Intellectual Technology
Intech Concepts 11
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)
On stage... 10 September 2001
What more would you add to your valuable knowledge by adding the subsequent words to the following old comment?
If you are not laughing yourself to tears at these humans, you are missing their only show.
If you are not laughing at all humans, including yourself, it is because you are not in the audience watching the comedy. You are therefore on the stage, doing as those on stage do to create the show, therefore being laughed at by the humans in the audience.
Watch those humans on stage, running around, purporting to be capable of making successful decisions for inherently independent, other adult human brains, and proving the contrary by their use of force, including majority vote for laws backed by armed police, and still clueless of why they would perceive any ability or cause to do so while they continue to make mistakes for even their own personal decisions.
If you cannot explain the above sentence, in relation to how your own brain synthesizes information, sustainably against every question, you reveal yourself on stage, inherently not yet eligible to join the audience which has enjoyably resolved all those contradictions displayed on stage.
If you are not in the audience, you cannot see the human show in sum to recognize the obvious solutions to the problems the humans purport as their excuses to foolishly attempt to make inherently futile decisions for other adult human brains as the only origin of the problems. Kindly read that again.
The therefore obvious nature of the solutions you cannot recognize is the reason you are being laughed at.
It can be only your own inherently independent brain, asking and answering every question you can devise, which can synthesize the knowledge to therefore join the audience to therefore see the diversity of data to therefore learn what everyone on stage seeks to learn but cannot possibly learn on stage, by design of the human brain.
Do so. And laugh the laughter sought by all people.
Regardless, what more did you learn? Utilize it. Do so to eventually reach the diversity of data which resolves all the contradictions, including those which less knowledgeable minds therefore only perpetuate.
Someone is going do it. Just as well be me... 11 September 2001
A functional definition of an excuse is, flawed reasoning, that is, sound reasoning for limited data of which the complete data is otherwise illuminated. Many people criticize the excuses of others, then routinely use excuses themselves even after the nature of their flaw is proven to them by illuminating the related data their mind did not synthesize. Therein, a separate concept at play in the design of the human mind is revealed. Those people who use excuses which defy the complete data revealed to them, thus victims of that separate concept described elsewhere, are often described as dishonest, ignorant, politicians, dumb, lawyers or such conclusions of said reasoning. The conclusions are merely rhetorical conveniences of no useful value. The reasoning is the useful portion of the data.
The minds of those chaps reverted to an excuse, that is, flawed reasoning, rather than merely synthesize the newly available data to resolve the related contradiction. Because the contradiction is inherently resolved by other people who merely synthesize the available data, that is, use their mind for its designed purpose, the excuse-maker is illuminated as an ignorant person, among commonly intelligent observers. Keep in mind that the excuse-maker for personal decisions may hold personal knowledge for his seemingly illogical actions, and may therefore not be ignorant at all, and may be wise for a decision for which you do not hold all the data. But the chap who makes flawed institutional decisions foisted onto other people is therefore categorically defined as an ignorant person, by every logical parameter, among other descriptions.
From an obviously flawed conclusion, resultant from incomplete data or incomplete synthesis of available data, there is a gradient of the mind's progressive synthesis of new data. For example, a competent auto mechanic can recognize a typical car problem from among all the things that commonly fail in those complex contraptions, and can promptly fix the problem. The mechanic already learned the data of the problem identification and the data of the solution, for car problems. In contrast, another human, with an inherently equal brain design but not knowledgeable of auto mechanics, can fix the same problem, but usually requires more time to acquire the related data and synthesize it. A common way for the non-auto mechanic to do so is to throw new parts at the problem, learning from the cost of the parts, which part fixed the problem. Most such people do not write notes of their experience, and thus forget the useful knowledge, and thus revert to their prior ignorance, described as being dumb if they complain about the cost of auto parts.
Within that gradient of knowledge, we find common humans with a brain design identical to that of you, I and everyone else, who then became politicians because they logically recognized that something was wrong with what the obviously dishonest politicians were doing, and sought to correct those problems. Later, if a person can corner one of those chaps who are described by some people as slithering snakes oozing with the slim of a lobe-finned snail-fish and the fecal smear of swine in a mud wallow, long enough to rhetorically chain their withered mind to the obvious data proving that they are doing precisely what they previously complained of, one of their trite excuses is that someone is going to do it, so it just as well be them.
Therein, the aforementioned separate concept is illuminated. Their mind belatedly recognizes enough of the data to therefore produce a new excuse they would not prior state. But their mind does not yet recognize enough data to realize that they are openly admitting that they are dishonest, precisely as dishonest as the previous politicians they commonly referenced as dishonest.
Faced with these words, the minds of said politicians will then revert to previous excuses to avoid thinking of the demonstrated fact that they are fundamentally dishonest humans, inescapably entrenched in their dishonesty. They will not instead advance beyond their contradiction by easily resolving the contradiction of dishonesty. They simply do not know how to do so, or they would have already done so. Their mind does not recognize the available data, or how to synthesize it. By acquiring their political position, based on their intent to correct perceived problems, they acquired the power of office. Power corrupts, that is, alters perceptions. And power never willingly surrenders any portion of itself, or the inherently flawed concept of power could not exist within the design of the human mind, including that aforementioned portion of the design. Therein the accurate use of the word, never, is illuminated.
However, there is a mechanism to transition their mind's data base beyond dishonesty, into the arena of honesty or wisdom, and thus the arena of resolving rather than perpetuating contradictions, and do so without sliming oneself with the aforementioned fecal smear of politicians. Another person can promptly cause them to become honest, if there is any incentive to do so. One need only learn the proverbial knowledge of the auto mechanic, for one's own mind, then continue learning yet more useful knowledge, rather than becoming the successful mechanic or teacher of mechanics fixing the unending stream of poorly designed autos. One must extend their knowledge beyond the institutional use of knowledge. To do so is to learn the controlling contradictions of institutional thinking. Those contradictions are remarkably vulnerable.
Notice to whom institutional people are attracted to acquire knowledge. Institutions. The controlling contradiction of politicians is their institution of politicians, identical to the institutions of their opponents and those attempting to institutionally effect any solutions. Laugh robustly, for cause. And question your way beyond all the institutional concepts. There is no achievable institution for the individual human mind, by definition and design. Is your mind not that which was designed to figure out the manifestable resolutions of contradictions? Use your individual mind. Ask and answer questions, especially of those comical chaps who cannot escape the institutions dependent upon their not recognizing the limitless value of the individual mind.
If someone is going to publicly make a fool of themselves by being a politician, it need not be you. The utility of your mind is worth more than that.
Sufficient data... 12 September 2001
If your opponent does not respond to your conclusions as you prefer, your data or data synthesis is inadequate, by definition.
You need only identify the additional data or data synthesis which will cause your opponent to respond favorably. That merely requires you to ask more questions of your current conclusions, usually those of your process, and answer those questions.
If you conclude a fault in the reasoning of the opponent, and therefore only more loudly emphasize your existing conclusions, you will not achieve your preferences and will remain as ignorant as your opponent for your not synthesizing the fault as an item of data creating a contradiction you need only resolve with more knowledge.
Notice that an individual mind can continue synthesizing additional data until the solution to any problem is discovered. In contrast, notice that institutional minds hastily curtail their thinking process at an identified fault of the other guy. To do otherwise might get too close to recognition of a fault in the institution. The institution will most defend itself from that possibility, against any individual.
The data you need to cause an opponent to willfully adopt your sometimes therefore refined conclusions of your preference is already available. Seek it. Do not wait for the institutional chaps. They think that no data can exist beyond what their institutional colleagues told them, or they would not have identified themselves with an institution, poor self-deluded chaps.
Terrorism 1... 20 September 2001
You can exist without an enemy. Without an enemy to distract your mind, your knowledge will rapidly advance far beyond other humans, therein easily learning the knowledge of how to promptly defeat any enemy, even the most powerful enemies in the world, by many processes, as an inconsequential aside. A simple process facilitates the defeat of your controlling enemy, to thus learn how to defeat all others.
Not one of those remarkably simple processes can be understood by government and such institutional chaps, much to the amusement of observers. The plain words of this website confuse and anger their self-stagnated minds. They are not curious, and thus ask no effective questions, and thus do not learn. They are angered, and thus block their mind's access to new knowledge. They have enemies, and thus fight against concepts that they think are in the minds of other people, thus not accessible, oblivious to the fact that every concept is within their own mind.
As illuminated elsewhere, and obvious with the most cursory analysis, no power-based institution can exist without an enemy. The concept of power holds no utility without an enemy. Of course governments are the most classic representation of the concept. They will kill to create the enemies imperative to the existence of their institution.
Therein the most discussed examples are the enemies in those other countries, but the primary enemies of every government are their own people within their own country. Notice for reason, that since the government claims to be the people, one is their own enemy. Therein one of the more classic examples among many is the approximately 40 million adult American citizens whom the Washington DC government considers as the enemy of the government, the enemy Washington DC constantly strives to imprison, the people who believe that they own their own bodies, and who therein choose to occasionally breathe hemp smoke. Amusingly, many of those are within the government. The Washington DC government's war on drugs is the war on its own people decreed as the enemy of the government, including within itself. That war is vastly more devastating than the Afghanistan Taliban government war on its people who sing songs or listen to music, not unlike the Chinese government war on its people who sing western songs. Among other such enemies are the approximately 80 million American citizens who own guns, a currently popularized enemy of the Washington DC government, and the many millions of Americans who criticize the murderous Washington DC government chaps, American citizens who are now being listed as suspected terrorists by the new US Office of Home Security Gestapo, a type of department under a similar name previously employing the Nazi Germany Gestapo. The examples are as diverse and comical as they are malicious among institutional chaps who therefore consider that humans are their enemy, oblivious to what they are themselves.
Now, test your intelligence in comparison with people of high titles praised by millions of mental midgets. Consider the previous US President Bush, President Clinton, the second President Bush, and the legion of their highly titled advisors whose words the equally ignorant news journalists have parroted with respect.
If, as the most arrogant, egotistical and murderous western Christian government in world history, you bombed a small Arab Muslim country (Iraq), with impunity, killing many thousands of humans, for more years than Washington DC bombed Vietnam, would you, or would you not, expect a comparable consequence from Arab Muslims? How do human minds react to the use of force, by design? What controlling concept causes the original use of force? Then what sustains it rather than ends it?
Every non-institutional mind reading those questions can accurately answer them. Not one RepublicratDemocan American politician or their advisors or their journalist parrots, or their ilk, can stand in public, on their name, and accurately answer those questions. Americans support murderous government sorts to represent Americans to the world, and cannot figure out why other people therefore seek to kill Americans.
Is the biological brain of a western Christian and an Arab Muslim of the same design, and thus synthesizing fundamental data by the same biological process?
If Arab Muslims were the super-power of the current era, beyond your ability to militarily challenge, and they bombed England for idle amusement under any excuse such as England's previous military atrocities against Muslims in India, would all Americans spinelessly watch their fellow western Christians killed by Muslims, year after year after year, with no reaction? How does your mind function, by design?
At what exact decision-point does a human mind demarcate the difference between a justified use of force and an unjustified use of force, by design, sustainable against every question and described situation? Did you think the human mind was incapable of identifying that simple answer sustainable against every question? Precisely what category of human would not seek and identify that easily discovered answer?
If you attack the other guy, under any excuse, before precisely answering such questions, on record in public, for your intelligence to be tested against time and all other minds, you are the reason anyone else may rightfully attack your people. They will have simply utilized your proven standard.
What words would you use to describe government leaders who exercised overtly illogical, murderous actions against other people who were therefore certain by the design of the human mind to create murderous reactions against the people supporting and represented by those government leaders? Would you describe them as great and intelligent leaders, or mental midgets? Do you accurately use words? Is it not the contradictory use of words which trains a mind to be ignorant and illogical? Do you call an idiot an idiot, or a great leader? Behind which is the more complete reasoning, the government leaders publicly flattering each other, or the common people routinely describing the government chaps, with quite opposite conclusions for openly stated reasoning?
Would you support those leaders, and thus define your intellectual inability, or ridicule them? How do you train your mind? Do your institutional leaders not define you to the world, by definition of your membership, despite your unheard excuses? Can you claim benefits without accepting the inherent responsibilities? Are you capable of answering these questions that government personnel obviously cannot answer?
What is of greater value and utility to you, the power of your government leaders to currently bomb whomever they wish, creating more enemies hating you, or your mind's ability to recognize and resolve contradictions?
If you could leave your offspring with one of the following two attributes, which would you choose: The power to bomb whomever she wished, with the inherent consequences, or the intellectual ability to identify and resolve every contradiction, with the inherent consequences?
How will you use your own mind's answers to questions, specifically the above question? What actions will you therefore take, lest your offspring belatedly discover your dismal ignorance, by their own thus greater thinking?
Identical to so called terrorists, whose intellectual ability is as self-stagnated as the DemocanRepublicrats of Washington DC, the US government chaps and those who mindlessly rally behind them at the first wail of news journalists parroting US government chaps, genuinely and sincerely believe that the zenith of the human mind's ability is to devise the more clever process to kill enemies, oblivious to the origin of enemies or what they are, for having never questioned the concept.
After government leaders learned intellectual technology, which might require a couple weeks or so, terrorists could be so thoroughly defeated within a couple days, that the word would no longer be used to describe a category of humans. The terrorist and anti-terrorist industries would evaporate, much to the categorical fear of their personnel who cannot comprehend that they would thus rapidly advance into more profitable and beneficial employment. The airlines would be as safe as humans can make them, and the security check delays and costs would be eliminated. Etcetera.
And that is a paltry use of the human mind compared its ability for far greater advances of the human lifestyle.
War on Terrorists... 21 September 2001
Think. More analytically listen to the countless comments in reaction to the innovative bombing of the World Trade Towers. Step back several steps and classify the fundamental categories of comments created by everyone so speaking or writing.
Notice that the overwhelming conclusion of said comments is to physically retaliate, while the only opposing conclusion is nebulous and confused mention of not retaliating. The latter is usually couched in terms of first proving the case that so-and-so really did it, then physically retaliate.
What do you therein learn?
Is the utility of the human mind's design, that of devising the next process to kill or imprison a perceived enemy?
If that were of utility, after the test of time has so obviously been concluded, over and over again, why have all the human enemies of humans not already been killed, or died in prison? Why? Is your mind capable of answering simple questions? What is your answer?
Precisely what conclusion of human minds keeps creating new enemies, even ones so innovative as to invent the brilliant strategy used to collapse not just one, but both of America's greatest pyramids of capitalism, and for accent, bomb its military headquarters? What functioning concept creates new enemies among humans, by design, every year, year after year?
Notice that while many people and institutions throughout history have suggested the wisdom of not retaliating against attacks, the suggestions are never utilized at institutional levels. Even those institutions which suggest such wisdom, then mindlessly rally behind retaliation with predictable consistency, often through second parties as excuses. Therein a design feature of the human mind is identified.
Wisely do not attempt to defy the human mind's design. Instead, utilize the design, but not to create the contradictions so addicting to mental midgets quick to use their guns and bombs because they are too lazy to utilize their mind's controlling concept.
What concept, within and utilizing the design of the human mind, satisfying what the test of time proves is a controlling concept of the human mind, destroys your enemy without any physical retaliation?
The readily available answer may be described as difficult to ascertain because it is accessed by a precise, and a bit lengthy, series of questions that must be structured to satisfy the questions of the mind wishing to learn the concluding answer, as its own choice.
Would you think that such a concept does not exist, and thus identify the zenith of the human mind as a device to learn how to more efficiently kill or imprison itself in other bodies, to thus define yourself as an ignorant sort identical to government and institution leaders? Would you suggest that the human mind is not capable of learning knowledge beyond that currently known by government chaps?
You hold an individual human mind. Your brain is within your own cranium, not anyone else's. Use it. United States President George Bush, like Clinton, the other Bush, the gaggle before them, and the legions of their titled advisors, cannot understand these plain words. They will not discover or even attempt to discover the readily available technology to promptly, easily and laughably defeat terrorists. Bush and his boys will physically retaliate, primarily against Americans as suspected enemies, and secondarily create more effective, equally unthinking foreign institutional enemies who will therefore kill more Americans.
Stop wasting your time presenting yourself as foolish among observers, by mouthing the physical retaliation versus non-retaliation comments. Start asking questions leading toward an entirely different reaction to so called terrorism and every other contradiction created by humans. Consider that your only useful tool is the human mind, because it is. Therein you must first learn the design of the human mind. Orient your questions therein. You will be mercilessly frustrated at first, but your only other option is the easy avenue leading to the ignorance manifested by the ultimately frustrated retaliation versus non-retaliation crowd. They who pay the cost of knowledge up-front, pay less than those who seek the benefits before the cost. And those who seek benefits without any cost to them, as do government sorts, never achieve a logical goal.
The unbeatable enemy... 22 September 2001
When you play the game of physical war or crime, and your enemy intentionally kills himself to kill your people, he wins, by definition. You have no recourse which does not make a fool of you and create a new enemy.
The perpetrator has already paid the price for his attack. He does not exist to punish again.
If you retaliate against the people of your enemy's association, or those who express their opinions of support for him, your enemy doubles his victory by causing you to destroy your own remaining freedoms of association and expression of opinion.
There is a similar description. You can kill any human or humans you wish, by definition of human abilities. But because the balance is perfect in all things, or we and the universe could not exist, the price of such an action shall be paid. If you choose to pay it by killing yourself in the process, the price has been paid. It cannot be extracted again without creating a new price that must be paid.
Therein the flaw of humans killing humans is illuminated among those who ask and answer questions, which leaves institutional sorts who are too ignorant and too intellectually lazy to question their institution, perpetually ignorant.
The numbers of humans involved are irrelevant. The concept itself is controlling. How many humans did the Arab Iraqis kill in their attack on Arab Kuwaitis? How many humans did the Americans kill in retaliation against the Iraqis, for the Kuwaitis? Who many humans did the Arabs therefore kill in retaliation at New York? If you wish to claim that the numbers are controlling, using your claim, the Arabs may rightfully kill many more Americans before the game is even, defeating your claim and embarrassing you. The numbers are therein proven to be irrelevant. The concept of humans killing humans is controlling over the numbers.
Because the chaps who collapsed the World Trade Towers chose to pay the price at the time of the exchange, the US government leaders are defined as the ignorant sorts they prior proved themselves to be, by seeking to kill someone else to define their destruction of the right to freely associate and express opinion.
If you suggest that anyone who assisted the suicide hijackers should also pay the price, by your own reasoning you illuminate the reason the Arab Muslim hijackers therefore rightfully killed Americans who supported and financed the war machine which slaughtered many more Arab Muslims in Iraq.
If you are frustrated by the concepts that obviously prevail over your excuses, the solution to that contradiction is within the knowledge you may learn if you ask and answer the related questions. The effort is worth your time. The resulting knowledge resolves many other frustrations, illuminating the concluding solution to the puzzle, much to your resulting amusement and the advancement of the human phenomenon. Start asking questions where all the impatient institutional sorts spewed their failing conclusions.
Brilliant design of war process... 23 September 2001
Americans foolishly worked overtime into self-damaging individual and social stress, to create the most massive and costly war machine ever created, killing thousands of Americans in militarily fabricated wars for practice, and in military related accidents.
Americans foolishly created an anti-terrorist, inherently false-security system for airports, costing Americans vastly more damage in money and lost human lifetime, than all the terrorist attacks combined, including the most recent ones.
Then a small handful of Arabs with a pittance of financial expenditure and zip for their own tools, waltzed into America, used America's tools, and successfully delivered the most impressive military attack since the lesser Trojan Horse made history.
Think. Had the enemy known who was in the Trojan Horse before it entered the gates, they would have destroyed it. But had the US Air Force known where those airliners were headed, the enemy would have more spectacularly won.
The 19 attacking soldiers, more effective by target position and psychological impact than any other military enemy of America, killed themselves, and represented no government, leaving no enemy to logically counter attack.
Are these humans an entertaining lot, or what?
If you are angry instead of curious, you define the reason you will further defeat yourself.
You cannot bring humans back to life, but you can learn knowledge of the magnitude of human lives. Do so, and you can prevent humans from killing humans.
Use the time you might otherwise be angry or frustrated, to learn about humans, the design of their mind, and you will therefore never again foolishly waste your time being angry or frustrated. With what you learn, you may resolve all contradictions, including those which would otherwise be created by unthinking people who would damage you.
Terrorism 2... 24 September 2001
You taught your enemy well.
Consider a semi-clandestine military unit that infiltrates America to maliciously slaughter the most innocent of citizens, women and children in their Christian church, to strike terror from within. The unit uses meticulously collected intelligence to study, for several weeks, a target Christian church which teaches the word of God from the Bible. Then after extensive planning, heavily armed collaborators of the military unit successfully isolate the church, and subject the people in it to classic psychological warfare tactics to terrorize them for many days. Inquisitive news media journalists are denied access to the area, and fed categorically false military propaganda, lies about the Christians being a cult and thus evil, making drugs, molesting children, and suicidal, long enough to pull-off the military operation without interference from civilians. The collaborators even talk to one of the little children in the church, on the phone, expressly promising her that they will not come in and kill her, a conversation that is recorded. The military unit then helicopters to the roof of the church during the night, and places a shaped-charge intentionally designed to kill everyone in the room below it, the specific room in which the military knows from prior intelligence that the women and children will seek refuge if an attack is launched. The next day, the collaborators, with military personnel assistance, then initiate the final attack, driving military tanks into the walls of the church to further terrorize and herd the women and children into the room below the shaped-charge. To further confuse the victims, a massive volume of internationally outlawed CS nerve gas is pumped into the church, a lethal doze for children, openly known to cause the most heinous and torturous death governments have so far invented. The military then explodes the shaped charge, slaughtering the women and children hiding below, all recorded on film by the arrogant military personnel who enjoy showing the movie and bragging about their slaughter of their enemy. They lied to that innocent little girl, and the other children, and intentionally slaughtered them, to terrorize Americans with the raw power of terrorists acting in contempt of law. They were even given heroism medals by their government. That is the least description of their atrocities in that terrorist attack on America. It is all on verifiable record you can obtain and question.
The terrorists were the United States Army Delta Force, US Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel, US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms personnel, United States Attorney General Janet Reno, US President Bill Clinton, their unquestioning US news media, and the DemocanRepublicrat congressmen who diverted every related question away from the evidence of record you can obtain and question. The attack was on the Christian Branch Dividian church at Waco Texas.
Your reaction, most likely that created by the unquestioning news networks whom you do not effectively question, is immaterial.
What is material is that the rest of the world propagates the verifiable news which the US news media is too timid and too dishonest to broadcast to Americans. News journalists of other nations, not referenced in the US, ask the questions that Americans are too spineless and too ignorant to ask of their own government and news networks. The rest of the world learns what Americans hide from themselves, and thus learns the real nature of Americans. The extensive evidence of the terrorist attack in Waco, much of it on film made by the US government, is widely shown throughout the world, while hidden and covered up by the government and news media in the US.
So when Americans say that America is a land of freedom, compassion, under the rule of law, advocating justice, with a government accountable to the people, and opposed to terrorism, the international enemies of America rightfully identify Americans as dishonest, murderous, laughably ignorant and so malicious that they slaughter even innocent children in church just for US Army practice, certainly the manifestation of evil by proof on America's own evidence on public record.
Your denials fall on their face amid volumes of evidence. How many innocent Panamanians did the US military slaughter, as collateral damage, during its fumbled, heavily destructive attack in Panama City to kidnap Manuel Noriega, a prior thug of the CIA, paid millions of US tax dollars to disrupt the previous Panama regime not in favor with the CIA boys. You reacted to the government-provided US news media propaganda about Noriega, that the US journalists did not question. Other people in the world reacted to the innocent Panamanians slaughtered by the arrogant, incompetent, trigger-happy US military slaughtering whomever the US people decide they want to slaughter in the world.
The examples are many more than you can identify from US news, and far more repugnant. Did you foolishly think so much government power was anything but the most corrupt and murderous in the world? Did you think that humans of your same mind's design, whom your government tells you are evil, attack you for no reason? Would you attack a person for no reason?
You taught the terrorists well. And they will continue to use what you taught them. The American government and thus Americans incessantly manifest the standard that intentionally slaughtering large numbers of innocent people is a rightful action. There is yet not a single indication that Americans will stop manifesting that standard, and every indication that Americans will escalate it. Every year hundreds of innocent people shot dead by incompetent, trigger-happy American police who are trained to not think beyond the muzzle of their gun, rarely make network news in the US, but are openly discussed in other countries. The Nazi Gestapo and the American Police are commonly referenced together. Look at the number of Americans, most of them innocent, shot each year by American police, that the network news media barely mentions. In what other country do the police shoot so many citizens? The examples of the murderous American government, and their meaning in sum, define Americans internationally.
What might you instead wish to teach the world?
Notice that its has always been the RepublicratDemocans who perpetrated all the examples that taught all your enemies how murderous Americans are. Those enemies include those who gratuitously flatter you in public to fool you as easily as do the DemocanRepublicrats and their news media.
Who will you vote for in the next election, not to make any change, since all politicians seek power not wisdom, by definition of government, but to start training your mind to think? Can you vote for or support a human who supports a political party that has proven its intent to kill instead of use reasoning, and logically claim to use reasoning instead of intent to kill? Use your answer.
The commonality of failure... 25 September 2001
Notice that the United States RepublicratDemocan government lost the Vietnam war, lost the war in Somalia, attempted but could not militarily seize Panama's Manuel Noriega, could not complete the war in Iraq, lost the drug war against its own people, dramatically failed to protect US airlines from hijackings despite a massive security system, failed to protect anyone from anything by slaughtering innocent women and children in their church at Waco, lost many of its court cases attacking citizens, lost any remnant respect among intelligent people by winning the court cases against the millions of accused people who damaged no one, and many more examples of unmitigated failure after failure, all at massive and increasing cost of tax money and escalating destruction of citizen rights under an increasingly armed and malicious US government, while the US news media increasingly praises the DemocanRepublicrat politicians, and glorifies their institution. The Soviet Union and every other power-based institution in human history did the same thing, with the therefore inescapable results.
What questions would you therefore ask, while all the institutions increasingly praise and parrot the institutions escalating the failures?
Would those questions not have to be questions outside those asked by all the highly titled and credentialed institutional sorts?
Is not the loss of a battle, of any nature, the proof of a failure to adequately think before starting the battle?
Notice that in every case of US government failure, the intellectually absent DemocanRepublicrat chaps stopped asking questions early in the game, and hastily used force, just as they are yet doing, oblivious to the design or utility of the human mind.
Ask those questions. Answer them. Use the astonishing utility of your mind. Question your answers, and answer your questions. Identify every contradiction you can, and definitively resolve each contradiction. Let the institutional sorts spew their hasty conclusions still saturated with contradictions, which inherently create their failures, embarrassing themselves in front of commonly intelligent people. Keep patiently asking and answering your progressing questions. Write them.
Periodically divert your questions to entirely unrelated arenas of knowledge, a necessary process no institutional mind can ever recognize, by definition of it joining an institution. Synthesize those diverse arenas of resulting knowledge. If Chinese and Arabs seem to think differently than Americans, learn what they think, and combine that knowledge with what you think, to learn more than you or they separately knew.
No, what the Chinese and Arabs think is not what the government leaders, news journalists, talking head experts and other institutional chaps tell you. What the Chinese and Arabs think is what you will learn from common Chinese and Arabs. What you will learn from the government, news journalists and other institutional sorts is only what they think, by definition. Learn that also. Question them. You will learn what the stamp collectors think, from the stamp collectors, not from the Postal Service. From the Postal Service, you will learn what the Postal Service thinks. Because your mind thinks in words, accurately use words to advance your knowledge.
You will quickly surpass the knowledge of your government and organization leaders, and learn why they will never catch up. They will remain within their self-contradicted institutions, and use or support force against the other guy before they learn what the other guy knows. They can never benefit your knowledge beyond your questioning them, and will only attack your rights in their attempt to drag you down to their intellectual stagnation. It is your choice to embarrass yourself among them, or leave them behind.
It can be no other way with the use of force, by design... 1 October 2001
All leaders have more in common with each other, including those who most loudly rail against each other, than any of them have in common with any of their followers. Foolish people who are too ignorant to ask the most rudimentary questions, would suggest otherwise. The Afghan Taliban leaders and the US RepublicratDemocan leaders function identically, if you ask effective questions of their actions. They are currently the closest conceptual allies in the world.
Any actual battle is not between you and the people whom your leaders say are your enemy, but between all the leaders and the foolish sorts who follow them, much to the robust laughter of observers. These words will not change that design. It is your choice as an individual to learn that design and enjoy the laughter while foolish chaps kill each other to feed the petty ego of their ignorant leaders. There is no end of those foolish sorts among 6.1 billion chaps in a yet growing human population. It is only your choice to join or not join them.
Openly laugh at those Christian, Muslim, political and all other institutional leaders. They will not understand your laughter. They will be angered and decree that you are an enemy, much to your further laughter. They are of no more worth than the countless sorts of their ilk before them. In contrast, you will learn much by your laughter. Learning to laugh at what angers others is an imperative part of the puzzle, which if missing will leave you forever as ignorant as the Muslim, Christian and political leaders. Anger will flaw your every decision. Laughter will not. Until you can genuinely laugh at yourself, and therefore your own institutions, the laughter that leaves no dogma unscathed, you will remain as ignorant as the hate-filled minds of the Christian, Muslim and political leaders, not because I or anyone else says that, but for the reasoning you can discover. And if you do, you will laugh. At issue is not the Muslim, Christian or any other religion, but their human leaders.
The Kabul leaders are again positioning their foolish followers to be killed, as did their predecessors, as will their military successors. The Washington DC leaders are again positioning their foolish followers to be killed, as did their predecessors. Who therefore is the enemy of all followers? Does your mind hold the ability to accurately answer simple questions? What does your mind do with answers it actually builds? Would you teach your children the ability to accurately answer questions, or leave them as ignorant as the religious and political leaders who decree that your children must learn only how to do as they are told by chaps who get political or church jobs? Teach your children to question authority, therefore you their teacher, and themselves. They will learn what every unquestioning government sort who follows rather than questions orders cannot learn.
Which god preaches that humans should destroy the creations of God, among them being humans, while the petty seminary graduate Muslim and Christian leaders tell their foolish followers that God is on their side for whatever next slaughter of humans their political leaders are orchestrating?
No soldier holds the intelligence or courage to tell their political or religious leaders to let the gods or the human leaders fight their own battles, or the soldier would be too intelligent to be a soldier. But if the religious leaders cannot fight their own fabricated battles, with their god on their side, are they not proven to be frauds, charlatans and cowards, with a fool's illusion for a god, inherently lying in the name of their god? Would a god who is God need humans to fight her battles in the name of God, just to destroy only that which God created?
The religious leaders who follow the verifiable God will stand in public and tell you truth, quite as God taught, that God is not on your side or your government's side if you use force against another human, that God gave you a mind without any mechanism for one mind to force another mind, for lack of any need with such a brilliantly designed device that can reason through to the solution of every contradiction created by humans or currently perceived to be created by God. Notice how rarely God by any name or rhetorical concept is actually understood in the US, Afghanistan and other countries, and none among the rare are the news journalists who are too incompetent to effectively question even government sorts. Notice that these statements remain valid even to the mind of a person who does not believe in any god, and instead utilizes a reference to the design of logic, reasoning or the human mind, regardless of its rhetorically ascribed origin. Is the origin of the concept more useful than the utilization of the concept? Humans, fighting themselves to destroy their otherwise readily available advancement, are a proof of God's design for infinite humor. Learn the proof, and use the knowledge.
Odd lot these humans, but of superlative entertainment, by design, wouldn't you agree?
The controlling difference... 3 October 2001
Each person caught within this truth will deny its truth. Laugh at them, because their unquestioned denial alone will block their mind's access to the knowledge they seek. They will stay ignorant, by their own mind's choice. In contrast, if you recognize the truth, and ask enough questions, you will learn what the world desperately seeks to learn.
For each of the below examples, consider the military, police, inherently lying politicians and a majority sector of each country, in two countries or religious/political cultures that are at any level of war or physical fighting with each other.
For one example, you might consider the US, which continues to engage in a murderous war with Iraq, bombing it now longer than the US bombed Vietnam, fully known to Arab Muslims, while most Americans remain oblivious to their government routinely killing Arab Muslims in Iraq. Among millions of Arab Muslims, the US people are obviously at war with Arab Muslims, still slaughtering them with bombs, regardless of the US government and news media's rhetorical illusions fooling fools in the remarkably naive United States society.
You might equally consider the Russians and Chechens, or the Philippine rebels and the Philippine government, Timor, Sri Lanka, a gaggle of Central African combatant countries, the middle east mess or the Yugoslavia area, India and Pakistan, among others. The US government is just one among many groups of humans killing other humans to express institutional illogicality. On average there are about 17 shooting wars occurring at any one time on the planet, with organized military and quasi-military groups of significant size shooting at each other with the intent to hold or gain governmental control of a geographical region.
Now, think more analytically than you normally may.
Notice the physical reactions, including the detail in the expressions on their faces, of the individuals of the above referenced political, military, police and supporting majority social sectors, when they hear news of their country or group's victory in any battle or attack which kills individual humans of the enemy.
Then think about the mind's electro-chemical functioning which creates the origin of those physical reactions, the electro-chemical messages created from the stimuli of verbal, graphic or print information, sent to the body's muscles to create the smiles and cheering. At news that other humans were intentionally killed, a positive response of genuinely expressed joy is routinely created in many human minds, each holding one controlling concept in common, their membership in an institution which supports their expressed joy. Hold that recognition of undeniable truth, for the following.
The most obvious, superficial reasoning for the feeling of elation that we killed some of them, is because they killed some of our people in the previous attack. But of course a human capable of thinking (asking and answering questions) can ask the questions to identify the reasoning for the original attack before one side killed or physically damaged the other side. The reasoning for the original attack was fabricated from words alone, without a physical basis, rhetorical illusions alone created to define other inherently equal humans as an enemy. Minds fooled minds into believing an illusion, with words. So what can you therefore do at any time, to achieve your goal, if you learn the related knowledge?
It cannot be emphasized enough, and can never be understood by government or such institutional sorts, that we are herein discussing an impartial electro-chemical process of the human brain's design, with the examples being only instructive examples of a concept. If your mind is reacting to the examples, rather than analyzing the referenced concept, you just as well stop reading this because you will learn nothing useful from it and will remain as perpetually ignorant as government chaps.
Consider a classic example, among many different examples in many societies. What originated the US government war on drugs, the extensively costly and damaging attack on humans who prefer hemp over tobacco, who therein did not damage another human? Why was it not a normal law enforcement and judicial process against a common criminal individual who stole a TV, instead of a war on over 40 million American adults who were falsely and ludicrously accused of stealing TV's to support a so called drug habit, not unlike the golf habit among golfers? Why? Was not the original action which started the drug war, a rhetorical fabrication by the obviously power-damaged minds of government politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, such institutional sorts and their unthinking flock? Is not the answer, Yes? Was an enemy not rhetorically created because government sorts needed an enemy to divert public attention away from the otherwise glaring ignorance and failures of government sorts? Was the rhetorical ruse not successful because any social majority will not ask even the most rudimentary questions of even the most obvious contradiction within their own institution, by design of the human mind, inherently including your mind?
What can you efficiently and effectively do with any human minds, such as with perceived enemies, if you discover how the mind's design functionally reacts to conceptual stimuli, including rhetorical illusions, including those which can therefore prevail over your enemy's rhetorical illusions? Is it not inherent that you can learn such knowledge, simply by extending your questioning process into that arena? Of course government sorts cannot learn it because they fear questions of their own institutional actions, and thus remain victims of their self-induced void of related knowledge. Their fundamental actions will always be identical to and stagnated with their enemy. There are only a few concepts available to such a nadir of intelligence.
The number of humans in the US who smoke hemp and harmed no one, or who were otherwise among innocent bystanders, or were at a wrong address, or involved in a related accident caused by government thugs, who were killed by US police and military thugs waging the war on drugs, as with all wars, is what the government and news media will not tell you, because it is embarrassing to them, and people do not widely discuss their embarrassing actions, but it is a large and growing number. Many people who prefer hemp over tobacco routinely think about that number, and therefore intensely hate their government and its murderous police/military.
Identical to the minds of the police who cheer when they kill a hemp smoker, the minds of millions of American hemp smokers and other social sectors of honest people maliciously attacked by police, spontaneously cheer when a cop is killed for any reason. Of course because they can be attacked by police for expressing truth in the US, many of the latter then publicly express phony grief that the cop was killed, like the phony grief of the US president when another US bomb is dropped on an enemy civilian target, or a US Navy missile destroys another civilian jet airliner in the Persian Gulf. Now, what can you therefore learn, while the minds of cops and their ilk are angered by that truth, and therefore cut their mind off from useful knowledge derived from related questions?
What is the biologically precise mechanism that caused millions of people around the world to spontaneously cheer in joy at the sight of the World Trade Towers collapsing, after an American social sector which was angered by that sight previously cheered at the televised pictures of US bombs slamming into downtown Baghdad, and continue to cheer in joy when they slaughter Iraqis still being bombed by the US, and when they imprison hemp smokers, arrest gun owners, arrest National Park visitors, use illogical and thus enemy-creating force against a person not harming anyone, etc? What precise mechanism causes US Army personnel and their ilk to still brag about slaughtering Christian women and children in their church at Waco, with an explosive shaped-charge placed on the church roof? What is the biological mechanism for expressed joy at each of the billions of such examples of humans maliciously attacking humans throughout human history? What detailed knowledge is of inordinate value within that easily identified and verified answer? What questions are you too embarrassed or too fearful to openly answer and thus deny yourself the vastly more valuable knowledge illuminated by the next questions?
All the examples of all the anguished or rejoicing people and all their possible actions and reactions are just superficial fluff to divert their attention from the easily learned source of the contradictions and therefore the easily effected solutions, much to the grand amusement of those who simply take the time to learn said origin by simply asking and answering such questions beyond where all the intellectually lazy people stopped their thinking process to express joy or anger.
Can there be any more amusing game than that of a device designed to synthesize unlimited data to resolve every contradiction in the universe, routinely creating the obvious contradiction of destroying the device for a designed perception that a contradiction is therefore somehow resolved?
If the Arab Muslims who cheered the bombing of the World Trade Towers used those total person-hours of cheering, to instead ask and answer effective questions of their process, they would shortly rule the world with their wisdom for which you would abandon your government to follow, and still have most of the time for cheering. Don't worry. They won't, for the same reason the American government sorts who cheered the bombing of Iraq will not use that amount of time to question their process. The Americans could as promptly rule the world with wisdom for which Arabs would abandon their governments to follow, and still have most of the time for cheering. The Arabs need not worry. No institution in the United States, not one, teaches anyone how to ask effective questions. The indisputable proof is available in only a few effective questions.
Let the victims of their self-induced ignorance cheer and wail. Laugh robustly at the most titled of them. Use your infinitely valuable mind to instead learn the contradiction and resolution of their every frustration. Start asking and answering questions where they stopped, and do not stop. You will soon enough learn more of your opponent's mind than known to him, much to your further amusement.
If you can laugh at the Arab Muslims for cheering the deaths of Americans in the World Trade Towers, because those Arabs therefore waste the value of their mind's time, then you can laugh at those American Christians for cheering the deaths of Iraqis in Baghdad, because those Americans therefore equally waste the value of their mind's time, as do all such humans whose remarkable ignorance is only their own creation. And because they are each alternately angry rather than curious about why human minds function in such an illogical way, you can laugh at them again. You cannot alter their childish behavior until you learn its origin in their mind, which is the same design as your mind. And if you do learn that knowledge, you may be more amused with the original design of the game, and choose to not alter it, but that would be your choice.
Military targets... 4 October 2001
Known to those in the military, and easily identified by anyone capable of asking a few questions, there is no such thing as a military target distinguishable or functionally distinguished from a civilian target. When government, military and news media personnel talk to you about military targets, they identify their dishonesty and ignorance, as usual.
In war, while your government is easily lying to you through news releases that the feckless US news journalists parrot rather than question, soldiers are intentionally destroying non-military targets and people. The rhetoric of military targets, is rhetoric of military targets, used to fool gullible people into thinking that civilized rules of war make war a socially acceptable exercise wherein only military chaps hurt each other, and collateral damage is only collateral damage.
In war, where the inherently defined goal is to destroy your enemy, read that again, destroy your enemy so he cannot return to destroy you, who and what among the following are military targets: Volunteer military personnel, civilians forced/drafted into military duty, civilian personnel working for the military, people sewing clothes for the military, farmers growing food for the military, carpenters making houses and other buildings for military personnel, politicians supporting the military, religious ministers in churches providing comfort for military personnel who are therefore more effective, doctors and nurses in hospitals repairing military personnel to get them back onto the battlefield to kill you, teachers in schools educating the next military recruits, taxpayers working to pay the military personnel sent to kill you, the houses sheltering the aforementioned, the bomb shelters where military and civilians protect themselves from your efforts to destroy them, financial districts facilitating the funding for the military personnel and logistics systems, recreation areas used by military and civilians to improve moral, street shops where military personnel buy what is not currently available through military channels, roads used by military and civilians to get food to the hungry military and civilians, and everything else in the enemy country and infrastructure? Well?
By definition, practical functioning, and history of war, they are all military targets routinely attacked and damaged. There is no line that can be woven among the changing targets. To deny that inherent fact is to identify yourself as fool or a dishonest fool. In the game of war, where the political leaders are playing the game of killing other people and maintaining the killing process as popular among their own people, part of the game is the rhetorical illusion of attacking only military targets. Therein, the politicians and military chaps simply block access to the truth among any news media journalists who do not print only what the military dictates. Because there are no absolutes in that regard, the unsavory news that escapes military control is covered with the usual lies more loudly pandered by the government's pocket journalists who are financially benefited with more convenient stories reducing the expense per story.
The process is at play on both sides, by definition, even when no war exists. National security issues include whatever common corruption government wishes to routinely censor from public accountability, while diversionary stories of government purportedly helping the people, are provided as copy-ready news releases.
If the US military gets caught successfully destroying a civilian bomb shelter in the middle of Baghdad, at night, by bombing it with a ground-penetrating smart-bomb, after the shelter was well known to house civilians escaping the US bombing of their homes every night, thus killing a large number of innocent women and children civilians to terrorize the enemy, the military simply references the shelter as an enemy military command bunker, a military target, and the military's pocket US journalists call it an enemy military command bunker, a military target, 100 times for every time the truth is stated by a real journalist. It is a simple game. Both sides play it, because both sides involve the same design of human mind.
The vast majority of the time, the military does not get caught at its atrocities since it speaks only of the classic military targets, and lets the confusion of war cover the rest. Most soldiers do not talk about what they later embarrassingly recognize was wrong. It is part of the mind's design, and its relationship with institutions. The soldiers who brag about their efforts display how gullible they were, and still are, to believe their malicious government leaders who suggest that government thugs killing a bunch of people can solve what the government leaders are too ignorant to solve with the human mind's reasoning process. The obvious disproof in the results is lost in the news media hype over the next such government idiot-drill always at play. Most soldiers are young, impressionable males seeking to prove their manhood in whatever way the military's commercial advertising companies tell them is the cultural norm, the same way cigarettes, soda pop and tennis shoes are sold. Career military personnel are those, like politicians, lawyers and police, who simply never intellectually mature. They still think that to kill or imprison other people is the process of reasoning. They remain categorically clueless of the human mind's utility.
One country's military target of a civilian bomb shelter and other civilian infrastructure, is another country's military target of a financial center and air transport system. Unquestioning sorts on both sides suggest that one is not the other. You get to decide whether you are an unquestioning sort, or a person who asks uncomfortable questions to advance your knowledge beyond what foolish, timid people are too fearful to question.
The United States never declared war on North Vietnam, while massively bombing it and its civilians, slaughtering hundreds of thousands, along with bombing South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and their people. The people of the world know that, while Americans ignore it. Therein the United States people, most noticeably the Christians waving the American flag, are undeniably terrorists, not warriors, if they wish to call Arab Muslims, terrorists, for such similar but far less destructive military actions against America, without a declaration of war. An ignorant, unquestioning person denies proofs of fact without identifying any flaw in the proofs.
War is the use of inherently contradicted force. Unquestioning sorts suggest there are uncontradicted boundaries within it. The controlling contradiction prevails and embarrasses of those who attempt to defy it.
Therefore, precisely how would an intelligent person devise the game of war to most efficiently and effectively win it, and not flaw himself by lying about military targets or rules of war? Every lie, that is, every created contradiction is a detriment to a person attempting to achieve a goal. An intelligent person creates no lie or contradiction, and need not. There is no other way to resolve a contradiction.
It is too easy.
The real military target of an opponent, is his mind, regardless of what he is otherwise doing. You cannot defeat it by killing it. If you kill it, you permanently prove to the world, and to your own mind, that his mind was so superior to yours, you never held a hope of learning more than it, and in the rage of an idiot, you killed what could have otherwise advanced your knowledge beyond what you currently held. You concurrently taught other humans that they must kill you and your ilk before you kill yet more people who are smarter than you, and kill you before you spread your mental midget genes too widely.
As long as your enemy's mind is functioning, you can learn what it knows, to therefore defeat it with the synthesis of what you each know, regardless of its reactions because you will already know them before they are manifested. If you learn how to defeat his mind, an easy task, you will have learned a type of advanced knowledge that will cause you to most likely leave your enemy with his therefore self-defeating problems, and continue advancing your knowledge beyond what your enemy understands, for more beneficial goals. You will then offer that knowledge to him, knowing why he cannot yet understand even enough to accept your valuable offer if you choose to not inform him.
If you learn more than he, to therefore be able to benefit him, it is inherent to the concept of time and the diversity of knowledge that he or his people will later learn more than you or your people, and with said time, having learned from your previous offer, he will offer you his new knowledge to advance your lifestyle. You will then know enough to accept, and to thus benefit his, which he will then recognize.
There is no mechanism within the design of the human mind, for one mind to force another mind, and therefore to define a mind as the only military target to test your intelligence, you and your enemy can win every battle and war, at great benefit to yourselves and colleagues, without destroying anything, regardless of his actions. You need only learn how to think, that is, ask and answer questions. In contrast, those military chaps are too ignorant to question even the most idiotic order given by a superior officer who was too ignorant too ever question any order, thus left amusingly stagnated.
The intellectual dark ages of our times are predicated on governments of inordinately ignorant people who kill therefore inherently more knowledgeable human minds and do not question their own actions, much to the howling laughter of observers. Become the latter. You will enjoy the genuine laughter.
No ability to recognize a solution... 5 October 2001
Precisely, what words would you use to describe the reaction of each of the 53 armed United States federal law enforcement agencies, including the military branches and their commander, the intelligence agencies, and the whole gaggle including the new Office of Homeland Security Gestapo, and thus that many letter-opening staff, if each of them received a letter to their main office address, offering and verifying the most efficient and effective solution to the mission of each said agency? Is it not inherent by what caused each original contradiction, the human mind, that each resolution is readily available regardless of what other data you apply to the same device, the human mind, capable of resolving every contradiction it creates? Is it not inherent to the continued existence of manifest contradictions after all said agencies were created to resolve them, that the controlling flaw is either with each said agency's personnel, bottom to top, completely unable to create or recognize a verified solution offered to them, or therefore any other origin of each contradiction constitutes fundamentally more intelligent human minds who will therefore prevail within a species predicated on its mind? You may copy this and forward it to any person employed by said agencies, including those poor sad unthinking sorts in the military who are now as was I then, including even the vastly less thinking news journalists, to easily prove your answer. Each have been offered the verified solution, often, and therefore the knowledge useful to you is the proof that a power-damaged mind, by design, cannot regain the command of logic. The highly useful value to your mind is in it asking the questions to verify that controlling concept.
Wave the Flag... 6 October 2001
George Bush, Adolph Hitler and their ilk in most governments, intellectually absent that they are and were, achieved their embarrassing positions by learning a few basic political machinations. For example, at those times when a highly pedestaled politician is required to perform the task of a genuine leader, that is, to think, a task infinitely beyond any politician, he will tell his assistants to tell the people to wave the flag.
Adolph was a master at that tactic. He had more flags than Germans, and he spared no fabric for their size. George acquired an advantage. He has so many more Americans than Adolph had Germans, that even with many Americans holding the red, white and blue flag of the RepublicratDemocans in contempt, there are still millions of flags to wave.
One of the proofs of the intellectual dark ages in which these humans still illogically mire themselves by their own choice, is the ease with which institutional leaders can lead humans even to their deaths, and more easily render them as unthinking sorts too ignorant to question what the leaders are doing, simply by waving the flag. So void of thinking ability are many of these humans, you can cause their fervent pride in one moment, and cause their fervent rage in the next moment, just by changing the colors on the rectangular scrap of fabric called a flag, that you then wave. No difference in action, but a dramatic difference in response, while thinking people will recognize no difference in the action, and will be amused by the illogical responses of unthinking people. Unthinking humans respond more robotically than trained rats, and never think to ask a question about the obvious contradiction in following a flapping flag instead of utilizing reasoning. It is only for that reason that ignorant sorts such as the US DemocanRepublicrats, the Afghanistan Taliban, their predecessors and successors, can successfully occupy the titled positions of government, much to the robust laughter of commonly intelligent humans watching the show.
If the leader of your country faced a genuine leadership responsibility, would you want him to think, or tell you to wave the flag? Is not the leader the person whose responsibility it is to think? If your leader or his minions told you to wave the flag, as a solution to a contradiction, would he not thereby prove that he was unable to think, and would you not have to be equally ignorant to keep following him? If events caused the news journalists to encounter their primary responsibility to belatedly ask the questions that cause public officials to belatedly think, would you want those journalists to think enough to recognize such questions, or tell you to wave the flag? If you could recognize that your country's leaders and the entire news media obviously could not think, and instead encouraged people to wave the flag, would you spend your time buying a flag and hanging it out for display, or start thinking, that is, asking the questions about the contradictions of waving the flag instead of thinking? Did the Nazi German people think, or mindlessly wave the flag on cue? What did the Americans do when they were recently attacked by some people who used their time to think rather than wave flags? Precisely who, by name, pandered and supported the rhetorical illusion which caused Americans to suddenly buy a few million American flags and lapel pin flags, many of them made in communist China?
If your enemy saw you respond to the results of their thinking, by unquestioningly waving your flag instead of thinking, would you not encourage your enemy with the proof that you are doomed to defeat if they just keep doing what they are already doing? Is that not what you would recognize if your enemy waved his flag instead of thought more extensively (ask and answer questions they had not yet asked and answered) in response to the results of your thinking?
If your leaders already proved their failure to think sufficiently, such as by a foreign group successfully bombing your financial center and military headquarters, would they not wisely seek the inherently more extensive thinking ability of the citizens, rather than tell the citizens to wave the flag?
Do you support leaders who obviously do not ask such questions, and thus know only how to wave the flag and imprison anyone suspected of not waving the right flag?
Consider that your task was to out-think an enemy who did what no entire military force of any power had prior achieved, an enemy so intelligent that it could achieve historic military success with no need for a country or national government of its own, no need for an Air Force, jets, bombers, bombs, no Navy, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines, or Army, tanks, Divisions of soldiers, cannons, missiles or rifles, no need for a massive military budget, no costly weapons research and development, no expensive parades or ceremonies, not even a flag, nothing of the massively expensive military machinery stagnating and dragging down all the idiot governments squandering the labor of their people on bombs and tanks.
Would it not be as obvious as daylight that your task was indeed to out-think an enemy who had out-thought you, that your task was to think, that is, ask and answer questions that no one in your entire military, political and consultant structure had ever asked and answered, by manifest proof?
What is your answer to that question? Use it, because no one in the entire United States government can successfully answer the question or use the correct answer. Your mind is on its own in a world of national leaders universally too ignorant to think beyond the use of guns and bombs, and other institutional leaders too ignorant to devise the process to achieve their espousals. And your mind is capable of resolving every contradiction created by humans, by design, regardless of opposition, if you wish to do so, much to your resulting amusement.
So where would you go to find someone capable of such thinking, since your military, political and consultant structure had already proven that you have no such person or ability within that system?
Ya'll let me know now when you want to learn how to promptly defeat institutional enemies, such as terrorists or whoever the current enemy is of whichever military or government waving whatever flag instead of thinking. The process to think more extensively than the other guy is just knowledge. Anyone can learn it. You need only start the effort rather than egotistically defend your current failure.
In the same manner as the leaders of ETC (ETC Page), it is beyond the comprehension of the US or any government officials to even imagine that someone outside their institution could possibly hold any questions or answers not invented inside their inherently failed government institution. And besides, anyone outside their institution could be a terrorist, or a spy, or an enemy, not to be trusted or listened to. All institutions first defend themselves from everyone outside the institution, cutting themselves off from precisely the knowledge they need to synthesize with their own to advance beyond what they know, a brilliantly designed concept that fatally flaws the goals of everyone in institutions, much to the howling laughter of those who ask the questions to discover the proof.
You can email this to the finest minds at the United States Air Force Academy, the Army's West Point, the Navy's Annapolis, the President's Pentagon, the President himself, Congress, their most credentialed consultants and think-tanks, the best talking heads of the entire United States of American government, their allies, their enemies, their news journalists and the neighbors, and laugh yourself to tears as will those in the near-enough future when intellectual technology has become the norm, and school children read about the Neanderthal subspecies using guns, bombs and majority votes for laws backed with police guns to rule nations back at the turn of the century.
Imagine, in 2001, after the test of time was concluded so long ago so many times, government sorts still thinking that they can resolve a contradicted concept inherently independent of any specific humans, by killing humans to thus create the greatest human contradiction whose resolution is inescapable. Are these humans a hoot, or what?
The wisdom of Osama's words... 7 October 2001
If there were a simple arrangement of impartial words expressing categorical truth, with which you inherently agreed, and by circumstance they identified wisdom directly applicable to current events, would not a wise leader, or even an incompetent leader with at least one wise adviser anywhere near him, state those words?
If your enemy, merely another human with an identical brain design, states a categorical truth everyone recognizes, would you deny the truth because your enemy expressed it?
This is a test of your intelligence, that all government chaps and their institutional advisors will obviously fail, much to your amusement.
Notice that the below quote constitutes categorical truth that only the most unthinking sort will not recognize.
Imagine if George Bush wanted to jerk the political rug out from under Osama bin Laden instead of reinforcing Osama's support every day, or if Osama wanted to jerk the political rug out from under George instead of reinforcing George's support every day. Both George and Osama need war to advance their petty personal power, and neither comprehend the utility of knowledge to advance their genuine leadership. Notice the below referenced opportunity that neither of those gentlemen or their advisors can recognize even if they read these words.
Osama bin Laden is recently quoted as stating this inescapable truth: To Americans I say I swear by God the great, America will never taste security and safety unless we feel security and safety in our lands and in Palestine.
Americans will never escape that truth, and if they kill Osama, there will therefore be more Osama's to manifest that truth, by inescapable design of the human phenomenon.
You cannot kill a concept by killing any humans, and more so for a controlling concept as is the above. For you to kill humans in the futile attempt to kill a concept only creates enemies who will kill you in retaliation for your murderous idiocy.
And because institutional sorts think like George and Osama, they are delighted to kill your children and neighbors, or you for the actions of other people. They just want to kill a bunch of people to soothe their personal frustration, because their power-damaged minds cannot synthesize complex data or even basic data to resolve simple contradictions. Among power-damaged minds, such as all institutional leaders, each of whom claims to be a recognized individual, you are just whatever category of people power uses for its existence. You are not an individual human to those sorts. Power-damaged minds cannot work with detailed data. The related neural receptors are blocked. And any indication that you can think outside your politically assigned category identifies you as a more dangerous enemy to institutions.
Now imagine if the US had an intelligent President instead of a RepublicratDemocan. Would he not have easily pulled the political rug out from under Osama, and galvanized Arab world support behind American leadership, if he had stated the inescapable truth: To Americans I say I swear by God the great, America will never taste security and safety unless Arabs feel security and safety in Arab lands and in Palestine? Is the answer not, Yes?
Does that not include Russians, Chinese, Chechens, Afghans, Africans, Jim Smith and all other humans by category and individual name, by design of the human mind? Which individual human needs less safety than you need? If you cannot name him for his and the world's judgment, you are as ignorant as George Bush and his thugs.
Failing the ability to think of such things, when Osama thought of it first for only his side of the proverbial coin, would not Bush have seized the Arab people's overwhelming respect as the greater leader of impartial justice by quickly stating that he agreed with that inescapable truth? Would not other world leaders wish they held the intelligence and courage to express such wisdom and great leadership?
But of course, the RepublicratDemocans are clueless of how to manifest such obvious wisdom, ignorant of how to create such security and safety, despite its ease, and are enraged at even the expression of truth. The zenith of their thinking ability, and that of all their advisors, is their insatiable goal to bomb, kill or imprison humans who think more, and are thus more beneficial to the people than are the mental midget political leaders. Bush bombs, and literally cannot figure out why more people in the world want to kill Americans. Bush and his thugs genuinely believe that whoever is anywhere near where Bush wants to incessantly drop bombs, needs no safety or security. He thinks identically as Osama. Bush and the American sorts who think they can kill their way to solutions for problems, can't figure out why Arab people even under so called allied governments of equally corrupted leaders being temporarily paid off with American tax dollars, flock to the streets to shout, Death to Americans. There will be more such rightful shouts to kill Americans as US DemocanRepublicrats bomb their way around the world to lazily avoid the simple task of thinking beyond Neanderthal and Osama conclusions.
Politicians conclude that social safety and security constitutes what Adolph Hitler most clearly displayed, more armed Gestapo spying on everyone in society, with suspects who are politically decreed to be enemy classes of people, somehow methodically disappearing, outside the rule of law. That process has begun with the DemocanRepublicrat US Office of Homeland Security Gestapo, already having arrested over 600 people in the few days since it was created, and hunting down more politically profiled suspects whose rights have been summarily suspended by the new American Gestapo. Every bureaucracy grows, and you Homeland folks are now suspects. Government personnel cannot comprehend process based on the human mind's design rather than the threat of bullets, bombs and prisons. How do you and Arabs, and all humans, react to the maliciously wielded threat of bullets, bombs and prisons? Enjoy the reaction against Americans, by Americans and every human whose mind is of your design.
The US Office of Homeland Security Gestapo, an office of tax paid armed terrorists operating outside of law within the US, is Osama's greatest and most brilliant, US funded achievement, which will more thoroughly destroy security and safety in the US, than any achievable foreign terrorists, much to the amusement of observers. In Osama's above-referenced words, is truth extending far beyond the comprehension of the US RepublicratDemocan chaps. You are always your own more devastating enemy. Until you learn that concept to the extent of its utility, you are stuck with the US Office of Homeland Security Gestapo and what it will do to you and your children at your increased tax cost. Adolph murdered 6 million Jews and 7 million non-Jew Germans with an armed bureaucracy having a central office name very similar to the Office of Homeland Security. Identical to the Nazis, American government leaders react to hate with more murderous hate rather than using their mind to out-think the concept and process of hate.
The greater number of non-Jew Germans murdered by the German Gestapo reveals the naivete of non-Arab Americans who foolishly think as did the Germans. Human history clearly reveals that the greatest damage done to humans was done by each society's own government, while naive sorts still believe their government. There is no power that does not corrupt, and power cannot exist without fabricating convenient enemies to incessantly attack. To your government, you are the enemy class, while your government successfully lies to gullible chaps. The DemocanRepublicrats literally cannot comprehend that their goal is to resolve a contradiction rather than amplify it by killing and imprisoning more people.
Now imagine if the Arab Muslims had an intelligent leader instead of hate-filled chaps emulating the American standard of killing rather than out-thinking enemies. Would he not have easily embarrassed Bush and galvanized American support behind Arab leadership if he had stated the inescapable truth: To Arabs I say I swear by God the great, the Arab world will never taste security and safety unless Americans feel security and safety in their lands.
But of course there are no Arab leaders who know how to manifest such obvious wisdom. They could as easily learn the simple process, offering Americans more safety, security and social advancement than the RepublicratDemocans can offer, to the extent of promptly making a fool of the obviously ignorant American leaders, in front of Americans and the rest of the world, easily collapsing the Washington DC government, but the Arab leaders will not learn such wisdom, for the same reason Bush and his boys will not learn any wisdom. The power-damaged human mind cannot regain the command of logic, by design, or power could not exist in the face of reasoning. The power-damaged mind is incapable of questioning its own conclusions to advance the flawless portion of those conclusions to the utility that enemy leaders cannot escape, leaving the originator of that particular process for any particular goals as the acknowledged leader of the people. Notice who can, and who cannot understand these words.
If it were otherwise, guns and bombs would be cartoon concepts ridiculing the previous humans, and humans would instead be utilizing their unlimited minds. Amusingly, when it becomes so, soon enough for an intriguing reason, humans will be able to recognize that the knowledge had been available the entire time, promptly manifestable, for the asking, much to the robust laughter of observers. Which next war created by mental midgets in government and institutional leadership positions did you want to preclude? What value do you ascribe to the minds of your children, that they recognize of you with great disappointment?
Resolution process example... 9 October 2001
Consider a person who, when the issue is discussed, acknowledges on record that no human can get something for nothing, and even emphasizes that immutable fact to display his wisdom. That is one of the primary controlling concepts.
Of course there are many people who are not so wise, foolish sorts who think they can get something for nothing. Such people were asleep or smoking some of the more prestigious cannabis during their high school science classes and most of the rest of life wherein that lesson is among the more consistently taught. There is a cost, balance, or equal and opposite reaction, to every action. The inescapable cost becomes due at acquisition of any benefit. If one attempts to evade the cost, it will usually be extracted by designed circumstance at a time when the benefited party can least afford it, and at an increased amount to pay for the inherent cost of the delay. Time is among the more valuable commodities, and thus costs much. A wise person pays for all benefits up-front, when the cost equals the benefit. The verifiable, itemized process of the payment for evaded costs is well beyond the comprehension of unwise persons, or they would be wise.
Now note that human minds have exponential difficulty synthesizing an increasing number of variables, by design. It is easy to add two and two, but more difficult to add an increasing number of varied numbers. Extend that concept to concepts, and the human mind has difficulty synthesizing even two concepts, yet alone the number involved with common human-caused contradictions. But the process to synthesize concepts is the same as adding varied numbers. It is done two at a time. Each contradiction is resolved, and the resolution used for the next thus-identified contradiction and its identical resolution process.
The majority of people who openly acknowledge that one cannot get something for nothing, which is a concept, will contradict their conclusion and blindly act on their contradiction, at the addition of even one further contradiction, rather than resolve it to conform with the first conclusion or disprove it. You will not disprove the concept that you cannot get something for nothing. The addition of yet one more contradiction will trap the remainder of the people, except for a very few people who have easily learned how to synthesize an unlimited array of identified contradictions, as you can learn herein. The primary explanation for the inability to synthesize a second or third contradiction is in said minds promptly forgetting the first conclusion in the course of discussing the next concept. Concepts are described in multiple words, not a single number, and the mind must therefore deal with numerous items, each word or sentence identifying only a portion of the new concept, thus forgetting the words of the original conclusion. Do not flatter yourself to think otherwise of your mind. You cannot escape the design of the mind, but you can learn how it works and then use that knowledge.
Now note that human minds, yours, mine and everyone's, attempt to find the shortest path between data and a conclusion. That is a controlling concept, both biologically and conceptually. Your mind will always strive for the quickest and easiest answer. But the attempt to manifest that easy answer will identify the involved difficulties or contradictions, each of which must be resolved. A wise person will first learn how to identify and resolve those difficulties before he attempts to manifest the easy answer, to thus pay up-front with the thinking process, rather than pay later with the results of utilizing action before thought. Therein he discovers the more difficult-to-find answer, the one which will prevail. Did you want the answer you most quickly identified, or the one which will work? Your choice. What is the value of the answer that works? What is the price you will pay in thinking-time?
Consider a related analogy. The path between the base of a mountain and the summit, holds a greater variety of more difficult obstacles than the path between your house and the grocery store, which is why fewer people climb mountains than go to the grocery store. Because the convenience of many people became an issue with reaching the store, the original difficulties were resolved. The difficulties in reaching the useless mountain summit were not resolved for groups of people, and left to the questionable sorts who wish to pursue such frivolity. And the mountain climbers leave the difficulties in place, rather than construct conveniences, to thus leave each next climber with the task of learning the knowledge to overcome those difficulties. The grocery shopper gets a sidewalk where the climber gets the knowledge of overcoming obstacles.
The mountain climber will select a route to the summit of a mountain, and will then often encounter more difficulties than he first recognized from his distant view. He then uses his mind to resolve those difficulties when he encounters them, or fails to reach the summit for lack of adequate knowledge, which is why not all climbers reach the summit each time they set out for the pursuit. As the climber learns new climbing skills, usually from practice, he commonly attempts more difficult routes, and sometimes reaches the summit on those routes. He acquires only more knowledge, since he leaves the summit there even when he reaches it.
Take special note of the fact that the climber will often divert from his or her intended route, by varied distances, to go around specific difficulties. If he diverts even an inch from the originally intended route, and more often several feet, to avoid a difficulty, he has modified his action to accommodate a lack of skill or time, thus logically resolving that contradiction but learning less knowledge of the greater difficulty, and concurrently be subject to successful question of his originally described route.
Consider the first ascent of the west ridge of Mt. Hayes in the Alaska Range, which is described in other words as a new route climbed on Mt. Hayes otherwise climbed several times. Notice the image difference between the two accurate sets of words for the same action. We stayed directly on the ridge, at great difficulty, after we gained the primary portion of it by a short-cut up into a cirque and up a headwall. But our choice of the route thereafter directly on the ridge was only for lack of noticing an easier section about 100 feet to the left of a certain dicey section. Another party utilized the easier section. But they had not used our short-cut into the cirque, and gained the ridge lower down, encountering more difficulty for that section. But a more accurate analysis of our route exposes the fact that we diverted about fifty feet to the left for the rather dicey spot on the ridge, our route still dicey but not really directly on the ridge as previously stated. An overhanging rime bulge was tenuously clinging to rotten rock, so we diverted over to some better ice smeared on the same crumbling rock in a slight gully, for twenty feet or so. Notice the number of variables therein. The commonly accepted generality is that we climbed the west ridge, a great new route impressing those easily impressed, as would have the other chaps if one of their crampons hadn't broken adjacent to that same difficulty where they therefore retreated. But if there was reason to climb the precise line of the ridge, bottom to top, it awaits its first ascent.
The cost of claiming the useless first ascent of the west ridge, if anyone cared, is paid by the concurrent acknowledgement that it was a slight variation of the route, thus not a precisely referenced first ascent of that route. That is an easily paid cost of a few extra words compared to any foolish ego trip which could later be demonstrated as technically false to thus call into question all of our climbing claims.
Consider social decisions of vastly greater consequences, to include even wars, foolishly flawed by people who do not think so accurately, from lack of learning and practice, and who then attach the decisions to the defense of personal or institution ego, who thus cause vast damages as the cost of needlessly clinging to fundamentally flawed concepts.
But first note that climbers challenging new routes have progressively learned how to prevail against greater difficulties, over time, and have shared that knowledge via words. The sum of many verbal or written descriptions and many manifested attempts at more difficult routes has created a profound result in sum. Mountain climbers are now climbing what was thought impossible only a few decades ago, as with many other human advancements. What was the process therein to advance human ability? And notice the immutable test. The mountain will not change for the human. The human must learn new knowledge, or fail.
Further note that some mountaineering difficulties seem objectively beyond the control of climbers, such as weather, avalanches, flawed equipment and a gradient of other factors not usually identified with the overt image of a climber's physical ability. But a more detailed examination reveals that in each case each difficulty can be resolved in a manner to first maintain the existing standard and then improve it by some aspect no matter how minor, in relation to an identified difficulty. Then note that an extremely obscure and minor improvement in some aspect can open the opportunity to make a huge advancement. The great advancements in mountain climbing and all other human activities or knowledge were predicated on a previous new synthesis of data, usually obscure and not credited. Which mountain climbers acknowledge the exact extent of current climbing standards created by the replacement of wool for insulation and oil-soaked cotton for rain coats, with synthetic fabrics developed by non-climbers? Crampons, originally quite primitive in construction, are a recent invention in human history. Without any new human skill other than making crampons, they conveniently opened the world of sloped hard snow to humans looking for what could be seen there up close.
Just as they sometimes generalize their routes into more than they are, mountain climbers routinely fail to identify the invention of crampons as the controlling concept in their expressions of great mountaineering prowess, just as politicians more consistently fail to identify the economic labor of the common people as the overwhelming, controlling concept for that which the dishonest political hacks routinely take credit. A wise politician would consistently and accurately state that the people have done well despite the problems created by the politician. Such a politician would therefore increase his wisdom, teach himself to reduce the problems he creates, and become the most respected leader in political history. There are no wise politicians, and cannot be, by definition. If any mountain climber rhetorically flatters his ability, ask him if he would duplicate the climb of Otzi the Iceman 5,000 years ago in the Alps, with the same gear and clothing.
As an aside, intellectual technology, not unlike crampons and any invention, a currently obscure process inherent to the human mind's design, is what will soon enough illuminate the efficient solutions to all human-caused problems. And that is only a portion of its utility. Those who utilize it will achieve astonishing things by today's standards, and not recognize its controlling part of their achievements.
The first ascent of the west ridge, or any route, of Mt. Hayes, or any mountain, is not important, as is the case with all human actions. But consider some newly discovered concept of great value that might make the climbing of that route or any other action of great importance after the fact. Then consider that a prior decision which created that importance was based on that first ascent of a route. The incentive to discuss the technical accuracy of climbing the route therefore might legitimately come to the forefront after it was earlier treated as not important. Now consider that an aspect of personal or institutional ego is added to the reason for the great importance. The climber who deviated a few feet from the route but did not mention the fact because it was not of any importance, might face a new incentive to claim the benefit of what was not done, but not hold the knowledge of that more difficult section when said knowledge was imperative as a cost to manifest the new concept. What is a climber to do?
Therein a rational belief was established and entrenched in the minds of many people, for years or even generations or millennium depending upon the example, based on a generality with a flaw of so little importance that nobody considered it to be a flaw. So-and-so made the first ascent of the west ridge. But then an entirely unforeseen new concept resultant from normally advancing knowledge, called into question the generality. Does the generality prevail, or the technicality? If the generality prevails, the therefore inaccurate use of words for communication flaws all human decisions and conclusions. Therein, one or the other of the resultant contradictions must prevail, the generality and thus the negating of the usefulness of words, or the technicality and thus the retention of the usefulness of words. The technicality inherently prevails, and the attempt to sustain the generality creates 100% of the resulting, exponentially expanding problems, or you could express no concepts of value for lack of value in your words.
Mathematicians recognize that concept, and institutionally brag about their ability to accurately communicate complex concepts through finite numbers. Poor chaps. The accuracy of that single conclusion useful for individual minds was inaccurately utilized by the institution of mathematicians to train their minds to therefore be more careless with other words, negating the greater utility of math and the usefulness of their own minds which function in words for daily pursuits. The same concept is at play with lawyers, who are taught that law is inherently predicated on the immutable meanings of written words, but were institutionally fooled into thinking that only they could ascertain those meanings for other humans, thus replacing the meanings of words with the institutional power-based decisions of therefore illogically trained minds holding government lawyer licenses. If words hold immutable meanings, and dictionaries exist, lawyers are superfluous to written law. In fact that is the case when you learn intellectual technology, much to the confusion and rage of lawyers.
The controlling contradiction is identified as the institutions which separate the individual mind's institutional illusion from the mind's originally designed process. Mountain climbers who become involved with mountaineering clubs often display the same contradiction, institutionally puffing up their ego as mountain climbers, unable to recognize that, because a mountain cannot be distinguished from a hill, a mountain climber is any human who can put one foot in front of and above the other on sloped ground, hang on and not fall over too often. Fortunately, in America, mountain climbers are considered as useless, while in Europe they are considered as great athletes, but Europe got the better deal, because Europeans belatedly recognize their politicians as useless, while the naive Americans not only slaveringly praise their ignorant DemocanRepublicrat politicians, they send them so much money they can wage Wag The Dog wars around the world, including against Americans, instead of thinking.
Again, because everything following, hinges on your current conclusion, what prevails for the event of importance, the generalized and flawed claim of making the first ascent of the ridge, or the accuracy of the words involved that must surrender the claim as stated? The answer is definitive. It is the accuracy of the words for humans using words to define concepts upon which decisions are made. Even US Supreme Court justices, who are nothing more than self-deluded lawyers who more avidly supported a dishonest political party to scam a judge appointment, who claim that the exact meaning of the words in written law must prevail for society to live under the rule of written law rather than the whim of personalities with government jobs, do not understand the concept of the previous sentence, for a reason shortly mentioned. Nor do any other institutional chaps. Their claims to the contrary cannot prevail against the meaning of the words they use. You might read that again.
If the claim is to have climbed the ridge, the flaw of deriving a benefit from the claim without learning how to overcome the precise difficulties on every inch of the exact ridge itself, constitutes a contradiction for which the balance shall be paid, without escape. There is nothing so important in the universe that can sustain any contradiction without resolution at some point in time. That point of time will always arrive before the preference of the unwise person who attempted to derive the benefit of a claim without paying the cost.
Now, what do you therein recognize for achieving heretofore unachieved goals highly desired by humans? Is not progressively greater accuracy applied to progressively greater knowledge, derived from doing what was not prior done? Which simple question either not prior asked and answered, or simply not remembered at a new decision point, can resolve a contradiction and open exponential opportunities? Can you get something for nothing? Will your mind remember your verified answer at the moment it is needed to resolve a seemingly unrelated contradiction? Will you see the easier route a hundred feet to the left if you are focused on the currently impossible one at your nose? Which questions do you ask outside your current focus, to make your vision more useful? Will you see the move that overcomes the impossible when an easier route to the left attracts you to what has already been done? Do you physically ask questions, to thus find answers not found by other people? Which of these questions did you physically answer to thus advance your mind's recognition of the related knowledge?
Next notice that humans are first, a large animal species, therein acting in designed accordance to sustain that biological phenomenon, and then they amusingly flatter themselves with their mind. You cannot overcome the design dictates of being an animal species merely by mouthing the words that you are something more. That rhetorical claim creates no adequate balance to the designed results of animal functioning. You must train your mind to be and do something more. Said training can create the balance, that is, pay the cost of being something more.
Therein recognizing that a mountain climber cannot climb what has not been climbed before because of its difficulty, without learning something new, and then cannot usefully claim what he did not do, consider a related analogy for the same concept, to preclude a possible error.
A successful businessman recognizes that he cannot successfully buy what he cannot afford in cash or the ability to repay a debt from his efforts at managing borrowed money. You might recognize the same immutable truth. If you attempt the criminal's or politician's belief in a utility of deceit, go back to square one because you will end up there anyway.
Now therefore we move to the consideration of government and other institutional chaps, their minds, how they trained their minds, and the results. Recognizably in relation to government, and existent but less recognizably in relation to all other institutions, the minds of government chaps identify a goal, then take the shortest path to it. When they encounter the inherent difficulties, routinely created by humans because government deals with human-origin concepts, while citizens deal with many non-human origin concepts such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing of physical items, etcetera, rather than resolve the difficulties within the design parameters of the human, government chaps consistently defy the human design by futily attempting to force humans to conform to a non-human design. Force is mutually exclusive to the human mind's process. Unlike the mountain climber who upon encountering a difficulty, deviates from the route and stands accountable for the deviation, or learns a new skill to maintain the original course, because the mountain offers no alternative, that is, it cannot be forced, the government chaps, inherently ignorant of how to sustainably achieve any goal, consistently deviate from the route of their original description and deny it, and cannot maintain the originally described course because they refuse to learn any new knowledge because they can instead utilize the seemingly easy or short-path option of imprisoning or killing anyone whom the government sorts foolishly perceive as causing the difficulty. Worse, the contradiction is fully manifested at the outset, since the government, the manifestation of the greatest achievable human ignorance, offering no service or product the citizens will freely purchase in a competitive market, proven by the forced government monopoly, steals its income under the rhetorical illusion of taxation imposed under threat of prison or death if citizens do not pay the taxes. Government sorts steal their benefits up-front, by force, and intractably believe that there will never be a cost. That they are infinitely more ignorant than private enterprise criminals is obvious by their belief that their actions conform to law.
No government agent, especially lawyers and US Supreme Court justices, can publicly identify what law is and how it works. The proof is flawless and available. Other people can, and sustain the definition against every question. Can a written law alter the design of human ability? What do those politicians tell you will result from the laws they are writing? What is proven by the silence of Supreme Court justices while those laws are being written, while you can publicly answer these questions? After writing the answers to these questions, why would you ever do anything but robustly laugh at politicians, lawyers, judges, and their unquestioning police and military who cowardly flee rather than answer these questions?
If mountain climbers could derive all the benefits of climbing mountains, without leaving their bar stools, and sincerely believed that no cost would ever come due, all the mountains would be available for their first ascents. You will never escape the human design, nor will those unthinking sorts who were attracted to government jobs. The least cost of forced taxation is all the government employees living their entire lives as nothing more than useless comic characters for the idle amusement of observers. That is the least of the cost, and even that is vastly beyond their understanding, while the human mind is capable of far more than you might remotely imagine. Nothing is sustainable from the human use of force. If all you want is a material gain, you can be a cow and grow leather for human shoes. For what did you wish to use a human mind?
Simply resolve every contradiction you identify from asking questions, as you would add a long series of numbers, including negative numbers. Notice when and how you accommodate your inherent inability to remember the current sum, and use the same process for the current conclusion of your questions. Is that not the process of writing your current conclusion, each sub-total, and subjecting it to the next question?
Do not stop short of your originally described goal, even if you must find more numbers or questions which are available to you, or instead openly describe a new goal and claim it if you can sustain it against everyone else's questions or numbers. Be cautious in changing your goal if you derived benefits for the process of seeking the original goal, which is why a wise person does not accept benefits for that which he has not yet learned how to conclude to the full satisfaction of those providing the benefits. If you are thus caught by your error of acting before thinking, pay the price due at that moment, because your original goal is otherwise unachievable, and your benefit becomes a cost due. You will never get something for nothing.
What would you learn in concept from first ascents of mountains and routes in the Alaska Range, in the winter, among other such leading-edge tests of human ability and thinking against humanly immutable challenges? Which concepts are immutable by design of the human, and how would you ascertain those concepts? What of your own ability and thinking would you have to advance to achieve what others could not achieve because they failed or refused to learn something new?
What would you learn if you wrote everything on the Related Concepts pages of www.think.ws, and made it public for the questioning of any mind in the world, and challenged anyone to find a contradiction in the words? How would you have therein trained your mind?
Which seemingly impossible goal would you like to learn how to promptly achieve, regardless of the magnitude? It is too easy. It is just a process of the human mind, a simple contradiction resolution process.
End of Intech Concepts 11
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