I like his class component.
Drug legalisation is not a liberating force of individual freedom. It represents the cult of hedonism. The legitimisation of vice; the sanction of unrestrained, animalistic appetite. Nixon was right when, with simplistic wisdom he identified drug legalisation with the degenerate forces of the left and the long hairs. Widespread drug use and hedonism creates an underclass of sheep and shepherd Soros can more easily lead them into his open society of international nihilism.
G Gordon Liddy encountered this international nihilism when dealing with Timothy Leary and the spiderweb of terrorist alliances of international drug nihilists; black supremacists, pan-Arab nationalist terrorists, domestic left-wing terrorists(Students for a Democratic Society) and Soviet spies. This web of intrigue gave birth to the postmodern era with the assassination of JFK and the cultural revolution of the 1960’s.
Look into the paper trail of the “medical marijuana” and legalisation and junky frontgroups. It all leads back to George Soros and a handful of lesser billionaire international nihilists. Ask yourself, what’s in it for them? Why do they want to usher in the age of pharmaceutical libertarianism? Is Soros a friend of “the people?” What’s his angle? Where does he get his cut?
This is what I said in another thread about drug legalisation:
[quote] SexMachine wrote:
The conflation of drug laws with alcohol prohibition is specious. Alcohol in its antiquity has found a legitimate place in traditional systems of the European people. The forces of Prohibitionism were the forces of modernity(the matriarchal feminine forces of decline and death) attacking the traditional manifestation of the cult of Dyonysius and Baachus. Alcohol has a place in the traditional metaphysical systems of European man. The moralist crusade against alcohol was a feminine, irrational, matriarchal force against men’s meeting places and the traditional patriarchal social systems; the masculine solar cult of hero worship, personal glory, rationalism, virility, strength and conviction to objective, metaphysical truth. These are all masculine forces and constituted the metaphysical mindset of man in the ancient world and in the Middle Ages. The feminine forces of the cult of Isis are manifest in the irrational feminist ideologies within the French Revolution, the women’s suffrage movement of the late 19th/early 20th Centuries - this also manifested itself in an alliance with Quakers and puritanical Calvinists against the masculine forces of the cult of Bacchus. Today feminism, allied to the sodomy and gender nihilism cults are arrayed against traditionalist masculine forces and patriarchal metaphysical systems and socio-political power structures. These feminine forces are also entwined with the abortion on demand or cult of Baal - ritualised infanticide.
[/quote]
Many of the forces that were behind prohibition are the same forces behind drug legalisation today. Namely, the feminine matriarchal force of decline and death. The drug legalisation movement is a front group of junkies and useful idiots being cynically used by international nihilists(George Soros).
SM, I’m not sure that I understand your opposition to the legalization of drugs. Why not legalize them? Drugs will either: a. be used responsibly OR b. be abused. If they’re used in a responsible manner(i.e., a way that doesn’t interfere with the life of the user or others), then why should force be used to deal with their use? If they’re used in a way that DOES interfere with the life of the user or others, why not: a. work on ending the subsidization of those unable to pay their way(thus discouraging the use of substances that make one less able to care for himself) AND/OR b. punish the user for his actions that victimize others? Maybe I’m missing something?
Agree 100% with marijuana…it’s less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
Heroine, coke and others are a completely different story.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
SM, I’m not sure that I understand your opposition to the legalization of drugs. Why not legalize them? Drugs will either: a. be used responsibly OR b. be abused. If they’re used in a responsible manner(i.e., a way that doesn’t interfere with the life of the user or others), then why should force be used to deal with their use? If they’re used in a way that DOES interfere with the life of the user or others, why not: a. work on ending the subsidization of those unable to pay their way(thus discouraging the use of substances that make one less able to care for himself) AND/OR b. punish the user for his actions that victimize others? Maybe I’m missing something?[/quote]
Yes, you’re missing that man is not capable of governing himself or constraining his appetites in the Kali Yuga age or Dark Age when men no longer believe in divine law. Making drugs more available means making more druggies and making druggies more socially acceptable. The consequences of making drugs more widespread in an age of unrestrained hedonism and organised deviancy is a society full of druggies.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The consequences of making drugs more widespread in an age of unrestrained hedonism and organised deviancy is a society full of druggies.
[/quote]
If so, maybe more real estate will become available to the rest of us. Drug abusers seem to do a pretty good job of culling themselves.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
SM, I’m not sure that I understand your opposition to the legalization of drugs. Why not legalize them? Drugs will either: a. be used responsibly OR b. be abused. If they’re used in a responsible manner(i.e., a way that doesn’t interfere with the life of the user or others), then why should force be used to deal with their use? If they’re used in a way that DOES interfere with the life of the user or others, why not: a. work on ending the subsidization of those unable to pay their way(thus discouraging the use of substances that make one less able to care for himself) AND/OR b. punish the user for his actions that victimize others? Maybe I’m missing something?[/quote]
Yes, you’re missing that man is not capable of governing himself or constraining his appetites in the Kali Yuga age or Dark Age when men no longer believe in divine law. Making drugs more available means making more druggies and making druggies more socially acceptable. The consequences of making drugs more widespread in an age of unrestrained hedonism and organised deviancy is a society full of druggies.
[/quote]
I googled your avatar’s namesake. Very interesting. I’d read his books before Kagan’s.
You need to draw a conclusion between the man and the “differentiated” man. Your fascist leaning sympathy’s seem to neglect the role of the individual in finding the perennial truth themselves, versus trying to mirror it imperfectly in a state or leader.
Also, Evola did go through a phase of drug experimentation.
I don’t have fascist leaning sympathies I have traditionalist and monarchist sympathies. Evola was never a member of the fascist party in Italy. He published a book criticising fascism from the right.