What the Heck is a “Narcoterrorist”?

Andrew Anglin September 8, 2025

I’ve been eating massive amounts of cheese lately. And I’ve been dealing with the skin problems that go along with it. I am in fact on the verge of turning into some type of Cronenbergian monstrosity as a result of the amount of cheese I am consuming. And yet, there is no one who is going to threaten to imprison me or blow up my boat because I’m abusing myself with cheese and on the verge of going full Videodrome as a result.

This whole concept of certain drugs being illegal is nonsensical. Where did the government get the right to tell people what they are allowed to put into their bodies? How can a democracy government, which is ostensibly based on the concept of personal human autonomy being a high metaphysical concept, have such a right? Telling people what they are permitted to do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own home is a violation of the most basic principles of human autonomy that are enshrined in the enlightenment philosophy democracy is based on.

Please note: I don’t necessarily support democracy or enlightenment values, and in fact I don’t support them, but I do think if you’re going to have a system based on these things, it needs to live up to its own stated principles, otherwise you just have tyranny.

What makes drug prohibitions extra ridiculous is that you are allowed to consume all sorts of things that will kill you, including sugar and seed oils. To take it one massive step further, the government allows for corporations to put chemicals into your body that you don’t want to be there. There is PFAS in the groundwater anywhere in this country at sea level. I mean, maybe not somewhere out in some forest, but anywhere in the zone of a major metro, there are PFAS in the groundwater. Here’s a map:

So if you have a property, which you “own” – you don’t really own it because property taxes exist meaning all forms of land ownership in the US are actually rentals from the feds, but that’s a digression – you can dig a well, and you will be drinking poisonous chemicals that someone else put into your water against your will. There is no way to produce and distribute PFAS without them ending up in the groundwater, but I never hear libertarians talk about how this is a violation of property rights. It obviously is an extreme violation of property rights. They even have some widely used anecdote about polluting rivers being against the non-aggression principle (NAP). But find one of them saying it should be illegal to produce and distribute PFAS because no matter what they are going to end up in the groundwater of people’s private property.

Further, these chemicals are also in the rain. Almost everywhere in the world has PFAS levels “beyond safe levels” (as if there are safe levels) in their rain. That means they are in all the food you eat. You can’t grow food with PFAS groundwater or rainwater and not end up with PFAS in your vegetables and fruits. It’s also in meat, because the animals drink water contaminated with it.

And PFAS is just the most obvious. Everything is also filled with microplastics that you have no choice but to consume, and which the government has zero interest in protecting you from. No interest, at all. You hardly even hear it talked about. Bobby Kennedy was talking about it, but now he only talks about “the disease of antisemitism.”

Then you have the coronavirus vaccine that the government tried to force you to take. It was an experimental gene therapy. They wanted to force you to take it. They also try to force you and your kids to take all kinds of other strange vaccines.

And yet, they reserve the right to tell you you can’t put chemicals in your body that you, as a sovereign adult person, choose to put into your body, if those chemicals are arbitrarily listed on their “illegal substances” list. This is not reasonable.

Please note: I have in the past been against marijuana legalization and I am now calling for the legalization of all drugs, including fentanyl and whatever other boogieman drug. So let me explain my change of opinion on this matter.

First, I should note that I was against marijuana legalization because I think marijuana is the worst of all the drugs. It was also clear that legalization increased use. However, that seems to be a result of it having been illegal to begin with. People will take much more dangerous substances than marijuana because the government tells them they are good and safe. So when the government says “oh we decided marijuana is safe after previously having said it wasn’t,” the public, conditioned to believe the government is their daddy who will decide what is good for them, decide they should start smoking weed because the government says it’s safe now. If it had never been made illegal in the first place, there wouldn’t have been an increase of users when you made it legal, would there? Because you wouldn’t be making it legal, because you’d never made it illegal.

No one ever heard of a “heroin addict” when every medicine cabinet in the country held a bottle of it.

In terms of the rest of the drugs, I don’t think people think they are safe. Well, maybe people don’t think cocaine is dangerous. People now know ketamine is dangerous because they’ve watched Elon Musk’s behavior and no one on earth has a goal of “acting more like Elon Musk.” Aside from being generally disgusting and weird, Musk thinks he is funny and he is not funny yet he goes around making “jokes” like he is funny and that is the saddest thing of all, and the number one thing no one wants to be, and it’s probable that his use of marijuana and ketamine play a major role in making him like that.

Fentanyl kills all kinds of people, so no one is going to think that is safe.

With marijuana, when they legalized it, they said “oh we decided this is safe, so you, the children of us, the daddy government, are now allowed to safely smoke it.” That is disgusting messaging, and if they are going to legalize all drugs, they should say “look, none of this shit is safe. Most of it is probably safer than the poisons we put in your food or these vaccines we coerce you into taking through threats and manipulation, but these drugs are not safe and we don’t advise anyone to take them, but you’re adults and you can do what you want to do.”

This is the only thing that makes any sense.

The “drug war” has been going on since the 1960s, and there are more people on drugs than ever, and the outlawing of drugs has created a massive, violent industry trafficking these drugs that is a complete nightmare. Now, the peace president is murdering randos and threatening to start a full-on war to protect American citizens from their own choices.

You can’t protect people from their own choices. That is an insane doctrine. And again, all of this other stuff that kills you is already legal. Do you think it is healthier to be morbidly obese because you consume poisoned food that the government refuses to regulate or to do cocaine on the weekends? Obviously, there is nothing less healthy than being morbidly obese. Chronic cocaine use might cause heart problems, and it seems like it does, but not to the degree that obesity does. Obesity causes every negative health outcome.

I would support warning labels. There are warning labels on cigarettes, but none on food products that contain refined sugar/HFCS and/or seed oils (along with the prerequisite doses of PFAS and microplastics), despite those things being much more dangerous than cigarettes. You could put warning labels on OTC fentanyl and the rest of the drugs. That’s fine and fair enough. But beyond telling you these things are unhealthy and not recommended for recreational use, the government should not have a role in telling you what you can and can’t consume.

Conversely, you could also remove the warning labels from cigarettes, so people would stop expecting the government will warn them if something is unhealthy.

Here’s the important part of my legalization plan: along with legalizing the drugs, I would outlaw any and all junkie behavior. I would do a very severe crackdown on homelessness and panhandling and all of the other things associated with abuse of drugs. Vagrancy, loitering, other public nuisance behavior. Like, I’m talking ten-year prison sentences for this sort of thing. Because while you do have a natural right to consume whatever chemicals you want, because you’re an adult and you have a right to make your own decisions, you don’t have a right to infringe on other people with society-destroying behavior like living on the streets and begging. Right now, we have the opposite, where the drugs are illegal but all of the bad behavior associated with drug use is legal and seemingly encouraged in many jurisdictions.

Drugs Never Killed Anyone

Conservatives are pretty clear on the fact that guns are inanimate objects and that a gun never kills anyone, but rather a person who aims a gun at another person and pulled the trigger kills someone. The fact that they are not able to apply this same logic to drugs is baffling. Drugs are inanimate objects. If someone dies from drugs, it is because they made the decision to consume the drug in an irresponsible dose.

The oxycontin debacle is an issue of false advertising. Purdue Pharma told people that oxycontin was “safe” for “pain relief,” and it turned out it was engineered and intended to be extremely habit-forming. I can see that this is a problem. It would be similar to a gun manufacturer saying “you can shoot yourself in the head with this gun and nothing bad will happen.”

But regardless of the Purdue false advertising campaign, the oxycontin cum heroin cum fentanyl “crisis” is still not a supply issue. It is a demand issue. You cannot solve a demand issue by limiting supply. At least, I think that is some kind of economic principle or whatever, I don’t actually know, I’m not an economist. But in this specific case, it is just obvious that the only thing you can do in terms of solving demand by limiting supply is drive up prices of drugs which leads to endless petty crime to pay for the drugs. At this point, it is obvious that the supply can’t be completely cut off, or even meaningfully reduced.

Trump has cracked down on the border. It’s sort of irrelevant at this point, since most of the people who wanted to come to America are already here, but he has closed the border. Have drug prices gone up due to this attempt at strangling the supply?

With fentanyl, you have a whole new reality on the supply side. With heroin, you had to grow the shit in Afghanistan and then traffic it to the West. Fentanyl is just made in a lab, and it is insanely easy to make. It costs almost nothing. Right now, it is cheapest to make it in Mexico and then take it across the border, but it is so cheap to make that you could also make it anywhere and then just mail it to the United States. I’ve read that based on the production costs, if you send it through the mail and 99 out of 100 packages get seized, you still make a profit on the 1% that gets through. And people could be making this in the US. They just don’t, because as of right now, it is cheaper to do it in Mexico or to mail it from wherever.

Here’s the thing: if you can’t stop the supply, and you want people to do less drugs, then you need to address demand. What is the demand? Why are there so many people who want to take these drugs? Well, presumably it is because their lives are miserable, and drugs work to help them escape from that misery.

It’s widely known that soldiers in Vietnam did a lot of heroin. Here’s a fun factoid for you: 95% of the boys who were “addicted” to heroin in Vietnam stopped cold turkey when they came home. This obviously proves the fact that this whole theory of “addiction” is a complete hoax. These are not magical substances that take over your body and remove your free will, forcing you to use them against your will.

Here’s another fun factoid: the whole “addiction theory” had as one of its primary pillars a rat study, where a rat was given one water bottle with normal water and one with morphine or cocaine-laced water, and the rat just kept drinking the drug water until it OD’d. Then, in the late seventies – i.e., a very long time ago – someone called Bruce K. Alexander said that these studies of the rat overdosing on drugs all had a situation where the rat was in a small metal cage, completely alone with nothing to do. He hypothesized that if you created a better environment for the rat, the rat would respond differently to the availability of drugs. He created “Rat Park,” where the rats had a cage 200 times the size of the ones used in the original studies, filled with toys and fun things rats like, as well as other rats to socialize with and have sex with, then added the same options of normal water, morphine water, and cocaine water. Shockingly to drug warriors and probably to no one else, the rats did not become “addicts” and kill themselves with the drugs. They would sometimes use the drugs, just for a bit of fun, but they would use them rarely and none of them OD’d. This proved – or at least went a long way towards proving – that the opposite of the “addiction” theory was true, that drugs are not “addictive” in the sense they are claimed to be addictive, and people do drugs because of life problems.

With the oxycontin thing, no one can deny that giving out very strong opiates because someone has a sore back and telling them it was totally safe was ethical. However, who became “addicted”? It was almost exclusively people in small rural towns that had no jobs due to deindustrialization. Without a job, you probably don’t have a wife and kids either, so why not get high? Seriously, why shouldn’t someone in that situation just get high and relax? Imagine you live in a small shithole town, you have no work, you have no wife, you have nothing at all to do: why is it not totally obvious that you would get high?

The current fentanyl crisis is more urban, while the original oxycontin crisis was much more rural, but what is the same is that it is all people who do not feel they have any future. Taking drugs is a choice, and it is a choice made exclusively by people with bad lives. You do not hear stories of well employed and happily married fathers with good diets and gym routines becoming addicted to opioids or any other hard drugs.

It’s worth mentioning that basically everyone in this country is on some kind of mind-altering drugs. Most of them are legal. You can get amphetamine prescribed in a fifteen minute session with a psychiatrist by telling them you have a hard time concentrating, and hardcore tranquilizers by saying you feel anxious. You can take the amphetamines in the daytime and tranquilizers in the nighttime. SSRIs are also still very popular, with around 15% of Americans on them, despite the huge amount of data on how destructive they are, and the whole “chemical imbalance” theory having been completely debunked to the point where no one has the nerve to cite it anymore. Something like 99% of American men use pornography, which, as I’ve explained elsewhere, is not about sex, but is a drug used to flood the brain with dopamine (up to ten times more than other “pleasurable” activities, including real sex).

The reason there is a drug problem in America is that a lot of people have bad lives. They are bowling alone, they are poor, they do not have good family situations. Drug use is also high among famous people, because despite the fact everyone wants to be famous, actually being famous is the most stressful possible life anyone can have. Or, one of the most stressful possible lives. Being an out-of-work coal miner in a shithole town with no young people where 2/3rds of homes are unoccupied is also very stressful.

If you could stop the supply, that already would have happened. The drug war has been going on for decades now and there are more drug addicts than ever. And attempting to stop the supply is unbelievably destructive, and leads to all of the worst possible outcomes.

What the Heck is a Narcoterrorist?

As you’re no doubt aware, Donald Trump blew up a small gas-powered boat in the Caribbean under the premise that it was carrying drugs to the United States. Or rather, it is claimed that this happened.

I don’t know that I really believe it happened. I think the video might be AI. Nothing about it makes any sense at all.

Most obviously, you could not drive that boat 2,000 miles to America. That is nonsensical on its face, and it was incredibly surreal to me that this claim was made and that people believed it. I guess most people don’t know much about boats. I know a couple things about boats. But it really doesn’t seem like you would need to know much about boats to know that what amounts to a large dingy with outboard gas-powered motors cannot travel thousands of miles through open ocean.

The boat was 40-foot long, reportedly with three outboard motors. Speaking with AI on the topic, the trip from Venezuela to Florida would require between 900 and 2,000 gallons of gas. The AI concluded:

Therefore, a 1,000-nautical-mile range at 90 knots with triple outboards is not feasible with current marine technology due to insurmountable fuel consumption demands.

Although it was obvious to me on its face that this claim of that boat in the photo making this trip, which is 1,200 miles as the crow flies and closer to 2,000 miles in practice, was not at all possible, I did a lot of research, asking the AI and then reading source material, and I can confirm that there is simply no possible way that boat was driving from Venezuela to Florida.

This type of boat can be used in drug trafficking, though not typically directly from South America. Even on much shorter trips, go-fast boats require refueling. If this boat was making the trip, it could have been tracked to wherever it was going to refuel instead of blown up. This reminds me of the “Chinese spy balloon” situation, where instead of downing the balloon and investigating it, proving it was a “spy balloon,” they blew it up so no one could ever prove it wasn’t a “spy balloon.”

Though we don’t know exactly where the boat was when it was blown up, Marco Rubio initially said the boat was headed for Trinidad, which is literally right off the coast of Venezuela.

So, although we are not being told where the boat was, presumably, the fact that the Secretary of State said this (he presumably had been briefed on the location) means that the boat was somewhere between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago when it was blown up. To then say that they knew it was headed for America…

….without providing any evidence or explaining how they know that, is quite remarkable in its absurdity. Like, it is actually unbelievable that they are making this claim, and it is even more unbelievable that people on Twitter are going along with it, and actually using the term “narcoterrorists.”

The other very insane thing about this is that there were 11 people on the boat. Why would you bring 11 people on a drug run? Wouldn’t you want to fill the boat with drugs? I mean, especially given the fact you need to bring thousands of gallons of gas, you would think you would want to keep some room for the drugs.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the president isn’t allowed to just murder people by blowing up their boats in international waters. If they thought they had drugs somehow headed for America, they could have just stopped the boat. There are warships and 4,000 marines and sailors off the coast of Venezuela right now, so there were plenty of people who could have hopped over to this boat and checked out what was going on with it. Just blowing it up with an attack helicopter is fucking insane.

It’s possible that they did just blow up some random boat of people traveling from Venezuela to Trinidad. But I also think it’s possible it is just a fake video they released. Thus far, there are no family members coming out and saying “hey why did you kill my family member on that boat, Donald?” and I think it would be a problem to just blow up a random boat because someone’s family members would complain, and Maduro could bring out the family members to talk about it. So it makes more sense to me it was just an AI video.

You might be saying then: if it was AI, why did they make it so stupid? Why did they show a boat that can’t possibly make that trip, why did they include 11 people on it, which makes no sense? And the obvious explanation is that they want people to go along with something that makes no sense.

People are obliging.

Stephen Crowder says you’re committing treason if you don’t support this.

There are millions more of these tweets. You can go check.

They are all using this new term “narcoterrorist.” No one had heard of this a week ago, now it is just being thrown around like it’s an established thing. This is more face-numbing stupidity. “Terrorism” means using violence against civilians to political ends. The goal of narcotics trafficking is to make money. There is nothing political about it. They are using the word because legally, it gives them more power to act under the Patriot Act. (It also sounds much scarier, I’m sure.) Though it is still definitely illegal to just blow up random boats in international waters.

Was Cocaine Even the Problem?

I thought we had a fentanyl crisis, not a cocaine crisis. I thought the whole thing was that “Mexican cartels” were running fentanyl and also China was somehow responsible. But if it’s now about cocaine, that is in itself confusing, but Venezuela is not a cocaine country. They are now going around claiming Maduro is running a drug gang?

I’ve looked it up, and I can’t even find Venezuela mentioned in anything about cocaine. Government studies and a CSIS report agree that 98% of cocaine in the US comes from Colombia, with the other 2% coming from Bolivia or Peru.

I’m sure some of the Venezuelan gang members that flooded the country under Joe Biden’s open borders policy were dealing cocaine in America. But those were people Maduro let out of prison to come to the US. Biden announced an open borders policy, and as is reasonable enough in my estimation, Maduro opened the prisons and sent all his country’s gang members to America. The US had been threatening him with regime change since he took power, and if you’ll remember, under Trump 1, Macro Rubio and Mike Pompeo were doing this insane thing where they picked some random guy and said he was the real president of Venezuela. It was just as bizarre as the rest of this stuff.

Sometimes it feel like nothing even makes sense, no? Honestly, I don’t blame people for just shutting down and shutting off, because there is just this constant flow of utter nonsense, delivered with total seriousness, and it can truly make one feel like they are going insane. I have a bit less sympathy for the Trump people who are cheering on all of this lunacy. I guess I have some sympathy for the average person who is caught up in it, as they are just dumb and helpless and being abused. But these conservative commentators are the absolute scum of the earth. Stuff like the above Stephen Crowder tweet is truly unforgivable.

Clearly, Trump’s people want some kind of “win,” and someone, presumably Marco Rubio, is claiming that they can pull off a regime change in Venezuela. There are 4,000 marines and sailors off the coast now, in warships. You can’t do a regime change with that army, and you don’t need that army if you’re going to try to do an assassination. If you wanted to do an assassination, presumably you would not want it to be completely obvious that you did it, and if Maduro gets assassinated while there are American warships hovering around, it will be obvious who did it. So, who knows what the plan is. I guess they are just trying to create some kind of panic in the country.

It is infuriating that the declared fight against Sino-Mexican fentanyl is now a fight against cocaine in a country that doesn’t produce any cocaine. Because I follow this stuff close enough to understand it is all just lies, I don’t worry about being driven insane by it, but it is so outrageous it is difficult to maintain composure. The fact that I am one of the only people who is actually going to be able to explain these things in a clear and concise way that people can understand, and I am completely out of the game, makes it all the more frustrating.

It seems that the overwhelming majority of Americans get some kind of sadistic thrill from the government killing people. Everyone clapped seeing that boat blown up, without having any information, without asking why it makes no sense. Apparently some of the liberals didn’t clap, but they clap when random apartment buildings in Moscow get drone attacked. This probably relates back to the drug problem. People’s lives are completely meaningless, so they embrace depravity. Abusing drugs and sadistically cheering people you don’t know being murdered for reasons you don’t understand are both coping behaviors of very unhealthy people.

This Isn’t Going Anywhere Good

Part of why I cut back on my output on the Daily Stormer is that I really just don’t have very much nice stuff to say. I don’t see any solutions to anything, and I’m not willing to go around pretending there are solutions in order to try to get some crypto donations. This Venezuelan boat bombing, the purely nonsensical nature of it, and the even more nonsensical public response, epitomizes just how far gone this country is. The Ukraine war also does that. As does basically everything else that happens.

The one glimmer of hope I can see is the backlash against the genocide in Gaza, and the backlash against the larger Jewish project in the Middle East. But the thing about that is, “at least people are willing to say they are against mass murdering children” is not super encouraging. It doesn’t prove much.

As the reader is aware, I am hopeful about the US empire collapsing and China taking over as the world’s premier superpower. This is inevitable in the long term, but there is a high chance things will get much worse before that happens. The fact that the entire leadership in Washington is insane, and that the emerging competing elite in Silicon Valley are even more insane, is not encouraging. The plan right now appears to be to install James “JD Vance” Bowman as the next president, which will allow for a full merger of the Silicon Valley elite with the Washington elite, given that Bowman was groomed by Peter Thiel for this role.

These Silicon Valley people are insane on a whole other level. The “Christian Zionist” cult, which had its moment in the spotlight after 9/11, is perhaps made to look sane by the religious cult that controls Silicon Valley. These people believe, legitimately, that they are going to make an “artificial general intelligence” computer super mind that will solve every problem and allow them to live forever and conquer the universe. Thiel, who is a homosexual, is now claiming to be a Christian himself and he is obsessed with the antichrist (???). His heretical Christian doctrine is that God wants us to perfect our bodies on Earth. People believed the “God wants us to support the Christ-killing Jews and murder all these Arabs” heresy, so they will presumably believe this one too.

I don’t see any room for any kind of progress here. Probably, that is why I am still banned, even while so many other people have been unbanned. I think the pro-China message has become the third rail. As long as people are talking about American politics as if they matter, there is no actual threat to the system, because you are engaging the system and giving it legitimacy even if you are against it. All of this material, even the strong anti-Israel and sometimes even anti-Jewish sentiment just feeds into this nonsense machine, while also providing much needed data for the AI super-systems that are being built.

As I’ve said, writing books is going to be a better way for me to communicate while I am still under these ultra-extreme censorship sanctions. I am writing multiple books now, and I think once I get one finished and published, I’ll get to rolling, and be able to pump out the same word count I was putting out on the site in book format. Although I’m clearly a well-established writer, moving to book format is something of a leap, and it’s a process I’m going through.

I just want to make it clear that although I am very negative on most things I would normally have been talking about, I’m optimistic in the long run, and I am seeing a lot of good things happening on the world stage. God willing, most of us will live to see a better future.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2025, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.