Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 12
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


Yours for the asking... 12 October 2001

Is it not inherent, if you adequately question this question, or merely identify the fundamental origin of every human advancement, that the process to manifest a quantum advancement of the human phenomenon, easily more than your greatest social desire, can be identified with a single question, a mere arrangement of words? Would not such a question hold a brilliant disguise in your mind, by design of the human mind? Yes. And yes.

So how will you go about the process to find that question, while the world is full of highly titled fools spewing their obviously failed answers? Read that sentence as often as you need.



The Conclusion, when you learn it... 14 October 2001

The conclusion of the human phenomenon is the resolution of all human-caused contradictions, which of course was the start, but at the conclusion creates precisely what you most seek, by design of your mind. It is readily achievable, and obscured from your current recognition by the most brilliantly designed simplicity.



Security against terrorism, and its dollar cost... 15 October 2001

At the formation of the United States of America, the founding fathers repeatedly stressed what was known to humans since humans were invented. It is impossible to achieve security, by design of the human species, a vulnerable animal in a universe of extensive variables, most of them hazardous. And the greatest hazard humans will ever face, has already proven to be humans, by design of the human species. Without a close second, the most damaging and deadly hazard to society has always been each society's own government, including the one in Washington DC, as history proves upon itemized analysis. The last entity ever able to create security for the people is the people's government, with flawless proof.

Said founding fathers of the nation pointedly emphasized the old knowledge that the attempt to achieve security fails the goal and destroys freedom, leaving you without security or freedom. Again, the attempt to governmentally create security produces the creation of the greatest security problem, and creates additional damages beyond the security issue. No excuses prevail.

Now notice the number of times George Bush and his boys lie to you about their government providing security for the American people.

Given the choice today, would you elect George Washington for president, or George Bush? So whose words will you use for the decisions affecting your life? What have each said about what the government will do for your security? What conclusions will you act upon?

But the words of the nation's founding fathers were as useless to society as these similar arrangements of words herein, by manifest proof.

You can learn what society cannot possibly learn, from words, because you have a brain, and society is a word without an attached, individual brain, identical to government and every institution, therefore illuminating the controlling contradiction of the institution's individual members, or the institution would not exist. But words are of no utility to you until your mind asks the questions that genuinely challenge the validity of the words and thus create the neural receptors that are not contradicted by any other neural receptors in your brain. Because so many people believed rather than questioned the words of the nation's founding fathers, Americans ended up without the utility of those words and thus ended up with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and such sorts who destroyed the substance of Washington's words within the US Government. To the extent that you do not question the words you are reading, like all other words, they are of no value to you.

The current daily news includes the statements of businessmen who expressly describe the plunge in their business productivity because of yet more false security processes created by unthinking Washington DC government chaps. The local delivery of products, that previously required five hours, now requires twelve hours because of new security measures. The international deliveries of products that required seven days, now require twenty one days because of new security measures.

The same products now cost more time, thus cost more money, for the unattainable illusion of security, so fewer people can afford the same products and services. More money is required to buy fewer products and services. The economy cannot escape the damaging results. Get used to doing without what you desire. Abandon your previous goals.

The hassles and threats of airport security processes that only impede common travelers, not anyone seeking to seriously hijack airplanes, first dramatically reduced the number of passengers because of the hassles, and then further reduced the number because the security measures are obviously feckless against real hijackers while the government security measures of bombing innocent people in other countries and imprisoning people in this country, without due process of prevailing law, have created more incentive for more people to retaliate against Americans and their government.

There is no beneficial balance to this new security idiot-drill. The balancing concept is the inherently failed attempt to achieve security. Security is a rhetorical illusion which cannot be qualified or quantified. You are buying a fool's illusion which inherently doubles your cost. The existing airport security system which did not exist only a few years ago, which cost billions of dollars and massive waste of time, did not achieve any security, as proven by four successfully hijacked airplanes within one hour, and because you rewarded your government leaders for that idiot-drill, you taught them that they could compound your problem and be rewarded again.

The previous attempts to get past security measures are now more easily achieved by hiring on as one of the burgeoning new army of security personnel who cannot possibly identify an intent in the mind of any human anyway. Nor can you pay that army enough to buy your security without working only for them as still a futile attempt, and therein attracting even more people with intent to use you against yourself. The next successful hijacker will easily pose as a security agent or a federal air marshal, with a colleague as a supposed terrorist being subdued, and everyone including real security people and air marshals will gullibly believe the ruse for as long as it takes to achieve the intended goal. The verifiably greatest threat to your freedom and security, no matter who you are, or when or where in history, is always your own government because you are so easily fooled by it, as proven, because you do not effectively question it, and thus it is your enemy's easiest avenue to do as he wishes with you, as he is doing, by definition.

Why do you think that the US CIA and military are internationally acknowledged as the primary drug runners for the American recreational drug industry? The examples are only the learning vehicles. Do not waste your time fighting the examples. Learn the knowledge. It is more useful to you.

The new layers of costly, time-wasting airport security processes which delight fools, are even more easily out-witted by even half-wits, because the processes are invented by mental midgets who are not sufficiently intelligent to openly recognize what humans have known since humans were invented, that security is a fool's illusion, and then use that immutable truth as a tool to build an uncontradicted security system. The government chaps are getting paid money to parrot a lie, and they think the money is more valuable to them than their mind, which is why they are employed by government to produce what provides no intended result.

Because society is therefore deluded into thinking someone else is making them more secure, just like their previous airport security delusion, they will learn less about the flaw of institutional security, and thus compound their vulnerability. A cow is vulnerable to humans because a cow thinks less than humans. Humans are vulnerable to more hazards when they think less than inherently unthinking government chaps.

It is an aside to mention that the pro-gun chaps are correct to note that the freedom of individuals to carry guns without any identification as such, creates the zenith of humanly achievable airport and airplane security against hijackings and government thugs attacking human freedom, within the concept of the utilization of force. I emphasize the limitation to the concept of force for that process. While the institutionally associated pro-gun chaps cannot possibly support their suggestion against even rudimentary questioning, a thinking person thus practiced in flawlessly answering questions, can do so. But the process to achieve the zenith of humanly achievable airport and airplane security against hijackings within the concept of the utilization of the human mind, so vastly exceeds that which is achievable with the utilization of force, that guns, either those of thinking individuals or unthinking government thugs, are the discussion of lesser thinking folks. Effective airport security at its zenith of human ability, infinitely beyond what exists, is too easy, at zip for cost.

Like Clinton and his kids, Bush and his boys are going to continue to flaw this society, reducing your and society's material potential, because they cannot comprehend controlling concepts such as the impossibility of achieving security with the threat of force so easily used against itself.

Your only escape from the expensive and debilitating RepublicratDemocan police state is in learning new knowledge, and you can learn enough to easily negate the effects of Bush and his boys, but first you must learn that your brain design is identical to that of Bush and his boys, and Clinton and his kids. Only then can you learn the contradictions universal to the design, and thus the remedy.

Until then, enjoy the futile costs of your new security illusion, the greater expenses for the lesser products and services. And enjoy your surrender of your freedom. Your freedom is your avenue to advance yourself and the human phenomenon, by design of the human mind. Your willful surrender of it at great cost and no benefit identifies the magnitude of your comedy thoroughly enjoyed by observers.



Your wisely chosen limit, and its utility... 19 October 2001

Notice that you do not agree with everything your government does, yet you do not overthrow your government, primarily because you are too busy living the life of your separate interests and you do not have time to also live the life of the government sorts. To even sufficiently change your government has proven impossible by your consistently expressed position that you do not agree with everything your government does, by definition.

Add a dozen sentences of your own words to support the above conclusion of yours, for any chap who believes that you should detract from what you wish to do with your time, to change your government to make it as you or he defines in precise detail.

Notice that describes even the US president, all the congressmen and everyone else who are incessantly attempting to improve, thus change the government, by open espousals or actions, and consistently failing by definition of their ongoing efforts to change it. Even the government chaps, who are obviously failing, do not have time to become more of what they are.

Notice also that there is no mechanism to avoid the consequences of your government's actions while you claim the benefits of being a citizen in the country represented by your government. You can never get something for nothing. To claim the benefit is to accept 100% of the responsibility for every detriment, by definition. Your choice is to refuse the benefit. You cannot escape the human design.

Do not be hasty in your defensive excuses, for a bit more.

Is it not inherent that those other people over there in that other country likewise do not agree with everything their government does, but are likewise too busy with their own lives to overthrow or sufficiently change their government of the usual ignorant sorts attracted to government? If everyone used their time to change the government, who would grow the food they ate? Whatever you do will require the time otherwise available for what else you want to do.

So if you and the chap who thinks you should change your government, both of whom have failed to change it by definition of the desired change not yet effected, therefore fail, why would you or anyone in your society make a fool of yourselves by suggesting that those other people should do what everyone in your own society cannot do?

Would YOU or any other person who can understand the above concept inescapably describing yourselves, go bomb or more clandestinely kill Vietnamese, Panamanians, Afghans, Grenadians, Iraqis, Somolians, Colombians, Serbians, and people in over a dozen other countries of recent and current such actions by US Government thugs, because those other people do not have sufficient interest or time to change their government to your liking or the liking of anyone else? Well?

What is the definition of, their, as used in, their government?

Should those other people come over here and bomb the Pentagon with jetliner because the Americans are too lazy to change their murderous government that sends its military around the world to bomb people who do not change their government to the liking of US government people?

Notice that you did not write your answers, and that you will thus forget those questions and your answers at a time when they become useful for the next question and answer which can advance your useful knowledge when they are combined. Notice that the minds of government sorts are angered and thus confused by the presentation of those questions because their mind literally cannot formulate the answers, yet alone write them, by your easily verified proof.

Read this slowly. Now notice that if your people go kill those other people in their country, for any reason beyond their coming to you in your country, and their direct, face to face attempt to kill your people in front of many witnesses at the time of the attempt which you thwart by first killing them, those other people will derive the same excuse to kill your people, that you would use to kill them if some among them killed your people without your seeing them do so only to directly defend their lives from your people's attempt to kill them. Read that as often as you need, to identify the controlling concept itself, that prevails above all the examples and excuses. Notice that you can never go to them, lest they can come to you for the same reason. What are your warships doing off the coast of other countries that did not invite them, instead of around your coast protecting you from attack?

Now notice that if those other people in that other country paid taxes to support their government thugs who came over and bombed your people or more clandestinely killed them, thus suggesting your incentive to change their government to defend yourself in the future, you could not create a correction by distinguishing between the government thugs and the people paying them to bomb or otherwise kill you. The people paying them prove their intent to replace the thugs with more thugs if you kill any of the thugs. The people are the same as their government, and accept the full responsibility for the actions of the government they support and do not change.

Therefore using your own above reasoning which you would not deny in a public forum, and could not successfully deny by design of the human mind, while the government thugs flee the forum like bugs in a Raid commercial, you are left verifiably supporting the bombing or more clandestine killing of Americans by people in an array of other countries bombed and killed by the US DemocanRepublicrat government. You willingly supported your Washington DC government of military thugs who have repeatedly, maliciously attacked and bombed several other countries, as the lead and primary aggressor, which did not attack the US. By your own above reasoning you would not deny in public, as Americans you therefore have no escape from supporting the bombing of the World Trade Towers, except in the obviously contradicted excuse of all murderers.

As long as you cast even one vote, pay even one dollar of taxes or manifest any other support for the United States DemocanRepublicrat Party in Washington DC, you void your legitimate, reasoning-based defense against people in several countries who have and will likely escalate the killing of Americans because those many other people around the world have belatedly become tired of the ongoing decades of Americans killing whomever they wish for not doing what the Americans refuse to do, that is, change their government to remove murderous thugs from the leadership positions.

The issue is not the actions herein referenced as a learning vehicle. The issue is the reasoning process, the asking and answering of questions, that your mind must exercise to find the successful process to improve your government without sacrificing too much of your valuable time and without making an ass of yourself like all those sorts openly failing their espousals because they are too lazy to think through the contradictions of their conclusions.

What is a more valuable use of your time, learning new knowledge obviously not held by all those political party and organization leaders attempting to improve your government, or sending them money to support their ongoing failure with their obvious lack of knowledge? Use your answer. Half of that answer is extremely easy. Stop supporting them. They refuse to learn new knowledge, in face of their ongoing failure. Is it not an idiot who supports lazy idiots?

It is easy enough to stop voting for the RepublicratDemocans whose actions prove that you are unthinking to vote for them. You may continue to pay taxes as a convenience to avoid being maliciously attacked by the same Washington DC thugs who attack whomever else they wish, if you are too lazy to learn how to lawfully reduce your tax burden. You are already stuck with the results of the US DemocanRepublicrats maliciously slaughtering whomever they wish around the world for decades, for self-serving illusions of murderous RepublicratDemocans, unless you renounce your citizenship for that reason and go to another country without a murderous government. The item of usefulness to advance your knowledge beyond said sorts, is that your mind is capable of standing in public and stating the valid reasoning for people of other countries to kill any Americans they wish for the same reason the government thugs supported by the Americans incessantly kill people of other countries. The issue is the capability of your mind.

Much to the robust laughter of thinking people, not one person in the entire United States government can state such easily identified and verified reasoning, even when it is printed-out for them. Their mind is void of that ability for a reason you can only learn after your mind easily learns the controlling concepts of the human mind's design, and then therefore how to correct the results of the childish minds in any government or institution.

Therein you can learn the UTILITY of your personal decision to not kill, imprison or damage people who do not do what you will not do. It is the utility, the functionality, the value of that knowledge which you may learn. Yes, it will require a bit of your time, but not much if you have assistance, and it will resolve every contradiction your mind can identify, if you wish, to thus grant you the equivalent of a lifetime, much to your thorough enjoyment that entire time. Improving the government is only a paltry use, and learning vehicle, for such inordinately valuable knowledge. And you do not hold a choice, by design of the human mind, if you wish to separate yourself from the damaging consequences of your membership in any institution defined by any reference name beyond your personal name. You are human. You cannot escape that design. But you can learn it, something very few people learn, and none in institutions, much to your infinite humor.

Start now. Write your questions, and write their answers. Question them.



Laugh at PBS... 21 October 2001

The Public Broadcasting Service is an institution. It cannot effectively question institutions, by the design of institutions. Further, it routinely flatters institutions when flattery is contradicted, because PBS cannot exist without scamming return flattery of the same nature that it cannot earn on merit.

Is PBS void of flaws? Obviously, no. Has PBS spent time suggesting the flaws of others, before it resolved its own contradictions? Obviously, yes. And one contradiction (among others equally easy to resolve) is so easily resolved that PBS personnel are defined as openly dishonest, or intentionally ignorant. At their foundation, intentional ignorance and dishonesty are the same concept, with the same results.

PBS is its personnel. Not one PBS employee or supporter has an excuse, by definition, as long as they are a PBS employee or supporter while PBS willfully perpetuates openly identified contradictions.

You may equally laugh at those poor chaps who cry out as a defense of PBS that the other guy is worse than PBS, or that PBS is better than the other guy. They are too ignorant to recognize what they revealed of PBS and themselves. If you measure yourself against Hitler, you can murder one less person than thirteen million civilians, and be left with the full merits of the PBS excuse.

Watch any PBS history show about nations or national leaders. The PBS personnel will routinely flatter, to a great extent or only a slightly lesser extent, every national leader in history. Consider the sultans of the Ottoman Empire, recently flattered by PBS as great leaders. They were just common murderers. A commonly intelligent person would reference them as what they were, murderers, and teach one's children that murderers are murderers, not great leaders. The unthinking PBS personnel reference murderers as great leaders admired by millions of people. What is PBS therefore teaching your children?

Why do you think Osama bin Bush and all of their dismal ilk are trying to murder their way to greatness and to the solution for problems? They were taught as children, by PBS and all the other institutions, that they can murder their way to greatness and problem solutions. You will do what your mind is trained to do.

What difference does your mind recognize in the following descriptions? He was a great leader. He was a murderer who slaughtered people who harmed no one.

What difference do those words make in the mind of a child whom you teach, or who watches PBS? While you may evade the uncomfortable answer, your children remain subject to the results of PBS if they watch PBS.

Is it a great leader, worthy of public praise, whose unquestioning minions slaughter many people to steal their material wealth to build other material wealth in the name of the leader? PBS personnel literally cannot answer that question because it reveals PBS personnel as the same unthinking minions praising a murderer in public. But you can answer the question, and your answer is useful.

When an unthinking institutional PBS interviewer interviews an institutional historian who defines an institutional Ottoman Sultan as a great leader, why does the PBS chap not ask the historian precisely why the historian references the acknowledged murderer as a great leader, then ask the follow-up questions to arrive at the controlling question to define how many people a person can murder for that historian and PBS to publicly reference the murderer as a great leader, or exactly what a person must do with the material wealth stolen from murdered and intimidated victims so that any inherently equal human can start that process, perhaps with the families of PBS personnel, to be publicly referenced by PBS as a great leader? If you cannot answer the question, and you hold PBS personnel and supporters in anything but abject contempt, you are by definition left as praising the World Trade Center bombers and Bush for their referenced and current pursuit of public praise and greatness, as taught by PBS.

The PBS example, like billions of such examples, is not the issue. At issue is your mind's ability to consistently recognize truth while you are watching the government minion PBS sorts, identical to their colleagues in government and other institutions, consistently feeding you garbage, lies and illogicalities because they are too unthinking too question contradictions to recognize truth. They cannot recognize the dictionary meanings of the words they use, even if you hand them a dictionary. If a murderer is a great leader, then when do we release the murderers from prison, for our obvious need of great leaders, or when to we imprison the great leaders, for our obvious need of less murderers? Notice who can and who cannot answer that simple question.

You can be a common laborer and also a writer of these words, for which I can present the categorical proof, but you cannot be a person who orders the murder of humans who harmed no one, and also be a great leader. The latter are mutually exclusive. To fail to identify the proof, while one attempts to join both concepts within one person, identifies the ignorance of the person so attempting. A human leader is such for the purpose of thinking, by the controlling concept of humans, thus asking and answering questions. To kill a person is to fail the most rudimentary thinking, creating an inescapable cost that the leader and the followers will identifiably not volunteer to pay for the useless benefit of killing said person. 100% of PBS employees and supporters are clueless of that controlling concept of humans, even after you present them with those words and offer to answer their every related question.

You could email this section to every PBS employee, supporter and advertiser, and thereafter PBS personnel would continue to publicly praise common murderers, thugs and thieves as great national leaders, while supporters and advertisers send them money, much to your robust laughter. They are that unalterably ignorant, by definition of the institutional concept at play in human minds. Enjoy the show.



No thinking advisors in the US Government... 22 October 2001

It is literally not possible for the President of the United States to acquire even one intellectual (thinking) advisor, thus defining the United States of America as precisely what it is. Consider the proof.

First remember that intellectual activity is what your mind and everyone else's is doing much of the time, but the words, intellectual, thinking, and their synonyms, are commonly used to reference a bit more thinking than some average or some amount currently displayed. And that simply references more time consumed by the activity of thinking before one starts acting on their thought-created conclusions.

How much time would you spend thinking before you acted on your thoughts, if there were no direct threat to your life during that time, and the actions were for public observation? Would not the wise person think until his resulting actions would create no new embarrassing contradiction requiring yet more time thinking to resolve? Do you use your own answers to questions?

Of course the current manifest proof that the US president is not thinking and has no thinking advisors, is the inherently unwinable war waged against Afghanistan, a nation that did not attack the US. If you think the US can win the war against Afghanistan, you will know what caused it, and thus prove the error of your thought. What do governments define as victory after they attacked a concept which is created by using force rather than reasoning? And who is so ignorant that they think with guns and bombs, and thus believe governments? If you shoot or bomb a perceived opponent who is literally not at your door step shooting at you, you define your opponent as more intelligent than you at the outset, and your impatience to kill him rather than out-think him compounds the illumination of your ignorance. Go ahead, bomb another people, especially people who did not bomb you, and tell your friends that those other people will not retaliate.

If another nation decided that those arrogant Americans are an enemy, especially since Americans slosh their bombs and CIA murderers around the world at whim, would you support that other nation attacking Americans without first exercising the perhaps inconvenient thinking to resolve each specific complaint on its merits open for world judgment? Well, do you ask of others what you refuse to offer?

If an opponent attacked you, which Afghanistan did not do, and then retreated, you are thus given the time to out-think the opponent without the annoying distraction of bullets zipping past your ears. An unwarranted use of force is doomed by design, if you think enough to learn that design, and utilize it. Humans are predicated on their minds, not their bombs. To use your time to attack your perceived enemy before you out-think him, subjects you to the same doom and proves that you are each unthinking sorts who deserve the results of each other's malicious ignorance.

As an instructive aside, the same is the case if you propose a law, backed by armed police and prisons, in an attempt to force other people to do something, rather than learn how to cause their mind to voluntarily desire to do it upon the presentation of what you learned. Imagine the confusion that sentence created in the power-damaged minds of government chaps who cannot comprehend human actions outside the use of force, that is, they cannot comprehend the utility of their own mind. If you cannot identify sufficient reasoning to do as another adult tells you, would you support him writing a law backed by armed police to force you to do so? Why would you think another mind would react any differently? What is the result of reasoning pursued to the extent of answering every other person's questions, and what is the result of someone using force against you?

If even one thinking advisor were available to the George Bush, the war on Afghanistan, and the other wars Bush is waging outside the news media attention, as did Clinton and the lot of them, would not exist. Bush would have learned how to promptly win the wars, defeating the terrorists and terrorism without using force. Concurrently, all the mental midget war advisors around Bush would have been defeated with the same reasoning. The use of knowledge above guns and bombs is noticeable by the absence of noise and such dramatic stuff inflating the news media institution.

If you think there is no mind-based process to replace force-based process to effect logical social functioning among humans, you have obviously defined your own mind as of no more value than a gun. If you think the use of force is necessary, and you are not personally, heavily armed when you are in society, your mind has created a contradiction that flaws its every other attempt to manifest your conclusions for rational social functioning. You may arm yourself if you wish, especially now that the US has created the Office of Homeland Security Gestapo to wage war on Americans, but the mind-based process to effect logical social functioning is inherent to the design of humans, and will belatedly make power-damaged minds obsolete. Notice the total number of guns and bomb-laden aircraft with which the power-damaged minds of government sorts surround themselves and their decisions, in comparison with the public, defining the proportion of thinking ability among each.

There is no army of humans with enough power to defeat intellectual technology which controls their own minds, by design. Can you shoot or bomb your own mind into agreement with a conclusion it currently rejects? Well? Consider the persons, and their titles, who flatly refuse to answer that simple question, for fear of the next obvious question about the other guy's mind. Is the human mind of the same functional design as itself, regardless of the body supporting it? Well, do you answer questions to thus learn your own answer as a tool of knowledge? Will the human mind adopt a conclusion for which it identifies the proof? Might you need only identify said proof, merely the process of a bit more thinking, a few more questions? Would you kill a useful human mind instead of utilize it for that thinking process? Your enemy's mind is of the same design as your own. Use that knowledge.

Add to that the concept of imprisoning the other guy, or seizing his assets, for the same obvious conclusion. Notice the use of force instead of reasoning. Notice that YOUR paucity of reasoning is the controlling concept. If you cannot reason through the other guy's paucity of reasoning, you have needlessly stopped thinking too soon, to thus foolishly blame the other guy for not achieving what you could have as easily achieved.

The utilization of intellectual technology, the simple process of efficiently questioning and resolving every contradiction to produce a manifestation no mind can defeat, promptly achieves your logic-based goals, leaving the killing process as the forte of ignorant people in the US President's office and other terrorist caves.

George Bush and his war advisors are making the identical mistakes as Osama bin Laden and his war boys, which is why George and Osama cannot recognize their errors that leave them killing a lot of people and achieving no useful goal. They compare their efforts with the same failures by another human body with a name, and think they are achieving something. They think they can out-kill the other guy who created the problem by killing the other guy, each blaming the other guy for the killing. Unlike reasoning, killing humans consistently creates a contradiction among humans, then perpetually yet to be resolved. While fools will praise Bush, Osama and other leaders of the murdering game as long as fools exist, commonly intelligent people will relegate them to the large and rotted trash heap of maliciously ignorant sorts shortly forgotten. Bush, Osama, their replacements and all the horses advising them are not intellectually capable of questioning any of their own contradictions to find their controlling flaw to utilize that knowledge to defeat the other making the same mistake. And the opportunity would be more effective because the other will not use that advantage, much to the robust laughter of commonly intelligent people watching those fine chaps kill their way through their thus useless lives, poor sad throw-backs to the human phenomenon. While knowledge is theirs for the asking, and the only device capable of resolving contradictions, they do not ask, and instead use guns which inherently creates contradictions.

Granted, Osama was obviously smarter than George, within George and Osama's petty power game. Given the resources of Osama, George and all his advisors could have never achieved what Osama achieved. George and all his advisors are simply not capable of thinking through the scant number of contradictions Osama thought through. Without the power of the US military, George would be hiding in a cave, sweeping the dirt floor for a bigger guy, too unquestioning to think his way out of his cowardliness. But the controlling flaws of each of those chaps leave any differences of no consequence. They are just common murderers mouthing similar excuses.

If it was Osama who did so, rather than one of his advisors or someone else, Osama figured out how to successfully pull-off one of the most innovative and dramatic military attacks in world history. That only makes him a more popular fool among those military sorts who are insatiably in love with the killing game, leaving Osama as a comical Bush colleague viewed by more intelligent people who recognize the self-defeating flaw of using force. Are you humans predicated on your minds, or your muscles? Can your mind kill anyone? Is not killing completely dependent upon the use of muscles? Are you humans who support Bush or Osama not therein defined as utilizing muscles for your brain? Look at the institutional chaps standing in public praising Bush, as their colleagues in other nations praise Osama, and rightfully laugh at those muscles-for-brains.

In contrast to Osama's demonstration of slightly greater thinking, not one Bush or US Government advisor or consultant can exercise greater thinking to figure out how to win a war or defeat an enemy without using the Neanderthal process of killing people, despite the ease of the task. The zenith of their thinking ability has not changed since the first human or his knuckle-dragging predecessor bashed another human on the head, out of an inability or impatience to think through a contradiction involving the other chap. The military mind, at its maximum intellectual effort, can only devise more effective processes to kill other human minds, as rudimentary as lizards. And they represent the intellectual capacity of those who acquiesce to such amusing representation.

Therein they also strive to kill those enemies while minimizing the casualties of their own killers, and flatter themselves with the perception that such thinking constitutes something to be admired. The least thinking within that concept, if they thought through only a few more questions, could easily produce the process to guarantee zero casualties. Would you cut off your arm to kill one of those enemies, or think a bit more to achieve your goal without cutting off your arm? Well then, why would you think it logical to condone a military General representing you, who is too great a coward to cut off one of his arms to kill the enemy, but who is willing to sacrifice the lives of any number of soldiers to kill the enemy, instead of thinking enough to treat the lives of those soldiers as he treats his arm? Not one advisor to George Bush can answer that question for public judgment of his intellectual ability. Not one US military soldier is sufficiently intelligent to figure out the flaw of following a General who is too lazy to figure out how to win a war without killing any of his own soldiers, after said Generals spend time at the Officer's Club and other social functions. Which question did a US military officer not ask and answer, that could save the lives of his subordinates, before he sent them into battle and after he spent time telling old jokes among the other officers at the officers club? Which US military personnel are so unthinking they would remain in their job after they know the above to be true? Military people are that unthinking, needlessly.

It takes vastly less energy to learn how to win wars without firing a shot, than it takes to complete basic enlisted or officer US Army infantry school. That is how unthinking US military enlisted and officer personnel are. In the entire United States military, including the Commander In Chief and his legions of advisors and think tanks, there is not one person who even knows how to ask the question: How do we win any war without firing a shot?, and then not stop asking the resulting questions until the definitive answer is available to manifest. You can email them these words, and they will still not know how. That is how unthinking the Commander In Chief of the United States military and all his advisors, are. The power-damaged mind has severed its access to the logic process of the human brain.

The answer to the above question asking if it is logical to condone said General thus representing you, is: There is no logical reason to condone such a military General. Your action of condoning him is not logical. If you cannot devise the plan to not cut off your arm and to not sacrifice the lives of your followers, your followers are fools to follow you or let you claim any representation of them. If you are willing to kill anyone on any side because you, as a leader, are too impatient to ask and answer a few more questions to achieve the goal without killing highly valuable and useful human minds, you are a typical military sort unchanged since the aforementioned knuckle-draggers bashed each other with sticks and rocks.

The US President and all of his institutional advisors seek their consultants and advisors only from within their own institutional box, by definition of the institutional design. The situation is more amusing than you first recognize. To be selected as an advisor to the president or any high title of any institution, one must first be selected by a small or large legion of current advisors, each weeding out anyone who says anything that makes their mind uncomfortable, precisely the new knowledge for which a useful advisor would be selected. The results in sum are the most intellectually absent yes-men available in society, selected as so-called advisors, by design of that process. Any rhetorical denials, upon seeing these words of obvious truth, are only a fool's illusion first fooling the fool who would attempt to deny such obvious truth. And the original advisors directly selected by the president and such chaps, are inherently their friends, having become their friends because they routinely agreed with the chap they helped acquire the title. The only useful advice to the human mind is that which contradicts the mind's current conclusions, to thus create the questions to correct or verify the conclusions. There is no currently manifested process for an institutional leader to acquire useful advisors.

Within the institutions, each involved person sought to advance themselves within their respective institutions, seeking titles, ego gratification, salaries, and petty material benefits. Any purported knowledge is treated only as an excuse to get the titles. Acquiring the titles was predicated on agreeing with the title-granters, not irritating them with embarrassing questions exposing the entrenched ignorance of the title-granters. They trained their mind to never question the foundational precepts entrenched in the institutions since the aforementioned knuckle-draggers formed the first social unit of chaps who dared not question the big guy with the big club and his yes-men with clubs. With their minds so trained, not one of them can identify the institutional flaws that direct them toward killing as a solution, and block their access to intellectual technology, the latter being the individual mind's ability to question every concept, including those of institutions.

There is a reason the whistle-blowers, question-askers, trouble-makers and dissidents are institutionally attacked and thrown out of the institutions for daring to ask questions of institutional contradictions. If you didn't learn from the other examples or merely questioning the concept, the feckless laws purportedly protecting whistle-blowers in the government, now used to more maliciously attack whistle-blowers, can teach even the most dense individual, but never an institutional mentality.

If a presidential advisor or consultant isn't saying, yes sir, to every knuckle-dragger around the president, he isn't a presidential advisor, by analysis of the process and by manifest proof. Caught with those words, such advisors and consultants would advance examples of their rhetorical tap-dancing as an illusion of not always supporting their boss' conclusions, then tap-dance away from their conclusions and the manifest proof, not slowing down after slithering out the back door.

Therein and from your own further analysis, recognizing that the entire United States Government cannot acquire even one thinking consultant or advisor, quite like the Taliban, Osama, and every other power-based institution, enjoy the show. And take the time to ask and answer the questions those furballs flee, to easily learn the greater substance for your laughing at them. Sure they will kill many more people until humans learn intellectual technology. Try to stay out of the way.

Teach your children to openly ask and answer the type questions that will keep them out of Osama bin Bush's military of mindless cannon fodder and corps of intellectually absent military officers. The US military and every government agency will immediately reject any recruit who openly asks questions of the glaring contradictions created by government sorts. Of course that immutable truth defines the gullible, unquestioning sorts who are in the military and government jobs. And of course those questions will rapidly advance your children's knowledge beyond yours, damaging your delicate ego, but you will then derive the benefit of valuable knowledge beyond what you could have learned, as well the rest of society.



The humor of the event... 23 October 2001

The question: Why did those chaps bomb the World Trade Center?

The answer: Because the United States of America has been running around the world maliciously killing whomever its leaders wished, overtly and covertly, often for Wag The Dog Wars and protecting lucrative government drug-running, with arrogance and impunity, causing vastly more devastation and grief than caused at the World Trade Center, sticking its dirty nose into the national business of other countries and other people for so many decades that America belatedly irritated someone smart enough, with soldiers equally angry enough to pull off the historically brilliant military attack on the World Trade Center.

The question: How do we prevent that from happening again?

The answer: First, we do not run off to another country and kill more people yet again to literally reinforce the reasoning for the attack, especially when the people who bombed the World Trade Center were already dead, especially in a country whose government did not launch the attack. Then we out-think the enemy since the enemy has dramatically proven, beyond the comprehension of Americans, that he does not even remotely fear death.

The effectiveness of the answer: The enemy fears being out-thought more than any other fear it faces, and is thus highly vulnerable, as proven by its disregard for death and its draconian system of teaching religious dogma at the concerted exclusion of individual thinking.

To out-think an enemy is to ask more questions than the enemy, and answer them. The process is ludicrously easy, among humans who do not fear new knowledge.

The humor: The United States RepublicratDemocan regime, conceptually very similar to the Taliban clerics, fears thinking and new knowledge as much as the enemy, as proven by its 53 armed federal government law enforcement agencies and military which automatically reject any recruit who effectively questions the glaring contradiction of even that concept of so many armed agencies, yet alone the countless other governmentally-created contradictions, and will fire or imprison any existing government employee who thinks enough to question the overt contradictions of their superiors instead of mindlessly obeying the orders of the US government clerics.

No reasoning can prevail against the above. Bring me the greatest thinkers in the world, and they will agree or see their reasoning fail in face of effective questioning.

If you aren't laughing yourself to tears over the childish antics of ignorant sorts leading nations and other institutions, supported by rather gullible chaps, you are missing the only show these humans yet produce.

There is, of course, a readily available process to advance humans into something more useful and beneficial than a comedy, by design of the human mind. You need only find the readily available question, obscured among the questions you may start asking.



Who bombed the World Trade Center... 24 October 2001

The people who bombed the World Trade Center, that is, by definition, the people who hijacked the jets and drove them into the towers, are dead. In fact, their carbon particles are in the air spread from New York to London. You cannot successfully attack them with military force. It is too late.

If some fanatics from Canada, England and Mexico, having been in their militaries and thus so trained by their governments, and otherwise deriving income from work in those countries thus supporting them, verifiably shouted, death to communism, viva capitalism, as they drove a suicide car bomb into a major building in China, should China launch a full military attack on the United States because it harbors capitalists?

When Panama's Manuel Noriaga was given refuge in a Catholic church while the US military thugs were killing many innocent bystanders during the US military's inherently incompetent attempt to kidnap Noriaga, if he had not voluntarily come out, should the US Government have launched a full military attack on the Vatican?

Because the Burma government refuses to hand over the Golden Triangle heroin drug lords distributing heroin through CIA connections, whom the US claims as being responsible for the drug-overdose deaths of many American young people every year, should the US Government launch a full military attack on Burma?

What is the dividing line between the jurisdiction of different governments? What is the penalty for a government crossing that line to kill people not in favor with said government? Who can successfully defy fundamental international law and basic human reasoning for how long after the people of the world learned basic human reasoning and the law? If the human puppet with the police job refuses to enforce the law that protects the people from being killed by the puppet's boss, who can and will eventually enforce the law against the killers? Is it not the people who will eventually enforce universal human law not enforced by the governments? How long can a government kill how many people before the people react?

Would you follow government leaders who are too ignorant, too cowardly and too dishonest to answer every public policy question about the government's actions?

The reason you can be killed in certain other countries, for asking the government effective questions, is the eventually inherent result of the currently lesser reason no US news media journalist will ask any politician or other government officials any effective questions in the United States of America. It is the reason no public school teacher will teach any student how to ask effective questions.

An effective question is one which, if the person asked holds a power-altered mind, he refuses to answer, or intentionally answers with an answer that does not answer the question asked. Such questions constitute the metaphorical door which opens your own mind to the more advanced questions, the results of which the other mind cannot escape by any means, verifiably defeating that mind and manifestly achieving your related goal.

That no government leader will answer an effective question illuminates the concept, and is inherent. But that you refuse to answer such questions for public judgment of your reasoning ability, leaves you as willfully ignorant as government sorts. You need not so leave yourself.

The people who bombed the World Trade Center are dead because they did not first learn what the ignorant sorts in the Washington DC government did not learn before flying off to bomb more of the people whose colleagues will therefore return to kill more Americans, perhaps your children. The ignorant US DemocanRepublicrats, identical to the Afghan Taliban clerics and their ilk in every government, will never learn that knowledge. You can. Accurately answer every question you hear or read. Write your answers.

The people who bombed the World Trade Center, are dead. The US Government chaps then only created the next such bombers instead of asking and answering the questions to create the knowledge that can preclude the next such bombers.



What works vs. what does not work... 25 October 2001

What made the United States of America unique in human history, and remarkably successful for the human phenomenon?

The answer is the US Constitution, a historically unique document, predicated on learning new knowledge, which dramatically limited the power and authority of the government, while expressly identifying individual citizen rights above the power of the government, written on record that every literate person can read. Individual humans were free to function beyond the traditional, inherently narrow, killing-based and imprisoning-based institutional box of a few stagnant minds in government. The people thus created what America became, by however you wish to describe it.

Not one US Government official will ever ask and accurately answer the above question in public. What does that tell you?

The US Constitution, further reducing the corrupted power of the British lords for a governmental design, was built from the knowledge created by the Magna Carte in which the British lords reduced the corrupted power of the British kings. What does that tell you about the concept and its process?

Government attracts, maintains, trains and promotes people who are not capable of asking and answering effective questions revealing fundamental truths of human social functioning. Truth, knowledge, logic and such concepts are the death of corrupted power. Power cannot prevail against truth. To survive, power must kill or imprison humans who advance truth, oblivious to the concept that truth itself can never be killed. Government personnel cannot tolerate truth. Victims of government employment know power alone. The proofs are unequivocal in concept and manifestation.

What would destroy the United States of America, to drag it down to the level of all the other governments, leaving its people no better off than those under any other government, no incentive to defend their government in a real test, and no incentive to invest in a future that the government holds the power, authority, manifest process and intent to rob from the next generation to advance the power of the intellectually embarrassing government drones?

The answer is to suspend the Constitution or any parts of it.

How could you most easily suspend the US Constitution or any parts of it?

The obvious answer is to easily fool the fools in Washington DC to suspend the Constitution or any parts of it, and concurrently fool the people into maintaining support for said Washington DC sorts.

That most of the Constitution has already been methodically suspended by the DemocanRepublicrats in Washington DC is obvious to any literate person who reads the Constitution and looks at the enforced laws contradicting it, leaving the concept of the United States of American close to its therefore inherent collapse.

What has Osama bin Laden fooled the RepublicratDemocan fools in Washington DC into doing?

The obvious answer is suspending remaining remnants of the US Constitution, with the Office of Homeland Security Gestapo being a prime example among others.

It is only the US DemocanRepublicrats who have made Osama bin Laden the currently most powerful and clever institutional leader in human history. Regardless of any excuses, he can take the credit for defeating the United States Constitution, while not accepting the responsibility since it was the US RepublicratDemocans who suspended the Constitution.

And tomorrow most Americans will praise their Osama-orchestrated US DemocanRepublicrat regime, much to the howling laughter of observers.

It was inherent to the process created by the US Government at its formation maintaining the US Constitution so long contradicting its manifestation among Indians, Blacks and women, that said process under said Government would ultimately destroy the United States of America. The details of the current manifestation of the process effected under similar excuses, are immaterial.

The only remaining choice is whether anyone with the related knowledge encounters the incentive to therefore advance the human phenomenon still content to stagnate itself under counter-productive government, or let the intellectually lazy humans drop what they learned and start over again.

Enjoy the show.



12 Pages... 26 October 2001

This is how easy it is to think more than military and government chaps.

The answer herein is available only to the persons who recognize the reasoning leading to it.

There is a rumor that some US government or military entity, FBI, CIA, ETC or some such chaps, are requesting proposals on how to thwart terrorism, defeat the Afghan government or whatever terrorist group the US is purportedly bombing in Afghanistan, or something of that nature related to the so-called terrorists hiding behind every tree in the minds of government chaps. The request is apparently for proposals of 12 pages in length. If there are any errors therein, the government or news media poorly conveyed the rumor among the people, to include their inability to perceive the public perception.

On the surface, the rumor seems reasonable, although a bit unbelievable that government would request knowledge from outside the government thimble. The twelve page thing would be reasonable to explain a process, and weed-out the sorts who cannot write that much, and remain within the reading time of the bureaucrats considering any proposals. And certainly even children figured out before Bush bombed Afghanistan that the the entire US Government was clueless as to how to defeat a foreign enemy which had no country. If the government chaps did not make such a request, to thus maintain their institutional isolation, the results are obvious.

But wait. With a bit more thought, one recognizes from the concept, actually requested or not, that the United States Government would be requesting knowledge that the entire United States Government system, its process, with all its personnel, armies, their horses and tanks, their legions of experts and experience, their greatest minds within their institutions, and other resources in sum having already squandered trillions of tax dollars, have not been able to learn in the history of the United States Government, as is otherwise obvious.

The only legitimate reason, and the primary reason for the existence of a national government in our forced-based social concept, not yet having achieved a reasoning-based social concept, is to protect the people of the nation from a military attack, so the people could therefore attend to the things that people inherently do to inherently advance themselves and thus advance society and concurrently pay for the government. Of course you recognize that government inherently uses the original excuse for its power to attempt to invade every decision of every individual to thus drag society down to the Neanderthal level of the ignorant sorts attracted to government, until the people must belatedly dump their government so they can function as humans. But if the government does not know how to successfully protect the nation from a more-thinking enemy, and that is obviously the case, you obviously need a new government. If the aforementioned request exists, it is the admission that the government is useless for its only legitimate excuse to exist. It must ask the people how to do what the people are paying the government to figure out. It is that useless, and worse, the US Government is the only thing that caused the terrorist attack. Is that not so?

With so many different human minds within our burgeoning governmental system, it is inherent that a governmental design flaw for solving problems exists regardless of the number of human minds added to the soup. Having all so extensively failed, how could anyone among the lot recognize any concept in 12 pages of words written by just a different mind, which could achieve what all those government chaps could not devise? How could they recognize what they could not prior recognize, especially for an issue of such ancient origin as plain old criminal actions damaging other humans? How? What process? Your answer?

Might you therefore recognize the controlling concept, infinitely beyond any government mind? What is your answer and its utility to your mind at this point?

Worse. If any useful proposals by the countless humans inside the massive US Government, with all their titles, agencies, committees, suits and ties, and communications facilities, doing what they are paid to do, could not reach any decision-makers anyway, through even the internal fortress walls of the bureaucracy, as is so glaringly obvious to the common people, proven by the results, what mechanism attached to a new request to people outside the fortress walls already long-pummeling the walls with proposals, could achieve that which the same countless people could not do before, and why did they not already do that? If you do not accurately or sincerely attempt to answer the question as the device to train your mind to answer the next questions, your any further effort has already failed.

For what were all those government sorts paid?

What process would you use to get knowledge of a successful process past all the people in the layers of bureaucracy who prior could not recognize any value in proposals or utility in process, and who still cannot recognize a functional process by definition of the process for their request?

Yet, is it not amusingly easy to defeat any enemy, merely another equal human mind, who created any contradiction therefore with an inherent resolution, merely by answering one effective question beyond what the enemy considered? Does the solution not exist by design of humans? Would an undefeatable enemy not have to be perfect? Look at the sorts attracted to the US Government, and do not wonder why they are so easily defeated by even an Osama. And imagine if Osama, already light-years ahead of Bush, acquired intellectual technology that Bush and his boys are too fearful to consider. That Osama already won with the design of his action, if he can rightfully claim the design, regardless of his fate, has been proven for history by the US Government reaction destroying more American freedom than any other attacking nation in history.

The process that created the failure of government and such institutions is designed to insure that the correction cannot be achieved within that process. The test of time has proven the concept. Did you think anyone in the entire US Government, or in any of the countless such force-based governments in human history, could suddenly recognize in 2001 what all of them have never been able to recognize in history, by using the same system? It is the US Government which is making the 12 page request request, the entity that created itself to insure no correction to its contradictions could be achieved. What would occur to the institution of government if the correction to its controlling flaw was identified by the people?

But you can recognize the system to resolve the contradiction. If I asked a plain old farmer, or a plain young kid, or yourself, a plain old question, would they and you not most likely answer the question? Bingo.

Ask a government or institutional sort a question that gets too close to their institutional contradictions which created the problems they purport to be trying to resolve. Notice they do not answer the question with an answer that answers the question asked.

What happens in the human mind when an identified contradiction creating a question, is connected to the resolution, that is, the answer? Take the time to answer that question before you read the next sentence. In contrast, what happens in the human mind when an existing contradiction is not formulated into a question, and if a question is introduced from outside that mind, from another mind, and the question is not answered or it is answered with an answer to different question?

Therefore you recognize why the entire US Government and all its horses, the only entity which created the incentive for terrorism, cannot solve the problem, and will only exasperate it.

The terrorism problem is amusingly easy to resolve, leaving terrorism, as with all wars, a historical footnote revealing the comical nature of these humans during our intellectual dark ages.

The solution can be conveyed to Osama bin Laden, President George Bush, his military Generals, the FBI, CIA, BSA or anyone else, with perhaps 12 pages of questions which would start with the first question. The proposal would be 12 pages of questions. But notice who refuses to answer or ask any questions. What is the process to create new knowledge in the human mind? What is the process of thinking? Is it not the asking and answering of questions?

If someone in the US Government or any institution actually requested proposals to solve the government's currently most noticeable problem, or any problem, and a proposal of 12 pages of nothing but questions arrived, easily containing the solution to the problem, you are already laughing at recognizing the bureaucracy's reaction, the reason they cannot identify a solution to any institutionally created problem, and the reason no institution can find the questions containing the solution being sought.

You can email these words to any government entity or any institution, containing the avenue to the readily available solution to the terrorist problem, and laugh yourself to tears over what you already recognize as the reaction, and the ongoing results.



The only thing you get... 27 October 2001

The only thing you will ever get from that which you can no longer change because time has passed, is the knowledge. That is also all you get from everything else, but events of the past are the issue for this section.

That knowledge will only be created in your mind from the questions you ask, and it is that which you can use to change what will otherwise happen again for the same reason.

If you think these words are just philosophy, it is because you asked no questions to make them a useful tool of knowledge, and are thus the victim of what you were too lazy to learn, like philosophers, government chaps and other institutional sorts.



The missing part... 28 October 2001

If the knowledge you desperately seek for an unachieved goal is a 17 part puzzle, and it is, with each part of the knowledge imperative, and it is, including the knowledge of insults, and one of the parts, such as an insult, causes you to not even look at the other 16 parts or even one of them, which part must you first learn without escape if you wish to achieve your goal?

A wise person cannot be insulted, because an insult is a conclusion, not reasoning. And a wise person learns from the reasoning regardless of the conclusions it creates.

What is the value of your goal, and notice that an insult is no cost to a wise person.

If a goat is a goat, he can become nothing more without at least the knowledge that he is a goat, nor can you.



ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, ETC, NBC, PBS, USA... 29 October 2001

You can email this section to any and every institution, and laugh when you hit the send button, knowing they cannot comprehend what you obviously recognize, and knowing that the reactions will be the same as those which have caused my tears of howling laughter.

If you knew that four years from now it would be imperative for your life and that of many other people, including your friends and family, that you would have to successfully perform a task that seemed to be learnable by anyone, but at a level above 98% of everyone else in an open competition, when would you start training?

Will not someone always achieve that level in every competition? Why not you? Consider a competition at which you can sit on your bottom site the entire time, and smoke cigars if you wish. Again, winning is imperative. When would you start training?

The current war in Afghanistan is just like the last war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Kosovo, Serbia, Moldavia, Somalia, Chad, Panama, Peru, Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, and throw in whatever other names you prefer as far back as war was invented. It became unimportant the moment it started. The moment it was started, the consequences were known by everyone but the obviously ignorant sorts who started yet another war in the boring string of them throughout human history.

If, when the French began their military campaign in Vietnam, the US knew it would take over the war when the French were defeated, what would the US chaps have started to train themselves to do at that time? If, when the Soviets began their military campaign in Afghanistan, the US knew it would take over the war when the Soviets were defeated, what would the US chaps have started to train themselves to do at that time? If you knew you were going to get sucked into a war, when would you start training your mind to learn how to win the war before it started, without having to fire a shot? When?

How many wars would you have to study, from more wars that history can record, to figure out their controlling contradiction, to thus win the next war before it started? If any of you readers are high school students, consider that project, but tell no one, and you will soon enough be easily wiser than 98% of the competition. But if you are caught studying wars without government approval, you will become a suspected terrorist, especially by the new Office of Homeland Security Gestapo. For their personnel, the US military and its selected research institutions, select ignorant people who fear effective questions, and then make them more ignorant by training them to obey orders and policies rather than question orders and policies. Knowledge is advanced only by questioning prior beliefs. The government cannot tolerate knowledgeable people who trained their minds to ask questions, by asking questions. The commonly intelligent people who routinely stumble into government service, are quickly weeded out in the lower ranks by superiors who cannot tolerate questions. Because wars are so saturated with controlling contradictions, anyone who studies them with the goal of discovering those contradictions, and thus learn the knowledge to win wars before they start, will learn the knowledge that no military or government can tolerate.

Why did the world know that the US would lose the Afghan war the moment the US attacked Afghanistan, while the US President, the US Congress, their military Generals and the news media journalists remained clueless? Why? The reason verifiable against every question? Did the President, Congress, their Generals and the flattering journalists facilitate a murderous Wag The Dog war that they knew they would lose, but knew they could cover with the news media spin? For how long can the US prop-up yet another Kabul government, with free US tax dollars and military support, within the human species that cannot successfully get something for nothing, and cannot be threatened into perpetual submission? How long did the Soviet puppet government exist in Kabul, and why were the US supported Taliban able to eventually evict it? For how long will the US people pay more taxes to pay for another country's government of a military faction who despise the US for its previous support of their enemies, while even the people despise the US for having bombed them into another abusive military government? Well?

The aforementioned competition is for knowledge, very rudimentary knowledge that anyone can learn, how to win the next war before the first shot is fired. And the next war is already scheduled. The Afghan war is old news. It became of no consequence the moment it started. Its result is already known from all the previous wards. It is the game of ignorant people. Did you think the design of wars within the human mind would change until you easily learned how to win them before they started?

Watch all the ETC's, institutions from ABC through USA, the next time they display themselves to the public. The news journalist will ask the most worthless question a human mind can devise, then the government chap will mouth some words without answering the question, then the noticeably impressed news journalist will ask another ludicrously meaningless question, then the government drone will rhetorically tap dance another minuet, the journalist will curtsy with words not forming a question, for which the government slug will expound upon unrelated self-flattery for his institution, and the journalist will fall over himself thanking the government mouth for offering his valuable time to update the public on these great and weighty matters of serious consequence. Meanwhile the cattle in the field will more greatly benefit humans by chewing their cud.

Why is it do you suppose, that on the fourth time I state to titled persons that they did not answer the question I asked, profoundly effective things beyond your recognition occur, while you have never heard a US news journalist tell a titled person so simple and obvious a truth as that they did not answer the question asked?

Oh, do not worry about any journalist thinking they can learn anything useful from the above. The fact that government chaps cannot answer questions with answers that answer the questions asked, is only half of the equation. With only that, a government sort can be embarrassed into answering questions, but journalist do not know anything other than worthless questions. The other half of the equation is the ability to ask an effective question, routinely one designed for the question three questions later. Knowledge of value is comprised of more than one part.

If you think you cannot win a war before it starts by simply asking effective questions, write your conclusion on a piece of paper, with the date, your address of residence and your name. Put that paper somewhere relatively secure, so that people in the future will have another name to attach to the zenith of human ignorance displayed during these intellectual dark ages. It may be your children, if they simply undertake the project of learning how to ask questions, who will find that piece of paper, and among their friends laugh at your self-imposed ignorance.

Are not wars started by human decisions resulting in acting before the next more valuable question is recognized by the mind so acting? Would that question not inherently be available for any mind to learn, and learn how to effectively convey against every question?

Precisely why do you not go out and kill those people whom you do not like, and why would Osama bin Bush not recognize the same concept for his entity?

If you are not laughing at the killing-show staged by Osama and George, you are missing your own show. The politicians said they had the answers, for which they asked you to select them as leaders. They obviously have fewer answers than anyone, proven by their still starting and supporting wars which are the result of not having answers, and evading any effort to find them.

The news journalists said they had the questions, for which they suggested that you should listen to their news, while they ballyhoo the pen as mightier than the sword. They obviously have less useful questions than anyone, proven by their still asking how the politicians are going to win each monotonous war in a row, instead of how they are going to preclude any more wars.

Would you turn to your children and suggest that they join the military so your unthinking DemocanRepublicrat leaders can kill more people they don't like, or suggest that your children learn how to ask the type questions which leave the RepublicratDemocans unable to find anyone sufficiently ignorant to join the military, and thus the questions that leave the inherently equal human minds of the enemy leaders with the same problem of having to do their own killing without any military drones?

With assistance, you can learn the question and answers in a week or so. But take four years if you wish, on your own. But write a note to yourself, to read four short years from now. By then you can easily learn how to preclude all further wars, with intellectual technology alone. Simply start training your mind to ask and answer progressively more effective questions, at first any questions. The politicians, journalists and all other titled persons will not do so. If you learn the technology, you may or may not choose to use it, but you will be laughing the laughter sought by all people while the oblivious ABC through USA sorts display their comedy or ignorance on the Web, TV, radio and printed paper.

What decision would 3,000 people in the World Trade Center have made four years ago, if they recognized the now obvious substance of the opportunity herein? The next war is on schedule, and you may be reading this in the fatally self-wounded country whose only defense recognized by the increasingly more ignorant RepublicratDemocans is THEIR destruction of YOUR freedom, precisely what the enemy set out four years ago to start achieving, successfully. If you wish further assistance, consider www.achievegoal.com. And then start asking the questions you could instead start asking right now.



Chant it for no use, or use it to learn its value... 30 October 2001

We are told these days that those other people over there, a certain significant sector of those sorts who wrap towels around their head and do things not common in our society, put their children in schools and teach them only to memorize a huge volume of old writings, their bible by its title. The volume is so huge that for anyone to memorize the writings requires years of effort, and they are required to perform that effort. We are even shown pictures of school children sitting on dirt floors chanting sections of the writings, over and over and over and over and over again to sear the therefore hollow words into their mind, then move on to the next section of versus and do the same again and again and again and again.

And those are the lucky males. The girls are taught even less.

The writings, obviously written by a human, are said by people who trained their mind with the same incessant chanting of therefore hollow words for many years, to be the writings of a god. The children are told that to memorize the words is to know what to do in life.

Of course that concept is to learn only the hollow part of the words otherwise learned by only the one chap who wrote the words. The writer had to learn vastly more data to derive the conclusions he wrote. Consider if the writer had been taught, for most of his childhood life, only therefore hollow words that one chap wrote a few hundred or thousand years before him. Imagine sincerely believing only what Og knew.

Your mind can only learn the substance and thus utility of words by questioning them, with severe questions, not memorizing them, which is why military personnel make themselves progressively more ignorant in a social unit that will imprison a person for questioning orders by superiors who were also taught to never question orders.

Of course the words can describe flawlessly accurately concepts, and may indeed be the words of God herself, but to memorize the words without learning the process to synthesize the expressed concepts with all other data, is to remain wholly ignorant of the utility of the words and the human mind, as is so obvious by the actions of those self-stagnated sorts who memorize rather than question what they are taught. Were humans given a mind to use for the utility of a well trained muscle? What god would design a mind for the only the task of a muscle?

What more perfect way to make the next generation of one's society, abjectly stagnated in the ignorance which created the problems they cannot currently solve for lack of the new knowledge required to resolve existing contractions. Make all the jokes you want about those poor victims of themselves who fell into that trap because their parents fell into that trap, and laugh robustly, because it is only they who can question their way out of their trap, and questions are not part of the chanting they are taught.

But wait. If you want to hear mindless, useless, incessant chanting making people hilariously ignorant, right here in the stagnated old American society, leaf through the endless examples until you arrive at the fine folks who amusingly believe that humans somehow have a right to own and carry a gun. The trap they jumped into was the one set by the old dead white guys who wrote the second amendment of the US Constitution. Those old guys wrote the words that the gun people incessantly chant over and over and over and over and over for no use other than the chant, identical to those fine folks who wrap towels around their head rather than wear those dorky looking American baseball caps.

If you want to know how ignorance is passed on to the next generation, start with those dorky looking American baseball caps. The next generation looking for something different couldn't even figure out enough to throw them in the garbage and create something different. They put the caps on backwards. Those American chant-educated kids will soon be making square wheels, be impressed with themselves, and teach their children to chant the history of American baseball scores.

The proof is in the gun people chanting over and over and over and over the therefore hollow words of the second amendment.

It will not dawn on even one of them that the utility of the words is verified by synthesizing them with objective data, to see if the words hold uncontradicted substance for utility among humans. The chanters can't even comprehend the meaning of the previous sentence. They will chant the second amendment words the rest of their lives, oblivious to the concept which created those words as only a rhetorical conclusion of the related reasoning. The reasoning is the substance, and the conclusion is the useless chant.

Try to ask a Second Amendment chanter a question, and be prepared to hear him chant yet again, shall not be infringed. Why shall it not be infringed? Because it says shall not be infringed, that's why, they say. Why does it say that? Because they wrote that, you idiot, they say. Why did they write it? To that they too often respond that you are just one of those liberal anti-gunners causing trouble. Identical to the military mentality chanters of other people's words and orders in every government and society, the second amendment and Islamic folks literally cannot extend a concept to the uncontradicted reasoning that makes the conclusion useful for their decisions, and thus cannot effect their decisions when the appearance of a contradiction arises. The only recourse they can identify is to imprison or kill anyone who introduces a question that may extent human knowledge beyond an old chant.

Who by name and title, granted to whom, by name and title, the authority to deny which humans the inherently unalienable right to possess which simple mechanical inventions of humans, openly known and replicable by anyone, and likewise for which natural plants inherently available to humans who live on planet Earth, and what instrument created that original authority for said grant? Well? If they can't come up with the name, title and instrument, you are probably talking to one of those turbaned or baseball capped chanters who are confused and angered by the question, and who will imprison, shoot or bomb you if you ask a second time. The latter is within their physical power because they taught their thus unquestioning kids with guns, and the neighbors too, to chant their way through life rather than use their mind to think their way through life.

The unthinking gun chanters hate the question because plants are not in their chants, and the plant chanters hate the question because simple mechanical inventions are not in their chants, and the Islamic and US military chanters hate the question because questions are not in their chants.

If you are a young person, save yourself from the older adults. Question them, because they will not. You are your only hope to advance your knowledge beyond the Osama bin Bush game of imprisoning and killing anyone who questions the Neanderthal orders of the George bin Laden government sorts, including their school teachers, their court judges, their think tank drones and their other institutionally self-stagnated sorts. They have entrenched the intellectual dark ages of the military era of humans, and they fear the human mind more than death. They will do everything they can to stop you from learning new knowledge. They will imprison you and kill you for any excuse. Your choice is to learn more than them, or be a victim of their chants, turning to imprison or kill anyone who questions you. Do not complain if you choose to be a Neanderthal victim and thus miss the astonishing utility of the human mind. You do not want to die of old age having not asked the simple questions to learn how to easily win every war against any opponent before the first shot is fired, as only the least of what you will therefore discover.



The suitcase nuclear bomb... 1 November 2001

Consider the recurrent and currently popular discussion of when a nuclear bomb will be exploded in a US city. Notice that in nearly every such discussion, regardless of who participates, a few questions can illuminate each person's conclusion that the question is, when, not if, for reason.

Of what substance is such universal acknowledgement?

The parts of the puzzle are in place. To suggest that some of the old Soviet Union's thousands of nuclear bombs have been sold to so called terrorists, through the black market, is to offer the obvious to divert one's attention from the US sources. Has not every General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation of every government agency including the nuclear energy regulatory commission and the military, consistently illuminated categorical incompetence, waste, corruption, void of accountability for billions of dollars and every other item the government has touched, zip for security and worse? Well, what does that mean?

Theft of everything in military control, including guns and laughably-defined secrets, occurs daily, by proof on record. The next inherently existent spies and thieves to be caught, are currently spying and stealing. Are those GAO audits not consistently ridiculed by the public as whitewashes over vastly greater government corruption, void of accountability, incompetence, waste, violations of law, and worse, for reason? Do not previous government employees routinely describe all of the aforementioned? Would you suggest that all those people are wrong, and the hand full of government officials and their dutiful minions denying glaring truths are correct? There is no such thing as security within government, by design. The corruption of power creates stupidity in the human mind, and its manifestations. Just as it was not an Arab Islamic terrorist who bombed a US federal building in Oklahoma City, in retaliation for the US government slaughter of Christians at Waco, it will most likely be a US nuclear bomb that explodes in a US city, by design of those learnable and verifiable concepts upon which human existence is predicated.

After humans learned how to make nuclear bombs, and after every government official in human history has been identified as the most consistent and most credible source of lies, did you believe those government sorts telling you which humans are capable and not capable of making nuclear bombs? Well?

Now consider the recent calling card left at New York City by a small group of remarkably normal, successful, socially accepted, skilled people who demonstrated that they will deliberately die to introduce the US to the consequences of its prior actions.

Next patiently and easily answer every question that every military person, institutional expert, conservative nationalist flag waver and their friends ask, leaving the conclusion that the question of, when, may not require much patience.

Next patiently and with whatever effort is required, answer every question that every thinking person can ask.

Consider an example. What is the magnitude of nuclear power in relation to the human phenomenon? Might it be that because we clearly do not yet know, rather than any description of how large we might make nuclear explosions, perhaps we should not have been so arrogant so long in such toying with the stuff before we answered a few more questions? How hard can it be, and how long can it take, to simply ask a few more questions before we act? Were all those nuclear bomb explosions necessary for anything more than the egos of childish little psychologically vulnerable chaps in military uniforms? What did we teach our enemies with our cavalier testing of nuclear bombs? Well? How many test explosions did we detonate where other inherently equal humans objected? If the politicians and military chaps craved nuclear bombs so insatiably, rather than more useful knowledge, why didn't the politicians detonate the bombs where the politicians lived, rather than where other people lived? Why? If one human can arrogantly play with nuclear bombs today at damage to others, what upon which you would predicate your life and that of your family, would prevent another such equally ignorant sort from arrogantly doing so tomorrow at damage to you? Regardless of the debate over whether we needed to drop a nuclear bomb on a Japanese city full of people, rather than a less inhabited demonstration area to convey the knowledge of our new ability, did we inescapably need to drop such a bomb on a second city full of people who didn't want their government's idiot war any more than American city residents want the Wag The Dog wars of the Bushes, Clinton, Kennedy and the lot? Did we? Write the accurate answer, and therefore recognize why you now must learn more knowledge than Truman learned, to prevent the results of his obvious failure to ask and answer the question.

Had Truman been a wise person rather than a power-damaged mind, would he not have openly asked the American people the following question: Because the consequences will ultimately be paid by the American people, without escape, should America drop a second nuclear bomb on a city full of Japanese people, including thousands of people who did not want their military/government to start wars any more than thinking Americans want their military/government to start wars? The reason the US government and its military chaps cannot comprehend the wisdom of that process, even if they read these words, is the reason they never asked that question, and will never ask such questions of their actions, never.

Do the people start and maintain wars, or do government and institution leaders?

Which questions were not asked and answered because therefore ignorant military chaps were pressing the equally unwise President with excuses to drop the first and then second atomic bombs? Your answer? Which questions can you devise that reveal the errors made from acting on ignorance, to thus eliminate the ignorance to thus create sustainable actions?

What has changed? Which easy questions were not asked and answered before the unwise President unleashed his unthinking, trigger-happy US Army, FBI and BATF to slaughter over 80 people in their Christian church in Waco, and jerked the chain on his US network news media to decree that a Christian religion was a cult, a church was a compound and a government statement was truth? Your answer? Are you not functionally supporting those presidents?

The answers are less material than the next questions derived from those questions. Might we have exceeded the balance for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and if we do not yet understand the magnitude of nuclear force, might we have caused an eventual certainty that a nuclear bomb would explode in a city of the nation originating such cavalier use of such massive force?

Is a bank robber charged with only robbery if he shoots the teller then says his only intent was to get the money? Does the robber decide his crime, or the government, or do the people already know from the action? Do humans control the concept of that example, or does the concept control humans? Who created such concepts that humans recognize from the manifestation? If the US military was unleashed to kidnap Manuel Noriaga in Panama City, and slaughtered a lot of innocent bystanders in the city, does the US military decide what they did, or the US Government, or do the people of the world already know from the obvious manifestation? If the US military bombs an Afghan city to kill one person the military knows is not there, and therefore knowingly kills many innocent people, does the US military decide what they did, or the US Government, or do the people of the world already know?

Do humans react to concepts they recognize, or to the words of obviously lying government and military sorts who are so unthinking they think people believe the standard military lies? While you recognize people who are innocent victims of wrongdoing, military and police officers train their subordinates the same way the officers were trained, to define those same people and you as collateral damage, which means they can kill innocent people at whim and with reckless disregard because military sorts are trained to believe collateral damage is a legitimate part of war and police actions, and concurrently trained to ask no questions. Humans train their mind by the words they use. Your United States military taught the world that the people in the four jetliners hijacked by the Saudi chaps were merely collateral damage in a war that your unthinking government legitimized by therefore publicly referencing the action as a war instead of a crime.

You cannot escape those truths. Legitimate collateral damage, are three words which train the minds of the US DemocanRepublicrat's therefore unquestioning US military officer corps that they do not have to think. They can instead merely murder innocent people, by bombing them, and foist the consequences onto the American people, identical to the government mentality in other nations, socially perpetuating ignorance in a species with a human mind designed for otherwise unlimited reasoning ability. When you look at a government or military person, you are looking at an ignorant person who adamantly insists upon defending his ignorance from any questions, thus defining stupidity.

If in war your military killed everyone in a large city, with wave after wave of bombers dropping bombs until nothing was left of the city, what would the world think of you? What change in the world's thought would occur if the same thing was done with one large bomb? If a new bomb was created that was as powerful as an atomic bomb, but had no nuclear radiation results, would it be okay to use such bombs more often? Would you support government or religious leaders whose minds could not answer the questions in this section for public judgment of their wisdom before they unleashed their military to kill people? Of what value is your mind? Notice how easily every question in this web site can be definitively answered on signed record for public judgment of one's wisdom, and notice that no government chap will answer the questions. Do you not become comparatively more ignorant as you refuse to answer the questions that other people answer? Never wonder why the world defines Americans by the willfully unthinking, arrogant bank robbing murderers the American people support as their government leaders and military henchmen. That is you if you are an American, and the definition is true.

Would you put the trigger for nuclear bombs, or the decisions for a massive military of unthinking killers who never question orders, in the hands of people who are so ignorant they cannot answer the simple questions in this web site, and even flee them? Was it not the leader's job to think before he killed? Is there any question that cannot be answered by thinking, especially the simple questions herein? What will you do if you discover that the aforementioned trigger and military decisions, like those in other nations, are already in the hands of categorically ignorant leaders consistently proven to kill people, including that innocent collateral damage, as a substitute for the most simple thinking process? Precisely what will your actions prove as your answer and therefore the utility of your mind?

Defensive expressions of arrogance, ignorance, bravado, nationalism, flag waving and every other rhetorical device dodging the questions cannot dispel the questions, or their results, answered or not. If an event is likely to occur because its process was set in motion, refusing to answer related questions that can reveal the prevention process describes the government mentality.

Of course the questions can be addressed within intellectual technology, methodically resolving every contradiction illuminated by progressively more effective questions, to efficiently arrive at a certain answer, for a definitive, logical course of action that resolves the original contradiction and achieves the goal, but that is beyond the scope of this inherently one-sided discussion on a web site. If you have not yet learned intellectual technology, the random questions herein are as useful as I can make them for your decisions if you wish to think beyond the victims of their ignorance. Your side of the utility is derived from your answers and questions, if you write them.

If you have done something resultant from your prior lack of adequate thinking, for which your current knowledge belatedly causes you to recognize that you are in deep doodoo, is it not the recourse of a belatedly wizened person to rapidly pour great energy into building upon that wisdom, with adequate thinking this time, that is, more asking and answering of questions to learn new knowledge, sufficient knowledge to resolve the prior contradiction and the resulting contradictions, to get out of the doodoo and prevent your return, while in contrast an unthinking person will do more of what put him in the doodoo?

Therefore facing the certainty or mere possibility that a nuclear bomb will be exploded in a US city, what would you do between now and then if you were not so inclined to accept the conclusion, and instead sought to disprove it by precluding it? Or would you arrogantly decree that no human can ever explode a nuclear bomb in a city of the nation that twice so bombed another nation, and has bombed more nations than has any other government in human history? Notice that your obvious answer to the second question leaves you with the first.

Well, what would you do, itemized to therefore be questioned the moment a contradiction is identified? How extensively will you question your first answers? How do you learn knowledge? Now note that the government leaders will flee the questions rather than answer them, leaving you to do their work or be a willing victim for having supported those government leaders despite their glaring dereliction of duty and their creating deadly problems formally representing your decisions.

The entire Washington DC DemocanRepublicrat machine and its military, CIA, FBI, ETC, its Homeland Security Gestapo and all its RepublicratDemocan supporters and think tanks and legions of advisors, sincerely and intractably believe that what they ludicrously thought would prevent multiple hijackings of airliners for suicide missions, will stop a nuclear bomb explosion in a US city. Well, didn't they incessantly tell you before the World Trade Center bombing that their costly and time-wasting airport security systems made flying safe? Would you have endured that cost if the leaders told you the obvious truth that it could not possibly stop the worst hijacking spree in world history, and the so called airport security system was the process that created the worse result? Was not every airliner that crashed, piloted by a government-licensed pilot, and maintained by government-licensed mechanics? What were you told about those monopoly government licensing processes that faced no competition for greater thinking and effectiveness? For what did you keep sending money to those government liars, and why did you do as they said? Why did you believe consistently proven liars, instead of laugh at them in public? They are that unthinking, that dishonest and that callous toward the lives of Americans.

If you think government chaps hold human life in any higher regard, look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, Donald P. Scott, the Clouser Scanlon case, the Noriaga kidnapping attempt, the reckless bombing of Afghan civilian sites, the Spanish-American war, the Vietnam war and countless similar examples throughout the history of the US Government and every other government. The only solution they know for people who do not sufficiently kowtow to the manifest ignorance and maliciousness of the government leaders, is to imprison or kill people, well proven above the hollow government words. They are that unable to think before they shoot. That is what petty power does to the human mind, always, with no exceptions, ever.

The RepublicratDemocans, identical to their military-mentality enemies, hold the military mentality toward human life, including yours. Would I need to quote to you the incessant, astonishingly repugnant statements made by career US military personnel around me in Vietnam, who were trained by their predecessors, and trained their successors, and who saturate your government of unthinking, unquestioning sorts who hold human life in contempt, equally well trained to mouth lies about concern for the people, lies that fool fools unable to recognize the actions behind the lies. Why do you think government grants military personnel preferences for government hiring? They know no knowledge beyond that which has proven to kill people and fail rhetorical espousals, much to the amusement of observers. They are too fearful to seek any greater knowledge. They are today's manifestation of every killer throughout human history. They cannot think their way out of a problem, and only know how to kill their way into problems. They represent power, not wisdom. Power corrupts. Wisdom advances the human phenomenon. And what you support is what you get.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FBI and many other government agencies spend time and huge amounts of tax money preparing for the nuclear bomb that will explode in a US city. They actively prepare for the, when, not the, if. What does that tell you? How many parts of the puzzle would you put in place yourself to create an event you most want to avoid, an event of such magnitude that there is no useful preparation beyond that inherent to individual human processes? What happens when huge government agency budgets for next year become unequivocally dependent upon something materializing from the otherwise obvious waste of decades of huge budget items? During the US Army, FBI and BATF attack on the Dividian church in Waco, why did the government's dutifully unquestioning ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS and such news media tell the public that the church had a methenphetimine drug production laboratory that was never found or indicated, and an arsenal of machine guns that were never found or indicated, and why did the FBI hastily bulldoze the crime scene, in categorical violation of law, destroying the evidence, rather than allow the normal agencies of jurisdiction to investigate the evidence? Precisely how did such a huge volume of key, witnessed and acknowledged evidence indicting the government criminals, turn up missing from the evidence storage facility guarded by the same government criminal agencies? That is the same government which claims to have been guarding many thousands of nuclear bombs.

After being created on an absolute flaw, the squanderously funded and astonishingly powerful FEMA is going to collapse if it does not facilitate a devastating national emergency. It is just a piece of the puzzle, easily corrected if effectively questioned, and contributing to the nuclear bombing of a US city if not corrected. If you were an FBI employee, you would have destroyed the aforementioned evidence, without questioning the order, or you would not have been an FBI employee. You cannot stop what FEMA will do, by attempting to get honest people in FEMA, by definition of FEMA's controlling contradiction. If honest people could get a FEMA or FBI job, they would shortly be fired or they would quit, by definition of mutually exclusive honesty and power-based institutions. Your easy task, if you wish, is to think through to the resolution of the contradiction, regardless of which humans are in the positions creating the contradiction. You have no choice in that matter, while fools perpetually attempt to put honest people in positions of power that inherently makes them dishonest, by design of the human phenomenon, if you wish to extract yourself from the aforementioned consequences. And that task is rather easy. You need only ask a series of questions extending to said goal, and use your verified answers.

When there is a major disaster among humans, the humans respond in a remarkably common-sense manner, by design of humans, while the useless government sorts with titles get in front of TV cameras and take credit for what the humans would more efficiently do if their money had not been sucked away by the massive government system of self-congratulating drones. And such waste of human energy is the best possible result of that system which ultimately creates far greater devastation.

Just as the Nazi Gestapo eliminated private enterprise crime in Germany, to make Germany safe from crime, by becoming the more powerful and more organized criminals, murdering thirteen million civilians, the US FBI, BATF, DEA and ETC are methodically manifesting the same concept, not yet quite so dramatically, not yet, by design of all power-based institutions. If German criminal gangs had started killing thirteen million Germans, the German citizens would have promptly reacted to defend themselves, and save over twelve million lives. But the German government became the criminals, using the identical process that the US government police and military have started, first imprisoning over a million US citizens who damaged no identifiable victims, and violated no prevailing laws. The US military openly teaches its officer corps that routinely occurring wars for US participation are imperative to maintain an effective military, imperative. They then saturate congress and the president with the dogma that the US needs to maintain an effective military. The results are obvious to even children watching the tail wag the dog to slaughter people for US military practice. And FEMA, as dictated by its concept, is becoming desperately dependent upon a major national disaster belatedly happening.

Knowing the inevitability of a nuclear bomb proverbially coming back to roost, and knowing that the only concept capable of precluding such an event created by the internationally murderous US government, is to out-think rather than out-bomb enemies, the unthinking government sorts will only create better FEMA bomb shelters for government officials, and leave the people out in the wind. The government chaps will not apply even a day's effort to learn how to out-think an enemy. They fear new knowledge more than death, and they have no more regard for human life than they did for the little children in the Dividian church in Waco when the US Army detonated its shaped charge on the church's roof and fired 40mm incendiary devices into the flammable mixture of CS gas pumped into the church from US Army tanks.

Let the unthinking military sorts suggest bombing everyone they imagine as an enemy, the source of that aforementioned certainty, as is their proven answer to any illusion of threat. Let the police entrench the Office of Homeland Security Gestapo, delaying a bit the inevitable while the enemy is too busy laughing over having first destroyed the substance of American freedom with its own police, by merely suggesting threats identical to the US nuclear threat against everyone else in the world, to create the same stifling military police state in their nations. Let the politicians preach their preaching, to fool fools, embarrassing themselves in front of common-sense people, and filling the interval with amusing words. Let the think tanks and other organizations expound on what all those other people outside the think tanks and organizations should do to do as the think tanks and organizations say they should do.

Then what would you do to out-think someone with the incentive, the ability, the bomb, the proven intent, and the fundamentals of the human design favoring their actions?

Well? Every question can be answered, by design of its origin.

If you live in a likely target US city, when would you start thinking to easily solve that contradiction of such certainty? Notice that there is no choice if you live in a large US city and are sufficiently intelligent to not play Russian Roulette. The Afghan city dwellers could calculate that the little bombs the US dropped on their cities might hit the neighbor's house. A nuclear bomb works a little differently. And notice how many millions of Americans living in large cities are not sufficiently intelligent to not play Russian Roulette. The trigger is not in their finger, but the game is the same by their decision to rely on chance after supporting their government which spun the cylinder. How few target large US cities are there? Of course one can move out of the city, a long ways. An old saying suggests that being country-poor is better than being city-poor. But to easily learn how to resolve the contradiction is more logical.

Is not out-thinking such an enemy easy to consider? What will you do after the bomb explodes? Answer the question. What did you do after the World Trade Center was collapsed, which will have obviously led to the nuclear explosion? You may go back to adjust your previous answer, to correctly answer the current question. What did you do before the World Trade Center was collapsed, which therefore led to said collapse? What did you do before each of your government's attacks on perceived enemies, which led to those attacks? You can write the answers, with great utility in the more useful questions the answers illuminate.

What will you therefore instead do now?

At what magnitude of manifested destructive force will you belatedly decide you would be wiser to learn new knowledge rather than throw bombs at the increasing number of enemies created by throwing bombs? That is a simple question. Every person reading it, can answer it. Write your answer.

Notice that every government chap you support will refuse to answer the question, and instead, functionally support the throwing of more bombs to hasten the proof of your failure for having delayed your simply answering simple questions to learn new knowledge.

When a nuclear bomb explodes in a US city other than the one of your residence, and you therefore live to recognize that you cannot kill enough people in the world to prevent the second explosion, quite identical to the failure of the Japanese government a few decades ago, the failure of the US DemocanRepublicrats and their legions of military and Homeland Security Gestapo will be evident even to the flag wavers of today. Pity the RepublicratDemocans and all their military and police at that time. After they squandered trillions of tax dollars on their military, police forces and security processes that stole the valuable time and money of citizens, and categorically failed, read that again, inherently failed, as proven by the jet bombing of the World Trade Center, etcetera, how many American fools will still salute monumental government incompetence when the government sorts tell everyone to wave the flag again? Why did the Kremlin not roll the tanks when the Soviet people finally had enough of the Washington DC-styled Kremlin lies? Why did Washington DC learn nothing from the communist Kremlin which learned nothing from the Czarist Kremlin which learned nothing from the hundreds of thousands of previous government collapses? Write the two word answer to that question and email it to logic at Think.ws (replace at with @), if you wish.

There are only 24 hours per day. Thinking requires time. One must ask and answer a lot of questions, writing them, just to learn how to ask effective questions. If you wait for the inherent results of your unthinking RepublicratDemocan government's unthinking military trying to kill all your enemies, before you instead start thinking, that is, start asking and answering questions, your more dedicated and greater number of enemies will kill you before you can finish thinking your way out of America's government-induced dilemma.

Ask your questions now, or ask them later, and write your answers, then use them. There is no difference in the timing of your decision to do so, among the observers. There is only a difference for yourself. And the thinking process for that goal takes the same amount of time whether you start now or after the government you support creates greater consequences for you.

It is a human mind's reaction to data that will result in a nuclear bomb being exploded in a US city. That is all it is. That is what you must work with to easily preclude the reaction. It is the identical thinking pattern that resulted in nuclear bombs being exploded in two Japanese cities. Any human mind can make the decision and carry out the easy physical process. You cannot threaten your way to your security, just as I cannot threaten you into doing as I say. There is no defense against the event by bombing other countries or plunging the US into a Homeland Security Gestapo police state, both of which feed that thinking pattern among more people in the US and other countries. The US Government's incessant bombing of Arab Muslims in Iraq, and burning to death a church full of Christians in Waco, with the results in New York City and Oklahoma City, are only instructive examples. The only functional defense is in out-thinking that destructive thinking pattern, an easy task of simply asking the questions the RepublicratDemocans and Taliban fear to the core of their soul. Notice from the Iraq and Waco part of the data, who displays that thinking pattern with no intent or incentive to learn anything more, and because they have more bombs, unquestioning military, unquestioning police and an unquestioning majority of followers, the government chaps will do more of what therefore insures the exploding of a nuclear bomb in a US city by someone identically as unthinking as US government sorts. You are always your only enemy, and your organizations and government are you by definition of your membership.

It is too easy to prevent a nuclear explosion in a US city, as with the anthrax thing and other such contradictions. But it can only be done with knowledge, not with police guns and military bombs. And those consequences cannot be prevented if new knowledge is not learned before then.



End of Intech Concepts 12


IntechConcepts 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1