The "New Psychedelic Movement"

[gloggawogga]

When I refer to a new movement, I'm refering to the new way that young people are begining to think. Young people are actually begining to realize that all the money in the world will just make us more unhappy. That all the affirmative action in the world will only process more racism. etc... One of my big ideals is that I don't consider myself "American"...I consider myself a human. And as gay as that may sound, if the entire world thought this way there would be no reason for wars or terrorism or corruption. Instead of trying to get more land and oil and bullshit, we'd be sharing with each other and worrying more about advancing our society than advancing our physical power.

Those ways of thinking aren't new. People in my generation and generations before me thought them to. And there still the practical world to deal with. When you are married and raising children money will matter to you. Affirmative action might suck, but ending affirmative action won't end racism. Racism is very deeply embedded at all levels in our society and pretending it isn't there won't make it go away, it will only make things worse for those opressed by it.

Now bringing my rant back to psychadelics...the only reason that these drugs would be included in the movement is that most of the users of acid or other psych drugs think along these lines.

Sure. But psychedelic users are far from the only foward thinkers and the last thing they should be doing is putting themselves on a pedestal above others.

I'm not talking about changing the way people think about drugs, but the way people think about each other. There is a huge difference. Maybe that will clear somethings up for you Glogga?

Yes, it does. But if you are talking about changing people on that deep of a level I'll agree those who say that we really can't change others, we can only change our selves.

 

[The Drummer]

Spyke,

Tablesaws Drill presses are both very dangerous, and legal in the United States for any adult to buy, without a license... And I'll guarantee you, without looking at any actual statistics, that a larger percentage of users of power tools are injured or killed using them than the percentage of psychedelic drug users whose drug use has injured them...
You can make a bad decision with heavy machinery, with an automobile, with aspirin, a plastic bag too near your head, and die from all of these things.. all of these can also be used safely, responsibly, and without real danger.

I think that the prohibition of LSD and similar chemicals is a large factor in the "danger" associated with them... someone who's made a bad mistake with a power tool is far more likely to go to the public for help than someone who's on a whole lot of drugs. The forum says "There is no such thing as SAFE drug use" but I don't touch stimulants opiates or pharmaceutical drugs, nor use any method of administration other than by mouth... so fuck that, my drug use is safer than highway driving by leaps and bounds.

There is NO reason and NO ground for the government to decide what I should and should not be allowed to do in my own god-damn brain. No one that uses psychedelics ought to think they should be illegal. If you trust people, they will reward your trust. Promise.

Also, qualifying a statement like "We're all one species" with a statement like "I know that sounds gay"... labelling that kind of sentiment as "gay" is just another way that society keeps us from reaching such sentiments. PLUS, homosexuality is a really good thing for our species, not only does it curb population growth, it shows that love doesn't need to be based on a biological need for offspring...

it's just love. To quote Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter, "There's nothing deviant about love!"

 

[austior]

Passive activism can have some impact. I guess you could call people growing their own weed and getting high passive activism. However Ghandi's activism for India's independance involved much more than that, including man public non-violent protests and marches where people were regularly massacred by the British Army.

Radical activism is not unique to the 20th century. Look at the revolutionary war, the Boston Tea Party, or uprisings that occured under the Articles of Confederation. Look at the protests for a shorter work week and labor rights in the 1800's. Werever throughout history there have been uprisings, you can thank radical activists. For that matter, look at Christ. He was a radical activist.

As I understand it, the Indians who followed Ghandi did not go looking for trouble. Instead, they went about their daily lives; when they ran into trouble, they held their ground. This is somewhat different from the modern concept of protesting, even non-violent protesting.

You make a good point: radicalism is not unique to this century, nor is activism and protest. Many radicals before the 20th century were also protestors, BUT they avoided mixing the two in public, for political reasons. These radicals, when they protested, had to hide their radicalism so people would listen. It is only in the twentieth century that being a radical could be considered an advantage in mainstream politics.

I think this day and age is something of a reversal of political trends in the sixties. While you can still be a radical and an influential public figure, once again you must tone down your radicalism so people will listen....

 

[Kanaba]

Radical activism does play a role in getting certain things done, but I do believe that in today's society, it dosn't quite work as well as it used to. Passive activism is the way to go; the quietly defiant citizen is much more a danger to the tyrannical state than the loud-mouth who expouses his views like an idiot behind a podium. If you quietly resist, that means your dissent is in your own mind. It's your psychological state, and the government knows it can't fuck with that; however, if you're really stupid and try to enact change violently or be real 'out front' about it, especially in the modern era, you don't get as much sympathy for your cause. I think the only reason psychedelic drugs aren't mainstream is because they're not produced in massive quantities, like they used to. People are too stingy nowadays. Back in the sixties, you had guys like Owsley, who'd brew millions of hits, and give half of them away for free, and sell the other half for dirt cheap. It's this kind if mentality that mobilizes drug use, and propells it to mass culture.

But do we really want psychedelic drugs to be a part of popular culture? I think one of the aspects that makes psychedelics so special is how 'underground' they are. Personally, I love the feeling of being a 'social dissident' whenever I dose up on the weekends. And I think if I saw these abercrombie-wearing dicks at my school start to abuse psychedelics just to 'be cool' and 'fit in', suddenly psychedelics wouldn't seem so cool to me anymore. I'd probably move away from drug use just to be different from them. It'd be funny if in the future, psychedelics are massively popular, and the people that used to do them a lot in the past (us bluelighters) are the only sober ones in society, just cuz we want to be dissidents. What an alternate universe.

 

[The Drummer]

Personally I must interject,

I don't use drugs because I don't want to be like abercrombie-wearing dicks. I'm already like them, and everyone else on the planet... using psychedelics to create boundaries between people seems like the most backwards thing I could ever think of.

I think most serious long term users of psychedelic drugs use them because they are beneficial, not because they need something to set them apart. They are helpful and constructive substances that people keep coming back to because they've found them to be the best way to do..... something... their mileage varies of course.

I use psychedelics because they fill me with joy, and religion, and love, and crusader's zeal, not because they make me feel better than someone else.

 

[gloggawogga]

As I understand it, the Indians who followed Ghandi did not go looking for trouble. Instead, they went about their daily lives; when they ran into trouble, they held their ground. This is somewhat different from the modern concept of protesting, even non-violent protesting

I suggest you read up on Ghandi. He actively encouraged non-violent protests and rallies, including blocking the streets and other forms of civil disobedience. His model was the model King used.

You make a good point: radicalism is not unique to this century, nor is activism and protest. Many radicals before the 20th century were also protestors, BUT they avoided mixing the two in public, for political reasons. These radicals, when they protested, had to hide their radicalism so people would listen. It is only in the twentieth century that being a radical could be considered an advantage in mainstream politics.

I don't know about that. Lincoln was considered a radical by many. And how do people hide their radicalism when they protest??

Anyways, we've gotten off topic, unless Lincoln and Ghandi were doing psychedelics.

The Drummer, I agree with your post.

 

[Dean Luna]

gloggawogga:

I have no idea what you think a "movement" is. The new take on entheogens by people like Terrence McKenna, and the introduction of the idea of entheogenic shamanism as a religious practice in the "North" has been a major cultural event over the last decade and a half.

psychedelics failed to make a lasting impression on religious practice in the U.S. in the 60's partly because of a lack of framework, of tropes and symbols, of ritual practice. Many people who experienced chemical enlightenment turned to Buddhism because it has a social disipline.

Things like raves and even Burning Man have begun to change this. Moreover there are certainly quite a number of ayahuaca circles in this country now which are dedicated to using entheogens in a serious and formal religious context.

Whatever you want to call what is happening here it is signifcant enough that it is being taken seriously by religious studies scholars. (I myself am working on a paper on the Trip Report as a genre of religious literature.)

 

[Kanaba]

I'm not saying i use psychedelics because I want to be 'different' in some way. my mentality sets me apart from everyone else, i dont need drugs to be different. however, if psychedelics suddenly became the "in" thing, they'd probably lose a lot of their novelty. i think eventually lots of people would be doing these psychedelics to fit in or something, and that would 'dilute the constituency', if you know what i mean. it'd kinda be like culture-rape; people take something that was once cool and turn it into a pop-culture fad like bell bottoms, aberfitch shit, and birkenstocks.

and dont try to be self righteous or anything, i think i can speak for many, many people when i say that if i saw MTV endorsing psychedelics, my view of them would change significantly... im just trying to be honest about the negative way i view pop culture, and for some reason everyone's construeing it as "trying to distance yourself from others, thinking you're above everyone else"


glogg, ghandi really wasn't for active protest. he held some marches, but never did anything to be a blatant nuisance to the British empire. He didn't want to appear to be an 'enemy of the state'. If he was "blocking the streets," as you claim, the british media at the time could have given him a bad name, and pointed him out as a social dissident who couldn't function in society. Ghandi was concerned chiefly with making his people and himself appear as innocent as possible, so as to make the evil of the opressor be evident to the world community.

 

[psych@delic]

they cant stop our "movement" if ppl get up the damand for psychedelics so that ppl will make doi (or other psychedelics) instead of meth....then well hav our own "stash", so to speak.

 

[jeldrid]

and dont try to be self righteous or anything, i think i can speak for many, many people when i say that if i saw MTV endorsing psychedelics, my view of them would change significantly...

Wow.. Sheep come in all shapes and sizes, I guess...

 

[blahblahblah]

if psychedelics suddenly became the "in" thing, they'd probably lose a lot of their novelty. i think eventually lots of people would be doing these psychedelics to fit in or something, and that would 'dilute the constituency'

This seems to be occuring already with the slew of 'trendy psychedelics' that has been sweeping the world for years. It is just lately that I have seen it start to trickle down and you run into alot more young ppl that are taking these drugs.

 

[Kanaba]

Wow.. Sheep come in all shapes and sizes, I guess...

- was that some sort of flame, or something? are you suggesting that because my opinion of something changes because i view it all the fucking time on television and radio, im just a sheep like all the others? dosn't your view of something change a little bit if it gets overplayed? overused? becomes trite or cliche? like, the song you liked yesterday... it gets the shit played out of it on TV and radio... you probably would end up liking it a little less, right?
- we should avoid flaming eachother like that, lets try to maintain a little bit of courtesy and 'decency', and hold a civilized discussion here. but if u dont want that, i guess thats cool too.
(suck my balls) %)

 

[austior]

I suggest you read up on Ghandi. He actively encouraged non-violent protests and rallies, including blocking the streets and other forms of civil disobedience. His model was the model King used.



I don't know about that. Lincoln was considered a radical by many. And how do people hide their radicalism when they protest??

Anyways, we've gotten off topic, unless Lincoln and Ghandi were doing psychedelics.

Well, I don't think Ghandi is off topic. If we do plan to resist and stand up for ourselves, we should at least consider the methods of Ghandi. I'm no expert in the field, but I have seen the Kingsley film (which is supposedly accurate), and I took a class on India in college.

Ghandi makes the distinction between his philosophy and western non-violence somewhat differently from how I described it. So, let's see what he has to say:

Originally posted by Mohandas Ghandi
I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practised in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used 'passive resistance' and 'satyagraha' as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression 'passive resistance' ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it ever insists upon truth. I think I have now made the distinction perfectly clear. (emphasis added)
...

The movement of non-violent non-co-operation has nothing in common with the historical struggles for freedom in the West. It is not based on brute force or hatred. It does not aim at destroying the tyrant. It is a movement of self-purification. it therefore seeks to convert the tyrant. It may fail because India was not ready for mass non-violence. But it would be wrong to judge the movement by false standards. My own opinion is that the movement has in no ways failed. It has found an abiding place in India's struggle for freedom.

Although non-co-operation is one of the main weapons in the armoury of Satyagraha, it should not be forgotten that it is after all only a means to secure the co-operation of the opponent consistently with truth and justice. The essence of non-violent technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the antagonists themselves. In non-violent fight you have, to a certain measures, to conform to the tradition and conventions of the system you are pitted against. Avoidance of all relationship with the opposing power, therefore, can never be a Satyagrahi's object but transformation or purification of that relationship.

Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen. He dare not give it up without ceasing to be a man. Civil disobedience is never followed by anarchy. Criminal disobedience can lead to it. Every state puts down criminal disobedience by force. It perishes if it does not.

A Satyagrahi obeys the laws of society intelligently and of his own free will, because he considers it to be his sacred duty to do so. It is only when a person has thus obeyed the laws of society scrupulously that he is in a position to judge as to which particular laws are good and just and which unjust and iniquitous. Only then does the right accrue to him of civil disobedience of certain laws in well-defined circumstances.

Fasting is a potent weapon in the Satyagraha armoury. It cannot be taken by every one. Mere physical capacity to take it is no qualification for it. It is of no use without a living faith in God. It should never be a mechanical effort or a mere imitation. It must come from the depth of one's soul. It is, therefore, always rare.

I believe that every man and woman should learn the art of self-defence in this age. This is done through arms in the West. Every adult man is conscripted for army training for a definite period. The training for Satyagraha is meant for all, irrespective of age or sex. The more important part of the training here is mental, not physical. There can be no compulsion in mental training.

I've un-bolded the part which I think most supports my points.
(from wikipedia )

 

[austior]

Glog, your point is not invalid. As you pointed out, Ghandi was still a major pain in the ass for the british. The following is a quote from Cesar Chavez:

"Ghandi himself admited that If his only choices were cowardice or violence, he would choose violence."

This might seem contradictory, but remember, we are NEVER restricted to these two choices...

 

[gloggawogga]

austior, Ghandi said his tactics were different from Western non-violence before Kings movement even started. King did adopt Ghandi's tactics.

Ghandi was still a major pain in the ass for the british. The following is a quote from Cesar Chavez: "Ghandi himself admited that If his only choices were cowardice or violence, he would choose violence.

You have to be noticed by whomever it is you are protesting and be a pain in the ass for them, otherwise you will have no effect. That's why just staying home and getting high is not civil disobedience. OTOH you don't want to be a pain in the ass in a way that threatens them violently, or they will just suppress you violently. There is a middle way, where you get your point across to the opressor in a way that mitigates the antagonism. I think King was very successful at that.

 

[gloggawogga]

Whatever you want to call what is happening here it is signifcant enough that it is being taken seriously by religious studies scholars.

Psychedelics are taken seriously by scientists too, as they were in the 60's. But that doesn't mean they are being taken seriously be politicians, the mass media, or popular culture.

 

[Kanaba]

maybe if our education system starts to place a higher value on scientific reasoning, more people will be interested in science. perhaps if this happens, more scientific-thinking people will be around, and drugs won't be looked so harshly upon.

 

[gugglebum]

Umm we should try to get this back on topic...

As for the situation in Spain: People take psychedelics to see flying dwards. They eat shrooms to go to school because it's all good, they're natural but of course LSD makes you go crazy. Duh. That's why so many people pay for it!

 

[gloggawogga]

maybe if our education system starts to place a higher value on scientific reasoning

That's a wonderful idea. But not to go into a long winded rant about our crappy education system, our education system is seriously affected by politics, the same politics of fear that avoids scientific thinking about drugs in the first place.

 

[austior]

^^^
Good point, the curriculum in public schools is sadly politically motivated. A good way to combat this is to become a teacher!