Every Day and in every way, you are getting more and more bamboozled by drug war propaganda
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
March 3, 2025
very time I hear Emile Coué's classic phrase1, I think of the scene in 'The Pink Panther Strikes Again' when the mad Charles Dreyfus is ejected from his seat on a park bench and into a pond.
This mishap, of course, is a result of the absent-minded carelessness of Inspector Clouseau, the man who drove Dreyfus crazy in the first place. 'Are you all right, Former Chief Inspector?' asks Clouseau, as he ineptly attempts to extract his former boss from the muck, only to render him more deeply submerged. 'Yes, I'm perfectly all right,' splutters Dreyfus with a crazed look on his face. 'I'm fine, I'm perfect,' he continues, his eyes twitching spasmodically. 'Every day, and in every way...' he concludes while clambering up the bank, 'I'm getting better and better,' after which he launches into a maniacal performance of 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow.'
In other words, I associate Coué's bromide with comedy. I consider the use of affirmations to be a comically insufficient way to address life problems. And the purpose of this essay is to explain why I feel this way.
First, I must remind the reader that there are two ways to consider almost every topic these days: one is by considering the topic in light of drug prohibition and the other is considering the topic while pretending that substance prohibition does not exist. I need hardly add that the latter option is the one that almost all Americans choose in discussing almost any topic these days. This explains why Francis Fukuyama never mentions the Drug War in 'Liberalism and Its Discontents.'2 This explains why Howard Zinn never mentions the Drug War in 'A People's History of the United States.'3 This explains why Paul Johnson never mentions the Drug War in 'Birth of the Modern.'4 In fact, the latter author only mentions drugs when he is talking about addiction, by which he shows himself to be a board-certified Drug Warrior, one who tries to make out that erstwhile panaceas have no positive uses for anybody, anywhere, ever.
Paul implies that laudanum should be outlawed because Samuel Taylor Coleridge used it irresponsibly. 'It ruined his life,' Paul implies. 'Sammy said so himself!' Indeed, Coleridge was all too happy to blame his own uneducated behavior on the laudanum itself. It let him off the hook for his own lack of common sense and self-discipline. But if we embrace Paul's implicit criterion for regulating risky activities, thousands of activities would be immediately outlawed since someone somewhere has been destroyed by them. Beer drinking would be outlawed immediately, horseback riding and free climbing would be a thing of the past, and guns would be confiscated by the government faster than you can say, 'Over my dead body,' something that conservatives like Paul would have considered to be an abomination. This shows that Paul is either inconsistent or that he flunked logic class. But then what do you expect from a so-called historian who does not think that the unprecedented outlawing of mother nature even merits mentioning in a history book about the 20th century?! Paul Johnson's license to practice history should be revoked posthumously, if such a thing were possible. What, were you absolutely BLIND, Paul?
No country has ever had the superstitious chutzpah to outlaw mother nature, as did America in the 20th century, and no meaningful history books can be written which ignore that fact. And yet the vast majority of books on this timeframe do precisely that, Paul Johnson's included. If one learned their history from these tomes, they would believe either that substance prohibition does not exist, or that drug prohibition is a natural baseline and that it is somehow the normal state of human beings to do without the godsends that grow all around them. They would conclude that they were living in a theocracy governed by the principles of Christian Science5 (assuming that they had heard of the anti-drug religion established by Mary Baker-Eddy in 19th-century America). This is why the Drug War has such staying power, because it is hidden in plain sight, and so is never blamed for the endless problems that it causes. We see this in the cluelessness of news reporters when it comes to violence in today's inner cities. They cast about for explanations from global warming to lack of jobs, failing to realize the glaringly obvious truth that drug prohibition created drug gangs for the exact same reason that liquor prohibition created the Mafia: it's the prohibition, stupid!
But I digress. My hatred of the self-censorship implied above has sidetracked me, which is understandable, by the way, since such purblind attitudes have helped clear the way for legislation that has denied me godsends for the last 50+ years. But back to the topic at hand6.
My point here is that Emile Coué's affirmations must be considered in light of the fact that we have outlawed almost every beneficial psychoactive medicine in the world. It is with this in mind that I find Emile's bromides to be ridiculous and condescending. When someone tells the depressed, for instance, to use affirmations - while simultaneously denying them their once-obvious right to godsend medicines - then it is like a jailer denying meals to the prisoners but offering them scraps instead. Yes, the scraps are PART of a full meal and so have some small value... but when considered in the context of forced starvation, they mean very little, indeed, and are, in fact, an insult, for the starving individuals know that the jailer is denying them all the food that would REALLY benefit them.
To be fair to Coué, he lived before America had gone full-bore down the path of substance demonization, while bringing the world's citizens along with it, would they or no. But then again Coué was a pharmacist. He might have known that certain drugs could help users profit from affirmations in a way that the non-intoxicated human could never reliably expect. This is why I say that Coué's affirmations are ridiculous, but ONLY when considered in the context of substance prohibition. There is a possible role for affirmations of some kind when using psychedelics and other drugs that powerfully influence human psychology. Even then, however, I dislike the purely pragmatic nature of Coué's affirmations. This is because I view 'altered states' in the same light that William James viewed them: as gateways to new realities and as ways of seeing the world7. I would rather go into such states with the goal of finding out about myself and what life means than just trying to hard-code my mind with the incredibly abstract belief that I am getting 'better and better,' whatever that means.
I would rather say with Plato, 'Every day and in every way, I am getting closer to achieving the Delphic Oracle's goal of knowing myself.'8 And that is a task that requires work. It requires learning from great philosophers and mystics. It requires meditation. And for many of us, it requires the use of medicines that help facilitate human transcendence, since not everyone is born with the spiritual receptivity of Meister Eckhart (the 14th-century German mystic who, for aught we know, may have ingested substances that we would disparage as 'drugs' today, in any case)9. I cannot leap-frog this process of self-discovery merely by declaring victory in advance and insisting that improvement is taking place absent of any effort on my part. For the fact is, I am NOT getting better and better... unless I am growing in self-knowledge. That is the first principle from which I start, and that is why I consider Emile Coué's bromide to be a shallow trick abstracted from profound religious and philosophical observances. It is a shortcut appropriate only for materialists who think that the self is all that matters in life and that deeper meanings to reality do not exist -- a thesis which the Drug War helps such materialists to 'prove' by outlawing all drugs whose use conduces to an holistic understanding of the world.
Author's Follow-up: March 4, 2025
It is an indictment of the western way of thinking that Emile's ideas were considered revolutionary in the early 20th century. It shows how a devotion to misplaced materialism can blind the world to obvious truths. Everyone has known since prehistoric times that attitude matters, and yet materialists, in their mad claim to omniscience, had lost track of this obvious truth. Materialists considered the human being to be a one-size-fits-all widget, amenable to pharmacological cures in the same predictable way as a mouse or an amoeba. That is why they were surprised by the hitherto obvious truth that attitude could have an affect on the physical world. Emile had not discovered some new and non-obvious law of nature; instead he had simply reminded the slow learners in the class, i.e. the materialists, that mind matters. Had the materialists truly absorbed the message, they would have realized that the revelation was a damning one, for it implied that materialists are not the experts when it comes to matters of mind and mood, nor could they ever be -- for their forte is quantity, not quality. They can tell the human being how to build a Brooklyn Bridge or how to fix a curling iron, but they cannot tell a human being why they should bother getting out of bed in the morning to do such things.
Needless to say, the materialists were not chastened by Emile's 're-discovery' of the fact that mind matters. By the time of Coué's death in 1926, the reductionist principles of materialism were already formulated into the inhumane tenets of Behaviorism, according to which all that mattered in psychology was quantifiable data. According to JB Watson10, we could safely dismiss the testimony of the individual as to their own likes and dislikes. What do THEY know about such matters? The materialists were henceforth to be the authorities when it came to our mind and mood. They were going to be the ones to tell us what we need, psychologically speaking -- hence the modern mental-healthcare establishment, which is comprised of one part materialism and one part substance prohibition -- and a whole world full of disempowerment for the human sufferers whom it turned into passive patients.
Discussion Topics
May 23, 2025
Attention Teachers and Professors: Brian is not writing these essays for his health. (Well, in a way he is, actually, but that's not important now.) His goal is to get the world thinking about the anti-democratic and anti-scientific idiocy of the War on Drugs. You can stimulate your students' brainwashed grey matter on this topic by having them read the above essay and then discuss the following questions as a group!
What are the two ways to consider topics like affirmations?
Why does Brian claim that 'Paul Johnson's license to practice history should be revoked posthumously'?
Brian says he is not 'getting better and better unless he is growing in self-knowledge.' Explain.
Materialism
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James demonstrated how materialists are blind to the depth and meaning of psychological states of ecstasy and transcendence -- or in other words the states that are peculiar to mystics like St. Teresa... and to those who use psychoactive substances like laughing gas. The medical materialist is dogmatically dismissive of such states, which explains why they can pretend that godsend medicines that elate and inspire have no positive uses whatsoever:
"To the medical mind these ecstasies signify nothing but suggested and imitated hypnoid states, on an intellectual basis of superstition, and a corporeal one of degeneration and hysteria. Undoubtedly these pathological conditions have existed in many and possibly in all the cases, but that fact tells us nothing about the value for knowledge of the consciousness which they induce."
And so materialist scientists collaborate with the drug war by refusing to see glaringly obvious drug benefits. They acknowledge only those benefits that they believe are visible under a microscope. The Hindu religion would not exist today had materialist scientists held soma to such a standard. But that's the absurd pass to which prohibition eventually brings us in a society wherein materialist science is the new god: scientists are put in charge of deciding whether we are allowed to imagine new religions or not.
This materialist bias is inspired in turn by behaviorism, the anti-indigenous doctrine of JB Watson that makes the following inhumane claim:
"Concepts such as belief and desire are heritages of a timid savage past akin to concepts referring to magic."
According to this view, the hopes and the dreams of a "patient" are to be ignored. Instead, we are to chart their physiology and brain chemistry.
JB Watson's Behaviorism is a sort of Dr. Spock with a vengeance. It is the perfect ideology for a curmudgeon, because it would seem to justify all their inability to deal with human emotions. Unfortunately, the attitude has knock-on effects because it teaches drug researchers to ignore common sense and to downplay or ignore all positive usage reports or historic lessons about positive drug use. The "patient" needs to just shut up and let the doctors decide how they are doing. It is a doctrine that dovetails nicely with drug war ideology, because it empowers the researcher to ignore the obvious: that all drugs that elate have potential uses as antidepressants.
That statement can only be denied when one assumes that "real" proof of efficacy of a psychoactive medicine must be determined by a doctor, and that the patient's only job is to shut up because their hopes and dreams and feelings cannot be accurately displayed and quantified on a graph or a bar chart.
DEA Stormtroopers should be held responsible for destroying American Democracy. Abolish the American Gestapo.
Until we get rid of all these obstacles to safe and informed use, it's presumptuous to explain problematic drug use with theories about addiction. Drug warriors are rigging the deck in favor of problematic use. They refuse to even TEACH non-problematic use.
Magazines like Psychology Today continue to publish feel-good articles about depression which completely ignore the fact that we have outlawed all drugs that could end depression in a heartbeat.
Psychiatrists never acknowledge the biggest downside to modern antidepressants: the fact that they turn you into a patient for life. That's demoralizing, especially since the best drugs for depression are outlawed by the government.
This massive concern for safety is downright bizarre in a country that will not even criminalize bump stocks for automatic weapons.
Why don't those politicians understand what hateful colonialism they are practicing? Psychedelics have been used for millennia by the tribes that the west has conquered -- now we won't even let folks talk honestly about such indigenous medicines.
"I can take this drug that inspires me and makes me compassionate and teaches me to love nature in its byzantine complexity, or I can take Prozac which makes me unable to cry at my parents' funeral. Hmm. Which shall it be?" Only a mad person in a mad world would choose SSRIs.
I can think of no greater intrusion than to deny a person autonomy over how they think and feel in life. It is sort of a meta-intrusion, the mother of all anti-democratic intrusions.
Was looking for natural sleeping aids online. Everyone ignores the fact that all the stuff that REALLY works has been outlawed! We live in a pretend world wherein the outlawed stuff no longer even exists in our minds! We are blind to our lost legacy regarding plant medicines!
It's really an insurance concern, however, disguised as a concern for public health. Because of America's distrust of "drugs," a company will be put out of business if someone happens to die while using "drugs," even if the drug was not really responsible for the death.
Buy the Drug War Comic Book by the Drug War Philosopher Brian Quass, featuring 150 hilarious op-ed pics about America's disgraceful war on Americans
You have been reading an article entitled, Every Day and in every way, you are getting more and more bamboozled by drug war propaganda published on March 3, 2025 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
very time I hear Emile Coué's classic phrase1, I think of the scene in 'The Pink Panther Strikes Again' when the mad Charles Dreyfus is ejected from his seat on a park bench and into a pond.
You have been reading an article entitled, Every Day and in every way, you are getting more and more bamboozled by drug war propaganda published on March 3, 2025 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
