How did the aya experiment turn out?

I actually did not get to do it. I had something come up which took up that entire day. The experiment has been postponed until this weekend. I will be brewing all day Saturday and either partaking that night or Sunday night. Results and reports will be to follow in a seperate thread. Thanks for asking.

Great. I'll be interested to see what you achieved with the acrb. Be on your guard for possible misfire.

By possible misfire do you mean the brew lacking potency or beginner's mistakes ruining the experience?

Nothing particularly but that it is not always a success the first attempt.

Anarkid , if you're going to be brewing the ACRB aya why not just extract the dmt and just smoke the crystals that's if you have an

efficient vaporizer if not make some enhanced leaf , it isn't as hard or difficult as it seems !

Oh I have already done a couple of semi successful, rushed extractions and felt the beauty of a low dose of smoked DMT. I have a proper extraction in the freezer right now developing lovely crystals. The aya experience is just more appealing to me due to the length of the trip rather than being brought up and back down within minutes via vaporized DMT.

I have to know what you mean by anarchist, because a lot of the principles you have espoused in your short time on this board raise questions for me, given my understanding of anarchy.


I find this assertion particularly interesting, in that it seemingly delegitimizes every "kid" spreading anti-globalization messages at a global assembly (such as the G20, G8, WTO/IMF, NAFTA, etc.), every "kid" utilizing graffiti to indicate a squat, every "kid" who uses graffiti to obscure surveillance, every "kid" who uses graffiti as a form of spreading information or engaging in self-expression in a society where this is heavily commodified and available (legally) only to those who can afford to pay for it, every "kid" who _________ (you fill in the blank...but you see where I'm going), while setting yourself in opposition to all of these people as supposedly superior. A real anarchist...whatever that means.

And so here you have trashed entire groups of people (most of whom are not "kids"...but you don't think they are, you're just belittling them), apparently because it makes you feel superior to them. So again, I have to ask. What is a real anarchist? And how does creating this hierarchy serve your "anarchy"?

Is this what it means to be a real anarchist?

If so, what's with the heavily gendered language (here and throughout your other posts)? Where is the deconstruction of patriachy? Again, your language has a foundation in the structures of domination and continues to reveal an adherence to hierarchies.


Now this is a particularly interesting phraseology to encounter from a self-proclaimed anarchist. You are the "supreme ruler" of your own life? Really? I understand the concept you are driving at, but it seems like an odd way to put it (given a context of "no gods, no masters" as well as other anti-authoritarian frameworks usually present in anarchist thought).

Additionally, unless I'm mistaken, you have explicitly voiced support for private property (here and elsewhere). But how else am I to understand "I believe that you are the supreme ruler of your own...property" when you present no differentiation from "property" as currently understood? Why the emphasis on property? What about the commons? Again, this seems odd coming from a self-professed anarchist...especially a real anarchist.

Finally, your declaration of a criminal class is somewhat troubling, to say the least. While there are mechanisms for autonomous communities to remove people from their midst, generally speaking, the people removed are not referred to as "criminals," nor are they treated in the manner that dominant society tends to treat people it has criminalized. To my mind, this presents further engagement with authoritarian, hierarchical structures on your part. I find this to be at literal and political odds with a term that literally means the absence of hierarchies.



When I first read these, I instantly thought of something a friend of mine once said:

“Some anarchists see anarchy as the ability to do whatever they want without having to be accountable to anyone else for their actions. I personally think that that kind of attitude is just the standard American “rugged individualism” bullshit repackaged as a faux-radical alternative, because it doesn’t challenge the fundamental alienation from each other we suffer under capitalism and the state.”



When I read this...I'm left with one conclusion. You are a libertarian (in the American sense of the term) rather than an anarchist. American libertarians tend to use the terms as though they're interchangeable (see: anarcho-capitalists ) although most anarchists would likely disagree vehemently. In re-reading much of your writing on this site, this is the only conclusion that comes to mind, especially in light of your support for private property and heavy emphasis on individualism, as well as your phraseology. Would you agree? Do you identify as a libertarian?

I just thought it bears examination, given your name the fact that little one-liners related to this keep popping up in your various threads.

Welcome to DMT Nexus

Can you provide info on what other drugs you have tried and your experiences with them?

I use the general term "anarchist" to convey a message to average observer. My actual philosophy is "anarcho-capitalism" (as you mentioned). I do not intend to delegitamize any fellow anarchist in any activity. By refering to "kid with a can of spray paint" I'm more referring to the kid who has no ideals other than hatred and malice. I have been known to engage in a little graffiti myself. When it comes to property, if you do a little research into the idealogy of anarcho-capitalism, you will understand that just because I am an anarchist does not mean I believe in the abolishment of property as some anarchists do. Maybe anarcho-capitalist are identical to libertarians, maybe we aren't. I disagree with the libertarian movement on too many issues to identify myself with them.

Also, I don't see where social heriarchies do not fit in an anarchist society. I have had this debate before and I must make it clear that just because I do not believe in a central government does not mean I do not believe in organized groups with governing authorities. I just believe that these "groups" (whatever their goal may be) must be voluntary. If you want to be a member of a group that is heavily governed, that is your right.

In regards to the gender issue, I don't buy the politically correct garbage of perfect equality. Not that women are better than men or vice versa, but that we have different roles to fill. We all deserve the same rights and priviledges but we have specific slots we fit in. This is evident throughout nature in ALL species. The roles of each gender may change between species but they still have roles to play. You cannot boil it down to a simple title of "equal". As much as feminists movements want to believe that women can perform all tasks as well as men, this is incorrect. The same applies to males. Men cannot perform all tasks as well as women. There are anomolies from both genders that perform exceptionally well at things usually related to the opposite sex but as a whole, this is not the case.

I apologize in advance for this half-assed response. I am at work and have little time.

Stay tuned. Since you're interested, I'll prepare a nice detailed report tonight.