By Greg Johnson | 32 Comments |
Print
Drug Legalization in the White Republic

I’d do it. I’d push the button.
If there were a button that would instantly and painlessly annihilate alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, and all other addictive recreational drugs, I would push it, simply because nothing has done more damage to the people I love, including my race as a whole.
I do not think that our enemies could have pushed the destruction of the white race to this point if we were not so prone to turn our anger inward and numb ourselves with drink and drugs. Without them, white people would be a whole lot meaner and harder to push around, and that would be a good thing.
I would push the button, even though I am not immune to the pleasures of alcohol. In fact I love it, albeit in moderation. Some of my friends call me a teetotaler and a killjoy, but that is only because they are alcoholics.
But let’s wrench ourselves away from such a utopian vision and turn our attention to Realpolitik. When a white homeland is established in North America, its founders will eventually get around to the issue of drug laws.
I think that a white ethnostate should consider junking most of America’s drug laws. I think we should consider making alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, opiates, psychedelics, uppers, downers, and the like available for purchase without special taxes and restrictions, save two: first, to buy and use such drugs, one must be a responsible adult (18 or over and of sound mind) and second, there should be strict penalties for those who become addicted to drugs and thus cannot fulfill their familial and social responsibilities.
Why do I favor such sweeping liberties regarding drug use? Let me first make it clear that I am not a libertarian. I don’t believe that human beings have some sort of natural “rights” to the maximum amount of liberty possible, consistent with the equal liberty of others. Nor do I believe that the sole legitimate function of the state is to insure the freedom of social atoms to pursue their individual goals.
I am not an individualist, but a racial collectivist, a racial communitarian. For me, political philosophy begins with the question of what institutions, laws, and customs are necessary for the survival and flourishing of race. It just so happens that a good deal of individual liberty makes sense in the context of a white society.
In particular, I believe that today’s drug laws just would not make sense in a healthy and homogeneous white society, simply because such a society would lack the two main reasons why present-day drug laws exist: (1) a culture that encourages selfishness, hedonism, irresponsibility, and prolonged adolescence, and (2) the presence of non-white groups with strong genetic predispositions to drug and alcohol abuse and inferior capacities to control their appetites and impulses.
Individual liberty makes sense only if people are responsible enough not to abuse it. Today’s white Americans—from the boomers on—are perhaps the most immature and irresponsible generations in our history. Liberty is not just wasted on us, it is an actual danger. So all talk of drug legalization in the present context is grossly irresponsible. It would just make a bad situation worse.
But this rampant hedonism and irresponsibility is largely artificial. It is the typical product of cultural decadence, in this case a decadence engineered by cultural aliens out to destroy us. But one does not have to go back too many generations to find white men and women who were mature and responsible enough to start businesses and begin families before today’s kids are even allowed to graduate High School.
In a White Republic, adolescence would not be prolonged, and hedonism and selfishness would not be encouraged. Men and women would be ready to assume adult responsibilities by the age of 18, including decisions about using alcohol and other recreational drugs. A White Republic would be all about empowering youth: about giving them what they need so that they can begin independent and productive lives as soon as it is biologically possible.
But what if some of them develop problems? Then society would intervene, on the grounds that individuals are not mere atoms and their problems are not merely private. Drug abuse—whether of drugs that are legal or illegal in today’s society—interferes with the ability of individuals to fulfill their responsibilities to their families, to their race, and even to themselves. Addicts would be forcibly dried out and barred from buying drugs. Repeat offenders should probably be sterilized.
But, by the same token, a society that seeks to cultivate personal responsibility should not deny everyone access to certain substances merely because some people abuse them.
Drug legalization advocates love to point out that many drug laws were racially motivated, and this is true. Laws against opiates were directed at the Chinese. Laws against marijuana and cocaine were directed at blacks.
A homogeneously white society would have no need to use drug laws to target non-white populations. There may, of course, be other reasons to ban such drugs. But at the very least, a homogeneously white society should look for good reasons rather than uncritically carry over laws that are artifacts of the multiracial societies we are struggling to leave behind.
Some people will dismiss such talk because drug legalization is “liberal” and they are “conservatives.” Of course, if one turns the clock back far enough, one will find an America without drug laws and other aspects of the nanny state. So why not conserve that America? Today’s conservatives are often just clinging to the consequences of yesterday’s liberalism.
Others simply have silly racial prejudices about drugs. Alcohol is for white men. Pot is for blacks. But if that is the case, then a society which outlaws blacks will have no need to outlaw pot as well.
Such discussions are, of course, a bit premature. But we will never get from here to there unless we have a pretty clear image of what “there” will look like. Thus there is a place for speculation about the possible laws and institutions of a White Nationalist society.
Although nobody knows how to have fun better than some White Nationalists I know, our enemies have successfully established the image of White Nationalists as dour jackbooted totalitarians. Many of our friends have helped them, truth be told. Thus it is useful to emphasize anything that conflicts with that stereotype.
I submit that there is a lot of appeal to the image of a society in which children of the sun are equipped with the independence and responsibility of adulthood in the full bloom of youth, so that they can enjoy the freedom to explore, create, and celebrate life. Jackboots optional.
That said, since alcohol is already a major problem in today’s White Nationalist movement, the last thing we need is an influx of drug enthusiasts. Thus although I favor drug legalization in the White Republic, as far as the White Nationalist movement is concerned, I am all for Harold Covington’s General Order #10: Nobody working for a white homeland may use drugs or alcohol for the duration of the struggle.
Let’s save the toasting for the white homeland, comrades. Or for Valhalla.


Our high school English teacher had a rule. No discussion in class of religion or politics. Maybe we should add mind altering substances.
second, there should be strict penalties for those who become addicted to drugs and thus cannot fulfill their familial and social responsibilities.
In a society without social welfare programs, those who became addicted to drugs and couldn’t fulfill their responsibilities would suffer enough without government seeking them out and punishing them. They would lose their jobs, have less initiative and be unable to attract a partner. Women would select against men who had these problems.
People were better when they directly suffered the consequences of their own actions. The state needs to simply get out of the way.
Well Richard I am not so strict as you. The main penalty I envision for addicts is being forced to dry out, with sterilization for the reprobates. Ideally, I would like to salvage as many people as possible rather than just write them off.
This seems to be a bit of a diversion. You are indulging in utopianism. Yes, we once had White societies like this, but we’ve had other kinds as well. Personally, I think it’s premature to start arguing about the proposed constitution of a White ethnostate. First, catch your rabbit.
For most of our country’s history, there was no War on Drugs. Opiates, coca, hemp, alcohol, absinthe and the like were for the most part legally available for those who sought them out.
Were we a nation of zombies? Were our ancestors weak-willed losers who neglected their families and stayed high all day? Did drug-gangs infest urban neighborhoods and fight over turf?
The War on Drugs abrogates individual responsibility. Most of it ills are a function of the black market rather than the chemicals themselves. As a corrupt violent narco-state emerges on our southern border, it spurs even more of its citizens to cross into the US.
When I look at drug prohibition, I see a whole lot of negatives. So what good does it do? Does it keep our kids from getting their hands on drugs? Anyone who believes that needs to get out more. A couple years ago I was hanging out with my nephew and his high school buddies, and the subject of drugs came up. I probed them about their ability to readily obtain pot, coke, ecstasy, etc. Yes, they told, me, they could all quickly score those drugs if they wanted to, but – one of them added – scoring heroin would take a day or two. Here I am a middle aged man and I don’t know where to score drugs (more than anything because I am not interested), but my nephew and his friends all did – and I submit to you that that is the exact opposite of how it should be.
So I ask you advocates of the drug war: if drugs were legal would *you* go out and snort coke and shoot heroin? Of course not.
We have only two choices: (1) end the war on dried vegetables, and proceed to decriminalize, regulate and tax them; or (2) continue business as usual, allow the international drug cartels to grow in wealth and power.
Eventually, this country will decriminalize drugs because the black market pathologies — addiction-supporting crime, corruption of law enforcement, overcrowded prisons — will prove intolerable burdens on non-addicts.
I’d rather step over an addict than get mugged by one.
Police in a White Republic would not go looking for crimes, prying into the privacy of countless innocents in order to find a couple of guilty people.
I think we’d have a hard time keeping guys like CaptainChaos out of this hypothetical White Republic police force and would find ourselves very quickly under the local and national supervision of gestapo-like heresy hunters.
Which is why a White Republic, capital letters, is a bad idea.
And at any rate, if Europeans had enough will to give up liquor in order to save their race, they would have enough will to save their race without giving up liquor. And then some.
Unfortunately the modern situation is not a simple 1:1 field correspondence of competing armies, but an extremely complex interplay of social forces in all but openly hostile mass relation: which is long-hand for we’re not at war, but protracted social war is being waged upon us; therein, diversions like liquor, weed, and even music in my opinion do nothing to advance “our” cause. That said, almost nothing can be done to advance “our” cause, and that cause isn’t even coherent, so nailing theses on the symbolic door is mostly an airing of desiderata.
A White Republic would be all about empowering youth: about giving them what they need so that they can begin independent and productive lives as soon as it is biologically possible.
From the cult of total freedom to total cultivation: recipe for a very droll republic (cf. Third Reich).
Poisons are certainly not for everyone – but then again, neither is suffrage or reproduction. Yet make no mistake, the road of intoxication, inebriation, stimulation, delirium, and hallucination is the poison path; it does not suffer fools.
What? I was certain the road of intoxication, inebriation, stimulation, delirium and hallucination is typically littered with the charred remains of fools, precisely.
…. at the same time it does seem like the best policy to have the people organically determine if fellow citizens are acting in a manner destructive to society as opposed to the state carrying out mechanical programs to do so.
But “organically” is procedural and cannot be obtained by fiat; so any declared social organism would already be a mechanical program of the state. It may be that the age of spontaneous social life-forms has passed; historical knowledge, mass communication, ownership of land, and the panopticon convene to prevent, for the foreseeable and predictable future, any kind of spontaneous social life-form arising away from the terrors of modern life, where alone an organic sensibility of the sort you (and I) prefer would obtain.