|The liberal agenda|
I usually watch Newsnight. I know it's not going to expose the Bilderbergers or actually inform its viewers of why we are taxed to the eyeballs to pay billionaires who create 'money' out of thin air, but every now and then something will pop up that makes you think. It's useful to listen to whilst working of an evening, if only to cringe at politicians being politicians or to hear the latest PC Islingtonista diatribe against racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever else they decide to label normality.
Anyway, last Friday I was out and about painting the town non-red, and so I missed Newsnight for the first time in a while. I realised something was up as the Twatteratti on Twitter were foaming at the mouth again, which is usually a sign that something interesting as happened (it's a benchmark that whatever the chattering classes and incoherent immigrant-offspring fodder that make up the loudest section of Twitter are railing against is half-decent). So it was they were shrieking against Peter Hitchens (and not for the first time by any stretch of the imagination).
So today I looked up Friday's Newsnight to watch it. It was centred around a piece that is going to air later in the year on BBC3 by the "comedian" and actor Russel Brand, all about his addiction to drugs.
Interestingly he argues that the only way to beat drugs is to say no. Addicts must do cold turkey and just come off the drugs. End of. No drugs at all. Sounds sane. People who talk about teenage pregnancy and abortion in America in a similar vein are roundly attacked by liberals who think the way to stop pregnancy/abortion is to throw condoms at schoolkids. They fail to realise that promoting "safe sex" merely promotes sexual activity, which in turn leads to more teenage pregnancies and more abortions!
Similarly with drugs, the liberals, chattering classes, intelligible immigrant offspring ("innit") and the Guardianistas are keen to promote "soft" drugs. They think it's fine and dandy to pop a pill at a rave, smoke a bit of weed etc. But entering the world of drugs means drugs become acceptable, and the rise in use in soft drugs goes hand in hand with the rise in use of hard drugs (just as the rise in use of condoms goes hand in hand with a rise in use of abortuaries).
Like telling an alcoholic that it's fine to sup a Pale Ale, or down an 'alcopop' it is wrong to tell impressionable kids and should-know-better 20 and 30 somethings that somehow a spliff or a pill are just fine and dandy. Yet that is exactly what this "freedom of choice" society does. The mantra is that "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" etc. etc. ignoring the fact that hard drugs do hurt people -- they lead to ruination, lost jobs, destroyed families, damaged communities, ransacked houses etc. etc. Drug use is not a victimless crime!
Of course the homosexual deathstyle is awash with drugs, but what else would you expect from people who choose a 'life' that opts for multiple (often anonymous or semi-anonymous) "partners," casual sex in public places, even disgusting public toilets, and often leads to the ingestion of faeces and 101 varieties of disease of which AIDS is merely the most public.
It won't be long before pointing out simple facts like these is made illegal because it "promotes hatred" -- in reality ignoring the truth promotes hatred because it allows the impressionable, the weak willed, the mentally disturbed or the sexually deviant to get involved in a death-style that is rife with drugs, violence, disease and a greater chance of an early death. But I digress.
One point where Brand is totally wrong is that he thinks, in order to help rather than tar drug users, drugs should be decriminalised. Of course this is wrong because if something is made officially "OK" rather than just OK to readers of the Guardian and the Independent, it will lead to wider use. To think otherwise is arrant nonsense. The market dictates under Capitalism. If corner shops can make money selling drugs - they will! Under the counter, not on display (like cigarettes) whatever, once it is available it will be bought and used by kids. £5, £10 or £20 hits for a night of oblivion in your front room, down the park, wherever - kids would do it. Better than a bottle of vodka or a few bottles of cider, that would be the mindset of kids out to get blotto. And soon enough we would have more users and more addicts. The profiteers might be Boots the Chemist, Abdul in the corner shop or a giant pharmaceutical corporation, rather than a local gang with knives and guns: but the end result would be the same.
There is only one way to beat drugs, just as there is only one way to beat mugging, rape, homosexuality, paedophilia: zero tolerance. Pussyfooting around leads to these social evils growing on the periphery, sneaking in and gaining ground however they can.
There is no 'war on drugs' - a term abused by the CIA and others who are themselves involved in the drugs trade, profit from it and feed those profits into black ops, shady wars and more human suffering. On the ground, in our towns and cities there is no war on drugs. If there were there could be regular urine tests at work or at the dole office, there could be sniffer dogs outside nightclubs, there could be a real clampdown on the terror gangs who bring violence and intimidation to our streets.
No-one wants to live in a police state, and I think the more we can keep the government and police out of our daily lives the better. But in a country wherein I can be stopped and fined for not wearing my seat belt (which I sometimes wear, sometimes don't) yet someone with a spliff in their pocket can be stopped and merely cautioned... well you have to wonder why?
Time and again politicians tell us that their number one priority is the safety of our people. They use those excuses for planning and executing illegal wars and murdering thousands in other countries. Yet because drugs gangs bring violence, terror, intimidation, misery, robbery and other crime to our streets - where are the politicians slogans about protecting the people when it comes to dealing with the vermin who push drugs? The politicians clearly have no regard for the safety of our people - either the kids who get hooked on drugs, or the victims of the crime they regularly turn to to pay for their habits.
If we wish to stamp out drugs then let us really stamp them out. We can educate children that drugs are wrong and illegal. We can stamp out the drugs gangs and get them off the streets. We create a mindset of rejection, and at the same time we actively prevent the circulation of drugs so that even the tiny minority who wish to wilfully break the law and seek out illegal drugs, cannot get them (which in reality helps them!)
If we really care about the addicts, if we really care about the victims of crime, if we really care about decimated communities, and if we really care about the future of England and the Celtic nations, then we need to be serious about opposing drugs.
Of course don't expect any answers from the government. The secret state gets a large chunk of money from the international cartels; a good proportion of MPs, bankers etc. are busy snorting for Britain! The reality is that they do not care about violence on the streets, crime, the safety of the law-abiding majority.
Let us treat drugs as truly criminal instead of tipping it the wink, otherwise (like homosexuality) there will be a drip, drip of media brainwashing, liberal propaganda in schools and before we know if casual drug abuse will be widely culturally accepted (as it already is in certain sections of society).
It's all about what we want for our children and the future of our nations... liberal chaos and amorality, or sanity, safety and security.