Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 4
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


The certainty of your reaction... 9 December 2000

If you have read all the way to this item, or you skimmed to this point by chance, you have arrived at an intriguing key you may verify, albeit no more necessary than any other part of the puzzle in a puzzle for which each easily learned part must be flawless for value in your effort. The flawless form of a concept can be learned by simply asking questions of each contradiction you recognize. That process is exponentially efficient if you learn effective questioning process. Would you suggest, for others to judge you, that you have no concern if your espousal is riddled with flaws? Is your honesty therefore not dependent upon your concerted effort to learn how to remove every contradiction from your process and goal?

If you have read any significant portion of all these words, your mind is still functioning on the basis of curiosity or humor, both of which facilitate your mind's learning process for new knowledge. Therefore, precisely why did the others stop reading sooner: First their initially stated, perfectly valid reason, by definition of it being an inherent choice of their independent mind (most likely abject boredom); And then what other reason could we identify as an electro-chemical process response within their brain, resulting from identified rhetorical stimuli verifiably affecting certain institutionally identified groups of people? Notice the reference to institutionally identified categories of people, rather than just individual minds.

First one may suggest that such rhetorical stimuli exists, merely arrangements of words, and identified to the extent that they can be applied to you, by design. Therein you too could learn the same and apply it. Now consider the verification of the suggestion, only briefly and in concept because this web page format does not facilitate a successful question-answer process.

What electro-chemical reaction occurs in the mind of a person whom you openly refer to as, "Your Honor", "The Honorable", "Senator", "Doctor", "Chairman", etcetera? If you accurately answer the question, your answer will be: "I don't know." We only know that it is an electro-chemical reaction, but not yet which one by useful description for those rhetorical stimuli. In contrast, the superficial reaction can easily be described, including the descriptive phrase, "It strokes their ego, and thus facilitates a potentially favorable response." If the reaction did not exist, there would be no reason to spend time adding such adjectives to names. The concept would have never developed within the human mind, for lack of incentive. That the reaction is induced by a scientifically identifiable electro-chemical process within the brain, is recognized by any person who stayed reasonably awake in his junior high school biology class, that is if these young whipper snappers don't learn such basic science things on the internet before they then endure more-nebulous education process in the classroom, these days.

Once the reaction becomes described in electro-chemical process which we have not yet fully explained by the related map routing inside the brain's goo, and therefore instead requires our venturing into learning the boring process of understanding concepts, a mystery blocks all further access to related data, in the minds of people who retain an institutionally induced blockage of the process of simple curiosity. At the identification of a mystery, or yet undiscovered knowledge, a curious mind advances, while a mind functioning as a victim of unrecognized stimuli reacts defensively. Individually ask a hundred political conservatives to identify the flaw of liberals, and vice versa, and then of themselves. That one is easy. Ask yourself any significant series of questions about the other guy, then the same of yourself. Analyze the categories of answers. Notice how seldom that is sincerely done, and thus the available knowledge so few people learn.

How can we verify such a concept? At the other end of the flattery-induced response, we can question your mind's reaction to, shall we say, you idiot suckers who squandered your valuable time reading all this rhetorical gobbledygook running your mind in useless circles, can we not? If I were a main-stream American product manufacturer, or a political candidate, and presented a national television advertisement bluntly telling the viewers that they were idiots, too ignorant to make their own decisions or know what is best for them, and that I know what they want and what is best for them, and that they should therefore buy my firm's product or elect me to political office, what percentage of the viewers would react as you suspect, and what percentage would be curious about the process being used by the advertiser? You may easily recognize that the referenced manufacturer or candidate would not financially or politically survive on the latter, to say the least.

But notice that the latter would be embarking on a learning process, advancing to new knowledge, despite the insult, and the former would remain stagnated within the knowledge of the standard reaction to insults.

Which block of resulting knowledge is more diverse and therefore more useful for goals which have not yet been achieved for lack of sufficiently diverse knowledge?

What creates the definition of the word, "insult"? How did society train your mind to react to an insult? Why did you agree to so severely limit your mind and thus your knowledge by blocking access to knowledge hidden behind or within what you were trained to believe is an insult? What words constitute an insult? When are they an accurate and thus useful description of a human action? Why were the words invented? When is the idiot US president an idiot, and you are not, by what impartial reasoning describing decision-making process separated from issues? Why does your mind's electro-chemical process so consistently and strongly react to just harmless words? What concept is served by an exclamation mark? Does not an insulting word or phrase achieve the same concept of emphasizing reasoning attached to the insult? If you claim any command of your mind, could you not impartially analyze the reasoning emphasized with an attached rhetorical insult? Can you distinguish between an insult emphasizing reasoning and an insult without any supporting reasoning? Between the insult and the attached reasoning, which prevails in your mind, for your analysis and reaction? Would an analysis of your reactions support your answer? In a multi-part knowledge puzzle, such as how to achieve a social goal that still frustrates society's leaders, how would a necessary part of the knowledge be most easily disguised so that no one added it to the puzzle in their mind? Precisely why are any complex social goals not yet achieved? If you wanted to deny an opponent the usefulness of openly available knowledge, to what concept would you attach it? What other rhetorical concepts are available to create a consistently predictable electro-chemical response in human minds? Precisely how do you advance your mind beyond such a proverbial road-block to advanced knowledge other people therefore cannot access?

You may have already recognized that Alaska Intech is not dependent upon flattering or even expressing respect to acquire volume sales, or to acquire even some minimum number of clients identified in consulting industry standards, or intellectual technology could not have been developed, and Alaska Intech would still be mired in marketing and word-smithing technology of no value beyond money. As soon as you become dependent upon a goal short of your espousal, such as money, social status, organizational position, and such simplistic addictions, your mind loses the incentive to ask the type questions distinguishing your lesser but more popular goal from the knowledge needed to achieve your original goal. Did your organization leaders spend their time to learn how to achieve your organization's goals, or how to become organization leaders? Which case is openly proven? The verifiable fact that there is no competition to Alaska Intech, nor elsewhere available technology which can effect the seemingly impossible goals promptly achievable with the use of intellectual technology, indicates that either a highly advanced knowledge base is at play, or this is all rhetorical bovine scat. Those who cannot distinguish which possibility is at play, from even the home page of this web site, are not yet in a position to escape their cocoon anyway. If you wish assistance in that determination, simply write the answer which you will defend in public, to every question you encounter at this web site. They are the least of the questions for which accurate answers are imperative to learn the technology. You may wish to question your answers. Those people with the most esteemed titles who cannot answer those questions, identify their foolishness for claiming their titles before they can answer said questions, and more, quite like that of this writer when he believed his titles while he therefore fled such uncomfortable questions.

Nothing in intellectual technology, and thus of Alaska Intech's service, is of any value beyond the flawless reasoning that proves it. The reasoning is everything, and it must begin at your existing data base. It must become your mind's reasoning by proofs your mind creates from its own questions, and can defend against any question. Therefore any insult, accusation or insinuation about any client, Alaska Intech, anyone else or the writer of these words, is merely a device to cause question creating said reasoning. A key in advancing your knowledge beyond others, is to recognize any value in what others avoid without question. That institution leaders fear questions of their controlling contradictions, is the reason knowledgeable observers are amused by the results of institution leadership titles.

Precisely which word arrangements will cause your mind to react how? Now read thoughtfully. Which word arrangements will cause a reaction, or significant alteration of your normal perceptions, that you do not recognize as an alteration? Is the answer to that question not ascertainable by merely more effectively questioning the nature of your reactions to categories of different stimuli? Is that not just a simple high-school level self-psychology exercise of great usefulness to you?

Allow me to suggest, from your more careful reading of the above words, that if your mind does not recognize the referenced alteration in your perceptions and thus reactions, then your mind does not recognize the referenced alteration in your perceptions and thus reactions for a reason found in an electro-chemical response to stimuli, the source of which you must discover by a completely objective process in defiance of the very concept you identified as that which your mind could not recognize. If a stimulus-induced chemical immediately fills a receptor at a certain neuron synapse in your brain, otherwise needed to recognize it being filled too soon, all your prior determination to learn what is happening in your brain, is just out of luck. The handicap parking space is already taken. Your task to correct the results of a design feature must find a completely separate avenue. Read that again. That task requires learning a yet different block of knowledge currently not recognized as related, by your mind. Your questioning process must therefore first be directed at a concept seemingly unrelated to the original issue or question. The simple questioning process to discover that knowledge is imperative if you are involved in institutional decisions, and wish to achieve your espousals. The alternative is to perhaps derive a suitable living but otherwise be as useless to humans, in regard to your position, as the millions of your institutional predecessors throughout human history, espousing the same rhetoric. If not to satisfy your own curiosity as a human, did you wish to leave your children with the same set of problems your mind could otherwise figure out and resolve? Did you wish to facilitate the stagnation or advancement of their minds? How can they advance their knowledge sufficiently to recognize your self-stagnation, to then advance beyond it, if you do not teach them how to effectively question even your most cherished belief's? You may chuckle over how many people reading the forgoing question, will not answer it.

If you think you can describe the common reactions to this web site, and to many previous letters of its nature, sent to institutional sorts, your thought constitutes a small fraction of the more fundamental knowledge therein. What percentage of institutional chaps analyze how to effect a positive reaction; and what percentage of many entities who rail against their enemies, profusely using negative accusations, are seeking the positive reactions of their institutional colleagues; and what percentage exercise both processes for both positive and negative reactions, in real world cases, for the isolated reason of identifying each resulting contradiction within each process; and which percentage did you wish to place yourself among to learn advanced reasoning? Did you recognize the paucity of efforts to intentionally induce net negative reactions in real world cases, and the much greater paucity of efforts to identify contradictions in process that induces positive reactions? So therefore where is the knowledge that others do not hold, and thus of great value?

Carry a pen and paper with you. Be very observant of your actions. At your first, slightest indication or even the most minuscule suspicion that any stimuli, including any arrangements of words, caused an uncomfortable, defensive, excited, emotional or otherwise altered reaction in your mind, beyond boringly logical process defining your most common norm, immediately write down the event and stimuli. The easy example is to write down what makes you angry, but for this process, you are looking for inordinately subtle reactions you normally never recognize. Be painfully methodical. Ignore all your first perceptions of the process. Months later, compile what should be a stack of notes, into each category you can identify. Certain notes will fit in multiple categories. Put them in each. You will be looking for what you did not prior recognize. Look thoroughly. Write the descriptions of the concepts you identify. Therein you will eventually identify an imperative part of the puzzle. You will recognize patterns of your mind's reactions to stimuli, and thus question how you can learn what you missed when your mind diverted your mind away from certain blocks of knowledge.

Of course there is an easier way to learn that knowledge, but it requires a question and answer process guiding your mind to new knowledge. That requires the isolated knowledge of how to ask a highly advanced series of questions resolving each of YOUR mind's identified contradictions, not any non-existent standard public mind reading a book, magazine or web page designed to derive income for the publisher and author. Likewise, the knowledge cannot be learned by listening to a college professor having no time for an extensive series of questions with each individual student, and having inherently never learned the inordinately rare knowledge of effective questioning, or he would not be a college professor.

That which politicians and such con-artists can achieve with the common knowledge of how to flatter their clients, is obvious and of no value beyond their own self-victimization by material and ego gain from the inherently limited duration of benefiting from a contradiction. They trade the value of their mind, for money and ego gratification, and are thus left without the value or their mind. What could you achieve if you knew how to alter the perceptions of other people, and thus their reactions, not just through flattery or one institutional focus, but through the entire gradient of thought-altering stimuli, and most importantly, alterations not recognized by the other person's mind, as alterations of his logic process? If you recognize the potential introduced by the question, it is of little value compared to what you can achieve by recognizing the same otherwise not recognized alteration in your own mind's processes. Until you learn flawless logic process for data synthesizing, you are repeatedly the victim of your mind's routine misperception of common data, most often that which you thought you commanded. The flaw you leave in place, in your own mind, is the flaw that defeats you. Therein institution leaders are the most consistently self-fooled folks, much to the laughter of observers, as so easily observed in their societies saturated with the same type problems the same type leaders purported to be solving centuries ago with the same type rhetoric. Pity the RepublicratDemocan politician who laughs at how easily he fools the public with the same tired old lies year after year, and thus lives a fat lifestyle surrounded with worshipers of his position. Ask him any series of questions, to thus recognize that a grade school child holds a more useful mind. For what will you trade the utility of your mind?

Where, might you "idiots" suggest, is the knowledge you seek, to achieve what you perceive as impossible? Might it not be resting behind the superlatively designed disguise of open view, within your own incessantly repeated words, to which recognition access is simply blocked by your mind's electro-chemical reaction induced by those very same words you speak and write? Read that again. Was it not inherent? How did you think your opponent's brain, biologically identical to the design of your own and millions of other brains crowding every expressed belief contradicting each other, could believe what you each think is so obviously illogical in each other's conclusions? Did you answer that question? What happened in your mind when I suggested that you are an idiot? What might you have suggested with what is instead your keen perception of detail identifying your mind as that of a genius? Did your brain design change, or just the words? But what brain-process changed because of the word change?

Now, if my suggesting that you are an idiot rather than a genius, or if I suggested that you are a genius instead of an idiot, with or without any supporting data, created no unrecognized alteration in your mind's thought process, and you are thus still reading with an analytical mind flawlessly identifying and synthesizing objective data, would you therefore not recognize that in the incalculably vast array of rhetorical or event stimuli, there are numerous such stimuli which will cause an alteration of your perceptions? There obviously are. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that you are the android, "Data", in the Startrek TV show. It is unlikely, and I suggest impossible within the design of the human mind, to train yourself to be immune to all such stimuli-induced alterations of perceptions. I certainly cannot. It is however possible, with just a simple questioning process, to train your mind to recognize those alteration stimuli at play for any particular decision-making process, to therefore set aside the identified results. I laugh robustly when I recognize the effects of those stimuli in my mind. They are very real, not possible to eliminate without redesigning the human brain's process to leave it painfully boring, and offer quality entertainment when understood.

Some people might suggest that this is what court judges do for their decisions. It is not. There is not one court judge in the United States of America capable of making a decision with anything other than his institutionally power-damaged mind producing what even school children can promptly recognize as the verifiably least just judicial system in the world. Read that again. The words that I use carry their full meaning, and can be verified against the questions of every court judge, all their lawyers and their horses. The US court system institutionally trains judges to make the most consistently contradicted decisions of any court system in the world. The judges of the US court system therefore offer a superlative learning vehicle for those wishing to learn intellectual technology. Why do you think that "the land of the free" imprisons more of its population than any other society, with about half of the prisoners having harmed no one? Well? But that is another discussion.

You may take a moment to laugh yourself to tears over the number of times I have written certain groups of letters to certain politically and organizationally identified entities riding impressively high horses, throughout the institutional spectrum, describing in great detail the process and usefulness of objectively understanding the concept of rhetorical insults, as one part of the puzzle, and bluntly stating that the referenced letters were not for their use, but for my own learning process related to those letters, while I induced the reactions described, with expressed and openly verifiable proof of the unmitigated ignorance demonstrated in the recipients' decisions and actions of public record, and therefore verified the concept in sum with their predicted responses related to controlling concepts, manifested on schedule. The letters illuminated the concept-based process of all human minds, which is to say, my mind also, of which I was learning, as I openly stated to those fine chaps transcending the political spectrum and socially successful in their own right. There is nothing they manifested that my mind did not manifest from the same stimuli when it was within the institutional context before I learned intellectual technology, much to my robust laughter over my remarkable illogicality while within that context. We could not possibly recognize our identical illogicality without learning the referenced technology. The recipients simply did not think it was worth their time to learn how their mind reacted to obscure stimuli, because they blocked their mind's access to any knowledge beyond the data-block perceiving every flaw as being in the process of the mind of the other guy. Even if the institutional sorts representing opposing concepts read these words, they will each subsequently believe that the flaw is only in the process of the other brain, which cannot possibly be the case by the single design of the human brain and by the impossibility of each mutually exclusive concept prevailing, because there is no rhetorically induced access to the controlling contradiction outside the involved mind electro-chemically constructing the electro-chemical pathway to the contradiction, and then resolving the contradiction, by that mind's construction of the related questions from that mind's already verified electro-chemical pathways to each related item of data. I trust that you share the amusement.

Read that as often as you wish, phrase by phrase. It is a part of the puzzle. If I attempted to semantically make it sound simple so you would hastily employ Alaska Intech services, or easily recognize that part of the puzzle, I would not be describing the controlling concept, and therefore would not have learned it to be able to describe it. The concept requires your writing the above, not just reading it, and supporting your words against questions, to learn it on one's own. It is much easier to learn it by the questioning process. The concept itself is astonishingly simple. The process to learn it by way of words requires your mind's questions. Nothing at this web site is of value to your mind for the described results, until your mind physically asks and answers the questions to learn the related knowledge. You can efficiently do that with Alaska Intech, or inexpensively do so on your own. The concluding cost for what you learn will be the same, and the value will be measured in the weight, volume, time, depth or such metaphorical measure of your thought. The difference in approach will determine the time you will spend to learn the technology.


Seminar concepts... 10 December 2000

In an Alaska Intech seminar you will face an opponent of your reasoning, not an opponent of you, your issue or anything other than your reasoning, and of a nature you have never faced. As an aside, a foolish person hires a consultant who supports the foolish person's position. Your opponent holds the knowledge you yet need, by definition of his being an opponent. Your ally knows only what you know, which is why you recognized him as an ally. Any consultant worth your time is a devastatingly effective opponent of your reasoning, and will anger you at the very least. With Alaska Intech, you will encounter questions you have never faced, and your answers will be imperative, or you will be defeated. You will have assistance in that regard. You will never defeat any opponent with any process or position he considers to contain a flaw or contradiction, not by his superficial decision, but by an electro-chemical process in his brain, over which he has no control, by design, which is why no opponent can ever actually defeat you if you recognize a contradiction in his reasoning or actions. The human brain is a contradiction-resolution device, constantly performing that task whether you want it to or not. Your only choice therein is to learn how to optimize its ongoing activity, for goals of your choice, or merely remain as a victim of its activity. In the latter you will remain in your frustration and confusion with the therefore actual and seemingly illogical events around you.

In Alaska Intech, you will face an opponent which you can defeat only by flawless reasoning, and you can do that, since Alaska Intech holds nothing to defend separate from flawless reasoning. To do that you will advance the knowledge of Alaska Intech, and concurrently recognize the process to defeat your opponent, achieve your goal, or resolve any contradiction. You can and will advance the knowledge of your consultant if he teaches you how to ask effective questions with your unique mind's data base. If you cannot do so by design of your consultant's process, you are a victim of an ordinary commercial consultant's prevailing goal, that is, his intent to acquire your money for his benefit, with his therefore stagnant and simplistic knowledge of how acquire your money by advancing what you like to do, which inherently holds a controlling flaw if you hired a consultant. Such an ordinary consultant is nothing more than the rhetorically identified best professional consultant available, among many rhetorically identified best professional consultants available, whom your opponent may hire. Such a consultant hired by your opponent need only ask tomorrow's question to leave the investment in your consultant, wasted, and leave you dependent upon perpetually paying consultants to fool you with the latest marketing rhetoric. Look for a consultant who will openly state his goal as to engage your mind to advance his knowledge, to leave you with the same knowledge, and more importantly, leave you with the consultant's process to do the same without any need for ever hiring another person for your decision-making process for even the most complex contradictions and decisions.

For perspective, lawyers are the world's most classic charlatan consultants who inherently defraud their clients as their first result, then offer their clients only perpetual dependence on ever-changing legal opinion rather than the immutable written law of record. Do you live under the rule of written law, or under the rule of personalities who sank to police, lawyer and judge jobs? If the law is written in English, and you can read English, and for any law to be enforceable the common people must be able to understand it to obey it, why do you need a lawyer? The excuses of lawyers do not prevail over the accurate answers to the questions. You need only learn the process to effect the prevailing answers to effective questions. Pity the lawyers. They are victims of their own illusions, as is the case with all institutional minds. While the results of their institution describe a grand conspiracy to keep you ignorant of the law, and dependent upon lawyers, perpetually holding the written law under the ever-changing opinions of lawyers, half of them wrong in each case, the process cannot be a conspiracy because lawyers are not sufficiently intelligent to create or sustain a conspiracy. They actually believe, rather than dare to question, what they were taught by lawyer professors in law school, who foolishly believed their own professors. The manifestation of their institution is sustained by their own mind's dismal ignorance in the process of how to question their institution's glaring contradictions. If a lawyer, judge or group of them ever learned intellectual technology, at massive anguish to their minds, the nation and world would recognize the event. Law, for the first time in its history, would be respected by the common people.

What did those government chaps and unquestioning conservatives think the common people think about law, lawyers, judges, police and government, when half the people in prison harmed no one, and thousands of people whose actions harmed nothing and no one, are cited and arrested each day in the US, for supposedly breaking the law? At thousands of governmentally imposed, damaging contradictions per day, what might you suspect is the accumulating effect in the minds of the citizen victims, their family, friends and colleagues? Did you notice the substance of the adjective, accumulating? Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate. The most cursory glance at the volumes and volumes and more volumes of laws, increasing in number each day, written into existence by every branch, department and agency of the government, under varied references such as regulations, ordinances, statutes, codes, rulings, determinations, orders and more, for which you can be jailed if you violate a single word of them, reveals that you do not live under the rule of law, but under the rule of personalities who hold police, lawyer, bureaucrat and judge jobs. With every conceivable human action now violating several laws, by law, even a single simple harmless action ludicrously constituting dozens of separate criminal charges creating lifetimes of proscribed prison sentences, the government personalities hold no choice but to merely pick and choose which law they want to enforce or not enforce against whomever they wish, at whim. There is no escape to the rule of personalities under your government, except within intellectual technology. The legal institution, mindlessly defended and void of any questioning by any of its members, has piled the contradictions so deep that they are perceived to define logic for lack of any remnant of original logic within the system. Is it not a contradiction to say that you live under the rule of law when you verifiably live under the rule of personalities? What does a contradiction left in place do to a human mind's logic process? If you think that membership within institutions, such as those of police, lawyers, judges, government and other institutions, does not corrupt, that is, alter a mind's perceptions, you are not ready to learn the itemized mechanism of that distortion. If he wishes anything better, the victim of a contradiction must first recognize the existence of the contradiction.

To consider a more dramatic point in the gradient of that perspective, consider the poor military, police and political chaps who intractably think they can defeat an opponent by killing him. For those who think that killing your opponent resolves a contradiction, what do you create in the minds of those who know you killed a person to defeat him? When will those minds therefore recognize they must kill the killer and his ilk to defend their lives after acquiring new knowledge in time, which may not remain subservient to the killer's reptilian mind's reaction to knowledge such as the amount or nature of knowledge held by the person who was prior killed? To kill a person is to prove that he held greater knowledge you could not defeat by your reasoning, because of your intellectual laziness. Can the armed bank robber, willfully initiating a process predicated on killing any effectively opposing position, just like the armed police and military chaps, not use his mind to instead figure out how to efficiently derive an income without killing someone? Obviously those not enamored with being illogically killed will expend much effort to hunt down and kill a deadly, manifest threat to their life. Those colleagues around a killer, who advance their knowledge, or the knowledge of their children, cannot rationally live with the killer's existence or that of his ilk. To think and thus learn new knowledge, becomes a dangerous activity if one is among such reptilian minds as armed criminals and police, and one thinks to an unpredictable extent beyond the knowledge of the police and criminals who have demonstrated their intent to kill anyone who might out-think them.

While governments arrogantly slosh their armed police and military around to kill perceived opponents hither and yon, the results are inherently not those recognized by tunnel-vision police and military, or the world would be bowing to the US government and its every power-based predecessor from Hitler to the first of his ilk emerging from a cave with the larger club in his hand. Did you think that the Chinese people should and forever will grovel before their current government which rolls tanks against citizens peacefully suggesting the government's error in rolling tanks against the citizens? Which next American Christian church members in Waco or elsewhere might suggest that their peacefully lived lives are worth defending from the next murderous tank and helicopter assault by the United States Army, FBI and BATF chaps functioning identically as the Chinese Communist Government? Did you think it was coincidental, not explained conceptually, that both the Russian and United States militaries shot down commercial civilian passenger jets in recent years, killing hundreds of innocent victims near Japan and near Egypt, and will do so again? Watch dramatic events relating to the use of power, and note their occurrence in balance pairs. It is concepts, not issues or events that define the design and thus events of the human phenomenon. To kill your enemy is to leave your ally recognizing that he is your next enemy. Institutional power cannot exist without an enemy. Human reasoning can do so, and prevails over the greatest achievable human power, when you learn how to utilize it.

There is a reason that the increasing American citizen hatred for their government has become so undeniable that even president Clinton publicly acknowledged it and concurrently exposed the government's inability to understand or correct it. Is is not created by the citizens. It can only be created by the actions of the government, the imposing force, stimuli, which create the contradictions inherent to force over reasoning process, which automatically activate human mind reactions by design of the human mind. The inherent escalation of power over reasoning, to the resulting collapse of just another government in history's string of them, can only be prevented by utilizing intellectual technology, while instead, notice that the US government is piling the smothering laws higher, building more prisons and more heavily arming its police and military, much to the delight of police, military, DemocanRepublicrats and such institutionally damaged minds who inherently consider even their own country's citizens, fellow humans, as their enemy. The government chaps know nothing beyond self-defeating force, by definition of their institution, yet hold the mental ability to learn the reasoning process available by simply asking the controlling questions of the use of force. That description is only rudimentary, the controlling concepts prevailing for even the smallest citizen organizations, representing the more complex mechanism of a concept not confined to killing as a force-based method of compounding rather than resolving contradictions. Did you want your children to live under greater power, or greater reasoning ability? They will be left with the results of your answer. For the goal of reasoning, you must learn its process while facing the reptilian minds of police, lawyers, judges and military chaps who will not learn the process of reasoning because they will not question their institutional process of imprisoning and killing their perceived opponents.

Therefore, what questions would lawyers, judges, military chaps, police and politicians have to face in a seminar to gain access to the knowledge their mind instinctively denies and flees as their mechanism to defend their institutions above their own mind's individual reasoning ability? Is that defense not the process to block their access to advancing their own individual reasoning ability, and thus block advancement in the value of their institutions? Who could recognize the questions that their institutional opponents identically deny and flee? Who could recognize the contradictions common to both of them, and further, common to all institutions? It is the latter that holds the key, and it cannot be identified by anyone in an institution, or they would have abandoned that contradiction for lack of its usefulness. If you cannot figure out how to resolve a contradiction, what do you do when you surround yourself with an organization full of like-minded people who cannot figure out the resolution? Under what concept could each learn what their mind cannot learn from themselves and each other? Would you learn how to achieve the seemingly impossible from the question designed for the answer, or designed for the next question? Did you think that the process to achieve the impossible could be learned with only one question? The consultants you hire for answers rather than questions, prove your failure and waste of money, with the proof surrounding you. Hire a consultant to teach him what he will question and inherently not learn until your reasoning is categorically flawless, and one who will teach you the process he used to acquire your thus new knowledge.


The reptilian mind... 11 December 2000

The rhetorical creation of the reptilian human mind is both amusing and of significant value. Your life's work is your decision, and no one else's. Your excuses do not prevail. You willfully train your mind by performing the tasks of your institution or other activity, void of reasoning if you do not effectively question your actions. If putting people in prison, or killing them, is your life's work, either as the lawmaker, police, military sort, prosecutor, court judge, regulation writer, or such profession, then you hold a reptilian mind, identical to the street thug and of no value to the advancement of the human phenomenon. The conclusion is inherent to the prevailing precept of humans with a mind whose design is void of a mechanism to force another human mind. The human mind functions only on reasoning.

Of course this mere arrangement of words is of no value or utility until its described concept can be proven in the mind of whomever might want to discover its utility. Notice that a person who dislikes police, military chaps or the lot, might be attracted to the concept, and seek to understand its mechanism, while a judge would be angered by the idea, and have already stopped reading. While the significant utility can be effected by anyone, who would most benefit, to thus discover the utility of the concurrent flaw of the chaps who disliked judges and police?

These words in themselves will change nothing. Therein the reptilian minds of power-based sorts draping themselves in the social propriety of institutional titles, such as judges, lawyers, soldiers and lot, will continue to exist and be endured by the thus stagnated human phenomenon. The human phenomenon is defined by the process of humans, who, groping around in the darkness of their proverbial original cave found and started using a rock before they recognized what was creating their related decisions, and then ever since, belatedly attempting to understand the practical utility of their mind, much to the amusement of observers.

I state my apology for denigrating the reputation and wisdom of respectable reptiles by equating their mind to that of certain humans who mindlessly lash out and kill or impair for no reason in rational defense or food acquisition. Why is it that all US court judge reptiles, maliciously using power of office to block any effective questioning of their and government actions, at behest of government lawyers, consistently imprison and fine people who fail to get a National Park Service permit to walk on public land, when, obscured by the usual lies in court, the permit serves zero verifiable purpose or validity in reason or prevailing law, beyond a rhetorical excuse for Park Service police who wrote the related regulation, to arrest the people who do not get a permit, as an enforcement statistic excuse to get funding from the reptilian minds of unquestioning congressmen, to display police power over humans? What was the question in Vietnam? Who were the Christian Branch Dividians in Waco harming? What reptile would use his mind for such illogical expenditures of energy? What reptile routinely lashes out just to prove he is a reptile? Institutionally functioning humans are not what they flatter themselves to be, and of no value to humans when using their mind for process to attack humans.

The entire human phenomenon is within each individual's mind. The seemingly wisest person can manifest the referenced reptilian mind at a single moment of emotional response, and the reptilian mind of a judge or police officer can become the wisest person at the single moment of sincerely questioning a contradiction in his actions. In the preceding sentence, notice which of both concepts most commonly prevails on a daily basis, and in contrast, which defines the ability of the human mind. The choice is yours. Utilize it, or be its victim.


You are already doing what they are... 18 December 2000

Only after reading this section, identify and write the description of the difference between what you are doing, and what some of your favorite and most disliked political leaders are doing. At this time, write a note to yourself, that your object is to do the foregoing.

First notice that the politicians you therein reference, are not able to reference you for the same learning vehicle because they do not know you. How can they therefore learn what you are going to learn in the next few sentences? If you think they know you, what you learn will demonstrate their even lesser value.

If you are among those who speak favorably of your favorite politician, and suggest the errors of your less admired political sort, notice that your comments reference a person, while the substance of your comments reference the reasoning or lack of reasoning in his actions. Further, you apply your mind's reasoning to only the assumption of his reasoning, from data he exhibits for his institution, by definition of his participation therein. Did you think those three primary contradictions left in place had no effect on your subsequent conclusions? It is the issues that draw you into a discussion of any institution leader's actions, even if it is his physical appearance or someone else's views of that person. You are discussing concepts separate from the person, even if it is that person's physical appearance. Physical appearance are two words describing a concept other than the two words, Senator Doe. Of course the appearance of the politician is only an example to indicate an extent of the concept, and you will more likely discuss issues of seemingly greater significance. Because you attached the person to an issue, your mind keeps thinking of the person while you therefore ineffectively try to discuss the reasoning of the issue itself, separate from any human.

If your brain sends a dozen signals zipping along several neurons, from any stimuli, and because the issue at question is complex and thus needs all twelve signals to identify useful receptors relating the signals to other concepts, and one of them is a dead-end because it only identifies the name of a warm body among 6.1 billion of them, who is involved with the same issue like countless other people, then you just cut yourself off from finding the resolution to a related contradiction. For complex concepts at the current extent of your reasoning capability, you will fail when you allocate mental resources to non-controlling data for an advanced conclusion. Nearly everyone understands that common concept when applied to physical actions and administrative process. If you hire some people to do nothing, and thus use your limited resources to pay them, your company or agency will achieve less than a rival company or agency not so foolish. If your goal is complex and at the leading edge of your arena, it is inherent that each involved person or neuron must be working at the leading edge of their ability, or you will fail your goal. That no institution leader comprehends the concept as more controlling of his own mind's electro-chemical process is evident by their universal concern for who they deal with, his connections, associations, credentials, personal character and such fluff, rather than what concepts his mind utilizes. The demarcation cannot be found in the former, and can only be found within intellectual technology. The proof is extensive and intriguing.

Notice how many people expend great energy to functionally worship an institutional leader. Notice that when the phenomenon is described with the word, worship, they would object and insist upon the word, respect. Okay, respect is merely a degree of the same concept better identified with the related actions themselves, but why was the issue attached to a person regardless of the degree of attachment? Could the issue not stand alone regardless of which warm body with a name, such as your own, is needlessly attached to the issue? Try to tell that to a national leader's worshipers and they will be confused and angered by your words. Watch the people organizationally waving placards with their leader's name, strain to shake his hand, insist that he alone is the one to achieve the concepts at issue, etcetera. Watch the leader respond to that concept above the process of reasoning. The thus praised leader actually believes those foolish followers, actually believing he is of some superior intelligence, or he would openly inform them to stop wasting their time praising him, and suggest they use their time to discover knowledge of greater utility than that held by the leader, so they can benefit him when his knowledge reaches the limit of his energy. Would not one have to be confused to place a warm body above the issues the person represents with the mind's reasoning process? Is it not confusion that one must resolve to achieve any goal?

If your mind asked or answered even one related question, you are therefore, thinking. That is all those institution leaders are doing at most, and rarely that. That obvious answer is more useful than your first reaction may suggest. It literally never dawns on most people that they are doing exactly what their leaders are doing, and often more effectively for the following reasons, and that their leaders have no ability to do anything greater in that regard. The guy in front of you and behind you are only doing what you are doing, thinking. What use of their time will advance the benefits of that activity?

Why you think those poor sad politicians, court judges, military generals, lawyers, professors, award winners and other title holders are doing anything more than your mind, should be your greatest embarrassment in life, and is the controlling reason for which observers are laughing themselves to tears, at you. Never again accord a micron of respect to a title holder until he openly demonstrates the identical words and actions of respect for you, not just some generalized passing comment, but the identical words and actions individually applied to you alone, that you apply to him. If you address a letter to the Honorable Senator Doe, and he does not respond to the Honorable Citizen You, you prove that you and he are incapable of useful reasoning. If he contradicts the actions that identify the reasoning, he does not recognize the reasoning. If he does not call you the Honorable your name, and if he does not rise just because you walk into the room as required of you by chaps who get judge jobs, or stand and applaud your words when you speak, or openly state that you should be chosen as the leader, you define yourself as incapable of recognizing useful reasoning, if you worship him with those words and actions when his mind of inherently identical design is doing nothing more than your mind. Notice that you can understand that concept. You may be assured and can elsewhere verify that he cannot understand the concept of this paragraph, and is outraged that anyone would print such words suggesting that the institution leaders should not be worshiped and applauded and respected and referenced with admiration by all the purportedly lesser minds of the mere people. Pity those leaders. If they could understand this paragraph, which is the least of the knowledge they need for what they purport of their mind, they could write this paragraph and publish it with their name and their reasoning, as you so easily can.

The illusion which fooled the people into rising when the court judge walks into the court room, while the judge never rises when other inherently equal humans walk into the court room, is the illusion which fooled the court judge, leaving his mind incapable of functioning on impartial logic and sound reasoning across the board of issues. Sound reasoning would be embarrassed to be associated with a demand that equal minds functionally worship, that is, show elevated and unreciprocated respect to nothing more than another warm body carrying an equally utilitarian mind. What concept places oneself above that which holds no reasoning to do so? The people who rise are therefore as intellectually incapable as the judge. The US and international courts conclusively prove the example case. Why is it that half the people in the burgeoning US prisons and jails, harmed no one, and judges demand to be worshiped for that illogical product? Answer the question to recognize how the mind of the judges allowed them to send people to prison for damaging no one, and not comprehend their void of reasoning-ability. To precisely whom and what are you displaying respect, if not the proof in reasoning that you are incapable of reasoning? Who would be so foolish as to demand respect from such foolish people? Did you learn, and thus intend to manifest the substance of this section, before that last sentence, at it, or subsequently?

For assistance with a goal unknown to you at the moment, would you select one person who will show you no respect and question your every suggestion, or a million people who will do as you say without question? Laugh yourself to tears over the obvious selection of every institution leader, whose current actions disprove their attempt to claim the wiser choice.

Imagine the anguish, or perhaps raw hatred and retaliation, of the police, judges, politicians, chairmen of the boards, network news anchors and every other poor sad chap who stumbled into any of countless institutionally titled positions, if they had to compete for respect with their reasoning rather than the cheap crutch of traditional, unquestioned convention kowtowing to rhetorical illusions of titled superiority over fellow humans. What would happen to a society if its people competed for respect on the basis of their reasoning? How soon do you want to learn how to live 500 years and visit the neighbor galaxy? Reasoning alone, and nothing else, advances knowledge among humans. Institutional process advances only more useless hours of standing ovations for the person the hand-clappers functionally worship, and the person who therefore is convinced that he has achieved the greatest knowledge. How many more human hours of standing ovations, placard waving, title bestowing and such institutional technology will find the cure for cancer? For what do you and your organization leaders use your time?

For the process of your discussion, could you not command your mind to separate the issue from the involved politician, to therefore insure that the merits of the issue were not flawed by a flawed human? Could you not suggest that the issue will be sufficiently discussed to render a flawless conclusion, then we may find some other warm body among the entire population pool, including yours, who can hear the conclusion and match the reasoning and therefore accurately represent the issue? If you hold any degree of aversion to such a process, no matter how slight, you have exposed your mind's actual worship of the referenced politician, above the issue you purported to be discussing. You therefore define your mind's inferiority to his, and thus the accuracy of his conclusion when other issues of his decision inherently illuminate conclusions embarrassing to what is therefore no longer your wisdom. The corollary is also true, illuminating the flaw of denouncing a person for an issue, when the person may then express a different issue's conclusion of your own. Is the latter and your inherent reaction not therefore the verification that foolish people support an institution leader rather than concept reasoning alone?

If you think it would be a boring place if no one applauded their heroes, and instead just sat around thinking through profound reasoning, your conclusion identifies the greater flaw of your institutional leadership heroes therefore less worthy of your respect. For what did you select and support them as institutional leaders, to be applauded, or to sit around thinking to thus devise the solutions to what you still recognize as problems? Well? For what did they accept the benefits of the position? Because you stood in the institutionally orchestrated dogma of displaying worship or respect for leaders, when they entered the room to read a script of words, you trained their mind to stop thinking because they already have you standing when they enter the room. They achieved an ego-based goal which when achieved, blocks incentive for thought process extending beyond ego gratification. They need not compete for greater reasoning, and the proof is obvious in the unresolved problems surrounding you, despite the legions of institution leaders receiving standing ovations for their purported efforts to solve those problems for the last few thousand years. Therein, it is only your choice to stop being the foolish person defeating yourself. Don't worry, the world of foolish people will continue applauding leaders who have never produced a sustainable solution, for your observation and thus amusement. It is only your mind that you can advance, that is, until you learn intellectual technology which can do much more.

When Senator Doe is discussing the issue to which you applied your reasoning, he is not thinking of your name. He would be thinking of the issue itself, if it were not for an even more debilitating concept blocking his access to the understanding of the issue he is discussing. If he does not attach your name to a concept he discusses, he either proves his flaw for not doing so, or your flaw for attaching his name to the concept. The latter is obviously the case.

Among those institutional leaders who carry out processes, one may rightfully attach their name to their process at play, but only because they are the effecting instrument. There will be others using the same process. Practice substituting the names effecting the same process so that you learn why the process occurs regardless of which warm body with a name is placed in the related position.

Therefore, demonstrate the step of wisdom that will advance your inherently equal mind well beyond the mind of every politician and other institution leader. Stop spending even a minute or dime supporting them with any form of effort, worship or respect, and instead use that time and money for advancing the knowledge of your own mind. You will therein lose nothing and gain much. All the previous leaders produced only what you currently think needs correcting. All the next leaders will do the same. You cannot identify a concept that will cause any difference, as proven by the results of the trillions of previous efforts to identify that concept, until you learn intellectual technology. The only difference you can make is in your own knowledge. Do so. Your mind and the knowledge you hold are worth more to you than all the institutional leaders throughout the entire history of humans. Use that value.

Rather than support those leaders, use that time and money to question them, with actual questions. Do that to any significant extent, and you will find several parts of the puzzle. Notice that they are not asking you sincere questions. Therein, with neither of you yet asking effective questions while you each purport to be thinking, why did you think the institutions are not solving problems? How carefully must you search a question to find its answer? How does the human mind learn knowledge? If you thought the news media journalists were asking institution leaders, effective questions, look again at the questions and then the answers that news media journalists print and broadcast. Ask the therefore obvious questions. The news journalists are doing less thinking than any other institution, even less than lawyers despite your initial disbelief.

It is worth your time to write that difference now, and keep the piece of paper.


Insult's Stone Wall... 18 December 2000

The useful description of this phenomenon requires more words. At the surface, the perception of an insult, even the most minor one, and even the failure to accord an institutionally titled mind its demanded measure of rhetorical respect or flattery, completely severs that mind's access to knowledge held by the person who insulted or failed to sufficiently flatter the institutional sort.

The effect is far beyond those who attempt to understand the concept through these words. Its complexity may offer an indication. Besides not offering adequate flattery, to excessively flatter a person triggers the same result, due to the perceptions that the flattery is mockery. Now define adequate and excessive, by exact words in relation to every individual mind's perceptions? Define tone of voice for the same concept, since even the slightest inflections on countless words, or the shape of one's mouth when speaking them, can obviously cause the same negative perception by a mind which institutionally considers itself to be superior to another mind and therefore must by some mechanism other than reasoning, discount any suggestion or indication to the contrary.

The controlling contradiction is the institutional mind's perception that it is superior to the other mind, or there would be need for institutions or perceptions beyond the dictionary definitions of spoken and written words.

Simply analyze insults, expressions of respect and flattery in real-world situations. The results are most amusing. Now add to that the fact that the opponent, with no prevailing incentive to flatter or display respect for an opponent, inherently holds the data base that the institutional mind needs to complete any data-based puzzle, or there would be no contradiction identifying opposing or separate institutional positions for warm bodies to fill.

Add to that, the obvious phenomenon that the closer you get to impartial, thus successfully synthesizing the separate data held by two opponents, the more certain the two opponents find your remarks uncomfortable because they are not either, and thus more susceptible to the perceptions of insult. For perspective, consider those poor sad pitiable DemocanRepublicrats, who are outraged that anyone would insult them by suggesting they are functionally the same as each other. Therein they cut off their mind's access to highly useful data needed to resolve the contradictions they perpetuate under their uniform process identifying the RepublicratDemocan Party.

Therein the person who learns how to impartially synthesize data, which requires that one first learn the full data-block explaining insults and flattery, exponentially advances into the knowledge of how to promptly resolve the contradictions still stagnating people who think other people are their enemies.

A perceived insult will stop the ego-based mind's effective analysis of related data. But flattery or expressed respect does the same thing under a different concept. If you indicate that the other mind is respected, the other mind therefore assumes that it already holds the knowledge which created the respect, and thus while it may respectfully listen to some concept, it holds no incentive to seriously question the new data to synthesize its utility. Listening is the concept that most deceives those dependent upon ego-based interaction. Knowledge and its utility are dependent upon questioning.

Therein, within the easily recognized complexity of the human mind and all available data in the universe, to suggest a superiority, inferiority or equality of data synthesis among any two or more minds is to illuminate comedy. The concepts do not apply to the process. There will be a contradiction if, there, exists. If you are not in the process of resolving each contradiction, you are an institution leader or an equally useless human mind. If you are thinking, you are resolving contradictions, which means you are not an institution leader since institutions are inherently dependent upon sustaining contradictions. What is the suggestion inherent to the existence of identified institutions, to include the institutions of leaders, titles, credentials and such? What concepts identify all obstacles to data synthesis in a human mind? Is it therefore not the purest form of data synthesis, first including all concepts blocking said synthesis, that can discover the proverbial Achilles Heel of institutions themselves, to thus resolve that contradiction and thus advance the institutions beyond themselves to the knowledge society so obviously craves?

I trust you can never again be insulted by any human expression, and you will laugh at expressions of respect, to therefore identify the data everyone else shuts out of their mind, to therefore learn knowledge of such vast value beyond your colleagues, that you will surely laugh the laughter sought by all people.


Professional Enemies... 20 December 2000

It is only emotion-based perceptions that separate the same institutional process of yourself and your political enemies. The process is therefore separate from the issue, and can be more effectively designed for greater benefit to yourself and society. For those with sufficient command of their mind, to utilize wisdom above emotion, for their benefit...

This is an introduction to Professional Enemies, the 21st Century political standard for government and organization leaders utilizing organizational technology. Professional Enemies previously maintained its own web site, which is no longer necessary. It may now be contacted through Alaska Intech.

If you are a power-based organization leader, classically that of government but also most other membership or money-based organizations, you know your organization cannot exist without an enemy. That limitation is confined to organizational technology, but you do not currently know any more effective technology, or you would be using it.

Without an enemy, your inherently flawed decisions and actions are the only one's in public or membership view, with no distractions inherent to the existence of enemies. If your decisions and actions were not flawed, you would have no enemies.

You know that your mind, just like everyone else's, routinely makes mistakes in your own personal decisions. You cannot even support many of your own previous decisions when subsequently, you inherently learn new knowledge demonstrating a flaw in previous decisions caused by the lack of that new knowledge at the previous time. You were not born with all knowledge recognizable in your mind. You are continually learning new knowledge illuminating contradictions in yesterday's knowledge, inherently including your own.

You therefore never held a hope of making decisions for others, without compounding those mistakes to the extent of other people's vast diversity and the advancement of knowledge, and therefore to the extent of your institution's eventual failure. He who thinks he can successfully make another person's decisions, has just not yet lived long enough or asked enough questions too recognize the diversity of knowledge he has not yet learned. The wise leader recognizes that immutable design in the diversity of human mind data-bases and their individual advancements. Without an enemy to blame for your routine mistakes, and to highlight his routine mistakes as distraction from yours, your mistakes are left in unobscured view, enticing scrutiny among your followers.

You also know that every citizen can read these words a dozen times, and when they are finished, they will still react like Pavlov's dog at the rhetorical reference to a fabricated enemy. It is therefore only the perceptive leader who can comprehend the value of Professional Enemies. Because every social institution, including the institution of parents in each society, instilled in the mind's of the people the "us-against-them" concept of human interaction, from the day they could understand more than two words, not even a best selling book and movie like Catch 22 and many like it, or even the most commonly printed book in the world, can cause their mind to recognize the controlling flaw of the us-against-them concept. Certainly they will not understand it from these words, while you can do so by listening carefully to the words you read. They will think that it is us against them, the rest of their life, which is the reason your organization can exist, if it has an effective them to be against.

Therefore the free market of enemies fully meets the insatiable demand, without a contradiction therein, due to the element of time. The demand is insatiable, and all institutional effort is directed toward providing those enemies. If your organization exists, it already has more than a few enemies, and will create more by its actions. Concurrently, you serve as their enemy, or their organizations could not exist.

In fact, if you are currently successful as an organization or institution leader, and capable of thinking beyond being a victim of circumstances, you are already orchestrating the sequenced illusions of battling your enemies to make sure you never defeat them. Most likely you are insuring that your enemies win the most number of battles that will create more anxiety among your institution members, and therefore more profitable financial support.

But such free market activities are not always predictable for sustained benefit to your particular position. The stress alone of facing not fully predictable enemies, including some proverbial loose cannons among them, is just not worth what little more money you derive in the short term from that traditional, purely free market process. With just a little more thinking and investment, you can sustain your position longer while eliminating the stress and other traditional damages.

Look at the governmental and organizational leadership turn-over and internal fighting created by organizational processes not in your complete control. Some of your enemies derive unpredictable surges of real incentive created by your error of winning a battle you perceived as not important but they thought was critical. Real incentive created within the leadership of your opponent institutions, to include those within your own institution, while rare among organization leaders already playing the game, occasionally occurs and is that which routinely precipitates sufficient member reaction to replace leaders. The organization is not defeated, but the leadership changes. Your actual concern in that regard is evident by your position.

And institutions are of such nature that you cannot conspire with your opponents to structure the game. The attempts to do so are inherently illuminated too soon, first due to internal competition for your position.

You may now cut-out the uncertainty, the health-damaging stress and eventual likelihood of a leadership change before you secure your fully desired retirement program. You need only employ the services of Professional Enemies (PE).

PE will provide genuine, non-destructive, custom designed enemies for arenas of political competition and political goal achievement. PE will most efficiently and most comfortably sustain your institution and your position within it, at increasing benefit to you.

Government leaders may therein recognize the wisdom of greatly reducing or eliminating traditional physical damage to economic infrastructure and productive work force assets.

While PE can most benefit major government leaders, it can administer the political enemy needs of smaller organizational structures on the local level, and each entity in the gradient. The controlling concepts remain consistent.

PE will evaluate your political situation, devise the most effective institutional structure of enemies, initiate or facilitate their actions in harmony with your goals, and monitor the process to effect subsequently identified needs or benefits.

PE will create enemy structures of superior image, to thus relegate your other enemies to a peripheral position which you may use for occasional accent to your process without risking any real anger that might trigger unpredicted opposition.

Professional Enemies will maintain predictable political enemies to facilitate or enhance your currently lucrative organizational process, satisfying social desires without stress-inducing unpleasantries, damages or unplanned events.

PE can also orchestrate your primary issue victory for any arena of interest, in conjunction with establishing new institutional enemies to maintain your ongoing success at higher levels. As a separate service, PE can orchestrate your institution's complete political victory over your professional enemies in conjunction with victory over your traditional and therefore marginalized enemies, in the event you wish to retire as an admired leader and not leave your institution's lucrative structure to a successor.

The traditional effort to nurture institutional allies among a population pool inextricably entrenched in the us-against-them mind-set, is an inherently flawed concept, or the allies would already be within your own institution. That effort is more costly and less financially beneficial than orchestrating professional enemy organizations to more efficiently direct cash flow to your organization at less waste and damage.

PE works with numerous entities to coordinate and compound the advantages of fully orchestrated enemy services. PE can form original organizations from professional organizational teams, to perform political enemy services of credibility superior to traditionally existing enemies. PE can also coordinate existing political opposition organizations currently rivaling their own issue's more popular organizations, to elevate their organizations above their superiors for your coordinated and thus sustained, mutual benefit. The incentives will always be mutually benefiting for the involved leaders themselves, while effecting varied issue contradictions and resolutions depending upon the client's desires. The structure of the designed incentives will preclude any subversion of the process without negating the subversion by the process of its attempt. The entire design is structured within incentives inherent to the human mind's functional design, to preclude need or success in any force-based and thus flawed mechanism.

The advantages of structuring enemy institutions specifically orchestrated to maximize intra-related economic activity and security are obvious. While the free market of institutional enemies and allies already manifests the same general concept, the heretofore lack of coordination through a professional service has left too many casualties of leadership stress, political downfall, financial embarrassment and social damage. Those damages to institutional leaders result from their failure to professionally orchestrate the otherwise inherent but routinely flawed mechanism of their institutional concept and ongoing activities. With the intellectually advanced resources of today, there is simply no need for institution leaders to allow such damage to themselves, their close colleagues or the general society upon which comfortable lifestyles are dependent.

Because the game of political opposition is being played within the design of human minds, albeit still at a Neanderthal level, and the human mind is of the inordinately capable nature it is, the game can be learned and understood to the extent of flawless process. The game can therefore be played in the fashion of intelligent gentlemen and gentlewomen, at enhanced benefits to everyone, and to eliminate the nastiness of violence, stress, economic and personal damage.

While the potential benefits of PE services, especially at national leadership levels, are profound and obvious to the astute reader, PE emphasizes that its services are methodical and real-world in nature. These services are limited to achieving economic and social success for professional institution leaders, while reducing real-world damages to leaders and to economic infrastructures.

Those leaders or other persons who pursue greater social goals beyond economic advantage and benefit for themselves and their close colleagues, may wish to engage the more extensive services of Alaska Intech. PE optimizes enemies for ongoing economic benefit to institution leaders who prefer only the economic and social status success of high but stagnated leadership positions. In profound contrast, Alaska Intech manifests the complete achievement of institution goals, leaving the leaders with knowledge for much more advanced and sought-after pursuits.

Professional Enemies will accept only clients for which PE can provide the net desired goal of the client. Therein PE utilizes several aspects of intellectual technology developed by Alaska Intech. PE will not accept clients for those rare few institutional issues where the rules of advanced social interaction are already honored to the extent that honest people are not damaged by the game. Nor will PE accept clients who are still so politically and intellectually primitive that they wish to needlessly damage other people for cause in anger.

Because you, the executive leader, are the institution's decision-making mind, in an institution that otherwise holds no other single human mind to make each final decision of actual executive action, the question is that of what you personally want from your intellectual effort. It is yours, if professionally structured within the context of your institution's entire arena.



The most brilliant puzzle... 22 December 2000

What is the greatest puzzle, the puzzle explaining and dictating the human phenomenon, the puzzle whose knowledge allows the knower to achieve all that the human design can achieve, if he wishes, the puzzle so cleverly designed that no adjectives are sufficient to describe its brilliance?

What is the puzzle that everyone in the world wants to solve, and spends most of their thinking-time thinking they are in the process of solving it? It is a puzzle referenced by many words, from plain old simple down on the farm words, to the most rhetorically philosophical gobbledygook which can still cling to the edge of correct grammar while testing the limits of the dictionary. It is a puzzle whose reference is as brilliantly disguised.

Legions of institutions of myriads of natures all seek the solution to the puzzle they reference with all manner of descriptions. In fact, it is the puzzle, the solution for which all institutions are created, that is, any two or more people forming an association separately referenced by a name other than the involved individuals, with a goal one among them describes.

Consider the puzzle of such nature that when you learn it, you learn every contradiction you prior created, and why your best efforts cannot convey knowledge of the puzzle to the people who most desperately and openly crave the solution, simply because they fear the harmless knowledge illuminated by simple questions. Consider the puzzle, the simple lack of understanding its easily understood nature, is the reason many people are needlessly dying each day, more are frittering-away time in prisons at public expense and without contributing to society, vast arenas of serious social damage and genuine grief are endured by billions, to say nothing of the angering frustration and simple disappointment saturating the human phenomenon over every unresolved contradiction everyone so often recognizes.

Consider the puzzle that itemizes each element of the source of all human-caused problems, and thus the solution which solves all of them.

Review the list of all the powerful people, such as the leaders of Russia, England, Germany, Japan, China, France, Spain, United States, Saudi Arabia, and all the others, and all the power-brokers within them, such as the Federal Reserve Bank, International Monetary Fund, International Court of Justice, Catholic Church, Dali Lama, OPEC, DeBeers and more. Think for a moment about all the super-rich sorts, such as the Kennedy's, Rockefeller's, Mellon's, Hunt's, McArthur's, the British Royalty, Kuwaiti sheiks, and on down the list to your neighbor compared to a peasant in Chad. Don't stop there, what with the great intellectual leaders of all the think tanks, research institutes, Oxford, Yale, Harvard, MIT, other universities, Nobel Prize Committee and the Nobel Prize winners, Mensa and countless others. You can also consider all the millions of other organizations whose followers sincerely believe that their organization leaders hold any degree of social power, intelligence and influence. Therein are the titled, the credentialed, the institutionally respected and praised.

So why have not even one among the entire array of the most powerful, most wealthy, most intellectually credentialed, and most socially respected, with vast resources at their disposal, with the best minds of the world available to them, been able to figure out the puzzle of how to solve that under which the world yet suffers in misery, damage and stress? Why? Not even in one country.

Is therein not the proof that your children should laugh at your ignorance for suggesting they should strive to become one of those proven failures?

Why are even their own institutional bailiwicks fraught with contradictions and in-fighting? Why? Do not be so foolish as to believe your first answer, or you will be the same foolish sort as all those institutional leaders who foolishly answer the question with what they believe and is already disproven by the results surrounding them. Is their answer not incorrect if all their resources cannot correct it?

Each question herein holds a correct answer, readily available.

How can it be that contradictions created by humans, could not have resolutions, and not readily available to humans, especially all those humans who claim all manner of greatness and leadership? That question holds a definitive answer sustainable against every question. It is part of the puzzle.

Why do you think Putin, the current leader of Russian, or Bush, the current leader of the US (discounting the last poor chap desperately making more amusing goof-ups at everyone else's financial burden in his last few days in office), with the power they in fact hold and kill to defend, despite their excuses at seeing these words, cannot promptly correct all or any of the problems created by their predecessors? Were not the new guys chosen to solve those problems? Would not such solutions suddenly advance their nations in a quantum leap of social benefit? Why, when you check back in a few years, will you find that they are no more capable than all their predecessors, and at best did not let things get too much worse? Why will they claim unearned credit for everything the people did on their own despite the yoke of government, and why will they blame all the failures on the other guy? The questions reveal a truth you know they cannot escape. Is that not so? Would it not be because they did not hold the knowledge behind their grand hollow words identical to their predecessors, and held no comprehension of how to find that knowledge? Is not the latter the proof that they were never leaders of anything besides their useless ego and of fools fooled by their ego-based lies?

Why do you think that after all the national and international, so called blue ribbon committees and commissions of so called experts did all the things they did, there is still no combination of the most credentialed institutional leaders who can actually solve any social problem anywhere? Why? What is the line-item mechanism constituting the verifiable answer without a remaining contradiction? The question has a concise answer verifiable against every question.

Why, with the power of the pen referencing the news media, rightfully claimed to be the most powerful institution in society, constantly criticizing every government, cannot the great minds of the news media leaders meet to devise and implement the solution to all or even any of the problems they illuminate?

Would the full knowledge of a puzzle, the solution to which is so obviously and readily available by design of its origin, which can perpetually defy the entire power and wealth of all human power and wealth, not be of superlative nature? What is revealed in that question? Who would most seek the knowledge to solve that puzzle, just for the unmatched entertainment of finding the solution, if for nothing else? Are you not predicated on your mind, rather than the number of foolish people you can fool into thinking you are somehow greater than they?

If you ever acquired a title or credential or institutional position which caused your mind to think it held more ability than another mind, what was the ability of the first human mind which created the origin of that title, credential or institutional position, and why did that person not instead simply solve the related contradictions rather than create the institutional title, credential or position? Does not your obviously lame or absent answer leave your illusion valueless and an embarrassment to claim among commonly intelligent people? Is not your abject intellectual inability proven by your decision to continue your claim of said illusion after you failed the last question?

Would it be possible for mere humans to create all those problems that humans alone create, without concurrently creating the knowledge of how to solve those problems? How more easy a puzzle is there to solve, than the one created by the entity seeking to solve it? If not from their own actions available for their mind to analyze, should not written history so saturating human actions, be adequate for institution leaders, paid by their followers to think through to solutions, to find those solutions to glaring social problems? How great an intellectual vacuum must exist between their ears for them to consume their entire life times, paid opulently and with command of vast resources, to create solutions, with no solution manifested or even in sight or verifiably described?

Why are every one of those institutional leaders throughout the entire spectrum of institutional leaders, all failures in respect to their institutional espousals, and not any more capable of sustaining their private life than the successful homeless chaps living the greater challenges of daily life in the streets and allies? Why? What is the itemized mechanism of their mind's failure in regard to their mind's espousals? Precisely why does their mind espouse that which their mind's analysis could prior ascertain why they are therein failures and public fools? Why would their mind not figure out how to manifest their espousals, against each question already proven to create human history, before they made the espousals? Why, and therefore what is the solution to that part of the puzzle?

I was once suggested to me that life is the only game in which the object of the game is to learn the rules of the game. That description has commonly been applied to learning the rules of how to be socially and financially successful. Many people of course recognize it for more. Imagine if the description extended to the greatest extent of your imagination, and didn't stop there. What is the maximum ability within the human mind's design? What are the human design rules extended to the limits of their full jurisdiction? Imagine the puzzle whose solution produced that answer. Would not the rules of the game easily explain the mechanism for promptly achieving world peace, or much easier, your government or organization promptly achieving its espousals?

World peace is too easy, regardless of the other guy, and only an example of any manifest contradiction which the mind was designed to resolve, and among the easy half of contradictions since it is only humans who create social contradictions among themselves. Efficient travel to other planets, and genetically curing all biological contradictions to long life, require a bit more effort well beyond my current knowledge, but rapidly available to humans if the greater than half the human effort currently poured into the amusingly rat hole of humans fighting against each other, were promptly resolved as can be done within a few months if anyone is seriously interested. It is just a puzzle.

Promptly achieve the respective goals of the military, the burgeoning police empire, the congressional staff, or any dozen large political-goal organizations, which is too easily done in each or all cases. Thereafter apply every dollar and human hour prior dumped into those aforementioned rat holes, to the goal of curing cancer or developing new energy sources for space travel, therein employing the same number of people with the same money, using the same time to investigate only different sectors of knowledge, and suggest which use of human potential you would prefer. After all the words of all the institutional leaders living off the money you worked to acquire, why have those leaders not been able to figure out how to do what of the aforementioned you would prefer? Precisely why did you work to pay them to make you look so foolish for paying them?

The persons who figure out the puzzle are those who are curious about knowledge itself, and therein of the mind and such things associated with knowledge itself, leaving no interest, other than idle amusement, in all the trappings of humans, such as those associated with social success so insatiably sought by all the embarrassing institution leaders of prestigious titles. One cannot become the leader of an institution by figuring out the controlling contradiction of such trappings useless to the mind, because they therein become useless to the individual predicated on his mind. Upon what are you predicated? The answer is your decision. But use your answer, and do not contradict it without openly changing it, lest you identify your inability to use your mind. Therein one learns astonishing knowledge, the access to which institution leaders traded-away for such humanly worthless trappings in their social success. Upon what did the human species define itself? What did those institution leaders say of their capability? Were you so foolish as to believe what they openly disprove?

So superlative is the puzzle that to figure it out illuminates the greater challenge of testing the puzzle's only imaginable contradiction, to learn the only remaining unknown of the human knowledge mechanism. Can the power-altered mind be taught, rather than the easy process of leaving it no choice by utilizing the discovered knowledge itself, how to regain the command of logic, under its own free will? Only those uniquely curious with such puzzles can learn intellectual technology on their own, and therein no lesser use of the technology, such as becoming the most socially respected human in history or any other such ego-based trapping for the mind, is of any challenge. To do what it takes to get there is to be curious only about what is beyond there.

Anyone can do that in their spare time currently used for any identified frustration. Merely spend the time asking real questions about the frustrations, and answering them, and questioning your answers.

So superlative is the nature of the puzzle, that to try to convey its nature to those most overtly craving the knowledge of it, will create their every known mechanism to ignore, flee or attack any who offer the knowledge. Of course those who are not interested in such things, because their interests are focused on countless other pursuits, will promptly display rightful boredom with such seemingly unrelated knowledge despite their commonly expressed peripheral frustrations easily resolved with the knowledge.

To learn a necessary part of the puzzle on one's own involves attempting to convey knowledge of the puzzle to those who openly crave knowledge of it. But the puzzle is such that no part of the puzzle can be learned without command of the other parts, thus requiring a unique type learning mechanism. One must prior learn the part of the puzzle about risks, because it is risky attempting to convey knowledge of value to people who crave it. Try to respectfully tell the police the knowledge they openly crave, the knowledge which will make them the most respected and effective institution in society, and they will defend their mind from the knowledge by harassing, beating, stealing from, framing, arresting, imprisoning and sometimes killing you, in the US, more often killing you in many other countries. You may rightfully imagine the anger and thoughts of retaliation these words and ones like them have created among certain police agencies which have received them. It could be no other way for a puzzle of such brilliance, or the police would not be among the most universally hated institutions, along with lawyers, consistently confused news journalists, tax collectors stealing money from workers to benefit the lazy, wealthy, privileged government sorts, said government chaps who use unquestioning police to steal for the repugnantly opulent salaries of government chaps, and certain traders of used cars and camels.

A controlling concept of the puzzle is that the balance is perfect in all things, or those things could not exist more than a moment. Try, as a male, to explain to females that half the knowledge they need to learn the puzzle, and not the half they would guess, is within the available knowledge of the male mind, and vice versa. The social risk is obvious and real. That amusing aspect accounts for an extensive aversion to learning the knowledge sought by all people. For the balance to exist, there must be a division, and the first division of the human phenomenon is that of gender, with each thinking the other doesn't know what it should, and both being correct, thus leaving the solution where their ego won't allow their search.

To test the concept on a diverse array of institutional minds, with opposing institutions required to insure the universality of the phenomenon, is to leave one no quarter in any social institution. Imagine being a person whom, upon being questioned, no social institution could rightfully deny admittance, with the exception of the matter in the previous paragraph, but upon asking questions in turn, every institution loathes and ostracizes for fear of those questions. Imagine what you would therefore learn. Therein the command of extensive humor is again revealed as a necessary part of the puzzle. Go right down the list with the best and most diverse array of rhetorical devices to offer diverse institutions the knowledge they openly and publicly seek to achieve their espousals. The consistency of the blunt attacks against you, in response, is not only highly amusing, but more so in that it illuminates one of the reasons they are fighting each other. The actual examples of the rhetorical and other attacks are intriguing, with only one plain old reasonable question easily dividing an institutional leader's open praise, from his sudden attack, for the same person. Anyone can derive the useless ego-candy of praise. It is questions that create knowledge. Did your parents want their children to be praised, or learn knowledge? Which did you pursue? What is the value of your mind? Is it not questions that create knowledge?

The puzzle is such that opposing institutions are consistently fighting against the same knowledge they otherwise exhaustively seek. The institutional sorts attach the first perception of the knowledge to individual humans rather than the referenced concepts, and fellow humans are their enemies until they prove their praise-based loyalty to the leaders. To attempt to find institutional favor to advance the related knowledge, the individuals advance only the knowledge finding favor, and dare not advance that half of the knowledge not yet known by the institution and thus not of its favor. A human mind can learn new knowledge. An institution lacks a mind, and thus cannot learn new knowledge. The full mechanism is intriguing but beyond this paragraph. To maintain favor and social comfort with the institution for any reason, one ends up amid only half the knowledge, the half resulting in the institution's ongoing failure, perpetuating institutional ignorance. Who holds the courage to seek knowledge above the social acceptance of every institution in society? Did you think there was any part of the puzzle that was not needed? What would you pay for the most valuable knowledge knowable by humans? Unlike the individual human mind, the illusionary institutional mind represented by a leader defending his position above seeking the institution's goal, and thus competing against humans rather than for knowledge, cannot distinguish between pure knowledge and the humans the institutions need for enemies. If you are not saying what the institutional mind already knows, then you are an enemy of that institution. To offer it the knowledge it seeks and thus does not yet know, is to be attacked as its enemy. Knowledge is feared and hated more than any other concept in the institutional mind, because knowledge itself holds no limit in contradiction resolution process until every contradiction is resolved, and thus exposes the inherent contradictions of every institution, plus the consequences.

The achievement of the institutional goal is the technical death of the institution (a name), while the intellectually stagnant institutional leaders therefore cannot conceive of any value for their mind, beyond their institution, unlike the individual mind which can identify entirely too many goals leading humans into the future.

To reach the knowledge to efficiently resolve any human-caused contradiction, and thus the knowledge that will cause you to laugh robustly over its disguise, and become a genuinely great leader if you wish to be one for any reason, one must inherently lead their mind through the half of the puzzle that one most fears, that is, one's own manifested contradictions as an individual and as a member of every institution. So frightening is such knowledge, that those who claim the greatest courage, strength and power, are the least able to stand against the fear of knowledge in their own mind. The balance is perfect in all things, or we could not exist, nor our institutions. Those who claim the least courage, strength and power, have the least to defend against what new knowledge may teach them, and thus reach the knowledge not found by those who foolishly placed ego above the value of knowledge. The nature of the referenced puzzle is the most valuable knowledge knowable by humans. Your mind is a knowledge device. Go for knowledge. It cannot hurt you because your mind retains its command of its decisions. The effort is worth the rewards, beyond your best imagination. With knowledge, you can have it all. Without knowledge, what you have is not yet what you seek. You will not escape the design of the human mind while you are human. Just as well use the design while you are stuck with it.

Of course the leaders within larger institutions, are so, because they surrounded themselves with a fortress of like-minded institutional sorts, such as police, military, bureaucracies and staff. Try to reach such an institutional leader with the knowledge they openly seek, and besides the designed impossibility of their own mind understanding the related knowledge from any mere introduction, their entire fortress of staff and bureaucracies will defend against the knowledge, or they would not be in their positions. Pity the institution leaders who, even if they belatedly recognize something is wrong with the consistent failure of their efforts despite their resources and success in blaming every failure on everyone else, cannot escape the fortress of ignorance with which they willfully surrounded themselves. And if anyone in the system, such as staff, belatedly recognizes the same thing, and attempts to say something different within the institution, the surrounding system would as quickly turn against him as he prior attacked anyone else who brought forward words of knowledge rather than praise. To become an institutional mind identifies a person who will consistently choose the mental comfort of hollow trappings over the mental discomfort of infinitely more valuable new knowledge.

Every person who has ever set out to change the system from within, has either failed because the system would not allow the invasion of new knowledge, or he ended up within the system, using knowledge already known and used by the institution to gain entrance, and thus ended up defending it to retain the position, as proven by that which surrounds you. If you are not laughing from recognizing the truth of these words, you have not yet asked enough questions of the concepts surrounding you. And if you are laughing, you need only find and synthesize the other parts of the puzzle.

Knowledge of the puzzle is worth the search. Pity those sorts, such as court judges, police, prosecutors, other government chaps and every other institution leader, who so fear everything in the world, hiding behind their illusions of human power and courage, that they must defend their mind from knowledge by attacking those who ask questions to illuminate knowledge. But you must risk and endure their malicious attacks to find the knowledge they fear. Openly question them with impunity. It is part of the puzzle. It requires the courage they will never know and always crave.

Print this and send it to any judge, prosecutor, police, politician or other institution leader, perhaps Putin or Bush's staff, any professor or other titled person, for the physical exercise necessary as another part of the puzzle, to cause your mind to subsequently recognize the substance of the truths herein when another stimulus reinforces the exercise itself. The message is not for them. It is not possible for the power-altered minds of the receivers to understand these words, to include the minds of their identically power-altered staff. The exercise is for your mind. If you already understood its value, you would be writing rather than reading this. If you send it somewhere, anywhere out of your control and to a mind that will therefore seriously question you, the questions will create what your mind needs.


Respect... 23 December 2000

Consider Putin, Bush, Hussein, Castro and the entire gaggle of international, national and local government leaders. Their minds sincerely and genuinely believe that they have the respect of the people, discounting of course the usual dissident fringe. Now consider the more complete expression, that they sincerely believe they have the respect of the people they tax for the high salaries and privileged lifestyles of the leaders. Have you ever heard anyone say that you should pay your taxes to show respect for your leaders? How many have said that you must pay your taxes to avoid going to prison? Name any person who will publicly state that he respects leaders who so disrespect him as to threaten him with prison if he doesn't pay for the privileged lifestyle of the leader. Which arrangement of words reveals the actual mechanism at play, prevailing over rhetorical illusions? After the politically correct words are advanced by the politically correct people, including yourself, which mechanism is that upon which your mind makes its controlling decisions?

The minds of the leaders simply have no comprehension of the dictionary definition of the word, respect, or its mechanism in human minds. The leaders think that fear and intimidation constitute respect. They don't even have the respect of their own government people who are also held in the same contempt as their superiors for claiming power-based privileges above the rights of the people. Because their minds function on forcing people to do things against their will, under threat of armed police and prison, the government people do not have the respect of even the people above and below them in their force-based institution, to say nothing of commonly intelligent people outside the institutions. The government sorts needlessly traded away respect for a paltry salary otherwise available without such a costly trade.

In their foolish attempt to get something for nothing, to force other people to work for the benefits of government sorts, most of the government sorts and certain others on the government dole will express the rhetorical illusion of respect and praise for the current chaps with superior titles in the system, but the human mind has no mechanism to respect the product of force or acquisition of something for nothing, such as salaries and benefits seized under threat of prison. The mechanism of force is simply not within the neurons and synaptic exchanges dealing with respect. The mechanism of force is within the neurons and synapses dealing with greed, ego, maliciousness, hatred, contempt and such concepts. The mechanism for respect is within the neurons dealing with logic, reasoning, the answering of questions resolving contradictions, knowledge. The concepts of force and respect involve separate neural systems, shared in a few portions of neural routing, but categorically separated at controlling junctures. The use of even one element of force negates any verifiable respect. The proof is readily available with only a few questions of even the mind most adamantly denying these words. Only a few questions can prove the closest ally to have no respect for an institutional leader utilizing any form of force, such as the armed police. That is only another indication of why government and other institutional leaders fear, flee and attack effective questions. Their mind cannot tolerate recognition of truth.

The amount of concluding effort to earn respect and its rewards, as opposed to the futile attempt to force respect out of people, is much less after one invests the hard mental work of learning how to earn respect, but the initially seeming ease of forcing what appears to be respect is that which traps every power-based institutional leader, without exception. Notice that leaders say much about respect and all virtues. Then notice that leaders flee questions. Respect is disproven by the refusal to answer questions with answers that answer the questions asked. The minds of institution leaders literally cannot identify the concept of respect in any valid test of its understanding.

There is no demand that any mind acquires respect. It is wholly sufficient for people such as US President Bill Clinton and his bevy of enforcers, to slaughter innocent women and children in their church in Waco, as a dramatic example among many of their other examples of maliciousness, to prove their raw power over people's lives. That is their ego-based choice for the use of the power the people foolishly granted them. But power is very costly, only one price being that of permanently surrendering any respect among common-sense humans. Clinton derived his hollow glory by killing whomever he wished, but along with his boys in the US Department of Justice and United States Army, will never hold the respect of commonly intelligent humans. That is a reasonable choice for those who have decided their goal is to acquire power. Such actions and people are often praised by equally small minds who worship raw power above the reasoning ability of human minds. But such people display their yet further ignorance with any subsequent effort to renege on their decision by suggesting that honest people should respect them.

It is initially difficult enough to earn respect. It simply requires the effort to learn knowledge, that is, utilize the mind for its designed purpose, that is, ask and answer questions of contradictions. It is significantly more difficult to earn respect after surrendering it for power. Therein one must learn the same knowledge after having trained one's mind to fear, flee and attack said knowledge, and then make whole those who were damaged with the power and its deceit.

Amusingly, genuine respect is more easily acquired than the total effort to acquire the power that negates any respect, and within a therefore more effective governmental institution, but it can only be acquired through use of the mind to learn the related knowledge, that for which the human mind was invented. It will never be had by pointing an armed police, military, or any other title or form of force, at another person. Knowledge, not guns, police or soldiers, is the foundation for all things sustainable. And knowledge is free for the asking, at cost of your time.

Understanding the concept of respect in relation to power is part of the puzzle. Power is the single most addicting concept known to the human mind, and is the antithesis of reasoning, thus flawlessly self-defeating in a device predicated on reasoning. Because you have not discovered the unique key to facilitate the more expeditious self-defeat of power, if you wish to effect any expression of reasoning in any institution such as government or other power-based organizations, you may continue to do what you are doing, but shift its entire purpose to only that of identifying and questioning the contradictions in what you are doing. Do what no institution leader's mind can comprehend, that is, ask and answer questions of the contradictions illuminated by your actions. Would you not respect a person who did such a thing? Must you not learn how to earn respect among genuinely honest and thus commonly intelligent people before you can sufficiently understand that concept to recognize the useful mechanism for its absence in others?

And if you did, would you not hold what is so valuable, craved and readily available to Putin, Castro, Hussein, Bush and lot, yet so foolishly feared by them that they will never earn it?


One word or many... 27 December 2000

You train your mind with the words you use. Use one simple accurate word for a simple object, and you will learn one simple fact. Use a dozen words and phrases for the same simple object, variously accurate and approximate, and your mind will learn more about the object.

Question the words you use, to thus use yet more words focused on the simple object, and you will learn what other people have not yet learned about that object.

What do you want to learn about how to solve the problems that no one else can solve? How many words are you willing to use to describe that process, and how many questions are you willing to ask? Did you answer the questions?

In contrast, notice all the institution leaders thrilling their applauding followers with a few simple sound-byte words, often scripted and repeated to boredom, never leaving the arena of their institution, centered on what creates the reward of applause, and their insistence that the other guy is wrong. Your leaders have already trained their minds to be the most useless among the human species. They will never know how to help you. If you are not asking difficult questions about their consistent failures, to thus advance your own mind, there will be no one who can ever help you. How many new words and word arrangements are you willing to learn, to learn what your leaders never question?

Snow may assist your mind, as it did mine. It snowed each winter where I was raised on a farm in central Washington State. And thus I knew about snow. But at a high school assembly, a traveling speaker, with tales of adventures in far-off Alaska, mentioned that in Alaska the native people had twelve different words for snow, each describing its different conditions resulting from different temperatures, winds and varied weather. I could understand the concept, but thought that twelve was a bit many words for that simple white stuff of my knowledge. Years later, as a mountain climber in Alaska, having dug many snow caves, built many igloos, climbed many glacier-clad mountains, explored many moulins (glacier ice caves), and skied to get there and back, I learned that there were more than twelve different conditions of snow useful for description among those who talk about snow for reason. If you hastily dug a magnificent snow cave in the wrong snow, high on a precarious ridge of an unclimbed mountain, barely escaping into the cave before the winter storm with sub-zero temperatures raged in deadly fury through the night, long before morning the roof of your magnificent snow cave may slowly sag down in the darkness, as you slept exhausted, to gently touch the tip of your nose, so startling you awake that you jerk your face up into the snow for a rude introduction to your plight, leaving you to awkwardly slither sideways toward the door, dress in the space of your sleeping bag, for the vicious storm outside, while the snow discussed more of its nature at your every movement, and then laughed with the blinding force of the wind as you clumsily stumbled outside on your knees, too near the precipitous edges of the narrow ridge, hunkered against the storm's icy claws slashing at your every struggle to dig a new cave. And better that than the wind stripping away the roof of your cave in the middle of the night, after your miscalculation of just where it was that you thought it easier to dig the snow cave when it was so calm and nice that evening. Of course skiers and snow research scientists also know of such things. But then later, I parachuted onto the North Pole to help set up a remote camp for some ice research chaps. After the busy moments of stepping out into the tri-turbo airplane prop-wash of minus 40 degree air, and then watching the plane disappear long before it reached the flat horizon, I was standing among the three of we tiny dark dots lost in a vast expanse of jumbled pack-ice with no hope of rescue until we built an adequate runway if the plane could then find us again some days later on the shifting polar pack ice. Within my view were snow, ice, sky, snow, ice, clouds, snow, ice, the glow of the sun low on the horizon, snow and ice, the other two scruffy sorts, our few bundles of stuff, snow and ice. If you strip away the vast variety of things in sight during your normal life, except a bare few, your mind will not slow down just because less things are in view. It will see more detail in those few things. It is then that I learned how little I knew of snow from years of winter climbing in the glacier-clad Alaska Range where rocks could also be seen. Amid the thin patches of wind-blown snow of astonishing variety only in the most subtle perceptions, on the North Pole pack ice, as prior known by countless people living on its edge for millennium, the snow for igloo blocks strong enough to withstand the wind where no other materials are within hundreds of miles, is where your perception of more detail in words will also find the key to solving the most complex contradictions humans can create. Look there.


Pottery shards... 30 December 2000

This analogy is worth more than a PhD in archeology, as if any such value exists, if you use it. Go to any archeological site of an earlier civilization, and watch the archeologists, either amateur or professional, including yourself if you are interested in old things. They will pick up old bits and pieces of anything associated with the previous human activity, such as old shards of pottery. The archeologists will look closely at the shards, talk about them, and handle them as though they were of greater value than the actual utility of the old broken stuff.

Now consider that you were a person of that previous civilization, at that earlier time, standing in the same spot, watching someone among you act the same way, picking up shards of broken pottery and paying close attention to them. You would conclude that such a person had become a bit addled in the mind, mumbling over useless, broken pottery.

You could imagine the same concept today, but you just can't get anyone to pick up pieces of broken beer bottles in the alley, and demonstrate intense interest.

Why is, what would previously be considered the village idiot, mumbling over useless pottery shards, now considered to be highly titled, well-credentialed, PhD scientists, reasonably paid, referenced and socially respected for the knowledge they discuss? If you only rightfully chuckled at the question, without also answering it , writing an answer sustainable against all questions, you are wasting your time reading this stuff. The correct answer to the question can leave you with knowledge more useful than that held by the PhD, well ahead of your time at the time the broken pottery or beer bottles became useless and discarded. You could understand much more of the future than the vast majority of people around you. You would gain knowledge of the future analysis of today's artifacts, and thus the understanding of the effects of time on the decisions of yourself and others, and thus the decisions that will prevail, and thus no longer waste your time on what will break by design, before its utility is derived. Was not the difference only in the time and its effects on knowledge?

The physical items created by humans, surviving the test of time either whole or in part, simply reference knowledge. Therefore, and for other reason, knowledge itself is an archeological concept available in whole or parts for its utility in whole, its parts, or any construction. Because knowledge can be constructed and exponentially advanced in any human mind, efficiently, merely by asking and answering each series of related questions, one can efficiently discover today what will only otherwise be discovered in the future from what they will piece-together from the knowledge artifacts of today, with what they have since learned for failure to ask the same questions today, for lack of understanding the concept of time.

In the future, intellectual technology will be as common as shards of broken beer bottles are today, resulting in the absence of any social contradictions, as humans instead spend their time exponentially advancing human knowledge and ability with the same inordinately useful technology. Intellectual archeologists at that time will piece together the shards of its prior evidence, marveling at the isolated advancements within an otherwise primitive culture existing back in the intellectual dark ages we call our current society.

Because the design of the human mind is what it is, you as an individual, no matter who you are, can promptly become the artist of highly advanced knowledge over which future scientists will marvel at the evidence you create, because the institutions currently representing your culture, and thus your social leaders, simply cannot comprehend the referenced knowledge to thus socially manifest it, because they think they are already more advanced than the humans (you) for whom they make decisions under force of guns and majority-vote laws backed by police guns, rather than using intellectual technology. If your institution leaders were more intellectually advanced than you, they would not need guns or majority-rule laws backed by police guns to force you to adopt their decisions, by definition of the human mind's designed process. You are already more intellectually advanced than your institutional leaders if you suggest that the process to facilitate advanced social structure without government guns inherently exists by design of the human mind's mechanism, or even if you simply answer questions rather than dodge them. It is just knowledge of line-item process central to the human mind's design. Your curiosity alone can facilitate that remarkably useful knowledge, while institutional minds whose curiosity was replaced with a craving for their personal power over your decisions, define the culture that still makes proverbial pottery while they are surrounded with the knowledge and resources to travel among the planets and live long enough to be their own archeologists. If you are that institution leader, you only need to learn the referenced controlling contradiction of your institutional decisions, to become what will more than just astonish the future archeologists.

It is easier to resolve human-caused contradictions, once the process is learned, than it is to piece together broken pottery, but the disguise of the process is therefore more effective, as proven by the credentialed archeologists who complain about their government and other institutions, still ignorant of how to resolve the contradictions they identify.

If you are too busy, frightened or too lazy to effectively question your own institutional conclusions, demonstrate the wisdom to teach your children to effectively question your every word, and that of every institution in your society, most intensely your government, to identify contradictions and question their own resolutions, lest your children be among those who learn on their own, and thus learn who needlessly stagnated their society in such pitifully primitive conditions.


End of Intech Concepts 4

IntechConcepts 37, 36, /A>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