How ridiculous is it for a plant of the planet, or an animal for that matter, to be “illegal”? This is pretentious and shortsighted; for if truth can be expressed as that which “is,” thus “real,” then it is “on the menu.” If such natural truth is “off limits,” a natural birthright is suppressed. No person has the right to insert obstacles between the natural truths of existence and another’s interface with such truths; this is clear and deduced from Natural Law. The free, independent human being does not need existence filtered and avenues of thought (plant/fungal psychedelics) forbidden. If one is not free to commune via the “organic landlines” of this organic mother-ship, the Gain Mind, one is not free. If one is not free to interface with the Mystery while running “entheogen 2.0” (meaning a way of thinking about existence that persists long after the chemical has been metabolized) as an operating system, one is not free. The very Bill of Rights exists to honor such basic natural truths and the Declaration of Independence drafted in support of these principles, yet tyranny is upon our consciousness via the “War on Drugs.”
As those who recognized the ubiquitous natural reign of the independence/rights of the individual, the Founding Fathers understood the basics of Natural Law and sought to instill small government to avoid tyrannical oppression for future generations. In the words of Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Smith in 1787, which became known as the Tree of Liberty Letter due to a famous often misinterpreted quotation contained within the letter, “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.” Later in the letter Jefferson went on to say, “And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” These were the words from a man who recognized that the dominator institution seeks ever-increasing control and power as the fuel/driving mechanism of its agenda.
The institution is mindless and heartless, in a sense; it is a power-hungry, mechanistic entity with an insatiable appetite. Its process directly infringes upon natural individual freedoms. Infringing upon such freedoms is beyond the right of any single individual or congregation of individuals. It does not matter if one person is standing against freedom or if 100,000 people are rooted in such a position. Such a process is antithetical to that which is natural, thus a violation of an inalienable human right and is unequivocally wrong. To subvert freedom is to instill slavery; there is not much middle ground here. Jefferson’s bold words, no doubt, stood in recognition of this sentiment.
Jefferson also stood in recognition of the fact that the masses cannot maintain complete knowledge and some degree of ignorance was to be expected among the people of a functioning republic. “The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.” Jefferson advocated the transparency of the governmental class via truth; he thought the solution to runaway tyranny was an informed populace. Truth as the real governing constituent was to be the glue holding the republic together, truth reflecting that which “is.”
Ignorance was thought of as the death of freedom. “If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” The propagation of ignorance was thought as “the death to public liberty” by Jefferson, and such an idea would have been shared by most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers. The solution offered by Jefferson, “The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.” “Freely disperse truth/knowledge, chill, and things will be cool” (my translation). Jefferson understood and honored the freedom of the individual and did not fear this. He spoke from the position that seemed to understand that internal sovereignty and external anarchy unite in the formula of a true republic (honoring the rights of the individual).
Sovereignty means authority or rule, supremacy or existence as an independent state. Anarchy is derived from Greek (an—“without”; arkhos—ruler”; combined—“without ruler.”) Informed, sovereign individuals precipitate anarchy. Dominator, fear-based mentalities do not recognize the sovereign individual and seek to instill external control/rule because (to them) the individual cannot be trusted with self-rule. Under this premise, personal liberties must be foregone—given to the institution, “presumably” for the “good of the people.” Institution, for some strange reason, is thought to be of a higher moral order than the individual person and personal freedom is to be relinquished to the higher order. Although, it is obvious that institution is comprised of individuals. However, when governed by such institutionalized/dominator energies, an impersonal, power-mongering, controlling monster is created that seeks only to maintain and strengthen its grip. The Empire, the Party, the Institution, Big Brother, the Man… pick a title; it doesn’t matter, for they are all the same. That entity does not recognize or respect the individual as an intelligent, free inheritor of natural existence. To this structure, the individual is a number… feared and must be controlled. This is the business model or driving energy of this most subversive and unnatural of man’s creations. As stated by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.
What would Jefferson have thought of the “War on Drugs”? The right to explore nature, truth, and our relationship to it is as inalienable, natural, and self-evident as the evidence of existence itself (merely look and proof is provided). This right has been taken from us by the “War on Consciousness.” We the people have been deemed unfit to handle the natural truth. If we are not fit to handle the truth, who is fit for such a job? Who are the mediators and arbiters of truth? Is it the kind, loving, omniscient governmental class? Is this the institution we elect to disseminate truth to our otherwise incapable and slovenly minds? Is this the branch of superstition we relegate our natural birthright to, in exchange for the right to pay taxes and maintain “freedom”?
Taxation seems rather reminiscent of the tithing process by which some religious people pay the “higher order” in exchange for… “divine acceptance.” Perhaps, the selling of indulgences would be a better analogy. An “indulgence” would be sold to reduce the “punishment” for sin(s). Buying indulgences meant buying less time in purgatory (the process of purification before entering heaven), which would mean a quicker route to “heaven.” Could this not be thought of then as buying time in heaven, buying the divine, or buying God? I wasn’t aware God was for sale… An indulgence could also be purchased to reduce the penance after a sin was committed. Either way, it seems that something was being sold by the church; but it wasn’t the divine. It was belief. Such beliefs are delusional because no other human has any more access to the “divine realms” than any other. A sufficient psychedelic dose will transport anyone through the interdimensional ether. So too, federal taxes are paid in a delusional exchange for… “freedom”? How different is this process from that of the church selling the divine? Buy a little safety with some personal freedom. What a great idea.
Surrendering natural human birthrights for a contrived mechanism of hierarchical control (with the inherent purpose of reigning limitation upon that individual) doesn’t seem like a “good deal,” does it? Absolutely no person with understanding of Natural Law (derived from observation of the natural order and not an invention of the human mind) would find this an acceptable “deal.” I don’t imagine the Founding Fathers would have been “on board” with such a proposition. It seems that the government has been “selling bridges” for quite some time and to call “bullshit” is seen as… unbecoming, fringe, uneducated, or heresy. Again, what would the sentiment behind those 52 signatures of the little old document from 1776 collectively perceive as to the quality of modern American freedom? It appears, the quality of what it is to be an American now might be a bit different than just post 1776. The principle and value of actual freedom seems to have eroded with the march of the last 240 years.