Moral Keynesianism and the war on drugs

The government is waging a war on you, not on drugs

Don Hank

First, if you have an opinion on the legalization of narcotics, let us know at the link below (but please make sure you have read the associated articles on this, and note in particular the article — the first in the Anglo-Saxon world — showing that the “Portuguese model” is based on false reports):

I have not ever seen this much passion, on both sides of an issue, as I am seeing at this site. I want to thank those who participated or will participate. Note: If you are new to the forum, your post will take time for approval (I am not here all the time). Please check back later.

Let me try to sum up my position:

My main thrust is not so much whether we “have a right to do with my body as I please.” That is just too adolescent for me. Sorry.

My position is independent of whether we are winning or losing the “war on drugs.”

My position is that the Left is planning another sneak attack on the West, just as it did in the 60s when it sold us the sexual revolution. As some will recall, the whole “revolution” seemed like a grass roots movement. It was planned to seem that way. But it came off the Left’s drawing board. The Frankfurt school specialized in “education” (read: social Marxist propaganda) was heavily invested in that movement, famously promulgating the slogan “make love, not war.”

The method was Fabian stealth, and if you have investigated the origins of the Fabian Society in London, in the 1880s, you will recall that there was an essentially two-pronged assault:

1— Destroy the Christian roots of the West (that’s been accomplished)

2— Subtly program people to accept Marxian socialism, or in other words, communism (that is right around the corner. Even euroskeptics as a group are not necessarily inclined to oppose socialism as long as it is a national kind. Where have we heard of that before? Oh, yes, Nationalsozialismus. I had almost forgotten).

Then there were academic reports and news items and editorials hyping what amounted to a moral breakdown. Today there are stories like the wholly contrived report of the “successful” Portuguese model as reported by the Cato Institute and later in Scientific American, but debunked by the Portuguese doctors.

Let me suggest that what we are now accepting if we accept legalization of narcotics is in effect a kind of “moral Keynesianism.” Now Keynesianism is the economic teaching that the economy needs government to thrive and, more specifically, needs governments to do things that are counterintuitive and contrary to common sense and logic, such as “stimulating” the economy by spending tax payer money on projects, whether necessary ones or not (John Maynard Keynes once famously stated that if workers were hired by the government to dig ditches and then fill them up again, that would stimulate the economy. That one statement encapsulates all we need to know about this “scholar”).

This idea was tried by FDR, and historians at the time failed to note that it was not the “stimulus” (in the form of war spending) that got us out of the Great Depression but rather a robust and resilient essentially free economic system and strong moral fabric along with a strong manufacturing base thanks to a still-dormant China and finally, a very limited entitlement system. Calculations by a group of UCLA economists show that, far from “getting us out of the depression,” FDR actually slowed the recovery by about 7 years.

So, long story short, Keynesianism is harmful to economies. That is bad news for us today because most US presidents of both parties, and most famously Obama and Bush (who promoted TARP and the bank bailouts), have operated on the premise that shoveling enormous amounts of public money into the economy speeds recovery and is generally beneficial to everyone. European “leaders” did likewise, despite the total lack of evidence that such Keyenesian policies help and the strong evidence (not to mention common sense and logic) showing they are harmful.

In its broadest sense, Keynesianism is a teaching analogous to the old expression “a little hair of the dog that bit you.” This is the belief held by hard drinkers and alcoholics that consuming a little alcohol the morning after will cure your hangover. It is merely an excuse to follow your compulsion to harm your body even more because you don’t have the self discipline to stop. In other words, it is the counterintuitive degradation of any system (body, economy, etc) in the hope of deriving benefit from this degradation.

So in fact, Keynesianism goes far beyond economics and has seeped into our psyche in every area vital to life and to a healthy society. This is because Keynesianism as an academic teaching was only the effect, not the cause, of this widespread belief in doing the wrong thing to achieve a benefit. Moral bankruptcy does not need Keynesianism to proceed. Keynesianism is only a catalyst that speeds the reaction. Not surprisingly, John Maynard Keynes was himself a drug user (BTW, I am not the first to liken Keyenesianism to drug addiction. It’s been done here).

The notion that legalizing drugs will somehow help reduce drug use belongs in the category of moral Keyenesianism.  As I have shown here and  here, while libertarians and the Left present reports of drug models based on legalization (first Holland, and then when that went sour, Portugal) purporting to show legalization of narcotics as beneficial, the reports are patently false – analogously to historical treatises purporting to show that FDR “got us out” of the Great Depression.

Now, let me clarify my position on the War on Drugs.

This is a patently phony war and, like all conflicts in which the US has been involved since WW II, the government does not sincerely intend to win it.

This is as plain as the nose on your face. How in heaven’s name could any nation hope to stop the sale and use of narcotics by keeping open the border with the country through which the lion’s share of these drugs pass into ours? Despite the hype, we have not sincerely tried to close the border. Quite the opposite. While hypocritically condemning the cartels, the US government has in fact opened the doors to them and their product. As reported by Fox News, there are no less than 5 federal lands at the Mexican border that have travel warnings in place to alert travelers of possible violence. From that report:

Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management’s Arizona office, said roughly a dozen signs were posted earlier this month along the Sonoran Desert National Monument advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to “active drug and human” smuggling.

It should be abundantly clear that the US government, which so far has not hesitated to spend well over $1 trillion on wars that have failed their mission of bringing lasting peace or democracy to the Middle East, refuses to spend even a fraction of that to build adequate fencing and hire enough border patrol agents and/or national guard personnel to stop the flow of drugs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please read this carefully:

The US government does not want to stop or slow the flow of drugs into the US. Most lawmakers and presidents (all of them) only want to make a show, do a bare minimum in an effort to placate constituencies.

They are thumbing their noses at their constituents while catering to the corrupt Mexican government and the cartels, which are their main clients in this illegal and immoral enterprise.

And now that their failure is manifest, they are subtly suggesting that, instead of doing the rational thing and closing the border, we need to legalize drugs, thereby expanding the market for their friends, these vicious killers selling a dangerous product that destroys our people and our children.

Here comes the avalanche. Open your eyes before it is too late. Don’t let them flatter you into the thought that legalization was your idea. It most certainly was not.

Finally, for my European readers:

Do you really believe the EU or any European nation wants to stop the flow of drugs into your region? Here in Latin America, it is common knowledge that Spain and Portugal are the portals for drug traffic in Europe. I believe that your airports have so far been successful in preventing terrorist attacks. How is it possible that they are not also stopping the flow of drugs into your country? Here is something to ponder: Portugal is not only a major drug flow artery into Europe, it is also the only nation to have legalized narcotic use. Is there a possible connection here that ought to be explored? That is, if Portugal is winking at drug use, then it may have been winking for many years at drug smugglers passing through their airports. Just a little food for thought.

Again, if you have an opinion on the legalization of narcotics, let us know here:

Islamization and Mexicanization — two designs, same architects

By Don Hank

The slow but sure Islamization of Europe, illustrated in the below-linked video, is headed this way. Dearborn Michigan is a showcase example, where Christians are forbidden to hand out tracts in many places where Muslisms would be offended.

Europe and the US are in the same basic set of hands: PLCSDs (progressives/ liberals/ communists/ socialists/ Democrats) who rule the West by controlling the media, education, film and the arts, the universities, much of the political world, etc.

The Fabian socialists started in London in the early 1880s. Karl Marx’s sister was one of them. Their avowed goal: To spread socialism and eliminate Christianity from Western culture.

How are they doing so far?

Their influence spread and spun off other like-minded groups (the Frankfurt School, the UN, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Democrat and Socialist Parties in the US, socialist parties in Europe, Common Purpose in the UK), which spread the virus.

Their goal in Europe is being achieved in part by importing large numbers of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to dilute the already waning Christian influence there. The result is a growing state of anarchy in the street and an untenable, often desperate social situation, for example, in many European schools, where European students are bullied mercilessly by Muslim kids.

On this side of the Atlantic, their goal is being promoted by supranational government schemes like NAFTA, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and the Trans-Texas Corridor), all of which aim to obliterate borders toward the short-term goal of achieving an EU-style borderless America with a single central government that dictates to what is left of national governments (to be reduced to puppets that only harmonize central legislation). The longer-term goal is a one-world government such that no nation or region has any significant power over its own destiny.

The huge influx of illegal aliens you see all around you is part of that plan. They are portrayed as victims, ie, the “poor,” in the media but a growing percentage have ties to the cartels that have made life unlivable and short in Mexico. They are creating crime-filled ghettos in our cities in their quest for a “better way of life.”

I guarantee that the useful idiots who lend themselves to the implementation of this scheme to help illegal aliens gain increasing privileges in our nation, including — now — the right to vote in our elections, will some day rue the day they were duped into becoming pawns in this evil game.

Here is a foretaste:

Post left at another LF column by a lady living in Germany:

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for speaking the truth again, Don.

Perhaps I should add that I live in Germany, and we see the encroaching creep of Islamism here without a doubt.

I think of a church in Reutlingen in the south of Germany, who have spoken up against the way the Lutheran Church in the town has (I use the singular intentionally) been in recent, close fellowship with the Turkish nationalistic, fascist youth organisation, the ‘Grey Wolves’, who, any search in Google will show, are murderers and assassins, and with whom even the CIA are linked. The Lutherans had allowed them on to the church board, allowed them access to their premises, church hall, etc, all ‘in the name of dialogue’ with Muslims, in order to help them to integrate into German society.

It beats me that the ‘Pfarrer’ didn’t have the wisdom to find out for himself what sort of people these are, but perhaps he in his mistaken, humanistic, naive way, thought that he could turn them from their Jihadist thinking. If so, then he was wrong. A video was made of a Grey Wolves meeting in the Lutheran church hall, presumably by one of the partaking group, with the Cross and other Christian symbols covered up, showing the Grey Wolves members saluting, (very similar to the Hitler salute, forbidden in Germany). The video was put on You Tube and caused a furore when the local press got hold of it.

The Lutheran church then accused the free church of being religious intolerant fundamentalists, and even said that they had filmed the meeting, which any common logic would make clear, was a ridiculous accusation. They then ostracised, cold-shouldered and slandered the free church. The sad thing is that other churches in town did the same, pandering to the fear of the Grey Wolves, who hold even other Muslims in terror, unwilling to take a stand for the truth. They said that the free church was destroying the town’s ‘Christian unity’. If that’s Christian unity then I’m the Pope.

Milan court sentences Google officials to prison for posting whistleblowing video

Milan court sentences Google officials to prison for whistle-blowing video

I have shown before that the internet is very much under attack in Europe, which now completely controls it. Censorship-happy Europe is the very worst place to be controlling your freedom of speech.

The world elites are stealing our freedom incrementally by stealth, just as they have been doing for the last century since the founding of the Marxist Fabian Society in England.

Now some Google officials have been sentenced to prison in Europe for allowing the posting of a video clip showing a boy with Down’s syndrome being abused by a group of students. It was hardly what anyone would call graphic or violent footage but it was a good excuse for censorship that could not be left to go to waste.

The group Vividown brought suit and the judge sentenced the Google officials to prison based on an alleged violation of the victim’s privacy. Nota bene: There is no mention of any trial against the perpetrators. Clearly, no one is portraying them in a bad light.

Anyone who expects to be able to use the Internet freely from here on out is not paying attention.

There are at least 2 reasons why the court (in Milan) accepted the suit and issued this incredibly draconian sentence, not on the perpetrators of the abuse but on those who dared to make it public:

1–The elites need to keep progressing toward total control of the Internet until they control it just as tightly as they do the “mainstream” press. Otherwise the masses may eventually break free and demand a say in the governments of their nations.

2–The only way illegal activity can continue unabated is by censoring the evidence — in this case, the video showing children harassing a handicapped boy. The real issue is the violation of the boy’s rights and in a common-sense traditional world, the courts and press would be focusing on the perpetrators and demanding they be punished.

But those days are gone. In the increasingly autocratic EU and in the individual governments of Europe, corruption abounds and officials are routinely getting away with misdemeanors and crimes. Those who take steps to expose them and bring them to justice are attacked in the media in subtle ways designed to make the unsuspecting public believe that telling the truth was somehow a criminal violation of their privacy rights. Thanks to distortions in the press, the issue becomes one of how whistleblowers violate people’s “rights” by telling the truth about perpetrators and abusers of human rights. Attention is diverted away from the perpetrators and toward those who exposed them. Readers are gently persuaded to accept the notion that committing crimes or violating human rights is of little consequence, but that exposing a perpetrator is a criminal violation of privacy.

Think about it. If this new policy of trying and punishing the ones who report crimes under color of “protecting the victim” and ignoring or downplaying the perpetrators is pursued to its logical end, anyone who reports on a crime in detail in the media, particularly by showing images of graphic crime scenes or battered victims, can be considered to have violated the rights of the victim and can be given jail time, thereby trivializing the actual crime itself and inevitably paving the way for increased criminality. At the very least, in a reversal of technological advances, the presentation of videotaped evidence against perpetrators of crimes and misdemeanors would not only be inadmissable (as is sometimes the case already), but in fact would be punishable in some cases by harsher penalties than the crimes it was attempting to expose!

The following site (also from Europe — UK in this case) provides an important hint as to why the elites think it is important to make the whistleblowers appear to be the bad guy in order to cover up for high-ranking perpetrators:

So far, America has not fallen quite this far, thanks in large part to the Internet. But if the European elites can succeed in censoring the Internet throughout the world, it can easily happen here as well, even eventually becoming the norm. (In case you missed the news, control of the Internet was transferred from the US to Europe last year, and since then, the attacks on our freedom have been substantial).

Thus, in order to protect high-ranking evil doers and dictatorial policies, the Internet as we know it is being attacked like never before! They can’t afford to have you know the truth.

Europe has long been a dictatorship — where the people now have almost no say in any of the lawmaking process or choice of lawmakers or judges — but sadly, few Europeans realize it. Most are under the influence of the sensational media which keep them dazzled by images of glamorous stars and athletes, cats rescued by firemen, “global climate crisis” and the latest cinematic achievements.

We will see more and more of this censorship and down-dumbing as time goes on. The pretext is privacy, but the real issue is freedom of speech. The use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to censor is a new and creative one. Just wait. There will be thousands of such excuses and each one will seem “justified” to the uninitiated who fail to understand what is going on behind the scenes.

But legal censorship isn’t the only way to silence sites like this one. Recently, the far-left site Tecnorati condemned Laigle’s Forum as “neo-nazi” for the article “Enjoy the internet while you can.” Other than mention of an anonymous report, no reason was given for this, but my best guess is that I had mentioned in the article that the far-left Frankfurt School was founded by a group of Jewish German Marxists who came to the US in the early 30s to avoid the impending Holocaust. My use of the word “Jewish” is no-doubt deemed anti-Semitic by the hypersensitive tecno rats, and this pretext is no different from the use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to go after whistleblowers. Of course, if I hadn’t mentioned they were Jewish, the reader would have been left wondering why a group of Germans would be fleeing before the impending holocaust, so the use of the word was clearly not racist. Besides, I didn’t say anything negative about them, only that they were intent on destroying traditional American culture, and that’s a positive for the far left, so what’s the problem?

But the point is: for a group of Marxist activists desperate to censor, any excuse will do.

There is very little time left for the public to wake up in time to save what is left of the New Media from the wolves.

Enjoy it while you can. Or better yet, help save it by spreading the word.

Don Hank

European censorship

Enjoy the internet while you can

Major threat to world internet freedom

The Germans are the “free” world’s leaders in censorship. Some of my German contacts estimate that 200,000 Germans are in jail for saying and writing things that are legally considered offensive. Some of these contacts have been jailed for what they sent or posted on the internet!

By way of background, if they are correct, it was the allies, particularly the Americans, who started this trend with “denazification,” but the ideas behind that actually are said to have come from members of the Frankfurt School, a group of German Jewish intellectuals who sought refuge in the US just before WW II and showed their appreciation by spreading propaganda aimed at destroying our culture. They also were given a lot of elbow room in shaping our “denazification” policies.

Herbert Marcuse, a famous 60s radical, was a member of that school, who took it upon himself to help fixate our children on promiscuity and drugs — an important part of the Marxist agenda to weaken America.

Norbert Schneider, a German leftist heading an important European public office in charge of communications, is a Hitler wannabe who wants to require licenses for all internet transmissions of YouTube-like materials. The trouble is, if implemented in his part of the world, this licensing requirement would automatically be implemented here as well. Schneider has too much power, and we either take his away or he takes ours. I think you can understand he needs to go.

No sooner had I receive the article from Prison Planet (excerpted and linked below) than I found, through a search of the German internet, the following:

So, folks, it is happening. It is no longer in the talking stage. Neonazi Germany is taking the lead.

Oh, and just to cheer you up: Late in 2009, the US, which once ran the Internet, turned control over to Europe.

Need I tell you that global governance (European Union, UN, NAFTA, CFR policies, and the notion of nationalism, patriotism and even the idea of nations having boundaries at all as  “threats” to world peace) is a serious threat to freedom?

The truth that world government advocates don’t want you to know is that nationalism is not the threat to world peace today. The real threat is international tyranny, and the global elite are the tyrants who are likely to start the next war.

Don Hank

There is just so much happening it is explosive. Before you read the Prison Planet article, check this one out, which came in a few minutes ago:

World Economic Forum calls for licensing internet users

Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan

by DefendUSx February 03, 2010 13:34

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Time Magazine has enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Microsoft executive Craig Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, as authorities push for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people with government permission would be allowed to express free speech.

As we reported earlier this week, during a recent conference at the Davos Economic Forum, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told fellow globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

His proposal was almost instantly advocated by Time Magazine, who published an article by Barbara Kiviat – one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab. It’s sadistically ironic that Kiviat’s columns run under the moniker “The Curious Capitalist,” since the ideas expressed in her piece go further than even the free-speech hating Communist Chinese have dared venture in terms of Internet censorship.

“Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be reality,” writes Kiviat. “Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?”

Kiviat ludicrously compares the necessity to show identification when entering a bank vault to the apparent need for authorities to know who you are when you set up a website to take credit card payments.

Read more.