Aryan Anthropology: HBD List

This page contains a list of prominent individuals promoting views which fall under the umbrella of Human Biodiversity (HBD), which aims to displace Political Correctness (PC) as the dominant view on matters of "race" and ethnicity. While the term Human Biodiversity was popularized by Steve Sailer in the late 1990s (thereby starting a loose "movement" where individuals holding similar views gathered under the banner of HBD), HBD contains a spectrum of different views, some in mutual disagreement, but all falling within certain parameters of acceptability. Most of these views did not originate with Sailer, but he has been instrumental in repopularizing them in 21st century public discourse. This list applies HBD in its broadest sense, meaning it includes individuals not directly connected to Sailer or his Human Biodiversity Institute.

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'; and promotion of eugenics (typically using IQ or ethnicity as a determining factor). HBDers are often White Supremacists disdainful of the "low IQ 'Third World'", but some are welcoming of high-IQ "Asians" whom they view capable of assimilating into Western Civilization, while others are more exclusive and believe only certain subsets of "whites" should be preserved (e.g. Nordicists).

HBD is not to be confused with what PC indiscriminately calls "scientific racism." The label "scientific racism" incorrectly attributes the research and typologies of many early 20th-century anthropologists as being driven by maliciously racist personal views, and unscrupulously lumps serious academics together with pseudo-scientists and propagandists. While some writers (e.g. Madison Grant) were certainly racists who misused or made up biological data to support their personal views, PC's irrational complete rejection of all non-post-modernist interpretations of "race" (and any data inviting skepticism of PC's narrative) has done much to guarantee the present-day HBD backlash.

The field of anthropology underwent a dramatic shift in views after WWII--transitioning away from the long-standing focus on typologies of human physical types and towards the current post-modernist trend of framing "race" as a subjective product of culture, and not grounded in any biological backing. Consequently, many racists adapted their arguments to take into account the changes in public and professional opinion. The list takes this shift into consideration and is divided between individuals who were active pre-1950s and individuals who were active post-1950s. As a general rule, those who are racist or promote racism, but do not write original HBD propaganda or attempt to support their views primarily using scientific-sounding or pseudo-scientific data are not included on this list. Any source which positively promotes any of the listed individuals or ideas similar to theirs can be safely counted as an enemy source.*

Contrary to what many adherents of PC may believe, the HBD movement does not solely consist of semi-literate Neo-Nazis, but also counts among its ranks many articulate bloggers and numerous individuals holding advanced academic degrees in biology, psychology, sociology, and related fields. It can be found in many influential forums and publications, and with the rise of the Alt-Right and far right worldwide, increasingly works its way into mainstream talking points. It is therefore critical that anti-racists familiarize ourselves with the individuals listed below. This list is constantly under construction.

* (It is important to note that it is possible for the data which a HBDer cites to be accurate; however, it is their interpretation of that data and use of it to positively promote ethno-centrism, stereotyping, tribalism, and other ignoble attitudes which makes them an enemy--not the accuracy or inaccuracy of the data itself, which PC niavely hinges its anti-HBD arguments upon. We needn't find a flaw in empirical data to argue against utterly immoral attitudes.)