Quantum Axis

Quantum Axis

 

Quantum entanglement is misunderstood, until now. Entangled particles are linked with what I term a quantum axis (or axle, as in the axle of a car attached to two wheels at each end). Unlike linear motion of one object from one place to another, it’s spin motion of two objects linked by a common axis, thus the ability to transmit motion (therefore state) instantaneously. In this system, we have two particles linked by a common axis. As with a car transmission, it’s logical to extend the principle to multiple particles linked by multiple common axis. For example, this system would give us the ability to hook into a two-particle system via a third, or link two dual systems to form a triangle. And as with a car transmission here too, we get a second principle which I will term a quantum clutch. We can also imagine a third principle naturally termed a quantum differential. Then, from the principle of electron orbits, we have what would be termed quantum gears. Literally, we now have quantum mechanics.

The principles above consist of the hardware, we’d have to devise the proper software to match. Not unlike mechanical computing devices, quantum mechanics would use simple mechanical principles to carry information back and forth, and in doing so compute mathematical operations. Unlike any other mechanical computing device, quantum mechanics acts with zero delay across axis (no torque flex), and with light-speed delay across “contact” points (q-clutch, q-differential, q-gears, etc).

I was thinking about a bunch of ways to elaborate, but this should suffice as a basis for engineering experiments and applications. Have fun, you nerds.

 

Martin Levac copyright 13:26 5/29/2017

 

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Advertisements

Two Heads are Better Than One

Two Heads are Better Than One

 

What does that mean? It means that there’s two brains working on the same problem. But most importantly, and we always seem to miss that point, it’s that there’s twice the likelihood that a smart brain will work on the problem. It’s the most obvious, but we don’t see it that way. The only thing we see is the extra help, the extra same help, not the extra smarter help. If it’s two stupid brains, it won’t do a damn thing. But if one of them is smart, that’s the true benefit. See? It’s such a simple idea that I bet even the stupidest of us can see.

Eyes open.

 

Martin Levac copyright 02:42 5/20/2017

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Human History Abridged

Human History Abridged

From last 400,000 years to present, going through the great flood of 12,000 years ago.

Before 400k years, we were not homo-sapiens sapiens, we were most likely cro-magnon or some other hominid species. At around 400k years ago, aliens arrived to take gold from this planet and this went on for a relatively short time. At some point around 400k-300k years ago, they then made us from a native Earth species combined with some of their own genes – we are hybrids. The purpose of which was to get the gold for them. At first, we were straight up slaves, we got no compensation for our toil. But since we were now more intelligent as a result of hybridization, we learned and evolved and became more independent, perhaps to the point of realizing our situation and revolt.

At this point, several things were established by these aliens to continue to control us, so we continued to get gold for them. The first is money, with the infrastructure to handle money, i.e. temples, priests, bills of exchange, etc. The second is separation of the various groups handled by the various individual aliens who were responsible for the various territories on the planet. We can summarize this best with the phrase “divide and conquer”. We didn’t invent that, nor were we aware of the extensive implications of that as we are today. The way this was done is a different language for each different group primarily, but also with other “cultural” traits that were also different in each respective group.

The purpose of money was simple – to make us dig up the gold and return it to the temple, where we would get a bill of exchange which we could then use for our own economic activities independent of the aliens’ activities otherwise. The purpose of separation was to prevent association of the various groups into greater more powerful groups that could overturn our alien slavemasters. We can rephrase the proverb – divide and control. I posit that this division is evidence of a prior revolt, hence the need for division.

Then the great flood happened about 12,000 years ago.

The aliens left with their gold, most of it anyway, shortly before that, likely because they knew of the upcoming disaster. We remained here, where a very large portion of our now human population died from it, while only small groups survived the disaster. The groups with greatest numbers – but more importantly with more intelligent or learned individuals – recovered and developed quicker, which then became the foundation for our current “modern” civilization. We often cite Sumer as a foundation for many modern social concepts such as money for example. Some groups did not adopt things like writing or money, instead preferring different social traits such as respect of nature, oral tradition and such. It’s possible that some of these groups appeared before the flood, maybe they were escapees and rejected the “laws” imposed by these aliens, hence adoption of very different concepts that continue to exist even today in some populations which we usually call “traditional”.

The division of the various groups contained in its nature the seed of conflict, but most importantly the seed of further division. This explains in part the much greater number of “nations” today than there were initially. They weren’t nations, they were just groups of slaves controlled by only a handful of alien slavemasters, probably 12. It takes only a little time for 12 to become 250. 12,000 years is ample time for even occasional division to produce this. I say 12 because that’s a common number for the alien slavemasters in the various religious texts, though they don’t call them slavemasters, they call them God, or gods with a small g.

Incidentally, division explains why there’s both God and gods. One God as the major deity for each religion, likely representing one alien from each group of slaves they controlled, then several gods – 12 – to describe the history of these aliens as a group, before the flood. It’s a little confusing, but then that’s primarily how division works.

At some point, there was division of the temple and the bank. It’s possible that this division was intended by the aliens, but only after the flood, not before since before the flood it was more efficient to keep the two together. It’s also possible that this division was purely our doing, but maybe also a consequence of the “primordial” division. Division was ingrained in us from the start. Anyway, from this division, we get the banks who handle money, and temples who handle religion. Ironically, the richest entity on this planet is a temple – the Vatican. But then maybe it’s not irony at all, and instead is expressly intentional so that control is tightly centralized, yet gives the illusion of decentralization.

With respect to money and our current situation, money rules all. Initially, money was a bill of exchange where the bank owed the depositor the amount of gold specified on the bill. Today, money is a bill of exchange where we owe the bank for the use of the bank’s money – that’s fiat money. If that was the case way back when, it would be as if the bank owed us for the gold deposit, but then we owed the bank for the bill of exchange they gave us to indicate the amount of gold deposited, that makes no sense – it’s our gold. Anyways, that’s how money works today, we owe the bank to use their money. A different way to see it is that money used to represent value in the form of gold, but now money represents its own value.

Religion is a different story. It’s made from the aliens’ history on this planet, beginning from the time they arrived, to the time they left, then the flood. In some religious texts, specifically the Bible, humans wrote stuff they made up, likely because they understood this concept of control, and omitted some other stuff because it would have likely revealed the lies written elsewhere in the same text. All these books are talking about an omnipotent entity that created the universe after all. Well, it’s just some stupid aliens that wanted gold.

 

There you have it, human History abridged. Based on a few facts most of us aren’t even aware of. For example, the millions of stone circle ruins and the extensive agricultural terrace complex in South Africa, the various ancient texts relating the stories of these aliens, and the highly unlikely but utterly recognizable similarities of all the various religions on Earth.

There’s a sort of irony to money and division. Money is centralized planet-wide, in fact money is the same system with the same Laws in every country with a central bank in each, yet there’s deep division socially and culturally otherwise. It’s very likely that division is actively maintained for the purpose of keeping money in control, and whoever controls money controls the world. I don’t mean whoever has the most money, I mean whoever prints it.

There’s a few solutions. Since money is created by an act of Law, it can be destroyed by an act of Law as well. But that would piss off the bankers, ya? So instead, we simply amend the Laws to establish a more reasonable fee – i.e. “interest” – to use their money. For example, instead of the usual 4-5% of face value, it would be a fixed fee for each bill printed regardless of face value, and for a fixed time. This would eliminate the continual inflation, and reduce by several orders of magnitude the debt we owe these bankers for the use of their money. This would apply to printed money only, not virtual money that doesn’t get printed but only gets created and transacted as digital information. A Law could be made to limit the currently unlimited interest possible with debts where the debtor can’t pay the capital. The Bill of Exchange Act specifies that a bill must be made out to a “certain sum of money”, however it also stipulates that interest can be charged indefinitely (though the term “indefinitely” is not expressly written in that Law, the mechanism of that Law allows this concept to exist and take full effect in fact), and thus create an actual “infinite sum of money” rather than “certain”.

I didn’t mean to go on about money.

 

Martin Levac copyright 21:38 5/2/2017

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

First Rule of Existence

First Rule of Existence – Get smart.

The Benefit of Direct Egocentrism

The Benefit of Direct Egocentrism

Imagine a situation where a friend of yours works at a crappy shop, selling crap. He’s your friend, you want to help him out, you buy that crap so he keeps his job. You believe you’re helping him out, but in fact you’re keeping him in a crap job at a crap shop selling crap. What good friend you are.

Now imagine you think of your own personal benefit first and foremost when you buy stuff. Your friend still works at the same crap shop, but you don’t buy anything there – there’s no direct benefit to you. A chain of events begins where you are the trigger, the impetus, the shop sells less and less, closes down, eventually your friend loses his job. That’s the end of it. Or is it? The shops where you do buy stuff, are shops you consider worthy of your hard-earner money – they sell good stuff that directly benefits you. Your friend lost his job at that crap shop, but now he has an opportunity to get a job at a good shop, the one where you buy your good stuff. Maybe he won’t get that job, but the opportunity will present itself, all because of your direct egocentrism. An alternative is that the crap shops become good shops, their goods change or their services improve.

Extend this reasonable logic to all your personal choices with goods and services. Whether you help out a friend or not in doing so, you still benefit personally and directly first and foremost. But most importantly, whether the folks at the good shops are your friends or not, everybody in the chain of events benefits from your direct egocentrism.

Direct egocentrism is the act of directly benefiting from one’s action, as opposed to indirect egocentrism where one still benefits in the end but not from the initial action, i.e. buying crap to help out a friend – to keep him as a friend. In this sense, there is no such thing as altruism, where one does not derive any benefit whatsoever either directly or indirectly. So, choose the chain of events you wish to begin – wisely.

 

Martin Levac copyright 21:24 3/20/2017

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

The End Of All Evil – Jeremy Locke – Short Review

The End Of All Evil – Jeremy Locke – Short Review

 

This book is a simplistic tool of enslavement. Its true purpose is best described by this famous quote:

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

If we believe the freedom stuff in the book, we might also believe the rest of the book. For example, on page 40, we might believe Locke when he writes “Money is good”. If we believe that, then we invariably believe the rest which ineluctably follows this first belief.

Where does money come from? Money comes from privately owned central banks. If money is good, it follows that privately owned central banks are good. What is money? Money is a bill of exchange, a unit of measure of value. The money we use today is called fiat money and it is created by an Act of Law. Fiat money, issued by privately owned central banks, is “loaned” at face value, and charged interest on that loan at face value as well. The instant we borrow money, we are forever in debt.

In that book, there is not one instance of the word “bank”. How could that be? Jeremy Locke is quite eloquent about freedom, evil and government. How could he be so naive about money, as to omit the word “bank” from his entire book?

If one is to believe the freedom stuff in the book, and if one is to believe the rest of the book, then one is also to believe that privately owned central banks are good, then one is to unknowingly believe that one’s own enslavement – which we call debt – is good.

 

Who among you wants to become indebted, raise your hand? That’s what I thought.

 

Martin Levac copyright 16:10 11/10/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Money is a Unit of Measure of Value

Money is a Unit of Measure of Value

This value is derived from and is a fundamental part of a hierarchical value system where some are more valuable than others.

 

There are only two possible value systems.

A. We are all unequally valuable

B. We are all equally valuable

We could argue that there could be a third system where all individuals in one group are equally valuable, but unequally valuable to all individuals in a second group who are also equally valuable within their own group. However, this system creates a precedent for unequal value which then allows a group to distinguish individuals by different value, so it’s not technically a third possibility, it’s merely an extension of A. In our society, this third system is called racism. If racism is merely an extension of A, then we are all racists, but at the individual scale. This is besides the point of this post, but it illustrates well the fallacy of any other option. It’s a binary choice. There is no grey area, no middle ground.

 

There are only two possible ways to accumulate wealth.

A. Hierarchical value system where some are more valuable than others, and the rich create abundance for themselves while the poor swim in scarcity

B. Uniform value system where all are equally valuable, and all contribute to create abundance for the group

 

There are only two possible societal systems.

A. One group benefits at the expense of a second group, or at the expense of some or all other groups

B. All groups benefit from all other groups equally

It is important to note that, as individuals, we are all minority groups. It is therefore important to ensure that all individuals within a group benefit equally from the group, if that is the chosen system. On the other hand, if we choose the other system, it is important to ensure that some groups and individuals benefit more than others, even if we must ignore and neglect some groups and individuals completely. We could argue that we don’t really need to ensure this for this system, as the system will sort itself out by its very own nature. Indeed, the rich will ensure that for themselves. It’s kind of a joke.

 

System A: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/ (and other privately owned central banks elsewhere on the planet)

System B: http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/

These are our options. Choose wisely.

 

Martin Levac copyright 04:41 11/10/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Update on my condition (2014-01-11 original, with update 2016-10-11)

Update on my condition

Today, I consulted doctor Lienchi Tonnu (spelling? I don’t care at this point) to discuss various test results. I’m going to make this a short story, cuz a long one is gonna depress you too much.

To summarize, the doc did not listen to half of what I said (gave me the face you do when you “don’t want to hear it” with both hands in the air and shaking the head “no”), did some token exam of one specific symptom and concluded “it’s not an infection”, then wrote a slip to see a doc in internal medicine. That’s the second time I got a slip for a doc in internal medicine. The first one was so grossly incompetent that even a moron could see it. So even if I’m a moron, I could see the incompetence exude from that doc. Anyway, doc Tonnu’s incompetence was slightly more subtle. You have to be very much aware of the signs. And after 5+ years and 8+ docs, I am very much aware of the signs of incompetence. Tonnu said something like “I don’t know what you have. I don’t understand your symptoms.” (In French, though she could read the document I gave her, which I wrote in English)

I’m depressed. I’m angry. I’m desperate. I feel powerless. I have lost all hope. I feel like there’s nobody on my side. I’m seriously considering slitting my throat. I never said that before today.

I have lost all my health. I was in perfect health 5 years ago. It’s not my fault that I’m sick. It’s not my fault that 8+ docs can’t find what’s wrong with me. It’s not my fault. They don’t listen. At least that’s the impression I get, with one exception. The doc who did the stomach exam. I forget his name. Whatever, doesn’t matter, he can’t do fuck all about it. He did write a slip for an infection specialist at Hotel Dieu. I’m waiting. That’s all I do. Wait. 5 years. 8+ docs. My health declines each day. I feel like crying. I only feel this way when I feel totally powerless.

Help me please.

If you can get things moving quickly so I can consult docs in days instead of months, you can help me. If you can get me prescription meds without a prescription, you can help me. If you can make this public to get things moving, you can help me. If all you can do is tell me “don’t give up hope” or some soothing words that have exactly zero tangible effect, you can’t fucking help me.

I was so happy 5+ years ago. I was playing golf every day. I was lifting heavy weights at the gym. I was eating with a healthy appetite. I had zero health problem. I was strong, bright, slept like a baby. I did not smoke (I quit in 2006 to improve my golf game, started again a couple years ago due to depression and declining health and stupid docs). I was much leaner than I am today. I took care of myself because I could.

I have this conversation in my head with the docs. I explain and they listen and they do something about it. Doesn’t work in real life.

Are you depressed yet? How many more years do I have to wait before I get my health back? How many more docs do I have to consult before I find the smart one who will find what’s wrong with me? You gotta understand that every time a doc gives me a slip for a specialist, that’s another 3-to-6 months to wait, and then another month or two to discuss the test results, and so forth. Can you get things moving quickly? Do you have the power to do anything for me?

Would you offer me a job? I’m unreliable. I can’t sleep properly. I wake up at random hours of the day. I get sleepy at equally random hours. I suffer from chronic fatigue. I probably have a contagious infection of an unknown nature. I’m cranky. I have no patience. You know my symptoms. I asked doc Tonnu to fill out a form for Securite du Revenu for temporary medical problem. She refused. Her reason is “there must be a diagnosis of something specific”. Well, why don’t you fucking find out what’s wrong with me so you can fill out the fucking form. But you don’t listen to what I say. You don’t do proper exams. You don’t fucking care about my health. You still get paid for the consultation. That’s how the medical system works in Canada. The doc sees you, he gets paid, regardless of whether he finds what’s wrong with you or not.

I consulted a ORL, he referred me to another ORL. That’s a fucking gimmick. He’s just giving money to his buddy. And his buddy couldn’t find his own foot, but he wrote me a slip to that incompetent doc in internal medicine I was talking about. That stupid doc got paid too. They all got paid. I’m still sick. My health continues to decline. They still got paid. Is there even one of you who wants to find out what’s wrong with me so you can fix it? Email me. Give me an appointment next day. Give me a real solution. Or fuck off. I got no money. I can’t pay you. You gotta do it for free, or get your money from the system somehow.

I want to try one treatment.

Clarithromicin or equivalent

+

Doxycycline or Minocycline

+

Metronidazole or Rifampin

All 3 together for at least a month to see if it has any effect. If it does, then discontinue after the month and see if symptoms return. If symptoms return, continue treatment for at least 1 year.

Do any of you docs out there want to prescribe me this treatment? Do you understand why I want this treatment? Do you know what condition warrants this treatment? If yes to all, email me. Or fuck off. I’m done with tests. I’m done with waiting for you to get paid and for my health to decline. I want that treatment today. Call it a trial by fire. The risks? Compared to all the symptoms I suffer from now? Ya, I’m OK with the risk of dying. In fact, I decided that I want to become a professional golfer, or die. I did everything I could to get better. I practiced hours every day. I became the best player at the club. I scored par for the course, better than everybody except an actual honest-to-goodness pro who did the mini-tours in the US. He scored 2 under. I’m that good. I have the potential to be much better. When it comes to golf, I know my shit. I wrote lessons based on my own technique. I know how to put it into words so it’s easy to teach and easy to learn. My technique is so good that even though I played only twice last season with zero practice, I still had it, though putting and chipping requires constant practice so I fucked it up with those shots. I know how to get good and stay good. I taught myself. I’m not bragging. I’m telling the story of how I decided to become a professional golfer, or die. So I’m OK with the risk of dying from a treatment if that treatment has the potential to give me back my health.

And if that treatment has no effect, then I’ll figure out another treatment to try. I’m OK with the risk of dying. I’m OK with death.

Help me please.

Martin Levac 15:50 2014-01-11 (original post date)

Repost 2016-10-11

===

Update.

I now take chlorine dioxide daily at a dose of 20 drops per day. I combine it with water that’s been vortexed with a kid’s toy and two bottles, it tastes a little bit less harsh and is easier to swallow. Some of the effects I’ve noticed since starting CD, original posted 2016-4-22 in my journal at lowcarb.ca forum:

===

I didn’t post a log yet. So, here’s a summary of things I noticed. 3 weeks in.

The good

Better wakefulness, more constant
Better sleep, more rested
Can breathe better, like the lungs are cleared up
Nose isn’t as congested, breathe through both nostrils mostly, no pain, burning much reduced
Ears have less internal pressure
Various pains reduced or gone
Skin improved in various ways, it’s subtle
Vision/eyes more normal, don’t blink as often, doesn’t itch so much (didn’t think there was any problem until I noticed an improvement there)
Digestion seems faster overall, getting hungry a bit more often, more satiated when I eat
Weight relatively stable, tends to drop a bit, from 84.6kg to 83.1kg in 3 weeks
No more cramps in legs/calves when I walk
No longer out of breath when I get up the stairs
Heart rate went down from around 80 to around 65, it’s also dynamic now, as if the heart now responds properly
BP still too high for me, around 110/80, prefer around 90/60, we’ll see
I feel a bit stronger, like I could start lifting again, not there yet though
No more anxiety, no longer twitchy and jumpy
And, oh yeah, erection is much stronger, go figure

The bad

Nausea
Diarrhea

That’s when I was testing high dose in the first few days, now I get none of it. It works better if I drink a little more plain water than I’m used to, since it seems to help digestion.

I still don’t believe anything. It could all just be in my head. But then my head has been busy noticing all kinds of things, yeah? Cut out coffee, tea, supplements. There’s other effects I didn’t note here but I think they’re related to my indulgences, I’m still very much an addict for wheat/sugar/junk. Let’s just say I know exactly what these things do to me.

OK, I can’t help but note that there’s so many more things happening just with this than with any other single treatment (or altogether) I tried before. Maybe it’s just me, but it jumps out, yeah? The only other effective thing I did before was the mega dose vitamin A. But the T3, Ketoconazole, Clotrimazole, Levaquin, Fucidin, Polyderm, NAC, salt water, and a bunch more, it’s all for nothing.

Check this out, this is a list I wrote a while ago to describe the improvements I had when I first went LC/ZC.

– Strength, endurance, stamina, agility
– Eyesight, better than 20/20
– Mental abilities
– Aches and pains reduced or eliminated
– Breathing, lungs and nose
– Taste, smell
– Hearing
– Skin
– Sexual pleasure, ability
– Digestion, bowel function
– Sleep quality
– Mood
– Social behavior
– Blood pressure 90/60
– Heart rate 50
– Blood glucose 67 mg/dl
– Weight loss 190lbs => 165lbs

Notice quite a few things are the same as what I’ve seen in the last 3 weeks.

Ya, so, the next time I go see a doc, it’s to tell him to shove it.

===

Does this mean I found what’s wrong with me and everything’s gonna be alright? Not by a mile. I still don’t know what’s wrong, but I do know that it is sensitive to oxidation by CD, so it’s very likely an infection of some kind (probably fungal or mycoplasmal or bacterial, but could be parasitic too). I’m also considering cancer in the gut, but that’s a long shot because of the initial circumstances when it all began.

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

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

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 the http://www.lowcarb.ca 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

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION