eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Humanisme: Le monde moderne est bien trop bon (Making the decisions while bearing none of the costs: It’s the decriminalization, stupid !)

Posté le mardi 16 août 2016 par Admini

Merkel2

Attention: une ignorance peut en cacher une autre !

Ouverture à tout va allemande des vannes face à l’immigration majoritairement musulmane, célébration par le Pape lui-même de l’invasion qui s’en est suivi,  abolition discrète française, sous la menace désormais constante des djihadistes tant violents que « civilisationnels », de la frontière entre immigration régulière et irrégulière, accès du mariage et bientôt de l’adoption et de la gestation pour autrui aux couples de même sexe, légalisation rampante de l’inceste, véritable explosion aux Etats-Unis, suite entre autres à la dépénalisation du cannabis, de la consommation d’héroïne et du nombre de victimes de surdoses …

Y a-t-il une mesure aberrante que nos gouvernants dits progressistes n’auront pas prise ?

Et de mots assez durs, dans la bouche des mêmes et de leur claque médiatique, pour qualifier ces masses prétendument ignorantes …

Qui comme le rappelle très judicieusement l’éditorialiste du Wall Street Journal Peggy Noonan …

Vont seules en subir les conséquences ?

 

 

Admini @ 04:36
Catégorie(s): Bobologie et dhimmitude etLes idiots inutiles etMondialisation


Laisser un commentaire


11 réponses à “Humanisme: Le monde moderne est bien trop bon (Making the decisions while bearing none of the costs: It’s the decriminalization, stupid !)”

  • 11
    JFM:

    תודה

  • 10
    jc durbant:

    Ah, les bons vieux jours du terrorisme palestinien !

    Même si en même temps, il n’a pas tout à fait tort: il y a bien, comme il dit et comme pour la guerre, « dégradation » de la violence mais les Palestiniens en font non seulement pleinement partie mais en sont, comme le rappelle très justement, Evelyn Gordon, les pionniers historiques …

    In the past, groups employing terrorism, such as the Irish Republican Army or the Palestine Liberation Organization, were driven by specific political aims: a united Ireland or an independent Palestine. There was generally a relationship between the organization’s political cause and its violent activities. Jihadists are different. They have little or no explicit political aim but are driven by a visceral hatred of the West. Some commentators claim that an attack like the one in Nice is “blowback” from Western foreign policy, but it’s difficult to discern any rational relationship between Western policy in Iraq or Libya and the murder of revelers on a promenade. (…) Whatever one thinks of the activities of groups like the I.R.A. or the P.L.O., those activities were governed by certain norms and contained a rational kernel. It is the arbitrariness of jihadist violence and its disregard for moral bounds that make it terrifying. What defines jihadist violence today is not righteous anger or political fury but a sense of inchoate, often personal, rage. Such rage is not uniquely Islamist. (…) In the past, the distinction between political violence and sociopathic rage was relatively clear. No longer. There seems today almost a continuum between ideological violence, disjointed fury and some degree of sociopathy or mental illness. What constitutes ideological violence has decayed; instead, amorphous rage has become a persistent feature of public life. One reason is the breakdown of social and moral boundaries that once acted as firewalls against such behavior. Western societies have become more socially atomized and more riven by identity politics. The influence of institutions from the church to labor unions that once helped socialize individuals and inculcate them with a sense of obligation to others has declined. As broader identities have eroded, and traditional social networks and sources of authority have weakened, people’s sense of belonging has become more parochial. Progressive movements that gave social grievance a political form have faded. Instead, the new oppositional movements are often rooted in religious or ethnic identity and take sectarian or separatist forms. There is a growing disaffection with anything “mainstream,” and a perception of the world as out of control and driven by malign forces. All this has helped incubate a sense of rage without an outlet, undermined people’s ties to others as human beings, and weakened the distinction between sociopathy and political violence. It is a world in which, as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany observed last week, the “taboos of civilization” are too easily broken. It is not so much the acts of violence themselves as the seeming fragility of our social and moral orders that makes contemporary terrorism so threatening.

    Kenan Malik

    Palestinian culture encourages suicidal youngsters to kill by offering a simple bargain: Murder a Jew, and you instantly become a hero. While the West has long turned a blind eye to this behavior, its refusal to look reality in the face is now coming back to haunt it. For today, the Islamic State is making the very same tempting offer to distraught Muslims in Western countries–murder a Westerner, and you can instantly become a hero instead of a failure. It’s no accident that several recent terror attacks in Western countries have been carried out by people who apparently had histories of mental illness, including Nice, Orlando, and several attacks in Germany. Nor is it any accident that the Islamic State is cultivating such people. As with many other terrorist techniques pioneered by the Palestinians, ISIS has copied this one precisely because it proved successful–and not just as a means of recruiting assailants.This tactic also serves two other important purposes. First, it encourages an already strong Western tendency to ignore the terrorists’ true aims. I discussed this with regard to the Palestinians in my previous post; a classic example concerning the Islamic State was Kenan Malik’s op-ed in the New York Times on Tuesday. “In the past, groups employing terrorism, such as the Irish Republican Army or the Palestine Liberation Organization, were driven by specific political aims: a united Ireland or an independent Palestine,” Malik wrote. “Jihadists are different. They have little or no explicit political aim but are driven by a visceral hatred of the West.” In reality, Islamic State is quite open about its aims: It wants to destroy the West and establish a global Islamic caliphate. Indeed, being open about its goals is part of how it attracts new recruits, just as Palestinian organizations attract support by boasting of their efforts to destroy the Jewish state. But at the same time, both the Palestinians and ISIS would prefer that the West not take their goals too seriously since, if it did, it might stop supporting the Palestinians or actually get serious about destroying ISIS. The use of emotionally distressed recruits is an ideal way for terrorists to foster confusion about their aims because it makes it even easier for well-meaning Westerners to reassure themselves that Islamist death cults, which exploit such distress to turn people into killers, aren’t actually the problem. The real issue, they tell themselves, is mental health or social alienation.Second, this tactic helps divide the West and turn it against itself, because it reinforces another existing tendency of many well-meaning Westerners–blaming the victim for having driven the attacker to such a dreadful deed. Westerners have been blaming Palestinian terror on Israel for years, and now, many are blaming themselves for ISIS. (…) Using assailants with a history of mental or emotional problems is an ideal way for terrorists to reinforce this tendency as well, because it enables people to focus on the assailant’s distress, and society’s failure to deal with it, rather than on the evil intent of those who incited him to kill by telling him he would thereby become a hero instead of a loser. Yet both gambits are working for ISIS now precisely because Westerners were conditioned for decades to believe them by the way their own journalists, academics, and political leaders insistently treated Palestinian terror as Israel’s fault. Some Westerners, like the young Parisians (…) have so internalized this attitude that they simply transfer it to their own countries; asserting that their society, too, must be to blame for the attacks against it. Others, like Malik, perform a kind of inversion: Indoctrinated to believe that terror is the victim’s fault, yet unable to believe their own societies evil enough to merit such attacks, they resolve the dilemma by asserting that unlike Palestinian violence–which Malik deems “rational” and “governed by certain norms”– jihadist violence must be senseless than rather than purposeful. “It is the arbitrariness of jihadist violence and its disregard for moral bounds that make it terrifying,” he proclaimed (he evidently thinks murdering random civilians in Israel is well within moral bounds). But whichever approach they choose, the one thing people like Malik and those young Parisians aren’t doing is putting the blame where it belongs: on the terrorist leaders who groom perpetrators to commit mass murder by indoctrinating them to believe that the road to glory runs through killing others. Terror can never be defeated until Westerners recognizes the crucial role played by this glorification of murder. And that won’t happen as long as the West keeps giving it a pass among the Palestinians, for they are the ones who pioneered this culture of death and inspired all the subsequent copycats.

    Evelyn Gordon

  • 9
    jc durbant:

    « Pour l’ épidémie de l’usage des opioides – la majorité des addictes ne vient pas de la consommation de cannabis comme ses opposants aiment le prétendre mais de la prescription de medicaments a base d’opioides » …

    Il semble en effet que l’offre licite (pharmacologique) y ait sa part mais je ne vois pas pourquoi il ne faudrait pas tenir compte également de l’offre illicite (« narcotique »), à savoir du côté des stratégies des producteurs et distributeurs menacés par la perte de marché consécutive à la dépénalisation du cannabis ? …

  • 8
    Zoubor:

    La page precedente traduite automatiquement:

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-ww&dl=en&lp=HE_EN&a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.jewish-studies.info%2fnakdi%2520in%2520Syria.htm

  • 7
    Zoubor:

    Un site sur Altushaler – qui a rencontre Abd El kader en Syrie (Golan Syrien, oui les Juifs avaient achette des milliers d’hectares de terres) et l’a aidé en israel apres son retour d’Alger ds les annees 60.
    Il y a tout un paragraph sur lui.
    Il est enterre ds un kibboutz ou j’ai passé plus d’un mois a Afikim ds la Vallée du Jourdain au Sud du lac de Tibériade sous le nom de Dov Golan – l’ours du golan

    http://www.jewish-studies.info/nakdi%20in%20Syria.htm

  • 6
    Zoubor:

    http://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=575592

  • 5
    JFM:

    Cher Zoubor. Pourriez-vous me faire une recherche en hébreu sur Dov Golan un arrière petit fils d4Abd el Kader qui a émigré en Israël, changé de nom et serait devenu plus sioniste que Sharon? Merci d’avance. Mes recherches en Français mènent toutes à des pages écrites par des Arabes et j’aimerais connaitre la version israélienne.

  • 4
    Zoubor:

    Cher JFM – Le plomb et « l’herbe » ….

    Mais gageons qu’a la fin de l’annee Sainte Angela sera proposee pour le Prix Nobel de la Paix apres avoir recu un million de refugies deux annees consecutives…

  • 3
    JFM:

    J’en suis venu à soupçonner que les canalisations de la Chancellerie sont au plomb. Ceci pourrait expliquer les cas de folie bien connus chez les chanceliers allemands. \mode_ironie off

  • 2
    Zoubor:

    Pour l’ épidémie de l’usage des opioides – la majorité des addictes ne vient pas de la consommation de cannabis comme ses opposants aiment le prétendre mais de la prescription de medicaments a base d’opioides:

    Opioid use, both illicit and prescribed, has skyrocketed over the past 15 years. Compelling evidence from the CDC suggests that many people currently addicted to illicit opioids like heroin began with prescription drugs, and a trend in increased prescriptions has coincided with an explosion in overdose deaths

    http://blogs.jwatch.org/frontlines-clinical-medicine/2016/08/10/playing-victim/

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    Lorsque l’esprit impur est sorti d’un homme, il va par des lieux arides, cherchant du repos, et il n’en trouve point. Alors il dit: Je retournerai dans ma maison d’où je suis sorti; et, quand il arrive, il la trouve vide, balayée et ornée. Il s’en va, et il prend avec lui sept autres esprits plus méchants que lui; ils entrent dans la maison, s’y établissent, et la dernière condition de cet homme est pire que la première. Il en sera de même pour cette génération méchante.

    Matthieu 12 : 43-45

    Le monde moderne n’est pas mauvais : à certains égards, il est bien trop bon. Il est rempli de vertus féroces et gâchées. Lorsqu’un dispositif religieux est brisé (comme le fut le christianisme pendant la Réforme), ce ne sont pas seulement les vices qui sont libérés. Les vices sont en effet libérés, et ils errent de par le monde en faisant des ravages ; mais les vertus le sont aussi, et elles errent plus férocement encore en faisant des ravages plus terribles. Le monde moderne est saturé des vieilles vertus chrétiennes virant à la folie.

    G.K. Chesterton

    On peut parler aujourd’hui d’invasion arabe. C’est un fait social. Combien d’invasions l’Europe a connu tout au long de son histoire ! Elle a toujours su se surmonter elle-même, aller de l’avant pour se trouver ensuite comme agrandie par l’échange entre les cultures.

    Pape François

    Je ne crois pas qu’il y ait aujourd’hui une peur de l’islam, en tant que tel, mais de Daech et de sa guerre de conquête, tirée en partie de l’islam. L’idée de conquête est inhérente à l’âme de l’islam, il est vrai. Mais on pourrait interpréter, avec la même idée de conquête, la fin de l’Évangile de Matthieu, où Jésus envoie ses disciples dans toutes les nations. (…) Devant l’actuel terrorisme islamiste, il conviendrait de s’interroger sur la manière dont a été exporté un modèle de démocratie trop occidentale dans des pays où il y avait un pouvoir fort, comme en Irak. Ou en Libye, à la structure tribale. On ne peut avancer sans tenir compte de cette culture. (…) Sur le fond, la coexistence entre chrétiens et musulmans est possible. Je viens d’un pays où ils cohabitent en bonne familiarité. (…) En Centrafrique, avant la guerre, chrétiens et musulmans vivaient ensemble et doivent le réapprendre aujourd’hui. Le Liban aussi montre que c’est possible.

    Pape François

    Un passage des propos du pape François attire l’œil: «L’idée de conquête est inhérente à l’âme de l’islam, il est vrai. Mais on pourrait interpréter avec la même idée de conquête la fin de l’Évangile de Matthieu, où Jésus envoie ses disciples dans toutes les nations». Voici le passage évoqué: «Allez donc, faites des disciples (“mathèteuein”, en grec) de toutes les nations, baptisant les gens (…), leur enseignant (“didaskein”) à observer tout ce que je vous ai commandé (Matthieu, 28, 19)». On peut appeler «conquête» la tâche de prêcher, d’enseigner et de baptiser. Il s’agit bien d’une mission universelle, proposant la foi à tout homme, à la différence de religions nationales comme le shintô. Le christianisme ressemble par là à l’islam, dont le prophète a été envoyé «aux rouges comme aux noirs». Mais son but est la conversion des cœurs, par enseignement, non la prise du pouvoir. Les tentatives d’imposer la foi par la force, comme Charlemagne avec les Saxons, sont de monstrueuses perversions, moins interprétation que pur et simple contresens. Le Coran ne contient pas d’équivalent de l’envoi en mission des disciples. Il se peut que les exhortations à tuer qu’on y lit n’aient qu’une portée circonstancielle, et l’on ignore les causes de l’expansion arabe du VIIe siècle. Reste que le mot de conquête n’est plus alors une métaphore et prend un sens plus concret, carrément militaire. Les deux recueils les plus autorisés (sahīh) attribuent à Mahomet cette déclaration (hadith), constamment citée depuis: «J’ai reçu l’ordre de combattre (qātala) les gens (nās) jusqu’à ce qu’ils attestent “Il n’y a de dieu qu’Allah et Muhammad est l’envoyé d’Allah”, accomplissent la prière et versent l’aumône (zakāt). S’ils le font, leur sang et leurs biens sont à l’abri de moi, sauf selon le droit de l’islam (bi-haqqi ‘l-islām), et leur compte revient à Allah (hisābu-hum ‘alā ‘Llah) (Bukhari, Foi, 17 (25) ; Muslim, Foi, 8, [124] 32-[129] 36)». J’ai reproduit l’arabe de passages obscurs. Pour le dernier, la récente traduction de Harkat Ahmed explique: «Quant à leur for intérieur, leur compte n’incombera qu’à Dieu (p. 62)» Indication précieuse: il s’agit d’obtenir la confession verbale, les gestes de la prière et le versement de l’impôt. Non pas une conversion des cœurs, mais une soumission, sens du mot «islam» dans bien des récits sur la vie de Mahomet. L’adhésion sincère pourra et devra venir, mais elle n’est pas première. Nul ne peut la forcer, car «il n’y a pas de contrainte en religion (Coran, II, 256)». Elle viendra quand la loi islamique sera en vigueur. Il sera alors dans l’intérêt des conquis de passer à la religion des conquérants. On voit que le mot «conquête» a un tout autre sens que pour le verset de Matthieu. Pourquoi insister sur ces différences? Un vaste examen de conscience est à l’œuvre chez bien des musulmans, en réaction aux horreurs de l’État islamique. Ce n’est pas en entretenant la confusion intellectuelle qu’on les aidera à se mettre au clair sur les sources textuelles et les origines historiques de leur religion.

    Rémi Brague

    The furor of ignored Europeans against their union is not just directed against rich and powerful government elites per se, or against the flood of mostly young male migrants from the war-torn Middle East. The rage also arises from the hypocrisy of a governing elite that never seems to be subject to the ramifications of its own top-down policies. The bureaucratic class that runs Europe from Brussels and Strasbourg too often lectures European voters on climate change, immigration, politically correct attitudes about diversity, and the constant need for more bureaucracy, more regulations, and more redistributive taxes. But Euro-managers are able to navigate around their own injunctions, enjoying private schools for their children; generous public pay, retirement packages and perks; frequent carbon-spewing jet travel; homes in non-diverse neighborhoods; and profitable revolving-door careers between government and business. The Western elite classes, both professedly liberal and conservative, square the circle of their privilege with politically correct sermonizing. They romanticize the distant “other” — usually immigrants and minorities — while condescendingly lecturing the middle and working classes, often the losers in globalization, about their lack of sensitivity. On this side of the Atlantic, President Obama has developed a curious habit of talking down to Americans about their supposedly reactionary opposition to rampant immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and political correctness — most notably in his caricatures of the purported “clingers” of Pennsylvania. Yet Obama seems uncomfortable when confronted with the prospect of living out what he envisions for others. He prefers golfing with celebrities to bowling. He vacations in tony Martha’s Vineyard rather than returning home to his Chicago mansion. His travel entourage is royal and hardly green. And he insists on private prep schools for his children rather than enrolling them in the public schools of Washington, D.C., whose educators he so often shields from long-needed reform. In similar fashion, grandees such as Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and Univision anchorman Jorge Ramos do not live what they profess. They often lecture supposedly less sophisticated Americans on their backward opposition to illegal immigration. But both live in communities segregated from those they champion in the abstract. The Clintons often pontificate about “fairness” but somehow managed to amass a personal fortune of more than $100 million by speaking to and lobbying banks, Wall Street profiteers, and foreign entities. The pay-to-play rich were willing to brush aside the insincere, pro forma social-justice talk of the Clintons and reward Hillary and Bill with obscene fees that would presumably result in lucrative government attention. Consider the recent Orlando tragedy for more of the same paradoxes. The terrorist killer, Omar Mateen — a registered Democrat, proud radical Muslim, and occasional patron of gay dating sites — murdered 49 people and wounded even more in a gay nightclub. His profile and motive certainly did not fit the elite narrative that unsophisticated right-wing American gun owners were responsible because of their support for gun rights. No matter. The Obama administration and much of the media refused to attribute the horror in Orlando to Mateen’s self-confessed radical Islamist agenda. Instead, they blamed the shooter’s semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle and a purported climate of hate toward gays. (…) In sum, elites ignored the likely causes of the Orlando shooting: the appeal of ISIS-generated hatred to some young, second-generation radical Muslim men living in Western societies, and the politically correct inability of Western authorities to short-circuit that clear-cut connection. Instead, the establishment all but blamed Middle America for supposedly being anti-gay and pro-gun. In both the U.S. and Britain, such politically correct hypocrisy is superimposed on highly regulated, highly taxed, and highly governmentalized economies that are becoming ossified and stagnant. The tax-paying middle classes, who lack the romance of the poor and the connections of the elite, have become convenient whipping boys of both in order to leverage more government social programs and to assuage the guilt of the elites who have no desire to live out their utopian theories in the flesh.

    Victor Davis Hanson

    Le 1er août 2016, les ministres de l’Intérieur et du Logement ont publié un communiqué passé totalement inaperçu dans la torpeur de l’été mais d’une importance capitale sur le plan de l’évolution des mentalités et de l’idéologie politique française. Ce texte marque une inflexion de la conception française de l’immigration. Jusqu’alors, celle-ci était fondée sur la distinction entre l’immigration régulière et l’immigration illégale. La première, conforme à la loi, était destinée par exemple à accueillir des travailleurs dont la France peut avoir besoin, à former des étudiants dans l’intérêt de la France ou du pays d’origine, ou bien à assurer le principe d’unité familiale. Elle était évaluée à environ 200 000 personnes par an. En revanche, les migrants en situation irrégulière, entrés ou séjournant en infraction avec la loi, devaient impérativement repartir dans leur pays, volontairement ou par la contrainte. Tel était le principe. Cette différence, pour la première fois depuis que l’immigration est devenue un sujet politique au début des années 1980, semble désormais ni par l’Etat. Le migrant en situation irrégulière n’a plus vocation à être reconduit dans son pays, mais à être accueilli en France et pris en charge par la puissance publique, au même titre qu’un étranger en situation régulière ou qu’un citoyen français en difficulté. (…) Ce communiqué enterre donc de fait toute notion d’immigration irrégulière. Il abolit le clivage entre légalité et illégalité en matière d’immigration. Il va dans le sens de la loi du 7 mars 2016, dont les dispositions reviennent à rendre très difficiles l’application des mesures d’éloignement. Il proclame que la France a le devoir d’accueillir et de prendre en charge tout étranger sur son territoire, qu’il soit autorisé à entrer et à séjourner ou qu’il ne le soit pas. De facto, le principe ainsi proclamé abroge l’idée de frontière ou de respect du droit de l’entrée et de séjour. Les associations humanitaires, les idéologues, les partisans de la liberté totale d’immigrer en rêvaient depuis au moins quarante ans. M. Cazeneuve et Mme Cosse l’ont fait. La question est de savoir quel sera l’ampleur de l’appel d’air que cette transformation profonde de tous les fondements de la politique d’immigration française est susceptible provoquer à terme. Le communiqué annonce une France ouverte, qui n’éloigne plus ses migrants illégaux mais au contraire les accueille. Le potentiel d’émigration est élevé: des centaines de millions de personnes déshéritées et désœuvrées, dans ce monde en ébullition, ne songent qu’à trouver un point d’accueil. Reste à savoir si la France, qui compte cinq millions de chômeurs, de gigantesques problèmes de logement, des centaines de milliers de personnes vivant sous le seuil de pauvreté, un millier de cités sensibles dévastées par la violence, l’exclusion, le communautarisme, l’islamisme radical, si cette France a les moyens d’accueillir une immigration supplémentaire. Mais pour M. Cazeneuve et Mme Cosse, c’est une autre affaire. Et ce n’est visiblement pas la leur.

    Alexis Théas

    The heroin epidemic was caused by the legalization of marijuana. We wanted legal weed, and for the most part, we got it. Four states have legalized it outright, others have decriminalized it, and in many jurisdictions police refuse to enforce the laws that are on the books, creating a de facto street legalization. Good news, right? Not for the Sinaloa Cartel, which by the time Colorado passed Amendment 64 in 2012 had become the dominant cartel in Mexico. Weed was a major profit center for them, but suddenly they couldn’t compete against a superior American product that also had drastically lower transportation and security costs. In a single year, the cartel suffered a 40 percent drop in marijuana sales, representing billions of dollars. Mexican marijuana became an almost worthless product. They’ve basically stopped growing the shit: Once-vast fields in Durango now lie fallow. More good news, right? Yeah, no. Guzmán and his boys are businessmen. They’re not going to take a forty-point hit and not do something about it. They had to make up those profits somewhere. Looking at the American drug market as it existed, Guzmán and his partners saw an opportunity. An increasing number of Americans were addicted to prescription opioids such as Oxycontin. And their addiction was expensive. One capsule of Oxy might sell on the street for thirty dollars, and an addict might need ten hits a day. Well, shit, they thought. We have some of the best poppy fields in the world. Opium, morphine, Oxy, heroin—they’re basically the same drug, so … The Sinaloa Cartel decided to undercut the pharmaceutical companies. They increased the production of Mexican heroin by almost 70 percent, and also raised the purity level, bringing in Colombian cooks to create « cinnamon » heroin as strong as the East Asian product. They had been selling a product that was about 46 percent pure, now they improved it to 90 percent. Their third move was classic market economics—they dropped the price. A kilo of heroin went for as much as $200,000 in New York City a few years ago, cost $80,000 in 2013, and now has dropped to around $50,000. More of a better product for less money: You can’t beat it. At the same time, American drug and law-enforcement officials, concerned about the dramatic surge in overdose deaths from pharmaceutical opioids (165,000 from 1999 to 2014), cracked down on both legal and illegal distribution, opening the door for Mexican heroin, which sold for five to ten bucks a dose. But pill users were not accustomed to the potency of this new heroin. Even heroin addicts were taken by surprise. As a result, overdose deaths have skyrocketed, more than doubling from 2000 to 2014. More people—47,055—died from drug overdoses in 2014 than in any other year in American history. (Perhaps the most famous of these, Philip Seymour Hoffman, died on February 2, 2014, right at the height of the epidemic.) That’s 125 people a day, more than five lives every hour, a fatality level that matched the AIDS epidemic’s peak in 1995. (…) Just as this mess was heating up, a new drug—actually an old drug—entered the scene. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is thirty to fifty times as strong as heroin. It was developed in 1960 by Janssen Pharmaceuticals (now a division of Johnson & Johnson) as a treatment for the severe pain caused by terminal cancer. Fentanyl is so powerful that the DEA warns police that they can be injured just by touching it, and it can be taken as a pill (brand names: Duragesic, Actiq, and Fentora), a spray, snorted, shot, used as a transdermal patch, mixed with heroin, you name it. Prince died from an overdose of fentanyl; as many as seven hundred Americans overdosed on the drug last year. (…) In New Orleans, The Times-Picayune reported that fentanyl deaths exceeded the number of murders for the first month of 2016. In Connecticut, fentanyl-related deaths increased by 151 percent between 2014 and 2015 and are expected to rise another 77 percent in 2016. For the narcos, the advantages of fentanyl over heroin are enormous. First of all, it’s made in a lab, so you don’t need fields of poppies that can be raided, fumigated, or seized. You don’t need hundreds of campesinos to harvest your crop and you don’t need to take or control territory. (Well, not territory for cultivation—you still have to control access to smuggling turf, hence the renewed violence in Baja, where the murder rate has tripled.) But it’s the profits that will make fentanyl the new crack cocaine, which created the enormous wealth of the Mexican cartels in the eighties and nineties. A kilo of fentanyl can be stepped on sixteen to twenty-four times to create an astounding return on investment of $1.3 million per kilo, compared with $271,000 per kilo of heroin. No wonder the DEA estimates that the importation of fentanyl from Mexico is up by 65 percent from 2014. Because fentanyl is now often mixed with heroin to increase the latter’s potency, unaware heroin users are dying from the same doses that used to just get them well. EMTs, ER personnel, and cops don’t know what they’re looking at, or that they need twice the dosage of naloxone, or Narcan, to revive an addict whose respiratory system has been shut down by fentanyl. Those who survive become more addicted. The cartels mix fentanyl with heroin because once an addict has shot that mix, they won’t go back to « just heroin, » since they can’t get high on it anymore. The combination of lab-produced illegal fentanyl and the fracturing of the Sinaloa Cartel is a catastrophe for law enforcement and American society as a whole but an absolute boon for the narcos seeking to supplant the old order. Splinter groups such as CJNG can easily use the enormous profit potential of fentanyl to fund their rebellions, and those same profits will encourage them toward violence to control the smuggling routes. ISIS is waning in Iraq largely because it can no longer pay its fighters. Fentanyl assures the new narcos that they will not have that problem. All they’ll need is the will for violence, and they already have that, in spades. Mexico has done little to fill the vacuum created by Guzmán’s fall. As a result, there will not be three groups seeking to fill that gap, there will be dozens. On the American side, the rise of splinter groups makes it all the harder for law enforcement to track and intercept the drug. We’ll no longer know where’s it coming from, and worse, what’s in it. First responders will not be able to tell if they’re dealing with pure heroin, heroin laced with fentanyl, pure fentanyl, fentanyl cut with God knows what … there will be pharmacological chaos. We talk about the heroin epidemic. Fentanyl will be the plague. (…) In the Middle East, we traded the devil we knew for the devils we didn’t. In Mexico, the devils we know will be replaced by a multiplicity of devils we’ll never know. The ability to hide production (unlike marijuana or poppy fields) and the anonymity of communicating on social media will create anarchy. The era of the cartel might be coming to an end. (…) So Guzmán is behind bars, it’s over, and we won. Just like we won when Hussein literally reached the end of his rope. The Los Angeles Times estimates that two thirds of Mexican drug lords have been either killed or imprisoned. And what’s the result? Drugs are more plentiful, more potent, and cheaper than ever. Deaths from overdoses are at an all-time high. Violence in Mexico, once declining, is starting to rise again. Just last week, I looked at photographs of the bodies of four people stuffed into a car trunk in Tijuana. The bodies showed signs of torture. Gang violence is on the rise in every major American city, most notably Chicago and New York, and the cowardly lions in Congress will do exactly shit about either the drugs or the guns that fuel and enable the killings and deaths—more than ISIS ever dreamed of. Seems like old times. There will be more phone calls and more overdoses. Someone will replace El Chapo, just as he replaced his predecessors. My bet’s on El Mencho, but it really doesn’t matter. That’s the lesson we seem to have to learn over and over and over again, world without end, amen. Guzmán was right: « If there was no consumption, there would be no sales. » I’m always amazed that progressive young millennials will picket a grocery chain for not buying fair-trade coffee but will go home and do drugs that are brought to them by the killers, torturers, and sadists of the cartels. We’re as addicted to the War on Drugs as we are to the drugs themselves. Our justice system is a machine fueled by hundreds of thousands of arrests, trials, and imprisonments. As long as the U. S. and Europe continue to buy billions of dollars’ worth of drugs a year while at the same time spending billions to intercept them, we will create an endless succession of Chapos and Menchos. An entire economy is based on drug prohibition and punishment, something to the tune of $50 billion a year, more than double the estimated $22 billion we spend on heroin. Don Winslow
    There was a fundamental problem with the decision that you can see rippling now throughout the West. Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be. Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street—that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending—because nobody cares about them enough to stop it. The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.” The larger point is that this is something we are seeing all over, the top detaching itself from the bottom, feeling little loyalty to it or affiliation with it. It is a theme I see working its way throughout the West’s power centers. At its heart it is not only a detachment from, but a lack of interest in, the lives of your countrymen, of those who are not at the table, and who understand that they’ve been abandoned by their leaders’ selfishness and mad virtue-signalling. On Wall Street, where they used to make statesmen, they now barely make citizens. CEOs are consumed with short-term thinking, stock prices, quarterly profits. They don’t really believe that they have to be involved with “America” now; they see their job as thinking globally and meeting shareholder expectations. In Silicon Valley the idea of “the national interest” is not much discussed. They adhere to higher, more abstract, more global values. They’re not about America, they’re about . . . well, I suppose they’d say the future. In Hollywood the wealthy protect their own children from cultural decay, from the sick images they create for all the screens, but they don’t mind if poor, unparented children from broken-up families get those messages and, in the way of things, act on them down the road. From what I’ve seen of those in power throughout business and politics now, the people of your country are not your countrymen, they’re aliens whose bizarre emotions you must attempt occasionally to anticipate and manage. In Manhattan, my little island off the continent, I see the children of the global business elite marry each other and settle in London or New York or Mumbai. They send their children to the same schools and are alert to all class markers. And those elites, of Mumbai and Manhattan, do not often identify with, or see a connection to or an obligation toward, the rough, struggling people who live at the bottom in their countries. In fact, they fear them, and often devise ways, when home, of not having their wealth and worldly success fully noticed. Affluence detaches, power adds distance to experience. I don’t have it fully right in my mind but something big is happening here with this division between the leaders and the led. It is very much a feature of our age. But it is odd that our elites have abandoned or are abandoning the idea that they belong to a country, that they have ties that bring responsibilities, that they should feel loyalty to their people or, at the very least, a grounded respect. I close with a story that I haven’t seen in the mainstream press. This week the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reported that recent Syrian refugees being resettled in Virginia, were sent to the state’s poorest communities. Data from the State Department showed that almost all Virginia’s refugees since October “have been placed in towns with lower incomes and higher poverty rates, hours away from the wealthy suburbs outside of Washington, D.C.” Of 121 refugees, 112 were placed in communities at least 100 miles from the nation’s capital. The suburban counties of Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington—among the wealthiest in the nation, and home to high concentrations of those who create, and populate, government and the media—have received only nine refugees. Some of the detachment isn’t unconscious. Some of it is sheer and clever self-protection. At least on some level they can take care of their own.

    Peggy Noonan
















  • Notice: Undefined property: wpdb::$is_admin in /home3/baraka/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 684