I wonder if " real world issues " are worth
even being connected to in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned the current corporate economic value system
That we are all enslaved to in one form or another is a barbaric
aboration That we should all try to get as far away from as possible.

Right, but do those people have access to and can they even afford television, a hobby that requires $$$, or regular drug use? This is an actual question, I'm not being rhetorical. What kind of places, specifically, have you been to-if you dont mind me asking?

I also think it's important to frame what resistance actually looks like; as most front line communities are already resisting and literally putting their lives on the line to have their voices heard, and they're not being heard. We like to think that for some reason poor and oppressed people just can't get their shit together and organize and one day a bunch of white activists will come along and save the day. Real change has to come about by allying with front-line communities who are already fighting the good fight; when we use our free time to explore the depths of our minds, that may not inherently be a bad thing if we really take something from it. But I don't think spending every weekend drinking ayahuasca or eating mushrooms or seeing just how far the rabbit hole goes is really conducive to anything but ourselves. Of course if we lived in a world where massive direct action wasn't needed and things were more or less alright, sure I don't see the problem with spending your free time however you want, and psychedelics in a personal context are very productive "hobbies". But we don't live in such a world; we live in a world that requires the absolute best of everyone who has power (power is many things aside from money and is not just concentrated in the hands of the elite), anything less just won't cut it.



Could you elaborate more? I have some thoughts but I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean.



I don't think there's anything wrong with her website but I think it depends on what she does with it. I think you're right that we should not judge her for having a bit of a fluffy analysis after her first psychedelic experience; I think that can be common. As a reporter though, I think we can expect for her to at some point connect her insights to the bigger picture. I don't actually disagree with the idea that at the root, conflict comes from internal processes; but unless we can frame that within the context of whats actually happening in the world, I see it as an oversimplified and lazy way to look at things. "There wouldn't be any war if people just took some time to sort out their problems" Well, no...people are being oppressed and brutalized and when they resist that is where we see conflict. We can't just stop fighting and keep doing things the way we are doing them. We need people who have the power to do so to tear down the current institution and replace it with something that works.

So again in her case, I don't think we can really judge at this point; who knows what she will do with it? I think that because of her background, we can expect some cool stuff and I'm actually excited about it. Although, if I can point it out, I do think that this is a textbook case of appropriation; and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

how can you be disconnected from the real world? we are all in it. each persons life is incredibly different in a thousand different ways. most people will agree that you cannot stop people from being people. and people are the source of all of this misfortune. for as long as history has been recorded we have been going through the same shit over and over again. People need happiness and Psychedelics offer a path to happiness, and dare i say it , happiness without ignorance.

to put it shortly , the psychedelic community is not disconnected from the real world. the psychedelic community is a response to the real world.


Also , to me psychedelics are not a good candidate for escapism. each dose of ayahuasca,4aco,DMT and mushrooms have told me that living in 'sober conscious rational reality' is the greatest gift you can be given.

I feel not being engaged within the psychedelic community as well as being engaged are both equal ways to feel disconnected from real world issues. Real world issues are not your responsibility just because it exists. That is your choice. Many of us humans make mistakes and do not take the responsibility of consequences. even with taking psychedelics. Which can ultimately lead to disconnection.

For the simple notion that psychedelics can possibly help alleviate many of our personal issues, the same can be said for larger scale issues. Why? Well, personal development is much more within the framework of understanding. For your inner being is truly what shines externally for those with eyes to see, ears to listen and a heart to feel.

I think it is that economic relationships, even if failed & aborted, are the basis of priviledge and the allocations of ecology / community. Beginning with geographic problems, with the face of the earth itself.

barbed wire or uninhabitable summits, these boundaries have always lain at the perimeters dormant in one form and another form and another. They are the railroads, they are the canyons and streams.

She is/was a reporter. She has seen conflict and is probably fully aware of the bigger picture. She got stressed by it. That"s what made her ill. She took ayahuasca and it helped her. Now she wants to promote it to help others. It maybe a simplified outlook but i do not see it as lazy and i really do not think that we have the right to slag her if that is as far as she goes. Maybe she is sick of the bigger picture and just wants to help others on a more personal level. Maybe the next Ghandi, Emily Davison, M L King or Huey Newton will read her site, neck some ayahuasca and save the world.

I don"t mean to argue, as all of the posters in this thread have made good points and i think your points about priveliged white males are spot on. But anyone that needs to do psychedelics in order to see the folly of humanity really should be having a word with themselves.

I think I see where you're going. I think personal development is very important; and in the end you can't hope to make a real difference without first coming to terms with and fully knowing yourself. But imo that is where the disconnect lies with a lot of psychedelic users. Many seem to get caught up on the interpersonal dynamics and don't connect those lessons to the very real situation the world is in right now. There is nothing wrong with taking time to work on yourself, and I'm not trying to downplay the interpersonal nature of psychedelics at all; but at least in my experiences, the things that I have learned are not only applicable to me and my family--these substances really push me to do ALL that I can do for other people, not just me and my family/friends, or people in my circles; even if it's not convenient or easy.



Hmm, good point. I think I want to digest this a bit before responding. Thanks for your thoughts!



I think you're right; and it might be unfair to judge her and lump her into a category. She could reach millions of people and create positive change in a way that works for her.

Though would you say that she is representative of the majority of psychedelic culture?

And no worries--I appreciate the input and opinions of everyone! It's what makes a conversation interesting I really like what you've said and you've challenged me to rethink my perspective a bit. Much thanks!

I see your reasoning. Could we not say that reasoning itself can also play a role in this dynamic field of inquiry, in conjunction with psychedelics? I too have learned many things about life, directions, new perceptions and so forth with entheogens. All times they descend you into profound states of being. Life-changing and information gathering.

It is incredible to allow psychedelics to unfold your external and internal environments. Imo, many of these experiences are left with a fresh awareness and understanding.

I don't understand the hostility I perceive in your post. Have I done something to upset you?

My comments had nothing to do with her healing and focused solely on the political analysis she presented in a very public way. In making a public statement, she opened herself up for critique. I'm well aware that many people's views are not in-line with mine, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their views, nor does it mean I have to avoid engaging with the points at which our views differ. In fact, I would posit that discussions over these differences are the area(s) that will foster the most interesting growth in all viewpoints involved.

I have never equated myself with Che Guevara (or any other Marxist or notable revolutionary) and again find the comment to be rife with latent hostility. I'm sorry if I've said something that upset you, but to be honest, I'm confused and somewhat hurt by the tone I am perceiving you to be using here. Could you help me understand why you are communicating in this manner?


When did I ever accuse her of being lazy? I labelled her sociopolitical analysis about the use of psychedelics as lazy. I did so because she has a background that allows for (and has produced) much more coherent analyses of global political situations. It seems like you are taking my critique of her statement somewhat personally and applying my words out of context.

I don't know enough about her site and her intentions to comment one way or the others. I am definitely suspicious of what it will yield, but I am hopeful it will be a positive media outlet, as it is sure to get a fair amount of attention, based on her public persona.

As to why I'm suspicious...simply put, she's new to all of this. Sure, I can appreciate and relate to having your lid blown off and feeling called to all of this. That said, the early days of my psychedelic exploration were so consumed by research that I can't fathom having been able to put together an outlet (news or otherwise) that I would look back on today and be confident that it had been as holistic and well-researched as what I could put forth now. Surely that's no reason not to try, but it is a reason I am cautiously curious to see what she will present.

We see proselytes all too frequently within psychedelic communities and ime, they tend to be those with less experience or greater desire for publicity. I'm not saying that this is always the case, nor am I saying this will be the case with her. I am simply saying that it is too early to know what this site will be, let alone to pass judgement on the site itself. I am personally much more confident in what I believe The Nexian and The Nexian news site could become, precisely because I know the people involved and their dedication to these plants and compounds.


It is precisely the fact that she is/was a reporter that caused me to level my critique. The fact that she has been traumatized does not mean her words are beyond reproach nor that she can abandon cogent political analysis without expecting commentary on that deviation. We are all traumatized by the sick societies we live in. We all work to heal ourselves and overcome these abuses in various ways.

No one has "slagged" her. If we can't critique each other's viewpoints, how will we ever grow and develop new ones? A meaningful and relevant critique of her words was offered. I get that you don't like it, for some reason, but that doesn't mean it's unjustified or out of bounds, imo.

Imo, psychedelics have a lot to offer when it comes to healing traumas. They also have a lot to offer when it comes to figuring out how to find love and enjoyment in life. They even have a lot to offer when it comes to understanding the destructive systems we find ourselves coerced into. Imo, a holistic approach that weaves all of these veins together is not only what's needed, it's also what psychedelics can offer in the right set/setting.

Through this interweaving of healing, understanding, and experiential knowledge, psychedelics can offer truly catalytic moments to people who engage with them as such. Imo, we owe it to ourselves to reach for that depth of engagement. We may even owe it to the plants we're working with, but I'm hesitant to claim to know what they want out of our relationships with them.

Ultimately, I believe we should be working for the fullest engagement possible, which includes bringing our psychedelic understandings to bear in day to day life, as well as being able to productively identify and discuss our different ideological viewpoints so that we may collectively grow in our spirits and actions. For me, anything less is at odds with the lessons I have been presented with by psychedelics.

The psychedelic community is as infallible, hate/ignorance filled and covered in warts as any other, thus as connected or disconnected to real world issues as any other. Don't bother trying to deny your humanity. It is just an ugly fact we all have to live with about ourselves, our communities and our loved ones, no matter how "enlightened."

I apologise for my brash posts and didn"t mean to come across as hostile. I have the utmost respect for what you write or i wouldn"t bother to take the time to argue with you. I also think that you have a fine moral compass. If we were talking face to face you would notice the smile in my eyes as i conversed with you but i understand that we are communicating by the written word and i will try to temper my discourse in future. The Che Guevara thing was meant as a compliment i thought it would be cool to be compared to him. He was an activist, i see you as an activist. If i was comparing you to Charles Manson i could see that offence would be taken but i understand that you maybe more of a sensitive individual than i, so i officially apologize for being a thoughtless dick.



If you can accept that i wasn"t being offensive (just maybe a bit of a balshy halfwit at times) then maybe you can accept that i wasn"t trying to shut you down but offering a critique of your critique. Isn"t critiquing someone just a posh way of slagging?

If we are all traumatized by the societies that we live in do you think that there has ever been a time when this hasn"t been the case?

Thanks for the explanation, I can certainly accept that. Flat text makes for difficult interpretation at times, which is why I tried to phrase things as my interpretation of what you presenting, rather than your expressed intent.

As to critique vs. slag, perhaps it's a dialectical thing, but I view a critique as a critical review/commentary/analysis whereas a slag, to me, would be more of an ad hominem or personal attack. That said, yes, I can definitely accept a critique of my critique (and offered a rebuttal, or perhaps a critique of your critique of my critique? ).

Also, thanks for your explanation of the Che comment. I took it as snarky and if that was not your intent, I will gladly accept it as a compliment (so much so that I will refrain from offering a critique of Marxism ).


I don't honestly know.

I do think there were times when people were less traumatized by the societies in which they lived. I would say we can even see the ways that the traumas of capitalism and industrial civilization has changed over time. 60 years ago, advertising (the perpetual bombardment of messaging that each of us is inadequate for one reason or another) was nowhere as ubiquitous or insidious as it is today. This development has undoubtedly led to increased trauma in a variety of ways. And, this is hardly the only example within a society that we can all probably agree is quite traumatic. So, if we can identify increasing, or at least shifting and targeted, trauma within this context, I think it stands to reason that there probably were (and are) social/cultural structures that exist/have existed that cause less trauma.

There are historical examples of less traumatic societies and there are currently existing societies that I would wager may have less internal causes of trauma than those found in dominant culture. That said, what does it mean if a society causes minimal trauma to its members, but external societies/actors introduce significant additional trauma to its members? I think we can separate those sources of trauma, but we should be careful of glorifying specific cultural arrangements and putting them on a pedestal of "trauma-free."

I don't know that there are/were cultures without traumatized individuals. I do believe that there are cultural arrangements that expose us to less trauma. And, at the risk of introducing a whole other can of worms, I think that there are some potential forms of trauma that may be more desirable than others. Personally, I think that trauma that may be incurred while engaged in liberatory struggle is less self-destructive and damaging than the traumas we experience day-to-day at the hands of capitalist arrangements.

To illustrate, I'll close with a quote from the Contradictionary:

@VTseeker84



Well, culture at its core is a pattern and a pattern is order. Patterns get forged by power and what that means is to discard one way of living over another. It means to enfoce connctions between people between habits, between meaning. If someone builds a railroad and cuts through the land, it enforces a cetain connection and thereby makes it a priviledged one. Before the trains, everyone could make their own way through the land. YOU had the power...that power has been transfered to someone else, someone with a higher authority than you to shape culture.

I am glad that you feel this way. No snark intended. Say what you like about Che"s politics but he helped to get things done and he wasn"t a bad looking chap, if the posters on student bedroom walls are anything to go by.
I will ruminate on our inter-playing critiques in regard to the Amber situation.

perhaps the answer lies in another question

what is the real world ?

the world of politics , corporations , countries , places , richness-poverty , etc

or the real world is the world made up of our 5 senses ?

edit : i understand their are things like radiowaves and x-rays that we dont directly percieve with our senses however we still need machines like the radio and xraymachine to translate it for us to things we can percieve with our 5 senses

without our senses there is no world , so my question is how much is the world connected to their senses , or are the living in their thought ?

edit again :i would like to firmly state people pls dont worry , once my jedi mind tricks are strong enough , i'll heal the world , save the planet , end global hunger and poverty ,all in a days work for me

also for those of us that believe in the world of corporations , governments , etc

if one wants to cause any change like martin luther king , mahatama ghandi , mother teresa

pls understand these people had a real hard time and had to suffer a lot , ( anybody remembers assange )

one could just as easily enjoy their time without worrying about the world !

also do we really want to be like the governments and corporations that control the world or we can choose to let the world control itself rather than trying to do anything

i totally agree with sentiments like "why bother" and "who cares" , this i believe should be our stance when approaching this world , because in reality we are totally powerless to cause any big change in the world

we can feed animals and people that are suffering , we can grow plants and do some real good work for the planet

yet if we want to cause big changes , then a lot of suffering awaits us and how far can anyone go ? also why control the world or change it to what we like , isn't that exactly what corporations/governments are doing ?


if we really want to change the world we must change ourselves and the world will change ,( yeah i heard this in a movie , change yourself to change the world )

So would you argue that humans are essentially hateful and ignorant and there's no point in trying to do anything about it?



But by transferring that power to those of privilege, wouldn't you say that creates a hierarchy and is inherently disconnecting in that way?



In this context, I'm referring to the 'real' world as the reality that faces global civilization on all levels; from the environment, to human health, to sociopolitical and economic climate, to human rights, equality, etc...

I think you've got some solid insights, but I fundamentally disagree with this

First off, we are not powerless. We're meant to think we are but we are not. In reality, we are the ones who hold the power; the state only derives it's power from consent. As long as we're silent, the state is going to do whatever it wants as justification for maintaining our comfy lives. If we collectively and vocally dissent, we can influence change. It's happening all over the world in countries with nowhere near as many resources as we have as Westerners. We have no excuse.

Secondly, people like MLK and Ghandi were not Jesus figures who just came along one day and saved the day. They were figureheads and spokespeople of movements that had been building up slowly over years and years of hard work by everyday organizers and people you and I have never heard about. I'd recommend the book "Ive Got the Light to Freedom"--it's all about the organizers of the civil rights movement and the real work that went into it. People had been doing what MLK was doing for nearly 20 years before he came along. Struggle and resistance is long, slow, painful, and bitter; but it does work and history shows that. You can't buy into the submissive belief that we only hold power as consumers. Obviously transition will be uncomfortable and we will have to sacrifice our cozy sheltered lives, but IMO I think it's terrible to justify what is happening in the world simply so that we may not be uncomfortable, can have our big houses, drive our cars, do our drugs, and hope someone else will take care of it. If our children behaved in this manner we would never let it fly; we would tell our kids that they have to clean up after themselves and stop playing video games because their bad behavior has affected the whole household negatively. It would be a lesson of responsibility and accountability.

I would actually agree that I am quite disconnected from the "real world." Despite having access to the internet, I live in a mental bubble. But this is by choice. I have never been as at ease as I am now in life. I just simply don't care about any external stuff, and I don't even care to know. I prefer not to know or get involved. I really don't. I have no clue what's going on in the government, really, except what makes it through the proverbial grapevine, or globally what's going on. I don't know much of what is going on around me, but life seems easier that way, if not better. Right now I'm here listening to music with my cat, and I don't give a **** about who's doing what to whom and when or why or whatever.

the issue quite simply is ........

pragmatic Vs ideal

edit : i do believe we should do what we can , yet the decison is what each one of us has to make for ourselves ,

also i am lazy and stoned all day ..........what can i say .....perhaps i'll get thru the laziness ........eventually

nevermind people .........you know how utterly useless i am ........

i feel i am really far gone in my head to change anything ....anywhere ......

the world is out of my control and i can't do anything about , mostly i can control myself and my actions , so i do what i can .......which is not much i guess

and as i come to this point, i've even forgotten what i am talking about ......