a heritable basis, these do too.
External Link: Why race matters, but "the races" don't
***
Ever since WWII, Western nations have held up National Socialist racial theories as the pinnacle of "evil," arbitrary, and unjust classification. The sobering truth of the matter is that authentic National Socialists [which does not include Neo-Nazis] actually had a vastly more nuanced understanding of human biological variation than either PC (as exemplified by the UN popularizing the crude three colors/three continents system in frequent use today) or HBD (as exemplified by their shifting between the three colors system and pre-NS anthropometric classifications as it suits them). Hitler himself led National Socialists to reject Nordicism and even praised Germany's multi-ethnic diversity. Most significantly, he, along with others, consistently emphasized the importance of an individual's quality (as expressed by their actions) over their anthropometric appearance as the most important racial criterion:
"Under close scrutiny, the division into races according to the colour of skin turns out to be quite the crudest and most obvious method, since there are noticeably inheritable characteristic racial differences among people of identically coloured skins." – Alfred Rosenberg
"We do not conclude from a man's physical type his ability, but rather from his achievements his race." – Adolf Hitler
"Nothing would be more superficial than to measure a man's worth by his physical appearance (with a centimeter rule and cephalic indices). A far more accurate measure of worth is conduct." – Alfred Rosenberg
"We have this folk of ours that is not to be defined as a race, and this is now clear to millions. However, when I began my career twenty-five years ago, this was not the case; then I was always told by bourgeois circles: “Yes, folk and race are one and the same.” No, folk and race are not the same! Race is a component of blood – a blood kernel, but a folk is very often composed not of one but of two, three, four or five different blood kernels." – Adolf Hitler
Yet, today PC has pushed us so far back that academic bio-anthropology is starting on square one--to the time before anthropologists even decided to use skull or bone measurements to construct typologies, but relied solely on skin color and geographic origin for their classifications... (No wonder HBDers have been able to dupe so many people into thinking HBD racial views are the only reasonable ones!)
Fundamentally, which is more unjust: the National Socialist system, which first asserted race should mean more than mere quantitative measurements of bones or skin color, and instead be measured by deeds and moral quality; or the PC system which has solidified the place of the crude skin-color-based racial classifications in public discourse, enabled the rise of HBD, and refuses to provide a psychological scaffold which can allow anti-racists to come up with a counter to HBD?
Neo-Nazism is derived from centuries-old White Supremacist beliefs (especially as it exists in the US) which had been popular in the West long before authentic National Socialism ever entered the scene, and thus shares infinitely more in common with HBD racial beliefs than actual National Socialist beliefs (see quotes above). Who could have guessed the most effective form of propaganda against Neo-Nazis would be quotes from Hitler himself? Yet, until leftists and anti-racists can embrace the spirit revealed in the quotes above, their anti-racist arguments will remain utterly insufficient to combat HBD, White Supremacists, and other racists.
The word Aryan means one who is noble. This is a classification of MORAL QUALITY. Neo-Nazis, HBDers, White Supremacists, Zionists, and anyone else who promotes ethno-tribalism demonstrate--through their prejudice, lack of empathy, and selfish ingroup altruism coupled with lack of concern for the outgroup--the utter inferiority of their genes. If tribalism had no genetic basis, then racism in the West would have been thoroughly destroyed over the past 50+ years of anti-racist education. The reality of the situation is that the far right has had a tremendous surge in popularity (both amongst young people who have lived their whole lives in a post-Civil Rights educational system and older people who are just as steadfastly racist as they were pre-Civil Rights). Not surprisingly, HBDers frequently cite scientific studies demonstrating the innate biological basis of tribalism, in an attempt to absolve their beliefs of immorality... (Meanwhile, most anti-racists remain lightyears behind due to their refusal to grapple with the full significance of human biological differences).
Racists can never be noble. By definition, racists can therefore never be Aryans. Regardless of what one's opinion on authentic National Socialism is, anti-racists who ignore the fact that Neo-Nazis exist in flagrant contradiction to the ideology they claim to support are ignoring one of the strongest lines of attack against Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist propaganda. Intuitively, many anti-racists have long understood the Neo-Nazi contradiction of claiming to be superior while so obviously being of abysmally low quality. We must kick our rhetoric up a notch if we wish to defeat racists once and for all.
"Nazi punks fuck off... In a real fourth reich you'll be the first to go" - Dead Kennedys
Conclusion
Let me say it one more time: there is nothing inherently racist or otherwise morally apprehensible about studying human biological diversity. Racists know this, and try to pass off their views to the unsuspecting layman under the seemingly-innocent label of HBD. When criticized for the unethical conclusions they draw from data, these "racialists" shrug and say "I'm just studying reality! It's not racist if it's true!"
Leftists, anti-racists, and intellectually honest academics need to step up to the plate and call out racists who hide behind the phrase HBD. But the only way to do so is to enter the playing field and offer an opposing, and scientifically-sound, discussion of "race" which abandons the traditional racial groupings the HBD movement is so fond of, while at the same time providing a new, meaningful classification which transcends the toxic ethnicity-based dividing lines which have plagued humanity for far too long.
This must be coupled with a separate discussion on why racism is morally repulsive. The conclusions that universalism is morally superior to tribalism, and that ignobility must be wiped off the face of the Earth cannot be derived empirically.
Science can never inform us of whether or not it's ok to ban immigrants whose ethnic background differs from that of a nation's native majority, or if a better option is to acknowledge the fact that none of us could choose our ethnic backgrounds or nations of birth (and therefore welcome immigrants who chose to join our community out of all the others on the planet). Or whether we should display no empathy towards certain ethnic groups simply because a certain proportion of criminals exist among them (while ignoring that non-criminals of this ethnic group also suffer due to these criminals, as well as failing to acknowledge that every ethnic group has criminals--whose barbarity is not lessened merely because their ethnic background is the same as the majority of a nation). These are conclusions based solely upon our sense of morality and our possession--or lack--of empathy. Not everyone's "moral compass" points in the same direction.
Scientific data in and of itself cannot support racist moral conclusions any more than it can support anti-racist moral conclusions. Racists who are interested in HBD know this, and as such have sought to drown out the voices of non-racists who are interested in studying human biological diversity for scientific or aesthetic purposes. Unfortunately, they have largely been successful in this, as anti-racists are still trapped by the False Left's taboo of discussing race and therefore unwilling to directly engage with racists who populate HBD circles.
Anti-racists need not reject biology in order to defeat racism. Indeed, embracing the fact that noble and ignoble traits have a heritable basis is the only way we can truly rid humanity of racism. HBD is correct in its anti-egalitarian assertion that some individuals are biologically inferior to other individuals. However, unlike HBDers, Aryanists do not believe IQ, skin color, ethnic background, or any arbitrary trait is what determines superiority or inferiority. An individual's moral quality is the only criterion which can produce a classification of race which holds any meaning at all.
It is time to shatter the false illusion of "reality" which racists have constructed. Human biological diversity is real, but we do not have to allow discussion of it to be directed by racists. Racial idealism, where the factors governing ethical quality are the only heritable traits that truly matter, is the only force that can crush racial identitarianism and HBD.
