Is it just me? It seems that there is the overaching notion of leadership as something that is very much against the ideals of the psychedelic culture which seems to put great emphasis on a egalitarian, Partnership-based society...or rather community. While i certainly agree with that, i think it is illusionary to presume that power relations will ever cease to exist.

Should Leaders exist? Yes. I recently learned, that the ethymology of the word "obedience" stems from "to listen to somebody". If somebody posesses great skills i admire, has aquired more knowledge than i do, i respect him or her for that and i'm more likely to listen. This is perfectly natural and we shouldn't let our distaste for tyranny and the insane accumulation of power among the rich and famous cloud our judgement.

I have noticed how important this model of "give and get" is in our circles. Let's face it: ANYONE here could be a DEA agent, or some sort of spy. Anyone? Yes, but it is rather unlikely, that someone like endlessness for instance or Snozzleberry or The Traveler...or any other leading members are actually turning against us. The reason why undercover cops are easy to spot is because they appear to contribute but in reality don't. I think it is great that those who actually advance our community have a high standing, because they've proven to be trustworthy through their work, the countless hours they have spent in service of us, who are struggling against this ruthless machine that is prohibition. These fine humans allow progress, while many of us are still battling negative conditioning of all kinds. I remember feeling horribly guilty using "drugs" and this sensation has never completely ceased as i do operate in partial secrecy.

But this is not a mere "Thank you" thread, it's about re-thinking leadership roles.

The following is a quote from R.J Starrets "Drama of Leadership":



The Idea here is, that academia advised, as far back as 1993 a new kind of leadership which isn't based on strong hierarchies and i think many companies have taken this advice to heart. But transparent offices and buddy-buddy with superiors is obviously not enough.
There is nothing wrong with awarding leadership to those who truly contribute, because they are the ones who do not engange in mere "management" of humans as a ressource, but who engage others in a a worthwhile pursuit. Or in our case: A fight.

I think an ideal leader is someone with limitless utility for compassion. Someone with "soft" power. When it comes to any kind of fight, violence polarizes. Take prohibition in this case. Consider that many on the prohibition side are really engaged in a selfish pursuit based, in most cases, on fear. Fear of the unknown, fear that their tiny confined safety-box is being threatened. The thought process: "I'm afraid of this because it threatens the structure of my personal reality. But those people aren't afraid. I wish they were, because I'm even more scared of the idea that I may be wrong."

The best leader would be someone who could not only passionately articulate for the choir, but also play some part in easing the worries of the other side in the face of frightening change, and do it truthfully, not patronizingly. You'll never get everybody - but if a revolutionary comes from a place of true compassion and understanding, they can sway those with certain proclivities toward reason, and with time a tipping point appears on the horizon.

There's a deep aspect of the human psyche that LONGS for a go-between, for someone that speaks for them. I'm sure we all know the feeling, maybe for you it came from listening to Carl Sagan or Alan Watts or Joseph Campbell, but the feeling when you hear someone articulate with true passion and compassion a deep idea that resonates, that sings in chord with the ringing of your own tuning fork - It's a deep human medicine. People watch sports for the tribal warfare, for the single combat. We crave representatives we can believe in, fighting for us, speaking for us, it stirs us up. A single public figure can be a conduit for the emotions of multitudes.

The pitfalls beneath this are horrifying to consider, and despotism is a dark mark on human history. Hitler was as discompassionate a despot as you'll find, and he was a pessimist with deep contempt for the masses and deep understanding of how to puppeteer them to his own means. Selfish pursuit is a tail wagging the dog, and with that much power it's all the worst when the dog hits a brick wall. There is a good path out there, the "soft power" path, which I reckon is also a slower road. Slow power works over generations, but it's the road to a better civilization by my reckoning.

I know all of this through my own experiments with power and leadership. I lead a great civilization of pizza crust crumbs, cigarette butts, discarded wrappers of gum, half-read books, and this patch of waxy substance caked to the floor in the corner of the room. It's been a tough road getting this far, but nowadays when I speak, god dammit man, when I speak... They LISTEN.

I've read that there are basically two types of leaders and psychologists try to trace the causes for these leadership personalites back to their childhood (typical). What we want is a so called "social leader" who draws its strength from empowering people. Sadly, redistribution of wealth is a concept often abuse and this is nothing enoch thompson invented. Redistribution in egalitarian societies serves the purpose of preventing the accumulation of power, one could speculate. But true respect really arises from what you call "limitless utility for compassion".

I think one advantage we have is the skill to look into each others heart to a certain degree. Also, the relative unwillingness to accept despotism in any form.



You should write a book