Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 16
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


The expert talking heads... 9 April 2003

Your question, if you wish, is to ask yourself how many other readers of the following, understand it, and understand the utility of that knowledge for their decisions.

At any time, from the ongoing statistics, there are on average 17 shooting wars in progress. People on opposing sides are being routinely shot or blown up by people in their respective militaries.

In previous years, millions of people in far-off countries would be ignorant of the fact that there were wars going on in distant countries, and vice versa, at any particular time. The further proof of that concept is that with the most sophisticated and extensive news system in the world, Americans remain ignorant of most of those wars at any moment. It is just hard to keep up with all the wars going on at any time, and still have time to work to pay the rent.

But when your own country is at war, you tend to know about it. So when the United States is at war, and has the aforementioned extensive information distribution system, there is more data distribution than there is data. The result ranges from great amusement to abject boredom by people in the US society.

The TV news media chaps drone on and on and on with one talking head expert after another, saying more words than the soldiers shoot bullets. The specific issue and line of bovine scat they discuss is immaterial. Identify the contradiction of the concept of them, in sum, and ask yourself questions to resolve the obvious contradictions.

Consider the most classic of the common example: The television interview is hosted by a famous talking head who works for XYZ TV Network. One guest talking head is the government director in charge of That and This Agency. The other guest talking head is the think tank director of the prestigious Whillygig Institute of Whatever, dredged up from the TV company think tank phone list.

You, the reader of these words, may wish to observe and question all the American TV viewers watching the Iraq war commentators, or any other TV news show commentators. Watch the responses of the viewers, just like you, closely. Try to hold your laughter.

The famous TV host is assumed by gullible listeners to be intelligent, because he got a high paying TV job with an impressive title. But is the knowledge of how to weasel into that job by training your mind to never question one's boss and his colleagues, the same knowledge of how to most effectively question the two talking heads to get the most useful knowledge from them? At hearing the question the talking head would talk for hours on everything except the obviously accurate answer to that question. In contrast, you will immediate recognize that the answer is, No, and in fact the two arenas of knowledge are opposite. Can you learn how to ask more effective questions if you train your mind to not ask effective questions?

Is there further support for such a concept?

The TV host expert talking head has trained his mind to genuinely believe he is as good as many gullible people flatter him to be, mostly those around him, with whom he daily interacts, many of whom rely on his current popularity and friendship for their income, so they never question his glaring contradictions.

And one of the guest talking heads on the TV show that all those Americans are watching, is the government's director of That and This Agency, therefore assumed by gullible listeners to be intelligent, or he would not have been selected by the government as the director of That and This Agency. Again, is the knowledge of how to weasel into a politically appointed government position the same knowledge of That and This? Said director would respond by listing endless credentials from all manner of entities within or supported by government, proving that he is only a typical government weasel, and not verifiably qualified for That and This. He is a political hack. But the controlling concept is that he trained his mind to never question his boss, or he would never get a higher level government job. And because one becomes intelligent by asking and answering increasingly challenging questions, the weasel is neither intelligent or knowledgeable of That and This.

One always rises to their level of incompetence in institutions, by design of institutions.

Is there further support for such a concept?

The government expert talking head has trained his mind to genuinely believe he is as good as many gullible people flatter him to be, mostly those around him, with whom he daily interacts, many of whom rely on his current popularity and friendship for their income, so they never question his glaring contradictions.

Keep in mind, that the goal of you, the reader, if you wish, is to learn the single concept that controls the minds involved within the common situation being described.

The other guest talking head is the think tank director, from the prestigious whatever I described above Institute, therefore assumed by gullible listeners to be intelligent, or he would not have been selected by the think tank as the director of the think tank. Can you possibly get any more intelligent and knowledgeable about this and that, than being the director of a prestigious think tank? But again, what is the knowledge that results in a think tank job appointment or creation? Who funds the think tanks? Who do the funders select for the self and mutually-purported experts representing the inherent interests of the funders? Do conservative sectors of the public fund think tanks experts who parrot liberal concepts, or vice versa, etcetera? Do the think tank chaps state the inherently existent substantive merits of their opponent's case? How could an opposite case exist among humans, after the test of time, if there were no flaws in the other case, for the think tank to study and illuminate?

Is there further support for such a concept?

The think tank expert talking head has trained his mind to genuinely believe he is as good as many gullible people flatter him to be, mostly those around him, with whom he daily interacts, many of whom rely on his current popularity and friendship for their income, so they never question his glaring contradictions.

This is a good case example because the obviously ignorant mind of the government chap is easily fooled into thinking that the titled think tank guy is intelligent, making the government sort uneasy, which makes him more defensive rather than open, usually because the government guy has already made the decisions and holds the power to impose them regardless of what some other talking head says, or the government guy would not have the government position.

The mind of the think tank chap sincerely believes he is absolutely correct, but somehow cannot get the government job with the power to impose his correct conclusions about this and that. And because he is on TV and wants to look like a nice guy and convince the government sort that the think tank buy is right, he says what he thinks the government guy and public will most receive in a positive manner, not what actually is. If the government guy's zipper is open, and you trained your mind to be unable to say the words that his zipper is open, what else is your supposedly expert mind not able to say? What are the results of how you trained your mind? Did you train it to defy its training upon your command? How would you have done so?

The first question of these three talking heads is obvious. If they hold so much knowledge, with all those credentials and all that intellectual ability, why have they not solved the problem? Why is this problem still being discussed on TV, and is as old as society? But merely hold that question awhile. Instead, more carefully listen to their statements in sum.

Notice that their statements, easily fooling gullible people into thinking the talking heads are introducing different concepts, in sum are identical in fundamental nature. Separate yourself from your interests, and the issue being discussed, and just consider the nature of the comments. Look for the commonality. The talking heads make statements. Their few questions, if any, are so superficial that they even repeatedly ask questions for which the other person has already repeatedly proven that he does not know the answer. So a bunch of bovine scat is spewed as usual.

When will the war be over?

If you listen to what they say, you can easily identify what question you would ask of each obvious contradiction they express.

Why would the talking head ask when the war will be over, instead of a question seeking useful knowledge, when no one can know when the war will be over, by definition of what war is, as already repeatedly stated by all the talking heads? Why?

Why will Iraqis still be killing Americans after the Americans win the war? When did the Soviet government chaps tell the Soviet people that they won the Afghanistan war, and then what happened? When did the Vietnamese stop killing the Americans after the American military generals said they militarily won that war.

What is the limit of the talking head's knowledge, and why do they not question the limit itself, as a separate concept, to discover the process to advance beyond the limit, rather than ask the same old questions that keep illuminating the same old limit that they never question itself?

The uncertainty of the end of the war, as war is described rather than its inherent results, and the inherent curiosity about its end, is why the other ignorant talking head is able to respond to the dumb question about when the war will end. The other guy's mind recognizes a contradiction. But the difference is that you can recognize the next more objective contradictions expressed by all three talking heads in sum, especially in the embarrassingly worthless questions of TV talking head hosts. In contrast, each talking head who expresses each obvious contradiction, literally cannot recognize it, or he would not have stated it.

But notice that the process never achieves a resolution of any contradiction. Among all those highly credentialed talking heads, throughout all those years of TV, you have never heard anyone respond with the statement that they were therefore proven wrong by the other guy, and therefore this and that should be done the other way. But why? Why has all that time, money as so called expertise in the history of TV experts and government directors being interviewed, been nothing more than idle entertainment? Precisely why, by verifiable reasoning.

Notice that every time a contradiction is identified, the next statement expresses any concept in the world except the resolution of the contradiction identified. No single line of questioning is ever followed to the actual resolution of even the most simple contradiction. A contradiction is identified in the other guy's words, but the response creates a new contradiction rather than resolves the first contradiction. What can you get out of a question of when the war will be over?

And no TV talking head show host has ever brought his so called expert and government guests back to the original question as many times as is inherently required to get a definitive answer for use as a tool of knowledge for further questions. TV talking head hosts trained their minds to never be so rude as to ask the questions which would actually resolve an identified contradiction and thus alienate one of the expert talking head colleagues. They only ask the type of questions that will perpetuate the process, either pleasantly or less so, but never actually resolve a contradiction, despite the questions to do so being readily available, because tomorrow's show needs another cheap expert talking head who will work for flattery so that TV station's soap commercial time is competitive with the other station. That is especially so for the so called public TV station which functions on government money and its notorious strings.

Your goal is opposite that of the talking heads and those who criticize them. Your goal is to not perpetuate the contradictions. Your goal is to identify every contradiction in the complex puzzle, as it is illuminated by your questions or the other guy's questions, and then ask more questions of each one, so ruthlessly that you actually resolve each one in the words of your answer, until you find the contradiction that controls all the others. The controlling contradiction will only be found after your questions ruthlessly resolve the contradictions your own mind created by having not prior questioned its amusing contradictions. The TV talk show host never asked the questions that would have created the knowledge to preclude his asking the dumb question of when the war would be over.

Why did the war to end all wars, not do so? Why did the next war to end all wars, not do so? Why did they create the next wars? Precisely why are the current US President's current Wag The Dog Wars creating the next ones, on schedule? The accurate answers are verifiably, flawlessly definitive, readily available, and hold the resolution to the contradiction of wars. It is too easy to end all wars, and no TV expert talking head will ever identify the resolution of a controlling contradiction, by design.

It is not of much worth that you can recognize the questions that you believe should be asked of the TV talking heads, or recognize the questions that were dodged. Anyone can do that. It is instead useful for your mind to identify the common contradiction that each of the three mentioned chaps share, and then ask and answer the logical questions of that common contradiction, without dodging it, without changing the subject, without leaving the original question, regardless of where it takes you, and conclude with an answer for which no question remains unanswered.

If you do not actually carry out the process that TV talking heads never carry out, you will be as useless to humans as all those talking heads have proven themselves to be after the test of time has left many of them in the grave years ago.

It is inherent by the results, that the TV news talking heads are clueless of which questions to ask, or how to ask them to learn the knowledge to actually resolve contradictions. The test of time has passed, and the same social problems are at full play.

It is inherent by the results, that the government talking heads are clueless of how to ask or answer questions to learn the knowledge to actually resolve contradictions. The test of time has passed, and the same social problems are at full play.

It is inherent by the results, that the expert think tank talking heads are clueless of how to ask or answer questions to learn the knowledge to actually resolve contradictions. The test of time has passed, and the same social problems are at full play.

It is the same for all institutionally titled minds, for a definitive reason you can discover by asking the questions that identify the commonalities of all institutionally titled minds.

Do not end up like them. Learn how to ask an unbroken line of questions that categorically resolves any contradiction you identify.

You have a distinct advantage. You are not a talking head on TV. You can start your education the moment you wisely click the off button on this screen you are foolishly reading. You do not have to impress anyone, please any source for your salary, be nice to your mind, or dodge your questions. Ask the questions you would dodge on TV.

If you actually do that, you will know much of the future.

When the war will be over, is not a useful question. Precisely why will all the talking heads mimic their currently useless game during the next war, which proves why the government leaders will mimic their current process to start it, and the next one, and the next one? Discover precisely why, line-item, with an answer that prevails above every question, so that you can laugh yourself to tears at all the words of all the TV talking heads who sincerely believe their words and so easily fool those gullible American news listeners. You will therefore advance into knowledge vastly beyond that in which the TV talking heads will be forever self-stagnated.

Is it not obvious that a controlling concept flaws the entire process? Would you not discover that concept by asking the questions of that concept, rather than all the useless questions the talking heads perpetually mouth?



The ignorance of women... 24 June 2003

The goal of these words, as with those above and below, is to arrange the words that your mind sufficiently recognize to start its own questioning process rapidly advancing beyond these words, to therefore easily learn how to promptly resolve the most complex contradictions humans can cause, and manifest the resolutions if you wish. If you wished to more efficiently learn such knowledge, you would have already called Alaska Intech. The only value of these words is to start your own unbroken line of questions that lead to the knowledge you seek, which can be done more efficiently only with someone who has already done so and thus knows which controlling concepts your mind's questions illuminate as not yet learned by your mind.

This is written on the occasion of watching a few fleeting moments of another PBS TV show proving the laughable ignorance of PBS sorts, about women and their right to vote.

The fact that women were granted the right to vote in the United States only about eighty years ago, or some such number, is an indicator of how new the human species is, how inefficiently they, as a society, learn the most obvious knowledge, and how embarrassingly ignorant women remain by their own willful choice under no impediments to extracting themselves from their currently pitiable position.

The concept of a male-owned government granting females the right to vote constitutes the concept of the males of the species belatedly recognizing that the reasoning design of the human mind is functionally the same in both sexes for social decision-making process, in addition to recognizing that women comprise half of society, and thus regardless of the design of the human mind, comprise half the data base logically needed for social decisions.

Precisely why, for your answer, would you imagine that it required the design of the human mind so many thousands of years to recognize such a fundamental truism of the design of the human mind otherwise ascertainable within a day or so of questioning process?

What is your answer?

The accurate answer is precise, verifiable and of inordinate utility to you.

Is that answer not at play for every other unresolved contradiction of humans, right now?

How many more thousands of years will it take humans to figure out the resolution of very old but ongoing contradictions humans can otherwise discover in a day or so with a simple questioning process?

Does that question not suggest the profound value of asking questions instead of parroting old frustrations?

Which issue is most effective for whom, to learn how to suddenly advance society beyond its obvious intellectual dark ages, in which the US government of you DemocanRepublicrats have recently been spending more money on prisons than schools, and always spending more money on war machinery than education? The goal is to actually learn the process, from any example issue, not perpetually discuss a therefore useless process. The war issue has proven its uselessness, by the current results. The women's voting rights issue would seem ideal, since the lesson was already learned and can be applied to other issues. But it has not been reapplied in sixty years, indicating that the concept at play in the previous thousands of years prevails over rare aberrations.

The fact that females performed the hard work to teach males the above mentioned obvious truisms would suggest that women are more capable and more intelligent than men, if the lesson they taught did not thereafter result in the prior reason for not granting them any credit for their still absent reasoning ability. Women got the vote, and wars rage. No excuses prevail. Read that again. No excuses prevail over the controlling result. The females were lying as consistently as the males, fooling their own minds as thoroughly.

Ongoing American wars, a contradiction to the utility of the human mind's reasoning design, are primarily an endeavor of the testosterone saturated male mind. Wars often involve the slaughtering of women and children. Wars illuminate the fact that the females learned nothing from gaining the vote, unless they therefore adopted the male craving to slaughter people rather than reason with humans who do not kowtow to illogical and contradicting demands of government dolts. The females held the intellectual advantage of questioning their way out of, and processing their way into, the resolution of a profound social contradiction, and they not only learned nothing, they used their new voting right to elect more war mongers and support the taxation to pay for more bombers.

Again, the issue is not males and females, or votes and wars, but your mind's ability to identify each contradiction and each verifiable resolution for which there is no unanswered question. If your mind is not curious about every contradiction, regardless of your own proverbial ox being ruthlessly gored, you will end up as pitiably ignorant as human female and male adults. No resolution will ever be found in a tangent created by anger at an emotion-based statement. If you are a woman reacting against a male illuminating the proof that females create and perpetuate contradictions rather than resolve them, instead of reacting with curiosity for the proven process, you will the proof that these words illuminate.

The war issue proves the commonality of the male and female mind, and their laughable inability to resolve an easy contradiction they each routinely decry. But another issue may offer females more knowledge, while the males will remain hopelessly lost as usual.

If American women figured out the logic of an equal vote for social decisions in a governmental system, and the process to achieve it, why, for your written answer, do women remain so astonishingly ignorant and intellectually incapable that women not only do not even own their own bodies under the American governmental system, women willfully surrendered legal ownership of their bodies to the male-dominated government? Voting is worthless compared to the value of owning your own body.

All human rights are dependent upon you owning your own body. No reasoning supports your holding any human right if you do not legally own your own body. All reasoning identifies your absence of any rights if you do not legally own your own body. If another person or a government legally owns your body, they own your rights. What you might have perceived as your rights are instead legally defined privileges grantable and deniable at whim of the owner of your body. No words can defy that concept and sustain themselves against reasoning-based questioning. Any words attempting to defy the concept will fail the questioning. Your rhetorical decree that you own your own body holds no force in law if you elsewhere willfully surrendered the ownership of your body by process within prevailing law. The first controlling concept of human rights is the human being able to define rights. The second controlling concept of human rights is each human owning his or her own body without which it cannot hold rights.

The intellectually absent PBS TV show experts, many of them women, as with all the other American women, decried the fact that before the suffrage movement women were legally owned by their fathers or husbands. Women were chattel. But the PBS sorts still remain laughably clueless that the 1937 (or some such number) federal law criminalizing the use of recreational drugs by adults, rather than criminalizing any damage to an unwilling person as is the foundation for all prevailing law, constituted the male dominated government's legal seizure of the ownership of all adult women's bodies. There is no available reasoning that can separate the concepts. Rights cannot be divided, by definition of their concept.

If you cannot, as an adult, legally put into your own body that which you please, which does not damage any unwilling person, then you cannot legally own your own body. The drug laws were cleverly designed to be inclusive, which is a separate story. You cannot legally possess or hold those drugs in your hand or on your body. You do not own your body. The government of mental midget RepublicratDemocans in Washington DC legally owns your body, just as did kings of old. The government's armed enforcement thugs, called police, were selected the same way Hitler selected his Gestapo, and the same way kings selected their henchmen. The enforcement thugs were identified among those who are too ignorant to ask questions that reveal contradictions in the ludicrous decrees of the aforementioned mental midgets. After starting with that institutionally identified ignorance, they promptly acquiesced to be punished if they ever questioned the illogical orders of their idiot superiors, compounding and entrenching their therefore escalating ignorance. The only way out of ignorance is to ask questions. The drop-chute into ignorance is to punish the questioning of statements.

The fact that the common peasant males concurrently surrendered ownership of their bodies to the privileged government class, and are therefore as amusingly unthinking (unquestioning), does not resolve the contradiction, read that again, does not resolve the contradiction that women surrendered the legal ownership of their bodies to the male dominated government, even after so recently gaining ownership of their bodies from males. Females therefore promptly retrained their minds to be unable to recognize and resolve a legion of glaring social contradictions about which they still uselessly wring their hands, wail, and blame rhetorical illusions.

Owning your own body is not at issue. Being able to recognize the controlling contradiction for a legion of contradicted laws that therefore only compound the social problems rather than solve the social problems, is the issue for only its most rudimentary utility.

It is no more important to regain the ownership of your own body from the American government's pitiable police, prosecutors and judges, than it was for the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to stop the government registration of Jews, or than it is for American gun owners to stop the American government's current program to register on computer files the identity of all American gun owners, or than countless other social contradictions which can only stagnate and damage the advancement of the human phenomenon. The norm of history has long been the male-dominated government ownership of women's bodies, and male peasants also, yet humans have continued to successfully breed like rabbits. So if the kings, Billy Clinton, the George Bushes and the next such mental midgets own your body, humans will still successfully seethe across the planet surface in abundance.

But are humans of their population and king's military might, or of their intellectual ability? Which advances the human phenomenon? Use your answers. They define the ability of your mind, for recognition by commonly intelligent people around you. If you live in Washington DC you need not answer the questions because there are no commonly intelligent people around you with whom to be concerned. Do not leave the beltway.

If you did not recognize that the Washington DC DemocanRepublicrats legally own your body, and the related process wherein you willfully surrendered that legal ownership to them, unbeknownst to you only because you were too intellectually lazy to ask questions of the most glaring contradictions, upon which a myriad of other illogical and damaging government laws are dependent, you do not yet recognize the other parts of the puzzle that deny your mind access to the knowledge of how to resolve complex contradictions. The process extends into the ownership of your mind which yet cannot be legally separated from that of your body. If your mind cannot flawlessly identify the reasoning of your owning your own mind, a foundational concept of the reasoning process, it can be as easily fooled by rhetorical illusions, as women are still fooled by a few mental midget male court judges who yet temporarily sustain the illusion of the fatally contradicted drug laws and certain other controlling laws. And by definition of their identifiable results, or males would have never selected them for court positions, some of those testosterone saturated minds of court judges are of the outward appearance of women.

American women are so thoroughly fooled that even the women court judges cannot figure out how to identify and manifest the actual lawful equality of women even if you email them a copy of this section and hand them a dictionary. Because court judges have accepted power, they have verifiably lost access to the reasoning process of the mind. Even with the lessons of the suffrage movement, like the slavery lessons among Blacks, and countless other lessons illuminating human caused contradictions, the best effort of the power-damaged minds of women court judges is to become angry, as usual, and emulate the male mind's resulting emotion-based illogicality by attacking illusions with raw power, rather than verifiably resolving the identified contradiction with the human mind's reasoning process.

What is the resolution to the contradiction created by the government seizing ownership of your adult body, that is, seizing the power to imprison you for your managing your own body without damaging any other person?

Write your answer. The answer is not seizing the power back from the government. There is no such thing as power that does not corrupt. Read the question carefully. If you write the verifiable answer, you will be vastly more intelligent than all the women and every government dolt in the United States of America, especially the intellectually absent US Supreme Court Justices, by proof of their actions and words.

Then use that answer as a tool to advance your knowledge. The goal is to immediately recognize and promptly resolve increasingly complex contradictions, for benefits beyond your current recognition.

If the government legally owns your body, and claims legal authority for making decisions of the government's choice for your body, who, by name and title, is legally liable for the consequences of those decisions when those consequences encounter an unfathomably complex array of subsequent events inherent to diverse individuals, creating further contradictions while the decision-making government dolt responsible for the results of his or her original decisions is not present to analyze and resolve those contradictions?

Not one government person in the world can accurately answer the above question, while you can. For one mind to make a decision for another mind, under use of force, rather than reasoning which the second mind therefore adopts as its own reasoning, the first mind must be liable for every consequence of that decision or define itself as incapable of logically making that decision.

If you are not allowed, under threat of prison, to use heroin to ease the pain of terminal cancer, and no one else is allowed to get it for you, at no damage to anyone else, will the US federal Drug Czar suffer your pain for you? Well, your answer? Why did the Russian peasants slaughter the last Czar and his entire family? Which government reinstituted the malicious reign of Czars? Who around you votes for the US DemocanRepublicrats to support the reign of the new Czars? What category of human mind cannot answer questions that everyone else can openly answer?

Upon your understanding of that concept, and your ability to sustain it against every question, you can shortly learn how to effect whichever social goal you wish, much to your amusement, and recognize why American women were so easily fooled out of the ownership of their own bodies. They remain with no current knowledge or ability to escape their laughable social position under the heel of males in government. The hate-filled male minds will keep them there, by design of institutions, including the one's whose testosterone saturated minds appear in otherwise fully female bodies, by design of institutions.

If any females ever simply exercised the questioning process to tediously learn the knowledge of how to easily extract humans from their current intellectual dark ages of using power instead of reasoning, to save the females from their embarrassing ownership by males, and concurrently save the males from their astonishing ignorance, males and their traditional concept would never again reign, and humans would define a new starting date for the human phenomenon that would suddenly advance exponentially, much to the amusement of the observers.



Is it not what you know?... 25 June 2003

If you cannot understand the value of understanding the meaning of words, from the below, then you are wasting your time to read beyond the below.

By design of institutions, institutionally successful people and those who admire them incessantly state the ancient adage, that it is not what you know, but who you know.

If your goal is to know Who, then the adage is correct.

If your goal is to know What, then the adage is wrong.

So what did you want to know? What is your answer to the question? Write the answer.

Who knows that?

Simply ask them what you can do to be accorded the opportunity to know them, to learn the answer to the above question of what you want to know. If you must learn new skills and patience to get to know all the people around the person you seek to know, to get to know the person you seek to know, that is the cost of what you seek to know. The person is only human like yourself, and anyone can get to know anyone if that is their goal, and they are dedicated and rational.

But if you want to know how to do something that has not been done, the failure of who you know is defined therein, concurrently defining the failure of all the institutional sorts.

Who knows how to regain gun owner rights in the US, or your any other favorite rights, stop crime, balance the government financial books, stop wars and so called terrorism, end racial or sexual discrimination, stop police brutality, achieve affordable medical treatment, acquire adequate funding for your favorite social programs, achieve a public education system that educates, stop government corruption, achieve an honest court system, successfully teach public respect for the environment, and any or all such concepts endlessly discussed among the people?

If Who was of utility for such inherently existent knowledge, Who would have already achieved the goal, or already offered to teach you how.

So if you seek to achieve that which has not been achieved, who you know is useless, and what you know is your only option to achieve it.

Notice all the highly titled institutional sorts who earn a good living by implying or telling you they know how to achieve what you want achieved if you just send them money or politically support them. Notice that they got their titles by the trite old process of who they knew, which includes the process under what educational credentials attempt to purport to those who ask no questions of that process. They will never achieve those goals, for the same reason the people they knew did not know how to achieve those goals.

When you hear someone tell you the old adage that it is not what you know, but who you know, you know they are so ignorant that they cannot ever learn more than what Who knew, and Who obviously failed any more worthwhile goal.

If what Who knows is all you wish to learn, by all means pursue that failure. But if you seek more, start learning what Who never leaned because he never asked effective questions of Who he knew.



Train your mind... 27 June 2003

Either train your own mind, or it will be trained for you. The human mind learns from the training process, without escape, by design. If you are not training your own mind, by asking and answering your own questions that anger those who fear questions, then you are the victim of the idiocy of other unquestioning people, by your own willful choice.

No issue mentioned at this website, including your most cherished issues and beliefs, are of any importance compared to how you train your mind. Your mind could have as easily become a Muslim terrorist as it could a Christian saint by its perceptions. The same human brain design is merely impacted by different arrangements of words and experiences. The Christian saint and the Muslim terrorist are the same idiots if they believe rather than effectively question what they hear and encounter. You would wisely wish to train your mind to identify flawless logic, that which can be verified as true, against every question any mind can ask, and therefore that which is sustainable regardless of the hilariously idiot actions of institutionally trained minds.

A proof is in a 27 June 2003 news article by Reuters, illuminating the astonishing gullibility of unquestioning American military sorts. The news article mentioned that one American soldier in Baghdad was killed, and four were wounded, after another was left in critically condition because of being shot in the head. The article mentioned the daily attacks on American soldiers after the idiots in Washington DC declared the war as over and won by we good guys.

Now think. The military hierarchy, who were previously the recruits, train the minds of their gullible recruits, enlisted and officer, to sincerely believe that each mission, risking the lives of the soldiers, is critical to the defense of freedom, lest the mission would not warrant the likelihood of sacrificing the lives of American military personnel. The leadership personnel speak those actual words describing the life-sacrificing importance of each mission.

But when the aforementioned soldiers are killed and wounded, Reuters stated that American officials in Iraq have called the attacks "militarily insignificant" because they do not reduce the capacity of the 156,000 American troops in the country, of which 53,000 are in Baghdad alone.

Would you state words that are so meaningless to your mind that you routinely contradict them without even noticing a contradiction, even when your words result in people who believed your words therefore being killed? Would you not be an idiot to state such words.

If the killing of your soldiers is militarily insignificant, why did you place your soldiers in those positions, unless you were lying to them when you placed them there? What military officer, if not an idiot, would place his soldiers where the proven likelihood of them being killed by the enemy was militarily insignificant?

You American idiots who support your military support idiots who place American soldiers where the likelihood of them being killed is militarily insignificant.

If you train your mind to utilize its astonishingly valuable ability, you will not state contradictions, and certainly not contradictions proving your contempt for human life. If you train your mind within its designed capability, you will immediately recognize every contradiction created by yourself and others, and immediately resolve each before damage is inherently done by the manifestation of the contradiction.

Do that, lest you end up like pitiably primitive American officials in Iraq who state on public record the proof of why only idiots still join the American military (and any military) to stop thinking, to start running out onto the battlefields for what their superiors reference as the militarily insignificant loss of their life.

Go ahead, send your offspring off to another militarily insignificant loss of their life in another Wag the Dog War, then try to believe that your more thinking friends are sincerely sympathetic. If you train your offspring the same way you trained your own mind, and if they are killed in another militarily insignificant battle, they reveal your and their gullibility.

If you are not laughing at this new experiment called the humans, you are missing the only show they yet know how to produce.

Is it not an idiot who creates and sustains a contradiction, rather than identifies and resolves it? Well?



A pet for your mind... 15 July 2003

If you encountered a child crying in a hospital, in pain with a swollen black and blue arm, from a rattlesnake bite, and the child said, I just wanted a pet, you would find it interesting that the child had not learned about poisonous snakes before he learned about pets. And he was lucky to only have a swollen arm.

Now think (ask and answer questions).

Why do any social problems remain after the test of time for human social organization has been more than ample, and all those millions of governmental and institutional leaders, great and small, have stated all the great things they have stated, including all the solutions to all of the problems, and done all the things they have done to solve the problems? Well? Why?

Your answer is wrong, unless perhaps I am in error, and you might be so gracious as to email me the otherwise readily available answer, so that I may compare it with mine.

What do all of those inordinately varied governmental and institutional leaders, great and small, throughout all the cultures and the entire history of humans, have in common? Might it be the reason that all those highly varied people uniformly failed? Would the reason not most likely be something common to all of them?

They all held a title other than their personal name, and they did not learn that it was poisonous to their mind, before they played with it. It is so poisonous that they can read these words and their mind will immediately dictate them to scoff at the words, rather than ask questions.

Asking questions is the process to learn new knowledge. Every new benefit to humans was first scoffed-at by titled people. You will not solve complex social problems until you learn new knowledge that all the great leaders did not learn, as proven by the results.

Many people praise the great wisdom of the creators of the US Constitution. Ask a person who praises those authors of the Constitution why they would, in a document so important as the Constitution, expressly forbid the granting of something so peripheral as titles of nobility, and even forbid the acceptance of such a title from a foreign state if Congress did not first consent? What poison to the mind, and its results, did they see in titles of nobility, that they witnessed in all such titled government leaders across Europe and elsewhere? In making a dramatically new form of government, did they not obviously recognize the commonality of titles of nobility among all the failed forms of government?

If you identify something common to all the examples of a problem, would you not ask related questions?

The failures of the authors of the US Constitution, perpetuating the ancient social problems, can be itemized and verified. Among them was their distraction with the word, nobility, which they promptly replaced with the Honorable President of the United States. What is the difference in the two categories of titles, since the former was recognized as able to be granted by the leaders of foreign states, and the latter, such as the Honorable Justice of the Supreme Court is also granted by another title holder? Might the controlling word and concept altering the perceptions of the mind be that of, titles, rather than, nobility? Your answer?

If you encounter adults crying in public about the problems of our society and humankind, simply ask them what their credentials are for such public lamentations, and upon their routine response illuminating this title and that title of this and that organization, actual and conceptual, you might find it interesting that they had not learned about the effects of titles on their mind before they egotistically played with them. And if you think those titles are not profoundly poisonous, try to get those chaps to surrender their titles.

A title is a word or words identifying something more than what the title holder is as an individual mind. The rhetorical illusion of the title has no individual mind to question the contradictions created and sustained by the title itself, creating an illusion of authority with no human mind to be accountable for the actions of authority. As the least of the contradictions created, the titled individual can dodge accountability for his or the title's errors by claiming the different position, something not available to a mind holding no titles. Who must therefore more extensively think before they create actions to which they are accountable? That is the very least of a list of title-induced contradictions.

In itself, titles are not the controlling contradiction, but until you learn of them, your mind will be stopped at that contradiction, no more able to resolve any complex contradiction than all the greatest and most highly titled people in the history of humans.

Do not let your children play with titles, before they learn how poisonous and permanently damaging titles are to the human mind. While you may rightfully pity the child with the rattlesnake bite, because of his innocent ignorance, in addition to pity, you may rightfully laugh yourself to tears at these egotistical adults with their titles. Rather than become curious and ask questions, they foolishly scoff at the easily verified notion that their mind was poisoned. And they will therefore not learn of that contradiction.


Political Parties... 1 August 2003

The following is written on the occasion of having written the Libertarian Party leaders another typical letter offering them the knowledge to promptly achieve their espousals, similar to many other letters sent to varied national and international institution leaders, offering the same for reason in what you are reading.

The national Libertarian Party leaders responded by suggesting that the knowledge in the letter be discussed among local Libertarian members, the source of the knowledge. The leaders therefore simply dodged considering the knowledge offered by a member.

That response, within one of the common categories, was boring compared to the time the leaders of a much more powerful political entity in the US demanded that all copies of a letter written to their Board of Directors be immediately shredded. As the reason, their president stated that the Directors existed to protect their members from seeing such ideas, in those words. The letter offered nothing more than peaceful, lawful, non-damaging, normal paperwork political process based on knowledge rather than power, to promptly achieve that organization's espousals, but therefore exposed the controlling flaw of that organization's power-craving leaders, to themselves, creating rage in their minds, much to the amusement of the author of the letter. The leaders therefore defined their few million obviously gullible dues paying members, perhaps yourself or people you know, as too ignorant to be exposed to new knowledge. Further, the leaders, who were elected by a popularity vote from the membership who were considered by their previous leaders as being too ignorant to be shown new knowledge, and thus kept ignorant of organizationally available knowledge, having seen the new knowledge, could not understand the meaning of this sentence if you showed it to them and handed them a dictionary, much to your laughter.

Power-based organization leaders fear knowledge more than death, because knowledge is the death of power itself, and power-infected minds will kill people before power willingly surrenders any portion of itself in a human mind it infects.

The inherently ignorant, power-craving Libertarian Party leaders feared the meaning of the words (knowledge) in the letter they received, designed for their utility if they had understood the process of asking questions of new concepts. They inherently shuffled the knowledge away from them, back to its origin, the members. They separated the knowledge of the untitled members who develop knowledge rather than power, away from the leaders who seek only self-defeating power.

The reason the DemocanRepublicrats have failed, and offer nothing but progressively greater failure, is that they sought and acquired majority rule power, rather than knowledge, within a knowledge-based species.

The reason the Libertarians are failing and have no hope of success by their tactics is that they seek to acquire majority rule power, rather than knowledge, within a knowledge-based species.

Knowledge and power are mutually exclusive concepts.

Knowledge does not need power.

Power is vulnerable to knowledge, and cannot tolerate it.

The advantage ultimately goes to knowledge, by design of the human mind, a knowledge device.

Consider a proof, among endless proofs, that your mind will create. If you were assigned to achieve an unknown goal, with only that data, for assistance, would you select the most powerful military on the rock, or one thinking human mind? Notice precisely who would be so ignorant as to select the military, and who would be so knowledgeable as to select the thinking human mind. Notice therefore who recognizes the proof, while the clueless Libertarian Party members strive for power.

What have all the militaries of human history achieved, if not the next destructive wars, on schedule? In contrast, what is the source of all the beneficial human advancements? Notice precisely who refuses to accurately answer those two questions as asked, for lack of such simple knowledge. Write your answer.

Therefore power must wage constant war against knowledge, to the extent of killing or imprisoning those who present the knowledge that exposes the controlling vulnerabilities of power. But the norm is that of less dramatic responses, such as power-based institution leaders routinely telling those who offer the leaders knowledge, to talk to fellow citizens rather than bothering the self-flattering leaders seeking power rather than knowledge.

Observers of the human phenomenon are amused.

If you wish to advance yourself or society beyond your current plight, do you need new knowledge, or the power to force other people to conform to your current primitive knowledge? If you choose the latter, which is the choice of self-stagnated institutional minds, the power must be available to 6.3 billion other people, to force you to conform to their current primitive knowledge, by definition of the human phenomenon and their leaders constantly striving for just that. Now therefore, would you not instead want them to discover new knowledge and offer it to you for your mind's utility, and the same of yourself for their benefit? Is world peace and the cure for cancer within new knowledge, or within a larger army and more bombs? Which are your leaders pursuing? And what are their opponent organization leaders pursuing to thus achieve the only concept that power has ever achieved?

Pity the laughable Libertarian Party leaders, and their power-craving ilk in every institution throughout human history. They could read these words, and remain as clueless as the DemocanRepublicrats whom the Libertarians have fooled themselves into believing they oppose. They are each striving for the same majority rule power and its consistently proven, same failure, at the same exclusion of the readily available knowledge that advances humans.

Humans face more centuries of struggling and suffering within the intellectual dark ages, killing and imprisoning each other under color of law and the guns of police and military, foolishly following power-craving, knowledge-fearing leaders such as Libertarians, RepublicratDemocans and their ilk around the world.

Certain of the observers can promptly extract the humans from their self-inflicted plight, with the inherently existent knowledge routinely offered to institution leaders, but there is no incentive. The humans reward the power-mongers, and denigrate and attack those who offer knowledge. Incentive is everything for achieving human goals. With it, things happen. Without it, things do not happen.

If you are a young person, wisely do not end up on the proverbial pile of dead bodies who wasted their lives and eventually died after uselessly striving for power within a knowledge-based species predicated on its mind. Learn how to ask effective questions that advance your mind's knowledge beyond the mental midget political power-mongers leading all the political parties and their police and armies.

Yes, you will be routinely denigrated, jailed and risk being killed, but that is the human-created cost of something so valuable as knowledge. The cost is inconsequential, as you will learn, and as the institution leaders will never comprehend their entire life.

Within the crap-shoot of the Universe, if humans survive the test of time, they will eventually emerge from their current intellectual dark ages, by default or by a certain action of one knowledgeable person defeating all power for idle amusement, and laugh themselves to tears over the primitive nature of humans before that moment. You can learn to enjoy the laughter at this time. It is only knowledge, yours for the asking.



The zenith of their mind's knowledge... 25 September 2003

The following has been said by countless people throughout history, using countless arrangements of words. But what did they learn from their words? What is your answer to that question? Has any government chap even asked that question?

If you have not learned the following from the consistent events of history, it is easy to learn from the recent events in Iraq or Israel, or a dozen or so other current shooting wars. Just read the internet Reuters news for a couple weeks, or whatever international news you prefer.

We kill some of them, they kill some of us, we kill some of them, they kill some of us, we each breed faster than we can kill each other, and our killing each other is the reason we kill each other, much to the laugher of those who instead use their time to simply learn the design of the human mind and thus the simple process to promptly resolve the obvious contradiction, and unequivocally win the war, thoroughly defeating the enemy by process of his mind, regardless of the other guy's initial reaction.

The government and military institution leaders verifiably do not know how to effect any process beyond killing the other guy, the process that creates the problem. That is the zenith of what their minds know, verifiably. The use of force, which is the concept that creates the resulting use of force, is the zenith of the thinking-ability of government and such institutional chaps, or they would not have sunk to such an embarrassing and counter productive power-based process. Within their void of reasoning, the hormonally controlled emotions their mind perceives as reasoning resolves perceived contradictions by ultimately killing the other guy to cause him to kill in retaliation, ad circulum.

You can show them all the most wise reasoning and logic that any thinkers have ever devised, and the government leaders will continue to kill the other guy, on schedule, not recognizing the functional meaning of any such words you show them, because the government chaps irreversibly trained their mind to conclude all its processes at the use of force which results in the use of counter force, by design of the human mind which accepts a title. The process of reasoning is literally not understood or biologically functioning within their mind.

For just as long, other people have wailed the cry that we must stop the killing. They have no sense of humor, comedy or high quality entertainment. Killing each other is the second most popular hobby of humans. They will not abandon that hobby just because other humans incessantly wail the hollow words of peace, by design of the reasoning process, verified by exercising the reasoning process or simply observing the test of time. I can command a rock to fly, all day long, and at the end of the day the rock will not fly unless I pick it up and throw it, or put it on an airplane. The ultimate ability of the minds of the peace wailers, is peace wailing, because that is how they trained their pitiably self-stagnated minds, just as the war mongers trained their mind to create wars in the name of peace. You can show them these words, and their minds literally cannot comprehend the concept of asking the question, how do we manifest what we espouse, and write the answer to their question, and ask the obvious question of their obviously failed answer.

To learn how to stop the killing, one must start asking questions at the conclusions of all the current leaders and their institutional experts, and continue asking and answering progressing questions until an answer cannot create an unanswered question, within any human mind.

If your alternative is a war that only creates the next war, as usual, and kills thousands of people, and destroys vast arenas of human effort, or your alternative is even a costly, decades-long political process for a much lesser goal, how much time and effort can you logically invest in preventing the war or actually manifesting your political goal? Look again at the question. What is your answer? If someone tells you that you can prevent the war or manifest your goal with a fraction of the effort, a fraction of the cost, and in a fraction of the time, would you ask questions, or would you scoff at such a suggestion and start shooting? What questions would you ask? Write them. Notice who does not ask questions.

Among the human killers, there is no incentive to stop the highly entertaining, ego gratifying and institutionally lucrative process of killing humans, by design of their institution. For achieving goals, incentive is everything to the human mind . With incentive, things happen. Without incentive, things do not happen. Learn how incentive works in the human mind.

Power-damaged minds will forever be clueless of the concept of incentive. They genuinely believe that killing the other guy, or threatening to kill him, or imprisoning him, or other such force-based actions, creates incentive for him to kowtow to the power-damaged minds, and to do as the power-damaged minds dictate. Can I threaten to imprison George Bush or yourself, and thus cause him or you to kowtow to me? Can Americans threaten to kill Vietnamese, and thus cause the Vietnamese to kowtow to Americans? The same for Iraqis or Canadians? Can the Russians and Chinese form an alliance then threaten the Americans, to thus cause the Americans to kowtow to the Russians and Chinese? You can show such a mind these words, and they cannot comprehend that killing and the threat of killing creates the inherent incentive to kill and threaten to kill, in retaliation, by design of the human mind. Is an example of the proof not magnificently displayed in Israel these days? Well? When you have trammeled a group of human minds, by their perception, to the point that suicide bombers repeatedly emerge from their midst, only the most pre-Neanderthal, intellectually void dolts will therefore trammel the humans more ruthlessly, rather than start asking questions, much to the howling laughter of observers.

If you want to create incentive for the Iraqis to kill some Americans, or the Palestinians to kill some Israelis, for reason in entertainment, profit, ego candy, emotional gratification, presidential popularity polls, enticing more dumb young male minds to join your army, a slow news day, or any of the common reasons, pay taxes for the American or Israel military dolts to kill some Iraqis or Palestinians. Easy. Humans can kill humans easier than washing the dishes after a meal. We have refined the hobby. Most people in the world heavily tax themselves to pay for the invention, production and use of more efficient toys for their testosterone saturated government dolts to kill whomever does not bow toward the egos of the thus laughable government sorts.

The single most powerful individual in human history, at the moment, US President George W. Bush, with more firepower at his disposal than any other human in history, has stated that he won the war with Iraq, as did his Dad for the previous Iraq war. So why are US soldiers in Iraq still being killed, and W. is begging for help? Why is he calling up yet more reserves, and extending their tour of duty in Iraq, rather than sending the military home? Why has his popularity diminishing among his own people, and why is he reviled and ridiculed abroad, rather than revered throughout the land and across the seas? Why does he threaten Syria, Iran, North Korea, and obviously prepare for more Wag The Dog Wars? Why? The questions have definitive answers that prevail against all the amusingly trite excuses of the war advocates. The wrong answers will produce the leaders of all the institutions surrounding you., including the peace institutions. With the right answers, yours for the asking, you may achieve whatever you wish.

At the other end of the effort spectrum, is the process of thinking beyond the popular social contradictions which perpetuate the war hobby. Thinking, the simple process of asking and answering questions that progressively resolve contradictions, is verifiably exhausting. It requires great mental energy, albeit at a micron of the physical energy expended for war. It requires incentive. The incentive within insatiable curiosity is that which leads people to discover the boring process to promptly stop the killing, and within the concurrent process, win the war, but such incentive is rare among humans. Most humans think only to the Neanderthal level of how to most easily force the other guy to ostensibly benefit the mental midget Neanderthals imposing the force, or otherwise imprison or kill the other guy, to thus create in his colleagues the incentive to do the same in retaliation. Precisely what incentive, by detailed, complete description, caused human minds to think of using a Trojan Horse at Troy, and likewise using commercial airliners to destroy an enemy inside its greatest New York City fortresses? Well? Precisely what incentive, by detailed, complete description, will inherently create the next more dramatic manifestation of that same ancient human hobby of Neanderthal minds with institutional leadership titles.

These words will change nothing of such laughable human contradictions designed into the human mind, for reason. At significant effort, but mostly by inordinately unusual chance of diverse events, the writer learned the process to efficiently resolve the most complex contradictions humans can create, an inherently existent arena of knowledge, and has encountered no incentive to manifest the resolutions that other people seek. But if you stumbled upon these words, regardless of who writes them, and are curious, and wish to learn how to promptly stop the Israel, Iraq, Afghan, or any other war, despite thus being called a party pooper by the war mongers, to the complete victory of whichever side wishes to learn intellectual technology, simply start writing words of this nature, emphasizing the questions your mind asks, and writing the answers.

Or you may inquire. The knowledge is yours for the asking, if there is any incentive to divert to that boring task.

But until then, because you otherwise prove the zenith of your thinking ability as no greater than your ongoing failure, as illuminated by whichever desire you have not yet manifested, despite the ease of exponentially advancing your knowledge, genuinely enjoy the high quality entertainment of these humans killing each other in the name of peace, while the peace wailers wring their hands and wail for peace, in the name of peace, etcetera.



A controlling concept, again... 10 October 2003

I am often asked the usual questions, by people who want the usual large answers in the usual few small sound bytes.

The laws of nature make it logically impossible for humans to get more from less, by definition. If you believe otherwise, from examples you perceive, because you were asleep in your science classes and daily life experiences, look closer at the words you used to describe the examples. If you spend enough time to look close enough, you will derive the more from having added to the less the amount of thought that made up the difference. Until then, you erroneously described the more, or the less, and usually both, or you would already have everything for nothing.

On occasion I therefore write another arrangement of words to resolve a recent category of contradictions expressed by people who simply did not read or sufficiently question the previous sections of this website.

This section offers some people a proverbial key or controlling concept that will answer large groups of their questions.

First, there is no philosophy at this website. I am not a philosopher. Philosophy is generally useless except for idle entertainment, and for philosophers to derive money from fools who listen to philosophers, philosophy instructors or useless journalists adulating useless philosophers. There are no great philosophers, unless greatness is achieved by slaughtering time with useless words. Herein you will find only knowledge, inordinately useful knowledge, only if you ask real questions of every contradiction you perceive, and answer those questions with real answers to which you will sign your name and distribute your answers for others to judge your reasoning ability. Wisely ask a few more questions of your words before you hit the upload button or put the stamp on the envelope, lest your words prove your ability as an inability, such as I most often did before I simply started asking questions.


It is year 2003, and all the so called great people throughout human history, and all the fools who defined them as great, have produced only a human phenomenon in which entire social systems still kill and imprison human minds as a perceived resolution to the contradiction inherently caused by killing and imprisoning the human minds which hold a portion of the knowledge imperative to resolve the contradictions perceived as the excuse to kill and imprison minds rather than ask questions of them.

Therefore, stop looking for the answers to popular questions until you train your mind to simply resolve the basic contradictions instilled in your foolish young mind by those idiot adults whom you were trained to foolishly respect, rather than ruthlessly question, because they held titles, such as the titles of adults, parents, school teachers, government officials, lawyers, judges, police, military officers, mentors, experts, professors, scientists, think tank chairmen, presidents, directors, elders, priests, ministers, ah, add the rest of the list of titles. If any of them were what they perceived by their titles, the questions would have already been answered and the answers manifested.

I will again offer a classic example, perhaps with a more useful explanation for your particular mind. Simply resolve the following simple contradictions, to train your mind in the process to resolve contradictions that you previously held in place, so your mind therefore did not know how to identify and resolve each contradiction it encountered, and thus your mind does not know how to resolve the current contradictions you most want to resolve, such as how to easily cause the other guy to do what you want.

If you say the words that the American DemocanRepublicrat politicians are professional liars, and they all obviously are, which if you have not yet learned the proofs, easily learn those proofs, then you must say that you never vote for them, unless you state that you endorse lying.

Remember, you may do this exercise in the privacy of your cubicle or oval office, and look over your shoulder so to insure that the security camera is not pointed at you, but you must write what you say. Your goal has nothing to do with politics or ragging the pitiable sorts who are victims of their titles. Your goal is to train your mind to identify and resolve simple contradictions, so that you can do the same with the more complex contradictions of your current or future interest.

If you say power corrupts, as it always does, which if you have not yet learned the proofs, easily learn those proofs, then you must never support power, unless you state that you endorse corruption.

If you are inventing an airplane, and you say that an aileron is needed to prevent one wing from stalling and thus crashing the airplane during a normal turn, you must add an aileron to prevent the crash, unless you stated that you want to crash your airplane.

If you state that power corrupts, and recognize that the Libertarian Party is attempting to achieve the power currently held by the obviously corrupt RepublicratDemocans, for any rhetorical illusion the Libertarians define as a reason, you must not vote for the Libertarians unless you state that you are voting for them for amusement or any other reason but with full stated admission that you are endorsing corruption.

If you use an arrangement of words that describe a fact, your reaction to the fact must conform to those words if you wish to train your mind to identify and resolve the next contradictions you encounter. First you train your mind, and then it controls you.

If the only cost for learning the knowledge of how to promptly manifest the espousals of your political party, is to stop voting for people in political parties, then you are a fool to vote for people in your political party, as your party proves of yourself and all those unquestioning dolts who vote for candidates in political parties. It is only the politicians and their government appointees who have created the problems that politicians perpetually say they will solve if they get elected into power. By what process will they learn how to turn their perpetual lies into truth?

You can understand why the minds of Presidents Bush and Clinton, and all the other national and international leaders, are literally not capable of even whispering to themselves that they lie nearly every time their lips are moving, while the world can openly state and write that easily proven truism. Those leaders, like their predecessors, and countless of lesser titles, will die of old age, still unable to understand why all their power failed their espousals. They trained their mind so thoroughly, to achieve their titles, that it controlled them without any hope of recognizing their glaring lies as lies.

You cannot train your mind to be a successful architect or auto mechanic, and suddenly be a computer programmer or heavy equipment driver without training your mind with new knowledge. You cannot actually resolve contradictions after you trained your mind to know how to only espouse the resolution of contradictions. In each case, the knowledge base is different. Human minds must learn knowledge. They do not acquire desired knowledge just because they learn the words to say that they are knowledgeable. The knowledge of how to resolve contradictions is learned by resolving contradictions, not by leaving them in place within your mind. When you use words, such as the foregoing, the words retain their meaning. If you apply different meanings to them, even just a very few, without changing them in the dictionary, you only confuse your mind and train it to be unable to manifest what the words you say actually mean.

You cannot become a computer programmer by learning how to sell computers. You must learn how to become a computer programmer, starting with the basics. The proof will be in your manifested, verifiable ability to actually program a computer. You cannot learn how to resolve contradictions by learning how to sell the rhetoric of resolving contradictions. You must learn how to resolve contradictions, starting with the basics. The proof is in your manifested, verifiable ability to actually resolve a contradiction. An easy proof of an actual ability in that regard, as a starting point, is to actually stop voting for politicians if you state that politicians have proven their institution to be dishonest, and that you do not support dishonesty.

If you say that scientists and court judges are only human and thus make errors, you must state that you cannot believe scientists and court judges just because they hold those titles, unless that you state that you wish to be made a fool of for believing rather than questioning scientists and court judges.

If you train your body to be a couch potato, every intelligent person will laugh at your stated intent to be an Olympic track gold medal winner.

If you train your mind to defy common sense by retaining rather than resolving simple contradictions identified with your own words, such as voting for those politicians who seek the power to defeat their enemies, every intelligent person will laugh at your stated intent to support an honest or common sense government.

If you state that you vote for the lesser of two evils, you must state that you support evil, by definition. Remember, your goal is not to remove evil from government, but to train your mind to identify and resolve simple contradictions. If you do that with sufficient tenacity, requiring no more exertion than practiced by a couch potato with a pencil and paper or a laptop, you can later learn how to easily remove all evil from government, and laugh at how easy it always was.

To train your mind to conform to the reasoning process of the human mind's design, it does not matter whether your actions conform to the stated fact, or to your stated support of a recognized contradiction, but it must conform to a stated reason if you wish to manifest the reasoning.

Among the obvious proofs that you cannot sustainably manifest a goal with a retained contradiction which you do not state (write, for a reason described in previous sections), is that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, by definition of the human mind being exclusively designed to identify and resolve contradictions. Besides all the people, can I fool even you alone all of the time, especially with mere words that you can question? Because your answer is obviously, No, if you start asking me questions, that is the answer for the other guy whom you might seek to fool, who listens to more people than just you.

If you are among those who are attempting to fool other people, you may gain all or as little material wealth and power any other human can gain by that process, but because you do not question your own statements, and answer your questions, you will train your mind to fool itself first, and thus not be able to recognize and resolve the contradictions you most seek to resolve, including those which will ultimately defeat everything you gained.

If you allow yourself to be fooled by other people, because you do not question their statements, for any reason, and answer your questions, you will only contribute to their ultimate failure, to define your own.

First you train your mind, and then it controls you.

You are human. You are of your mind. It is of the same design as those you foolishly perceive to be more intelligent than you, and also those you foolishly perceive to be less intelligent than you.

And therefore, which questions will you ask of your most cherished beliefs, to discover which contain unresolved contradictions that are obviously defeating all your colleagues who believe rather than question those beliefs? You may easily cause all people to manifest those beliefs, if you discover the contradictions and resolve them to thus discover the unflawed process to manifest the beliefs which then are described accurately, without the contradictions you then recognize as only your prior failure to use the correct words for the process.

The reason the above words fail your utility is that the contradictions you must learn to identify and resolve are not those you currently perceive. The contradictions you must identify and resolve are laughably minor, and except for their currently defeating your goals, are inconsequential to you. You would readily resolve them, except that you and your teachers in early life prior trained your mind to never question them. First you train your mind, and then it controls you. And like your muscles, it is harder to retrain your mind as each year passes, by design of the human phenomenon, explaining why the lying old farts in the governments utilizing wars and prisons for their process while perpetually espousing peace and public safety, will never know the utility of the human mind, quite identical to the old farts in universities and peace institutions utilizing useless philosophy to perpetually espouse peace rather than asking themselves how to manifest peace, much to the robust laughter of the observers.

If you are too lazy to ask the harmless questions which you and your teachers trained your mind to most fear, at least tell your offspring to never again believe you or any other adult, for obvious reason in the failure of adults to advance society beyond the intellectual dark ages of wars and prisons, and to instead, ask themselves and adults every question they can devise from every contradiction their mind can recognize. Write the questions. Write the answers.

Amusingly, the process, while seemingly hopeless to intellectually lazy adults, quickly becomes exponentially effective, leading to the process to promptly manifest world peace, if there were any incentive, and easier goals much more quickly manifestable.

If I could tell you the questions that YOUR mind's data base would have to ask to resolve the contradictions it learned, to convey to you the knowledge you seek, I would do so, and would have already done so rather than have written all the words of this website, as a free gift to thus create a better society to thus derive the benefits of that better society. But that is not available to the human mind, because the knowledge base of human minds is too extensive. Or I could simply manifest the identified goals of any institution, but the reasons for not doing so are explained in other sections of this website. Your mind is on its own, by design. To learn the knowledge, you must ask questions of yourself or others, but YOUR mind must ask those questions of contradictions YOUR mind perceives. You may ask me, but there are no sound bytes which can convey the knowledge so long sought by the human phenomenon, by design. You must put yourself in a position to work with reasoning, which requires more than sound bytes.

If you have trained your mind to identify a contradiction, and then leave it in place, to divert an otherwise resulting reasoning process to a different contradiction, such as any of the countless excuses which that training process has created within your mind for that original contradiction, then no data from anyone can ever guide your mind to the resolution of that original contradiction, no matter how desperately you want to resolve it, no matter how easily is it otherwise resolved, until you retrain your mind to resolve each contradiction when it is identified, no matter which contradiction it is. The solution to a puzzle cannot be created if a part of the puzzle is missing.

World peace is mentioned herein as a classic instructive goal. It is more universally sought than any particular organizational goal. The lesser organizational goals are more easily manifested. The process to promptly manifest world peace is almost as simple as other goals, in concept, but requires more time and boring paperwork process because of diverse languages and cultural perceptions.

You will know when you have identified and resolved enough of your mind's currently held, amusingly inconsequential contradictions, to start the process to learn how to resolve the more complex contradictions, and you will laugh.



The power to advance peace... 16 October 2003

Recently, Shirin Ebadi of Iran was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Among the usual comments of the Nobel Peace Prize sorts and the news journalists was the reported speculation that the prize would advance her prominence in the political arena, and thus she might gain the power to do this good and that good in a world of ongoing wars.

Her response: "If entering politics means gaining power, God save me from the day I become tempted by power."

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee chaps and all such institutionally power-damaged minds remain clueless of the meaning of the words she stated. The Nobel Committee sorts want her to gain power, which is why they again gave the peace prize to someone who has produced no peace.

Power-damaged minds will forever quest for, and routinely achieve, that which destroys their goal, and their minds cannot identify their contradiction even if you point to Shirin's accurate words, and countless like those words throughout human history, hand the power-damaged sorts a dictionary and even show them the flawless proofs, and answer every question their mind can devise, and verify the answers.

If you do not recognize the meaning of the words that you hear, speak, read or write, you are eligible to be on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, a government or organization leader, a scientist, lawyer or any other institutionally titled sort, by proof of their results.

After millennia of humans stating the consistently proven fact that power corrupts, while power-damaged minds inherently remain clueless to the meaning of those words, and others, at a particular time in the future, for idle amusement, a person will identify the location of the primary disconnect synapses, and the composition of their chemical transmitters, in the human brain, which shunt the logic process to the self-defeating power process for related data synthesis.

And that person will not be a scientist.



The issues are interchangeable... 17 October 2003

The process is the same or similar, regardless of the issue.

The issue which you will recognize below, is irrelevant to the conclusion of this section, yet it will immediately render about half the readers not capable of recognizing the conclusion of this section.

To exist as a concept in the human mind, power, one of the emotion-based electro-chemical processes of the human brain, the antithesis of reasoning, must perceive an enemy.

Therefore power creates its enemies, by imperative, an easy task, by design of the human mind.

The process to do so can be flawlessly mapped, either for any particular issue, a grouping of issues, or for all issues in sum. One only needs to learn precisely how the human mind synthesizes data within its design.

Consider a certain classic social issue of the United States of America in current times, among those which of course change with time and culture.

By rough statistical data based on the net result, simply mentioning the issue shuts down the logic process in the minds of about half of the American adults. Their minds are thereupon no longer of any utility for any sustainable goal, because they are not utilizing the reasoning process of the human mind, while power convinces their minds that they are using reasoning, and convinces them that these words are just a bunch of hooey, if you can imagine such an accusation. Amusingly, and for your most focused attention if you are wise enough to be writing notes, thus making your mind's perception of these words useful, a certain other politically popular issue could be separately mentioned, creating a stimulus to the involved minds, and the two opposing social sectors would immediately switch their brain's routing for subsequent data, with the minds of the previous logical thinkers immediately utilizing an emotion-based process, creating consistently flawed conclusions, and shutting off their reasoning process, and denying the change.

Back around 1930, the American society was a normally robust society doing what human societies do when they are free, including the good times and bad times, the war and peace, the tribulations and rewards, and all that.

That included the full spectrum of the normal and ongoing social screw-ups that create long lasting damage.

For perspective on one of the screw-ups, consider that Japan attacked the US there about the start of the 40's. They were therefore totally defeated, unconditional surrender, lost all their colonies, even nuked twice, and still endure an American military occupation force under guise of military assistance. But how long after that war did Japan totally recover from the effects by becoming an economic giant in the world? How many years?

Compare that with the effects of the war in the below example.

In the mid 1930's, the politicos of the US decided to write a law to create a new enemy, a normal activity for every governmental leadership in human history, variously writing or decreeing new laws to define new enemies to distract the citizenry's attention from the ongoing screw-ups inherent to fools in government genuinely believing that they can make sustainable decisions for other human minds, and force those decisions into effect. The enemy is not otherwise an enemy, and is just part of a healthy, diverse society of humans doing what humans do. The enemy was analogous to mountain climbers, adventure derelicts who waste their lives doing nothing useful for the government, befalling related accidents and getting killed, thus costing the taxpayers money in the name of whatever excuses the anti-climbers fabricate. Yes, the US government will inherently outlaw the derelict terrorist mountain climber cult, by imperative of power, if the government does not first collapse itself by that process.

The government wrote a law against demon recreational drugs.

Now that the above word arrangements created the stimulus to shut down the reasoning process in the minds's of about half the people reading these words, we do not have to be concerned with them anymore. We can talk about them, and they will not understand anything we say about them.

Remember, among those of you who think your mind is still functioning on reasoning, about half of you are fooling yourself, and the other half, approximately, could be shut down simply by mentioning a few certain different political issues of similar social magnitude. Of those few not within that generality, a certain different category of issues could shut down the reasoning process of your mind, by design. You will never escape the design of your mind, and you need only learn it to then learn what you seek in these words.

At the time back there in the 30's, recreational drugs were just another peripheral social issue causing another special interest group to propose a law in the US Congress, not unlike flag burning, a bad economy, a telemarketing do-not-call list, school prayer and billions of such issues for government dolts throughout history craving excuses for making decisions for fellow adults, and forcing the decisions on everyone else until the folly of it collapses each such screw-up, by then lost amid the subsequent layers of that illogical process.

Hemp, was not on the list of recreational drugs to be criminalized, for sound reasoning recognized by only half the readers of these words. Those reasons are not of concern for this section. But some boys in the powerful cotton industry, competing with the superior hemp fiber, obscuring the source and reason for the money, bankrolled an intense lobbying effort to include the demon hemp plant on the list of outlawed recreational drugs.

The illogical nature of such a proposal created many public objections, but the less wealthy hemp farmers were not prepared for a political fight against the wealthy cotton empire at the time. The show was just a routine political power grab by one industry advancing its wealth by destroying a competing industry through a political scam, as usual. The very few hippy dippy hemp smokers did not even figure into the equation, nor were their negligible social effects. They were just a social minority harming no one, and rarely even discussed, not unlike the hippies of the year 2003. They were just used for a demon image by rhetorically ascribing all the isolated ills of Chinese opium and some purely fictional drugs, to American hemp smokers. The cotton industry political strategists rhetorically fabricated the hemp smokers into the modern equivalent of terrorists, of that political era, just as Adolf's journalists turned the reference for Jews into the word, criminals.

Hemp was therefore criminalized, but hemp is not the real issue of this section.

Long after Japan totally recovered from unconditional surrender, after World War II, which was started after the war started against hemp smokers, America is still stuck in the quagmire of an annual multi-billion dollar War against the Americans who smoke hemp. And there are a lot more hemp smokers, perpetually stalemating the war, because the war against it popularized it vastly beyond its own ability to do so, and gave it one of the highest profit margins for a farm crop, in human history. It is worth its weight in gold, and it can be grown in plain dirt in every house in the nation, as well as down on the back 40 behind the swamp with the alligator. It grows as easily as a weed, because it is one.

Notice the several mentioned contradictions, and the other ones you recognize, but especially the fact that the cotton industry effected the illogical law, to eliminate the hemp fiber from competition with the cotton fiber.

And notice that synthetic fibers have long since decimated the cotton industry.

So in the year 2003, because hemp remains highly popular, exclusively because of the war on hemp, the World Health Organization (WHO?) belatedly conducted a scientific analysis of the current knowledge of hemp. They produced data. It does not matter what the data is. Tax money was seized by force, and fools donated money, and it was spent to collect data on a commonly utilized plant, in an organized manner subject to question and review. WHO may be as anyone describes it, and because it is comprised of humans, is wrong about half the time at the get-go, then wrong more often because its personnel hold power and titles. But their data can be synthesized with the questions to all the contradictions they illuminate, to advance human knowledge on hemp, for those interested.

But among the comprehensive data suitable for such a long overdue study in an era when governments have done all they could to prevent humans from learning anything more about the enemy demon terrorist hemp plant, was a logical comparison with tobacco and alcohol, and each social effect. Besides coffee, sugar, chocolate, tea and such things, tobacco, alcohol and hemp are among the most popular and most common recreational drugs.

The WHO study verified what every 12 year old kid has already figured out, while at least half the adults remain clueless. Smoking hemp, while like any particulate matter, is damaging to the lungs, is vastly less damaging, in all regards, to human health, than is tobacco or alcohol, at every comparable level of use. That was just a small part of the WHO study, and already known to the general public.

But the American government politicos, who hold a measure power over WHO and its funding, went ballistic. They strongly objected to officially releasing the report, because they stated that the report might support the legalization of hemp. So the report was not issued.

Imagine that.

Notice the series of example contradictions, and their manifested effects on human minds.

The cotton industry politically achieved the law against hemp.

A new institution of humans was therefore created to attack hemp. The institution became dependent upon perpetuating and increasing the use of hemp to perpetuate and make more lucrative the lucrative attack on hemp.

Hemp therefore became popular and more widely used, as well as horticulturally improved to counter the tactics of the attackers.

Another event, the invention of the nylon fiber, dropped the cotton industry out of the show.

The government's anti-hemp institution, with the primary and functionally only real goal being to perpetuate itself, like all institutions, because no logic supported it, became an attack on the distribution of knowledge. Knowledge is the inherent death of power, and power can never willingly surrender any portion of itself in the human mind, by design.

So the American government anti-hemp chaps attempted to stop the distribution of related knowledge to inherently equal humans who could question the knowledge to ascertain anything useful or not useful for their lives.

Therein, as with the results of any institution, including WHO, upon analysis of certain of its other actions not favorable to the institution of WHO itself, the American government chaps are yet again, as usual, proven to be attempting to keep their society and other humans ignorant, even their own offspring. That they are commonly successful with their own offspring is indicated by the number of those offspring who get government jobs.

Notice the questions, among countless, that the American government anti-hemp chaps, identical to their political opponents illuminated with certain different issues, literally cannot answer even if you let them work on the questions after class, give them extra credit if they succeed, and another cash kick-back. If a government anti-hemp chap retires from his government job to thus become a citizen, after he hears about the study, but before he reads it, is he too intellectually self-impaired to be allowed to read and question the data in the study for the reason the government objected to its release? If a common citizen who cannot be allowed to read the study, subsequently gets a government anti-hemp job, what exact knowledge, shown to be objectively accurate by itemized, intense questioning, did he acquire to thus be smart enough to read the study without creating the supposed damage that caused the government boys to not allow the official release of the study? Well? Need not the government only answer that question, and distribute that knowledge to Americans, to thus promptly solve the hemp smoking problem, if there are no contradictions in that government knowledge? Notice the question, as stated.

Precisely who, by itemized description leaving no American citizen outside the two categories, is intelligent enough and not intelligent enough to be allowed by government employees to read and question the WHO study as an officially released study? You, I and every common sense person can answer that question, in public, with our names. The government chaps are literally not sufficiently intelligent to do so, yet their minds sincerely and genuinely believe that they can successfully make our decisions for us. Pity the laughable lot.

If YOU would have accepted any of the American government anti-hemp jobs, or any other institutional job, with a mind therefore already thus proven to be ignorant of how to ask effective questions, and survived the initial learning curve within that job, without quitting or being fired, it is inherent that your mind would thereupon literally be unable to answer the above questions, while every common sense person can do so. Your mind would sincerely and genuinely believe that the society of your fellow inherently equal humans is made more usefully intelligent by keeping them ignorant of data, or you would have already quit or been fired. That is the damage that petty power does to the human mind, by manifested proof. Pity their offspring who are raised by parents who believe that ignorance benefits human minds. They are clueless of the design and utility of a human mind.

But of course the American objection to WHO officially issuing the report therefore made its unofficial release more popular, deriving more international attention than just another inconsequential WHO study, among billions of such studies funded by governments throughout history. Go ahead, attack something else with any mechanism of force. What contradictions will you therefore inherently create, and which contradictions will they therefore inherently compound?

Did you write the answers to the questions? You can verify them, if you first wrote them. You can thereafter learn how to promptly manifest any goal, rather than perpetually defeat your efforts with a fundamentally self-defeating process known to be so since the first human smacked another human and told him not to do that, because he said so. Pity his obvious ignorance, still coursing the brains of the government and other institutional chaps in the year 2003, by the manifest proofs that you and even institutional sorts routinely discuss.



End of Intech Concepts 16.


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