HOTEP Populism and the Dulosis of the inquiline | Edward Stetson*
'Against Identity Politics',  like its ancestral book, "The End of History," was written by the pamphleteer Francis Fukuyama, as both the conceit of a new elite consensus, and the abasement of a certain prophetic reversal. Like the contrarian investor who reads the stock picks of the WSJ, not for its pearls of wisdom, but for the common stones that yield clues to where the quarry flees, we read Fukuyama to track the herd, for the herd is in distress. The conceit of the common reader of Fukuyama is that there exists a simple solution to this distress, that the elite can manage the herd back calmly into its confines, and that the End of History can proceed once again, true to schedule.
There are pronouncements in the contemporary discussion which, in echoing the earlier ancestral work, have seemed to take us back to that bygone era of western triumphalism, where history had ended, and the new millennium had arrived. It would be a transnational Neoliberal Owned Government (NOG) evermore. The crumbling of Soviet communism, the fall of the western wall, the inclusion of China into the WTO, the EU-NAFTA erasure of borders, the elevation of corporations into citizens with the unrestricted rights to money speech; ; all had initiated the eschaton, the utopian Kingdom of NOG upon the earth, where the wolf could grow fat over the lamb, for their were billions of lambs anew, and even a child could lead them to lie down together, so austere were the strictures of the eschaton.
In Fukuyama's telling , all this remains possible, if not for the distress, the non-silence of the Lambs. He argues that the problem is not with the policy, but merely with the psychology of the crowd, specifically it is a problem of herd perception. They perceive a loss in social status and suffer a loss in self-esteem. He admits they have, in fact, suffered a loss in real income, and incurred a real economic and social cost in being corralled into the multicultural workplace. The exogenous shifts in the labor demand curves, through production offshoring, the shifts in labor supply curves, through immigration onshoring, and the re-tooling of production functions, through intermediation, financialization, and automation tech-shoring; are simply, given, facts of economic life within post-modernity, and not endogenously chosen, policy vectors in the elite utility maximization problem. Yes, given these constraints, inequality will continue to reign, and if only the misguided masses could see that the trickle-down tide would eventually lift all boats, then the millennium would re-emerge, buoyant. The populace, manipulated by populists, have made an apostate's error in self-conception, they reject the neoliberal psalm: Know that the Lord, he is NOG, it is he who made us, and we are his, we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
The citizen then has made the heretic's error in self-identity. They erroneously see themselves as core 'members of a great nation', a community of believers, who were betrayed, and impoverished by a conspiring alliance of non-believers, foreigners, immigrants, and the elite. While the impoverishment and the alliance are real, they are immaterial to the narrative. There is no betrayal, nor conspiracy of the elect. But here he admits a mistake of the Chosen. The transfer of untold trillions during the euro and subprime bailout crises was an error. Not so the transfer of additional trillions to the defense and petroleum cartels in the interminable bail-in omni-wars. That was a necessity, an exogenous given, much like the labor arbitrage policies of globalization. Yet all is well, inequality will reign, if only the alliance could address the theological misconception, itself a function of Identity Politics, in his words, the major threat to global (neoliberal) 'democracy. His essay is part of the solution: de-legitimation of ethnic solidarity by branding it anti-democratic, together with a restriction of populist conversational bandwidth', that is, democratic de-platforming, de-monetization, book burning. The argument is for a single fused American identity, or what 'settler colonial studies' would denote as 'biopower amalgamation' : there is but one pasture, and we are the sheep of that pasture. We are to denounce our lying eyes, the inquiline wolf within the herd, is but a sheep.
This is where the elite dissensus is revealed. If NOG is to be deified, and 'the rule of [transnational] law' reified, why must the identitarians of the Left lose their social status, economic privilege, through Fukuyama's reining in of Identity politics? Representing the alliance, was Stacey Abrams, like many European leaders, a childless, spouse-less gender activist, but also a black woman, a graduate of Spellman, a race and gender segregated college, and the Yale Law School; she took the Asian American man to task. In 'E Pluribus Unum' , her defense of minority racial and sexual identity politics was unremarkable except for two striking admissions. Firstly, she affirmed, unsurprisingly, the uniqueness of Black American marginalization, surprisingly, its unrecognition by contemporary elite multiculturalism. The second admission placed that unrecognition within the historical context of elite plantation dulosis (the evolutionary biological term for slave-makers). Imported, involuntary immigrant, slave labor was used as 'scab' replacements for the domestic indentured white labor, and for Keri Leigh Merritt's 'Masterless Men'. These were arguably the first American white populists who resisted the wage consequences of elite scab importation, that is, mass immigration  . And like farm labor a century later, they made a leftist case against immigration, and across racial lines, for the Black Freedmen, and the white worker, were both in solidarity against the plantation masters , and its foundational infrastructure: the usurious, risk, transport , and police functions that intermediated racial caste, the privileged 'Black Anglo-Saxon' elite, 'House Negroes' ,'rooming in the master's house'   , and the ministers scholars, pamphleteers, or the cultural apparatchiks that carved out consent.
Emancipation enhanced the potential for Freedmen and Masterless Men to work together to oppose the southern elite , and Merritt describes how the elite then, much like today, worked to harden racial lines, segregating poor whites and blacks, who heretofore had been intertwined, both socially, and economically, by erecting a system of affirmative action for whites, racial preferences, and simultaneously regulating Black educational and organizational opportunities, with the threat of elite sponsored militia violence always hovering over any nascent black self-determination movement. Today the master class reverses racial roles. Economic whiteness' is reserved for non-whites, white self-determination movements are met with the threat of lost careers, or public shaming with the potential for hate speech incarceration or civil fines, and the threat of Antifa militia violence always hovers over public activism, with the local police ordered to stand down. In like manner, today's plantation arrangement has a supportive infrastructure: immigration lawyers, H1B placement firms, highly paid diversity czars  and minority contractors who subcontract the work to the masterless men.  Increasingly African Americans are conscious of the effects of onshoring labor, and so we see the development of an immigration-restrictionist focus on the American Descendants of Slaves (ADOS) on the Left, and a populist 'HOTEP' conservative pro-black family movement on the Right, reminiscent of the views of the Labor Black Leagues, Cesar Chavez, and Bernie Sanders, previously, on immigration as scab labor, with the ethnic community, intact family, as the historic defensive safety net.
Robert Sapolsky in the same journal doubles down on Abrams' defense of Identity politics, asserting an immutable biological, instinctual human primate need for racial, familial, 'Us vs. Them' racial identity.  But if this is true, and attempting to reason with the identity error of the populist is futile, then why is this not true also for the conspecific elite? Afterall, the identity definitions of Abrams and Sapolsky are as skin deep as the southern segregationists. For if the Indian Brahmin has the same color as the Indian untouchable, what explains their 'Us vs. Them' antagonism? They may be of the same race, nationality, and culture, but scores of generational separations have given them different distributional aptitudes, different statistical potentiality in the varieties of work, and of course, different material interests-- despite the hegemony of the cultural confines that circumscribe the status of the untouchable. And so, it is within the American context. The black Freedmen and the white masterless men have disparate work aptitudes and material interests than the multicultural meritocratic elite. The Episcopalian Boston Brahmin is as different from the 'Red Neck' descendants of indentured servants, as the Immigrant -white Obama is from the 'Black Neck' American descendant s of slaves, as the Chinese physics professor is as different from the ethnic Chinese 'Yellow neck' restaurant worker from Vietnam. Moreover, the working class untouchable colored necks may share more in common with each other, than with their co-ethnic Brahmins in the meritocracy. Here then, we see that the accusation of racism applied to the white or minority populist is a form of projection. The meritocrat exists in a segregated verbal sub population group, who argue against populism, in defense of the financial transfers, and economic privilege itself has accrued. These are what HOTEP populists would call "Shines. They are the shine of all shines." 
This is the essence of the elite populist conflict. Transnationally, it is an arrangement of ecological arbitrage, the simultaneous selling and buying of the rights to pollute, and use human beings, to intermediate value, in distant, contrasting clades. The playoff of one clade against a set of others permits elite intermediary market power. Domestically, the elite has the populist's neck in the stanchion, ready to draw milk, in exchange for her daily forage. In Yuri Slezkine's vocabulary of modernity the elite is the Mercurian, verbalist, shyster with the populist being the Apollonian spatial, farmer-craftsman. The milking parlor's stanchion is 'the rule of law', Oakeshott's nomocracy. The apollonian is at negative liberty to do what she may, except act at positive liberty to self-determine, outside the mercurian bottleneck. Freedom to do anything except that which might matter is something beyond the dystopias of Huxley and Orwell, and of a type of inefficiency corruption beyond James Burnham's Managerial Class or Milovan Djilas' nomenklatura, yet universal in Post- Christendom.
It is as if human progress always cycles back to the feudal manor, the Polish Commonwealth where serfs labored under a foreign burgher manor lessee class, farmers sold to a buyer monopsony, and the kulak found his culture in the local Tavern brothel, where entertainment could be financed through Pay Day loans.   This is the consumerist, emotivist malaise of Taylor's modernity.  This was also the geographic hub of the Non-Nazi Holocaust  . The center did not hold, and the falconer did not hear the Falcon. The situation is unstable, in American ideological terms, a complex of market power, virtual 'I-slavery', intentional pharmaceutical addiction with correctives of antitrust, workplace torts, and vice policing, not restrictions on victim's conversational 'bandwidth'. All of which has come to be noticed by prominent, journalists critical of elite's 'gaming the system'. Western neoliberal elite corruption is so grave, that Stephen Walt considers it a national security threat, while Susanne Nossel argue that it discredits Democracy itself.  
That a monopoly elite can game the arrangement seems unremarkable, rather it is the 'in the open', audacity of the corruption that requires correction, and so Ross Douthat laments the loss of an ostensibly somewhat empathetic aristocracy, favoring the 'white man's burden' noblesse oblige over in Henry Adams words, a 'furtive Yacoob or Ysaac still reeking of the ghetto'.  . Helen Andrews argues that the ' medievally unjust' contemporary burghers be replaced by local, self-determinative regional, if not populist, sub population elites.  . This seems to argue that Pat Buchanan's heritage 'Middle American" believers be ruled by their own, rather than by the foreign, immigrant, and non-believer multicultural alliance. But this seems to ignore, despite Slezkine's ethno-determinism in his work 'The Jewish Century' , or admittedly, the urban, liberal Indo-Chinese elite in Malaysia ; the seeming ubiquity of elite parasitism across time and continents. Additionally, more often than not, it exists in monoculture, as in the cases of the Brahmin and the Untouchable, and of the southern master and the masterless men.
Within the strain of evolutionary research focused on primatology, intraspecific, within-species, allonursing, or alloparenting, or more generally, involuntary altruism, 'social parasitism' is not an uncommon feature of individual and group hierarchy, and so, not unexpected within human primate, social organization.  Of particular relevance is the parasite's efforts to manipulate the phenotype of the Host, to optimize its own resource extraction, and this may take the form of interference in gender roles, with effects upon host sexual reproduction. Whereas gender culture is not in Durkheimian terms, exogenously "superorganic", but instead the result of particular clade solutions to evolutionary fitness problems, then we may abduct that disturbances in reproductive fitness, as in drops in western fertility, may be a symptom of parasitic load, as these disturbances seem most pronounced in neoliberal intensive societies. Thus and so, the mercurian cultural intermediary has the biological function of phenotypic manipulation: elite sponsored LGBT, promiscuity, anti-monogamy, and antitheism, for example sexual freedoms as justification for regime change, employment sanctions, gender 'hate' speech incarceration; serve the purpose of defeating traditional human primate defenses against elite reproductive manipulation, that is Church and Family. Organic civil society is oppressed with the substitution of inorganic elite pseudo-culture, in the effort to fashion the perfect host: the double income, no kids, DINK, the childless sterile consumer unit and worker ant, the distracted, silent lamb, begging to be sheared. As a corollary, 'biopower' amalgamation is not an insignificant addition to parasitic disturbance of Host, organic, clan defenses.
It is of all this evidently that Sapolsky is right. Populism, a reaction, has the ubiquity to qualify as a biological constant, as does the initiating cause, elite social parasitism. The tension between the populace herd and the inquiline elite, human primate history itself, is a narrative of oscillations in host-parasite co-evolution. Yet, both black, or white, ethno-nationalism, and Andrews' self-determinative localism, will not end the cycle of resistance to NOG serf feudalism, ensconced as it is in a technological, nomocratic prison of cultural and monopoly constraints (phenotypic manipulation). Perhaps the solution may be found in taking the biological dimensions more seriously, considering intra-species group conflict in some detail, and searching for stable human arrangements which do not tend to corrupt into inquiline dulosis.
The abductive hypothesis is that the target of manipulation holds he cure, organic civil society. The mode of manipulation is amalgamation into confined parlors, stanchions of intermediation. The remedy is then positive liberty, the voluntary right to leave the parlor, to create anew local diversity, a pluralism of organic, extended familial and communal expressions, traditionally the arrangements of clan and church., with allowances for self-sufficiency, and control of the village, communal, if not geographic, borders. The physiocrat's taxation of fallow wealth, and barren intermediaries, and the promotion of a fecund, natural order of human work, then proceeds with local re-integration of the nomenklatura back into communal fertility as a kind of religious obligation, 'whoever does not teach his son a trade is like one who teaches him robbery.'  The implementation mechanism may be a voluntary association under private covenants, cultural and legal pluralism, halakha, shariah for post-Christendom?  The imminent apocalypsis will then be the next peak amplitude in the co-evolutionary cycle: will the falconer hear the falcon?
in Mastozoologia Neotropical 12(1) · June 2005
ABSTRACT: Organisms often respond in ways that appear to benefit others rather than
themselves. This phenomenon is consistent with the views of Darwin (1859) and Dawkins
(1999) that individuals may exploit the responses of others. This phenomenon, “social parasitism”,
has been extensively investigated in social insects, particularly, ants. Other empirical
studies have demonstrated social parasitism in fish, birds, and mammals. This paper reviews
several possible examples of mammalian social parasitism, with an emphasis upon intraspecific
social parasitism (ISP) in Neotropical primates. Social parasitism is discussed as a life
history feature of long-lived, social organisms such as many primates, including humans. A
simple mathematical model, applied to social parasitism, is presented linking parasite transmission
to a parasite’s influence on its host. Phenotypic manipulation is assessed as a
mechanism of social parasitism, and possible examples from the literature on Neotropical
primates are provided. Social parasitism is discussed in relation to the evolution of higher
grades of sociality (eusociality, cooperative breeding), manipulation success (infectivity), and
the evolution of virulence (e.g., aggression, punishment). It is proposed that an understanding
of variations in virulence and infectivity by social parasites is likely to reveal important
evolutionary dynamics for an integrated view of social evolution.