Sweepings from the Out Box

This is email. It is not the place to look for organized, formal, careful writing. Some of it may be deemed offensive. Enter at your own risk. Contains profanity (also contains nuts). Certain persons are referred to by name. Nothing personal. Subject to change at any time.



Don't Shoot the Libertarian Candidate, He Doin' de Best He Know How

Ron "The Producer" Paul: Cowardly Lion or Larson E. Whipsnade?

[On this particular occasion, the minor tremor of a reader e-mail inquiry about Ron Paul and the "Tea Party"triggered a seemingly endless and increasingly destructive tsunami of responses, varying in both intensity and violence. The writer may have been smoking something.

Please don't shoot anyone. It's not nice and scares the neighbours.
My interlocutor had recently been released from prison in Germany on "thought-crimes" charges.]

ME: There are several lessons to be learned from the 2008 Ron Paul fiasco.

…About Ron Paul, go on google and search for FEDERAL LAW UNSPENT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, and then the same thing, with the name RON PAUL and then again, JOHN KERRY. Then search for RON PAUL FINANCIAL INTERESTS. He raised record sums, I believe four million dollars, over the Internet, in 24 hours, more money from on-duty US service personnel, ordinary people, who couldn't afford to give it, than anyone else in the race, more than anyone in history. His target was only 18 million bucks. Don’t tell me he didn’t get it. Then he "scaled back" his campaign to fight a virtually uncontested House of Representatives seat on March 4, 2008, which he managed to convince the suckers was a "shrewd move", then for 2 months nobody knew whether he was running for President or not. How long are we going to play this game?

But he was still out there on the Internet, talking about the “Ron Paul Revolution”, about how many delegates he had, still soliciting money for 2 months. The Wall Street bail out was announced DURING THE CAMPAIGN, people were furious, but Ron Paul had taken his toys, and his followers' money, and had gone home. Look it up.

Incredibly, a candidate is NOT REQUIRED to return unspent campaign contributions. Of course, this provides an incentive for weak candidates to "throw the fight"! John Kerry allegedly has 55 million dollars worth of unspent contributions left over from his campaign, he just kept it, what Paul has, I don't know. But don't tell me it cost that much to run an Internet site. Paul has a million dollars worth of gold stocks, gold-related financial interests. What does he talk about all the time? Money.

Under Federal law, unspent contributions can be given to other candidates or....who knows? It is not very clear. Paul finally endorsed Chuck Baldwin, a great guy, a Christian, a libertarian, too, but a Christian, a man of principle. Did Paul give him any money? You tell me and we’ll both know. I never heard about it.  Baldwin raised only 40,000 dollars for his campaign.

Will Paul's son "Rand" use his old man's unspent contributions on his own campaign or will he just beg for more? He was out there begging for more already, 200,000 dollars he raised in no time, very soon afterwards. He wasn’t even running for office yet, but he raised 200,000 bucks.

…Libertarianism, for practical purposes, is an economic philosophy of extreme individualism. What the libertarians are looking for, in 99% of all cases, is a way to protect their own money. Once they get their hands on their little tax dodge, or their little foolproof investment scheme or offshore bank account, or their foolproof argument for not paying income tax, they are long gone, and you never hear from them again. They recognize no obligation to other people.

…Not to put too fine a point on it, Ron Paul is the biggest four-flusher, faker, liar, and betrayer in the history of "dark horse candidate" politics, which is really saying something, although he is fundamentally well-meaning. How is this possible? He stabbed his country in the back in her hour of need, betrayed everyone who ever trusted him, and stole 18 million dollars from his followers. That's the truth. He's a "libertarian", i.e., an imitation Jew, so what could one expect? 

I agree with the libertarians where their beliefs are almost indistinguishable from traditional conservatives. I disagree with all their doctrinaire philosophical arguments borrowed from Ayn Rand

At one end of the spectrum, the Libertarians merge with the survivalists and philosophical anarchists, and, at the other end, they merge with the Objectivists, many of whom have gone over to the Neo-cons. Most Objectivists support Israel and are complete fanatics. And you have sensible people going by the same name! They ought to think up a new name and get rid of the Rand baggage.

...Ron Paul says we should “judge people as individuals”, a mantra he shares with the liberals. Well, when you can, you usually do. But how can you judge millions and billions of people as individuals? On that basis, how do you even have a country of your own? How do you enforce your immigration laws? Sorry, Pedro, we know you're a great guy, etc., but you're not American, you don't have the right papers, you’ve got no right to be here. But he's a great “individual”, see. 

Obama was in favour of legalizing all illegal aliens and granting them welfare. So were the other candidates. Ron Paul wasn't [or pretended he wasn’t; this pretense was recently dropped, saying "It Isn't Going to Happen", which means, really, that the libertarians don’t want it], so he dropped out. His supporters had a right to expect him to fight to the end, like George Wallace. Maybe you didn't like Wallace, but he was a fighter, he fought all the way and he took 4 states. (He was a former Golden Gloves boxer).

Paul is a betrayer. If I were him, I'd be ashamed, I wouldn't show my face in public. The Socialists and Communists never had a chance in elections either, but they ran for the publicity. They ran all the way.

Paul  is a betrayer, but at the same time he is sincere. He simply cannot think straight on anything but money. His own money, first, last and foremost, and yours, maybe in last place. He is like a child...  

“Sound money”, my ass.

His money's sound, how's yours?

...Their ideas are all doctrinaire, back to front. You can't introduce the gold standard into a system of financial chaos. First you have to balance the budget. That means ending the wars [up to six and still counting], kicking out all the illegal immigrants, it means a war profits tax, windfall profits tax, expropriation of some of the large corporations and banks, including, in many cases, personal assets (for example, pursuant to wholesale RICO indictments) and a nationalist economy.

It means the eventual re-nationalization of "privatized" public assets sold to foreign shylocks in violation of a public trust.
It means offending the Jews. It means destroying the AIPACS through wholsale RICO or Hobbes or Travel Act indictments (or whatever else will work). Same for their stooges in Washington. Same for the banks.

It means protectionism, exchange controls, devaluation, subsidies, tariffs, default on public debt in whole or part and the forced repatriation of industry and capital. This probably means dictatorship, and is certainly populistic, in the sense of being patriotic. authoritarian, nationalistic, and pseudo-socialist. In any case, it means “altruism”, "mysticism", "collectivism", and "statism", to some extent, all of which the libertarians are dead set against.

In short, it means, mutatis mutandis, adopting the typical policies followed by almost any developing country, any Third World country, for the past 60 years.

... Libertarianism is Jewish. How does the right-wing libertarian mantra of "Everybody should be free to do everything", "Nobody can be forced to do anything", "Everyone must be judged as an individual" differ, at bottom, from the left-wing mantra of "If it feels good, do it", "Sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll", and "Anti-fascism"? How does it differ, at bottom, from the "Do As Thou Wilt" of somebody like Aleister Crowley? If we must judge "Everyone as an individual", how can we have our own country? How can we possibly enforce our immigration laws? Sorry, Pedro, we know you're a great guy, but you don't have permission to live here and you've got to get out.  

Impossible.  Look, Jew, you invested all your dough in Viet Nam or Guatemala, bring it back and invest here or we make you an offer you can't refuse.

Now Paul wants to legalize all drugs! Why? No factual arguments, just because "Everybody is free to do everything"!

This is the same argument that gave us 35 million abortions, legalized faggotry (and not just legalized, but enforced, the world’s first homosexual totalitarian dictatorship) and 30 million illegal immigrants.

They've got a "right" to come and live with us! Businessmen have a "right" to bring them over!

Yeah well, bad "rights" drive out good. If they've a "right" to come here, you've got no "right" to a country of your own.

Everybody knew Obama's ideas on the Constitution were essentially Marxist, diametrically opposed to Paul's. And Paul said he was considering endorsing him!  You'd have to be very naive to be taken in by Obama for one instant. I was never fooled. Obama is a Kennedy imitator, and I know the Kennedys, plus he's a nigger with Communist connections and an ultra-shady past, an ex-"community organizer" (what does that mean? is it a job?) -- a bigger con artist than Paul. Just try to find out what Obama did for a living before he ran for President. How did Obama become a multi-millionaire? Nobody knows.

Paul wants to legalize drugs! Do we want America to resemble Holland? And it will be a lot worse.

Paul has a million dollars invested in gold stocks, his own money. As far as I know, he has never provided an accounting for the money he took in from his followers. Then, in the middle of the f---ing campaign, Bush announces he's giving 700 billion to the f---ing banks! The same banks who caused all this mess! During the campaign! The whole country was furious! But Paul had already dropped out. He just didn't care.

He never contested the New Hampshire primary, although it was the only way to establish his credibility; that was obvious from the start. He refused to run as a third party candidate, he said "I've always been a Republican, and I'll always be a Republican". What kind of "revolution" is that? Castro was a revolutionary. Castro didn't say, "Oh, I would never dream of contesting a crooked election run by Batista", "Oh, I've always been a Batista supporter and always will be", no, when the State Department put Castro in power he shot everybody.

... Revolution means war, and war means killing. If I were running a “Revolution”, a real revolution, like Che Guevara, and I had some pansy like Paul pussyfooting around, doing this “Will-I, Won’t I”, Ron Paul, Hamlet, Take-the-Money-and-Run “Hesitation Waltz” all over the place, I'd take him out and shoot him. They demoralize everyone around them with all their rationalizing. They rationalize their own cowardice, but stay in the movement, so they breed discouragement and cowardice wherever they go.

I've seen this over and over again. All their failures, all their cowardly surrenders, are always part of some clever "game plan", see. Just this one more humiliating failure, and THEN, we'll go from strength to strength. That day never comes. They destroy every movement they join, usually after rising to the top.      

That the primaries are all rigged has been known since the 1920s, or 1840s, or even from the very beginning. This is the meaning of the phrase "smoke-filled room" in English. Look it up.

Everybody knew Paul had to contest the New Hampshire primary if he was to have any credibility at all. There were whole families who voted for him there, then, the next day, it was announced that there were no votes for him in that district!

He had a moral duty to every one of those people to contest the primary results. He had a moral duty to every on-duty service man who gave him money to make sure their voices were heard. He didn't care.

There is probably not 1 person in 100 who would have supported him if it had been known that he would not contest the New Hampshire primary, not run as a third party candidate, and that he would announce that he had always been a Republican and would always be a Republican. Some “revolution”. Ha!  

Plus stabbing the 911 Truth Movement in the back and praising the Marching Looting Nigger. He said the 911 Truth Movement was “too controversial”. “Too controversial”, or “Not true”? What kind of revolutionary is afraid of being “too controversial”??

He didn't even have to take a position on it. Just say, "A lot of my constituents are very unhappy about it and are calling for a new investigation into the events of 911, and I support that". What's "controversial" about that? If that's not "Demockercy", what is?

You will never find a libertarian who is not anti-racist (black or Hispanic “racism” is all right, of course) and anti-nationalist. Of course, the immigrants must be "patriotic", but that's different.

A "patria" full of Chinese and Mexicans would suit the libertarians just fine, just as long as we "Judge them all as individuals", all 5 billion of them.

Niggers start walking around your town at night? Hmong tribesmen? Latrinos, by the millions?

Not to worry. “We must judge them as individuals!”

And drugs.

Look at pornography, when was their more of it -- when it was illegal or now? When was it more profitable -- 50 years ago, or now? And these idiots say legalization will "Take the profit out of drugs"! It's like globalization, an intellectual con game to permit Jews to make billions. And Paul falls for it.

It's ideological: it's actually "immoral" to look at the practical results, before, during or after these disasters, because people have an absolute "right" to do things! You don't need knowledge.

For example, if you wanted to regulate the railroads, you would find an expert on railroads. But to deregulate, to legalize, you don't have to know anything at all, because people have "rights", see, an "absolute right" to do anything they want. Inalienable rights.

"Either you have rights or you don't", they say. "You don't have rights on Monday but not on Tuesday. If the government can abridge or regulate your rights, even to some slight degree, then you have no rights at all, you're a slave." They destroyed the economy of the world because people had a "right" to the "free movement" of "persons and capital". It was "immoral" to study or predict the results. This is a witch-doctor mentality. 

Rand was a Nieztchean. If she'd been German, a non-Jew, I think she would have been a National Socialist. But she was a Jew, so is it good for the Jews? You can bet your ass it will be good for the Jews, and nobody else.

With friends like Paul, who needs enemies? He betrayed everyone who ever trusted him. He betrayed his country in her hour of need, took his toys (and millions of dollars of his follower's money), and went home. Ron "The Producer" Paul. The worst part of it, most of his money came from people who could not afford to give it: on-duty military personnel. He collected a record 4 million bucks in 24 hours from these people, 18 million during his campaign. I'm surprised some Marine with a couple of tours of duty in Iraq, after giving Paul a donation he couldn't afford, and sick of getting f---ed over by politicians, didn't put a hole in him. In the Mafia, the underworld, drug dealers, there is a widespread perception that betraying your friends is associated with a certain particle of risk. This simple fact of life has still not sunk in on the politicians.  Maybe it will take a few object examples for them to learn, but at bottom I think they are too stupid to understand anything. That our enemies do all in their power to destroy us is a matter of course. But why should our friends do the same thing?

Remember that book, WIR KINDER VOM BAHNHOF ZOO? (book and film about 12-year old heroin addict and prostitute). That same idiotic kid is still the same, 30 years later, still an addict. A whole life destroyed because of a moment of weakness, to impress her friends, 2 years after smoking her first joint. These people would be better off with a bullet in the brain. And who would miss them? The typical reaction of our political system is to give in, every time. Too many immigrants? Legalize them. Too many rapes? Lower the penalty. Too much porn? Legalize it. Then we wonder why we get more of it, whatever it is. 

READER: I take your point. I fully understand your concerns – however, about drugs – is it not better to do what Portugal and Holland have done – legalise and control the flow rather than have the criminals and police and politicians pretend they are controlling it?
8 out of 10 prison inmates are there for drug-related matters – a waste of resources and it also develops/creates a social criminal class that is exploited as a slave-system, e.g. sending convicts to Australia, etc.?

Note how inconsistent it all is. The “War on Terror”, which is completely fake, never hesitates to go to any extreme, no matter how great. We've destroyed the Constitution, started 3 or 4 different wars of aggression, killed well over a million people, totally destroyed at least 2 countries, one of them the site of the oldest civilization in the world, built concentration camps, we kidnap, torture and imprison people, for years, almost a decade now, and wasted trillions and trillions of dollars. But we're not willing to shoot or hang a few pushers! Then if some idiot gets 25 years for possession of half a pound of heroin, we cry buckets, sob, sob, oh, such a waste of resources. OK, prison is not a successful system. To me, there are only 2 kinds of criminals. Those who should be hanged, and those who should be whipped (or something similar, maybe the stocks, like in colonial America). The severity of the offense should determine the number of blows with the whip or days in the stocks. With a physician present, etc, so you don't kill 'em, but if they die, what do we care? In Singapore, they whip their delinquents, it's over in half an hour, they're released and it's all over.

Result: people respect the law in Singapore. Same in Malaysia. Same in Thailand. Not that I'm an expert on these things. But we have to look at facts, not "philosophies" invented by Jews.

As for pornography, another great liberalization-legalization scheme, the influence of pornography is obviously helping to destroy society. Look at the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Torture is as old as the world, but leave it to the sex-mad, power-crazy, Jew-worshipping, sadistic Americans to invent "porno-torture". It's only one example of the destructiveness of free (or at least legal) porn on ordinary people. Porn is more profitable than tobacco or alcohol. Did legalization "Take the Profit Out of It"? Porn and drugs go together, plus it's easy money. Nobody wants to work.  There is no work, work is not respected. But "porn queens", etc., are objects of emulation. Is this what we want, but a thousand times worse?

Basically, addicts belong in camps, work camps. Prisons should be state run and should not be expected to make a "profit". In all these schemes, at bottom, profit is the only thing that counts. 
Another thing, with legalized drugs, you're going to have a lot more addicts, whether people admit it or not, and a lot more drug-related crime. Of course, not pushers shooting each other, because the "pushers" will be the big multi-national pharmaceutical companies, and of course you won't have to put the addicts in jail for "possession", but you're going to have a lot more of all their typical crazy crimes where they're high out of their minds, can't feel any pain, and don't know what they're doing, plus they're still going to need money, as much as ever, now aren't they?

Typical example: some crack addict, a young woman, recently took a pair of scissors and amputated her baby boy's penis, and apparently flushed it down the toilet. It was never found. She got 99 years. If she'd been in prison or a work camp for "possession" in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. But no, she's got a "right" to smoke crack, but, naturally, she has no right to "initiate the use of force", another beautiful Ayn Rand construction, by amputating the kid's penis: we have to wait for her to do something like that to happen before we can put her away someplace! Of course, she'll be out in a few years, 99 years or no "99 years". At the same time, you have county council health workers taking children away from their families because the parents are "too old", or have "health problems", or something, and forcing the kids into adoption with "gay couples". You see? It's ALL Jewish.

How many Jewish promises have the Jews made us in the past 100 years, about their wonderful Utopias of tomorrow, all of them fresh off  the drawing board, never been tried? 50? 100? How many of them have been successful? None. Not a single one. We've had racial integration, unlimited immigration, racial equality, globalization, and all their other goofy schemes, at the rate of about one a year, at least. Has even one, just ONE, turned out to be anything but lies?

We've got to purge our minds of all Jewish influences. Since the Jews are very persuasive, this is difficult to do, and requires a lot of thought. Since most people are unable to think, this has to be done for them, in the form of legislation. To the Jews, followers of Ayn Rand, like Ron Paul, this is the "initiation of force"! Society cannot protect itself through legislation, because that's the "initiation of the use of force"!

This doesn't prevent the Jews from passing all their "hate laws", anti-racism, anti-revisionism, all their laws. Oh, no, then they're completely merciless.

You get 5 times as many years in prison for revisionism than you do for rape, or a serious assault. Hans-Jörg Schimanek Jr. was sentenced to 15 years in prison for saying he didn't believe in the gas chambers. Marc Dutroux spent 3 years in prison for chloroforming and raping 5 girls. He was then released and killed 5 more people, mostly young girls. The Belgian "Ministre de la Justice" who released him, Melchior Watelet, against the advice of everyone who knew him, including Dutroux's own mother, was then PROMOTED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE for services rendered. No problem! Dutroux also dealt drugs. And we're told we should legalize drugs, just like that! We were told we should abolish all immigration laws, just like that! Why? Because of all their bullshit "philosophies", and "moral principles" that the Jews don't even practice themselves.

…One more thing, people say pot is less dangerous than alcohol. Maybe, maybe not. But you can tell when somebody is drunk and you have a rough idea of what is going to happen. I smoked pot a few times. The only time pot had any effect on me, everything was fine, I drove a couple of friends home and I couldn't remember what red and green meant. I knew one meant stop and the other meant go, but for the life of me I absolutely couldn't remember which was which. And people tell you that stuff isn't dangerous? Plus I grew up in California, I know what a couple of years of pot smoking can do to people.

Remember, alcohol is legal, but the production, consumption and sale of it are hedged about with numerous restrictions governed by federal, state, county and local law. It is illegal to drink under age, to be drunk in public, to drink in public, to possess an opened alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle on public property, to drive or operate machinery under the influence. It can be prohibited entirely by local ordinance. Personally, I think the legalization of small quantities of marijuana and hashish in one's personal possession for personal use would not be the end of the world. That is obvious. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about "Legalize Drugs", which implies ALL DRUGS, NO RESTRICTIONS. That is really the end of the road.

You can't be a beacon if your light don't shine. How you gonna keep Junior from smoking crack on the floor of the living room if his parents are spaced out on the sofa on their "legalized" pot and hash? And don't think it will stop there.

Everything Americans do is taken to insane extremes almost overnight. For example, in the 1970s, it did not appear that the legalization of homosexual relations between consenting adults in private would change very much of anything. Even when it was illegal, if they did it in private, who was going to bring charges? There were no witnesses. But you were still going to have to arrest them for hanging around toilets or cavorting around on the street ["loitering", "disorderly conduct"], molesting children, etc. This was forgotten.

Legalization implies approval. The legalization of homosexuality opened the door to every perversion. Next comes the legalization of sex with children and animals. This is being seriously advocated right now ( for example, by Austrian-Jewish Harvard professor Peter Singer). Homosexuals became cultural icons, glamorized, glorified, homosexual practices are now officially taught in schools as a "Way of Life" worthy of protection on a basis of equality with heterosexual marriage, the basis of all society. Is that what we want? The legalization of drugs will turn drug addiction into a "Way of Life", too, immune from all criticism. It will become a "Hate Crime" to express the simple opinion that drug users are unreliable or that drug addiction is a character defect -- a self-evident fact. Is that what we want?

The magical libertarian solution to all this? Push the Utopia further off into the future, to increasingly greater extremes. Forced faggotry taught in schools? No problem. Abolish public education. If all schools are private, they can't be "forced" to teach anything.

[Actually, here, I agree. Public schools are nothing but inter-racial prisons where whites are taught to hate themselves and mix with blacks.]

The libertarians, including Paul, are always telling us that "Every Time You Subsidize Something, You Get More Of It". Well, legalization, amnesty, is the ultimate subsidy, from which all else follows. Why do we have 30 million illegal immigrants right now? Because they were not expelled when there were 3 million. The libertarian solution? Abolish the welfare state. OK, which is easier, to abolish a whole country-wide structure of welfare and public health benefits, upon which millions of perfectly honest people are also dependent, or simply enforce immigration laws that are on the books RIGHT NOW?

This is what I call the "Principle of IRLU" - the Infinitely Regressing Libertarian Utopia, constantly receding, further and further off, into the fog of a distant, but ideal and perfect, future. This is a feature of all Utopias. It's like Perpetual Motion. A little tinkering with the flywheel, a few drops of oil here and there, adjust the ball bearings, and THEN Perpetual Motion will be a reality.

In her famous 1967 Playboy Interview, Ayn Rand said she didn't waste her time sitting around drawing up blueprints for Utopia. This is quite true. She was too lazy to do the thinking.

We have 30 million illegal immigrants because we accepted 3; if we accept 30 million we'll have 300 -- a Rhodesia/Rhodesia-South Africa situation in the United States. It's just a question of time. Is that what we want?

The danger is a frivolous ideological approach to important problems. If you told Pat Buchanan that the "war on drugs" was a failure he would no doubt agree with you.

But if you suggested legalizing drugs as a result, he would say, "OK, I want a serious statistical study of every drug liberalization measure ever passed and all the consequences, up to 50 years later, from Holland right back to China, before and after the Opium Wars". But no, we don't have to know anything, just "Legalize Drugs". To me the addicts belong in work camps, and the pushers should be executed. Like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Iran, probably Viet Nam and China.

If legalization takes the profit out of drugs, why was the trade forced on China for 200 years? It paid for the war (two wars, in actual fact); it paid for all British imports from China for a century; it made the Sassoons one of the wealthiest Jewish families in all of England; it helped prop up the whole British Empire for a century; but no, "Legalization Will Take the Profit out of Drugs"!

Maybe I’m wrong, fine. I’m not an expert. But let’s decide on the basis of the proven historical record.

…Holland is no longer mentioned, because too many people know what it is like. Now Portugal is the new moveable "Prophets Paradise to Come" of legal drugs, because it's too early to tell. Can you imagine what the National Socialists would have done? You can bet it would be something very imaginative, very radical, and that it would have worked.

Essentially it is a spiritual problem. Life is too easy, people have too much money, whether or not they work for it, they have no ideals, pleasure is the only ideal, and "Everybody has a right to do everything". Hitler said, "There is no right to sin against posterity, and hence the race". Their solutions to everything were very original, but they worked. Basically most of what they did was common sense. They gave people something to do, they gave them an ideal, they gave them work. It wasn't by imprisoning everybody, but anybody that wouldn't fit in and made trouble, was put away someplace where he couldn't cause problems. Or allowed to emigrate.

In Holland you can't leave your luggage in your car even outside the best hotels, because the junkies will steal it, in 15 minutes. Every large city is full of junkies, beggars, whores, including child prostitutes, strip joints (serving as a front for prostitution), all the peripheral industries that go with drugs. The junkies don't go to jail any more, but they cost the state as much money as ever, because they can't work, they have to be supported by the state, plus they have to be given all their dope for free, and they steal as much as before.

As for Portugal, I’ve been there twice since their famous “legalization”,  I speak Portguese, I’m in constant contact with people who live there, I translated their documents for over 20 years, and let me tell you something, nobody in Portugal talks about the positive effects of the legalization of drugs. Nobody. They don’t even mention it. You’d never know it. I never knew about it. I never heard of it. You only hear about it from foreign liberals who’ve probably never been there, like Michael Rivero.

What the Portuguese do talk about is the danger of getting mugged: Lisbon is getting dangerous, O Porto (the second largest city in the country) slightly less so. Portugal is worse than Spain. I know a husband and wife, both mugged, separately, in two separate muggings. What are the odds against this? In Lisbon, not very high.  They mug you in pairs, one in front, one behind, they threaten you with contaminated needles, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for them? You can crack your skull even if you get away from them, because half the streets consist of winding, crooked, slippery, uneven stairways built on steep hills, with all sorts of loose cobblestones, potholes, etc.  This happened to somebody I know. The city is very well policed, but the cops are only interested in counselling the victims, not in catching the junkies, partly because the cop cars can’t get up those streets anyway, some of which consist simply of narrow stairways with doors on both sides, they can disappear in an instant. These are the “quaintest”, most “picturesque”, most “romantic”, “historical” parts of the city, centuries old, the places tourists come to see, right in the centre of Lisbon: Alfama, Mouraria, etc.  It is perfectly quiet after 9 at night, you have no apprehension of danger.

So again, if the addicts are no longer being jailed for possession, but they’re still on the streets mugging hundreds of people, how does this solve the problem? And if you’re going to give them 5 or 10 years for armed robbery after their 50th or 100th mugging attempt, then why not just jail them for possession in the first place and save them the trouble of mugging people?
Portugal is broke, their bonds have been downgraded to “junk”, there’s no money to waste on these people.  Foreign liberals claim the government has reduced the number of junkies from 100,000 to 40,000. Where’s the proof of this? What’s the criterion? What’s their definition of “ex-addict”? What’s the value of government statistics on any subject, for example, unemployment, inflation, or immigration? How many ex-junkies do you know? My experience is: once a junkie, always a junkie. Very few people can stay clean for long. I knew a kid in Luxembourg, nice kid, good family, tried heroin a couple of times, again, to impress his friends, he was boasting about it, got hopelessly hooked, his father got him hospitalized, he got out of the hospital, said it was wonderful not to need heroin any more, but it didn’t last long. A few weeks later he was right back where he started, hopelessly addicted. Heroin addiction is forever. The few who stay clean are haunted by a craving for heroin for as long as they live.  So good luck with the "ex-junkies". And 40,000 muggers ruining your tourist trade is still a lot. Can the country afford it?

To me, these statistics are completely worthless.  I predict that the great idealistic Portuguese experiment in "legalized drugs" will end in complete failure and they’ll return to criminalization.
Which is easier:  getting a conviction for possession, which is very straightforward, or getting some tourist to return to Portugal for trial, to identify some junkie he only saw for a few moments, on some dark street, six months before? Plus half the junkies all look alike anyway: scrawny, dishevelled, badly dressed, unshaven, long hair, etc.  So good luck with lowering the robbery rate.   

Another country, I think Italy, decided to release everybody in jail for possession, but very few were released, because most of them were in for other crimes as well, theft, burglary, receiving stolen goods, prostitution, etc. Is that what we want, a load of useless scum all over the place, tens of millions of wasted lives, at huge expense? Don't think there will be fewer of them, look at Holland. Sex and drugs are the only real industries. We have to bring the real industries back. Of course the Dutch (Jews at heart, nobody likes them, they are as money mad as they come * ) love it. Why? Because the whole country is awash in drug money from all over. You've got a motorcycle shop? You'll never go out of business, because everybody with drug money to spend is flooded with dough. Look at China before and after the Opium War.

[ * The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Ceylon" notes that 200 years after the Portuguese got kicked out of Ceylon by the Dutch, people were still giving their children Portuguese names, because as soon as a native converted to Catholicism, he was treated like a brother. But when the Dutch got kicked out by the English, nobody missed them. They were immediately forgotten, because they were only interested in money.]

Look how inconsistent this is. People say, oh, the Chinese had a RIGHT to enforce their laws and expel British opium peddlers, weren't the British terrible, how rapacious, how greedy, how cruel, imperialistic violation of Chinese sovereignty, then they turn right around and say, oh, everybody has a RIGHT to do drugs. Well, which is it? Remember, everybody had a RIGHT to an abortion, a RIGHT to immigrate to America, a RIGHT to stay there, regardless of the law, people had a RIGHT to close down American factories and have everything made in China, and on, and on, and on. The philosophy of individualism is poisonous, and we are the only race that tolerates it. When did we have the most sex crimes? 50 years ago, or today? Pornography was legalized in Denmark and the sex crime fell for a while, because the perverts and sex fiends were so busy beating off they didn't have time to do anything else, then it rose 600 or 800 percent. Again, it's inconsistent.

How about interracial crime? The niggers had a RIGHT to live next door to you, go to school with you, a RIGHT to go to college, etc, so the Negro crime rate rose 600%. But you don't have a RIGHT to discriminate, a RIGHT to a white school, white neghbourhood, a RIGHT to publish racist or revisionist material, no, that offends the Jews. Rapists, including child rapists, are released time and time again, but revisionists, no, 5, 10 years, to the last day. Nobody says you have a RIGHT to discriminate. In most countries, you don't have a RIGHT to a firearm, to concealed carry, even of other, relatively harmless weapons, so the gun crime rate goes up hundreds of percent, assaults, robberies, rapes, etc. about 600%, fight back and you're the criminal, not the guy who broke into your house or assaulted you. Burglary used to be a capital offense. I think it still should be, a lot of serial killers start out as burglars. This is all Jewish, jumping back and forth to advocate anything that will make money for Jews, and destroy everybody else's lives, industry, livelihood, integrity, everything, but no, you don't have a RIGHT to anything they don't like.

I'm not saying this is the whole answer, because at bottom it is a spiritual problem, but if the “war on drugs” is a “war”, then the answer consists of hunting down the pushers and hanging them. (I don’t condone police brutality and “no-knock” raids on the wrong houses, etc., you’ve got to do things properly, but you get the point.)

In Texas, somebody once asked, how come you guys have the death penalty for horse thievery but not always for murder? The answer was, “Wal, A-a-a-h guess we got men that needs killin', but we don't got no-o-o-o-o horses that need stealin'.....”

I say, we got a LOT of people that need killing, and the rest can work, in camps, hard work, pushing a treadmill or something. Not watching TV and playing video games and sodomizing each other while working just a few hours at some easy job.

OK, Oscar Wilde got 2 years for sodomy, isn't that awful, boo hoo sob sob, but he was protected in jail. Why? Because sodomy was illegal. Now, they integrated the prisons, so if you get f---ed in the ass by 20 guys, probably most of them black or Mexican, but not all, the guards will just laugh and say, if you don't like it, why did you let them do it?

Either we take back our destiny by any means necessary or we lie down and just let the other races, led by the Jews, f--- us in the ass until we're dead, all of us. The junkies are no good to us, and might just as well be dead. F--- 'em.

When I was about 13, in 8th grade science class, people were saying Britain was the great paradise of legal drugs. I haven't heard of that since then. Not once. What happened? Why not? Why don't they talk about Holland any more? Nobody wants to be like Holland.

We have to have the courage to recognize that, even if there is no solution, life very often presents us with insoluble problems.

Like prostitution. There's a problem that's thousands of years old, everything has been tried. Nothing seems to work. But when it gets out of control you stamp down on it, hard. All these schemes of registration, medical examinations once a week, they've all been passed, failed, it's been abolished again, then sometimes it's legalized again. To me, a lot of these things should be illegal, but not necessarily seriously punished. 

READER: You express your thoughts so clearly…a friend of mine spent 9 months in Singapore – public decency works there –

The problem is the Jews pretended to change sides, starting with Ayn Rand, so now they're dominating and destroying the "right-wingers", the "conservatives", the way they dominated and destroyed the left for 120 years.

My opinions don't matter. What matters is the facts. No one I know of has ever compiled a serious statistical study of the effects of legalizing drugs. No one seriously anticipated the effects of mass immigration, globalization, or any of this other junk. Facts don't count to them. The liberals (or “libertarians”, who are just imitation Jews) just dream up some fancy new "moral principle", and then if you even question it or the factual situation you are "immoral"! Jews do not care about facts. Marx was a typical Jew. Max Eastman, a Jewish ex-Marxist, wrote a book called REFLECTIONS ON THE FAILURE OF SOCIALISM, in which he said that despite Marx's pretense to being "scientific", he was essentially a mystic. He was not scientific, which means skeptical and experimental. His character and personality very much resembled that of Ayn Rand herself: mean-spirited, egotistical, ungenerous.

Another thing, a lot of America's problems, I think, can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence, first, "We hold these truths to be self evident..." (that means they can't prove it, they don't believe it themselves and don't intend to practice it, but it sounds like a nice liberal "Enlightened" 18th century thing to say) that "All men are created equal", and that our God-given "Inalienable rights" consist of, now get this, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"! To me, this has always seemed a very puerile basis for the founding of a new society. Why not, "Eat, drink and be merry"? Why not, "Urinate, defecate, and fornicate"? The point is, these are things people will do anyway, regardless of the kind of society they live in. So what's the point of mentioning them?

Second, how do you distinguish "happiness" from mere short-term pleasure seeking? If you concentrate on "happiness", as a rule, you don't find it. Most long-term happiness comes from forsaking short-term pleasure and striving for something long term. We all know that a student who spends all his time enjoying himself will fail his exams and will not be able to practice his profession. If you concentrate on being "happy", it will elude you.

So in this sense, what has happened was inevitable from the very start. A whole society dedicated to nothing but selfish pleasure-seeking, in which "everybody has a 'right'" to do everything", and nobody can be "made" to do anything. And even more extreme: if smoking dope makes you "happy", and the government interferes with your God-given "right" to the "pursuit of happiness", as defined by yourself, then you have the "right" (again, God-given) to "alter or abolish" the government! Every individual has this right, and every individual has the right to define "the pursuit of happiness" to suit himself! I smoke dope because I like it. Full stop. Absolute right. An absolute right to do anything ELSE I can think of that I simply happen to like to do. How can a successful society be built on a philosophical basis of this kind? Most successful societies have some sort of religious basis, something outside the self. This includes very primitive societies…

So, unlimited immigration, pornography, and free drugs; unlimited privatization and no industry, but no unemployment benefits; no regulation or punishment of BP [for the Gulf Oil spill] or the financial industry (since that would constitute an "initiation of the use of force" according to the philosophy of Ayn Rand), but "no Fed" and “sound money”. Good luck.

See also:
Do What You Want (Exposing Satanism in Society, part 2)
featuring Jewish Satanist Anton Szandor LaVey, inspired in part by Ayn Rand
(don't laugh, this is right on target)
Dr. Judith Reisman - Sexual Sabotage
Dr. Judith Reisman - The Kinsey Lie - Adult Entertrainment
An Analysis of the Philosophy of AYN RAND by C.W. Porter (with afterword by Michael Shermer)
THE SURVIVORS by William Jaspers
Slavery Note
Alphonso Grahame on Japan (letter)

Lisboa Antiga
Não venhas tarde
Belos Tempos
Beijo Emprestado
(clever use of financial jargon demanding the return of a "borrowed kiss")
Ana Moura Canta Camões
Praia de Lágrimas
(tribute to Portuguese war veterans with excerpt from Portugal's greatest poem)

Update on Portuguese drug laws:

I note that all the favourable publicity originates from a "libertarian think tank", the Cato Institute (financed by the Koch brothers), in a report written by a Jew named Glenn Greenwald.
In other words, the source of the information is still associated with Jews and Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand is never wrong, is she? The libertarians are never wrong, are they? They wouldn't lie to us, would they?
Well, we'll see about that. If I'm wrong, fine, I'll admit it. We'll see.
For a video clip featuring Mr. Greenwald, click here.
Note the remarks of the second speaker, a Mr. Reuter, who notes that very few people are in prison in the USA for mere possession. Instead (just as I suspected), pushers are allowed to plead guilty to possession instead of standing trial for the sale of drugs!
That addicts are less dangerous than pushers is obvious to anyone. But even under "legalization" (which in the Portuguese example, pertains only to the possession of small amounts), the pushers are still out there, the addicts are still mugging people, and the "profit motive" is still there.

Plus addicts are almost always forced to sell occasionally to finance their habits.
So, without a legal (and free) source of supply, at taxpayer expense, combined with all this other stuff (counselling and medical assistance, all of which the libertarians propose to eliminate) we are right back where we started. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

- C.P., 15 August 2011

Update 18 August 2017
I read somewhere fairly recently that the Portuguese drug legalization experiment has completely failed, just as I predicted, but nobody wants to admit it, because it was, and is, a sacred cow of liberalism.
The number of drug "users" has doubled and the addicts are still out there mugging people.
So whoopee!
Why not use drugs if you've got nothing to do, there's no employment, no future, no punishment for anything, and there is always the promise of free health care, counselling and all sorts of welfare state bennies if you ever decide to go clean?


Return to blog index