On Stormfront, there is a big argument over whether Stormfront should ever allow anyone to even joke about “drug use.” The last entry so far is someone who thunderingly announces “we” are against condoning drug use.
As Kelso keeps reminding me, there is no such thing as a “we” here. Stormfront, as Kelso points out, does not EXIST in that sense. SF is for pro-whites to talk to each other.
That is Stormfront’s ONLY position, which is why we have vociferous members from Puritans to societal rebels with metal in their tongues and tatoos on their arms. We try to practice moderating, but not censorship, which those who wrote the first amendment expected any rational American to try to do.
WE, i.e., Stormfronters, even have a separate but equal section for antis, which is more than they will ever do for us.
I seriously doubt that in the four million posts we have now had on SF that more than ten writers would have denied me the use of drugs when I was injured or undergoing brain and heart surgery.
At this point one of Mommy Professor’s trainees would say, “Well, what we mean is ILLICIT drug use.”
But that is why my blog is called Bob’s Underground GRADUATE Seminar, BUGS. We call it GRADUATE because “This blog is for people who have outgrown their college education, whether they had one or not.”
So, while the rest of the world stops with that word “illicit,” BUGS thinking BEGINS where Mommy Professor leaves off. I would scold one of our team if he or she left it at that, and they jump right back on me when I get intellectually lazy like that.
What is “illicit?” It means something that has not been approved by someone in a doctor’s costume. There is a place to find the REAL backgrounds of doctors. It is shocking what they get away with. And every year doctors declare that what they said last year is wrong in some cases, which is GOOD. They are not Mommy Professors, if it doesn’t WORK, doctors often just throw it out, unlike social programs.
As for addiction, AA has a motto, “Recovery is not for people who NEED it, it is for people who WANT it.” Be it porn or drugs, society can TRY to protect the young from it. But you cannot practice multiculturalism by mixing cultures who take drugs as a matter of course and races whose only adjectives are “s…” and “f…ing” and THEN try to protect your children.
In other words, WE pro-whites are on the REAL issue here already. Before integration, drug abuse was largely restricted to blacks and Puerto Ricans. White Americans did not HAVE a drug problem outside of alcohol until the 1960s. And no country ever made as titanic an effort as Americans did to protect everybody from alcohol.
Alcohol is a DRUG, according to AA and NA. America, in fifty states and two hundred years and Prohibition, not to mention local option, has TRIED every method imaginable to restrict alcohol for generations, we have learned a lot of lessons, and we, being Americans, differ wildly about words like “illicit” and “abuse” that others simply make into law and no longer debate.
So is the answer simply to ban everybody who does not agree that all drugs are subject to the whim of a guy in a doctor suit? I’d be the first one out.
We, i.e. Americans, live in the ONLY country on this planet where our own pro-white point of view can be LEGALLY expressed, and here we are saying that no pro-white here should be allowed to SPEAK his opinion on drug use for fear of offending the Puritans or ruining the kiddies. If we go that way, SF would be put out of business tomorrow. Hell, this is the day of satellite communications, TODAY.
In Britain they ban any access to BUGS on library computers because it is “illicit.” I refuse to go down THAT road.
Let me save you the trouble: “What about NAMBLA? Do we have to allow people to push man-boy sex here, too?”
This is not a criticism of what I just said. I started out by saying that we have to have moderation, not censorship, and that is why being an active moderator, something I don’t have the guts to do, is so terribly difficult. No thundering generality will substitute for thought IF WE (ANY “we) ARE TO BE A FREE PEOPLE. That’s why a black country can never really be free.
I do not want to exclude people from Stormfront who do not agree with the medical establishment on drug use. It is their racial views that matter. When a people cannot distinguish between banning and decent distinctions, they are already slaves.
#1 by shari on 07/18/2007 - 12:54 pm
My daughter is an RN. Pharmacy “reps” come in all the time with literally free lunches. Not too long ago, one cornered her and tried to sweet talk {bribe] her into looking up information on office computers for him. So there are “legitimate” pushers too. She promptly sic’ed the office manager on him. And, thank goodness, she is a force to be reconned with.
Drugs aside, how do you pass on strong morals of any sort in mixed race individuals or society? Racial intregrity does not eliminate sin, but without it, sin runs rampant. I am seeing how racial integrity is basic to social build-up or it’s break-down.
By the way, non-whites have benefitted from this too. The notion that they have just been mistreated, is a lie straight out of the pit.
#2 by Hardric on 07/18/2007 - 3:22 pm
There are many many problems which are Race related, and trying to worry about them or resolve them without resolving the Racial Issue really makes it difficult. First Race, the we can go back to how many angels can dance on the proverbial pinhead.
#3 by Mark on 07/18/2007 - 4:17 pm
“White Americans did not HAVE a drug problem outside of alcohol until the 1960s.”
My father, god bless his soul, was born in 1929. He liked to keep his head in the sand — a good example of the WW2 generation. One day whenI was in my early 20’s I asked him about drug abuse in his day. With a bewildered look in his eye he said something to the effect that way back when (before civil rights) the only drug use one heard of was with orientals who smoked their opium. He said that with a flavor of distaste for anything oriental. He said in my granfather’s day a hookah full of dope was sold at St. Louis lunch counters, but the only takers were foreigners and blacks. Had the establishment not outlawed opium, I’m sure it would still be available in inner city restaurants, although and unfortunately, the clientelle would be an even mix between colored and white.
#4 by Prometheus on 07/18/2007 - 8:11 pm
The issue is the racial integrity of people who are capable of being truly free.
Mommy tells children what they can and can’t do (censorship) because children aren’t capable of thinking these things out themselves.
Mommy Professor tells her children (us) what we can and can’t do because Mommy Professor knows better.
For Mommy Professor, a grown adult is to them, no different than a child to their mother.
So where does someone who wants even speaking about drugs stopped stand?
Are they in the ranks of independent, free thinking rational whites, or children demanding protection from a higher authority?
#5 by Tim on 07/18/2007 - 9:59 pm
The drug issue is a race issue. It is also rooted in Wordism. I want the Wordist’s to be stigmatized more and more. “Blood before Money and Wordism” should be our motto. And that should be Stormfront’s Motto on the front page.
Puritans and other Wordist’s can get their own thread BUT they cannot dictate control over other threads. I don’t mind Puritanical Pilgrims in the struggle BUT they must be loyal to OUR TRIBE before they are loyal to the Pilgrims. If not, no leadership position for them and squelch them out!
Hmmm, maybe we should tell the Stormfronters that Wordism is a Jewish Conspiracy. That would go like wildfire and may be our solution once and for all!
I despise Wordism more and more each day……….and it does not matter what the word is. It is literally the sole cause of all ills on this planet. I have been in the habit of saying to people in an argument:”If only we believe your words than the world will be ok…right? Well I don’t believe in Wordism and it does not matter what the Word is”. Everyone seems to be a little thrown off by that. On this blog, we just tend to be more grown up than the average spoon fed fool…..even if some of us our younger. Wordism is a plague on my Aryan brain.
If I ever write a book it will be titled “Zen and the Art of Anti-Wordism”
#6 by Al Parker on 07/19/2007 - 12:42 am
Well, about the people with tongue piercings, I remember somebody saying on an unrelated website that piercings and tattoos (body modifications) are widespread in Germany in particular because “Germans are very conformist.” Conformist, NOT rebellious.
If that is true, they are conformists now, but the trend setters and the early adopters were truly rebels.
Anyway, I guess the point is you don’t really know in actuality what your comrades look like. I found the latest article on New Right Australia New Zealand very interesting. It says that nationalists should eschew brown for black, like the German Freie Nationalisten are doing. They “conform” to the image of radical activists by dressing in black, along with scarves, hats, sunglasses — just like their anti-racist left wing opponents. They hope to infiltrate and agitate the radical political arena by taking on their very issues — like anti-globalism, anti-war and anti-Israel — by demonstrating and showing themselves to be the true radical opposition and, I think, “take over” the movement.
I only wonder how they wouldn’t risk losing their core values by imitating and/or melding with this bigger group. Also, I’m not sure if people who oppose Jewish nationalism would support another nationalism.
New Right pulls no punches, as you can read in their Freaks in the Movement essay.
#7 by mderpelding on 07/21/2007 - 1:57 am
Who would you rather bed?
A white girl with piercings and tatoos and such?
Or a good clean living Christian negress?
This should not even be a question worthy of consideration.