Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 13
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


The ugly foundation... 2 November 2001

A quality foundation for a beautiful house, is ugly. It is usually gray concrete with a rough bottom conforming to the dirt and rocks on which it sits. The buried sides are not finished smooth. If it is of quality, every unit of energy put into it is for utility. That is the purpose of a foundation, and you recognize it as the most important part of every structure.

New knowledge is created in your mind by your asking and answering questions.

The knowledge you seek, to achieve yet unachieved goals, can only be built on a higher quality foundation, by proof in the manifestation of history, and that foundation is ugly. It is made of the ugly questions your mind and other minds do not want to answer, or even hear, or you and they would have already built that foundation of knowledge and achieved your goal.

A wise person seeking to achieve a new goal fears no question, and answers every question, recognizing that he is building a foundation of useful knowledge in his mind, beyond the knowledge of others, for the questions whose answers are then the proverbial beautiful house he seeks to build.

Notice that every government or institutional leader who seeks to please followers to retain his ego-based title, fears and flees the ugly questions that make the foundation of knowledge for the answers the leader wishes to display to his followers. The leaders are therefore left with no foundation of knowledge for their rhetorical creations which consistently fail. The foundational questions and answers are not those seen by the followers. Those questions are the hundreds of detail questions of no interest to the followers who selected the leaders to build the ugly but necessary foundation. The leaders would otherwise be unnecessary.

But the leaders never ask those questions. The leaders trained their minds to only consider the pretty questions the followers like to hear and thus already know how to answer. If you doubt such a statement, and cannot ascertain the glaring proof in the manifestation of the leaders' consistently failed actions, carry out the easy process to gain access to or tape records of any, or a cross section of the secret, behind-closed-doors, executive meetings of government entities, military, think tanks, and such institutional mutual admiration societies. In their executive meetings they act more childishly, asking more superficial, worthless questions, than they do in public. Their public displays of raw fear of new knowledge are resultant from their training their mind in private to fear new knowledge and everything else. The thinking process used in public is the thinking process used in private by the same thinking device. Any two or more of the chaps, when put in a secret meeting, fear each other so intensely that they dare not say anything the other might be able to use in a power-play among colleagues to displace each other from an ego position, for the same reason the leaders fear the same concept among their followers, for non-secret process. They fear asking a question that indicates ignorance. They therefore make statements based on retained ignorance, that rhetorically imply knowledge among equally ignorant colleagues, and thus entrench their ignorance upon which they build their structures with props of more rhetoric. They function on power, not knowledge, and the results are obvious. The difficulty during such executive meetings is to not break out laughing at the spectacle of highly titled sorts acting more childish than children, wearing suits and mouthing adult-sounding words which they then consistently contradict with their conclusions. Bring forward your greatest leaders and most prestigious think tanks. The available proof will leave you laughing.

Laugh at those intellectually lazy and cowardly leaders, and the fools who follow them. They fear the simple job of the title they so childishly craved. They fear the process of harmless and valuable thinking. They are the reason the embarrassing militaries and police of of the same type government sorts are still imprisoning and killing people as their only understood process, which defies human reasoning, much to the robust laughter of observers.



What dictates your mind... 10 November 2001

Is it not pure chance of events and times that caused you to not become a police officer, a Buddhist monk, a farmer, a professor of philosophy under the Ming dynasty, an auto mechanic, a brain surgeon, a soldier in the Napoleonic wars, an American 1960's peacenik, a house painter, journalist, politician, mercenary, concentration camp prisoner, or manifesting any other arena of knowledge?

Is not your brain, like the brain of everyone else proving the concept, capable of learning any of those arena's of knowledge if applied to the data sources which created each of those arenas of knowledge? Do not brains routinely learn new arenas of knowledge? Is it not the same design of brain learning diverse concepts, some of which perceive other brains as opponents rather than merely the knowledge buckets they are, holding interchangeable volumes of knowledge?

So why would you futily attempt to force anyone to live their life as you currently suggest with your current knowledge, thus piss them off and cause them to eventually retaliate with force, rather than easily learn what they know and then synthesize that knowledge with what you know, and thus be able to offer the resulting advantages to the people you would have otherwise attempted to force at your cost, who will instead willingly pay you for the advantages you identifiably offer from half their own recognizable knowledge? Well?

It takes a lot more mental work than that, to learn how to operate a computer. I still haven't found the clutch on this thing, and I've stripped the gears every time I tried to downshift because I have already burnt the brakes out trying to slow this thing down to thinking speed. And even them kids what aint never learned any table manners are running these things at Mach Z speed without even any head-on collisions among the lot of them.

It is not the scant few days of time required to learn the knowledge, that stops the vast majority of minds from learning how to achieve the seemingly impossible that they so expressly crave. Nor is it the time in history or circumstances of life. Anyone can learn it any time, anywhere, by design of the human brain able to synthesize any data it receives.

It is therefore a concept designed within each human mind, of such brilliant disguise that all the humans who most oppose each other, and who all say they want the same fundamental goal, do not discover the disguise for the reason common to them all. Yet it is available to them, and their brain can learn it. Laugh at your enemy. He blocks his access to the knowledge of how to easily defeat you, for the same reason you block your access to the knowledge of how to easily defeat him. And you spend your lives blaming each other and needling each other, much to the amusement of observers.

If you laugh, and you learn how to genuinely laugh at obvious contradictions you have not yet learned how to resolve, you will be ahead of your enemy, because genuinely laughing at what previously angered you is one of the necessary parts of the puzzle. Your enemy will not learn that, and he is reading these words describing his and your opportunity.

It is only circumstance that prevented your mind from having become your enemy. Is that not so? It is not circumstance that prevents your mind from learning his knowledge anyway. It is your mind's fear of having to otherwise easily learn your own mind before you can hope to learn anyone else's.

Well, get to it, for good grief sakes. The one place your enemy cannot hurt you is within your own mind. He is lucky to get half his own decisions right just dealing with his own life. You can get all the benefits of his knowledge without any of the risk, simply for the cost of your time questioning his manifest contradictions, which if your questions are effective, reveal your own contradictions therefore easily resolved at a point you and your enemy yet do not recognize.



Thinking is exhausting... 21 November 2001

Thinking is exhausting and not enjoyable. Apply any test of that concept, to even those who most adamantly insist that they enjoy thinking and hold the stamina to do it. Feed them well and grant them all the sleep they wish. The test will conclude, to their agreement, that thinking is exhausting and not enjoyable. Bring forward anyone who did not think enough to recognize the proof from those words. Only a few more questions will illuminate the thinking they failed.

That is only one of the reasons that people routinely act before they sufficiently think, and no one escapes that reason.

Thinking is nothing more than asking and answering questions.

To not have to think is relaxing.

The definitive reason people are attracted to government and such institutional jobs, including those of think tanks, regardless of their inadequately questioned suggestions, is that they do not have to think for those jobs. They can perform their described job for an income, and do not have to think. While the nature of government jobs is obvious to everyone, the examination of think tanks most conclusively proves the case, only mentioned below and elsewhere presented.

The functional mechanism of government is that of power. Government cannot exist without power, lest it would have to exist on intellectual productivity. Regardless of the decisions made by the obviously unthinking government decision makers, the obviously unquestioning police and military will force those decisions on anyone who objects, utilizing guns and the threat of prison or death. It is both comfortable and chemically satisfying to the brain to be able to simply create or repeat the words of a conclusion, without any reasoning that can prevail against questioning, and imprison or kill anyone who discomforts said mind with a question or objection to the conclusion and its demanded action.

The profound extent of such institutionally self-induced ignorance becomes evident with the questions institutions never consider. Do you not train your mind by the words you use and the actions you carry out? If you surround yourself with computer geeks is it not inherent that you will derive more daily information about computers than he who surrounds himself with corn farmers? When you surround yourself with government chaps who are accurately and verifiably proven to be as described above, what is the inherent result? As is the case of your government superiors, if you are afraid to effectively question those above you and above them, and the people below you are afraid to effectively question you, and thinking is the concept of asking and answering questions, what have you identified of yourself and those around you, compared to those who encourage ongoing questioning of all concepts, or even compared to the farmer who doesn't have time for philosophical bullshit but whose mind is constantly questioning not only the government chaps incessantly making his biology manager's job harder, but questioning such complex variables as market nuances and weather anomalies, among others?

For example, the current president of the United States is obviously less capable of hiding his void of thinking than most previous presidents who were at least a bit more clever in hiding their equal void of thinking. But more carefully notice all those people hovering around every president, who present a rhetorical and physical illusion of thinking. They fool fools, first themselves, by their institutional trappings. They obviously do not effectively question their ego-based boss, lest they would quickly be separated from their ego-based job, and so forth down the chain of command. As only an example, under the previous and current Commander In Chief of the United States Armed Forces, we have even reached the ignorance-entrenching absurdity imposed by kings of old, wherein United States military personnel can now be court martialled and imprisoned for criticizing the US president, and not one person in the entire US military is sufficiently intelligent to figure out either how to void the effect of that unlawful law, or figure out that they are now serving a king ruling above the US Constitution. Also, that US military personnel can now be and have been court martialled for refusing an order to serve under a foreign command for which they took no oath to serve, is yet another example even kings of old never dared to impose on their military personnel, and again proves how unquestioning and astonishingly ignorant US military and other government personnel have become. The examples saturate US government. The United States is under the rule of a functional king who has discovered that no one knows how to effectively question edict. Nobody is effectively questioning anybody in government. The concepts of government and questioning are mutually exclusive, by design. It is too comfortable and addicting to be able to issue an inadequately questioned conclusion within the inherently expanding boundaries of governmental force, knowing that no one who values the job they already defined as more valuable than their mind will question the conclusion while each decision maker in the system then relaxes without fear that a customer will come back with a question threatening the income of the decision maker.

Think tanks, universities and other such institutions commonly misassociated with thinking, function under the same controlling concepts. Their employees go through the motions without any imperative to produce anything more substantive than rhetorical bovine scat, and without the service verifiably connected to any useful manifestation of the service. Thank tanks, like lawyers, are most amusing in that they provide a purported service to people who cannot think, by definition, and are therein secure from any recognition of fraud. They offer opinion not verifiably connected to the results of the opinions. Because they never questioned themselves to extent of the controlling contradiction of their institution, when their opinions fail on the same schedule as the opinions of those who are buying the think tank opinions, the think tank boys can offer the next opinions, and do so with the routine hoopla of high sounding titles and credentials routinely fooling those who cannot think through to the contradiction of titles and credentials. They can bullshit the bullshitters because the bullshitters literally do not know anything more than bullshit, or they would have manifested it without need to hire bullshitters.

In contrast, among others, private enterprise business persons must calculate a diverse range of variables, by asking and answering questions that therefore sustain or fail the business, manifesting real consequences for which no rhetorical bovine scat can explain-away. The thinking customers cannot be forced to do anything. Even if you are a government chap, do you think about what you are buying before you open your wallet? The business person must match the thinking of customers representing the full diversity of human minds, to offer the product or service the customers desire. The customers will buy from the more thinking businessman. The businessman must constantly question diverse variables to learn knowledge, for example the tactics of the government sorts who seek to bleed him of every dollar they can, with the use of force. Every contradiction humans can produce constantly train the mind of the businessmen who must prevail above those contradictions to sustain and advance the business, and the alternative offers no escape in excuses. The employees will openly question the decisions of their boss when the company profits can therefore be increased, and be promoted for doing so, or leave the company to produce a better company competing against the first one. The arena is the training ground for thinking, by design. It has its limits, primarily that of seeking dollars instead of knowledge itself, and common specialization dealing with a narrow range of product or service customers, but those are small limits in an arena of otherwise expanding knowledge.

Herein is identified a gradient among 6.1 billion people, based on the exhaustion and discomfort of thinking, not unlike the weight lifter who can lift a lot more weight than I can, but who inherently encounters his limit just as you and I do. In weight lifting, the limit is an ounce more than the heaviest weight lifted in any particular competition. In thinking, the theoretical limit is one question and answer beyond every accurately answered question in any competition if such a competition could be manifested. But the real limit of thinking for any identified contradiction is the unequivocal resolution of the contradiction.

Therein, consider the obvious contradiction of terrorism, a currently popular issue. Terrorism exists, when accurately defined, and it is an inconvenient pain in the ass. The success of any related thinking is the elimination of terrorism in society. Said success is easily achieved. The knowledge of how to do so is already held by people who hold no incentive to solve the contradiction for the people in society who functionally demonstrate their willful preference to sustain rather than resolve contradictions. No small gaggle of government and other institutional persons are collectively paid vast sums of money and public praise to solve that problem, that is, to think through the contradictions to resolve them and thus manifest a void of terrorists in society. They claim the titles and credentials, claim the incentive, claim the benefits, and imprison or shoot anyone who effectively questions their conclusions. So what's the problem?

Amusingly, by design of the human phenomenon which can instead be advanced at any time anyone wishes to do so by simply thinking a bit more, the people who are socially selected and paid for the task of protecting society from damaging concepts, are those who cannot even lift the analogous weight of their beer mug in a thinking contest, because they were too intellectually lazy right at the get-go to do anything so exhausting as thinking, and then immediately relaxed from there in easy government and think tank jobs designed to discourage or eliminate thinking. How hard will you work at a task you do not find enjoyable if there is no incentive to do so? When you pay people to never produce the purported service because they can imprison or shoot you if you don't pay them, what did you think you were going to receive? The government chaps who are publicly praised as heavyweights because of their titles and paper credentials, are not just intellectual lightweights for a contest predicated on intellectually out-thinking simpleton terrorists, the government chaps are intellectual zeroweights. Because it is not humanly possible for even the most heavily armed government chaps to kill all the suicide terrorists before they easily effect their game in a human phenomenon wherein a super-power government is instilling the process and imperative of suicide terrorism as the current battle standard among those who cannot otherwise compete and are being trammeled with power rather than benefited with thinking, and because the government trains its personnel to evade thinking beyond the use of guns, the description of US government intellectual zeroweights is an understatement, with the consequences of increasing terrorism inescapable therein.

In the gradient, there are inherently those who think, simply continuing to ask and answer horribly boring questions far beyond the rational exhaustion of others, for certain incentives of advanced knowledge, until they hold all the solutions you and others yet seek. But of course those solutions are not conveyable to people who do not have the time or incentive to follow the same reasoning-trail of questions and answers, even when such a trail is conveniently paved for them. The amusement is in those government and think tank chaps being opulently paid for what they so obviously do not do. They traded the value of their mind for the socially induced perception of material success. They defrauded themselves, simply for lack of thinking. Further, they and everyone you know, including you, will waste vastly more time than required to learn and manifest solutions to highly complex social contradiction, including that of terrorism, by stating useless conclusions rather than ask a linear set of questions leading directly to said solutions in a few days. And you may be assured that said amusement is enjoyed by observers.

But even for the thinking chaps, thinking is still exhausting and not enjoyable at some resulting level, usually that of abject boredom, defining it as such by said level not being ascertainable as such without thinking to that level to prove the case, or they would not laugh themselves to exhaustion as occasional diversion from thinking.



Organizational technology... 24 November 2001

In contrast to intellectual technology, organizational technology constitutes the mechanical or procedural display of the mind's conclusions. The latter is in contrast to the mind's reasoning which effects intellectual technology. One such popular display of organizational technology among these humans, common among the organizations referenced as governments, especially the US government, is the routine killing of perceived opponents, to try to resolve a contradiction. One may learn much from the display. Once you have decided to imprison or kill your opponent, or use any other form of force, you have admitted that your opponent has out-thought you, and you concurrently stopped tying to reason beyond his mind's ability to defend from reasoning, which is to say you have stopped thinking.

Also, once you have decided to form or support an organization for a goal, you have stopped thinking. Your decisions will then be acted out through the organization, and because the organization has no brain or mind of its own, 100% of the energy of the organization's leaders and members will be absorbed by maintaining the organization itself. There is no other utility or ability of the organization since it has no mind. If the minds of the organization leaders and members were capable of achieving the goals they identified as the organizational goals, they would have done so without wasting the time required to additionally form and maintain an organization. Even their best excuses fall apart again on the second day the organization exists while its espoused goals remain unachieved. If you wish to extend your amusement, give them a week, a year, ten years, or ask them to name the date on which the organization will have manifested its espoused goals, and laugh yourself to tears at their inescapable failure. Because they are therein proven to not be so capable, the most they can do is form and perpetuate the organization, which inherently attracts people with the same intellectual inability seeking an organization without a mind to do something for them because they are unable. There is no organizational escape from the contradiction created by forming the organization.

And then the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are created, defeating the organization's espousals, by design.

The organization will inherently attack other people. A power-based organization, which is all but a rare few organizations, cannot exist without an enemy. The organization need attack only one person, and the organization without an individual mind to synthesize all the related data, will then have an opponent with a human mind. The organization without a mind can therefore never win against a human mind, and will only play out an identified and precisely itemized process before it eventually defeats itself. It is immaterial to a thinking person that an organization can achieve many temporary illusions, and provide for the material wealth of many fools, all of which will collapse, in sum for only the ancient lesson illuminating that for which a thinking person obviously would not want to waste his life. Within the social functioning of the human species, any human mind will win a game against an artificial person without a mind. Do not be hasty in your suggestion of any exceptions. The process will primarily be that of the organization without a mind, inherently defeating itself for physical lack of ability to synthesize all the otherwise easily synthesized organizational contradictions. Do not be hasty with your claims of organizations winning proverbial battles. Their proverbial wars are doomed, as consistently proven.

One need only learn how to most conveniently assist the more expeditious conduct of an organization's inherent process, embarrassingly easy since your opponent organization has no mind to synthesize data. If you thought that your opponent organization's leaders are battling you, then you already forgot the foregoing, as is the result of a power-damaged mind.

Unlike intellectual technology, organizational technology has no process to create concepts outside its institutional parameters. And those parameters are inherently designed to defeat institutional goals. For its survival, the organization will usurp the entire intellectual ability of any human supporting it. To attempt to use organizational technology against intellectual technology is like playing a statistical game beyond the statistics that support it. Beyond the limits of their model, the statistics can as easily collapse the model as strengthen it, and any statistical contradiction disproves the model, collapsing the organization or its espoused goals.

There is no need to utilize a model, especially one so categorically proven to fail as an organization, to achieve a goal if even one human mind can become an opponent. While you may create many physical battles as an animal, the only actual battle you will ever encounter as a human, is one of the mind, your thinking ability, challenging the thinking ability of another human mind. The moment you employ organizational technology, you have lost, unless your opponent employed it before you did, and asked no subsequent question of his foolish decision. It is he who therefore defeated himself before you will as surely defeat yourself.

Walk away from those poor useless chaps who support organizations, including governments. While they methodically frustrate and defeat themselves amid their self-deluding illusions genuinely believed, you may easily learn the knowledge they desperately crave. And you may utilize that knowledge to hasten their inherent self-defeat if you wish.



Kunduz... 25 November 2001

In explaining why he and his colleagues in Kunduz Afghanistan belatedly switched sides from the Taliban to the Northern Alliance, the Afghan soldier stated to the TV camera: What could we do? We were surrounded and we were being bombed by the Americans every day.

Think. Before that decision, he so hated the American-supported Northern Alliance and the Americans that he was overtly risking his life and doing his very best to kill them.

To reference the chap as a Taliban, Afghan, Muslim or any other reference, including the Arabs hated by the Afghans, instead of a human mind identical to yours, your mind denies itself access to any logical decisions in relation to the chap's actions. In regard to humans, you are dealing with your own design of the human mind, not with bodies referenced by names or institutions.

If you desperately fought, with only a rifle, in a very bloody war to defend the American government against a Chinese-supported American Communist Party attack on Washington DC, and you were surrounded in a town fifty miles from Washington DC, and the Chinese were bombing you every day, killing your colleagues and civilians around you, including many children, with death and defeat therefore a certainty unless you joined the American Communist Party, and you therefore joined the welcoming Communist Party, would your mind therefore believe and support the Chinese and Communists after you escaped the trap? Well? Did you think the human mind of an Afghan chap functions any differently than the above question just proved your human mind functions? What have you let those sorts in Washington DC lead you into? How many more people in other nations are going to hate Americans with even greater fervor after Bush stops paying-off the so called coalition of Middle East political and military leaders?

Incentive is everything to the human mind for its decisions. Between two courses of action, would you give more human minds functioning identically as yours, more incentive to terrorist bomb Americans, or less? What did the terrorists do by bombing the World Trade Center? What did Bush do by bombing foreign cities full of people who did not bomb the World Trade Center, in full view of other cities full of innocent people?

If the American Communist Party had so much to offer Americans that it became sufficiently popular among Americans that it was able to successfully overthrow the obviously corrupt Washington DC government, with American revolutionaries, how would you feel toward those chaps? In contrast, how would you feel toward them and toward the Chinese if the American Communist Party was so unpopular in America that it was only able to overthrow the Washington DC government because the Chinese incessantly bombed the American supporters of the Washington DC government and anyone around them wherever they were suspected to be? Well? What is your identical mind's design thinking in the bodies of Afghan soldiers in each of that country's political factions, and all the other people in the world who hate the Americans because Americans bomb whomever they wish at whim?

If the American Communist Party accepted Chinese support to successfully overthrow the Washington DC government, would the American Communist Party, comprised of Americans, want the Chinese to rule the US? What is going to happen in Afghanistan after the US tax payers can't afford to keep paying off enough Afghan politicians and generals, along with the growing list of international politicians and generals whose rhetorical loyalty the US DemocanRepublicrats have been renting at exorbitant rates?

Among a long list not so obvious, Manuel Noreiaga was a highly salaried CIA chap. The US wanted to kill Manuel when they set out to kidnap him. What would your mind think of an employer who routinely tried to kill previous employees? Why do you think the Afghan Northern Alliance leaders and all other leaders distrust and despise the murderous American government and its supporting Americans?

If the Chicago Mob was currently strong enough to be immune to government police action, and was conveniently condoned because it was conducting no current criminal actions in the US, and China accused the Mob of blowing up some buildings in China to protest Chinese attacks on American business interests, what would you think of those Chinese if they issued the American government an ultimatum to hand over whoever the Chinese demanded, or be bombed back to the stone age? What do you think your identical design of Afghan human minds think of Americans? It is grade school level knowledge well beyond the comprehension of government and other organizational sorts, that the design of the human mind is impartial to any reference for the body supporting it.

Your failure to answer those questions, and the abject fear of such questions by the intellectually absent lads in Washington DC, are the reason the next war and major terrorist program are already scheduled, when they could have already been prevented before a shot was fired. Ask and answer the questions the military Generals are too spineless to face, so that your comments among commonly intelligent friends do not embarrass you as much as the comments of those Washington DC Generals and political hacks would embarrass them if they had even an inkling of common intelligence.



Osama bin Laden, the most powerful American leader in history... 26 November 2001

In the rapidly escalating list of proofs, the following proof is only one. Others will follow, on schedule, as they are created by the Washington DC Government. Osama bin Laden is the most powerful American leader in history. All the denials fall in face of the proofs. While Americans attempt to hide the facts of their history, just as did the Germans and Japanese after World War Two, the world's historians will speak of Osama bin Laden as the most powerful American leader in its history.

Osama did not even rule a country. His military lacked every definition of a military, and at best was a lightly armed, small gaggle of religious followers hanging out in small groups in a few countries. He would have only been a ill regarded international criminal if the US DemocanRepublicrats did not establish his impact on America above all US presidents.

The Afghan Taliban government and its military were completely separate from Osama's little criminal mob, until the US started bombing Afghanistan for something it did not do and could not control. Osama is a Saudi, as are most of his mob.

Read the US Constitution, and all the political speeches about America's greatness. Get a dictionary and read the definitions of those words.

In face of those words, who could have effected the overt suspension of the US Constitution, and imposed secret military tribunals of American residents secretly accused by the government, of crimes, when no nation was attacking the United States, and no military was attacking the United States? If you doubt Osama's power over US law, could George Bush have done that without Osama?

Who could have effected the FBI and US Homeland Security Gestapo rounding up people based on ethnic origin, and subjecting them to secret interrogations while stripped of their rights, when the US was not under attack by any nation or military? Was it obviously not only Osama? If some black men or Asians pulled off a terrorist function, would the RepublicratDemocans start rounding up black men or Asians? Are not Osama's decisions obviously controlling the American government, and doing what every enemy of American freedom wanted to do but did not prior know how?

Who could have effected such massive stripping of rights of travelers in the US, making the old Soviet tactics look like the epitome of freedom? Osama again, with Bush only the lieutenant dutifully doing precisely as Osama designed, if it was Osama, as claimed by the US DemocanRepublicrats who cannot exist without an enemy.

The list goes on. And it will get more significant. America is the land of the Nazi or Soviet styled Police State, now ruled by the design of Osama bin Laden the Great.

The excuses are associated with only the concerns of each excuse. Above all the excuses, Osama, if he is the chap who orchestrated the brilliant design of the World Trade Tower bombings, imposed American leadership decisions more radically altering governance in the US, than any other leader.

Precisely what occurred in the minds of George Bush and his military/police advisors, that caused those minds to genuinely perceive that they were doing anything more than stripping America of American freedom, the primary goal of every American enemy? What was the mechanism of the mind?

Why is no extent of police-state force ever successful in stopping the use of force among humans, and in fact compounds it? Write your easy answer. It is the process of writing it that makes it a useful tool of knowledge for your mind's next resolution of a contradiction. When Bush has imprisoned or bombed everyone in the world who does not kowtow to him, who will therefore inherently next threaten him to thus be imprisoned until he was the only living human outside the prison? If the human mind could be forced into subservience, the first king in human history would have defined a world dictatorship of today. Why were kings discarded? It is obviously fools who attack human minds with force, and fools who support such fools.

Of course Osama only deserves such credit based on the flawed reasoning of the US RepublicratDemocans. They define great leadership by the use of inherently corrupted power, and haven't the remotest inkling of the concept of leadership wisdom. If wisdom, that is, the utilization of the mind's reasoning process, is the standard for leadership, Bush, Osama and their entire ilk in history do not even approach the concept of leadership from their nadir barely at the bottom of human association.

What Osama did, if he wishes to claim credit for one of military history's most brilliantly designed attacks, albeit without a military, was so thoroughly flawed right down the list of considerations, in relation to any goal beyond promptly collapsing the concept of terrorism in the world if the response had been based on wisdom, that only a person vastly more flawed than Osama could have created a response that defined Osama as a comparative genius and the most powerful American leader, for the annals of history.

Had he utilized the processes of wisdom in response to the unique World Trade Center bombing, George Bush could have plunged the world into peace and the universal defeat of terrorism. But of course, being of the unthinking ilk, Bush plunged the US and a gaggle of equally unthinking national leaders into yet greater war, bombing and terrorism, as usual.

Rightfully laugh yourself to tears, because the above is merely analysis of the obvious. The moment Osama bin Bush, George bin Laden, every other DemocanRepublicrat or other institution leader anywhere in the world, great or inconsequential, first succumbed to the smallest measure of institutional power, the result was already written. The human mind's design is already known in detail that the neurologists could promptly quantify if said design would allow them to question their own institution, much to the laughter of observers.

If you cannot outwit someone who is so categorically ignorant they must kill their opponents because they can't outwit them, to thus create more opponents, then you would make a superlative US RepublicratDemocan President. Start your campaign.

The prompt defeat of terrorism is amusingly simple to effect. One need only utilize the line-item mechanisms of procedural wisdom, that which any human can learn with a series of questions and answers. Ask them. Write your answers. You will benefit from the humor you will therein learn while Osama's boy in the US President's office methodically carries out the destruction of the substance of America, much to the amusement of observers.



The obvious most rarely recognized... 2 December 2001

The more malicious institutions you create to fight maliciousness, the more certain you will suffer from your creation. No human institutions control maliciousness after they adopt the concept, or it would not exist among institutions which universally state that they are opposed to maliciousness.

Is there any institutionally conducted maliciousness? What is war? What is terrorism?

You will never control the monster you feed, by definition. Fools create monsters, that they genuinely believe they control or they would not feed them.

The following question is of, why. Fail to find the flawless answer, and you will suffer more maliciousness. The flawless answer is the one that you can use to promptly correct the identified contradiction, without any more resources than you already hold.

Why did US President George Bush invoke secret military tribunals and create a functionally lawless Office of Homeland Security Gestapo in response to the bombing of the World Trade Center? Precisely why?

It is an aside to ask the question, why did Bush bomb Afghanistan towns in which he knew he was killing many innocent civilians, and then continue to do so after being informed of the obvious, creating more of the maliciousness created by the already dead Saudi suicide bombers at New York. The aside is perspective. Return to the question in the preceding paragraph.

Your answer is wrong. If you think I err, send your answer, but wisely question it at least as much as would I. You can find the right answer if you sufficiently question your initial answers.

Would you agree to be tried in a secret military tribunal for accusations by the government, after the Homeland Security Gestapo seized you because of your ethnic background? In face of your answer, would your support for the RepublicratDemocans supporting Bush therefore not identify your maliciousness toward others whom you have thus forced under those processes? Are you not the others of other people, perhaps those in the Homeland Security Gestapo when they receive the rumor that terrorists are among your social subculture of any nature?

If the US courts and law enforcement agencies are so flawed they cannot adequately perform their assigned tasks, why would a mind decide to not correct their flaws, and instead pile two more therefore inherently flawed entities on top of the previous flaws? How yet more secret tribunals and how many more law enforcement agencies will stop or quantifiably reduce criminal actions? The use of secret tribunals and the creation of another law enforcement agency before the forgoing question is answered, identifies a fundamentally flawed reasoning process.

Why do the minds of George Bush, all his military generals, all his advisors, the US news media and all those praising his leadership, not comprehend the meaning of the first sentence of this section? Precisely why? Those institutional leaders are comprised of many otherwise diverse human minds. Why do every one of them not comprehend a particular concept that everyone else immediately recognizes? Do you not recognize the inordinate value of that flawless answer, and the lack of value in all the superficial, thus flawed answers?

How was the mind of George Bush, his colleagues and possibly yourself taught to not recognize obvious and verifiable maliciousness that other people around the world openly recognize and decry?

Those who are taught to expect to be treated with contempt by their government are less angered by that treatment than those who were taught in school that hey hold those rights described in the plain English wording of the US Constitution. Notice therein that you are dealing with minds, not identified persons. Any person can get a government job, and thus his mind obviously becomes what manifests the described maliciousness, by definition of the existence of that maliciousness created by government. The same is true for any power-based institution. Until you recognize the full substance of your dealing with a designed process of the human mind, you have not started toward any genuine solution.

Now therefore, would you train your children to expect to be treated maliciously by your government, or train them to believe they hold those rights described in the US Constitution? What is your answer? What is your concern for your children? Did you want them to grow up being angered by an obvious, damaging contradiction, or being pleasantly ignorant and tolerate of their increasing repression? What is your answer? What did you surrender for your children by training your own mind to escalate maliciousness against maliciousness? What encourages the US DemocanRepublicrat's Office of Homeland Security Gestapo, as it did their closest colleagues in Germany sixty years ago?

Between the US and countries with currently more repressive governments, the greater difference between instilled expectations is in the US. Every scientist knows that the greater difference will manifest the greater reaction.

If you trained your children to support the use of greater maliciousness against maliciousness, what will occur when the maliciousness you created causes your children to belatedly defend themselves against it?

What are your choices in an inescapable spiral, to formally extinguish the US Constitution that creates an illusion incompatible with your current process, or return the long and difficult distance to complying with the constitution? What did you surrender when you started the spiral away from your knowledge of how to manifestly return to the constitution by non-violent means you never taught your children to honor in their institutional leaders? If you train your children to kill innocent Afghans for what some already-dead Saudis did, what will they do to whom when what you taught others inherently attacks your children? What will Afghans later do for what you did to them for what Saudis did to you for what you did to people in how many countries the US military has maliciously attacked while the US military is planning to attack Iraq, Somalia and other countries accused of including terrorists? Among other fabricated accusations to support its slaughter, did the US Government not occasionally describe the Dividian Christians at Waco Texas, as terrorists?

Power can never willingly surrender any portion of itself, and still exist as a concept. The spiral is not escapable with the knowledge you currently hold, by design, or you would have done so.

The non-violent escape is for any persons in positions of power, whose minds currently know only maliciousness by definition of power, to learn what power is and how it functions in the human mind. Another such escape is for you to learn the same, and utilize the knowledge.

While that is possible and readily available by a unique opportunity, among persons in positions of power, it has not yet happened in human history, much to the amusement of observers. All the peace institutions and think tank leaders hold organizational power. Power will not allow the mind it infects to recognize its process, or the concept of power could not exist in the human mind.

It is only the process you functionally endorse which has trained an entire populace that the use of force rather than the reasoning process of openly questioning the use of force, is your socially-recognized process to achieve a goal.

Your institution leaders and members are not even in the learning game. They are in the force, killing and imprisoning game, by decree or majority mob rule. And your neighbor will not learn such new knowledge. But you can, and only one mind is necessary to correct all the contradictions created by humans, if that mind learns how, and also encounters any incentive to do so, by design of the human mind.

If you think the human mind's design is of any lesser ability, then your rational option is to genuinely enjoy the escalating maliciousness you so obviously support with your actions.

It is the completely ignorant, and the completely knowledgeable who are amused by the next terrorist attacks and the currently 15 shooting wars being fought around the world, the institutional maliciousness created by the people's institutions. Those in the middle of that knowledge spectrum are frustrated only by their refusal to erase the knowledge they hold, or refusal to ask the questions to learn all the related knowledge. Ask the questions. The least of what you will learn is how to easily stop terrorism and wars, if you encounter any incentive to do so. There are far more intriguing goals beyond that simpleton goal, which you will likely pursue while enjoying the entertainment created by malicious minds.



The horse rider... 3 December 2001

Notice the consistent reaction of government, military and other force-based institution leaders when you attempt to inform them that the process of reasoning prevails over the process of force for the design of the human mind. Common among the reactions is their rhetorically nebulous accusations that your suggestion is just a bunch of useless philosophy. Some of the specific examples are priceless displays of the zenith of human ignorance.

They will live out their lives remaining clueless of the value of the human mind, and genuinely believe that the zenith of the human phenomenon is the gun and the bomb. They will teach their children the same. That includes the same sorts who extol the virtues of democracy and law, backed by guns and bombs, still clueless of the utility of reasoning to defeat every enemy.

For an analogy, consider a theoretical person who has ridden a horse his entire life, for transportation, and has never seen an automobile. Offer him an automobile with an unlimited supply of gasoline, the description of what it will do, and the answer to his every related question. The aforementioned institution leaders will consistently state that the thing is not a horse and therefore useless for anything beyond philosophical prattlings. They will not even ask questions. Their curiosity stops at what they already know, which they learned until a particular event blocked their further access to the curiosity process in the human mind.

And if you don't take your automobile out of their sight, they will shoot it with their six-gun to display their power over it.

Enjoy the humor they provide observers, by design.



Your government... 14 December 2001

Government is merely an organization whose logical design, as opposed to its universal manifestation, was to attend to those few social processes created by establishing a boundary around a geographical area.

Because humans already attend to their other social needs and desires by processes logically related to those needs and desires, there are very few processes for government to logically administer, but governments exist on the recognition of those few processes. The guy in the neighboring city, county, state or nation works, plays, and eats food just like you, etcetera, and does not need a government to attend to anything related to all those etceteras comprising the vast majority of human activity.

Notice that governments come and go, while the people's activities remain constant. What does that tell you about governments? Notice that governments solve no contradictions, and create most of the social problems burdening humans. What do you therein recognize? Notice the variety of governments, while the needs and desires of the people remain relatively constant and similar. Notice that government-defined geographical boundaries periodically change while the activities of the people therein and among them remain constant. Government is superfluous to the vast majority of human activities.

Notice that government people literally cannot comprehend the meaning of these words, yet the words are obviously true.

The creation of any form of government creates power. Power corrupts, that is, alters the perceptions of the human minds infected with the power of government jobs. The minds of the government boys sincerely and genuinely believe that calamity would erupt if their government changed or disappeared, and are categorically ignorant of why the people have changed or discarded every government that has ever been formed, including the current ones in a few more years. The government boys believe that the zenith of human ability is their government, which defines the damage that power does to the mind's reasoning process.

Government personnel are people like you and I, who are derived from the general population, who obviously hold no superior knowledge, and who make as many mistakes as anyone else. But then their perceptions are altered by the verifiably damaging results of power, and then they thus purport to be able to make decisions for other adults, and then they force those decisions on other people, under the threat of prison or death carried out by armed government personnel (police and military) who are trained to ask no questions of obvious contradictions and thus trained to be mindless fingers on triggers. Their mistakes are compounded for the obvious reason.

The source of your problems will always be the source of the contradictions defining your problems. A primary source of a contradiction is an adult attempting to make a decision for another adult. Human minds are too complex for that process to be sustainable. The certainty that a problem will become significant and ultimately damaging is the related use of force, either direct, or with intimidation or deceit, to impose the decision of one adult onto another adult. If the decision is logical, no force or deceit is logical. If the decision is logical, the reasoning will be adequate. If your expression of reasoning is inadequate, you lack the knowledge you need, or the reasoning was inadequate from the get-go despite your perceptions.

Now notice the many other organizations which are not governments. While they may lack the power of police and military, they retain the power of numbers of members or money, over the process of impartial reasoning defined by unlimited questioning. They routinely support the government use of the force, of police and military, thus defining their failure as identical to government. They routinely utilize deceit, especially those like government who claim to be honest but evade questioning. There is no power, no matter how slight, regardless of the organization of its origin, that does not alter the perceptions of the human mind, by design, to the extent of categorically verifiable damage to the reasoning process.

Those organizations which complain about government share the identical controlling contradiction as government. Government personnel could therein be amused, but they are clueless of that contradiction, or they would immediately solve it to achieve their governmental goals and regain individual human integrity / honesty.

You have no access to actual solutions for social problems through your government or organizations, not because I say so, but for the proof you would discover if you effectively questioned this statement. The source of your social problems are your governments and organizations, led by their amusingly self deluded victims of the design of power functioning in the human mind's design.

You are human. You are therefore on your own, by design of your mind being created separate from every other mind. Your mind is of such design that you can learn the knowledge to solve all those social problems, and manifest them to the extent that you wish, regardless of opposition. It is just knowledge. It is learned the way all knowledge is learned. But if your mind first perceives that it is something more than only itself, such as an organization leader or member, your reasoning process will never reach the sustainable solution to any problem, because it will attempt to utilize an institutional precept which is an illusion, by design. Your mind will not allow you to question its own institutions, by design, or you would learn its unlimited ability, and thus be able to create a quantum advancement of the human phenomenon.

Because there are geographical regions of people, more efficiently administered than the whole rock as one unit covered with diverse people, there will always be governments. They will always create power, by design. You need only learn how to guide their actions with the process of individual reasoning, to create no damage, regardless of their power and its corruption. You need only learn the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, the institutional parameters of the human mind's design. You need only question your institutions. You must challenge your own mind.

If you are not attempting to learn such knowledge, you are wasting your related efforts identically as government and organizational people, as proven by the entire history of governments and organizations. The test of time has been more than ample. Why do social problems exist after all those organization and government leaders said what they said throughout human history? Had even one of them taken a week or so to ask questions rather than make statements, and retained any incentive to create an honest government or organization, the vast majority of social problems would not exist, for reason found therein. Your mind is worth more than the waste of lifetimes identified among all the poor victims of their institutional titles. Use it. Otherwise, at least demonstrate the social benefit of laughing at all those problems so that others around you can share your laughter rather than any self-induced anguish over that of which you needlessly choose to remain ignorant. And if you laugh at those problems, you may open the avenue to more easily learning how to solve them.



The product or the design... 15 December 2001

Did you want to convince the other guy of this or that, the solutions you suggest? Notice the process to do that is practiced by all the institutions.

Notice the history of people attempting that process, and notice that the social problems which existed thousands of years ago are the same today, still unresolved, still creating the ongoing grief, anger, hatred, fighting, damages, losses, retaliation, social stagnation and all those amusing traits of humans.

Or did you want to learn the functional design of the human mind and thus that of the other guy, while he does not learn that knowledge, to thus be able to promptly effect your solutions which his mind will therefore not let him dodge? The process is too easy. It is only knowledge.

As long as you are seeking the wrong process, at best you will achieve its results.

As an aside, you could be left with no escape from what you most desire, or from your worst fears, but the people who know how to do that to you hold no incentive to do so. Their interest is in the far greater intrigues one learns from having learned the design of the human mind.

You get to choose what knowledge you wish to learn, that which is common and has failed, or that which is uncommon and leads to benefits beyond your current recognition. The former is what all the institution leaders have already learned. It will stagnate and frustrate their entire life, as proven. They will see or come to recognize that all their victories will crumble, on schedule, doomed from the get-go by the wrong process, as the history of humans proves. The latter removes all the limits, but it does require a week or so to learn, and you would face questions analogous to the sound barrier.

Your current choice is apparent by your results, and the results of those institution leaders whom you foolishly support, much to the amusement of observers.



Never enough guns... 16 December 2001

The only reason the poor sad victims of government employment, who are otherwise as equally ignorant and smart as all other humans, by design of the human mind, are universally ridiculed and held in contempt by commonly intelligent people, is that only government chaps attempt to force society with the guns of police and military.

For how long can you be forced to do what, because your ruler has guns, before your mind can out-think that process of intellectually absent, embarrassing chaps? What is the limit of a gun, and the limit of a human mind?

If you faced the unknown, for your choice of a tool, would you choose a thinking human mind, or all the guns and ammunition you desired?

Notice the undeniable choice of every government and all the institutions which support them and thus their choice, and rightfully laugh yourself to tears.



The managers... 17 December 2001

If you, as a human, managed humans, what would you do with them? Consider that you had 6.1 billion human minds at your disposal.

Remember, that a human mind is a contradiction resolution device, of astonishing capability when it is not fighting itself. It identifies contradictions, or problems, and seeks solutions, by design. That is all it does.

Would you set your humans about projects to perhaps explore the galaxy, cure all the diseases and extend healthy life to maybe 200 years so each mind could accumulate more data to learn more knowledge and thus solve more complex problems and thus achieve what we currently cannot even imagine? Would you have them spiffy-up the planet to make it a paradise pretty much wherever you went, and discover the electro-magnetic platform to take you there after your grueling 8 hour work week? List the things you would have them do.

Or would you have those valuable human minds constantly fighting each other, imprisoning each other, killing each other in gun battles orchestrated by police and military chaps following orders of government sorts desperate to reduce the entire population down to the monumental ignorance and stagnation of the few government sorts fighting each other for ego, bombing the things your humans made so they kept having to start over doing what they already knew, littering the ground with land-mines, filling the air with war industry pollutants, taxing the non-fighters to pay for the fighting, squandering their time to rail at each other in the process to get one set of power-damaged minds in government rather than the other set of power-damaged minds, arguing over how God's name is spelled or which lawyer gets to interpret which law in what words other than those of the law? What percentage of those minds would you apply to such stagnating and destructive goals leading nowhere except more ritualized fighting stuck on the rock? What is the value of each human mind for its lifetime, and what can it achieve for you?

So what are all the government managers of humans doing with humans? And what are all those who support government therefore doing?

Do you utilize your own answers to questions?

Remember, that a human mind is a contradiction resolution device. Now that you recognize that no government or institution leaders are or will ever be capable of resolving the primary contradiction of humans, and in fact are the source of that astonishingly stagnating contradiction, after thousands of years of government and institutional leadership efforts proving their failure, for what can only be a contradiction inherent to institutions since so many independent minds cycled through those institutions, you might wisely never waste another minute or dime on institutions, and instead use your time and money to start learning the easy resolution to that contradiction.

It is your time and money, your lifetime, and your manifested answers to the above questions are either the source of amusement for observers, or your process to become one, or more if you wish.

It is just knowledge, derived from actually asking and actually answering questions, and using your answers. The resulting entertainment alone is worth more than your greatest effort therein.



The design is a controlling concept... 18 December 2001

There is no value in being informed of the parts of the puzzle. Until your mind identifies your categorically verified proof of a part of the puzzle, it is useless to you. And each part is imperative. Which part did you wish to verify, as the tool to discover the next immutable part? Select any part, and learn its flawlessly controlling concept.

You are working with the singular design of the human mind. That is part of the puzzle. The differences you perceive are within the design. You are not working with this guy or that guy or the other guy over there. You are working with the design of the human mind. Until you go to the significant effort to ask the complete circle of questions to verify that fact in your mind, you have no hope of learning intellectual technology, or achieving a sustainable resolution to a human-caused problem, especially a complex one.

What is the single most valuable physical tool for an unknown job? Is it not a human brain with its knowledge? If you had to do an unknown job, and were given any tools of any nature, would you throw any of them away because you didn't know what the job was yet? And of all the tools you might be given for a unknown job, would you not most want to keep human minds?

Who in the world holds the knowledge you need for your task that you do not yet know how to do, as proven by your having not completed it, or the missing part of that knowledge blocking your access to the whole of it?

Why do you think humans are still imprisoning and killing each other, instead of having learned the puzzle that can promptly solve their problems? Might it be because they are imprisoning and killing the tools they must have to get the job done?

Don't worry about the government chaps, other institutional sorts and their supporters not being able to understand these plain English words. They never will, the rest of their lives, by design of the process of the concept of institutional power in their minds. But you can. Read slowly, and learn.

At your suggestion that maybe some of those Afghan minds, which are the aforementioned priceless tools, whom the Americans so enthusiastically slaughtered with glee at the news of each new bombing mission, might hold the part of the knowledge needed to solve the problems that Americans have so obviously failed to solve, the young American military officer might scoff at you suggestion, and state that they are just some backwards peasants who don't even have computers. He is the same military officer who will be promoted to General and instill the same ignorance in the next truck-loads of gullible military recruits, or become President, and base his popularity on Wag The Dog wars, for lack of any intellectual ability. And if those young conservative American military officers and enlisted personnel think the other guys are not as smart as Americans, who does the President have doing his killing for him?

Who did we kill in Vietnam, who held the knowledge of how to prevent the bombing of the World Trade Center?

Often I laugh robustly that I was so monumentally dumb as to have been a distinguished military graduate airborne ranger infantry officer Vietnam veteran. I can offer no adequate apology to the Vietnamese people. I would agree to convey to their government the knowledge to promptly make them the acknowledged world leaders, leaving the Washington DC as an embarrassing footnote in history, but their government leaders cannot understand these concepts any more than the poor victims of power in Washington DC.

An apology is also due to the American taxpayers for accepting a government salary for doing something that never held any possibility of benefit for Americans or any humans, by design of the human mind. There is no form of force that has ever, or will ever benefit any humans. Power serves only itself as a concept stagnating humans. The use of force is the sole source of damage to the human phenomenon, by design of the human mind. My apologies have also been expressed elsewhere, but they are of no utility to others. Knowledge is the only thing derived from exercising an action that does not resolve the contradiction.

The Afghan military boys and every other military in the world are training each truck load of new recruits with the same ignorance of the human mind's design, on schedule, by design. And those who are most effectively trained will be promoted to Generals to do the same thing with the same flawless ignorance. Well, the Americans armed and paid the Taliban to defeat the Russians, and now the Americans are arming and paying the anti-Taliban and previous Taliban military that switched sides again to get the next American bank roll. Which military chaps accused the other guy of being dumb, and are they therefore not each caught by any common-sense person as proving the universal design of the human mind?

Why did the US military lose the war in Vietnam after years of opportunity to figure out how to win it? Why is Saddam Hussein still in power? Why has every American ally eventually turned against the US at various times and by various methods? Why has the US betrayed everyone to whom it has ever made a promise? Why have other countries done the same? Why did the US Army, FBI, and BATF maliciously attack and slaughter women and children Christians in their church in Waco while ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and ETC journalists parroted the government-fabricated falsehoods of a cult, drugs, child-molestation, machine guns and other illusionary evils? Why do American police have such a high rate of suicide, divorce, spousal abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism and psychological stress diseases while the US RepublicratDemocans write yet more volumes of police-backed laws against actions that harm no one? Why does every organized religion provide all the government militaries with ministers to comfort the minds of the troops and thus make them more effective killing machines, rather than refuse such service to killing, or state that they worship the god of murder?

Each of those questions and countless like them hold definitive answers that prevail against all the questions of all the so called best minds, and everyone else. Until you learn the design of the human mind, an easy task, you will only compound your contradictions, rather than resolve them. Learn. The process is merely that of asking and answering every question you encounter.

If you have a government job, quit at 8:AM tomorrow morning. Your mind is worth vastly more to you than that for which you are selling it. An institution can never tolerate anyone within it who holds the knowledge of the institution's fatal flaw, and that is the least of the knowledge available to the human mind which escapes the results of power in the human mind.

If you have a government job, and wish to challenge the impossible within that position, the avenue may now be open for the first time in human history. But you must ask the questions that your colleagues flee, just to start your learning process.

The least person can efficiently learn the knowledge that the most titled, credentialed and powerful people in the world most crave, most fear and cannot learn after having instead accepted their titles and credentials. The people who learn that knowledge will often laugh at the self-induced, lifelong frustration of the victims of power and its titles.



Two games... 20 December 2001

Foolish people believe that the game is that of who can kill whom.

It is the same game to see who can imprison or out-vote whom.

The game is instead that of who will kill.

It is the same of who will imprison or out-vote.

You do not have to slay the giant, and the giant need not slay those who attack him.

You only have to slay anyone, and he slay anyone.

Or imprison or out-vote anyone.

To kill, imprison or out-vote anyone, you will have therein defeated yourself, training your mind that force prevails over reasoning, that is, over the controlling design of the human mind.

That is how you lose the game, by design of the human mind. There is no mechanism in the human mind for one mind to force another mind.

If you kill, imprison, out-vote or use such force-based replacement of thinking, you will not recover the utility of your mind for reasoning, or the obviously self-defeating concept of power could not prevail during the lifetime of a human, or the time of humans so far.

You are not going to change the designed biological process of the power-damaged mind, either in yourself or the other guy, without learning the functional design of the human mind, and power can never let a power-damaged human mind learn such knowledge, by that design.

But you can, at great effort, convey to your children that they must never accept any form of any power. But you must learn what power is, to be able to convey that knowledge. Consider those who say that knowledge is power. They will not be able to teach their children what power is, or to never accept any of the many deceptive forms of power.

Knowledge is knowledge. Power is power. They are mutually exclusive concepts that no human holds the ability to join.

So given the opportunity, what would you seek for yourself, or convey to your children, all the power in the world, or the most inconsequential item of knowledge?

The item of knowledge will facilitate the next item, and there is no resulting limit within the concept of knowledge.

In contrast, what institutional power has ever achieved anything of value to humans, or prevailed in time?

Knowledge is learned by asking and answering questions.

Notice who fears to learn knowledge.

Unlike them, you may learn new knowledge. It holds no mechanism to harm you. Start.



The website of think tank links... 21 December 2001

There is a website that includes a comprehensive list of linked think tanks around the world. Think tanks often reference themselves as research institutions, and purport to be people who think through problems, to identify solutions.

The site is that of the National Institute of Research Advancement. It includes the World Directory of Think Tanks on its Think Tank Information page.

To look at the impressive list of think tanks can cause a thinking person to again recognize that all the think tanks in the world hold the same controlling contradiction, and are abject failures.

The think tanks exist, all over the world. They have done what they have done, and continue doing the same thing. And the test of time has been more than adequate. The wars and countless other social problems continue unabated. The solutions offered by the think tanks are rhetorical illusions fooling fools, by manifest proof.

Of course all the governments and their personnel have failed identically, and make the same claims as think tanks, but they do not so amusingly embarrass themselves with the institutional title of, Think Tanks.

So either the think tank personnel are not thinking, or there is no process to out-think the process of humans killing, imprisoning and damaging each other, or the minds of all the think tank personnel hold a universal flaw identifiable in the design of the mind.

Because human minds devised the problems, human minds can devise the solutions, by design.

What concepts are universal to all the think tank personnel? 1. They are human minds. 2. They identify themselves in an institution.

The website does not link any entity that expressly states the obvious failure of all the think tanks. It is a data point for an institution to not mention anyone who suggests a flaw within that institution, so the institution trains itself to believe that it is a proverbial one-sided coin. It is a second data point for an institution to not mention anyone who suggests a flaw within the larger phenomenon of that same institution, again denying itself access to the other half of its own whole concept.

If the think tank personnel were thinking, and facing the manifest proof that all the think tanks cannot manifest the solutions to the problems they identify, they would logically inform the people that the thought-based solutions to those identified problems are not humanly possible. They do not so so. They cling to the contradiction without resolving it one way or the other, quite like all institutions.

They do not ask such questions as: How do we manifest the solutions we talk about? What are we not doing that results in our solutions not being manifested? What contradictions left within our solutions flaw their ability to be manifested? What processes are we using that are also within the processes that cause the contradictions? What processes are universal to ourselves and those who create the problems? Those are just generalized questions, but notice that the think tanks stop asking questions when they state their conclusions, and notice that the conclusions have not solved the problems.

You can double or quadruple the impressive number of think tanks on the World Directory of Think Tanks, and wars will rage on schedule, along with all the other social problems great and small. The minds of all the think tank personnel acquire a controlling contradiction when they become think tank personnel, albeit usually before that, but after they are otherwise able to question the concept of think tanks.

Enjoy the humor of their existence, and continue questioning your way to what they cannot learn, including the knowledge of how you or anyone else can locally, nationally or internationally manifest the actual solutions to highly complex social problems, quite promptly, regardless of the opposition, or better stated, because of the opposition, if at that time you retain any incentive to do such boring stuff.



Even from this, they cannot learn... 25 December 2001

Consider a gradient of knowledge available to the human mind by its original design. We will define levels in the gradient by the numbers 1 - 10, for discussion.

Now consider a common process that in itself suggests to the mind that level 5 is the highest level attainable. The level 10 is still attainable by the original design of the mind, but a common social process used by humans instills in the mind of those using that process the therefore unquestioned belief that level 5 is the highest level that exists. It is just a current belief among many, such as the long-held human belief that planet Earth was flat, or that humans could not talk through a wire, or through the air beyond shouting distance, could not fly, could not reach the moon, or that a mere machine could not solve math problems. Was not each commonly held belief disproved? How did it happen, by the precise description of the mind's process? What are your answers to those questions?

Consider a gaggle of common humans who have attained level 5 of knowledge, within that aforementioned process.

Now consider an individual who never used that highly popular process, and instead utilized the original design of the human mind, and further, by circumstance of normal learning process and the passage of time, attained level 6 on the gradient of knowledge.

What exact words would the level 6 chap say to the level 5 chaps to convey to them that level 5 was not the zenith of human knowledge? What is your answer?

Compare your answer with the words of this section.

How could the human mind be unalterably convinced that level 5 was the maximum attainable knowledge for a human mind, while levels 6 -10 verifiably existed?

The process to create and sustain such a belief is brilliant, by design, or a device of the capability of the human mind could not be so fooled.

How would you identify levels 1 - 10 in any human?

Human society developed the division of labor to advance society into more efficient functioning, with many benefits. But what were the costs of that process? What is your answer?

If each person need only learn one arena of knowledge to advance his well being within the economic system of division of labor, he will come to know a lot about that arena, but at the cost of time to learn other arenas of knowledge. There are only 24 hours per day, and one cannot learn everything about everything, for lack of time. Of course the specialized chap will also learn the common arena's of knowledge in addition to his economic specialty. But therefore the fundamentals of more diverse concepts, which a person would otherwise have time to learn because they are only the fundamentals and not the detailed refinements, are not learned by a person who adopted the division of labor process to its popular extent. The popular extent need not bind you, at your choice. Knowledge of a specialty and the most common arenas of knowledge, leave no time for certain other knowledge required by the mind to advance to level 6. Therefore, how does one acquire the knowledge to reach level 6 - 10? The process to efficiently do so, with time easily available within the aforementioned, holds a brilliant disguise, and is learned by utilizing intellectual technology.

But that is only a portion of the concept, to offer some background for the following.

The efficiency of division of labor was concurrent to the process to identify what level of knowledge in which arena of labor a person held. If the computer industry needed some computer programmers, they desired an efficient way to identify computer programmers, and then their level of related knowledge.

The levels and arenas of acquired knowledge were identified by efficient abbreviations for those larger volumes of knowledge. The abbreviations are titles and credentials.

But titles and credentials, hereafter referenced as only, titles, to abbreviate the reference to the concept, while very useful within the division of labor process, inherently exclude identification of more advanced knowledge within each arena, or there would have to be a title for every detail of knowledge and every person, negating the concept of titles to efficiently convey identification of a level or type of knowledge. The highest title and the titled arena of knowledge must each include a lot of people or the titles are not useful. How do you title the next more advanced item of knowledge, within or in addition to those identified by titles?

The maximum knowledge identified with titles is therefore at level 5. Anything more than that would require more data exchange than a title can convey among people who have trained their minds to rely on titles alone and thus methodically trained their minds that nothing existed beyond that level of knowledge.

In the same manner that division of labor became relied upon by society, such as the car mechanic making his life dependent upon the farmer growing food and the grocer distributing it, titles became relied upon by society and the human mind, the latter being the controlling concept. Who does one hire to defend them in a court case, attend to a medical problem, or get this recalcitrant computer of mine to actually do what I try to tell it to do?

What is the manifestation of that limiting process, and the perception of it in the human mind?

Simply watch the pattern of titled persons responding to those who do not hold an identifiable title indicating level 5.

It is an aside to note that the above suggestion is of utility only to those who retained and utilize the original design of the human mind, regardless of any level of knowledge they hold at the moment, for the reason identified in this section. If you are stuck within the referenced popular process, regardless of your level of knowledge within it, your mind literally cannot understand anything beyond level 5, so you cannot objectively look at levels 1 - 5 from any other objective perspective, to thus learn about their concept. In contrast, a person using the original design of the human mind, even if at level 2, can understand the concept of level 6 and thus recognize the concept of a process that blocks the mind's access to knowledge beyond level 5.

For example, at what point would YOU stop thinking, and kill the guy who didn't agree with your reasoning? What is your answer? Notice the obvious point at which Osama bin Bush and George bin Laden stopped thinking and slaughtered thousands of people who never harmed either one of them or anyone else, and only wanted to live their productive lives without harming people. Would you suggest that there is no knowledge available to the human mind, to resolve a social contradiction, beyond the decision to kill whomever you didn't like? Bush and Osama, and all their advisors, and all their gun and bomb-slinging minions, and all their political supporters, literally cannot comprehend the existence of any greater knowledge, and thus slaughtered thousands of innocent people. To them, the zenith of human thinking ability is how to more efficiently destroy humans who do not crawl back down to the nadir of human thinking ability.

The person who is not yet at level 5, and concurrently expresses homage to level 5 as the highest level attainable by humans, will be accorded respect by a titled person to the extent of the titled person's chemically induced emotional gradient at that moment. One of the many flaws of substituting a dependency on titles for knowledge is that titles are achieved by a separate process that must defend titles above knowledge, or the titles hold no substance as a separate concept. What happens to the human mind when other humans become dependent upon something held by that mind? That mind will defend that something against questioning which might find a flaw in its process. And to pay homage to a limiting illusion, regardless of one's current level of knowledge among other concepts, requires a mind to be a victim of that process-induced belief. A commonly intelligent person does not express respect for an institution that limits the knowledge a human can learn. The human is of its mind, not anything that limits its mind.

What happens when a coward is threatened, to prevent him from asking a question? What happens when a person of courage is thus threatened? Which is created by the process that makes him dependent upon not asking the question, and thus training his mind to use the same process to evade question of his own actions, even by his own thus-trained mind? Which prevails for the definition of the human concept? How did humans learn what they currently know? Of the human mind's processes, which one is controlling over all the others? How did humans learn that planet Earth was not flat while all the titled chaps decreed that it was flat because all the titled folks decreed that it was flat, and would often even execute anyone who questioned the titled folks? What is your answer? Use it.

Is it not the question of level 5's final conclusion that advances a person to level 6 knowledge, regardless of the threats of ostracizing, prison and death spewed by the level 5 chaps in government and other institutions?

Upon sufficient questioning, the concept of paying contrived homage or expressing fear of an illusion, also holds for the level 4 person considering the level 3 person's words, if the level 3 person expressly pays homage to the level 5 persons whom are recognized by all victims of that process. The level 4 person understands the titles of the level 5 persons, and does not wish to damage his chance of receiving the level 5 title within that process replacing the original process of the mind with the process of titles. The student who seeks the position of the teacher, instead of anything greater, does not ask those questions which embarrass the teacher's limit of knowledge, especially in those institutions where the higher titles are granted at the whim of those holding the higher titles.

The titled person who does not receive sufficient homage for his title, or is having a bad hair day, will consistently react, either overtly or otherwise identifiably, with indignation that a person of a lesser title or perceived lesser level of knowledge would dare to question the knowledge of the superior title.

How dare a mere human without an equal or superior title question the knowledge of a title that has socially come to be regarded as representing the definitive knowledge of that level or arena.

The titles replaced the concept of the knowledge. There are no exceptions among the victims of that process, by design, or it could not exist for a species originally designed for levels 1 - 10.

But the titles cannot replace the knowledge, by definition and verifiable process. The contradiction is in substituting titles for knowledge. And if you don't think they were substituted, try to question a lawyer, judge, politician, police officer, scientist or any other institutionally titled chap, about the contradictions of their institutions, and note the point at which the titled person becomes irritated, while an untitled person becomes more curious with the same questions. Read that again. Level 5 is an absolute limit for institutional sorts, not limiting those who use the original design of the human mind.

The institutions replace the knowledge with the titles, and therefore curtail their ability to recognize advanced knowledge offered by untitled persons outside the institutions, which is the only position that can objectively question and thus learn about the institutional flaws. The institutional sorts therefore become more dependent upon the titles that create more contradictions because contradictions are created by acting without sufficient knowledge.

For example, consider a person who learns the law, either independently or in law school, or a combination of those processes. If he does not first attain the title of law school graduate, after having paid sufficient homage to the titled law professors, he will be routinely barred from acquiring the title of a licensed lawyer. If he does not acquire a lawyer's license, he will be barred from practicing law as an attorney in court where knowledge of law is commonly utilized. If he does not practice law, he will be barred from acquiring the title of a court judge. In each case, the participants seek the title above the related knowledge, or the knowledge could achieve the next position of employment without the prior title. There is no available process to achieve the positions with the knowledge instead of the titles. The process is designed for the titles, despite the rhetorical fabrications to the contrary upon institutional chaps seeing these words printed. Notice the same concept among most non-private enterprise institutions. The process limits itself at level 5, dependent upon the titles that exclude greater knowledge otherwise available. The person who remains outside that box, who therefore instead continues learning law with the original design of the human mind, able to ask the type questions that would outrage the titled chaps who would therefore deny any application for a title, will learn why, for example, the United States, so called land of the free, ruled by written law, imprisons more of its people than any other nation, while even the lawyers and judges cannot identify the written law above their opinions and decrees. The US is the land of imprisonment, by manifestation above all the rhetorical fabrications of people who cannot think beyond level 5, the level seeking to imprison anyone who threatens it with level 6 questions. Who or what was damaged by those hundreds of thousands of people in prison who only smoked pot or sold it to adults who wanted to buy it? Who or what is damaged by a person owning and carrying a gun? Level 5 folks literally cannot answer those questions, while common-sense people can. The answers are, nobody.

Of course in the above, the knowledge of how to be paid counsel in court, representing a client, without a lawyers license, and how to defeat every judge's ruling, is not mentioned because it is a part of level 6 knowledge that confuses and incenses the ignorant lawyers and judges who wasted years of their life within the process of titles that left them unable to advance beyond level 5 knowledge, that is otherwise readily available.

So when a level 6 person comes along and encounters a level 5 person who is frustrated with a contradiction that requires level 6 knowledge to solve, or requires even level 2 knowledge in a differently titled arena of knowledge, the level 5 person is affronted by any words offered by the person without the appropriate level of title within the appropriately titled arena of knowledge, and thus denies himself the knowledge he otherwise desperately seeks to resolve the perplexing contradiction, defining in part why he is stuck at level 5. The level 6 person is unlimited because he can continue to learn new knowledge, including how to do what he wishes with the level 5 mind that contains a controlling contradiction to its own design.

If there is a contradiction, and a contest to see who can resolve it, the winner in a species predicated on its mind, is he who resolves the contradiction with the use of the mind. If one attempts to resolve the contradiction with votes, prisons, guns or bombs, the contradiction remains among the species, and the person so attempting to resolve it is identified as not a participant in the controlling design of the human, the mind, the ability to think. All those humans who praise and respect any human who voted, titled, imprisoned or killed his way to his title, and thus to the false illusion of holding knowledge useful for resolving contradictions, constitute amusement for plain common-sense humans who recognize that humans are of their mind, not their might. Enjoy the robust laughter at all the government leaders and their followers.

The details of the mind's mechanism within the aforementioned process used to deny itself access to such knowledge, are several.

Among those related details, one may be expressed as: How dare a mere peasant suggest anything by using the common person's language rather than the jargon of the institution. Institutional jargon is one of the conceptual credentials used to identify and denigrate the knowledge of anyone not using the jargon, and thus deny knowledge to the institutional mind.

Until you can define all concepts with the common language, including the definitions of jargon which is only the abbreviation of the common language definitions, you cannot access level 6 or higher knowledge. The moment you substitute the jargon, as you did the titles, for the details of the knowledge explained with the previous knowledge learned by the mind, you deny your mind access to the mechanism to learn anything beyond that knowledge. If the jargon has definitions, and you cannot identify the definitions because you have replaced them with expedient jargon, as with titles, you have lost the avenue to more advanced knowledge. If you say you could use the definitions, but refuse to do so to protect your titled institution from knowledge offered by untitled people speaking the definitions instead of the jargon, you introduce a contradiction that trains your mind to function on contradictions that quickly compound their results beyond your mind's ability to resolve the results predicated on contradictions. Your mind holds only one process to substitute a contradiction for a resolution, by design, and that process damages all subsequent identifications of contradictions, or the first one would never be substituted upon identification of it. If the original design of the human mind allowed the substitution of contradictions for resolutions, the human species would obviously not have survived to reproductive age. The creation of a contradiction to available data within the human mind is an alteration of its original process, as is so easily verified.

The lawyers genuinely believe, from the training within their flawed process, that you must be a lawyer to know the law, while in contrast, counsel can learn the law, the institutional flaws of lawyers, the controlling concepts of law, the process that limits law, and much more. Counsel existed before lawyers were created. Self-limited and thus foolish chaps became titled and licensed lawyers as a substitute for the knowledge of counsel.

The same holds true for titled scientists who foolishly accepted the title of, scientist, instead of retaining their mind's process of curiosity. They cannot learn anything beyond level 5, and because they are scientists, they are incensed by the suggestions of this section offered by a mere plebeian without credentials within their titled institution, much to the robust laughter of observers.

The same holds true for the members of any organization who are frustrated because the organization leaders of the opposing organizations are thwarting the admirable efforts of their own organization leaders. The organization members adopted the title of, members, within the titled institution of their thus identified organization. The members foolishly thought that there was no cost of their joining the organization, beyond the dues they paid. Did you think you were achieving something by joining an organization, beyond supporting the monetary or ego benefits of the leaders who are obviously failing or the organization would have already achieved its goal and disbanded? The process herein described is a controlling concept. It therefore applies across the gradient of titles, credentials, institutions, their issues and the other parts or divisions of the concept.

The members of the organization, who if they retained the original curiosity of the human mind, rather than adopted the institutional process, could discover the knowledge their organization leaders cannot discover, if the members recognized that their mind was of the same design of the titled organization leader and therefore held the same opportunity to learn how to manifest what the organization leader obviously did not learn or the organization would have achieved its goal and be disbanded. To become a member of an organization is to train the mind that the organization's titled leader's mind is somehow superior by acquisition of the organizational leadership title, to include the member's mind if he acquires the same leadership title by the process that limits the mind to the obviously inadequate knowledge of title holders.

So how would you get beyond the obviously failing knowledge of the level 5 folks, illuminated as failing by the social problems still limiting society since the day society was invented? Easy. Start asking questions of the expressed conclusions of the level 5 folks, including those amusingly self-limited scientists. Shake your head. You do not have to acquire a title to question a titled person. When the titled person refuses to answer your questions because you do not have a sufficient title and you question him before paying adequate homage to him, continue asking the same type questions, and learn from the pattern of the type questions he refuses to answer. And then question the sorts with similar titles, and thus learn more from the pattern of the type questions they refuse to answer.

But the institutional process in which you trained your mind will not let your mind do so until you correct the controlling contradiction of said process, and thus remove your mind from that institutional process, and start life over within the original design of the human mind outside of socially contrived institutions. Therein you must learn the knowledge of how to divorce yourself from those addicting titles, credentials and such manifestations of purely emotional ego gratification.

The single decision to do so will require as much mental energy as was invested in substituting titles for knowledge for the number years since the thus infected mind adopted the recognition of titles instead of the recognition of knowledge. To say that a titled mind would therefore be anguished beyond its current recognition, to achieve such a single decision, is an understatement.

Level 6 is achieved by questioning every conclusion of level 5, primarily the most cherished conclusions of level 5, and thus immediately achieves the knowledge desperately sought and otherwise not attainable by any human in any institution. The minds of the institutional chaps literally cannot question their institutions, lest they would discover the failure of the institutions, and abandon them to the intellectually stagnated level 5 chaps.

It is a process, not any one answer. It is the process of training your mind with the easy questions, to find the harder questions that resolve the more complex contradictions.

Among all the lesser examples created by institutions, world peace is easily manifested by even one individual, much to the amusement of such persons who merely questioned the conclusions of the world peace institutions including all the governments who amusingly wage war in the name of achieving peace.

Even from this, they cannot learn. Nor can you, or you would be laughing at what you recognize as flawless truth throughout this website, and thus the comedy of the humans. You may, however, challenge the impossible, as did those who have routinely been successful in such challenges.

But grant your children the advantage of teaching them to never accept titles or credentials, never accord them a micron of respect above the manifestations of their holders, to question every conclusion they hear or read, even yours, and question their own answers to questions. Levels 6 through infinity, are readily available to every human mind, and are worth vastly more than all the institutional titles ever invented, and their institutions.

Imagine the reaction to the above statement, by titled parents who are therefore inescapably stuck at the failures of level 5, who are therefore aghast at such a suggestion, and fear that their children will not acquire enough titles needed to be successful in titled institutions. They perceive the above statement as a suggestion that their children remain ignorant, because they define any knowledge above level 5 as nonexistent. Such parents fear that their children might read these words, and thus their children might ask the questions that anger people with titles, and thus be denied the titles. The human mind learns new knowledge by asking questions, not seeking titles. Even from that, the titled chaps cannot learn.

You can learn the knowledge of every process without accepting the title or institutional identification of that process. Merely do not accept, adopt or use the titles or credentials. Humor the poor chaps who demand that you accept the titles for the processes you carried out, and do not seek the titles of functional ignorance predicated on your paying homage to titled people. For example, when you are ordered to stand when the titled judge enters the court room, watch the people who stand, and ask why you must display such a childish ego-gratification action for a person you pay, while he never shows you the same respect for your having worked to pay him. Was not the demand that people stand upon entry of a person, the demand of kings? Much like standing ovations for rhetorical illusions, is that not the process used by kings to train the minds of their subject that the minds of the subjects are inferior to the king's mind? Well, your answer?

Precisely what verifiable process would cause your mind to become so inferior to the mind and thus personable of a guy who by chance of life circumstances went to a dime-a-dozen law school, instead of something more useful for humans, became one of a legion of lawyers universally held in contempt by all common-sense people, supported a political party enough to be given a judge job by another political drone, to concurrently cause your mind to train itself to believe the judge's mind was so superior that you stood upon his entry, and called him, your honor, while he never stood for your entry or called you, your honor? If you cannot identify and verify that process, you have successfully trained your mind to contradict its own reasoning, explaining why you are unable to figure out vast arenas of other contradictions. And the judge's mind is already hopeless, or he would have never accepted a title.

If your nation is ruled by written law rather than personalities with government jobs, is the judge not merely a politically elected or appointed hack with a government job, whose duty is to just read the law as it is already written, with no power beyond that secretarial duty? What happens in the human mind, and thus its results, when it is accorded respect upon demand rather than upon demonstration of questioned wisdom? What is the process of power corrupting? You can learn the knowledge of every institution from outside of it, by asking the questions of it, while those within dare not ask such questions. The questions are everything. Recognizing the value of experience, to replace the routine mistakes of physical actions that teach so much if you are accountable for your mistakes, unlike government folks, with questions, you must ask a lot of questions. Ask them.

If your mind can reach level 10 and beyond, by design, will you adopt the process which inescapably stops it at level 5 by design of that process? What is your answer? What is the value of your mind?

As the union workers say to the non-union workers stuck in low paying jobs: You hired out wrong. That is what the senior management says of the lesser paid union workers. You can live comfortably and in good style on little income, but do not hire out your mind wrong. The most complex contradictions created by humans, war being only a lesser such contradiction, are promptly solved by any mind that did not limit the nature of questions it learned to ask. Ask them. The institutional chaps will not do so, and will consistently flee the process the human mind uses to learn new knowledge.



End of Intech Concepts 13


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