Interracial marriage increases racism.
American demographics in the next 80 years.
There are plenty of arguments in favor of interracial marriage: the equality of all peoples, the rights of the individual, and the freedom of love, to name a few. These arguments took America’s elite by storm in the 1950s, became enshrined in law in the 1960s at gunpoint, and only were accepted by a majority of the American public in the 1990s. Threats of violence, advertising, Hollywood, propaganda, economic pressure, lawfare, K-12 indoctrination, and leftist infiltration of the universities was successful in breaking a 300 year taboo within three decades.
This article will not retread the old, tired ground of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, it will argue that interracial marriage will ultimately lead to an increase in racism.
By racism, I mean the idea that there are biologically distinct human groups. It is likely that 10% of Americans still hold explicitly racist views, and an even higher percentage of Europeans hold explicitly racist views.
Explicitly racist views could be dismissed as being fringe or in the minority. However, every dominant view once began as a minority view — such as approval for interracial marriage in the past century! Christianity began as a minority, but later dominated Europe. Islam in Europe is today a minority, but might pull off the same trick. The future will certainly not look like the present.
The rule of history is generally that dedicated minorities, over a long enough time period, come to rule over apathetic majorities. Zionism has been part of Jewish theology for thousands of years, but has only recently become a reality. No matter how fringe or crazy an idea might sound, as long as its adherents don’t give up, anything is possible.
In the event that racists do take power, all of the “traditional” arguments for interracial marriage will fall flat. Anyone seeking to preserve the institution of interracial marriage will have to do so by other means. Is such a thing possible?
selective breeding.
Some racists, such as Steve Sailer, assert that evolution only occurs over tens of thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth! Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. If a killer robot forcibly sterilized all people with blue eyes, this would be evolution over the course of a single generation (20 years).
White people are not a monolith. Within “whites,” there are different subpopulations which can be divided by eye colors, hair colors, nose shapes, height, testosterone, disease propensity, and intelligence. In some cases, these subpopulations correlate with the divide between “northern and southern Europeans.” More specifically, these subpopulations can align with identifiable ethnicities or nationalities, such as Maltese or Scots. Yet at the highest level of specificity, subpopulations like “blue eyed” and “brown eyed” are not neatly geographically defined, but are interspersed among one another.
Consider the rural-urban divide. If all of the smart kids leave rural areas to go to college, then rural areas select against intelligence, while urban areas select for it. We can even get more specific to compare neighborhoods within a city: wealthier neighborhoods attract higher intelligence, while poorer neighborhoods select against it. Mate selection is highly geographic, and as a result, these differences are amplified over generations.
These are examples of “non-contiguous geographic selection.” There are certain geographical features which select for intelligence, while others select against it, but these features do not constitute a distinct contiguous region of the country.
On a very broad level, we can say that whites in the “south” tend to be less intelligent than whites in the “north.” This is especially true if we compare Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey to states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama. The IQ gap between these two groupings is as high as 10 points. However, states like Maine, which are extremely rural, complicate the picture, and if we zoomed in on urban parts of the South, such as Durham, Raleigh, Atlanta, Chattanooga, Nashville, Richmond, and Charlottesville, we might find that these urban southern whites outperform the average rural whites of the “north.”
Even within the same neighborhood, whites can be differentiated by behavior. This is evident in a school setting. We all knew students who were the dumbest in class, and they tended to congregate together around shared behavior and activities, while the smartest students had their own hobbies and behaviors. People self-segregate according to their behavior. And this is why interracial relationships tend to be selective.
Intelligence is not deterministic of other behaviors. Intelligent people do drugs, have premarital sex, engage in risky behavior, hurt themselves, misbehave, and commit crimes, just like the rest of us! Still, intelligent people tend to do less of this than the rest of us. When intelligent people engage in risky behavior, they tend to get caught less, or avoid the consequences of their behavior.1
In any case, there is no such thing as “perfect selection.” This is evident with any test of intelligence. There is no IQ test, SAT test, or GPA score which perfectly captures intellectual ability on the individual level. Furthermore, even if a test did perfectly capture someone’s level of education or knowledge, that would not perfectly capture their genetic potential for intelligence, since education or knowledge is influenced by a host of other factors, including poverty, parental support, drug use, violence, mental illness, and so much more.
This is one of the many problems with eugenics. Without direct genetic testing, there is no way to perfectly select for or against a trait on a genetic level. You can sterilize all alcoholics, but you shouldn’t be surprised if they come back in the next generation, because some people with a predisposition for alcoholism choose not to drink at all. If you had some perverse desire to only allow alcoholics to breed, some of the kids in the next generation would still not become alcoholics. There is not a perfect link between behavior and genetics on an individual level.
With that caveat, it is still possible that our genes influence our sexual choices. Some teenagers, despite having strict Christian parents, still make risky sexual decisions. Other teenagers, despite having permissive and liberal parents who give them free condoms, choose not to have sex at all. Some women find men who work out to be extremely attractive, while others prefer a tall and lanky guy, and others still prefer a dad-bod.
When it comes to sexual attraction, one of the theories explaining all of our different preferences is “genetic sexual attraction.” GSA states that human beings, like all sexually reproducing species, tend to have a preference for “their own.” If animals didn’t prefer “their own,” which they identify by sight, smell, touch, taste, and sound, then they would end up “mating” with rocks, clumps of grass, trees, plants, flowers, and so on and so forth. The only way that an animal ever successfully inseminates a female of its own species is that it has a nepotistic attraction to its own kind.
This nepotism doesn’t end at the level of species, however, and produces a racial bias in sexual attraction. This can be referred to broadly as “assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics.”2 Yet despite this general tendency of humans to have a “type” similar to their own, some still have an interracial preference.
There are many different stereotypes about those with interracial preferences. White men who prefer Asian women are stereotyped as socially awkward or physically unimpressive. Black men who prefer white women are sometimes stereotyped as high achievers. Umar Johnson regularly attacks “snowbunnies” as specifically targeting the richest black men and thus removing those men from the “community,” effectively “stealing” them, and creating a form of brain drain and wealth drain from the black community.
On the other hand, black men who are married to white women are also stereotyped by comedians Key and Peele as being boring, nerdy, and predictable. Black men who prefer white women tend to conform more to white norms.
Besides stereotypes, what does the data actually say? First, we ask all respondents, “are you currently in a relationship?” Of those who say yes, we ask for the race of the person they are in a relationship. Then we test for IQ.
White women dating white men have an IQ around 100. Dating Hispanic drops that IQ by 3 points, and dating black drops that by 7 points. White men dating white women have an IQ around 101, whereas dating a black or Hispanic woman drops that about 3 points.
Hispanic women who date white men have an IQ of 95, while those who date black men have an IQ of 89, and those who date Hispanic men have an IQ of 85. Similarly, Hispanic men dating white women have an IQ of 96, while those dating black women have an IQ of 93, and those dating Hispanic women have an IQ of 86.
Finally, black women who date white men have an IQ of 95, while those dating Hispanic men have an IQ of 91, and those dating black men have an IQ of 86. Black men dating white women have an IQ of 89, those dating Hispanic women have an IQ of 90, and those dating black women have an IQ of 84.
Interracial dating removes less intelligent whites from the “whites only dating pool.” If interracial dating continues over a long enough timeframe, less intelligent whites will effectively “leave” the community, while more intelligent whites will practice endogamy. This sort of selection is reminiscent of medieval Judaism.
Starting in the 10th century, Jews were confined to the ghettos and shtetls of Europe. Jews who wanted to remain in the community had to adhere to a highly literate and educated culture. Those who were less intelligent were free to leave the community and convert to Christianity. As a result, over centuries, only the most intelligent Jews remained Jews, while the least intelligent assimilated into the European masses.
White nationalists object to interracial relationships on the grounds that it will lead to white genocide. When whites become a minority of the population, they argue, a Haitian-style revolt will become inevitable. The problem with this argument is that it is ahistorical: the whites of Haiti were not defeated by blacks, but by foreign intervention by the British and Spanish, who used blacks as proxies.
Similarly, the fall of white Rhodesia and white South Africa was not precipitated by blacks acting alone. Rather, international sanctions and arms dealers coming from the Soviet Union and the United States used blacks as a proxy to undermine South Africa and Rhodesia, pursuant to anti-colonial ideology. There is no precedent for a black population militarily defeating a white population without being aided by a white third party. This is the case even when whites are only 10% of the population.
Another problem with this argument is that the black population of America will soon be outnumbered by Asians, and it is difficult to imagine a coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians engaging in a race war without that coalition falling apart due to infighting.
There is less of a precedent for Asians or Hispanics rising up and committing mass genocide against whites. The Boxer Rebellion of 1899 could be seen as a mass uprising of Asians against whites, but this picture is complicated by Christianity, which was adopted by Chinese bandits, criminals, and other fringe elements. The Boxer Rebellion can be thought of as a pogrom against criminal Chinese elements who adopted Christianity, similar to the Bukele revolution in El Salvador, rather than as a strictly racial conflict. In the case of Hispanics, there has been no successful “Hispanic uprising” against whites on a racial basis in the last 400 years. India’s caste system proves that majority populations do not “inevitably” overthrow the rule of minority populations.
demographics aren’t destiny.
Jews were only 2% of Europe’s population during WWII, and the global Jewish population decreased by 50% between 1941 and 1944. Yet was global Jewish influence greater in 1940, or 1946? It is clear that a quantitative decrease in a population is not determinative of the power or influence of that population.
England first hit 4 million people in the 13th century, but after the Black Plague, its population decreased to less than 2 million in 1450. Would anyone seriously argue that England in the year 1345 was somehow more influential, powerful, or technologically or artistically advanced in 1345 as opposed to 1450? The loss of 50% of its population had a selective effect, and England’s power grew exponentially despite a huge decrease in absolute numbers.
Minorities, throughout history, conquer and rule over majorities: this was demonstrated by the Indo-Europeans, Alexander the Great, and the Conquistadors. In the case of the Indo-Europeans, the population of Europe and India between 6000 BC to 2000 BC was somewhere between 2-10 million for Europe3 and 2-6 million for India. What exactly was the size of the invading force? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, since Indo-European migration was not a single event occurring over a single year, but hundreds or smaller events spread out over thousands of years. It is difficult to estimate the relative population sizes.
Estimates of the Ukrainian neolithic population in 4000 BC range between 400,000 to 2 million.4 If we assume that the pastoralist Indo-European cultures were of a similar size to their neolithic counterparts, then the ratio of Indo-Europeans to conquered peoples looks something between 1:8 to 1:50. A minority of 2.5% to 12.5% of the population conquered the majority.
It is easier for us to calculate historical events, such as Alexander’s conquest of Persia. With an army of around 50,000 troops, Alexander conquered a country of over 50 million people.5 Alexander’s army was 0.1% the size of the countries he conquered. Similarly, the conquistadors, who initially numbered only a few hundred men, brought down the Incan (14 million) and Aztec (6 million) empires. Even if we accept that disease wiped out 90% of the Incan and Aztec populations, this still leaves a population of 2 million which was defeated by maybe 10,000 conquistadors, or 0.5% of the population.
One of the issues with these arguments is that they do not take into account the “home” population from which these armies derived. These were professional armies, selected from and supported by larger civilizations at home. The Spanish in 1500 had a population of 6.5 million, which was on par with the Incan and Aztec populations after accounting for deaths from disease. Greece during Alexander had perhaps 10 million people, which was smaller than Persia, but still 20% of its population.
During the Napoleonic wars, France had a population of 30 million out of 150 million Europeans, which is 20%. During WWII, Germany and Italy had a population of 120 million out of 558 Europeans, which is also around 20%.
Between 1965 and 2025, over a period of 60 years, the white American population dropped from 90% to less than 60%, which is an average decline of 0.5% per year. The projection for 2065 is that the white American population will remain over 40%, which is a decline of 20% in 40 years, or 0.5% per year. At this rate, we should expect that by 2105, the white population will drop to 20%. I find it hard to take seriously the claims of white nationalists who believe that whites cannot reenact the victories of Napoleon against a racially divided menagerie of Asians, Hispanics, and blacks.
Interracial dating creates a selective pressure on white intelligence, driving it up, while at the same time driving black and Hispanic intelligence down. Less easily measurable is the effect on nepotism or ethno-centrism. Let’s imagine some measure of nepotism or ethno-centrism, call it NQ. Let’s suppose that white who marry endogamously have a higher NQ than whites who marry interracially. Over time, the NQ of whites will be selected for and increase. This means that whites in 2105 will be more predisposed to racism, nepotism, and ethno-centrism than whites in 2025. Some of this could be due to genetic factors, while other aspects of the parental transmission of political beliefs may be environmental.
The end result of this process will be that the 20% of whites who remain in America 80 years from now will be more intelligent and more ethnocentric than whites at present. The other massive trend which is underreported is the growth in multi-racial individuals. A study by Pew found that among two-parent households, the percentage of multi-racial babies exploded from 1% in 1970 to 10% in 2013. This number, however, does not capture the simultaneous explosion of single motherhood, from 10% of the population in 1970 to 25% in 2011.
Multi-racial individuals lean more Republican than mono-racial non-whites. In 2015, while only 4% of blacks voted Republican, 15% of mixed white-blacks voted Republican. Similarly, while 26% of Asians voted Republican, 38% of mixed white-Asians voted Republican.
In the 2016 election, white nationalists proclaimed that it would be impossible to win Hispanics to the Republican party. Their reasoning was that Democrats had captured Hispanics, that Hispanics voted as a racial bloc, that the Republicans were the implicitly white party, that Hispanics were racist against whites, and voting was essentially a form of “race war by proxy.” As a result, mass immigration would result in an electoral winter, and the Republicans would never win at the national level again.
All of this fear-mongering was a clear expansion of Nixon’s southern strategy, first pioneered by Barry Goldwater in 1964. None of its predictions have come true. Instead, Hispanics have massively shifted toward Republicans. Jeb Bush was right.
Not all non-whites are going Republican. Asians, including Chinese and Indians, highly educated and wealthy groups, seem to be entrenching themselves further in the Democrat party. But Hispanics in Texas and Florida are already a “battleground” ethnicity, while blacks may double their vote for Trump in 2024. If Republicans can win 20% of the black vote, it is not unreasonable to assume that they can win 30-40% of mixed white-blacks.
Whites may only be 20% of Americans in 2105, but they will not face a “united front” of non-whites. Hispanics are projected to reach 35% of the population, but a significant proportion of those will be black-Hispanics, white-Hispanics, and even Asian-Hispanics. Asians may reach 25% of the population, but many of those Asians will be mixed with whites. Blacks may still exist in a marginal form as 10% of the population, but they will be more and more diluted by white and Hispanic admixture. Finally, a “triracial” or even “quadracial” population of mixed white-black-Asian-Hispanics may reach as high as 10% of the population. It is difficult to imagine such a confused amalgamation of races ever achieving the self-confidence and political stability necessary to avoid infighting and significantly threaten the white population, outside of random acts of violence. For reference, the current rate of black on white violence kills less than 1,000 whites per year, as opposed to 10,000 killed in car accidents and 50,000 killed by opiates.
Conclusion
Both the mainstream and the far right agree: interracial marriage will decrease racism. The mainstream argues that mixed race people cannot be racist, while the far right argues that racial mixing will result in total and complete white genocide, where every last white person will be hunted down and eliminated.
The truth contradicts both of these visions. America in 2105 will be full of racists: racist whites, racist blacks, racist Asians, racist Hispanics, and even racist mixed race, triracial, or quadracial individuals. Interracial marriage is acting as a selective pressure on whites which raises IQ and ethnocentrism. Outlawing interracial marriage would promote “regression to the mean,” removing the selective pressures which are increasing white racism.
At 20% of the population, whites will still be overrepresented in business, finance, the military, media, and culture. The fastest growing religions (Mormons, Amish, and Orthodox Jews) will still be majority white. Whites with low ethnocentrism will select themselves out of the white gene pool, making the remaining whites much more racist.
Racism will not be eliminated in the 21st century. Instead, the 22nd century will be the most racist century imaginable, especially as gene editing, gene therapy, IVF, and other forms of selective breeding become technologically inevitable.
Part of the reason why some women might be attracted to rule breaking behavior is that if a man is a criminal but he has not yet been caught this might be an indicator of intelligence — as opposed to a criminal who is dumb enough to get caught on the first try. This might help explain why serial killers, who commit many different murders over a lengthy time span, get so many love letters while in jail.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19485565.1968.9987763
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006557/global-population-per-continent-10000bce-2000ce/
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/20743
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/whp-origins/era-3-cities-societies-and-empires-6000-bce-to-700-c-e/36-the-growth-of-empires-betaa/a/read-the-persian-empire-beta
Really enjoyed this, I married a Mexican girl and we have a family and it’s really been interesting to see how they identify as they have grown. I would love to read more articles on this topic
(1) Could you explain your definition of racism? The only notion of “biologically distinct groups” I can think of is groups that cannot interbreed, but obviously racists believe different races can interbreed: that seems to be one of the main things they’re worried about!
(2) You might consider how the racial identification of mixed-race people affects your analysis. This is salient to me: I’m mixed, but basically come off as White to people who see me, and more or less identify as such (of course I suddenly recall my non-White ancestry when applying to schools and jobs lol). Different mixes appear differently, and primary identification will affect the gene pool mixed kids enter, which will affect selection.
Also Whiteness itself is dynamic: the history of the Irish/Polish/Italians becoming White is well documented. Today, MENAs and Central Asians are often considered White. A lot of Hispanics identify as White, and I’ve heard terms like “White-adjacent” used to describe East Asians. I’m sure you’ve seen the memes about the surprising ethnic diversity of White Nationalist/Supremacist groups. All this to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future, many more groups of people identify as “White”.