Libertarians want a small government, where corporations have almost unlimited powers to do their business. Business and economic growth is the name of the game, and in fact, the only game in town. Unfortunately, along with that, they support reducing personal freedoms: the right to marry the same sex, abortion, privacy, surveillance etc.

On the other hand, the liberal lefties believe the opposite: they want more personal freedoms, and fewer corporate freedom.

Which one is the more “correct” or “best”?

Well, here’s the thing. Not one size fits all. It all depends on the level of consciousness found in the society at the moment. If this was still the old days, where people needed to build a new world and escape the medieval times, then libertarian conservatism makes more sense.

Think about it like this, as in an example: You just freed a Siberian village of some random mining slaves (ie the peasants of the medieval times). Do you just give them unlimited personal freedoms but not enough business-growth freedoms, or do you let them grow out of their slavery, in a way that they can prove to themselves that they can be free citizens that can contribute to the whole? In this case, the latter is a better option when taking into account the intellectual growth of these people *in the long term*. Newly freed people still need something to lean to in order to properly function until they grow out of it. This is the role of religion and nationalism that has played, and why restricted personal freedoms are still best for undeveloped intellects (and I’m metaphorically talking about the whole human race here).

In other words, the human race required this type of capitalistic right-leaning individualistic growth in the past, in order to prove to itself that it is a creator race that can stand on its own legs.

So there comes a time, where continuous business growth has its negative effects, to both society (e.g. shallow consumerism), and the environment. At the same time, the strictness of character found among conservatives, would need to be challenged in order to optimize and heal what we already built (and destroyed) in the last 200 years. Coming out of that phase is a sort of graduating.

That’s when social-democratic leftism (that is not communism or pure socialism, but rather left-leaning capitalism) can help.

The newly gained personal freedoms that liberalism/progressiveness calls for will create a new kind of more responsible citizen. One that does not require to “belong” in order to have an identity (as in the case of religion, or nationalism). While this personal transformation towards more personal freedom takes place, corporations would have to be restricted of absolute power simply because the humans that run them haven’t developed that sense of responsibility yet (they need to work for it first on personal level).

After another 200 years of leftism, and when personal responsibility has been tackled, a new kind of philosophy would be born yet again, to replace this type of social democracy. One with a smaller government, freer citizens AND freer corporations (that at the time might evolve themselves into “projects”, rather than plain business). Interestingly, that new order of things would be closer to left anarchism, than right wing libertanianism.

Basically, what I’m trying to say here is that everything evolves, and at each level of evolution, we have a set capacity of collective consciousness that reflects our economic and political system. So what I described above is simply one of the possible natural ways of society evolving away.

Change is inevitable. Flow with it, and you’ll be alright. Fear not fear.

These are the principles that I have built my diet around. Only changes I’ve made is that I do eat beans (as per my Mediterranean ancestry), and I don’t go too low on carbs (due to thyroid issues). Lots of veggies instead, and seafood. Working on getting closer on the lifestyle points too.

Something very interesting is happening right now in the Paleo turf. The Paleo poster boy, Robb Wolf, got into an online shout match with Dr Jack Kruse, the “quantum epigenetics” poster boy. Robb calls Jack a quasi-mystical fraud, while Jack simply asks Robb to look at the evidence and research before he opens his mouth.

Robb is the big guy here, followed by many thousands, and having written the Paleo “bible”. Often, the 4-5 well known Paleo gurus would go in an all-out attack against the medical establishment, arguing how closed minded that establishment is for not agreeing with their points of view (e.g. that grains & pseudograins are all very bad for you, vegetable seed oils are bad, legumes are bad, dairy is bad etc). They basically call them out for not looking too hard at the evidence, that long-term health “starts with food”.

However, as with any system, after a while, it gets cemented. Same with the Paleo system. While it has somewhat evolved in the last 3 years, to not be as hard-core against fermented dairy, or against white rice, it still holds its basic truths cemented, and no one seem to want to research further. The various gurus have a reputation to protect, and products to sell now, so they need to stay true to what they originally preached.

So, when someone like Dr Jack Kruse comes along to shake their castle, by claiming that “it starts with light”, they themselves become the same as the closed minded medical establishment they hate. They react extremely violently against Kruse, without bothering to read his evidence or even just trying to understand his logic. They try to prevent the carpet pulling (that is probably inevitable as science moves on).

It’s funny, really. They fell under the same trap as the medical establishment has.

As for Dr Kruse, he has some blame for the situation too: the guy can’t write properly. The reason why Paleo gurus are “gurus”, is because they know how to communicate. They can write in a very understandable, friendly way, so the people fall behind them easily. Jack on the other hand, feels like he has a super-computer brain that is connected to the outside world only via a 56k modem instead. It also doesn’t help that he’s arrogant, and just not very likable as a person.

But that doesn’t mean that what he argues is wrong. It is my feeling that he’s the one who’s on the right path towards a deeper truth, but he has this extreme difficulty getting the information out properly.

Basically, what Dr Kruse is claiming is that we’re quantum machines. For that machine to work, we need a lot of natural UVB light (in the AM) and no blue light at night. Basically, he’s arguing that proper circadian rhythms, and being a lot outdoors, can have a bigger effect to long term health than “simply cutting down grains”. In terms of food, he argues that the biggest change one should make, is to add more seafood in their diet, because the iodine/DHA help with transporting energy in the mitochondria.

This could explain why Okinawans used to live to be over 120 years old, even if they ate a few grains, and lots of soy (both an anathema to the Paleo doctrine). It’s because they would also eat ungodly amounts of seafood (especially seaweed), and they would work outdoors in their gardens all the time.

Another thing he argues is that depending on location, and time of the year, your diet should vary. For example, most people in the Western world, should eat enough carbs in the summer, but be near-ketogenic in the winter. That’s how we evolved anyway. Also, people who live in the equator, can eat as many carbs as they like and not get fat (e.g. exotic fruits), because they expose themselves into a lot of UVB, and that balances things out in the “machine”. People in the North (or very South) though, need to practice cold thermogenesis, and they need to cut down on the carbs, and eat more seafood in order to be healthy in these harsh environments (which are locations we migrated to out of Africa, we are not fully evolved to live there, therefore, some food and lifestyle changes are required to be healthy in the North)

I can see what he says can sound like mumbo-jumbo, however, I think that what he’s arguing makes sense to me, and he does have basis on facts. Just not Western facts. A lot of the research he cites on his blog, are from Russian research papers. Some of that research has been done by UK and US scientists, but not everything. He has gone into great lengths to get access to these papers, and to have them translated.

So, he’s definitely controversial. But I really think he’s on to something.

There are two types of dieting for weight loss: the one is plain calorie restriction, and the other one is cutting down specific parts of the normal human diet (e.g. carbs for low carb diets, or fats for low-fat vegan diets). Research has shown that the second way is a better way to lose weight and keep it off too. Many have gone either keto or vegan and have lost weight and seen health changes (at least for a while, because after a few months, it backfires due to lack of specific nutrients — these diets shouldn’t be followed for more than 3 months IMHO).

Speaking for me, while I’m Paleo for life (since it has fixed most of my health ailments), one thing hasn’t worked: weight loss. Men do lose weight faster on Paleo, without effort. They can eat what they want, as long as it’s on the approved list. For women, who are genetically designed to keep on their fat for evolutionary/birth reasons, it’s a hit or miss thing. For some women it works, for others, especially those with metabolic disorder, it fixes the rest of their health in general, but it doesn’t make them lose weight (in other words, it doesn’t clear the metabolic disorder completely). Even worse, 2/3 of women who go keto, end up with thyroid problems (like I have).

The only diet that works for weight loss for these women, is again, calorie restriction. Which of course, in the long run, also doesn’t work. Research now and again has shown that people on a calorie restricted diet end up getting all their weight back within a few months, plus an additional 10%.

So after a quick test with a low calorie Paleo diet (1200 calories per day, I’m very short), it soon became clear that it was unsustainable, since it made you think of food 24/7. Keto fucked up my thyroid, and plain Paleo simply doesn’t make me lose weight.

However, the real problem of low calorie diets exists elsewhere. The real danger is in malnutrition. When you go down to 1200 calories from 1800-2000 calories per day, it’s not just calories you minimize. It’s nutrients. IF the kind of food we had today was as nutrient-dense as it was in the ancient times, then going down to low calorie would not be a problem. In fact, many praise the traditional Japanese diets for being small-portioned. But the point these people are missing is that even if they were eating small quantities, they were getting A LOT of nutrients. They didn’t NEED to eat more!

Today, with modern, selected varieties, this is simply not possible. And the sad part is, that if you don’t OVER-EAT, you will NOT get enough nutrients. 2000 calories a day are bare minimum to acquire the right nutrients! And that’s an amount that doesn’t help with weight loss at all. In fact, in some research paper recently, they found that tribal diets are up to 15 times more nutrient-dense than western diets, and up to 10 times more nutrient dense than the Paleo diet. So basically, going Paleo helps your health, but since we don’t have access to ancient varieties anymore, even Paleo won’t ultimately save you.

This situation has given me quite some depression to be honest: Eat little, get malnutritioned. Eat more, get fat, and still remain malnutritioned. There’s no winning in the West.

These aren’t good times for food and health. The only thing that could work is to buy a farm (somewhere where the water is still clean), find ancient heirloom varieties for your garden, and non-selected breeds of animals, and take the matter 100% on to your own hands. Simply buying organic broccoli or kale at the farmer’s market will only get you so far. Father than the standard western diet, but not as far as some people must go to battle their medical issues.

“Dark Matter” (DM) is a new sci-fi show at the SyFy channel, produced in Canada. It tells the story of 7 crew members who wake up on their spaceship without any memories. Soon, they learn that they’re wanted mercenaries, and the story continues from there.

There’s not much to tell about the show really: it’s a run-o-the-mill Canadian production trying to pass as a modern sci-fi: dark cinematography, sterile characters and performances, crew-members who bicker at each other as main plots, no actual ethical lessons through the sci-fi lens as you would expect from good sci-fi etc.

Stylistically, the show resembles Stargate:Universe (SGU), and guess what: both its creators were writers/producers in the Stargate franchise. However, it is obvious that even if they ended up with a bad version of SGU, their original goals were instead to provide an alternative to the Firefly fans. I can literally see in my mind’s eye the SyFy business meeting among execs seriously discussing that a Firefly-wannabe show is needed, since it’s something that it’s been missing in the minds of sci-fi lovers.

So, they set out to do a Firefly-wannabe, trying not too hard to feel too much like Firelfy. The indications are there: the oddball little girl who feels like River but dresses like Kaylee, the crazy gun-lover mercenary, the “priest”, the strong female, the mercenary/wanted thing, the being hungry and not having any money, the handler guy. Even the episodes are the same: the western-like feel, the fact that there are no aliens in their universe, the boarding episode, the woman enemy episode (using an android instead of Saffron this time), the mining colony episode and their illness, the stealing job episode, etc etc. Only thing missing is Inara’s whore part (which is telling, meaning that they never pushed the envelope).

In conclusion, Dark Matter is simply a patchwork alternative for fans of Firefly. It’s not as good as Firefly in any sense, but it might be good enough if you’re hungry for some space-based sci-fi. I will not say that DM is a Firefly copycat. That would mean that it’s as good as Firefly, while it’s not. I’d say instead that it’s a poor cousin.

6/10

I do a lot of t-shirt design lately, which I enjoy immensely (possibly even more than making the collages that comprise the said t-shirts). On my store, I’ve separated my t-shirts as “pop art“, and “trippy“. The trippy ones are the t-shirt designs and collages that I call meta-psychedelic. They’re under the surreal category for sure, but they go a step further than traditional surrealism and towards psychedelia. But at the same time, they’re not these kaleidoscopic traditional psychedelic designs either. A more proper term would probably be “post-psychedelic”, but if the hippies of the world hear that, they’d be pissed off, so I think “meta-psychedelic” is a more universally acceptable term. So what exactly is it? Here’s the difference: traditional psychedelic looks is what you see after you get some low dosage LSD or shrooms (or some infused pot). Meta-psychedelia is what you could (potentially) be seeing when you breakthrough, with higher doses of shrooms, LSD, or DMT. The former just scratches the surface, while the latter goes deeper into hyperspace.

Psychedelic:

Meta-psychedelic:

A year ago on Youtube, a Philosophy professor asked if it’s ethical to eat meat. Here’s the video, and below, find my reply.

I’ll answer with some questions:
1. Is it ethical for an alien species to come and eat us? If yes, why is it not moral for us to eat an animal? If no, why do you apply your human morals to an alien species that you know nothing about?

2. Is it ethical for an animal to eat another animal? If yes, why can’t we? If no, who appointed you the evolution’s strategist?

3. Is it ethical for a species to eat its own species? If yes, why can’t we eat humans? If no, who are you to paint Komodo dragons unethical?

The usual answer to these questions is that “if you’re an intelligent species, you’re expected to adhere to higher ideals”. And my answer to the ethical and philosophical question posed by the video, is molded that way too: “if you’re evolved-enough, you could go veg*n”. But here’s where I part from all these vegans out there who are trying to push the vegan lifestyle to all humanity: not all humans are evolved-enough.

Our human condition is a mixed bag, there are trials and tribulations in each and every life. Some people need the vitamins, others don’t need them as much, others are in a spiritual path where they’re supposed to leave behind materialistic needs (such as good food), and others are just starting in this level of existence, living a rather animalistic life, and as such, we can’t ask them to just “go vegan” (it’s like asking a toddler to go work for a living).

In other words, the answer to “should we eat meat”, is “it depends“. Nothing is black and white, everything is grey, and it depends on the INTENT (possibly the most important factor), point of view of the beholder, evolutionary path, life goals, and many other factors.

So the right question should be, “are YOU ready to stop eating meat?”. And that’s a question that only YOU can answer. Deep inside you, you know if you should do it now, or wait a lifetime or two.

According to Carl Jung, after midlife, the personality is starting to get integrated with the subconscious. Various dreams allude to that, and Jung says that we need to pay attention to these clues.

So last night, I met a young man (looking something between River Phoenix and Nicholas Hoult), who was supposed to be me. He saw me as a part of himself that had separated from him. In my “projection age”, I was also in my mid-20s (as I usually am in most of my dreams).

In his world, he was seen in a similar way we see schizophrenics: a personality in pieces, seeing apparitions that “aren’t exactly there” (that apparition being me). He was told that when integration takes place, I’d disappear from his view. He didn’t want to lose me as a separate being, but we both also wanted to integrate. One way to do this, in the symbolic nature of the dream world, is to have sex. So we did, and was very intense. I woke up almost immediately, clearly disappearing from his view.

From my point of view, I consider him a “soul mate”. Each person has a number of soulmates according to spiritual teachings. The Higher Self splits itself up into different “souls”. That’s your soul family. You’re all both separate beings, and a single being at the same time. When incarnated, you’re a bit more separated, but towards the end of the life, integration takes part, step by step. So that guy/being, was probably just one of my other parts/soul mates.

Didn’t catch a name tho. 😉

Here are some more tips for my friends artists (collage or other visual artists), on how to run your own art shop to maximize your profit (I use the TicTail free engine for my online shop). A 13″x19″ art print usually sells for $40 to $50, plus $10-$15 for shipping (international First Class is about $15). Selling a mug at Society6 can’t beat that (profit is around $1.50), so definitely make your own shop! If your work is hand-made, definitely have a category on your shop for it too (and sell it appropriately at higher prices than your prints). Also consider a Special Edition print category (limited run, on more expensive paper).

——— What you need:
1. Get a larger format printer (13″x19″). The Epson 7610 is a bargain right now, a printer that also sports a scanner, and has pigmented archival inks (which are must-have for art): $150 (currently on sale). Unfortunately, the cheaper Canon and HP don’t have archival capability on matte paper. Your only choice in that price range is Epson because fine art is supposed to get printed on matte.

2. Get the Epson Ultra premium Presentation MATTE 13″x19″ sheets on Amazon: $35

3. Get the Epson ultra premium Presentation MATTE 8.5″x11″ sheets on Amazon: $9 (for smaller size artworks, or for your mobile portfolio) [optional]

4. Get a set of extra Epson-ONLY inks (the one that comes with the printer, it’s just enough to set them up) — never buy from third parties, their inks aren’t archival: $47

5. A printer cable: $5

6. Some rolls, like the Aviditi P3015W Spiral Wound Fiberboard Mailing Tube 15″x3″: $32

7. Extra-Rigid Fiberboard Photo/Document Mailers, 9″x11.5″ (for the letter-sized artworks — if you do these): $15 [optional]

8. Best Print Shipping Labels (you can do your mailing automatically via Paypal and USPS): $9

9. “Do Not Bend” Labels (if using the optional envelopes to mail): $3 [optional]

10. Scotch tape, to secure the caps on the rolls (required by the post office): $5

11. USPS-compatible scale: $20

——— For promoting your work:
1. On EVERY social media post link your title of the work to its TicTail shop page, your name to your shop/page. If on Instagram, have your shop in your profile, and direct people there.

2. Tweak the colors of your collages on Photoshop or the free Gimp — EVEN if you’re a hand-made collage artist. People are going to see your work while scrolling through hundreds of other images on IG, FB or Tumblr. If you want to make an impression, your colors must pop. Vintage collage is faded by default. Slightly alter your brightness and contrast, add some saturation, and if you use Photoshop, you can use the “AUTO” button on the Curves panel.

3. Use a theme on your shop that it’s easy for people to find information about your art categories or about you. Don’t use flashy themes and miniature buttons, just use a straight-forward navigation. Always include an email address (for commissions too!).

4. Turn ON the printer only once a week, when you prepare the orders. Every time a printer turns ON, it drinks ink. And on these smaller printers, ink is expensive. So don’t turn on the printer all the time.

And one advice that no one likes to hear: if you make “pop” collages, you’ll sell more. Sorry friends, it’s the truth. Just like with music, pop sells better than the more experimental (and of course, more artistic) works. That’s a decision you must make as an artist yourself depending on where you want to go as an individual. It took me a while to get over the fact that my more interesting, experimental works didn’t sell almost at all.

——— How to prepare your orders:
1. Go through your week’s orders on the TicTail’s backend, and start printing. In the meantime, add ONE cap on one side of each roll. Leave the other end open.

2. You will need to adjust the size of you collages to scale properly on these sheets of paper. For example, your original collage might have been 5″x8″, but that size resizes well to 11″x17.6″ leaving some border all around too. On Photoshop, use the SHIFT key when you’re resizing, to keep the right aspect ratio.

3. Go through the orders one by one, sign the prints using a standard pen, and then put them in the roll carefully (I use a broomstick to make them roll without wrinkles). Put them in the roll, and close the cap. Add some scotch tape on both sides of the roll. WRITE THE ORDER NUMBER on the roll. This is how you will know which is which.

4. Go to Paypal and click the shipping link under the name of each of your customers. WEIGH the roll or envelope (always round it to the nearest higher value). There you can select USPS First class for envelopes and rolls for the USA domestic shipping. For rolls, you have to also check the checkbox that it’s a non-standard shape, and then type its size (15x3x3). If your roll is more than 13oz you MUST send as “Priority” mail! Print the label (note: it requires Java to print!) and stick it to the roll in a way that the barcode is on its widest (so the scanner won’t have trouble reading it). These are now paid, so you can just drop them to the post office as-is.

5. For international shipping you can only pay for envelopes via Paypal. For rolls, you must go to the USPS web site, make an account there, fill up the custom forms, print them, sign them, and then pay for them at the counter. You can pay via the USPS site too, but you’d have to use a credit card (while on Paypal, it’s all done via it, easier for your bookkeeping).

Lawyer Timothy Sandefur wrote an editorial for the “Claremont Review of Books”. In it, he’s saying that Picard’s non-interference politics were a step backwards from Kirk’s constant seek of justice, and that in the movie “Insurrection”, the race of Ba’ku were backwards people, shunning technology and exploration.

Personally, I find his positions immature. His positions are opinions that I would have agreed to 10 years ago. Back then, I’d fight for justice, and I’d interfere too. And I felt that technology and science were everything! But now, at age 42, I see the world differently.

In my opinion, it’s a mistake to interfere in another species’ actions — sometimes even when asked to, unless your own species (or alliances) get in danger because of these actions. It’s part of the evolution of every individual and species and their society to have wars, or even massacres. There is no society that can grow if everything is all rosy, or are held by the hand. The ugly things must happen for the good things to arise and become part of their nature. So who are we to get in the middle of an alien civil conflict “so we save them”? If you don’t let them duke it out, you don’t save them, you just postpone it. On a case by case basis, interference might be justified if the species tries to eradicate itself via nuclear weapons. Second chances can be given, but if they insist in extinction, then this is their right. Stop trying to “save” them. Your human morals don’t apply to all species. Let the universe play itself out.

As for the Ba’ku being backwards people, the author doesn’t get their philosophy at all. The writers of the movie left clues about their abilities: they were able to manipulate space and time via the mind (remember the bits about “the eternal moment” where time was stopping). They needed no spaceships to “explore”. Their minds were constantly as if in deep meditation. With that ability, they could visit not only other planets in their galaxy, not only the rest of the universe, but also other universes! Something that the Federation’s technology couldn’t do!

So, no, the Ba’ku weren’t backward people. They were miles ahead of the other humanoids on Star Trek.

They say that there are 5 “soul ages”: infant, baby, young, mature, old. People who re-incarnate on Earth can be any of these 5. Most of them are in young/mature categories in the Western world (with the Tea Party/religious fanatics belonging in the “baby” category). The way the author sees the world puts him right between “young” and “mature”. Similar ideas as those expressed on Reddit by moralist atheists.

Problem for them is, there’s a 5th stage, the “old soul”. And the old soul sees things differently, and I do too.

So, in the example the author gives, about the looming Klingon civil war, the various soul ages would react as such:

Infant: “Bwahahaha, nuke yourselves already! One less competition/enemy!” (Ferengi/Klingons)

Baby: “I’ll let you fight it out, and then conquer you while weakened.” (Romulans/Cardashians)

Young: “If I help you, you should help me too in what I need!” (Andorians)

Mature: “No, stop what you’re doing! You’re killing yourselves!” (Kirk / Early Federation)

Old: “You’re free to do what you want to do.” (Picard / Late Federation / Most Vulcans)