McKenna believed that the mushroom is more powerful than any notion of control. Dennis McKenna's had an Ayahuasca experience in Brazil which ended with the voice present during his experience mentioning that they would not allow mankind to destroy nature.

So I am not sure if these substances are no threat to the man. The question is whether or not they are smart enough to actually see the dangerous implications to their way of thinking.

So how do you reconcile your point of the man not being concerned or even being okay with our use of these things with:



If I was the man I'd open my eyes and see how science has proven that shrooms are a menace to their way of life. Cause they don't want better people, they want consumers and patriots. Easily manageable foolish people. That can be swayed or dominated like herds to move in either way they see fit.

Then again, McKenna believed no one is in charge. But I don't agree with him, oh the blasphemy.

You know, I think it was Archimedes who said to give him a lever and a sure footing, or something to that affect, and he could lift the world. I cannot deny to myself the real possibility that the powers that be for centuries and longer have known the fine art of demagoguery. I think they know what the levers are and where the solid ground is for their footing and when and how far to pull the lever.

Scientific research has shown that and I quote:

"ScienceDaily (July 25, 2011) — Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society."

http://www.sciencedaily....2011/07/110725190044.htm

So this little fact pertains to the art of social engineering. We know we have spin doctors, talking heads of all kinds, shapes and sizes, mass media and intelligence services monitoring all data that they can grab and datamine it and draw conclusions from the derived information. That means just the same as 'knowledge is power'. They know who, when, why and what and with that they pull the right lever and the gray mass in the street will be swayed.

So I am convinced there are people who know very well how to manipulate that 10% and they have known this for millennia probably.

So... If the psychedelic community reaches 10% mass then their views will be adopted. And isn't it possible that this is why there are such broad sweeping, seemingly imprecise drug laws making DMT illegal? As long as any group opposing their world order remains relatively small, it is okay by them. It even works for them: it rel;eases some pressure if people who feel oppressed can relieve themselves with their psychedelic. Indeed you can do away with them and laugh at them and ignore them.

McKenna was asked why he wasn't in jail, why he was 'allowed' to give these lectures. And he said that he could do it all as long as he stayed below the radar, that as a community and as a person they made no true impact. (It is amazing how much I absorbed McKenna in my mind and how often I find him to be making sense, I am like a McKenna priest sometimes, jesus! Or: McKenna!)

Anyway, there is a scientifically backed up perspective of the why of prohibition.

What I meant by using the occupy movement as an example is that even if the government thought drugs would open our eyes to see the truth about their grip of control on us, it's obvious that isn't really the case. Very few movements have happened due to restrictions on drug use. The government simply has too much control and that inevitably will only result in more and more control until we stop it from happeneing. I highly doubt there is a plan to enslave us all and making drugs illegal is part of that plan.

Interesting points. Let me add that I don't agree with many Dutch initiatives of organizations, like the VOC, to make a footfall before politics by inviting them to tax cannabis products in exchange for government regulation and taxation and quality control. They are seducing politics by these things, after all, who would be against quality control when you hear immoral people drench weed in a liquid containing lead to make it heavier so they get more when they sell it to coffeeshops.

I'd rather have cannabis remain illgal than allowing in government control. Such control is proposed and already being implemented in the form of a 'weed pass' for a coffeeshop. That means registration. And to me that means stitching a star on the coat of every Jew in the ghetto.

It would be a matter of time before your health insurer increases your monthly fee for smoking an illegal drug, or hide this excuse under some other header when they illegally get their hands on a list of registered cannabis smokers. We cannot be naieve about this when every single day we read about identity theft, credit card information hacking and so on and so forth.

So here we have the Dutch model and a time of change, where pro-cannabis organizations want to invite the government to take charge of what is basically a human right to alter your own consciousness. It is a footfall but a typically Dutch compromise. It is the Dutch 'Polder Model' in action. You get something, you give up something. And the reason for having them or letting them take charge is taxation, they are seducing politicians with 'what if you could hundreds of millions in tax reveneus from taxation of cannabis products?'

And still the government does not want to go that way, because it means legalization and the christian parties, the CDA, is too strong in Dutch politics for legalization to take place. And why would they, already they have the power. They can send in the police and prosecute growers etc. Keeping it illegal gives them the power of control and taxes? They can rip you legally in any enterprise already. So these organizations should stop riding the leg of government like horny dogs. Instead they should play the card of human rights. And ask Hancock to show up and give his speech.

You are right that DMT isn't so magical. One things is it is chaotic in nature. No one here can state any lasting truth about what it is when you see that you do.