Is the Alternative Right Actually White Nationalism In Disguise?

Neurotic Vox theorizes about the Alternative Right:

The alt-right is often dismissed as white supremacist Trump supporters with Twitter accounts, and they are certainly that. But spend some time talking to key players and reading the movement’s central texts, as I did, and you’ll find it’s more than a simple rebranding of the white nationalist movement. It’s the product of the intersection of a longstanding, long-marginalized part of the conservative movement with both the most high-minded and the basest elements of internet culture. It’s a mutated revival of a monster William F. Buckley thought he killed in the early 1990s, given new energy by the web.

In my view, this is totally wrong: the Alternative Right is an alternative to white nationalism as much as the Republicans.

The goal of the Alternative Right is to establish principles by which civilizations thrive, in contrast to the dying principles upon which we base our current time.

These include nationalism, naturally since all other options have failed, but also extend to many other options. In particular, the Alternative Right studies how the the common sense opinion of a population is replaced by that of its professional politicians.

A better way to view the Alternative Right: a recognition that liberal democracy has failed, and a searching for alternatives which are both not oppressive and not prone to decay like liberal democracy.

Of course the establishment wants it to be equated to white nationalism — they fear it!

Dark Patterns Arise From Light Intentions


From Slashdot, an analysis of the balance between rationalism and aestheticism:

‘There’s this logical positivist mindset that the only things that have value are those things that can be measured and can empirically be shown to be true, and while that has its merits it also takes us down a pretty dark place,’ said digital product designer Cennydd Bowles, who is researching ethical design. ‘We start to look at ethics as pure utilitarianism, whatever benefits the most people. Yikes, it has problems.'”

Exactly. Logical positivism and other forms of deduction are based on what currently exists and how categories can be applied to it. In reality, we must make choices before that stage, and argue from our inner needs for beauty/excellence/truth instead of arguing from the human needs that exist.

The problem with logical positivism is that it looks at human participation that already exists, and the needs of the people involved. This is a turning-away from the question of what should be done to advance the principle of civilization, which seems to me to be a hybrid between beauty and truth. Without that, civilization becomes tyranny.

But even more, we must consider the warning of William S. Burroughs:

Exterminate all rational thought!

Rationality reasons from what is, as opposed to aesthetic/moral thought which looks at what might be beautiful enough to honor the eternal truths.

A more sensible viewpoint looks toward aesthetics. What is beautiful, good and true? Make it happen. The people who exist now will be displaced, sure, but the result will be better.

The grim fact is that the darkest moments of humanity reside within its lightest intentions. Humans, by their intentions, create misery and horror. Only escaping that to the natural presents a realistic outcome.

When we rely on “logical positivism,” we are measuring the past. We are looking at what happened and trying to construct a future out of it, starting with the present instead of looking at the continuity between past, present and future.

The grim reality is that what we must make our decision upon is not just the present, but the continuity between ages. We must look at the curve between the past and the future, and fit ourselves into it.

This requires an arbitrary form of decision-making, based in the eternal, and aesthetics. This offends everything about “scientific” choice making, but also, offers us the ability to design our future, instead of merely reacting to what is in the present tense.

The Cassandra of Albion



A refugee from Eritrea has been arrested on suspicion of raping a 79-year-old woman in a cemetery in Germany. The pensioner was attacked while visiting the grave of her sister in Ibbenbueren, North Rhine-Westphalia, on Sunday. The suspect, 40, who has lived in Germany since 2013, was charged with rape and placed in police custody.

Q: “So what does a guy in Germany say after he finishes raping a 79 year old pensioner next to her sister’s grave?”
A: “Allahu Akbar!”

Constant Critic: “But that’s just sensationalism, JPW. And, like Charlie Hebdo; it wasn’t even all that funny. You’re posting like this stuff happens every day of the week just to take political advantage.”

JPW: “Umm, you must not be reading the papers much lately, if you do not believe these attacks are happening with increasing frequency.” You’d really have to have a dark view of the universe to want to fire a bunch of incompetents that get people blown up because of their gutless and feckless and ineluctable stupidity. It’s almost like these people are getting paid to be that stupid….”

Constant Critic: “You know it never happens here. We have a low risk. You’re more likely to die from skin cancer that’s scientifically linked to using your AC in the Summer months than you are from terrorism. Your extremist Islamophobia is why people resort to terrorism.”

JPW: “Just what is it with recent US Secretaries of State? You are at threat from terrorists, any time that you act like a manvajayjay. Terrorists do it because it works like hell. It’s a religion of peace once they’ve shut you the f*ck up.”

Constant Critic: “Seriously, we don’t have a big stream of migrants in our country that can’t be assimilated. It’s not like Cologne, Germany, or anything.”

JPW: “I’m sure relieved nobody running for high office this fall wants to do anything stupid like that. That entire belief that (((diversity))) has no consequences treats logic and reason the way Ike treated Tina or Bill treated Juanita, or the way recent German “migrants” treat 79 year old pensioners…Well, even you should get the point about now..”

Constant Critic: “But it’s not all Islam’s fault. You’re just racist! You hate people, and I’m glad I’m not like that.”

JPW: “I’d tell you that you cuck rather easily, but you probably get that a lot. I’ll bet they called Cassandra racist when she told King Priam to beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Speaking of which, Enoch Powell would have to qualify as the Cassandra of Albion. He nailed it and for that he was nailed to the cross. Enjoy your Trojan Horse – if calling it that isn’t Islamophobic.”

Neoreaction Conference To Be Held In London


We do not live in tolerant times. As in the former Soviet Union or today’s Cuba, there is an official Correct Way to think and those who fail to think this way, even if they do not explicitly disagree with it, find themselves excluded from opportunities and social groups.

Despite that, a brave group of arts community members are trying to bridge the divide. Later this year, they will launch an exhibit named Neoreaction, which is ‘an open [conference for] open minded progressives’ that explores Neoreactionary and Reactionary thought. This will be a short conference of talks and screenings on the subject of neoreactionary philosophy and politics, which the presenters view as one of the most interesting discursive spaces online in current times.

Hosted at a gallery in East London, the conference will be metaphorically playing with (ideological) fire, since Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are in opposition to modernity, liberalism and in fact every political assumption widely held in Western societies today. Already two members of the team, fearing for the loss of social and economic opportunities, have had to drop out, but the rest are soldiering on.

If you wish to attend, or are from the media and wish a press pass, please email which forwards to the organizers, who will remain anonymous until they are able to verify your good faith participation.

One Hundred Years Of Disaster


There is a need to tell our children their history timeline in a simple one-pager because, as my father used to say, “the world is one disaster upon another.”

A good place to start might be the American time-line 1900 – 2000, which is quite insightful because compared to previous centuries, so much more happened. What is remarkable is that it started happening in the days of my own Grandfather. Literally therefore, things changed from good-to-bad in the span of two lifetimes.

South Africa has a similar time-line where one remarkable event was the 1910 Union of South Africa, which marked the actual start of the country, meaning the country as it is known today, is only 116 years old. But the Australian time-line shows it is only ten years older than South Africa. In summary it becomes apparent that just looking at the last 100-odd years should provide any young western child with a lot of common sense insight.

The first half of the twentieth century history was mostly filled with European wars in the context of various prior dispensations. After the wars though, things changed (a lot). For example decolonization happened, as well as the formation of the United Nations in 1945.  This intentionally coincided with the establishment of the World Bank which was intended to alleviate the condition of “the poor.” One could almost say a sort of pseudo world government was established to “help undeveloped countries” while coupled to a diplomacy platform for reducing risk of future world wars between developed countries.

Around 1965 immigration laws changed in America and Australia but economies in general pretty much grew at satisfactory rates until 1975. Incidentally, the Angola-Namibian War broke out the same time which, together with black unrest resulted in Government capitulation in 1994. However, on the world stage, America and the Soviet Union were having their own little “iron-curtain” pulled aside in 1989 when the Berlin Wall was dismantled. It is no coincidence that the fall of Communism and Apartheid happened in virtually the same year. Namibia gained independence in 1990; the Soviet Union dissolved the same time and then in 1991 things changed (a lot) again.

George H.W Bush declared the New World Order. This NWO would be based only on a liberal-democratic ideology where America would provide the money and the military to “assist” any country on earth. This NWO supersedes any authority individual political parties might have had since decision and actions are undertaken above the level of individual countries e.g. United Nations. This coincided apparently with the rise of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) which are still inhibiting Governments and sovereignty to this day i.e. tax havens.

However, serious challenges have been mounting against a unilaterally declared NWO. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is severely criticized while the recent formation of BRICS is pushing back against (mostly) the US in terms of trade (World Trade Organization), finances (Pre- and post-Bretton Woods) and “security” (which includes the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)). In addition, because the NWO marketed the idea of exporting universal humanity and climate, Middle-East citizens are in turn now flooding Western Countries in search of that “humanity.”  This is a regulatory safety problem unfortunately, which can’t be solved in a military sense alone.

But a second challenge against the NWO has arisen from within Western Civilization through the disenfranchised political right. Despite gloating about human rights achievements, proponents of the uni-party NWO power-base have ensured implementation of socialist oriented policies that resulted in moving the Overton Window too far to the left, thereby ignoring the needs of a major part of the electorate. Since socialist type policies tend to focus on common lower class peoples, the more capable and influential were left without representation, not only electorally but also economically. It can be said that Western culture emanates not from tax-eaters, but from tax-payers or those that contribute and those that don’t.

It is therefore realistic to think that the productive “class” of society cannot simply by “brushed” over in some dark and underhanded way. This is amply demonstrated by the experience gained in liberating South Africa from Apartheid. This third-world country achieved “independence” at the same time Russia was “liberated” from Communism, with the full support of the NWO. It introduced liberal democracy as the perfect post-Apartheid ideological solution, praised to such an extent that Mandela and De Klerk received a joint Nobel Peace Prize. But after 20 years it became clear that a liberal-democratic dispensation cannot accommodate a middle-class, in fact, it will destroy any semblance of a (productive) middle-class by its very design. Basic reasons for this are that 40% of the population receive “social grants”, that poverty has not been reduced and that binary media language focus either on the “elite” or the “poor”, but never the boring middle-class. This binary language also ignores the basic culture and driving force of the “Nation” eventually stripping those protective “values” that enabled the hosting (compared to Greece’s Olympic Games) of massive events such as the 1995 Rugby World Cup and the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

Applying this proven historic background to the very similar American context, it is logical to say that the disenfranchised middle-class (left and right) will react against an intrinsically flawed liberal democratic regime (i.e. Brexit) by supporting the ideology of realism. Therefore, when combined with France, the Netherlands and Hungary, it is possible to motivate a cross-Atlantic, counter-NWO-culture, anti-globalist, nationalistic American President, such as a bottoms-up, common sense, negotiating Donald Trump. His apparent strategy is, precisely, to rekindle the fiery growth potential of the middle-class because any and all liberal-democratic attempts to “re-start” economic growth after the 2007 Great Recession disaster have failed.

To avoid more disaster, the future will require a different ideology or political belief system. Realism — which is non-binary in nature by dint of recognizing power as more important than morality — is showing a lot of promise. As my father used to say, referring I suppose to the cyclic structure of history, binary counting uses the 0 and 1 characters but using the 1, 3 and 9 characters might be more efficient.

Sex, Sublimation and Dissipation


If you make a mild error and have to backtrack a wee bit to set it right, we tend to say “Whoops, Oh well.” It’s a minor thing, time to be a minor king. When you totally mess it up and make the type of existential error you will still suffer from fifteen years later, you just have to admit that you “f*cked it up.” Savor that etiology. When you really do it wrong, you “f*ck it up.” I don’t find the turn of phrase accidental.

The guys who think with the wrong head make the wrong decisions. A life centered around the acquisition of belt notches is a life spent pursuing short term, low-payoff aspirations. A life spent grousing over a lack of sexual gratification has a non-zero probability of turning someone into a serial killer. Yoga practitioners espouse the belief that sex-drive comes from a lower chakra called the Swadhishtana. This is described below.

This energy is the center for creating relationships of all kinds. It is where we develop an inward sense of self and an outward awareness of others, ego, sexuality, and family and defined as we work with this energy. The feelings of other people are directly perceived through mastery of this chakra’s energy.

Not so bad so far, but what happens when that becomes the predominant center of your humanity. Here’s what happens to you if you over-indulge. You develop the following traits.

Excessive: manipulative, controlling, lustful, addictive

Here’s what happens if you over-obsess over not getting none.

Deficient: co-dependent, martyr, submissive, doesn’t feel anything, shut down

The point of this being that bad things happen when you get taken hostage by the more basic needs on Maslov’s Hierarchy. When you focus on the sex-type thing instead of more important matters, bad things happen. Psychologists refer to this as dissipation. Webster’s Dictionary offers the following definition.

2. (n.) A dissolute course of life, in which health, money, etc., are squandered in pursuit of pleasure; profuseness in vicious indulgence, as late hours, riotous living, etc.; dissoluteness.

In the Gospel of Luke we learn that the dissipate man is not prepared when he meets opportunity. Luke speaks of spiritual opportunity, but adventures, careers, and other forms of enrichment could be pissed away as well if we think first, foremost and only about satisfying lustful desires. In other words, Luke is warning you not to f*ck it up.

And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

So does the perfect Neo-Reactionary human being completely swear off sex and lock up the jewels in an iron-clad chastity belt? — Nope. At least not if he’s going to be a wank about it and let it dominate his mind and energy. The point is really about focusing on other things. You get so many hours of life. If you spend it obsessed on sex; you spend it not advancing anything that you care about. If worst comes to worst, just gratify yourself and get on with things. Find a balance, put it in its proper place, get on with the rest of your life.

This is called sublimation. To sublimate is to channel energy otherwise wasted on some form of sexual obsession on more enlightened forms of self-betterment. This doesn’t even mean you need to drop game. It just means you play a more intelligent game to win more intelligent prizes. The whole reason I even offer this up is that the first step in effective neo-reaction is a personal one: be worthy. You are worthy when you achieve equipoise. Equipoise is balance. Balance is what saves you from having life knock you on your butt. Other, you’ll probably end up as just another f*ck-up.

Your Office Is A Coffin


Don’t sit still and just take it. It’s killing you. One boring day at a time, your office job is eating away your life. Your cublicle is a veal-fattening pen. A study published in Lancet tells us the following:

Research on more than one million adults found that sitting for at least eight hours a day could increase the risk of premature death by up to 60 per cent. Scientists said sedentary lifestyles were now posing as great a threat to public health as smoking, and were causing more deaths than obesity. They urged anyone spending hours at their desk to change….

This can be fixed if you make yourself stronger. If you work out one hour per day, your mortality rate drops from 9.9% to 6.2%. The ways that sitting on your can kill you involve cancer and heart disease. I could of sworn my previous boss made it a tacit policy to try and give his employees cancer. If it could be spread verbally, this guy would pass it out like Zika.

The researchers failed to pinpoint exactly how the office kills us as we sit there and take it, but I think Jean Paul Sartre offers insight. “Hell,” He explained, “consists of other people.”

The office is a mecca of hurry up and wait. It is a cesspool of needless stress over utterly unimportant details. It is a dog pound of egocentric jerks who work out their gender inadequacies by bullying and degrading their subordinates. It is a minefield of passive-aggressive back-knifing and visceral resentment. Like the Los Angeles River, it leaves you swimming in the fecal bacteria of toxic and abusive human relationships.

And what do you get in return? A check. Once every two weeks, your financial gas tank gets refilled. You climb back onto the hedonic treadmill and buy food, entertainment and shelter. You crap it out, go back into debt, get up Monday and strap the helmet on to take more crap to get more cash. You don’t find meaning. You rarely accomplish greatness. I’ve attempted to do more. I’ve pushed myself to go above and beyond. The d-bag boss then said. “Thanks. Watch me promote myself by stealing this idea and taking all the credit.”

In a righteous world, you could strap on your pistol and tell the son of a b!tch to choose his two seconds and meet you at dawn. But you can’t do that here in the hell of Amerika. You can try and sue the man. You can try to defame him. The long and well-renumerated careers of people like Hillary Clinton and Martin Shkreli put the lie to that. And that’s another thing that makes the office lethal. It rises the meanest, most shameless arse-fickers and soulless catamites to positions of unearned granduer. It gives every toxic pissant a hill from which they can urinate upon the hapless and the desperate.

Work is the toxic, evil business-end of the economics of modernity. If you value your entire lifespan and want your life to come freighted with legitimate meaning, find another way to define yourself as a human being. That, and get off your dead @$$ and hit the track or the gym. Otherwise, every day is as deadly as a coffin nail.

The Party That Serves You

The other day, I found myself wondering why the Left had become so dominant in the West. It surely was not because of the truth quotient of their ideological outlook.

Then I realized: they had become the party that “serves you,” to its constituents, meaning that it established a social order that forced other people to participate in society so that each citizen could get what they needed. They did this (ironically) by taking over from more extreme Leftists and exiling most of those from the party.

In the United States, for example, the Left went from the anarchy and LSD party of the 1960s to the “make everyone work so that taxes are paid and your social services arrive on time” party. They particularly seduced the elderly with benefits and women with promises of safety.

Having a party that “serves” you has two components: first, it forces everyone else to go to work all the time so that when you want a pizza, or your kid has trouble at school, there is someone there to make it happen; second, they promise “safety” by buying off threats, such as by sending benefits into the ghetto to reduce crime.

Formerly, the Right had been the party of safety and security because free markets worked well and safety was guaranteed by taking strong stances on what was and was not legitimate. But after the 1930s, Leftism infected the West and destroyed the utility of that approach.

At that point, the only option was for a Left-leaning voice to appear and promise endless benefits to keep the inner city quiet, the elderly from starving, and to use the resulting high-tax high-cost lifestyle structure to force everyone to work, which means you may live in a hollow souled city but you can get a pizza made any time.

The Post-Reactionary Society


What made Neuromancer, the 1984 sci-fi book by William Gibson, stand out was its ability to visualize what a network-enabled world might look like. Despite some anachronisms, the book showed us how it would look if people were cruising around cyberspace, and launched a whole flotilla of imitators.

In the same way, it is important that we are able to visualize what a Reactionary — for the sake of clarity, let us put together philosophies that are more similar than they are different: Reaction, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, New Right, Paleoconservative — society might look like.

A good start can be found in my distillation of the Right, or at least of the non-Leftists out there who tend toward realism, with the four pillars:

  1. Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
  2. Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
  3. Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
  4. A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

But what would this look like to an average person? In my upcoming book, Parallelism, I describe more, but here is a basic illustration:

America has become a nation again; all those who were not Western European in blood, or who could not pass for that and demonstrate a majority of Western heritage, were repatriated with reparations to their home continents. Ireland in particular was thankful for the reverse in its population crash and new blood of the many German-Irish hybrids sent back.

The big cities suffered crashes as a result. This provided a convenient excuse to gut them and relocate their populations to a network of smaller cities, each under fifty thousand people. These are separated by extensive farmland and wild land, with the proviso that 50% of all land must be kept in a natural state, unvisited by humans except for maintenance purposes.

A network of aristocrats has cropped up, with most serving as local lords. These positions go to lower aristocrats, and the young of higher aristocrats, so that they may learn how to lead. These local lords serve as judge and jury, leader and advisor in their communities, both telling people what to do and making helpful suggestions.

They are aided by, in each town, a team of wise elders. These men have survived into old age and also are valued for their judgment, so now, they convene every afternoon to advise their local neighborhoods, villages and quadrants of cities. They have the ability to dispense payment of some funds, and to exile people.

Beyond that, there is not much law enforcement. Those who transgress are exiled instead of being jailed. This means that some people lose their citizenship for something as simple as smoking a joint or getting drunk and beating on a wife. The wise elders and lords know that Darwin is still with us, and in a healthy Darwinian cycle, much of each new generation is pared off because it does not meet quality control standards.

In this society, “Good is the enemy of perfect,” and the leaders fear most of all that they will unwittingly enact a half-solution and let problems ferment under cover of time. As a result, despite their merciful nature, they tend to be free with their demands for exile, sending away the foolish, retarded, criminal, incontinent, unchaste, corrupt and parasitic. Perhaps a fifth of each generation is sent to the lands to the South, for nature to remix their DNA into the third world brew and stabilize it.

Unlike previous societies, this society idealizes laziness and pleasure. Its goal is to get through its required tasks with as little fuss as possible and to then spend most of the day in enjoying life. This way, people do not live for false goals such as ideologies and trends, but see life itself as timeless and participate as a means of being excellent versions of what they were born to be.

Jobs have been scaled down. Each person has a social rank based on what roles their ancestors serve, and they serve those same roles. Apprenticeships take care of most education except for the upper castes, who hire private tutors, as do small groups of people who want their children to have formal education. This provides essentially unlimited labor for any college graduate. There is no public education; apprenticeships, journeymen, homeschooling, and private education have taken over. Similarly, there are no “rules” about jobs. People are offered work and can take it or not. The rest is up to them.

Laws are almost nonexistent. The courts and lawyers cost too much for any normal person to get justice, inverting their own function. Now all cases are heard in front of a lord and, if a local lord fails too many times, his fellow lords may intervene. Sometimes they do not, recognizing that all but a few complaints are individuals projecting their failure onto whoever is in power at the time.

As a result however life is more relaxed. With countless legal costs and expenses from government regulation cleared aside, living is far cheaper, as is food. Most people work a few hours a day, then come home to spend their time with family, books, games, loafing and playing instruments. There is no desire for novelty or uniqueness because these things failed with the collapse of the last regime.

Lords can order executions. A murderer is normally ordered to pay restitution to the family of his victim, and will spend the rest of his life doing so; if he fails, a posse is summoned and they take him to a place of execution and kill him in the traditional way with a spear through the eye. No one much cares, because to get to that stage you have to really screw-up, and this society is more focused on defense of the healthy normal than the screw-ups.

Local business exists in pretty much the same form as now. Grocery stores and other vital suppliers maintain the techniques that made them highly efficient but, in the absence of regulation, are able to lower costs. They also fear less for the ability to hire and fire at will because the employees have no recourse, but in a cheaper society, have a few months to cruise if they just save a little money. Charities exist in a private sense only, and churches routinely help those who encounter life’s little speed bumps.

The Lords tend to divide people into three groups: contributors, destroyers and grey people. Contributors are those who have since an early age shown a pattern of doing good, or at least attempting it, in the mundane sense that gets no reward but is noticed by others. When another contributor testifies for an individual, he is seen as a contributor as well, and if he fails, the one who testified for him will experience doubt regarding his contributor status.

Contributors will find their interests defended. A grocer whose store is vandalized will be attended to. Other types of business have disappeared because none will defend them. For example, a strip club that burns to the ground will find no contributors willing to vouch for it, and so no one opens strip clubs. Similarly hair salons and manicure shops find themselves without defenders, and quickly fade away.

At the edges of the civilization are anarchy zones, where there are no rules and decent people refuse to set foot if they can help it. Many exiles end up here, but generally, these communities are unstable and frequently break out in violence and disorder. As a result, they are not permitted near the rest of civilization, nor is backflow allowed. What happens in anarchy zone stays in anarchy zone, as does everyone involved.

America has its first monarchs, and they tend to be descended from the Anglo-Saxon tribes. At the top of the pyramid of aristocrats are those who could be in line for the monarchy, and they choose among themselves who will attain that role. Most of them hope to heck they never have to do it, because it is a job with zero vacation, zero hours that are truly off, and a term for life plus penalty of death if the nation fails.

Technology persists and its results are everywhere, but on a slower scale, because people realize that greater efficiency leads to greater control, and that it is usually better to be slightly less-efficient and to have more relaxed lives. A cultural revolution has occurred where people no longer look to external social factors for guidance, but have turned within, to look to what they can know so that they may understand the world in a transcendental method. This is a more religious society, without an official religion.

This has changed what people value. Where in the past, they thought of themselves, now they think of where they fit in an order, including that above material and beyond our world. People seek to improve themselves, and this is seen as the activity of life, in addition to just mucking around and having a good time. Life moves slowly and people find themselves, against what they thought would be the case, more fulfilled and less neurotic.

Critics of the Reactionary society said that it would never work, but what they really meant was that it would not work for them, and so many of them have voluntarily relocated to “free” societies in the third world. The rest are focused on the activities of humanity for time immemorial: learning, growing, enjoying, appreciating family and knowledge, and being active outside. As a result, a great relaxation has set in where people are content to simply be themselves.

Perhaps at the end of all of this experience what humans have learned is that humanity itself is a prison. Our drive to control, perfect, make uniform and refine leads us to self-destruct, and it did in every society on earth but ours. Instead, we stopped doing what “everyone” agreed was right, and struck out for what we could verify in reality was good for us. It has made all the difference.

The War On Some Drugs (WoSD) Has Been Fought Badly

Much of the world seems to be either fawning or raging over Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s national drug crackdown that involves possibly thousands dead.

What follows is an essay that will require you to put on your 4,000 B.C. cap, from the time before humanity got neurotic. You will view it through the lens of natural hierarchy, order, balance and harmony with nature. One must set aside modern conceits which are relative to modern assumptions and conditions, and instead look at the world as it is and deal with our human condition as it has always been.

According to police data, 293 suspected users and pushers were killed during police operations between July 1 and July 24. Human rights groups say this figure does not include countless people murdered by vigilantes in street executions.

…During his presidential campaign, the 71-year-old vowed to kill more than 100,000 alleged criminals and dump their bodies in Manila Bay within six months of taking office (he was inaugurated on June 30).

Since Duterte’s win, a wave of executions of alleged criminals, carried out both by vigilantes and the police, has swept the country.

Since we are not thinking as moderns, we can see that there are many issues here. First, some parts of the population are clearly fed up with what they saw as drug gangs out of control, and are now excitedly exterminating them. Second, in the classic human method, people are using this as an excuse to murder people and slap cardboard signs on the corpse, which is why in the West we originally developed legal systems.

As much as we can understand fury over drug lords, who effectively rule whole third world communities because of the Western appetite for drugs, this method seems unappealing for the same reason that The Holocaust™ was: it is crude, excessive, and misses the point.

If drug dealers run your country, your real problem is lack of social order that has allowed you to get to the warlord state. What does that in turn inevitably imply? That your people are too clueless and self-centered to support anything else. People who are focused on culture and social balance can operate with very few rules, but when you have anarchic monkey-time, you get third-world style warlords and social chaos.

But it also leads us to wonder, what should be done about drugs?

The simplest solutions are the best, so here is the best: raise the cost of doing drugs. This can be achieved by creating a more damaging penalty than even death can offer. That penalty is exile. If someone does drugs, and creates enough public notice that someone else can see that, allow that person to turn in the drug user and receive payment after conviction. Then exile the drug user; put them on boats and send them to somewhere else.

For the human psyche, this is a penalty so great that the risk of getting caught rises to the unsustainable point. To leave all that one knows, including family and friends, and be sent away forever is a cost too extreme for ordinary people. And that is the point: once ordinary people are not doing drugs, the group that remains consists of two types of people.

The first are degenerates. These people will abuse anything, and care nothing for the consequences beyond the next twenty-four hours. They are as miserable as they are hedonistic and probably are the result of deleterious mutations which have slipped into the gene pool. Exile is a gentle solution that also addresses the underlying damage to society of having these people around.

The second are, well, pros. Perhaps we can think of William S. Burroughs rolling joints and lining them up on the edge of his desk to smoke one after the other as he typed. Or any of the people who have gotten away with a lifetime of drug use because they cause no problems in doing so. If someone wants to grow marijuana or poppies and harvest the result, and does not give it away to others, the problem has solved itself.

Under an ideal Reactionary society, this penalty would be applied by councils of wise elders and local lords. They would notice people who did not benefit the community as an organic whole and exile them, including but not limited to drug users and Democrats. A healthy population loses 20% of each generation or more to harsh conditions and humans must emulate that if they do not want to be submerged in low-quality humans.

Such a society would recognize the wisdom of going after users and not pushers. Pushers are businesspeople; they arise in response to demand. Take one out, and another one arises. When users start to feel a real sense of risk however the pool of people willing to do drugs decreases, and eventually can be pared down to the point where it is only life-failures and pros. The former need to be exiled anyway and the latter are a variety of eccentric that should be tolerated.

The War On Some Drugs (WOSD) has been with us for some time. The Left advances the drugs-are-good narrative because the Left enjoys destroying anything which is healthy, which shows us the mental state of the Left. The Right opposes drugs because it seems them as social order destroying, but wants to fight against the problem by taking on as dependents those who are residue of the drug culture.

A more sensible method returns us to the eternal ways of humanity. Include in the group only those who belong; exclude those who do not. Some drug users belong, clearly, because they are eccentric in other ways and their hedonism is part of it. But others are mere non-contributors who also like drugs, and it is best not to assume responsibility for them, but instead to send them along with any others who offer nothing.