A Contest Between Sex And Gender Identity/Gender Expression

A Contest Between Sex And Gender Identity/Gender Expression

Gender identity/gender expression prevails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Levac copyright 10:55 4/19/2019



Master Of My Own Thoughts – 2

Master Of My Own Thoughts – 2

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

First Principle.

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

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

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

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

Second Principle.

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

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

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

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

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

Third Principle.

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

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

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

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

Fourth Principle.

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

Master Of My Own Thoughts.


Martin Levac copyright 10:14 2/28/2019


Legislature – Judiciary

Legislature – Judiciary

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

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

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

Statutes, regulations, policies.

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

The hierarchy of a democracy.

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

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


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

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

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

The people are no longer sovereign.

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

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

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

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

Martin Levac copyright 07:25 2/18/2019


Master Of My Own Thoughts

Master Of My Own Thoughts

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

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

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

Another way to illustrate this idea is with a question.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Martin Levac copyright 11:03 2/16/2019


The Move

The Move

An essay on extrapolation or deduction.

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

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

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

So, basically, only three possible archetypes.

– Genuine right-wing effort.

– False flag engineered by left-wing.

– Unknown/undefined as of yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Levac copyright 02:27 2/11/2019


The Principle of Understanding – To Imprint Into the Brain

The Principle of Understanding – To Imprint Into the Brain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Levac copyright 18:23 2/2/2019


A Powerful Idea

A Powerful Idea

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



Martin Levac copyright 00:39 1/24/2019


Social Glue Mechanism – Religion – Sunday Morning Mass

Social Cohesion

Social Glue Mechanism – Religion – Sunday Morning Mass

Dress your best. Behave your best. Do ceremony same as anybody else. Together with family, friends, neighbors.

Indoctrinated from young age – faith. Intellectualized as an adult – explicit understanding of practical benefits.

Beware corruption mechanisms. Know defenses against.

Two groups. One formed with the principle of family first. The other with the principle of state first.

In the first group, the people itself is the state, which is to say that there isn’t a state technically speaking. In the second, there’s two sub-groups, the state and the people. Several principles define each group. For example, by its very nature, the second group is defined by the principle of divide and control. All groups are defined by the principle of mutual survival – your survival is my survival, and vice versa. In very large groups, this principle of mutual survival is less true than in smaller groups or in a group of two individuals for example. For this, we can take the statistical point of view, where if some individuals do not survive, the group contains enough redundancy to compensate. In all types of groups, the principle of family first still applies. For example, in groups where the state is an inherited kingship, the state sub-group is formed with family first. Or, in a state/people group, the people sub-group is also formed with family first, where this ensures survival of both people and state sub-groups, thus of the main group.

Social glue mechanisms can be destroyed or exploited to turn them into social solvent mechanisms. Some mechanisms can be both glue or solvent, some simultaneously. Imagine a small group – a neighborhood – where some houses will be destroyed to make way for a mall, planned by some developer. People live in those houses. The group goes to church for Sunday morning mass. The priest has power in the form of influence over this group. The developer tries to leverage this influence by bribing the priest with a large “donation”. While a mall may benefit the group, it will not benefit the whole group – some people will lose their homes in the process. The priest understands, presents the facts to his parishioners – including the bribe. Proposes an alternative: Don’t oppose the developer, if he also builds new houses for the people who would otherwise become homeless. Here, the mechanism of capitalism is both a glue and a solvent (the mall benefits the group’s remainder, if the bribe is accepted, but the group is dimished). If instead the priest’s alternative proposition is accepted, the same mechanism is a glue only (the group benefits from remaining whole, from the mall, from the new houses, from the priest’s honesty).

In the above scenario, several social mechanisms come into play. One powerful mechanism is simply Sunday morning mass, as people, families, friends, neighbors, all dress their best, behave their best, do the same rites and rituals and ceremony as everybody else. Whether they do it out of faith or some other reason is irrelevant, it’s the act itself that matters because it’s tangible – it’s physical proof of faith, or of the explicit understanding of practical benefits, or both, whichever way you lean. It’s also physical proof that “I’m on your side. See? I’m doing it, too.”. While there may be specific explicit social glue mechanisms within the religious texts themselves, without this act of all going to Sunday morning mass, these holy texts serve little purpose on their own and have a much lesser effect on social cohesion. If you prefer, it’s the practice rather than the study that has the biggest effect.

These principles and social glue mechanisms are common to all groups, to all cultures, to all religions. They may differ in appearance and manner, but they are identical in substance and purpose. One difficulty is in distinguishing between appearance and substance, between manner and purpose. For example, the Quran prohibits consumption of alcohol, while the Catholic religion expressly promotes consumption of alcohol through the ceremony of blessing the wine. Here, the appearance and manner are different (can’t drink, must drink), yet the substance and purpose are identical – to attempt to prove oneself worthy and to worship.

Imagine a man moving to a country where his religion was not practiced. This man is a muslim and the country where he is now is mostly catholic, or the reverse – a catholic man moving to a muslim country. Would he be required to convert only so he could attempt to prove himself worthy and to worship? I propose that he is not required to convert. I further propose that he could learn and perform the rites and rituals and ceremony of a different religion, yet remain of his original faith.

To illustrate the above scenario a little bit better, imagine if this man did not have faith, yet wanted to go to Sunday morning mass anyways, maybe because he understood the practical benefits of such as I explained them in earlier paragraphs. Would he be required to convert then? No, he would not. In my eyes, so long as he is honest about why he participates, he would be welcome and he and the group would mutually benefit from his participation.

So here, on one hand we have a man who performs rites and rituals and ceremony of a faith other than his own yet does so with the genuine intent to attempt to prove himself worthy and to worship, and on the other hand a man without faith participates no differently than anyone else who has faith yet knowing the practical benefits to himself and to the group. As time goes by, either man may end up converting, but that’s besides the point. Difficulties – and there would be many difficulties in either case – can be resolved. Talk it through.

Think it through.

Do you know your neighbors? Do you visit them, even once in a while? Do you know your family, visit them, even once in a while? Do you believe your group is tight? Would it be easy to separate, take it apart? By what mechanisms would your group be taken apart? In any of those mechanisms, do you think that the above two examples would do that – separate your group? Or instead do you think that it would strengthen your group? Bear in mind that in either case, your group is bigger by 1, and any skills either man has acquired can certainly benefit the group. Also bear in mind that either man is making a personal sacrifice; one adopts rites and rituals and ceremony not of his faith; the other adopts them in spite of his lack of faith. In light of this, one would think that a man who would make such a personal sacrifice would certainly be willing to endure the hardships of life like anyone else in your group.

While I’m talking specifically about religion as a social glue mechanism, it’s certainly not the only one. There are many. Nevertheless, due to its nature and the nature of its rites and rituals and ceremony, religion is probably the strongest after family first, especially if it holds family first as one of its tenets.


I am without faith. You could say I’m an atheist, but I will say that I don’t believe in any god if you asked me. I could explain my view more at length, but I think it would sound like I’m preaching, so I won’t, at least not in this post. Instead, see this disclaimer as an admission and reminder that I’m not wholly unbiased. Having said that, I think that I have illustrated the point of social glue mechanisms and social cohesion well enough, at least as a starting point for further discussion.

OK, seriously. Why the fuck am I talking about religion and why the motherfucking fuck am I explaining the practical benefits of religion, huh? I’m a fucking atheist. I gotta be nuts. It’s the only explanation, right? Nope. I truly do have a reasonable reason to do this. In the past few days, I’ve been watching clips on yootoob about Scientology, particularly from ex-members who literally escaped. I mean, what the fuck. This shit ain’t no fucking religion, no matter how much you wanna believe. It’s ever been my impression that regardless of what I think of any religion, family first appears to be a main tenet, if not explicitly, at least as a manifestation of other tenets. It can’t be otherwise. If the family is destroyed, where the fuck do your parishioners come from, huh? Scientology contains an explicit mechanism that invariably results in the destruction of the family – disconnection. So I guess the reasonable reason I wrote this post is to illustrate the counterpart, whereby religion is a social glue mechanism through its rites and rituals and ceremony. I mean I didn’t write this directly because of that, but one thing led to another, ideas popped up, here it is. Also, this post could fit nicely with the previous where I talk about the tea ceremony and its purpose. And also also, I’ve been watching a bunch of clips about social justice, social justice warriors, freedom of speech, all that crap. I don’t care which way you lean, that’s not the point. But I have been wondering about it and I think I came up with a fairly workable model here (social glue mechanisms – social cohesion) to which I can apply the question –

Is this shit gonna make or break my community?

Martin Levac copyright 16:29 1/17/2019


The Tea Ceremony

The Tea Ceremony

I won’t even check but Ima say that every culture on this planet has a tea ceremony. What I did check was what is meant by tea ceremony and it so happens that wiki reserves this expression to Asian cultures, while for other cultures on the planet it’s called “tea drinking habits” as if there was no ceremony to it. The fact is there’s a ceremony to every “tea drinking habit” on the planet regardless of culture or perception, i.e. it’s not merely boil water add tea and drink.

Some cultures it’s not tea it’s some other plant like mint and other aromatic herbs for example, nevertheless the ceremony is still present. For some cultures the ceremony is wildly intricate and complex while other cultures it’s much more simple yet still “ceremonial” to some degree.

What is common to every tea ceremony on the planet however is to boil water.

But let’s take a closer look at the ceremony itself. What’s its purpose or function? I mean, it’s just tea and boiled water, what more could the ceremony add to that? Today we boil water to make it potable, cuz it actually works. No ceremony, no tea, no fancy ceramics, no absurd getups, just boil water and drink. So we know that the tea ceremony, which includes boiling water, actually works because we boil water at least. So what can everything besides boiling water add?

Well, let’s look at other kinds of ceremonies just to see how it works. First thing comes to my mind is religious ceremonies, but the most common is social status stuff like shaking hands and bowing to superiors and crap like that, cuz it’s all a ceremony. Would you act like that of your own initiative if nobody ever taught you any of it when you were young? Nope. So the ceremony serves a purpose other than pragmatic.

Except when it comes to the tea ceremony, cuz here boiling water actually serves a real genuine purpose.

Lemme put it this way. Imagine the tea ceremony looked just like a lab test instead of something out a fancy epic novel. First we dip something in the cold water, put it in some test machine, check the output. Then we boil the water, dip another widget in the boiled water, put it in the test machine, check the output and compare to the cold water printout. If everything checks out, we drink the water. From the point of view of the ignorant, there’s no difference, it’s just another tea ceremony, except there’s no tea, it’s just boiled water. So the ignorant who has any clue about tea would wonder about that part, probably conclude it’s not a tea ceremony cuz there’s no tea.

Remember what I said about what is common to every tea ceremony on the planet? It’s not the tea, some cultures it ain’t even tea. It’s the boiled water.

Remember what I said about the purpose of ceremony? It serves a purpose other than pragmatic. What is this purpose? To perpetuate something we’ll otherwise forget cuz either it ain’t actually useful or it is actually useful but so weird we will forget anyways.

Tell me, is religious ceremonies, social status stuff and all that crap actually useful? Doubtful but I’ll let you think about that while I tackle the genuine usefulness of the tea ceremony purely cuz of boiling water. Only recently have we discovered microscopic lifeforms that can make us sick or even kill us. Only recently have we determined that washing our hands before we dig into somebody’s open chest was a genuinely good thing. Only recently have we figured out that boiling water was real good at killing those tiny things to make otherwise unsafe water, safe to drink. Only recently have we implemented a “boil water” public safety announcement protocol when the water supply broke and possibly got contaminated.

Yet, the tea ceremony exists for eons in all cultures.

How is it even possible that ancient ceremonies from every culture on the planet with a single common element, and where this common element somehow fits within modern and widely and firmly accepted scientific findings? Did one of you cheeky bastid scientist go back in time or some shit like that? Gimme a break, something’s going on with this and it ain’t about the ceremony, it’s about boiling water. Rather, it is about the ceremony and how it perpetuated something that kept us alive and well through our eons of ignorance. Somehow I doubt we could say the same about various religious and certain other kinds of ceremonies through the eons, but that’s for another blog post which I won’t write cuz I don’t give a shit about that crap, so whatever you get the point about the tea ceremony.

So, cuz of the obvious ignorance of old, the next logical question is – who the fuck gave us that tea ceremony, huh? Cuz it wasn’t us, we were completely ignorant about boiling water until not 100 years ago. Did some douchebag with a high hat just make that shit up just for kicks, or cuz he wanted to get the chicks or something? You just think about that question and the crazy answer it suggests, while I illustrate ample precedent in our current era.

When the boss wants to keep his employees working, he does shit nobody understands even if he explains it at length. I mean, come on, does anybody understand the whys of anything the boss does? Fuck no, we just say “he’s the boss, he does whatever the fuck he wants, just do what he says and you’ll be fine”. And it works. It’s a sort of ceremony, just not as fancy or satisfying. An uncle of mine worked at a huge project in Alberta. There was a morning safety briefing by the safety officer every single fucking morning before they got to work. He told me of an anecdote where a crane signaler fooked up and got fired on the fucking spot by that famous safety officer. His retarded mistake almost got somebody killed by the (enter number here) ton crane he was signaling to. They gave out awards and medals and shit to safest employees with longest time on the job without an injury. They put up a prominent sign with the number of days since last injury. It’s all one big ceremony, cuz it used to be we totally forgot about people dying all the time on the job, and instead just replaced them with some new fresh workers, cuz there wasn’t any lack of those, ever. Nor is there any lack of those today. But we changed, added a big ceremony to keep people alive on the job. I guess we didn’t like to die on the job.

Does that illustrate ample precedent yet?

Right, so imagine the entire population is your workforce. And imagine the single most dangerous risk for that workforce is to drink contaminated water, which will invariably happen cuz we’re talking about a time when we were absolutely oblivious of all that stuff about tiny things that make us sick and kill us. That kind of risk ain’t about a few people getting crushed under a heavy rock or some shit like that, which is how we saw it before all that shit about morning safety briefings. It’s about the entire workforce at risk all at once from a common source of water, or not even common just a source which contains pathogens which then becomes an epidemic by spreading across the whole population cuz that’s what that shit does and we have ample precedent for that too. Well?

This is about the tea ceremony, but as I’m writing this I’m thinking about any other ceremony that may not look like a ceremony at all yet serves some genuine purpose anyways like taking a bath or something as innoccuous as that.

Some of you will invariably think of many arguments, which sound sensible on the face of it, like it makes the tea taste better or whatever. But I promise you there ain’t no fucking way you can convince me that the ceremony to bless the wine actually makes the wine taste any better cuz you just gotta see that’s some giant bullshit of the highest order. No, instead this is what I’m telling you. Every single argument you can think of that sounds sensible, they’re just part of the ceremony itself. They serve to perpetuate the ceremony, which itself serves to perpetuate something innocuous and easily forgotten – boiling water – but which is genuinely useful as opposed to all that bullshit you could ever believe in otherwise. So on the one hand it’s all bullshit, but on the other hand you keep believing whatever you want, and you keep doing the tea ceremony, and you keep boiling that water, cuz you just gotta know by now that doing that last part is actually genuinely useful.

Here’s an idea. Make up your own tea ceremony. It can be whatever you imagine. But one golden rule – boil water.

Martin Levac 07:30 11/27/2018