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 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

Elections – Credibility

Elections – Credibility

 

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

Murder.

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

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

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

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPvYxDDpAgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOp350kTlY

Philippa Wiggins – Life Depends upon Two Kinds of Water

http://philippawiggins.com/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001406

Vortexed water, various devices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–Mup7eKarc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovrivpC20pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh8j_aJ8M6w

 

Martin Levac 21:37 8/13/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

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

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

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: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-4/index.html
(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: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/index.html
(Look for definition of “money” and “negotiable instrument”)

Bank Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.01/
(Look for definition of “debt obligation”)

Bank of Canada Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-2/
Currency Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-52/page-1.html

Ubuntu Contributionism
Political party: http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/
Political party Canada: http://www.ubuntupartycanada.org/

 

Martin Levac copyright 17:07 8/7/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Diet – Our Evolution

Diet – Our Evolution

 

Recently, I started reading about ancient structures, especially the millions of stone circle ruins in South Africa that were only recently discovered by a guy Michael Tellinger, relatively speaking. The basic idea is that we were created by aliens as slaves to mine gold. Let’s ignore the absurd for a moment and instead focus on the implications as it relates to what diet we’re adapted to eat.

So, the time period is something like 300,000 years ago, that’s when our current species started. This means we can’t rely on anything before that. Among those stone circle ruins, there’s over 450,000 square kilometers of agricultural terraces. To grow what? Obviously, to grow food to feed all those slaves. To illustrate, there’s over 10,000,000 stone circle ruins. Ten million.

Where’d all the people go?

That’s besides the point. If it was food, what kind, and was it to be eaten by those slaves, or by cattle which would then feed those slaves? Dunno, but it gets me thinking. It’s noteworthy that those agricultural terraces are also connected to the stone circle ruins. The idea is that the stone circles are energy generating devices for the purpose of mining gold, but then if the terraces are connected, then some of that energy was also used to enhance plant growth. We have supporting evidence of this where seeds exposed to some ancient structures grow faster and bigger than other seeds. We lost that tech. Our modern agri doesn’t work like that. It’s all GMO, pesticides, petrol-based fertilizers, and radiation to neutralize pathogens.

These aliens, they made wine and beer. Well, that’s made from wheat and other grains, and grapes. Maybe the aliens really loved their wine, and that’s what those 450,000 square kilometers of agricultural terraces were intended for. That’s a boatload of aliens to get drunk, but then maybe it was all exported to some other planet. That’s some crazy shit but like I said it gets me thinking.

Here’s some not-so crazy shit. We easily get addicted to drinking, and whaddyaknow to bread too. Well, if I was a slavemaster and wanted my slaves to behave, I’d get them addicted to something and control the supply of that thing. Not only would that control them, but they’d fight to keep it that way, cuz you know, they’re addicted. Bread and wine. Hm, I sense a common thread to our humanity.

Yeah, so maybe we’re not actually adapted to eat a “diet” of bread and wine, and instead we’re adapted to get addicted to those, because we were designed as slaves to be controlled through that addiction. Makes sense. It’s still some crazy shit right there. Of course, you wouldn’t want all your slaves to die off in a few months from deficiencies, so you’d also design the wheat and the grapes to be somewhat nutritional. Somewhat. Don’t really need old slaves, only need young slaves that live long enough to reproduce. Hence “somewhat” nutritional.

Hm, there’s still the problem of generational epigenetics which eventually result in sterility. Can’t have that. Need those slaves, need the gold. Euh, let’s create gifts of nutrition in the form of festivities where slaves can eat whatever they want, including the good ole meat full of fat and protein and genuine nutrition. Yeah, good enough. Makes them happy cuz they feel like they deserve a break. Makes them live a bit longer to dig more gold. Makes them a bit more fertile and virile so they make more slaves. All good. Need my gold.

Ever wonder why we got hunter-gatherers in our history? Maybe these are the ones that got away. Viva la revoluzione! OK, what do we do? Let’s get the fuck outta here cuz there’s no chance to beat these aliens and their high-tech smiters. So anyways, they got away and they started to eat according to survival, cuz you know, that’s really hard to remove from a species, it forms the basis of fundamental biological systems that keep the species alive. So from that point forward, we have genuine evolution by way of natural selection. Those who survived and reproduced, continued to do whatever they did to survive and reproduce. Those that didn’t, well, didn’t.

It follows therefore that we are their descendants and the diet we’re adapted to must be whatever it was that they ate to survive and reproduce. But remember, we’re dealing with the last 300,000 years only, nothing before that. But we gotta ask, if they reproduced, did they proliferate? Yes, to some extent, but certainly not to the extent Europeans did it. Small groups, thousands if not millions of them, all over the planet. And all of them enjoying near-perfect health. Compare that to the blights of Europe and the millions of people crammed on that continent. Hum, that suggests that once we eat a diet we’re fully adapted to eat, we won’t proliferate so much. Something to think about.

But then if we only look at those traditional people, we can’t deduce causality. Cuz ya know, association is not causation. It follows therefore that the single most pertinent information we can get, we can only get through experiments we do today with our own current species, and with our own current available foods. Nothing else will do. Good thing is we can do it without asking anybody. It’s just food fer Chrissake. Don’t need permission from some dumass with a diploma. It’s some goddamn dumass that got us into this mess in the first place.

Guess what, those slaves that got away to become hunter-gatherers, they didn’t know a thing about food, but they learned, by experiment. We call this empirical knowledge, or empirical evidence. Knowledge derived from experience. Learning comes from doing. Indeed, the scientific method is just a formal description of the same thing. Well, everybody’s a scientist cuz everybody can learn from doing.

Now let’s say all that crazy alien shit is just bogus. Does it still make sense to learn from doing, and then rely on that knowledge? You bet. Let’s get on with it then. As a matter of fact, we can learn from doing when considering that crazy alien shit too. Yeah I know it’s crazy, but let’s apply the scientific method anyway, just so we can confirm it’s all bogus. If we don’t try, then we just believe it’s all bogus. We don’t actually know. Now maybe it’s just me, but I think if it’s not bogus, then we should take a serious look at that idea of energy generating devices and energy used to make plants grow faster and bigger, without all that GMO/pesticides/petrol/radiation, cuz make no mistake that’s some seriously crazy shit too.

Now I know, some of you who know me are gonna think I’ve gone off the rails. I must be mad. Crazy alien shit? Get real buddy. Yeah, well whatever. Do any of you remember the sensible stuff I wrote? Does any of it give you the impression that I have gone off the rails? Maybe I got hit in the head recently. Nope, I just read stuff, all kinds of stuff, I don’t necessarily write about all of it. But now I just did. Take from it what you will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
http://michaeltellinger.com/

Martin Levac 18:23 7/12/2016

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION