O Brave New World

By Dave Yorkshire. The coercion towards the decriminalisation of narcotics by certain fringe, but hugely influential sections of society is by no means new: our drug-addled devotees to the performing arts have been swearing by the mystical properties of opiates for several decades now – usually just before ‘checking into rehab’, as their habit, as ever, spirals out of control.

Heedless of what the majority of the population’s opinion on the subject might be, they have now petitioned for ‘a swift and transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies’.

They can obviously smell the blood oozing from the wounded ConDem beast and believe they will now acquiesce to anything they believe might result in an increase in popularity.

Led by actress Judi Dench (‘actress’ was once a euphemism for something, as I remember), this group of thirty ‘high-profile figures’ includes three former chief constables and various members of the legal profession, which, in itself, is alarming.

The reason given for this petition is that existing legislation regarding drug possession and use has failed. That, one would think, is patently obvious. Yet these luminaries have concluded, no doubt having been influenced by a good friend named Charlie during one of their many soirées, that what is needed is further left-liberalisation, as the prisons are, in any case, too full.

Gordon Sumner, who calls himself Sting, was quoted as saying: ‘It is time to think of more imaginative ways of addressing drug use in our society.’ More imaginative…the mind boggles.

Of further concern is that entrepreneur Richard Branson has added his voice in petitioning the most left-wing Conservative government in history. In a letter to David Cameron, he stated: ‘Should such a review of the evidence demonstrate the failure of the current position we would call for the immediate decriminalisation of drug possession.’

Will we now have Virgin coke as well as Virgin cola, one wonders.

Certainly, I have no doubt that global capitalists would love to get their hands on such a lucrative market in which customers just keep on coming back for more.

Branson is not the only globalist who has expressed an interest in a change in national and international drug law enforcement. The present UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has been urged by his predecessor Kofi Annan, now a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, to make major drugs policy reforms.

The commission called for ‘a truly co-ordinated and coherent global drug strategy that balances the need to stifle drug supply and fight organised crime with the need to provide health services, social care, and economic development to affected individuals and communities.’

The commission’s words are as vacuous as any mention of a cogent plan is lacking, which suggests that what is important is that the ‘strategy’ is globalised if not necessarily efficacious.

Legalising the problem, of course, means there is no longer a problem, legally speaking. Yet what would be legalised next to reduce the crime figures? Petty theft? Burglary?

Strangely, there is often a link between theft and drug addiction. Would this be because drug addicts cannot function as normal human beings, whereby they can hold down a regular job and must therefore resort to stealing to feed their habit? One would be mad to think so, the notion coming from so far outside the box of cultural Marxism.

One of the key concepts of both the commission and the celebrities’ plans is that of improving health care to those ‘affected’ by drugs.

One notes they always use the passive form of a verb that is, in any case, vague to obviate any notion of responsibility. Indeed, the difference between the genuinely ill and drug addicts is that the genuinely ill are not so because of a choice in lifestyle.

To regard drug addicts as suffering from an illness is an insult to those who are genuinely ill and to the taxpayer who must foot the bill.

The taxpayer might also demand where the money would come from to fund the drug addict’s expensive habit, given the fact a large percentage do not work and that one must deter them from a life of crime.

Would these celebrities be willing to contribute to the added taxes brought about by the government’s provision of drugs free from the harmful additives found in illegal narcotics?

As they currently patronise numerous charities in order to avoid taxation, I would suggest the answer would be a resounding no. Again, honest workers would find themselves paying for the indolence of others.

The danger would also be that whoever supplies such addictive nepenthe has unrivalled control over those who imbibe thereof. Would such power be abused by our lords and masters?

When one considers that voting is consistently gerrymandered towards favouring the ruling élite, Andrew Neather’s article for the London Evening Standard about the real reason for mass-immigration having let the cat out of the bag, one can see that drug addicts would always vote for their suppliers and recriminalizing drug possession as a policy would be effectively negated once the drug-using percentage of the population reached a certain level, regardless of any increase in criminality that may be caused. It would, to paraphrase Neather, render the right’s arguments ‘out of date’.

It is not difficult to envisage a future world not dissimilar to that in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World, where everyone is dependent on the government-issued drug Soma, which is used as a means of controlling the masses through pleasure and addiction.

Huxley based the novel on Communist and socialist theories towards the creation of a ‘utopian’ global dictatorship – most notably those of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, H G Wells and George Bernard Shaw, which share a vision of utopia as being that in which people are reduced to social functions and divorced from their natural state.

Wells and Shaw were, of course, both members of the Fabian Society, that malign fellowship of social and socialist engineers that has more recently included the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

It also served as a think-tank for New Labour policies – policies it seems David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s ConDem coalition has largely subsumed as part of its general ethos.

Indeed, many of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats’ policies could come straight from the pages of Huxley’s novel: the sexualisation of children; the attempt to debase and discourage marriage and normal familial relations; the advocacy of sexual promiscuity; the replacement of eternal spiritual values with ephemeral superficiality, materialism and funk.

This, when coupled with the now familiar Orwellian ‘hatecrimes’ and surveillance systems in all our towns, cities, shops, public buildings etc., shows how far we have come towards the dystopian visions of our literary greats.

The creation of a population of servile state dependants would be just another step along the way.

As if to anticipate this renewed assault on drugs laws, the appropriately named Professor David Nutt stated last year that alcohol is more harmful to society than crack cocaine and heroin after another pseudo-scientific ‘study’.

This came after another nutty professor, this time Sir Ian Gilmore, had stated that cocaine should be legalised, as it would (and note the repetition of argumentation) ‘drastically reduce crime and improve health.’

I have another idea. Drug trafficking and dealing in Singapore, once a part of the British Empire, carries the death penalty. Perhaps not uncoincidentally, drug problems are virtually unknown and crime is negligible.

Left-liberals would argue that the state of harmony exists merely because of a good economy, creating widespread affluence, but is a good economy not created by a healthy and able workforce and by government investment that is hindered by having to budget inordinately for crime and state benefits?

Unfettered crime also has a demoralising effect on the law-abiding majority, leading to a general apathy that again has consequences on the economy.

Singapore’s laws, incidentally, are based heavily on British law from before the 1960s’ leftist cultural revolution; the death sentence is effected by the long drop method of hanging developed by William Marwood.

As a last comment, many left-liberals have internalised the assumption that opiates tend to endow their consumers with extraordinary talents. They usually cite the pop stars of the 1960s and the Romantic poets as examples.

The fact is in such cases, however, that the talent generally leads to success and to the lifestyle of which drug use is part rather than the reverse. What drug use does seem to lead to though is a ready acceptance of neo-Marxist ideas, perhaps due the brain shifting from a natural to an unnatural state in which theories contrary to nature can be normalised.

With regard to unnatural states, this time in a political sense, if a large portion of the populace is dependent on the state for drugs, the state becomes unassailable and its evil neo-Marxist doctrine unchallengeable.

7 thoughts on “O Brave New World

  1. This seems to me something of a knee-jerk article. There seems to be an assumption that all nationalists must oppose the legalisation of drugs, and that those who favour the legalisation of recreational drug use must somehow be “neo-Marxists” or “left-liberals.”

    In fact, the prohibition of recreational drug use is a serious restriction of individual freedoms, and just the sort of oppressive behaviour which should be expected from the totalitarian left. Furthermore the illicit drug trade may well be largely controlled and operated by immigrants.

    I do not personally either drink or use recreational drugs, but I think it is fair to say that most nationalists I have known have enjoyed the effects of alcohol. If I happened to prefer to use cannabis that is my pleasure, it should not be anyone else’s business.

  2. Legalised or not the non prescribed use of drugs for pleasure, like alcohol, causes numerous social, as well as criminal, problems.
    Legalising drugs will not lessen those problems as those involved in the illicit trade will merely find something else to peddle with a greater buzz in the same way that alcohol is no longer sufficient for those who take drugs. Drugs were not a massive issue when I was young. Society’s liberal minded weakness has created the problem not strict enforcement of currently non existent anti drug laws.
    If people choose to fry their brains with unneeded pharmaceuticals it is true to say it is their business but the results, as with alcohol, do not end with the user.

  3. I just noticed your grouping of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky along with H G Wells and George Bernard Shaw. The first three were Jews, and two of them were mass-murderers. Wells and possibly Shaw were British writers, not murderers, and favoured a rational variety of socialism, in which people weren’t penalised e.g. for being born in poverty.

    I’m not sure why your writer deliberately confuses these; it’s a bit like grouping Idi Amin and a couple of other unattractive blacks, with Newton and Darwin and saying they were all ‘scientific activists’.

  4. Revisionist, read the article more carefully: this was Huxley’s satire on the aforementioned people’s visions of society. Huxley was critiquing Wells’ Men Like Gods, as well as Shaw’s socialist ideas. Shaw was an avid Marxist, even trying to claim Wagner as a Marxist – see The Perfect Wagnerite. Wells too admired the Soviet Union, yet simultaneously hated the Jews – I find this paradoxical. Shaw was an admirer of the Jews – see Man and Superman. Personally, I am not a socialist of any description, as any socialist doctrine tends to try to adapt people to formulas and I would criticise all those mentioned on this point. As for your last comment, sorry but it’s nonsensical.

  5. I missed out the bit about Huxley, because Brave New World is something of an irrelevance, having nothing about any modern drug. Moreover, it seems to have been based on a Bertrand Russell book on Science and the future; at least, that’s what Russell said.

    The point about ‘a rational variety of socialism’ is that is is widely accepted. Are you sure, for example, that you oppose the NHS and things like primary schooling out of taxes, and street lighting, which are technically ‘socialist’?

    My last comment in fact makes perfect sense. Bracketing Idi Amin, Bokassa and some African scribbler along with two white intellectuals is roughly analogous to the five names you gave. You may disagree, but it’s not nonsensical.

  6. I personally see socialism as having hijacked Christian duties of care and then having retrospectively claimed that they invented them. Socialism requires an all-pervasive state that inevitably encroaches on personal freedoms. Certainly, the rise of Chartist movements were necessary to protect the working class from an emerging industrialist class that was made up of the vulgar, money-grubbing, Jewish-aligned sections of the middle and upper classes that had, in their atheism, forgotten Christian duties of care. But this itself was hijacked by the proto-Zionist Marx and his cronies, whence socialism emerges. What should have been a recurrence of the Peasants’ Revolt, in which the working class would have been given more protection within the given social structures, became the ‘long march’ towards the neo-Marxist society we have now, ensured by the weakened crown and Communist hijackers.

    Despite Huxley’s satire of the aforementioned politicians and writers’ ideas, the big influence on the novel was Yevgeny Zamyatin’s ‘We’ – the father of modern dystopian novels (although Huxley denied this). On the contrary, Revisionist, Brave New World heavily satirises drug use and dependency and how it can be used by the state and I suggest you read the novel (again?) and then come back to me.

Leave a Reply