Posted on 11/02/2001 9:04:06 AM PST by Sir Gawain
I'm as dead set against drugs as anybody in the world. There absolutely is no doubt in my mind that drugs will destroy America if not stopped. Drug use is not a victimless crime except in the dazed eyes of those who use the stuff. Those who don't use the stuff are subjected to the social, economic, and political environment created by those using the stuff and who in their state of oblivious escape care naught about living with the chaos they create. People not obliviously stupefied by drugs find living with the grotesqueness of that chaos impossible.
The fact of the matter is that LEGAL, PRESCRIPTION drugs kill more than illegal drugs. And alcohol and cigarettes kill more than legal or illegal drugs. In addition, both alcohol and cigarettes impose a much greater health cost burden on society than illegal drugs.
The fact of the matter is that given a transaction between two consenting adults, and the consentual taking of a substance by an adult does not create chaos. What creates the chaos is the imposition of criminal consequences for these actions. Therefore, the author's virulent diatribe against drugs engages in the same Dadaism that he is condemning.
Dadaism: Formal Definition - A western European artistic and literary movement (1916-23) that sought the discovery of authentic reality through the abolition of traditional culture and aesthetic forms.
Dada was an art movement that was ostrasized from the world of art as it swept through the world like war sweeping thoughout nations. Dadaism brought about everything new: new ideas, new materials, new directions, and new people. Dada had no uniform characteristics as many other movements in the arts have. Dadaist art can be interpreted by each person how they want to see or read it. Dadaism brings out feelings and emotions in each person dependent upon what he or she is going through at the time.
At this point in the series we are now closely converging upon or paralleling two recent articles, A World Gone Mad by Peter Topolewski and Avoiding the Apocalypse, by Wolf DeVoon. This is not to assert they would agree with absolutely everything said in this series.
Many Americans desperately seek refuge against the legally and socially imposed madness of liberalism. Aggressive psychotic liberalism has become a world movement and there is no place to run or hide. By the early 90s the noose was being tightened to the point where steps toward imposing lethality were being implemented for non-participation.
In its initial phases liberalism declared a struggle to obtain free expression for itself. This further evolved into a suppression of expression of contesting views and finally, death to those who refused to cooperate with it.
There is a difference between the process that occurred in Nazi Germany and the process that occurred, and is occurring, in America. Nazism was tactical. Hitler's view was, "Give me a man who can knock a man down." His troops knocked people down, and it worked. Liberalism/leftism was, and is, strategic. It moved into the educational institutions in wholesale quantities during the 30s and created self-replicating diseased mentalities among the soft, self-indulgent, and physically cowardly. With the displacement of free vitality by the disease, and the ascendancy of the disease into political and social institutions, the strategic trap was set and increasing numbers of disease products of the system voted the disease upon themselves and their neighbors as a willing act of democracy. The derived institutions, not individuals, will knock men down. Resistance in any form is declared a crime against democracy and the people's elected government.
We now have people so involved in personal excesses and so incompetent in their personal lives that enslavement, particularly enslavement of others, is a welcome tool for avoidance of personal responsibility.
By the beginning of the 1990s the system was at first tenatively exercising a license to kill noncooperatives.
-----------------
No he didn't engage in any such thing. You are just too feeble of cognitive mentality to understand what was said.
What a disappointment you are. I think I'd have gotten a better fight out of Tiny Tim while he was tip-toeing through the tulips.
Osama makes a lot of sense to some folks too.
There's no accounting for rationality, consistency, mental health or taste in this world.
YOU sound a whole lot more like Clinton and the rest of the liberals than I do. YOU'RE using their tactics. Your methods have made you.
When you actually have a point to make, call me.
I said he had good points, but then negated them when he engaged in the same Dadaism that he was railing against.
One doesn't have a very convincing argument against gambling when one spends every last dime they have at the slots.
His arguments would have stood unquestioned by me if he himself did not engage in his ridiculous tirade against consenting adults doing something in their home that hurts no one, with the only negative consequences to others being those that are created by the CRIMINALIZATION of their consentual act.
Or did alcohol prohibition and Al Capone somehow miss you in American History class?
Your analogy of the man whose fortune is wasted at the slot machine having no right to talk about the evils of gambling fails. Just because a man can not control the demons that are destroying him, does not mean he can not accurately see that destruction and realize the root cause of it.
You have unreasonably latched on to a minor clause in his statement and tried to use it to discredit the major thesis. Perhaps RLK comes from an environment where illicit drug use has had serious and devastating consequences to the surrounding community. Crack houses in the hood, are nothing like suburbanites having a joint on the patio. I am surprised at your approach on this thread, having read your comments in other places.
I'm not feeble in cognitive mentality in understanding that you should have used "I" in that statement.
No, I didn't engage in any such thing.
Just seems kind of strange to be talking about yourself that way since you say you wrote the article. You talk in the third person instead of the first person when talking about the author.
Or do you normally talk about yourself that way?
Don't bother replying "Robert", strictly rhetorical.
I have 900 pages of substance at one site alone...
Oh my...so prolific. Anything new or just the old stuff?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.