Hanson, once a neoconservative, finds himself a second class citizen in a California that is increasingly strange, alien, and dangerous.

I and one of my sons have mostly fled Silicon valley. The other lives in a shrinking island of whiteness that is ever more dangerous and ever more expensive, in San Francisco near the Embarcadero, near where Kathryn Steinle was murdered for being white, and her murderer acquitted, because high status people can get away with shooting second class people.

Hanson complains:

Throw out onto the road three sacks of garbage with your incriminating power bill in them, or dump the cooking oil of your easily identifiable mobile canteen on the side of the road, and there are no green consequences. Install a leach line that ends up one foot too close to a water well, and expect thousands of dollars of fines or compliance costs. … A cynical neighbor once summed up the counter-intuitive rules to me: if you are in a car collision, hope that you are hit by, rather than hit an illegal alien. If someone breaks into your home and you are forced to use a firearm, hope that you are wounded nonlethally in the exchange, at least more severely than is the intruder. And if you are cited by an agency, hope it is for growing an acre of marijuana rather than having a two-foot puddle on your farm classified as an inland waterway.I could add a fourth: it is always legally safer to allow your dog to be devoured by a stray pit-bull than to shoot the pit-bull to save your dog.In the former case, neither the owner nor the state ever appears; in the latter both sometimes do.

He fails to name his rulers.

He neglects to notice.:

Is it permissible for a member of Tribe A to criticize Tribe B?

Is it permissible for a member of Tribe B to criticize Tribe A?

In physical conflicts between As and Bs, who is more likely to be the aggressor, the A or the B?

Given equivalent circumstances, is the judicial system more aggressive in punishing offenses of As against Bs, or vice versa?

Given equivalent circumstances, in economic competition between an A and a B, which is more likely to win? If you are looking for a government contract or position, an official distinction, an educational opportunity, etc, etc, is it better to be an A or a B?

Is it more socially marginal for a B to be rude to an A, or an A to be rude to a B?

If the territories of two tribes overlap, one must necessarily rule, one must necessarily be ruled. It is that, or war.

He is ruled.

Humans are naturally fissiparous. During the filming of the “Planet of the Apes”, extras costumed as orangutans formed a tribe, extras costumed as chimps formed another tribe, and extras costumed as gorillas formed yet another a tribe.

But with improved communications and mobility, we don’t get physical separation between tribes. Which is a problem, because if tribal territories overlap, the natural outcome is that one tribe rules, and the other is ruled.

And because white males ruling has been deemed unacceptable, the inevitable outcome is that whites get ruled. Actually war and slow genocide, rather than rule, is the natural outcome, but if we are lucky, careful, and clever, we can avoid that and merely get one tribe ruling and one tribe ruled, though this arrangement is always fragile, unstable, and apt to tip into genocide, slow or swift, unless carefully managed from above.

Empires and their state religions want to make everyone into one big tribe, but this does not work. The great big tribe lacks cohesion and solidarity, and is first parasitised, then predated upon, by smaller tribes within the larger tribe. Too big a tribe, too hard to maintain good behavior.

The traditional solution to this problem is territorial states each with their own state church, the peace of Westphalia. But this is no longer workable. For it to work, needs smaller states and less migration.

The Turkish Caliphate prefigures a solution better adapted to our mobile era, though that solution ended in genocide when the Caliphate, which was keeping the precarious system in balance, fell. The solution to the problem successfully implemented by the Caliphate is microterritories in addition to macroterritories: for example with blacks and whites we get the spontaneous formation of the ghetto and also the spontaneous formation of the black table at the school cafeteria. Put a black in charge of the ghetto, a Jew in charge of the Jewish area. Explicitly recognize territories, acknowledge the black table and the white tables in school cafeteria, make them formal and official and put them overtly and formally under the authority of the relevant tribes.

The concept of equality under the law should be inexpressible and incomprehensible. That we can speak such nonsense means that there is something wrong with our words, which fail to cut reality at the joints. Different tribes naturally have different laws. A member of tribe A in the microterritory of tribe A will of course be subject to different rules than a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe B. Equality should only be in that if a member of tribe A is in the microterritory of tribe B, he is under disabilities that are sometimes roughly similar to the disabilities of a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe A, though by no means exactly the same.

Which does not mean that a black should not be allowed to sit at the white table at the school cafeteria, or vice versa, but does mean he should only be allowed to sit at the white tables only as a guest of a white person in good standing with the white tribe of cool schoolkids, and this white person shall be responsible for that black person’s good behavior, and if black person misbehaves, then the white person whose guest he was loses his good standing with the white tribe at the school.

Notice how when buses were integrated, when blacks no longer had to go to the back of the bus, whites were forced to stop riding buses in areas with significant black ridership, because of a well founded fear of being beaten up. Diversity plus proximity leads to war.

Similarly, males and females. For reproduction to be successful there needs to be peace between men and women. For there to be peace between men and women, territories outside of the proper female sphere need to be male, and females only be present as a guest of a male, who for fertile age women should always be a father, brother, husband, or betrothed. And if he is not, then she is slut, and sluts should get a substantially lower level or protection than decent women, should likely suffer minor physical violence.

Tags: affirmative action, race, the ruling underclass