You do realize that there is a vested interest in keeping people hungry, poor, without clothes and ultimately unable to have any sort of self-actualization, right? As long as this is beneficial to the oligarchs, they will use any means available to them to squash alternative views and voices. It's all well and good to say that people should reduce the societal causes of all of these scourges, but simply put; these arent' problems that exist in a vacuum or have "just happened". These problems are the result of political and economic policy manipulations that have been in place largely since Reagan. The issue isn't that people don't or can't get along with each other. It's that systemic policies prevent all but the top 1/10 of 1% of ever gaining any real wealth or power.

You can smile and sing kumbaya all you want, turn the other cheek and say "All you need is love", but until you address this corporate/capitalist "democractic" system that runs by keeping vast segments of the population below the poverty line and/or enslaved to debt in the largest/wealthiest economy in the world, nothing is going to change. What's more is that the people running this system have no incentive to give up their positions of immensely disproportianate wealth and power...this is why I believe that at some point in the not-too-distant future, if we want real change, we are going to have to take up arms.

Psychedelics are a great tool for opening people's eyes to what's going on or helping them question the system; but at some point, real action against the oligarchs will be necessary. History shows that non-violence will not be sufficient. Velvet revolution will not be a viable option, at least not in the US and at that point the question of violent/non-violent resistance will no longer be lagely restricted to the theoretical or philosophical realm. Dosing everyone is fine, but it doesn't actually strike at the entrenched power structure; no matter how you slice it, the psychedelic catalyst needs physical action in it's wake if it's actually going to change anything; this was evidenced in the late 60s and through the 70s.

Yes. The powerful want all the power, all the money. The way they achieve that is by keeping other people poor, so most other people can’t afford giant lots of land and any service, and any product at any time. I scoff at people who blame taxes as the reason they are poor. You’re poor because you hardly make any money in the first place. Taxes are just a penny off the chump change you’ve been allotted by a system that doesn’t want most workers to be wealthy. Either that, or you're just obsessed with money and you'll be dissatisfied no matter how much you make. Personally, I don’t care about wealth, just quality of life. If I make a certain “average” amount of money, I don’t care about making more because I have my needs taken care of. As a result, I’m not a bitter person, I’m not a violent or abusive person, nor a criminal. I'm not desperate to get ahead of anyone, I don't feel I have to use underhanded tactis, I don't have to screw anyone over. I am satisfied with life. Yet, incredibly, a lot of people actually see satisfaction with life as some sort of failure, like you're not improving. Yet the amazing thing is that they only see financial or career gain as improving myself. They see no other possible value in life. I hope future generations focus on quality of life, not attaining wealth. The obsession with attaining wealth creates frustrated, angry, bitter people who are more prone to spread discontent, be abusive, or even criminal.



I know. I realize that talking about things is a first step. It’s still a step. More people are talking, it seems. The internet is opening peoples eyes.



Well, that’s what seems to happen when the people have had enough. However, I wouldn’t lump some potential violent uprising in with the use of psychedelics. We’re talking about a system of disproportionate wealth and power. The greatest motivator will be poor people who are tired of being poor and sick and living shitty lives, not any psychedelic philosophy. Plus, what type of change are you talking about exactly? A total overhaul of the system? When you say violence might be necessary, for what problem specifically are talking of? As fractal said, money means everything to power oriented people. What if everyone just stopped buying their products?

No matter what route you take, you need numbers of people on board….. especially if you’re taking the “violent” route. And especially in modern times because the quality of weapons that those in power have are far greater than ordinary people have. Hundreds of years ago, anyone could pick up a sword and learn to be about as useful as an armed guard. But today, not everyone can pick up machine guns and bombs, and fighter jets. But, even if you don’t take the violent route, you still need numbers. If people boycott products, it would require a lot of people boycotting to have an impact. If people want to elect a different kind of leader, you need about 50% of all peoples support. I don’t think violence is an option at this point. If you know about politics, you should also know that war is used opportunistically for those in power, and as a means to strengthen their own position, and increase their profit. Those in power would laugh at a violent uprising at this point. They’d think of it like a temper tantrum from a child. They’d just out violence you, and then advertise to the survivors, “we defeated them, we are victorious because we are superior. The people have spoken”.



The psychedelic movement of the 60’s showed me that that the government will criminalize and destroy the lives of its own people who don’t break any specific law, but deviate from the norm in some way. There was no specific psychedelic movement really, just as there isn’t today. It just a bunch of people who have somewhat different attitudes towards life, but generally don’t propose any specific change. I think the psychedelic movement, if there is such a thing, is an attitude, a way of living, and I think the preference for non violence is part of that way….. though I wouldn’t want to try to specifically define the psychedelic movement, or the people who use.

fractal enchantment wrote:
This is why I think psychedelics in the proper setting are our best bet. Yes I think EVERYONE should have at least one ayahuasca experience in they're lifetime. I think experiences such as this should be seen as innititations into adulthood. It is not the only way to get us there, but it is the most reliable IMO, when taken in the right context.



"The wrath of god is the power that forces you into love"
obliguhl,I see it now

In conclusion ignore that last if you so please





or maybe

Violent vs Non Violent Annihilation of Current Corporate Global Raping ?

or a

Tryptamine Based Group Production Ceremony ?

I'm mad, i don't mean to carry my attitude, but wouldn't this be the best place on the web . . ?

You completely miss the nuance of my statement by lumping these concepts together. There are multiple ideas being expressed here...let's look at them. Psychedelics are great tools for exposing flaws in the system...that was an aside I used to wrap up the paragraph, it has no bearing on resistance, other than my mentioning it as a short route for opening people's eyes to the possibility/need for resistance. Nobody's lumping potential violent uprising with psychedelics, so you can put your straw man away. As for the rest of your statements...theyre not really coherent, or rather, they echo what I've said, ignore the mechanism for change and then ask for clarity. When the people have had enough; that's when violent resistance takes place, I never said anything about psychedelic philosophy in the context you present it.

What change am I talking about? Scrapping the whole democratic-facade financier-technocrat capitalist oligarchy we live in. If you look at the most disproportionately wealthy group i nthe US, it's 1/10 of the top 1%. These are the multinational corporation CEOs, the heads of investment banks, wall street firms and the "old money" I already mentioned in a previous post. They are ultimately unaffected by traditional consumerism of the kind you speak of. Additionally, here in America, there is no hope of everyone choosing not to buy products because of the more general wealth discrepancies. Even if the truly destitute stopped using the little purchasing power they have, the "middle class" can still generte more than enough profit to sustain the system. You are talking about complex socio-economic problems..."stop buying" is simply not a realistic solution to the problem. How do you "stop buying" when the deficit alone could be changed to a surplus by nationalizing healthcare (this is a fact). How do you "stop buying" when half the amount of the deficit goes to "defense" spending on a yearly basis? These two examples alone serve to highlight our situtaion is what it is because it benefits the few ultra-rich and ultra-powerful. Your suggestion is uttlery baseless.


Actually you don't need that many people as history shows. The average successful revolution has relied on a starter group of 10-15% of the population. Your comment on a "different kind of leader" is absurd....they don't exist. I'm assuming you would say that there were two candidates in this past election? You'd be wrong...both candidates were heavily supported by business interests...the only viable candidates were "the business candidates". There is no choice in American politics, only the illusion of choice. Since the 1970's, the price of winning (read: buying) an election has skyrocketed. You can actually predict the winner based on $$$.

The fact that you make that entirely pretentious "if you know about politics..." statement highlights your lack of historical knowledge. Look throughout Cuba and Latin America over the past 50-60 years or Spain 80 years ago...your theoretical commentary falls flat on its face. Cite some evidence if you actually want to discuss this, don't make hypothetical victory speeches.


Again you miss the nuance here...the 60's started the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement and plenty more political and social activism programs...this is what I'm referencing and there is a decent correlation between the psychedelic drug use and these projects...whether you choose to assign causation to that is your own matter. Your claims that there "was no specific psychedelic movement" in the late 60s or throughout the 70s is laughably absurd...please study the time period. Just look at two activist groups The Weatherman and SDS...both were believed (by the FBI and Reagan) to be funded by communists, but turned out to be funded through the sale of drugs (mainly weed and psychedelics);if that doesn't highlight an organized movement...I don't know what to tell you. There's no point in even debating this...it's on the record. You're also talking about the time of Woodstock and Leary and Kesey and The Merry Pranksters and the explosion of psychedelic and prog rock and the creation of numerous psychedelic films and books and other forms of art and initially unfettered research into these compounds...saying there was no psychedelic movement...or comparing it to the loose-knit hodgepodge that exists today shows a lack of historical understanding, imo.

There were civil rights movements long before the 60's. Even if you only consider relatively modern times and the USA--the women's rights movements can be traced back to them demanding the right to vote in the late 1800's, and African-American rights movements go back to before the US civil war (mid-1800's). The so-called counter-culture of the late 1950's through early 70's picked up those banners but it did not create them, and I suspect that the majority of the proponents of the various rights movements had never even tried psychedelics. It looks to me like there is more of a coincidence during that period than a real correlation between social activism and psychedelic drug use.

Psychedelics may certainly help some people see the connectedness between all things, which certainly can be a factor when it comes to identifying social injustices, but their use does not guarantee or even predispose someone to take action--the vast majority of the psychedelic users I know don't really care about social activism and are just as greedy and self-absorbed as the majority of the population appears to be.

I hear you tse...my only point was that psychedelics can open peoples eyes to the problems. It was a minor aside of my prior post that got turned into a major point by a misreading of what I initially said. There was a great overlap of psychedelics and social movements and as I said, people can draw their own conclusions as to what degree of causation exists there. No matter how you cut it, the late 60s and ultimately, the 70s were a time period of great social reform and activism within the US, that was my main point. You can see in my earlier post that, even though I mentioned the psychedelic experience, my point is social change requires activism and there was plenty of activism in that time period. Psychedelics were also widely introduced and first present on that scale in US society, but that was a tertiary point.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't using any straw man argument. I was stating own opinion. You seem to take a very adversarial approach.... as if this discussion is like me vs you. I am still of the opinion that I wouldn't want to see something called a psychedelic movement associated with a violent uprising. If you weren't saying such a thing, then fine. If you feel the same way, then we agree.



Well, I wasn't disagreeing with with a lot of what you said..... just writing my own point of view on things, and asking about yours.



I am almost afraid to ask, is there anything you think would be effective, other than violence?

The post I wrote yesterday, on the previous page didn't really have anything to do with any of this. I originally wrote about the personal war that goes on in each person, and how I believe the only victory that can ever be achieved is through acceptance. But then I got in another discussion about people in power, and ways of winning, etc, and I think my other post has been swallowed, and the content of it has not been discussed at all.

I will try to study history better before making assertions and assumptions about various things.

I think that when you don't stand a chance of winning, violence will backfire in almost all cases.

Ofcourse it still serves a goal to defend yourself with all means if you're being directly targeted. But to actively engage in a battle you can't win and that isn't brought upon you by others seems totally useless to me.

If the people in syria and libya would realy believe they where totally defenceless, they wouldn't go out on the streets because they know that if they're gonna lose, not only they themselves but also their friends and family's will be murdered by the regime.

You have to take into acount what the risks are and how big they are.

Sorry if my last reply was a little hot-headed. It came at the end of a rather frustrating work day, compounded by the fact that I recently moved houses yet received virtually no assistance from my roommate...I was not in a good place when I responded.


The short answer? No.

Why you ask? Well...simply put, the entire system is corrupt. Politicians and the economy are controlled by the incredibly powerful and incredibly small fraction of US businessmen, bankers and "elite" who own the vast majority of wealth. They have no regard or concern for the welfare of the citizenry, the environment, or anything at all beyond their own personal influence, power and wealth.

Honestly, I'm not even talking about the top 1%, it's the top .1% who truly control things (this is what is truly meant when people refer to "US" interests; the interests of these few oligarchs). They will not surrender this vast and nearly complete power for anything, which is both lamentable and understandable. The only way to "start anew" is to remove these people from their positions of power and control and the only way to do this is (imo) unfortunately, violence.

US elections are bought, not won; in fact, you can predict the outcome of every presidential election for the past ~20 years based on campaign spending (Obama actually won Ad Age's "Marketer of the Year" award for his campaign in 2008, beating out Apple Corp). The recent forums on healthcare and defense spending are two prime examples of the "will of the people" being completely disregarded. In fact, if you look at issues across the board, both the democrats and republicans (and the independents) are significantly to the "right" of the general populace on every political issue. This is evidenced through numerous polls and explained by the fact that they are owned by the oligarchs.

I don't think it will be easy. I don't think it will be pleasant. It's far from assured and we most definitely need to have a good idea of not only what post-revolutionary society should look like, but also what mechanisms and steps will be needed to get us there; but I can see no way out of this system short of violent revolution. As far as I can tell, there is no non-violent way to remove the people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, along with all the violence, death, and poverty that keeps their pockets bulging while the masses slowly whither from the conditions they have created. Until they are gone, real change will not be possible.