On the 26th of May Great Britain will become one of those most cognitively restrictive nations on the planet: the new ‘Psychoactive Substances Bill’ is coming into effect.

For the first time in human history a state has presumed not simply to prohibit mind-altering substances but to draw up a nice little list of the prescribed ‘officially sanctioned’ states of mind you are allowed access to. I contains a feeble selection of”permitted” drugs: tobacco (kills about 100k Brits per year), alcohol (also great), caffeine and a few others.

Apparently it’s okay to consume alcohol until it kills you but to possess anything else is a crime: it might be a rare ethnobotanical that has been used by shamans for tens of thousands of years, it might be a plant used as a sedative by the ancient Egyptians for thousands of years, or it might be the next breakthrough in neuropharmacology. “Whatever it is” it’s a criminal offense to sell it, or to own enough that you can be accused of selling it. Jail time?

The cognitive fascists. Not only are they content to systematically ban various potentials of human experience, now they seek to set up walls that limit the mind so obviously: “nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care…”. The citizens are so well socialised they know not how narrow their consciousness has become: work, money, buying, planning. Taking care of “the world of the five senses”, meanwhile propaganda has convinced them that the greatest gifts this species has in its possession are evil and dangerous.

The cognitive fascists. They are the witch-hunters of our age: followed in our time, they will be ridiculed by our descendants, seen for the con-artists they are. If you dare to use substances not owned by alcohol and tobacco companies (so that they can tax the people that facilitate your suicide) they will take you, they will arrest you,they will shut you away in a little box they call prison. That’s the kind of people who are running our country: those who want to put more of us in prison for daring to explore and expand our minds with psychedelics.

Nothing should remind the people of Britain of the extent to which they are objectified property of the state by the flagrant limiting of sovereignty over their very conscious minds. Are they your masters? To tell you what you can and can’t do with your own mind?

I think it’s incredibly revealing: how such ministers must see the power dynamic between themselves and the people of this country. Any politician who supports this bill is asserting their right to control your mind, even though many themselves have used the newly censored drugs themselves.

What democratic people would ever sanction such ludicrous impositions on their own freedom?
We are so obsessed with the sovereignty of this nation and so blinded to the metaphysical “land-grab” that is going to occur on the 26th of May, 2016.

On the 26th of March 2016 hundreds of mind-altering substances policy makers know little-to-nothing about will be made illegal. Many are not just drugs but keys to doors of experience that can transform and benefit this species and the people of this nation: doors the government wants firmly closed. Many such substances have been used by your ancestors for countless generations. Many are tools for the expansion of an ever shrinking human consciousness: psychologically programmed and genetically manipulated only to work, consume, and not kick up too much of a fuss.

“Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care…”


1. What is Cognitive Liberty & Why Must We Defend It?

2. Psychedelics, Consumer-Capitalism, Power & Authority

3. Locking Up Mystics: The Basic Injustice of Anti-LSD Laws



Stanislav Grof (born July 1, 1931 in Prague, Czechoslovakia) is a psychiatrist, one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology and a pioneering researcher into the use of non-ordinary states of consciousness for purposes of exploring, healing, and obtaining growth and insights into the human psyche. (WIKI)

david cameron drug meme prohibition ganja warcameron david drugs prohibition weed cannabis memeI take as my evidence two articles reported on by the BBC:

Cameron ‘smoked drugs at school’

Cameron pressed on drugs question

So, let’s get this clear. David Cameron is just a man: he was born with exactly the same inherent value of you and I. Yet, through an elaborate conbination of Eaton/Oxford social networking, wealth, acting, and an insufferable knack for cunning PR escape acts, he is now in a position to tell you what you can and cannot do with your mind and body.

The above articles show that this man, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, used cannabis. Cameon’s PR strategy was to distance himself from his past, to remove its relevance to the present moment: but how can that be possible?

Does Mr.Cameron think it would have been justice if he had, at the time, been busted? His political career would have been totally derailed, for nothing!

I wonder if he is the only politician who has ever dabbled? I wonder how many UK politicians were themselves once guilty of the same “legal transgretions”? The very same behaviour they are happy to sit idly by and watch others go to prison for.

Maybe one of those prisoners, doing a decade for a drug related crime, can announce that its “just in the past” and be allowed on their merry way?

Hypocrisy! It is pure hypocrisy, that the leaders of the UK and the leader of the US, sit on their thrones and oversee a system that criminalises human beings on an industrial scale, all guilty of the same crime they once broke. It derails lives, where their own lives were not derailed.

If these two individuals, who like others to think that they contribute to society so so much, once smoked cannabis, and in Obama’s case used cocaine, why not allow others who wish to contribute to society to use drugs as well?

Then there is the more subtle hypocrisy. How many politicians drink? Yet isn’t drink just another drug? Compared to cannabis and some other substances, isn’t it, in many ways, a far more damaging drug? A drug more harmful both to individuals and society? If altering consciousness is some kind of inherent moral wrong, it would seem most of Britain is guilty of it.

It seems hard to justify a law that is so widely-enforced, without assuming there must be some kind of moral wrong inherent in drug-use: but if that is so, why is alcohol exempt? Of course that assumes that the foundation of law is (and should be?) about morality: “social engineering” is the official term for the real goals of drug prohibition, morality is nothing to do with it.

Then there’s the class issue.  Apparently it’s kinda OK that thousands of poor people get their lives messed around by “drug-law enforcement procedures”, but the Eaton old boys network can smoke a number on the cricket lawn and it’s all just fine.

When these VIP’s smoked it, when they were younger, did they think:

“Now I understand why it must be criminalised! What a terrible evil this stuff is!”?

I’m sure it happened just like that! They know that it’s no big deal: so why is there this complacency? Why do they sit idly by and do nothing to change unjust laws?

Well, there are many possible explanations for it. It’s actually quite a fascinating mystery, there are so many theories as to why the state is so irrational and stubborn when it comes to the issue of drugs.

One thing to consider is that, this “war on drugs” was never really our war. This hysteria, this witch-hunt, this inquisition: it was America, this war is their game, not ours. America’s obsession with driving out supposed “evils” from society is always what progresses its march of over-criminalisation.

They imprison 1% of their population, over 25% of their prisons are private, we as a nation do not want to become that.

There’s the right way, the wrong way, and the way that works: the time is right to experiment with relaxing drug laws in the UK and around The World.


Cognitive Liberty UK

It’s a class-A drug with some of the lowest risks/harms when compared to other drugs. It’s a class-A drug which therapists want to use to treat alcoholism, opiate-addiction and depression. Research has indicated again and again that it can be of great help to those dealing with the fear and anxiety of terminal illnesses. It’s most well-known effects are to encourage feelings of unity and love in relation to fellow man, to encourage religiosity and spirituality.

When we look at the motives people have for taking LSD, it should seem obvious that imprisoning them is a perversion of justice. People take LSD for spiritual revelation and healing, to bring about positive transformation in their lives. Whether or not this is a sensible approach to reaching those goals is an open question: but it should be clear that they have committed no moral wrong.

We are taking mystics and locking them up…

View original post 834 more words

Rubber Zoo Designs Risque Latex Couture, Styling Men and Women's Latex Fashion since 1996

Who is rattling TEDx we ask?

Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake have struck a cord of debate with their open and honest approach to life, experience and view of the human condition and consciousness. Well respected men with many, yet like others of the same caliber, they have not come to this stature with easy of acceptance from the majority within the establishment of the field they rock.

At TEDx Whitechapel on January 13, 2013, Graham Hancock gave a passionately argued talk in which he described the transformative impact that ayahuasca (containing the drug DMT) had had on him and argued that responsible adult usage of such drugs was a fundamental right. The talk was viewed more than 130,000 times on YouTube.

At TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Rupert Sheldrake gave a provocative talk in which he suggests that modern science is based on ten dogmas, and makes the case that none of…

View original post 266 more words

%d bloggers like this: