Intech Concepts 7
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)
The older you get.... 25 February 2001
The older you get, the wiser you become, by sheer number of lessons learned, by sheer application of the time to stumble upon them.
But look around. Distinguish between the old wise people and old unwise people.
You can trace every old unwise person to his or her retained, childish belief that the other guy is the enemy, and the enemy can be forced to live their life the proper way, under threat of being imprisoned or executed for not doing so.
You can become wise at this moment.
Greatest accomplishment of any human... 20 March 2001
What is the greatest accomplishment of any human?
If you do not answer the question, and write your answer, you will not advance your ability to think, and thus not advance your any ability, because as a human, your abilities are predicated on thinking.
The mind thinks by asking and answering questions, and stagnates itself by only reading the thoughts of others.
The answer to the question is, to think.
Use the answer.
It is not just for amusement that you will therefore be able to state that you have achieved the greatest accomplishment of any human, with no wise person objecting, but for incentive to think further.
The resolution to every human-caused contradiction, regardless of any human opposition, is so easy because it requires so little thinking because those institution leaders fooling everyone into believing that the leaders are thinking, are not. They are instead only reading the often contradicted thoughts of others, and making statements. They are not asking and answering questions, to resolve contradictions, because they fear the results, and thus scared themselves out of the knowledge of how to ask effective questions, and thus created multiple steps between their stagnated knowledge and their espoused goals, while they retain the categorically flawed belief that goals are achieved if only everyone else can be forced or fooled into the one step of doing what the leaders say. Even they do not do what they say, because they contradict themselves, and the contradictions compound themselves from that point, expanding rather than resolving problems.
It does not take too many questions to identify the proof in the above, even when organization leaders are faced with these words. Find those questions, so you may easily advance yourself beyond the institution leaders and all their credentials, because you will not otherwise advance your knowledge and abilities, especially if you are following or believing any institution leader.
If you are an institution leader, therefore confused by all these otherwise plain English words easily understood, you might consider discarding all your institutional positions and credentials, knowing that the writer laughed robustly at suggesting that which is beyond your mind's capability, and then objectively questioning their every contradiction. Or you may consider the services of Alaska Intech, to walk your mind to the prompt, public achievement of your institutional goals, regardless of your current difficulties, leaving you with abilities beyond the most credentialed and highest titled chaps in the world, much to your inordinate amusement.
Your only hope is curiosity... 23 March 2001
It can be said that the first thing power does to the human mind, is to destroy the mind's access to the concept of shame. That is logical. The only utility of power is the use of force. Power does not and cannot create knowledge. The nature of the force is immaterial. If you out-gun or out-vote your opponent, you did not out-think him. You used force. Your vote is backed by the surrogate of law ultimately backed by police with guns. Force by any other rhetorical illusion, is force. Wisdom needs no police-backed law or any other description of force. But no power-damaged mind can understand the substance or mechanism of the previous sentence. The power-damaged mind unequivocally believes that the controlling concept of the human phenomenon is its muscle, not its mind.
Power is the antithesis of thinking, logic, knowledge, wisdom and such concepts. If one utilizes wisdom, one does not need power or the use of force. Because shame is the inherent result of forcing another human, power cannot exist if the concept of shame can be accessed by the mind effecting the use of force. A claim in one's ability to be ashamed of oneself for the use of force or deception, is easily disproven where it does not exist.
But the origin of the controlling concept at play in the human mind, is power's destruction of curiosity in the human mind. Curiosity is the source-process of knowledge, wisdom, thinking, the use of logic and such concepts. The common mind is curious, by original design. The power-damaged mind is not curious. It's curiosity receptor has been filled with a neutral chemical compound. Curiosity is no longer available to the decision making process. The power-damaged mind is flawlessly addicted to the use of power, as the controlling concept, and always more of it. A curious mind would question the concept of power, to learn its inherent flaw or contradiction, and thus learn its proverbial Achilles Heel. Power could not exist as a concept if a mind it controlled could escape its control by its own reasoning process.
If you are not sufficiently curious to ask and answer the series of questions to discover the controlling contradiction of power and thus the flaw in using force, you are among the vast majority, for a reason you may wish to escape.
Consider your choice of a leader for any organization, institution or government of your involvement, to include a peace organization opposed to the use of force. By definition, a leader of an institution in which you are a follower, makes decisions on your behalf with your acquiescence by definition of your being an identified follower in that institution. Did you want those decisions to be made by an unquestioning and thus non-thinking person who believes that reasoning ultimately comes from a gun? Did you want a leader who could ultimately rely on the raw power of the military, the police or the masses easily fooled with political bovine scat? Or did you want a leader who could rely on reasoning alone, and thus held incentive to learn its greatest utility? Did you answer the questions? What is the purpose of a leader? Which peace or liberty organization leaders propose majority-rule, police-backed laws against the use of force? What does that question reveal?
Do you believe that in the final conclusion of the human phenomenon, said phenomenon is predicated on the human mind or its muscle? From the position of your answer to that question, returning to the nature of your current actions, at what point did you contradict your answer, and why, and did you answer that question with an answer which could prevail against every question any human could ask?
Is your mind sufficiently curious to find that obviously existent answer, or does your mind lack access to that curiosity?
The value of the knowledge is such that you could not be more greatly rewarded for any other knowledge, leaving your claim of holding curiosity but not curious about that concept, subject to intriguing and revealing questions.
What contradiction in your own mind would you have to resolve, before you could find the answer to the questions you have?
The power-damaged mind has no access to curiosity, by proof in its results. The lack of curiosity in another person's mind is easily identified. To solve an ongoing problem, the non-curious mind will always propose what has already been done, such as the need for more money, more members in their organization, more support for them and their ilk, more of this and more of that and yet more, rather than anything entirely different.
Curiosity is access to the knowledge you seek. If you have inadequate time for your own curiosity in relation to any issue, who will you follow if you seek solutions to unresolved contradictions, the person who requests more power to accomplish the task, or the curious person seeking entirely new knowledge? Use your answer.
Do not worry about your use of your answer. There will still be plenty of unthinking, unquestioning ignorant chaps sending their money, votes and expressions of support to the non-curious power-cravers leading every institution including the peace organizations. They will not lose their perpetual battles just because you figured out that your mind is worth more to you than your money is worth to them.
Fast, Easy, Simple and No Risk... 24 March 2001
Competent business and sales persons know that customers respond to process that is fast, easy, simple, and presents no risk.
That is what I want when I purchase a product or service. I am too busy with my arena of interests and obligations to want to engage in time-consumption, difficulty, complexity, and risk, for that which I wish to get by paying for the knowledge of other people. My time-consuming, difficult, complex and risky parts of the equation were endured to earn the money to buy the product or service, when I can afford the purchase.
Smart business managers present those advantages to attract customers. Such business people do the time consuming part, the hard part, the complex part and the risky part, so their customers acquire the end product or service fast, easily, without difficulty or risk, for the money they therefore pay.
When you read this section, do not too hastily feel smart by recognizing the obvious contradiction being described. The more valuable knowledge is within the multiple contradictions being revealed.
When you utilize the product offered by Alaska Intech, your identified goal or problem-solution will be achieved fast, easy, without difficulty or risk. If I were to achieve your goal, or solve your problem, for you, utilizing intellectual technology, I would achieve it fast, easy, without difficulty or risk.
The balance is perfect in all things, or nothing could exist in a recognizable state. The time-consuming part, difficult part, complex part and risky part of every process, service, product and concept will exist. The smart customer and all common-sense people understand that.
So who, within any process, will pay for what parts of the sought conclusion?
Notice what of the following you would tell a school student. Notice how many school students do not adequately listen or study. And then notice that you were once a school student. You are not what you flatter yourself to be, but you can become that, with knowledge.
There is no knowledge of value that you can obtain fast, easy, simple and at no risk.
Knowledge is a unique commodity, as is the human mind. If you want knowledge, your mind must work hard for it. Your mind has no alternative. Other than its genetically acquired duties of attending to your complex bodily processes, your mind has no ability beyond acquiring knowledge by its designed mechanism. It cannot get a job sweeping floors or doing brain surgery to earn money to buy a bag of knowledge. It must learn knowledge, by the only way it can do so, by asking and answering questions of the contradictions it recognizes, to resolve each of those contradictions, that is, by activating electro-chemical exchanges within the cranial goo, to identify each series of uncontradicted data ascribed to memory for use in synthesizing each more extensive series of said data.
Alaska Intech offers knowledge, among the most valuable knowledge known to humans, knowledge of the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, knowledge of the mechanism associating the mind's core learning process with its first demarcation creating original contradictions.
No humans can derive the knowledge of how to solve their problems fast, easy, simple and without risk, or the problems would obviously have already been resolved. But every human can learn the knowledge of how to THEN solve their problems fast, easy, simple and without risk.
You will pay the price of the time consumption, difficulty, complexity and risk, or you will never solve your problems, period. You may choose where and when to pay that price if there is no urgency. So do precisely what you tell a school student, or end up like the school student who ignores you, without escape.
Now therefore notice the glaring commonality among organization leaders, lawyers, politicians, police, think-tank chaps, other institutional sorts and unsuccessful business persons. They attempt to evade the time consuming, difficult, complex and risky part of the equation. They offer only the rhetorical flim flam, with no substance. And the results are why their institutions still exist, still flim flamming gullible people into believing that the solutions can be had if more suckers merely send more money to the institution leaders and then do what the institution leaders are too lazy to do and thus never learn their related flaws.
The institution leaders and followers sincerely believe that they can work an hour to earn an hour's worth of money, and then pay that money to get an hour's worth of thinking that can solve a million dollars worth of unsolved, human-caused problems. Thinking that is sold for money can't solve human-caused problems. There is another part of that puzzle. The proof of the error of institution sorts is in the number of person-hours institution leaders describe in their rhetoric, necessary to achieve a goal, always described as attainable or the leaders would have no followers, then the consistent passage of those exercised person-hours, with no achievement of the goal. The existence of human-caused problems already disproves the validity of the institutional mechanism. The solution to the problems is derived with thinking, uniquely effective thinking, actually asking and answering precision, effective questions. The value of that thinking is significant, in fact such that it can replace the value of all the institution's futile actions for the last 100 years or more, because it can promptly achieve the goal, negating the need for the next 100 years of futile actions. The inherently comparable dollar amount contradicts an evaluation of the thinking in a dollar amount.
You may rightfully imagine my robust laughter. For how many more centuries will gullible people continue to send money to government and other organization leaders to solve the problems that have not been solved with that process since the first human organization was formed? Well, for how many more days, months or years will you do the same? What is your answer to that question, or will you react to the question as do politicians, organization leaders and lazy school students who flee questions? What will you tell your children to do?
Alaska Intech offers its clients the most time consuming, most difficult, most complex service, at complete risk to the client, that any business on the planet offers, at a cost its clients first perceive they cannot afford, because they cannot otherwise earn knowledge of such inordinate value, and therein the value of the knowledge is indicated. The fast, easy, simple and risk-free resolution of the human phenomenon's most long enduring, human-caused problems, as well as any of the countless lesser problems, is therefore efficiently achievable by the clients. And the technology can usually be conveyed within in a week, while you simply sit in a chair of your choice.
The client will be put into a position to simply think, asking and answering unique questions located at the demarcation between the individual human mind and the organizational human mind. How much time will you consume, and how long will you perceive the duration of that time, sitting in face of a question while your mind attempts every electro-chemical routing within its billions of neural options in search of an uncontradicted response other than the only uncontradicted response your mind already recognizes but refuses to manifest? How difficult will your mind find that process? What complexities will it attempt? What risk to its entrenched perceptions is identified? Precisely how can you utilize a concept for which all the costs are already paid?
Imagine my amusement in personally watching local, state, national and international organization and government leaders do what their institutional colleagues have done for millennia, already proven to be a complete waste of their life and that of every gullible sort following them, simply because they fled rather than answered some childishly simple questions which could have been synthesized into a process to promptly resolve complex contradictions. There is no better entertainment on the rock, because it is knowledge of the controlling contradiction resolution design of the human mind. The institutional chaps offering their services believe what their gullible clients believe, for the same reason, perpetually paying a far greater cost by attempting to get something for nothing, by never doing the time consuming, difficult, complex, risky thinking, as the only price a human mind can pay for the benefits it can only therefore derive.
You may inquire.
But for good grief sakes, at least practice the wisdom and thus benefits of not sending your money to institutions you foolishly perceive as solving any problems. Those institutions are creating and perpetuating the problems. Their leaders obtain your money because of the existence of the problems, with no obligation to solve the problems, and thus the incentive to perpetuate the problems. Incentive is everything for the achievement of goals. That decision is too simple. Think, to figure it out. Strong whiskey and foul cigars are a wiser investment for your money.
Your mind is on its own in this world. Utilize it.
Defend your country... 25 March 2001
Who do you want to defend your country, intelligent people, or ignorant people?
Military people, including all the generals and military school professors with rows of jewelry on the chests, are afraid to answer that easy question, because they are abject cowards, too fearful of the next obvious questions.
Knowledge is advancing in the human phenomenon, as more minds synthesize more data into new knowledge. Therefore the people in other countries are becoming more intelligent, and concurrently advancing human competition in conformance with the human mind's design.
Ignorant people will ultimately fail any defense of a country or anything else facing competition in the human phenomenon. Therefore, your choice of people to defend your country is obviously, intelligent people.
Intelligent people ask and answer questions, with answers that can prevail against all questions. Such people do not dodge, flee, evade, deny, refuse or attack questions. Such people answer questions and submit their answers for public judgment of the reasoning, to thus seek identification of any contradictions, to thus identify the uncontradicted answer.
How much intelligence does it require to bash someone else over the head, to kill him, and how much intelligence does it require to instead out-think someone else who is also thinking?
The military is obviously predicated on killing rather than out-thinking the opponent. To readily recognize how little military chaps think, notice that their attempts to claim their thinking process in the military, each conclude in a process to think only enough to more effectively kill their opponent. Among other flawed reasoning, military sorts often try to describe a process to out-threaten their opponent, and suggest that represents a process to out-think an opponent. But any thinking person recognizes a threat without substance. Only unthinking people would make threats without substance, and the military substance only identifies the process of killing rather than out-thinking an enemy. There is no escape from that concept. There was no escape before I was in the military, while I was in the military, and as long as the military exists.
Concurrently, an intelligent person questions everything, in each new context, as the only mechanism to advance one's knowledge. The military mind questions no orders, and can issue orders without fear of question. Military is designed to create the maximum achievable human ignorance.
Ignorant and intelligent people commonly enter the military in every country military exists, because military is one of the common learning vehicles for young chaps. The people who remain within it first cannot figure out the mistake, then make themselves progressively less intelligent, by definition of the military and its process.
Concurrently, the existence of military is one of the definitions of the current intellectual nadir of the human phenomenon in sum. The human phenomenon is yet young, and is slowly learning itself toward distant wisdom. There are other such indicators. The existence of police is another classic demonstration of human stagnation within the concept of force rather than thinking. The majority-rule voting institution is another indicator of human failure to think. Out-voting an opponent who represents a contradicting conclusion is a mechanism to evade thinking, the refusal to reason through identified contradictions to find an uncontradicted conclusion.
In contrast, out-reasoning a contradiction is the manifestation of intelligence, by definition. The process to effect that process constitutes intellectual technology, and is not the issue of this section.
Now notice the concept of military schools, and other schools offering military classes. Military chaps often state their need to attract intelligent people, especially as human intelligence advances. But those who can understand even the most rudimentary logic recognize that military service stagnates their mind, while they are in a competitive world where only foolish people intentionally stagnate their mind. If I knew then what I know now, like many other people, I would have laughed at the suggestion of joining the military. If I had been at least exposed to today's social level of knowledge, and the intellectually embarrassing military recruitment advertising currently being cranked out by embarrassingly unthinking advertising personnel attracting embarrassingly unthinking recruits, I would have stood a better chance of recognizing the flaw of joining the military, even as dumb as I was in my youth. But those are just sentences to reference my lack of thinking at the time. There were people trying to tell me that something was wrong with the military concept, but I was too dumb to ask enough questions to identify the contradictions. Don't be that ignorant. Ask the questions, hard questions, and a lot of them. Write the answers.
Upon a simple series of questions, the existence of the military and all its processes proves that those who remain within the military have willfully chosen to remain unthinking people, and no country will ultimately be defended by such people. The element of time is of no concluding consideration to the intelligent person who therefore learns what will occur in the future, and why, and therefore function on that advanced knowledge. A wise person does not act on decisions derived from the evasion of questions. To act on such evasions is ignorance, to politely reference what you otherwise recognize, the military concept.
Another obvious proof of military avoidance of thinking is that thinking people do not attack those who do not attack them, nor carry out orders from malicious people who attack people who do not attack them. Therein at least half the wars, and military conflicts described by other rhetorical ruses, identify ignorance by definition, and thus that of military personnel, and upon closer examination, over 90% of said conflicts. If to attack to prevent what you perceive as a pending attack or threat, is valid, reasoning dictates that you would have to attack the entire world right now, because there is otherwise no logic-based demarcation in your perceptions, especially those of force-based minds. Therein the actions of the US military define the zenith of human ignorance. When was the last time the US military was last used to factually defend the US, and how much killing has it waged since then, including at Waco? To suggest the self-defeating concepts which commonly defeat those who prepare to attack, and mention the concept of time, and thus the indications of how attackers can be facilitated to defeat themselves, is well beyond the intelligence of military chaps who know only how to kill everyone capable of thinking more than military chaps.
So what advice on military service would you give to your children and anyone else who might thereafter learn of your intelligence, or your lack of it, by the nature of your advice?
Now therefore, if a nation wanted to create the defense of the future, who would they hire to create it, ignorant people or intelligent people?
Laugh yourself to tears over the presentation of the question. Because the people of the nation foolishly think that their government is responsible to answer such questions, and carry out the related conclusions. That is the government which already hired and continues to fund the military, including military sorts, defining the entire lot of them as too unquestioning to figure out any controlling process above killing an opponent capable of superior reasoning. The military is only a case example of the illogicality of government personnel proven by more direct reasoning.
Concurrently, would you chose to be under the rule of a person of your nation who was as unthinking as indicted above, seeking to kill people who can think enough to advance your well being beyond today's standards, or instead under the rule of a person of another nation, capable of superior reasoning to advance your well being beyond today's standards, not seeking to kill their way through the human competition? Notice who holds the wisdom and courage to answer the question as asked, and who does not. What standard defines the limit of your reasoning ability, a line drawn on a paper map, or reasoning itself?
Therefore again. You are on your own in the learning process. If you think the other guy is smart enough to make your decisions, you are as unquestioning as the entire military chain of command, proven that unthinking at the outset, then obeying the decisions of each next higher ranking bloke in the chain, including the inherently coward, US Commander In Chief, hiding behind his massive force of guns, obeying what his pollsters say is the command of the current majority political wind created by those who think that others are smart enough to make their decisions. Can you describe a better comedy of fools?
You may decide to start asking more effective questions, at any moment, to learn what the military and government chaps will never learn. But to be sustained, your decision must create substance.
To Build or Use... 27 March 2001
This may describe your actions. The indicated knowledge can lead you out of institutional dilemmas.
Notice a person who knows only how to grow wheat. He grows wheat. If he produces more wheat than there are people and animals to eat his wheat, he therefore grows less wheat or goes out of the wheat business and grows something else, or more extensively changes his profession, such as simply learning a computer tech skill, or begs on the streets. If there is no need for more wheat, would you grow more wheat?
Logic works, very well.
Now apply a government of its typical employees to the concept, most notably the US Government chaps. The less adaptable wheat farmer caught by over-production turns to his colleagues in the government and says that he will go broke because no one will buy his wheat. The government fellows, clueless to the concept of logic, genuinely and sincerely believe that if a few wheat farmers stop wheat farming one season, every farmer will stop farming forever and everyone will starve to death. If they did not believe that, they would not react as their actions prove. They cannot figure out to tell the wheat farmer to therefore grow something else. The government personnel therefore point a gun at the auto mechanic and steal his money, under the rhetorical ruse of taxation, and pay the farmer every year to sit around not growing wheat but calling himself a wheat farmer. Of course an intelligent person would ridicule such an unbelievable example if they had not encountered the mentality of US Government personnel who have paid the wheat subsidy along with the tobacco subsidy, milk subsidy, honey subsidy, and a few hundred other subsidies and scam contracts to maintain economic inefficiency and stagnate social advancement.
But what happens outside the government fortress of fraud and illogicality? We could discuss the wooden wagon wheel manufacturers, but consider the fiber optics regional systems producers. If they employ a lot of people for an overbuilt regional fiber optics infrastructure, unsupported by inner city fiber optics systems where the mass of customers exist, tech stock prices plummet, and tens of thousands of computer tech personnel lose their jobs before the slow construction job of city rewiring can be done. Each such newly unemployed person therefore learns something new and useful for their economic part of society, or begs on the streets which is also a time-honored and noble profession. Imagine that, humans capable of utilizing their mind to adapt to new situations, that is, those humans outside government and such self-stagnated institutions.
The concept is perhaps more obvious and simple when the local whizgadget factory shuts down, and after all the TV news about the economic hardship of all the whizgadget factory workers, they all disperse into other professions, forced to learn new knowledge and do new things, thus becoming more intelligent from learning diverse knowledge, while government sorts keep their mind chained to the unchanging concept of stealing money under color of law to force people to do only what intellectually stagnant government sorts say humans must continue doing.
The concept is not limited to products and services. Apply the concept to law, and you are identified as either adaptable or self-stagnated by what you decide to learn about law.
How many laws are required for the orderly conduct of a society? Suggest a number. The actual number, verifiable against every question any human can advance, is not the purpose of this section, and is discussed elsewhere.
But even grade school children can recognize that there is an upper limit to that number. 1. You must know the law to be able to obey the law, and your mind cannot remember large numbers of detailed restrictions on your activities. 2. There are only so many basic human actions, and to institute increasing numbers of laws progressively more restricting those actions functionally shuts down the actions which sustain and advance the human phenomenon, or progressively negates social respect for law. If law is of value to you, how will you therefore react?
One cannot perpetually, or for very long, propagate an increasing number of laws, regulations, statutes, ordinances, orders, rulings, etcetera, without creating the collapse of their utility, by design of the human phenomenon. Go ahead, make a few hundred more laws because the people are violating the hundreds of laws already criminalizing what the people must keep doing anyway to sustain the human phenomenon.
But government sorts and most organization leaders cannot comprehend that concept. They are writing those more laws right now while you are reading this. They have never considered the concept of finishing their job by writing all the laws a society needed. They cannot conceive of a nation existing without full time law makers and regulation writers perpetually writing more laws and regulations, therefore requiring a growing army of enforcement personnel, requiring more taxation to pay the police, creating more violations of the law if society is to function with any money left over to buy wheat, therein causing the writing of more laws attempting to prevent those violations, requiring more police, requiring more.... Nothing therein advances anything useful for the people, and all of it stifles human advancement. Do not be hasty in your objection if you are as fearful of humans as government chaps are. Look more carefully at government chaps involved in law and regulation production.
The most obvious such example in the legislative branch is each nation's primary legislature, such as the US Congress, cranking out more laws every year. Concurrently the bureaucrats of the executive branch crank out more regulations each year. In the judicial branch, look at the thick, fine-print law book titled, "Rules of the Court", scribed by lawyers in judicial garb. Don't get yesterday's version. Those are just the rules of the court, not the laws applicable to the cases. How many actions can take place in a court room, while flipping through the law books, that require an ever-expanding number of restrictions? If all the laws were to be properly obeyed, at what point would the entire society spend all their time just trying to figure out if what they wanted to do complied with all the laws, to avoid becoming criminals, therefore being too busy to grow any wheat or lay fiber optics cables? It required a major airline manufacturer more time just to get the permits to build its last production facility in a certain State, than it required to get the permits and construct the previous facility. And the government of that State is perplexed as to why that company is now starting to move out of that state, to say nothing of the companies which logically moved to other nations and will continue to do so in proportion to the number of government paperwork hassles instigated under the rhetorical ruse of law, that serve only government paper shufflers.
Now look at citizen organization leaders, and recognize the miniscule alteration of rhetorical artistry surrounding the identical actions. Notice the incessant by-laws changes, policy additions and new resolution proposals. Like government, they shuffle process rather than accomplish any goal with existing process, and advance more process to restrict the other guys whom the majority in power wishes to restrict.
For contrast, notice the organization leaders who shout that we should enforce the existing laws rather than make new laws, but then notice that they are the same chaps who keep re-wording and shuffling the organizational process within their own organizations, rather than use their existing process to achieve any goals, identical to government leaders within their society. Like the process they fabricate, which is therefore just that which is changed again in a few years, their words about enforcing what was fabricated yesterday are just flim-flam for people who are clueless of the process to effect the utility of their prior words and actions. Read that again, completely clueless as to how to effect the utility of any prior process, a separate arena of knowledge. They are addicted to fabricating and refabricating therefore useless processes, which is all they ever learned, and never learned how to utilize process for the goal that any process was designed to achieve. Look around society, and recognize your dependence upon those who actually grow wheat then build fiber optics systems then achieve other goals, instead of act like government and organization leaders incessantly shuffling useless process, to the extreme of taxing people to pay farmers to not grow food and not learn more useful knowledge so no useful goal is achieved.
Therefore the question comes forward: When do we humans create something new, and when do we use what we already created? Well? What is the precise, consistently identifiable demarcation between the two distinct actions. That universal demarcation exists. You may come close with a hasty description, but the exact definition sustainable against all questions, is the tool of knowledge to effect its utility against the government and citizen organization leaders who will never in their professional life-time comprehend the concept, and who will continue forcing the gullible auto mechanic to pay for ungrown wheat, and scamming donations to pay for unproduced solutions. At what point do you recognize the greater cash value of your time in learning how to tell the government that you will lawfully stop paying for the government's ungrown wheat for which you were defrauded of your money for an undelivered product or service, and the easier knowledge for the decision to stop sending money to pro-citizen organization leaders who produce nothing more useful than that produced by the government personnel? Wheat is only an example. The cash value is the least measure of value. The knowledge and thus the value of your mind is at issue.
The demarcation is knowledge, not money, votes, guns, or process. With the knowledge, you can achieve your obviously desired goal of not working more hours to pay for ungrown wheat, unmanifested goals, or perpetually more numbers of more complexified, more restrictive laws stifling and serving no advancement of your life or society. With the money, votes, guns and process, you will never learn the knowledge, and will be able to do only what your institution leaders are building with those mindless tools right now, which obviously create the problems those leaders will be trying to fix again tomorrow with no new knowledge.
Your agreement with the above is evident to you, and there are no government or organization leaders reading this. The fear-saturated minds of the government chaps were scared away before they finished the home page. The knowledge of how to functionally stop thrashing-about within such perpetual re-building of perpetually more restrictive process anchoring humans in the intellectual dark ages of their current reptilian condition, cannot be conveyed to your mind until you ask and answer the related questions. But consider the utility of the above knowledge even without finding the sought conclusion or answer.
If you are constantly, institutionally re-building a process, might either the institution and / or the process therefore be exposed as fatally flawed for the original goal, and in fact might the original goal, regardless of its seeming imperative to the human phenomenon, also be fatally flawed, without utility to achieve an advanced condition you would prefer if you could achieve it? If the Pony Express had been a government project, the telegraph would have been taxed to pay for the slowest horses and horse riders still being paid today to not ride anywhere, squandering the resources and thus stagnating the advancement of the telegraph and the subsequent improvement that threw the telegraph operators out of a job, requiring them to learn new knowledge. After failure of process is proven by repeated attempts to make it work, what is therefore subject to more effective question regardless of the excuses? If you sought knowledge and its obvious utility above perpetual failure, which questions would you allow to be asked? What is your answer to that question? Notice from the proofs that the net product of government is to not allow everything it can attempt to stop, including questions. And watch what happens when an organization member asks effective questions to organization leaders. The tape-recorded reactions are identical to those of government personnel questioned by citizens.
The answers are always of little value. Seek the questions. Notice that the fear of questions is proportional to the volume of credentials and titles held by individual humans. Notice that the child will ask unfettered questions, and therein learn, while institution leaders are instead using their time to demand the implementation of their next reshuffle of what they demanded last time, which proved to be flawed because they did not learn from their previous demands, while they evade questions. Will you learn from what you demand, or what you ask? How will you use your answer?
Use, or analyze what was built, every item of it, for its stated goal, to therefore achieve the goal or learn precisely why it does not achieve the goal. Then use that acquired knowledge, the knowledge itself, separate from the process and restrictions that the institution leaders currently seek to create, because the knowledge reveals what they will next build with no new knowledge because they did not pursue the goal with their fabrications, and evaded the questions that create new knowledge. Use the knowledge to replace the failures they are currently rebuilding. In their entire life, they will only learn how to stagnate their followers with what must be perpetually rebuilt. In contrast, you can learn what humans will be doing when they belatedly learn to ignore those poor sad self-stagnated, ignorant institution leaders who are the source of social stagnation. And with the inherently revealed questions you will learn the knowledge of how to promptly effect it, if you wish. You will certainly laugh the laughter sought by all people, having earned it with the thinking process never utilized by institution leaders who fear questions.
Taking advantage of ignorance... 28 March 2001
The concept of crime is the concept of taking advantage of another person's ignorance, and ignorance alone.
No government sort, like their colleagues in other organizations, can understand this section. In contrast, besides every common-sense person, even dim-wit private enterprise criminals can understand this section.
The armed bank robber simply takes advantage of the bank manager's ignorance of how to outwit a half-wit with a gun. The bank robber does not surprise his victim in a dark alley. The fact that bank robberies in the United States are often still successful in the year 2001 does not speak well for the intelligence of bank managers elsewhere demonstrated as institutionally unimpressive. They can even be proven to be ignorant of the concept of money. Of course bank managers, as an institution, may suggest that the current anti-robbery techniques have reduced the number of bank robberies down to a level where the ongoing robbery losses are less than the cost of better prevention systems. But that institutional excuse does not alter the fact that each individual bank manager is proven to have been unable to outwit a half-wit, by any successful robbery at his or her bank. Institutional statistics are irrelevant to analysis of an individual mind's knowledge and reasoning ability.
Consider other crimes. After all the excuses, the victim is shown to have not thought enough to prevent a damaging action by a human creating the action from process of just another equal human mind. Rape is a classic example. It exists and is common. It will not go away until it is out-witted, something government and its police can never do because they function on the same premise of rapists, the use of force, not the use of thinking, while they are not at the scene of the crime to use their force. Males tend to be physically stronger and more aggressive than females, in part explaining the greater percentage of rape victims being females. But the human mind devised the physical equalizers to that disadvantage of females in this regard. Two of the many equalizers are guns and martial arts, readily available at the scene of the therefore thwarted crime. Because rapists tend to be unthinking sorts, and thus rarely knowledgeable of martial arts, the incidence of rape would plunge if a significant percentage of women simply learned deadly martial arts. It includes the benefit of healthy physical exercise. Even the most macho males intelligent enough to learn effective martial arts therein learn that they do not want to risk an inherently deadly martial arts encounter for anything less than the value of their life, for obvious reason. And the less capable males are push-overs for deadly martial arts. Physically impaired women and those too busy or too lazy to learn martial arts can simply carry guns, simple mechanical devices of utility for self-defense. The yet more lazy women, not even willing to bother with a bothersome gun, need only display a pro-gun organization sticker on a purse to worry-away any potential rapist who sees the sticker before he acts. Women could institutionally reduce the incidence of rape by organizing a significant number of women who would simply put a pro-gun sticker on their purse or car, or devise an observable piece of advertised jewelry or clothing indicating the increased potential of carrying a gun. If males started seeing 20% of the females comfortable with the indication of carrying guns, rape statistics would plunge. The concept of rape is such that it requires a victim who is genuinely too ignorant to learn any of the easy counter measures. Laziness is related to that form of ignorance. If a victim class wishes to do nothing to counter an ongoing damage, that is why they remain a victim class, and there is nothing you can successfully do for them. One cannot successfully give or receive something for nothing. Among many alternatives, the forgoing is just an example excerpt of knowledge, identifying readily available use of knowledge, the lack of which perpetuates the current rape statistics.
That women have long displayed themselves as a victim class, just as many other institutions have done by circumstance or choice, has compounded the resulting problem, which therefore only requires a bit more thinking and effort to correct. Therein notice that citizens as an institution, especially US citizens, have long displayed themselves as a victim class for fellow humans who get government jobs to easily prey upon citizens, under color of law wielded as a weapon by armed police, explaining the diminishing citizen rights while the privileged government class, protected by many heavily armed agencies, increasingly lavishes in all manner of benefits denied to citizens. The correction is within knowledge, but citizen organization leaders, like their institutional colleagues in government, loathe and fear knowledge.
Anyone can be a victim of crime, and a victim of their ignorance in any particular arena of knowledge, because we cannot all know and do all things. There is just not time to learn everything. But the proof that crime inescapably remains as the successful taking advantage of another person's ignorance, offers a tool of knowledge highly useful to preclude vast arenas of ignorance-based victimization. Now read carefully.
You will learn much at each end of the bell curve, at the extremes, if you do not fear the unknown. Everything is just knowledge to the human mind. Read that again. Everything is just knowledge to the human mind.
Consider the super rich. Therein I mean the old money families, the super, super rich. No, I do not mean Bill Gates. Bill is rich, and very knowledgeable of computer stuff and computer business, but clueless in regard to knowledge held by the old money super rich families. For knowledge beyond his mind's bailiwick, he surrounded himself with lawyers, the dumbest thing a human can do. Lawyers, discussed elsewhere, are the most thoroughly flawed concept known to humans. To use them is to apply their controlling flaws to your therefore consistently flawed decisions. The reason they are the most universally hated humans, even among their own ilk, is found within an unalterable mechanism of the human mind. The indicators of Bill's ignorance saturate his known activities. He could have negated his entire anti-trust adventure in a single day if he knew intellectual technology or even the much more limited legal knowledge held by the old money families. Old money families are rich because they were first knowledgeable in regard to some foundational knowledge of legal and money concepts. There are many rich ignorant people like Bill. In contrast there are those whose carefully protected knowledge created the old money, super rich families whose wealth survived the test of time among the greed of many powerful institutions. It does not take much investigation to confirm that the super rich pay zip for taxes, and are immune to lawsuits, asset seizures and many such economic hazards routinely plaguing and damaging common people.
How do they do it? No, they do not pay-off politicians, bureaucrats, judges and police. That is a flawed concept, like blackmail, ultimately self-defeating with costs exceeding the price of resolving the original contradiction. It could not prevail over time or throughout the number of individually acting people within the respective families and society. Only logic prevails over time. And logic itself holds no flaw, by definition.
They utilize knowledge, or logic. Logic is a definitive tool of infinite value inherent to the mechanism of the human mind. Learn it, and you know the controlling concepts at play within the other guy's mind.
Herein I speak of a certain few people and families, not the unending list of rich folks routinely decried by the many people who are envious of rich folks. And the rich are only an example for this portion of this section. There are some very poor people, and the rest of the gradient, who learned and use the identical knowledge. After a good cigar, available to the poorest good cigar makers, of what value is material wealth? Now, of what value is knowledge? How did the aforementioned poor person acquire a good cigar costing the rich folk seven bucks? The knowledge utilized by the super rich, to effect remarkable advantages, is used to benefit themselves and their choice of beneficiaries, such as many charities, without being used to willfully damage others, including its denial to the military and police-based, war-mongering police-state governments such at that amusing institution in Washington DC. The logic-based separation of money from a genuine damage-inducing process is a demarcation of precise identity, to which every human agrees upon knowledgeable questioning, and is not understood by those who rail against the rich. The super rich, like nearly all humans, use knowledge to take advantage of the ignorant, but then unlike many people, not to damage the ignorant. Therein, the ignorant damage themselves with their ignorance, if any damage occurs. More often there is no damage involved with such cases, but only a comparative disadvantage. The auto manufacturers take advantage of your ignorance of how to make your own automobile. And the oil barons take advantage of your ignorance of how to satisfy your own convenient energy desires. When damage, that is, genuine crime, is identified, the perpetrator is not logically referenced by his wealth or poverty, but by his criminal nature.
As an instructive aside, Hitler identified Jews as criminals instead of as Jews, identical to US Presidents Clinton and Bush identifying recreational drug users and gun owners as criminals, instead of as recreational drug users and gun owners. The use of the word, criminals, to reference those who are not criminals, creates ignorance where it did not prior exist in that regard. Hitler, Clinton, Bush and countless of their ilk had a followership of unquestioning people equally incapable of understanding the meaning and utility of the words they used. Because one trains their mind by the words they use, Hitler, Clinton, Bush, their sheep and their armies could therefore never figure out how to resolve contradictions described by words. So where will you start, to learn what they could never learn because they did not start there?
Because the foregoing, with the exception of the aside, is a discussion of the private enterprise sector, no knowledgeable person therein holds any obligation to share their knowledge with any other person. If a doctor were required to tell everyone how to save their life in this or that medical regard, and a house builder required to tell everyone how to build their own house, they would be teachers instead of doctors and house builders, and have no time to earn a living as doctors and house builders. If the super rich were required to tell everyone the knowledge that benefited the businesses of the super rich, they would not have time to run those businesses that provide much of what you utilize. There can be no obligation to share knowledge when the ignorant person is not paying to acquire the knowledge. At this point I note a corollary set of words discussed elsewhere, that you might write down and think about, often, because it is a controlling concept. There can be no obligation to answer an unasked question.
Now, consider the government or organizational leadership arena of the same concept. Government personnel learn knowledge of their bailiwick. Unlike the independent individual who can ask any question any human can devise, and thus advance their knowledge, government personnel dare not ask any questions outside a very tiny cocoon. The institutionally dependent subordinate within a governmental structure does not question the decisions of a government superior. He would be fired or otherwise disadvantaged. The fear of questioning glaring contradictions in the decisions of superiors is the source of the ignorance among government sorts. Questions create knowledge. Those sorts who least question their superiors, thus the most ignorant, are those who were most rapidly advanced in a system where loyalty to ignorance is the controlling concept. Therein the resulting superiors become the the most ignorant humans on the rock, just as would you and I if we were inside that trap, and they demand loyalty to said abject ignorance. Because there is no impartial measure of concluding decisions within government, such as company profit defined by willing customer agreement with the utility of the product or service, among open competition, damaging contradictions can be imposed and sustained under military and police power. Even the least display of intelligence (asking questions), within government, routinely gets one sent to a remote location or such disparaged position in the basement. More often, a thinking person has already quit any government job, to escape such an intellectually embarrassing work environment. And any more actively thinking person prior laughed at any suggestion of getting a government job. But even within the government environment, fragments of knowledge commonly bumping into the cocoon are sometimes recognized.
Therefore the otherwise astonishingly ignorant legislator, judge, bureaucrat, prosecutor or police officer, clueless of the vast world outside their institutional illusions, still recognizes a few contradictions surrounding their actions.
Concurrently, government sorts represent the people, and are paid by the people. Therein, they hold an absolute, paid obligation to share every item of related knowledge known to the individual government chap when said knowledge relates to any interaction between the government and the citizen. The citizen is the legal owner of all knowledge held by government personnel. The citizen paid for it, in taxes, to say nothing of those who traipsed off to war to create and defend the government and the citizen ownership of all that which is represented by their government. Government personnel are only the managers of the knowledge. The abject ignorance of government chaps is therein again identified by their abhorrence and disbelief of such a concept. Government employees intractably believe that they and their agency exclusively own everything the government learns and grabs, from knowledge to land, and that they can keep the knowledge secret and deny citizen access to the government land. They view the working, tax paying public as an enemy and thieves attempting to steal what the government owns, while the government chaps steal everything from the people, by taxation and related seizures, enforced by armed chaps called military and police. There is nothing that will ever change a power-based mind from believing that everyone else is their enemy, by design of the human mind's process for power. In contrast, knowledge or logic knows no enemy, and knows only curiosity for more knowledge.
Now therefore, how would you define a government person, holding knowledge that he or she utilized to take advantage of an ignorant citizen, and further, to damage a citizen? What word constitutes the definition?
Consider a classic example describing the inescapable collapse of the American judicial system. This is just a learning vehicle among countless. The example itself is not important. Learn the concept. The US Constitution uniquely emphasizes, with two rather than one reference, the right of the accused to a jury trial. There is no equivocation in that item of the US supreme law, and it has not been amended. Further, the right to a jury trial was elsewhere expressly emphasized by the writers of the Constitution as the single best defense against government tyranny. So, precisely how, under what verifiable authority, do court judges routinely deny jury trials to hundreds of thousands of accused persons each year, increasing in number every year? And then more importantly, why are people who can afford a certain class of pricey lawyers, never denied a requested jury trial? Is the difference not just knowledge? That certain private enterprise lawyers hold the knowledge and offer it to those who pay dearly for that service is logical. But would not the judge have to hold the same knowledge to make the distinction in each case? And who pays the judges? To whom are the judges therefore obligated in logic and prevailing law? Everything occurring in a court is based on words. What words are attached to the denial of the jury trial for one case of a questioned human action, and what words are attached to the providing of a jury trial for another case of the identical human action? Would the judge not know both sets of words? Who, paid by the citizenry, is taking advantage of the ignorance of the citizenry to willfully damage the citizenry by denying the right to a jury trial? And precisely why, verifiable against every question in every case?
First you must learn the answers to the above questions. It is just knowledge. Then you can utilize that knowledge to efficiently defend yourself against vastly more than just the fundamentally malicious, dishonest, criminal judges currently occupying 100% of the court judge jobs in this nation, to include nine supreme court judges. And it is you who must learn the knowledge. They are not going to tell you the knowledge, ever, by definition of their institution, despite the crimes they therefore perpetrate, regardless of how much you pay them in tax money, and because you are paying them regardless of who they deny public knowledge. The proof is manifest. No other person can learn knowledge for you and then successfully give it to you for nothing. Your mind is on its own. And anyone utilizing the institutional power you foolishly gave them considers you to be their enemy, regardless of their lies, and will deny you the knowledge you foolishly paid for, then willfully damage you because you are ignorant of the knowledge they utilize.
This section was started with the statement that no government sort can understand this section. Court judges are just government sorts, and an embarrassing lot of lower-academic lawyers who scammed politically appointed judge jobs by flattering inherently dishonest politicians, and donating money to political parties. They cannot comprehend a word of this section, that is, until their mind fully and unequivocally recognizes that they are indeed criminals, by definition of their willfully denying rights to citizens by withholding knowledge legally owned by the ignorant citizens who worked to pay for the creation and management of the knowledge. Were the government chaps able to comprehend the criminal nature of their actions, above the rhetorical excuses they use to easily fool their embarrassing minds, they could then prove that they indeed understand this section, just as stated at the beginning of this section for even dim-witted criminals. To be a criminal, one is dim-witted by definition, because only such sorts damage another person, such as rob their money or deny them a jury trial under color of law. The balance is perfect in all things. No human escapes the consequences of their actions. One is foolish to create a damage that will inherently return to its origin. The only non-criminal, intelligent court judge is the one who already quit her or his job and then openly apologized for his or her prior actions, and apologized for having not quit sooner, and strives to correct the damages of their prior actions.
The criminal, like his colleagues in government, will not change professions until related reasoning reaches his mind. You can never successfully force a human mind. You cannot imprison a criminal out of his mind's pursuits. First you must learn the related knowledge, and then you must learn how to convey it, regardless of any opposition, if you wish to do so. The knowledge of both are readily available.
What you get is often not what you see... 29 March 2001
Consider two pieces of unique jewelry, perhaps a couple broaches, some colored stones in a whoopdidoo of metal.
The casual observer, not really interested in jewelry, sees a couple of broaches which are nice enough.
A person who appreciates jewelry will see a difference in relation to their personal taste for jewelry.
A jeweler will look closer, and recognize that one piece of jewelry is more expertly made than the other.
Would it not be only the best jeweler in the world, who would also have to question the jewelers who made the two broaches, who could additionally determine how well each piece conformed to the original mental perception of the jewelers, and if that intent was to pursue an advancement in jewelry or just another piece of good stuff that would sell well?
Which person discussing the quality of jewelry would ask that question?
Who asks such questions, the expert whose title suggests that he need not learn more to identify quality, or the curious person, and therefore who learns more than the other?
The finest jewelry in the world, among the best competition of experts, can only be unequivocally identified from what is otherwise personal taste not subject to grading, with only the most effective questioning of the expert jewelers, to the extent of asking one question beyond the limit of their application of mental effort.
Might the most useful knowledge of such complexity as individual minds functioning in an organizational context be such that identifying the best jewelry in the world, above the context of personal taste, would be a comparatively easy task? Who could devise the question of knowledge itself, comparable to the above question of jewelry?
Would not the best jewelry in the world be that which resulted from application of the most human-hours of the most effective knowledge derived from further human thought, by definition of the judgment process of a human mind requiring at least one hour or one question beyond that which was applied?
Jewelry is obviously easy, by comparison, as is brain surgery, demonstrated by the number of successful jewelers and brain surgeons. Your institutional goals are more difficult, proven by your having not yet achieved them.
But did you think no human has figured out the knowledge puzzle of how to promptly achieve your goals? Did you wish to achieve them, or just perpetuate discussion of them by perpetually supporting leaders who perpetually espouse the goals but never achieve them, at your expense?
It was inherent that the most complex problems created by the human mind held the most brilliant disguise to separate them from remarkable simplicity, or they could not have been so easily created in the first place. If it took as much intellectual effort to create the problems which plague society, as you have applied to your attempts to solve them, they would not have been created, as proven by your ongoing failure to yet solve them.
They were easily created, and are thus easily solved. The difference is only knowledge, easily learned. The hard part, in each case, is created by your refusal to learn the related knowledge.
The solutions to the most complex human-caused problems, can be learned in vastly less time than you will consume the rest of your life futily exercising institutional process that has already failed. You need only learn something new.
The readily available solution to those problems, of any magnitude, requires your identifying the disguise separating your mind's view as a proverbial jeweler, and that as an equal mind distinguishing the best of the expert jewelers. How would you otherwise be able to identify any expert, or are you still following rhetorical ruses of charlatan leaders whom you never thought to adequately question?
Because your mind is as capable as the experts, by design, it is only the number of questions that separate you from identifying the illusion of experts or incompetents. And it is the process of uniquely effective questions, among the most rare knowledge known to humans, that can promptly eliminate the separation. From there, it is a short few questions that lead to the manifested resolution of any contradictions, regardless of the magnitude or the opposition.
Complex sentences... 30 March 2001
Is it not an easily understood concept, which inherently holds variables identified by different minds, that is qualified by phrases in a sentence which therefore remove a proportional number of the variables, simplifying the understanding of the concept but complexifying the understanding of the sentence?
Can you get something from nothing?
If you wish to resolve a complex contradiction, are you not required to exercise hard mental work, regardless of your process, without escape in the inherent balance?
So did you want to learn how to synthesize many short sentences into the complex sentences that therefore eliminate the variables and contradictions with the proper association of phrases, imperative by definition of resolving a complex contradiction, or did you want to patiently read and associate the phrases provided by the person who already synthesized those short sentences in their proper order?
Make your choice. Either is just as effective. But you will not learn how to resolve complex contradictions without doing one or the other. And both are easy. They just require patience and thinking. Anyone can do that, by design of the human mind.
If, for laziness, you want to resolve complex contradictions by using only short sound-byte concepts, isolated from each other, unsynthesized, you are the reason your problems still frustrate you. You are attempting to use individual parts of the puzzle, when the parts by themselves are not adequate, and when the assembled puzzle of knowledge in whole is the only tool which can resolve the contradictions. Can you turn a tight bolt with only the wrench head or the handle?
If you ever get a loaf of bread for half the price of a loaf of bread, look closer at the bread or at the regular price of it. If the problem still exists, first gather the full price of its solution.
If a problem is complex, it still exists because everyone else, including 100% of the existing institution leaders, tried to solve it the easy way. Complex problems are easily solved, if you measure difficulty as would an oil field construction laborer, clad in bulky insulated Carharts, jackhammering frozen gravel on the north slope of Alaska in the dark of night during a bitter winter storm when the fierce wind driving crystals of ice is curling around your hood ruff blistering the skin on your cheek while somewhere in the dark is a giant 988 whose driver you hope can see you through the fog and ice on his window while he contorts tons of cold steel back and forth close behind your back through the obstacles to maximize the value of the obvious expenses still a fraction of the reason you pay so much for gasoline after the government pens in their massive take for doing nothing but penning in their massive take. You can solve complex problems comfortably sitting on your bottom side, in a warm room, smoking a fine maduro cigar and casually sipping single malt Islay Scotch, methodically, tediously, patiently, exhaustively, meticulously, amid stark boredom, resolving each identified contradiction, one by one, working only with each verified conclusion, and chuckling when the 83rd resolution identifies a flaw in the 14th resolution that therefore leaves you searching for a new question leading where you prior thought you did not want to go, and all of that still only at the start, but then knowing with certainty that the course will end at the sustainable solution still frustrating every person who stopped thinking at any frustration and attempted to use money, majority votes, laws, police, guns or a jackhammer where thought was the only tool which could resolve the contradiction. It is only an aside to note that only a few more questions beyond solutions which other folks would consider among the greatest intellectual break-throughs of history, is the process to promptly effect the solutions of all contradictions, regardless of their magnitude or any human opposition. The process creates knowledge of the process as a concept.
But now compare that concept of sorting out complexity, with the concept of law. Lawyers write law. No, legislators do not write law. Legislators lie to the voters, parade themselves around, lavishly pay themselves tax money through obscured avenues, and take credit for the work of other people. The legislator's staff of lawyers write the nebulously worded statute laws, which are then turned over to the bureaucracy's lawyers who codify the law by writing another layer of undecipherably complexified legalese that cannot be understood by the public or even the lawyers outside the central fortress of legal code writers, to thus create the rule of personalities among lawyers to whom the public must pay high tribute to interpret the law opposite the interpretation of other lawyers, requiring the interpretation of the third lawyer who scammed a court judge job who routinely splits or contradicts the decisions so a fourth lawyer who scammed an appellate court job can claim a heavy case load requiring more funding for more staff lawyers and more judges so the junior judge can elevate his status by fabricating more such contradictions, ad perpetuim, much to the damage of the citizenry and the amusement of knowledgeable observers.
Law was the device originally designed to resolve contradictions. But power is a device originally designed to create contradictions, as its only possible result, and government is the manifestation of the greatest socially achievable power, and government seized ownership of law in most nations, including the US, and government is the rule of personalities. A lawyer is a person with a government-granted license to practice law, and is therefore beholding to government personalities rather than the law, but that controlling contradiction and its existing correction is discussed elsewhere. Concurrently, for written law to function as the rule of law rather than the rule of personalities who scammed lawyer jobs to tell the people what the law says, written law must be readily understood by the common people. It must therefore be written as short simple sentences. Your laughter is well founded. There is no such thing in this nation whose leaders and court judges lie to the world when they say this nation is under the rule of law, not the rule of personalities with lawyer jobs. But while approximately 100% of the readers would agree with the previous sentence presented for temporary effect, it is flawed. It creates a contradiction which cannot be sustained.
There are absolutes in law, or the concept of law could not exist. A person is under the rule of law, or under the rule of personalities. The concepts are mutually exclusive. It is an aside to note that your fundamental perceptions of law are in error, and your lawyer is deceiving you, but that is discussed elsewhere. One must be able to understand the law, to obey the law, by definition. And if there are too many laws to possibly know, you cannot be required to know them to obey them, by definition. If the law, as written, cannot be readily understood by the common people, without additional explanation by lawyers or other government agents, it is void, by law. If the lawyer explanation of the law, which makes it understandable, is valid, then the lawyer explanation, not the law he references, is the law, which you may find verbatim in the written law. It is not law if it cannot be understood by the common person. It is not law if it is not written in the law books, verbatim. If you cannot find the lawyer's exact words in the law book, those words are not the law, and the lawyer or government agent has lied to you if he said his words defined what you could or could not do under the law.
Now therefore how can the above paragraph be true since even lawyers and court judges have stated the obvious on record, for their own defense against the accusation of fraud, that no human, including themselves, can possibly know all the laws, yet everyone is required to obey all the laws, which means they must know all the laws. Said lawyers and judges have also stated, off the record, again the obvious and verifiable fact known to the people, that nobody can understand that illogically complexified legalese crap saturated with contradictions in the law books, sloppily called law in this nation. You need only watch obviously confused judges and lawyers, during common court cases, debate the meaning of sentences of the law in the law books before them, to recognize that the lawyers, judges and other government sorts do not understand the law. You need only recognize that half of the lawyers lose their cases, for the many cases where the actions at issue are not in question, which means the lawyers could not understand the written law before they stumbled into the court rooms.
The resolution of the contradiction can be described in several ways, and you must be able to understand the substance of the descriptions, which means you must therefore be able to verify each way it is described. You may either return to the simplest, most basic descriptions of what the lawyers complexified with rhetorical branches of a proverbial spreading chestnut tree, surely involving the molecules of the surrounding air and then elements of the distant universe if you ever reach the tips of the leaves without paying a lawyer, or you may patiently needle a lawyer all the way through his infinite universe to his own collapse back at the same universally understandable basic description that he or his colleagues will protect for the use of their non-lawyer children inherently threatened by armed police or rival prosecutors and judges wielding undecipherable laws, who might wish to profit from the rule of personalities. Of course lawyers and all government chaps are the greatest cowards of the human phenomenon. You must learn a very rare skill to preclude them from fleeing if they suspect that you are needling them toward a controlling question. But you must do either or both to the extent that you can effectively question each contradiction created by those who attempt to reference contradicted law as their ruse to create the rule of their personal words.
It is a separate part of the puzzle to note that you must actually place yourself under the rule of law, by precise process, not the rule of personalities, or you will have given them the legal excuse to formally utilize the rule of personalities holding titles.
Your questions may be simple in structure, but you must be able to patiently question each complexity you encounter, requiring your patient consideration of each complexity, often reading convoluted phrases of sentences longer than this one, several times, to question each phrase, until you learn the process prevailing over the concept in sum. You do not have a choice if you wish to resolve the complexities humans created with the complexity of their mind. If you must get a winter jackhammering job on the north slope of Alaska, to learn how easily it is done, do so. That concept is part of the puzzle, as Plato and countless chaps before him so well described from simple common sense.
Once you learn how to handle complex sentences, which can be done by asking simple questions, and displaying simple patience, becoming highly efficient if you learn intellectual technology, which is also simple for those who are patient, you will hold the knowledge to deal with all such complexities, without even having to wade through them, something no lawyer or judge will ever learn in their life.
A small part of one question among many... 31 March 2001
Would you fear ruthlessly questioning, with devastating affects, of your most cherished and long-held beliefs which you could not socially manifest despite your life's work, if someone mentioned that within said questioning is that which reveals the tiny process flaw that has blocked what is otherwise your prompt achievement of everything you sought?
Who fears to simply answer that question? Do not be hasty in your answer to the question of this paragraph.
100% of the institution leaders, including all the military generals with chests full of their ribboned illusions of bravery and knowledge, fear to answer the question of the first paragraph, in a public forum which could render the question as a tool to effect what even the military generals would like to achieve.
Consider the typical American institution leader, all of them of every organization large or small, including university officials, and obviously including the government sorts. #1: If they ask their members, followers and others, to send money so the institutional goals can be achieved, would logic not dictate that they be able to state the exact amount of achievable money needed by what date to achieve an exact goal on an exact date, or they are otherwise incompetent non-leaders attempting lucrative fraud and flim flam for a rhetorical illusion?
How many times will you give money to a car dealer, for a rhetorical illusion suggesting you might receive an unidentified car at an unidentified time in the future? And the same, to your local grocery store owner, for food?
What intelligence do you claim? What were your answers to the above two questions?
How easily are you made a fool of? When are you next going to send how much of your money to what institution for what rhetorical illusion of its leader?
Which next questions would you ask, using the time your money would make available to you if you kept your money, to learn the knowledge that institution leaders obviously did not learn because they so easily acquired money from foolish, unquestioning contributors, for rhetorical illusions?
What would you teach your children to derive from the money they earned, that you do not belie with your actions in view of your children? Therein did you not teach your children to be gullible for giving money to institutional flim-flammers, and whose best efforts would leave your children as institution leaders perpetuating their ignorance by fooling other gullible sorts out of their money?
Not one institution leader in the US or the world, with all the most impressive credentials, certificates, titles, licenses, offices, ribbons, medals, awards, crowns, armies and guns, can successfully answer above question #1. The answer is, Yes. Would you support those who cannot answer effective questions, or those who can?
A wise person does not act on decisions resulting from the evasion of questions. Are you a wise person?
The answer you seek for any unresolved contradiction is found only by accurately answering each question leading to the controlling question you only therefore discover. Dodge or fail one question, and you will never achieve your goal.
You are proven to be foolish to send money to an institution leader who asks for money. If they have not achieved their goal, they need knowledge, not money. And knowledge cannot be bought. Knowledge is derived from questions, not money.
Space aliens... 1 April 2001
The results prove the reasoning, as you agree, much to the futile objection of they who produce the results.
There is a common joke, asking, if space aliens are intelligent enough to create the technology to reach this planet from wherever they come, why do they appear only to the least intelligent humans.
If you wish to learn new knowledge, do not look for the answers, look for the questions.
Are all those UFO wackos really the least intelligent humans, and are those whom we perceive as intelligent, intelligent?
If you could reach another planet, would you probably not have the technology and intelligence to stop just short and watch awhile, to see what muck you might get into, before you get into it?
To have learned such advanced space or time travel technology, would you likely not hold reasoning-ability far more effective than that of humans?
What do space aliens notice upon observing planet earth and its dominant living form, these humans?
The humans have created social institutions which reflect the reasoning-ability of the humans.
Governments are dominant among those institutions. The governments rule the people. Government personnel, derived from the common human population, routinely mouth many illogical and contradicted words, and then rule with armed police and militaries. Guns, bombs and other destructive devices are the final reasoning mechanism of humans with government jobs. They know no superior reasoning. The governments kill their own people who do not illogically grovel before equal humans who scammed government jobs. Among an unending series of examples, Waco Texas demonstrated the nature of the US Government, whose US Army and FBI chaps slaughtered even little children at the Christian Branch Dividian Church, for no identifiable reason in any threat to the government or the citizens. If you were an alien, obviously an entity unknown to mentally unstable government sorts who so fear everything that they maintain a massive standing military, maintain dozens of heavily armed police agencies, treat everyone as an enemy, and routinely kill people before even thinking of utilizing the process of reasoning, would you appear before government sorts?
And governments kill each other's people as their device to reason between governments. On average throughout human history, to include modern times today, at any one moment there are about 17 shooting wars, involving government against government and government against their own citizens often supported by other governments. As the space alien, your patience, waiting for the institution of human governments to recognize the utility of reasoning above hastily killing you, will have not yet been rewarded, but you would certainly maintain your patience, for obvious reason.
If you watched governments exercise what they claimed to be reasoning, that is, negotiating differences at meetings and conferences, you would see government personnel verbally tapdancing around what is nothing more than threatening each other with military force and the destructive use of money. You the reader, and the space aliens, cannot find a human government employee who understands the concept or utility of intellectual exchange, the utility of advancing each other's knowledge to therein resolve any identified contradiction.
If, as the space alien, looking for intelligent human contacts, you turned to watch the institution of schools, from kindergartens to Oxford and everything in between, you would watch humans who claimed profound reasoning ability, teaching humans how to excel in the same governments predicating their controlling form of human reasoning, on guns and killing. You would see nothing that manifested any functioning alternative. You would watch law schools and English scholars teaching humans how to write laws that nobody can understand, to the extent that even the most educated humans from even the same most prestigious schools perpetually argue over what those laws mean. Would you even waste your time communicating with such thoroughly confused humans with the greatest credentials in scholarly pursuits, who cannot even communicate what intelligence is or how it works?
You might watch court systems, with self-flattering judges claiming what they perceive as great reasoning ability, within the same malicious governments, using the same undecipherable laws in their own language, routinely concluding their process by forcing another otherwise useful human mind which screwed-up its reasoning process so badly the chap damaged another human, to then be damaged in useless retaliation, by uselessly sitting in a prison, thus further damaging the citizens who must work longer to pay the money to keep him there, not allowed to correct the original damage he perpetrated, with those judges 100% clueless as to how to resolve the obvious contradiction, even when other societies openly display major parts of the resolution process. You would see the nation that claimed to represent the greatest human reasoning, working extra hours to pay more taxes to hold nearly half their massive prison population in expensive prisons, when those so called criminals, otherwise productive for society, damaged no one and only smoked some pot or helped others who wanted to do the same, like the hundreds of millions of other humans who just weren't caught by a government's equally unthinking police. No space alien with even only the intelligence of a common human would communicate with the human judicial system personnel so monumentally void of reasoning ability that to appear before government judicial personnel would likely cause them to imprison you as their only conceivable reaction.
As the space alien, you might have heard of the think tanks, or public policy research institutes whose lavishly titled personnel claim elevated intellect above all the other humans. But how long would you watch them before you realized that they are nothing more than mutual admiration societies whose purported solutions are nowhere to be found among humans, unless their intended results are that which is described above.
You might observe the news media institution, as a seemingly excellent source of knowledge about humans. But how could all those ludicrously illogical human antics be perpetuated if the news journalists were distributing logic-based news (truth) with which to compare each action of human illogicality? It is obvious why the government chaps brandishing guns, with their fingers on the triggers, fear the chaps of the other governments brandishing guns, and thus train their minds to fear all humans, but why do the institutional news media chaps consistently parrot the obviously lying government chaps to describe nearly everyone as enemies? It was the government boys and girls who described the peaceful Christian Branch Dividians at Waco, as a dangerous criminal cult, the Vietnamese as people we had to kill for some illusion, the Soviet communists as a threat to the US instead of just their own inherent demise, the lives of a few hundred Panamanians as inconsequential in the attempt to kidnap a petty drug dealer the US paid for years, the common plant hemp as the enemy of the nation and the attacker of children, the simple mechanical device called guns as the item somehow making decisions for everyone except government sorts, and every glaring contradiction on the long list of news journalists too unintelligent to ask the most basic questions before rushing to print and broadcast with illogical quotes from titled people, to imply those quotes as having been questioned by reporters and thus representing truth. It is obvious why space aliens would laugh at the suggestion of contacting news journalists.
As the space alien, you would naturally analyze all the other human organizations, epitomized by the citizen organization leaders who rail against this and that, and encourage support for that and the other, then sop up money from gullible humans before doing nothing more than the repetition of this sentence, as proven by the results.
You would look at the bulk of the unorganized humans, and recognize no more intelligence than the cattle and sheep in their fields, milked and sheered by the government sorts of their own continued selection and support, at no benefit to the general populace, at exclusive and lavish benefit to the aforementioned, embarrassing government sorts who then randomly imprison or kill any of the general populace who do not sufficiently stagnate themselves beneath illogical US Government edicts. As a space alien, would you waste your time with human cattle and sheep if you came all this way looking for an intelligent conversation?
Now notice the commonalities of many chaps who claim to have seen UFO's or chatted with space aliens. The bulk of them are other than the institutionally confused, dangerous, unstable, intellectual dullards described above. They tend to be curious and to seek knowledge rather than fear and attack whatever they encounter. Are they not the logical choice of an intelligent space alien wishing to get close to or communicate with as intelligent humans as can be found, after all the other humans eliminated themselves from any objective consideration of holding any useful intelligence? As a generalization, the chaps who have seen UFO's tend to not believe the social institutions, which identifies their superior reasoning by the above described results of the social institutions. The UFO sorts tend to openly criticize institutional illogicality, and to question old beliefs. To question existing beliefs is the process to advance knowledge, which is what intelligent space aliens most likely did to learn how to zip over to planet Earth to visit the zoo. In fact, upon detailed analysis the prior identified characteristics of most UFO enthusiasts are generally what an intelligent, cautious space visitor would seek for contact with humans. Therein a generality is described, with the exceptions proportional to the number of involved people. And the mutually self-flattering human institutions, for fear of new knowledge, will inherently select the exceptions to portray the norm, the same way they portrayed those evil Christians whose church was at Waco, those evil Vietnamese, and every other fabricated enemy with whom the institutional sorts were just too unintelligent to communicate and thus advance their knowledge by asking and answering questions.
You will learn much if you view humans as would visitors, because you are each. And learning new knowledge is the only way out of your every dilemma.
If you know any space aliens, you may email them this web site. We don't get many space aliens in Alaska, on account of they being smart enough to avoid the long cold dark winters, and the swarms of mosquitoes in the summer. And Alaskans being who they are, I'm not all that sure that some of them are not already visiting other planets. One of the indicators is in the stories some of these Alaska mountain climbers and other adventurers tell. I've told some of those same sort of stories myself, and they didn't happen on this planet.
The ignorant rich and their ignorant opponents... 2 April 2001
Did you put a couple of the above-mentioned parts of the puzzle together? If you are the expert of part of the puzzle, you have nothing of value. Learn the substance of each part of the puzzle, accumulating the knowledge of each, then put them all together. That is when you create value. Your mind seeks the understanding of the whole puzzle, to resolve all your mind's identified frustrations. No one can do that for you without your asking and answering questions, because the complexity of the puzzle is defined by the questions your mind must ask, most efficiently done with the assistance of those who know the part of the puzzle relating to effective questions.
The super rich, like the ends of each spectrum, offer a great wealth of knowledge for those who question their concept. The rich are intelligent in regard to their part of the puzzle. That they used their knowledge for the accumulation and management of money is as admirable as that unusual group of people, known to psychologists and city policemen, who push grocery carts around the back streets of cities, collecting interesting garbage and stashing it in mounds of what they genuinely perceive as useful stuff. In contrast to all those who accumulate material things, covering the spectrum, such as a few of my collections of stuff, the human mind was designed to collect knowledge alone. Money is of zero value to the human mind, but knowledge of money is one of the parts of the knowledge puzzle. The rich just didn't recognize the full value of their mind. But learn their part of the puzzle. You do not need the money for that. You need only ask effective questions, that which the rich did not learn how to do.
Because government personnel did not learn the full value of their mind, and are as addicted to petty power as the rich are to money, governments exist to bleed the value of their people's energy, for nothing that advances knowledge, to stifle the people from advancing society with the individual knowledge of each person. Being a bit simple, like the super rich folks, the government chaps focus their efforts on power. But the existence of the super rich old money families demonstrates that they learned more about money than the government chaps learned about power. The proof is obvious. Ask a government chap if his agency would like to get a few billion dollars from a super rich chap, and notice that the government chap can't get it while the agency instead bleeds the middle and lower classes for more money. The government chaps do not have the knowledge or power to match what the super rich learned about money. The government chaps are so addicted to the single issue of power, they cannot acquire the knowledge to achieve their goals or even acquire enough power.
The classic example is the process in the United States. The US government chaps, while railing against those evil communists, adopted and sustained the graduated taxation system of Karl Marx, the keystone of the communist system designed to progressively more punish the people who work harder, and progressively more reward the people who work less, to produce the highest percentage of lazy people and lowest percentage of productive people, as a society therefore most easily ruled by the force of armed police managed by ignorant government people who need not think. Because the government chaps are therefore ignorant and intellectually lazy people, the super rich easily out-witted them.
Because the rich were intelligent in relation to money, holding knowledge that any human can learn if they simply ask the related questions, the rich merely sat back and analyzed the government's controlling elements in each of its taxation schemes, discovered the controlling contradictions, therefore easily resolved the contradictions with simple arrangements of words easily placed in the appropriate laws, while the government chaps, who use words as sloppily as lawyers and judges, and therefore trained their minds to not understand accurately used words, therefore remained oblivious. The rich simply used their mind to resolve each contradiction at its origin, rather than attempt to use contradictions to solve contradictions which therefore create perpetual, costly battles. The rich then got back to their interest in accumulating more money, without paying any taxes or worrying about any legal seizures of their money, thus watching their money logically accumulate while everyone else's money was being drained by insatiably greedy government sorts craving perpetually more money for wars, military, police, prisons, power, illusions of fools, and lies to the people. The rich did precisely what you would do if you were interested in money and knew how to utilize the design of your mind. The rich simply never explained to anyone what they did, and have no incentive to do so. But it is just knowledge that anyone can learn, including you. It is remarkable simple knowledge, once you learn the few parts of that small part of the puzzle.
Amusingly, as an aside, the knowledge, like all knowledge of great value, holds its own defense within the design of the human mind. The rich did not hide the knowledge. It is open to anyone, published in public record and extensively distributed. They used the design of the human mind to facilitate people hiding it from themselves. Except for the rare few who define the small percentage at that extreme of the bell curve, those people who are interested in money ask questions about money, rather than questions about knowledge process, and thus never learn the knowledge that facilitates and sustains the money game. Anyone can make a lot of money. It is a common and easy game. But it is knowledge that facilitates one sustaining it or creating genuine benefit from it. Your interest must be that of both knowledge and money, two parts of the puzzle, opposing concepts and rarely found in any one person.
Now then, for a related part of the puzzle, consider the eager chaps who seek power in government jobs, to do all the good that eager chaps seek to achieve with power in government jobs, of course. They are identical to the people who seek money by asking questions about how to make a lot of money, rather than questions about how to advance their knowledge.
Why are there any remaining problems that government chaps purport to need money to solve? The existence of those problems proves that the government chaps of each previous decade were lying, because they said their programs would solve those problems, and they taxed the people to their maximum tolerance, and they knew the amount of money they had available. It requires scant knowledge of the language to match the words of the current government chaps with the same words of all the previous government chaps, and observe the resulting failures of ongoing record. These poor sad intellectually absent government chaps think they can do what all their predecessors could not do, with only their shiny new faces, the same old lies and no verifiably new knowledge.
The previous government chaps threw money and government bureaucracy at poverty, education, environment, foreign enemies, foreign friends, unemployment, national defense, the economy, energy, recreation, crime, drugs, old age, guns, farming, police, water, veterans, fishing, timber, health care, housing, tobacco, prisons, alcohol, transportation, immigration, welfare, right down the volumes-long list to the ongoing National Tea Tasting Commission perpetually solving the problem of the taste of tea, at taxpayer expense. So precisely why, by verifiable description, does one have to smuggle tea in from the Cameroon Highlands to get good tea, and all the social problems are now greater, purportedly requiring more tax money for the government chaps obviously using the money to only perpetuate the problems to get more money?
For perspective, religion is one of the few things that has successfully defended itself from government, and thus remains with vastly greater credibility than government, mostly undamaged by government, to say nothing of the even greater credibility of God perpetually amused with her poor representation by religion.
Any scantly intelligent person would look at the saturating failures of government which wasted all the previous money to create the current problems, and conclude that he needed entirely new knowledge beyond that which produced all the failures of government, before he would make a fool of himself getting a government job to thus represent those failures by his employed association. Is that not so? Well? Would you first become a bank robber based on your eager words that you were going to reform the bank robbers to mend their ways while you were robbing banks? Therein is a proof of why government is comprised of those who are less than scantly intelligent, and thus those who then never learn new knowledge within an institution dependent on defending itself from new knowledge to perpetuate the problems upon which its money-flow is dependent, as the results will continue to prove as long as the concept of power-based government survives in the minds of fools.
The money sorts, and all single issue sorts, are interested in their issue, not knowledge as a separate part of the puzzle, and thus define the reason why problems remain within the money issue. The government sorts are interested in power, the only concept 100% fatally flawed, not knowledge, and thus make fools of themselves and those who foolishly support them. Their claims of interest in knowledge are disproven by the concept of government and its results. No human advances without learning knowledge.
You can easily satisfy your life by pursuing money, government power, ego, work, mountain climbing, art, farming, construction, skydiving, entomology, web page building, the stock market, teaching and countless pursuits common and rare. But if by chance you want to solve all your frustrations and learn how to promptly resolve all contradictions, thus achieving the seemingly impossible, which just utilizes the primary design feature of the human mind, that you are already using anyway, but just inefficiently, you need only extend your knowledge a bit into knowledge, by asking a few controlling questions about a diversity of issues, then synthesizing that knowledge.
It is then that you can be a government chap, money sort, or anything else, and actually achieve what you earlier purported when you were foolish to purport it without the knowledge to achieve it.
If you want entirely new knowledge, learn intellectual technology. Without it, be content with money, power, material stuff and what was known yesterday, because those are the only things you will achieve without new knowledge. And if I were smart, I would be enjoying some sea kayaking right now, much like those chaps who invented it a few thousand years ago.
End of Intech Concepts 7
IntechConcepts 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1