Racialism.

Alternate names

Very few racialists call themselves “racialist”. Instead, because straight-up racism isn’t hip anymore, the euphemism treadmill rolls at full speed:

Scientific racism: While scientific racists do have to admit their racism, they also get the joy of slapping the “approval” of SCIENCE on it.

Racial realism or race realism: Racial realists get a two-pronged advantage: First, they can deny their racism by — “I’m not a racist, I’m a racial realist!”. Second, they can paint non-racialists as “race deniers” or “racial difference deniers”, which suggests a denial of the obvious facts.

Human biodiversity or HBD:[3] By being just one “bio” away from supporting “diversity” and by failing to mention race, human biodiversity is the most innocuous form of racialism, because it allows one to deny any racism — because it’s recognizing biodiversity, not being racist! Coined by Steve Sailer of VDARE.

You’re not going to Jason Richwine me, lesser Charles Johnson. The science is settled on human biodiversity & evolution.

— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) March 9, 2015

What Chuck is saying is of course, total bullshit.

The human gene pool does not divide neatly into geographical groupings

What human genetic groupings actually look like. See how many distinct groups “black” would break down into? Human genetics doesn’t work like race realists think it does. Race realists spend a great deal of time and effort pointing out genetic differences between geographically separated populations in gene clustering research and insisting this is evidence for “races”.

In gene clustering research a set of populations is typically determined via subjective descriptors in ethnicity, language and geographics and people can be reliably identified as members of these groups. However, this way of categorizing people depends fundamentally on the quantity and method used to create the aforementioned framework of ancestral populations; how people are grouped into populations is completely arbitrary. This is completely different from the problem of “races”, which presupposes that there is only one objectively and biologically valid way of dividing all humans into different populations.

The idea of large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous in-between in terms of genetic similarity — the latter being necessary to speak of distinct “races” — has no scientific basis and in fact there is evidence against it. Witherspoon et al concluded in their 2007 paper “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations”:

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.[50]

What that means is that there is statistically FAR more variation between individuals of any one particular “group” than there is between groups in aggregate. The entire race realist and HBD thesis is built on a fundamental misrepresentation of basic science.