Neuroticism – The Big Five – Minnesota Semi-Starvation Experiment

Neuroticism – The Big Five – Minnesota Semi-Starvation Experiment

On the subreddit /JordanPeterson, somebody posted his personal story, basically asking for help. His story was just a picture of his Big Five score, with neuroticism at 90. About ten seconds in, something clicked. I’d read about neurosis before in the Minnesota Semi-Starvation experiment about ten years ago. Neurosis can be caused by diet. Well then, it can be fixed by diet too.

Minnesota Semi-Starvation experiment:

So basically, that experiment’s diet causes neurosis. The mechanism is likely the deep constant hunger, but I think there’s something else going on besides hunger. I think it’s related to fat and fat-soluble essential vitamins A,D,E,K, and maybe also meat and essential vitamin B12, and most likely meat and the protein it contains as well.

So the idea here is if we’re scoring high on neuroticism, we’re probably eating a diet similar to that experiment. Let’s fix the diet. If it doesn’t do anything, at least we’re not making things worse, maybe.

So, what diet should we eat instead? Let’s use other experiments to figure that out. We got:

The Bellevue All-Meat trial:

Christopher Gardner’s A-TO-Z experiment:

And Weston Price’s book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration:

This is what I wrote in response to his personal story:

OK, so now we devise a diet based on those. So, plenty of meat, no problem. Plenty of veggies, no problem. Cut the carbs, especially sugar and wheat, that’s the bad stuff. You can go down to zero sugar and zero wheat, no problem. Eat plenty of fat, no problem. For the fat though, prefer animal fat over veggy fat, because of fat-soluble essential vitamins A,D,E,K, which are found only in animal fat. Basically, you can eat whatever you want, except the sugar and wheat.

But there’s a problem when you start off by being neurotic. You’ll have the tendency to focus on a single food and ignore all other foods. It’s a problem only if you ignore meat. You gotta eat some meat for stuff like vitamin B12 and the fat and the fat-soluble essentials that usually comes with the meat. Just keep that in mind when you figure out what you’re going to eat and what you’re going to not eat. You could supplement with those, and that’s what I advise you do if you don’t want to eat meat, but between supplements and meat, meat is king.

So now you’re trying to fix neuroticism, you gotta measure stuff. You gotta see what happens when you change your diet. Figure out what you can measure with some degree of accuracy. Keep a journal of your diet, at least for a while as you measure stuff. Measure stuff and put that in your journal as well. My bet here is that the most significant effect will come when you cut out sugar and wheat. Then, when you add a bit more fat. I’m not 100% confident that’s how it’s gonna work, but that’s my bet.

If you want some support here, I suggest you go on over to my favorite low-carb forum ( ), or to some veggy forum if you prefer (you’ll have to find that one on your own, I don’t know any address for those). Whatever you decide, I suggest you find some support cuz it’s hard to do that kind of thing on your own. It’s like the whole world is against you when you do something like that. Anyways, support is important because it helps in various ways, it’s like a bunch of friends that know what you’re going through.

Also, don’t fall into the moral trap, just do your thing, you’re not there to get all militant here, you just want to fix your own stuff. Remember your goal. Remember why you’re doing any of that.

At this point I’m going to add something here that I didn’t put in my original reply.

Changing your diet is hard, and I mean very hard. It seems the whole world is against you, just pointing out every little thing that you do differently, pushing any sort of warning about such and such, especially meat and fat. And this happens even when you do everything right, people are so annoying with the crap we put in our mouths. There’s an easy fix for that. When somebody offers you something to eat that isn’t on your list of things you want to eat, if it’s not like some polite thing you gotta do when you’re at somebody’s house and they invited you for dinner, just say you don’t want to eat that. “Thanks but no thanks, I don’t want any.” And that’s that. Don’t get into a discussion about your problem, about your diet, about your whole damn life. Ain’t none of their business what you eat. Ain’t none of your business what they eat either.

If you want to discuss your story, find that support, find those people who know what you’re going through. That’s what the support is for, to help you, not to nag you about that bit of fat or that bit of meat or that bit of veggies.

Now maybe you’d think that you gotta change your diet forever. Maybe not. You can do it for a while, then change it up again. Then change it back, do it for a while. It’s not written in stone that you gotta keep doing it forever, you can decide, it’s your choice and it remains your choice no matter what you choose. You might wanna do something like 5/2, where you eat well during the week, then go off-diet for the weekend. You could do three weeks on, one week off. You could do three months on, three months off. You could try it for a while, see what happens, then quit if nothing happens, or even if you just don’t want to do it anymore, or for any reason you can think of. It’s up to you how you want to do it, if you want to do it. You’re in control, you’re the boss, it’s your neuroticism after all. Ain’t mine.

If it works, good for you. If it don’t, you can tell me to fuck off and I suck at giving advice. Fine by me either way.

Martin Levac copyright 04:33 12/9/2019


Racism Explained

I had written this in reply in this thread here:

I had a small initial idea, then just went with it as I wrote. Below is the result. There’s still some contextual stuff (i.e. in reply to the OP), I’ll leave it in, too lazy to adapt the text.

We discriminate. No point in arguing otherwise. In fact, there’s no other way to navigate the world in a good enough fashion. Once you think it through, you realize it’s true. For example, all our anti-discrimination Laws are there precisely to prohibit certain kinds of discrimination, because that’s what we do all the time for everything, not just people. We see the world as hierarchies of things. This rock is bigger than that rock, and so forth. The most popular is, what’s your favorite color? I like blue, I like pink, I like fuchsia, whatever.

But here’s where your argument goes wrong. We don’t discriminate on the basis of superficial traits (i.e. I like blue, pink, fuchsia, etc), we discriminate on the basis of causality, logic and common sense, and to a high degree on the basis of utility. This rock is bigger than that rock, therefore this rock has a certain utility that the other rock does not, and so forth.

So, your point about identity isn’t actually identity, it’s some other trait. On the other hand we organize these countless traits into a much more managable set, we tag things with short names. That’s identity. See that big rock and that small rock again. Their names are tags for the purpose of organization, we don’t discriminate on that basis, we discriminate on their inherent causality, logic, common sense and utility. But we organize these things by using tags, because it’s so much more efficient to do that this way, rather than to organize them based on their much more complex causality, logic, common sense and utility.

For people, we do that too. We call it one’s name. Hey, what’s your name? My name is what’shisface, yada yada. We start with the tag first, then we pile on the causality, logic and common sense, and most importantly utility. Whaddyadoforalivin, what’shisface? Oh, I’m a widgit maker, I make widgits, widgits all kinds bro. We organize people on their tags, and we discriminate on their much more complex causality, logic and common sense, and on their utility.

So what about race, what does this tag stand in for? I propose it stands in as some form of extended family. So, we got immediate family, we discriminate absolutely on this one. No sense trying to oppose it, any opposition is bound to fail. Every single human on this planet understands the fundamental value of discrimination in this case. Family first, family is most important, etc, etc. Then we got the actual extended family, with cousins, uncles and aunts, grandas and granmas, etc, etc. We discriminate there too, maybe to a lesser degree, but still, no point in opposing that, any opposition is also likely to fail there. Then we get to the distant family, not completely family, nowhere near the immediate or even the extended family, but still, there’s some value to be found in discriminating here too. And finally we’re at the not-family level of discrimination. Neighbors, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, business partners, passersbys, strangers, and so forth. We discriminate there too, first with the clear distinction of not-family, but also with a certain obvious group belonging. He’s not family, but he’s still one of us.

So, at this point, we gotta ask. How do we discriminate at that level? Same way we discriminate with anything else. Based on known common distinctive traits. For immediate family, those traits are very distinct. We recognize family based on common traits. That’s how we recognize other people too, that’s how we recognize races, that’s how we recognize our own at-large group belonging. But those traits aren’t fundamental, they’re superficial distinctions that allow us to organize individuals, exactly like one’s name, one’s family traits, etc. This recognition is the top of a pyramid, with everything else about the individual underneath. It’s this everything underneath that forms the basis for discrimination, not the superficial traits. We use superficial traits to organize.

So now when we meet somebody from another race, everything underneath is somewhat unknown yet. The tags don’t tell us anything about what’s underneath. It’s like dealing with big rocks for 20 years, then we find a small rock at some point. This small rock looks a bit like a big rock, but its causality, logic, common sense and utility is still foreign to us, alien, chaos. Until we understand the chaos we’re facing, we discriminate on that basis. Facing chaos, with order at our back. The tags, the superficial traits, stand in for this chaos, rather than standing in for the known, for order at our back, for the known causality, logic, common sense, and utility underneath the tag.

So, now we just gotta ask. How do we change this chaos/order dichotomy? Easy: Hands on. That’s it. Learning comes from the doing. We’ve been learning like that for eons. We immerse ourselves straight into the chaos. Then come out with order instead. What used to be chaos, is now order, the known. Those tags with chaos underneath, are now tags with substance underneath, causality, logic and common sense, and utility, all of it now underneath those previously empty tags.

OK, but at this point, we still haven’t figured out why we’re racist, why we still discriminate like that. Again, it’s not based on the tags, it’s based on everything underneath. Right, but it can’t be so fundamentally different, they’re just people after all, just like us, with immediate family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, collegues, business partners, passersbys, strangers, etc, etc. No, it’s not. It’s points of contention. Specific known points of contention. If we hadn’t immersed ourselves, we wouldn’t even know about them. It’s not chaos anymore, it’s order that’s somehow different than the order at our back. So now the tags stand in for those points of contention. And that’s it for racism.

I should make a blog post out of this one.


Martin Levac Copyright 10:57 11/9/2019


A Contest Between Sex And Gender Identity/Gender Expression

A Contest Between Sex And Gender Identity/Gender Expression

Gender identity/gender expression prevails.

Le Conseil Du Statut De La Femme is a public-funded organism dedicated to advocacy for women in various aspects of society such as employment opportunity and salary, i.e. equal pay for equal work and equality of opportunity. Its mandate is clear in that it must advocate for women on the basis of sex, precisely because the advocacy is in direct opposition to disrimination on the basis of sex in those aspects covered by its mandate.

Recently in BC Canada, there was a ruling (Oger vs Whatcott) on discrimination on the basis of gender identity/gender expression. The gist of the case is a contest between sex and gender identity/gender expression in this fashion. A flyer was written which both advocated for men on the basis of sex, and discriminated against transgender women (specifically one individual, Oger) on the basis of gender identity/gender expression. The ruling is clear that to advocate on the basis of sex is not a defense for discrimination on the basis of gender identity/gender expression.

Since Le Conseil Du Statut De La Femme’s mandate is to advocate for women on the basis of sex, it would take but a single transgender woman (such as Oger in the Oger vs Whactott case for example) to demand some sort of support from Le Conseil in order to expose the illegality of this mandate, and thus force the Legislature to dismantle Le Conseil Du Statut De La Femme.

Alternatively, in order to cease disrimination against transgender women on the basis of gender identity/gender expression, Le Conseil could amend its mandate to instead advocate for women on the basis of gender identity/gender expression, but at a cost. From this point forward, Le Conseil could no longer claim to represent women on the basis of sex, nor advocate for women in all aspects where women are discriminated against on the basis of sex such as salary or employment opportunity or even rape where women are still treated poorly in terms of dignity for example.

Also with this alternative, women could no longer demand support from Le Conseil on the basis of sex, because this would require Le Conseil to acknowledge that it advocates for these women on the basis of sex (the support demanded from Le Conseil), again discriminating against transgender women on the basis of gender identity/gender expression.

A third alternative could be devised where Le Conseil amends its mandate to one of advocacy for all groups discriminated against on the basis of gender identity/gender expression.

In all possible cases, gender identity/gender expression prevails. The legitimacy of Le Conseil is either reduced to insignificance, or outright destroyed.

Martin Levac copyright 10:55 4/19/2019


Master Of My Own Thoughts – 2

Master Of My Own Thoughts – 2

We may believe that an idea can be a tool. We may also believe that we cannot become a tool of this idea.

First Principle.

All ideas contain within themselves the principle of replication. Ideas have life of their own. They reproduce and manifest through our actions. To reproduce and manifest an idea by one’s own actions is to become a tool for this idea. Within this principle lies free will, where we can choose whether to reproduce and manifest an idea.

Life is but the means for a species to survive, and the species is but the means for its genetic code to survive, and this genetic code is but the means for replication to survive. Replication isn’t a thing, it’s logic, causality, a principle. It’s the principle that to replicate is for its own sake – to replicate. This should be obvious even to the untrained. Individuals live, and die, yet the species survives. The living reproduce, make offspring, the offspring carry on the genetic code of the progenitors. In this genetic code lies the code to replicate. Even though individuals die, replication persists, through replication. Replication for its own sake. This is in fact the primordial cause of life.

I had developed this hypothesis of life and replication already as an idea of its own, then brought it as an argument in a discussion about intrinsic value to illustrate one thing which I believe has intrinsic value. At first I argued for life as the only thing which I saw to have intrinsic value, but then I remembered this idea I had about replication, then thought to bring that up as an answer to what’s the cause of life, in the standard line of questioning where the value of a thing comes from. The point here is to bring it up to illustrate First Principle, where replication reproduces and manifests through life, the most fundamental (as of yet that I can think of) example of First Principle.

So, if we accept and agree that our utility as living things is to reproduce and manifest replication, then we will reproduce and manifest this idea by making offspring and teaching our offsping to make offspring of their own, and so forth. If we accept this, then we accept that we can become the tool of an idea, and by extension, any idea.

Second Principle.

Some ideas contain within themselves principles which lead to the destruction of the means by which this idea reproduces and manifests, thereby directly opposing First Principle. These ideas, when manifested to the extreme, tend to solve themselves, but obviously at the cost of the destruction of the means which reproduces and manifests them.

If, for example, individuals lived forever as opposed to being mortal, and if individuals reproduced, resources would run out, the idea of living forever (combined with the principle of replication) would solve itself by leading to the destruction of the means by which it replicates and manifests. This illustrates how an idea can contain a principle which leads to one’s own destruction. In recognizing such ideas, one can choose whether to replicate and manifest these ideas through one’s own actions.

In this example above, we can think of either living forever or replication as the idea which leads to one’s own destruction. If individuals do not reproduce, then living forever does not lead to one’s own destruction, because resources would not run out. If individuals reproduce, then mortality prevents destruction of one’s species, because resources would not run out. However, mortality means one’s own destruction.

There is danger in accepting the idea that we, as living things, are the tool of replication. It can best be described like so: For the greater good. This is an idea that within itself, contains the seed of a principle, which when sprouted fully and manifested to the extreme, leads to the destruction of the means by which it replicates and manifests itself. The seed of this principle is the following logic. If we are merely the tool of replication, and if we are to die for replication to persist, then dying is a valid means to achieve the greater good, where this greater good is replication; and where for the greater good to be achieved, the individuals must die, therefore killing is a valid means for the greater good to achieve itself, therefore killing is a valid means to achieve the greater good.

This becomes critically important for certain ideas – ideologies – which have led, historically, to the death of millions. In recognizing the seed of this principle contained within these ideas, and in recognizing that we can become the tool of these ideas, and in recognizing that we can choose whether to replicate and manifest these ideas, we can choose whether to reproduce and manifest these ideas, knowing fully the extent of the potential consequences of our own actions in replicating and manifesting those ideas.

Third Principle.

An idea can contain a principle that makes the idea immune to the manifestation of other ideas, thereby opposing First Principle but more specifically than Second Principle. Primarily, this principle manifests as the prohibition to replicate, not for itself, but for other ideas, so that only this idea will replicate. And, since ideas primarily manifest and replicate through speech (and writing), then speech is what this principle acts upon, specifically to prohibit manifestation and replication of other ideas, and specifically to encourage manifestation and replication of itself and the idea in which it is contained.

This principle is insidious in that it can lead one to believe that the idea which contains this principle may be true by virtue of being deemed important enough to warrant exclusion of all other ideas. And, in so doing, this principle validates itself. In other words, the idea is true because it excludes all other ideas. This is derived from the inherent logic that when an idea is true, it invariably excludes all other ideas. Yet, in fact, when an idea is actually true, it’s not true by virtue of excluding all other ideas, it’s true of its own nature.

Since speech (and writing) is the primary means of replicating and manifesting the idea of culture and social, it follows that culture and social is likely to be the next victim (or even the intended victim) of an idea which contains this principle which primarily acts upon speech (and writing). The first victim being speech itself.

At this point I feel as though something’s missing, like it’s not yet a complete idea. So, I looked it over and thought to add a Fourth Principle, but maybe it isn’t actually a principle, so meh.

Fourth Principle.

Combined, the first three Principles contain the principles of rights, liability, and responsibility.

Master Of My Own Thoughts.


Martin Levac copyright 10:14 2/28/2019


Legislature – Judiciary

Legislature – Judiciary

The legislature is the body which makes, changes or repeals Laws. The judiciary is the body which administers justice according to those Laws. Justice is the process by which the judiciary acts, namely guided by truth, reason and fairness. Incidentally, justice also drives (therefore also guides by truth, reason and fairness) the legislature such that if a situation is found to be unfair (whether permitted by in-force legislation or by lack thereof), a Law can be made, changed or repealed to attempt to rectify.

What the legislature is not. A tool to bring about one’s fortune. A tool to bring about another’s demise. And basically anything else except the body which makes, changes or repeals Laws. The legislature is not a judiciary, except in the sense of passing exceptional and special Laws that attempt to address a specific problem that endangers public health and safety, e.g. force a return to work of public service workers on strike such as garbage collection or fire department, otherwise the legislature cannot issue justice in the same sense as the judiciary.

What the judiciary is not. A legislature. Specifically, the judiciary cannot make, change or repeal Laws, except in the case of the superior court where they may judge a Law to be anticonstitutional for example and thus issue a ruling which renders such Law null and void and unenforcable. Furthermore, through case Law (precedents), especially when issuing a ruling for an as-of-yet untested Law, such ruling then becomes the proper interpretation of this Law. But this is distinct from the making, changing or repealing of Laws, since it’s done as a product of interpretation of an existing Law, not as the product of the creation of a new Law. Yet in and of themselves, such precedents can be deemed anticonstitutional by the superior court, as the case may be, and this then confirms the principle of proper interpretation, and in turn confirms that the judiciary is not a legislature.

Statutes, regulations, policies.

A statute, also known as an Act, is a Law passed by legislature. Regulations are rules that set out the details and practical applications of the Law. They are made under the authority of statutes (i.e. same as statutes), therefore also passed by legislature. Policies are neither statutes nor regulations, which means that they do not have force of Law. Instead, policies are guidelines primarily intended for internal interpretation and application of statutes and regulations, e.g. this place of work has policies regarding hiring and firing, in order to abide by statutes and regulations regarding discrimination. However, policies can be passed by legislature in the case of organizations created by Acts of the legislature, i.e. public services, and apply and are enforcable specifically and exclusively to and within those organizations.

The hierarchy of a democracy.

The judiciary is subordinate to the legislature. The legislature is subordinate to the people. The people are sovereign, i.e. subordinate to themselves. The legislature and the judiciary are the means by which the people realize their subordination to themselves collectively, by electing representatives through the electoral process, by passing Laws through the legislature, by administering those Laws through the judiciary, by passing policies to regulate public services. By their nature, the legislature and the judiciary are public services.

By virtue of this hierarchy, the legislature cannot then pass a law which would give the judiciary legislative power, for this would then make the legislature subordinate to the judiciary, and thus the people subordinate to the legislature and no longer sovereign. Effectively the hierarchy turned upside down. Accordingly, any policy created by the judiciary which somehow regulates individuals not members of itself is null and void by virtue of acting as a statute and/or regulation, where no such statute or regulation can be passed by legislation.


In Canada, we passed Bill C-16 which amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. The amendment adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, and adds the same to the Criminal Code in terms of hate propaganda and aggravating circumstances. On its face, it makes a bit of sense. However, how do you know what anybody’s gender identity or gender expression is, when it’s not patently obvious – unless they tell you? And here’s where the hierarchy of democracy gets turned upside down.

That’s because when they do tell you what their gender identity or gender expression is – you are compelled by Law to refer to them according to what they tell you. Or else. So, what statute or regulation would compel an individual – a Canadian citizen – like that? None (correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t find any Act which says I gotta do that). It’s a policy (the synergy of several policies, in fact), intended for internal application of organizations created by Acts. Whether these policies were passed by legislature or created by those organizations is irrelevant, what matters is how statutes and policies get confused in their respective jurisdiction.

First, compelled speech. I dealt with that in The Move. Done and done. Can’t do it. It breaks things. So now it’s all about the legislature’s and the judiciary’s function. The legislature cannot pass a Law that gives the judiciary power of legislation. The judiciary cannot create policies that presume to apply to individuals not members of itself. But the satutes aren’t clear on how to apply this amendment, so where can a judge look when issuing a ruling regarding gender identity and gender expression? To the policies created by the judiciary (or by legislature, directly or by giving power thereof) intended for internal application of this amendment. But then a judge which applies these policies when issuing a ruling toward an individual effectively gives power of legislation to the judiciary which created them. In doing so, the hierarchy of democracy is turned upside down. Never mind that compelled speech also becomes Law.

The people are no longer sovereign.

Then there’s a Very Big Problem Of Consistency across statutes and policies. There’s no statute that compels an individual to speak, nor is there a statute that allows a judge to issue a ruling against an individual in that regard. But the policies do compel speech for their members, and the ruling for failure invokes the Criminal Code. How is it that a regular citizien can fuck around and enjoy immunity while a member of an organization created by Acts get punished according to the Criminal Code? There’s a principle of Law, if not an actual Law, that says members of office and public services must be treated as close to private enterprise in all things pertinent, e.g. salary, conventions, contracts, holidays, etc. Well, if that’s true, which supercedes in this case, the statutes or the policies? And anyways, how can any organization subsume the function and power of the judiciary with respect to judgement and punishment? That’s akin to taking the Law in one’s own hands. And it’s the worst kind of that when the very organization which takes the Law into its own hands – is the judiciary itself.

And then there’s the Very Big Problem Of Discrimination. If on one hand we can’t discriminate against on the basis of sex for example, how then do we fucking have to positively discriminate in favor on the basis of gender identity and gender expression by being compelled to utter a particular gender pronoun? This is exactly as if we were compelled to utter the name of a particular minority group which the minority group identifies itself as – for every minority group. And here I thought the Law didn’t allow us to do precisely that. Come to think of it, I grew up believing that we couldn’t discriminate against – nor in favor of – women, in light of their fight for equal rights.

On the whole, as a function of the specific effect on the legislature and the judiciary and the hierarchy of democracy, I doubt that this is about gender identity or gender expression or equality or anything like that. If we want to become more egalitarian and more progressive and become more enlightened and just good people, turning the hierarchy of democracy upside down is the wrong fucking way to do that. Something’s up and whatever bit you think this is – it ain’t.

I could be wrong about all of it. It’s quite a feat of logic, if I say so myself. But then if I wanted to fuck things up big, I’d do something like that.

Martin Levac copyright 07:25 2/18/2019


Master Of My Own Thoughts

Master Of My Own Thoughts

I had the thought that we are the tools of our own ideology. I had this thought while I was watching Jordan again, in a Munk debate about political correctness. It got me thinking pretty hard. Well, it can be summarized like so.

Become the master of your own thoughts, lest you become the tool.

To get an idea of this idea, I thought about things and how we think about things. For example, I thought about a gun and a rock, and the ideas of these things. We think of a gun as much more lethal than a rock, yet both are equally lethal, potentially. Yet, both are inanimate things. How could they be thought of differently in that fashion? Well, the rock is a melee weapon (if that’s how we use it) and the gun is a ranged weapon. Between the two, the one that inherently contains the least risk to oneself is the most lethal. Yet, this has nothing to do with the thing itself, but with the idea of it. So, we get the principle that there’s the thing, then there’s the idea of a thing, and that’s what I’m writing about here.

Another way to illustrate this idea is with a question.

Is this what I want, or am I driven in spite of myself?

Well, if I’m not at least proficient at it, how can I know whether I want it or not? Proficiency isn’t merely about physical prowess, it is that, but also about mental prowess with the idea of the thing. Take a golfer for example. If he is physically proficient, he is also invariably mentally proficient. From this, he can choose. From this, he became the master of his thoughts – about golf.

With speech, it’s the same. However, with speech, we’re dealing with thoughts, not things. We tell kids “use your own words”. What we mean actually is “master your thoughts, then speak”. We have several expressions like that, all about speech. Put one’s own foot in mouth. Say these things in your head before you say them outloud. Think this through. Get your thoughts in order. So here, we get the principle that study comes before action, or at least it can, so that we can still make a choice before we become physically proficient, whether we want to become physically proficient. If we do choose to become physically proficient, doing so, we improve our mental proficiency, and in turn become more able to choose wisely. With speech, as with golf, feedback is necessary. With speech, this feedback comes in the form of other people listening to what we say, and answering with their own speech.

I didn’t read his book 12 Rules for Life, I just watched a couple lectures, but one rule is to be precise with your speech. What this means is to master your own thoughts, talk to people, listen for feedback, repeat. Or at least that’s how I see it and it’s not very important that I get this right because I’m only illustrating a point about the need to be able to speak freely if one is to become master of his own thoughts.

One alternative, I dread, is to become a tool for someone else’s thoughts. But more than that, I dread becoming the tool of my own ideology, whatever that may be.

I am the master of my own thoughts. Or at least I aspire to be so.


As I’m writing this, I realize that the text I write doesn’t convey quite accurately the thought I had before I wrote it down. So here, while the thought was clear enough then to prompt me to write it down, somehow I lost some of its clarity in the writing of it.

Martin Levac copyright 11:03 2/16/2019


The Move

The Move

An essay on extrapolation or deduction.

In chess, the rules are known and each piece can only move in specific ways. As the game progresses, each subsequent move can be identified as a unique step relative to all other steps in the series. As such, it’s possible to determine where the game lies, or at least the probabilities of game state we’re currently in, i.e. stategy, tactics, end goal, etc, by identifying a single move.

For particularly precise and well-known game states, it’s possible that a single move becomes a unique identifier where if we know this single move, we then know the whole game plan. I’d call this archetype moves for archetype games. If not a specific game plan, at least a much narrower range of possible associated moves and possible game plans. Then for each additional known move, the possible number of game plans quickly grows smaller until only one is ever possible.

In US politics, they elected an unambiguously right-wing president. Nobody could be fooled into thinking he’s all about the people. He’s a fool for sure, but he’s a clear archetype of the right and that’s what matters here. For the purpose of this post, this constitutes that archetype move that allows one to quickly determine only a few possible archetype game plans, strategies, tactics, end goals.

So, basically, only three possible archetypes.

– Genuine right-wing effort.

– False flag engineered by left-wing.

– Unknown/undefined as of yet.

Within this group of possible game plans, I posit the possibility that neither the right nor the left are responsible, where both the right and the left are merely tools, and where whomever is pulling the strings, does so purely for power.

The cliche. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Within this cliche is the implication that it doesn’t fit within the right-vs-left concept. Power is a “side” all on its own. Power cares neither for politics nor ideology, neither for people nor the elite. All are merely tools. Power cares only for itself.

While both the right and the left use power, when this power overwhelms either ideology and transforms them into gross caricatures of themselves, they step outside the right-left duality and become the same thing. One way to say the same thing is that they warp themselves into a loop and meet in the middle, the middle where only power resides. At that point, neither ideology survives, only power remains. If either ideology appears to survive, it’s merely because they are the tools with which power maintains itself, not because power is a characteristic of any particular ideology.

Having said that, it’s not actually important which side is the game archetype here. What is of utmost importance is that both sides recognize that whatever precious ideology they cling to is merely a tool of power, and can be destroyed either way so long as one side – any side – serves this power.

In Canada, there’s Bill C-16 and related policies, which state that now we have compelled speech in the form of gender pronouns, defined by a person, not by Law. Or if you prefer, we have Law that gives full power to one person to compel another to say something, where if this other refuses he becomes liable.

If we illustrate the right as being in favor of say-what-the-fuck-you-want and the left as can’t-say-mean-things, and if we now add compelled speech even for a single word, the only safe place for anybody is to say nothing at all. To say nothing at all is the absolute extreme version of can’t-say-mean-things, which is to say that it’s now pure power, and where this ideology is now merely a tool which serves this pure power.

However, if I’m not mistaken, the left is historically the side in favor of say-what-the-fuck-you-want, and the right as the side that flogs you if you refuse to address the king as something-stupid-or-other. So we could say that for some fucked up reason, the left with their good intentions about all the rights and freedoms and shit like that, decided that it was a Good Idea to introduce compelled speech just like some stupid king did way back when, just to protect somebody’s feelings or some shit.

I heard Jordan Peterson say that we know how to recognize the extreme right – Auschwitz. Well, now we know how to recognize the extreme left – compelled speech. I will even say that we could have recognized it much earlier – Politically Correct – had we not forgotten our own fucking History about that shit.

Words are but the means which convey the message, colored by the speaker.

This phrase above illustrates everything we know about speech. The speaker is the possessor of the words he utters, thus the possessor of the message conveyed thereby. Words are a tool. The message – the meaning, the idea, the thought – is what’s being conveyed. The speaker, by virtue of being the possessor of the words and the message, possesses all rights with regards to these words and this message. Also, the speaker is wholly liable for his words and message conveyed and coloring of such. This is the principle of rights and liability. It’s also the principle of property rights, where the speaker can do whatever the fuck he wants with his property. It’s also the principle of one’s word – I give you my word. This then is the principle of conversion of one’s rights into obligations – a contract. At its core, the Law can be seen as the code of conduct which regulates all contracts, and in and of itself is a contract – a social compact. In Law, there’s the principle where the signer is the maker is the owner. This then gives us the principle where one who makes it, owns it. Then there’s the principle of fact: One cannot give what one does not possess; therefore if one gives a thing (assuming good faith), one invariably possesses it to begin with; and the corollary where if one no longer possesses a thing (by theft for example), one can no longer give it.

Within these principles is the principle of meeting of minds, where two parties each speak their own promises, where each party owns their own word, where each party binds itself to the other by conversion of their respective rights into obligations toward the other, and where each party does so by willful intent and without coercion.

In Law, there’s the principle of compel-to-sign, where one is compelled to sign under duress, and where such signature (therefore such contract) is null and void by virtue of being made with coercion, without willful intent – and thus unenforcable. This principle is well illustrated by the right to remain silent. The Law cannot compel one to speak, cannot compel one to give one’s word.

Now in Canada, we have a Law that compels speech. This Law in fact compels to sign, compels one to give one’s word. In doing so, it’s theft of one’s property – one’s word. Yet, liability for this word remains with the speaker thereby compelled to speak it. More than that, there’s additional liability, by extension, for the speaker who would otherwise remain silent, or speak some other word instead. We no longer have the right to remain silent. We no longer own our own word, our own message. We can no longer color our message as we please. We can no longer sign a contract with willful intent nor without coercion. The social compact is broken.

While it may appear that this is just about a few words here and there, it is in fact about the social compact which is now broken. When this social compact is broken, it’s no longer about ideology – it’s just about power now. The social compact is broken, but it takes a while for the effets to be felt because of the nature and logistics of the break and its environment. How much of a while, I don’t know.

Do not be fooled into thinking that this is just about one ideology or another, it’s about power. Period. Here, power is realized by breaking the social compact, because that’s the only thing we have to keep power at bay. And, like Jordan says, speech is the only thing we have to maintain this social compact.

Whether this power comes from a person or from some synergy is irrelevant. What matters is that we recognize it when we see it. Hence, the move.

Martin Levac copyright 02:27 2/11/2019


The Principle of Understanding – To Imprint Into the Brain

The Principle of Understanding – To Imprint Into the Brain

The principle of understanding is the act of imprinting into the brain. There’s no choice but to agree, which is to say that understanding and agreement are one and the same. The defense against is either to not imprint in the first place (eyes and ears shut), or sequester, or integrate into the other imprints then analyse and eventually reject.

Not imprinting means to remain ignorant. Literally. Sequestering means to disconnect the imprint. That’s basically targeted lobotomy. Integrating then analysing and eventually rejecting means to agree, question and reason and debate, then disagree. Of the three, only one leads to growth. Of the three, only one can legitimately be deemed to be a disagreement by virtue of being understood and integrated and analysed. Of the three, integration means the imprint, in spite of being ultimately disagreed to, now forms part and parcel of one’s identity.

One grows not merely by integrating only imprints one agrees with, but by integrating all imprints (***). One certainly does not grow by sequestering imprints, nor by shutting one’s eyes and ears. On the other hand, eventually, one can decide not to imprint all kinds of shit one already knows full well will lead to a particularly undesired form of growth, i.e. I wish to avoid seeing and hearing all the horrible shit on TV. Just like one learns full well that fire burns, and will very likely wish not to repeat the experience ever again.

(***)Here, it sounds like I’m suggesting that integration occurs after agreement, when I proposed that integration occurs before analysis in the previous paragraph. In context, integration here means that all imprints, whether agreed to or not as the case may be, ultimately form part and parcel of one’s identity.

Default is to agree. This is how instincts work. This is why instincts work. Instincts are innate imprints, innate understanding. This is why, a priori, there is no choice but to agree. In this way, understanding can be exploited to lead to an agreement without questioning or analysis or debate or what’s called a meeting of minds, perhaps by drawing a parallel to instincts in some fashion, thereby evoking this default agreement, then transfering it to the current fresh imprint. Or perhaps because without questioning or analysis or debate, new imprints are handled like innate imprints.

Now for the ironical bit. If you understood the above, you imprinted it into your brain, you agreed to it a priori, you may have questioned and analysed and debated it, then whether you eventually agreed to it or not, you have grown, it now forms part and parcel of your identity.

I’d like to think that this is how this shit works, but in fact this is just how I see it, not necessarily how this shit actually works.

Martin Levac copyright 18:23 2/2/2019


A Powerful Idea

A Powerful Idea

I believe that I’m superior to others in every significant way, but most importantly intellectually and morally. I believe that I’m changing the world for the better for everybody. I believe I’m the only one who knows the solutions to all the important problems, and who knows how to apply them correctly. I believe that these things make me a good person. I believe I’m righteous, honorable, noble.

I don’t actually believe any of that. What I do believe is that it’s a powerful idea. It’s so powerful that it can become psychological trickery – fool me into actually believing it. Use it as mantra, repeat it ad nauseam, bingo. Refuting evidence is rejected, confirming evidence is amplified.

Have you ever one-upped somebody with a piece of knowledge? Ahhh, the feeling. Has anybody ever done that to you? Ouch, the feeling. So, how it works is that this feeling of superiority is confirmed when you’re right because you’re superior as per the mantra, and also confirmed when you’re wrong because of the loopholes in the same mantra like the belief that you’re the only one who can apply those solutions correctly even if you’re not the one who thought of them in the first place – you got one-upped but it doesn’t matter cuz you’re the only one who can do anything with this one-up.

I came upon this powerful idea only recently when I started watching Scientology clips on yootoob by ex-members who explained the sort of hook that gets people in the door, and then this hook becomes the strong belief that keeps them in, prevents them from leaving. Well, I found it elsewhere almost word for word. Care to guess where?


You know what other almost identical trait I found? When a member of the group leaves, he is vehemently attacked verbally and sometimes physically by that group, especially if this ex-member then criticizes the group for any reason. There’s a sort of irony to this cuz, well, read the powerful idea again. Though there is one significant difference between the two groups. Scientologists express this powerful idea mostly internally and privately, almost never publicly (they actually lie publicly about the internal goings-on), while vegans shout it from the rooftops as loud as they possibly can (the vocal ones anyways).

For my part, I think I do sometimes think I’m superior in some way, especially when it comes to logic stuff. I joke that I’m a logicsmith, a fabricator or worker of logic. I mean, I like to think so but I often downplay it. One way I do this is with a disclaimer, another joke but a serious one.

Hi, my name is Martin Levac. I’m just some guy and everything I say is bullshit.

Funny, right? I think so. But there’s a reason I say this. It keeps me in check. A few times in the past I gave some advice to somebody. It occurred to me that this advice could be acted upon by them and ultimately cause harm to this person. I don’t want that. On my favorite discussion forum, I often use a variation of this disclaimer “This is just how I see it, not necessarily how it actually works”. I use it mostly when what I write sounds like I’m talking from some position of knowledge or expertise, when in fact it’s just the way I write. It’s like hey, this is just my opinion, don’t take it too seriously, even though I may sound very logical and stuff.

Can you imagine a Scientologist or a vegan ending their blog post with a similar disclaimer? Yeah, I don’t think so.

By the way, take a look at the brand new Canada Food Guide. See how it can be applied to formulate a conforming vegan diet in public institutions like schools and hospitals and elderly care. A link to a thread about it on my favorite discussion forum here:


Martin Levac copyright 00:39 1/24/2019