Meth in the USA: Government Approved

In talking to some of my Russian friends, it has been widely suspected that the drug epidemic in the Russian Federation is part of a larger plan by Jihadists to destroy Russia with drugs.  Sound paranoid?

Well, just read this article about Methamphetamine in the US:

World Drug Report Reveals The Staggering Extent Of North America's Meth Problem

Then scroll down to this:

The Sinaloa Cartel, led by Mexican kingpin Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, accounts for 80% of the U.S. meth trade.

In Chicago, where Guzmán is Public Enemy No.1, Sinaloa is employing more than 100,000 gang members to sling meth (along with cocaine, marijuana and heroin) on the streets while cartel members blend in with the metro area's two million Hispanic residents.

It should be noted that there are allegations that Guzmán, who was on the Forbes' list of billionaires from 2009 to 2012, works with the U.S. government.

In court documents, a high-ranking member of Sinaloa currently in U.S. custody asserted that Guzmán is a U.S. informant, Sinaloa was "given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago," and Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the cartel in exchange for information used to take down its rivals.

The claims were corroborated by a Mexican foreign service officer who doubled as a confidential source for the U.S. security firm Stratfor when he alleged that the U.S. government works with Mexican cartels to traffic drugs into the U.S., and that in 2010 the U.S. sided with Sinaloa in an attempt to limit the violence in Mexico.

Yes, you read correctly: the drug flow into the US is being regulated by the US government's chosen cartel.  Now you know that there is a lot more to the story.

Is it possible that our world's drug problems are being exacerbated on purpose?  If you asked me that a year ago, I would have laughed.  Now, I won't. 

It appears the meth problem in the US is the price our federal government is willing to pay to arrest and kill some people, but not all, who are destabilizing Mexico.  You can also see why there is really such resistance to sealing the southern border.  The US government is willing to let its citizens become disabled and even flat-out die for the sake of its weird political intrigues.  

This is disgusting at face value, but a closer look shows that it is far more insidious.

The meth epidemic is destroying people, which is precisely what the 'powers that be' want: they want 'population control.'  They want to get rid of people.

Humans are difficult to manage.  The more people you have to manage, the harder and less predictable they are to herd.  This is why totalitarian regimes kill: it makes it easier to manage the survivors.

I have come to believe that drugs, in Russia and the USA, are being used to destroy people on purpose.  We are not in a fight for just 'sobriety,' we are in a struggle for survival.

Just remember, each addict loses the ability not only to care for himself, but to form a family and raise children.  It is just as effective as chemical castration.  The drugs don't have to flat-out kill you, they just have to eliminate your desire to build families and live a responsible life.

If you look at modern culture, drugs are doing their job just as intended.

Dealing With the 'Legal Highs'

I found this article about the British struggling with their enormous addictions problem, particularly now with the addition of synthetic drugs:

Amy Winehouse Foundation launches drug programme

It is funny how they are not quite clear on the whole matter.  The UK can't let go of the 'harm-reduction model' that assumes drug usage cannot be eliminate, so you instead try to make it 'safe.'  This ignores the underlying question of why people 'need' to get high to begin with.  It also assumes that you can use mind-altering substances in a controlled and harmless fashion.

Drug usage by its very nature is an escape from inhibition.   That means it is means to leave the boundaries of control.  What 'harm-reduction model' people are trying to do is tame a monster.  It won't work, because nobody wants to use a drug with a 'domesticated' effect.  People use drugs because they are 'wild' and 'untamed.'

So, they roll out a 'harm-reduction' program at an addiction conference... pretty funny, eh?  They want to  'educate' people about the dangers of the new drugs.  We all know that education does not stop an addict who wants to use.  

The problem of the demi-legal new synthetic drugs is far more disturbing.  After all, there are plenty of cheap and legal highs out there, especially alcohol.  But, young people are chasing down more intense experiences.  Why?

This is the question we are not asking, because we don't like the answer we know by intuition: our society has created a false condition called adolescence that is failing our humanity.  Rather than maturing in a rather brief period after the full onset of puberty, we are holding people in an ambiguous state from just before puberty all the way up until their 30s.

In the full onset of sexual fertility, we force young people not to marry and have children through our social expectations.  At the time when their minds are the most open to learning trades and skills, we keep them boxed up in repetitive schooling where their natural skills are repressed in favor of sitting.  

So, these 'kids' are left frustrated and bored, and they seek so way of handling the 'foot-binding' of modern education.  The answer: drugs.

Addicts are often not stupid.  They are underutilized.  They sense the world, and their own absence from it.  They are sensitive and acutely aware, which is why they so often need to deal with the pain of existence with some kind of substance that numbs the heart.

Society would rather deal with the natural consequences of repressed humanity than the fear of change.  So, the battle will continue until the modern world awakens to its real problem.  

Real Freedom

The argument over being accepted in society is often couched in terms of 'freedom.'  We automatically assume that when one is accepted by society, then one benefits from the protection of society and one's rights are preserved.  Those who are rejected by society, on the other hand, have no such protection and are thus less free than those that are acceptable.

However, a closer examination tells us that being part of a society means disposing of a great deal of one's personal choices.  You trade freedom for the security a society offers.

The honest truth is that you are no more free with society's acceptance than you are with its rejection, because a society that has a violent streak uses it on everyone, inside and out.

Take for example British society in the 19th century.  Many have pointed out the cruelties of English colonial rule.  But, have you looked at how the British treated their own people?  The upper classes lived in a stifling rigid social structure, and the lower classes scraped out an existence in horrid conditions.  They were rough on everyone.

That's the kicker: a society that treats its own members well is far less likely to be cruel and unjust to those outside of it.  Therefore, the benefits of social acceptance are a matter of small degrees.

What most people don't pick up on is that all societies perpetuate some kind of 'injustice,' even when they try not to.  An example of this is modern Sweden: the Swedes consider themselves very kind and gracious to their immigrants... who have been out in the streets rioting in protest of social injustices perpetrated by the Swedes!

There are many people who fight for 'social justice.'  They want a society that embraces everyone.  It simply is not possible: how can you embrace the cultural value of 'respecting women as equals' and yet not reject 'domestic violence?'  One stays and the other goes.  A society, by definition, excludes those who refuse to keep the common values.

This means that the members of the society must give up certain things.  At the same time, a society that overly-restricts its members will eventually explode.  So, a relief valve is put in place: some destructive behaviors are tolerated.  Certain types of hatred are permitted, so long as their expression does not interfere with the common narrative that the society is functional and beneficial.

Real freedom is not necessarily being accepted or rejected by society, but recognizing that there will always be injustice and evil whenever fallen human beings gather.  

Real freedom is liberation from the expectation that things must be perfect.

Real freedom is living in the truth.

Slavery and oppression are always about lies.  The lies are about how 'civilized' we are when we are, in fact, quite oppressive and boorish.

To be free, we must live with the reality of who we are, both good and bad.  No false praise and no excuses.  Real freedom is living in the truth.

Expecting the World to Accept You

On the flip side of accepting the world as it is is the rather naïve idea that somehow the world is going to accept us as Christians or sober addicts or just plain ole 'nice people.'  Stupid idea.

I don't know how many times I've dealt with a newcomer who is plastered in tattoos and decked out with a dozen piercings, all wrapped in the most outrageous clothing one can manage to purchase off-the-rack, who cries with full force at how people 'judge' him or her.  Sometimes I have to hurt myself to not laugh: what do you expect when you make yourself about as profoundly ostentatious as you possibly could?

The world is not obligated to accept us.  No one is.  People, either as individuals or societies, have the right to spurn us and reject us.  There is no moral obligation for people to accept us, because there is simply no moral way to force them to do it.  You can't make people love you.

The modern mind seems to think that we can force people to love us.  First, we do it by 'teaching' them about who we are.  When that doesn't work, they we outlaw every possible expression of their rejection.

Then, folks wonder why there is still alienation and dislike all around them.  Well, you've not only taken their freedom away, but you've also made them bandits.  Silly, isn't it?

Some will say, "A child is not born to hate.  Hate is taught."

Baloney.  We are all born with the capacity to hate just as much as we are born with the capacity to love.    If you believe that a person can overcome the hate they are taught, then you are also by extension admitting that this same person can choose to hate something else or hold onto that hate.  Yes, what to hate can be taught, but hating itself is so natural that those who often crow the loudest about tolerating one group of people are perfectly at home with hating those who disagree with them... another group of people! 

This means most calls for 'ending hate' are utterly self-serving.  It is just 'hatred reassignment.'

Remember that bumper-sticker, "Hate is not a Family Value."  It was used in the beginning of the big campaign to push for gay rights at the end of the last century.  If you went or go to a gay rights event and mention you might not agree with 'gay marriage,' you'll get plenty of hate.

If you don't accept their ideas, and they will see you as the enemy.  They will never, ever accept you.  Not just your opinions or thoughts, but you yourself for having such ideas.  This is why such movements ultimately become what they preach against.  The world considers humans and their opinions as completely inseparable.  Therefore, when you have a 'bad' thought or idea, you are a bad person.

When confronted with its hate, the world will deny it and put on dulcet tones sounding like a kindergarten teacher.  Don't be fooled.  The hate is still there because the human will, without God, only operates in two directions: desire and anxiety.  If you are not what people of the world want, you are a cause for their anxiety and they will not only not accept you, they will try to destroy you.  That is hate: the rejection and destruction of what causes anxiety.

You see, the world cannot separate us from our ideas because to do so means acknowledging that humans have the right to disagree.  The world does not want disagreement, but utter compliance.  Law and politics all seek compliance and harmony and obedience.  God seeks our compliance, but in a voluntary manner.  He does not force us to do anything, including those things that will save us from self-destruction.  Yet, humans do become totalitarian while trying to make the world a better and 'safer' place.

This is why the more idealistic a people become, the more people they end up murdering.

Now, you can go ahead and reject the world back by tattooing yourself from head to toe and piercing yourself a thousand times, but don't expect the world to then embrace you.  Well, these days, you may very well get that hug, but not from everyone.

If you want peace, then you had better understand that no one is obligated to love you or appreciate you or even be polite.  You don't have the right to control another person's opinion of you.  You can only expect that they maintain the rule of law and not attempt to repress you.

Just remember, an ugly stare is not repression.  Repression means physical harm or restricting your lawful activities.  Just because someone wants to make faces or snide comments or hold bad opinions does not constitute 'violence.'

By allowing the other person to do those things and hold those opinions, you are affirming his and your own free wills.  He is allowed to be upset by you.  That is his misery.  Let him be miserable!

Do you want to be free?  They give others their freedom!  Give the world the freedom to reject you, and you will give yourself freedom from the approval and acceptance of others.  This is where real sobriety kicks in.

When you demand that others love you, you are depriving them of the freedom you seek.  When you hate others because of their beliefs, just remember that you are condemning yourself.  After all, the addict struggles to accept that his thoughts are not the sum total of who he is, and the true Christians rejects the idea that people are defined by their temptations.

You and I are not what we think.  We are what we are created to be by God.  This is true for everyone.  We must look past other people's thoughts and opinions to see them in the Image and Likeness of God.

The world cannot do this because the world does not see God, and so the world cannot see us for who we really are.  Don't expect the world to live in function of the Gospel or sobriety when the world knows nothing about either one.

Accept, but do not expect acceptance.

Acceptance of the World

Do not be anxious to change the world.  Many people have tried, and look what has happened: you have the present, and almost nobody is happy with it.

When we dream about changing the world, we are expressing our own dissatisfaction with it, and thus our rejection and disdain for it.  Can you really change something you hate?  Not really.  What you really want to do is kill it.  We want to destroy the world to build one of our own liking.

But the world was made with love, even as badly as it has been distorted.  In fact, most of the evil we experience is based on some kind of loving thoughts, ones that embraced a better world and less suffering.  Popular revolutionaries and political activists often speak of a better world right before arresting the opposition and oppressing the non-compliant.  Many of the jaded professionals we encounter were once hopeful idealists.

So, the misguided love of the world... can our anger and intolerance fix it?  No.  The world needs love, and to love means to accept things as they are and to admit that the world, even the smallest bits of it apart from the self, are really out of reach.

A single school in a small town cannot guarantee that all of its students will master their subjects, yet you want everyone to understand and agree to your plans?

The best we can hope for is a little room for our ideas and perhaps a gentle nudge of society into a better direction, but great acts of social change cannot be controlled by a single human or even a well-organized cabal.  The cart quickly overturns.  We are seeing this now throughout the world as men seek to literally control every opinion and action.

To love is to accept things as they are, calling the good as good and the bad as bad, and not needing to change them in order to accept them.  The truth is you can only change yourself, and even there we have limits because we were all made in certain ways and some things were not made to change.

We must accept the world as it is and love it as it is and stop stirring up our dissatisfaction with it.  Love for the world does not mean following its direction, but rather having the freedom not only to be ourselves but to allow the world and those in it the freedom to do the same.  Sure, the world has plenty of problems, but so do I.  Who will fix my problems while I am busy fixing everyone else's?

If the world must repent, then I must repent first.  If the world must change, then I must change first.  I must be an example of what I desire for the world.  I must also embrace the idea that what I desire that is good is not forced upon me.  God does not compel me to follow Him, and He gives me plenty of opportunities to do my own thing.  Should we not likewise treat the world and those in it the same way?

We change the world with mercy for it.  We change the people in the world by loving them rather than forcing them to change or to fight with us.

When you demand change, then you have lost your peace.  And when you lose your peace, then you have lost everything because you are away from the King of Peace.  Instead of being dissatisfied and demanding change, have mercy and seek to heal those who ask for help.  The key here is to wait for the invitation.

The world may never ask you how to change.  Do not worry.  You will have lots to do working on just yourself.

The world must die, but to be reborn.  This means that only God can end it.  As well He should: it is a mess.  It cannot be fixed with plans and politics.  To repair the world only means to keep it limping along as a broken and dysfunctional existence.

Man cannot build paradise.  He never has.  He is good at building fortresses and prisons.  That is inevitably what we end up with when we try to fix our world.

The fallen man builds inner prisons and fortresses, those high walls of the soul that keep God out while defending against the pain of brokenness and sin.  This is what we should be concerned about.

If we were more concerned about those inner walls and sought to tear them down, then we would have more compassion for the world.  We would be able to love the people in the world and creation itself with the love that we have been shown by the God who loves us even in our rebellion and sin.

Acceptance means to love the truth about something.  And, all truth comes from God, who is Truth.

Do not hate the world or those who are in it.  Remember what they are intended to be and are becoming.

Helpful Web Site for Porn Addicts/Abusers

Someone recommended this site a while back, but I forgot to post a link.

Your Brain on Porn

There is a lot of helpful information there to understand the problem and get help.

My advice: do NOT use this or other sites to mash other people who are using porn and do not want to quit.  There is nothing more counterproductive to insight and recovery than a NAG!

Do not be a NAG.  Just set your boundaries and then act accordingly.  If your spouse or potential spouse is using, then tell him/her, "Give it up or you are gone."  Then, you had better follow through.  otherwise, you will have to put up with it until Mr. or Ms. Right has figured out how horrid it really is.  That may take a while.

If you NAG, then you are likely to get either lies or momentary 'abstinence,' which will be followed either by a replacement activity or relapse.  And, once you have trained your addict to ignore your threats, because you don't have the strength to leave, then the addict will happily take charge.

Nagging actually empowers the addict by demonstrating you are not serious.  Be serious, or be quiet.

The Limits of Sympathy

I recently fielded a question from a priest that almost made me laugh out loud: "Do you think I am a sociopath?"

The conversation ended rather quickly after I told him that I thought he was 'spoiled,' which tends to lead down that path.  A bit offended, he countered with a second question, "What about you?"

To clarify, we were both using the wrong term.  I think the word we were looking for, as non-professionals in the field of psychology, is 'psychopath.'  We were using this to describe our occasional lack of sympathy or empathy for others in distress.  This may seem troubling to the reader who expects clergy to have boundless compassion and empathy, along with a constant expression of sympathy so as to never require the sufferer to get better.

I have written on the differences between sympathy and empathy, so I won't get into all of that.

According to Wikipedia, these are the main features of a psychopath:

Facet 1: Interpersonal

• Glibness/superficial charm
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying
• Cunning/manipulative

Facet 2: Affective

• Lack of remorse or guilt
• Emotionally shallow
• Callous/lack of empathy
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Facet 3: Lifestyle

• Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
• Parasitic lifestyle
• Lack of realistic, long-term goals
• Impulsiveness
• Irresponsibility

Facet 4: Antisocial

• Poor behavioral controls
• Early behavioral problems
• Juvenile delinquency
• Revocation of conditional release
• Criminal versatility

Other Items

• Many short-term marital relationships
• Promiscuous sexual behavior

To be honest, my friend has a long way to go before anyone would call him a psychopath.  Sure, he has a few of these characteristics, but I can see myself in many of these features as well.  The difference is that the true psychopath isn't bothers by these things, whereas my friend and I are.

As priests who deal with the suffering of others, we do have to cultivate an emotional barrier to not utterly empathize with the suffering people we deal with.  The reason is that empathy is a form of 'co-suffering.'  We experience our own hurt as we deal with the hurt of others.  To do this on occasion is healthy.  To do it every day can wear you down.

God can bear our pain, but we can barely handle our own.  Taking up another's suffering is a difficult and draining experience.  Just so we can get through the day, we often have to become purposefully shallow and glib.  It is a survival mechanism.

The danger for us who deal with so much suffering is that the defense mechanism, meant to be used on occasion to protect ourselves from being overwhelmed, becomes the 'default position.'  Many people have wondered why the idealistic and devoted seminarian of yesterday becomes the dodgy, shallow, materialistic pastor of today.  Sometimes, the pious act in school was just that... an act.  But, too often, the opposite is true: the pious man was really compassionate and caring, but he burned out along the way as the burdens of others broke him.

It is not so much a matter of "I-don't-care" but one of "I-can't-care."  This is particularly true when a vast majority of the suffering we are asked to cure requires changes that the sufferers reject and refuse.  This means they demand constant treatment for their pain, but no cure for its cause.  They are guaranteed to come back with new wounds needing 'emotional morphine.'

We think we are 'bad' when we finally say, "No, you can't have anymore."  People are shocked when a priest makes light of another person's torment and refuses to indulge in the social conventions of sympathetic emotions in the presence of suffering.  This demand that we must always respond with an affect of pity and sympathy any time a person expresses distress helps neither the sufferer nor us, yet we demand it.  We must never look 'cold.'

But, nobody is being healed with sympathy.  In fact, their victimhood is being reinforced.  I would go as far as to say that this unrestrained sympathy is ruining our culture and society as a whole.

How?

Under present social conventions, anyone who expresses distress gets to demand whatever they want from the non-sufferer.  So, we make laws that restrict any form of behavior that makes another person 'uncomfortable,' and we make sure not to say anything about Islam so that Moslems in far away countries don't have riots.  

Soon, what we have is everyone demanding their share of victimhood, but no real solutions.  We give up being tolerant of others because we are so tired of having to accommodate  the constant demands placed on us by those who have so many grievances.  So, you go from wild extremes of politically-correct over-restriction in the workplace to wild debauchery in public entertainment.  Just look at the extremes of the modern bureaucracy and the demands of sexual harassment training, then go to a night club or concert or some other public event that employs women in bikinis.

Addicts use their addictions to create their own psychopathic environment to deal with their pain and the pain of others.  The glibness and callousness of the addict is a construct.  We drink and use so that we go not feel our own pain or empathy for others.

That is the hardest part of recovery: learning to feel.  We also have to learn to properly 'not feel' and not allow ourselves to collapse under the weight of other people's pain.

We must learn our limits, otherwise we will be crushed.