(NaturalNews) Thirty years ago, Nancy Reagan launched her version of the war on drugs: "just say no."
She campaigned on that slogan all over America.
She was lampooned as an idiot.
Now, some researchers estimate that 60% of the Mexican economy would crash if the drug business disappeared there. We have US street gangs operating as retailers for Mexican cartels. We have Mexican cartel soldiers living in suburban homes outside American cities, guarding rooms piled to the ceiling with cash.
US banks are laundering drug money. In Mexico, battling cartels have murdered 50,000 people over the past several years.
We have scores of serious reports from former DEA agents about the collusion of US federal agencies in the drug trade.
Right now, in Chicago, US attorneys are winning delay after delay in the trafficking trial of Jesus Niebla, a Sinaloa cartel lieutenant who was busted in 2009. The issue? Niebla's lawyers claim the US government granted Sinaloa immunity from prosecution, in return for intell on rival cartels. The government doesn't want possible evidence of this claim to see the light of day.
The war on drugs was lost a long time ago.
How many lives do you think have been destroyed, how many marriages ruined, how much violence committed, on the basis of booze since 1933, when Prohibition was lifted?
Legalize drugs, don't legalize them, people find them and buy them and ingest them. They develop physical illnesses. They deteriorate.
The number of lives destroyed by drugs, and the peripheral ripples, continue to increase.
We're left with: just say yes or just say no. And it isn't some Sinaloa chief who says it. It's the user, the person who swallows it or snorts it or shoots it. It always was.
For those people who love citing poverty, abuse, lack of education as the social causes of drug use, the answer is a program to lift up the poor. But despite billions of dollars in aid, over decades, such a program, in the hands of the government, hasn't shown results. The actual intent to foster dependence on government is the covert purpose of this op.
It may be insensitive and cruel to suggest that the poor have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and revolutionize their own communities, but it is another hard fact of life. The government isn't going to do it. All previous attempts have ended in disaster. The condition of the poor in this country is worse than it was 30 years ago.
So even at that level of society, "just say no" applies. People who are better off may find this intolerable. They may say we can't consign the poor to making their own hard decisions. They may say it's inhuman. They may say Bill Gates can save Detroit with computers in every classroom. They may say anything. But what they're saying isn't making any difference.
I fully realize that making no difference doesn't deter these caring individuals from their idealism. They wear it as a badge of honor, and they don't give a damn what the results show.
The federal government is fully aware, for example, that drug gangs in inner cities are causing enormous destruction. But are these gangs the targets of any successful program of deterrence or elimination?
On a larger scale, is Mexico going to destroy its drug business? The answer in both cases is no.
People speak of high-level corruption. Of course it exists. Governments and banks profit from drugs. In many ways. You could say banks are leaders in the drug business. You could say they ultimately run it.
But what does that do for the addict, for the chronic user?
The person at the end of the supply line, the user, says yes or no. If you think there is no wisdom in that, you're surrendering far more than lives destroyed by drugs. You're advocating the destruction of lives in which the freedom to choose is eliminated by a social construct that, in one way or another, denies such freedom exists.
It's a hell of a lot harder to affirm freedom in Iraq than it is in Scarsdale or Beverly Hills. But that doesn't mean we should have invaded Iraq and mangled millions of lives. If we really wanted freedom to exist there, we would have left those people to their own devices. Why? Because you can't deliver freedom like a steak on a plate to someone else.
They have to take it. And sometimes that means risking life and limb.
My best friend, when I was 20, killed himself on drugs. He could have chosen a different road. He didn't. It was expected, by his wife and friends, that he would kill himself. Naturally, they wanted him to get healthy and strong instead, but he went another way. They were there to help him, but he didn't take the help. So they knew he would do himself in.
He was smart enough to know he had a choice. He chose. On some level, everyone is that smart. To keep saying, over and over and over and over, that people can't choose to stop taking drugs, is a fatal position.
Yes, families help, and yes, friends can help, and yes, there are groups that can help. But the user is the one who decides.
You have to ask yourself this: what culture is better and stronger and safer? The one that regards freedom and choice as primary values, or the one that claims these qualities don't really exist at all?
So now we come to pharmaceutical drugs, which in the US kill, at minimum, 106,000 people a year. (See Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, "Is US health really the best in the world?")
The CDC has just reported that a staggering 6.4 million American children under the age of 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. This figure includes one out of five boys of high school age. Every one of these children has, of course, been prescribed Ritalin or Adderall.
This corporate-government juggernaut wants more control than it has now. By legislation, by edict, by regulation, people will no longer be able to refuse medication---that's its goal. Under Obamacare, the ability to achieve this objective improves.
Patients can be intimidated. They can be told they must obey their doctors if they want to stay in the program. They can be exiled if they're labeled "resistant" or "non-compliant."
But as with street drugs, the onus would fall on the user, and he would make the choice. Say yes or no to a drug. Regardless of consequences, the choice is there.
Freedom and choice. This society is moving away from these values like an express train. The ticket to ride is "victim status." You buy that, you're on the train.
You keep telling people who live hard lives they have no choice, they're suffering from social injustice and diseases of addiction, and so forth, and you draw in believers. Whether you're right or wrong in your assessments of other people's problems, if you deny choice and freedom, you're helping to kill hope at the deepest level.
You may like what you're hearing yourself say, you may believe you're on the side of the angels, you may feel better, you may be able to argue your position cogently, but you're in the killing fields with a scythe.
The pundits on television with their careful hair and their bland smiles and their earnest expressions are waving scythes, when they cite all the social and economic reasons people can't rise up on their own. These social critics are trying to create a culture in which only the powerful criminals survive. They may as well be peddling crack on a street corner.
"We just want to help the less fortunate," delivered with a goonish thrust, is the same lie it always was. It's superiority in sheep's clothing.
The drug dealer sees through that in a second. Put him on television and let him speak uncensored, and very soon you'll notice a real and inconvenient truth swim to the surface: people make choices.
The dealer knows that. His job is to make those choices as hard as possible. He works that angle all day and all night. If he bothers to listen to the pundits, he celebrates their lies. They're helping him do business. They're peddling the psychological equivalent of physical addiction.
Addiction to the idea that there really is no freedom:
"Nobody can say no and nobody can say yes. It's all up to the machinery turning in the brain. It's all social and economic. It's all predetermined." That's the big infomercial and the big sales campaign and the big lie.
It's taken root. The roots are so deep even middle-class kids are trying to figure out how they can qualify as victims with a disability. ADHD is right up there on their list.
The street drug dealer and the doctor are basically operating on the same premise. Use every available strategy to cut off the possibility of choice by the user.
But the eternal fact about freedom is anybody can choose it at any time. No permission required.
If the government really wanted to start solving the problems (including drugs) of inner cities in America, you would see a completely different approach. It would be based on encouraging at least some degree of freedom and strength---which runs counter to government's aims. Instead of the interminable agency and task force bullshit which is par for the course in poverty programs, you would see, for a millionth of the $$ now being doled out, people participating in building their own homes, growing their own food in vast urban farms, making their own clothes.
But instead, you see funding, funding, funding, drugs, drugs, and drugs, more and more poverty.
You hear generality after generality after generality, about "the moral imperative to help the downtrodden," dissolve into nothing. No progress, no betterment, only destruction.
It's a straight con.
Freedom, power, and choice are the only way out.
Take a bombed-out destitute city like Detroit. To the precise degree the residents of Detroit have bought the idea that help and liberation are on the way and they have no power of choice over their own future, they're paralyzed and doomed. That's the plain fact. You can try to weasel your way around it and make excuses and say you're for "a humane answer" and "there is a moral obligation," but that rides on the wind like dust.
If tomorrow, the people of Detroit said ENOUGH and came out of their homes on to the dangerous streets, whose drug-thugs are keeping them hostage and guaranteeing their long slide into sickness and death; if the people of Detroit took over large swathes of land and started growing food, because food is survival, and if those who had guns stood guard over that land around the clock and protected it as their last refuge against decimation, they could begin to reverse the tide. That is a choice called freedom. It's a choice called power.
I once interviewed a crack dealer who told me, "I live on that government bullshit." He was saying the promises and the humanitarian clap-trap and the sentimental musings and oozings were the staple that kept the poor in check, in the middle of nowhere, in a squeeze play. Ripe for drugs.
He was saying the government wants people to be addicted to drugs.
And this is true, all the way from crack to Prozac.
So if the government of the United States hadn't made a deal to keep Sinaloa, the largest drug cartel in Mexico, out of prison, that would truly be a shock. The Sinaloa is a key element of US government domestic policy.
So is Big Pharma. They are the two pillars of the real structure of government.
This is why, for instance, you can read studies about levels of depression among residents of inner cities. Calling depression in those areas a brain chemical imbalance is like saying a pilot in a plane that's just dropped a flaming engine into the sea is suffering from Panic Disorder.
The latest "humanitarian" program in these blighted neighborhoods is giving kids Ritalin without even bothering to diagnose ADHD, in order to "level the playing field." Despite studies that show ADHD drugs do no good and are highly toxic, psychiatrists are feeding these kids cheap speed to "help them in school."
Street drugs aren't enough. Pharmaceutical psychotropics have to be introduced.
The best definition of depression is: a person won't fight his way out of feeling depressed. That also is considered a cruel assessment. Maybe it is, but it's accurate. It's accurate in Beverly Hills and the south side of Chicago and the slums of Bombay. It's accurate in the American midwest where farms have been hit by long droughts and in parts of Ethiopia.
People change their circumstances by choosing to take action and then taking it. Nothing can alter that formula.
Yes, help can arrive, and help can help, but whether it does or doesn't, people have to pull themselves up. They can do it, or they can refuse to do it. If they refuse, they pay the price.
Relying on government for a solution is dangerous. Waiting for idealists to change government's mind about helping is very dangerous.
Just ask people in parts of Africa where, like gifts from heaven, doctors arrive with drugs and vaccines. The vaccines push already compromised immune systems over the edge into failure, and the drugs, many of them past expiration date, spoiled from lack of refrigeration, and toxic to begin with, kill and maim.
It's chemical warfare. It's chemical warfare on the streets with drugs sold by cartels, and it's warfare from Big Pharma. The promise is always Relief, but the tightening spiral takes people down into destruction.
Governments are basically selling less freedom and more drugs as an answer, and they're packaging it as We Care.
For people who really want to lift the poor, here is a piece of advice. Ask yourself, what would really help people become freer, stronger, and more self-reliant? Find answers that actually fit that bill, and then put those answers into action. Don't wait. Forget the government. Organize on your own, and launch.
Freer, stronger, more self-reliant. Able to choose. Able to say yes or no. Those are qualities that represent a platform from which a life can be lived.
Anytime you see a program based on "we're going to give you what you need, and then we're going to do that again and again and again and again," know you're looking at an op designed to torpedo the core of what a human being is.
Turn your telescope around. You've been looking through the wrong end.
Try reading a history of drug companies like Hoffman La Roche, Sandoz, and Boehringer. Starting in the early years of the 20th century, they shipped large quantities of heroin and cocaine to the Far East. When necessary, they used falsified records, shell companies, and foreign staging areas to circumvent confiscation and arrest.
Little has changed since the British Opium Wars against China. These days, the PR is much better. So are government connections and support. The main players have better teeth and smile often. It's still More Drugs, More Human Destruction, More Profits, Less Freedom.
Here's another factor to contemplate. For corporations listed on The New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ: if the extent to which these companies relied on laundered street-drug cash were known, trading markets across the world would crash in 24 hours.
That tells you two things. Governments aren't going to fight a real war on drugs, no matter what. And the end user of those drugs, the person who snorts and shoots and swallows them, is funding those corporations and holding up the global trading markets, on his back, as he goes down the tunnel to oblivion, to be replaced by a fresh customer.
So if you think that, somehow, help is on the way to users, rich or poor, and the choice to take or not take drugs is in the hands of people other than the users, think again. And again.
Bill Hicks, one of the truly great comedians of our time, used to say:
"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace."
Yes, we could. And we could repeat what Bill said many times, and still the "we," which turns out to be the government/corporate nexus, would have no intention of producing Christmas on Earth.
That's why the burden falls on the end user. The end user of drugs, the end user of intelligence, of hope, of desire, of courage, of whatever he uses and decides to use.
The true cruelty is omitting that factor from the equation, omitting it in what we teach ourselves and those we profess to care about.
Sometimes freedom and choice are easy. Sometimes they're very hard. But no matter who you are, no matter what your circumstances, no matter where you live, you always choose. You can default that natural right and fact, in which case that was your decision.
Whether we're talking about street drugs or pharmaceuticals, whether we're talking about people who live in Beverly Hills or South Central LA, whether we're talking about Fair or Unfair, the building block is freedom. The individual chooses.
The most basic psyop of our time is the denial of the existence of freedom. And in many ways, life seems to cooperate with that psyop. It seems to say, as it always has, since the beginning of time: you have no freedom, you have no choice, you must give in.
That is the grand illusion.
People say, "That's not right. Many people simply don't have the means to make choices. They're at the bottom of the ladder. They can only climb it with outside help, lots of it."
I point out, again, that this notion, no matter how well-intentioned, can't ever replace the individual's courage to take his freedom in his own hands.
I began this article to expose the obvious but overlooked fact that the population is a target of chemical warfare from drugs. And yes, I know there are still other chemicals involved. Fluorides, chemtrail heavy metals, pesticides. But I wanted to go for the most basic thing. I ended up at freedom, because our society is leaving it behind.
And the stark truth is, when for any reason under the sun, a person denies or gives up his own freedom to choose, he is doomed. He is waiting for the war to end, and it won't. The quality of help he might or might not receive is always in doubt.
There are thousands and thousands of talk-show hosts and pundits and reporters and academics who, armed with "superior understanding," are ready to take up the cudgel and beat down any attempt to say people must use their freedom to escape their problems and dire circumstances.
These professional liars earn their bread by making it seem obvious that people can't be free, they can only function through massive outside help.
Yes, and that help, of course, would come from the precise people and agencies and companies that are waging the all-out chemical war against the populace.
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
A totalitarian closed circle always does, until you have to live inside it.
Jon Rappoport The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
About the author: The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. www.nomorefakenews.com