Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 18
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)



War is amusing.... 1 Dec 2003

The controlling concepts of war are immutable and flawlessly known before any war starts, to include the identity of the victor and loser. One need only ask the controlling questions.

But the individual nuances of each war are otherwise unpredictable and popular entertainment.

War, the oldest surviving sports game among humans, is popular both on the field and among the spectators because of its unpredictable daily events, less predictable and more dramatic than chess or football. Speculating on those nuances is often the primary social conversation material.

Because the Washington DC boys have a couple little Wag The Dog shooting wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, those wars are a popular spectator sport in America and its holdings. These words originate from Alaska, a colony being temporarily held under the heel of the American government. The daily Iraq score ranks right up there with the speculation on whether the next day will be cloudy and thus warm, or clear and thus cold, during the winter. Of course during September, the war loses to the conversation about moose and caribou hunting. The Iditerod and Yukon Quest dog sled races also cut into the war conversations in the early spring. Chitina dip netting and the salmon runs during summer will also overshadow news of the current Iraq score.

The public discussion of the Iraq war is as active as the conversations about Bill Clinton's amusing sexual screw-ups back when that was the only gig going among the equally mental midget news journalists. The other 15 shooting wars, of the 17 on average at any one time, are not in the news, for the usual variety of reasons. Hard to keep up with all of them, and if your own team members are not officially involved in the game, such as in the several wars in Africa and Asia, the daily score is not of much interest.

As to war itself, when the score is predicated on who gets killed, the individual killers, with their lives at stake, are logically released from any institutional rules. They function only on the data base of their minds. The institution rule makers are not going to come onto the battle field and stop any of the bullets or bombs which are not authorized by the rules, so the killers on the field can do as they jolly well please.

We now even have routine suicide bombing against invader-supporting civilian targets, as a perfectly logical reaction to such technologically superior invaders that the rules of technology would stifle the game if the lesser advanced side played by the invader's rules, much to the entertainment of spectators. The game will always develop a counter force for each new force, by design of the war game and the human mind.

The killers do not do those things which violate their individual mind's data base. They act like humans are designed to act in that game, displaying the spectrum, from at least an attempt at their perception of reasoning, to maximum emotional reaction, at any particular moment and event, albeit within a game predicated on the void of reasoning.

But the so called institutional Rules of War, referencing a joke among thinking people, are as meaningless as George Bush so grandly illuminated and formally instituted by changing the rhetorical reference for prisoners of war, who hold human rights under the written Rules of War, to enemy combatants, who hold no human rights under any written rules. The game participants on both sides do the same thing, with obvious justification in the actions of all their superiors. They change the rules to effect no rules, at their whim.

Because enemy combatants hold no human rights defined in written law, and enemy combatants are whomever are summarily decreed to be enemy combatants, including even a teenager who inadvertently delivered a pizza to someone who was later decreed to be an enemy combatant, without any written rules limiting who can make such decrees, it is America's President George Bush, Commander in Chief of the most powerful (and thus most vulnerable) military in human history, who has formally illuminated the fact that the rules of war are no rules, for history to thus define the unbridled, murderous Americans, as their military dependence upon bombing villages and cities likewise illuminates.

When an angry soldier guns down yet another innocent little kid on the street, it is just collateral damage. No rules. When an Iraqi kid repeatedly smashes the dead body of a soldier with a brick, and shouts intense hatred for Americans, encouraged by bystanders, it is another interesting nuance of war. No rules. When a US bomber pilot releases another ignorant smart bomb on what he can see is a village he knows to house many innocent people, it is an order to destroy an official military target. No rules. When a sustaining number of highly motivated and courageous suicide soldiers drive explosives-filled vehicles into the positions of collaborators with an enemy which portrays its military might as invincible, the unpredictability of the nuances of war are magnificently illuminated. No rules.

When the invaders reference the freedom fighters and resistance in the invaded country, as terrorists, on the battle field, the nuances of war are laughable. The United States Army formally teaches its combat personnel, in classrooms, that the primary reason for the use of tanks, which are otherwise less effective than fixed artillery, and less mobile than infantry soldiers with recoiless rocket launchers, and less useful than helicopter gunships, is to "terrorize" the enemy, in those words. But only the enemy are terrorists, not the Americans rolling their terrorizing tanks through the streets, blasting away to kill even neutral journalists. And those poor sad pitiable, unquestioning, gullible young mental midget military sops, as was myself in the Vietnam games, cannot identify a contradiction in their actions and words even if you show them these words, hand them a dictionary, and sit them down in another Army basic tank warfare class. That again illuminates why wars can still be popular after so many thousands of years of such laughably contradicted use of words among functionally illiterate military dolts, obviously including the victims of the American public school system.

The American military trains its soldiers to use what they describe as terrorist tactics, with those words, and what are verifiably a full array of purely terrorist tactics, then carry out those terrorist tactics, then deny that they are terrorists, and are so astonishingly dumb, including the college graduate officers among them, that they are then as clueless as mud even if you show them this sentence. They incessantly spew words that hold no meaning, and cannot figure out why they cannot devise any more intelligent process than shooting and bombing any other humans that some equally mental midget leaders say are an enemy, much to the robust laughter of observers.

When one side claims the war to be a holy war against the infidels, in the name of god, and the other side claims god to be on their side, for the manifested process of slaughtering the creations of God, every common sense human is left laughing themselves to tears over the childish antics of the mental midget war mongers and their unquestioning cannon fodder. If you are not laughing at wars and what they prove of the humans, you are missing what they prove of humans.

Which identifiable god, claiming to be the creator of all things and concepts, needs yet another obviously inconsequential human army on his side, to effect his will?

Not even one American, Iraqi or Afghan government or religious leader, or any of the idiot ilk supporting them, can answer that question, while every common sense human created by God or otherwise can accurately answer the question in public, with their signed name, for the world to judge their mind's REASONING ABILITY.

The answer is, a false god, a charlatan, a rhetorical illusion god, a non-god, an idiot claiming to be god, the imagination of an idiot religious fanatic, an anti-god, another human fool fooling fools, a flimflam artist, or any such human-created illusion, by definition of God. The god of the Americans and Arabs who say that god is on their side in their war process to slaughter humans made by God, can only be an idiot illusion of idiot humans.

A God or any other concept of your preference, who created entire galaxies colliding with galaxies while you are reading these words, created a universe extending beyond our sight, instruments and imagination, countless stars exploding in super novas at any moment, gamma ray and hot gas streams of such magnitude zinging through space with such force that they would strip earth down to the last electron and not even know they engulfed another solar system, more electro-chemical pulses zipping through your brain and other neurons in your body each instant than you knew existed, and those ludicrous war mongering idiots mouth the words that their god needs a human military on planet earth to effect their god's will against something so inconsequential among God's creations as another human military, and thus fool only fools, first themselves. They would be pitiable, if you could stop laughing at them long enough to pity them.

The war mongering government and religious leaders now and in the future, will die of old age and never comprehend the utility of the invention of even language, yet alone the human mind. If an apple is an orange, and an omnipotent god needs a human army of his own creation to effect his will, while holding the ability to instantly snuff the entire planet and its sun, you do not have a functioning language, and therefore negate the effect of all that you say or write. That is the categorical damage that petty power does to the human mind's reasoning process, by design, for the entertainment of the observers. If you are supporting political or religious leaders, by any means of any nature, whose minds cannot match the words they state with the dictionary meanings of those words and their manifestations, after language has existed for so many years, your mind is as useless as theirs, by definition of your supporting them.

Do not let your mind become so useless to you. Never believe adults, especially when you become one, for fear that even teenagers can recognize embarrassing contradictions in your words. Is it not obvious that even grade school kids have recognized the incessant lying, and thus intellectual void, of American politicians? Instead, patiently ask real questions of everything you hear or read, especially if you say or write it. Write the answers.

If you are not rolling on the floor, kicking and pounding, clutching your aching sides, tears of howling laughter streaming from your eyes, over the effects of petty power within the human mind, you are a victim of that concept or your current failure to ask more questions, and are missing the only show humans yet know how to stage.

The trite old sports event referenced as war can be promptly curtailed, regardless of human opposition, and replaced with the more intriguing game of reasoning, with its exponentially increasing benefits to humans, at any time. The process is just knowledge, that for which the human mind was invented, learned by simply asking and answering more questions, something you can do while comfortably sitting on your bottom side, something political leaders are too intellectually absent to do. First learn how to use words that retain their meaning, and ascertain which questions are more effective, to increase your efficiency.

The knowledge is already available, and yours for the asking.

Your use of the knowledge, when you learn it, is your decision.

Humans have discovered when the time for the human game will be concluded with certainty, when the sun super novas, on schedule, and the score tallied. And we are learning that the human game can be called at any sooner time by certain other learnable space or planet events of no remaining mystery or surprise.

Before the pre-set end of the human game, if the humans belatedly extract themselves from their current intellectual dark ages, by utilizing the mind's designed process of reasoning, rather than its choice of the controlling alteration of power, even children will laugh with the delight of laughing children when they talk about the primitive ancestors of humans, whose entire societies of intellectually void minions supporting intellectually void leaders imprisoned and slaughtered the human minds that were necessary in sum to sooner synthesize the diversity of available data that could produce the level of reasoning that would extract the humans from their self destructive game of imprisoning and slaughtering humans at their great grief and anguish, much to the amusement of observers.

Children, laughing with the delight of laughing children. If soon enough, their most common reference will be George Bush who so formally illuminated the rules of war as no rules, voiding even the concept of human rights, from the simple ignorance of the meaning of the words he spewed, while still speaking of rules of war, for what was therefore belatedly leaned by more minds. But otherwise, the common reference will be whatever next power-damaged mind then most recently stumbled into the international spotlight for power-damaged minds. They are a dime a dozen, a single phenomenon, by design.

Odd lot these humans, but of superlative entertainment, by design. Would you not agree? If you taught your children to be observant, and think, would they not agree? Might they have learned what you did not, because they asked one more question that you?



The Saddam Hussein capture... 14 Dec 03

High quality laughter rolled across the surface of the planet at the news that another currently popular thug was pulled from an amusingly described rat hole. The poor pitiable chap placed all his proverbial eggs into the one basket of ruling by the brute force of mental midget minions, and not a piddling of thought for when the process of force would inherently fail. Power-damaged minds are the primary social entertainment for thinking people.

From the circumstances, consider the laughable, unquestioning fools who fought and died for such a pitiable coward, identical to the laughable fools who fought and died for the equally pitiable coward, George Bush, who rules by the same brute force of equally unquestioning, heavily armed mental midget minions, with a void of intellectual ability.

So shortly Saddam is going to lose value in the news media, while many unthinking people have trained their minds to be completely dependent on a human enemy at whom to point. They are mentally lost without a fabricated enemy, an illusion to occupy and fool their otherwise useless minds. Who is the next primary enemy for a society having trained itself to be dependent upon maintaining an enemy, to avoid having to think beyond the primitive concept of human enemies?

Who shall the currently most powerful military thug attack next, parroted by his legion of unquestioning news media journalists, to dodge intelligent questions of why he required such a massive military operation, the slaughter of so many innocent people, the destruction of so much human effort, the increased debt and taxation of his foolish American followers, to subdue such a pitiably inadequate mind?

Well, what is your answer?

What intelligent questions can YOU ask while flag-waving fools rush off with idiot news journalist parrots to elevate and attack the next enemy?

Who fabricated Saddam Hussein into such a mastermind threat to the world, when he was never more than just another vulnerable, pitiable, non-thinking little mental midget like Bush?

Who created and advanced a massive war machine now dependent upon more enemies, wars, slaughter, destruction and taxation, on what rhetorical illusions that evaporated when Saddam was dragged from a rat hole?

Who advanced the rule of raw war power, instead of intellectual ability, for the obvious next result, on an illusion of a mastermind threat to the world, which turned out to be just another laughable illusion?

How many more people now more actively hate the murderous Americans who invade whatever countries they wish, slaughter whomever they wish, install puppet governments wherever they wish, and turn to threaten others with their increasingly powerful military machine that now even brags about its new Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB) and other technology for mass killing?

On what name will George now blame the continuing retaliation against the American bullies? How long can he pander the increasingly trite name of terrorism itself, without a mastermind that he previously claimed was the great Saddam Hussein, after the lie of that mastermind was illuminated?

That Saddam was just a mental midget bully at his best, therefore easily defeated by any thinking person, as is Bush and their ilk throughout history, is further illuminated now that Saddam, living like a lone rat after the American invasion, rather than in a command bunker with staff, is proven to have been no mastermind of the ongoing Iraqi attacks against the American invaders. Saddam was immaterial. The Americans created their enemy by attacking someone who did not attack them, with a few of the usual old excuses all invaders use. You will always be your only enemy, and a fool to fabricate any other enemy.

How did the military tactic of suicide bombers become an entrenched standard for modern freedom fighters resisting a technologically advanced invader? How did attacks on civilian populations become entrenched for modern war when the military targets became so well self-defended that their civilian tax base was left comparatively undefended?

If the Iraqis were the current super power and bullies of the world, how would you Americans react? How does your mind, and thus the human mind, react to each category of stimuli, by design? How did the Americans react when the British were the bullies of the American colonies? How did humans react to the bully Romans, the bully Ottomans, the bully Khans, the bully Huns, the bully Soviets, and every bully whose military swaggered across the lands and oceans? Who is the current international bully? What is its inherent fate, by design of the human mind? Why did the flag wavers and military of every bully ultimately fail and collapse? Were humans predicated on their minds, or their bombs and flags? On what has Bush and his RepublicratDemocan ilk predicated the American empire?

If you fail to learn how the design of the human mind functions in relation to stimuli, you just as well wave a flag or wring your hands to entertain the observers. Every human brain was designed to learn how human brains functions in relation to all stimuli. Simply start asking the questions that are most feared by all power-based institutional leaders. Write them. Answer them. Ask questions of your answers. The process requires less time than reading this website.

What is the result of pouring human time and energy into advancing a killing and destruction machine while ignoring or eventually imprisoning anyone who would ask the type thinking-based questions you are reading?

Does not every question of any human-caused contradiction inherently have a readily available and verifiable answer, feared more than death itself among power-damaged minds that can only create contradictions, such as war?

Would not the obviously non-thinking, highly vulnerable Saddam Hussein have soon enough defeated himself in his own country or region, by design of the mindless use of brute force among humans, if the Americans had not elevated his status to the illusion of a master-mind threat to the world so the Americans could prove their greater threat to the world by extending their inherently self-defeating brute force around the world?

How many more people would Saddam have killed on his own, to therefore defeat himself, compared to the number the Americans killed and will continue to kill by the total effects of their Wag The Dog War in Iraq, including those many thousands who will die for generations, from the massive nuclear radiation poison the Americans spread across Iraq with vaporized depleted uranium projectiles, and thus spread permanent hatred for the murderous Americans?

After cancer dramatically increased in Iraq, after the first Bush Wag The Dog War in Iraq permanently infected the country with refined uranium dust from American artillery, while idiot American soldiers believe their leader's lies about uranium dust not causing cancer, and the second American attack compounding the volume of uranium dust, which ills, real or imagined, will Iraqis and the world inherently blame on Americans and therefore retaliate by innovative means?

When you make someone else's decisions for them, for any rhetorical illusion of your ability to fabricate, and those decisions inherently go awry because you could not therefore live the results of your decision for that person, and you could not even make your own decisions without screwing-up at least half the time, and impose your decisions on the other guy, with damaging force, is it not inherent that you have compounded the damages to yourself, that will forever keep you fighting to defend yourself from the results, stagnating yourself in the sewer of inherently self-defeating use of force, while more intelligent people use their mind to instead learn useful new knowledge?

The next great leader of your perceptions will end up only as laughably pitiable as Saddam, unable to solve the problems he caused for himself, and certainly unable to solve yours. You will have been a fool to support or respect him or her. George Bush and all his counsel and experts will die as clueless as they were when they were born, because they fled effective questions, just as did Saddam and his minions, rather than asked and answered them, as proven by what they manifest.

Your goal, if you are wise, is not to stop or slow the insatiable human love for killing and destroying, among the mental midgets who advance that high quality hobby. Many have tried to stop or slow it, and they all failed, as you can see from the proof around you, for an identifiable reason. Tomorrow more mental midgets will be waving the American flag and looking for the next enemy to elevate and attack with the brute force of mindless animals. They will probably re-elevate Osama, and play him more intensely for awhile, but George still has those other two axis of evil enemies to play at whim, among others, as will George's successors to dodge the process of thinking.

Your goal, if you are sufficiently wise to be sufficiently curious, is to easily learn which controlling contradiction in the minds of all the peace-preachers, blocked their access to the otherwise readily available knowledge of how to actually manifest peace despite the opposition of the flag waving war mongers who in the end are never anything more than pitiably vulnerable, amusingly non-thinking Saddams, Georges, Osamas, Sharons, Arifats, and their nearly endless ilk of guns-for-brains.

You need only ask and answer more questions. Write them. Be tenacious, and you will learn the knowledge. You will laugh yourself to tears the rest of your life, and know the future of humans.

And you may inquire.




What you need for what you want... 27 February 2004

Too many things to do. The notes pages have filled more than the Related Concepts pages.

If you are not actually laughing, aloud, with great enjoyment, when you listen to the daily news, to PBS specials on the Iraq war, to political and other government rhetoric, to the experts and news journalists, and all other sources of common social news, you have not yet learned the readily learnable design of the human phenomenon, and therefore you are missing the human experience from the ability of the human mind. Do not end up dying of old age before you learn the quantifiable knowledge of precisely why you would logically be laughing aloud, and thoroughly enjoying that which still anguishes humans who are too lazy to easily learn the design of the human mind and thus the human phenomenon.

Your only enemy is within your mind, by its design. The other guy is just the other guy fighting his only enemy, instead of learning about him.

You are human. Your mind must learn knowledge. Knowledge does not come with any description of you. Learning is a process.

It is year 2004. Humans are at the current zenith of flattering themselves with more written titles and credentials per person than at any time in human history, which if those rhetorical illusions held even one percent of their meaning, humans would have already solved rather than perpetuated the common social ills which humans have incessantly lamented for thousands of years.

The human brain is the most advanced computer, or contradiction identification and resolution device, known to humans. At its minimum it can increasingly create and manifest concepts that leave each previous generation in awe. So precisely why, by verifiable description of the mechanism and the utility of its process, do humans retain such ancient, destructive, unpleasant and counter productive processes as imprisoning each other, killing each other, and seizing material assets by force, most often by socially sanctioned government actions, as a fool's illusion for resolving the contradictions that said actions therefore create? And further, why do such self and socially flattered people express contradictions and frustration over why the problems are not solved?

The question is, why.

To learn the knowledge of how to end wars, as a classic example, you need only ask and answer all the questions of that process, until no identifiable question is left unanswered. That process requires less than a millionth or billionth of the effort that was used in just the most recent Iraq war, to say nothing of all the other wars in human history.

But first consider that within the complex mix of knowledge among many humans, some human minds seem adept at producing the highest recognized quality of art, rockets, music, pastries, automobiles, wine, violins, watches, rifles, this, that, and every other thing, by definition of each highest quality of anything. What valuable data point is expressed therein?

So therefore, if you prefer to more efficiently learn specific knowledge, such as how to promptly end the utilization of wars as an illusionary means to resolve contradictions, rather than learning that knowledge from scratch on your own, you need only identify the person, among many, whose mind is adept at synthesizing more related data points or concepts, the person whose mind is adept at producing the highest quality of complex contradiction resolution.

But at that level of complex data synthesis, your own mind must learn enough knowledge to recognize the existence of that greater level of related knowledge. It is knowledge, not an automobile, song, art, rifle, bottle of wine or other concept whose quality is more easily recognized. Knowledge is required to recognize more extensive knowledge. What therefore must be your task if you wish to conveniently access more extensive knowledge from another person? What is your answer? How is knowledge acquired by the human mind? Is it not acquired by asking and answering questions?

And even then, such higher quality knowledge is of no value if the person holding it cannot convey the knowledge and its verification to your mind. He may say to do this and that, as a bare conclusion, to solve complex problems. But you will not do this and that, for the reason that wars are still popular, because his advanced conclusions would not match any existing data synthesis routings in your brain's neurons. For example, if you were among those whose minds conclusively learned that the world was flat, when such was common knowledge for thousands or millions of years, you would inherently not set sail for the perilous edge of the world if somebody told you to do that to prove that the world was round. Nor would you exercise those harmless, beneficial, inexpensive, logical and wise actions which would end wars, defeat all your enemies and protect your society more thoroughly than all previous human efforts, as bare conclusions, because humans have foolishly trained their minds to fear such wisdom more than they foolishly trained their minds to fear the edge of the world, by proof of the test of time.

But to learn the knowledge of how to easily end the traditional use of perilous wars that create the contradictions that fools thought they were resolving, or any other contradiction resolution, your mind would have to actually answer the questions which you remain too fearful to ask. The human brain learns knowledge by the process of asking and answering questions, among several descriptions that identify the same process.

It gets more complex, just to get to the starting point of learning that knowledge from another human, or it would have been learned by society thousands of years ago.

How does your mind react to a person who is laughing at that which you find anguishing, lamentable, angering, sad or any such negative emotional reactions? What is your answer to that question? What processes does your mind utilize upon identification of itemized stimuli?

And therefore, you do not look to the person who is laughing at what angers or saddens you, the person who inherently holds the knowledge you want, or he would hold only the knowledge you know, and therefore be angered or saddened rather than laughing at the stimuli that angered or saddened you.

Look to the person who is reacting differently than your mind, if you seek to learn knowledge beyond what your mind holds, in defiance of your socially trained emotional reactions, or you will not learn that knowledge.

If a person is angry or sad, his knowledge is inherently limited in relation to that which causes such emotional reactions. His mind is frustrated by an unresolved contradiction, resulting in such emotion-based reactions, by design of the human mind. But if a person is laughing, his mind has resolved the related contradiction, by design of the human mind. There is no remaining contradiction in his mind, for that data. He may be laughing because he is ignorant, as is often the case, but that can be ascertained by simple questions, if you held enough knowledge to know which questions to ask.

So what would you have him do, to preclude your mind's reaction against a person laughing at that which angers or saddens you, so that you may learn the knowledge you want? Would you suggest that he pretend to be angered or saddened? If he did, how would he therefore be training his mind, if not as you did, to therefore learn only what you learned? Or, if he did, he would be attempting to fool you, to perhaps derive your interest in some intellectual service he offered. But if your goal is to resolve complex contradictions, and you therefore inherently discovered that he willfully fooled you, pretending to be dismayed when he was actually laughing, he would obviously be no source for the resolution of contradictions that he may still be creating to string you along. If your goal is to resolve complex contradictions, every contradiction, in flawless detail, must be resolved upon its identity. Therefore, you must learn enough knowledge to never react on any emotion, a difficult part of the puzzle for socially trained minds, if you wish to learn how to manifest the logical goals that have evaded the ability of others, such as ending wars, regaining your human rights, creating honest government, etceteras.

The same applies among those who ridicule and laugh at the highly titled idiots who perpetuate and support wars while lying about lamenting what they say is unfortunate but necessary. How would you train your mind, and therefore what knowledge would it hold, if you referenced idiots such as Bill Clinton, George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and their ilk across the spectrum and throughout history, as great and prestigious leaders deserving of respect? What is your answer to that question?

Listen to the words of the lying political leaders, such as George Bush and his laughable cronies. They incessantly expressed lament for their repetitious slaughter of Afghan, Iraqi and other civilians bombed and gunned down by American military thugs, excused with the words, collateral damage. If you are not among those who have seen the proof of those lies by all leaders of all wars, compare those words with the words of an American Marine commander briefing his troops for the assault on Baghdad, shown on American television. "I don't care about collateral damage." He went on to tell his troops that military personnel could be in civilian clothes.

The meaning of his words needs no other explanation for your conclusion, but among military personnel, he was describing a free fire zone, wherein, if it moves, kill it. And that was in the populous city of Baghdad, not an isolated area of remote Vietnamese jungle where only bad guys were supposed to be, or where the farmers were decreed to be bad guys because the American commanders wanted a convenient, higher body count for the nightly news. When you are told that collateral damage in war is a lamentable, unfortunate necessity, you are hearing the words of a liar and an idiot whose minions are knowingly and verifiably being told to not care about collateral damage. I parroted the lie that collateral damage was inherent and thus repeatedly excusable when I was in the Army. I was an idiot. Is that not so? Were not the people in the World Trade Towers just excusable collateral damage for an attack on a primary symbol of American power and invincibility after Americans became so arrogant that they displayed themselves as the military police for the world? What is your answer to that question, to compare it with your acceptance of collateral damage created by the American military? If the Chinese became the world's military police, attacking whomever they wished at whim, and sticking their nose in every other country's business, how would you react?

The Marine commander was knowingly and intentionally telling young, high-testosterone, trigger-happy Marine Rambos that they could kill anyone that moved, and be commended. And therefore that is precisely what they did, with innocent civilian bodies offering good camera fodder, among the many more not seen by the cameras. Bush, Rumsfeld and the entire lot of the government thugs were fully aware of the lies they then mouthed to fools who believe them.

Therefore, to learn the knowledge of how to end wars, from a person who has already learned that knowledge, look among the people who reference George, his minions and gun slingers, and their ilk in any government, as precisely what they are, liars and murderers. That is what their actions prove of them. Do not look among the people who mouth the contradiction that you must respect that which is not respectable by definition. To learn how to resolve complex contradictions, the human mind cannot leave any contradiction in place, or the effort for the conclusion is futile. The person who references those mental midget government and military dolts as honorable and respectable people, under any rhetorical excuse such as respecting the offices and rhetorical duties that are rendered not respectable by those offices and duties harboring those swine, will never learn how to resolve complex contradictions, or even simple ones.

A resolution of a contradiction cannot retain any contradiction, by definition of a resolution.

The names of the people are immaterial. Any human, including myself and you, were and remain as idiots, fools, intellectually absent, laughably ignorant, etceteras, when we created or still create contradictions that we do not immediately and flawlessly resolve the moment they are identified, if not before.

And therefore the person who learns such inordinately valuable knowledge, will not be sought for that knowledge, by those who retain the contradiction of insisting that respectful language be used to identify that which is not respectful by definition, because you retain those contradictions in your mind if you have not yet manifested your espousals, by definition, and a mechanism in your mind, such as insisting that an emotion-based contradiction, as an example, be retained, currently prevents your and other minds from seeking the knowledge from inherently more knowledgeable people.

Because fools assume that their organization, government and other institution leaders are the experts and people in charge of solving the social problems, when, because of what institutions are by definition, those leaders each demand respect for institution leaders, themselves and their institutional colleagues, and will not communicate with those people who have not trained their mind to respect that which has earned no respect, the leaders never learn the knowledge of how to resolve routinely complex social problems. Nor do the citizen fools who foolishly left the task to the leaders, much to the grand laughter of the observers who learn the knowledge. The observers are laughing at humans who are therefore angered rather than being curious about the reasoning for being laughed at.

Look to the people who are laughing. And ask the questions to ascertain the source of their laughter, a lot of questions, or a few controlling questions. If you are looking to people who lament the collateral damage they intentionally create while lying about it, you are the reason other people are laughing at you. Share their laughter for that reason, and you may learn from your laughter.



Marriage... 1 March 2004

It is year 2004. This section identifies the level of ignorance of the human phenomenon, among the Americans.

If you are a historian, you might copy this section as a classic representation of the intellectual void among Americans in 2004, if you did not have so many of your own favorite examples.

As represented by the current news media, Americans are anguished that a percentage of fellow humans among them are getting married, if you can imagine such an outrage. Oh, ah, and they are of the same sex.

From those words, if you are among the people who are not outraged, you might too hastily conclude, that those who are outraged are a laughable lot of intolerant, illiterate old obsolete oafs who literally cannot comprehend the meaning of their own prior words about respecting human equality and thus political equality across any sexual demarcation. But you would be too hasty because the far more laughable lot are those who are insisting that the government recognize the right of homosexual persons to get married.

If you read slowly, and think, that is, ask yourself related questions, and write your answers, you can derive from this section several inordinately useful parts of the puzzle. Among other things, you may belatedly recognize that lawyers, court judges, and what they say is the law, are a fool's illusion of no utility to you or any other thinking person.

The controlling issue is not marriage. Anyone can get married.

Marriage describes two or more people who decide to either live together under the description of being married, as is traditional, or not live together but recognize they are married.

That is marriage. If you want any of the many traditional or non-traditional embellishments, select those of your whim, and pontificate on their importance until you have exhausted yourself, if you wish.

If you want a piece of paper to verify that you are married, because you have been fooled into believing that things do not exist without a piece of paper to verify those things, write an agreement or a contract, stating that each of you are married to each other, each sign it in front of a notary public or witnesses, and later do not forget where you put that piece of paper. If you lose the piece of paper, write another one.

Marriage is a right of two or more people. It is a right, that which is unalienable from the condition of being human with a mind that can identify a right. It can be nothing else, by design of humans.

It cannot a privilege, unless you wish to willfully surrender your right to be married, and request permission to be recognized as married, as a privilege.

That which is grantable, is deniable.

A right is not grantable or deniable. It is inherent to the human condition, inherent to the human mind's understanding of the concept of a right. You need only learn the knowledge of such, or you will be an idiot laughed at by commonly intelligent people.

Back in the early days, parents recognized that their offspring were married when they built their own shelter and moved in with each other, after a few arguments over the abysmal choice she made, and some village gossip about the sorry plight of the foolish lad.

Then the church became the primary social institution of human society, and therefore created institutional power, and therefore corrupted church leaders seized the marriage thing as their exclusive jurisdiction, in the name of the great spirit, of course. The people were fooled by their own institutions, by design, and acquiesced to the church's homdihooming to sanctify what was happening anyway, marriage.

Then people became a bit upset as the churches inherently became intolerably corrupt, as usual for all institutions, and the perfunctory homdihooming became a bit excessive, with some church leaders throwing in a few personal demands clearly not suggested by the great spirit, some of them costly and irritating. The people looked to the competition for officially fussing over the marriage ritual.

The government, insatiably addicted to power, by design, immediately stepped in, with the offer of an official government-stamped piece of paper, which, by design, was a license, therefore defined as permission, for what was happening anyway, marriage. But permission that can be granted, can be denied.

All is well as long as the result of people fooling themselves does not create too much irritation or cost. When the cost or irritation are sufficient to cause humans to think, that is, ask and answer questions, old knowledge goes the way of the old belief that planet Earth was flat. The phenomenon is referenced as, incentive. The tax and bureaucratic process for the privilege to get married in America, that is, the government marriage license and its fee, were kept small so people would not encounter incentive to start thinking.

But time passed, and like the American Social Security Number that is unlawful to use for any identification outside the Social Security Administration, but is now unlawfully required for existence within the standard American system, government-sanctioned marriage began to be used as a prerequisite for all manner of government and institutional privileges, such as financial benefits to spouses, building a labyrinth of contradictions on top of contradictions, fooling fools who ask no questions, and leaving their therefore ignorant children as yet more noticeable fools.

And then like the automobile driver's license that rescinds the prior right of fools who ask no questions, to travel by common means on public rights of way, etceteras, the marriage license, which has become access to other rights and privileges, is now the government and other institutional means to fraudulently deny gullible fools what they perceive as the right to get married, much to the entertainment of observers who are thus rolling on the floor, kicking and pounding, clutching their aching sides, tears of howling laughter streaming from their eyes.

The results of building inherently untenable contradictions on top of inherently untenable contradictions, are inherently untenable, and prove the abject ignorance of the American society which utilizes that process. Did you want your children to be so impaired in life that they cannot figure out when a glaring contradiction is being pandered to attempt to resolve a glaring contradiction, thus leaving two contradictions and their results, that must be resolved, and thus your children become gullible victims of equally ignorant institution leaders robbing them of their rights and money?


The American homosexuals, unquestioning victims of a laughable education system stagnating society, like their intellectually lost heterosexual American colleagues, as a generality, sincerely believe that they cannot get married or derive the benefits of marriage, if they do not get official government permission to get married, with a piece of paper signed with an official title.

Permission that is grantable, is deniable. The act of asking for permission is rightfully and logically described in prevailing law as the act of willfully surrendering one's rights (the only lawful process to separate a human from inherently unalienable rights), and as acquiescing to a privilege grantable and deniable by another inherently equal human.

If you are not laughing at the American homosexuals, over their complaining about their willfully surrendering their rights, start.

Wisely consider the logical conclusion of any seemingly unflawed line of reasoning, to ascertain any original flaw that you have not yet found, if it exists, or any flaw in your process. Or, in other words, consider the logical extreme of your actions or reasoning, to verify its logic or an identified flaw defining the available extreme. If a flaw or contradiction precludes a seemingly logical extreme, it can easily exist at the origin of the line of reasoning. Look for it with effective questions.

Therein, marriage is a routine and socially sanctioned result of two people falling in love, if you would kindly excuse that inaccurate use of the word, falling. Therefore, if the government or any other institution demands that you get government permission (license) to marry, then government permission (license) to fall in love is either required from the government, or the denial of a marriage license after falling in love, constitutes extreme mental anguish, with resulting damages that are criminally created by the government agent responsible for denying said license. In prevailing common law and logic, if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C.

While you may believe that to be an interesting or amusing conclusion, whose logic is flawless upon adequate questioning, it is vastly more than that if you learn the parts of the puzzle to make the knowledge useful.

There is a reason that the higher courts have traditionally refused to write or verify laws that invade the effects of strong emotions which damage no unwilling person, because such laws are inherently futile, and a fool's illusion making fools of higher court judges. But time has passed, and the American system of education, especially its corrupted laws schools, has produced the most ignorant population pool of fools, in human history, from which therefore idiot politicians select idiot lawyer/judges for higher court judgeships, as is so laughably noticeable.

Granted, if anyone in government reads these words, there will be back room congressional hearings of highly paid bureaucrats and their bevies of consultants and idiot think tanks, to ascertain the process, wording, timing, excuses and political viability of adopting a new law requiring a government license for anyone to fall in love. Power is insatiable, and will never willingly surrender any portion of itself just because the logical result of its insatiable nature is exposed. It is insatiable, by definition of those words. If, in 1950, you had suggested that America would establish the Federal Homeland Security Gestapo, which holds the same powers as the Nazi Homeland Security Gestapo, your suggestion would be considered in the same fashion as the current suggestion that the DemocanRepublicrats in Washington DC will adopt a law requiring a government license for any two people to fall in love. It is a certainty if the RepublicratDemocans do not sooner collapse themselves, or if someone does not otherwise facilitate the more prompt manifestation of that inevitable collapse, for idle amusement.

If American homosexuals were to read these words, and they will not, certain of them, from their lack of knowledge, would complain that they cannot otherwise derive the economic benefits granted to spouses by government and private institutions who function on the proof of a government marriage license. The fundamental solution is elsewhere, but I will describe part of a solution, thoroughly adequate in itself, if one is knowledgeable enough to prevail against the usual rhetorical diversions.

Two or more of you might wish to sign a notarized contract that you are married. Two is normal. More, has always seemed a bit much to me, but some women seem to need more males, and it is hard for an ordinary, non-Alaskan mountain climbing male to keep up with some of those wild women. I am unknowledgeable of the homosexual thing, but the same process applies, by logic prevailing against all related questions. While the same sexes may have difficulty conceiving children in harmony with their combined genes, science will soon enough overcome that current lack of knowledge, and marriage is peripheral to conceiving children, by proof of that result outside marriage, and often not chosen or resulting within marriage. Within that contract, or in another contract, agree to the process to dissolve the contract, which is your choice rather than a choice by some idiot American court judge whose controlling interest is his power and personal prejudices, not justice, fairness, wisdom, the prevailing law or any concerns of a couple seeking divorce, as is verifiable. When you sign a government marriage license, you foolishly sign to allowing the government to be your third partner, the controlling partner for your contested decisions. Why would you surrender such decisions to an inherently power-damaged mind, rather than yourselves or a wise person whose reasoning process is not damaged by institutional or conceptual power?

Thereupon you may tell your friends and anyone with reason to inquire, that you are married, if you wish. You can still have the most or least church or non-church ceremony, ritual and party. The paperwork is only the paperwork, for those who cannot understand how humans survived before paper was invented. If paper proof of your marriage is required for some government, employer or other institution privilege or perceived right, each of you sign an affidavit that you are married to each other. If more proof is required, with a written statement as to why the affidavit was not adequate in relation to a fully revealed, prevailing law, submit the contract, or that portion of it which identifies the name of the contract (marriage contract), the date signed, the identification and signatures of the parties, and the related effect or result of the contract (marriage).

If somebody suggests that is not adequate, and that their forms require a government marriage license, or that they only recognize marriage between males and females, then respond on written record with a formal request for the name and title of who is legally liable for criminally invading private affairs with damaging demands, imposing sexual discrimination unrelated to job performance, denying lawful rights, etceteras, etceteras. Not understood by gullible Americans who were trained to not ask questions, and to not understand the meaning of words, and who thus lost that knowledge, a demand under claim of authority in law, creates a greater demand that the imposed law be revealed and certified as prevailing, by the imposing person, under criminal penalty, to protect the wiser rule of written law above the extremely unwise rule of inherently fallible personalities, or law would have been used to manifest fraud, and thus the rule of law no longer the wise person's choice for social governance. Do the court judges claim wisdom?

Of course the equally idiot government-licensed lawyers and court judges, who were trained in government-funded law schools to be clueless of their own rights to perform their duties without inferior law licenses, would be outraged that anyone would write words such as these, indicating a controlling flaw of the thoroughly corrupted institution of American lawyers/judges, and would fabricate all manner of rhetorical tap dancing to suggest that no human can do what humans are designed to do, until they get the permission of government-licensed lawyers and judges, just as the corrupted old church leaders suggested to thus drive people to government licenses instead of church records.

You would wisely learn the questions to formally ask those lawyers and judges, if they shoved their way into your affairs, or you foolishly invited them.

You can get married and derive all the benefits of being married, period. But like all things human, you must learn the related knowledge, or you are the requester and thus potential victim of the results of the other person's knowledge. The other person may be ignorant or malicious. Knowledge is learned by asking and answering questions, more of them than the person who may be fooling you with what he does not know. The same sex marriage controversy demonstrates that Americans cannot understand the words herein.

Those humans who cannot yet understand that humans can do what humans were designed to do, and inherently have a right to do so if their actions damage no other human, and that all other humans, regardless of rhetorical titles, credentials and other illusions, are of the same functional design, provide superlative entertainment for observers.

When humans emerge from their current intellectual dark ages, among the vast array of then popular material for jokes about primitive humans, such as Americans, not unlike the lawyer jokes which are so funny because they are true, the jokes about the sorts who genuinely believed that they must get government permission to be married, will be prominent.

You may enjoy them now, and laugh as extensively as the observers.



The Virus Writer Analogy... 4 March 2004

Computer virus writers are a new phenomenon, because computers are a new phenomenon.

Virus writers are humans just like everyone else, with the same brain design.

Computers and the internet have made a dramatic change in the functioning of civilization. Therefore, in harmony with the phenomenon, virus writers can easily create dramatic events impacting the functioning of many people.

Therefore the precise nature of virus writers, that is, the reasoning process manifested by their minds, may offer valuable knowledge, to a perceptive person. Their nature is slowly emerging as more people evaluate and discuss the phenomenon. So compare what you have learned from their nature, with what is written in this section, to formulate the questions that will advance your knowledge, if you wish.

There are 6.4 billion people. That is a large number. Only a few of them become government leaders. Because government leaders and their ilk are popularized and adulated, albeit by fools, many people indicated that they would like to be a government leader, to extend the impact of their decisions to many people, that is, manifest power. Humans, especially the most dishonest and intellectually void sorts among them, such as government chaps, demonstrate a craving to make decisions for other human minds, and to efficiently force those decisions onto people, rather than inefficiently convey the reasoning (tedious thinking) to educate other people about the benefits of the decisions. Such toilsome thinking is routinely avoided because thinking is the asking and answering of questions, and some of those questions inherently disprove the original decisions of the inherently lazy sorts who seek to use power rather than reasoning derived from tedious thinking.

How much effort and chance circumstances are required for a teenager to successfully become a government leader, to manifest his or her resulting power over many other people? A lot.

How much effort, without any significant circumstances, is required for a teenager to learn how to write a virus that proves his power over just as many people? Very little.

Therein, the overwhelming advantage goes to the virus writer, to manifest the same noticeable concept as political hacks, with the principled advantage of even the worst of the virus writers causing less damage to society, than do most political leaders.

Why would a person become a virus writer? For the same reason a person would become a government or institution leader, to manifest power over others, a common craving of unthinking humans.

These humans cannot even make their own personal decisions with a greater than fifty percent success rate, at best, by design of the human mind, yet they sincerely believe that they can make the decisions for other human minds holding dramatically different data bases, and thus reactions, by design of the human mind, and force those decisions onto to other people, by use of power, and benefit those people with the decisions, much to the howling laughter of observers.

Notice that the government and institution leaders all say that they work to benefit the people. Only fools are fooled. If the leaders were not lying, there would be no opponents among them, unless the opponents openly stated that they work to damage the people. Wars and other institutional expressions of opposition to other leaders prove the leaders to be lying, and working to advance their own power, wealth, ego and such concepts of no benefit and of great cost to the general good of people, with routine damage.

A virus writer can state that he seeks to benefit the people by opposing the massively wealthy computer industry leaders, or repugnantly powerful government leaders who can only acquire that money and power by scamming an excessive amount of each from the common people, albeit by easily fooling them. Therein the virus writers hold a higher quality excuse and personal integrity than the government and institution leaders who favor their wealthy and powerful colleagues, and routinely cheat the common people out of their rights and money, albeit by fooling foolish people who are too lazy to ask questions.

The minds of the virus writers can therefore feel good about their efforts and results, in comparison with what the government leaders manifest in contrast to their routine lies.

Note the following sentence, and its results in the information below. The young virus writers have not acquired institutional power, and are thus thinking logically, while the power-damaged minds of the government leaders actually believe their statements easily verifiable lies, thus they do not recognize their repeatedly damaging actions.

Now add the fact that the political and other institutional sorts accumulate impressive, advertised and bragged-about credentials, certificates, titles and such paper illusions that fool fools. They are the experts, as genuinely perceived by themselves and other fools.

In contrast, a young virus writer, with no titles, credentials, wealth, certificates, offices, accolades, honorariums, power, social status, private tax paid jets, or such ego-feeding illusions, can out-smart all of them. He can prove that the experts and every other title of perceived superiority are fool's illusions.

You cannot identify greater incentive for an enterprising young sort, nor a greater reward of knowledge about the hollow illusion of superiority implied with titles, credentials and such laughable phenomena. The computer and internet phenomenon, because of its design, quite similar to that of the human mind, allows rebellious teenagers to now verifiably prove that they can out-smart the world's most universally functioning experts, the institutional computer and internet experts.

Would you prefer that your offspring become a virus writer to prove the vulnerability and thus illusion of all the rhetorical titles and credentials of humans, and thus never be fooled by them, or remain so gullible and unquestioning as to believe that the titled government and institution leaders are somehow so intellectually superior to other humans that the leaders can successfully make the decisions for other human minds? What is your answer? What is the answer of virus writers who have out-smarted the world's greatest institutional and governmental computer programming experts and leaders? Compare those answers. Who thinks more?

But notice from the emerging knowledge of virus writers, that very few of the viruses which are created and openly displayed to colleagues, which prove the greater thinking and knowledge of the virus writer, above the titled experts, are ever released to create problems, and most of the latter designed to be relatively harmless while proving their effect, and the few malicious viruses are usually targeted against abusively powerful entities, with less collateral damage than even one of George Bush's bombing or artillery shelling missions on a village in Afghanistan, Iraq or the next victim of American war mongering. Read that again.

The goal of the vast majority of virus writers has been demonstrated to be that of competing against and out-smarting, or out-puzzle solving, the institutional egotists with the titles and money, to prove the superior thinking of individuals, above institutional sorts. It is a thinking game, and the socially denigrated individuals consistently out-think the socially adulated institutions, as is consistently proven across the spectrum of all human activities. And that phenomenon will continue while unthinking humans denigrate the more-thinking, less harmful individuals, and reward the less-thinking, more-damaging institutions, by design of humans, much to the howling laughter of observers.

You will never hear the names of the vast majority of the many virus writers, and less of the ones who release their viruses. Think. They verifiably prove their thinking ability as superior to the experts, because computer programs can be readily proven by running them against competing programs, on a computer. The program will not change the rules when it recognizes a flaw in itself, or use force of arms to crush someone who out-thought it. All of the thinking is concluded before the program is finalized, and any flaw or contradiction left in the program by a less-thinking programmer will be identified by a more-thinking programmer's program. With that irrefutable computer proof, the virus writer does not have to convince any human of anything. He has proven that the out-thought the institutional computer program dolts who are not smart enough to write programs to preclude the virus, before the virus was written, yet they get paid vastly more than virus writers. The reward of the virus writer is the proof that his thinking ability is superior, while the institutional drones derive only money and hollow illusions of their expertise. The virus writers know that they can release their viruses at any time, with known results proven on their own computers, so they do not have to do so to prove their power. They can spend their time writing the next more effective virus, to beat the thinking-ability of the next greater institution.

That thinking game is also described as a puzzle-solving game, or contradiction identification and resolution game. You can study the game, the people and their minds, to learn that which you most want to learn, because the human mind is merely a more complex computer. The same principles apply.

A computer is simple compared to the human mind, but the human mind is still just a computer, a contradiction identification and resolution device. You can describe a human mind with all the touchy-feely, warm and fuzzy emotions and spirits and souls and other rhetorical mysteries, and it is still just a contradiction identification and resolution device fully capable of resolving every mystery you can describe with the words that human minds invented to thus identify those contradictions easily resolved when one asks effective questions of those words and their concepts invented by the human mind. You can even describe the human mind as a god, if you wish, the greatest mystery word human minds have identified, and then, if you are patient and tenacious, you can answer every resulting question to leave no question not verifiably answered, and thus no possible mystery in that word. The human mind is just a computer (not any god), by definition, albeit a bit of an impressive one.

It is inherent to the existence of the concept described above, as elsewhere described in other analogies and the case itself, that individual humans have thought-through the design of the human mind's operating system and programs, to identify and resolve every contradiction created by the highly titled and credentialed, institutional minds of inherently inferior ability, to the extent of absolute proof, with every question answered and verified, that merely releasing the resulting knowledge can collapse any and every human institution predicated on any contradiction, even one.

Remember from the above, that the vast majority of the minds of virus writers encounter no incentive to release their viruses on the internet, other than identify the programs harmlessly to brag about their ability. They sought to satisfy a craving of their individual minds, and did so, and advanced to the next greater puzzle rather than waste time fiddle-farting with manifesting the puzzle already solved in their mind. And they laughed robustly, knowing that the drones with the titles which fool the other drones with titles, will always be self-stagnated at the lower level of the titles they foolishly accepted and believed. The titled sorts will have stopped thinking at their titled level, while the untitled individuals kept thinking, by verifiable design of that phenomenon, as the results keep proving and proving and proving and proving.

Using a dramatic example of the same phenomenon within the more complex computer, the human mind, among countless other examples of human-caused contradictions, world peace can be promptly effected, defeating any opposition, with a resulting, quantum advancement of the human phenomenon, with even the bomb-makers and career military drones shortly thereafter having nightmares about the possibility that chance could have left them still making bombs and as dumb as military sorts, in comparison to the advancement making their lives vastly more enjoyable across the spectrum.

That puzzle is just a puzzle, for a computer or mind to solve, albeit near the current zenith of even greater puzzles inherently already solved by individual human minds, throughout human history, who therefore hold no incentive to fiddle-fart with something so boring as to manifest such a rudimentary political process, albeit what you cannot yet recognize despite its simplicity, while more intriguing puzzles are available for the human mind.

Further, and anyway, how would the most advanced puzzle solver display his wares to the titled sorts incessantly lying about being the expert of that which they are obviously not the expert, who are telling everyone they are working on manifesting the goals that the puzzle solver can already manifest? The experts, especially the proverbial Bill Gates and George Bushes of the lot, must denigrate the virus writer or actual peace process holder, to prop-up their laughable titles, and thus threaten and drive away the knowledge of the virus writer. To release a virus that is not instantaneous, and the prompt solution to any of the human caused social problems is not instantaneous, requiring several days for the commonly impossible, and up to a few months for world peace, will first elicit an attack from the institution leaders, for the same reason they attacked the knowledge offered by Leonardo di Vinci, Christopher Columbus and countless other thinkers. Of course the solver of the more complex social contradictions, like the high end virus writers, resolves the contradictions of being caught or attacked, but those separate, pain-in-the-ass actions must be manifested for a goal that retains no incentive to be manifested in the first place, because the puzzle has already been proven against any question that can be asked, thus greater proof to the mind, than any manifestation among humans who do not think enough to ask the most effective questions. And of course there is no material reward because humans have demonstrated that they reward institutional liars, with the greatest liars, government leaders, deriving the greatest rewards. Resolving contradictions, rather than creating and perpetuating them, cannot involve any lie or other contradiction, or the resolution would not be a resolution, and the action only a fool's illusion, something a genuine problem solver would inherently not manifest, be definition.

The above is only another minor indicator of the perfect balance in all things, and because all things are perceptions of the human mind, among humans, the balance is within your own mind. Until you learn the knowledge of the balance, or by other words, the design of the human mind, you will only be fighting yourself. The closer you get to the knowledge of the balance, or design of the human mind, the more intense the mind's designed defenses against your learning such inordinately valuable knowledge, or humans would have emerged from their intellectual dark ages long ago. Therefore persist. Ask the questions your mind most fears. They will be the questions identifying the controlling contradictions of your actual and conceptual institutions. Precisely why can these unsavory dope smoking punk rock irreligious anti-this and that teenage computer geek school drop-outs write computer viruses that out-smart the best of the Bill Gates and George Bush computer security experts who hold multi giga-byte paper credentials? Why? Bill and George are verifiably clueless of that itemizable, easily verifiable and useful answer, as will be their titled successors who stopped thinking to start using the power-based effects of the titles they foolishly accepted.

World peace is just an example. Ask the world peace institution leaders, including all the political drones who incessantly mouth the words about seeking any degree of peace, why they seek the knowledge or process of peace only among fellow institutional sorts, highly titled and credentialed of course, whose institutions which have already proven by the test of time, among other proofs, that they are clueless of how to manifest peace, and only spend more money on themselves to mouth the words of seeking peace.

Select any lesser example, such as your favorite goal represented by your favorite organization. Notice the process and results being the same.

And that is why the computer virus writers, to their amusement, will always be ahead of the computer experts, to your occasional grief, the slowing of the benefits of computers, and the increased costs of computer processes, because you call the virus writers the virus writers, and denigrate them, instead of calling them the experts, and rewarding them, while you call the experts the experts, and reward them, instead of calling them the failures, and denigrating them, thus contradicting yourself in face of that which is manifested, just as humans support their war-mongering government leaders who mouth the words of peace, and reward peace leaders who never manifest peace, etceteras, thus confusing your mind, denying it the utility of language, much to the howling laugher of the observers.

Start matching the words you use with the proof of their dictionary meanings, and asking the questions that emotionally anger the minds holding institutional titles, first, your own. Until you learn the design of the human mind, easily learned by asking questions, you are its victim, rather than its beneficiary.



Advanced knowledge on the internet... 18 March 2004

In addition to the inherent nature of the conclusion, an indication that the internet is a self-defeating institution, conforming to the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, can be derived by searching for key phrases related to advanced knowledge.

The dearth of advanced knowledge on the internet, while initially amusing in relation to the dynamic young age of the internet, often flattered for its seeming independence from institutions, raises the resulting questions, and of course their answers, that are the same of all the other institutions of two or more minds identifying themselves with a single reference word or phrase not holding its own contradiction identification and resolution device.

And because the internet is what it is, the questions resulting from the sum of those questions can more efficiently lead an individual mind to advanced knowledge.




The US Navy... 14 April 2004

These words again reference all identified institutions, real and conceptual, of two or more human minds attempting to function as a single mind, when those institutions are represented by no single mind, and thus no ability to resolve the contradictions they inherently create as an institution. Your goal, among others, is to understand the substance of the impossibility of institutions to manifest a sustainable goal, so that you may learn the utility of your individual mind, and thus use it.

The learning vehicle this time is the United States Navy, using its own words.

If a contradiction is identified by your mind, such as the expression of words that defy their dictionary meanings, among contradictions in actions, then your mind can ask the questions to resolve the contradiction, to identify your intellectual ability and its utility to your decisions. Any institution of two or more people will not identify or question the contradictions of their institution, or the seeming advantage of two or more individuals asking each other questions to resolve evident contradictions before those people make fools of themselves in the name of their institution, would have already done so, among more substantive reasons.

A standard banner advertisement at the top of the ScienceDaily.com website, on 14 April 2004, stated the following:

(The background graphic was of a soldier pointing a modern assault rifle, with an over/under rifle/grenade launcher.)

accelerate your life
To learn more, click here. (The click opened the official US Navy website.)

Within the standard rivalry between the branches of the military, as is common among all war-based nations, the US Navy and Air Force, and their supporters, claim that they recruit thinking people, who are intelligent enough to handle sophisticated equipment, while the Army and Marines are routinely accused of recruiting unquestioning, dumb knuckle-draggers who will mindlessly slog through the mud and sand, and charge into bullets, with rifles. It is just the standard rhetorical illusions holding enough substance to create the illusions.

But the United States Navy, by its own expression on the internet, has now illuminated the lie of its otherwise false claims. Therein the Navy has offered those people who seek to advance their intellectual ability to more efficiently resolve contradictions, a hilarious learning vehicle.

Who, except a mental midget, malicious muscle-head (a brat or bully) with no ability to think beyond his fist or gun, craving to kick butt as a mandatory duty, without regard for who was being kicked, would willfully join or remain within an institution which openly advertised its recruitment of mental midgets who would be enticed by the aforementioned ad, and thus branded all personnel within that institution?

The question was designed to be answered, by you the reader. You may also ask anyone else the question, to ascertain their ability to think through expressed contradictions.

Or you may ask, within an educated society, precisely why the US Navy is so desperate for mindless cannon-fodder, that it must recruit people who obviously represent the nadir of intellectual ability.

Usefully keep in mind that the writer of these words willfully joined the US Army, and chose infantry, when he was offered any choice. I was an idiot, as are many young males trained within a historically war mongering society such as the United States of America. Belatedly, upon starting to ask questions that wiser people asked earlier, and thus advance my knowledge, which cannot co-exist within any military of any nation, I learned that my previous decisions accurately defined me as an idiot, and therefore I resigned my commission, to regain my personal integrity and ability to advance my knowledge beyond my unquestioning knuckle-dragging colleagues in the military. It is an aside to note that during my military experience I exhibited certain qualities relating to the asking of questions that disturbed my superiors and colleagues, much to my entertainment, but not nearly enough such questions.

The minds of military chaps, especially their most highly ranking, most credentialed, most decorated, most revered, most flattered and praised, and most highly paid personnel, and their civilian think tanks, are literally unable to answer the aforementioned question, or they would belatedly recognize their error, as is common among we humans, and depart the military and its process, to regain their integrity and ability to think beyond knuckle-draggers mindlessly kicking butt without regard for who they kicked.

Among countless proofs of the results created by mental midget military officers, simply add up the thousands of innocent civilians the US military has slaughtered in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries which did not attack the US, to verify the effects of recruiting people who have no regard for who they kick, as long as they can say it is their mandatory duty to kick people.

Because they are literally unable to answer questions such as the above, you may therefore learn more of the minds of military chaps, and such criminal minds, which, for an identifiable reason, genuinely and sincerely believe that they can use force and deception to sustain a goal among humans who are predicated on their minds rather than their swinging fists, guns, lies and such fabricated contradictions. The power-damaged mind literally cannot answer many questions that any grade school kid can correctly answer. Among lesser degrees of power, even a first day military recruit's mind, that is, its originally designed reasoning ability, is damaged by its willful association with the power of the institution it just joined. Nothing is more addicting and damaging to the human mind's reasoning ability, than the perception of power.

The only escape, wisely before one adopts any power, is to ask and answer questions, real questions, written, which becomes increasingly more difficult, by institutional training, as time progresses within any institution.

An escape quickly becomes so difficult that, for example, 100% of the US Navy personnel, regardless of their education or self-flattery, if faced with the above contradiction, will express all manner of words that defy their dictionary definitions, thus creating new contradictions, to claim their personal ability to think (resolve contradictions), and retain the exampled contradiction or countless of its similar expressions, while commonly intelligent grade school kids can ask the questions that reveal and resolve each of the expressed contradictions. Read that sentence as often as you wish to recognize its substance. Be among the people who can identify every contradiction any human creates by his words or actions, and ask the questions that easily resolve the contradictions.

The ability to resolve complex contradictions, an attribute of the original design of the human mind, can only be learned by learning how to resolve 100% of the individual, simple contradictions that make up the complex contradictions, the moment each are expressed or manifested.

To fail to learn that particular arena of knowledge, is to perpetuate your mind and the human phenomenon as it is, currently mired in the intellectual dark ages, still teaching its young that kicking butt, rather than thinking, is a glorious attribute of American humans, much to the grand entertainment of the observers, rolling on the floor, kicking and pounding, clutching their aching sides, tears of howling laughter streaming from their eyes,

Now notice the mechanisms of how individual, simple contradictions become complex and sustained by what otherwise appears to be rational and even intelligent minds.

The Navy advertisement was at the top of the ScienceDaily.com website, created by a science-based institution, involving people who would claim to think scientifically. The institution of science exists within a human society that still illogically imprisons and slaughters fellow humans, because the scientists are as intellectually void as the Navy knuckle-draggers, still so unquestioning of contradictions that they cannot identify human-caused contradictions.

What scientist or website journalist, except a mental midget, malicious muscle-head with no ability to think beyond his fist, gun or paper dollar bills, craving to have someone kick butt as a mandatory duty, without regard for who was being kicked, would place the aforementioned banner ad on his website, to identify his void of thinking ability?

You identify your ability to resolve contradictions, by your words and actions. A commonly intelligent webmaster would glance at the referenced banner ad, and robustly laugh at a request to host it. For how many dollars would you publicly display your thinking ability as a void, to further entrench a mindless war mongering society in which you live, to thus prove your void of thinking ability, to thus train your otherwise priceless mind to not think upon the expression of contradictions?

One of the many individual contradictions making up the complex contradictions that befuddle the minds of all the institutional idiots who claim the greatest titles and credentials in this nation and others, is their self-trained craving for paper dollars, as a goal in itself, rather than understanding the substance of any medium of exchange. ScienceDaily.com publishes junk science for the same reason that US Navy personnel produce junk peace. The valueless paper dollar bills fluttered in front of their face, even as little as produced by a website banner ad, are adequate to cause their mind to fabricate and attempt to sustain any contradiction, while that decision inherently trains their minds to attempt to sustain, rather than identify and resolve, contradictions.

ScienceDaily.com personnel could no more identify real science, than they can identify the embarrassment of supporting mental midgets who crave to kick ass, as a mandatory duty, with assault rifles, without regard for who was being kicked. There is no such thing as a person who lies to only the other guy. The mind that attempts to sustain a contradiction (lie), trains itself to not identify the next contradiction, or it would have already refused to attempt to sustain the first one. A contradiction is inherently not sustainable, among humans and all things in the universe, by design.

There is nothing more valuable to you and humans, than your taking the time to learn how to actually resolve each contradiction you encounter, by design of the human mind.

World peace and an exponentially advancing society, to your immediate and great benefit, among many lesser goals, is laughably easy to manifest, if anyone were interested. Learning the simple process is simple. Simply learn how to resolve each contradiction you identify, by asking and answering questions, which is entertaining in itself, and keep doing that until you recognize the controlling questions that resolve controlling contradictions. From that acquired level of knowledge, the seemingly complex contradiction of humans killing each other in the name of peace, becomes less interesting than greater intrigues.

And laugh robustly at the mindless United States Navy personnel, who kick butt as a mandatory duty, without regard for who they kick, by their own admission, without asking any inherently resulting questions, because the inherent result is kicking your society. Who is methodically rescinding your rights and freedom, and increasing taxation to pay for their process, and who created your enemies used as the excuse for that process?


If you are not laughing at these humans, you are missing the only show they yet know how to stage simply for lack of asking questions about the glaring contradictions they display.



The numbers.... 28 June 2004

This is how easily an entire nation can be fooled, and why the pen is mightier than the sword, and therefore the news media holds more power than all the militaries, and therefore the news journalists are more corrupt, and therefore journalists print as news that which advances the power of their institutions, and therefore why their power-based institutions inherently collapse themselves within a species predicated on its mind, that is, reasoning rather than power.

If you read Reuters, Associated Press or any of the network American news media commonly using those two wire services, you recognize that, at the moment, about 630 American soldiers have been killed in the latest American war in Iraq. The news journalists keep Americans informed of that number.

What knowledge would you use, from a person who only kept track of one sports team's score, ignoring the score of the opposing team?

If you only knew that your team's score was 27 points, what decisions would you make in regard to the game?

One of the reasons that humans are still mired deep in the intellectual dark ages, with brilliantly illuminated examples of the nadir of human reasoning-ability still leading powerful nations such as the United States, Russia, China, England, and all the others, is that the majority of humans, those who have adopted power as their mind's controlling concept, simply ignore half the proverbial score for any game, because power cannot exist within knowledge.

Recently, after another three American Marines were killed in Iraq, a fellow Marine soldier at the scene was quoted as stating to a Reuters reporter, that he did not know why the Iraqis, whom he dutifully called, terrorists, wanted to kill American soldiers, because, the Marine said, we only want to help Iraqis.

If I had not displayed such astonishing ignorance myself, as an American Army infantry sort in Vietnam, I would here ridicule that Marine idiot with my best rhetorical contrivances. Poor chap, and his military colleagues in every nation throughout human history, so damn dumb they believe the same lies I was so dumb as to believe, before I started asking questions. The young male, testosterone saturated mind, including the female military sorts, is amusingly gullible, and some of them never start asking questions, so they never learn any greater knowledge, and are thus promoted to thus keep telling the same old lies that the first military leaders in human history started. We were told, and therefore knew, that if we lost that war in Vietnam, you would be under the rule of communists right now, and that we were helping the Vietnamese, like American soldiers later helped the Panamanians, Grenadians, Somalians, Dividians, Afghans and Iraqis, whom we slaughtered.

That Marine's foolish belief is understandable from the data base of the common American news media and government propaganda about the Iraq war, just as every country's military is first trained to never question authority, under penalty of punishment, and then therefore dutifully believe the great majority of what they are told by institutional authority and institutional news journalists.

If you do not ask real questions about statements, and answer those questions, your mind will believe (synthesize as a truth) the vast majority of the statements you hear or read. What did your mind do to identify a statement as false?

While the number of 630 American soldiers killed in Iraq, does not make Americans feel great about that common idiot's war, when isolated, it can be described in several ways to make the large sector of unquestioning citizens believe that their government leaders are doing good.

If you only hear half the score, the game can be described as the censors prefer. If you do not ask effective questions, your mind will believe the description.

More questions are more readily created in human minds as more data about any event is made available. Data creates questions. Questions create knowledge. Power cannot exist in the face of knowledge, and the news media is predicated on its institutional power, not knowledge, or wars and countless other contradictions would have been resolved shortly after the free, uncensored press was created.

Because the news journalists never ask the questions of the contradictions of their institution, they do not learn how to effectively question any other institution, such as a war machine.

What the network American and American-oriented news journalists do not tell the American people, for the same reason every institution's leaders do not tell the same concepts to their members, with the same frequency, is the larger number of American soldiers and military contract personnel killed by war-related accidents and similar means, or the currently estimated 5,300 wounded who suffer the full gradient of maiming, including lost limbs, or any estimate of the eventual medical cost to taxpayers and families.

Simply the mentioning of the ongoing taxpayer medical cost of Iraq war amputees, with enough frequency to call effective attention to it, might cause more people to start asking questions about at least the callousness of mentioning such a consideration, in comparison to the real-person suffering of that needless result of an idiot's war, for even one such amputee, yet alone the hundreds so far. The callousness issue, of reducing such suffering down to a tax dollar figure, like many other individual perceptions, if raised, creates the questions that could lead to a controlling contradiction.

The mind that starts asking questions, might continue, albeit rarely, but still at absolute threat to the power of the war-makers, and their ability to sustain a war as long as they want. Why did the Americans get out of Vietnam, and the Russians out of Afghanistan? How many more people would have been killed if we could have kept those wars going because the home boys never asked any questions?

Every time Reuters, AP and the other news services tell the Americans how many American soldiers have been killed, they do not tell you how many Iraqis the Americans have killed, estimated at this time to be over 11,000 for the current war, mostly innocent civilians caught in the inherently uncontrollable massive American use of bombs and fire-power.

How many Iraqis are the American people willing to slaughter, to help the Iraqis? Pick a number. Shall we slither back out of that war at that number, or sooner, or just keep slaughtering them? If you wage war in Iraq, you will kill Iraqis. If your game is predicated on killing Iraqis, and you do not know how many you are willing to kill, for publicly accountable reasoning of your war game, you are the type of mental midget that every military is looking for, and will be qualified to be a United States military General, if not President.

What would you think of the intellectual ability of a soldier, in a military which attacked your nation, killed 11,000 of your people, and stated that he did not know why your people inherent retaliated, because he said he was here to help you? If the US Marine Corps did not immediately discharge that idiot soldier, quoted in Reuters, are US soldiers and their leaders, and their political supporters, not demonstrated to be as dumb as rocks, by your own mind's answer to the previous question?

Of course the minds of American military personnel cannot understand these words, and are confused and angered by them, because the questions herein come too close to the controlling contradiction of American military personnel. To be able to answer the questions, is to promptly depart military employment. Would not only a fool make a fool of his or her intellectual ability? Would you not have to be a fool to be a military person in a nation that was not under attack by another military? Why did the founders of the United States, and Switzerland, create a system of national defense training that precluded a standing military under a central authority?

Those 11,000 Iraqis, mostly "collateral damage" civilians, would not have been killed if Americans had not attacked Iraq. Iraq did not attack or credibly threaten the United States. The American attack on Iraq was a purely military aggression and war-making, in violation of the Law of Nations recognized in the United States Constitution, and in violation of other laws of the US Constitution.

If Saddam Hussein, a malicious idiot quite like George Bush (power-damaged minds), had been left to do to his people whatever his people allowed him to do, he would have collapsed his form of government sooner. But envious of Saddam's power to kill people at whim, the power-damaged mind of George started a war to therefore inherently kill more people (Iraqis, Americans and anyone else joining or caught in the fray), therefore inherently create more enemies of Americans, to hasten the collapse of American power, much to the amusement of observers.

Had Americans socially evolved enough to select thinking leaders (therefore not DemocanRepublicrat power-mongers), who therefore recognized that power-based systems, such as those of Saddam, Bush, Putin and their ilk, inherently destroy themselves by using power instead of reasoning, as is the only available result of power within a species predicated on its reasoning-based mind, by flawlessly verifiable design, those foolish American soldiers now struggling with a more difficult life with only one or no legs, and the friends, family members, national colleagues, international colleagues and institutional colleagues of 11,000 American-killed Iraqis who therefore intensely hate Americans and the horse they rode in on, who will be retaliating for decades, would not be so struggling, costing American taxpayers, hating Americans, or retaliating.

If you wanted someone to retaliate against someone, for whatever reason you might fabricate, would you want them retaliating against Saddam for what Saddam did, or against Americans for what Americans did? From your answer to the question, which idiots still support the American RepublicratDemocan led military war machine?

The same net quantity of human energy could be advancing society toward a better life, by design of the non-power-damaged mind.

What are the consequences of Americans attacking those countries and killing a lot of people? Write the list, as would an American military General, as would the people who were attacked and had friends and family killed, and as would an impartial human who by design of impartial human minds reacts negatively to someone attacking someone else. Does anything on the list preclude anything else? Precisely, with accuracy that can prevail against all questions, why did someone destroy the World Trade Towers, will orchestrate a yet greater attack on the arrogant, war-waging Americans, and why is your mind not respectful of the Russians who roll their tanks against the Chechnyans?

News journalists, because they verifiably constitute the most powerful institution in the world, will never serve to advance human knowledge beyond the destructive concept of power, because to do so they would have to ask and answer the controlling contradictions of the power-based institution of news journalists, to thus resolve those contradictions, to leave news journalists with no power of the pen, to thus learn how to ask which questions, in what manner, to destroy the concept of power in the power-based institution leaders who stagnate societies under the damages of power. Therefore, you must learn the knowledge they amusingly claim to offer, by learning the controlling contradiction of news journalists, to learn what they are not telling you, to question that knowledge and synthesize the results with that of what little they tell you.

Do that. You will be vastly more amused when you hear or read the news.


End of Intech Concepts 18


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