|
|
|
Drug of choice Today I had an informative and occasionally bloody exchange with some rather vituperate drug-takers on a DT thread to an article by Brendan O’Neill. Brendan is only moonlighting at the Telegraph. His daytime job is editor of the left-wing mag, Spiked. He is one of a small band of liberal-left journalists who abuse the DT readership in various none-too-subtle ways. Today, Brendan was making a particularly vapid argument not only for the decriminalisation of cannabis but of all drugs. It certainly brought out the libertarian tendency. Ever since I was a very young man first encountering people socially who took “illegal substances” I have found the breed to be very annoying. I don’t think I ever met one who was not wholly consumed by the fashions and fads of the times, or who really had both feet planted on the ground. Indeed, their personalities were as light as a feather. Now, I am sure that somewhere there must be many decent people who happened to smoke weed when they were young and impressionable, and perhaps still do from time to time. But I never met one. What I did meet were socially needy people who had few inner resources, who liked novelty, who considered themselves “free” because they did this apparently daring thing, when all the evidence was that they did it because they were in chains. It meshed neatly with my then nascent understanding that you can’t live seriously if you are not psychologically serious, and the number of serious people I met in the daily rounds of a south London life circa 1970 were not exactly encouraging. Well, all that was a very long time ago, and I haven’t given it a great deal of thought since. But it all came flooding back as I read the “wisdom” of the attenuated specimens posting on the thread. I found myself arriving at the same conclusion: if a man gives himself and his brain chemistry up to some street drug he has already proven that he is too weak and suggestible to make responsible choices. The proper course for public policy cannot be legalisation until a real degree of personal psychological stability and self-knowledge obtains. Of course, all these druggy creatures on the O’Neill thread were libertarians, and so they were perfectly convinced of their own “sovereign will”. They had not the slightest inkling that they are incomplete and shallow men. One of them informed me:
I responded:
He did not reply. They never do if it gets difficult. Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue. They should forget that. It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking. It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing. Comments:2
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:45 | # Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue. They should forget that. It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking. It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing. Says one of the finest flowerings of a 2,000 year old mushroom cult… Painful life makes for strong men and beautiful women but it also makes for people that seek release thru the medium under discussion.
And this I acknowledge despite the above. 3
Posted by Bill on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:02 | # GeoffPiggott Yesterday 02:15 PM
It took me some time to realise the extent to which drugs played in the counter culture movement of the America of the 1950’s and 60’s. It explained a lot to me where some of the nonsense espoused by the New Age movement had originated and which had also seeped into the ideas of the liberalism we’re experiencing today. I couldn’t get into my head the insanity that was being inflicted on the world in the guise of liberalism had its origins in the drug culture of the 60’s. Drugs have spawned postmodernism and postmodernism has begat liberalism. I was right all along, the world had gone mad, literally. 4
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:36 | # The proper course for public policy cannot be legalisation until a real degree of personal psychological stability and self-knowledge obtains. I second this as a key statement. It is not so much that I would denounce a state that would make all drugs illegal. Of course, I would not: it has been my position that it is not wise to mess with our long evolution. And in the case of marijuana, one is putting smoke in the lungs - not a good idea. Whether legal or illegal drugs, it is better to pay careful attention and learn from what our bodies’ natural chemistry has to say about the social than to try to readjust in relation to the social through narcotics. Our long evolved bodies are bound to provide wiser answers than facile adjustments to the social. Even so, in a society as harrowing as ours has been (starting in the 60’s, at least – seeds sown earlier before hippies are conveniently blamed, once again) when all signals of the society point to your destruction – your family’s communication is crazy. What is normal and good socially has been made backwards (discrimination against Blacks is evil; White women who have sex with them makes then saints; going to war to die for miscegenation or working as a slave to pay for it is expected) and most everyone, including your crazy family is going along with this obliviously, as if you are the one with the problem, you might look toward a break in the action and just who will let you Be. Would I rather be an electronics nerd and make life convenient for the said backwards rule structure, or do I want to seek out people who do not consider me so intrinsically valueless as a White man? I wanted to know where these people were. Not people who demanded the competency of getting with the program of my servitude to Blacks, mudsharks and my ultimate destruction. When I was in highschool, all of the guys that I deemed normal smoked weed. I’d say that none of them had the harrowing family conditions that I had and so they were better able to negotiate the ordinary and the weird. I found that weed did not help in many important respects: made me very shy with regard to women and quite neurotic about other things besides. So, I quit entirely by the time I went to college. I cannot say it affected my friends quite as much; they all went on to be competent and successful in their own ways. Politically very kindred they are not - but I doubt that has to do with pot smoking in high school. The point is, they had enough psychological stability and self knowledge to go through that and function. Since highschool, I normally go for years without smoking (and I never smoked a cigarette), I never seek it out, but if I happen to be among smokers, I might smoke and I’ve found that I can enjoy it: I must say, however, it can be a challenge - it is much strong than it used to be; so, it can take my accumulated knowledge to see to it that it does not become and unpleasant experience. On the other hand, it can induce relaxation and ease of mind to have some good, creative thoughts. I hesitate to say all this, because it sounds as if I am recommending it. It is simply not important to me - I never seek it out. The last time I smoked was more than a year ago. And I am sure that I went a few years prior to that without smoking. That’s the way it is for me. For my (close relative), who went to Woodstock, he smokes everyday; he functions in his job; is married; but his personality is a bit - well, he sometimes does not stop talking; and he is obnoxiously liberal in many of the ways you might dislike. I must say though, that there is a key position on drug taking on which I have remained consistent: I believe that it is more a symptom of problems than the cause of problems. Of course it can become the cause of problems but some camps tend to get carried away. I have at times been very put off by the near violent reaction that some women can have to some drug dabbling. I have suspected these kinds of being angry because it was a way of having fun that they could not control (does not require their sex). Without looking for it, I noticed that some of the worst people* that I have ever known are those who have never done any narcotics - not even alcohol. I hypothesize that this makes them shallow and merely instrumental, as all their thinking circuitry is forebrained, and they are not tapping into older and more broad patterns of life. *Think Ted Nugent, or Pacocha, the organized criminal who came after me in Pila. In fact, that they do not take drugs can become an excuse for some exceedingly vicious sorts; as convenient vilification of dabblers can become and excuse to savage them. I do not want this to be taken as an endorsement of drugs. Rather, I want it to be taken as a recommendation that drug taking be looked upon as a symptom. We do not need to put pot smokers or mushroom takers in jail with Black rapists. I patted myself on the back for my comment on Christiania, the drug takers haven in Copenhagen - specifically, where I added that this could be a place where social workers could look out for people who were having solvable difficulties. It was a place to manage and control the issue somewhat. It proclaimed, “say not to hard drugs.” Of course, I have never done heroine. Friends see me making a gesture as if I am injecting a needle in my arm that I, if not they, find inexhaustibly funny - because I cannot believe anybody would do that. Because my sister’s hippie friends did L.S.D, and I wrongly assumed that she did because she answered “I don’t know” when I asked her, I did experiment with L.S.D. a dozen or so times in high school days. My reason for the said experimentation had to do with the fact that my sister, who’d passed both her NJ and NY bar exams on first try and went onto have a very successful career, had done it and was ok; so too had her husband, a successful businessman as well. I later found that my sister had never done it and I find it difficult to forgive her for that ambiguity. Still, I looked at several others I knew who’d experimented, stopped and had good lives. Having said that. It was the thing to do for one who admired hippie culture for better or worse. It provided some of the scariest experiences that I have ever had - as in, not good. There was even an occasion where I contemplated jumping off the cliff where a friend and I were sitting. Thankfully, he had the sense to advise that I not do it, because there was a moment when it did not seem like a bad idea - let that be a lesson. Cocaine, I think, is extremely dangerous. From what I’ve gathered, it mimics very closely the brain’s natural endorphins which are apparently there as co-evolved accurate homeostasis of pleasure and pain in relation to the environment. One has never felt better for 15 minutes than with cocaine. One is alert, more vivacious, sharp thinking, more themselves so they feel, than ever. Sound, friends, everything, just everything is more happy. Then, suddenly, in an instant…ooooohhoooo. You start going in the opposite direction. Suddenly, nothing is good about life and you’ve never felt worse. It is called “jonesing.” I’ve talked to a former heroine addict who confided in me that jonesing off of cocaine was worse than coming down off of heroine! Nothing worse! I can believe it. It is so sad that there is so little to see of good in life in those moments. Apparently, the chemical reason is that your brain had stopped producing its natural endorphins, responding as if it had enough because the cocaine had assimilated them so closely. However, the cocaine crystal wears off quickly, leaving you without balance. It is so sad that when someone has committed suicide, it is my first hypothesis that they were jonesing off of cocaine - it is highly predictable. Let that be a lesson. It is one of the drugs I’d be more open to seeing criminalized. I did not have a problem with it - maybe did it 25-30 times in the 80’s. I was able to intellectualize it; when jonesing, I asked myself, though I can deal with this sadness, why should have to? Why would I do this to myself? 5
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:38 | # I had come to the conclusion that intellectualism was far better than drugs. Let that be a lesson to those who criticize pseudo intellectuals. Now then, just because I did not have an addictive result from drugs does not mean that I can take whole credit. Drugs, especially cocaine, can be very expensive. I could not afford it. If I could and if it were more available, maybe it would be a problem. I.e., perhaps it should be illegal. The question is, how effective that would be and how much resource should be devoted to its criminalization. The last drug that I would like to comment on is mushrooms - Classic Sparkle noted that Vikings were reputed to have used them prior to battle. I have done mushrooms about 12 times, and as with weed, I went years between usages. I have never had a bad experience. I was not out of control. It was a warm, sensual, pleasant feeling. At times there were hallucinations but they were mild, enjoyable and entertaining. Colors are more vivid, music sounds better, friends may be funny: looking like a friendly version Dracula and the wearwolf. I am told that they are quite organic. However, the last time I took them, some 7 years ago, I was going to buy a certain amount and the seller told me oh no! not of these, they are very strong! This amount is enough. I took that amount and it was almost too much to cope with - almost: I had fun. But imagine if I had taken the amount I first thought to? While I have never had a bad experience with mushrooms, I have known people who have. I’ve heard of a guy who jumped to his death; another who never stopped hallucinating - true, these were apparently cases where they took massive overdoses; but I’ve heard of people having disconcerting experiences even with small amounts. Let that be a lesson. My take away is that problems with drugs are more a symptom than a source of problems. That one better develop some viable ordinary skills, some philosophical and psychological wherewithal prior to any sort of speculation with regard to our long evolved bodies. Accordingly, as drug taking related to sixties culture, I see it as an expression of a quest for Being. Particularly, White Male Being. It was a desperate way, and ill advised as I have said, particularly if one did not have their forebrain developed with the resource of skills and viable philosophy. Nevertheless, when I see people harping on drugs, I hear the Jew trained feminist bitch and the sociopath right winger (perhaps stressed for his own denied Being and overcompensating expectation of Actualization), who will not let men Be, not be an organic human, does not care that they want to know what they are fighting for in generation after generation of war – at that time, the Viet Nam War Draft manifested a denial of men’s intrinsic value – their Being. Drug taking in White men, is symptomatic of the social denial of their Being; hence a fairly desperate means for its achievement. Because our bodies are ancient and wise, I can agree that drugs were not the best place to look for solutions. The place to look was in social problems – those sources which would deny the modicum of foundational Being for White men; moving past respect for ordinary skills of Selfhood even, to where only Actualization was respected, and even not that, in the end, because it supposedly represented White men’s undue privilege should they be able to attain it despite all – accomplishment made them only a more ripe target. 6
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:17 | # Legalising drugs, especially marijuana and other psychedelics, would function as the last nail being driven into Western civilization’s coffin. If you think people are lazy and unproductive now, just imagine a workforce riddled with pot smokers. There is a good reason Nixon/congress classified weed as a schedule 1 drug, too many workers were showing up to work high….or missing work altogether. This situation was indeed what was happening in the late 60s through the seventies. That’s when the executives of major corporation said ENOUGH! So they pressured the elected officials to pass laws designed to eliminate drug users from the workforce. In that respect drug laws as written are fairly effective. If you want a country with a work ethic that more resembles Jamaica than pre 1960s America, then go ahead and legalize marijuana. 7
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:07 | # We want efficient workers for the corporations and their Mulatto Supremacist/Israeli- military industrial complex war mongering mandate - if they are not good workers and we attribute their inefficiency to pot smoking, throw them in jail to be raped by Negroes! Good thinking. 8
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:24 | # I’ll repeat this for the drug addled fellow whose mind is obviously suspended in the fog of the unknown: “That’s when the executives of major corporations said ENOUGH! So they pressured the elected officials to pass laws designed to eliminate drug users from the workforce. In that respect drug laws as written are fairly effective.” From that daniels deduced I want white pot smokers to be thrown in jail and raped by kneegrows. Amazing! 9
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:12 | # //// I’ll repeat this for the drug addled fellow whose mind is obviously suspended in the fog of the unknown: “That’s when the executives of major corporations said ENOUGH! So they pressured the elected officials to pass laws designed to eliminate drug users from the workforce. In that respect drug laws as written are fairly effective.” From that daniels deduced I want white pot smokers to be thrown in jail and raped by kneegrows. Amazing!
I wish you were not here, but if you spew right-wing foolishness and send a fat pitch such as this:
don’t want to say anything bad about “kneegroes”...it might offend the mudsharks. 10
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:56 | # Right, Robert - let’s get our priorities straight. 11
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:04 | #
First of all those are danny’s haughty smartass words, not mine. In any event, pseudo-intellectual danny boy wants us to beleive he is soooooo much more sophisticated in the ways of the world then those “greedy capitalist swine” that run corporations. Give it up danny. You’re a misguided soul. Your attitude clearly informs us you know little to nothing about how of capitalism works, or its role in creating, maintaining and advancing the modern world. PS, To all the Americanos, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Peace out to ALL and VAYA CON DIAS
12
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:17 | #
C’mon, danny boy, fess up!
13
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:34 | # Posted by Thorn on November 22, 2012, 11:17 AM | # Google: “Over 1,700 customers had paid as much as $20,000 per film to view little children being raped and murdered.”
C’mon, danny boy, fess up! Now he is going to accuse people of being pedophiles because he is such a straight shooter.
First of all those are danny’s haughty smartass words, not mine. In any event, pseudo-intellectual danny boy wants us to beleive he is soooooo much more sophisticated in the ways of the world then those “greedy capitalist swine” that run corporations.
PS,
14
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:55 | #
Everything I said in my comment @6 is historically correct. But YOU felt it necessary to criticise in your usual pseudo-intellectual style. Here’s the deal danny boy: If you don’t like my comments just scroll by. There, problem solved.
15
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:00 | # You wouldn’t know “the record” because you don’t read, you just go and make false attributions as you wish. 16
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:16 | # This post is very reminiscent of Peter Hitchens. And I agree with every word. Keep up the good work. One of my bugbears is the essential legality of “poppers” in Britain; I suppose we should allow queers to make buggery bearable. It’s the humane thing to do. 17
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:30 | # I couldn’t get into my head the insanity that was being inflicted on the world in the guise of liberalism had its origins in the drug culture of the 60’s. Drugs have spawned postmodernism and postmodernism has begat liberalism. I was right all along, the world had gone mad, literally.
I would care to respectfully disagree with the chain of causality. Excessive militarism and the draft provoked a response - hippies. Its essential motive, for males to not have to die for a senseless war, but to have enough intrinsic value to Be, was not exactly liberal (though not often well articulated by hippies). Liberalism, the kind about which we complain, had its seeds long prior to that - in the Enlightenment, etc. Liberalism was made hyperbolic by Jewish interests and significant seeds were sown already in the 50s. They furtively engrafted their motives onto the sixties era: free love (Herbert Marcuse) and Black advocacy were Jewish creations. They did not correspond with the hippie motive - in fact, they were in conflict, if understood. Drugs were a symptom of these problems - males being denied Being and having liberalism, distorted yet more by Jewish interests, feminism in alliance with Black power (not about Being, but about power - higher on the hierarchy of motives, just like feminism) imposed upon them. Thus liberalism, a corollary with modernity, proceeded apace, tending to wreck that which was in its path, became distorted and exaggerated with Jewish input. Post Modernity would actually be a solution, if properly understood, as a new epoch which seeks to put an end to modernity’s wreckage of particular cultures as it would imperviously impose universalism through them. Rather, post modernity would look after the relative interests of cultures - such as the English, Scotch, Welsh and Irish. That is the whole idea of “post modernity”, to put an end to the impervious wreckage of cultures by modernity. However, Jewish academics have successfully confused people as to the accurate meaning of Post Modernity. Generally speaking, they’ve got people believing a more exaggerated form and effect of modernity is post modernity. When it is not, it is just more modernity. 18
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:10 | # I really think that people who are not aware of Adam Curtis should try to find the time to watch his ‘Century of the Self’ film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo And specifically on drugs try Dalrymple at City Journal http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html Only in a deeply liberal world could one’s possible enslavement to chemicals be considered to be an essential part of ‘freedom’. Personally I prefer to get ‘high’ on life. It’s far more interesting than a pharmaceutically induced haze. 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:11 | # To all my American comrades: HAPPY THANKSGIVING! We have little to be thankful for, admittedly, especially in the realm of our collective concerns. But we’re alive still, and where there’s life there’s hope. Certainly, it is good for men to have work to do, and the task of regenerating a decaying civilization will keep us all busy for a very long time to come. Onwards and upwards! (and for me to dinner)
20
Posted by Zale on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 04:59 | # The debilitating impact of drugs upon British youth… 21
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:00 | # These photos are a disgrace. I don’t suppose alcohol played any part. 22
Posted by Bill on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:54 | # Video 28:43 1958 Interview. Aldous Huxley. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQZ-2iMUR0 Most prescient. 23
Posted by John on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:53 | # GW, you make the mistake that drugs prohibitionists to a man (intentionally or not) make when they argue in favour of drugs laws: implicitly conflating such laws with no one or very few people illicitly using drugs and ignoring the “prohibition costs” side of the ledger. It is far more harmful both at an individual and society level to spend a year in prison and have a criminal record than to smoke cannabis once a week. Is whatever nominal reduction in problematic drugs use (or do you think Joe Bloggs is going to quit his job and become a pothead the minute the law against it is taken off the books) following from drugs laws is even worth the police corruption that such laws inevitably cause? The violence resulting from having no legitimate dispute resolution? The increase in harm amongst those who use resulting from the fact that absent prohibition, popular drugs tend to be beer/wine, opium, patent medicine containing cocaine, dexidrine less potent cannabis and when prohibited, nearly pure grain alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine as well as unregulated adulterants and purity/sepsis? The money/power (including political)/weapons directed toward gangster thugs? If you can without dissimulation answer “yes” to any of these questions, I’ll pass, thank you, on some of whatever it is you’re smoking. 24
Posted by Nick Dean on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:55 | #
What does one thing have to do with the other? And if there is a relationship, and we know that the colonizers use more drugs than the colonized, what does that imply? 25
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:38 | # It’s Tin foil hat time folks! Don’t panic, don’t panic, calm down dears. I’ve been following this guy for a few years now (not religiously) but fairly constantly. He baffles me just as much now as he did when I first stumbled across his website. I’ve learned a lot from him, backed up from other sources, yet on the other side he comes across as an opinionated nutcase. Such is the enigma that is Lyndon LaRouche. To me, he comes across as always apocalypse tomorrow, when tomorrow comes and no apocalypse he never apologises, he just keeps on forecasting more apocalypse tomorrow. The world is still waiting. It’s my first visit for sometime to this website, and yet the first thing I click on is this. November 23rd Webcast Keynote. At time of posting it is on the RHS of page. Duration 30:25 Love him or hate him, Here he is talking about what GW is saying in this header comment. On that note I will light blue touch paper and retire immediately. Oops where’s my hat? 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:42 | # On the subject of nostalgia (more): JR Ewing has died! Oh, that brings back the memories - 1979-84 ... allegedly tough times for USA (adults), but great time in my life ... I really miss the early 80s, dudes ... last real period when whites still rocked LA/OC .... being a Southern Californian in the 70s and 80s was really the tops, esp if your folks had some ‘cake’ ... actually, my parents always said that was when CA went all downhill, that the 50s-mid-60s was the real Golden Age of the Golden State ... they were probably right, but the 80s was still cool, at least in the first part of the decade, in the right areas, though of course with the Crips/Bloods and illegals + Asian invasion, things were darkening very rapidly ... LA 1990 seemed to me a very different place from LA 1980 ... but the multikult didn’t really get behind the ‘Orange Curtain’ in a big way, on the ground, until the 90s ... now the good old days, from postwar soldier-settlers like my dad in the 40s, out to the Valley Girls and preppies of the early 80s ... John Birch Society groups, Gov then Prez Reagan, hot, easy white chicks, great roads, surfing, skiing, skeet shooting, sailing, parties with hot tubs in the ‘burbs, watching TV (or not) with your girlfriend in your bedroom when the “units” were on vacation, older siblings doing ‘lines’, buying you booze, everybody telling zipperhead jokes ... it could never last ... a final, glorious bonfire of the Old Ways, no future, but what fun for the night ... all gone now, the good and the bad, all of it was FUCKING OURS ... for 40 YEARS after you crushed the Nips, it was GREAT TO BE WHITE IN CALIFORNIA ... now a Mudhole, where perky white girls screw ‘groids, in the South, or ‘chinks in the armor’, by the Bay ... goodbye, Dad, it wasn’t your fault, you did your duty when asked and not asked ... thanks for everything, it was a great life ... the torch passes, but is held high still ... for I remember ... “be a tryin’ man, this day only a cryin man, one far day a dyin man, but always a fightin man” ... a white man ... NO SURRENDER! 27
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:15 | # Americanos’ addiction to the status quo seems to be proving much more damaging to the health of our society than any recreational drug ever has…or maybe they just work had-in-hand? One compliments the other?
28
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:08 | # /. This is my first attempt, after a cursory sampling of their work, but I think my criticism might proceed on lines as follows. ….. I have been satisfied to leave economic debate to other people. However, there are some folks who seem intent on bludgeoning with the hammer and sickle anybody who is open to alternative economics; insisting that the Austrians have it all figured out, that we just need to leave the markets and individuals to do their own thing and every thing will turn out fine; I’ve finally taken a look. I have called myself a leftist, by that meaning I take a view to our overall social well being as a union of native Europeans (and not of others); I find that many matters fall into line with this, what I call “leftist” classification. Looking at Mises and Hayek, to begin, I find it interesting that both share a starting point around The Tractatus Logico Philosphicus. Mises does reject the positivist school and some of the scientism that it spawned, and does integrate some praxis (the idea that the social realm requires practical judgments as it is too complicated for scientific rigor), but the analytic pragmatism of his “methodological individualism” and its “action axiom” (no, he’s not a joking) do not go far enough into our co-evolution (and not ours in that he was Jewish) to be anything more than dangerously trivial observations. I don’t mean that to suggest that there is not another extreme, there is; but that for the sake of our quality of life, he does not go deeply enough to provide for a management of our social good and responsibility as European peoples. Rather, when reading him, I have a sense of “no wonder we’re in this mess.” While Mises’ praxis based comment that “laboratory experiments cannot be performed in an economy” would be in line with arguments that I have made with regard to “The laboratory of the states”, the unforeseen consequences that Mises seems to be concerned with are abstracts and market forces, not so much social consequences proper: by contrast I would be criticizing the laboratory of the states’ scientific metaphor as it suggests experimenting, testing and deriving lessons, potentially a shallow basis to handle profound evolution, metaphors that can be lent to a myriad of excuses – i.e., we do not necessarily want to experiment with our evolution. That is all the more reason to recognize the long evolved deeper ecologies of our native Europeans in their native habitats as a vital part of the equation when coordination the Euro DNA Nation. Hayek too, had some beginnings in the Tractatus of his cousin, Wittgenstein. As with Mises, he liberated himself considerably, literally criticizing scientism but also, like Mises, embracing an ideal liberal individualism to the extent that he considered social justice a worthless debate (no, he’s not joking). While he does provide for some social safety net, he seems to strive for keeping it to a minimum – deliberately blindered to the potential of shared common value and interest (let alone evolution). His “business cycle” does ostensibly recognize periods of non-growth and contraction, even. However, regarding the cycle one does not get the impression that in the relation of credit crunches and commodity crunches (not sure if Thorn is reflecting Hyek or Austrian school in general when referring to commodity crunches, but let me assume saw Hayek saw that) that commodities, i.e., natural resources (and habitats) are viewed as potentially precious and perhaps even irreplaceable as a true evaluation to our well being might assess; let alone extending that ecological notion to people and the shared social resource of our DNA. I have the impression that Hayek’s view was an over compensating response to communist totalitarianism. However, since we are here to defend our “race” our social classification(s), this would be a significant criticism as well: “Economist Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, “it is helpful to note what methodological individualism strictly interpreted ... would imply for economics. In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, ... this amounts to saying goodbye to almost the whole of received macroeconomics. There must be something wrong with a methodological principle that has such devastating implications.” Like Mises, Hayek liberated himself from materialism and the positivism of The Tractatus, and like Mises, he did not go nearly deep enough. He did not go deep enough to consider the ecology of our European peoples and their various habitats. In fact, he is probably guilty of going too far in the non-empirical direction that Mises favored. In likening the economy as a natural evolution similar to a language, Hayek was committing an epistemological blunder by comparing the boundless resource and imagination of language to the limited biological resource of our bodies and habitats that are necessarily based on optimal negotiation and rigor. More, whereas Hayek might have taken this metaphor of language to tap into the profound history of our peoples, making use of the narrative capacity for amendment (correction/justice), “Hayek disapproved of the notion of social justice. He compared the market to a game in which ‘there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust’ and argued that ‘social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content’; likewise “the results of the individual’s efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning.” We should not even try to assimilate justice in praxis. Unfortunately, he is not joking and it is not funny. 29
Posted by John on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:44 | # @Leon: “Glorious” as the “bonfire of the Old Ways” might have been, the cultural/propaganda output from the “golden age of the Golden State” was a sine qua non of our current dispossession and dissipation. 30
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:02 | # “Impossible” to end drug trade, says Calderón ‘Ending the consumption and the trafficking of illegal drugs is “impossible”, according to Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s outgoing president. In an interview with The Economist Mr Calderón, whose battle with organised crime has come to define his six years in office, said that countries whose citizens consume drugs should find “market mechanisms” to prevent their money from getting into the hands of criminals in Latin America.’ ........ It’s Saturday evening. If I want weed, ecstasy, coke, speed, heroine, whatever, I can have it in my hand within 10, 15 minutes. All of it mixed and watered down with additional substances often more harmful than the drug itself. All profits going to my local organised crime syndicates and beyond. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GorYzxdsJu4 If I, say, smoke some weed, I am harming myself one way or another, sure. But if I am smoking weed mixed with fibre glass (used to add bulk = more profit for the drug gangs) as it is often sold I am damaging myself far, far more than smoking the unadulterated plant. It is entirely possible that some people take drugs purely because they enjoy the experience. And of course there are those that abuse them because they are damaged, or lacking in character. They are helpless, despairing. They desire to escape the pain of broken homes, broken families and broken lives. A broken world which they inherited, they did not create, nor ask for. One way or another, the harm is done. A shattered existence made temporarily more bearable, yet in the long run made worse. Another potential productive patriot lost. Or at least rendered less effective than otherwise could have been. If we lived in a diifferent world. But we do not. We live in this one. 31
Posted by John on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:01 | # uKn_Leo: “If I, say, smoke some weed, I am harming myself one way or another, sure. But if I am smoking weed mixed with fibre glass (used to add bulk = more profit for the drug gangs) as it is often sold I am damaging myself far, far more than smoking the unadulterated plant. “ Assuming, as it is with nearly all, that you will smoke cannabis, drugs laws or none, you are harming yourself far more by having no market choice than to associate with gangster thugs (on both sides of the law if you happen to get caught, who both profit in different ways from drugs prohibition). 32
Posted by John on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:16 | # Thorn: “There is a good reason Nixon/congress classified weed as a schedule 1 drug, too many workers were showing up to work high….or missing work altogether. “ Simple solution: fire them. Thorn’s solution: give gangster thugs a lucrative franchise that they can enforce a monopoly on with violence. Thorn, both you and these guys agree, cannabis should be illegal. 33
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:50 | # Posted by John on November 25, 2012, 04:16 AM | # Thorn: “There is a good reason Nixon/congress classified weed as a schedule 1 drug, too many workers were showing up to work high….or missing work altogether. “ Simple solution: fire them. Thorn’s solution: give gangster thugs a lucrative franchise that they can enforce a monopoly on with violence. Thorn, both you and these guys agree, cannabis should be illegal. —————————————————————————————————— And fire them they did…. and continue to do so! That’s why I said “IN THAT RESPECT THE DRUG LAWS AS WRITTEN ARE FAIRLY EFFECTIVE”. WRT the rest of the effects of drug laws, I think the results are a mixed bag at best. The laws work as a deterrent for most borderline cases (perhaps >20% of the population is borderline?), but, of course, the downside is prohibition creates the opportunity for unfreakinbelievable profit hence the drug cartels. That’s the dilemma. But GW is on to something: “Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue. They should forget that. It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking. It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing.” I’d just add: “human personalities” sans the fear of God provides a fertile ground for the drug dealers to ply their trade.
34
Posted by Zeke on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 03:07 | # “Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue. They should forget that. It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking. It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing.” Hogarth disagreed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_Craze Edmund Burke…
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk149701.html#kOlo6RMYuG24bU85.99 36
Posted by antifascist on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:00 | # @Guessed Worker 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:38 | #
LOL Dude, you seriously think you could do a fuck-load of LSD and not screw up your brain chemistry? 38
Posted by Zeke on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:21 | #
<blockquote></blockquote> It’s quite evident when juxtaposing his composition Beer Street with Gin Lane. It is clear to Hogarth that gin caused the gin taking, just as today opiates increase opiate consumption via opioid-induced hyperalgesia. 39
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:01 | # Personally I prefer to get ‘high’ on life. It’s far more interesting than a pharmaceutically induced haze. Of course people safely ensconced in the upper middle class, well educated, with access to clean living , intellectually stimulated and healthy prefer to get “high on life”. lullzlzlzolzozlzllzo fuck you homo The rest of us Whitetrashionalists need Budweiser to help with our sore backs, shitty wives, disrespectful children and basically black holes called “lives”. You twit. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:42 | # Antifascist: You offer no argument against the legalization of marijuana. As I said, the problem isn’t the drug but the anomie and self-estrangement which the way we live creates in us. This is a pretty standard nationalist response to modernity, and is touched upon in an essay I wrote back in July: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/nationalism_as_emergent_nature_nationalism_as_reaction 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:33 | # But you see you haven’t really answered the poor lad’s question, GW. He’s basically asking you, “But what if I do need to believe anti-White brainwashing and to get high just to get through another day carrying my butthurt around with me?” I personally think he should go for broke. Go down to da ‘hood and smoke a few choice rocks wit da brothas. Kinda like what Leon wants you to do - just say “Fuck England” and piss off to “White Zion”. 42
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:41 | # But, CC, surely you mean this Zion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OrXdBYojBQ The Zion of Anthony’s weed and racial non-awareness. In fact, non-awareness full stop. 43
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:08 | # Give all our citizens the real opportunity of a well paid career in a role they love that provides them with the means to raise a family and build a loving, stable home. Let them all play a part in the governance of our nation(s) in a fair, corruption free, transparent manner. Let every man (and woman) fulfill their potential and destiny in every way in order create a beautiful nation of beautiful souls that have maximal pride in their environment and feeling of ownership and responsibility towards its success and continuance. Give us that, and we’ll give you a nation largely free of narcotics abuse. Zions party already exists, every Friday down the Dog and Duck for a £5 entrance fee. In this nation of despair, of inequity, of CCTV, of a permanent ruling ‘elite’ of child molesting moon worshippers. There can be no pride. There can be no hope for far too many. When even relative success marks you out as a target for the cash vacuuming system. What is the point? Dealers and their clientele are just doing their best to make it through another day. Within their sphere lay the real dangerous predators, but they are not all bad. Most of them are still good people trying in their own way to make sense of, and some progress in, the world as it has been presented to them. They are the folk that have opted out of the system. They can see the reality of our society and they want no part of it. We are your sons and we are your daughters. We are the heirs of the giants that conquered the world, yet we have been cheated of our inheritance and left to survive amongst the desolate ruins of Zions new order. To thrive and prosper one must become one of them. Under these circumstances opiate induced coma seems like a reasonable and viable alternative. uKn_Leo (two years clean) 44
Posted by Bill on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 06:54 | # The insanity of what has being going on in this country for the past 40/50 years can only be explained away by excessive drug taking at the very highest level of society. The prime example of this is Immigration and the population explosion over the last decades. No debate, no sense, remember Blair and Blunkett arrogantly strutting saying there was no limit on immigration figures entering the country. Drug induced liberalism has been responsible for where we are. For years I’ve hammered away at anyone who would listen (hardly anyone) that the housing (and job) situation would arrive at the situation we have today. Even here at MR. But no, angels on pinheads was more important. 46
Posted by Mercury on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:02 | # Found it. Leon Haller number 27
A lot of the shit at MR is too brainy for anybody outside a lab or lecture. Who’s going to march for some science theories or philosophy? Euromen need poetry. Our people need to be moved to fight. There has to be passion and anger making the people aware that we have been pissed on, and won’t take it further. But if you let the skins take charge, or even Griffin clowns, then the man in the pub won’t have it. Nationalists need their own Churchill, somebody who is rousing but reasonable. Is there any doubt about that? 47
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:38 | # Mercury, Thanks for the vote of confidence (you too, Thorn). And welcome to the fight (my apologies if you’re an old-timer here; I just can’t recall you). The excerpt above was some obvious nostalgia. My father died recently, after a long and good life, even right up to the past year, when his health started to seriously fail, but his mind stayed sharp until the very last. He was pushing 90 (I’m the youngest of three, and well into my 40s), and there was no hope of recovery, so I’m actually glad he died several weeks before Obongo’s reelection. That would have really depressed him. He did manage to watch the first Presidential debate, which Romney clearly won, and he seemed happy at the thought that the First Groid was going to get a well-deserved comeuppance. He greatly enjoyed talking politics with me, including while I filled out his last absentee ballot. He had always been an ideologically active conservative, right the way back to doing some volunteer John Birch Society (anticommunist) work back in the 60s-80s period (the Birchers had a great Southern California / Orange County presence in the 60s/70s). In retrospect, what better days those were, at least compared to the ‘mudslide’ that has swamped CA since! Just talking to my mom since Nov 6, I know my dad would have been likewise baffled to near psychological dislocation at how the country had sunk so low that an African socialist + cultural Marxist, presiding over total economic failure, could possibly have gotten reelected. He was always more optimistic than I was, believing in the fundamental moral and ideological soundness of (white) Americans, that someday we would wake up and Take Back America from the leftists wrecking it. I once believed this, too, up to as late as perhaps 9-11-2001. When I saw the utterly cowardly way the elites responded - their first concern was to ensure that there were no reprisals or ‘hate crimes’ against Muslim immigrants, as well as to head off any calls for tighter immigration in general - I knew the game was up, and that America was living out its inevitable death throes (though even I was thrown for a loop by the incredibly unseemly public fawning over Obama in 2008: I’d long expected Third World domination, but not until the 2020s). My dad was always the great one for expecting the real American people to rise up, “any day now” ... Anyway, he did his part: fought the Japs in his youth, trained as a PhD scientist, later became a corporate executive, raised a normal American family, was always extra-professionally active in (and philanthropic towards) various conservative candidates (eg, Goldwater, Reagan, Phil Crane, Jesse Helms, Pete Wilson, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul), causes and organizations. He was a real ‘pillar of the community’ type, an Old Stock American in attitude as well as ancestry. We are not reproducing that type anymore, and I am filled with foreboding at our collective future in no small part because of it. The muds are not the sole problem. As they grow more numerous, whites must be better. Instead, we grow weaker in tandem.
Fragment called “Maldon” (the Battle of Maldon 993) 48
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:16 | # Leon, Do you really believe that Obama is a “groid”? He ain’t Curtis Jackson. Inability to make distinctions is the hallmark of the committed ideologue. 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:45 | # Groid = Negroid, so yes. Of course, if “groid” is supposed to mean “underclass savage/gangbanger”, then I suppose not. However, it’s not as though Obama doesn’t pursue policies that are typically “groidal”: harmful to whites, beneficial, in a parasite sense, to blacks. He’s no Clarence Thomas, a true conservative who happens to be black. Obama is merely an upper class, educated Groid. Post a comment:
Next entry: Idle thoughts about the reclamation
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) |
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:09 | #
LOL