Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 14
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


What does not matter... 20 January 2002


It does not matter of which geographical region we speak, of what people, or what time in the last few thousand years.

In the ever-changing name of this, that and anything else that institutionally achieves rhetorical popularity at the time, a few government personnel seek to hold many people under the decree of the inherently narrower perceptions of the fewer government personnel, enforced my mechanisms of force, and paid for by money forcefully seized from many working people. Is that not so?

In the consistent name of freedom and rights, the people seek to get out from under those forcefully imposed narrow perceptions of government personnel. Is that not so?

While a few people recognize that the aforementioned opposing participants are common humans of the same design, the government personnel and all the citizen organization leaders and members cannot comprehend that they are the same humans as the people, as are their sons and daughters. The institutional personnel set themselves above fellow humans, by mechanism of their titles and organizational associations which are merely rhetorical fabrications not altering their design as humans.

The government personnel are constantly writing new laws, forming new enforcement agencies and feeding more money to the established agencies, to more effectively trammel the freedom of the people, progressively proving that the previous government efforts were failures, and because the test of time has been more than ample, therein proving that the new efforts, inherently within the same design of institutional process, will also be failures, on schedule, which the next government personnel will attempt to correct with more of what creates the next problems. The thinking person recognizes that their process inherently contains a controlling flaw, while the referenced institutional thinkers cannot understand the words of this sentence.

The people are constantly creating new citizen organizations and feeding the existing ones more money to regain their freedom, progressively proving that all the previous and ongoing organizational efforts are failures.

Notice that both the government and the people have proven and continue to prove their efforts to be failures, or they would not still be fighting each other.

If your government or citizen organization is proposing or instituting something, it shall fail, as already proven, as completely unrecognizable by the minds of your government and organization personnel. The test of time will prove these words, yet again, on schedule, until any among those leaders learn intellectual technology.

Notice the commonality: The people select the government and citizen organization leaders who perpetually oppose each other. Notice that those institution leaders perpetually succeed at only fighting each other, and perpetually fail their espoused goals, with ongoing support by the people who selected them.

Because the fighting covers the full gradient, all the way to governments still routinely torturing to death even innocent little children, to trammel the freedom of the people, and therein grab more power for government, as the United States Army officers and soldiers knowingly, willfully carried out by injecting lethal doses of internationally outlawed CS gas into a Christian church in Waco Texas USA in the late 1900's, said gas known to cause such intense muscle contractions in children as to break the spinal bones while the body wreathed in gaging reactions trying to get the air that further choked the body, all with the avid support of the US RepublicratDemocan congressmen supported by US citizens, said soldiers and their Federal Bureau of Investigation colleagues in that power-grab were further given US Government awards and medals for their so defined heroic actions torturing those defenseless children to death, again with citizen support rather than condemnation, the observers of humans are therefore afforded the grandest magnitude of humor, rolling on the floor, kicking and pounding, clutching their aching sides, tears of howling laughter streaming from their eyes.

Is that laughter not the only logical reaction to these humans, when even the parents of Christian children still avidly support and reward such torturing to death of Christian children, through the middlemen US DemocanRepublicrat congressmen, for no cause but the insatiable addiction to raw power exercised by the fellow humans with government jobs openly supported by said parents? Even if it were Arab Muslims cheering the US Christians torturing to death their own US Christian children, through their middlemen US congressmen, the laughter at these humans killing each other in mindless servitude to the concept of raw power, would be the same, but that it is US Christian parents cheering the US Christian congressmen torturing to death US Christian children, and rewarding the US Christian soldiers and police who did so, without the US Christians comprehending any contradiction in their actions, is enough to cause any thinking reader of these words to spontaneously laugh with yet greater health at these comically illogical humans who were given a logic device for their brain they do not utilize.

Until the people recognize that they, themselves as individuals, which is to say, you, must think enough, that is, ask and answer enough questions to identify and manifest the correction of those obviously ongoing failures by government and citizen organization leaders, or select as their leaders fellow humans who either already know how to manifest those corrections and can demonstrate the proof of the knowledge upon request, or are willing to think enough to discover knowledge beyond that held by all the government, religious and other institution leaders, or until someone holding such knowledge is offered the incentive to manifest it, the self-fighting of humans will be socially perpetuated, and the howling laughter of observers will echo throughout the realm.

It does not matter of which geographical region we speak, of what people, or what time in the last few thousand years. They are all humans, with the same design of human mind, and they select leaders who thereupon cannot comprehend the meaning of this plain English sentence, or they would not attempt to force other human minds, much to the howling laughter of the observers.



A view of what you cannot yet see... 24 January 2002

As just an example, consider the Israel-Palestine thing. Those boys are currently throwing a few more rocks at each other again, albeit at high velocity and with a few explosives among them. That self-perpetuated tiff is a bit more in the news now that the Washington DC boys can't find any more spots in Afghanistan not already bombed down to bedrock.

The Israel-Palestine thing, like the other human-caused problems, is too easily resolved to the overwhelming satisfaction of all sides. One need only utilize a few days to learn an obscure arena of knowledge.

For those still having difficulty with the concept of a definitive problem solution that is appreciated by humans seemingly representing opposing positions, kindly consider this analogy. If there is an intense argument over the ownership of one dollar, and neither is happy with fifty cents because they claim the whole dollar, and the factual resolution grants the dollar to one side, but the resolution process creates in itself a million dollars therefore verifiably earned by both sides, among greater advantages that would otherwise have not been created, bring forward he would would argue over a dollar and not appreciate a million dollars. Bring forward the egotist institution leaders who would not surrender their current ego problem for what they will first verifiably recognize as making them the most respected institution leaders in history as the least of what they will achieve.

Amusingly, no analogy is adequate to convey the greater substance of the actual result. The result of utilizing intellectual technology is precisely what the user most desires. But therefore the power-altered mind's fear of learning such knowledge is absolute.

The issue is not Israelis or Arabs or Jews or Muslims or fliggets or womplies or such rhetorical illusions. The issue is instead, a small class of ignorant people who were raised as young people in such a fashion that their brain was trained to genuinely, honestly and sincerely believe that the resolution to a contradiction is to kill the other guy. Their mind literally cannot recognize that the original contradiction therefore remains unresolved as long as there are two or more humans left alive, and the contradiction was originally created by that action, and is thus sustained by that action. You could show these words to that small group of ignorant people leading the Israelis and Palestinians, and to their institutional supporters, and one second after they finished reading the last word of the previous sentence, their mind could not identify the meaning of the previous sentence. The synaptic receptor for subsequent data synthesis process within that conceptual arena is blocked by a specifically placed chemical compound common to every human brain.

If the Muslims killed all the Jews in the world, what would they do to the Muslims among them who therefore inherently encountered the incentive to then think beyond that process, to thus think new thoughts among killers who proved that they cannot tolerate the existence of different thoughts? And what non-Jews would therefore recognize a concept of such great value that obviously flawed killers could not tolerate its existence, to therefore start the new Jewish institution to learn that great value? Between curiosity for new knowledge, and the desire to kill other humans, which constitutes the original, controlling design of the human mind? Which cannot be eliminated without killing every human? What organization of two or more humans does not have dissidents within it? What is a dissident, that is, a holder of a different block of knowledge? What constitutes your mind in contrast to any other mind?

Again, the source of the problem is not in the words spoken by any of the institution leaders, including the news media or think tanks, but in a qualifiable data-base creating illogical conclusions from accurate data, in a very few minds. If those same minds are introduced to a certain block of corrective data, either at their request for one process, or without their escape by another process, those minds will promptly resolve the contradiction by use of reasoning, and further openly express appreciation for the related knowledge of vastly greater value than that of just resolving the inconsequential Palestine-Israel contradiction.

The very small number of controlling minds sustaining the contradiction, is rather interesting in its own nature. Of course the common people are not involved with these nationalistic and other institutional contradictions. They create no such contradictions because they are too busy living their own real lives outside the rhetorical illusions of institutions. The common people are busy fulfilling the original design of the human mind, by design. The soldiers fighting the battles are not controlling. Look at how quickly they switch sides after only hollow words are changed by a few leaders. US soldiers considered Russian soldiers as allies in WWII, enemies after that, including in the previous US funded Afghan/Taliban war against Russians, and now allies again, including in the recent war against the Afghan/Taliban. Military personnel do not use their mind for thinking, by definition, or no war could exist. Would you kill a person who did not attack you or anyone else? What is your answer? What soldiers attack before they are so ordered by just another human with a government job dependent upon wag-the-dog wars? Would you agree to fight in a wag-the-dog war, as are all wars? Military chaps of every nation will scamper off to kill whomever some wag-the-dog politician says is an enemy at the moment, which proves that they do not ask questions, that is, they do not think, much to their embarrassment later in life, if they question their way out of their condition. Soldiers of different nations get along very well with each other when they are not told that they are enemies. The only difference is a rhetorical illusion altering the normal perceptions of the mind. And what about the national leaders presumed to be enemies and telling their soldiers they must kill each other? They talk cordially with each and share expensive wine and lavish meals when they meet for so called high level negotiations. They do not try to kill each other. So who is accountably instigating the killing of other people as their mind's perception of a solution to a problem? The intriguing and verifiable answer, beyond the scope of this section, is what, not whom, among whomever stumbles into that little-noticed position fooling other gullible humans into amusingly killing each other for no verifiable reasoning.

The process to resolve seemingly complex contradictions, with the Palestine-Israel thing minor among them, is just knowledge, easily learned by anyone, albeit the knowledge against which the human mind's design has created the greatest defense. If no such defense existed, brilliantly disguised by simplicity beyond your recognition, humans would be far more advanced than their current nadir within the intellectual dark ages. The species is still killing each other as their highest social perception for resolving contradictions, to thus perpetuate their misery amid the laughter of observers.

Why is it that George Bush bombed thousands of innocent Afghans who disliked their government as much as George disliked it, for what some already-dead Saudis did? What process within the minds of George Bush and all of his colleagues and supporters caused their minds to identify logic in what every common-sense human on the planet recognizes as illogical? What process in their mind caused those Saudis to bomb a bunch of New Yorkers who disliked their murderous Washington DC government as much as the Saudis did? After all the government and other institution leaders and news media tell you about the glorious American victory in Afghanistan, with American military sorts reveling in their illusions of bravery, and Afghans seeming to praise the most recent gang of murderous thugs with guns to walk into town, what was created in the minds of many more people by the arrogant Americans yet again bombing a bunch of innocent people for that which the victims had nothing to do, and what are the humanly inescapable results? After the confetti settles to the floor, what does the human mind do?

If you wanted to defeat a superior, ego-driven, ignorant enemy by use of force rather than reasoning, would you not easily trick him into slaughtering a bunch of INNOCENT people in full world view, and then laugh while waiting for the inherent, humanly inescapable consequences? Would you not need only patience, an attribute of a thinking person? Would it not be an ignorant, ego-driven sort who would fall for such a simpleton trick? Would it not be only the simplest knowledge that would prevent a person from falling for that trick? Precisely who would support an institution leader who had not learned such simple knowledge? What is your answer to that question? Would you not have to write the question as only a small part of the effort to train your mind to think beyond institution leaders who routinely fall for the most ancient and simpleton tricks of the human phenomenon?

If YOU decided to stop wars so your children could live in peace, would you attempt to stop wars after your enemy attacked you, and thus it was your turn at your choice, or after you attacked him, and thus it was his turn at his choice? What is your answer to that question? Notice who cannot comprehend the flawless reasoning of your answer, and notice that your children are therefore doomed to work hard to pay taxes for the wag-the-dog war machinery, or worse.

How many more thousand years will you, the reader of these words, still proverbially chase your tail around in circles, causing yourself and your children all manner of grief by accusing the other guy of all manner of superficial illusions related to nationalities, religions, philosophies, ideologies and other ties, ies and ions, before you recognize that the resolution is within knowledge of a design feature of the human mind? What is your answer to that question?

Is it not obvious that the triggering mechanism for a human mind's obviously illogical, institutional process to kill other useful human minds is not genetic, but simply induced by a qualifiable and quantifiable electro-chemical response to an identifiable stimulus? And is that categorically isolatable and dramatic action not among the most common and easily analyzed phenomena of the human mind, with the greatest human benefit achieved by knowledge of it?

You can learn that knowledge. No leaders of government, peace organizations, war organizations, think tanks, political parties, news media, citizen organizations, neurologists, this, that or any other institution can learn that knowledge, or it would have been discovered by institutions on Day Two. If you are a member of them, quit, walk away, and look back at all of them. Write their commonalities until you discover and verify the single demarcation, and then ask all the questions to learn everything about that demarcation data-point. It is not the Israelis, Palestinians, Jews or Muslims. It is a design feature of the human mind, brought into controlling play when Ishmeil thinks of himself as a Muslim, Jew or think tank expert, instead of who he only is, Ishmeil, just another human mind capable of learning what the Jews, Muslims and think tank experts cannot learn, because the mind was given to Ishmeil, not the non-existent human named Muslim, Jew or think tank expert who therefore purport what they and every other individual will not acquiesce to as an individual.

Until you utilize the small amount of time necessary to learn the referenced concept at play within the human mind, within your institutions you are chasing your tail for the amusement of thinking people. You can learn that concept with the time you currently waste supporting political and other organization leaders who will never learn that concept.



People versus concepts... 14 February 2001

Notice the difference between concepts ruling the human phenomenon, that is, concepts defining the design of humans, in contrast to humans ruling the human phenomenon.

For example, the concept that you cannot get something for nothing is indeed a concept, and it dictates the human ability, by design of the known universe. In contrast, there are those who sincerely believe they can get something for nothing if the President of the United States supports their goal, or if the local street gang leader or other institutionally titled sort supports their goal. The latter chaps sincerely believe that a human who stumbles into a titled office of power can prevail above the concepts that define humans and the universe.

Therein, notice the number of people who functionally worship other humans. Notice how many people lavishly praise this or that institutional leader. Analyze their physical actions and words. They commonly say that their favorite leader can do this or that if only more people would recognize his greatness and unify behind his great espousals. They give standing ovations to the words of their leader, and send him money.

Look closely at and analyze the physical reactions and words of the large number of people who so enthusiastically praised US President Ronald Reagan, an actor, National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston, an actor, Germany's Nazi leader Adolph Hitler, certainly a high quality actor. The physical and rhetorical enthusiasm of their followers was so great that the description of worship is fully germane in a huge number of cases. Pick any institution leader, and watch the physical actions of his or her followers.

Yet notice that each of those leaders, like countless others of their ilk, were failures, or all the social problems would have been solved rather than now obviously greater. The leaders were merely humans, with the same brain design as everyone else, with no greater intelligence, unable to do anything but put on a rhetorically dazzling show for fellow humans who embarrassingly fooled themselves into believing that the leaders could do something more than humans are designed to be able to do.

Watch the next political convention, where thousands of people will wildly cheer and functionally worship just another political hack who will fail like the millions of other organization leaders before him.

Notice that the political worshipers will not question their leader to learn answers to questions. They will not seek to advance their knowledge. Of course the leader cannot usefully answer any questions because he is just an intellectually hollow idol for people who are clueless as to how problems are solved, clueless of the concept of learning new knowledge to solve problems that the old knowledge could not solve.

The worshipers of organization leaders are so consumed with rhetorically praising their favorite institution leaders, they never even think to ask the question of why all the other leaders in the world, often worshiped by millions more people, produced only the problems that the next leaders used to garner praise for saying they could solve.

So are you going to continue to praise your organization leaders for doing what the next leaders will receive more praise for saying they are going to correct? The worshipers of people offer magnificent entertainment for wiser observers.

If you instead learn and ascribe your integrity to the immutable concepts that control the human phenomenon, and measure the organization leaders against those concepts, with accurate questions, you will soon enough notice that every organization leader attempts to defy those immutable concepts, and thus fails. Your therefore never again praising or showing respect for obviously ignorant humans with leadership titles, who attempt to defy the human design, will facilitate your time and understanding of concepts, to advance your knowledge while foolish people continue praising unthinking people.



Separate your mind from its controlling contradiction... 25 February 2002

Imagine stopping your mind's thoughts in relation to the words you are reading, for the sole purpose of imagining only the following concept isolated from the effects of your mind's prior perceptions: That it is only an arrangement of words that can cause your mind to recognize the actual, readily achievable, manifestable solution to the problem that otherwise frustrates you because those other guys just won't listen to reason.

Because it is, by design of the human mind.

I would tell you that arrangement of words, but it can only be constructed from the arrangement of words your mind uses to describe the problem of your interest, and the answers your mind creates from a certain series of related questions. You have not yet asked or answered those questions.

The process merely extends to the inherent defeat of your opponent's mind, a readily manifestable concept, by design of the human mind.

Notice that the people attempting to solve complex social problems are incessantly making statements, instead of asking questions, which is why the problems exist, by design of the human mind.

If you would like to know more about that design, notice what your mind has been doing, in contrast to the first sentence of this section.

It is merely a statement that your mind holds the ability to separate its thought process from prior conceptions, and therefore useless until your mind asks the questions to create the proof.

While the other guy goes forward with his statements of how things ought to be, lead your mind in the other direction with questions of his every statement. He will fail his efforts, by design. If you ask enough questions, you will arrive at his original, controlling contradiction that he failed to resolve and thus doomed his every subsequent action. You will have found the arrangement of words that resolves the original contradiction, and hold the knowledge of the questioning process to leave the new trail of reasoning as flawless against every question a human mind can devise, including the question of what to do if your opponent just won't listen to reason.



How ignorant are the Jews, and what is the result of ignorance behind gun triggers?... 3 March 2002

If your mind is not yet willing to patiently organize the data in some complex sentences, such as those herein, then wisely do not yet expend your mind's valuable time attempting to resolve complex problems. There are no sound-byte solutions to complex problems until your mind patiently organizes all the complexities, an easy task for any patient person, to produce its own sound-byte references for the thus logic-based conclusion. It is then that you can assist other people with their questions of each complexity not illuminated by your sound bytes, but not until then.

If you create conclusions from only part of a trail of reasoning, your inherently wrong conclusions will create your problems. Notice how quickly you forget the foregoing sentence while reading the following. You might even write that sentence on a scrap of paper, and hold it while reading.

The greatest intellectual ability of the entire Israeli government, a religion-based government, with all of its human, spiritual, financial and military weaponry resources, in Israel and around the world, cannot figure out what even every simple-minded non-Jew peasant on any street, farm or desert in the world can figure out, that is, if you drive a tank into a city of people already trammeled to the point of their using suicide tactics for revenge, and the chaps in the tank, with obviously limited visibility, start shooting their main gun and heavy machine guns into crowded street settings, you will soon enough murder innocent, unarmed, non-combatant small children, women and men, including doctors and medics trying to save the lives of the innocent people the Jews just finished gunning down, and therefore you will more intensely anger yet more of those people and every common person in the world thus inspired to seek revenge.

Humans do not appreciate their friends, relatives and the underdog being slaughtered by arrogant, unthinking Killers.

If you start the ancient game of killing every human who does not surrender to your threat of killing them, your goal, your institution and your people are ultimately doomed to the perpetual killing game within a species predicated on the design of individual minds rather than institutional minds. Are there any Jews who do not fully agree with all other Jews, or the same among Muslims, socialists, Japanese, Caucasians, golf players, mountain climbers, farmers, Alaskans to Zimbabweans? If a difference in personal decisions is defined by killing (or imprisoning under threat of being killed) rather than reasoning, then the killer will create the revenge killers even within his own institution. Besides the rest of the world, his institution inherently includes more-thinking individuals who will oppose the killers upon one too many killings, after killing was legitimized by the killers, and thus be the deadly new enemy against the deadly threat. Who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, why, who previously trained him, and how many such examples saturate human history, to say nothing of the many more outside parties joining the underdog after too many killings by the more arrogant side? Well, do you answer questions, and utilize your own answers?

The process of killing the human who does not kowtow to your flawed reasoning for killing his people, is the process to create more minds who will seek to kill you and those in your institution of Killers, by design of the human mind. The process of killing the other guy, in the name of Jews, or in the name of Americans, is the process of defining Jews or Americans as Killers, the dominant functional definition, without successfully denial in the human mind.

The Killers can kill millions or billions of humans, much to the amusement of observers, but they are doomed within a species predicated on the human mind. The Killers are merely ignorant of the human mind's designed reaction to killing, even that of their own mind, and are ultimately untenable among humans. Therein the biological effect of the concept of power is indicated for the human mind's design.

Killing the unarmed, non-combatant, innocent small child on the street, under the rhetorical fabrication that his institution's people were killing your institution's people, or the other common rhetorical fabrication of, collateral damage, popular among military chaps selected for their empty craniums, will never fool any human mind outside the inherently unthinking institution of Killers, by design of the questioning mind.

Therein, the ignorance of all Jews, to allow their institution to have become inextricably defined as the institution of Killers untenable for the human species, is undeniable in face of the current events in Israel, to say nothing of history, among humans capable of reasoning through related items of data. That the Jews are incapable of reasoning is proven. The choice of an individual Jew who claims any reasoning ability for his or her mind, is, by definition, to either stop the Jewish institution from playing the killing game, or to cease to be a Jew. And to delay the decision is to define one as a Killer. There is another choice which I will mention later.

But of course any person recognizes that the institution of Jews is made to appear as exercising superior reasoning by comparing Jews with Americans, defined by those of the United States of America. Americans hold an obvious void of any intellectual resources in their entire nation or around the world. The Americans did not recently shoot tank guns into crowded streets. The Americans instead dropped huge bombs on whole towns, from B-52 bombers tens of thousands of feet in the sky, on a nation that did not attack the US or any other nation.

A few Saudi criminals killed a bunch of people in the US, as inherent revenge for the Americans slaughtering countless more people in its swaggering arrogance of Wag The Dog Wars and funding the Israeli tank ammunition. The impressively dedicated Saudi thugs intentionally killed themselves in the process, leaving no living persons to rationally blame. So the Americans maliciously slaughtered thousands of innocent Afghan men, women, boys, girls, babies, elderly, invalids, doctors, school teachers, ministers, paupers, people just like yourself, your friends, relatives and neighbors.

When US federal agents commonly violate the law, as shown on public record, including acts of murder, would the American people be justified in physically attacking the US Congressmen who created the federal agencies of criminals, and who funded them? Does the absence of an extradition treaty, and arrogance toward a request to bring forward verifiable evidence of a person's involvement in a crime, grant legal or logical authority to bomb numerous towns? Would the Latin American countries be justified in bombing American cities if the US did not immediately extradite the CIA agents routinely accused of killing Latin American politicians? Did not the home-grown, government-trained, American bomber of the federal building in Oklahoma City do the same thing as the Americans did to Afghanistan, for the same reasoning? Can your mind utilize its own answers to questions, to reason through contradictions? Can you distinguish between a criminal and his innocent neighbors?

The array of illogicalities in the US RepublicratDemocans killing innocent Afghans for the actions of already-dead Saudis, is only humor within the process of defining the institution of Americans as the institution of unthinking Killers ultimately untenable within the human species, and thus creating more people believing that they must kill Americans as revenge for the greater killing by the Americans, all consistent to the amusing killing game.

The Jews and Americans can read these words, and their intellectual absence will be proven with tomorrow's routine news. Their paucity of thinking-ability is proven by their supporting professional Killers as political leaders. But you can utilize your mind's ability to extract yourself from that nadir of intellectual existence with which your institutional leaders define you.

The other side, those Muslims, Arabs, Talibans, terrorists, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Iraqis or fill in the current name for the enemy (except the Saudis who destroyed the World Trade Towers but are an oil-laden ally of the US RepublicratDemocans), hold the perfect defense for their actions. The US leaders have heaped upon the enemy all manner of derision to politically demonize them to make killing them more popular, saying that they cannot reason, and have called them killers. Well, were the American leaders telling the truth, or are the US leaders incapable of reasoning through even their own words? If the Americans are telling the truth, then the job of reasoning instead of killing is left with the American leaders since the other side is not capable of reasoning. Read that again if you must. It is the proof created by the US leaders. So what are the US leaders therefore doing? They are killing innocent people, demonstrating an obvious inability to reason. They are what they say is the enemy. They are the other side's proof of its identical accusations. That the US leaders were intentionally lying, or are instead void of any reasoning-ability to get their foolish followers out of the self-generating, killing game, is therein proven. Read that proof again. There is no escape from the proof. Of course the US DemocanRepublicrat leaders, like the Israeli Jewish leaders, cannot understand the process of reasoning, so will never read even a second sentence of any reasoning, and will remain blithefully comfortable inside their empty craniums, their tanks and B-52 bombers, much to the amusement of observers.

The human species is predicated on the reasoning-ability of its mind, not its killing-ability. The US and Israeli government leaders claim that the enemy cannot reason, and that the enemy is creating the problem by killing people, but the US and Israeli leaders are killing more people than is the enemy, and proving the reasoning-inability of US and Israeli leaders by killing rather than reasoning. If you are not laughing yourself to tears over the comedy of these humans, you are missing their only current show.

The controlling concept is the overt US determination that the enemy is not capable of reasoning, and his killing people will not only not achieve his goal, it creates a greater problem. Therefore, killing in retaliation holds the same flaw, compounds the problem, and the US need instead only exercise twice the reasoning for the contradiction. The latter is amusingly easy to the extent of promptly solving the problem, predicated on the problem not being repeatedly compounded by the former. The human mind is easily capable of reasoning through the other guy's absence from the reasoning process, and vastly beyond that, but it must exercise the actual process of reasoning, tediously asking and answering progressively more effective questions, rather than resort to the killing process inherently void of reasoning. If that were not so, we would not have reached the moon while those Jamaicans laid on the beach smoking ganja instead of helping with the rocket design. If the leader cannot do the reasoning for the other guy, he or she is not an intellectually capable leader, and thus not a leader in a species predicated on thinking. Why do the Jewish and American leaders refuse to perform their accepted and easy task of reasoning, and instead play the Neanderthal-level killing game?

There is a flawless explanation for all phenomena in the universe, including the amusing killing game of humans. The game can be promptly curtailed with a simple reasoning process that defeats Killers by design of their own mind. By flawlessly itemizable and thus correctable mechanisms, the process to become a US RepublicratDemocan or Israeli leader is the process to train a human mind to substitute the use of force (the killing game) for the use of reasoning (the thinking game), within their mind. You will become what you train your mind to become. It is only a minor item of several therein, that institution leaders consistently blame the reasoning-inability of the other guy at each data point their own mind is too lazy or too fearful to synthesize a logical conclusion from said data. If you unquestioningly believe that the solution to a human-caused problem is to kill the other guy because you are too intellectually lazy to question your way to the actual solution, then you are eligible to be a US or Israeli government leader defining Americans and Jews as Killers rather than Americans and Jews.

The human mind is of such ability that one person can think (question) his or her way to the knowledge of the process for one person to cause world peace, promptly curtailing the institutional killing game, without escape by any government leader. The knowledge has been learned. And any human mind can learn the process. The less dramatic goals of countless human organizations, or ending just one little war, are more easily achieved. I would convey that knowledge to you herein, since it is nothing more than arrangements of words constituting reasoning, but it is knowledge of such nature that your mind can synthesize it only from your own mind's questions, by design of the human mind. Knowledge of the human mind's design is part of the knowledge you need. Your mind's questions are everything for learning new knowledge. If your mind does not create the electro-chemical, neural activity to formulate the question, your brain creates no open receptors to utilize any statement in relation to subsequent data separated by a few statements (memory process).

There is no incentive for an individual to achieve an institutional goal, since the knowledge of the process is the achievement of the individual mind's goal. Your mind holds no need for a Mercedes Benz and a villa on the beach. It utilizes only knowledge, by design. And incentive is everything for the achievement of anything among humans. Add to that the institutional process of humans paying government and organization leaders around the world, billions of dollars every year to perpetuate rather than solve social problems, and institutionally attack every individual thinker who patiently learns how to solve those problems, and do not wonder why you are frustrated with ongoing social problems at debilitating tax expense, and the routine killing of innocent children by ignorant adults slinging bullets and bombs to avoid simply thinking, while individual thinkers laugh robustly. They routinely offer the knowledge, and are attacked for doing so.

No institution leader will ever seek the knowledge. They will attack or flee it at any indication of its existence. They have trained their mind to fear questions more than death, because questions lead to knowledge, the solution to human-caused problems, and thus the death of institutions, since institutions can only exist on the perpetuation of unsolved problems. By their own self training, the minds of institution leaders are confused and anguished without their institutions, while individual minds are at full speed creating new knowledge outside the hindrance of institutions. Institutional minds are addicted to the inherently self-defeating institutions. Institutions have no single mind to synthesize data within the design of inherently isolated human minds. Because the data-recognition connection between minds is the process of asking questions, the first contradiction of institutional minds loathing questions exponentially compounds itself at every common statement that must have instead been a question to relay the data between minds. Simply identify the ratio of questions versus statements made by institution leaders, and then by individual thinkers. The mind learns new knowledge from asking questions, and remains within the popular old killing game of Neanderthals, by making statements. Is that not so?

If you wish to solve a complex problem involving the minds of other people, you must learn more than what your mind perceives as a solution. You must learn the solutions genuinely perceived by a diverse array of minds, and then resolve each of the resulting contradictions in the same manner that you learned your first solution. You can only learn the other guy's perceived solutions by asking him effective questions, not killing him. You must know all the perceived solutions, in line-item detail, to accurately answer another person's questions, to assist his mind to find his mind's resolution in harmony with yours. The process merely requires the patience to therein learn how the design of the human mind facilitates the resolution to any contradiction from any data-base. After the design is learned, the resolution process becomes rather efficient, to the extent of identifying solutions that no human mind can escape, including those your opponent's mind cannot escape. You therefore defeat your enemy with his own mind's reasoning. There is never any utility or need in threatening to kill or imprison a mind that can still identify and question a perceived contradiction in your reasoning trail, any more than bombing the World Trade Center can cause Americans to become Muslims, or bombing Afghan cities can cause Saudis to become Christians or Republicans or whatever Bush demands for his political career. There is no mechanism within the human mind for one mind to force another mind. The human mind's mechanism is reasoning. The Killer's mechanism is killing. Chose your preference, but you cannot have both, by design, and all the Killers are ultimately doomed in a species predicated on the reasoning ability of human minds. Concurrently, the jewish, american, muslim and other Killers are an ongoing embarrassment to humans.

So enjoy and robustly laugh at the daily news of the ancient and ongoing human killing game in Israel and elsewhere, or stand in public and identify yourself as not a member of the involved institutions of Killers defined by their ignorant leaders. It is easy enough to simply declare that you are no longer a Jew, Muslim, Christian or such institutionally proven Killers. You are ultimately only yourself anyway, since you inherently disagree with most of those other chaps in your institution, on many issues, and you cannot each identify even the same demarcation defining your institution. It is less convenient at times to declare that you are no longer a member of your nation, so the logical solution, if you wish, is to admit, enjoy and openly laugh at your being proven by your own national leaders as a supporting member of the Killers. Train your mind to tell itself the truth so you can understand and utilize its original design to advance your knowledge beyond the Killers who foolishly believe that they are instead Jews, Americans, Muslims or Whatevers. Enjoy what you cannot change or are too lazy to change.

It is here useful to mention one other highly instructive part of the puzzle. Notice how comfortable, and often bragging, the human males are with being a member of the Killers, while the females more often think beyond the killing game. But notice the females consistently emulating the male mind's process when the females strive for and acquire institutional titles of power, and thus try to force other human minds, under rhetorical ruse of law under threat of imprisonment under threat of being killed. Gender is the second division of the human mind's process, after it diverts from its original process, to fall victim to the identified design of the concept of power (use of force over reason). The first division controls all the others, by design. For the Tolkein sorts, among the consistent array of such analogies throughout history, the ring that controls all the rings is that of power, an ultimately self-defeating concept, but power holds nothing against the human mind's reasoning ability, by design, if you wish to utilize reasoning to simply discard the power that was never useful to any human mind anyway.

You may inquire. And I wish you the best in all things.




We can work together... 14 March 2002

For your answer to this question, am I not correct in your recognition that most of those politicians and other organization leaders, during the last election campaigns, told you that we can work together on this or that social problem? But did they not say the same thing a decade ago, and a century ago, a millennium ago and before that?

What is your answer to those questions?

The proof of their perpetual lying is the continued existence of those social problems.

That they do not perceive their obvious lying as lying, is an aside and does not alter the results.

So with which intellectual ability will you associate your mind, those who will next parrot the old openly known lie that we can work together on this or that problem, perpetually fooling only fools, or with those who will ask the questions to learn why the human mind will never work together with other human minds to actually solve the problems that created and perpetuated the organization leaders whose institutional existence is predicated on the perpetuation of the problems, by design?

Your choice.

But within the latter is the knowledge to solve the problems regardless of the government leaders whose current jobs are predicated on perpetuating the problems at your cost.

It is intriguing knowledge, more valuable than any other knowledge known to humans, and thus more feared than any such knowledge, and therefore its rarity, and thus its value.



You may view Hubble from where it can see... 15 March 2002

If you ask enough questions, you will recognize that you are always fighting only yourself, that is, the only thing happening in the universe of your perception is your own mind attempting to resolve the contradictions it recognizes, all within your cranium. Therein you will come to recognize the substance of the words spoken by all those who have said for so many centuries that the other guy must learn on his own, among many similar arrangements of words often attributed to wise people. They are saying that you must learn on your own, as must the other guy.

Therein, all those poor sad victims of institutional power, such as government leaders, military sorts, peace organization leaders, university professors, think tank experts and the like, are only fighting themselves, while you are only fighting yourself in your response to their obviously contradicted thrashings-about. By all means, continue to laugh at and criticize those poor sad victims of their high titles lauded by unquestioning sorts, but ask real questions about your responses, the actual responses, not just that for which you are amused in their actions and words.

The above describes the intellectual discoveries of philosophers, great and unknown, of any degree including the philosophical discoveries of every human. But what is the universal flaw of philosophers?

Content with having become a self-recognized philosopher, by design of institutional concepts, at any point in the spectrum of philosophers including all humans by design of their mind, the philosopher does not ask the set of questions created by identification of such philosophies.

To do so is to discover the process to, not just convince the other guy of how to resolve the contradictions he overtly attempts to resolve, or teach him how to do so, as is a craving of those who have not yet questioned the words, convince, and, teach, but to leave his mind no option in an inescapable choice between the contradiction he manifests, and its resolution. Again, his mind will have no option in a choice of which his mind will therefore recognize the reasoning. For those who are many questions short of this explanation, no form or degree of force or deceit is involved or can be involved.

Therein, you will have learned to devise a set of intellectual perceptions designed for his mind, not yours or the public's. It is remarkably easy to do so, regardless of who he or she is. You need only learn the controlling design features of the human mind. Therein, you need only learn those features of your own mind, a handy device for analysis, and verify their universally controlling nature by a series of specific questions.

But of course, the human mind was designed to fight itself, or defend itself from its full recognition of its design, for obvious reason. Consider as an easily recognized and rudimentary learning vehicle for the previous sentence, of countless such learning vehicles. If the people around Leonardo da Vinci had curious minds rather than fearful minds, the aviation industry would be four hundred years older, and humans would be looking back at the Hubble telescope, from where it can see. Leo offered even the military leaders their fondest desires, but they were so busy fighting their own minds they could not recognize new knowledge offered by an individual thinker outside their various institutions. The accurate example is paltry. If there were no institutional concept to damage or alter the original curiosity process of the human mind, including that of the scientists who foolishly think they hold curious minds rather than institutional minds, humans would have already advanced beyond your fondest desires.

Those goofy chaps perpetually slinging rocks and bullets and bombs and hollow political words of peace around the Middle East and everywhere else could not recognize the readily available process to promptly achieve their fondest desires even if Leonardo da Vinci walked up to them and handed them the complete diagrams otherwise understandable to grade school children. Those institutional leaders will die of old age as clueless as they are today, simply because they use the time of their mind to make statements rather than ask questions.

That you can learn the manifestable resolutions to the contradictions they otherwise perpetuate, and then learn how to manifest those resolutions against the best efforts of anyone, is inherent to the design of the human mind. And you would be amused beyond your current comprehension. Consider setting out to learn the controlling contradiction of those philosophers, who suggest that people should think their way to their goals, which, by chance, is the controlling contradiction manifested by those military chaps who suggest that people should kill their way to their goals. The UTILITY of that difference between thinking and killing as a process is negated by the source of the beliefs, the same institutionally functioning mind defined by the words, philosopher and military chap.

The Jewish and Muslim farmers in and around Israel are not fighting themselves. They are successfully growing food, as is their defined goal. The militaries and peace organizations are separately fighting themselves, as the ongoing failure of their espousals demonstrates. Notice that Ahab the farmer is usually successful each year, while the old Soviet farming communes and the Alaska State government Delta Barley Project were failures. Notice the difference. Ahab held a human mind. Commune and Project did not hold a human mind. What device resolves identified contradictions? If you needed food, would you turn to a farmer who is producing food, or to an institution? If you needed the solution to war, would you turn to a thinker or to an institution? Which prevails when you suggest that they are the same? How would you verify your answer?

Until you separate your infinitely capable mind from all the institutions defined by institutional words within your mind, by questioning those words and their results in your mind, your mind is still only fighting itself, and will not learn how to manifest resolutions to social contradictions within the design of the individual human mind.

So when your friend sends his money to his favorite military-based government, peace organization, or such institutions of any degree, rightfully laugh and enjoy the laughter, then ask yourself why his mind sincerely perceives that his money will resolve what it has already proven to only perpetuate. Use your answer to advance your knowledge.



One item... 30 March 2002

You will quickly recognize a dozen data points in this one analogy. You will only see the other dozens, by asking yourself questions.

In the US, approximately 6 million people are actively looking for a particular item of knowledge, and spending approximately $200,000,000 per year looking for it. They have been doing that for several decades. The dollar figure has been rising in relation to the annual federal reserve bank devaluation of the paper money.

You may describe the example item of knowledge as a key that opens the door to a vast wealth of knowledge.

The item of knowledge involves a popular political issue that those who search for it perceive and describe it as the most important issue of society, but it is not all that important to most people, and inconsequential compared to substantive social issues.

Most of those people are middle class or a bit more wealthy, with some of them less financially impressive. They are all sending their money to wealthy or upper middle class persons being paid to look for and find the item of knowledge.

The entire time, several people have verifiably held that item of knowledge, and openly informed anyone interested, of that fact. It is like much knowledge of value, involving a description of a process. The people holding the knowledge have openly described enough of it for even school children to recognize the verification. These chaps with the knowledge are among the less financially impressive, for an inherent reason. To convey the item of knowledge merely requires a bit of time to describe the knowledge to the point of another mind understanding its utility, like all knowledge.

At its minimal verifiable value, the item of knowledge is worth $200,000,000. Then one may add the number of years it has eluded those who pay people to search for it, or its far greater value in other manifestations.

So why haven't the people who search for the item of knowledge found it after all that time and all that money being spent to find that item of knowledge that others have offered?

What is the incentive of the people being paid as leaders or organizations and institutions to perpetually search for the item of knowledge, year after year? The answer is obvious. They cannot allow their supporters, who inherently include their competition for leadership positions, to find the item of knowledge. Among other amusing antics, you can watch the paid chaps politically attack the people who hold the item of knowledge, with impressive expertise developed for that imperative task of those paid sorts. The paid professionals successfully scare the contributors away from the people holding the item of knowledge. Look around for the manifestation of that common human phenomenon.

It is an aside to note that the people who hold the knowledge have no interest in becoming the organization or institution leaders, for reason beyond the scope of this section.

How easy is it to scare a human mind, that is, introduce the perception of a contradiction that any particular mind does not wish to resolve for any of many reasons, primarily for intellectual laziness, the desire to not ask questions? What is your answer to that question? Is that answer not part, only part, of why otherwise readily available knowledge is not found? Consider this unrelated analogy for the analogy of this section: How many people complain about taxes? How many people know the knowledge held by the super rich who therefore lawfully pay no taxes? Notice the vast majority of people who are easily scared away from learning that easy and very valuable knowledge, which is just knowledge. Your mind is easily scared by mere arrangements of hollow words, such as, you will go to jail, in defiance of the verifiable fact that those who act lawfully do not go to jail (if they learn the easy knowledge to defend themselves from the criminal police, prosecutors and judges). It is inordinately easy to rhetorically scare most people away from the knowledge they seek.

The people being paid to find the knowledge, do not know it, but they fear its discovery and thus the loss of their financial income. They therefore attack anyone who mentions any related concept that is beyond the knowledge of the professionals. But of course they therefore drive themselves away from the same knowledge which requires questions of curiosity, rather than fearful attacks. That they do not know the knowledge is obvious, because it is worth far more than their current, paltry financial income. Their attacks on those who hold the knowledge fit the pattern and a purpose of their similar attacks on the other guy, to maintain enemies whom the followers are easily fooled into believing are enemies that must therefore be attacked, all much to the amusement of knowledgeable people.

What is the incentive of the people holding the item of knowledge? What would your incentive be if you held that item of knowledge? Did you answer the questions before you moved your eyes to the next paragraph? Remember, two hundred million dollars and a large number of human hours are spent each year trying to find that knowledge.

As a relatively poor person holding the item of knowledge, you would get to watch millions of middle class and wealthy people, year after year, send their money to wealthier people who therefore obviously held the incentive to insure that those who searched for the knowledge never found the knowledge, perpetually scaring them away from it. You would get to watch their highly entertaining thrashings-about and innovative institutional tactics utilizing many meetings, events, speeches, gatherings, book writing, seminars, political campaigns, radio talk shows, news media hooplas and all manner of organizational activity. You would get to hear them say the most illogical and entertaining things humans have ever formatted into words, to sustain a lucrative contradiction among their social and political sector. You could watch the followers anguish year after year, their whole lives, over what they could otherwise promptly have for the asking. You would hold what they all desperately sought, what they never requested from you, that for which they attacked you if you offered it, much to your otherwise unachievable entertainment.

All the greatest adventures and movies in the world would not even approach intellectual entertainment of that magnitude.

You would be watching and learning from the contrived perpetuation of a controlling contradiction of the human phenomenon, and thus exponentially advance your knowledge of the design of the human mind, that the vast majority of humans cannot yet even recognize as a concept, resulting from their simple failure to ask questions. The other people would be genuinely self-fooled, sincerely believing that their goal was only achievable by sending more money and using more time for a process that perpetually fails, and never even once thinking that there could be any knowledge beyond their current actions. You would be watching the most advanced device known to humans, the human mind, stagnating itself within the intellectual dark ages, in defiance of its own ability, by its own design.

And that is for only one item of knowledge, easily learned, one that grants access to expanding arenas of knowledge.

If you are not laughing yourself to tears at these humans, all of the time, you are missing the only show they have yet learned.

If you want to hear the knowledge you do not have time to learn on your own, listen to the people who all the knowledge-searchers are not listening to. If you want to find the knowledge on your own, look where all the searchers are not looking. The knowledge is yours for the asking. Ask yourself the questions. The questions will find the knowledge already in your mind, derived from the data points saturating the human phenomenon, by design.



Time... 5 April 2002

Consider a process to learn a bit more about the entertaining concept of time.

First one must learn a sufficiently useful array or diversity of advanced knowledge. Then attempt to socially introduce a concept before its time, by the current methods without utilizing advanced knowledge to introduce or effect advanced knowledge. The attempt will fail, of course, by definition.

Approach the action with an analytical process. Describe a common political goal in reasonably accurate words recognizable to those with only current knowledge, within what they perceive as achievable, with their traditional misperception of the meaning of the words, not indicating the extent or magnitude that would constitute its actual manifestation by the full meaning of the words. Ascertain the number of dollars for all the processes that a professional public relations firm or political process consultancy would sincerely estimate as necessary to achieve the political goal for the precise geographical or social area of your intents. Get their accurate description of the precise results. Of course you will recognize their rhetorical tap dancing for the concluding results, but you would recognize the difference between what they describe and the percentage of the actual goal remaining after their professional success.

A related process is routine for such goals as building bridges or skyscrapers or anything else, even sending humans to Mars. But such examples of actions whose time has therefore arrived, are centered on the dollar figure, with the time line not being measured for its substance.

By selecting a goal proven by current events to be before its time and thus not achievable by the full meaning of the words describing the goal, you would convert time, defined by the achievement of a particular goal, otherwise verifiably achievable in short order by utilizing advanced knowledge, into a dollar figure or energy figure. The dollar figure would be the only measure, since the goal is before its time and therefore not achievable within a known time using commonly known processes.

This is just a cost analysis approach, thus identifying another highly useful data point, for what other people attempt to describe in functionally ethereal terms.

Consider a dramatic example, such as world peace. While world peace can be promptly effected at this time, by even one person, or a few if not too many, using advanced knowledge, with no escape by all the national leaders currently killing, imprisoning or threatening many people with military and police power, it remains as a concept before its time. Rather than ask a public relations firm what they would charge to convince the world to live in peace, one can merely add up the dollars being spent for the goal of achieving world peace. Of course one would have to include the military budget of every country whose leaders say they are striving for world peace, and that their military exists to protect peace.

Calculate that rather large dollar figure, internationally, per year. Time, within the context of a particular goal and thus the time of human lives, is thus given a dollar figure. Use the annual dollar figure, rather than a decade, century or millennium money figure, because it is impressive enough for any significant goal. So if you want to achieve a goal, that is the value of money or time you must exceed to achieve the goal in defiance of all the organization, government and institution leaders whose annual income, including that of the military killing people in the name of peace, and police imprisoning people in the name of protecting freedom, is dependent upon insuring that anything threatening their income remains before its time.

You do not have that much money or time. You will never achieve your goal before its time.

That is, unless you learn the simple knowledge of how to achieve goals before their time would arrive under old technology.

The process is just knowledge. The ability of the human mind to identify and synthesize the elements of the concept of time is in part identified by learning how to simply achieve that which is currently thought impossible. Mere thought, however exhausting but capable of being done while comfortably sitting on one's bottom side, can bridge vast gaps of time.

Using the dramatic example of world peace, to say nothing of the countless lesser examples, at that time when someone belatedly decides to implement world peace, for idle amusement, the world populace will learn how easily it could have been achieved at any time, and how many people knew how to do so the entire time. They will then recognize how rapidly the human phenomenon benefits itself with the available thinking time that was previously squandered on physically killing and imprisoning otherwise equally useful human minds.

They will see an amusingly small amount of somewhat intensive thinking time, create billions-fold thinking time. That will be the least of what they therefore learn about the substance of time.



It is year 2002... 7 Jun 2002

Think. It is year 2002. Large institutions of humans still sincerely believe that they can solve problems by killing those people who cause problems. They can read these words, and their mind will recognize no logical statements. While you are reading these words, humans are shooting at each other to achieve their mind's obviously ludicrous illusion that they are solving a problem. They are categorically clueless of the lesson of every war in human history, and the design of the human mind obviously predicated on reasoning rather than muscle. They cannot identify the origin of a contradiction, even when it is so blatant as killing another human mind, destroying a reasoning device.

But they are more intelligent than many of those people who think they understand these words. Watch the actions of the liberal institutions which traditionally decry wars. Consider the obviously liberal news media journalists. Pick any national military remembrance day. Watch the anti-war liberal news media journalists fall over themselves extolling the virtues of their country's brave soldiers in the previous wars, slaughtering those other bad people.

As an aside, the self-respected institutions of the societies on the other side of those wars are doing the same thing. What is revealed by that aside?

The news media journalists do not stand on the truth, stating in public that the previous and current military chaps were and are testosterone-laced malicious killers, unquestioning, gullible victims, easily duped by their own intellectually absent ilk who are politicians and military generals who never intellectually grew up. They never learned the most fundamental concept of humans, the fact that the human is predicated on its mind, not its muscle. The journalists, routinely claiming more intelligence that the soldiers, are therein described, and thus proven by magnitude as more ignorant than the soldiers.

So the next generation of young minds, hearing the conservatives extol the virtues of learning how to kill the other guy rather than learning how to reason with him, and hearing the liberals praise the courageous people who learned how to kill their other guy rather than learned how to reason with him, inherently learn that we humans exist to kill the other mind, a reasoning device, rather than reason with it.

The human mind learns what it is trained to learn.

Between the two, the conservatives are more consistent and thus less flawed. They start out wanting to kill the other guy. They do not decry war then praise its participants.

So the question is, how can that phenomenon exist now for thousands of years, through billions of otherwise diverse human minds? Like the conservatives, why do the liberals who read these words remain absolutely clueless as to their meaning? Why will the liberal institutions, regardless of which diverse humans cycle through them, continue to praise the greatness of their country's past soldiers who were so monumentally ignorant as to think they could kill their way to a solution for a contradiction? What is the difference between a conservative, a liberal and a human mind?

The questions have verifiable answers useful for solving the greater contradiction.

If you are not laughing yourself to tears over these humans, you are missing the only show they know how to perform. And if you are laughing, you may know those answers.



Easily earn the brain puzzle, or remain confused your entire life, your choice... 19 Jun 2002

You have no escape, by design of the human mind, from either learning the mechanism of what currently confuses you, or remaining confused. If you choose to remain confused, for any reason including a lack of time or intellectual laziness, and you speak, you merely identify your embarrassing failure among more-thinking people around you, as do we all within any particular learning process, among those who have advanced farther in that particular process. When I speak of computer processes, every kid recognizes my amusing ignorance.

Knowing that, you can easily advance yourself beyond all the people around you, by learning the mechanism that controls all the other mechanisms of the human mind. It requires a bit of time, less than learning about computers, but it is easy if you are patient. You may then do as you please with your knowledge that will be advanced beyond all those around you.

Notice that a common person will suggest the ignorance of another common person in regard to any particular issue, and the intelligence of the person in regard to another issue. The same person recognizably demonstrates both embarrassing ignorance, and impressive intelligence, depending upon the issue. (No one is smarter than anyone else. We just know different things, by design of the human brain.) But every non-government person will expressly identify the ignorance of every government person upon those questions illuminating the universal examples of undeniable government ignorance or illogical actions. What is universal to government personnel, like people in many other institutions? The question has an answer. Keep in mind, that government is just a classic example among all institutions, and government is so universally malicious and damaging, that it earns its universal derision by common humans, for the reason I was rightfully held in contempt by all thinking humans while I was in government doing as government does.

For example, if you are not laughing at the grand humor of the so called suicide attacks by the so called Arab terrorists and their institutional colleagues in the Israel military, retaliating for the retaliation for the retaliation ad infinitum, then you, like the Israeli and Arab game players, have not invested the time to read this section or its equivalent in countless other arrangements of words throughout human history.

At any time in human history, at any large enough geographical area, military chaps, knowing that a percentage among them would be killed by the process, and thus accurately identified as suicide attackers, threw themselves against the other guys, for the purpose of killing the other guys, for the purpose of, ah, well, um, Wag The Dog wars of course, glorifying their intellectually absent government leaders, feeding their childish ego and providing a opulent lifestyle for those mental midget governmental leaders who rhetorically fooled the gullible young unquestioning boys in the military into thinking they were glorifying a country, an arbitrary geographical area of dirt, rocks, water, plants and animals just like on the other side of the political boundary.

The game will continue, on schedule, until you the reader easily learn the complete nature of the game, and then either enjoy the unmatched humor of it, or change it at your whim, if someone else who learned the game does not change it at their whim. The war game, like every human-caused creation of contradictions, is entirely within the human mind. It is a mechanism. You can learn its every part, right down to the location of the related neurons if you wish to take your knowledge that far. And with only part of the knowledge you will know more than every military general and national leader in human history.

Consider one of the controlling parts of the puzzle, easily learned, that no government or military person has ever learned.

By its design, how many data points can the human mind synthesize, without advancing to groupings or categories of the data points so that the mind can synthesize a larger number of data points, within design of the mind's process?

Notice the relatively recent invention of written numbers. After the development phase of the concept of numbers, among various cultures, what number system became relatively universal? Notice that the universal system uses a repetition of units of tens. Ten separate numbers were invented, then they were grouped into a single unit of ten that was repeated in multiples of more units of tens.

For perspective, among the earlier systems created by some separated cultures was a system which counted in the numbers/words, 1, 2, many. After 2, their word for many was close enough for the needs of their culture. They did not need to have separate words to distinguish between 3, 4 or more items. A large vocabulary was not yet imperative for certain concepts in their social existence. We reference such cultures as primitive, quite as cultures in the future will reference us, and quite as those who grew up with computers reference the old folks who are still not online. Those primitive cultures were advanced compared to their predecessors, for the same conceptual reason that humans in current institutions, such as governments, universities and think tanks, are advanced compared to the previous knuckle-draggers living in caves and trees, yet the current institutional chaps are primitive compared to the individual thinkers who have easily identified the controlling contradictions or self-induced limits of all institutions. Thinking is not yet imperative for the victims of government titles who can use the power of the titles to fabricate Wag The Dog wars, slaughtering thousands of people to distract public attention from the incessant goof-ups of said unthinking leaders and the self-referenced think tank experts who support them. In contrast, the individual without power must think to resolve a contradiction.

In the development of the human brain's utility, simple knowledge was learned, which was then used to learn more complex knowledge. In regard to numbers, ten items were placed in a single category, and then dealt with in progressing units of more tens. A hundred it ten tens. A thousand it ten hundreds. A hundred thousand is ten, ten thousands. A million is ten, hundred thousands, etcetera. The brain would otherwise be unable to efficiently handle a million different words to reference any particular amount of items.

As a germane aside you will usefully encounter later in this section, the number, one billion, is so large, you will not be able to describe it in terms that you can understand from items you can recognizably see in front of you. Further, the number, one trillion, is abstract, something the mind can only handle as a concept. The numbers, one thousand trillion, one million trillion and infinity, are a bit beyond that. To make them useful, you must ascribe them to processes that can handle, many, regardless of what number is within, many.

But while we learned the concept of progressively larger numbers, by units of tens until there were too many such units to fully understand, the advancement of our mind is commonly still too primitive to usefully understand a large number in relation to other concepts. Consider the most universal item for consideration of numbers, among the Americans. Money. What is a million dollars? How many pounds does a million one dollar bills weigh? How much volume do they occupy, or surface do they cover, etcetera? Just as primitive societies had no need for the separate numbers, 4 and higher, most people in our society have no need to know how many pounds a million one dollar bills weigh, yet our society talks about money more than any other item.

If we talk about the stuff more than anything else, and so many people are horribly frustrated over the stuff, including everyone in government, therein identifying a lack of knowledge, by definition of frustration, universally lamenting that they do not have enough of the stuff for all the good they wish to do for themselves, ah, and help the poor of course, would not even the least thinking person learn more data points about money, to thus be able to synthesize more knowledge to solve every identified frustration related to money? Well, of course. Yet only a few questions reveal that money is one of the least understood concepts in America. Despite all the claims to the contrary, only a few key questions reveal that the vast majority of Americans, including the bankers, Wall Street boys and anti-bankers who think they understand these words, do not know what money is and how it works, which is of course why the central banking families were able to pull off and so far sustain the greatest fraud in human history, without a close second, much to the amusement of observers who learned what money is and how it works. Even the central banksters remain ignorant of the stuff, or they would flee their childish scam for which they sold the value of their mind so cheaply.

But money is only an otherwise inconsequential example for understanding the concept of numbers. If the people of our primitive culture have encountered no imperative to learn about what most noticeably frustrates them, how much farther are they from more advanced concepts relating other frustrations? Why did they not simply learn the knowledge to resolve their frustrations? What mechanism in their mind created the answer?

Why are people anguishing their minds, instead of laughing at the Israel / Palestine (every) war game? Why are they not learning more data points of that game to therefore easily synthesize the solution, and what does that have to do with the numbers concept discussed in this section?

Which categories of smaller units must be synthesized with which categories of smaller units, to solve a complex contradiction that has otherwise prevailed against the test of time, so far, such as the war game? What is that answer for an inordinately amusing war that has spiraled into individual human minds of their own individual, voluntary choice, as human minds, learning a uniquely unbeatable tactic, individual suicide bombings that inherently doom Israel by the Israel government's only known response, that is, the only syntheses of data possible within the inherently limited institutional data of the Israel military and government? Notice that particular dramatic contrast of the individual mind which will always prevail over the institutional mind, by design of the human mind and its inherently flawed utilization of institutions to temporarily dodge individual thinking. What can one inherently unlimited human mind do in competition to an originally equal human mind which shackled its thinking process with the laughably limited institutional perceptions? Well? And if you wish to add another data point, add a society's acceptance of suicide bombings to the increased stress of an increasing human population.

Precisely what caused the incentive to create a numbering system beyond 2? Was it not a question that needed a more accurate answer that previously did not exist? You can email this section to every Israel military and government person, and they will not recognize the substance of the foregoing words. Yet an individual mind can easily out-think all individual minds which arrive at an inherently institutional conclusion of exercising an otherwise individual decision to exercise a suicide bombing. The individual suicide bombing tactic is more effective than any tactic of the best thinking of any military or government mind. How do you defend yourself against another ordinary-looking human who might blow up, if not by isolating yourself while the rest of the world benefits from the social advancement of individual humans? What is the only possible origin of the reason a human mind will carry out a suicide bombing against your institution? Because the old but rare suicide attack has become less rare because there is now a huge number of people facing the exponential stress of physical and psychological crowding, compounding the results of a stifling morass of illogical, institutionally imposed limits on the human mind, the old questions of the tactic need more accurate answers. The more accurate answers did not prior exist, and must be invented. No, the answers are not more of what was previously known, as is the only concept available to the self-limited institutional mind. The answers are something new, not previously known to the leaders of the society encountering the problem.

Of course the same is true of the Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, or whatever other institutional name one wishes to apply to the individuals who could use their mind for thinking rather than fighting. With said thinking, they could more quickly collapse the Israel government if they wished, without damaging their health with those nasty carcinogen fumes from the explosives one is strapping to their body.

And the Israelis could do the same thinking, to promptly prevail, and thus not stink up the beautiful Mediterranean coast with that heavy diesel smoke from those noisy tanks.

If no one who holds incentive to solve the obviously complex war game thing of these humans, has figured out the puzzle, might it just be a numbers game, such as proverbially how many pounds does a million dollar bills weigh combined with some other obscure data otherwise known to a few individuals but not known to the institutional chaps working on the war game thing? It is.

One data point of knowledge introduced to a human brain, which by circumstantial incentive holds an interest in actually manifesting the solution to the war game thing, need only pass through one receptor of one neural synapse to therefore reach another synapse that triggers a related chemical transfer to more receptors, thereof exponentially synthesizing an array of otherwise non-stimulated synaptic exchanges described as the pieces of the puzzle falling together from what everyone else did not recognize as related, or did not understand the total number.

It is that easy. So why has it not yet happened in human history? Why were numbers, airplanes, computers or any other synthesis of data points not invented until recent times in human history?

The human brain contains between one thousand trillion and one million trillion synapses. Big number.

The above number is the current knowledge derived by those boys who sit around counting neural synapses in the human brain. Notice that they did not count each synapse. They counted a few in a few representative areas, and multiplied the resulting numbers for each similar area of the brain, then added those sums, for a ball park figure plus or minus nine hundred and ninety nine thousand trillion. Close enough. Big number. Many.

Ergo: Notice that war is the most decried activity among humans, yet the second most popular and still enthusiastically sustained hobby among humans, purportedly measuring the greatest heroes of every society, by each society's establishment information distribution systems. War represents the concept of human minds (thinking devices) destroying human minds, for the purported goal of solving a problem which requires a larger, not smaller, number of human minds to synthesize such a complex array of data through a huge number of neural synapses. Read that again. Do you therefore recognize why the observers are rolling on the floor, kicking and pounding, clutching their aching sides, tears of howling laughter streaming from their eyes? For clarity, do you recognize THEREIN why humans have not solved the war contradiction?

How many humans minds does it take to synthesize how much data through a few thousand trillion synapses to identify a manifestable solution in one of the minds that by chance of circumstances holds any interest in manifesting it after recognizing the brilliant humor of instead watching it, and what are humans doing to those thinking devices?

Is not one of the parts of the puzzle the result of those who have learned the puzzle throughout human history? Set aside what you, as you, want the most, and consider what your mind, as your mind, wants the most? Does your mind enjoy genuine laughter? Is that not a design feature of your mind? What will your mind do if it discovers the perfect drug within itself, knowledge which creates genuine laughter from your every observation?

It is not that simple. There are other parts of the puzzle. If your mind learned the process to effect world peace, as only a dramatic-sounding example among the solutions to all the easier problems that frustrate every institution leader, regardless of the opposition, since the process is simply utilizing the design of the human mind, defining a game your mind enjoyed or it would not have learned that process, would your mind not inherently advance to the next greater challenge or greater contradiction resolution? What would cause the institutional chaps to entice themselves into willingly learning the knowledge, rather than your easily defeating their mind before they understood what was done with it by its own design? If the latter was too easy, and your mind enjoyed greater challenges, would your mind waste its time with the easy and boring process? But what is the answer to the question before the preceding one?

What words would you arrange to convey to the leaders of governments, militaries or peace organizations, as examples of any institutions, who all say they want peace, that would cause the data they hold or would therefore learn, to therefore get one chemical compound past the one currently blocked receptor at one synapse among a few thousand trillion of the things in their cranial cabinet, to gain access to what would therefore reach the synthesis of the knowledge they sought more than any other knowledge?

Would those words not have to be the result of a question willingly asked for an answer thus invited by their own mind, to thus identify the potential of an open receptor of such nature that the questioning process result could find that one receptor, a proverbial needle in the world's entire sum of haystacks throughout history, which caused a power-damaged mind to regain the command of the human brain's originally designed logic process, and then not simply join the observers laughing robustly at these humans?

What word arrangement would cause your mind to ask the question that led to the next questions that created in your mind the knowledge you most sought in life? What is your answer? Answer every question you encounter, and question your answers. Your institutional leaders will not ask or answer questions. Watch them. You are on your own for the knowledge you seek, and the results you wish to effect.

You may be assured that the institutional mind will not answer the questions that jeopardize its useless institutions, with the otherwise unlimited utility of that priceless mind, much to your howling laughter while watching those poor sad victims of their rhetorical illusion they genuinely perceive as institutions greater than the human mind.

World peace is too easy. A more amusing game is the word arrangement that can cause the power-damaged mind to willfully regain the command of logic, the process of reasoning in the human mind, destroying within that mind the fabricated illusion of self-defeating power.



Conclusions... 25 June 2002

There are no conclusions of any value for your mind. Until your mind creates the reasoning, from asking and answering every related question, for every conclusion, your mind has nothing of utility for those conclusions. The reasoning will be a series of neural synaptic receptors in your brain, occupied by chemical compounds that transmit any additional data without encountering any contradictions in the routing or chemicals regardless of its prior or subsequent routing. You will then use the reasoning, not the conclusions. While other people recognize conclusions, from your few words, your mind will recognize the more complex reasoning. You will have therein trained your mind to recognize and highlight any newly identified contradiction in new data, to promptly resolve the contradiction at the time it zips through your brain's neurons, to utilize the correct reasoning rather than any easily flawed conclusion.

Reasoning creates the mind's building blocks for more advanced knowledge. Conclusions are dead ends for any further knowledge.

There is no data that contains any contradiction, that is of any utility for a sustainable goal. The smallest flaw, recognized or otherwise, will collapse any goal utilizing that contradiction.

There is no form of force or deceit, recognized or otherwise, which are both contradictions by definition, that will create any lasting utility to you or others. Recognize therein that all the power-based institutions, no matter how steeped in human history, are of no value to humans. Go ahead, challenge the concept if you have not yet learned. Acting as military, police, politicians, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, their supporters and their vast ilk, go ahead and kill, imprison, tax, seize property and lie your way to what you perceive as your greater power and material wealth, for the good of the people, good of the environment, good of the superior race or any other good to which you can attach words. You will therein serve to only prove that the human mind contains its own designed counter balance or flaw to what it could otherwise promptly and sustainably achieve with its astonishing reasoning ability.

Consider all the great names in human history, of your recognition or that of their society at the time of their life, who achieved their fame, power and wealth by force or deceit, often under the rhetorical ruse of law. Now, after all that fame, power and wealth, why do wars still exist, crime, disease, poverty, suffering and all that we decry or lament? Why are we still stuck on planet earth? Why are there still unknowns that we know we will only solve in the years to come? Why were not airplanes, computers, electricity and chocolate candy bars invented a few thousand years ago? For what did and do humans use most of their time? Which of those things you and others appreciate were created by people who sought fame, power and wealth, and which of those things were created by individual thinkers curious about things other than fame, power and wealth?

Who would you prefer more of, people who are free to invent the things to make your life more pleasant, or people who will attempt to force those other people to do what you want them to do, and therefore create the battle against you that inherently does not produce what you want, and illuminates the above?

Which of them must you therefore be if you expect any other human to so contribute to society?

But if you are stuck in a society, among these humans still stagnated in the intellectual dark ages, wherein the vast majority of humans, including yourself, still foolishly slaver for the power and wealth of those poor victims of institutional titles, most obviously the chaps in government but of many other institutions, your mind and daily actions are immersed in contradictions. You are what society trained you to be until your individual mind individually questions its way out of that morass, to emerge where there will be no others around your new knowledge.

Your goal will be to resolve all the contradictions society manifests. It is quite easy. Simply question every conclusion. And do not stop asking the resulting questions until you have answered every question with an answer that creates no contradiction with any other answer. You can do that without anyone seriously noticing, if you are careful.

You will then be left without any frustrations, knowing the origin of every contradiction revealed by those people around you, and every solution and the process to efficiently achieve the solution.

Your mind will be utilizing no conclusions, force or deceit. It will be utilizing reasoning all the time, that for which your brain was invented. And you will laugh.



How far would you like to think... 29 June 2002

Select an instructive unit of measurement, of your choice. How many meters, feet, pounds, kilograms, hours, days, dollars, euros or gallons of thinking would you prefer to invest for the solution to a problem?

Notice that at the conclusion of your thinking process, you will be able to apply a unit of measurement to the amount of thinking you did, such as four minutes of thinking, before you arrived at a stated conclusion upon which you then took action, even if the action was only stating the conclusion.

But notice that, except for producing fleeting products and services, all the conclusions for institutional goals fail the goals.

Select any example among countless, perhaps the dramatic one of world peace. How many minutes, hours, years or millennium have all the governmental leaders of human history, mouthing the words of their desire for peace, with their advisors, counsel, think tanks and committees, manifested in the thinking process? So why is there no world peace?

Again, the thinking process is the process of a human mind asking and answering questions.

Notice that all the institutions spent minutes thinking, then millennium attempting to manifest their hasty conclusions. Within those conclusions even any child can ask simple questions to reveal remaining contradictions. Why did 100% of the institution leaders in human history not ask those questions and resolve the contradictions? Why?

Because you are obviously able to more thoroughly think than all the titled institutional chaps in human history, would you not therefore simply manifest more units of measurement, thinking, that is, asking and answering more questions, rather than attempting to manifest conclusions that the test of time has proven cannot possibly prevail?

Recently, the news media reported that some British soldiers said they felt good about what they accomplished by finding and seizing another paltry handful of military weapons in an Afghan town. Certainly the weapons where those of an enemy rather than an ally, by British decree, among the Afghan society where allies and enemies are often indistinguishable, and routinely change depending on the day or the whims of easily offended local military leaders. How many Afghans did the US bomb, whom different sides said were different sides? The British soldiers are clueless to the undeniable fact that they only therefore perpetuated an amusingly childish game, and generated another mail order for another paltry handful of military weapons from the bottomless supply of those toys. Modern military weapons are primitive inventions that any humans can make, even in caves.

But the weapons are not the issue. The issue is the ability of the soldiers, and any other humans, to think beyond their most recent conclusion. From the data in this case, the conclusion is so obviously flawed that even a military soldier should be able to identify the first question that leads beyond the conclusion of those British soldiers. But then, the word, should, describes what is not.

If you had at your disposal, something of such unlimited value as a human mind, perhaps located in your cranium, would you use it to play the hide-and-seek game with military weapons? It is a fun game, like all hide-and-seek games. It is more exciting to play that game with bullets and bombs, already launched. But did you not outgrow the child's game of hide and seek? Did it not become boring after awhile? Is it not hidden knowledge, rather than worthless material stuff hidden by fellow humans, that entices the curiosity of an adult mind?

Notice that the end product of every military game, and thus the highest ability of a military person's mind, by its own choice, is the process to kill other humans, in the name of peace, of course. Is peace achieved by killing the other guy? If the other guy kills your family and friends, has he achieved peace? What does the test of time prove in relation to the killing game among humans? What is the designed purpose for a human mind? If you cannot yet identify the solution to a problem, would you ask another human mind questions, or kill it? What is the answer manifested by military minds?

How many more minutes of actual thinking would be required of a military chap or any other human brain of the inherently same design, to extend its knowledge beyond the obviously counter productive, perpetually stagnated killing game? The question is of how many more minutes of actually asking and answering questions, starting at the most recent conclusion, would be required to advance that particular mind beyond such an embarrassingly Neanderthal level of knowledge?

Look again at the people around you, especially in institutions. Watch and listen to them closely. Notice that they spent only a few minutes, and usually less time than that, actually asking and answering questions, then the rest of their life attempting to impose their conclusions, with all manner of tactics and mechanisms, including the use of the British military. It is beyond their comprehension that their conclusions, usually those of some previous non-thinker who held an impressive title, can never be sustainably manifested, no matter how long humans survive as a species, because the conclusions hold a contradiction, as proven by the test of time, and also proven by the knowledge one would derive if they spend more time asking and answering the questions of that perpetually flawed process.

Remarkably little time is required to advance your knowledge well beyond the knowledge of institutionally titled chaps, especially all those in power-based institutions, including those which amusingly claim to be founded on reasoning, but upon easy analysis, manifest the process of power instead of the process of reasoning. Because you hold the same reasoning device as they, a human brain of the same design, you need only use an additional measure of thinking, perhaps an inch, hour or euro of it, starting at the point the institutional chaps hastily stopped thinking.

Do that. You will exponentially enjoy the results.



The above measure of thinking... 1 July 2002

Now consider that you were the on-site commanding officer of the above referenced British soldiers who found the referenced stash of weapons and the occupants in the Afghan village house.

But consider that you think more than British soldiers.

If you react as did the soldiers, the value of your mind would be no greater than every poor sad unthinking military person in human history, creating nothing more than the perpetuation of wars and the proof that all military personnel of every society are intractably ignorant at best, by training. Human minds are trained to learn what they know.

So you would therefore decide to do anything different. Anything. If you did anything different, you would create new knowledge within the military. You need not worry about making a mistake, since the military is another spelling for a mistake, as proven by the test of time. Everything done by military throughout human history has resulted in the current military boys killing people as the obviously ludicrous military perception of a solution to something. Ergo: You cannot make a mistake if you do anything different from what the military does.

You now have the unlimited extent of human intellectual ability available to you, something no military person will ever have available to his or her mind.

If a military chap encountered these words, he would remain clueless of their meaning. To him, anything different, would still remain within the military dogma of attempting to defeat his opponent by use of force or deceit, which inherently creates the incentive of his opponent to retaliate, by design of the human mind. The military chap cannot comprehend any concept outside force or deceit, that is, outside creating another contradiction that dooms any subsequent process or goal, or he or she would not be in the military.

But you can think outside the amusingly small military cocoon.

So what would you do?

For each of your many answers, spend more time asking and answering questions until you discover the reasoning that would create what everyone else would identify as a brilliant action, after their questioning,.

Consider the obvious, a classic opposite reaction, for the questions it creates, for the advancement of your knowledge.

Identify the occupants of the house with the military weapons and ammunition, as the enemy. Survey their weapons. Suggest that they are not very adequate. Order another truck load of weapons and ammunition to be brought to the location. Give them to the enemy. Tell the enemy to find a better hiding place, since you found that one. Then leave.

Is your real enemy a couple truck loads of military weapons among endless billions of tons of military weapons in the world, or human minds?

What is your answer to that question, and what questions will you ask of your answer? Notice that military chaps will evade the question, and talk about the guns and ammunition.

What would your obviously different response create in the minds of your enemy at that house, and their commanders? Question your first dozen answers, for the knowledge you would use to refine your next response.

How would you defeat the minds of those enemy soldiers? Can you successfully use any force or deceit? Are those minds using data your mind does not hold, for their conclusions? Can your mind be defeated by some other chap using force or deceit against you? Does your mind use data not held by other people? If you do not think more than a military chap, would you be so foolish as to suggest that you prefer anything other than endless war for your family and friends?

From the above, your mind would question its way to the less obvious and more effective reactions that are among those dramatically different than anything a military mind could devise, and with patience, find the process to promptly defeat your enemy, much to your amusement.

Do that. You will exponentially enjoy the results, yet more.



End of Intech Concepts 14

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