Money – What and How – 2 – Central Bank

Money – What and How – 2 – Central Bank

How it works in practice.

Central bank issues currency at face value. Minister of finance issues treasury bonds to pay for this currency. Bonds are with interest at face value of issued currency, so for example 5% of $50,000,000 of dollar bills of various face values such as $5 or $100, etc. Bonds are backed by our collective ability to pay or re-pay this interest. Currency is backed strictly by Law, nothing else, no gold or silver or any physical substance whatsoever. In effect, by virtue of the bonds being backed by our collective ability to pay or re-pay, and the bonds paying for the issued currency, by extension currency is backed by this same collective ability to pay or re-pay, but that makes no sense whatsoever since there is no inherent value of money in the first place besides this ability to pay or re-pay. If instead it was backed by some substance, we could then work to acquire this substance to then pay what we owe with it, but the only substance we can acquire is currency and this acquisition is done by borrowing more of it.

If we only borrow a single amount at a fixed interest rate, let’s say 5%, it takes 20 years to go bankrupt and bankruptcy is inevitable. The reason is that the central bank only accepts the currency it issues as payment for interest on this loan. Once we make a loan, we have to use some of that loan to make a payment on the interest, the capital we hold is correspondingly reduced, yet the debt is not, it remains at the original amount because we’re not paying part of the capital, only the interest. But there’s a trick: Keep borrowing more money just to pay the interest on the original loan. But there’s a problem with this. We still only have the original amount borrowed for our own use, because any subsequent loan is used directly to pay interest on this original loan, nothing else. It just goes straight back from whence it came without ever seeing the light of day. Eventually, we owe more in interest than the original loan because we kept borrowing to pay for that interest. But there’s a trick: Keep borrowing more money.

If you haven’t figured it out already, our economy is one of debt. Everybody owes the central bank, nobody is owed anything except the central bank because any money given as payment to anybody for anything is owed to – was borrowed from – the central bank.

At the street level, it works a little bit differently but not by much. Street banks, unlike the central bank, cannot issue currency. However, they can issue electronic money and they can do this with no limit whatsoever, so long as they get promissory notes as payments for this electronic money. Promissory notes are almost exactly like treasury bonds, but with our personal signature instead of the minister of finance’s signature. We are individually liable for those promissory notes, while we are collectively liable for the treasury bonds. But basically, we give promissory notes in exchange for electronic money, for which we pay or re-pay interest at face value. However, we don’t pay back a loan, we pay according to the promise we made. We don’t pay back a loan because there is no loan, the money was created from the promissory note itself, it was financed by our promise to pay. That’s also how it works for treasury bonds, but at least we get a physical substance in exchange, i.e. the manufactured dollar bills, though they have no intrinsic value like I said. Anyways, typically we get a check from the bank in exchange for the promissory note we gave it.

To simplify:

Two guys – Bill and Bob – agree to make an exchange. Bill gives Bob a piece of paper with Bill’s signature. Bob gives Bill a piece of paper with Bob’s signature. Each piece of paper can be used by the other for financial trading, according to face value on it, plus whatever value added by terms and conditions stipulated on the pieces of paper. Bill’s piece of paper has terms and conditions that stipulate Bill will pay Bob interest at face value of 5% per year, and monthly payments, until the obligation stipulated therein has been fulfilled. Bob’s piece of paper contains no such condition, it only has face value. Bill’s piece of paper names Bob as the payee, and also stipulates Bob can use it to trade. Bob’s piece of paper has no named payee, so it’s made out to the holder or bearer, for the full amount on demand, and it can also be used to trade. Bill’s piece of paper is called a promissory note, and should contain this mention in prominent text. Bob’s piece of paper is called currency and otherwise doesn’t contain any particular terms and conditions, which makes it a demand promissory note, payable to the bearer in full on demand. Both pieces of paper have the same face value amount of $100, but Bill’s piece of paper adds value with interest to be paid on top of the capital of $100, making the two pieces of paper of unequal value in practice. When Bill trades with currency, he cannot negotiate the value of that piece of paper, it can only buy stuff for $100 worth. Bob, however, has a piece of paper he can trade with, and it’s more valuable by at least 5% face value per year plus however long it takes to pay back the whole sum, capital plus interest, so maybe about $200, and he can buy stuff for $200 worth, and it is negotiable in total value between face value up to maximum value according to terms and conditions.

The above is how it works at the simplest level, yet that’s exactly how it works at any level, though we paint it with lively colors like Promissory Note, Bank Loan, Currency, Central Bank, Treasury Bonds, Minister of Finance, Acts and Laws, Legal Tender, etc, etc, etc. The paint we put on it doesn’t change its nature one bit, it’s still an exchange of two pieces of paper of unequal value. Interestingly enough, the only true value comes from Bill, since he’s the only guy who promises to pay anything to anybody at any time, and he promises to pay this using the pieces of paper Bob gave him. Bob makes no promise whatsoever to pay anything to anybody at any time, except by using pieces of paper he himself gives in the first place.

Bill: I promise to give Bob more of Bob’s paper which Bob gave me.

Bob: I promise to give Bill less of my paper than Bill promised to give me of my paper. Then, when Bill can’t pay me (inevitable), I take Bill’s shit cuz Bill owes me – here’s the proof on paper with Bill’s signature. I could be a nice guy and forget Bill’s debt, but I wouldn’t have set up this deal in the first place if I was indeed a nice guy. But I guess Bill doesn’t care, cuz he’s got money to buy shit. Well, until I take Bill’s shit cuz Bill owes me.

The promise on currency is as follows:

I, THE CENTRAL BANK, promise to pay the bearer of this NOTE, the full amount of this NOTE, on demand, (using currency, which means just another NOTE which contains the same promise as this NOTE).

Literally, a circular promise fulfilled by itself.

This promise above is not expressly stipulated on the note itself, but that’s exactly how it works in practice. The Central Bank issues the promises with which it pays all other promises it issued in the first place, and only in exchange for promises made by others to pay using promises issued by the Central Bank in the first place, which means the Central Bank never ever ever pays anybody anything at any time whatsoever ever ever. And each new promise issued by the Central Bank comes with the obligation to pay interest on it, which is included in the promises the Central Bank got in exchange for those, which means even if I exchange my old $100 dollar bill for a new $100 dollar bill, I still have to pay whatever interest there is still left to pay for the old $100 dollar bill (which I don’t have anymore, so that’s kind of unfair), on top of the interest to be paid for the new $100 dollar bill (which I now hold, which is also sort of unfair).

But there’s a trick: Stop borrowing money. Forever.

Instead of exchanging my old bills for new bills, let’s just assume that’s what I did, but instead of paying interest for new bills using new bills, I pay that interest using my old bills, which I just give back. I’m broke cuz I ain’t got no more money, but what’s the fucking point anyways.

Or, this trick: Issue our own money.

We already do this, but we call it a Promissory Note instead of Currency. But it makes no difference since Currency is backed by the Promissory Notes we sign, so why not forget about Currency and just issue Promissory Notes instead? Ah, yes, but what are they backed by if not Currency, therefore by our collective ability to re-pay using Currency, which was borrowed – financed – using the Promissory Notes we issued, and round we go? Fuck it. Fuck the Central Bank. Let’s issue our own currency at cost, not at face value, no interest, no tax. Gotta borrow for a house, a car, a trip across the globe? No problem, charge a single and proportionately tiny service fee just to keep things running at the street bank, regardless of the total amount of the “loan”, because it’s not really a loan if it’s financed by our signature, is it now.

Here’s a crazy idea. Let’s back this new currency with a genuine physical thing, and let’s call it what it really is instead of “Dollar” or “Pound” or “Rand” or whatever it’s called now. We’ll call it manhour. So, a nice meal would cost about 1 manhour, cuz that’s about how long it takes to make that nice meal, and that’s about how long we gotta work to earn that much money to pay for it now. But look at how much a house would cost: 250 manhours, maybe 500 if it’s a nice one. Ridiculously cheap, right? But have you seen how quick a house goes up these days? It takes about a week to build, completely ready to live in, paint and furniture and all the crap. A full-time job is about 2,000 hours per year. Fuck, we can pay for a house in 3-6 months. Why the fuck do we keep paying for 40 years?

Here’s another crazy idea. If money is now backed by an actual thing which is exactly what it says it is – manhour – why charge a profit? This is like telling the boss I worked 50 hours when in fact I worked 40 hours. He’s gonna tell me to fuck off and only pay me the 40 hours I actually worked. The concept of profit becomes a blatant lie, which nobody would readily accept. Unless we twist the way we say it “Yeah, I charge a little more manhours just in case I need to put in more man-hours to do the job, you understand.” Which is exactly the reasoning now with fiat money. But when we don’t put in the extra man-hours because we’re so fucking good at our job, we don’t give back the profit we charged in the first place, do we now? That boss that told you to fuck off when you told him you worked 50 hours when in fact you worked 40 hours, he tells his clients you worked 60 hours to justify his profit. We just keep going with the fucking lie, and sometimes we add more lies to justify keeping that unjustifiable profit we charged “just in case”, and sometimes we go one step further and fuck with the job on purpose to justify the future lie we anticipate we’re gonna tell to justify keeping the profit we charged in the first place, you know, to make it look genuine. There’s a whole lotta job fucking just for that single purpose – to keep the full paycheck we feel we deserve in spite of all the job fucking we do to justify keeping that paycheck we feel we deserve. In fact, that’s where the bulk of the extra 39 1/2 years of house payments come from – job fucking just to keep a full paycheck we feel we deserve in spite of all the job fucking we do to justify keeping the full paycheck we feel we deserve. Everybody pays everybody else’s job fucking, but we just call it profit. Because in the end, we all understand it’s a lie, and we all seem to think we can take it to the extreme, and we do, and we pay for it with years of extra job fucking, and so on, to justify all the job fucking we do, and so forth.

Here’s a final crazy idea. You’re done with the job and the job is done? Get the fuck outta here and stop fucking with the job. You got better things to do than to fuck with the job just for a goddamn paycheck you feel you deserve in spite of all the job fucking you do. Then, you can charge less for your work, which means others won’t have to job fuck so much to pay for your work, so yet others won’t have to job fuck so much to pay for their work, and round we go, right back to you.

Are you a banker? This post’s for you. Enjoy. Oh yeah, and if you are a banker, get a real fucking job doing real useful shit.

Martin Levac copyright 11:36 10/5/2016


All Diets Are Short-Term

All Diets Are Short-Term


It is argued that all diets fail long-term for various reasons, most especially for lack of support. However, all diets are fundamentally short-term by virtue of being practiced one meal at a time. I explore the implications here.

All diets are done one meal at a time, and each meal is a very short term comparatively. We eat only for a few minutes, but we eat these meals repetitively over a lifetime. All diets fail long-term for two main reasons. Official dietary guidelines are ever present, and there’s comparatively little support for alternatives. The constant and pervasive presence of official dietary guidelines is a type of support. Alternatives don’t have that kind of support, thus they all tend to fail by comparison in that respect.

By design, official guidelines are monolithic, they do not allow alternatives because of fundamental contradictions, i.e. low-carb vs high-carb, low-fat vs high-fat, high-meat vs high-veggies, etc. Guidelines must appear consistent throughout to project a sense of expertise, and to avoid confusion. These aspects naturally exclude alternatives even though they could otherwise produce beneficial results in prevention and treatment.

Each diet produces specific but comparatively small results with each meal, and results tend to accumulate over time as we repeat the meals according to a diet’s overarching paradigm, i.e. low-fat for all meals, low-carb for all meals, etc. These piecemeal effects get overwhelmed by official guidelines’ ever present support especially if the meal is fundamentally different from the guidelines, paradoxically. The effects might be real and beneficial, but it’s hard to measure when it’s just one meal, and it’s even harder to distinguish between this meal’s effect and the next meal’s effect, especially if they are fundamentally different, i.e. low-fat vs high-fat. Individual meal’s effect magnitude easily get overshadowed by the persistent, constant and ever present official guidelines’ mantras.

A secondary principle is that of piecemeal therapeutics relative to baseline diet. For example, with a low-fat diet, a high-fat therapy will be much more noticeable than if the baseline diet was already high-fat. We can see this with coconut oil or butter or lard, when taken with coffee or for “pulling” or just as a sort of supplement. Conversely, if the diet is already low-carb, cutting carbs further will barely have any effect. Piecemeal therapeutics include things like intermittent fasting, meat-free days, mono-food periods, etc. All of these have varying degrees of success according to the baseline diet.

A solution is to encompass all alternatives within official guidelines, and establish appropriate diet-dependent recommendations. We have all the data for this already, it’s only a matter of doing it. For example, with a vegan diet, it’s important to supplement with certain essentials to prevent deficiency. Existing guidelines include some elements of this, yet always relative to the baseline diet, i.e. follow guidelines a priori because it’s the best, but if you choose to follow other diets, watch out for these things, and so forth. The implication is that all alternatives are inferior to guidelines, which reduces or outright eliminates any possibility of support from the guidelines themselves, and guidelines typically reflect this lack of alternative support.

Since different diets produce different effects at each meal and cumulatively, alternative recommendations should include comprehensive information regarding these respective effects so that we can learn to recognize them and then use this to determine degree of success.

That none of us eat exactly the same as any other is not just an idea, it’s a fact. This fact should be reflected in official guidelines, and supported by appropriate recommendations according to respective alternative diet strengths and weaknesses. That any particular diet is pushed as the best is a fundamental fallacy. Throughout history we can’t find a monolithic diet that fits every group, they all ate/eat different diets, sometimes wildly different. My personal bias favors low-carb (especially lots of meat and fat), but for the purpose of this post, I can’t say it’s the best, it’s just one of many diets, and there’s several that work just as well.

Since I’m talking about official dietary guidelines, one difficulty is to re-group public and private sectors because most, if not all, of the support for alternatives comes from private groups and forums. But that idea shouldn’t be too hard to accept because official guidelines are already pretty much a product of private sector pressures and lobbies, i.e. grain and sugar producers, and manufacturers of products based on these.

Alternatively, the various diets’ support groups could begin to encompass other diets into their paradigm, as I myself begun to consider giving genuine advice regarding essential supplements to those who eat a vegan diet. They’re people too, let’s not dismiss them just because they eat differently, mkay? An advantage here is that there isn’t a single group that needs to convince the gubermint, they can all do it independently, and perhaps cooperatively as well. As it stands all groups tend to be competitive to and exclusionary of all other groups, especially when they adopt fundamentally different diets, i.e. low-fat vs low-carb.

Personally I favor low-carb over all other diets, and I usually hang around theĀ forum. This particular forum is interesting as it includes quite a wide assortment of diets that fit low-carb to at least some degree, i.e. from Atkins to Carb Addict Diet and pretty much everything in-between. It’s primarily a support forum but there is one sub-forum dedicated to news/media, and there’s no particular restriction when it comes to the type of diet that gets discussed there. Of course, because of the nature of diets, we usually argue from the point of view of low-carb, always trying to find the low-carb angle and turn the discussion in our favor.

It seems to me that this competitive and exclusionary environment is beneficial for the official guidelines, as it doesn’t have to fight alternatives, they fight among themselves just fine. The fact that alternatives fight the official guidelines makes no difference, because they can’t agree with each other, they don’t form a common front against the guidelines. Well, that will change the moment alternatives get together and begin to cooperate, in spite of any fundamental differences.

For the purpose of this post, support for any particular diet will naturally increase and reach a significant part of the population just because all groups now support all alternatives, however small or basic this alternative support may be at first. It could just start with a link to alternative support forums and groups, then go on from there.

Consider that official dietary guidelines format is competitive and exclusionary. Now consider the idea that all alternative support groups begin to support all other alternatives, and official guidelines as well. Then consider the comparative mass of alternative support, the official guidelines would have no choice but to acknowledge and integrate this new paradigm, and become itself cooperative and inclusive. From there, it’s only a small step to re-write official guidelines to officially cooperate with and include all alternatives, and in turn provide equal support, and in turn increase the likelihood of success for alternatives. The short-term nature of alternative diets will get converted into better long-term success.

What say you?


Martin Levac copyright 22:57 9/22/2016


Elections – Credibility

Elections – Credibility


What’s the most effective way to give credibility to elections?


Specifically murder of an opposing candidate. We can’t see it because the murder itself is so shocking we can’t believe somebody would go to all this trouble to get elected. Well, if somebody goes to all this trouble to get elected, he must have a whole lotta faith in elections. In temperate countries (temperate as in tempered behavior, not the weather), murder isn’t necessary, petty assault and eggs in the face is enough.

So, it serves two purposes. The first is to give credibility to elections, the second is to shift focus away from the fact that the elections are rigged and/or away from any evidence of election rigging. In fact, the very idea of murder to get elected and the subsequent immense faith the murderer must have in elections translates into our own immense faith we have in elections, therefore election rigging can’t possible be true in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

When there’s murder, there’s usually a criminal investigation. This takes precedence over any other investigation, but especially one that looks at election rigging. In fact, murder is so shocking that an investigation is absolutely warranted, but they can’t look too deep or they might find there was no actual murder since the idea isn’t to kill, it’s to give credibility to elections. Ignoring the evidence of election rigging is a good idea too, as now the authorities also show immense faith in elections. Everybody is in the same boat – we all have immense faith in elections.

Another way to give credibility is to show just how many people don’t vote. The idea is that if they’d voted, it would have made a difference. Well, if you’ve ever voted, did your vote make any difference?

Ever wonder why political parties do party parties with a bunch of supporters and all that jazz? It’s a show, that’s it. But it serves a specific purpose for election credibility. With the help of media, these parties are posted in your face all day long to give the illusion of population support. We might think it’s an advertising trick, but yes and no. It’s not the trick where the more often we see a thing, the more we get to like this thing. Instead it’s this trick: The bigger the party, the more population support there must be. Yes, we are that simple-minded. Size matters. The point here is that it gives credibility to the election results. Maybe nobody voted for the douche bag, but it doesn’t matter because everybody saw just how big that party was.

Another way to give credibility is to rig the elections so that it mirrors actual population support. This is done with polls and door-to-door. But then we wonder why rig the elections if the actual support is the same? Ah, sometimes you just gotta show people how honest you are, but usually once is all it takes. Rather, once per generation is all it takes.

Here’s a simple way to see just how much election rigging there actually is.

The more trouble, the more rigged.

But there’s a catch. First, votes must be secret. So, voting booths where nobody sees you, laws that forbid asking who we’re voting for, etc. In fact, secret votes is the only true way to know if elections are rigged. When votes are public, rigging is impossible. When you can check your name next to your vote in a public list, that’s when elections can’t be rigged. More than that, when you can confirm your vote with a public list, and only after votes have been confirmed by each and everybody, can we determine with any kind of certainty that there was no election rigging. So, vote first, then confirm vote once all results are in. Validation of one’s vote can only be done by the one who voted. If you think about it, that’s the only way for secret votes too. Nobody knows who you voted for, except you. In the end, only votes validated this way count toward election results.

In this digital age, how can this be done? Easy. Open source verification software used by each and everyone to verify vote count. Any of you familiar with distributed computing? It’s software that uses a bunch of computers connected to the internet to work on the same database – SETI@home, Folding@home, Boinc, Bitcoin, etc. Well, distributed computing was made for elections! Not only would it be used to verify results, it would be used to vote and validate votes once all results were in. Since it’s open source, nobody can fuck with it. Everybody has some computer, phone, PC, laptop, etc.

There’s a cool thing about distributed computing with elections. We don’t need to make votes public, we just need to make the verification software open source, and everybody who voted validates only their own vote. Also, since it’s open source, even if the central server was fucked with, we can use an independent central server (or as many independent central servers we want) to validate, also using the same open source software. This alternative central server would be built-in the distributed software everybody uses, so that everybody could switch from one to the other in real time.

So now we gotta ask, who rigs the elections?

The central bank.

This is a deep rabbit hole but there’s an obvious question. Why does the central bank rig the elections? Can’t be to make more money, they print it! If you want to find out why, you gotta jump in the rabbit hole. You go first, tell me what you find.

Recently, South Africa had municipal elections across the country. There was lots of “irregularities” but nobody is looking in to that. Instead, there was several murders and everybody is looking into that, but not that deeply anyways. Elections proceeded normally as if nothing happened, as if murders was just another day at the office, as if election rigging can’t possibly by true, cuz of the murders.

Call me cynical. But call me practical too.


Martin Levac copyright 19:18 9/4/2016


Muscle Structure – Water Battery

Muscle Structure – Water Battery


Premise. The central nervous system simply cannot supply enough power to drive muscles. However, the central nervous system can supply just enough power to flip a switch or close a circuit.

Premise. Muscles are accumulators. The circuit is normally open.

Premise. Muscle contraction is driven by discharging accumulated charge into surrounding tissues, which then causes a shape shift from thin to thick transversely, which translates to a shift from long to short longitudinally, thereby providing motive force.

Premise. Charge is accumulated in the form of EZ water – water that is structured differently than bulk water, i.e. H3O2(-) and H3O(+) instead of H2O. EZ water is contained within an interstitial matrix. The periphery is more flexible radially than longitudinally to allow for change in diameter, the interstices are stiff and angled to translate the change in diameter into longitudinal motive force.

Premise. EZ water and bulk water occupy volume differently. EZ water tends to occupy volume by extending directly 90 degrees from a surface and laterally in the same plane as this surface (highly directional), and also stiffens the surface as EZ water has a lattice-matrix gel-like structure (almost like ice), while bulk water tends to occupy volume by extending from every point to every other point in all directions (omnidirectional). This difference allows a shape shift if the volume is contained within this interstitial matrix as outlined above.

Premise. The greater the muscle volume, the greater the capacity for shape shift differential, the greater the capacity for motive force.

Premise. The greater the density of interstitial structure to hold EZ water, the greater the complexity of accumulator, the greater the complexity of potential discharge, the finer the motor control.

Premise. The greater the density of interstitial structure, the greater the required number of nerve endings, the greater the required complexity of the central nervous system.

Premise. Blood flow within muscles is normal when at rest, blocked or inhibited when contracted. Blood flow is maintained by EZ water, as it acts as a pump when blood vessels are lined with EZ water.

Premise. Blood flow recharges EZ water. When they contract, they both expend their charge, and inhibit new charge from coming in. This is due to both a closed circuit and the reduction of EZ water which results in reduced blood flow. When they relax, new charge comes in, muscles are ready for discharge. Thus, the greater the blood flow capacity, the greater the recharge capacity, the greater the repetition capacity.

Premise. Blood flow is maintained by EZ water as it acts as a pump when blood vessels are lined with EZ water. Thus, the primary determinant of overall muscle performance is EZ water. The secondary determinant is number and total capacity of blood vessels supplying muscles. Blood flow is also likely an integral component to volume change within the interstitial matrix, as total volume must change if shape changes.

Premise. Discharge is most likely done by oxidation, i.e. electrons are stolen from EZ water by surrounding tissues. Thus, the greater the capacity to steal electrons by surrounding tissues, the greater the discharge capacity of muscles, the greater the potential motive force and repetition and endurance, etc. Antioxidants are obviously contraindicated.

This explains how some muscles can work almost continuously for a lifetime without much effort, such as the heart and diaphragm for example. The food, water and air (and sunlight in some respect, as infrared grows EZ water) we take in provide both charge and discharge capacity, since we excrete a lot of oxidized carbon.


I’ve believed for a long time that electric stimulation of muscles was possible because it’s the electric current that drives muscles. Now I believe that it works merely by closing the circuit, whereby stored charge is then discharged into surrounding tissues. This means it’s possible to stimulate muscles with a much lower current from an external source, so long as it’s done precisely rather than a shotgun method.

This has several applications, for example with limb replacement where the device can be made about the same size as natural limb and muscle yet provide almost exactly the same motive force and fine control. Or, assisting devices such as running boots or exoskeletons powered by the same principle so that the power supply only need be as large as required for timely recharge and instant circuit control. Or any other kind of device powered by some fashion of synthetic muscle driving a crankshaft or lever, such as vehicle suspension where response could be made especially quick and controlled by proportional negative feedback loop directly in the suspension without the need for external computer control.

Furthermore, since the driving power comes from the muscle, and since this power is discharged into surrounding tissues, it’s likely that it can be recycled to be reused to recharge the muscles, eliminating a significant amount of wasted power, thereby making the device highly efficient and requiring a much smaller power supply.

That’s all I got for now.


Martin Levac copyright 20:08 8/29/2016


Water – Diet and Health

Water – Diet and Health

Recently, I started reading about what’s called EZ water (the term “EZ” refers to the Exclusion Zone around that particular water). EZ water is different from what’s called bulk water, in that it has a different molecular structure and shows different properties. For example it’s H3O2 instead of H2O, and grows and shrinks according to energy input, specifically from infrared but likely from other types of energy as well. For the purpose of this post, one property is the ability to transduce this energy into mechanical work. So, we take a hydrophilic tube, EZ water grows on the tube’s surfaces, then there’s flow inside and across the tube from one end to the other – it becomes a pump.

How does that work in physiology? Well, we have capilaries that are smaller than red blood cells, and the heart is just not strong enough to push these red blood cells through. So how do these red blood cells get pushed? With hydrophilic surfaces and EZ water.

Some substances grow EZ water around them. One of those is glucose. When EZ water grows, it becomes like a sludge, it’s almost solid like ice. Indeed, its molecular structure is almost exactly like ice. OK, so there’s two main ideas here. First, glucose grows EZ water, so it tends to push other stuff away from itself. Second, glucose attracts red blood cells so it can meet up with it and get taken in (it’s to do with charge differentials, opposites attract, or like-likes-like when there’s an opposite charge as interface, that’s from Richard Feinman).

So now we have a mechanism to explain diabetic pathologies like nervous, eye and tissue damage from lack of blood flow and oxygen, from blockage by too much EZ water around too much glucose. We also have a mechanism for low-carb that actually helps these pathologies, as now there’s less glucose, so there’s less EZ water in the blood, so the blood is more liquid and can flow more easily through the blood vessels, so more oxygen can get to tissues. We also have less glycation since proteins also grow EZ water around them, so when proteins and glucose meet, they form clumps around which EZ water grows further.

On the other hand, EZ water that normally grows on surfaces where it should, like blood vessels and capillaries, can now work properly by comparison. When this EZ water is shrunk, everything in the body works less efficiently, if at all, we get sick.

Keep in mind that EZ water has both a different molecular structure and a different charge, and grows and shrinks according to energy input which has an effect on charge.


Now for what’s called structured water. Structured water is water that was passed through a device that creates a vortex. We call it structured water because its structure is changed by this device. But I don’t really know so I’m just going to call it vortexed water, because that’s the only thing I can actually be sure of.

One of the ability of vortexed water when we drink it is to cause a change in the blood, specifically to cause red blood cells to go from clumps to independent and free-flowing. Well, EZ water has that ability as well (but in reverse when it grows around molecules), so we’re dealing with charge here as well. So, the idea is that red blood cells clump together, there’s EZ water around that clump for some reason (maybe the clump’s nucleus is a protein, so we’re dealing with glycation). When we drink vortexed water, it affects the charge in the blood so that the EZ water around the red blood cell clumps shrinks, we get separation. From this, we get a bunch of effects like it’s now easier to get to the glycated hemoglobin and fix that, more red blood cells can now get through capillaries, more oxygen can get to various tissues, white blood cells travel through the blood more easily to do their thing, etc.

In a big picture point of view, glucose and red blood cells are tightly linked because red blood cells can only use glucose for fuel. Well, when red blood cells clump, it’s probably because there’s too much glucose, and too much EZ water around that glucose, so that when the excess glucose hits red blood cells, the red blood cell doesn’t let it in (because it already took in glucose so it’s not ready for more), glucose lingers and accumulates around that red blood cell, but since it’s still in the blood and all other red blood cells also don’t let it in, and since glucose continues to attract red blood cells cuz that’s how it meets up with them, red blood cells clump together around this excess glucose, we get clumps. Remember, there’s only about 5 grams total glucose in the entire blood supply, so while this effect occurs normally, it does so to a much lesser degree than let’s say when we eat 100 grams of glucose in 15 minutes 3 times per day to get our 300 grams of carbs as recommended by official dietary guidelines.

So, the EZ water, that’s true. The tube pump, that’s true. The red blood cells bigger than capillaries, that’s true. The rest is just ideas, take from it what you will.

Science of Structurized Water with Gerald Pollack – parts 1&2

Philippa Wiggins – Life Depends upon Two Kinds of Water

Vortexed water, various devices–Mup7eKarc


Martin Levac 21:37 8/13/2016


Points of Reference 3 – Cancer – Hormones

Points of Reference 3 – Cancer – Hormones


They say prostate cancer is caused by testosterone, and older men are more likely to get it. In fact, primary treatments include testosterone suppression with high-dose triptorelin for example, i.e. chemical castration. Is the premise even true?

No. Testosterone declines with age.

They say breast cancer is caused by estrogen, and older women are more likely to get it. In fact, primary treatments include suppression of the estrogen receptor with a class of drugs called selective estrogen receptor modulator, or SERM. Is the premise even true?

No. Estrogen declines with age.

They say cancer in general is caused by IGF-1, and the older we are, the more likely we are to get it. In fact, primary treatments include suppression of growth hormone which in turn leads to suppression of IGF-1. Is the premise even true?

No. Growth hormone declines with age.


What does any cancer respond to best? Insulin, and conversely, insulin suppression.


Testosterone, estrogen, and growth hormone supplementation (with bio-identical or agonists such as very-low dose triptorelin, patch estrogen, and GHRH peptides, to name a few) in older people actually improve their health in myriad ways. Men and women regain their vitality, muscle tone and a bit of leanness for example. In fact, men feel best when testosterone level is restored up to optimal level found at around 20 years old. Women, most likely the same (I didn’t check). As for GH supplementation, it’s tricky because bio-identical has no feedback control so there’s a risk of under/overdose, while GHRH peptide response is well regulated by existing control systems such as somatropin for example, up to and including actual optimal level for overall health.

Suppression of testosterone, estrogen, and growth hormone are shotgun treatments, they affect everything, including healthy tissue, which means they invariably make a person sicker, not healthier. Healthy tissue mass far surpasses sick tissue mass, restoring these hormone levels up to optimal will invariably make us more healthy by simple comparison of mass – more mass in healthy tissue therefore greater effect on healthy tissue. Optimal does not mean “for your age”, it means “for your species and gender, independent of age”.

Hyperglycemia suppresses growth hormone. Hyperglycemia is achieved by eating carbs. Eating carbs also stimulates insulin, which cancer is exquisitely sensitive to, and grows quite happily as a result. If this premise is true, then the primary treatment – before any other treatment – must be low-carb. Indeed, if the premise is true, then the preventive treatment – before we even get sick – must be low-carb.

Low-carb also means high-fat – LCHF. It works to restore testosterone and estrogen production too. Both these hormones are made of sterols, which is made from cholesterol, which is made from fat. Low-fat suppresses these hormones, while LCHF restores them. LCHF alone cannot restore them completely – these hormones decline with age. If there’s something else going on that prevents LCHF from working as it should, insulin will remain higher, and testosterone/estrogen/growth-hormone will remain lower. Find it, fix it. If that’s not enough, restore these hormones by other means.

Martin Levac 13:44 8/10/2016


Money – What and How

Money – What and How


What is money and how does it work?

Money is a bill of exchange.

It indicates the value of the thing exchanged for it, thereby creating this same value for the bill itself as well. Money is not the same as currency. Currency is the unit of measure of this value. In Canada, it’s the Canadian dollar. A unit of measure is merely a quantity, not a thing. However, in the case of currency, it is both the unit of measure of money, and the physical thing, i.e. the dollar bill. Any bill of exchange is money. For example, a promissory note is money, a bill of sale is money, a debt obligation is money, a negotiable instrument is money, all these are bills of exchange and they all have a value indicated in currency. In the case of negotiable instruments, since they are negotiable, their value depends on not just the value indicated, but also on several other factors such as interest, payment method, thing for which it is issued, the person who issued it, etc. Typically, currency is not negotiable, unless it is bought and sold with currency from other countries, then by the nature of this exchange it is negotiable. The reason for this is that currency is the unit of measure of value of money, thus it must remain fixed and invariable, i.e. we can’t go to the bank and negotiate the value of 10x $10 when we give 1x $100 in exchange – $100 is $100 is $100 no matter how it’s made up.

Money is a negotiable instrument.

This means its value is variable according to offer/demand and other factors such as interest rate. For example, a promissory note of value $1,000, but with interest rate of 10% is more valuable than another promissory note of same value $1,000 but with interest rate of 5%. Or, if the maker of the note can’t pay now, the note then drops in value until the maker of the note gets rich, at that point the note rises in value. This is especially important when a note is sold by the payee to a holder in due course, and then this person tries to sell the note again, and so forth. That’s the purpose of a credit rating, it gives value to the promissory notes we issue. The higher a credit rating is, the more valuable these notes become.

How does money work?

First, we look at who issues money.

The central bank issues currency, everybody else issues any other kind of money of value indicated by currency.

Who’s the central bank? In Canada, it’s the Canadian Treasury (or its other name is Bank of Canada). The Canadian Treasury is a private bank. And this is where it gets really absurd. First of all it’s a private bank, a private corporation, and its sole purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. First, the finance Minister issues promissory notes – called treasury bonds – and gives those bonds to the Treasury, who then issues the corresponding currency. This currency is issued at interest rate, determined by the Treasury, not by the finance Minister. This currency must be paid back to their full value indicated, not according to the actual cost of manufacture of these dollar bills. What this means is that the Treasury gets paid not for the actual thing made, but for the value indicated by the thing made, i.e. it gets paid $100 to make a $100 bill, $5 to make a $5 bill, etc, in spite of costing exactly the same to make any dollar bill of any value indicated. On top of this, interest is paid back as well, so that for every $100 bill, another $5 must be paid back to the Treasury. As if that was not absurd enough, who issues that $5 dollar bill that must exist to pay for the interest? You guessed it, the Canadian Treasury. And then we also have to pay back that $5, which the Treasury issued, so we could pay back the $5 interest on the $100 dollar bill the Treasury issued in the first place, and then more interest on that $5 dollar bill, and so forth. There’s no end. There’s only interest on interest on interest, ad nauseam. This is where the bulk of our taxes go.

The most absurd part is that since the Canadian Treasury is a private bank, and since it’s the only entity who can issue currency, it can issue any amount it wants, so the idea of making a profit for its shareholders is pointless. So what’s the true purpose of the Canadian Treasury? Well, who are the shareholders and what do they really want?

But there’s a trick.

Either we change the Law so that a) we pay only the actual cost of manufacture of dollar bills, or b) we dismantle the Canadian Treasury and instead create a state bank, then issue currency at cost without interest, or c) we each issue our own money in the form of promissory notes, with which we can then trade with everybody else, including with banks and government institutions and so forth, or d) we also maintain proper books and balance them at interval with those promissory notes, and so forth, or e) we remove money altogether, and use an alternative system instead (Ubuntu Contributionism, but it’s not the point of this post).

In fact, when we take out a loan at a bank, we sign a promissory note. The signer – the person who signs his name on the promissory note – is called the maker of the note, and the maker of the note is the issuer. We are led to believe that the bank makes the note or the bank issues the note, that’s incorrect. The signer is the maker is the issuer. We are also led to believe that we cannot control interest rates or penalties imposed when we can’t pay back the loan, that’s also incorrect. The maker/issuer of the note controls all aspects of its content, including interest rate, penalties, payment methods, frequency, amount, etc, everything. Indeed, if you’ve ever taken out a loan, read the “contract” carefully, you’ll see that the bank did not sign it, except maybe as a witness to your signature and it should be indicated clearly that it’s a witness, and anybody can sign as a witness, and even then the only signature that truly matters is the signer’s/maker’s/issuer’s – yours.

How it actually works when you take out a loan is that the bank first creates a deposit with the note you signed – this is an asset – then it creates a fictitious credit to your name – this is the liability and it balances the bank’s books. This credit to your name is financed by the note you signed – the bank is merely giving you back the money you gave it. The credit could be a check which you could cash in at any bank. Some claim that you don’t owe that money – the check you got – but that’s not entirely correct. The money you owe is the money you promised to pay, and the bank holds that promise. However, if the bank sold it, they no longer have the right to make a claim on it – to collect on it. Typically, the bank sells the note because it’s now worth much more than the value indicated because of interest. Basically, you’ve given the bank more money than the bank gave you, all because the note stipulates interest be paid.

Personally, I sent a promissory note to the bank to pay for a debt. If the bank was honest, they’d honor that note, and the debt would be paid, and then I’d pay that note according to its tenor. But the bank is not honest, so they continue to ask for money for that debt, and this makes them criminals since charging twice is fraud. The bank isn’t intentionally dishonest. I mean, it’s people and people are generally honest. Instead, it’s how they’re trained that makes them dishonest, they have no clue about the Law that applies or how that Law applies.

But that’s not a problem when we deal with promissory notes with each other, once we agree that’s how we’re going to do business with each other, and we establish a standard note format without interest or penalties. But then it’s an agreement, we must honor our promissory notes – our promise to pay. In fact, when we pay for things we can’t afford right now, we use promissory notes. For cars, houses, furniture, etc. We can’t afford the whole price right now, so we issue a note – a promise to pay – for the total amount, and that note actually pays for the whole price immediately. Typically, those notes we sign, they include interest and penalties, and they’re negotiable so the bank buys them, then sells them, but we still have to pay the bank, and again that’s fraud because the bank sold the note, yet continues to collect on it.

And this is where it gets interesting. If you’ve ever signed a promissory note, ask for the true original of this note. If the true original cannot be presented, then you cannot be liable to pay it anymore. This is how it works. When a note is sold, it is then said to be held by the “holder in due course”, and only the holder in due course has a right to make a claim on it, i.e. to collect on it. Once the bank sells a note, it no longer holds any right to make a claim on it.

It gets even more interesting. If you’ve already signed a promissory note for any kind of purchase like a car or a house, you can issue another promissory note to pay the first note, then you pay the second note according to its tenor (according to the terms and conditions which you set any way you want). This is basically what I did when I sent the note to the bank. I set the terms and conditions so that I no longer pay any interest, there’s no penalty for any reason, I set the monthly payments to be $10, and I set the payment place to be my home address so that now the bank must come to me to get their money, I also made the note explicitly negotiable so the bank can sell it if they so choose, and all of it conforms to the Law (the Bills of Exchange Act). For a house, typically there’s a mortgage – a condition that says the bank actually owns your house until you pay the full amount owed. Well, that too can be eliminated as you now control the terms and conditions, so obviously you won’t put a mortgage on your own note, right? Once you do this, the house is now yours and there’s nothing the bank can do about that. First though, you must find out the exact amount owed if you paid it in full (capital, interest, penalties, etc), then that’s the value you put in your promissory note.

Any promissory note can pay any other promissory note. In fact, that $5 dollar bill in your pocket is a promissory note, that stipulates the promise to pay $5 in the form of another $5 dollar bill, or in any other form of money of value $5. However, it’s not explicitly written on the dollar bills, that’s the nature of dollar bills – promissory notes to pay in the form of currency or in any other form of money, including other promissory notes of same value.

It’s important to keep in mind that when you sign a promissory note, you actually create money of the value indicated on the note. So, if you made a note for $500,000, then that’s the value of the note. Also, the instant you sign the note, that’s when the note becomes valuable and negotiable – it can be sold at any time after you sign it. So sign a note only when you’re about to deliver it, since delivery seals the deal – the payment (the note) is delivered, the note is completed by delivery. This means that if somebody steals your note, they won’t be able to sell it since you didn’t sign it – it has no value. Also, get a signature on delivery so that you have a record of the actual delivery to the payee, and also so that you establish your normal procedure for delivery in case of future dispute or theft of a note you signed but did not deliver yet. However, if you make a note and stipulate that it is non-negotiable, it is valuable only for the payee – for the person to whom you promised to pay.

Finally, when a promissory note you issued has been payed out in full, the note must be returned to you. So when you’ve payed back the bank for that loan, ask for the true original. If the bank does not return the true original, it’s fraud since that note continues to be deemed payable, in spite of having been payed in full, and thus continues to be traded for value even though there’s no value anymore. This is also true when you issue a promissory note to pay for another, or to pay for a loan or mortgage or whatever, the bank must return the first note you signed, because it has now been payed in full by the second note you issued.


But really, what did you think money was or how it worked?


Bills of Exchange Act:
(Look for definition of “bill” and “note”)
(Also read as best you can, so you get an idea of what the hell I’m talking about here)

Financial Administration Act:
(Look for definition of “money” and “negotiable instrument”)

Bank Act:
(Look for definition of “debt obligation”)

Bank of Canada Act:
Currency Act:

Ubuntu Contributionism
Political party:
Political party Canada:


Martin Levac copyright 17:07 8/7/2016