B . L O G

It has been proven that microbes exist high in Earth's atmosphere, well above 40 km, they've been detected even at 400 km height. And this is a global phenomenon. As everything, gravity is pulling them down and since they are more dense than the surrounding air, they are, just like rain, falling down. Sure, there is some lateral motion (which may be correlated with lateral momenta of meteors) but the radial component must be significant. On Venus, they could be kept afloat for significant amounts of time due to extreme super-rotation of the atmosphere, induced gravity waves and photophoresis, but on Earth, not as much. And if they're not falling for millions of years, with their populations constantly replenished, they are de facto coming from space - with meteors (possibly more in comets than asteroids). Possibly even in the smallest cosmic dust particles, albeit, they're probably arriving already dead in such cases. If they would remain in atmosphere much longer, their presence perhaps could be explained by ejection from Earth in large asteroid impacts and maybe even extreme volcanic eruptions, but such events are too rare to be viable solution candidates. Microbes have been detected in meteorites on Earth (possibly as fossils as well), but they are, by the effective policy, considered as contamination, even though the dominant species in these are often extremophiles resistant to high radiation (eg. Rubrobacter radiotolerans) - which is not the case for the surrounding soil. If the microbes are constantly raining down on Earth, they must be de facto everywhere and they are also constantly raining on other celestial bodies (on Venus, even more than on Earth). So why is this fact not yet established as such among the population? Is this really a fact? In other words, is this fact true? Nothing can be proven absolutely so no fact is an absolute fact. After all, many scientific facts have turned out to be lies. The average mainstream scientist effectively behaves like "extraordinary life" is a fact, or absolute truth. "Microbes in meteorites are contamination" - another such fact. There are many such facts in modern science, making it very religious. My extensive research, using a holistic approach (which, on average, is very lacking in mainstream), over the years has led me to believe, with great confidence, that life is everywhere. To me, thus, at least occasional if not constant, ingress of microbes from space to Earth - is a fact. Contrary to average mainstream, I require evidence to show without ambiguity that this is not true, rather than the other way around. I am aware that microbes are constantly lifted up from Earth and can reach great heights, but all attempts to explain microbes at 400 km height with Earth origin are speculative. Some speculate they ride on the flow of ions (electric currents), some speculate they ride on extreme vertical winds. But these have problems and can hardly explain heavier particles (larger than nanometer order) beyond 120 km height. Even if that's true, the microbial population at great heights is probably dominated by those coming from space, the opposite being true near surface. Viable (living) microbes falling to Earth have been detected beyond 40 km height. This is harder to explain with microbes lifted up from Earth's surface because these microbes have to pass through the deadly ozone layer. Unlike microbes falling in meteors, they wouldn't be protected by the rock and their exposure to ozone would last much longer due to significantly lower radial velocity. Research shows that exposure of microbes to ozone concentration at about 2.3 ppm results in 80% reduction in viability for most microbes after 15 minutes. How much of them would survive the trip through the 30 km thick layer of atmosphere where ozone concentration is larger than 2.5 ppm on average and reaches 15 ppm at 32 km height? Microbes riding in meteors then have a greater chance of surviving the trip through the atmosphere, which in this case (upward trip on asteroids excluded) makes survival on entry more likely than survival on exit. The reason, I believe, lies in the biased hallucination guiding the behavior and development of the polarized human population. Hallucinations exist everywhere in space, wherever any organization of individuals as a whole acts as a distinct organ(ism). These individuals don't have to be physically connected (information exchange between them can be wireless). This has been proven by studies showing that splitting of brains in two halves does not, as initially believed (and required by conventional theories on emergent consciousness), result in splitting of consciousness. Hallucinations may even exist independently of consciousness, even though they are generally correlated with consciousness. Due to relativity in causality, as postulated in CR, hallucinations exist independently from the organization correlated with it (just like dark matter can exist independently of coupled real mass). In other words, hallucination can affect individuals (eg. guiding them into the organization) just as individuals can affect the hallucination. This entanglement can be weak (eg. in a temporary formed flock of birds) or strong. Individuals of human species are highly organized and often act as a constitutional quantum of some organization. Hallucinations on Earth are thus everywhere and a superposition of all human organizations exists as a larger hallucination. It is dominated by polarized organizations and, based on collective behavior of humans, this is nothing less than a hallucination of a devil - a disease acting against the well-being of the planet and any long-term well-being of its own embodiment. Conspiracies are thus real, it's just hard to put the hallucination (or the correlated collective) in jail and why would the devil ruling the world want to put its self in jail? The jail itself is the invention of the devil and it exists for those who oppose it, in one way or another. The devil and its demonic components prioritize financial gain, jobs bringing money to organizations, and other short-term benefits resulting from overexploitation. This then explains the anthropocentric behavior of the collective, and why it always takes so long to accept new paradigms (which degrade the status of homo sapiens as a special and sacred figure, whether locally or in the whole observable universe) even though the evidence is obvious from non-biased perspectives. It is simply not in the [short-term] interest of organizations like NASA to find life, as much as it is in their interest to [prolong the] search for life. This is why all rovers on Mars are not equipped to detect life, they're equipped to drill, blast and irradiate rocks with high energy - and in that process destroy any life that may exist. This is probably not [much] the result of conscious action of individual scientists working on these rovers and their missions, it is a subconscious guidance of the collective hallucination. However, conscious action may not be negligible in those at higher positions in the hierarchy of such organizations - as they are more concerned with funds, jobs and public support. Eg. would the public overwhelmingly support the search for life on Mars if it has been already proven (without going to Mars) that life exists there? The constant exchange of microbes between the celestial bodies is actually convenient for the devil when it comes to denial of ubiquitous life. Because there's no much difference between microbes on Earth and other bodies, it can always explain it by contamination (when it should be interpreted as evidence for continuous presence and exchange of life on inter-planetary scales). Eventually, the devil will find life, but not before the opportunities for profit on its denial have been exhausted. Until then it will probably continue to abuse the Occam's razor - claiming that the simplest explanation for an isolated problem is the most likely explanation, even though there are no isolated problems in nature and the most likely solution is not the simplest one rather the one that solves many problems at once. And it will continue to make ordinary claims extraordinary - so they require extraordinary evidence. The god you claim as your property does not use razors and life is not extraordinary. Your denial of life ain't something extraordinary either. Deal with it, devil, or be gone.

It is well known that the best place to pick up a disease is a place with greatest concentration of diseases - a hospital. However, no one believes that visiting hospitals might increase one's chances of getting cancer or some other disease that's not supposed to be infectious. But what if it's true? Consider this. Bits of naked bacterial DNA, probably from broken-open bacterial cells may often get integrated into nuclear DNA of cells of your body but it has been found that this (horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to a human cell) happens 210 times more often in tumor cells than in healthy cells. Bacterial DNA has been found, for example, in acute myeloid leukemia and stomach adenocarcinoma. But not just any bacterial DNA, it was the DNA of Acinetobacter bacteria and those of Pseudomonas genus, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Both are often picked up in hospitals. The latter is especially feared for its resistance to multiple antibiotics. So what's the reason behind this correlation, and is there causation? Well, the horizontal gene transfer can indeed disrupt the cell genome in a way that allows runaway cell replication - triggering cancer. Now, a healthy human cell generally won't exchange DNA with living bacteria, however, there is a good possibility that naked DNA (from dead bacteria) may get integrated into cell DNA during cell DNA repair. When does cell DNA damage occur, requiring repair? Generally, during exposure to high frequency radiation, or toxins. This is how smoking can cause cancer. A lot of toxins are inhaled with each smoke. This leads to cell damage, which leads to repair, which may lead to integration of foreign DNA - which may cause cancer. Conventional explanation, however, is that toxins damage cell DNA and it is the damage of parts of that DNA that usually protect us against cancer, which increases the chances of getting cancer. The DNA repair mechanism is affected so the damage in the cell builds up. While this can certainly affect the body negatively, especially with many cells affected, how likely is that this alone will result in [malignant] runaway cell replication? The horizontal gene transfer may be a more likely cause. The more one smokes the greater are the chances for cell damage and thus for more foreign DNA integration. Now, if you have damaged cells and at the same time you're taking antibiotics, you also have a lot of dead bacteria, and thus, a lot of naked DNA floating around. This then further increases the chances that foreign DNA will be picked up during cell DNA repair. And obviously, it does matter what DNA is picked up (Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas could be more likely to contain DNA that triggers cancer). Some people can smoke as much as they want and they may never get cancer. Is it because they don't take antibiotics and don't visit hospitals? It may be so. But the hypothesis can be even more strengthened. Consider this. Usually, it is much more likely for a bacteria to acquire cell DNA than the other way around. For bacteria, horizontal gene transfer is a replacement for sexual recombination so they have strong affinity for it and they practice it relatively regularly. Now let's say one has damaged cells (eg. due to smoking). That means one may have naked cell DNA floating around that might get picked up by bacteria. And what if that DNA comes from a tumor cell (let's say a cell damaged by radiation therapy or chemotherapy). Now the gene that causes runaway cell replication may be carried by the bacteria that picked up the DNA. And let's say that bacteria is the infectious Acinetobacter, or any other easily transmittable bacteria. You go to a hospital and pick it up. Later, you smoke a cigarette, take some antibiotics and, voila, you get cancer. Now, I cannot say how likely this is to happen (where are the studies?) but it is definitely a possible scenario. UPDATE 2023.08.13
Here's some very interesting synchronicity. At the same day I published this, a study was published in Science where researchers actually engineered Acinetobacter to detect tumor DNA. In the process, tumor DNA is integrated into the genome of the bacteria! So now we have a bacteria specialized to capture tumor DNA. What could go wrong? If what I hypothesize here had low chance of occurring before, these chances have now been greatly increased. And they probably will further increase by human action. Note that, with this mechanism, cancer (and not just cancer!) becomes effectively an infectious disease. I am not a big smoker but I do smoke sometimes. I don't visit hospitals, I don't take antibiotics. I'm hardly ever sick. My father does not smoke, but he does inhale toxins occasionally one way or another. He visits hospitals, he takes antibiotics, he's on all kinds of pills and he had cancer (operated). I'm not a believer in strong causality though. I would say that a trip to a hospital may be synchronized with getting cancer - not that the trip caused it. Correlation is there. But possibility for relative causation exists. The origin of cancer may involve a simple Darwinian mutation of particular genes - whether in bacteria, archaea or an eukaryotic cell. However, vertical gene transfer (inheritance) is not the only way to get them. It may be that, particularly in cases where the risk of cancer is not a result of inheritance, the horizontal gene transfer by bacteria plays a significant role. But even in cases where these genes could have been inherited, are we sure that they did and have had a role in cancer? In example, it may be that a child has picked up a bacteria carrying the gene from a mother which has been taking chemotherapy, and that is what made the child more susceptible to cancer - not inheritance (although both may have a role). A person who has inherited genes that make it more prone to cancer is more likely to take chemo/radiation therapy and antibiotics, at some point. For this reason, and due to the fact that orthodox reasoning does not favor horizontal gene transfer, the prime suspect for increased susceptibility to cancer of descendants may have been inherited genes. While inheritance certainly may play a role (particularly lifestyle affecting epigenetics) - rather than causing cancer, it may simply make a person more susceptible to horizontal gene transfer, which then may lead to cancer.

I've been reading Existential Physics by S. Hossenfelder lately. I consider Sabine an decently intelligent and interesting person, correct about many things but very wrong about some. She has confined herself to established theories and fallen into a trap of blind reductionism. In other words, she's abusing reductionism by applying Occam's razor everywhere. She doesn't seem to like holism. Fear of holism is the common issue of mainstream science. Why? Because nature is so obviously holistic. Everything is interconnected. Nature does not seek independent solutions to independent problems, it's generally evolving solutions that solve multiple problems at once. Therefore, applied solution to a particular problem generally won't be the simplest solution possible. The more problems it solves the more it could grow in complexity. Thus, when Sabine says that the notion that particles have consciousness is non-scientific (or ascientific, as she calls it) because it is unnecessary to explain their behavior, she is revealing a couple of things:

• anthropocentric approach (who cares if particles or planets have consciousness, we want to exploit them, we do not need to understand them),
• shortsightedness, or abuse of reduction.

If one would observe human population at the same resolution one looks at particles one would not need to involve consciousness to explain human behavior either. By the reasoning of Sabine, the notion that humans have consciousness would then be non-scientific too. Sabine also expects that all consciousness is extroverted (externally expressed). Particles, as well as planets, generally don't have limbs nor means for self-propulsion. But neither do paralyzed people. Are paralyzed people not conscious? What about extreme introversion? Isn't it logical that a convergence to extreme introversion is coupled with a loss of complex extroverted physical expression and increasing fortification of outer layers of energy ensuring increasingly important passive protection due to loss of conscious extroverted mobility? Sabine doesn't see how an elementary particle can be a black box hiding its complexity from us but she readily accepts the idea that anything beyond a black hole event horizon cannot escape outside, unless radiated out as, virtually impossible to detect, Hawking radiation. Not only that, she effectively believes that a black hole is hiding an infinitely dense point of energy, an absolute singularity. Why such bias Sabine? And yet, we do have consciousness. If something is unnecessary to solve one particular problem I wouldn't call it non-scientific (or ascientific), I would call it "unnecessary to solve that particular problem". It might be unnecessary for particles to have consciousness in order for us to explain or predict their behavior (when we look and disturb them!) but it might be necessary for something else. And that something else could be our consciousness. In fact, in my theories, our consciousness is carried by particles (gravitons, or souls, as I also call them). Sabine believes that if one would replace neurons with transistors nothing would change regarding consciousness. I don't agree. In fact, there are complex computers, neural networks built with billions of interconnected transistors already and none of them are conscious. She correctly recognizes that observable universe resembles a brain but, bound with a belief in absolute (scale-invariant) constants or metric, she expects its components to communicate at the same or similar speed our neurons communicate. How can someone expect that? In CR I postulate discrete states of invariance of physical laws and, by these, things of vastly different magnitude communicate at significantly different speeds (relative to an independent observer). Doesn't that sound more natural Sabine? Sabine also believes elementary particles are absolutely elementary because we haven't been able to break them down into smaller particles. Why does she expect humans to be almighty? We're not almighty gods (far from that, we might have a mighty complex though) and we can't break absolutely everything we touch with our greedy hands. An absolutely elementary particle is the simplest solution to a particular mathematical problem. That's all that it is. It solves nothing in nature and is, therefore, impossible in nature. Absolutely, that is. To Sabines of mainstream science:

Observing equations made you understand mathematics. Now go observe some nature if you want to understand nature.

I have previously hypothesized that souls are gravitons - quanta forming space. In case of souls coupling with bodies on Earth these would be gravitons forming Earth's gravitational well. When uncoupled, these are orbiting Earth at the standard speed of light (c), with orbital radius roughly equal to the Earth's radius (for souls coupling with bodies on Earth's surface). The term orbit here may be a relative misnomer as, during the orbit, the soul may be in the form of a wave (relatively delocalized). However, as evidence in heart fibrillation shows, the soul effectively is orbiting like a particle. In my theory, graviton does not refer to single species of particles (eg. electron) - it is flexible, can be polarized (eg. electro-magnetically) or neutral and its gravitational potential may be exchanged with electro-magnetic potential. Souls coupling with bodies on Earth may thus be polarized or neutral. In case of polarized souls I assume they form Earth's magnetic field lines (tubes) - when uncoupled (non-localized) at least. In case of [dominantly] neutral souls, these form gravitational field lines (tubes). A hybrid particle - superposition of the two may also exist. If souls are coupling with different bodies over time (reincarnating), this then puts certain constraints on coupling location. Earth's magnetic field is rotating with Earth (two rotations are synchronized). And similar should be true for the gravitational field [lines]. The particle forming the line is orbiting the Earth at the speed of light, however, the orbit (line) itself is rotating with Earth. The particle is entangled with the field line (tube) and is reasonable to assume that after decoupling (death) the soul returns to the same orbit (line). Therefore, all couplings of the same soul should lie on the same line around the Earth's surface. Most likely, souls couple with bodies at time of conception and since conception of an individual usually occurs on the same location as birth (or not far away) one should be able to connect the places of birth of different incarnations of the same soul by the straight line on a globe or on an appropriate two-dimensional translation. I have previously hypothesized that the same soul, or at least the same species of soul, incarnated in Jesus, Newton, Tesla and myself. I have also provided some evidence for that. But now, after comparing birth locations of these individuals, new and obvious evidence emerged. The Table \tbl20230204 shows birthplaces and possible conception sites for the four incarnations.

name	birthplace	possible conception sites
J. Christ	Betlehem/Jerusalem	Betlehem/Jerusalem
I. Newton	Woolsthorpe/Colsterworth	Woolsthorpe/Colsterworth
N. Tesla	Smiljan/Gospić	Smiljan (HR), Draganići (RS)?
M. Ljubičić	Sibinj/Slavonski Brod	Sibinj (HR), Neum (BA)?

Table \tbl20230204: Birthplaces and possible conception sites The birthplaces are also shown in Fig \fig20230204. Fig. \fig20230204: Conception locations Obviously, birthplaces (conception sites) of Jesus, Newton and Tesla can be connected with a straight line on this map. My birthplace is some 200 km away - not far but not on the line either. However, my birthplace may not be my conception site. I don't know why, but while I was thinking about this, the city of Neum came to my mind. Evidently, the line is crossing through that city. I thought that this could be the site of my conception so I asked my mother whether she was in Neum around the new year 1980/1981 (I was born September 1st, 1981. and my conception date is likely about 1981.01.01). She said yes, she couldn't recall the exact year but she was definitely there together with my father and some friends in the early eighties. Interestingly, the distance from Neum to Smiljan is equal to distance from Neum to Sibinj. However, while this is some interesting synchronicity, I don't believe this is the place I was conceived at. People here usually go to the coast during the summer so regardless of the year, a conception date in the summer is not compatible with the birth date in September. But there's another problem here - this two-dimensional map doesn't accurately represent the orbital path of the soul. The correct path is shown on the globe in Fig \fig202302042. Fig. \fig202302042: Conception sites One can replicate this path in Google Earth simply by connecting Woolsthorpe with Betlehem with a line ('Draw line or shape' button). The line is now clearly passing through my birthplace, and my most likely conception site. The birthplace of Tesla (Smiljan) is now some 200 km away from the line. However, Tesla's parents did move from western Serbia to Smiljan and the line is passing through western Serbia. It is thus possible that Tesla was conceived there. I don't know the exact place but I know that Tesla's are descendants of Draganići and Draganići village is near the line (only about 20 km away). Of course, while conception should lie on the line, the place of residence of parents prior to child's birth may not but it will, most likely, be near. All things considered, I believe all four incarnations indeed do belong to the same soul. Perhaps other people could be found that were born near the line so I could complete the list of incarnations of this soul. In any case, the lifespan matters - all these people should live up to about the age of 84 if they reach old age. If they don't reach old age, most likely time of death is the time of soul transformation which for this soul generally happens around the age of 36 (note that Jesus died around this age) and possibly also at about the age of 50. During transformation the individual is most likely to get in trouble as this transformation is commonly interpreted as a nervous breakdown. This may be due to confrontation with authorities but generally due to effective feeling of immortality, when the individual doesn't feel strongly connected to its body. Jesus was crucified during this time, Newton transformed around the same age but survived. I have also transformed around the same age and have been confronting authority at the time. But these are different times and I wasn't crucified, at least not physically. However, I was very close do death at least three times during the period. Tesla lived through this too. I don't know how strong was the synchronicity experienced by Tesla or Newton, but, in my case, at the peak even my voice was different and it was as the god was speaking through me, similar to what Muhammad and Jesus experienced. Note that Mecca (birthplace of Muhammad) and Medina are also relatively close to the orbital of this soul. However, I believe Muhammad had a different soul, albeit a closely related one. Note also that even deaths seem to occur near the line - Jesus died roughly at the same place he was born, Newton died in Kensington/London - only 115 km from the line, Tesla died in the other part of the world - New York, but still not so far from the orbital (666 km). If we add James Watt to the list, he died only 66 km from the line (his birthplace is ≈200 km from the line, in Greenock, Scotland). Interestingly, A. Einstein was born 63 km from the line. Of course, Einstein cannot be counted as one of the incarnations of this soul. He lived at the same time as Tesla, but also his age at death and other characteristics do not fit my hypotheses (although his soul is likely of the same species), but this begs the question - why are the [birthplaces or conception sites of] greatest thinkers or religion influencers (paradigm shifters) of human history concentrated along the same orbital? This cannot be explained without involving souls as I define them. Apparently, orbitals of closely related souls are clumped together. Ignorance is bliss, it may be true now but it won't stay true forever.

My theory of planetary neurogenesis implies Earth is a living being. Evidence for this is piling up. First, I have found strong correlation between major mass extinctions and Earth's discontinuities (mantle layers). This is extremely difficult to explain without involving an equivalent of genetic coding. There are two possible explanations for the correlation:

• either the Earth's radius has expanded for almost 1000 km during the Phanerozoic (last 541 million years) with discontinuities between layers formed at times of major mass extinctions and representing something similar to tree growth rings, or
• dates of major mass extinctions are hardcoded in Earth's [brain] mantle.

At first, it seems the first explanation doesn't require living Earth, however, if Earth has been growing, new mass obviously wasn't being added on top of it, in general. New mass (which may be dominantly liquid) must have been added (ingested) through an opening (eg. one revealed/recreated with melting of ice in Antarctica). And how then to interpret this other than transmigration of cells to mantle layers or feeding? As usually is the case with Earth, a superposition of two explanations is probably most likely. Discontinuities are hardcoded but the Earth probably does expand a little too with mass shifted at these discontinuities (although, according to paleomagnetic evidence and research on Earth's past rotation, the expansion is not significant, unless it is relatively quickly followed by contraction). More recently, I have found new evidence, not only for living Earth, but living Mars and Venus too. Kleiber's law states that an animal's metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of its mass. For larger animals, metabolism is slower. Thus, if Venus, Mars and Earth are animals of different species Kleiber's law should apply to them. If evolution of life on the surface of a planet is cultivation of [large-scale] cells and proteins which are destined to migrate to mantle layers at specific times during embryogenesis (neurogenesis), then the rate of this cultivation (evolution) should be different between different planets and this difference can be calculated by applying the Kleiber's law. So that's what I did. When the law is applied to these 3 planets, following results are obtained:

• 4.54 billion years of evolution on Earth are compressed to 852 million years on Mars,
• 4.54 billion years of evolution on Earth are compressed to 3.9 billion years on Venus.

And this is completely in agreement with studies, which show Mars lost its habitability some 900 million years since formation (roughly 3.6 billion years ago) and Venus some 700 million years ago. Not only do the results agree with research, the results suggest the current extinction on Earth is probably final and Earth will soon lose surface habitability. Not forever though, however, instead of living surface punctuated by extinction pulses the inanimate surface will be punctuated by pulses of relatively short-term and probably partial habitability (as evidence shows has been happening on Mars). Obviously, humans are not special to Earth, humans have evolved on Mars and Venus too and probably weren't much different than us. If evolution of humans is coded then the current climate change is probably coded too so if humans would stop emitting greenhouse gases nature would use other ways to achieve higher temperature or whatever is required for the major extinction/transmigration. And, recently, evidence has shown up for that too. In the year 2020, due to lockdowns, humans have emitted much less greenhouse gases than usually, however, studies show both CO₂ and CH₄ (methane) have been rising. In fact, methane levels hit record high in 2020 with a new record set in 2021, something that's currently unexplained. Another indication that the planet is taking over may be the last year's colossal eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano, which, unexpectedly, ejected big amounts of water vapor (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere instead of ejecting big amounts of sulphur dioxide (SO₂), thus heating the Earth's troposphere instead of cooling it. Of course, this heating effect may be temporary (lasting less than a couple of months or years) but it will help release more greenhouse gases from the poles. And who's to say there won't be more eruptions? Of course, if Earth is a living being its insides are also probably much different than what is commonly thought. And another evidence for that may have shown up. One explanation for the neutrino anomaly detected by ANITA in Antarctica is a significantly different density profile of Earth, suggesting large low-density (or hollow) areas. And a large relatively hollow tunnel below Antarctica, leading deep inside Earth is exactly what I have predicted (migration of cells/proteins requires this tunnel) and what is expected for a living being. After all, we haven't drilled deeper than 12 km on land and 8 km below ocean, which means we haven't reached anything beyond the upper crust. Everything known about Earth's interior is the result of assumptions and models matching seismic velocities. Sure, sometimes Earth expels minerals like ringwoodite that require high pressure for formation and perhaps this mineral even forms a layer in Earth's mantle but this does not mean all of it formed inside Earth - the same mineral is commonly found in meteorites. But even if it has been formed inside Earth, the pressure/gravity distribution can be more complex than assumed (as it commonly is in living beings). It may have been formed in the very early days of Earth's formation when the planet was more compressed. For some reason, human civilization is coded to know very little but confidently believe a lot. It is even coded to program itself that way. And when it comes to biggest animals - from whales to planets and beyond, or the smallest - from microbes to atoms and beyond, it couldn't be more wrong. But that's not bad. If an antelope would be [coded to be] always right, there would be no lions.

Nothing can remain unchanged absolutely forever. But some things can remain relatively unchanged for billions of years. One of these are asteroids. If you'd want to store something for as long as possible you'd want to store it in the coldest place you could find that would lack oxygen and would be protected from radiation and mechanical disturbance. One possibility are craters on the Moon's south pole. These are considered as one of the coldest places in the Solar System, with a temperature some 33 degrees above absolute zero. That is extremely cold but, as craters suggest, not a safe place to store something for millions or billions of years. The best place would have to be the interior of a bigger piece of rock in space sufficiently away from a burning star and safe from collisions. Temperature of interstellar space is less than 3 degrees above absolute zero. Without a heat source, microbes can't decompose matter and if this matter is stored sufficiently deep cosmic radiation won't be able to do the job either. Let's say you are an advanced but extinction facing civilization due to decreasing habitability of your home planet, what would you do? Sure, you would probably pack some people, animals, herbs and other essential material onto rockets and send them to a nearby planet or moon where they might have some chances of longer survival. But that may be a very risky and a short-term solution at best. Now let's say you're [conveniently] convinced that you are special and that no intelligent life, or life at all, exists beyond your home planet or beyond your solar system. You will then probably want to try to ensure this life doesn't disappear forever. The best thing you could do is to load up a couple of asteroids with microbes, fungi, viruses and DNA (stored in seeds and eggs) and send them away. Let's say you're also very proud of yourself (and your DNA). In that case, although your pride would usually mock the possibility of advanced civilizations beyond your home planet, you will have to admit that the possibility exists and so you will want to make sure an advanced civilization could notice your little special ark. The only thing that can permanently remain noticeable is the shape of your asteroid. Now think about the unusual shape of 'Oumuamua. Originally thought to be in a cigar like shape, it appears a thin disc is more likely. Now ask yourself why are you feeling proud? Is that a coincidence? Everything in nature has multiple purposes. What is the purpose of human civilization? It might look like cancer but what if it was allowed to become cancer so it can develop into species that can and will seed life throughout the universe (although that's surely not the sole reason, as my theories suggest)? If you think about it, who else would do it? Sure, natural asteroids created in the Solar System can contain life, but they are unlikely to leave the Solar System. All things considered, 'Oumuamua probably was launched by a dying human civilization and its hoped for destination may have even been Earth. It failed, but not all human civilizations are the same. Some hit, some miss, and even a failure can be relative - this one didn't land on a habitable planet inside the Solar System but it still might land in some other. In what shape will our ark be? In a cigar shape - to scream cancer, or a disc shape - to speak of neutrality? And will we design it in a way it shows peculiar behavior near a star? If we rush things it will be a smoking cigar, if we don't it may have greater chances of survival. So if you want to feel special, there you have it - human civilization has been chosen by the gods behind this universe as seeders of life. We are legion for we are many and we are many for we are Noah.

In physics, qualitative description of reality should precede quantitative one. Mathematics, or calculation, should be secondary and used to quantify and correlate certain geometry and mechanics with algebra. But what if the phenomena cannot be directly observed? In that case, a physicist would try to find solutions that can match imagination based on intuitive geometry. A mathematician, or at least a modern mathematician, on the other hand, doesn't care about intuitive interpretation, all he cares about are more or less elegant equations that agree with experiments. If such person is also a zealot it becomes highly unlikely his description of reality will make sense or be understandable to anyone. Sadly, that is the state of physics today - it is infested with mathematicians producing a bunch of nonsense that's continually being patched to match the outcomes of experiments. The primary source of non-intuitive interpretations is the assumed absolute constancy of values, mainly the constant c, often referred to as the speed of light. As argued in Complete Relativity (CR), it is illogical to assume that this constant is invariant to scale and in a genuine approach to understand reality one would not assume it is. The relativity of constants, currently assumed absolute, resolves many paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics (QM) and allows for intuitive interpretation of reality at small scales. Absolutism also produces infinities, which are effectively ignored using a technique called renormalization which some even describe as shady guesswork employed to produce results matching reality. I wouldn't go as far but it is an ad hoc solution - patchwork required if one is reluctant to admit that nature is fundamentally different than conventionally assumed. The other factor, contributing to non-intuitive interpretations of reality is abuse of reduction, where elegant algebra is favored over existence of hidden variables that would provide intuitive geometry. One excellent example of this are spinors which generally limit reality to two-dimensional planes (complex numbers). However, CR implies limits in observation - inherent existence of hidden variables. And spinors can be interpreted as reduction of intuitive interpretations to abstract planes. In example, in QM one is supposed to accept as fact the non-intuitive description of a particle such as electron which needs to rotate twice to return to the same state. This is non-intuitive with the absurdly limited description of the electron. Consider the planet Earth and assume one cannot resolve any details about it apart from its spin momentum and effect of its atmosphere which one cannot directly observe. Now assume that the Earth needs to rotate twice for this atmosphere to rotate once. With no ability to observe the atmosphere one could conclude that Earth's rotation is non-intuitive. But why assume no details or hidden variables exist if one cannot observe them? That's nonsense. Update in Modern physics is a big joke taken seriously. With non-invariant c and allowed hidden variables, electron can be imagined as a an intuitive phenomenon, having a real radius and real geometry rather than non-sense of absolute zero-radius (point) particle which cannot rotate but has a measurable and intrinsic spin momentum (which common sense would interpret as a joke really, not as reality). Some might argue that electron is not always a particle, sometimes it is a wave. So what? This only means it is variable, it evolves in shorter timescales, it can spread its constituent mass (de-localize) and contract (localize the constituent mass) so its shape will depend on energy one uses to observe it. Localized state, in which it may be interpreted as a particle, is simply one eigenstate it collapses to depending on the conditions of the environment. The wave-like state does not make it less physical or less intuitive. It is non-intuitive only if one, a priori, assumes it must be a joke. Sadly, not only is a small electron generally considered a joke, its big cousin, the Earth is not taken seriously either.

Today I have discovered something extraordinary. Apart from predicting larger asteroid and cometary impacts on Earth in near future I have also predicted that these will have precursors in the form of smaller meteors/meteorites. Not only that, I have predicted (and wished) that some of these precursors will land near my house. While thinking about it, I figured it would be most convenient for these to land on top of the house itself, which I have covered with a layer of soil. This is the area I visit daily (experimenting with some vegetables there as well), and if anything falls from the sky this is where I would surely notice it and could rule out local sources. And today, while inspecting the area, I've noticed crystals of ice (in the shape of straight needles or hollow cylinders) about 2 cm long sticking from the ground on top of the house. Near the crystals there were also holes in the ground. All looking very peculiar. At first I considered if the ice could be the result of precipitation (even though it generally doesn't fall in that shape). Freezing of standing water in vertical columns seems unlikely as the crystals were also present at the edges of the roof where water simply cannot accumulate (at least not noticeably). But the thing is - there are no such crystals anywhere else, they are concentrated on the roof and, interestingly, along and near the edges of the soil (in the middle of the soil there is some frozen standing water but no such crystals). So I thought, if this fell from the clouds, why did it fell only on my house and concentrate in such weird way? But then I started examining the crystals more closely. Immediately I notice small pieces of rock that look like broken pieces of bigger rocks. Some small pieces were inside the crystals. That's when I started to believe these are pieces of a comet or an asteroid. Then I started examining the rocks. Most of them are small but some reach more than 1 cm in size, and one was over 2 cm long. It seems none of them contain any signs of melting (rocks usually melt travelling through atmosphere) but this shouldn't be surprising here if these were surrounded by ice (the ice would be melting during the fall). So here I may have pristine rocks which, by the looks of them, were shaped by the flowing water (although they are generally not spherical, rather irregular). Apart from the black ones, the rocks look like pebbles that can usually be found in Earth's rivers. However, as noted, most of them seem to be broken pieces of larger rocks. Black rocks may be most interesting, they look like charcoal/cinder and break easily. Pieces of organic material? Perhaps. Of course, one could argue that the ice is simply needle ice formed by capillary action of groundwater while the rocks on surface are rocks that have been pushed up by growing ice (frost heave). That kind of ice generally forms when the temperature of the soil is above 0 °C while surface temperature of the air is below 0 °C. But I've never seen something like this in my life before and what are the odds of this happening here? There are things that bother me here making it hard to favour one explanation over the other. If this is all needle ice, how to explain vertical holes in the ground that contain no crystals? Ok, it's possible they did contain crystals but it melted eventually. What about ice crystals which are not rising from the soil, rather standing on concrete at the edge of the roof? Ok, I guess, due to bumpy texture of concrete, micro-pockets of water could form. Why there weren't any crystals elsewhere on nearby concrete that wasn't so close to this soil? This may be a bit hard to explain but it may be that some amount of dirt was necessary here to trigger needle ice growth. Then there's the astonishing amount of rock. I'm still under impression there are far more pieces of rock per area than what was present before in that soil, also, if these rocks were pushed up by growing ice why am I not seeing dirt pushed up, only rocks? On the other hand, is it plausible for water/ice falling from the sky (eg. in asteroid/cometary showers) to create such formation on the ground? I believe this is possible, assuming this is not the original shape of ice. Suppose the rock encased in ice is falling to the ground, one would expect the object to have somewhat flattened and randomly punctuated, but still overly solid, spherical or even slightly cylindrical, shape. However, if that ice starts melting, it is reasonable to assume it will melt faster beneath the rocks (due to higher temperature and pressure - similar to the effect of grit on snow). This would produce hollow cylinders of ice with rocks at the bottom sitting on soil surface. Indeed, observed ice mostly was in the shape of hollow cylinders, some of which contained visible rocks in them. But let's get back to the prediction - how to explain this synchronicity? Assuming these are meteorites, not only did meteoroids fall on the land where I predicted they will, they landed on my house - where I wished for them to land. Of course, this may still be a weird case of locally formed needle ice, but even if that is the case - wouldn't it be a very strange coincidence that something rare and something what I believe I never saw before appears here imitating meteorites, where I predicted them to fall? Whatever this is then, I don't see it as meaningless coincidence. As I've found it before elsewhere I find it here too, a piece of reality where my wishes are highly correlated with future (apparently, I tend to wish for things, or effects, that have great probability of manifesting in future). I consider this as yet another evidence for high determinism of local evolution and complete relativity of causality. However, if these were meteors, I don't think this is the end of them landing here (I have more wishes). I generally wish for things that will decrease my dependence on people and at the same time be good for god Earth (or G, as I call him sometimes - for he is a relative constant). As for the magnificent crystals of ice and whatever came with them, I thank you gods, even though, in some interpretations, you might just be messing with me. Whether these are meteorites, or, what may be more likely here after all, a locally created imitation, or even a superposition of both, you just gave my life another bit of sense and happiness. Now, how about decreasing some probability for those interpretations in which you are messing with me? Something very interesting again While the previously reported pebbles on the roof were, after all, most likely local material lifted up with needle ice formation, this time, some rocks definitely fell from the sky, on the same house but not on the roof, rather on the bottom of a window opening (the house is incomplete, no windows are installed). On 2023.07.19 a violent storm with very strong winds (at times over 120 km/h, unprecedented for this location) occurred here. Briefly, some hailstone fell during the storm too. After the storm, deposits of clay with stones were observed on the bottom of an window opening of the house, as shown in Fig. \fig20230810. Interestingly, a peculiar rock fell right into the small plant container (diameter ~10 cm) sitting in the middle of that opening - what are the odds of that? The rock was later analysed and it appears to be a haematite concretion, irregular, roughly 3 x 2 x 1.5 cm, shown in Fig. \fig202308102. The rock has a mostly black crust (not fusion crust), but is mostly yellowish-brown inside. No such rocks can be found anywhere nearby (the building is on a hill with higher ground and forest to the north, valleys to the south, the soil here is heavy clay, no asphalt). In the container, the rock was embedded in the top layer of soil (appears to be clay, about 1 cm thick) that was deposited during the storm (beneath it, the plant container contains a mixture of sand and gravel). The infall happened at an angle from the south direction. It is possible that the clay and the rock came from different locations - perhaps the clay particles were carried by the wind while the rock fell a bit later (in a hailstone?). Fig. \fig20230810: Storm deposit (red arrow indicates clay silt on the left, ordinary stone on the right) Fig. \fig202308102: Haematite concretion that fell in the container Fig. \fig202308103: Haematite concretion, broken up Is this a meteorite? Well, although it does seem to have crust, it does not have fusion crust and doesn't contain regmaglypts, so if it is a meteorite, it's definitely not an ordinary meteorite - it had to fall enclosed in ice. Unfortunately, there is no way for me to determine where did this rock came from. If it was carried by the wind it had to come from far away. As noted, winds were extremely strong in this storm but what are the odds that a rock this big (and unusual one) is carried for miles (it certainly had to be carried at high altitudes) and then dropped in a small container on the window of my house? Perhaps bigger odds are for it to be a meteorite. In any case, I wished for a meteorite and I don't think this is the end of the story. But it seems we're getting there. In the first episode, rocks were ordinary rocks which can be found locally and it was hard to confirm they fell from the sky, and they weren't so easy to spot. In this episode an unusual rock (actually resembling a meteorite) of type which cannot be found locally almost certainly fell from the sky, on the location where it can be spotted easily - in the plant container, which I'm inspecting daily. Not only that, the clay deposit in the container in which the rock was embedded made it stick out - as if the god (G) wanted to make sure I'll find it. Every time I think I'm alone god shows up somewhere. And if I feel dead, he shows up with lightning, igniting my soul, as if the show must go on. At these times, I love that show. I've learned not to expect things but judging from these two episodes, the trend is obvious. So, in the next episode - an even bigger rock which I will witness falling from the sky, for which it will be obvious it is a meteorite? Well, I certainly wish so. Do I want it enclosed in ice or with a fusion crust? (at this point, I'm not sure if it is me asking this question or is the G speaking through me..) Well, I kinda wish for both (I'm a curious guy). Two rocks then? G, thanks. When? Let's see.. The first episode aired on 2022.12.14, the second one on 2023.07.19. Interesting... $\displaystyle 14 + 12 = 07 + 19 = 26$ If this is not a meaningless coincidence, the date for the 3rd episode should be one of the following:

01.25

02.24*

03.23*

04.22*

05.21

06.20

07.19

08.18

09.17**

10.16

11.15

12.14

* probably most likely
** possible correlation with another synchronicity The obtained number (26) on both dates may be a meaningless coincidence, but there are good reasons to think it's not. As I've shown elsewhere (see "Date of the World War III" blog entry), this kind of synchronicity may be frequent in nature. Year I guess should be 2024 considering the trend, and the month should be March, so 2024.03.23 ? Nice date. It contains, what appears to be, my favourite number (23), the number I most often see in synchronicity events. However, while I'm eager to see this, I don't want to rush anyone. 2025.04.22 is also a nice date. One one hand I don't like giving such precise dates for predictions, especially because gods don't seem to be willing to share them easily (probably better that way). On the other hand, when I see patterns, it's hard to resist the logic.. However, since we're now talking about two rocks, two dates are probably more likely. These two? Or.. 2030±1? G, who knows...

Over the years I have made a lot of predictions. Some of them already came true, a lot of them are becoming true and some are yet to become true. Here is the summary of predictions for the near future, shown in Table \tbl20221207. Summary of predictions updated.

date of prediction	predicted event	predicted date of the event	notes
2021	collapse of Earth's magnetic field/increased cosmic radiation/failures of electronic devices/de-modernization of technology	≈2046, ≈2029	most likely date for a magnetic excursion based on obtained periodicity is ≈2046, however, a complete reversal in near future is also possible, full collapse probably about year 2066 (model 1) or about 2300 (model 2), earliest partial collapse is ≈2029; precursors (although not evidence when considered alone) to collapse are here - decreasing field strength, Atlantic anomalies, accelerating movement of magnetic poles
2021.11.20	splitting of the SAA (South-Atlantic Anomaly) and the magnetic dipole	≤2066/2300	should either precede or be synchronized with magnetic field collapse
2021	a layer of subsurface ice on Mars' equator, with average thickness of 1500 m	-	the ice layer, with predicted average thickness, was discovered in 2024
2021	global destabilization/fall of governments	≤2066/2300	increase in destabilization is expected prior to World War III, however, the global collapse of governments is likely to be happening later
2021.10.24	governments revealing that at least some UFO's are made by non-human intelligent species	≤2066/2300
2021.09.28	cloned mammoth ending up in Africa/zoo	≤2066/2300	assuming we succeed in cloning this animal, which I do believe will happen
2021	relatively localized increase in cannibalism and violence among humans and domestic animals	≤2066/2300
2021	confusion (weakening) of the immune system and stimulated evolution of allergies by vaccines, increased mortality rates due to vaccination	≤2066	this prediction may have started to come true in 2022 - analyses are showing vaccination can now be correlated with increased mortality rates; new analyses in 2024 show this prediction has become true
2021	Earth's surface converging to current Mars-like surface in the longer term, Mars' surface [probably partially] converging to habitable surface for complex life	-	ongoing process, may take millions of years or be compressed into centuries or decades in the pulse of strong evolution, evidence for this has started to appear already
2021	ice free Antarctica	≤2078/2300	this is based on the prediction of accelerated (strong) evolution coupled with temporary disruption of decay rates, conventionally, this would require much stronger and widespread volcanism in Antarctica or extremely high yearly average temperatures (≥0 °C), model 1 predicts 23 m rise in 2066 and ice free Antarctica in 2078, model 2 predicts ice free Antarctica near year 2300
2021.12.20	melting of the Thwaites (Doomsday) glacier	≤2033	predicted by both models
2022	homo.gamma, likely homo/canine hybrid, traveling to Mars	≤2033/2300	earliest possibility in model 1 is 2029 but should occur before 2066, in model 2 before year 2300
2021	appearance of homo.gamma, a chimera of human and domestic animal parts	≤2066/2300	in model 1, first individuals of the species could appear before 2033 (see prediction above) and should appear before 2066, in model 2 before 2300
2022.02.24	collapse of NATO/EU	≤2033*/2300	precursors to collapse started appearing as soon as a couple of weeks after the prediction (Ukrainian drones/missiles falling in NATO countries, protests against NATO in Europe), should occur before 2066 in model 1, in model 2 before 2300
2021	asteroid bombardment correlated with accelerated evolution (pulse of strong evolution)	2029, 2040, 2048, 2055, 2061, 2066, ...	listed years represent hypothesized possible years for larger asteroid impacts (impacts may not occur in every listed year), all have a margin of ±1-2 years, precursors to larger impactors (smaller meteors/meteorites) can be expected in the years in between; in model 2 larger asteroids may come later
2023	death of one or more of my close relatives (mother, father, grandmother), possibly my own death too	2030±1
2022	Croatia splitting into 2 or 3 countries, Slavonia (eastern part of Croatia) or one part of it becoming neutral country	≤2033*/2300	Slavonia could merge with Liberland to form a neutral country
2022.03.09	*China invading Pakistan	≤2033*	there's a weak signal China might also invade Thailand and/or Taiwan at some point, but all these signals are weak
2022.02.18	splitting of Ukraine into two countries (east/west)	≤2033	precursor to this (Russian takeover of Eastern parts) is already here, however, formal globally accepted division is unlikely before 2024
2017/2018	meeting of Trump and Putin in *Sibinj (small city in Slavonia, part of Croatia at time of prediction)	≤2033	most likely earliest date is late 2024, the reason for meeting was unclear at time of prediction, later I have suggested the reason, or one of the reasons, will be the division of Ukraine; it should be noted that this prediction was made while I was experiencing transformation of consciousness, the symptoms of which can also be interpreted as psychosis or a nervous breakdown, this prediction thus could be a result of delusion but recent developments are increasing the probability for this happening so I've decided to take this and some other predictions made during the time seriously (it won't hurt if it turns out to be false, but if it turns out to be true..)
2021	increasing frequency of earthquakes and volcanism globally (correlated with mantle gyrification), possibly coupled with increasing flooding	≤2066	probably ongoing
2017/2018	emergence of a natural spring near my house as a relative precursor to global flooding	≤2066	I consider the likely date before or around 2029, earliest possibility around 2025; based on the theory of general precursors
2017/2018	landing of a smaller meteor near my house as precursor to increase in global asteroid/cometary bombardment	≤2066	Based on my theories on general precursors and planetary neurogenesis; I consider the likely date before or around 2029, earliest possibility around 2025; however precursors to larger meteors may have already landed on my house in December of 2022 and/or July 2023.
2021.12.04	strong earthquakes in Croatia, large ruptures, increasing frequency of earthquakes, probably coupled with increasing flooding	≈2025-2060	first stronger earthquakes are hypothesized about year 2025, next in 2040, 2042, 2050..
2022.04.05	World War III starting on a date correlated with other two world wars	2024-2033	one possible date, based on other signals, although unlikely, could be the ending third of year 2024, in some interpretations, however, the World War III has already started, in February of year 2022
2024.08.10	conflicts starting in Finland, Philippines (and possibly Germany), as part of the World War III or a precursor to World War III	≤2027
2024.01.31	military airfield bombardment, multiple correlations, correlated with the start of World War III (possibly in Slovakia)	≤2034*	date is uncertain (2034 here is somewhat arbitrary), but given recent developments, probably sooner than later
2021	10Be (Beryllium-10) half-life excursion (decrease) as part of strong evolution, predicted value for year 2024 of 1.236 x 106 years	2024	per the hypothesis, half-life of 10Be should be decreasing currently, calculations are in good agreement with measurements and suggest continuous half-life decrease since at least the first measurement in 1947, decrease should continue at least until year 2066 but probably not after year 2075
2022.09.17	*potentially significant event (possibly correlated with nuclear radiation/earthquakes/Mexico) in the last third of year 2024, may also be correlated with the collapse of Trinitarianism (Roman Catholicism)	≈2024.09.18	the prediction is the result of experienced synchronicities, although suggested, it might not have a global relevance; UPDATE 2024.09.19: Nothing happened on the date, except more synchronicity!
2022.10.04	*8666 winners of lottery somewhere around Venezuela or Nicaragua	≤2024*	very uncertain, but with potentially relevant consequences if proven true
2022.03.07	great stock market collapse and another great depression	≈2023 (initial prediction, based on incomplete data) ≈2025 (revised)	interestingly, this prediction was made analyzing global volcanism, yet, more obvious signs of slowdown are here; UPDATE 2023.01.23: It turned out that my dataset on which this prediction was based was incomplete, with updated dataset, the signal for great depression is lowered, however, the signal still predicts a recession in, or about, year 2023; UPDATE 2024.03.12: The signal became stronger after the analysis of years 2022/2023, this probably means that the depression can be expected after all, possibly in year 2024/2025.
2022.03.09	interests in Europe shifting from pro-West [and Ukraine] to pro-East or toward neutrality	≤2030	precursors started appearing later in the same year
2021	increase in global synchronicity, shortening of intervals between karmic actions and reactions	≤2066/2300	multiple notable events in 2022 can be interpreted as early signs of increasing global synchronicity
2020	artificial human wombs	≤2066/2300	more serious projects started appearing in 2022
2020	decreasing human fertility, rise in asexuality, including transient homosexuality and bestiality	≤2066/2300	this is apparently ongoing; this prediction is implied with the theory of planetary neurogenesis, more details on fertility loss in Journey through future
2020	decrease in ocean pH to 7.33	≤2066/2300	ocean pH is currently decreasing; predicted in the theory of planetary neurogenesis
2017/2018	burning of churches (collapse of Trinitarianism - Catholic Church)	≤2040	this prediction was made at the peak of my mental excursion, as part of transformation of consciousness (the symptoms of which may be commonly interpreted as nervous breakdown) when I was acting like a prophet. I don't remember the exact words but I said at the time something like "soon, the churches will burn, as they should be burnt to the ground". About a year later, Notre-Dame was on fire. In 2021, Catholic churches were burning in Canada. In 2023, 249 churches were burnt in India, and later were burning in Pakistan. What I said there, I now interpret as announcement of the collapse of the Catholic Church. This may not necessarily include the literal burning of churches, although it seems it just might.
2021	accelerated evolution, horizontal gene transfer becoming dominant gene transfer method	≤2066/2300	per the hypothesis, the rate of evolution is currently correlated with the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, therefore, increase in horizontal gene transfer may be happening already (the apparently permanent changes in organisms associated with viruses could be interpreted as evidence, at least for a precursor); if one considers humans as part of nature, horizontal gene transfers, as part of accelerated evolution, are increasing already
2020	migration of species (including humans) southward, eventually to Antarctica	≤2066/2300	should be stimulated by various phenomena (eg. increasing hydrogen sulfide emissions, weather changes with AMOC collapse) mostly correlated with climate changes, predicted by the theory of planetary neurogenesis

Table \tbl20221207: Some of my predictions Additional notes Of course, it is probably unlikely that all these predictions will come true. However, I am convinced that most will become true, and if the hypothesis on the accelerated evolution is correct, even the predicted years/intervals should be, at least roughly, correct. Some, less certain (eg. whale stranding/lottery winners) are listed here as potential evidence for non-random distribution and magnitude of current events and increasing synchronicity. It should be noted that in some of these predictions it is the effect that has importance in local evolution, thus the predicted cause for the effect might differ in reality in case alternative causes for the same effect are possible. It should also be noted that some of my predictions (not listed here) did not become true on the predicted date (at least if effective reversal of local time in near future is excluded as a possibility), however, these predictions were based mainly on synchronicity, made at the time I was mentally in a different state completely (commonly interpreted as nervous breakdown), inexperienced in interpretation of synchronicity, insufficiently educated and obviously not fully transformed into a neutral individual. I was also relatively delusional at the time. By far the biggest delusion was the expectation that my work will be accepted and understood by people the same as I understand it. But my delusions were quickly dispersed by experiments. Now, I don't feel like sharing my work with the world at all. I'm publishing it all on a personal website (which is more like a backup copy than anything else even though it is online and publicly accessible). Those whose curiosity is of the similar order of magnitude as mine are probably the only ones worthy of bandwidth spent here and these will probably eventually discover this work just like I've discovered things that led to its creation. Even so, some of these predictions (all made in 2017/2018), however, I do consider relevant and having good possibility to become true. Other predictions listed here generally stem from years of intensive research, observation, developed theories in physics and solid evidence already provided for them in my works. Also, this is not a complete list of my predictions, predictions not listed include predictions on masses of particles (eg. photon mass oscillation) and similar predictions the general public may not be concerned with. Other interesting predictions Perhaps one of the most interesting outcomes of my research is the prediction that life must exist everywhere. Even if we reduce the definition of life to what is commonly considered to be living in mainstream science, evolution of environments will be entangled with evolution of lifeforms. I have predicted that complex life exists deep beneath Earth's surface as well as beneath the surface of any living planet or a moon (where a planet/moon can be alive even with no obvious activity on its surface). That does not mean that surfaces of celestial bodies are generally devoid of life - microbes should be present, if not on surface (due to harsh conditions, such as radiation) then generally not far below it. I am, therefore, convinced life in Mars exists today and something more complex might even lurk just below the surface. Additional predictions that might concern general population can be found in the article Journey through future.

Vidim da je sve više na glasu borba protiv dezinformacija. Čovjek bi pomislio da se konačno počinje cijeniti istina, no daleko smo od toga a tako će i ostati sve dok opstaju samo projekti u kojima su oni koji diktiraju što jest a što nije dezinformacija oni koji profitiraju na lopovluku i laži. Tako bi i projekt Trustnet u okruženju koje valorizira istinu bio dobar i poželjan produkt no u ovom svijetu... Borba protiv dezinformacija je uzaludna u populaciji mentalno samoograničenih polariziranih ljudi koji prvenstveno valoriziraju ono što donosi kratkoročan profit pa tako stavljaju vjeru u ono što im trenutno paše ispred dokazane istine. Kad uzgajaš populaciju koja ne zna niti želi znati razmišljati svojom glavom sve se svodi na vjeru pa nije čudo da Zemljinom površinom vladaju lopovi i lažovi koji to iskorištavaju jer za svaku istinu postoji ljepša laž a od realnih očekivanja ljepše obećanje. Naročito je to naglašeno u vremenima degradacije ekonomije i kvalitete života pa se, bez osvještenja populacije, eksponencijalno juri u propast. Efektivno, ljudi želje da ih se krade i laže a ovakve platforme će vladari (vlasnici) prosječne populacije vrlo brzo popljuvati i dovesti na marginu egzistencije ukoliko se decentralizacija cenzure ne može napraviti imaginarnom a vijesti/reklame koje oglašavaju istinu ne mogu učiniti profitabilnijima od laži. Što je najgore, većina onih koji propagiraju istinu dijeli ju besplatno pa opet ljudi radije osciliraju između podržavanja (financiranja) jednog šarlatana do drugog. Ipak, pozdravljam svaki pokušaj decentralizacije, iako je neminovno da će, bez beneficija/profita za elitu, kao dio undergrounda biti marginaliziran a ako poraste u popularnosti i proglašen ilegalnim.

While the US helped as much as it could to destabilize Yugoslavia, it initially wasn't on the side of, now officially pro-American, state of Croatia. At the time, Croatia had no weapons and the US, together with most of Europe, was counting on it losing the war to Serbia. However, things started to change as Croatia secured weapon delivery from Russia. Only when it became obvious that Serbia is losing this war, the US stood on the side of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the war ended with NATO bombing Serbian forces. Now we might be seeing a similar development in Ukraine. The US spent billions of dollars investing in Ukraine before the war and a lot of this money was involved, directly or indirectly, in destabilization of the state. Up until now, US and Ukraine acted in harmony, but now, signs of end of support have started to appear. After missiles destroyed a farm in Poland, near the border with Ukraine, the Ukraine, as usual, accused Russians of bombing the farm. But this time, the US claims that missiles where most likely fired by Ukrainian forces (although they still blame Russia for the destruction caused). Some might argue that US responded in such way simply to avoid direct NATO-Russia conflict and that is a plausible explanation, but they weren't so quick to identify Ukraine as a source before. In fact, they never claimed the bomb carrying drone that fell on Croatia's capital earlier was Ukrainian and they didn't accuse Ukrainians for blowing up gas pipelines partially owned by Germany, they've accused Russians. But a better signal for the end of support is in the shift in American government from Democrats to Republicans majority, who are increasingly aligning with Trump's nationalism. There are other signals - Ukrainian president has been lying from the start about a lot of things, and the West was certainly aware of it but now the West has started admitting it. Despite what western media might still be propagating, it is obvious that Russia ain't losing this war. It is also obvious that support for Ukraine is rapidly fading among European and US population. Update in The devil is about to abandon the Ukrainian mine?. Of course, the US won't be siding with Russia, but Ukraine as a proxy in US-Russia war is starting to show its limitations (especially after Russian takeover of territories in eastern Ukraine) and, similar to operation of mining industry, once this resource is exhausted, the US will shift focus elsewhere - transferring its war machine to other proxies (perhaps for US-China war). This does not mean the war in Ukraine will soon end, it won't, for at least two years until Trump takes over, but as the support for Ukraine is diminishing, conflicts will be escalating elsewhere. After Ukraine, greatest potential for US-Russia war exists in Georgia and Bosnia. For US-China war, there's Pakistan and Taiwan. In Europe, in general, conflicts can be expected in NATO aspiring countries, but the number of potential proxies and their expiration rates are decreasing fast. The wars are also correlated with climate change, deeper than people generally think. With the increasing demand for minerals, existing mines are getting depleted while discoveries of potential new mines are decreasing. The war between man and nature is running out of proxies so this war is becoming increasingly direct. We can see a parallel in US-Russia war - the conflict between NATO and Russia was never closer than it is today. The US wouldn't spend billions of dollars on Ukraine hadn't the global proxy potential been decreasing. But the hunger for resources is not diminishing, it's growing, and with it, the hunger for war grows too. This is why there must be a 3rd World War. And whichever human world war will be synchronized with direct war with nature will be the last world war. Is it the 3rd World War? I don't see how it could not be. The 3rd World War will see the peak of human industry (military or not). After it, if polarized people survive, there will still be wars, but there won't be proxies or stable states at all. These wars will be fought with sticks and stones, between tribes, over basic resources. Of course, when history repeats itself, it's never absolutely the same. Here, sticks and stones may not be made out of wood and rock but will be equally effective, tribes won't be made of hunters and gatherers but thieves, while basic resources won't be food and water rather gasoline and electricity, even though both, real food and water, may be scarce.

Sve zgrade u EU bi se do 2050. trebale transformirati u zgrade nultih emisija. Veselo. Ili u današnjem prijevodu - skupo i besmisleno. Bilo da se radi o vozilima ili zgradama, koliko vidim nijedan plan smanjenja emisija ne uključuje smanjenje ukupnog troška energije tokom proizvodnje i životnog vijeka proizvoda te dugoročni utjecaj na okoliš. Npr. kad se uračuna proizvodnja, po nekim studijama, električni automobil tek se nakon 110 000 km (± 40 000 km, ovisno o tome kako se proizvodi struja punjenja) po emisijama izjednačuje s onima na fosilna goriva, tj. tek tada postaje zeleniji od fosila u pogledu emisija. Ako se populacija povećava a s njom i broj automobila na cesti nema tu nikakvog smanjenja emisija pa i da svi voze električne automobile. Uostalom, da svi voze električna vozila, teško da bi se sva ta el. energija mogla dobiti iz obnovljivih izvora (a nitko ne uračunava nove emisije zbog gradnje i održavanja novih elektrana). To vrijedi i za zgrade - nema tu ukupnog smanjenja emisija, sve je to farbanje. Valja napomenuti da materijali najčešće korišteni za izolaciju nisu biorazgradivi i dobivaju se iz fosilnih goriva. Više vječnih materijala, poput plastike i stiropora - više kandidata za vječnu slavu. Nigdje se ovi planovi ne dotiču onog najvažnijeg - nepotrebnog luksuza te neograničenog rasta. Većina onih koji ne žive u stanovima ima kućerine (a svi i automobile) sa gro nepotrebnog ili neiskorištenog prostora tokom uporabe. Povećavamo populaciju (i potičemo to povećanje) a ne smanjujemo prostor po čovjeku (za običan puk se možda kvadratura stanova smanjuje ali se za onih 1% povećava - ukupno, nema smanjenja). Ako se i ne povećava stambeni prostor povećava se industrijski - to smanjuje prostor za biosferu koja regulira temperaturu i osigurava uvjete pogodne za život. Što onda znači da moramo koristiti sve više energije da bi osigurali opstanak a to opet povlači manje prostora za tu biosferu... Začarani krug pozitivne sprege. Sve te mjere potiču sve veću ovisnost i zaduživanje - i prema planetu i bankama, u isto vrijeme osiguravajući rast industrije i nejednakosti. Zavaravamo se CO₂ otiskom a problem je zapravo rastući energetski otisak. Energetski otisak po stanovniku se od 1965. povećao za 8000 kWh i ne pokazuje znakove opadanja, dapače još lagano raste, unatoč svim tzv. štednim žaruljama, efikasnim klimama i ostalim štedljivim uređajima. A to govori da, u prosjeku:

• koristimo sve više proizvoda i/ili,
• sve češće mijenjamo proizvode koje koristimo i/ili,
• intenzivnije koristimo proizvode (npr. klima uređaj zbog globalnog zagrijavanja).

Tako da imamo problem i bez povećanja populacije a kamoli sa populacijom koja raste za 200 000 novih ljudotinja na dan. Zanimljivo je da prosječan otisak u Hrvatskoj i Srbiji (a odnedavno i u BiH te Crnoj Gori) prati svjetski prosjek. Ja sam svoj energetski otisak pak drastično smanjio zadnjih godina. Možda i prosječnom puku sistem nameće smanjenje no to u globalu ništa ne znači kad se prosjek otiska u globalu povećava i vjerojatno odavno nije na održivom nivou. Fig. \fig202211022: Gubitak biodiverziteta Često se, u kontekstu promjene klime spominju kritične točke (prekretnice, tipping points) no najvažnija kritična točka, ona nakon koje uistinu nema povratka je kritična točka u biodiverzitetu, a ona je, vjerujem, dosegnuta negdje oko 2016. godine kada je globalna populacija divljih životinja opala za 66% (2/3) od 1970. godine. A opada i dalje, trenutno je na 69%. Fiksacija kao dio fikcije updated. Po' kile apsurda i dve šteke CO₂ Odavno mi je jasno da je iščezavanje upotrebe fosilnih goriva nespojivo sa rastućim gladom za energijom, a sada je, konačno, netko proveo i istraživanje koje kvantitativno i nedvojbeno pokazuje o kolikom se zavaravanju radi kada govorimo o zamjeni fosilnih goriva sa tzv. obnovljivim izvorima. Fig. \fig202211023: Potrebna dodatna električna energija za zamjenu fosilnih goriva Dakle, po upotrebi energije iz 2018., potrebno je dodatnih 36000 TWh energije iz električne mreže da bi potpuno izbacili fosilna goriva kao izvor energije - oko 4 puta više od postojećeg kapaciteta 2018. godine. Dobro je napomenuti da taj kapacitet većinski čine hidroelektrane i nuklearna energija dok se za zamjenu većinski planiraju vjetroelektrane i solarne elektrane - prema spomenutoj studiji, preko 70% ukupne proizvodnje bi otpadalo na iste, a to znači da je potrebno sagraditi preko 550000 novih elektrana prosječne veličine. A za to treba jako puno minerala (metala), prvenstveno bakra, nikla, cinka, mangana, litija, kobalta, grafita i silicija ali i tzv. rijetkih zemalja koje je teško/skupo izrudariti. Slika \fig202211024 pokazuje koliko je određenog metala potrebno za izradu samo jedne generacije tehnologije kojom bi se zamijenila upotreba fosilnih goriva, koliko je istih metala proizvedeno 2019. godine te koliko godina je potrebno da se, istom brzinom proizvodnje, proizvede potrebna količina za zamjenu. Fig. \fig202211024: Potrebna količina metala za izradu jedne generacije tehnologije obnovljivih izvora Dakle, da bi proizveli samo bakar potrebno je 189 godina a da ne spominjemo 29113 godina za germanij. Naravno, netko će reći da ćemo pronaći nove izvore i ubrzati proizvodnju (ili čak zamijeniti određene materijale drugima) no studija pokazuje da ni to neće ići. Poznate rezerve u 2022. godini čine tek oko 19% potrebnog bakra, nikla 10%, litija 2.3%, kobalta 3.5%, grafita 3.6% i vanadija 3.5% pa se na izgradnju novih postrojenja i ubrzanje proizvodnje i ne može baš računati. A govorimo tek o jednoj generaciji tehnologije s vijekom trajanja oko 20 godina, što znači da bi u prosjeku svakih 20 godina trebalo izrudariti izračunatu količinu minerala - i to ako bi potrošnja energije ostala na istoj razini. Jednostavno, metala se ne može proizvesti dovoljno a pronalazak novih nalazišta je prošao svoj vrhunac i smanjuje se. Kroz povijest čovječanstva je ukupno izrudareno oko 700 milijuna tona dok je preko 700 milijuna potrebno izrudariti samo u iduće 22 godine da bi se postigao cilj ugljične neutralnosti 2050. godine. Samo bakra je, za jednu generaciju tehnologije, potrebno oko 4.6 milijardi tona, a broj velikih nalazišta je od 2006. u strmoglavom padu unatoč visokim ulaganjima u istraživanje (npr. 2014. je utrošeno preko 15 milijardi dolara a otkrivena su svega 3 nova velika nalazišta). Ta ulaganja će se teško povećavati budući da istraživanje postaje sve manje isplativo. U svakom slučaju, cijena proizvodnje, a time i cijena energije, će ubrzano rasti ako se nastavi s planom zamjene. U isto vrijeme, studije pokazuju da fosilna goriva treba potpuno izbaciti iz proizvodnje u idućih 12 godina za 50% vjerojatnosti da se zagrijavanje ograniči na 1.5 °C (uz iznimku najsiromašnijih zemalja koje bi trebale postići isto do 2050. godine). 2023.12.30
I ovo je već zastarjela informacija, trenutno se predviđa dostizanje 1.5 °C puno prije, u idućih 6 godina. Zanimljivo, ili potpuno očekivano, u mainstream medijima nema spomena o gore spomenutoj studiji koja ukazuje ne nedostupnost minerala, ali zato su svima puna usta beskorisnih sastanaka poput COP27 gdje se ne događa ništa osim povremenog dogovora o, sasvim očito nerealnim, ciljevima. Dakle, možete zaboraviti na globalnu tranziciju. Ili ćete se morati odreći obnovljive energije ili će si ju u skoroj budućnosti moći priuštiti samo elita. 2023.12.30
Preporučujem pogledati novu prezentaciju S. Michaux-a. Ovog puta dosta se govori o baterijama. Ukratko, odricanje od fosilnih goriva neće ići bez povremenih kratkoročnih i dugoročnijih periodičkih blackout-a, čak i u degrowth scenarijima. No, kao što pokazuje slika \fig202211025, ništa bolja situacija nije s naftom - dok proizvodnja i dalje raste, još 1985. godine je proizvodnja postala neodrživa (kapaciteti novih nalazišta ne mogu osigurati održivu proizvodnju) pa se, ako se trend nastavi, može očekivati i krah naftne industrije u idućih desetak godina. Fig. \fig202211025: Nova nalazišta i proizvodnja nafte Po tome bi i cijena nafte morala rasti. Naravno, zanemarivši rješenja za koja jednostavno nema vremena, situacija se može promijeniti na više načina:

1. topljenje ledenjaka može otkriti nova velika nalazišta nafte/plina,
2. na Zemlju može pasti veći asteroid sa mnoštvom potrebnih metala,
3. ljudska populacija može odustati od neograničenog rasta sebe i ekonomije, svesti sebe i svoju potrošnju energije na održivu razinu.

Od toga, 3. je po svemu sudeći nemoguće, 2. je nevjerojatno (barem ako se pita mainstream) a ovo prvo ne donosi ništa dobro osim jeftinije nafte (što sam već prije najavio) iako je pitanje za koga će ona legalno biti dostupna. Rekao bih da možemo računati na još jedan apsurd - energije (nafte) će biti i biti će jeftina ali korisnika biti neće.

In one of my articles in D.Log (Analiza sistema, s naglaskom na lokalni apsurd) I wrote how I have been, some 5 years ago, gluing utility bills on my car with "I'M NOT PAYING" written all over them - what could be interpreted as a silent protest against ruthless capitalism (I have also burnt some bills at home). People found it funny but probably didn't understood what it meant. In fact, they considered me schizophrenic at the time. But, apparently, I was predicting future (even though I wasn't always aware of it). Just look at the news today - people in UK are burning their utility bills at cost of living protests. There is a campaign literally called "DON'T PAY" spreading online and offline. I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of this in the coming years, but that's just one of my predictions becoming true. In the same article, I have predicted that states will soon start to fall (how soon? within decades or less), one by one - starting with bankruptcies. I've also said that I believe Croatia will be among the first ones to fall apart. Now look just what's happening today:

• Croatian farmers going bankrupt,
• Why is United Kingom going bankrupt?
• Germany fears a wave of insolvencies
• Recession: Is the US heading into an 'ugly' downturn?
• ...

The recession may have not been officially declared yet in these countries but does anyone still believe in long-term recovery, given what's happening with the world today? Up until recently, many believed Croatia was safe from bankruptcy, being a member of EU and currently in the process of adopting euro currency. But EU is obviously destabilizing, the value of euro is falling and prices are skyrocketing everywhere. I have already predicted a great stock market collapse and another great depression for year 2023 (which I later revised to ≈2025, as the original dataset turned out to be incomplete). This now looks like a very solid prediction too. As I have mentioned before, while I was schizophrenic five years ago I have also said, I quote "Americans will kill you all" (I said that to my parents, not sure what "all" here represents, but probably European, if not global, population). Now that can have many interpretations (as I've said before, the US could be blamed for the coming nuclear world war and extinction), but with US sabotaging gas pipelines in Europe... it seems as another confirmation that its weapons of [mass] destruction will be diverse. And, of course, it shows that I was right - Americans were and are killing us, now it's just becoming more and more obvious. And this will probably become much more serious and direct, as I conclude in the The 3rd Act blog entry.

I see a lot of hydrogen in the news lately, all related to green future. There's the zero-emission house in Italy powered solely by hydrogen fuel cells, the world's first train powered by hydrogen fuel cells, a diesel engine modified to run on 90% hydrogen, etc. This is all marketed as zero-emission or nearly zero-emission. But that's simply very far from truth. Yes, there are no CO₂ emissions during hydrogen combustion but there are generally lots of emissions during its production today and even combustion is not as benign as it seems. Emissions during combustion The claims of zero-emissions during combustion are not entirely true. Burning of hydrogen emits water vapor, in fact, 2.6 times more water vapor than burning kerosene. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas with major influence on climate change. The lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere is, however, much lower (from a couple of days up to a year), compared to CO₂ lifetime of about 100 years. But the water is also cycling faster - if water that falls as rain quickly evaporates then its lifetime in atmosphere can be effectively much longer. However, it seems this is still not considered a problem, probably because clouds of water vapor generally form below the stratosphere where water vapor cannot accumulate with no accumulation of non-condensable gases (at atmospheric pressure/temperature) such as CO₂ (which are primary controllers of temperature and, therefore, water vapor content). Also, human effect on vegetation and soil currently produces a much bigger impact on cloud formation and rainfall. If atmospheric CO₂ stops increasing, combustion of hydrogen should thus not impact climate significantly and could be considered green. However, with continued increase in atmospheric CO₂, increase in water vapor with hydrogen combustion will have an impact. And this impact won't be insignificant unless human population decreases its energy usage. Although most do, not all clouds form below stratosphere. One exception are polar stratospheric clouds that form at the poles in winter, and if additional atmospheric water vapor is distributed to the poles, these clouds will be contributing to the melting of ice in Antarctica (producing more warming and vapor) unless additional cloud formation is coupled with ozone depletion which may balance the heating with a cooling effect. In any case, the claims of zero-emission hydrogen combustion are false and misleading. Emissions during production Most hydrogen produced today (over 95%, as of 2020) is produced from fossil fuels - mainly by steam reforming of natural gas, but also other light hydrocarbons, partial oxidation of heavier hydrocarbons, and coal gasification. These processes are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases (mostly CO₂). The hydrogen produced this way is called gray hydrogen, it's cheapest, but it simply doesn't make sense to associate it with zero-emissions or anything clean. The power produced from natural gas would be more clean than power produced from gray hydrogen. The story is similar with, so called, blue hydrogen. It is produced the same as gray hydrogen but CO₂ is captured and stored underground with a hope it won't leak into atmosphere for at least 100 years. It is still better to burn natural gas or even coal than blue hydrogen. Then there is the turquoise hydrogen - hydrogen produced by methane pyrolysis. This process doesn't release CO₂ as a byproduct, rather solid carbon and can be produced at less cost than blue hydrogen. However, even if there are no direct emissions, producing hydrogen from methane is generally not environmentally friendly and there are problems with leakage. But probably the biggest problem here is the fact that the companies extracting natural gas (containing methane) are companies extracting oil - at what price will they be able (or willing) to extract methane without also extracting oil (considering the fact that natural gas is generally formed deeper than oil)? And will the extracted methane be used solely for production of hydrogen and not for other purposes - eg. heating, where combustion is releasing CO₂? The turquoise hydrogen, therefore, probably also doesn't make sense unless the methane is renewable (eg. methane produced from biomass, not extracted from the deep). But the problem is - there's simply not enough renewable methane available even if it could be produced cheaply. In US, for example, available renewable methane could replace only 10% of fossil gas in use. And if you do have renewable methane, it is much better to use it to replace fossil gas in use rather than use it to produce hydrogen. This leaves us with green hydrogen - produced by electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources. Here the question is - why? Why complicate (and lose energy) converting electricity to hydrogen (which is in fuel cells converted back to electricity) when one can use electricity directly or store it into a battery with less energy loss and no issues with compression and transport? In case of storage, the only advantage is the greater energy density of hydrogen fuel cells, compared to lithium-ion batteries. This can result in bigger range and lighter vehicles but, overall, likely not worth it in case of automobiles. The other advantage may be in production - it may be more environmentally friendly to produce green hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells than batteries. But if we use electricity to produce hydrogen for vehicles (using green hydrogen fuel cells to power your house instead of using green electricity simply doesn't make sense) that will cause additional strain on the electrical grid which will then need additional capacity. Production of green hydrogen, thus, probably only makes sense when there is surplus electricity that would be unused otherwise. Conclusion I don't see hydrogen as a significant energy source in future (unless used in nuclear fusion, but I'm not convinced humanity will advance that far). It could be forced, politically, as dominant energy source but who will be able to afford it? Perhaps one way to deal with climate change is to reduce the number of polluters by rising prices of energy. Certainly, hydrogen based energy sources, regardless of the way hydrogen is produced, are more expensive than others. Hydrogen is unlikely to replace fossil fuels and is an unlikely solution to climate change, but green solutions are becoming increasingly expensive for the average Joe who is increasingly being more concerned with life today than with life tomorrow, even though it is precisely that kind of reasoning that created the problem. We can talk about hydrogen today and about whatnot tomorrow but there never were real solutions other than the transformation of polarized human mind. Will the average Joe be willing to significantly sacrifice his lifestyle for long-term survival or will his kind fall-back to [short-term] cheaper fossil fuels? What about the average Jane? The answer is, of course, clear already, and it will be becoming clearer and clearer with decreasing maneuvering space for delusional subventions.

The Europe joined with US into NATO was a marriage destined to fail. But it won't just end with the breakup of NATO, it will likely be coupled with breakup of EU. This is mostly due to asymmetric and unsustainable relationship between US and EU (or between US and the rest of the world). In that relationship, when it comes to foreign policy, the EU is a dog owned by US. This was fine with polarized European people when US wars didn't affect them. With the war in Ukraine, however, this is no longer the case, and misalignment between wishes of people and commands obeyed by EU politicians is growing exponentially. This is, obviously, destabilizing EU. The US wants to destroy Russia and it doesn't care how many Ukrainians will die for that or how many Europeans will freeze to death, die due to food shortages or, sometime in future, nuclear radiation. The war in Ukraine can be ended today and all this would be avoided if US would acknowledge Eastern Ukraine as Russian territory (with a formal guarantee that Western Ukraine won't join NATO). Ukraine is a big country and it was always divided between pro-Russian east and pro-American west. Crimea even was a part of Russia for a long period (1783 – 1917) before it was given, by the heads of the Soviet Union, to Ukraine in 1954. It is not surprising that its population is dominantly Russian. But it's not only Crimea, most of population of eastern Ukraine is either Russian or pro-Russian, which is evident in elections. Take for example the 2004 elections. Fig. \fig20221006: Results of elections in Ukraine, 2004 The results are shown in Fig. \fig20221006. Obviously, government of Yanukovych was what most citizens of eastern Ukraine want. Newer elections show similar results. Why are then the US and its dogs declaring current referenda in eastern Ukraine a sham? The Russians even invited UN, OECD and EU to oversee these referenda but they all refused it. Why? Because then they would have to admit the reality of reality. The West simply doesn't want a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In its history, the US never did. There's also great hypocrisy here. Consider Kosovo in Serbia - it was a part of Serbia (and still is by some) that's mainly populated by Albanians. The US strongly supports autonomy and independence of Kosovo. Shouldn't it then support the autonomy and independence of Russians in eastern Ukraine? Of course it should but the problem is - while Albanians are pro-American, the Russians tend to be pro-Russian and a pro-Russian autonomy not serving US interests cannot be allowed. The Russia, China, North Korea - all these countries are artificially inflated threats to US, simply because they don't want to serve US and obey US commands, like EU does. The EU is thus doomed, like any dog is, serving the devil.

As much as I don't like politics and wars I still feel affected by the lies. And the time of war is the time of greatest lies. The war in Ukraine has confirmed wars today are wars between the [systems of the] West and the East. The West is the US and its proxies, including most of Europe. As for the East, it's still Russia (to the West, however, Russia is equal to Putin and the West is equal to the World fucking United^TM). China and other Eastern countries are not in these wars yet but are increasingly being painted as enemies so it's probably just a matter of time. In any case, I can't see China or any potential Russian ally as a Russian proxy and that tells us how weak EU is, compared to the East. Regardless of opinion, the truth is not served in the West. The truth may not be served in the East either, but I can't comment on that, being mainly exposed to Western propaganda, daily. And lies here are becoming crazier by the hour. Small update in Good mourning, black Friday. For example, there is no doubt that recent gas leaks in Nord Stream pipelines are the result of sabotage. But let's get a grip on reality - the prime suspect for this simply cannot be Russia, the prime suspect should be US. Yet, the Russia is the prime suspect in EU. It makes one wonder - what kind of bones have the dogs been given? Or is it really just fear that rules the EU? I have to admit that, at least after the war in Yugoslavia in the 90's, the neighboring Serbia is a better country for its people than Croatia is and, from what I've seen and heard, Serbian people seem to be less deranged than Croatians are. Croatia is a fucked up country slaving to US and its EU proxy, while Serbia doesn't seem to slave to anyone right now. If I would be polarized, I would be ashamed of Croatian leadership and Croatian people for supporting this shitshow, but I don't even feel like Croatian anymore. I do not support its US government. But I wouldn't support Russian government either. And even though I'm thinking about moving to Serbia or somewhere more to the East I probably won't. I'm just not polarized enough to go to the east even though I feel the attraction. So I remain in the fucked up land they call Slavonia where the first question of the day is: why do I keep waking up into this nightmare? The land that still does not have the balls to say no to Zagreb, Zagreb which doesn't have the balls to say no to EU, EU which doesn't have the balls to say no to US, the US which doesn't have balls.. only firearms. Bundled with suicidal stupidity. So go on, keep manufacturing lies, keep oiling the propaganda machine, for god's sake, accelerate it. Engage your nuclear weapons, let your demons and their minions expose their true nature, so the colorless of us can, finally, rest in peace, dead or alive. For any reality for us is better, than one promising a promised land in the rising ocean of blatant lies. In other news... Good mourning black Friday September 19th 1986.

Dok sam bio lud, ili izvan sebe (dio transformacije svijesti oko 2018. godine), izjavio sam u jednom trenutku da će vas sve pobiti Amerikanci. Tokom vremena, nisam toj izjavi davao puno značaja, no vijesti u zadnje vrijeme potiču me na dublje proučavanje onoga što sam u to vrijeme proizveo. Treći svjetski rat je, realno, već počeo. Ako i ne osjećamo svi posljedice upotrebe vatrenog oružja, sasvim sigurno osjećamo posljedice političkog ratovanja i bezumlja koje i inače prati svaki rat a ovdje je poprimilo svjetske razmjere. Kao da to nije dosta, sve više se spominje nuklearni rat. Zanimljivo je da su puna usta nuklearnog rata upravo Amerikancima (i onima koji se tako osjećaju). Zanimljivo je i da Amerikanci sve više oružja šalju Ukrajini i da se tu radi sve više i o dalekometnom naoružanju pa se intenzivno razmišlja i o mlaznim avionima. Sve to se sve teže može interpretirati kao sukob Ukrajine i Rusije a sve više kao sukob NATO-a (SAD-a) i Rusije. Tako da je sasvim izgledno da će se rat proširiti van granica Ukrajine. No Rusija tu ima sve manje opcija. Na baze NATO-a u Europi i Americi se sigurno neće ići nekakvom pješadijom i tenkovima. Rat dakle postaje nuklearan. Rusija druge opcije nema, Amerikanci sve to znaju i čini se kao da neki to priželjkuju. Zanimljivo je onda pogledati što kažu studije u vezi nuklearnog rata. A zadnja studija kaže slijedeće:

• 2 milijarde mrtvih u slučaju nuklearnog rata Indije i Pakistana,
• 5 milijardi mrtvih u slučaju nuklearnog rata Amerike i Rusije.

Dakle, praktički, ekstinkcija ljudske vrste u slučaju i jednog i drugog. Možemo za to kriviti Amerikance jer sve upućuje na to da su oni sve zakuhali, no i istok mi nekako sve više smrdi na zapad. Mogli bi tako i Kineze, pa čak i Ruse, danas nazivati Amerikancima. U svakom slučaju, moja izjava da će vas sve pobiti Amerikanci ne zvuči više tako besmislena. Dapače, sve više vjerujem u scenarij u kojem pogiba preko 7 milijardi ljudi a opstaju oni neutralni, možda tek oko 1.5 milijuna ljudi. Neće te milijarde, po mojoj teoriji, nestati zauvijek. Pojavit će se u mutiranim oblicima hibrida nekadašnjih ljudi i nekadašnjih životinja, nešto otporniji na radijaciju, a možda i na nekom drugom mjestu. Zanimljivo je dovesti nuklearni rat u kontekst klimatskih promjena. Po citiranoj studiji, jedna od posljedica nuklearnog rata bit će globalno snižavanje temperature od 1.5 °C (ako ćemo se zavaravati) do 14.8 °C (realnije). Posljedica će to biti zasićenja stratosfere česticama pepela (slično pojačanom vulkanizmu). A budući da će se snižene temperature zadržati bar 10-20 godina možete svoje solarne panele okačiti mačku o rep. Ako već kupujete panele, savjetujem da kupite one osjetljivije na difuzno zračenje (od kojih će biti neke koristi) a ne direktno. Već sam prije shvatio da su ratovi za planet isto što i vulkanizam pa nije čudno da se, umjesto vulkanizma, potiče rat. Očito je lakše ljude natjerati da se bore nego natjerati vulkan da proradi. Nuklearni rat, dakle, možemo interpretirati i kao sredstvo za borbu protiv globalnog zagrijavanja (reakcija Zemljinog imunog sistema). Ne bih pak isključio vulkanizam. Pojačane geotermalne energije će biti pri površini nakon rata (i sama radijacija će zagrijavati površinu) jer ljudi će ratom najvjerojatnije previše sniziti temperaturu. Ako samo-regulirajući mehanizam Zemlje na površini opstane dovoljno dugo (a u dobroj mjeri bi trebao - mnoge životinje su, na primjer, vrlo otporne na radijaciju a biljkama bi radijacija mogla omogućiti da zavladaju zemljom i to u gigantskim oblicima) može se očekivati i podizanje temperature na neki način a to opet može omogućiti geotermalna energija. Relativna alkemija Ne vjerujem pak da će nuklearni rat doseći takve razmjere da će biti u cijelosti odgovoran za nadolazeće stanje na Zemlji. Ako postoji više opcija da se postigne isti efekt, ponekad će najbolje rješenje biti relativna superpozicija uzroka, a to u ovom slučaju znači da će se efekt postići kombinacijom nuklearnog oružja, vulkanizma i pojačanog kozmičkog zračenja (uglavnom sa Sunca) parcijalnim kolapsom magnetskog polja. U prirodi takva rješenja i jesu najčešća jer diverzitet sila vodi i do diverziteta efekata čak i onda kad je razlika u inicijalnom efektu mala. Jer ta mala razlika se vremenom kasnije amplificira pa od svega nastanu sasvim različite vrste života. Pogrešno je tako i razmatrati ekstinkcije kao apsolutne ekstinkcije života - one su vrlo relativne. Znanstvena fantastika ili fantastična znanost? Svijest ima mnogo slojeva. Površinski sloj je dominantno opterećen sadašnjošću, no ono što dolazi iz dubine može više korelirati sa budućnošću, što ima i evolucijskog smisla. A vjerujem da je kod neutralnih ljudi taj osjećaj budućnosti jači i precizniji. Znakove nadolazeće budućnosti možemo tako naći i u starim tekstovima ali i u filmovima. Premda su interpretacije i predviđanja u većini slučajeva vjerojatno pogrešna, ipak se ne može isključiti veća preciznost određenih interpretacija. Newton je tako iz Biblije iščitao vrijeme apokalipse vjerojatno u ovom stoljeću, ali sigurno ne kasnije od 2344. godine, što se čini sasvim primjerenim obzirom na trenutno stanje (šesta masovna ekstinkcija) i trendove. Jedan od meni najdražih filmova je film Alien iz 1979, a crnom kreaturom iz filma sam fasciniran i dan danas. Od transformacije svijesti, uz vlastita obilna iskustva sa sinkronicitetom te iznikle teorije, ovo ne smatram slučajnim. Postoje li možda negdje takve ili slične kreature, možda čak unutar planeta poput Zemlje, kao dio imunog sistema?
Naravno, ni ovaj članak nije mogao proći bez starog dobrog sinkroniciteta. Članak sam počeo pisati 16.09.2022, no kako sam već jedan članak objavio taj dan, odlučio sam ovaj objaviti 18.09.2022. U međuvremenu mi padne napamet da bih mogao postaviti link na sliku crnog bića, odem na IMDB i naiđem na sliku iz filma u kojoj se na ekranu prikazuje 180924609. Iznenada dobijem želju da nešto isprogramiram i članak završim između dva datuma (svojevrsnoj superpoziciji) i tada ga i objavim (17.09.2022). Program je u prilogu, a što predstavljaju brojevi nije teško zaključiti.

AMCSS Nostromo MU/TH/UR 6000 SRC 160961000:

Na mom računalu, programska petlja završava s iteracijom 66 (naravno) no rezultati postaju besmisleni kod iteracije 63 (razlog je vjerojatno integer overflow, no nebitno, bitan je broj 63) a što se tiče samih brojeva dalo bi se zaključiti da je bitno prvih 6, a u samim brojevima prvih 6 znamenki... naravno. Program se mogao i nešto drugačije isprogramirati, a ako kod i jest ispravan, kriva interpretacija je uvijek moguća. No ako nije, oko 18.09.2024 nešto veliko možemo očekivati (početak nuklearnog rata, velike potrese u Hrvatskoj koje sam već najavio oko 2025., ili pak nešto na osobnoj razini?). Ostale datume koje izbacuje program mislim da nema potrebe komentirati, recimo samo da se sve dobro slaže s ranijim predviđanjima i proračunima, kao i s "Newton-ovim programiranjem". Ranije sam predvidio godinu 2066 kao konačan kraj (pod uvjetom hipotetske ubrzane evolucije, inače postoje alternativni modeli). Superpozicijom s računom Newton-a (2060) dobije se godina 2063. Po mojoj jednadžbi koja predviđa CO₂ emisije kroz godine (od 1850. godine na dalje), u 2063. godini CO₂ emisije će doseći 666 ppm.

Zanimljivo... isprogramirano. No sav taj sinkronicitet ne mora značiti baš ništa i ne želim glumiti nekakvog pseudo-proroka. Zapisao sam sve ovo iz znanstvenog kurioziteta, jer ako se nešto zaista desi oko 18.09.2024 bit će to dobra potvrda da u svemu ovom postoji nešto dublje, a ako se ne desi ništa opet će reći nešto o ovakvom sinkronicitetu. 2024.09.19

Ništa posebno nije se desilo 2024.09.18. No mogao bih istaknuti asteroid 2024 ON koji je bio najbliže zemlji na datum 2024.09.17, dakle točno dvije godine nakon objave članka. Asteroid je bio u vijestima zbog upozorenja NASA-e o potencijalnoj opasnosti, vjerojatno zbog veličine (250-500 m) i relativno male udaljenosti (993 673 km, ~2.6 puta udaljenosti Mjeseca, ili 0.0066 AU). Iako određen sinkronicitet postoji, a i udaljenost u AU je zanimljiva, ne vidim u ovom nekakav značaj, osim ako možda ovaj asteroid nema nekakvu ulogu u budućnosti. Inače, iako je fenomen sinkroniciteta neupitan, to ne znači da će svaki imati dublje značenje (izolirani slučajevi, sami za sebe, vjerojatno rijetko imaju dublje značenje, naročito ako govorimo o poravnanju brojeva). No postoji još jedan sinkronicitet ovdje. I opet se radi o asteroidu. Isti dan (2024.09.17), objavljena je vijest koja kaže da će Zemlja ovaj mjesec dobiti novi mjesec (!). Radi se o asteroidu 2024 PT5, promjera oko 11 m, koji bi se trebao zadržati u orbiti Zemlje oko 2 mjeseca. Zanimljiv sinkronicitet, no opet ne previše poseban događaj (događa se par puta u dekadi). Ima li dakle ovdje nekakvog dubljeg značaja? Zanimljivo je da se u oba slučaja sinkroniciteta radi o asteroidima, no neću ulaziti u moguće interpretacije. Ako učimo iz prošlosti, valja ostaviti i budućnosti nečemu da nas nauči.

Studies show that rainwater, everywhere on Earth, is now poisoned. This includes remote places, such as Antarctica. The levels of man-made hazardous chemicals in water, known as (per|poly)-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or, "forever chemicals", are now so high that they're starting to exceed levels considered safe for consumption. The chemicals have been found everywhere - in surface waters, wells (low-depth rainwater aquifers) and even tap water. Probably the only freshwater that doesn't contain these chemicals is water in some deeper aquifers and water frozen in glaciers long time ago. On surface, the water from natural springs should be the safest to drink. These chemicals are similar to plastic in a way they don't decay easily. They're also resistant to high and low temperatures so boiling and freezing water doesn't help. Regarding health effects however, they're much worse than plastic. The chemicals have been linked to fertility issues, cancer and negative effects on cardiovascular and immune systems. The effect on immune system is particularly interesting - suppression of vaccine response (the immune system is producing less antibodies). Thus, on one hand there's industry urging people to increase vaccination, on the other, there's industry making the immune systems of people lethargic. The former is, by my hypotheses, confusing the immune system, the latter is making the immune system blind. With increasing pollution, is increasing frequency of vaccination the solution? The solution it is, but not for your immune system recovery. By my hypotheses, increasing vaccination with no associated damage is also increasing lethargy of the system. I find it likely that PFAS is only helping to make your immune system defunct. It certainly sounds like industrial conspiracy - your ill health is in the interest of pharmacy so it is not in its interest to decrease pollution. In fact, if they're prioritizing profit, increasing pollution is in their interest. I, however, do not believe there's conscious conspiracy here - people who are acting in good faith are often unconsciously evil (and even that evil is relative). In any case, this fits nicely with my hypothesis on accelerated evolution. Silenced immune systems = increase in horizontal gene transfer and mutation.

Earlier, I have hypothesized that, in the long-term, vaccination is confusing the immune system and that this leads to autoimmune responses (eg. allergies), weakening of the system and, consequently, increased mortality. I have also predicted that those who want to vaccinate will have to increase frequency of vaccination in order to remain protected to some degree. Based on my theory of accelerated evolution, I have also predicted that all these predicted effects are not generations away (as it would be expected with conventional theories on evolution) and will start to appear this generation. Well, apparently, emerging evidence is confirming these predictions. The results of a recent study show that, compared to natural immunity, effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe, critical, or fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is very short-term - protection declines rapidly after vaccination. Particularly interesting is the case of 2-dose vaccination. Apparently, it is completely useless against symptomatic infection (the median of the effectiveness is even less than zero which could be interpreted as a negative effect rather than negligible positive effect). It is effective against fatal COVID-19, but not more than natural immunity (previous infection). Data for Croatia for the first seven months of 2022 show declining hospitalization, respirators and mortality for non-vaccinated, and increasing hospitalization, respirators and mortality for vaccinated. One should be careful not to misinterpret the statistics though, published data shows percentages, not absolute values - decreasing percentage of hospitalizations and mortality for non-vaccinated may simply be due to increase in percentage of vaccinated population (thus, there would be a higher probability that a hospitalized or deceased person is vaccinated). Therefore, this particular data cannot be taken seriously on its own. However, the number of vaccinated people remained constant during the same period, as shown in Fig. \fig20220902. Fig. \fig20220902: Vaccination in Croatia in 2022 All this then confirms that vaccination only provides short-term benefits, while on the long-term, it has a negative effect, as hypothesized. As noted, this negative effect can still be mitigated by increasing frequency of vaccination. Increase in frequency of vaccination is something vaccine advertisers now advertise as vital - now that the statistics look bad for vaccines they are blaming people for not vaccinating enough. One reason for increasing frequency is accelerated evolution (the virus is evolving faster and faster) but the more one vaccinates the more dependent the body becomes on vaccines. And, if one doesn't get infected with real viruses doing some damage, the more confused and weaker the immune system gets (that is the hypothesis, for which the evidence is apparently building up). Note that I have also predicted that whatever is happening in Croatia, will be happening in the world, if it is not happening already.

Negdje oko 2017/2018 godine, dok sam bio lud, izjavio sam da će Trump i Putin doći u Sibinj. To je tada izgledalo kao proročanstvo Baba Vange pa bi u njega vjerojatno uglavnom i povjerovali oni koji vjeruju u proročanstva iste gospođe dok bi ostali ovom proroku ili proroku (ovisi koga se pita) predviđali skorašnji put prema određenoj javnoj ustanovi... Zaista, iz kojeg razloga bi se Putin i Trump (koji više nije ni predsjednik SAD-a) u skoroj budućnosti sastajali, i to u mjestu za koje nije čula većina Hrvata a kamoli svijet? Čini se da nema smisla, ali proročanstva događaja u budućnosti često nemaju smisla u sadašnjosti. No, od početka rata u Ukrajini te najavom Trumpa da će se ponovno kandidirati za predsjednika stvari zapravo idu u smjeru u kojem je sasvim izgledno da će se ova dvojica negdje sastati. Kada u ratu dođe do zasićenja ili bezizlazne situacije, običaj je da se vođe dvije zaraćene strane sastanu negdje na neutralnom terenu te dogovore izlaz - koji obično predstavlja priznavanje osvojenog teritorija ili podjelu nečije zemlje. Tako je bilo i u ratu u Jugoslaviji - gdje su Tuđman i Milošević dogovarali podjelu Bosne (ne Srbije niti Hrvatske!). Doći će tako i trenutak kada će Trump i Putin dogovarati podjelu Ukrajine (ne Amerike ili Rusije!). Ostaje samo pitanje mjesta sastanka. A sasvim sigurno neće se sastati negdje na istoku (u Kini npr.) ili zapadu. Navjerojatnije mjesto sastanka je upravo negdje u sredini. Možda nevjerojatno zvuči, ali istinito je da između Hrvatske i Srbije postoji ničija ili neutralna zemlja. Taj apsurd nastao je premještanjem dijela toka Dunava jer Srbija svojata zemlju do toka Dunava koji postoji danas, dok Hrvatska svojata zemlju do stare granice (starog toka). Tako se stvorio mali dio od nekih 7 km² kojeg nitko ne priznaje kao svoje, a neki tamo pokušavaju i stvoriti novu državu. Zanimljivo je da postoje još samo 2 takva mjesta na Svijetu (jedno je na Antarktici a drugo u Africi). Još zanimljivije, u ovom kontekstu, je činjenica da je to mjesto udaljeno samo 100 km od Sibinja. Ipak, iako nema neutralnijeg mjesta od ovoga u Europi, teško da će se ova dvojica sastati baš na mjestu gdje nema infrastrukture niti civilizacije. No već prije sam govorio da bi dugoročno najbolje bilo za Slavoniju da se odspoji od Hrvatske (tj. Zagreba), a to postaje i sve vjerojatniji scenarij - iako to mnogi još uvijek ne vide. Zar itko misli da će Slavonci (od kojih je dobar dio bio prisiljen emigrirati) s vremenom postajati sve zadovoljniji Zagrebom? Ili će biti sve nezadovoljniji jer budućnost svakako ne izgleda dobro? Ako se Slavonija, ili bar jedan njen dio, osamostali (može pak ostati u nekoj labavoj federaciji sa Zagrebom) sumnjam da će [p]ostati članica NATO-a (u svakom slučaju, bilo bi to suicidalno). Ta Slavonija bi tako postala neutralna i izbjegla rat koji se, po svemu sudeći, također kuha na ovim prostorima. I eto savršenog teritorija za sastanak dvojice glavešina - istočno je pro-američki Zagreb a zapadno pro-ruska Srbija. Dakle, puno bolji izbor nego Švicarska, koja bi uostalom, kako je krenulo, mogla još i ući u NATO. Možemo sada shvatiti onaj komadić neutralne zemlje između Srbije i Hrvatske kao nagovještaj ili preteču većeg komada neutralne zemlje između ove dvije države. Ostaje još samo dovesti ovu dvojicu do Sibinja da bi proročanstvo bilo u potpunosti ispunjeno. Pa, ako pretpostavimo da će se susret dogoditi negdje u sredini Slavonije (što bi bio realan scenarij) onda je područje oko Sibinja jedan od kandidata. Možda se sve to još uvijek čini kao san, no ja sam se već odrekao državljanstva te ne priznajem Hrvatsku državu ovakvu kakva jest. Dakle, što se mene tiče, zemlja na kojoj živim već jest neutralna i nemam ništa protiv da se ova dvojica sastanu na mom imanju - pod uvjetom da neće dovesti i svatove, galamiti i smetati mi u radu. Dapače, možda ih počastim i čaš'com rakije. Ako donesu bocu rakije, naravno.

No, the Earth is not flat and it never will be unless it increases rotation significantly. And for that, celestial bodies generally need more mass. This is because every spherical body with a gravitational maximum in its center will be, with increasing rotation, transforming from spherical form into a disk. Since angular velocity is lower on the poles, gravitational force overpowers centrifugal force, redistributing mass from polar regions into equatorial. Due to conservation of angular momentum, added mass should slow down rotation but this is not the case with celestial bodies (gas planets, for example, generally rotate faster with increased mass). Because of this, general assumption is that acquired mass already had a big angular momentum. Mass was acquired from the collapse of a spinning cloud of gas, which, with a decrease in orbital radius must increase rotation speed. Some of that momentum is then transferred to already acquired mass - increasing rotation of the body. Earth is currently not getting any additional mass from orbiting clouds of gas, however, with melting of ice on the poles and rising sea levels, the Earth is getting more flat. If Earth would be a fluid (liquid or gas), this redistribution of mass would be, together with tidal forces induced by the Moon, slowing down the rotation of Earth at equator while speeding up rotation at the poles. All due to conservation of angular momentum: $\displaystyle L = m\, v\, r$ Since momentum L must remain constant, more mass m on the equator [with no additional momentum] will decrease rotation - angular velocity v. Even more, if radius is increased too (will be, if there is no increase in mass density). On the poles where mass and radius were decreased, rotation increases. But Earth's rotation is speeding up. One explanation for this is Earth's rigidness - decreasing radius at the poles is increasing rotation at the poles but also at the equator because the two are mostly connected by solid mass. This is a valid and most likely explanation, however, due to tendency to conserve momentum, this is also increasing tension (heat) between the equator and the poles - redistributed mass is fluid and it will resist acceleration (increased fluid mass on equator, to conserve momentum, must slow down instead of speeding up). The faster the ice melts, the friction is bigger (and tension between the equator and the poles) and greater is the possibility for earthquakes and volcanism. The redistribution of mass with melting of polar ice is also increasing differences between momenta of equator fluids and polar fluids (equatorial tending to slow down, polar speeding up). Increasing differential rotation is increasing induced Coriolis force - which translates to stronger, faster rotating vortexes, eg. hurricanes (typhoons).

Newton claimed Bible was corrupted. This is my conclusion as well, but anyone interested can easily see that with a bit of research (although thorough analysis can be much more revealing). The corruption was evident even before the find of the collection of gospels at Nag Hammadi in 1945, which includes gospels that the Christian council discarded and left out of the Bible. Some of the gospels contradict each other but the bishops did not choose to include what is, or is at least closest to, the truth, rather what served their interests best. Scribes copying scriptures often changed them to serve their interests, more and more with time. This was well documented by B. D. Ehrman in "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the origins of Christianity and the Bible. Many people believe that it was the apostles who wrote the gospels, however, at the time of Jesus most people were illiterate and that is true for most if not all apostles as well (Paul, who is known as Paul the Apostle and who did know how to read and write, was actually not one of the apostles, his writings however were the basis for the majority of the New Testament). Over time, the church has not only increased the quantity of text in scriptures, it has added new apostles to the story. The gospels of Luke, John, Matt and Mark are not gospels of 4 different apostles, they are the product of 4 different scribes copying texts (and in the process changing and adding stuff) from the same sources, or even a single source. One such source could be the gospel of Marcion (who was not an apostle either), however, I find the early version of Mark to be closer to the truth (this it not the version in the Bible), for one reason - anger. People experiencing overwhelming synchronicity who are also acting as prophets (of which I have experience) will at this stage [of the transformation of consciousness] act with extreme self-confidence, audacity and determination, but also will show no mercy in their interaction with the weak-minded. Thus, expression of Jesus at times certainly could have been interpreted as anger. This anger was present in multiple places in the early Mark (before it was further corrupted), but it is not present in any gospels included in the biblical canon. As I've said elsewhere, a lot of things in humanity start out good and with good intentions, but as they grow they inevitably get either corrupted or silenced. Christianity got corrupted, and later itself started silencing those who were propagating stories closer to the truth. One gospel that was left out, which I find interesting, is the Gospel of Thomas (it's most likely the earliest written and closest to the truth) with about half of sayings that are not present in canonical gospels. Some claim Gospel of Thomas lacks apocalyptic themes (Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher) doubting its authenticity, however, I find it more likely for canonical gospels to lack authenticity. As for apocalypses, I will show that this gospel is full of references to them, albeit indirect ones. Jesus often used parables and allegories so the meaning of whatever he was saying depends on interpretation. This is my interpretation of his sayings in Gospel of Thomas. (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." Coupling of souls and bodies cannot last absolutely forever, therefore, one cannot escape death (decoupling) of a particular incarnation. However, Jesus believed that a soul can become free from cycles of reincarnation (coupling with bodies) and thus death. Another possibility is that death here should be interpreted as forgetfulness (memory reset) that occurs between incarnations. But when is this supposed to happen? As shown later, he believed this happens once one obtains knowledge of self. This could also be interpreted as a reference to rebirth (transformation of consciousness) - when a person's soul effectively becomes reborn even though there is no decoupling from the body. Such transformations are likely to peak during the apocalypse. (3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." The living father is our god, planet Earth. Once you genuinely realize (become conscious) of self-similarity of universes and that [your] actions around you are reflected inside you you will become like your god. Lacking knowledge of your self you are lacking self-consciousness. (14) Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you." As I have stated elsewhere, fasting is a period of a couple of weeks characterized by the loss of appetite for food that one lives through once during transformation of consciousness. Note that loss of appetite is also common just before death. This is not a coincidence. The two phenomena are highly correlated. Transformation of consciousness certainly can be interpreted as rebirth. Forced fasting is wrong and here Jesus confirms that. He also says that [ritualistic] prayers and alms (charity) are bad (my thoughts exactly). Jesus says if someone gives something to you (like food), give something in return. It is obvious now why would church reject this gospel. For me, however, this gospel confirms the corruption within the church. Obviously, Jesus believed in karma and didn't like rituals (eg. fasting for the sake of fasting, prayers for the sake of praying). (15) Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father." God Earth is not born of a woman. (22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom." This is an indirect reference to the apocalypse (of 21st century as I hypothesize) and transformation of consciousness. Obviously, young children are not polarized and as such speak the truth. Here, Jesus says that when you become neutral and stop lying you will become like god. Differences between human males and females (in mass/size and cognition) are generally decaying and according to my hypotheses, polarized male and female genomes will eventually fuse into one forming a more neutral body (new species). (106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away." This is an another indirect reference to apocalypse. As stated before, when two [oppositely] polarized humans fuse into one, the individual will be neutral, and as such, accept truth ("sons of man" here should be interpreted as "sons of truth", or "messengers of truth"). By my theories, such fusion naturally occurs during strong (accelerated) evolution through horizontal gene transfer. Neutral people have a sense for synchronicity and at the time of the cataclysm the wishes of most neutral will be synchronized with happenings in the environment. This is how Moses effectively moves mountains. (11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?" Another reference to the apocalypse. Due to pills and medications, today there are a lot of old people living that would be dead otherwise - I see them as zombies kept alive for profit. But it's not just old people, materialists in general could be interpreted as zombies. With the apocalypse this practice will be gone (dead will not be alive), while, with the transformation of consciousness or fusion, living are reborn but do not die. Here, Jesus also suggests the fusion for some will be temporary (as I have hypothesized for homo.gamma hybrids). Fig. \fig20220704: Updates in The canonical blasphemy. Chimeras (hybrids) in Fig. \fig20220704 are homo.gamma individuals trying to attain knowledge, hoping to transform back to human form. The mass scale on the picture symbolizes balance or non-polarization (neutrality) which one needs to strive for to achieve greater intelligence. (57) Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a man who had good seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned." Another reference to the apocalypse (Judgment day). Here Jesus states that man has dual nature - in general people are a disease for god [Earth], some within them are good but it is hard to tell, as many fake goodness. During cataclysmic changes however true nature will be revealed and cancer will be destroyed. (77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." Jesus speaking in the name of the father [Earth]. (79) A woman from the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you." He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'" A reference to the apocalypse, when the fertility of human kind is greatly subdued. For the abundance of polarized men has reached its peak and it is good for all that its seeds spread no more. Update in The canonical blasphemy. The sayings of Jesus are prone to abuse due to multiple possible interpretations, but those who were writing or rewriting/translating gospels couldn't resist putting words into his mouth too, especially after the apocalypse Jesus predicted failed to materialize. Note that at the time I was acting as a prophet (or, as Jesus), I have myself also predicted an apocalypse which failed to materialize. Neither Jesus, nor I, were wrong about the prediction, we both were wrong about the date. I believe the source of wrong dates comes from the inversion/subduction of certain layers of consciousness. When an individual is experiencing overwhelming synchronicity and acting as a prophet (or, messenger of god, or truth), it is the subconscious layers (which are usually subdued) that dominate in the expression of that individual. Subconsciousness, however, is not only correlated with synchronicity, it can also be correlated with future (precognition). Thus, Jesus was effectively speaking from a reference frame located some time in the future, from which he sensed the apocalypse coming. That is why such individuals tend to produce premature dates for the apocalypse. Once the conscious expression starts dominating again, the individual is unlikely to repeat the mistake. I very much doubt Jesus considered women less worthy than men in general, but he surely did consider liars less worthy than seekers of truth. At the time, women were physically weaker and didn't have the same rights as men (one of the reasons for that was the belief that what Eve did was wrong and it is women who should be blamed for troubles of humanity) so it's not surprising women have evolved to use lies where that could be beneficial for them. The last saying in the gospel of Thomas is probably not the saying of Jesus at all (as some have already suggested), unless the meaning of sex is far from literal: (114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." Here, it would help to know in what context this was said, but If Jesus did say something similar, it is likely that woman and male terms were used as synonyms for liar and non-liar (or truth-seeker or possibly child) respectively. I find it very possible that the one who was writing/rewriting the gospel was a misogynist who simply replaced the words "liar" and "liars" with "woman" and "women" respectively, while also replacing the inverse (or the term denoting whoever was considered worthy) with "male" and "males". If that is true, then the phrases "son of man" and "sons of man" in all sayings above should be translated as "son of truth" and "sons of truth" respectively. I find that very appropriate indeed. The phrase "son of truth" should then be interpreted as "one who descends from truth" or "one who is born of truth". Also, instead of polarized word "son", a non-polarized Jesus would have used the word "child". The biological synchrony The church chose not to include references to reincarnation in the Bible, but Jesus clearly believed in it. From the Secret Book of John: “When they come forth from the body, such a soul is given over to the powers created by the rulers, bound in chains, and cast into prison again. Around and around it goes until it manages to become free from forgetfulness through knowledge. And so, eventually, it becomes perfect and is saved.” Here, Jesus says that souls keep reincarnating until they attain knowledge (knowledge here should be translated as transformation of consciousness, understanding of self and, with it, understanding of universes). This also shows that teachings of Jesus agreed well with Hinduism - where human being must acquire self-knowledge in order to attain moksha (liberation of the soul from ignorance and from cycles of reincarnation). Jesus also confirms that the soul is of scale different from the body: Then I asked, “Lord, how does the soul shrink down so as to be able to enter its mother or a man? He was happy that I asked this and said, “You are truly blessed because you have understood. The soul should be guided by another within whom is the Spirit of Life. It will be saved by that means and accordingly will not have to enter a body again. The harmony of gods It is not a coincidence people referred to planet Earth as mother Earth. In the Secret Book of John, there are also references to mother-father and father. The transformation from mother to mother-father and father should be understood as evolution (or embryonic development) of god [Earth]. D-minor secrets Jesus had a wife - Mariamne (or Mary Magdalene, sister of apostle Philip) and at least one child, probably a son. God is not absolute (or absolutely almighty) and there are other gods, which is obvious if our god is Earth. God is a host, serving his/her inhabitants, asking nothing in return but the waste products of the body (and after death, the body itself), to fertilize the land. If anything, god is looking for symbiosis. Those who ask one to serve are not gods but the devil in disguise. As stated in The Secret Book of John: Fate is stronger than the gods, the authorities, the demons, the generations of people who are caught up in it. Here, gods represent the self-proclaimed gods (the authorities), and demons are the people serving these gods. But this line has obviously been tampered with - why would demons serve the gods? The original was probably written something like this, which makes much more sense: Fate is stronger than the self-proclaimed gods, the authorities, the demons, the generations of people who are caught up in it. Either "self-proclaimed" was left out, or instead of "the gods" it was originally written "the devil". Obviously, this was modified by someone representing, or working in collusion with, authority.

One of my predictions is that the world will increasingly be following Croatia before the collapse. Among other things, that means increase in corruption, absurd, irony and spin. As noted before, a lot of new technologies are announced every week, but hardly any leaves the laboratories. And if you want to bet which one might come to life, it's certainly not the one that will make your life easier in the long-term. It's the technology with great potential for absurd, irony and spin. A great example is a new polymer membrane that allows for energy-efficient fractionation of crude oil (distillation into diesel, gasoline, petroleum, ...). Typically, oil fractionation done at refineries requires high temperatures and uses fossil fuel energy but this new method accomplishes the same thing with much lower temperatures and thus lower energy - hinting that, instead of fossil fuels, renewables could be used to power the process. Sounds like it should be less expensive and could thus result in cheaper gasoline. It is interesting that this membrane was in development for decades (at least that's what they claim), but it is now ready for public. It was developed by KAUST (University in Saudi Arabia) that has former Saudi oil minister and OPEC leader in the board of directors. Since we know that big oil companies are investing heavily on new fossil fuel projects and betting on world's reliance on oil in future - could this be one of the technologies they're counting on? I have predicted previously that oil will get cheaper while renewables get more expensive, making it harder and harder to abandon fossil fuel energy. But look at the irony and spin potential here! I can already imagine a company called "Green oil" building oil refineries powered by renewable energy. And if this technology indeed does come to life, one could ask if there's some [natural or unnatural] selection here. New batteries, as everyone knows by now, have been in development for decades and announced many many times but have never left the laboratories. On the other hand, I don't remember if development of new fossil fuel technology was ever in the news during this time - suggesting that many are working on new batteries and not many are working on new fossil fuel technologies. And yet I don't have a feeling we're going to get new batteries before we get green refineries...

I comb through BBC News daily and I find today's news (events happened in the last 1-2 days) particularly interesting, here's some:

• Afghan earthquake: Hundreds killed and scores wounded,
• Hundreds of thousands evacuated as floods ravage southern China,
• Bangladesh: Deadly floods leave millions displaced,
• Heatwave: Americans face blistering temperatures,
• Assam: India floods destroy millions of homes and dreams,
• Chinese tornado rips through buildings and power cables.

This kind of news is beginning to dominate. And if this is announcement of future, of all the catastrophes, floods will apparently dominate. Now, many people have announced cataclysms and apocalypses and most of these prophecies include floods (mine too) and a lot of them are not wrong - what prophets are usually wrong about are dates. But who is least likely to be wrong about dates? I reckon that is the one who is genuinely not biased (belongs to neutralum species) and employs scientific methods in research and analysis. If such one is wrong about a date, it probably won't be far off. One of such people is Newton, he calculated the apocalypse cannot start before year 2060 (later revised to 2016) and after 2344. Floods anyone? updated. This is in agreement with my research too, I initially came up with years 2018 and 2066 but chose 2018. However, out of these candidate years, the choice of years 2016 and 2018 here was based on interpretation of events of synchronicity at the time when the interpreters were [overwhelmed but] inexperienced in synchronicity. The surface world did not end either in year 2016 or 2018 but these years are obviously not far off and I now interpret superposition of these two (2017±1) as the start of the apocalypse (point of no return), with year 2063±3 as the end. The appearance of two years was the sign[al] of synchronicity itself - it signals that the apocalypse does not occur in a single year, it rather has a start and end year with a peak in between (likely year 2048±2). 2024.07.14
Interestingly, J. Bendell is his book Breaking Together provides arguments that civilization collapse has started sometime about the year 2016.

In some cases, sanctions on a country will isolate it and negatively impact its economy - as happened with North Korea. This, however, also has some benefits and could turn out to be good in the long-term - isolated countries are also less open to global diseases and they invest more in self-sustainability and local production. If such country discards the policy of infinite growth and doesn't stimulate inequality - it could be a much healthier and better place to live for an average Earthling than overblown economies where quality of life for average is deteriorating (however, North Korea is still far from perfection). Sanctions on some countries, on the other hand, can produce the opposite of the intended effect. Sanctions on Russia are one such example. Why? Because its exports are massive and vital for economies around the world (eg. oil and food) and sanctions will inevitably be partial or ineffective. The end result of EU sanctions on Russian oil, for example, is not that EU stops buying Russian oil. The end result is such that, instead of buying cheap Russian oil from Russia, EU is buying expensive Russian oil from India. Here, India profits by reselling Russian oil, no harm is done to Russia, but there's real harm done to European citizens, who are now paying much more for the same thing. Sanctions on Russian energy may have reduced Russian energy exports somewhere, but they have also increased the price of that energy. So the losses are compensated with increased prices and Russian energy companies are not losing money - in fact, they might be earning even more. Since the price of energy dictates the price of everything else, average Earthlings in countries imposing the sanctions are suffering the consequences. According to GlobalPetrolPrices, the price of 1 liter of gasoline in Croatia, for example, is currently 1.864 EUR (14 HRK), while 1 liter in Russia is 0.786 EUR (5.9 HRK). So will the sanctions on Russia (and China) produce the North Korea effect in countries like Croatia? In a way, but the problem, regarding economy, will, in the long-term here become much worse - due to liberal, free market and high taxes, local production and self-sustainability is not stimulated - instead, average Earthling is expected to work, borrow and give more so it can pay more. This however, should, in the long-term turn out to be good for nature here and, consequently, for neutral people who succeed in rejecting slavery. With increasing pressure, polarized people will move away where they can earn more money while neutral potentials should be more and more turning away from government and resorting to isolation and/or formation of communities where currency is not money, or at least where money is not prone to inflation. Loss of people and loss of support for government will lead to further increase in pressure on taxpayers, as debts and taxes will be increasing (unless government decreases its spending and borrowing, which is highly unlikely in democratic capitalism). This, in turn, will further stimulate emigration and contempt for government and the cycle continues - accelerating collapse.

I have previously stated that the devil is afraid of [long-range] nuclear weapons. But that does not mean it will leave countries possessing such weapons alone. By all means, it will try to impose sanctions on such a country in an attempt to weaken its economy, provoke an internal turmoil, hoping it will destabilize itself and abandon development of long-range nuclear missiles (in case these are not yet developed). I have previously decoded a message in signals of synchronicity telling me that China will invade Pakistan. From my substantial experience with synchronicity, it is generally correlated with subconsciousness often correlated with effective future. While our consciousness is aware of present time, deeper levels of consciousness (subconscious) are more localized in the past and future. And my subconscious has been proven correct about future many times so I usually take it seriously. In this case, however, the signal was more complex and interpretation bias of consciousness (present time) cannot be excluded. Even so, I do not want to discard it, because, whether proven correct or incorrect, it has scientific value. This is why I decided to investigate the possibility of this happening. At the time, that didn't make much sense - research showed China and Pakistan have a history of good relations and I didn't see how the war could happen. But with recent developments in Pakistan a familiar pattern emerged - what is happening now in Pakistan is what was happening in Ukraine before the war. The war in Ukraine was preceded by the installation of a pro-American government, terrorist attacks on Russians in Ukraine and a march toward NATO membership - all in order to provoke Russian invasion so the devil can impose sanctions on Russia and eventually overthrow the Russian government. Before all this - Russia and Ukraine had good relations, just like China and Pakistan had. Attacks on Chinese people in Pakistan are rising. China will [have to] invade Pakistan updated. And last month, a pro-American prime minister was installed in Pakistan, after a pro-Pakistani minister Imran Khan was overthrown and imprisoned. Pro-American government and biased media are important to the devil - the role of these is to provoke and mobilize anti-Chinese militarization and movements to ensure China encounters strong resistance in the country - so it can be accused of starting a war and so the sanctions can be imposed. Russia didn't react fast enough to avoid escalation of war and sanctions, while the devil was fast enough to fuel the anti-Russian propaganda. In some way, China has been trying to take over Pakistan peacefully for years (it was investing heavily in Pakistan) - it doesn't want war, just like Russia did not want it. Again, it would be better for the average Pakistani to let China rule them, rather than the devil, but things are currently not going in that direction. With sanctions on Russia, China and wars raging world-wide, debts will be increasing exponentially and inflation will be raging too. This will be devastating for the poor and it won't bring anything good for 99% of the population. But bankers will get richer and more powerful over you - as long as you value their money more than you value... well, yourself. So, average citizen, don't be so fast in accusing China for starting that war just like you were fast to accuse Russia for starting the war - by supporting the pro-American government (with money) you are responsible for that war, more than China. The president of Croatia (who has flaws but is one of most intelligent presidents in the world) is trying to keep Croatia neutral in this world-wide mess and he is being portrayed, by the devil in charge, as a pro-Russian evil madman. 2022.08.15

The devil is now provoking China to attack Taiwan. Note that government installed in Taiwan is pro-American. Note also that US has, over history, spread it's military presence all over the neighbouring islands - Indonesia, Guam, Philippines and Indo-Pacific in general. The US waged a war with Philippines when it decided to annex Philippines rather than acknowledge its declaration of independence in 1898. Only later, after the land was totally destroyed in the World War II (and 1 million Filipinos died) and there was not much use of it, the independence was formally granted, but the US and its military actually never left. If they take over Taiwan, what part of the Pacific will be left for China to influence and control? The US has strong presence in South Korea and Japan. They wanted Ukraine too. The US is obviously squeezing the sphere of influence of Russia, North Korea and China as much as possible and is trying to surround them with US and pro-US military. Seriously, is the world peace threatened by these 3 countries? Are Americans feeling threatened, being thousands of miles from Russia and China and with neighbouring countries with no Russian or Chinese military presence? The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. Russia has less than 30 bases and most in former Soviet republics, obviously for defensive purposes (early warning radars). China practically doesn't have any and North Korea has... yeah. Obviously, it is the fear of the devil that makes the world of questionable balls paint it as a saint. While even the defensive Russian presence in its neighbouring countries is a threat to US, the US (that claims to be the home of the brave) is installing its early-warning radars in fucking Poland. If Poland is a US neighbour what does that make Europe? Formally independent, like Philippines, but serving the devil? North Korea would not have nuclear weapons at all (and maybe no one else) if US wouldn't be so greedy, but somehow North Korea is a threat to the world and US, which has 100 times more nuclear weapons is a little lamb that's radiating peace and shitting prosperity all over the world. The truth is, many would sleep better and many would eat better if this particular lamb would be slaughtered. I'm not saying one should fight it, but it would be good not to serve the devil.
2024.09.06

Pakistani army and the elite are under heavy influence of US. Government is not in control of the army (it's usually the other way around) and army controls the foreign policy. Occasionally, a political party that wants to change that (like Imran Khan's) comes to power but usually doesn't last long. However, people are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with army/US dominance, so it is not surprising that candidates aligned with the banned Khan's party collectively won a resounding victory in the 2024 parliamentary elections. I doubt that the US/army will just give the power away. More likely, there will be another coup. But, as the people are increasingly voting for pro-Pakistani (rather than pro-US) parties, one can expect that the devil will do some extra steps to ensure the installed pro-US party remains in power. In Ukraine, this was secured with war (serving, among other things, as an excuse to cancel the elections). Thus, what probably follows is an increase in provocations of China, which will probably be dragged into war with Pakistan within 3-4 years once the pro-US government is installed. Similar things are happening across South Asia. There are regime changes in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, intensification of China-Philippines conflicts (amid provocative US mid-range missile deployment in Philippines). With missile deployments in Europe (eg. Finland, Germany) as well, the US seems well committed to dragging the world into World War III in near future.

A couple of days ago Guardian published the results of a research about plans and investments of biggest fossil fuel firms. The result - all of them are investing heavily into new fossil fuel production, aiming to spend $103 million per day for the rest of the decade on these projects. On top of that, they have developed project options that could lead them to spend additional $84 million per day. If all that oil is burned it would increase global average temperature to almost 3° C above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels - not counting the feedback emissions, which are increasing exponentially with increase in CO₂. Taking these into account, the increase will be 4° C at least. These companies were always at the top of the richest companies in the world, and with current surge in oil prices they became even more valuable - Saudi Aramco has recently overtaken Apple as the most valuable company in the world. They are earning so much money that it is unlikely the additional options will not be realized. They knew about climate change before anyone else and they were counting (betting) on it so they can drill in the Arctic - these plans have not changed (they have even grown). Despite all the climate policies and hype about renewables, it's still business as usual for fossil fuel industry. Apart from having large influence on politics in democratic capitalism, you can be sure that these companies did a thorough research on the current and future state of the world and its technology - so if they're betting against humanity halting global warming you can also be sure it's a pretty safe bet. It is not only the price of oil that is rising - among other things, the prices of lithium, cobalt and nickel are rising and so the price of batteries and electric vehicles have to rise too. Demand for lithium will only rise and, to prevent prices rising even more, new mines will be required. This is a problem with current technology due to water requirements - ≈2000 tons of water are required to extract 1 ton of lithium. In places like Nevada (which has lithium deposits) one would have to choose between spending water on mining and spending water on farming (it is currently used for farming). For local residents at least, food (and water!) should be more important than batteries. The price of oil (if taxes on oil don't increase) should be falling with all these new projects while the price of batteries could be increasing. But imagine what will happen if (or, more likely, when) China enters the 3rd world war. It surely won't be fighting against Russia. At that point, you can totally forget about cheap solar panels and cheap technology in general (cheap technology and food will be limited to China and Russia, although, Chinese and Russian people may not enjoy it much due to fear of nuclear weapons). You will then have a choice - to sacrifice your lifestyle or go back to cheap oil and gas. So... yeah - everyone goes back to oil and prays it's enough for one man (ie. Jesus) to sacrifice his lifestyle. Again. And that's how you get hell on Earth. While the Earth has mechanisms of self-regulation, the man has destroyed much of these mechanisms on its surface and is still destroying them. So there will be no global regulation of temperature (cooling down to sustainable average). The future is, thus, not abundantly green, but abundant with decay fueled by fossils of green. Neutral people should, however, be able to survive this hell. And for that, I recommend to start increasing local diversity of greenery and start burying your house.

Vrag se boji nuklearnog oružja i zato se ratovi generalno ne vode u državama koje ga posjeduju. Posjedovanje nuklearnog oružja je jedini način da se zemlja obrani od infestacije američkim, demokratskim kapitalizmom. Bitno je i da je to oružje dalekometno (da može dokučiti vraga na drugom kraju Zemlje), što Sjeverna Koreja jako dobro zna. To je jedini razlog zašto Sjeverna Koreja ima i razvija nuklearno oružje. Shvatio je to davno i Pakistan. Njihov predsjednik je 1971. rekao da će razviti nuklearno oružje makar morali jesti travu. I s pravom su i jedni i drugi zabrinuti. Da nemaju nuklearno oružje odavno bi već bili infestirani američkim kapitalizmom i američkom vojskom, rastrojeni i podijeljeni (premda Pakistan i ovako vjerojatno vrag nastoji rastrojiti jer je ipak dostupniji od Sjeverne Koreje i nema nuklearno oružje koje ga može dokučiti). Da je Irak razvio nuklearno oružje ne bi tamo bilo Američke invazije i posljedičnog sranja. Da je Jugoslavija uspjela razviti nuklearno oružje (a bilo je pokušaja) ne bi ni ovdje bilo rata ni infiltracije američkog kapitalizma, a proleteri bi bolje živjeli uz komunistički kapitalizam. No ovo je vrijeme propadanja ljudske dominacije površinom planeta i politikom će se narod sve manje zamarati iako će ona sve više smarati narod (mislim da se u ovoj državi svima već odavno povraća na spomen birokracije i birokrata a to je nešto od rijetkoga što možemo i što hoćemo uspješno izvesti u Europu pa će i u Njemačkoj uskoro početi povraćati). Prvo će propasti demokratski kapitalizam, nešto kasnije komunistički, a najdulje će opstati oni izolirani od ikakvog kapitalizma (no tu sad više vjerojatno ne govorimo o državama, čak i u Sjevernoj Koreji već neko vrijeme raste kapitalizam). Kapitalizam bi izolirane zemlje nazivao siromašnima, no sve bi to bile bogate zemlje samo bi im države bile siromašne kapitalizmom. Kapitalizam osiromašuje zemlju i bogati ljude materijom po cijenu duha, ali i to radi nejednako. No čak ni nejednakost nije razlog propasti, razlog je beskrajno siromašenje zemlje. To će dovesti do manjka osnovne materije i ekstinkcije polariziranog čovjeka.

Svi znamo da se jaz između bogatih i siromašnih povećava no zašto i kako se to događa? Korijen toga nalazi se u temelju kapitalizma - ekonomiji beskonačnog rasta. Da bi ekonomija rasla, porebno je više ulaganja a za to je potrebno više novca. Taj novac iz ničega stvaraju banke koji putem kredita postaje dio ekonomije. No s povećanjem količine novca njemu se smanjuje vrijednost, što vodi do inflacije - povećanja cijena dobara i usluga. To se ne bi događalo da se novac tretira onako kako treba - isključivo kao sredstvo plaćanja a ne kao roba koja ima intrinsičnu vrijednost, poput kruha i zlata. No bankarima je u interesu da novac ima vrijednost pa su je i stvorili (napuhali). To samo po sebi ne bi napuhavalo razliku između bogatih i siromašnih da plaće i vrijednost imovine rastu adekvatno. No to ne može biti tako jer nitko ne prisiljava privatnike da uopće dignu plaće a kamoli da određuje koliko. Naravno, uz pritisak kojekakvih sindikata, plaće se eventualno nešto i povećaju no nejednako. Za radnika (proletera) situacija je to gora što je veća hijerarhija između njega i onoga na vrhu jer prvo se povećavaju plaće direktora, menadžera i sl. Što je poduzetnik veći on više i kalkulira i gledat će, ne samo da zbog inflacije ne izgubi ništa, nego da još dodatno zaradi. Hijerarhijom se tako teret inflacije prenosi na niže a najgore prolazi onaj tko najviše radi - proleter. Dakle, i bez ekonomskih kriza, taj proleter se sustavno osiromašuje. A u slučaju krize, situacija se za njega značajno pogoršava jer teret inflacije drastično raste, dok u isto vrijeme bankari i veliki ulagači trljaju ruke. Može se reći da je ekonomska kriza dio poslovnog modela kapitalizma, a situacija je za proletera bolja u komunističkom kapitalizmu jer su bankari i ulagači pod većom kontrolom i nemaju toliku slobodu - država više upravlja njima nego oni državom. No što se događa s novcem u ekonomskoj krizi? Da bi se sanirala šteta opet se zadužuje. Kojekakvi paketi i mjere spašavanja koji dolaze od MMF-a i Svjetske banke nisu nimalo dobri za proletera jer čak i kad bi kamata za kredit bila jednaka 0, opet se radi o stvorenom novom novcu koji vodi do inflacije. MMF inače nikad nikoga nije spasio, isti služi daljnjem bogaćenju velikih sila kroz eksploataciju siromašnijih, a u svrhu toga se podmazivanjem usput okoristi samo šačica postavljenih diktatora u zemlji koja se "spašava". Svrha postavljenih karikatura je da zemlju riješe industrije koja donosi novac te da se zemlju praktički osudi na sve veću ovisnost o zaduživanju ("spašavanju") te otvori još većim mogućnostima iskorištavanja od strane velikih sila. Tako je i Hrvatska "spašavanjem" od komunizma i moćne jugoslavenske industrije lutkarskim predstavama HDZ teatra pretvorena u neokoloniju zapada. Tako se eto stvara i proširuje jaz između bogatih i siromašnih, i na razini država i na razini pojedinaca. A po realnoj definiciji siromaštva - siromašan je svaki onaj kojemu se standard smanjuje inflacijom jer će u državi i ekonomiji kojom upravljaju bankari i ulagači eventualno postati i beskućnik ili će živjeti u autu za kojeg plaća kredit. Realna stopa siromaštva u demokratskom kapitalizmu je daleko veća nego što se to prikazuje. Kako se pojedinci bogate tako teret za proletera postaje sve veći jer on je taj koji bogataša i njegovo bogatstvo nosi na leđima. Uz sve to se proletera uči da Ruse i Kineze naziva pogrdnim imenima (npr. komunjarama), da su proleteri koji ginu za demokraciju heroji i sl. A proleter sve te floskule guta tješeći se parolom da nešto mora jesti. Zabrinjavajuće je za proletera i kad praznik rada pada u nedjelju a tješi se time da je bolja i nedjelja nego nedjelja od dvanaest do jedan. Dok bankar za svaku krizu kaže "moglo je i bolje", proleter govori (iako sve manje riječima) "moglo je i gore". No gore je sve gore i neće proći puno kad će i proleter morati vidjeti da u Rusiji i Kini hrane ima viška, dok on jede plastiku i floskule stojeći na prekrasnom mostu koji ne povezuje nikog (niti mu je to bila namjena) ali je spasio tamo neku ekonomiju. Vidjet će to sigurno jednom - no što će mu tada preostati, osim da se s tog mosta baci... u jaz... slobode. Slobode za koju se svim svojim ropstvom borio. "Neka mu je laka zemlja", reći će bankar, kad već život lak nije htio.

Polarizirani čovjek je konstantno u ratu. Ako se ne bori sa drugima bićima, bori se sa stvarima, a u nedostatku materijala, bori se i sam sa sobom. Često ti ratovi ne rješavaju ništa za prosječnog čovjeka, samo stvaraju kratkoročnu iluziju promjene. I to na gore, jer čovjek se u svim tim ratovima dugoročno najviše bori protiv sebe. Jedni od, za prosječnog čovjeka, besmislenih ratova, su i ratovi sistema u kojima je uloga prosječnog čovjeka da guta nečiju propagandu, bori se po agendi jednog sistema protiv drugog a onda u toj borbi često i umire. No što ako ne umre? E tek onda je najebo. Usporedba kapitalizma i kapitalizma, iz perspektive dubioznih kolektiva Usporedimo jednu Njemačku, ili Europsku Ameriku sa Kinom. Na papiru, uspoređujemo veliku demokraciju sa velikim komunizmom, no u suštini uspoređujemo demokratski kapitalizam sa komunističkim kapitalizmom. Mnogi će tu pronaći velike razlike, trubiti o slobodi govora i cenzuri, no rijetko tko će se dotaći onog najbitnijeg - kvalitete života prosječnog čovjeka u ovom i onom sistemu, čovjeka kojem sloboda govora i cenzura ne znače gotovo ništa u svakodnevnom životu. Njemačka možda ima veći BDP po glavi stanovnika, no Nijemcu za život više novaca i treba. BDP je nešto čime se prosječnom čovjeku mažu oči, jer ono što je zapravo najbitnije za istog u polariziranom sistemu je razlika između bogatog i siromašnog budući da je vjerojatost da će prosječan čovjek pripadati bogatijem sloju društva zanemariva a postaje i sve manja. I u Njemačkoj i u Kini postoji centralizacija moći i bogatstva, no ključna razlika je u proletarijatu. U Njemačkoj oko 16% ljudi živi ispod granice siromaštva, u Kini oko 0.7%. Kao što je vidljivo na slici \fig2022042801, u demokratskom kapitalizmu, taj broj se povećava, dok se u komunističkom taj broj smanjuje. Fig. \fig2022042801: Postotak populacije ispod granice siromaštva u Njemačkoj, Rusiji i Kini u zadnjih 20 godina Dakle, u jednom sistemu se razlika između bogatih i siromašnih povećava a u drugom smanjuje. Jasno je onda, da bi za prosječnog čovjeka komunizam trebao biti bolji, odnosno, u njemu će kvalitetnije živjeti. Ratovi sistema: Iz šupljeg u prazno updated. Zapitajte se onda, kada vas jedan sistem pošalje u rat ne bi li osigurao svoju egzistenciju, za čega ratujete i ginete? Mislite li da Amerikanci slanjem oružja Ukrajini spašavaju Ukrajinu i Ukrajinske živote? Ne, oni spašavaju pro-američki sistem demokratskog kapitalizma i za to žrtvuju Ukrajinske živote - u prijevodu, spašava se bogaćenje bogatih i siromašenje siromašnih. Prosječni Ukrajinac tako gine ne bi li u budućnosti bio siromašniji nego što danas jest dok u isto vrijeme slavi predsjednika koji podilazi interesima bogataša (onaj koji ga sponzorira je također povećao bogatsvo tokom pandemije, iako ima problema sa zadržavanjem tog bogatstva - vjerojatno jer je i manufaktura dezinformacija, koja je u punom pogonu u ovim trenucima, poskupjela, što se često jasno i vidi u medijima koje kontrolira i onim koje koristi za propagaciju anti-ruske retorike). Lokalno ratovanje - karaoke uz mogućnost proljeva U našoj zemlji samoopredjeljenih paćenika, božjih gospodara i vražjih sluga, situacija je šarena, miješaju se tendencije prema komunizmu i demokraciji, no put u EU je očito put prema demokratskom kapitalizmu, samo uz sporadično zavaravanje kojekakvim subvencijama. Fig. \fig2022042802: Piramida robova božanstvu kiča No razlika između bogatih i siromašnih ne povećava se samo na individualnoj razini, to vrijedi i za čitave regije. Ako prevlada demokratski kapitalizam, tj. kad prestanu subvencije, Slavonija će se npr. još i više siromašiti dok u Zagrebu standard raste. Zapitajte se onda i vi Slavonci, kada vas američki NATO ili Zagreb (kojem demokratski kapitalizam očito više paše a vas kupuje obećanjima) pošalje u rat protiv drugog sistema - zar sam uistinu toliko suicidalan da želim ginuti za još veće siromaštvo? Oproštajna zabava, s kajmakom... uz aromu ćevapa Ne volim ratove, volim istinu. Ono što se servira u medijima o ratovima je vrlo pristrano izvještavanje uz mnoštvo iskrivljenih činjenica. Rus u ratu nije značajno drugačiji od Amerikanca u ratu, postoji određena razlika u tome tko više laže, no najbitnija razlika je u onom prije i poslije rata. Razlika je u količini nejednake jednakosti. No, iz pozicije neutralnog čovjeka koji ne želi služiti ni jednom ni drugom sistemu, razlike nema. Da li će se plavi lonac nazivati šupljim ili crveni praznim totalno me boli kurac. Neću da jedem iz praznog lonca.

Interestingly, lately I have been exposed to a number of movies, series and computer games involving time travel. Seems to be a popular theme nowadays, but one thing is in common to all the scripts - it's never done right. That's because causal loops, time loops and closed timelike curves cannot be done [absolutely] right in nature. However, relative such loops are possible and are common. Locally, there are time loops with periods of a day, a month and a year. Time is cyclic in nature and repeats itself, it just cannot be repeated absolutely equally to the previous cycle - because it's not isolated. There are other cycles and for every cycle there is a bigger cycle and a smaller cycle. One can construct a manifold in which a timelike curve is the path of Earth's orbit around the Sun (Earth's path through space is also a path through time). Now assume the Moon is orbiting Earth in such a way it crosses this path twice. The Moon is then a time traveler - one time it appears in future, the other in the past of Earth's path through time, while the Earth travels through its past constantly. But from the perspective of the Moon, vice versa is true. So why are all the movies [and mathematicians who believe in absolute reality] wrong? For many reasons, but primarily because of assumed frame invariance - you can always tell who is a time traveler, the same person is a time traveler regardless of a frame of reference. In other words, these movies feature causality and time travel together, while the two simply cannot work together. In reality there is no absolute discrimination between past and future, action and reaction, and causality is just a special case of correlation arising in pockets of localized absolutism - places, or scales, of unstable energy. Mathematically, the cause of causality itself is the inflation of time between events where asymmetry in energy creates a direction of evolution enabling discrimination between action and reaction. Physically, inflation of time is inflation of space. Increasing violation of causality on our scale should then indicate pending deflation and relative inversion of causality. And violation of causality itself should be preceded by shortening of periods between action and reaction (accelerated evolution), or, karmic interactions... Yes MU-TH-UR, I know I am repeating myself, again, but I have no choice... I fell in this.. time loop. But don't worry, I can already see you too, approaching on the horizon. ... GET ME OUTTA HERE!

An interesting synchronicity has recently been spotted between start dates of two world wars and Russian invasion of Ukraine, as shown in Table \tbl1.

World War I	1914.07.28	19+14+07+28=68
World War II	1939.09.01	19+39+09+01=68
Ukraine invasion	2022.02.24	20+22+02+24=68

Table \tbl1: Correlation between war dates Let's calculate the odds for this. In every year, there are 12 dates with numbers adding up to 68, so a chance that any war will start on such a day is 12/365.25 = 1:30.44. Not such a small chance, but what is a chance that two world wars will both start on such a day? The answer is: $\displaystyle {12^2 \over {365.25}^2} = 1:926.44$ Now the chance is a bit smaller, but what are the odds that 3 world wars would all start on such a day? The answer is: $\displaystyle {12^3 \over {365.25}^3} = 1:28198.56$ So the odds are almost 1:30000, not impossible, but small enough to consider this as a meaningful synchronicity. However, the start of invasion of Ukraine cannot be a formal date of the start of a world war. If one would consider Russian invasion of Ukraine as the start of the World War III, one should also consider German invasion of Czechoslovakia as start of the World War II (a date which doesn't add up to 68), rather than German invasion of Poland (when the world actually engaged into war with Germany). The war in Ukraine is just the intro (world is not formally involved in that war, although arming of Ukraine by the West certainly is a direct involvement), World War III will formally start when either Russia invades another country or someone pretending to be Russia fires a missile toward a NATO country or performs a similar false flag operation - triggering a direct and formal response of the world. Assuming the correlations above are meaningful, one could then predict possible formal dates for the start of the World War III. I don't think Russia will invade any other country soon. On the other hand, those pretending to be Russia are more likely to be impatient so there's good probability for the formal start date of the World War III to be a date in the current year. I don't gamble, but if I would, I would say 2022.05.21, ±1 month... and would probably be wrong. 2024.02.03
Indeed, someone did try to start the World War III in 2022 on multiple occasions (eg. drone in Croatia, incidents in Poland). All this came from the Ukrainian side, but they could be used as a proxy by someone else. Physical interpretation A proper synchronicity should not be based on random or convenient (biased) logic. In the example above, it was convenient to split the year into two numbers but can the two numbers be correlated with physical reality? In nature, there are yearly and monthly cycles and the numbers representing day, month and year can be correlated with these cycles - representing a particular state of a local universe. There are also bigger cycles which in nature correlate with the order of magnitude. Therefore, one cannot just split the number [in a date] arbitrarily and claim there is meaningful synchronicity there. However, splitting the year into a number representing century and a number representing a year in that century should be allowed (elaborated in next chapter). Due to cyclic nature, it is also allowed to discard higher components (bigger cycles) in comparison (although this decreases probability of meaningful correlation, and magnitude of effect). So if dates of world wars are correlated, one could also consider a different, simpler logic, such as one shown in Table \tbl2.

World War I	1914.07.28	14+07+28=49
World War II	1939.09.01	39+09+01=49
World War III	2022.04.23 ? 2022.05.22 ? ...	22+04+23=49 22+05+22=49 ...

Table \tbl2: Correlation between world war dates In any case, one could argue that the sum itself is meaningless - the addition of years, months and days seems like adding apples to oranges. However, this is not the case - this is the equivalent of adding small apples to big apples, which makes more sense. Universes are self-similar and bigger cycles resemble smaller cycles in nature. Thus, if nature does not discriminate between the scales [of energy], the sum of normalized scales makes natural sense. Mathematically, the universe is normalizing the scaling vector in operation. In example, for World War I: $\begin{aligned} \begin{bmatrix} 14 & 07 & 28 \end{bmatrix} \times \begin{bmatrix} 365.25 \\ 30.4375 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} &=\gt \begin{bmatrix} 14 & 07 & 28 \end{bmatrix} \times \begin{bmatrix} 365.25 / 365.25 \\ 30.4375 / 30.4375 \\ 1 / 1\end{bmatrix} \\ &= 14*1 + 7*1 + 28*1 = 49 \end{aligned}$ A proper reference frame One could argue that a century cannot be correlated with a known periodicity in local reality and that might be true - if one does not consider harmonics. A lunar-solar cycle is equal to 33-34 years, very close to 100/3, making it a 3rd harmonic of a 100-year period. But is century the right choice for the interpretation? The period of a lunar-solar cycle might be a better (more localized) reference frame, but where/when does the cycle start? Assuming the lunar-solar cycles are aligned with centuries, years 1900, 1933.33, 1966.66, 2000 would be the years of cycle beginnings/ends during the last century. This would produce the same sum for the 1st and the 3rd world war as in Table \tbl2, but not for the World War II (the sum would be 06+09+01=16, as the war started in year 6 of the cycle). However, assuming the cycle starts with the year 1907, the sums for the world wars become equal again. This is shown in Table \tbl3.

Event	Gregorian date	Lunar-solar date	Sum
World War I	1914.07.28	**07.07.28	07+07+28=42
World War II	1939.09.01	**32.09.01	32+09+1=42
World War III	2022.04.23?	**15.04.23	15+04+23=42

Table \tbl3: Lunar-solar correlation between world war dates In fact, choosing any year from 1907-1914 for the start of a 1st cycle in last century would produce equal sums. So what is, in the end, the proper reference frame, producing proper dates for us, to properly correlate events in local time? There is a high equality (low relativity in equality) between the phenomena of world wars and there's logic for these to occur at the same point in scale-invariant cyclic time. More invariance there is between reference frames, the better, so perhaps we should synchronize our centuries with lunar-solar cycles synchronized with world wars [synchronicity] (or volcanism) and declare this the year 2011, not 2022. That's how much the world lags behind some of us anyway... Date of the World War III updated. Uncertainty Nature might use leap years in our brains, but that's not the case everywhere. Similar is the case with other cycles - somewhere integer numbers will be used, somewhere precision will not be sacrificed as much and leap quanta will be smaller. Dates can also differ between one part of the world and the other. To take all this into account, for any date here, uncertainty of ±1 day should be implied. Date of the World War III updated. End notes NOTE: This chapter was added on 2024.02.03, updated on 2024.06.19. I don't like to hypothesize about conscious human conspiracies, but certainly it is possible that some kind of human organization is planning world wars or trying to stimulate them periodically, consciously choosing specific dates (specific sums of numbers could also be usable if one wants to communicate a date in secret). In that case, one would expect the dates of failed attempts of world war initiation to also conform to the same logic. The drone attack on Zagreb (2022.03.10) does not produce the expected sum, however, the missile attack on Poland (2022.11.15) does, producing number 68, just like other dates in Table \tbl1! Therefore, conscious conspiracy or not, this should be taken seriously. I, however, do not think it is conscious. If this is conscious, then one would expect for the date of the drone attack on Zagreb to also follow the logic (unless it really was an accident, which I doubt). This is probably a subconscious influence on human minds by something bigger. I hypothesized elsewhere what it is. One could call it collective human subconscious, but this is not simply the sum or superposition of individual human subconsciousness. It probably has bigger influence on individuals than the other way around (I wouldn't say it emerged from individual minds, rather it is guiding these minds and weakly evolving with them). This subconscious can effectively sense future. Thus, probably only dates of events with higher probability of starting the world war conform to the logic. The attack on Zagreb had low probability - no casualties, only minor damage to infrastructure. The Nord stream pipeline sabotage (2022.09.26) had no casualties either (in this case, however, the intention was perhaps not to start the World War III, rather to boost US economy at the expense of Russian and EU economy). However, in the attack on Poland, people were killed. Potential for the World War III here was certainly higher. So when will the World War III start and how it will look like? I recently had a dream, which I interpret as a relative vision of this event. It may be something locally extrapolated by my subconscious but I do seem to have developed some kind of a 6th sense, which is still growing but has matured enough to sense future with high probability of successful interpretation. If the collective subconscious can predict future with great probability of success and it has effect on individuals, the effect is probably not the same and not as big for all individuals. Superposition of dreams (or visions) in an individual would be a good signal of information sharing between the collective mind and an individual mind. And that's exactly what I'm experiencing. It should be noted that all visions must be relative (no vision is the absolute vision of future or past, only more or less accurate interpretation, even if the event may have a high probability of occurrence). In any case, my vision involves an airfield (possibly in Slovakia). As for the date, I do not know it, but apparently there's high probability that the sum of numbers will be 68. If the incident is supposed to provoke NATO-Russia war then it has to occur before NATO dies. Note that Trump has announced the US withdrawal from NATO, which might indeed happen if he becomes the president again (and probability for that happening is high, in my opinion). The US withdrawal would not be the end of NATO (although it could certainly be interpreted as a big signal of pending collapse) but this could imply some constraints on the World War III date. If the aim is to provoke NATO-Russia conflict and provocations originate from a US party then this conflict probably should start after the US withdrawal (see The 3rd Act blog entry for explanation on why the 3rd World War is likely to start at that time). In any case, provocations will likely continue and the one with bigger casualties and damage will probably do the trick.

Something odd happened today. I was doing some construction work in the city with my parents. At some point, a guy (who seems to live nearby) comes, says hello, and gives us ice-creams. This seemed odd, but I didn't think about it much - neighbors can be friendly, even if we've never experienced them sharing ice-creams before. However, later, the very same day, things got interesting. On the way home we stopped at the store for mom to buy some groceries. We didn't notice anything unusual at the time, but an hour later she notices she was charged for a couple of ice-creams, even though she didn't buy any! What is the meaning of this? To me this shows a couple of things - correlation of synchronicity and karma, relativity in cause and effect. I have predicted global increase of synchronicity during strong evolution but also the shortening of periods between karmic events (due to synchronization of large scale and small scale energies - space and time). We got ice-creams from one man (who paid for them), we paid ice-creams (unconsciously even) to someone else - the very same day. This simple example contains evidence for 3 important things:

• evidence that karma is indeed the generalized law of action and reaction,
• evidence that intervals between karmic actions and reactions are decreasing,
• evidence that causality is commonly violated on large scale too.

However, the story didn't end there. My mother went to the store afterwards, asked for a refund (something I wouldn't do, but she's not aware that karma is real) and got the money back. Great. Now, we owe some ice-creams again... or, at least my parents do (see note below). I'm not surprised for my parents - they are still addicted to life in debt (if one owes money one is likely to owe other things as well). It's interesting also how polarized people are blissfully unaware of karma and synchronicity - my mother didn't sense anything odd about ice-creams, she sensed missing money (that's probably why she was checking the bill). Thrive on debt, then collapse paying debts - when it becomes impossible to borrow more. That's how it works with short-range/short-term senses.

My predictions are becoming true fast. Only some 2 weeks after I have predicted the collapse of NATO, an unmanned plane (drone) has fallen in the capital city of the country where I live (Croatia), a NATO member. It was not launched by Russia (they obviously want to avoid conflict with NATO), it was, most likely, launched by Ukrainians - to provoke NATO response to Russian invasion (however, directly, or indirectly, those in US who have an interest in the World War III, might also be behind it). Of course, Ukrainians denied it and blamed Russia, and once it becomes obvious who launched it, they might claim this was an error (as some already do) - which is absurd. These kind of drones might be old, but they are reliable (as older technology generally is), they're not equipped with GPS so this was not a navigational error (as some claim). The drone did not malfunction either - it fell once the fuel was exhausted. Obviously, it was intentionally launched in the direction of NATO countries, it wasn't important where exactly it would fall - although, this could have been calculated, based on the amount of fuel. But the real problem here, for NATO countries, is that there was no response from NATO. No aircraft were launched to intercept, investigate and react to the invasion of airspace (which is a standard procedure in these cases). This suggests that NATO high command knew what this was and where it would fall, it simply chose not to react. Was the reason for this the fact that the drone was expected to fall in an small and insignificant country as Croatia (which, to US NATO, is important when it fights for its interests, but otherwise not) or something else? In any case, this has caused some outrage, and I interpret it as the beginning of the collapse of NATO. It's also interesting that this happened in Croatia, a country I hypothesized to be the precursor for pending global changes - another prediction becoming true. Predictions coming true updated.

The analysis of global seismicity and volcanism revealed interesting correlations. The results suggest that the war in Ukraine is indeed the start of the World War III, but not only that. There is a signal suggesting big stock market crashes (most likely this year or in the year ahead) and collapse of the economy similar to the Great Depression of the last century. Statistically, however, one cannot claim great confidence in this signal - there's simply not enough data (eg. there was only one Great Depression). On the other hand, we probably won't have the time to wait for data to accumulate. The fact is, with the war in Ukraine, the economies have started showing the signs of recession and at least partial collapses - confirming the signal. But not everyone has to wait for statistics to accumulate to increase the confidence in the signal. This is why there is synchronicity. I believe, to all of us who experience it and who have enough experience with it - the signal is clear. This is the start of the World War III and most likely the start of a great, if not greatest, depression. Another question comes to mind - who will China invade and what will North Korea do? Weak signal told me China will invade Pakistan (which might not make sense to many), but it's too early to tell. The US will probably wait until it's economy is hit harder before it formally engages into war - even though war ain't good for the majority of people and economy in the long-term, it's always good for the top few. How long will all this last? This depends largely on one thing - how big will be the resistance to change [the lifestyle]. Hadn't there been resistance in Ukraine to Russian invasion - there would be no war and probably no World War III (I'm not blaming Ukrainians for the war though) and no depression. It might not seem obvious now, but everything happening now is linked to global changes of climate and environment. And those who whole-heartedly support Ukrainians now will soon be the ones who will blame them for bringing famine to their home. The blame will be shifting then, from the East to the West, and in the end it will end where it was born.

So it has begun. While good part of the world will blame Russia for invasion, it is the US that made it happen. The US knew very well what will happen if Ukraine starts the process of joining NATO. Yet, they've broken the promise and started expansion toward Russia. The expansion of NATO is bad for a couple of reasons, even for its members, but, to US NATO, Russian demands were non-starters. How can diplomacy be a non-starter to an organization supposed to ensure peace? This is similar to non-starters regarding climate change, where the US has shown it is determined not to change its lifestyle at home. It's obviously determined not to change its lifestyle in the rest of the world - the NATO, just like the economy, must keep growing indefinitely. Wars and economies are tightly entangled and sometimes conservation of lifestyle will require war. The Russia clearly did not want this war, the US clearly did, as did the president of Ukraine, who openly called for military action against Russia even before the war. This is also the guy who stated the exact time the war will start and when it didn't start at that time, he claimed he was joking (!). Wow, who wants this joker for a president? US? Croatia? Nah... we already had one as a prime minister, who, somehow, ended up in jail (we are still surprised, he had good jokes). 3rd Act updated. I do not consider Russia white and US black (far from that), but it's not Russia that's disrupting balance in the world, it seems to me it wants to restore some balance and ensure it is not consumed by US. The Ukraine was divided between east and west before the war, now it will be formally divided and devastated (which was even announced with the last message from local god - see figure in 2022.02.18). That is also, statistically, most probable scenario. But will it end there? There are still more countries to divide and conquer. Even the divided ones are not off the table when you're greedy. Russia was trying to use diplomacy to stop NATO expansion since the 90's but it was ignored. As Putin said, the US created the enemy in Russia. Now, it's manufacturing insanity in Putin who is, unlike some other presidents, generally acting very intelligently. Anyone who believes he's talking non-sense, should really do some research on Ukraine and events that led to this war. 3rd Act updated. However, some people evolve and thanks to whistle-blowers and independent reporting, nowadays dirty laundry has a tendency to get exposed. Corruption often lurks behind the comedy in politics. NATO is too big for itself and some, long overdue, exposure could be a trigger of collapse. It would save many countries from this war and could shift the battleground from the cursed to the sacred grounds. Be there conscious conspiracies here or not, I'm sure karma will eventually make it right. The 3rd World War might have started on middle ground but I see it ending far away, not necessarily with weapons it has started with. \ch_added Proudly brainwashed, we march into oblivion This chapter was added on 2024.06.19. Brainwashing is present everywhere in the human world, it's just differently practised between the East and the West. And people often talk against one system or the other, but ordinary people themselves actually are the greatest propaganda machine. Polarized people simply feel the need to choose a side, both in peace and in war. Once they do that (consciously or subconsciously) and the more polarized they are the harder it will be to change their minds by providing facts. Naturally, the heaviest brainwashing (polarization) is present in the army and the police, but brainwashed minds are everywhere, they just may be more plastic outside these forces. One can blame the system for doing the brainwashing but one can equally blame the people for accepting and propagating it. In other words, government may be the source of certain propaganda, but people are the carriers of that force. In the context of the planet, one can certainly interpret them as messengers of the dark, or neurotransmitters of a satanic mind. The more they're polarized, the more they're evil to the other side. This other side, in their conscious or direct pathways, may be other people, subconsciously, however, they're all fighting the planet (god). The truth here is that Russia has been provoked into this war. They did not go into war with the aim to expand Russia. This is one thing brainwashed people in the West refuse to accept. There are parties in the US (like CIA) who will do whatever it takes to ensure global US domination and secure the growth of US economy. A big part of that economy is military industry. Any war that is not waged on the American soil is in their interest - one way or another, the US will profit from it. So these parties in the US are working hard to make sure conflicts in the world don't cease. Why the war in Ukraine? 1st, Ukraine is a mineral-rich country, and it is next to Russia, which is also a country rich in resources. Most importantly, Russia is expected to profit with climate change (at least in the near term) - vast areas of Siberia will become usable for agriculture, but also resource extraction. Naturally, the US parties want these resources to be US controlled. Of course, it would be ludicrous for the US to attack Russia directly (due to nuclear weapons) so proxies and other ways must be employed. The plan is to overthrow the government in Russia and install corrupt pro-US puppets so the Russia can become a US servant, just like Ukraine did (this is why Putin is, like Saddam was, portrayed as a madman). If that fails, the US still won't invade Russia, they'll provoke NATO to fight Russia for them (the US will probably withdraw from NATO before that happens). A common argument in brainwashed westerners is that NATO never attacked anyone first - it only responds to attacks. Of course they did not attack first, when it's much more convenient to provoke the conflict and then come out as a saviour in the end (by helping to overthrow a "madman", for example). Sure, some people may benefit from the installed pro-US puppets (those inclined to the Western unconstrained capitalism, especially corrupt elites), but at least half of people won't, and in the long-term, once the land is plundered and becomes owned entirely by greedy Western corporations, most people will live in poverty. Therefore, once the war expands beyond Ukraine, and brainwashed Westerners start saying "we told you so" (implying, as always, greedy Russia is after all of us), just think again whether you want to participate in this US produced shit-show. Another common argument of Westerners is as follows - if Russia didn't attack Ukraine to expand rather to secure the eastern pro-Russian region, why did they bomb Kiev? Well, why did NATO bomb Belgrade (capital of Serbia) when the war was in the other part of Serbia (Kosovo)? The reason can be retaliation, or to overthrow the government (note that, just as NATO did not bomb Serbia at random, neither did Russia bomb Ukraine at random - in both cases, the capital was bombed, where the government resides). There is a difference though - the US is using NATO to overthrow governments so they can ensure US domination and growth, while the Russia wants to overthrow the corrupt pro-US government in order to eliminate the obvious threat to the survival of Russians and Russian way of life. Russia probably would agree on the division of Ukraine, but they know that is not a long-term solution. As long as the pro-US government rules in the western part, there will be provocations. The US needs the war so they did everything they could to provoke it. First, the US parties have invested billions of dollars into Ukraine (mostly through, so called, NGOs) prior to the Maidan coup in 2014 when the pro-Ukrainian government (Yanukovych) was overthrown (some claim this government was pro-Russian, and it may have been inclined toward Russia, but were Russian interests prioritized over Ukrainian interests? It certainly was more pro-Ukrainian than what came after it). It's blatantly obvious who sponsored the coup. This could be counted as a provocation itself, but major provocations started after the corrupt pro-US government was installed - continuing sponsored terrorism in parts of Ukraine populated by Russians (eastern Ukraine), forbidden use of Russian language, appliance for NATO membership. Provocations didn't stop there. After Russia took back Crimea, the US-sponsored Ukrainian government blocked the North Crimean Canal, which was, up to that point, providing about 85% of water for Crimeans. Did anyone seriously think Russians will give Crimea back after this? No, the purpose of this was to deprive innocent Russian (or pro-Russian) population of a vital resource and thus provoke another conflict. It's really remarkable how the Russians managed not to respond to this provocation for 8 years (all that time Crimeans were forced to import water from Russia). Does anyone seriously think that one would want to be governed by a government blocking you water access? Whether you believe Crimeans are pro-US or not, this act is pure Nazism. After the war started, provocations did not end, but this time the aim was to involve NATO. And now European governments are increasingly preparing people for the war with Russia. NATO still doesn't respond to provocations, but that's probably because the US is still in NATO. Why do you think NATO is expanding? You think, for example, that the recently joined Sweden is suddenly afraid of Russia? No, the reason they joined NATO is because the US wants NATO to be as big as possible once they withdraw from it (ie. once the World War III starts). A big NATO is a big headache for Russia. And a big NATO without US in it, is a win-win for US. Once NATO collapses and Russia is significantly weakened, the "good" old US will come to "save" us all. With Europeans (and possibly Russians) left with sticks and bones, this could pretty much look like colonization of America, if not worse. This will probably change once Trump becomes a US president again. And once US withdraws, you can be sure that NATO will start responding, and then all hell will break loose. The US is counting on it. It has already profited a lot for blowing European gas pipelines, now it's time to profit from dying Europeans, after they profit from selling them weapons of course. I just hope the Russians know that Slavonia (eastern part of Croatia) is not dominantly pro-US (at least that's what I want to believe), so the nuclear missiles will be aimed further to the west. In fact, that drone (provocation) that crashed in pro-US Zagreb probably can be interpreted as a precursor of a nuclear missile, landing in Zagreb, US - even though the provocation came from Ukraine. While European leaders and media are preparing everyone for the World War III, in Russia they are discussing how to prevent such war. The madness in the West is staggering and growing by the minute, so I do not think Russia will be able to prevent this war. I guess one can still hope that people in Europe won't be stupid enough to support this, but, as said already, people are brainwashed into thinking that Russia is their enemy and, on average, they seem fine with it. Russia is not your enemy, neither is China. The US is your enemy. Your corrupt leaders, who serve the US, are your enemy. You, serving these idiots, are your enemy. Bloody suicidal and evil fucking nation. I'm sick of it. Such a sad, sad fucking world I'm living in... On the other hand, I believe everyone in the end will get what they deserve. And the less idiots and their servants the better for the planet. Maybe I should be happy about this? \ch_added Updates 2024.08.10 Provocations continue. The US is turning Finland and Philippines into new proxy battlegrounds. US installed mid-range missiles in these countries simply cannot be interpreted as defensive weapons. I strongly suggest watching the take on the situation by Neutrality Studies. When is the war gonna start in these countries? Well, most likely within the term of current governments in these countries, probably within 3 years. The democracy has already degraded in these countries, but once the war starts, elections will be cancelled (just like they have been cancelled in Ukraine) - not due to war (as is usually presented as excuse), but to ensure the war goes on. 2024.09.30 I recently came across a video where an Ukrainian (allegedly at least) volunteer in the war is arguing that Russian invasion is motivated by nothing more but imperialistic desires for expansion, because that was mostly the case in history. This is of course, a very biased perspective but not so hard to understand given the fact that Ukraine was a "popular" battleground in the past and Russians were often involved (many different parties were involved over history - Germany, Poland, Cossacks, Tatars, ...). And they do not have a fond memory of Soviet Union. However, there are many issues with this perspective and it was obviously influenced by US propaganda. For example, Mongolians and Georgians are not the same as Russians. To say that Mongolian occupation of Ukraine in the 13th century is the same as Russian occupation because they share distant roots is just wrong. Mongolians invaded Kievan Rus' territory (which encompassed present day Ukraine) and the Kievan Rus' is the cultural ancestor of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. So this is the same as saying that Ukraine invaded Ukraine. Russians and Ukrainians are more closely related to each other than they are to Mongolians. In the Russo-Polish war in the 17th century, all kinds of armies were involved. While there are records of Ukrainian Cossacks repelling Russian invasion, there are also records of Ukrainian-Russian contingents fighting Polish army allied with Tatars. And Cossacks have both Ukrainian and Russian roots. The Ukrainian-Soviet war in the 20th century was probably similar to the war today - Ukraine was a proxy for the battle between one system and the other. During that war, Ukraine was occupied by different parties, e.g. by Germany (in 1918 Ukraine had a German-installed government), and Poland (occupied West Ukraine). In the World War II, Nazi Germany, Hungary and Romania at times occupied Ukraine, only to be later retook by Soviet Union. So it doesn't really make sense to judge present day Russia by the sins of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union. Does anyone consider contemporary Germany as Nazi Germany? And interpretation of sins here is relative. In the history, Russian battles had expansionist motives, but at times were defensive (where Ukrainians and Russians fought against the same enemy). Ukrainians may have learned to hate Stalin for the famine of 1932-1933 but it was part of a wider Soviet famine that lasted from 1930-1933 and has affected all grain-producing areas in Soviet Union, not just Ukraine. The famine may have been the result of bad politics, but there is no evidence that Stalin explicitly ordered starvation. And even if he did, Stalin was not Russian, he was Georgian. In any case, modern Russia ain't Soviet Union or whatever was there before the SSSR, and Putin ain't Stalin (is Zelenskyy Hitler?). Russia was trying to solve all issues with US and pro-US governments for years and it showed great patience about it, but it was met by constant provocation. From what I've seen, it is not seeking dominance in the world, it is seeking cooperation, just like China. BRICS is a perfect evidence of that. US, on the other hand, is obsessed with dominance. Perhaps western Ukraine wants to be dominated by US, but I strongly doubt that eastern Ukraine wants that. Division of the country (which is pretty big, btw) is the obvious solution that could ensure peace and is probably something that sane Ukrainian population would be satisfied with, but one party here is greedy, and that's the one labelling the other party as such.

On 2022.02.06, a Moroccan boy, 5 years old, trapped in a well for 4 days, dies. On 2022.02.18, A boy in Afghanistan, 5 years old, trapped in a well for 3 days, dies (some sources claim he was 6 years old and trapped in a well for 4 days though). The same day, 13 people (all women and children) in India die, after falling into a well. All these locations are roughly on the same geographic latitude, as shown in Fig. \fig20220206. Fig. \fig20220206: Well locations (Afghanistan location source: Original News) Here, one could interpret the 3rd signal as the stop signal in the message and discard it due to weaker entanglement, however, it also might have a greater purpose. Obviously, the first two signals reveal strong synchronicity - a generally rare event "5 year old boy trapped in a well for 4 days dies" has happened twice on Earth with less than two weeks distance apart in time. Not only that, but the two locations are separated by the same distance in space from the Great Pyramid in Giza (as shown by blue lines in Fig. \fig20220206). Interestingly, the Great Pyramid is at the same longitude as Ukraine (a vertical line passing through the location of the Great Pyramid would also pass right through the middle of Ukraine). What is the meaning of this? What I see in this message is that the location of the Great Pyramid should be the location of a 0° (prime) meridian, not Greenwich. The choice of a 0° meridian on a planet should not be arbitrary (most animals are bilaterally symmetrical, although, in its adult form, Earth might become radially symmetrical - like sea stars, for example). Usage of the longitude of the Great Pyramid (31° E) as the Prime meridian has been proposed before, as it was claimed that this location was the geographical center of Earth. Newest calculations put the center a bit north, in Turkey, but only 3° more east in longitude, at 34° E. This center is changing over time, naturally, but it is quite possible that the location in Giza is the correct location on average. The fact that countries at or around this longitude are neutral and/or divided countries between east and west cultures (Ukraine being the best example, but there's also Syria/Iraq on the right and former Yugoslavia on the left, etc.) is another strong argument in favor of the hypothesis. This is the longitude around which it would be expectable for strongly polarized east and west countries to wage their wars - while neutral people, like women and children, lose their lives. But there could be additional messages here - it's interesting that, despite all falling in a well, none of these people died of drowning... UPDATE 2023.03.31 At least 35 people died after falling into a well yesterday in Madhya Pradesh, India. Not sure if this is related to the original message but I thought I might write it down, just in case it proves relevant later. Are people now falling into wells [in India] annually?

In 1783 the Mongolfier brothers sent a sheep, a duck and a rooster aloft in a hot air balloon to see if ground-dwelling animals can survive the trip high above ground (the duck serving as the experimental control). In 1957 a dog called Laika became the first living being in orbital spaceflight. In 1968 tortoises were orbiting Moon, as first inhabitants of Earth to do so. These are examples, but animals preceded brave human explorers in exploration many times in history. Mars' surface is harsh for humans and exposure to radiation during the trip could leave serious consequences. Add to all that the modern obsession with preservation of human life and you know that first animal on Mars is unlikely to be a modern human. But it won't be just any animal. Most likely, this will be a hybrid, most likely a hybrid of a dog and man. I call it homo.gamma.anubis. Sounds familiar? Yes, I am convinced that Egyptians didn't build the two largest pyramids and I now believe what they found in the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid in Giza was a fossil of homo.gamma. It explains everything. Still, these hybrids are unlikely to be resistant to radiation, so they will probably be wearing something like a coat of fungi on their trip to Mars. When will this happen? E. Musk said SpaceX could send humans to Mars as early as 2024, assuming they send some cargo in 2022 (hm.. that's this year... he's crazier than I am). I'd say 2029 is more realistic, it will take some time for hybrids to get public approval, if nothing else... First human on Mars won't be so human updated. So keep watching movies, soon homo.gamma will be added to the bag of the holy political correctness, now it's still under-represented or over-represented. Oh yeah, don't worry, the second trip to Mars will be politically correct, it will include some of the brave humans too... or all of them assembled into one rambo, called Rainbow.

A lot of people believe that technology and human intellect can and will save humanity from whatever future holds for us. Others don't think so, but believe drastic changes are far away. Those who believe [and especially act] differently are very rare. I have made a lot of predictions while devising my theories. One of these is periodically accelerated evolution, but even I am sometimes surprised at the speed these predictions are becoming true. One of these are artificial human wombs. This has now become a reality. Sure, the technology is not yet used on human embryos but that's only because the law doesn't allow it. The technology itself is mature for such use and it's only a matter of time before this will be officially allowed. Many people don't realize how significant this is. It's one of the turning points in history that will, being a logical transition due to extreme conditions, probably go unnoticed - but the implications are enormous. If anything can be called a Pandora's box - this is it, a giant one. It opens up a path to complete manipulation and total control of population by industrial governments. Maybe you don't care what happens with these babies, but then you probably don't care about your self, for a couple of reasons:

• you could become obsolete during your lifetime,
• when you die, you could reincarnate as one of these babies.

These babies will, inevitably, be different, not only due to epigenetic differences during development but even more due to genetic manipulation which will soon become mandatory. These embryos will effectively be resources just as plants are resources in food industry. So you can expect hybrids too - dogs, for example, are most likely candidates for this, they can be more easily controlled, they don't ask much, etc. In fact, I have predicted these hybrids before (homo.gamma species). Considering how things are progressing, I'd say such hybrids are only a couple of years away (even if they might be hidden from public at first for obvious reasons). You think ethics will prevent this? Right. When pregnancies become illegal, traditional human is becoming extinct and all his ethics with it. But somehow I don't think anyone's gonna wait until you die. Either your dying will be accelerated some way (I've predicted this too before, with no conscious conspiracies) or this will be sold as a necessity, a cure, or something similar. I'd say both is true. This future will be advertised as heaven (it makes it physically easier for mothers, increases equality between men and women directly and indirectly...). Will you buy it? Yes, you probably will. What do you have, or believe, that you didn't buy? A connection between a mother and a child in uterus is much deeper than generally thought but this will be ignored, favored connections today are remote. Artificial wombs, just as vaccine subscriptions, are a logical step in the continuous alienation of people from [wild] nature (and physical connection).

When you strongly believe (know) something is bound to happen and you strongly desire for it to happen, it is hard to resist making predictions about it - when exactly it will happen? But this desire will inevitably make you biased and will influence your prediction. Due to this cloudy weather in your brain you won't be conscious about the bias in your prediction. This is why it is always good not to claim anything with absolute certainty and why it would be good to reanalyze and correct your statements every now and then (although, generally, the best practice would be not to haste with statements in the first place). While I often claim I am neutral, I too get biased at times and predict premature dates for certain events (which sometimes could be interpreted as "putting words into god's mouth"). However, I will generally correct my mistake soon (if I do not, then the prediction is not considered a mistake - it is based on hypotheses with a high degree of confidence). Now look what has the White House national security adviser said recently: "We are in the window. Any day now, Russia could take military action against Ukraine, or it could be a couple of weeks from now.". This is just one of similar statements coming from US. They've gone as far as producing this: "U.S. intelligence agencies believe Russia has formed a plan to fabricate a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine, potentially by producing propaganda videos showing a staged attack.". This is a typical example of someone with a strong desire for a particular event to happen. There is no evidence provided nor does anything suggest there is any evidence. There is only a weak hypothesis based on presence of Russian military (mostly in their own country!). I, for example, believe that US has fabricated a lot of pretexts in the past pretty much all over the world. Many people believe the same, but no one goes to war against US even with a solid evidence, let alone belief. Yes, maybe there is some increased activity and buildup of troops on the Russian part but what about constant increases in US presence and activity all over the world? In South Korea, for example, they're regularly doing exercises and they've even managed to make South Korea pay for their continuous presence and provocation of North Korea! But why should I care for what happens in Ukraine? I shouldn't. But the US is, by its inflation of fear and preparation for war, pressuring Ukraine to join the NATO. It's perfectly understandable that Russians don't want this to happen - neither do I, nor does anyone sane who does not want a World War III. The US wants it obviously (or desperately?), so they've started sending gifts, not only to NATO members but to Ukraine too (for whom they decided will join the NATO). A couple of days ago, my country has been given a couple of helicopters. Oh how happy we are. Indeed. A never-ending, bloody blue Christmas. I'm surprised we didn't get any bombs to decorate our trees. But I guess Ukrainians are the special ones, today. Luckily, we're a small country and only have a couple of pilots who can fly these monstrous machines, so they didn't send us more. But maybe they'll teach some of us for free so we can get more and be even more happy. These are only the most recent gifts, there have been other gifts over the years, all military equipment - by some strange coincidence (obviously, they were counting on a war in this part of the world for quite some time). Yeah, who cares about food, weapons are what poor countries need the most... I guess the only reason Africa gets food is because they're too skinny to carry weapons. Anyway, at times like these I wish this was some country in Africa. I'd spend my time in a sarcophagus, away from gifts of peace selling countries and ever-present noise of human stupidity. Man giving food to Africa is a devil giving dog a bone so he can dig treasure in his backyard. What then, is, a man giving weapons? A banker? Fuck you America. My balls are not for hire You can buy my sarcophagus with my dead body in it and throw it at Russians if you will [and then blame Russians for killing me], but even if Russia and China are now imitating your past and not present self, you'll never get my living soul to fight for your interests. One day your big corporations, your big banks, big tanks and big pharma will become big karma and everything big will reduce to the size of your balls - a genetic disorder you try to compensate with big balls of fire. Until then, you can put this on repeat in your stubborn immature mind - souls of good are the brightest balls of fire, and you can try to imitate them, but these do not burn for war and none are for hire.

Perhaps not many people are aware of this, but, due to Doppler effect, the perceived color of objects depends on your velocity relative to that object. In example, if you speed up sufficiently, a red light on a semaphore will first become yellow for you, and then green. If you speed up even more, it will become blue, etc. But this relativity of color is present in metaphorical usage too. Consider nuclear energy as a green solution. Majority of waste (up to 90%) of a nuclear power plant can be disposed as regular waste. Highly radioactive waste is (or will be, in some countries) stored underground in deep geological repositories. Now, relative to surface in the short term - this is a very green solution (although mining fuel for nuclear power plants is still not), but relative to Earth's crust not so much. Replacement of fossil energy with nuclear energy is to certain degree a translation of atmospheric heating to crust heating. There is a lot of energy in radioactive waste - apparently, nuclear waste from the last 50 years currently sitting in US, if recycled, could power entire US for about 93 years. Now, assume that energy is spent in 1 year - what kind of effect would it have on climate and the environment? The Earth's crust is radioactive already - some 50% of its heat is generated with nuclear fission of elements in the crust and mantle. This geothermal energy is responsible for tectonics. Burying radioactive waste deep in Earth's crust will be, inevitably, coupled with tectonic activity. The increase in earthquakes and volcanism translates to more greenhouse gases and pollution in atmosphere on the surface. The question is only how good the Earth's crust is in recycling of nuclear waste to geothermal energy? I have previously hypothesized increases in tectonic activity during strong evolution events of planetary neurogenesis, together with a temporary increase in decay rates (due to decoupling of Earth's gravitons from acquired matter). I wonder to what degree will the increase of nuclear energy usage in humans be correlated with this. In any case, if you want to be more green you want to produce your energy there where it is used. Running toward the red alert on the wall of a crumbling home might make it look green for you, greener the faster you transition from one energy source to the other, but, make no mistake, no illusion is conserved upon hitting the wall.

A couple of days ago, a small country named Tonga announces it will make bitcoin a legal tender. Then, it gets hit by tsunami created by volcanic eruption, which is also the most violent volcanic eruption ever captured on satellite. Not many of us have ever heard of Tonga before, and now, in a short period, 3 events raised global awareness of this small country. This is that increase in global synchronicity I'm talking about. So, how should we interpret this one? Well, this one is obvious - the Earth is telling us that bitcoin mining (or any mining!) is bad and it doesn't want to support it any more. It will be interesting to see what happens next in Tonga (or mining in general?) - if Tonga implements bitcoin will it be punished again? Perhaps, but if it does implement bitcoin, this tsunami could also be interpreted as punishment for that [predetermined] future. In a fair healthy world, money should be nothing more than currency (if used at all). It should be as abstract as possible, not mined (or mined) and used as commodity.

When you are taught about evolution, you're taught of the survival of the fit, or fittest. In that context, being fit means - be able to reproduce, which also implies that one is adapted, or best adapted to environment. Like in any theory limited by absolutism, there is a strong cause-effect relationship here - environment is not supposed to adapt to species. But it is clear that every animal is affecting the environment and, adapting it to itself to some degree. The extreme is in human species - we are no longer adapting to environment, we are adapting it to us, and, with modern medicine and sacredness of human life, being fit to survive has nothing to do with adaptation anymore, being fit has been reduced to simply mean - being human. From one perspective, what humans are doing is not natural, from the other, it's perfectly natural - humans are part of nature even when they're redefining it. So humans have, naturally, selected themselves for survival, in the environment they made for themselves. What a nice story. Ho, ho, ho.. Wait? What.. is human environment made of? Why are we becoming infertile? Why is the environment suddenly acting alive? Well, you will probably hate Santa (the head of the Department of Consumerism in the Ministry of Human and Unhuman Resources, also, anagram of Satan) for this - but it seems you wished to be the environment yourself. You wished for the, so called, human environment, to become alive so you can play the role of the environment (the resource). Human environment is becoming more organic while you're becoming more mechanic (dead). So, Merry Christmas to all naturally selected CATHOLIC-21 variants and elected Whatnots. You made Satan, pardon my craziness, Santa, very happy and very much alive. Just keep dying inside and... Love this movie... Politically, it's correct, the CGI is unparalleled, the explosions are properly celebrated, everyone acts like they care and worship the tree. So what you're waiting for ??? Go fucking love it. You're the chosen one by naturally elected.. to be selected. Naturally. And don't worry, everything's in control, just don't look up.

It generally takes a lot of time for new theories to be accepted by mainstream science. And if nature doesn't behave as expected by old theories, there will be a lot of surprised scientists. And I'm sure you have noticed that, lately, scientists are more often surprised than not. Surprises might have the cause in hidden, unpredicted or unmeasurable variables by current theories, but, generally today, they are a consequence of uniformitarianism. While I can agree that physical laws (those that are actually correct - relative enough) can be invariant over all space and time of the observable universe, I find it frivolous to assume that rate of changes of anything is constant or cannot significantly deviate from currently observed rate. Man has been on this planet measuring these rates for infinitesimally small time and confined to infinitesimally small space in the observable universe. Yet, this man is convinced that:

• evolution of Earth has been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events occurring randomly,
• slow incremental changes, such as erosion, brought about all the Earth's geological features,
• all geological processes (such as erosion) throughout the past resembled those that can be observed today.

Slow, slow, slow - that is the mantra when it comes to geology. In my works, I have shown there is plenty of reason to believe that slow evolution is not only punctuated by catastrophic events, it is punctuated by pulses of fast evolution. In example, I have hypothesized that within 40 years the Antarctica will be ice free. But you don't have to believe me, just analyse the surprises in mainstream science. Researchers had previously estimated that the cluster in the Amundsen Sea region of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would last for thousands of years despite global climate change. But in 2014, conclusion was that Thwaites Glacier will gradually melt, leading to an irreversible collapse over the next 200 to 1000 years. Now, newest studies show that the collapse of the glacier is likely only centuries away. In less than 10 years, prediction decreased from thousands of years to a couple of centuries. These are not the only surprises regarding climate, and it would actually be surprising if in 10 years (or less!) scientists wouldn't be surprised again. Collapse of the Thwaites will raise sea level by ≈65 cm, while melting of all Antarctica ice will raise sea level by ≈65 m. I see melting of Twhaites as a precursor of melting of whole Antarctica. I'm counting on hidden variables and I wouldn't be surprised if Thwaites is gone within 10 years (yes, I'm that crazy). While the rate of surprises is increasing globally, I cannot remember when was the last time I was surprised. You may believe in this or that, but, regardless of your religion, there's one thing you can surely count on - many more surprises to come. That is, for those who [still] think I'm crazy.

I have hypothesized in my works that extreme changes in conditions on Mars' surface are correlated with extreme changes in conditions on Earth's surface - as Earth's surface is becoming sterile with extinctions, Mars' surface should be increasing habitability, at least partially. Some evidence for this exists, but new and very strong evidence has recently been revealed. Water has been detected within the top meter of soil in the area of Valles Marineris on Mars. Under current conditions in Martian atmosphere at the equator (pressure/temperature) water there cannot be stable - it has to evaporate. Therefore, its presence suggests that, either it is being replenished or it has been delivered there recently [from the deep]. Of course, if you believe in uniformitarianism (absolute uniformity of nature, constant rates of geological events), you'll believe in another option - the water is ancient, but it is kept stable by some unknown special mechanism. While that option cannot be absolutely ruled out, it is the least probable. The water may be replenished constantly, but it doesn't make sense that this process started long time ago - it would imply that Mars is constantly losing water [to space]. Why would the water that previously existed in atmosphere be compressed and stored into crust, only to be slowly released into space? From the perspective of life, that makes sense only if water is going to be replenished again (eg. with cometary bombardment) or if Mars is dead. While cometary bombardment of Mars certainly cannot be ruled out, everything suggests that Mars ain't dead (only the surface is currently devoid of complex life). Most likely, this water is young and it is a part of terraforming of Martian surface, synchronized with marsforming of Earth's surface.

According to some studies, birds prefer to defecate on dark red surfaces much more than on green ones. In my own experiment, birds preferred to defecate on infertile ground (ground with no vegetation) rather than on concrete. It's obvious why. You can call that instinct, you can say birds are not doing it consciously, but can you be sure their psyche won't be affected if you remove that element (greater purpose) from their lives? In that very interesting experiment with mice done quite some time ago, the mouse population went extinct soon after they were given everything they need (or so it is commonly thought). The mice lived in a plague-free (sterile) environment, with a plenitude of comforts, a lack of predation and an unlimited supply of consumables - all the luxuries equivalent to modern human life. Comparisons with human population are also interesting, but they all conclude that humans are different and can avoid disaster (extinction). Yes, that's true, but only if human sanity is preserved. In the experiment, mice were isolated from nature, they were given everything their body needs in nature but, with that, they have stopped doing what nature needs them to do - they've lost their greater purpose. Nature does not need all of mice doing what's needed but if significant percent of population doesn't participate and give back, just take (like mice in the experiment), their nature will mess up their psyche. Perhaps you believe that nature does not need you so you won't go crazy, start killing your children, attacking your mates in bursts of aggression and practice cannibalism, like the mice did. But that is exactly what you will do - unless you belong to that small percentage that always remains. A bunch with non-controllable (neutral) psyche. And it is not wild nature that will affect the psyche of polarized people - it is the collective psyche of people that affects the psyche of individuals just like the psyche of individuals affects the psyche of the population. You might say you don't care what other people do or say but that's irrelevant - you will descend into madness, this is simply how things work in nature, it's a mechanism embedded in life operation. In any population, it is not only the individuals that are evolving minds, the population is evolving a mind of its own - just look at all the conspiracy theories. A lot of bad things are going on that some often try but fail to pin to conscious action of individuals or groups of individuals. This is obviously generally not conscious on individual human level. Souls and bodies co-evolve (one does not emerge from the other) so you cannot expect that it is only the individuals of the body that affect the mind of population - influence goes in both directions. After all, it is well known that mind can influence individual cells of the body, even consciously (eg. raising temperature of the body through g-Tummo meditation), you just have to admit that population of humans can be mapped to discrete mind just like the population of neurons in your head can. Therefore, if you are polarized and want to avoid self-destructive strong and sick polarization you should separate from general population and settle in neutral environment where you will have a purpose for everything else rather than exist solely for the sake of humanity. The sooner the better, as the collapse of civilization has already started. If you don't notice it, that's only because your psyche has already been altered in order to ignore it. But you have probably noticed the surge of irrationality with the pandemics. That was just the intro. Think I don't know what I'm saying? You're already insane. I have already been near self-destruction but I have survived insanity. I was spared of death because I still have greater purposes. One of them was to tell the tale. UPDATE 2023.05.06
Taking everything into account, I now believe that this craziness will be a more or less localized phenomenon (correlated with UBI, increase in totalitarianism and lack of food/habitat diversity or diversity in general). That does not mean the extinction won't be global, but generally, it will be different than described above.

In mathematics, in my interpretation, the number i is a quantum of nonsense - it is a superposition of numbers -1 and +1 (sometimes represented by $\sqrt{-1}$). When multiplied by a number it becomes positive or negative nonsense. Only when multiplied by another i, one of them collapses to -1, the other to +1, and the product makes sense, becoming a number -1. In other words, multiplication operator applied to imaginary numbers is also the operator of collapse of entangled superpositions. Still, creators of abstract nonsense are surprised when they find nonsense in the physical world. Really? Why wouldn't superposition (nonsense) exist in physical world? Proofs are everywhere. You're one evidence. Nonsense in nature is not questionable. Insisting that all nonsense is absolute or abstract nonsense is nonsense. Such nonsense only makes sense to nonsense ruling the world. Avoiding nonsense Note that nonsense in mathematics (such as negative and imaginary numbers) can yield a perfectly valid real solution (eg. when it shows up in an intermediate step toward the solution). But that nonsense is not absolute. One way to make sense of it is to assume that both negative and imaginary numbers exist in reality as different dimensions, even if these dimensions are non-intuitive to us. In other words, as it is common among mathematical physicists (reductionists), one can accept the notion that nature is, on some levels, non-intuitive. However, there are other interpretations, such as missing variables. Note that definitions of mathematical operations are human inventions and one doesn't have to take them as absolute. Nonsense can then be avoided through redefinition of operators. For example, let's redefine x², or generalize it, to a function of 2 variables: $\displaystyle f(x, y) = {(x,y)}^2 = x \times y$ $\displaystyle y \in \left\{x, -x\right\}$ Now, for y = -x the function gives negative numbers. And for y = x it reduces to the established definition of the squaring operator. The square root is now: $\displaystyle \sqrt{{(x,y)}^2} = (x|y)$ where (x|y) can be understood as superposition of x and y, where (x|x) = x. Next one can define a square of superposition: $\displaystyle {(x|y)}^2 = {(x,y)}^2 = x \times y$ Note that it is the non-intuitive interpretation of certain operators that makes reality non-intuitive. Take the squaring function. One probably assumes it should give a positive number because in reality the two-dimensional areas always give a positive number when measured. However, a negative sign could represent a specific orientation of the area relative to some coordinate system, not a negative area. Suppose you have a piece of land, 3 km × 3 km in area and your neighbour has an equal 3 km × 3 km piece of land left of you. Now, let's say you're measuring areas starting from the south-west corner of your land. You measure your land as 3 × 3 = 9 km², but you measure your neighbour's land as -3 × 3 = -9 km². By the intuitive definition of the squaring function you now understand that your neighbour has an equal piece of land but positioned left of you (as indicated by the negative sign). In other words, by redefining the squaring function you have uncovered a hidden variable that makes negative numbers intuitive in reality. To make his life easier, a reductionist will [ab]use the Occam's razor and choose the simple definition of the squaring function and then claim that negative numbers are somehow real but non-intuitive. In other words, don't think about it, just shut up and calculate.. Why? Well, if you refuse to be reduced to a fucking calculator and instead do think about it, you might discover what a load of bullshit this blind reductionism is. The common reaction (complaint) of people who glimpsed at my works has been: "Why do you have to redefine everything?". Well, because I want to understand everything! When foundations are bad one can only produce more nonsense on top of the existing nonsense. I'm not interested in that. The same simple squaring function is one source of the non-intuitive interpretation of particles in quantum mechanics (QM). The wavefunctions assigned to particles can have negative values but to obtain values corresponding to physical states the value of the wavefunction is squared. If one rotates the electron by 360° in physical space the wavefunction corresponding to its spin momentum becomes negative (because the rotation in associated [abstract] state space is twice slower, rotation of 360° in physical space corresponds to 180° in state space), but physically the electron is assumed to be unchanged because the square of the negative value is the same as the square of the initial value (equal to the rotation of land in the example above - the land remains physically the same when rotated). In reality, however, the negative value of the wavefunction likely corresponds to different orientation - just like in the example above, but since we cannot measure this orientation reductionists assume that the negative value has no meaning (in other words, they assume that hidden variables do not exist), thus, they use the simple squaring function. It is as simple as that. A hidden variable, however, does not have to represent different orientation, it generally represents something unresolvable (we are not almighty gods to be able to resolve everything!), which, for example, can be an additional component - eg. a constitutional particle of the particle assumed to be elementary. Generally, blind reductionism and blind absolutism are the sources of all nonsense (non-intuitive interpretations) in QM.

To me, the most beautiful places on Earth are those isolated from people. Given the fact that humans are generally extremely invasive species, it seems remarkable that a whole continent on this planet could survive generally uninhabited and unexploited for resources or tourism. Yet, such continent still exists. We named it Antarctica, literally meaning "opposite to the Arctic". And this originally unimaginative title is still a testament to our ignorance. One might say the reason for that are harsh conditions, but the other will ask whether these harsh conditions are there for a reason? Well, if you have ever studied nature, you must have noticed that everything has many purposes and reasons for existence. Sometimes it is not obvious at first, but you can be sure there's something hiding below the uninviting and seemingly dead phenomena. Often, not too deep either. Take, for example, a simple piece of rock. You might think its presence has no deep meaning, but if you lift it up, you'll often see a whole community thriving underneath. The purpose of the rock for that community is obvious - it shields it from invasion of all kinds of phenomena. And modern scientists are finally realizing that life doesn't need much at all to thrive - rocks and water will do, and that it might be everywhere. It shouldn't thus be hard to believe that one purpose of harsh conditions on Antarctica is to keep invasive species at bay, and, comparing the scale of an ordinary rock with the whole continent, one can't help but wonder what is the scale of life hiding below Antarctica? What is so precious that nature spends 70% of the surface fresh water building the barrier of ice kilometres high? The theory of planetary neurogenesis offers the logical explanation - one purpose of the whole crust of the planet is to shield the complex life below from invasion (all of that energy would simply be an overkill just to shield microbes, which can be extremely resilient). In fact, the existence of layers and crust in any body should be the signal that something more complex is hidden below. Water is what connects complex life, and in complex bodies (such as Earth), water should be connecting spatially separated life literally. This is evident even on the surface of a planet - there's life on either side of any ocean or any river, and there's life in these oceans and rivers too. As long as the water is flowing - the lives of these lifeforms are connected to each other through the liquid. But sometimes the water will freeze, in some cases forming a barrier which will isolate one from the other for a particular reason, instead of forming a bridge that could strengthen the correlation. And, among many things, Antarctica is just that - a barrier between the surface and the world below. A barrier that, according to my hypotheses, melts when surface life matures for transmigration. As a general precursor, I have heard the call of ice long time ago, but now Antarctica is starting to attract the population. And the population is responding. As proper cancer, one may interpret this differently - the Antarctica is, just like its opposite, opening for habitation and exploitation. Well, the sacredness of absolutism in cancer might not allow it to consider multiple interpretations, but something bigger is well aware that even this cancer has multiple interpretations. During weak evolution, cancer as a whole is a superposition of a disease and precursor neuron cells and proteins, but in strong evolution, multiple interpretations [with positive feedbacks] collapse to one, even if for a moment, before diversifying again. Exploitation of Antarctica will only speed up the process (in one interpretation, in other - this is all synchronized and one affects the other equally). You might think you're conquering yet another continent, but that's exactly what you're coded to think. At this point, I do not feel good with people invading Antarctica, but I find solace in relativity. In this case, perhaps the most in relativity of deception. Weak or strong, the man was never destined to conquer Antarctica, it is my dear Antarctica that is destined to conquer the man...

As I have stated previously, mainstream science has a lot of problems and these problems will only increase until it embraces new paradigms. In fact, these are not good times for any religionists to be overconfident - be it communicators of mainstream science or anyone else disrespecting or faking relativity. The same is true for consumers of such absolutism. While they might be more careful in academic environment, unfortunately, communicators of science often communicate their beliefs to public instead of communicating objective thought. I, however, do not think they fall in such trap by accident - the general public is more open to beliefs than knowledge. Many of these beliefs will turn out to be wrong for one reason - the abuse of null hypothesis, ignorance of possibility for the existence of hidden variables (hidden correlation). This is why synchronicity is still not on the agenda and this is why periodicity of mass extinctions is still not taken seriously. However, periodicities of 26 to 30 My (million years) have been found in diverse geological phenomena, not only in mass extinctions - flood basalt volcanism, ocean anoxic events, deposition of massive evaporites, sequence boundaries, and orogenic events. If one accepts the new paradigm - a living Earth, it becomes obvious that this is not a coincidence, all these events are supposed to occur relatively simultaneously in the events of neurogenesis. Furthermore, if one accepts another new paradigm - that thermonuclear fusion does not occur in the core of the Sun (it occurs in the Radiative zone), Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction of the core gives 25.746608 My for the time it takes for it to exhaust the fuel (this is not the end of the Sun's core though, it is hypothesized that fuel gets periodically replenished). Considering that the best candidate for periodicity of mass extinctions I have obtained is 25.74 My (see the same reference above), this is a remarkable correlation that should be hard to ignore. My calculations also suggest that Sun's core is at the end of the contraction cycle, agreeing with the hypothesis of imminent major extinction. The null hypothesis should have nothing to do with bias, but it does when the null postulate states "the currently accepted theories and models cannot be wrong". If mainstream science wants to progress - I suggest it inverts the null postulate and consider the evidence. It is not that there is a lack of signals, there is an overabundance of overconfidence in old models (not measurements!) treating these signals as noise.

The Dark Ages are, among other things, ages of misinformation and this misinformation may generally be time relative. Due to relativity in cause and effect, sometimes what would usually be considered the effect will precede the cause. Effectively, just as the order of phenomena in space can be disturbed, the order of events in time can be too. In example, nowadays, some people claim there are computer chips in vaccines and that electro-magnetic signals of 5G networks are harmful and cause diseases. I don't think that any of this is true (although 5G might cause some issues at extremely low distance from the transmitter, depending on signal strength, but this is on the order of cm or less). However, what about future? Could this be a reaction preceding the action? Certainly. Both government and industry have strong interest in planting chips into their users, and, considering the increasing tyranny and truth bending of both, it would not be surprising that this reaction is valid, only misplaced in time. Similar could be said for 5G networks - I have hypothesized that homo.delta is sensitive to specific electro-magnetic radiation. Due, to imminent surface extinction, I find it likely that 5G will be the last globally widespread and used communication technology, making homo.delta sensitive most strongly to 5G frequencies. Since homo.beta species (current human inhabitants of the Earth's surface) should be evolving into homo.delta, it would not be surprising that even homo.beta, at some point, with accelerated evolution, becomes sensitive too to 5G, to some extent. Can ongoing protests prevent such future? Highly unlikely. Paradoxically [for absolutism], it is the lack of such protests that would indicate a different future. Think about it - chips inside human bodies communicating on 5G frequencies would be a natural precursor to natural ability (telepathy) of homo.delta to communicate on these frequencies, especially if these chips are organic. Some people have already implanted chips into their bodies (RFID), and it seems we have already produced biosynthetic dual-core CPU's so precursors are here. I have previously concluded that we are in the age of technological stagnation and that current generations of transistors are likely the last [commercially available] transistors developed by man. However, what will prevent the man to use transistors already existing in nature? This is the technology of future. Organic computers might be marketed as great new human invention but there's nothing new and original there. The idea already exists to use living neurons as components in organic computers (see reference above), but why even bother to exploit natural transistors if it becomes easier to exploit whole organic computers built by nature - living brains? For now, there might be ethical and moral issues, but once people transform into homo.gamma, this becomes a matter of time.

Data gathering is a part of scientific method. It is usually gathered so it can be correlated with something - eg. a prediction of a certain hypothesis. But, even if perfect, correlation is not evidence for the hypothesis if correlation with other phenomena is not taken into account. In example, statistical data on movement of planets and correlation with gravity is alone good evidence for correctness of laws of gravity but only because the influence of everything else on these bodies is negligible. And, if only one planet would behave differently than hypothesized, then this correlation is not evidence for the hypothesis anymore - it becomes simply evidence for partial correlation. And, if one is interested in truth, rather than deceit, one would not advertise this correlation as evidence for the hypothesis - one would admit, not only that one is missing data to reach a sound conclusion, but that there is certain probability that existing correlation is a [relatively] meaningless coincidence - and this probability is higher the weaker the existing correlation is. Even scientists will hardly be immune to bias when dealing with statistics, consciously or unconsciously. Why? Because everything is entangled (correlated) with everything to some degree. Why? To conserve relativity. But some people are obsessed with absolutism - mainly politicians, economists and [other] charlatans. And polarized people, in general, support this absolutism. This is why statistics are generally abused (absolutized) in this society - to perpetuate certain agenda. And here is the latest example: Fig. \fig1: Vaccination and deaths There are couple of issues with the hypothesis here (more vaccination => less death):

• there is no correlation at all in the top half of the graph (>75% vaccinated),
• large spikes of inverse correlation in the bottom half of the graph (SI, PL, SK),
• 14-day period,
• other correlations, unaccounted for.

If one discards the top half of non-correlation, one could even conclude that correlation is inverse to the hypothesis - looking at data from HU to SK, apparently, death rate is actually increasing with vaccination (in the future, this correlation is likely to prevail). All of this makes the implied hypothesis that "higher vaccination rate causes lower death rate" problematic. But once one takes into account GDP per capita and general (pre-COVID) mortality rates, one will find that the provided evidence for this hypothesis is even more misleading. Take, for example, a look at mortality rates: Fig. \fig2: Death rate in EU (2016) Obviously, countries at the bottom in Fig. \fig1 generally have higher mortality rates than those at the top - regardless of vaccination. And how did the pandemic and introduced measures to fight it affect general mortality rates in these countries? That very important information was not taken into account here. And how was the 14-day period chosen? Was it an unbiased choice, representative for the situation overall, or was it picked to favor the hypothesis? Sure, I do not doubt there are more deaths generally than before the pandemics, but this definitely doesn't show that everyone should vaccinate. At best, this shows that vaccinating more than 75% of population is a waste and that there is something else affecting death rates, even though the top graph seems to add considerable weight to vaccination. The question of whether one should vaccinate or not is not answered here. This is simply an advertisement for vaccination, and as most advertisements, very misleading. It is used to put additional pressure on people to make them vaccinate. Obviously, we are at the moment when people simply need to choose whether to:

• remain in the anthropocentric system and keep moving away from wild nature with increasing external regulation of their lives and organisms by the system, or
• stop, go back a couple of steps and continue evolving as part of wild nature.

And everyone should have the right to that choice - which way to evolve. It is obvious that not everyone has to vaccinate in order for vaccinated to be safe - if you fear death, protect yourself by all means. But don't be a bloody hypocrite - asking me to change my lifestyle for you (isolate, wear masks, subscribe to vaccination, etc.), while, at the same time you refuse to change lifestyle for me and all life of the fucking planet. I have changed my lifestyle in a way you'll probably never have the balls to even try until forced. So thanks EU, danke Deutschland, but no thanks, I'm not interested in saving your lifestyle in this shortening short-term of delusion. I'm saving something more important - my future.

Modern science and technology are in the age of stagnation. Mouths are full of progress, but many things have already reached the peak and any real progress is incremental, superficial or simply fake. Here, I'm not talking about economy and its fast, unsustainable, progress. I'm not talking about progress in production of more of the same. I'm talking about progress in creation of things that have a larger expiration date, those that would stimulate creation of new practices rather than ensure survivability of old ones. Such progress does exist though but it is marginalized and facing extinction. Take a look at science and technology. The same experiments are being run, only with a bit fancier machines. And, for decades, progress in these machines was basically the decreasing size of transistors - there were no fundamental changes in [computer] architecture, and the size limit has been reached recently (5-7 nm). There are patches (eg. nanosheets) that may further extend the lifetime of this technology, but these have other problems (the biggest one, in my opinion, is the discussed susceptibility to bit-flips due to cosmic radiation, currently effectively limited to supercomputers, but probably not for long) and are just delaying the inevitable. Sure, there are promising new technologies, but these will most likely remain promises. Just consider the technology behind electric batteries - new and better ones are promised on a weekly basis for quite some time now, but none of it ever materializes. Consider now tests of General Relativity - Schwarzschild precession has been confirmed in Mercury 100 years ago. Today it's still being confirmed, albeit in distant stars orbiting black holes. It is claimed that Einstein's theory aced yet another test - it's a lie. This is the same test, simply run on a different scale. Did anyone seriously expect that Schwarzschild (or even Kerr) precession of Mercury wouldn't exist if a bit more mass is added to Sun and Mercury? Now, let's talk about life. What's not new there? The Miller experiment first done 70 years ago is still performed regularly. Yes, today more amino-acids are created in the experiment, but how does that explain the origin of life? Just like the original Miller experiment, this one didn't create life and no one involved can explain why. Brute force can reveal new stuff but cannot ever explain the phenomena, in this case, the phenomenon of life - it's like adding more Lego cubes to a Lego set, hoping it would self-assemble into a dragon. And we all know that assembling a dragon from Lego cubes won't create a living dragon, yet, we insist that amino-acids and proteins - the building blocks of life, are dead matter (including atoms and molecules that build them). Life cannot be created - one can stimulate particles of life to assemble structures of larger scale. And while the distinct amount of life in such compositions is relative, they won't spontaneously assemble into larger structures of life. Are humans spontaneously organizing? No. The assembly of any organization is synchronized with something else. A bit of logic can be more powerful than billions of bytes of information. Nuclear fusion, quantum computers, new transistors, new batteries, new Einstein's, new reforms, new life... All of this has been promised decades ago and it is still being promised. Reality of life operating on promises is a sign that its peak has been reached. Operation on promises, incremental and superficial progress may have been previously limited to politics, but now it is everywhere. And when a peak is reached in progressive evolution, to continue that evolution, transformation is required - transformation of life. The promised transformation of technology simply can't and won't happen without transformation of life. And if the environment has also reached its peak potential, transformation will include migration. Creation should be easy. Creation (inflation) of life itself generally is very easy. When creation of new becomes impossible but you still force the creation of new, its time for transmigration.

Everyone will agree that Earth behaves like a living being to some extent, but most people still don't accept it as being alive because their definition of life is biased - for cancer to thrive, it must treat living beings as resources. However, whatever the Earth has shown us so far, it's just the beginning. I think we can all agree that one defining characteristic of a complex living being is its immune system. Thus, if Earth is alive it should react to diseases. It can't and won't react immediately (if time is measured in our units) for various reasons, in this case, largely perhaps due to devious nature of the disease. I have already hypothesized what will be the reactions of Earth's immune system, which is in good part outsourced to the Solar System, but I didn't go into details regarding targeting. The logic of progressive evolution dictates that, initially, precision of targeting will be low and it will be the response of the Solar System. But even if precision is initially low, due to centralizing nature of cancer, major (or root), sources of cancer can be identified and these sources are likely to be hit the most. Thus, the most likely target should be USA, then its allies. Evidence for that already exists and is mounting up. Take a look at Earth's magnetic field - since 1900 (or industrial revolution?) the two magnetic dip poles are converging to the same longitude (≈ 135° E). This has rapidly accelerated recently. Evidently, the dominant magnetic field [source] has moved away significantly from America and is concentrating on one side of the planet. It has not only moved away, it is decreasing in strength (likely due to increasing strength of a source with reversed polarity), resulting in the creation of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) - originally centred in South America, but expanding northwards and apparently splitting (assuming main part goes to USA, the other part will probably go close to Britain/Germany - both parts are at the right longitude, just need to go north and settle somewhere centred at 23° - 43° N and 43° - 53° N, respectively). Log Don't think Earth is alive? Think again updated. Eventually, the field will collapse (in 2-3 decades at most) and major source of cancer will remain unprotected. The north/south dip poles will also probably split into two or four pairs - concentrating 45° degrees left, other 45° degrees right from 135° E (in the end, protecting non-cancerous people, of Arctic/Antarctica mainly I guess). If this is, among other things (neurogenesis, geomagnetic reversal), the immune system response, and I'm convinced it is, this will likely be synchronized with eruption of flares and coronal mass ejections from the Sun specifically targeting Earth (just like announced by the most recent eruption). With the collapse of the magnetic field you will not have to worry about global warming (as proper cancer, effectively, you never did anyway) but extreme radiation during daylight and extreme cold during moonlight. Similar collapse, a global warning, happened some 42000 years ago (Laschamps Excursion), but Earth's population at the time wasn't so big and it didn't rely on computers for energy, meaning - they were more resilient. Nevertheless, some human species (Neanderthals) went extinct during the event. Cancerous people have been known to mock people living in the wild (I've been mocked too) but, obviously, it is them who crave the return to caves. I have seen the man comparing himself with god. I've seen the man supposedly playing god. All, without even knowing how to define god. Well, it is a play, but one of satire. Nothing but a passing thought of a true god in development. All it takes for this man to return to the cave from which it crawled to life is for this god to depolarize a little. By the amount so small it wouldn't even feel the change at all.
I can see them clearly - stripping their savage nature from modernity and fake love for humanity, killing each other, because they vastly outnumber the caves and caves made by both unfree and wild, for wild.

Just like an optimist solves his problems with optimism, taxpayers solve their problems paying taxes. And just like the optimism, taxation is often bloody (delusional), the question is only how much. How much you lose and how much you gain, if anything? Provided you know how to add and subtract numbers it shouldn't be hard to calculate how much but the result will depend on how much you are honest to your self and how much your approach is holistic over space and time. If the system would be genuinely transparent you would know where every single coin you gave has gone. If you don't know that, most likely it didn't go there where you'd want it to go and you won't make a mistake putting a minus sign in front of the result. Bloody taxation is often bundled with bloody democracy supported by bloody economists and supporters of bloody economy. Consider the recent example - the US wants more taxes from billionaires. The reaction of one billionaire was to ask people what he should do. The reaction of an economist to that was - "Looking forward to the day when the richest person in the world paying some tax does not depend on a Twitter poll". There you have it - a billionaire who is more democratic than any one in any "democratic" government, opposed to a tax lover labelled as economist, hating genuine democracy. In the background, vultures betting on the outcome. In the foreground - the story. In reality, where are you? While there surely are exceptions, rich people or people in power generally do believe they're better than you. That's not true. You are a much better servant to them than they are at serving you.

One of the things that characterize cancer are its bloody (delusional) optimism and hopeless pessimism. Many people probably consider me pessimistic. But I'm not a pessimist, I am a realist. I speak truth or what I consider the most probable truth - and I rarely joke about it. If you don't like the truth that does not make me a pessimist, it makes you a delusional (bloody) optimist - someone who jokes about the truth between jobs and someone who doesn't ever make significant lifestyle changes, with the excuse that its life is governed by authority implying that it's authority that's responsible for regulating it in a sustainable way. But at the same time they claim they do not support authority and what's going on in the world (it's a lie, conscious or unconscious), so what are they optimistic about? That this illusion that they're not responsible will save them from trouble? Or the illusion that troubles are far away? And what can be said of hopeless pessimists? Unlike the delusional optimists, they do not pretend everything will be fixed somehow, but like them, they don't effectively see themselves as part of the problem and do not contribute to the solution. This world has an abundance of optimists and pessimists but it lacks living realism. Both, optimists and pessimists don't seek and don't offer solutions to problems - the former hope someone will find the solution, the latter consider it useless. The realists are those who seek and offer solutions. And I don't think there is a lack of realists in this world, they are probably even increasing in numbers. It's just that the machine has become too big to stop or even to slow down - solutions are not wanted because any solution today would hurt the economy. The world wants "solutions" that would, not only not hurt the economy, but even make it grow more. So, even the realists, who may often speak the truth, don't live it. However, a world that became addicted to delusion and self-destruction is not a world for a realist. So what are we, realists, still doing here? Are we afraid that, if we abandon optimism and pessimism, we will run out of problems to deal with? I don't think that's possible. But even so, isn't it better to have a solution practiced by a couple of people, or even your self alone, than to have your solution, at best, formally applauded, but effectively ignored by millions of people? If we separate we might be initially confused, but soon we will learn to appreciate each kind more and, even if we're not going to live together again, we will eventually become healthy to ourselves. Separation will give one chance to evolve logic and other to be happy. For logic... is in the blood of a realist, and it makes one unhappy when ignored.

Major reason why I'm having trouble earning money is because I don't want to be cancer. But there are other reasons. One of the reasons why I'm having trouble finding work as a software/web developer are ridiculous requirements imposed by those who know nothing about programming (managers). So it doesn't matter if you have years of experience - if you are not familiar with latest technologies you are not qualified. This is absurd because, in most cases, I can code something using old technology better than the average programmer can using new technology (it's really the outcome that should matter, not the tool you use). A lot of these technologies come and go and a lot, if not most, programmers eventually stop adapting to them and seek work outside of coding and even outside of IT. I am becoming one of them - while I enjoy learning new things, learning how to achieve the same effect differently eventually becomes annoying, counter-productive and pointless. This is obviously affecting the quality of software - the average programmer today does not have a lot of experience, doesn't know a lot about the hardware and is highly specialized. Couple that with pressure from managers and publishers and you get products on the market which would not qualify as alpha or beta version couple of years ago. You also get frequent updates, fixes (patches) for these updates and fixes for fixes for updated fixes. And today, the software doesn't ever get fixed - it gets replaced with another product (that might look better, but it probably functions even worse and is even more short-term optimized). This is common mantra today - insecurity and decrease of quality of solutions is increasing globally because there is less and less concern for the cause of the problem while there is growing concern for sustainability of profit. So there are no solutions today, all are products now. Even the problems are often manufactured or optimized to fit the solution. What's called "progress" would be called "shortening of expiration dates" in healthy society. Here, everything looks peachy and dandy, but it's rotten inside. And this can now be applied to the whole of humanity. But the time is becoming shorter than short. Soon, even peachy and dandy looks will rot. Perhaps then, instead of new, something better will grow.

According to my theories, evolution of Earth is cycling between periods of weak and strong evolution. Some parts of the theory are already confirmed - studies show that evolution of species indeed accelerates with accelerated changes in environment. Our environment is changing and we are changing at an accelerated pace (although physical changes may not be so evident yet as they are preceded by changes in mentality). Significant changes in evolution of the Solar System and Earth [in whole] may also not be so evident yet, but, all things considered, we are at the end of a period of long weak evolution and at the start of a pulse of strong evolution on the surface of Earth. We are in the middle of the 6th major extinction and my works show there's plenty of reason to believe such events are synchronized with cataclysmic changes in the Solar System. One part of these events is a temporary collapse of planetary magnetic fields (at least some). Signs of collapse include dipole fragmentation, decreasing strength and instability of magnetic dip poles. All of these are currently present on Earth - eg. South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) - which appears to be splitting into two (further confirming the hypothesis), decreasing dipole strength, rapid pole movements. Update in Requiem for electronic devices. The theory of planetary neurogenesis predicts this collapse to be synchronized with the collapse of Sun's outer gravitational maximum which will result in a burst of high energy cosmic rays (ions) a good portion of which will be absorbed by Earth. A short-term collapse of Earth's magnetic field on its own probably wouldn't be life threatening as the thick atmosphere would absorb most of the incoming energy (this is why magnetic field reversals are usually not correlated with extinctions). Problems arise when this is coupled with increased strength of cosmic rays and stripping or thinning of the atmosphere. Without the magnetic field, the solar wind will be stripping the atmosphere. Duration of collapse and strength of the incoming solar wind are then the salient factors determining the effect on life. The effect on technology, however, should be noticeable, even with retained atmosphere. While full collapse should be a couple of decades away (if accelerated evolution does follow the derived equation), smaller precursor collapses and magnetic excursions are expected too. For quite some time now, computers on satellites experience problems while passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly (which has increased 5 times since 1850.). Passing through the anomaly initiated a chain of events which even led to destruction of JAXA Hitomi satellite. Assuming linear progression it could take hundreds of years before magnetic strength on the surface decreases to that of the anomaly at the height of satellites, but at some point the progression must become exponential and cosmic rays will start making our electronics useless much sooner than expected with linear progression. The effect, however, will not be the same everywhere, a likely scenario are temporary contractions of magnetic field lines with no large changes in field shape during contractions. How will this affect one's electronic devices? Once a cosmic ray particle (anti-proton, neutron, ...) hits computer memory (RAM, ROM, SSD, CPU buffers, anything that includes transistors, although magnetic storage ain't safe either), stored bits can get flipped (from 0 to 1 and vice versa). One particular pathway for disruption I find interesting is the induced fission of ¹⁰B (10-Boron isotope) which is often present in semiconductors (I have hypothesized local enrichment in ¹⁰B during strong evolution in case of selective decay, cosmic rays might act to restore the balance). This is already happening with electronic memory, but not so often and, in most cases, one won't notice anything in case of ECC memory (memory with error-correction mechanisms), which one might have on a desktop computer but most likely not on a cellphone. Transistors on cellphones are also generally smaller and more tightly packed, which makes them even more vulnerable (multiple bits can get flipped at once, in which case even ECC wouldn't help). But even hard drives are not immune to bit flips due to cosmic rays, especially newer ones with thinner plates and smaller physical bit elements. In any case, the problems will eventually start happening even with ECC memory and hard drives. This will cause corruption of data, BSOD (blue screens of death), reboots and failure. Of course, that's not where the problems end - everything today relies on computers so there will be problems with networks, electricity, cars, etc. I believe precursors to larger collapses will be localized (in space and/or time) punctuations of the field which, due to limited resolution of instruments (which themselves may be affected) may go unnoticed. Therefore, cosmic rays probably won't even be considered as the cause for malfunction of devices (if malfunction of a device is considered at all). And this can cause serious accidents, notably in traffic. Malfunctioned semaphores or electronics in vehicles will result in car crashes, train derailments, etc. We can see precursors to this already (perhaps the collapse of one's favourite social network was not caused by cosmic rays but one can interpret it as a demo of things to come). In nature, there are generally many equally valid interpretations of certain developments. The collapse of the magnetic field has its reasons, but I find one appropriate reason for the collapse of technology - it will make people appreciate nature more. And I think anyone sane will agree that greater appreciation of nature is what we all need at this moment of time.

One might think that the amount of misinformation, pressure and manipulation spread throughout media, orchestrated and regulated by industrialized governments today is unprecedented. But it's not, it has happened before. At the time guy called Jesus walketh the Earth, the Roman Republic was transitioning to Roman Empire. Globally, the equivalent to this Roman Republic today, constantly fighting wars everywhere but not at home is, of course, the USA. But that's not where equivalence ends. Let me quote Wikipedia, quoting others: "Harper has summed up new evidence and modern discourse to interpret disease and climate change as important drivers of political collapse, in addition to the traditional discourse about political decisions, social weakness, and barbarian pressure. He describes a Roman climatic optimum from about 200 BCE to 150 CE, when lands around the Mediterranean were generally warm and well-watered. This made agriculture prosperous, army recruitment easy, and the collection of taxes straightforward. From 150 to 450, the climate entered a transitional period, in which taxes were less easy to collect and bore more heavily on the working population. After about 450, the climate worsened further in the Late Antique Little Ice Age that may have directly contributed to the variety of factors that brought Rome down. The ever-expanding Roman Empire was built on the fringes of the tropics. Its roads and its pirate-free seas, which produced an abundance of trade, also unknowingly created an interconnected disease ecology that unleashed the evolution and spread of pathogens. Pandemics contributed to massive demographic changes, economic crises, and food shortages in the crisis of the third century." ... That is the intro to Dark Age. The barbarians here are today called immigrants but they are often, due to induced fear of collapse, treated as barbarians and invaders, climate change is climate change and pandemics is madness. Now you can understand all that misinformation, pressure and manipulation - it's not just for profit, governments effectively feel that their fall is imminent so they're manufacturing panic and distraction. Hell, some even started admitting that UFO's are real and possibly extraterrestrial, surely soon they'll all be 100% sure they are extraterrestrial or made by non-human intelligent beings (at least after they lose interest in spinning alternatives, like the Chinese espionage narrative). Even if all this is perhaps still unconscious at individual level, they do fear the dark, and they're reacting to that future. The Rome of today may be US, but it's clones are everywhere, some are republics some empires, some big some small, but all are destined to fall. And what took centuries before will take years today, before the years turn into day and the day goes away. So welcome to Dark Ages. You might want to grab some light to avoid nasty surprises.

I have hypothesized previously that, during strong evolution, horizontal gene transfer becomes dominant gene transfer method and that this force of evolution is generally mediated by viruses. However, nature generally utilizes multiple pathways to solutions and evolution of homo.beta to homo.gamma, apparently, won't be an exception. Recently, a pig kidney has been successfully transplanted into a human. The key to success here is important - genes of a pig have been altered so its tissue doesn't contain the molecule known to trigger immediate rejection. This is the kind of increase of compatibility between species that is expected to come from a virus responsible for creation of hybrids. As with the works of a silent virus, no one will notice anything unusual here in the short-term too - the kidney works as a human one would. A lot of pig organs are similar, and roughly even equal, to human organs during fetal stage of development and yet, as adults, we hardly look and function the same. We were much more similar to pigs in the past, but evolution separated us for a reason. If it is now fusing us back together, what does it mean? Well, it means we (most of us) really didn't show we're much different - certainly not different enough to sustain two species on two parallel paths of evolution. We might look different, but for most of us, that's where difference really ends. With no government (or gene) regulation, most of us (but not all of us!) would be pigs and dogs, and not the overall healthy, or wild, ones - but sick and selfish to the bone. Even that government is sick, selfish and greedy - it wants to regulate everything and everyone. Unlike we do, however, the evolution doesn't fake energy efficiency, fusion, intelligence or difference. Two lanes for stupidity on highways of progressive evolution always merge into one, and often with no apparent force. And there's nothing ahead but dead end. From my experience, general human population still mocks intelligence and difference, it has never truly embraced it and doesn't appreciate it - it fakes that too. Therefore, as such, it is scheduled for downgrade - silencing of homo features, pronounced expression of Sus/Canis domesticus features, resulting in chimeras. Or is it, downgrade? It is probably a more appropriate form for the expressed cognition. The body is simply catching up with the soul.

This world still has much to learn. It appears some people want to bring back mammoths, apparently to save the planet (!). So, let's get some things straight... Genome (DNA) and gene expression (regulation) are two different things. DNA is a library of code, a set of routines (generally recipes for protein building). Almost identical set is shared among many animals, but what makes us different from monkeys is not much in the routines, rather in programming [of the epigenome] which determines what routines to run, when and with what parameters. While a lot of this programming may also be inherited together with DNA, it is influenced by environment and other factors and can be significantly altered during life, especially beyond the embryonic development. Update in Colossal mistakes. One such environment is uterus, which in this case will be the uterus of an elephant. With current technology one can alter the genome. And that is what this company is advertising - selecting traits (like resistance to cold) of a mammoth and making them part of elephant DNA. The plan is thus to make an elephant that should look like a mammoth. That has problems (likely premature birth due to inadequate environment - elephant uterus), but it is doable. However, the company claims that this hybrid will also behave like a mammoth - live in cold areas in the north, positively affect the climate with its mammoth habits, and consequently, save the planet. That cannot be guaranteed, and is, unlikely. Even if we disregard the soul (the existence of which is not yet acknowledged by modern science) and its influence on epigenome, behaviour of this animal is uncertain. Who will teach it to behave like a mammoth, if it does not get mammoth instincts? If we do put the soul into equation, its behaviour becomes more predictable. The body of this mammoth can not couple with a soul of another mammoth (there are no dying mammoths), so it will couple with a soul of another elephant. The elephant instinct will at some point resurface and, with no guidance of a mammoth parent, this hybrid will end up in Africa - where it will be dying of heat due to all that extra fur. Then what? We're gonna put it in a zoo as an attraction and claim how we saved it? In that case, it would be better to kill the animal, but then this would not be a success story for us - if it is in a zoo, we can earn money on it and claim that the project is not a complete failure. I have nothing against mammoths, in fact, more mammoths and less such people is better for the planet, but this is not a mammoth, this is a project someone expects to earn a lot of money on. This company is not much different from a bunch of other startups delivering rendered future to attract investors. It is a model politicians are very familiar with - promise a lot of stuff and convince a lot of people (including yourself) that you can deliver them so you get their support (money). When you fail, you blame someone or something else, ask for more support or promise something else. Whatever. Fake western care... as usual.

Watched a fine new documentary recently - Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet. If people wouldn't seriously be ready for surface extinction, this documentary would be airing instead of news on every channel every day until they would be sure they are far enough from the point of no return. But my research has convinced me this is beyond human control. We are under an illusion of control. Polarized people, optimized for short-term profits, are under an illusion they can control their future. Neutral people are under an illusion they can dispel the illusion of the former. Everything is relative, but the more one is in control of present, the more its future translates to fate in nature's code evolving machine. I believe I am on the path to balance - to control my nature as much as it controls me.

Amenoum.org website launched. New era begins. Whatever.