@pepsi_man@MK2boogaloo This is a topic people feel very strongly about either way, and I’d never recommend *anyone* act against the dictates of their conscience. I certainly don’t deny the premise that becoming a stoner has significant negative consequences - mental and spiritual as well as physical. I’ve certainly seen heavy-hitting men fall into some pretty serious feminized nonsense from it. That being said, I also don’t deny the plant has very significant medical/therapeutic uses, particularly in cases like mitigating the adverse effects of things like chemotherapy, or seizure disorders, things like that; where nothing else even holds a candle to it. I sense you take a hard-line about it - but do you go so far as to reject applications like that ?
@KingOfWhiteAmerica@MK2boogaloo Yes. The thin edge of the wedge is always the niche use cases. Texas already has a "compassionate use" law on the books, and now we have illegal grow ops and illegal dispensaries.
I'm not tearing apart my society for the sake of a few sick people.
@pepsi_man@MK2boogaloo Thank you for your response. You’re well within your right to recognize and identity whatever you deem as a threat to the well-being of your self, your family, your nation etc. Ideally, I’d agree - if this were *our* society, wherein we were making the laws and calling the shots, I’d support legislation that empowers our local law enforcement to prevent access to dangerous and mind-altering chemicals. One thing I notice, is you don’t dispute it actually *works* in these niche medical instances and applications. I think we agree it’s not simply base quackery and snake-oil. The two-fold fact that it‘s both: 1) the best treatment available in these instances, and, 2) grows wild as an invasive weed throughout many temperate and tropical zones, Legitimately adds a layer of complexity to the situation that leads me to question the wisdom of criminalizing it. These seem like “niche use cases” until it’s *you or your loved ones* who need it. Giving the power to deny this best available treatment to kiked legislators had darn well better be worth it imho. That’s an awful lot of power to give to an anti-White establishment. Personally, I’d prefer to see it regulated a bit more tightly than we’re seeing in certain states. But not if it means becoming just another jew-racket to capitalize on basic White industriousness and compassion, while seizing the reins and ruining our people’s lives vis-a-vis lawfare - especially in cases where it’s Whites growing CBD strains to cure cancer, stop childhood seizure disorders, get people off opioids by making withdrawal manageable, etc. If *we* ran the government, I’ve got no doubt we could effectively establish regulation through legislation. Otherwise, I’d really rather not give jews that much power. In other words. It’s just another reason we need our *own* State.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica@pepsi_man it needs to be heavily regulated, just as hard as to obtain guns. Death sentence for whoever gets caught dealing with it. That's the only solution to those situations.
@MK2boogaloo >put men on the moon most it did was send man into earth's orbit, there's still no actual confirmation of anyone being on the moon, americans dont count
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lina I believe it, Kubrick did one hell of a job making 2001: A Space Odyssey, he got a job by the American government to make a movie about moon landing. It was all orchestrated to win in a space race against the Soviets.
@MK2boogaloo@lina I wouldn't put it past our government, but part of the claims about landing on the moon involve putting things on the moon like a US flag and somesuch.
The technology required to go and take photographs of the moon is actually kinda within reach of a bunch of really dedicated people if they're skeptical. Instead of throwing on a tinfoil hat, maybe we could go about taking pictures of that spot of the moon?
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lina I mean the US were defeated in a lot of aspect of the race itself. The first guy in space? Yuri Gagarin. The first to send an object to space? The Soviets. Hell the Soviets did one schizoid project of landing in Venus and they fucking did it. Despite having some of the best brains in the world at that time (abducted German scientists) the US failed in reaching their goal which is why they decided to fake it.
@MK2boogaloo@lina I vaguely recall one of these types of people actually trying to gather up the scratch to do that type of thing. Maybe we could even go see how that went, maybe the knowledge required to do it is still hanging around.
@MK2boogaloo@lina Sure, I'm not going to deny that the US lost huge chunks of the space race.
I'm just pointing out that if we want to ask the question of "whether or not the US put people on the moon," - a question which I think is entirely reasonable - then there's ways to answer that.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lina to be honest that sounds like a complete waste of time. There's a better conspiracy theory to dig in. Space is interesting, but for me I prefer digging around the Earth for something.
Have you ever heard about Operation Highjump? I want to visit Antartica once just to see what the continent is like, it's full of mystery. I heard something about dinosaurs, hidden German base, sealed demons etc, many good rumors about the place itself.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@MK2boogaloo the faked footage from back then isn't the answer though, nobody bothered going to the moon to provide actual proof from what i see
@MK2boogaloo@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lina The logic of the moon landing being fake relies on the idea that making a movie is enough to make people stop going to the moon. :back_from_gab: :mcdonalds_flag:
"Augh, Vlad! Those American PIGS made a movie showing them on the MOON! до свида́нья! I'm gonna drink vodka for 50 years and never try to go to the moon again!"
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lina@MK2boogaloo This is just fucking cope, sure the Soviets were the first to space but only AMERICAN WHITE MEN have been on the moon.
@SuperSnekFriend@lina@MK2boogaloo I dunno if that's the right way to see it snekbro. We don't trust our government to be honest about pearl harbor, 9/11, and covid, so why *wouldn't * our government lie about going to the moon?
This is one that people can check too, even if it's kinda expensive.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lina@MK2boogaloo People overblow the "government lied about x, y, z," stuff. Okay, how did they lie? How much did they lie? How much did they need to lie to the public for their ends? How is affirming that they lied however they did and to whatever degree is going to help me, my people, and my causes? Usually, normalfags do not have any discernment and just deny the totality of an event or other claim then attempt to justify their silly form of denial post hoc. Take Pearl Harbor for instance. Nobody but the most silliest of lolbergs and others will deny that the Japanese were the ones to attack the base and a severe attack did occur. What is in contention is how much the White House knew about the attack prior to December 7 and how much the US did to encourage that attack. It's very silly to say that attacking without mercy a military installation far from a nation's field of operations is justified by that nation keeping it's own oil from being traded. If the Japanese started with the US-held Philippines or merchant ships, then that would have been more justified in a strategic sense. And Japan is not owed American oil. To say that American oil producers should have been allowed to trade with the Japanese is to deny an essential aspect of all nationalism, especially national socialism, so our guys affirming that common talking point is worse than counter-productive. The evidence seems to better fit that FDR and top brass knew that the Japanese military council were angry and vengeful and were preparing for an attack a week or two before December 7, and the White House did nothing to stop or mitigate the attack for (((reasons))) to not let a crisis go to waste. Does that mean key parts of the government lied about the full nature of the attack? Yes! Does that mean all of the government lied? No, they didn't have to. Does that mean the government lied about every aspect of the attack? No! Does that mean the government is lying for every single major claim because of that lie? No! Does that that mean we have to bend over backwards grovelling before the Japanese? No, they were just in wrong as the elite in America, if not more so. Does that mean we have to excoriate and damn the totality of pre-Hart-Cellar or even pre-Millennial America for one lie of one aspect of the attack from one part of the government which is only one group of one part of America? That's stupid, and it is again worse than counter-productive for nationalists, especially American White nationalists. Does saying this mean I have to automatically trust the government or am trusting? Absolute not! I don't and I won't.
And the moon landing is something I don't have any evidence to deny except from the eternal kvetching of enemies both foreign and (((domestic))), and plenty of contrary evidence in affirmation.
For something like the moon landing, people are not attacking the government's legitimacy when they do so, like with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The government is not harmed with people not affirming the moon landing; in fact, the government would be overjoyed to let that achievement go as it is the achievement of White Christian Americans. It's worthless contrarianism and that is not right.
**tl;dr** Endless, skeptical contrarianism about every aspect of what the one part of the government did or say will not help our cause, especially when the actual evidence of claims is tenuous at best. Those who deny the moon landing are butthurt Russians, niggers, Jews, or a spiritual form of the one of those three.
**tl;tl;dr** To your question, I won't because that's the composition fallacy.