The Elite Cocktail Culture

You think you know everything people do in the world? You think the internet avails you of all this knowledge? ...I smile.

What you know is just the commonplace...

“Diamonds are a girl's best friend.” No they're not. Of course everyone knows the marketing plan De Beers ran from way back, even before Marilyn Monroe's wonderful screen rendition of the song. But what you don't know is that in antiquity, diamond's were legendarily for men.

In the book “The Travels of Sir John Mandeville,” this ancient belief is related there, namely, that a diamond, if given to a man, will make him indomitable and guaranteed to succeed in all his endeavours.

And so, if diamonds are really for men – and better so if given to them(!) - what then do or should women wear in rings, that are the best thing for them?

So little does the common person know that I hesitate to break the silence of the elite...

Well, let me just say that, in the 1920's – in the Prohibition Era – it was certainly true that cocktail rings worn by women, were a sign of revolution; and this is not a rare item of knowledge about social customs or codes. Some people argue that the oft-attested 'fan code' of the Victorian Era was not nearly as common or well-organised or understood as is pushed by Romance Novels. However, the opera glove code, or 'wordless language' of signs using gloves, became quite well-known from at least the 1920's through well into the 40's and early 50's – and it was indeed very much from the romantic 'fan code' that its own linguistics sprang.

What I am prepared to tell you right here and now, is that among the most sophisticated in modern Europe – that is to say among the crème de la crème of modern haute salon society – the secret code of cocktail rings allows for assignations to be made between adults, and that not a lot has changed since the time of the Serene Republic and when 'the game of eggs' was played in those days between masked, fascinating strangers and their secret dalliances and potential future lovers.

However it is most important to again distinguish the romance from the actuality: nobody really learns precise 'codes' as some kind of litany requiring that precision and an extensive secretive code vocabulary – developed ideas are often just games going on in the head of the individual on one side. But there is an unbroken set of simple social traditions preserved among sophisticates, usually of 'a certain age' - as they say - which goes back through the social disturbances of economic crises, and the big wars, including the Napoleonic too, really. And it consists of a few simple ideas like this: adults have to have developed adult tastes before they can fully participate in adult games. There are many people who indeed believe they are 'grown up' and have passed the nominally juvenile years; but they are not 'grown up.'

For a man to have developed adult tastes, he must know how to take fresh oysters with his martinis. How to acquire their flavour, to take with salt or not with salt, or add spice or hot pepper sauce. Such things are acquired tastes. Whether among adult men or women, they are acquired tastes and habits. To wear one's cocktail ring on the index finger is good, or on the middle finger – these denote consecutively: positive power and balance. But to wear one's cocktail ring on the little finger implies one must expect to have to, at some point, drink one's martinis standing up.

All The Best To My Faithful Readers,

(Not) Ian Fleming

Monarch Programming - Not!

Alas, but I think we are now in the Age of Lycenko Science... There are too many pressures on too many ordinary ordinary people and the result is that academia is spewing forth people with a moral compass firmly fixed to the Dollar Sign. Using the loaded gun of borrowed knowledge from other eras, they seem to find it easy to apply 'statistical irrelevancy' to cover over unknowns, and with a truly breathtaking arrogance, charge ahead with applications of many dangerous things. The other side of the same coin displays the various popular myths and legends of modern times – and then which are easily packaged away into the 'conspiracy theorist's' bin-for-instant-dismissals.

I like to entertain myself hearing about silly notions that fixated people have about weird conspiracies that are supposed to run our lives – or enslave us, or some of us, at least!

Here's one that I particularly enjoy: Monarch Sex Programming!

This is about the idea that some department in, or scientific group funded by the CIA developed a way to so totally control the minds of selected subjects, that they could have them either 1. assassinate people on command and have no recollection of what they did or why; or 2. be the sex-slaves of people in important positions in order to exert some power or influence over them or get secret information and so on.

And next, the legend/myth goes that somehow, cloning of people had occurred and clones with genetic memory of their programming(!) were in existence being used as per the two items abovementioned.

The code word 'Monarch' was supposed to have come about due to the way Monarch butterflies are supposed to have a genetic memory that allows three consecutive generations of them to traverse a huge migratory route of almost 3,000 miles, each individual travelling through entirely different segments of the journey, but with the third butterfly in the set of three finalling reaching a particular spot in a small forest that its ancestors had, over many iterations of this migratory saga always gone to, to lay eggs.

You will still find to this day, mainstream scientific literature referring to this example of 'genetic memory programming.' Most of that literature which focusses on what mechanisms the butterfly itself uses – as opposed to writers who are focussing more on general gene science, gene coding and gene mechanisms – is now starting to talk of magnetic sensors in the insect. And you will find that even the most authoritative and leading credible stuff is quite confident that it is now these wondrous magnetic sensors that somehow point out the route to the butterfly. And so, we have wandered from an amazing mist in the gene equation, to another amazing fog in the 'sensors' of the butterfly.

Anyhew... The metaphor of the Monarch Butterfly was actually applied, by a brilliant mathematician and strategic thinker and amateur psychologist who knew its Greek scientific name 'Danaeus Plexippus.' And he used what some say is the literal translation of the Greek, 'sleepy transformation,' to describe the process of creating these mind control 'slaves.' There is some factual evidence that the CIA did have a research project of the type that the conspiracy theorists say is still in existence.

Anyone, who really cares about scientific method and rigor and solid empirical results, realizes that there is so much that we don't yet know that the best scientific statement on what the Monarch butterfly is doing and how, is that 'we don't yet know.'

I am deeply inside extremely large and financially well-found - and global – corporate enterprises. And I can tell you that there is some stuff that we know that is not in the published academic arena. Some scientists make discoveries that are earth-shattering and have immediate economic value to corporations, and usually, these people 'disappear' into some fabrica or r & d foundation with a huge amount of money budgeted for them to spend on technical and commercial developments.

You think you use 'lemon' or 'lime' scented liquid detergent? The discovery of the molecules that enable a synthetic lemon or lime scent to not degrade rapidly the way even natural lemon or lime does was worth billions and billions. Virtually every dishwashing product in the entire world uses the discovery of just two people – and that discovery earns billions. You will find very little literature on who these people are or where they are right now. ...Or what they are doing.

Some people in large corporate enterprises know how the Monarch butterfly makes its journey, that is, manages its navigation, over several generations.

'Monarch' is also a word that means single leader. In some conspiracy literature, they also talk of a Luciferian or Satanic Illuminati Cult in reference to the Monarch programming thing. I love all this, don't you? So we have a secret group, that, since at least the 50's, has cloned or virtually cloned, individuals who are brainwashed and programmed as sex slaves for despotic leading figures around the world.

Well either where there is smoke there is fire, or – where there is smoke, just bring along some mirrors and you can have a lot of fun.

Or... ...both are true to varying extents.

I just don't understand why Rupert Murdoch's News Of The World hasn't hacked any of these people's phones and run stories of their amazing sex lives on the front pages! My god, how incompetent. I mean, doesn't he have his own telephone number?! ...What a sight, Rupert Murdoch having sex.

Actually my point is this – you will never see who the people are behind the commercialisation of Viagra. And I mean, that is to say - the executives in the companies that took it on from the scientists. They are wa-a-a-y more powerful than Rupert Murdoch.

I like Lafite, don't you? It's a friendly, feminine wine. If a programmed sex-slave were a wine, Lafite would be it.

I could have stuck a pic of Murdoch and Wendy Deng here but I like this one of Eric de Rothschild better. And besides I like him better as well. Not that I have ever met him.

Best,

Calvin J. Bear

DYSFUNCTIONAL FINANCE

When I looked back last night, and thought back over exactly how much experience I had gained, and how much practical close personal involvement I have had, in various financial asset developments over the years, I realised it gave me insights unavailable to most. People may imagine modern academic degrees will open their minds to a similar level of insight value, if I may put it that way – but it is simply not so. This idea that they can achieve similar practical results when applying what they have learned is a fantasy they have, encouraged by the propaganda of modern academia seeking a commercial existence.

Let's face it, the Paris Lottery was partly invented by Casanova and er, he didn't 'get made' in a Harvard, Yale, Oxbridge or Singapore University degree factory. (And, reference the pic., Stradivari was a woodworker in Cremona; an artisan, not an academic! And no modern academic has ever been able yet to outclass his work.)

Oh certainly, investment banks and financial institutions and funds management groups make money – so they say... Mostly, though, I believe they just copy pathfinders and take money from others, and lose it and/or simply waste it.

In today's context, to raise a very large sum of money in public markets that are both morally dysfunctional, as well as founded on a public mindset which is totally cynical, requires a unique solution. There IS NO textbook in any university anywhere in the world that contains a plainly set-out answer to the economic challenges of our times and which can be relayed to hundreds of thousands of fee-paying mercantile and grasping, middle-class professional, students.

I guess it is with some degree of personal vanity then, that I post that this week I concluded a contract with an Australian mining company over a $160 million rights issue – that I have managed to get fully subscribed – and that is planned to hit the market sometime between November and Dec/Jan 2012.

These things being subject to a lot of rules and laws about informed markets and so on, there is no more that I am able to say in order to detail it specifically. But one thing I can say is that too many claimed-to-be investment bankers have little or no real comprehension of why and what economic modelling works in today's market – and they basically never will have. They spout the names of theories all right, and they know some technical jargon and a few formulae, but do they understand the principles underlying of any of these; absolutely not!

Fortunately in Australia here, where I normally reside, the Reserve Bank of Australia has some of the finer academic and practical economist minds around. Professor Warwick McKibbin, who sits on the RBA, provided the exception to what I was earlier saying about academics and bankers, when he last week voiced the view that the carbon tax debate failed to demonstrate people's understanding that the time horizons of strategic importance of carbon pollution and energy and food consequences thereof – were the next twenty years, the next fifty years, the next seventy years. He is of course correct and what he says only serves to highlight that there will be a long ramp-up of mounting pressure on key markets – energy, food and food production and inputs, technology, and currencies, and that the needs of these markets will crack the force-field of self-interest and self-serving that government and entrenched interests have tried to surround capital with, and that has obstructed and impeded the flow of money everywhere except other than from the taxpayer directly to the obscene bonuses of privileged figures.

The current Greek banking bailout melodrama is morally appalling, and has no basis in economic or money reality and I am wondering when it is we might see Hill and Knowlton turn up with their story of an evil rampaging Greek pensioner, who refused to pay his taxes, and who ran into the offices of a poor banker in Piraeus, and tore out the fifteen humidicribs and spattered the walls with traces of WMD. In short the bankers of the present world, understand only politics and propaganda, and have no understanding of real business, nor have any ability to actually make money other than by deceiving the taxpayer. But they have a very great understanding of how to speciously present themselves as the monopoly holders of all economic and monetary and financial knowledge and authority. And that is just textbook of what all monopolies become; I'm not being perjorative or harbouring some negative animus against banks, I'm just stating the facts. Banks have become monopolies of authorised financial power, blocking out competitors and exploiting their unhealthy relationship with government to the point where no one requires them to fulfill or perform their original role – which was namely, to take risk, be skilled at it, and otherwise go broke when they failed. They don't know how to take risk any more – they presume 'risk' means the length of time till when the government bails them out and the extent that they will.

The business enterprise and the individual is not on the song sheet at all. Funny front companies and competitive bonuses for bank directors are all that is on the song sheet until the bailout stanza. That is the nature of far too much of what modern banking has become. And it is preventing real opportunity surfacing in economies.

There are great secrets contained in great wine. Here is a Tokaji. If any of Jesus' wine were left over in an amphora till today – god knows, there are rumours of Caligula's Fallernian existing in a Swiss vault... Anyway, if any of Jesus' wine were left today, likely it would be a Tokaji.

I will be drinking Tokaji later this year. Or a Burgundy. No, AND a Burgundy.

Cheers!

Calvin J. Bear

"To Where The Rainbow Ends."

TO WHERE THE RAINBOW ENDS

(Playing chess with Stanley Kubrick)

In a previous post I suggested that tax-dodging was a pursuit best worried about after one had crossed the difficult bridge of actually making taxable profit first. As one particular curmugeon friend and colleague often reminds me, the careless fashion in which the word 'profit' is swung about these days by banks, share brokers, company directors, and investors – detracts from its real and actual meaning, and rarity.

For a profit, is that amount which only comes after repayment of invested principal, cost of funding, unit production cost, contribution towards fixed capital written off – and you may want to even consider comparative competitive returns foregone, or 'opportunity cost.'

As to the occasion of the quote above, it is from Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, and there are of course, too many words already written about the late Stanley Kubrick, to make much valuable new addition to common understanding of him, or of his work. And there are rather too many experts who know more than I about the movie meaning of this particular quote too.

Personally, I am a collector of books myself, some old, some rare. I used to attend dinner for awhile regularly at the Butcher's Shop (restaurant) out in the mock Venetian Square on the ground floor of the Michaelangelo Hotel in Sandton City South Africa, and ran into quite a few movie land identities, not the least of whom I suppose, was Robert de Niro, who lived in Sandton Towers in the same complex at the time. We never formally were introduced and likely as not, he will only recall me as the merry fellow (too much Thelema Estate red) surrounded by four or five (oh yes, I can and have outdone Charlie Sheen on many occasions!) rather good-looking blondes, brunettes and a redhead. I dare say he will recall one particular evening during which one of the very beautiful blondes crawled around under his table looking for, and eventually finding, a ring that had fallen from the hands of one of his own party at his nearby/next table. A lovely man, friendly and I must say, possessed of the most extraordinary good skin on his face. You can't really know this until and unless you have seen him really close up.

Anyway, back to the thing about which I wished to post some words originally – I purchased, although not from de Niro, a first edition hard copy that had once been in the private collection of Kubrick: Sax Rohmer's 'The Romance of Sorcery.'

Now I realise that everyone who is anyone will want to tell me that Eyes Wide Shut is taken from Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella 'Die Traumnovelle.' However, let me tell all you who will listen, that the earlier (1914) book by Rohmer, is what Kubrick was using to inform his treatment of the basic story. And not only so, but the book by Hollywood identity Louise Brooks 'Naked On My Goat ' played a huge role in underscoring the secret world faintly exposed in Kubrick's movie.

Nowhere in Schnitzler's book does the scene occur in which two model-types take the character played by Cruise, and offer to take him 'to where the rainbow ends.' Nowhere in that original book does the same scene detail a room filled with lights or a staircase leading up somewhere and glittering against a wall of a myriad shining tiny lights. This is all Kubrick's own complex subscript directing.

Kubrick was an intelligent, learned, and a well-read man. Versed in all the lore that goes into these kinds of tales. He knew that the word used by the Norse Bard Snorri Sturluson, 'Bifrost,' (we know it as 'the rainbow bridge') actually means 'a glittering momentary pathway...'

The roads both to heaven and to profit are glittering and momentary pathways.

I thought I'd just let you know that.

Oh, and was it not the great Julia Phillips, who had the first film treatment and was trying to sell the movie initially – and expose far far more? Before her mentor and hero Kubrick eventually made it?

Alas, Julia is dead. And thus no longer with us and able to reveal the all that was there to be revealed.

But I am here. Certainly I am short about fifty million to produce any kind of decent attempt at a theoretical Phillips version, but I could make a good go of it for little to nothing right here!! As a kind of blogspot storyboard ouvré.

The pool room scene that ended the movie, that Sydney Pollack completed for Kubrick, was just plain stupid really, not that that is meant to reflect badly on Pollack – he simply did not have the bits that Stanley Kubrick carried with him in his head and presumeably, also with him to his grave.

Frankly I should add I like Pollack from what I have heard of him, and I generally like his work in any case, so this is not meant to be a shot at him at all; he could not possibly have known what Kubrick was holding in his head if Kubrick hadn't wanted to tell him explicitly about it and I don't think he did do.

What makes me think there really was a separate and different ending in Kubrick's mind? Well the movie is clearly two stories; one which faithfully follows the storyline contained in Schnitzler's book (and which ends with the Cruise/Kidman and daughter scene, although absent the 'let's fuck' line!), and the other which is a modernized Goethe/Rohmer/Brooks sorcery-and-witch clan/coven subtext (which is not in Schnitzler's book) and with European semiotics and what should be the inevitable (and missing) conclusion, namely, that of a revelation as to precisely who Kubrick thinks, actually is the Otherworldly witch king and queen in the waking world of today.

I realize I am being somewhat provocative here... Well one should say there is of course, no particular 'king' and/or 'queen,' but there are ducal identities, I suppose... as it were. But then to follow this argument now, it is crucial for astute people to restrain themselves from this pop culture tendency of blindly confusing the figure of 'Satan' with things to do with Luciferian cults, and to next also throw in tropes of Witchery into the mix along the way. Kubrick is far from some simple ignorant pop culture child who does this type of illiterate mish-mash thing. He was fully aware of the signs and symbols and what specifically they related to. These things all came along in high literary culture long long before 60's paperbacks' sensationalisms dealing with vaguely possible CIA socio-psychological experiments.

It is so really very obvious what Kubrick intended to do at the end of the movie and I am surprised no one has pointed it out yet. And let's leave behind us all this Rothschild nonsense too, and Alex Jones/David Icke slander/gossip mongering far behind us; it is not helpful nor correct at all in terms of what the movie is setting out to say. If Kubrick wanted to say the movie is about politics or money, he would have. And he would have done so very directly.

The movie is about beauty, glamour and all that glitters and is bright. And dark too. It is about power and who has it. The movie is about DEATH!

There is too much more that could be said about the movie itself, isn't there? There is the fundamental effect of Kubrick's film-glamourising of the essentially libertine philosophy, and donating to it organisation – which it simply doesn't have in reality. And never has had. Well, not to the extent that is imagined in this movie.

And the irony of that part of it is that if it ever were actually institutionally organised as part of a social culture, then Nazi Germany surely must have been that real moment in history when it was - albeit in a very stilted way! And yet, even then, actual Nazism had a strict, prudish, almost Gothic-Christian surface morality, and church-Christian ideas about spousal fidelity and anti-homosexuality and so on. Unlike the kinky modern myths of under-the-surface Nazism, and the genuine libertine quantity inside the movie Eyes Wide Shut itself. It is crucial to the deepest understanding of Kubrick's likely intent here, to observe that Arthur Schnitzler was himself in fact the definitive prototypical early-Freudian, Austrian school, sex psychology thinker and writer. And that he was probably the artist most defined as 'degenerate' by Hitler himself; and using the strongest anti-semitic terms to do it. Today Schnitzler is widely historically noted as having been amongst the artists and writers most racially, that is anti-semetically, vilified by the Nazis, along with Egon Schiele – who had of course been already deceased by the time of the Nazi's zenith.

So it is impossible to suppose that Kubrick intended anything along the lines of the contemporary rather too widespread and largely underclass animus against a fictitious but often fervidly imagined, Jewish-implicated, super-wealthy elite – consisting of or including typically 'the Rothschilds,' for instance! (Which is the family name most often bandied about in this type of context). Equally, it is utterly impossible to propose, in the alternative, that he was pointing to the extreme opposite – that of an ultra-modern secretive Nazi Illuminati elite. There are absolutely no clues in the movie that he has taken either of these directions at all. And yet there is so much vivid commentary about implying one or the other of these two diametrically opposed, and logically impossible, viewpoints, is what Kubrick is propounding throughout the movie.

...But there are a lot of clues, about The Rainbow Bridge between Earth and Heaven, between dimly-aware mortal man and the numinous divine. And like the real thing itself, to grasp an understanding of it is a glittering momentary pathway opening up in your mind. It's fleeting but memorable. Kubrick's last movie was certainly not completed properly. The clues are all there to where he was heading. They are real clues and they are big clues. But he never got there. I can show you where the rainbow bridge is. I can tell you what it is. I can show you its power. But nobody responds here to these blog-posts...! Alas.

Perhaps though someday someone will.

Until that day then,

...to all a merry goodnight. At least for now anyway. (Quote, Zeigler in Eyes Wide Shut: "If you knew Bill, you might not be able to sleep so good at night.")

Calvin J. Bear

OMSF

ps. And don't forget, this blog is brought to you by the commercial website http://mind-decadence.webs.com/

Complex Quorum Sensing And Ultra-Exciting Psycho-Biological Entrainment

Fireflies do it. If you go by the literature which predominates the subject area on the internet, apparently mostly just germs and bacteria do it...

I promised in an earlier post that I would present some ideas and thoughts from a porn star – once I had led the way with the ideas of an investment banker first!

...Well there are some things that perhaps it is not so good for everyone to know about. Like how to construct a nuclear bomb for example, or how to re-create the conditions for the Black Plague.

I guess I'd better background this with a few sentences on what a lot of psychologists say about males and females when it comes to their respective subconscious attitudes to sex: females who have a low estimation of their own beauty and looks tend towards promiscuity, and males seem genetically statistically designed to breed for ugliness in the male.

And of course the problem with all of that is that successful porn stars are not particularly ugly on the whole, and a lot of successful super wealthy male entrepreneurs are in fact also very good-looking.

My take is that at the very peak of the human race, individuals can step over typical social and psychological barriers and they do it by way of accurate and path-finding knowledge and science. Things that are applicable to virtually the entire rest of the population, are almost never applicable to those at the peak. Do I admit to knowing porn stars personally? Maybe... Well, let me put it this way, I have encountered some people in the industry and they are all highly highly intelligent. And I have certainly had interactions with big name mainstream movie celebrities and they are all utterly stupid by comparison.

Maybe it is not so good for the broad public to know that highly sexual, sex-charged, and extraordinarily good-looking people – are not exploited, and nor are they twisted, or without well-balanced self-esteem or brainpower.

Maybe... ...it's better for people not to know exactly how advanced in intellect and ability some others really are.

The science of human sexual art goes like this: quorum sensing is a faculty available to the human brain, but is considerably more complex than what a bacterium might accomplish. Two things are necessary for biological quorum sensing. Firstly, a means of assessing the number of other components the agent interacts with and; Secondly, a standard response once a threshold number of components is detected.

This pop-fashion concept that is contained in books like The Secret miss a really gigantic detail – namely, that the human being is vastly more intricate and mechanically/chemically complicated than some unexplained simple mechanism of wish-fulfillment and dreamology is going to have the capacity to control, much less direct or push around.

To cut to the chase here, Dr. Phil's moralizing is itself a direct result of the mass psychopathology (brain sickness and suffering) caused by the sociological mass-trauma of the Black Death (plague) of the 14^th Century, and which led to the subsequent institutionalizing of either a) atheism and/or god-hatred, or b) a simplistic, servile, self-denying and unquestioning submission to divine authority in all and any form. And we have inherited all this down to today.

Half the entire population of Europe was completely wiped out in the Black Plague. Basically because people did not understand the ecological imbalances of plague rats and y.p. bacteria-infected rat fleas, and the bites that transmitted the lethal germs. At the time we did not understand the vectors and mechanisms.

Today, we mostly do not understand what threshold values constitute sex quorum points on the sex quorum matrix that individuals have within themselves, and that allow them or make them, engage in sex interactions with other individuals.

Designers, technicians and fashion creators constantly develop ideas around themes of sex signalling, colour meaning, body morphology and so on – but they are as far away from getting any closer to a genuine understanding, as the Medieval alchemists were for instance, to perceiving germs and germ vectors, rather than lack of religious mortification and God's displeasure, as the true causes of the Plague.

And I am not espousing atheistic ideas here – why should God experience displeasure; his day is like a thousand years, they say. I take this to mean that the slow development and regular mistakes of the human race are not particularly a concern to an eternal God.

In the same way, if there ever were scientific mechanisms discovered that would permit The Secret to function successfully, or at all, it might be far better off for all that the human race not have these discoveries handed out in a profligate way as most scientific discoveries generally have been. I don't personally think it's such a good idea to miraculously empower Dr. Phil to 'have' a large range of extremely good-looking and intelligent sexual partners, all possessing an accord of goodwill and equanimity and satisfaction amongst themselves – do you?

The whole picture is what is important, not just the gimmick factor of one element, even though this always appears in today's commercial world to be the selling point.* And the whole picture is a very vast one. There are billions of people on the planet today. A porn star's actual physical interactions with let's say one hundred different sex partners, is a statistically non-significant number. It is far less than the number of children who get autism from vaccinations – and that is regarded as so low a number as to be 'statistically insignificant...' D'you get my point? This is bad science. In fact it is not science at all. The exact and precise mechanisms ought to be known, then a positive (or negative) statement and conclusion may be made. Otherwise we are just making observations that do not yet permit conclusions to be made.

The complexity of human desire at the thresholds required for real and total satisfaction, consists of more items than just panties that glow in the dark because of the simple, expedient, obvious sign, of body heat.

Do we have computerised algorithms that can assess – and incredibly sensitive instruments that can detect – to a finite degree exactly what accord of sex and sexuality a potential partner has in deep detail with you, say? Oh yes we indeed do! Like a sun flare of streaming ions exciting oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the upper atmosphere above the North Pole to create the Northern Lights, we have that stuff. We have all that stuff today.

*(Hajime Mori of the Kyoto Institute of Technology, engineered a bacilovirus that fused the gene coding for one of the chains of the silkworm fibroin gene, to the gene encoding green fluorescent protein.)

Best Wishes,

OMSF (and friend!)