The End is Nigh – Part 19


It says a lot about the nature of our society that economies are not judged by what they actually deliver. Economies are not judged by their capacity to advance human progress and make civilization more resilient and complex.

Instead, economic performance is primarily measured by the ups and down of the stock market. If the poker players are fat and happy, well then, that’s all that matters.

Normally, at least according to the textbook, corporate stocks rise and fall depending on their on-the-ground productivity, efficiency and profits. But in reality the stock market depends on the political sphere, on money (debt) printing and then injecting that into the economy from the top down. Then the people at the top simply buy and sell the paper to each other, over and over again, sort of like mutual masturbation.

The stock market provides the Grand Illusion of a free market, but of course, there is no free market in terms of the creation and issuance of money, and thus a true “free market” is impossible (not that it is even a remote possibility, with the alliance between a political and corporate oligopoly).

The economy remains subservient to political power, which appears to be a fact lost to Marxists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians and others. People talk about “the economy” as if it were more than it is, as if it were coherent and whole, and as if it served a purpose beyond being a mud puddle for the smearing of humanity’s face.

Not that a pure “free market” would even be ideal, being so simplistic. Complexity, adaptability and ultimately evolution all depend on moving away from the “binary” thinking (common to reptiles) of modern economics (public versus private) and toward valuing gradations and third possibilities.

Is there relief in sight? For the 19th time in recent memory, since the Y2K of 2000, there is a sign being held high: The End is Nigh. The lunatics holding the sign sometimes change, but the sign remains the same. If I had a dollar for every time lots of informed people told me that the world – as we know it – was about to end, I’d have 19 dollars.

Maybe September and October of 2015 will be different, but probably not… The puppet masters (the masters of the masters) probably lack the courage and integrity to allow the country (and planet) to move on its own accord, finally, that is, towards empowerment and autonomy, and beyond its current state of being a practical joke.

Maybe they are waiting for the world to be ready, for the stars to align, for the Moon to do its thing, or for a little push from the next dimension. Until we know for sure, they remain mad scientists mismanaging a laboratory experiment gone awry.

The Multiverse


The CERN collider and other technologies will force us to consider time travel.

Our conceptions of time travel have been shaped by H.G. Wells’ 1895 novel, The Time Machine, by Albert Einstein, for whom time travel was theoretically possible, and by recent Hollywood movies like Back to the Future and Hot Tub Time Machine. These movies often serve to announce information, so they are not just for fun.

Einstein thought that both space and time warp as mass or speed is increased. Wormholes and black holes are also considered to be portals. Even our present reality has faster-than-light phenomena.

More probably, the classic Star Trek method of beaming or pulsating an object to the limit of this dimensional world will become the favorite method, allowing people or spaceships to exit the rules of this universe (entering into one of the higher dimensions, from 5 – 11) and then re-enter, even into the past or future.

The grandfather paradox? Can one go back into the past, kill one’s grandfather – or keep him from meeting one’s grandmother? And keep from being born? And change the present?

Probably not. Surely there is room in quantum theory for a person returning to our past timeline and, at the instant of entering that past world, bumping it into a parallel universe, thus creating two separate timelines for what we consider to be our reality. Which otherwise continues unaffected. Physically and in terms of consciousness, there would be separate worlds and multiple versions of ourselves, each unaware of the others. In fact, it might simply be the introduction of a new conscious person whose consciousness bumps our timeline onto the off ramp and onto a new highway

If 1,000 people returned to the past a minute apart, then there would be 1,000 tributaries of our main timeline, each capable of generating a future in which people looped back to the past, thus creating even more tributaries.

This is all possible if our existing reality really is created, fundamentally, by energy and not by matter, then the number of possible alternative universes could become infinite.

Max Tegmark has proposed an interesting multi-level version of a “Multiverse.”

“The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.”

Well, if the Bhagavad Gita is right, then everything collapses after 311 trillion years anyway before another Big Bang.

Rugby in Manila

Practicing with Pasig Pirates





Two Thumbs Up

antman-poster NEcv8KoBn0Lqfg_2_b

Ant-Man is a refreshing superhero movie because it emphasizes the characters and personalities of the story, starring Paul Rudd. There are no mind-numbing 25-minute action scenes that blow out the Dolby speakers.

Another interesting aspect of the movie is that Ant-Man enters into the quantum realm at a key moment, exiting the boundaries of this universe, and then re-enters it. It’s amazing how many recent movies (including “Lucy” and “Interstellar”) are going hyperdimensional.

Mission Impossible, 5 starring Tom Cruise, also keeps action in its place, subservient to the plot. It too is a fascinating movie.

Interestingly, in this scenario, the IMF represents a kind of benevolent international government, standing on the side of peace and freedom (when in reality it is a malevolent debt machine devoted to the financial matrix at all costs). So in the movie, the “Syndicate” or “anti-IMF” (originally designed to be part of the good guy team, actually) goes completely rogue. And must be stopped.

It’s curious that the original Mission Impossible series (and James Bond series) were inspired by the Cold War; today, this bogus, lower-order dualism has been replaced by another hoax: transnational monetary regimes fighting transnational underground mafias. The bad buy is not some ruthless Russian or some suspicious Arab guy with a 5 o’clock shadow; the bad guy is some weasely European guy, aristo-trash surely, with reptilian DNA, whose voice sounds like someone recently performed a tracheotomy.

The movie hints at what is really going on today.

Syndicates take it upon themselves, with unaccountable, off-grid personnel, to run shadow operations favorable to certain governments and monetary regimes – even by pumping up sparring partners like Al Qaeda and ISIS, creating the enemies that the power hungry crave. Nothing can be traced back to any sitting, elected government, whose highest members are left in the complete dark. Total ignorance is the perfect plausible deniability.

Part of the syndicate code is to obtain general consent (and silence is consent). What better way than by making a multi-million dollar movie and sticking it in our faces?

The movies work well on both levels, as well-produced and well-acted movies, and also as curiosities for those willing to see the movies for what they are.

Golden Dragon Smoothie






From Citizens to Subjects?

Once again, a western nation is attacking the idea of citizenship, of popular sovereignty, of the population being the basis of government (and not the other way around).

Consider the new HR 237, a bill to “authorize the revocation or denial of passports and passport cards to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.”

Nice way to end, with “and for other purposes…” Furthermore, the bill would allow for the government to take away this citizenship without due process, with the stroke of the pen. (In reality, not even due process can strip an American of citizenship, however).

The problem with the bill is that the Supreme Court has already ruled. As is readily apparent on Wikipedia:

Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) is a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.

Vance v. Terrazas (1980) was a United States Supreme Court decision that established that a United States citizen cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship.

Under the law, it is actually easier to execute someone for treason than take away their citizenship, in the United States. That is because the Framers imagined that Americans have the right to be citizens before the government even has a right to exist.

This idea existed for a time in Europe, but generally, on that continent people are subjects, not actual citizens.

This bill is so outrageous, and such a transgression on American law, and natural law, that anyone in any branch of government advancing it into reality must be held accountable, in the future, with a Mussolini-style Grand Finale.

Art Imitates Life

Game of Thrones



I finally had a chance to see this fascinating series and am addicted to it, halfway through Season 3.

So, the makers of the show are recalling days of old: dragons, giants, magic, the walking dead, reptilian blood lines,

human sacrifice, different seasonal patterns, the Ice Age, and all manner of old gods and new. Great stuff.

Food for Thought


Arguably, the optimal human diet is based on fruits, vegetables and nuts, with modest amounts of animal protein. This is a natural and omnivorous diet that recognizes human evolution. Here, it is possible to defend “vegan” and “paleo” templates, without adopting a rigid prescription of either.

Vegans are correct in that the basic hominid architecture is herbivore. Our intestinal tracts and our teeth are closer (but not identical) to herbivores than to carnivores. The main dietary constituent for hominids – from about 20 to 5 million years ago – was fruit. Unfortunately, modern industrial society considers fruit to be a snack, and not a staple food.

Oddly, many modern paleos keep pointing to human “evolution” but fixate on the expansion of meat eating among Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, downplaying early hominid history, that is before 4 million years ago, which was frutarian.

As argued since the 1980s, within the Fit for Life diet, the optimal diet includes eating fruit (and drinking fruit smoothies) in the morning – and only fruit in the morning. Fruit provides hydration, vitamins and enzymes, and fruit encourages the process of elimination. In the morning, the body does not require complex carbohydrates or protein, as the meal from the night before has still not been burned off. Fruit is the right energizer when waking up, and this was probably the case for many hominid species, which would require the day to gather and hunt for other foods.

Vegans are right to emphasize the importance of fruits, vegetables and nuts. Also, vegans are right to avoid highly processed foods with many chemicals, refined sugar, and salt. Clearly, most vegans are right to avoid junk food, soda pop and the tsunami of bagged and canned food that passes for human sustenance. Modern paleos share this rejection of industrial food.

Vegans can be criticized, however, for rejecting an even limited amount of animal protein in the human diet. Some protein encourages efficient muscle development, more bone density, better brain functions, better sleep and, crucially, less hunger. Protein staves off hunger. Meat represents a compact, high-energy source of calories.

That being said, people in industrial society – including the modern paleos – eat way too much meat, which is acidic and, when over-consumed, linked to cancer. Most people can benefit from one modest serving of protein a day, and any benefits can be obtained from eggs, poultry and fish. There is no need to devour mammals, which have the most developed mental and nervous systems.

The vegan rejection of meat can be justified on ethical or ideological grounds; but evolutionary nutrition suggests that hominid species, and even other primates, eat some animal protein. Orangutans and gorillas eat insects and small vertebrates. Both chimpanzees and bonobos regularly eat termites. Chimpanzees are especially opportunistic and are known to hunt and eat smaller colobus monkeys.

One of the first human species, Australopithecus afarensis, about 5 – 4 million years ago, mostly ate vegetable matter but was also omnivorous, mostly scavenging on carcasses.

Homo habilis, from about 2.5 million years ago, increased its meat intake within a mostly vegetarian diet. Homo habilis displays the first known use of stone tools to break apart bones and eat the marrow, and this species witnessed a hop in brain size.

Homo erectus, from about 1.5 million years ago, exhibits an even greater increase its meat intake (and brain size). They were mostly gatherers, but the practice of hunting, being complex and risky, encouraged social complexity and language development. It also led to the control of fire. Also, meat eating is associated with anatomical changes in humans, including an increased life span far longer than that of other primates. Meat-eating is thought to have produced genetic changes including resistance to disease. Finally, the human expansion of brain size would have been impossible without the increase of meat eating within an omnivorous diet.

As mentioned, today’s paleos tend to eat way too much meat. Also, paleos are not eating megafauna or lean meats like venison and small birds; instead, most tend to feed on factory-farm cattle, primarily cows and pigs, which are grain fed and jacked up with steroids, antibiotics, hormones and chemicals. And they do this two or three times a day. A few paleos emphasize organize and grass-fed meat, but this is unrealistic in terms of most people’s budgets. Fewer paleos still engage in what our ancestors did to obtain their meat: hunting.


One interesting species is Homo neanderthalensi, from 350,000 to 130,000 years ago, which ran parallel to homo sapiens and was eventually absorbed into the larger gene pool (probably). Neanderthals were primarily hunters and then gatherers. They ate the megafauna of pre-Ice Age Europe and Asia and, apparently as a result, they were physically stronger than modern humans.


Homo sapiens, from about 200,000 years ago to the present, followed the Neanderthal-style diet, and were primarily nomadic, but about 10,000 years ago the diet changes (for the worse). There was an Agricultural Revolution. Many grains – rice, wheat, corn, barley – replaced a large portion of the meat and even vegetable intake. This is a brand new development in terms of human evolution and an unhealthy one.

Grains allow for the storage and commodification of food, and thus for population growth, but these complex carbohydrates are damage human health. Indeed, their overuse has been linked to obesity and diabetes. In evolutionary terms, there was a leap backward, as humans became slightly shorter and witnessed a contraction in brain size – especially compared to the Cro-Magnon subspecies of Homo sapiens, who lived from about 30,000 to 20,000 years ago.

Here, the modern paleos are more convincing than the vegans. The modern paleo diet reduces – or rejects altogether – agricultural grains, which are all fattening. And most vegans eat rice all day long. Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist, who wrote the book Wheat Belly, argues convincingly for a wheat-free, grain-free lifestyle. Amazingly, the buns holding a hamburger are probably more fattening that the hamburger itself – which is not really fattening at all when situated in the right context.

At the very least, grains should be consumed incidentally, and not be part of the absurd “food pyramid” as propagandized by the US federal government after World War II. This means that if a little old lady offers up a chocolate-chip cookie, then why not enjoy it, but it is best to avoid the regular intake of grains. (It is possible to enjoy optimal health without waging nutritional jihad on one’s friends and neighbors).

Vegans and modern paleos hold valid points; however, both modern vegans and paleos are capable of nonsense – of engaging in the absurd.

Many vegans, for example, consider even wild honey to be an animal product and hence forbidden, but it would be impossible for bees to make honey without the nectar of flowers, and bees are not slaughtered (or necessarily captured, not that they know it when they are) to produce honey.

Modern paleos ofte consider potatoes to be off limits, since prehistoric people presumably did not dig up potatoes. But prehistoric people did poke around the earth with sticks, and wild potatoes have been eaten in Africa and South America for millennia. Some of these species are similar to domesticated versions of potatoes. So modern paleos think that prehistoric people only ate things that they could see, above ground? That’s ridiculous. Still, sweet potatoes and yams are far better for human health.

Modern paleos reject legumes – alfalfa, peas, beans, lentils and peanuts – because, presumably, they were not part of our ancestral diet. But Neanderthals ate peas and beans, as indicated by the archeological record of their teeth, and plenty of other hunter-gatherer societies in southern Africa and Australia eat many legumes

Finally, modern paleos often reject dairy because it is thought to be part of the Agricultural Revolution. Vegans reject dairy for either health or ethical reasons, and modern industrial society uses excessive dairy products. However, prehistoric societies in the Sahara Desert grazed and milked cows, when the desert was greener. The first use of dairy in Turkey was thought to be for butter and yogurt (not milk). Of course, regularly drinking the milk of another species is not logical, but humans – being opportunistic omnivores – are capable of benefiting from yogurt, for example. Clearly, a huge swath of humanity tolerates lactose and can handle dairy.

Some people feel and perform better with different diets. There is no perfect diet for each and every person on the planet – but there is a diet, or a lifestyle, that can arguably sustain optimum health for most people, if human evolution is any guide. Fruits and vegetables form the base of the pyramid. Next, there are varieties of nuts, followed by sweet potatoes and yams, followed by meat and dairy products (at the top of the pyramid, with less quantity).

Food for thought.

Machu Picchu



LLama looking






Coffee Corridor, Colombia