Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 15
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


Finally, the power to solve the problems... 20 November 2002

Please correct me if I am in error. I did not pay attention to the recent elections. But I heard rumor that the Republicrats now hold the power in the Washington DC Government. They hold the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

So you young lads and ladies who are fourteen years old, if you are patient for two years, will be able to learn that all your DemocanRepublicrat parents, teachers, public officials and their ilk around the word and throughout time, have been lying to you.

During the election campaign they told you that the Republicrats only needed to control the White house and Congress, to solve all the problems, and that if the Democans won, the problems would increase. And the adult voters responded to that ancient old lie, like Pavlov's dog salivated at the ring of a bell, albeit electing Bush with a minority vote.

Okay, the Republicrats won.

In two years, when you are sixteen years old, if you are not as intellectually incapable as adults, you will notice that none of the problems are solved. They are worse. And the DemocanRepublicrats will then, for the next election, be mouthing the same lies they said the last election, and fooling clueless adult voters, just like the Democans did before and after they gained the presidency, House and Senate, and solved no problems.

You will of course notice that the politicians of this and every country throughout human history will take credit for, and claim to have done, what benefits the people achieved by the hard work of the people despite the politicians taxing the people's productivity down to mere survival and scant superficial pleasures, stagnating society deep within the current age of destructive wars waged for the egos and ignorance of the politicians.

If you have not lived through the last three or fifty US national elections, to notice the identical pattern of politicians incessantly lying about what they would do if they achieved the power, simply stroll down to the nearest library, or sit at a computer screen, and read about what you missed, and about what the adults missed even when they were listening to the politicians and voting for them.

Unlike the other sorts who incessantly say such truths as the above, and harangue the public to wake up and figure it out, I herein suggest to you that the human species, as such, can never figure it out, because their mind was designed to create what it is manifesting, by definition and manifestation.

But there is something else at play, that you as an individual mind, not as a voter or any other institutional concept, can promptly learn.

If you figure it out, as an individual mind, and recognize that the RepublicratDemocans have been lying to you since they invented themselves, just as their trite old institutional ilk has been doing since the first two chaps decided to make an organization with a name, you might become a Libertarian Party member, the only logic or truth-based political party in this nation.

But you will not have figured it out if you have not yet figured out the controlling contradiction of the Libertarian Party. You can show the Libertarian Party politicians and officials the proofs that they are fundamentally identical to the DemocanRepublicrats, saying just what the RepublicratDemocans said to get power, and the Libertarians will tell you that if they only get control of the presidency, House and Senate, they can achieve their espousals to solve the problems. Perhaps read that again. You can figure it out. The Libertarians cannot. To figure it out, you must learn the difference between yourself as an individual, and yourself as a Democan, Republicrat, Libertarian or any other institutional concept.

You can tell them that power corrupts, and say that your words hold their meaning, and they will believe that you are talking about the other guy, just as he believes when you are talking about him. Notice that no politician or political party official can understand the foregoing sentence, even if you hand them a dictionary. If you become one, or even much less, your mind will lose recognition of that sentence, categorically verifiable to everyone around you, by a simple series of questions. Your mind will have lost far more than just that ability.

You can say the accurate words that you are talking about the concept of power, and what it verifiably does within any mind which adopts its mechanism, and they will believe that you are talking about a person, the other guy, in that other political party or organization. They will eventually die of old age, still believing their power-induced mental illusion. Do not let that happen to your mind. It affects large arenas of data analysis, and destroys the vast majority of your mind's ability to laugh at laughable contradictions.

If you look at the rhetoric espoused at the origin of the Democans, Republicrats, Libertarians, and pick any political party in any nation, it describes the same fundamental goal, purportedly serving the good of the people by varied arrangements of words. Those chaps sincerely and genuinely believe their words, or they would not be within those institutions. But their every action results only in the acquisition of power by the political party. There is no such thing as power that does not corrupt.

Because there are no DemocanRepublicratLibertarians or their ilk who can remember a concept for more than two days, yet alone two years, you might consider printing the words of this section, including the date, and put them somewhere where you will remember to look at them during the 2004 political campaign.

There has never been a change since humans invented institutions of more than one person using a single institutional name. It is a verifiable design feature of the human mind.

Use that data point. First attempt to disprove it.

You are not concerned with what those other people will or will not do. You are concerned with learning how your and thus their mind functions, by its design. You both have the identical design of mind. When you learn that, you can do anything you wish, because the human is predicated on its mind, and you will then recognize that you never wanted to waste your mind's time on the other guy anyway. He has to learn on his own, and he does not do so for the same reason you have not done so. And therefore what is your decision?

It is obvious that he has not learned what he believes he knows, because the problems still exist, and he complains about them rather than laughs about them. It is obvious that you have not yet learned what you believe you know, for the same reason.

Pity the self-deluded RepublicratDemocanLibertarians and their power-craving ilk in every nation, but do not spend much time at it because you would more wisely spend your time asking and answering the questions that methodically lead to the knowledge that can actually solve the problems that the institutions only use as rhetorical excuses to fool gullible people into giving power to people who can therefore never figure out how to actually solve a social problem.

You will know when you learn the knowledge. And before then, if it takes that long, with even the most rudimentary questions of the incessant lying adults, you will laugh yourself to tears listening to the DemocanRepublicrats during the next election, saying what proves their words of this election to have been lies, the same ones they say again then, and will say again at each next election.

You cannot currently understand the concept of how you, as an individual, with or without any institution, can solve the problems your mind sincerely perceives as caused by those other guys. The proof is your not doing so, if you have any desire to do so. But the process is only knowledge, and it can only be learned by asking and answering the questions that other people are too impatient, lazy or power-damaged to ask and answer. Start.



Data Routing... 25 December 2002

Your brain is designed to receive data from five primary senses, or more if you prefer. Those senses trigger electrical currents in nerves that, we shall say, go right downtown mid-city in the brain. It is there that the data zipping through the neurons on an electrical current smacks into a synaptic junction with another neuron. All hell breaks loose as molecules of various chemical compounds react. They react about the same way you would if you had your finger on the shotgun trigger while you are out pheasant hunting, and cross what you did not think was an electric fence. There not being too many places those chemical compounds can go, in the melee they end up on certain neuron receptor sites across on the other side of the synapse, which triggers another electrical pulse on one or more of the neurons heading off in a different direction to another synapse somewhere in the cranial goo. It is somewhat like that which happens in a computer chip, somewhat. Allow for the neurologists cringing at the crude description of their bailiwick.

The data is traveling on a route that the same data previously took and thus cleared the path of any obstacles, a route that reaches a certain series of nerves and synapses that form a complete input-output loop without any contradiction being encountered or created on the route. The data is among billions of sensory combinations. It is identified as a very precise electrical charge and a very precise reaction of precise amounts of precise chemicals at precise neurons, at the least. It is attempting to compare its routing with all existing data in the brain, without encountering or creating a contradiction with existing data-imprints from previous stimuli.

If a contradiction is encountered, such as the data contradicting previous data, and it cannot be resolved with an immediate search of the inactive files, then the brain simply resolves the contradiction from its existing data, identifies the prevailing neuron routing for the first routing of all subsequent data, and places the contradicted data point in the existing, inactive files.

That process can also be described as your brain asking and answering a question of the identified contradiction. You may manifest that as asking another person the question, and receiving an answer that is new knowledge which does not contradict any of the aforementioned routing of the data. If it is new knowledge, not contradicting any other knowledge, it will create a new routing for some portion of the process. You may or may not remember it until it is verified and reinforced by some other stimulus or more of the same.

For example, you may hear a politician promise to solve a problem if you elect him, but remember that he promised the same thing last time you elected him. Therefore he lied. A contradiction is identified. Therefore your mind resolves the contradiction. Your mind will classify the guy as a liar who does not do what he says, and your mind will decide to not vote for him, unless you prior trained your mind to believe that lying is a way to achieve espoused goals, or you trained your mind to believe that lying is not consistent, or you forgot what he said last time, or any of many other trained neuron routings that fool your mind into not logically resolving the current contradiction. The data can be routed to an illogical or contradicted conclusion by a previously established routing which by-passes the routing which would identify the current contradiction.

The brain is a contradiction identification and resolution device. Functioning under its original design from birth, unaltered, it will do just that, every time. Such a brain can be described as the standard curious human mind.

Unaltered at any time in its life, the brain will progressively learn the answers to all the questions it asks, by design. There will be no misrouting of data. There may be a lack of data at any moment, but the process will resolve every contradiction created by any data made available to the brain.

If there were no designed counter balance to the original process of the human brain, within the human mind, the result would be an exponential accumulation of knowledge in each mind, multiplied by the number of humans, minus the percentage of data transfer ineffectiveness created by the limits of language. Without a designed counter balance, humans would have long ago learned all the answers to all the questions. Humans would therefore be functioning in a manner that we cannot visualize from our current data. We would have long ago escaped the intellectual dark ages within which humans still stagnate themselves, much to the amusement of observers.

You can learn the design of the counter balance, and separate yourself from its effects on your mind, and thus exponentially advance your knowledge. The design of the counter balance mechanism is just knowledge, like any other knowledge. It is created by data synthesis.

It is not possible to identify the mechanism of the counter balance on this website. To do so, your mind's questions are required. Herein are only indicators, or parts of a complex puzzle.

The mechanism is in each itemized case, simple, so simple that it is rarely recognized. For example, if as a child you lie to certain people to get a reward, and they humor you by rewarding you because your lying is childishly cute and not important, you will learn that lying is successful, for at least the class of people you identify as those who reward you for lying. The moment an otherwise contradicted data routing creates a reward, your mind will develop a series of neural routings that defend and enhance that result in face of ineffective reactions not supporting that reward. The game of your mind is to develop the process to get the initially established reward, against contradictions created by other people. That is more accurately stated as the game to not contradict or discomfort an originally established neural routing of stimuli which created a reward.

Therein is an obvious explanation of every lawyer, politician, military person, police officer and career criminal.

The extent of the data's neuron routing training is profoundly entrenched right from the get-go, and shortly not alterable. Most criminals released from prison are shortly back plying their trade, identical to politicians getting caught lying. Even if they lose the election, a rare event for lying incumbents, they are shortly appointed to well rewarded government positions by other government sorts whose minds recognize only lying as the norm, and reward it. Try to be honest and get elected or hired within government, and do not wonder why everyone else reading this sentence bursts out laughing.

If someone then comes along and suggests that the dishonest person can achieve more, and sustain it, by a different process, the data will contradict all the available neuron routings, and be rejected as illogical or not possible, by the power-damaged mind. There will not even be a starting point in the power-damaged mind. If by some mechanism, you could cause a lawyer, politician, other government sort or any other institutionally trained mind to patiently read every word on the website, he or she could not understand even one data point that could lead to a questioning of their mind's current process or conclusions. In contrast, every human mind functioning on its original design of logic-based data processing, either cannot find a single contradiction in all these words, or does so and therefore actually asks one or more questions to verifiably resolve the contradiction against any subsequent questions from anyone.

While the knowledge is comprised of simple concepts, the large number of those concepts is difficult to synthesize for a recognition of the process in whole. The human brain, especially the male brain prefers dealing with individual concepts at any moment, and has great difficulty dealing with multiple concepts in a short period of time. Therein, patience is required to resolve complex contradictions. As an aside, one may laugh robustly over the millennia of wars, while the process to promptly create world peace and become the greatest leader in human history, might require a week or two, to learn from asking and answering certain questions, and a few months to manifest against any opposition of any power. That is how impatient the human mind is for learning new knowledge, and how hasty it is for manifesting obviously failed knowledge.

Among the many simple concepts, besides the design of the neural routing process of data, and the contradiction resolution process, is the identification of which contradictions, if left in place, control or alter large sectors of conceptual contradictions. For example, inform a chap that one shirt cuff is not buttoned, and he will probably button it, but call him an idiot incapable of dressing himself when you tell him about the unbuttoned cuff, and he may identify the reason for not buttoning it. The difference would have only been a different set of words, stimuli to the human mind. Would the controlling contradiction have been within the mind of the person suggesting the idiocy, or in the mind of the person leaving his cuff unbuttoned? Write your answer to that question. Then consider yourself as a court judge, politician or police officer, with the unbuttoned cuff, and write your answer.

Did you want to be informed if your cuff was unbuttoned, your fly unzipped, your slip showing, or perhaps an easily resolved error that is causing you profound grief? Precisely why do police officers, who say they exist to help society, and would therefore be surrounded by friends, suffer one of the highest professional rates of suicide, divorce, spousal abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism, depression, and other psychological ills? Precisely why, the controlling contradiction in their minds, cannot all the national leaders who incessantly mouth the words of peace, throughout history, achieve peace, and incessantly wage war on others and imprison their citizens?

Or wave your fist and suggest to a certain large sector of good conservative Americans and others, that we need to kill a bunch of people. The minds of that sector of Americans would immediately react against the auditory stimuli of your illogical statement, and the visual stimulus of your gesture. But if you then wave the American flag, and mouth the words about a bunch of Arab terrorists, the same minds reacting to the same concept conveyed with only slightly different auditory and visual stimuli, could not get their guns fast enough, send more tax money to Bush, and tell their sons to join the cannon fodder brigade. Notice how fast those minds acted on that stimuli to slaughter a bunch of innocent Afghan villagers for what some already dead Saudis did. The others, referenced above, could be Arabs reacting the same ways before and after you waved their nation's flag and mentioned a bunch of arrogant American imperialists. What stimuli cause which minds to react how, by what prior training of neural data routing?

The question does not seek the typical nadir of useless generalities perceived by typical military or other government minds which cannot identify their own mind's process for data analysis because it has been damaged by the prior misapplication of that process.

After learning the less complex concepts of great utility, how many of which examples would your mind require, and how many questions would it ask, to discover the pattern that identifies and verifies the precise, original contradiction that creates 100 percent of all other contradictions in YOUR mind, categorically blocking your access to any sustainable solution of any problem?

What is the value of that answer?

The answer exists. You can discover it on your own, with patience, if you start.

Or you may inquire, for a much more efficient process.

If I could convey it to you by any means other than your mind's questions inherently resulting from conveyance of a methodical series of inherently uncomfortable data points or concepts, or if I held incentive to do so against your will, I would have already done so, walked away from this computer, and be climbing mountains in the Alaska Range, in a society thereupon achieving a quantum advancement of everyone's preference, to my and your benefit.

Otherwise, as an easy test of why most of you needlessly fear such knowledge that would vastly benefit you, simply write any of the more obvious lies of the politicians in each of your country's political parties, verify the words as lies (willfully created contradictions) therefore identifying the entire organization's inability or unwillingness to resolve a contradiction created in its name, and then write the answer to the following question: Will I ever again vote for or support a politician identified with any of those political parties, and thus identify my mind's inability to resolve an obvious and easily resolved contradiction?

If A equal B, and B equal C, A equal C. You cannot vote for or support a liar, and not be a liar. If you cannot separate yourself from an institution, a mere reference name, that defines your mind's reasoning process as damaged, then it is. It is otherwise too easy to not create contradictions. Start not doing so. Your goal is to learn from the examples and your questions, to learn how your mind functions, and thus how all minds function, and thus how to resolve all contradictions, to the extent of defeating any mind that opposes you, if you wish. You will thoroughly enjoy the knowledge.

All the institutional goals are too easy. They cannot be achieved by institutional power. They can only be achieved by intellectual technology, that for which the human mind was invented. Are you not of your mind?



Now, consider taking a break from intense thinking, which of is inherently necessary for the human mind, as you easily recognize, and consider your next vacation to relax awhile. A good place to start would be to spend your Mediterranean holidays in any of the fantastic Greek Islands. If we choose the same place at the same time, we may discuss the concepts there.



The greatest achievement of the human mind... 7 February 2003

The greatest achievement of the human mind concurrently offers the greatest reward.

That achievement is having synthesized all the available data to leave no question not answered relating to the functional design of the human mind and thus the human phenomenon.

The resulting entertainment holds no equal. Every observation and expression of the human phenomenon is understandable and flawlessly explainable against every question that any human can devise. You will recognize all the people who are routinely or otherwise incessantly frustrated or anguished over countless problems, great and small, for which the knowledge of their desired solution is already within their mind, available for the asking of amusingly simple and harmless questions that they trained their mind to categorically fear to simply ask.

The efficient resolution of every human-caused contradiction then becomes obvious upon expression of the contradiction. World peace? Too easy.

The simplicity of the process to learn such knowledge is part of the knowledge.

You will recognize that all of the human mechanisms which can convey to humans the knowledge they seek, are those which they flee, for their fear of simple questions, except the one mechanism for which you will therefore hold no incentive to impose.

To have acquired the knowledge is to laugh the laughter sought by all people.

If you are not laughing yourself to tears at these humans, you are missing the only show they yet know how to stage.

If you wish to not miss the show, by your own efforts, simply start asking and answering questions of every contradiction your mind identifies, including those resulting from your answers. Write them. Be tenacious and patient. There is no more valuable or beneficial use for your mind, by design. You will otherwise miss the human show for your entire life, as has everyone whose mind retains an institutional title, and those who foolishly believe them rather than question them, throughout human history.



Another such war in Iraq today, much to your robust laughter... 31 March 2003

What will you learn from the American-Iraq war of 2003, and what will everyone in government learn? Write and date your complete answer. Question it to insure that it represents your mind's currently highest reasoning ability. Review it in five years to thus recognize that not one American government official, including every military sort, or any peace organization leader, asked and answered that question during or after this or any previous war. There would otherwise be no war.

The following reasoning may be of great utility for your subsequent decisions. Is there any flaw or contradiction in the reasoning and conclusions, other than the initial references written for effect in amusement?

Shock 'n Awe, dude...

The Shock and Awe catch-phrase, pandered by the obviously immature George Bush military, as a rhetorical inspiration for themselves and other street punks, is that which the American people are teaching their young, and the rest of the world, with the results surrounding you. Is that not so? How will you utilize your answer?

When this section was written, it was the turn of the American people, again, to teach the apparently less intelligent other people of the world the wisest and most reasoned process to solve a perceived problem.

We will herein examine the intelligence level of YOU Americans, YOU the person reading these words. There are no excuses. If this section is valid for other people, that is in addition to, not instead of, what it proves of YOU Americans, for your therefore highly useful new knowledge.

What do the minds of government sorts learn from what they casually say, hear, write and read? In contrast, what do they learn from what they do in YOUR name, rather than their own individual name for public record?

If the decision and consequences of killing someone are completely with me, as an identified individual, Doug Buchanan, how much prior thought (questions and answers) will my mind probably exercise? (A lot.)

But if the decision to kill someone is with a guy who pays me your money to kill someone, as what is therefore just my job, and there are no personal consequences to me or the guy who pays me, because we are officially killing in YOUR name, and we have the power to not only protect ourselves from you, under color of law and title of military/police, but also the power to force you to pay your money for our action, while we get to therefore kill people to satisfy a deep craving for power over other people, designed within the human mind, and even sloppily kill bystanders without any consequences to us, how much prior thought (questions and answers) will my mind and that of the guy who pays me, probably exercise? (Zip, as proven by humans inventing that contrived process for routine use.)

Under what mechanism was my mind functioning as an Army infantry officer in Vietnam, and the same for each government agent in the complete chain of command, top to bottom, as opposed to each of us being individuals in any society, outside our contrived titles? Well, is your mind capable of identifying and thinking through more than one data point, unlike George Bush and every individual among his military, government and political groupies?

And how much thought (questions and answers) did you apply before you paid your taxes to create the above referenced process to mindlessly murder the people not politically favored by the people you so mindlessly pay? Well? What mechanism of the human mind invented that process to separate and obscure any one mind's otherwise easy understanding of the cause and effect relationship between an individual human action and its consequence?

What is the precise, controlling difference, in exact written words that prevail against all questions, in the United States of America, between the consequences of murder, and the consequences of collateral damage in war that results in the intentional killing of innocent civilians?

While my answers to any questions are of no value to your mind, read that again, regardless of your current perceptions induced by the counter productive education you foolishly accepted from American adults, so I rarely provide answers, the above question is just too tempting. Under the original agreement that American government chaps formally made with the people they governed, under criminal penalty of precise, written law, the answer to the immediately above question, in exact words, was previously, a formal declaration of war made by a majority of elected US congressmen, or, a formal declaration of an emergency that authorizes temporary war power only because congress could not possibly be convened in a timely manner after a direct military attack on the US, and only until then. But in the last 100 years, has there been even one American government sort who was not lying if his or her lips were moving? No. Do government personnel obey the law? No. Are there any police to arrest the police who break the law, prosecutors to prosecute prosecutors who break the law, judges to indict judges who break the law? No, no, no, by definition of the verifiable effects of power in the human mind. The verifiably most gullible, dumbest, unquestioning humans on the planet, are Americans, proven by the unmatched, itemized difference between the internationally unique US Constitution that Americans still teach to therefore increasingly ignorant kids in schools, and the internationally common, actual American government process. Therefore, the current answer to the question in the preceding paragraph is, the words, sic-em, or categorically any other rhetorical illusion fabricated by the President of the United States of America, whimsically stated or implied to his US military or any of the 54 armed federal law enforcement agencies of unquestioning thugs.

The last several US Presidents, by law they intentionally created without formal objection by the American people, their elected congressmen or their presidentially appointed Supreme Court judges, became functional kings with power of life and death over any person or people in the United States or the world who do not command a military superior to that of the US. That is now the supreme law of the land in America. It constitutes the lawful transition from the rule of written law to the rule of raw personal power by any personality who can get the US president's title of office, or who is graced by that president. It was inherent that a US President would therefore become so completely corrupted that he would do what George Bush did, become an international king, defying even the Law of Nations, who wages war and murder to the extent of his whim and military might, supported by American fools, much to the robust laughter of observers. There is no such thing as power that does not corrupt. No human mind is exempt.

Did Saddam Hussein acquire a formal Declaration of War from the Iraq government, before he invaded Kuwait? Did George Bush acquire a formal Declaration of War from the US government, before he invaded Iraq in 2003? Under what actual, not a rhetorical illusion, form of government do you therefore live? Who was made so ignorant and unquestioning by the American education system and the network news, that they are literally unable to accurately answer those questions with answers that can prevail against even the most obvious questions?

On what date in US history will your children belatedly figure out that you and their school teachers were lying to them if your lips were moving? When did you expect the Iraqi children to figure out that Saddam and his supporters were lying to them if their lips were moving? Why might you perceive that observers of humans are rolling on the floor, kicking and pounding, clutching their aching sides, gasping for air, tears of howling laughter streaming from their eyes?

What do YOU learn from paying your hard earned money, via taxes, to armed thugs who attack, shoot and kill innocent people in the name of YOU Americans, for the world to watch and judge Americans, without any possible ability to hide the truth from the world anymore? Why did the Roman, British and all empires inherently fall? How sooner would they have fallen if TV and the internet was invented back in those days?

The website, www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm, lists over 130 separate US military actions in the last century or so. YOUR analysis of whether each such military action was used without imperative and with scant thinking, or otherwise, may illuminate to you how Americans have progressively defined themselves to the people of the world. Americans are obviously a deadly threat wielded within an obvious void of wisdom or even the most basic thinking above a reptilian mind. Again, the certainty of Americans inherently collapsing their empire by their incessantly using force instead of reasoning, within a species predicated on reasoning rather than force, like that of every military empire, is not at issue. At issue is YOUR mind's ability to identify a contradiction, and ask the questions which actually resolve the contradiction without creating a new one at your own conclusion of your process. The process is quite easy. It requires asking only a few effective questions of any contradiction, a concept unknown to government leaders who hold the decision over the use of guns, and the process to not be where the bullets are let fly.

THE ISSUE IS THAT OF ADVANCING YOUR MIND'S INTELLIGENCE, not that of correcting any traditional governmental or institutional idiocy, or such contradictions. Only with that advanced knowledge can you then learn the process to easily correct traditional governmental or institutional contradictions, if you then wish to do so with knowledge worth vastly more than such a rudimentary use.

From the lessons of their previous wars, the Americans poured their energy into their society's highest form of reasoning to solve future problems. That form of internationally displayed American reasoning constituted the production of so many 2,000 pound, laser-guided bunker buster bombs, cruise missiles, and their new 22,000 pound Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB), that they could rain Shock 'n Awe terror onto Baghdad Iraq today, and yesterday, and tomorrow, and then wherever next. Americans again displayed their raw, insatiable power, after Iraq attacked no one in relation to this new war. That is the current zenith of the American people's intellectual ability. They were not able to devise any more reasoned solution to a perceived problem with Iraq, after all the lessons of the concept of war, and after creating a more extensive knowledge sharing system than any other nation in human history.

The American process to solve a human-caused, perceived problem is to slaughter the guys summarily accused of creating a perceived problem, and anyone around them, the horses they ride, and the barn too. The proof in their actions is not credibly deniable by the American people. Who would attempt to deny the following wisdom of that manifested process?

The Washington DC government of RepublicratDemocans represents the American people of the united States of America by their own willing choice, a sustained choice for generations. The government's decisions are the people's decisions in sum, by definition, or the people would not have elected the DemocanRepublicrats. No one forced the Washington DC government on their people.

If the American people slowly evolve into fearing their government, perhaps because of the Homeland Security Gestapo, and thus dare not effectively criticize the contradictions of the RepublicratDemocan Regime, or thus fear attempting to change the government to institute a process of reasoning rather than the American government process of killing before thinking, then that is their choice, identical to the Iraqi people's supposed fear of Saddam's Republican Guard. No one else in the world holds any responsibility to help the American or Iraqi people defend their freedom and thinking ability from their own government. Your government is YOUR government, not the other guy's. As is his or hers. If you may lawfully change the Iraq government by force, then people in other nations may lawfully change the American government by force, such as by thus lawfully flying jet airliners into the Pentagon, and other such process of force. If you object, do not make a fool of yourself in front of your children by suggesting that the rule of written law is superior to the rule of dictators with armies. Simply never contradict your own conclusions. You may efficiently resolve all your contradictions by publicly stating that you are too ignorant to resolve contradictions, and thus be highly qualified for any American government leadership or bureaucrat position.

The currently most educated, most powerful and most successful government in the world, in sum, is perceived by Americans and many other people around the world to be that of the American people. Most other governments still formally express respect for the American government. Those governments represent their people, or the people would change their governments, by definition of what governments are, regardless of the minority representation in every country.

Because the foregoing in regard to the American government and international respect of it, has been the case for a number of decades, nationally and internationally, and because the progressing pattern of American government decisions and actions has been rather consistent, there is no credible denial that those decisions in sum represent the current zenith of socially manifested decision-making ability of the majority of the people of the world, regardless of the minority objections to such a statement.

To whom do the masses and news journalists look for the decisions and events that therefore teach the masses? Is it not their own institutions, rather than any individual thinkers? As a thinking person recognizes, to therefore learn the process to become wise, YOU are the masses to every other human on the rock. Is that not so? Could that many people, the masses, possibly be in error about you, or the Americans? By what mechanism not within your own mind? Precisely which itemized decisions must your mind exercise to prove and verify that you are correct and everyone else in the world is in error, to create useful new knowledge? Who is most noticeably teaching what, to the masses of the world? What must YOUR mind learn, to what extent, to correct any contradiction of the masses whom everyone else considers to be you?

Add to the proven intellectual inability of the American people, the highly useful knowledge they learned from their prior war in Iraq. The American people had about ten years since the last war they waged in Iraq, to carefully and thoughtfully ascertain any superior reasoning, available as a tool for resolving any next contradiction created by the Iraq government. Of course that contradiction would have to directly damage the American people, unless the Americans wished to define themselves as sticking their nose in the business of other people, and thus endorse the process for other nations sticking their nose into the business of Americans, to make decisions for you Americans in America. If there were a way to do things with more reasoning than utilized in the previous American-Iraq war, would not the intelligence of the overwhelmingly self-flattering American government, their lavishly paid think tanks and experts, their extensive institutions of higher learning, their talking heads on TV, and the people, have found it? Well?

The pattern of the Iraq government actions had not changed since they lost the last war, except to begrudgingly and slowly disarm themselves of their more favorite war toys while the Americans increased their development and stockpiling of more such toys. The decision to start a new shooting war in Iraq, rather than any other process, or doing nothing, and the timing for doing so, was one hundred percent that of the American people alone, without any attack on them available as an excuse, while the great majority of the world advised against the socially unpopular but favorite game of mental midget military Neanderthals. America's attack on Iraq was a pure display of a nation's zenith of intellectual ability, identical to that of the Iraqi people's prior attack on Kuwait, and every other military attack in human history, right on back to the Neanderthals.

That the other governments are teaching their people the same method to solve problems, as usual, if used as an excuse by Americans for the actions of Americans, as an aside proves the case that Americans are only that which they accuse of others, including Saddam and Osama, and is not the issue of this section. The issue of this section, as the others, is the ability of YOUR individual mind to recognize and actually resolve identified contradictions. The use of force instead of reasoning creates damaging contradictions every time, without exception. Your goal is to train your mind with the knowledge of how to resolve contradictions, lest you end up as pitiable and useless to humans as politicians with their military and police thugs.

Write the following two sentences, if you wish. The American attack on Iraq in 2003 was a zenith of a nation's intellectual ability to resolve a perceived contradiction, as manifested. The Americans sincerely believed that to destroy other human minds, rather than question and learn new knowledge from their different data bases, solves a problem that all the other wars and thus destruction of human minds, in human history, have failed to solve.

Precisely what itemized process within a human mind or brain could create such a ludicrous and damaging contradiction? The Americans have proven they are as intellectually primitive as Neanderthals. The question is now of YOUR mind, and the process to distinguish your mind from that of the pitiable American Neanderthals.

Central among those people most consistently killed and imprisoned by military mentality governments and their minions, such as the Saddam Bush boys, are those who think (ask and answer questions), instead of wave the flag and rush off to kill people on command. Why do you think humans, who must learn new knowledge, by thinking, to resolve contradictions, are still killing each other as their socially perceived solution to problems, after so many millennia? If you needed to build brick buildings, would you kill all the brick layers, to thus further teach the young people that they do not want to become brick layers? If a nation most highly praises those who only know how to wave the flag, say, yes sir, and rush off to war, and if the nation denigrates anyone who would think enough to ask questions of such abject human ignorance, what will that nation produce? What is the majority American reaction to George Bush's current Wag The Dog War in Iraq? Which generation, taught to be as dumb as the previous generation, will belatedly think enough to figure out how to solve the contradiction of starting Wag The Dog Wars? What are you going to teach your children, and therefore precisely what must YOU first learn?

Ask and answer more questions of the fact that the government of Iraq was not attacking any nation in the interval after the last American-Iraq war, and further, was begrudgingly allowing the most unprecedented search of a country and its military ability, to remove large weapon-making capability. No such search had ever occurred within a government that had not been totally defeated and replaced by the conquerors. It was conducted with reasoning-based support from many nations both involved and not involved with Iraq.

What would result if that process became an internationally popular substitute for the mechanism of war, to reduce threats by arrogant war-mongering governments, and would therefore be progressively refined? Well? Read that question again.

But then what mechanism did the Americans suddenly utilize to replace that wiser process, with war? Was the war to replace that process not initiated by a nation whose zenith of intellectual ability was waging war at whim? Is that nation, the United States of American, not unbridled in its obvious production and stockpiling of vast numbers of weapons of mass destruction, enough to destroy all the humans several times? Precisely why can you accurately answer those questions, for public judgment of your reasoning ability, while American government and military sorts are literally too ignorant to identify and write those obvious answers? Your easily identified answer to the immediately preceding question must be sustainable against all questions, to advance your knowledge. You may send me your answer (with the question), and I will inform you if it is the same one my mind concluded against all questions, to create a highly useful tool of knowledge.

For your more useful questioning, it is known by people who are wise and practical, perhaps yourself included, that if the bullets are getting a bit close to your ears, shoot the bastard who is shooting at you if you cannot devise a more reasoned solution while under the psychological stress of those otherwise symmetrically pleasing little bullets. Therein, you will have wanted to learn how to shoot, another easily learned and valuable arena of knowledge useful as knowledge for your mind, after humans invented shooting. But if the aforementioned bastard is not actually shooting at you, then you have time to think, ask and answer more questions to therefore perhaps learn how to rationally manifest a solution to any involved problem, rather than mindlessly shoot a gun. If you shoot at him before he points his gun at you personally, read that again, personally, with identifiable intent to shoot you, you have created the only real problem or contradiction, and you have sacrificed your priceless thinking time, leaving your mind of no more value than a gun.

Clarified with other words, if your goal is to enjoy hiking in the Alaska wilderness, and to learn new knowledge from observing everything around you, do not shoot the temporarily irritated or frightened grizzly bear who only false charges you to inform you of his or her temporary displeasure with your intrusion, as bears are known to do, or you may create a deadly problem that you did not otherwise have. Bears, like militaries, can absorb a lot of lead, and thus get really angry, and still pick their teeth with your bones before they die. Do not piss them off except to directly defend your life from otherwise certain death or maiming. If you give the bear and militaries as much latitude as they wish, without harming them, before they directly attack you, in that interval they will likely learn that you are not a threat to them, and therefore not attack, for a precisely identifiable series of sound reasoning that prevails against all questions.

But of course you may prefer to not think like many of the scantly thinking environmentalists who suggest that all those bear charges are false or only bluffs. A very few of them are real, as victims or their corpses will verify. Grant the bear the latitude you would grant a human, and then shoot the brute if he actually attacks you, which maximizes the impact energy of your bullet at therefore close range. Bears are more predictable, less dangerous and less prone to maliciousness than humans. Perhaps be more wary of the humans.

If you are wise, you will always use thorough reasoning until there is categorically no wise choice, and you will act otherwise if you are a typical American. Wisdom requires only your easily training your mind, by asking and answering questions, to make uncontradicted decisions from data. Ask and answer those questions at this time. If you are reading this, the bear is not attacking you, and the bullets are not whizzing by your ears. You have time to create the correct decisions for future events. If you write the reasoning for those decisions, your mind will make that reasoning process available for a diversity of therefore efficient decisions. Question your reasoning to remove contradictions.

You will sooner learn how to make the right decisions if you physically endure the consequences of your decisions, as is common among the common people, without dodging those consequences by contrived process. Therein you encounter incentive to think more before you act each next time. You are certain to increasingly create contradictions (problems, wrongs, mistakes, damages, screw-ups, maliciousness, etceteras) if you use contrived processes to evade the consequences of your decisions, as is common to those people holding power, even a micron of the stuff. If you wield power rather than reasoning, you encounter incentive to think less before you act. Incentive is a controlling concept for human actions.

A traditional zenith of such evasion of the consequences of their decisions, and the proof that humans are still stagnated deep in the intellectual dark ages, is that of consistently spineless, cowardly government leaders sending gullible young idiot males in the military off to kill and be killed for the leaders, in the name of this, that and other rhetorical illusions (wave the flag), while the leaders lounge in the comfort of a Washington DC oval office and such plush palaces. Of course, Bush, Blair, Saddam, the other Bush, Osama, Clinton and their ilk of countless thousands throughout history are by definition and flawless proof, history's greatest cowards. They started wars and evaded the direct consequences at the front lines. But therein they prove the zenith of human ignorance and arrogance among gullible young males eagerly killing and being killed to defend and perpetuate that zenith of human cowards. The evasion of responsibility for one's decisions, regardless of the forum, is the act of a coward. If you are not robustly laughing at the whole lot of them, the cowardly leaders hiding behind their gullible killers, a resulting series of questions conclusively proves, against every question, that you have not yet learned how to use words that hold their meaning, or how to ask and answer effective questions. Start learning. Use words that retain their meaning. Is a coward a person who evades the direct consequences of his own decisions? Would you carry out the decisions of a person who will not do so himself, to include for the scant pay he would not accept for such an action? Well?

For YOUR mind's learning process, not his, to access new knowledge within your mind, if you personally know an American military chap, write a request to him, asking him to write the following three sentences, date and sign them, and put them with his personal records so that he may think more and thus learn more about his own decisions: I am defending and obeying the orders of a proven coward, President George Bush, who made the decision to start a murderous war. He could have come to the front lines for the duration of his war, to endure the direct consequences of his decision, and have turned the office administration of his decision over to any accomplished bureaucrat or military technician. Therefore I support the perpetuation of cowardliness at the cost of people's lives, or I am otherwise an idiot for doing what I suggest that I do not support.

Laugh at those chaps whose minds are immediately enraged that the suggestion was made for American military chaps rather than Iraqi military chaps. The suggestion is for all military chaps. But you will not successfully convey to another mind what your own mind does not so thoroughly understand that you can accurately answer every resulting question. And if you are reading this, there is little likelihood that you are literate in the Iraqi or Farsi language, or know the address of any of Saddam's equally gullible military sorts. If you cannot manifest a full reasoning process among your own society, you are of course in laughable error, and illuminate your ignorance, to suggest that the other guy do so within his society.

The balance is perfect in all things. Notice the corollary. If Bush achieves his obviously greatest desire, a primary reason for his Wag The Dog War in Iraq, and thus Saddam is killed by Bush's US military in Iraq, write the list of consequences among the Arab people and the American people. Fools who cannot think beyond their guns or bombs start wars, especially on their neighbor's land. Equally unquestioning fools support them. If Saddam is killed by Americans, who will become recognized as the courageous hero among his people, for standing on his land, the battlefield of Baghdad, against the invaders of his people's land? And who will be recognized by the world as the murderous coward who sent killers to Iraq while hiding in Washington DC? Not one US military person is sufficiently intelligent to answer those easy questions. Ask any of them. The people of which nation supported that murderous coward? That Saddam and Bush act the same, leaves the less successful of them as the more courageous.

Which people will therefore inherently devise new methods to retaliate? What is incentive, how is it created in the human mind, and what are its effects? The American-Iraq war, like every trite old war, is immaterial. What your mind belatedly learns, by actually answering written questions, is at question. Learn more than Bush, soon, for reason. Bush and his military ilk asked and answered no questions found on this website, or any that are similar, because their minds are incapable of asking or answering effective questions about war or anything else, yet Bush started another murderous war and hid in Washington DC.

Perhaps the Americans might kill Saddam in his office, otherwise described as a bunker, that the US Army might decide to gas, through the vents, with internationally outlawed, lethal doses of CS nerve gas, because the routinely unthinking, thus frustrated, trigger-happy US Army chaps, already notorious for shooting British soldiers and Iraqi women and children civilians, before thinking, cannot otherwise penetrate the bunker. The Army has practiced the tactic. At the command of President Bill Clinton, then Commander-in-Chief of the US military, the US Army Delta Force gassed their own American people, the Dividian Christians, including women and children, to intentionally kill them in their church at Waco, with a known lethal dose of internationally outlawed CS nerve gas, after the Dividian Christians attacked no one. The Army personnel received medals for their bravery and heroism, creating incentive for further developing that tactic. And they learned that the American people will not punish the use of deadly nerve gas by Americans, even against Americans.

The American news journalists, and therefore the American people, did not widely discuss that embarrassing but highly educational matter of American perfidy, murder and cowardliness, and thus did not learn from it. The government and news journalists, as usual, attacked the victims with rhetorical illusions. The news journalists did not question their own contradictions. A religion became a cult. A church became a compound. The exact words of the Christian Bible became radicalism and extremism. Murder by government agents became suicide by the victims. Helicopter gunships witnessed and filmed to have shot and killed victims, became observation helicopters. Military personnel witnessed and filmed to be shooting hundreds of rounds into the church were described as having never fired a shot. Empty M-79, 40 millimeter incendiary grenade canisters laying around the church were described as having not been shot, after having been described as not existing. Machine gun sequenced muzzle flashes filmed on infra-red film that can only register heat, were described as sunlight reflections that infra-red film cannot register. A supposed crime scene covered with evidence was hastily bulldozed by government agents who arrest anyone else who tampers with crime scene evidence. Extensive items of evidence, verified as in the possession of the government, suddenly disappeared. The list of glaring government lies and contradictions produced at least two documentary movies and volumes of paperwork records, yet the masses of Americans listened only to what the government and network news journalists fed them, and asked no questions. The controlling concept is YOUR failure to ask effective questions, not the common government slaughter of another group of victims for another agency budget excuse run through a congressional budget committee of a half dozen staff bureaucrats with rubber stamps. Any contradiction can only exist by the failure to easily ask effective questions.

But the Iraqis and other people in the world widely discussed the Waco slaughter, with words that held their real meaning, and thus learned the murderous nature of Americans who slaughter their own innocent people by military use of outlawed nerve gas. Did you think the Iraq government personnel did not learn from the American government personnel who widely propagated the information of Saddam gassing the Iranians and Kurds? Well? Your answer? Not one American government chap is intellectually capable of accurately answering the foregoing question. You can. Do that. Use your answer as a tool of knowledge for the subsequent questions. Because they fled the first question, the subsequent questions further confuse the midget minds of American government personnel who start wars and slaughter Christians before they start thinking.

If you can win a war by raw military power, which will therefore create generations of retaliatory suicide bombers traveling within your society and humanly impossible to prevent, or create even the credible threat of them, and thus cause you to form an expensive Police State created under the the old Nazi German name of, "Homeland Security", to thus harass, stagnate and generate fear in your own society, who of you, by name for public judgment of your reasoning ability, would start that war or support it? What was your original goal? What did you achieve? Is your mind sufficiently intelligent to write the answers to those three questions?

Q-1. How thoroughly does ANY human mind plan an action, to identify and resolve damaging or deadly contradictions before the action is initiated, if that mind can evade the direct consequences of its decisions? Q-2. How thoroughly does ANY human mind plan an action, to identify and resolve damaging or deadly contradictions before the action is initiated, if that mind cannot evade the direct consequences of its decisions? Q-3. Is it not only an idiot who would act on the decisions of a person who can evade the direct consequences of his decisions? Q-4. Are not the American military personnel therefore idiots, quite identical to myself when I was in the US Army in Vietnam? Notice whose minds are so self-damaged and worthless to humans, that they literally cannot write the obvious, accurate answers to those questions. Write those answers, or do not wonder why commonly intelligent (common sense) people rightfully laugh at you.

My name is Doug Buchanan. I am of Fairbanks Alaska. These are my answers to the above questions. You may quote me. A-1. The human mind which can evade the direct consequences of its decisions / actions will think poorly and thus plan incompletely, even when the consequences are deadly to others, as proven by the concept of wars and countless such displays of abject human illogicality, as well as proven by simply asking and answering related questions such as you are reading. A-2. In contrast, the human mind which cannot evade the direct consequences of its actions will think with greater incentive, and thus plan more thoroughly, especially when the consequences are deadly, as easily proven by simply asking and answering related questions such as you are reading, and which extend into the concept of how incentive functions within the human mind's thinking process. A-3. It is an idiot, a gullible one, who would act on the decisions of a person who can evade the direct consequences of his decisions, which illuminates the embarrassing nature of my acting on the advice of certain stock brokers in the past, and my acting on the orders of certain military chaps, etcetera, much to my amusement. A-4. The American military personnel, as was myself, and all other military personnel, are idiots for obeying rather than questioning the orders of government leaders who do not fight at the front lines for the duration of the wars those leaders start with their decisions. Is your mind capable of answering such questions? Or are you a victim of the failed American education system which produced the obviously ignorant American government and military leaders who do not know how to ask effective questions, do not know how to answer questions with verifiable answers, do not know how to utilize their own mind's imagined answers to questions, and who use words in a manner that defies the meanings of those words?

THEREFORE, by use of the greatest socially available wisdom and reasoning of the world in our time, despite any proven feckless objection, the demonstrated process to resolve a perceived, potential problem, dramatically taught to the masses of the world, is to attack and slaughter the other guy, even if he is not attacking anyone, as proven by the American people attacking the Iraqi people in 2003. Notice the reference to social wisdom, not individual wisdom.

If you foolishly suffer under your self-delusion, and thus identify your inability to ask and answer simple questions, therein suggesting that the game is only the military against the military, do not the governments of all nations, and the definition of their personnel, define their military people as their people? Additionally, does not everyone acknowledge that civilians will always be killed in any war? Do not the military personnel refuse to go to any of the available land on the planet, where no other people live, to fight their childish wars among only themselves?

If you think those Americans discriminate in the use of their established pattern of problem solving, more thoroughly analyze the Waco example. The Americans used their military personnel (US Army Delta Force), military tanks, internationally outlawed, lethal doses of military nerve gas that was intentionally mixed with a highly flammable carrier gas, an array of other military explosives, weaponry, incendiary devices, tactics, helicopter gunships and more, to resolve an illusionary problem, for one of Clinton's Wag The Dog Wars against civilians. The government sorts fabricated a series of rhetorical illusions for the attack, which each proved to be false. They intentionally slaughtered Christian men, women and little children, in their church, who had attacked no one and were teaching the lessons of the Christian God verbatim from the most commonly used edition of the Christian Bible. The American government Christians attacked their own people, if you will excuse the amusing insult of suggesting that the Washington DC thugs are Americans or Christians. A predictable and amusing result was one of their own military-trained American Christian people blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, as retaliation. To attack is to create enemies among those attacked. The examples of Americans initiating deadly military action, as well as deadly police action, to solve perceived problems where use of force categorically defied reasoning, are legion. Those examples are easily illuminated by asking the questions that the network news journalists never ask about the statements in the professionally canned news releases written by their fellow journalists with government jobs (spokespersons).

If you also foolishly suffer under your self-delusion, and thus identify your inability to ask and answer simple questions, therein suggesting your excuse that Saddam Hussein has done the same thing, to his own people, belatedly consider that the Baghdad Sunnis have never considered the Shiites or Kurds as anything but traditional enemies. Saddam has not attacked his own people. After military intervention in a previous time, the Brits and Americans drew the boundary for the artificial nation of Iraq to externally control oil resources, a trite old scam. The boundary was designed to split the traditional Kurd and Shiite regions among three new nations, making those people minorities in separate countries. For the Iraq oil region, those people were put under more effective suppression by a new Baghdad central authority whose military was built up by the Brits and Americans. Baghdad was intentionally supplied with nerve gas components by the Americans and Brits. Chemical weapons have long been favored by military generals who can avoid the consequences of front line duty, and their subordinates who are trained to be so ignorant that they never question orders. All government sorts have more in common with each other than any of them have with the common people of their nations. The evidence consistently identifies the zenith of the American mind's intellectual ability, as its craving to devise more effective ways to kill people who are not as intellectually impaired as Americans, albeit us usual among all power-based governments.

When you are told that a government attacks its own people, recognize the obvious contradiction in those words, and ask questions to resolve the contradiction. The Kurds and Shiites are not the people of the Saddam's Baghdad Sunnis. To suggest they are is to identify one's ignorance, such as that of the Americans. If nothing else, the test of time disproves obviously illogical conclusions. People do not attack their own people, by definition. To attack them is to define them as not your own people. No intelligent people are the people of the Washington DC RepublicratDemocans, by definition. To suggest they are is to identify one's ignorance. The Waco case is an obvious learning vehicle. No common-sense people are the people within any government, or wars, forced taxation to pay for wars, and all other forms of government force would not exist. Does the baker force you to buy his bread, or offer you a product you want? You need never force your own people, unless your own people, and thus you, are so ignorant that your mind cannot recognize even its own reasoning process. You would have to not even understand why language was invented.

You will always create the OTHER people, such as enemies, by using force against them, instead of reasoning. Can I force you to do something, against your mind's reasoning, without my creating an enemy who will eventually get even with me and then use my own process of force to further retaliate? For what do human minds use the process of reasoning? Can you force your neighbor to do something against his reasoning, without creating an enemy who will eventually get even with you and then use your own process of force to further retaliate? If I present the reasoning that illuminates to your mind the benefit of your doing something, how will your mind react? If that something is otherwise verifiable as beneficial to you, and you otherwise seek the benefit, but you react against what I present to you, is it not only my ability to effectively convey my reasoning, that is at question? Precisely what inherently existent knowledge must I therefore learn if I seek to convey the benefit to you? Read the foregoing again, if you wish.

The Americans have consistently taught the people of the world to solve perceived problems by killing first, and then never thinking, and then therefore killing again and again at each illusion of a potential problem.

So what will the people of the world, who watch and learn the officially established American Way, therefore rightfully do with the lesson that the Americans taught them? Well?

What will Osama's Muslims do with what we teach them is the American Way to solve problems?

You may recognize that the writer of these words is the only person you have encountered who will publicly answer those questions with an accurate answer that conforms to the questions.

My name is Doug Buchanan. I am of Fairbanks Alaska. You may quote me. Therein, and only therein, the people of the world will rightfully kill anyone they perceive as the source of any potential problem, including Americans.

Did you want people to do what you teach them to do? Do you use words that hold their meaning, which therefore teach your own mind?

Precisely why, at its origin, not what unquestioning mental midgets hastily mouth, did some Saudis fly two jet airliners into the New York City World Trade Towers? Who taught them the fundamental process of killing the other guy to solve a perceived problem?

Who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, for what identified reason? Who trained him?

How many people in the world perceive the American people as the source of potential and real problems? Who will the Americans attack and kill next, and next, and next, if they are not stopped? Which cities will the Americans next bomb into the stone age if the Americans are not stopped? How many hundreds of millions of people cheered when the World Trade Towers collapsed? Why? Are not the arrogant gun slingers with the most government power, and the arrogant society which supports them, most despised by the common people around the world? Would you tell your children to respect a gun slinger, or a thinking person? Well? If you step outside your current social prejudices, how would you impartially describe the people who most threaten the future of you and your children, so that you may then impartially apply your description where other impartial, thinking people apply it? Who advances their knowledge and who stagnates it, among those who actually answer such questions and those who only read-over them? If an American offered you something you did not want, and an Arab offered you something you wanted, which offer would you pursue?

Notice how many people are therefore wiser and more intelligent than the Americans. But the Americans cannot logically complain about those who are not wise, and who thus do as the Americans taught them, such as those among the aforementioned millions, including the Saudis who flew jet airliners into the World Trade Towers. The Saudis are still laughing at their successfully attacking America, as the Americans taught them to do, with the tools of the Americans, while the unthinking Americans therefore attacked the Afghans and Iraqis, and next the Koreans, Iranians and everyone except the people who attacked the Americans, to create more American enemies.

If you cannot successfully defeat a nation, and want to do so, and you are able to leverage that nation into creating more enemies, would you?

It was the Americans, who routinely bomb whomever they wish, who therefore taught Osama bin Ladin's Saudi boys that the solution to their perceived problem would be to bomb the Americans. Is that not so?

And further, the George Bush family's known close connection to the Saudi Royal family, involving extensive oil wealth, and their nearly identical force-based form of government process, would inherently cause the midget minded Bush to lash out at a bystander, the Afghans rather than the Saudis who flew the airliners, and then because that would solve nothing, and further embolden him, he would lash out at another bystander, the Iraqis, etcetera, creating more American enemies, much to the amusement of observers.

Granted, the Neanderthals taught the Americans their method to solve problems, but the Americans claim the credit, so they may have it, for lack of enough Neanderthals objecting to the accusation that they used clubs instead of their mind.

The obviously wiser solution to any real or perceived contradiction, if you, the reader of these words, like Bush and his boys in Washington DC, do not have bullets whizzing by your ears right now, clipping the side of your computer while you duck below the desk, is to spend a few days, at your leisure, or at your expense, actually answering the common questions that have been asked by people for thousands of years.

The dramatic difference would be in your actually answering those questions, just like the preceding sentence states with words that hold their meaning. Write your answers. Consider reading that again. Not one person in the American government and among its unquestioning minions, actually answers questions, as you can easily prove. Simply listen to the non-answers and rhetorical tap dancing that flow from the lips of government sorts when they are asked questions.

A simple example question follows in the immediately below paragraph. Not one person in the entire American government of DemocanRepublicrats, or among their experts, is sufficiently intelligent to answer the question, not because I say so, but because they will consistently prove so, even with incentive to prove the error of my words. They hold no need to answer my question. You may instead observe what they demonstrated in their prior action.

If the Americans physically attack and kill other people who did not physically attack the Americans, and if the Americans claim they are lawfully justified in doing so, do they create the lawful justification for other people to physically attack and kill the Americans?

My name is Doug Buchanan, of Fairbanks Alaska. You may quote me for public record. The answer to the above question is, Yes.

The rule of written law above the rule of personalities (kings and dictators) cannot exist if it does not equally apply to each party claiming protection within the rule of law.

To be otherwise, the law must state the precise persons to whom the law applies and does not apply, and the reasoning of record, without any contradiction in the identity of those persons. If the king or dictator with George Bush's President title is exempt from the written law, the written law must precisely state so, and the reasoning, so that the people will know the law, the limits of its use under the written reasoning, and the reason they will therefore immediately discard the President and create a written law under which all people are treated equally by the law. The rule of written law cannot exist above the rule of personalities if any person is exempt from the law, by definition, whether that person is Saddam or Bush.

Oh, I am not an American. I am an Alaskan. And even that is often embarrassing upon analysis of the RepublicratDemocan victims of their insatiable power in the greed-saturated Juneau Alaska government. Yes, I was previously an American, and fought in one of its idiot wars, much to my ongoing embarrassment.

Consider the soldiers who fought to create and defend every empire in human history, great and small, which therefore collapsed and disappeared on schedule. Should they be proud or embarrassed by their action? Well?

What was the net product of their action? Is that net product not inherently known from the results of all previous wars, to everyone but blithering idiots thinking with testosterone? Do you answer questions to learn more knowledge than those idiots? What was the net product of the British soldiers who fought to keep the American colonies, India and many other countries, under the heel of the British king? Or the soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Spanish and Egyptian Empires, Babylon, Assyrians, Samurais, Soviets, Hannibal of Carthage, Alexander the Devil, Atilla the Hun, Hitler, Ghingus Khan, Knerd the Neanderthal, Al Capone, ad infinitum? What was the net product of all those soldiers?

They slaughtered a lot of people, created massive suffering, destroyed entire cities and more, and looted the fruits of other people's labor. That is the net surviving product of their actions. Were you sufficiently intelligent to identify that answer? They produced nothing else. They destroyed vast intellectual and material benefits to humans. Any rhetorical illusion of their creating freedom, democracy and such crap is only a lie proven by a few more questions. Benefits to humans are created by reasoning, by design of the human mind. Use of force destroys them. You cannot slaughter humans and bomb their cities into a better life. Should those soldiers be proud or embarrassed? Where are their empires? Who respects Hitler and all the other killers, if not only mental midget killers?

Democracy, freedom and such concepts cannot be imposed by a gun, bomb or tank, by definition. The owner of the tank will never surrender it, or he would not have needed it for what he said was democracy at the muzzle of his 90 mm tank gun, HIS gun.

Of course you recognize that Americans cannot comprehend that the US Constitution was created by reasoning, and could have easily been applied by it if George W. and his boys had asked and answered a few more questions before they started shooting at King George's boys. And because they therefore taught themselves that shooting their way to a goal was successful, the American government created a standing army, and then federal police, precisely that which the founding old dead white guys of our nation most warned against. The inherent result of those military and police forces centralized in the hands of the Washington DC government, was your inability to identify even one phrase of the Constitution that has not been rendered null, void and without effect, by the RepublicratDemocans. After the liberal hemp smokers discovered that the Washington DC government even owns the bodies of all Americans, categorically negating all human rights in this nation, by definition of rights, the conservative gun owners belatedly figured out that even one gun restriction law, yet alone the existing 20,000 such laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms, abrogated the Second Amendment, by definition. Those are only examples of the hundreds of thousands of other laws negating every free exercise of what were human rights, by many laws each. Therein, Americans hold no human rights, and only hold privileges grantable and deniable by whatever government bureaucrat snaps his fingers, with unquestioning federal police at their command, much to the open laughter of observers.

The Soviets, Nazis, Taliban, Japanese, Italians, Iraqis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Spanish, Cubans, Brits, American Indians, Muslim terrorists, Dividians, Hippies and everyone else Americans have railed against or waged war against, did not destroy the US Constitution. The American DemocanRepublicrats did, much to the howling laughter of observers. And American soldiers, therefore violating their oath of office, defend those pitiable politicians, just like all those other soldiers defended their empire leaders, for the same reason, raw power alone. You cannot identify a single phrase of the US Constitution that the Washington DC DemocanRepublicrats have not rendered null and void. (One exists, protecting the super-rich, but you cannot identify it.) History proves that the greatest destroyer of human freedom and all other human benefits is always the people's own government, not anyone else, as again proven in the United States. US military, police and their supporters can read those words and not only have no clue of their meaning, they will flee every question proving the case, to remain as ignorant as raw power requires of its victims. The refusal to ask and answer questions creates ignorance.

If you are not sufficiently intelligent to answer obviously simple questions, such as those above, writing your answers with your signed name so your mind does not uselessly harbor an ambiguous illusion, you will not develop the greater intelligence to answer more complex questions. Humans train their minds to derive their utility. Insects and reptiles are stagnated with genetically encoded brains that produce their utility. It is your choice to advance your knowledge, or stagnate your mind by never questioning government orders as have the American adults.

Oh, but the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction, and they previously started a war, so they are a potential threat to people. Who does that describe to a vastly greater magnitude? If your words do not impartially hold their meanings, you will train your mind to be as incapable as that of the Americans. The world hears your words, and looks at your dictionary, and marvels at how Americans so openly make fools of themselves, defining an even greater threat to rational people. Would you give nuclear bombs to fools? If you are so confused by words that you think a perceived threat is an attack, should not the world initiate a counter attack against the Americans who threaten the world with the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and who have been attacking nations at whim?

Further, if you fabricate and substitute proverbial straw-man words and phrases, to fool your mind into creating and sustaining an inherently untenable contradiction that will therefore ultimately defeat you, you will fool your therefore foolish mind into creating and sustaining an inherently untenable contradiction that will ultimately defeat you, much to the laughter of commonly intelligent people listening to your words and phrases. A so called pre-emptive strike is a fool's rhetorical illusion for the act of starting a war against someone who did not attack you. Were it otherwise, Japan did not start a war against the US back there at that Pearl Harbor show. They only made a pre-emptive strike. Did Japan start a war with the US? Did the United States start a war with Iraq?

Under the Law of Nations, expressly adopted by the US in the United States Constitution, what are the legal consequences of starting a war against a nation that did not attack you? Is the US Constitution the law, or just another amusing government lie? Did we execute any Japanese military officers after the war, for violating the Law of Nations? Notice which United States government and military leaders are too intellectually void (dumb as a post) to answer those questions that any common-sense farm boy or school drop-out can accurately answer or come very close with logical guesses. Will you tell your children to support and follow people who cannot answer simple questions, or people who can? What is your answer? Will you tell your children to try to answer questions, to train them to think, or tell them to flee questions, to train them to not think? Did the Americans start a war with Iraq, in violation of the Law of Nations and the US Constitution? Are American government and military leaders therefore liable for criminal damages, and their people liable for civil damages, each under the rule of written international law, often prior written by the US, binding on the US by US-adopted treaty and the US Constitution?

The Iraq war and all the other wars are not at issue. Your ability to ask effective questions, and actually ANSWER them, to therefore create new knowledge in your mind by synthesizing the correct answers, is at issue, lest you will end up as ignorant as the American adults, and thus mostly likely teach your children no more, to thus pass on to them your legacy of only more wars and destruction of human efforts, much to the laughter of observers.

The solution to seemingly complex problems cannot get any simpler. It is that of simply answering the series of questions that lead to the solutions, therein resolving each contradiction identified by each question. Simply answer the questions rather than dodge or flee them.

But Bush and his DemocanRepublicrat colleagues, identical to Clinton, Saddam, Osama and their ilk throughout human history, could read the above words, with a dictionary in their hands, and remain clueless, which is why the next time the American RepublicratDemocans, including Bush, face a perceived problem, they will attack and kill their perceived opponent, or his neighbors, without any action that constitutes verifiable thinking (asking and answering questions).

So therefore the ignorant Americans trained the people of the world to kill you Americans if those people perceive that you are a problem, after you created an obvious problem by slaughtering their fathers, mothers, children, other family and friends within their religions, races, nationalities, other social associations, and the next door neighbors. And besides the Americans bragging about their massive arsenal of nuclear bombs threatening the world more than any nation in human history, the Americans now brag about having developed the Mother Of All Bombs.

No problem. Simply think to the extent of the solution for the resulting problem. The process is just knowledge, easily learned. You now need only learn how to untrain all the people you trained, before they rightfully utilize what you taught them. Is there not utility in time? How will you wisely utilize what is now a noticeably shortening time before your international students use what you taught them to kill Americans? What must you learn before you can teach it to anyone?

The process to learn that next level of knowledge is rather easy because you have a cooperative, now more motivated student, yourself, if that is your desire.

You need only teach yourself the mechanism or reasoning of how and why to not to retaliate against your enemy after he attacked you, so you can then convey that valuable knowledge to the enemy you created by attacking him, whom you therefore trained to attack you, to therefore face no attack from him.

If you foolishly suggest that it is impossible for a human mind to learn and convey such knowledge, especially your own mind, get your personal affairs in order, because you taught your enemy to attack and kill you, at his whim. And the new jet airliner bomb, among other innovative weapons, along with a now popular willingness to commit suicide in an over-populated, over-stressed, increasingly diseased world, leaves your enemy with weapons of much greater effect than nuclear bombs. Atomic bombs cannot kill more of your enemy than you would therefore create around them, even if you were sufficiently bold to bomb international cities where the offspring of several of your neighbors are likely visiting at any one time. What was a key mistake of the Saudis bombing the WORLD Trade Center? Imagine if they had been sufficiently wise to attack Ogden Utah. People who use force are not intelligent, by definition. Has not time and its events made the American possession of nuclear bombs a profound liability with no benefit? What could you do if you easily trained your mind to question and resolve each identified contradiction, while your opponent did not?

You are statistically safe from any terrorist. You are more threatened and impeded by goofball Homeland Security Gestapo. But the result of the fear of terrorists, exponentially exaggerated as a budget excuse for more taxation for more centralized government power, is the contradiction which you can learn how to resolve for the intellectually absent government, if you wish.

You now expect your enemy to not attack and kill you. This is after you attacked and slaughtered their people to thus train them to do the same to you.

Amusingly, the knowledge to manifest your expectation exists. It is just knowledge, easily learned in part from the above. It is just a process.

You might erroneously conclude that George Bush, pitiable sort he so openly displays of himself, and his military minions who also fear questions more greatly than nuclear and biological bombs, cannot possibly learn such valuable knowledge. But more useful, to learn the foregoing, what questions would you ask to discover why all the peace advocates around the world and throughout history, many of them flattering themselves with more prestigious titles and credentials than held by most kings of old, have not learned the same simple knowledge of how to achieve goals by way of reasoning rather than military force? Well? Your answer? If George Bush is as intellectually dull as the liberals rightfully state from the obvious proof, why have the liberal peace sorts not learned anything more effective, to defeat the policies and actions of Commander George? Would not the peace sorts have to be currently more intellectually absent than George, if George currently prevails?

Why do the peace organization leaders keep sucking up millions of dollars of donations annually, and produce no peace? How long will you pay the baker for a loaf of bread that he keeps saying he is baking, but never produces? How long before your mind asks the questions to figure out that your constantly rewarding him for not producing the bread, is the reason his mind holds no incentive to produce the bread, or even learn how to bake?

Start with an example. Select any typical American peace organization leader who rails against conservative George Bush, and votes for liberal Democrats, a common phenomenon. The most prominent representatives of the US Democrat Party, those in Congress, willfully and criminally evaded their known legal duty to immediately impeach President George Bush for criminally violating the prevailing law prohibiting him from starting an obvious war before the US Congress formally declared war, as well as for Bush criminally violating the Law of Nations expressly adopted as US law in the US Constitution. While holding the duty to stop a crime by a person under their authority for that action, the liberal Democrats willfully evaded their duty, to thus facilitate the crime, and then further voted to fund George's military thugs, verifying the intent of the Democrats to wage war rather than peace. The criminal and illogical evasion of their duty by the Democrats in Congress, if they are what they espouse of themselves, is just a data point, and not the central issue. They violate the law daily. The next related useful question is: Will the referenced peace organization leader therefore ever vote for a Democrat again? The actual vote is just a data point, and not the central issue. The next useful question is: Is the peace organization leader's mind neurologically capable recognizing and resolving a contradiction? The resolution of the illuminated, obvious contradiction is to easily never vote for a Democrat again, or instead easily renounce peace, and endorse war as a solution to a problem. Either conforms to logic for the contradiction at question, that is, the ability to identify and resolve a contradiction at question. But logic is defied and thus the mind shown to be incapable of resolving a contradiction if it endorses peace and votes for any Democrat. The Democrats endorsed the war by not exercising their accepted duty to easily prevent it, and by willfully voting to fund the war. The Democrats then retained their title as Democrats. They created and sustained a contradiction. By definition, to oppose war and support peace, the liberal peace advocate cannot ever again vote for any Democrat.

As a corollary learning vehicle, if a particular Democrat politician genuinely endorsed peace, rather than lying as usual, he or she would be required by logic to easily resign from the Democratic Party because the party created and maintained a contradiction it refused to easily resolve. The Party represents the member, by definition. You cannot accept the benefit of association without accepting the liability, regardless of your perceptions. The politician could instead be independent, or join a political party which did not contradict its espousals. But of course, the identified mechanism of power itself, within a human mind, and therefore the insatiable craving for power by a typically vulnerable, power-damaged mind will not allow a DemocanRepublicrat to willingly surrender the power created by their Party association.

Will the peace advocate ever again vote for a Democrat?

The liberal peace advocate cannot identify the process to manifest peace, for the same reason George Bush, who incessantly espouses peace, cannot identify that process. Their minds are literally not capable of accurately answering the easy questions that create the knowledge to answer the progressively more complex questions. Consider the peace advocates who will vote for liberal Democrats the rest of their lives, and remain clueless that they are the only source of the contradictions about which they wail and wring their hands, identical to the conservative Republicans perpetuating the litany of their anguishing contradictions.

If a statement or action of the peace organization leader, relating to voting for his mind's representation by his political party's actions, proves that his mind is not capable of identifying and/or resolving a verified contradiction, then the next questions would be designed to identify what itemized mechanism causes a human mind to create and retain a contradiction. That mechanism is in further contradiction to the verified, original design of the human brain predicated on identifying and resolving contradictions, therein constituting that mechanism's controlling disguise. With the answers to those questions, you will hold the knowledge to literally dictate the decisions of your enemy's mind, albeit more accurately described in other more precise words.

You, the reader, can learn that knowledge. Bush, his enemies and all the peace organization leaders in the world will refuse to learn that knowledge, for a reason you can learn, much to your great amusement.

Keep your personal affairs in order. Consider translating the paperwork into more than one language, not for fear of terrorists, but for logical reaction to the greatest threat to every society, as proven by history, their own government, in this case, yours. What does the success of a military attack train the attacker to do upon his perception of the next problem? Notice that no US military officer is sufficiently intelligent to answer that simple question. It would identify the contradiction of their rhetorically espousing peace when their mind would have to state their intent to create wars as their process for the lack of peace. How many times can the Americans militarily attack the non-Americans before the Americans therefore inherently create the fate that such action obviously creates by human imperative and by the inescapable balance in all things? Count the times Americans waged functional war against those who did not attack America. Count the same examples in the history of several of the larger empires. Calculate the average. Do not overlook the effect of the internal wars of our government attacking sectors of its own citizens who did not attack the government or other people, such as the Dividian Christians at Waco, the millions of American hemp smokers, the millions of American gun owners, the liberal peace demonstrators, the conservative rights demonstrators and a much longer list. Those many millions of Americans will be helping the so called enemy for the same reason George and his military minions expected the Iraqi people to help dump Saddam's government. Why does Saddam have enemies within his country? How many hundreds of thousands of Americans who smoked hemp instead of tobacco, who damaged no one, are sitting in American prisons, and how many millions of other such non-harmful Americans are under constant threat by their government?

The US federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed by a US military trained American, doing precisely what your government of the RepublicratDemocan's for whom you voted, taught him to do to resolve a perceived problem. There are many more like him. He was widely cheered in private by many American gun owners and Christians, among others in America and around the world. He did unto the feds in Oklahoma City what the feds did unto the Christians in Waco, for the federal government reason, by the federal government process. The minds of those who privately cheered him responded identically as the minds of the government thugs who cheered and raised the FBI flag over the rubble of the Dividian church after the FBI and US Army burnt it to the ground and drove their tanks over the bodies of some of the Christians. The American government-trained minds which cheered the slaughter of those American Christians, and also Arab Muslims in Iraq, are identical in design to the Iraqi government-trained Sunni Muslim minds which cheer the slaughter of Iraqi Shiite Muslims and American Christians, and are verifiably identical in design to YOUR mind. Circumstance alone could have caused your mind to become any of the aforementioned, just as it did for those sorts, unless you learn the rare knowledge of how to place your mind above social circumstance.

Therefore, your wiser option is to easily learn more knowledge than those folks learned. You need only easily learn the design of the human mind and the mechanism that consistently causes it to formulate conclusions that contradict the displayed data. When you learn that mechanism, you will know its controlling cog. If you do not learn that design and the controlling contradiction of its process, then it will inherently do to you what it does to every victim of their craving for insatiable power over other humans, without your possible escape, by design of your mind. If you fail to learn what happened to the American and Iraqi minds, you will be laughed at and pitied by every common-sense person.

The results of teaching human minds to use force instead of reasoning, reach vastly beyond the reptilian understanding of those who teach people to use force instead of reasoning, which is why no force-based empire has, or ever can, prevail within the human species predicated on its mind. There is no nation verifiably more entrenched within an ultimately self-defeating, mindless force-based system of governance, than the United States of America. Reasoning is void in that government, as amusingly verifiable with a simple series of questions that even school drop-outs can accurately answer.

Ask and answer the questions. Learn what Bush and the peace organization leaders will not learn no matter how long they live, for the reason you will therefore learn. It is the most valuable knowledge known to humans, and yours for the asking.

Saddam could have been too easily defeated, by anyone, without firing a shot. So can the Americans. The process is only knowledge.

And the following is a magnificent conclusion. The fact that the mothers in America have not openly renounced the current male Commander-In-Chief of the American military, and unwaveringly demanded his impeachment, without alternative, for his formally naming the nation's new largest conventional bomb, the Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB), instead of the Father Of All Bombs or the Idiot Of All Bombs, is another superlative reason to laugh yourself to tears at Americans. Removing the current president from office is not the issue, since he would just be replaced by another incessantly lying DemocanRepublicrat clone, on schedule, until Americans question their failing conclusions. At question is the intellectual ability of mothers in America, to identify a contradiction and express a resolution. Any group of mothers in this nation could create prominent national news by formally petitioning the government to formally remove the MOAB name from George's new bomb, and formally name George's new bomb as the Idiot Of All Bombs, and accepting nothing less from the male government. The mothers will not do that. It is the American mothers who created the most repugnant and defining image of America, by lazily remaining silent and feckless when an idiot male defined them as creators of the Mother Of All Bombs. The last data point that will be remembered of Americans, before they too fade from the recognition of history, on schedule, will be that of a Bomb. That is the socially defined zenith of their intellectual ability.

Wisely distinguish yourself from them, for what you will therefore learn.




African savages... 9 April 2003

For those who keep track of the current games, you notice that a couple weeks ago another bunch of African savages in the Congo slaughtered a thousand people in their neighboring village. They shot them, and for lack of enough ammunition, they hacked them to death with machetes. Men, women and children. The victims did not sufficiently agree with the more powerful village's leadership policies. When will those Black African savages join the civilized world?

So what was Saddam Hussein, primitive White Persian savage that he is or was, doing to the Iraqi people who did not sufficiently agree with his leadership policies? He was routinely slaughtering them, with guns and tanks.

So what did the Russians, primitive White Euro savages that they are, do to the Afghanistan people who did not want the Russian leadership in Afghanistan, and what are the Russians currently doing to the Chechnyan people who do want the Russian leadership in Chechnya? The Ruskies slaughtered the Afghans, and are still slaughtering the Chechnyans, with guns and tanks.

So what are the Americans, courageous liberators that they are, still doing to the Afghanistan people who do not want the American military leadership in Afghanistan? The Americans are still liberating the primitive Afghans from those primitive Afghan savages, to advance their society. Well, yes that requires the routine slaughter of the Afghans, including any men, women and children bystanders mistaken as those Afghans. Well, they all look alike you know. Tank guns with depleted uranium rounds, and laser guided bombs are the surgical instruments for this necessary social improvement.

Did the compassionate Americans not replace the savage Russians in Afghanistan, and the savage French in Vietnam?

And what are the Americans, intellectually advanced people that they are, going to be doing in Iraq, for years, to the Iraqis who do not want the American military leadership turning the oil valves in Iraq? The Americans will again be freeing the primitive Iraqis from the oppression of those primitive Iraqi savages, of course, by shooting and bombing them into submission, including any men, women and children bystanders mistaken as those Iraqis, in the name of democracy of course. Well, they all look alike you know. Guns with night vision scopes and bunker busting bombs will be the policy instruments for the this necessary social advancement.

Did we not learn the process to make a civilized world, from what those African savages taught us? Is not the word, savage, only what we say of them, not us, and what they say of us, not them?

And what are all those feckless peace weenies doing? They are doing what they have always done. They are wringing their hands and shaking their fingers at the guns of the Africans, Russians, Afghans, Iraqis, Americans and every other power structure trammeling whichever villagers they wish.

So therefore, you are certainly enjoying the superlative amusement of the ancient game.

But is not the ancient game therefore obviously only a game fully within the design of the human mind?

The only reason the game continues, other than for its superlative entertainment value, is that not even one individual human in the entire lot of the primitive Neanderthal savages, simply sits down and tediously asks and answers each question, writing them so they can be later referenced to avoid a continuous loop, of each contradiction created by each preceding answer, until the entire, thus created series of questions, is answered, including every question of every inherently predictable reaction by the other guy. Is not the game so ancient that every reaction to every action is obvious even to morons? The gun mentalities will not do that. The finger-shaking mentalities will not do that.

But you can. It does does not require that much time. And if you do that to the extent of its easy conclusion, with a bit of patience, you will laugh yourself to tears at the simplicity of the process to drag those primitive American White savages into a civilized world, no matter how much kicking and screaming and clawing and wailing they produce, much to your amusement.

There is an inherent counter balance to your resulting knowledge, or the war game could not still exist. You will likely let those pitiable savages keep playing their game, for the superlative entertainment, because not one of them will ask you for the knowledge, and if you attempt to inform them, they will loudly denigrate you, much to your robust laughter, or the game could not still exist.

So therefore, you are certainly enjoying the superlative entertainment of the ancient war game, if you are thinking even one question beyond the reptilian minds of the kill-the-other-guy savages, or one question beyond the Dodo minds of the clucking peace weanies.


End of Intech Concepts 15


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