Narco Terrorism - The attack on the soul of a nation.

I don't bring up alcohol to demonize it. I even drink from time to time. I bring up alcohol to clearly demonstrate the false convictions of drug prohibitionists. When they claim these bad drugs must be outlawed due to their effects on health and society, they also show that's not really the reason because they don't want alcohol banned as such, even though alcohol is at the top among the worst of the worst of all drugs.

If people put forth these principles then stand by them. (*)(*)(*)(*) or get off the pot. Too many people get drunk and beat their wives while whining about potheads.

It's like the fish-eating "vegetarians".. It's fake.

 

Are you talking about a preference to increase censorship so that art has to be approved by an enlightened sub-committee before release to the community?

 

*Snorts*

What pray would they know of "art"?

You think this is "art"?

 

How much more specific can I possibly be...LOL. I asked you a direct question. Would you care to address it?

 

There is a high demand for the public hanging of murderers and rapists too by large sections of society, but that doesn't mean that it's right governments' bow to public pressure by legalising capital punishment. You see, as Jack correctly alluded to, there are very good reasons why responsible governments' within civilized societies act responsibly. You seem to think that governments' have no role whatsoever to play in intervening within the social sphere and therefore, by extension, people are free to do whatever they want in their pursuit of instant gratification, irrespective of the damage to wider society. Well, I disagree.

 

The basic point Jack makes is a very good and valid one. As the ancient Greeks realised, we ARE social animals and we have a responsibility not just to ourselves, but to wider society. Responsible governments' ban harmful drugs for a very good reason, namely because they are harmful. The freedom of the individual to go about their lives in the quest for instant gratification has to be offset against the rights and freedoms of the majority of society who have to pick up the pieces resulting from this quest for individual freedom. That is why I argue that freedom is an abstract concept conditional upon other factors. Governments' do not ban harmful drugs for the fun of it, but because it is widely recognised that drugs are harmful to society. It's really not rocket science.

 

Serfin', I guess we have different conceptions as to what Big Brother entails. I had similar arguments with people from the states when I visited a few years back. US folks' conception of freedom is very different to mine. This is essentially what this debate boils down to.

 

Naturally my ideas and solutions seem alien to one lost amid the non society society. Of course that would be so. But you must understand, your "non ideas" are alien to me.

For while I lay out pratical and clear solutions to problems self evident, solutions based on collectivism, logic, and self preservation, the chant of the ego centric individualist can only offer (no offence ) a limited mantra, that barely qualifies as an "idea", in so far as it mainly consists of just doing nothing at all.

Please also be aware, that while my world may be alien to you, your world is alien to me, what with your concept of "art" that comprises of black men waving guns, glorifiying murder, and glorifying the abuse of women.

The price that the non society society pays for such non freedom freedom, is when the disaffected black teen in a poor part of the US picks up a real gun, and high on real drugs rapes a real women.

That is not a price that my society would be prepared to pay for this "art". It is through encouraging the idea of society being an extended family that my strength would lie, and your weakness would eliminate you via natural selection.

My society would be well educated, since I would make this a number one priority, and they would be physically fit, since I would extend the hours a child was at school to accomodate the playing of competitive sport, and in my society one would not have a "pour fuel on a fire" attitutde, since they would see themselves as responsible custodians of the society, rather than like rats in the sewers, feral and dirty.


Would I simply ban "art" like 50 cent etc? And torture porn like "Hostel". Of course.

You see that, in a non society society, as a MAJOR imposition. I do not. Nor do many others I speak to from all walks of life.

Indeed, I would see it as a monkey off our back. It is self evidently a corrosive and altogether ugly genre, thus it's loss would be no loss at all.

I realise it is an imposition to you that I wish to keep hard drugs illegal, and clean up people.

I see it somewhat differently. I see it as an act of integrity.

If it were possible for each of us to be given a society to work with for a period of two generations, I know my society would be homed, educated to the finest standard, appreciate high culture and high politics, physically fit, raised to believe that what they do has a ripple effect on everyone else, I believe that over time people would feel part of something good and worthy, for there would be no man under employed or unemployed, I would encourage the nuclear family again, and so forth.

You think my people would not be free, but you are wrong. That is only how you see it through the lenses in your own eyes. The opposite would be true. They would be more free. Your society would be utterly degenrate, wasteful, maladjusted, violent and fractured.

Is that free?


[video=youtube;eakKfY5aHmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=eakKfY5aHmY[/video]

 

Good post Jack, and spot on.

 

For instance, here is something I wrote pertaining to an economic model.

This would be pivotal to my collectivist society, while the non society plutocracy desire to keep with the status quo of making you all into consumers, buying rubbish and with your money increasingly worth less than 50yrs ago.

Free?

I assure you, my system is purely based on real freedom.

Your system cannot possibly accomodate freedom since it is based on slavery.
**

Too much time and energy gets wasted arguing over political puppets, who are little more than representatives for the oligarchs they work for.

It doesn't matter if it's Obama, Dubya, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Hollande, Berlesconi, etc.

It is pointless arguing for one 'side' of this false paradigm, however, that is precisely why it is designed in this way, so that in a blind partisan manner you pick an Obama over a Romney, or you argued for a Romney over an Obama, or whatever.

Forget doing that. Honestly. Even if your passions are well intended they are misdirected. Such people are all actors, stooges, puppets. The difference between them is superficial. You will NEVER address and solve ANY of your genuine grievances casting votes for 'leaders' of that type, from parties of that kind, from a system of this nature.

All that will happen there is that nation rocks from one crisis and mess to the next, with no end in sight.

You have to get past this idea of putting focus on these people, and even their parties. They are NEVER, not a single one of them, ever going to lead you anywhere, all they will ever do, and increasingly so, is make decisions and policy that imposes on you more, and removes more true freedom.

You have to look past all these actors with their controlled dissent and debates, and understand that no good can ever come from that which is built on the economic model that exists in the West today.

Anything that spawns from that will be defective by definition. Corruption and plutocracy soon follows. Oligarchs run the show.

Which is what you have today. Which is precisely why you scratch your head and puzzle at the policies of Gov. The policies that you see as unfair and inefficient are not inefficient at all.

Indeed, they are very efficient - so long as your in the 'in club'. And most of you are very much not.

When you Gov makes a foreign policy that seems illogical and inflammatory to you, or when they pass legislation domestically that seems unfair on the people(like maybe this Obamacare), it's not that the policy is 'inefficient'.

It is 100% efficient - IF your objective is not the people and not the nation, but to suit the interests of the in club and oligarchs.

Simply put, if it seems that your Gov's priorities are always at odds with ordinary people - it's because they are.

Wasn't always that way, can be turned around again one day, but that's where we are at right now, I'm afraid.

And it is only going to get more like that, so really, if you are sincere at all, whatever you do, I would not seek answers from anyone who is a professional politician.

Esp not one in the established order.

America did produce men of some wisdom, long before this mess you see now that passes for 'American' (like Obama).

Lincoln was a smart man of his day. Were he alive, he would well understand what I mean, just as he understood back in his day. He famously spoke of having two enemies. The one that lay to the south. And the one behind his back, the international counting houses. Of the two, he considered the latter to be the worse.

He issued a currency called 'green backs' one which by it's nature does not suit the international counting houses.

They can't make money from it. If they cannot make money from it, they cannot dominate it. If they cannot dominate it, they cannot so easily corrupt nation and gov.

It's common sense. No need to be an economist to understand that part at least.

There were others. JKF wanted massive reforms, and I believe, and end to the Fed.

All things, inflation, debt, unemployment, recessions, depressions, house repossessions, etc etc, all of these things are avoidable. They are merely products of the system that I speak of, the one that you happened to be born into, but does not need to remain so(esp as its just so corrosive).

Therefore, it would not really matter what puppet you brought in to oversee this, it would remain the case.

Private currency speculators, Wall St, Fed Reserve, of course THEY are going to put out relentless propaganda to defend THEIR system, but the fact is, it is NOT good for people and it is anti nation.

There are alternatives to this scam, but don't ask the scammer, and don't expect those too dogmatic to offer any up.

The alternatives, once in place, would be better for nation and people, and really BAD for the bean counters.

You could have a credit programme. This would see a great many national projects being undertaken, all neglected by Fed Gov, as they usually are too busy thinking how to scam you.

All these would paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.

You could then issue simple bills of exchange, putting millions to work on building up good national projects, and being paid by these bills of exchange.

Not backed by gold. People get paid in these certificates, people spend those certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the people climb out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.

 

Okay then...are you talking about a preference to increase censorship so that expression has to be classified as art by an enlightened sub-committee before release to the community?

 

Such things already exist in part, do they not?

Certifications and such?

Such things existed and were more robustly enforced in the past, were they not?

Sure they were.

There is simply no way that 50cent would have been tolerated in the 50's.

There is simply no way that 'Hostel' would have been tolerated in cinema houses.

Society itself would have shunned it.

 

Re: post 310: Despite some logical inconsistencies, another good, sound post in my view with no mention of Jews.

 

Monies would be there to support arts, but not filth.

Ballet is an art.

Waving a gun around and calling women whores is not art.

I would also be very wary of monies being spent on this disturbing genre...



http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=324303

 

There would be winners and losers in my society. But here is the good news.

Here is an example of the losers, those who I would simply not tolerate, not in any part of European soil at all. I would simply refuse to recognise their legitimacy to trade here, end of story. No messing about, doesn't matter how many fancy lawyers they had, I would not care. It would simple not be tolerated, end of story.

Again, I would imagine that to the person that has abandoned nation and collectivism this sort of thing here "simply does not matter", indeed it may be a "good thing".

Not to me.

To me this is HORRIFIC.

I would not protest it.

I would not reform it.

I would criminalise it.

Period.

[video=youtube;M3d0rGGS3OA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M3d0rGGS3OA[/video]

 

Far from being "racist", my society would be seen in a good light by other nations. Why? Because while I would retain a strong and devastating defensive force, there would simply be no wars of aggression, no pre emptive strikes, no theft of resources using the army as private enforcers, and therefore, no displacment of millions.

My society would be seen as one that respected and traded fairly with other countries, not one that exploited and invaded them.

Your society preaches an anti racist meme which is hollow, since your leaders do it on the same day that their aggressive policies have probably murdered people of other races, and in their own lands too.

That is a disgrace, nothing to be proud of, and allows no one from such a society to then speak of "racism", not when you are hypocritically killing more of the races than anyone else.

I would not fear American, posturing or otherwise.

America would not intimidate Europe, of that I assure you. For all of their bluster, there exists not a US military man that I know of who would ever want to take the US into a war with all of Europe.

In their haughty arrogance, armchair hot dog eaters will think America would easily dispose of Europe, but no so for realists. Not that it would need come to that, I would hope to foster reasonable relations with the US, but not if they continued on the path they were on.

We would do our own thing, regardless of whether America liked it or not.

If we wanted to normalise relations with Iran, we would do so. Period.

If we wanted to impose sanctions on Israel, we would. Period.

What are America going to do about it? Fire nukes?

They would just have to get used to it.

I would foster strong relations with Russia also.

 

Man is, by nature, not at all collectivist. Man evolved to be cut-throat, and form society based on heirarchal and xenophobic tribalism, with individual desires paramount, driven by a personal lust for power. Enslavement and theft ensue, as the natural order. These traits were passed on because they allowed a survival advantage. Stealing land and food from others made survival easier.

We have a powerful, engrained focus on individual identity, which makes us so easily divided. Hedonism is very much natural, and inevitably comes with hypocricy of course. For example, look at the Saudi royals who enforce the strictest Sharia law with the harshest of penalties for transgression, while at the same time they sniff cocaine off the asses of hookers.

I know what you want with this perfect, harmonious, mutually cooperative society, but that is a pipe-dream. It is contrary to our nature.

We've tried it! We've tried this experiment nearly a century now. Hard drugs ARE banned and have been for decades. And what have we got to show for it? Are we all stood shoulder to shoulder with a common goal, sporting identical crew-top haircuts? No. Drugs, murder, theft, prostitution, disease, crime, hate etc. run rampant as ever, despite militarized efforts to clamp down on those drugs.

In other words, your policy is proven to be one big giant epic fail.

BTW do you support a full and immediate ban on alcohol?

 

Yep. Totally.Which I why I asked about increased censorship powers not introduction of per se.
Hostel - have heard about it, have no desire to see it.
50 cent - I'm not a big fan of his specifically but I can think of far more hip hop artists that I like than I don't like. And as to the bump and drive beats combined with lyrical fluidity that hip hop generates for me, it's awesome.

 

I'm afraid that is not supported by the anthropological and archaeological evidence.

 

We have a Constitution for our selves that establishes our secular and temporal morals and legal ethics.

 

It's supported by loads of anthropological evidence, including bones that showed interspecies inflicted wounds by clubs etc. scattered around the globe. Even mass killings, evidencing genocide.

Think about it.. Most every species that exist are territorial. It's a useful trait. Pool and share your food leaves you with only half as much food as when you smash your neighbor's skull in and steal his food. Pushover genes would not be favored.

Not to mention that thousands of years of human history prove it. Bloodthirsty warfare has always been a part of who we are. Everybody always identifies with their own group while despising the outsiders. You see this everywhere.. Left vs. right, Islam vs. Christianity, XBox vs. Playstation, Bloods vs.Crips you name it.

These tribes are always arranged in a heirarchal fashion, little different to a pride of lions. You have your alpha male, who enjoys first dibs on food, and universal mating rights, and then you have all the others having a power struggle within that society to gain status in the pecking order in pursuit of the same selfish desires.

I mean where has this communal cooperative 'love thy neighbor' society EVER existed? Even the Native Americans, who many think were peaceful, live off the land type of people, engaged in routine barbaric butchery between tribes. The tomahawk dates back a lot further than the arrival of any White settlers. The closest example I can think of would be the modern day hippie communes, that live off the grid. Of course, they're all probably high though, aren't they?

Turn on your news. Nothing has ever changed, other than our technology to both kill and indoctrinate. Even slavery runs rampant all through history, and continues to this day.

This ideal of Jack's about a shoulder to shoulder harmonious society simply goes completely against our own selfish nature, and it would take a hell of a lot more than just banning some drugs to override our own inveterate instincts.

- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution is pure law.. It has nothing to do with morality. It was the legal consensus arrived at by people as divided as we are today, with radically different morals and ethics.

 

HFD there has been much work done trying to find the innate disposition of humans but it all failed. Who people are is very much dependent on their environment.

 

No.. It's dominated by genes.

The challenge is, name some contradictory examples.

 

Our supreme law of the land establishes our temporal and secular morals and legal ethics under our system of common law.

 

No it doesn't.. The Constitution at NO POINT tells anybody what to think. ALL it does is lay down the rules for how the federal government is to operate. Can you name any point in which it preaches? Maybe are you not thinking about the Declaration of Independence?