Nepotism and Hawaiian Futurism
Who is the most nepotistic?
Nepotism is the tendency of organisms to privilege their kin. This is also referred to as genetic similarity theory, and proceeds from the selfish gene theory of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins claims altruism is a group selective behavior, and a consequence of evolutionary pressure. Organisms which privilege their kin will be more successful.
The most basic form of nepotism is found in reproductive organisms. We don’t often consider the fact that all animals mate with their own kind. When humans attempt to mate outside their species, we call this bestiality. But for beasts, we could refer multi-species mating as xenogamy. In fact, this does occur in the animal kingdom — between horses and donkeys, between lions and tigers. These offspring are typically not fertile. However, in the plant kingdom, different species can be successfully cross-bred to produce new species.
One way that nepotism could be modeled is as a form of K Selection. An R selective strategy will seek partners from many genetic clusters. A K selective strategy will eliminate foreign genetic clusters from the mating pool so that the offspring can be as genetically similar as possible. However, this does not actually match the data. Asians, who tend to be K selective (low fertility, high parental investment) also have the highest rate of intermarriage in America. If nepotism was a function of K selection, we would expect Asians to have the lowest rate of intermarriage.
Whites are the least likely to intermarry, which is contradictory given the fact that whites consistently rate their racial identity as less important than other races. If nepotism was associated with group identity, then we would expect the group with the least amount of chauvinism to have the greatest amount of intermarriage. Yet it is the opposite — whites, who rate the lowest in ethnocentrism, have the lowest intermarriage rate.
Conversely, Jewish Americans have ones of the highest rates of intermarriage, despite being stereotyped as nepotistic. One of the ways to understand intermarriage in America is as a numbers game. Jews who are surrounded by non-Jews will tend to marry non-Jews. Whites who are surrounded by whites will tend to marry whites. In other words, people marry randomly from their geo-social environment.
Sex differences in interracial marriage defy this simple “socio-geography.” Socio-geography cannot account for why Asian women are twice as likely as Asian men to intermarry — but black men are twice as likely as black women to intermarry. Some of this has to do with racial attractiveness. Asian women are consistently rated as attractive and desirable to white men. Black women, on the other hand, are not. The inverse is also true: black men are stereotyped as being virile lovers, while Asian men are stereotyped as diminutive.
In other words, Asian women and black women are both in a sexual competition to marry the best man possible. For Asian women, their high levels of attractiveness allow them to intermarry quite freely with white men, with little barriers to entry. For black women, the discrimination of white men bars them from intermarriage, and forces them to marry within their own group (or not marry at all). Asian women have the highest degree of xenogamic sexual freedom, while black women have very little.
This explanation makes it difficult to measure sexual nepotism, or endogamy. There are too many confounding factors to truly assess which races are practicing more or less endogamy. Reverting to the geo-social model, we can create the following hypotheses:
Without any endogamy, a 1% minority would have an intermarriage rate of 99%.
A majority of 60% would have an intermarriage rate of 40%.
Following this, we can look at the difference between the hypothetical xenogamy rate and the actual xenogamy rate to calculate the magnitude of endogamous preference.
America is 7% Asian, meaning that if Asians simply married randomly, they would have an intermarriage rate of 93%. However, if we assume that Asians are endogamous to both whites and Asians (excluding Hispanics and blacks), then a new picture emerges.
Asian women clearly have a type. When they intermarry, it is almost exclusively with white men — not black or Hispanic men. Although this does not accord with a selfish gene, “genetic similarity theory,” Asian women can be thought of as self-identified Eurasians, a cultural grouping encompassing both whites and Asians. Within this group, Asian women are extremely loyal, and less than 5% of them will every marry a black or Hispanic man. While Asian women are not genetically endogamous, they are culturally endogamous, to the extent that they self-identify as part of a white-Asian dual culture.
This is a curious finding, since this identity is entire absent from any kind of conscious proclamation. You will not find any Asian women bragging about Eurasianism, or describing how they think of whites and Asians as part of a racial alliance against Hispanics and blacks. Asian women vote Democrat, and you will not find them populating neo-conservative backwaters. They tend to live in urban areas, dominated by Democrat politics.
One explanation for “emergent Eurasian endogamy” is that Asians prioritize socio-economic status, especially education, in their culture and partners. Similar to Jews, Asians prefer partners who are intelligent and well-paid. Rather than engaging in genetic endogamy, they engage in class endogamy. This excludes, statistically speaking, most Hispanics and blacks.
It is possible to break down Asians into further categories, such as Laotian and Japanese. 21% of Laotian females marry black men, compared to less than 1% of Japanese females. How can this be explained?
The difference is clear: 52% of Japanese Americans have a college degree, whereas only 18% of Laotians have a college degree. This is actually lower than the black rate: 22.6% of blacks have a college degree. The picture which emerges is that races do not practice ethnic endogamy, but rather, educational endogamy.
The primacy of education in endogamy is not new — when religion played a more prominent role in education (Sunday school, Hebrew school), religious endogamy was more strictly practiced. Now that education has become increasingly secular in the past century, educational endogamy doesn’t depend on your type of education (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant), but on your level of education.
The result is that nepotism is not racial, but educational, and is most extreme at either end of the spectrum. At the far end, PhDs are extremely nepotistic. They prefer to marry other people with PhDs, view themselves essentially as an ethnic bloc; they vote Democrat consistently, and have distinct views which contradict those of the average American. They believe in climate change; in white privilege; they believe in gun control and the restriction of hate speech; they believe in trans rights; they believe in unrestricted abortion. These are not moderate positions in themselves, but are normal among PhDs.
On the other end, those without college degrees are increasingly forming their own bloc. Hispanics have a slight language barrier which insulates them from white and black culture, but increasingly, whites and blacks without college degrees have similar views. They both like guns and they may not believe in science or vaccines. However, unlike the PhD group, which is socialized according to a definite religious program, whites and blacks without college degrees have no such “common instruction.” As a result, poor whites and blacks may have eclectic or ununified views which range the entire spectrum from very liberal to very conservative. As such, it is still not accurate to lump poor whites and blacks together into a “mulatto” identity.
However, over time, if interracial marriage continues, such a “mulatto” culture may emerge. Candace Owens is married to a white man; Kanye has married white women; the Hodge Twins are multi-racial; and many more examples abound of “mulatto”1 antisemites. While antisemitism among white conservatives is rare, all the prominent conservative antisemites of this year either have black children or are themselves multi-racial. This “mulatto” culture, which is inherently antagonistic and hostile to the “PhD” ruling class, may have found a home in antisemitism because Jewishness is so thoroughly tied to academia. Of course, this analysis is anecdotal rather than statistical, and it may come to pass in the near future that a crop of white antisemites overshadows these “mulatto” upstarts. Still, it should be noted that the Republican who is most against Israel, Thomas Massie, comes from one of the least educated states in the country.
Nepotism is a spectrum. The only way to eliminate nepotism is to eliminate reproduction entirely, and to embrace anti-natalism. The Catholic priest is sterile so that he does not privilege his own offspring over the universal. This is contrary to life itself, and represents the distillation of the priestly ideal.
The full embrace of nepotism could be represented by the incest of ancient Egypt. However, this is deceptive. Incest was not common, but reserved for the nobility. Looked at as a whole, a society which practices cousin marriage systemically is more nepotistic than Egyptian royalty.
By clearly seeing the full spectrum of nepotism, we can see it from a relative view. The Hajnal line in Europe shows the power of anti-nepotism. Nepotism is a weakness, in that it forfeits dynamic merit in favor of conformity to a static type. But it is also the basis of reproductive life itself: the desire to unite with one’s own kind.
There is a remarkable contradiction emerging, where the most universally minded section of our society, the PhDs, are practicing “educational endogamy” at the highest rate. This is effectively forming a new ethnicity, composed of Asians, whites and Jews, but systematically excludes blacks and Hispanics. The ideology of PhDs, which privileges black and Hispanics, seems contradictory, until this ideology is understood as a HLvM strategy (high-low vs the middle). The PhD class wants to steal money and resources from uneducated whites, who are their greatest enemy, and redistribute privileges to blacks and Hispanics, who are essentially powerless.
While leftism dresses itself up in the language of universalism, it may actually, at least subconsciously, be a result of ethnic nepotism. However, this ethnicity is not exclusively Jewish, Asian, or white, but represents a fusion of all hyper-educated ethnicities.
As Asian immigration increases, the Asian population is expected to double by 2050. As affirmative action in universities comes under attack by Chris Rufo and other conservative activists, Asians have a good chance of eliminating the quota system which restricts their numbers. As a result, Asians may increase from 13% of the PhD class to 26%. Caltech, which was already 40% Asian in 2013, may be a vision of a Eurasian future for American universities.
This is already reflected in our politics. Andrew Yang, Nikki Haley, Vivek, and Kamala Harris dominate the headlines. Coincidentally, Obama was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, both of which are majority Asian. If Bill Clinton was the first black president, then Obama could rightly be called the first Asian president.
All of this is occurring while Asians are still an extremely small percentage of eligible voters: 6.1%. If Asians can double their population over the next 26 years, it is likely that their power will increase exponentially. As tech billionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg marry and have children with Asian women, their children will inherit their wealth and become “old money.”
The 1980s was a transformational time for American Jews, when Carl Icahn, Ivan Boesky, Jordan Belfort, Michael Milken, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and many others made their fortunes. Their influence defined the American financial and political landscape for a generation. This eventually gave way to the “tech billionaires” of the early 2000s, including Musk, Gates, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Cuban, Ballmer, Ellison, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Michael Dell. Unlike the Jewish financiers of the 1980s, only Cuban, Dell, and Zuckerberg were fully Jewish — the rest were non-Jewish or half Jewish.
Another difference between these two crops of billionaires is that the financial wizards of the 1980s were investigated by the SEC, and many did not survive. By contrast, the tech billionaires of the 2000s have had greater longevity and suffered less legal pressure. As a result, some of these billionaires may continue to top the charts for the next decade or two. However, by 2040, it should not be surprising if Asian or half-Asian billionaires begin to become a visible part of the American ruling class.
Such a forecast is not promising for MAGA or national populism. Asians are generally hostile to this ideology, more than blacks and Hispanics. Asians benefit more than any group from merit-based immigration, and will likely push a “Canadian” policy for America. This will result in an increase of Asian immigration, at the expense of black and Hispanic immigration. The resulting country will see lower crime rates, but a sharp increase in the cost of living and the cost of housing.
A country dominated by Eurasian interests will also see America less as a nation with its own white ethnic culture, and more as a pawn in an international game of exchange. Towards that end, the Democrat Party policies of selling off American farmland, Uranium reserves, and rare earth minerals to Russia and China will become more likely. A Eurasian elite will be less threatened by the rise of China, and may be more sympathetic to it.
On the other hand, if Peter Zeihan is correct, China will enter into a severe economic and political crisis in the next 10 years. Such a collapse would exert extreme migration pressure on the Chinese middle class, who would want to flee a decline in living standards. A Eurasian elite, seeking to capture human capital, would embrace this trend with open arms, thus causing a run-away demographic shift which would dwarf what has already occurred in Canada.
For comparison, in 1840, the population of Ireland was about 8 million. Due to the famine, 2 million Irish people migrated to North America, or 25% of the population. This occurred despite the fact that transportation at this time was dirty, dangerous, difficult, and long. It took 14 days for ships to travel from Ireland to Boston. Now, it takes 7 hours.
A collapse of China by 2040, if it were similar to the Irish Potato Famine, would result in 350 million refugees — more the entire population of America in 2024. Chinese people would become the majority of the population. Blacks would shrink to 7% of the population, Hispanics to 11%, and whites to 25%. Asians would make up 60% of the population, with the remaining 7% being multi-racial. Such a population would slightly whiter than Hawaii is today.
Despite conservative fear mongering over Hispanic immigration, Hispanics have little power. There are no Hispanic billionaires, no Hispanic college presidents. In 2015, Hispanics only made up 7% of PhDs: almost exactly as many as blacks. While Hispanics allegedly have a higher IQ than blacks, this is not reflected in their PhD acquisition rate.
Immigration policy in the future will not be determined by geographic proximity, but by the interests of policy makers. If Eurasian leadership close the border with Mexico, and open the airports to China, this will determine America’s future, and destroy any hope of “American nationalism.” There will be no possibility of mass deportations.
Hispanic immigration, therefore, is dramatic for the present moment, but only a preview of things to come, a small rumbling in comparison with the coming storm. If Eurasians seize political power, they will dispense with the liberal-Christian tradition, preferring technocratic authoritarianism. They will likely be friendly to race realism, but hostile to Civil War reenactments and conservationism.
It is unknown whether Europe will fall under the same fate of mass Asian immigration, but if it does not, it will be in the unique position of having a large Muslim underclass, but maintain its European ruling class. The Cold War of 2040 would be between a Europe with a 40% Muslim underclass (similar to Turkey in its demographic profile), and an America with a 60% Asian ruling class (similar to Hawaii in its demographic profile). These two power blocs would then compete over influence in a post-collapse China, similar to how that country was divided up in the 19th century.
Owens and Kanye are not multi-racial, but their children are.