Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 20
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


The flaw of the US in Iraq, and how to use it... 20 July 2004

The following again expresses what you may have read in other sections of this website, but this time the words are arranged for the utility of certain minds which would like to defeat or destroy the United States government. Therefore this expressed knowledge becomes useful for the minds which would like to defend the US government from such an attempt.

The greater utility of these words is for the minds learning about each of those two thought patterns within the design of the human mind.

Anyone may reference these words to al Qaeda, the Iraqi resistance fighters, other Muslim folks, Bush's other evildoers, or to the US Department of Homeland Security Gestapo and their unquestioning supporters. You may therefore laugh, in that none of them can understand these plain words, even if you hand those chaps a dictionary, as you can easily verify with your effective questions.

These words are impartial to all people and their institutions. These words may benefit you and your goals, if you ask the questions that verify or disprove the involved concepts, for the new knowledge your questions will convey to your mind.

To double your knowledge from reading, in regard to contradictions created by humans, patiently read the same arrangements of words after you exercise the effort to adopt an intense desire to manifest your opponent's perceived goals, to thus attempt to genuinely defeat yourself. Therein you can identify your flaws that your enemy recognizes and may successfully use to defeat you, so that you can correct your flaws to deprive him of his advantage. Fail to do that, and your flaws will ultimately defeat you regardless of your enemy. You cannot have an enemy if you create no contradictions, and your contradictions are easily resolved.

Observers of humans enjoy the show produced by people who hastily act on their flaws that they could have easily resolved by simply asking a few questions. Those flaws, or contradictions, are that which facilitates the enemy's victories.

When I write, my words often anger both sides of any conflict, because the words convey knowledge useful for resolving the conflict. If the conflict exists, it is because each of the opponents prefer to do what they are doing, and do not want to learn anything else, which maintains the conflict. The conflict, or contradiction, could not otherwise exist. These words benefit those who would prefer to resolve the conflict, to their satisfaction.

I am an Alaskan, previously an American. You may notice that I do not speak highly of the Americans, for expressed reasons that you may question to ascertain their merits.

Is there anything herein that is not verifiable as true?

This is what the American adults will not learn, for the reason illuminated herein.

Among other things, as a magnificent learning vehicle, stated yet again, I was previously a US Army, airborne, ranger, infantry officer, aviator, Vietnam veteran.

I was therefore an idiot. I fought for a governmental system which only idiots would attempt to institute in their country, or maintain. Under the usual American government propaganda, similar to the propaganda of other governments, simpleton lies designed to sustain, rather than resolve, contradictions, the actual functioning of the American government illuminates a destructive, doomed system, easily defeated. The contradictions between what American government personnel say, and what they verifiably do, are so extensive that they define the least intelligent society in human history, one not long for continued survival. The suggestion can prevail against all questions.

What is done prevails above what is said, as any commonly intelligent person recognizes. Is that not so?

The current US government leaders violated the Law of Nations by initiating war against Iraq, and militarily occupying Iraq. The same law was violated for the previous US military attacks against Afghanistan, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea and certain other nations. The US Constitution expressly recognizes the Law of Nations.

In addition to criminally violating the Law of Nations, the US leaders criminally violated the US constitution which grants only congress, not the president, the authority to declare and thus initiate war. The constitutional process to declare war, as an accountable declaration under law and its process, was designed to create more questioning and therefore more reasoning that would preclude unnecessary or unreasoned wars which inherently cause more damage than benefit.

Consider an analogy. If bank robbers formally declared their intent to rob banks, with a signed declaration for public record and subsequent accountability, would there not be fewer bank robberies? But if congressmen can slither around such a declaration for war, using deniable rhetorical devices with ambiguous terms that can be said to mean something else, is it not inherent that more wars will be started?

There was no US congressional declaration of war against Iraq, or several other nations against which the US initiated war. The ego-based presidential decisions to start the wars could not be sustained against accountable questions and liability of record under written law, so the wars were based on insatiable power and personal ego, void of reasoning process. This demonstrates that America is an increasingly irrational and dangerous threat to the world, ignoring its own highest laws that were designed by wiser people to create reasoning process.

All of the propaganda and rhetorical tap dancing designed to fool fools into thinking that the actions were lawful, not criminal, fail against the meanings of the words that Americans say are their highest laws of the land. The contradictions were created by the actions contradicting the words.

The actions of Saddam Hussein are immaterial because Iraq did not attack or threaten to attack the US. The rhetorical illusions to the contrary fool only fools who have not yet leaned how to ask effective questions of the contradictions they express.

The Law of Nations was written from the many lessons of history, wisely recognizing that the use of force between nations only creates more enemies who then use force to retaliate, furthering wars and conflicts which damage the advancement of nations. Wise humans, perhaps yourself among them, and certainly not the war mongering US presidents, recognize that wars embarrass the reasoning ability of the human mind. If not for the ability of their mind, why were humans invented?

The Law of Nations, and common sense, recognize that no society has developed a perfect governmental system, especially for diverse cultures, and that the people of each society must learn to solve their own problems from their own mistakes, because outside intervention creates retaliation that only extends any problems. Because the human mind is based on reasoning, not bombs, the process to advance better governmental systems, is to display the benefits of any particular system, for the test of time and each society's analysis in regard to its own social knowledge. The process of starting wars and bombing other nations which do not adopt your form of government because they recognize your governmental flaws that you fail to recognize, is more destructive than the process of patience and learning from shared knowledge.

Law, as a useful instrument for social governance, conforms to the highest human reasoning without need for the use of force, or law is merely military or police decree of armed mental midgets.

It is an aside to note that Saddam Hussein criminally violated the Law of Nations when he attacked Kuwait, but he may not have violated Iraqi law if Iraq did not recognize the Law of Nations. The reaction of Kuwait's allies was lawful, in defense against an act of war, and resolved that contradiction to the satisfaction of the involved nations, or they would not have concluded the process before bringing Saddam to the World Court.

Also, Saddam may have violated Iraq laws by his apparent murdering of Iraqis, but that is a matter for Iraqis, not Americans, just as the American government's criminal slaughter of the Dividian Christian women and children in their Church at Waco Texas, is a matter for the repugnant Americans, not Iraqis or any other nation.

To mention that Iraq may have held weapons of mass destruction, as a reason for Americans to attack Iraq, if your mind is sufficiently intelligent to use words that hold their meaning, more greatly legitimizes the 2001 attack against the US in New York City, because the US verifiably holds huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and has used such weapons. The utility of reasoning and law is predicated on words that hold their meaning, and their equal application. Any unequal application in the name of reasoning or law is a fool's illusion fooling only fools. Are you a fool? Apply your answer to your decisions and actions.

Therefore, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq (like that of Afghanistan) is fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail. The Americans violated laws that the Americans claim to honor, an untenable contradiction. The Americans are the unlawful invaders, aggressors and occupiers. No use of other words can prevail against the actions and the words that impartially describe them. It is not humanly possible for the US to achieve its espoused goals in Iraq. They are based on a contradicted premise, and therefore ultimately untenable.

The American and western news media's use of words which contradict their meanings, to attempt to describe the American invaders and their new Iraq government puppets as the legitimate government, and the resistance fighters as insurgents, fools only fools, and illuminates the Americans as functionally illiterate, with a useless language which does use words that hold their meanings. The Americans and their foreign allies are invaders and occupiers. The Iraqi resistance fighters and their allies are resistance fighters, or freedom fighters, opposing the invaders and occupiers. The dictionary meanings of the words ultimately prevail above the military power of the Americans. Is that not so?

The fact that many of America's puppet Iraq government selectees were already failures as Iraqi leaders, unable to figure out how to intellectually defeat Saddam among Iraqis, brought back to Iraq from other countries, at US taxpayer expense, on the US government payroll, is only an indicator among more controlling concepts.

More controlling, the US occupation of Iraq is currently sustained by the flaws of the Iraqi resistance fighters and their allies. It is their flaws, not their political position or intent, that sustain the US occupation. Do you not recognize that controlling concept, while institutionally thinking minds do not understand the substance of that sentence? The Iraq resistance leaders need only resolve their flaws, and they can promptly defeat the more extensively flawed American occupation forces. The Iraqi resistance leaders do not yet recognize their own flaws, or they would promptly resolve them. Those flaws are not what the American government suggests.

When facing a fundamentally flawed enemy, your greatest ally is your enemy's flaws, and your greatest enemy is your own flaws. Read that again, and learn how to use that knowledge. No American government leaders understand the substance of those words, as can be verified with certain questions. The American leaders are thus vulnerable. They cannot recognize their self-defeating flaws.

Now consider a typical American contradiction or flaw illuminating why only fools would adopt the American form of government. The knowledge can be used to design the process to sooner defeat the American occupation forces in Iraq, and more. This is just one example among many, but only one is necessary to learn how to use the knowledge.

The Americans loudly praise and claim to support their constitution which created and defines the United States government. It is the highest law of the United States, which no law or action may lawfully contradict, by expressed acknowledgement of Americans. The most emphasized clause of the US constitution, as was elsewhere repeatedly emphasized by the writers of the US constitution, is the right of the people to a trial by a jury of peers, when the government accuses a person of a crime or attempts to seize property.

That right has been described as the currently most brilliant device of law designed to prevent government tyranny and denial of citizen rights.

Therein the reasonably wise founders of the US government recognized that if a contradiction is identified as a crime, or as a desire to seize another person's property, the highest achievable reasoning to resolve the contradiction is that produced by the minds of a group of fellow humans of the same citizen status as the accused, and not by government minds inherently corrupted by government power. Is that not wise, despite the intense hatred of these words by power-damaged minds in government? Your answer? Between minds not corrupted by institutional power, and inherently equal minds of the same human design but inherently corrupted by their institutional titles and positions of power, inherently craving to increase their power, which minds will most often make the most logical decisions? To whom would you turn for an impartial decision in regard to a government accusation of crime, or its desire to seize property?

The citizen jury holds the authority to find a fellow citizen innocent, no matter how much lying, fraud, threats, fabrication of evidence, misrepresentation of laws, application of wrong laws, corruption of power, denials of rights, and other criminal tactics are routinely used by American government police, lawyers and politically appointed court judges to falsely accuse, seize property, imprison or execute citizens, to increase the power of insatiable government sorts, which is why the power-damaged minds of US government personnel, including court judges, hate jury trials, as proven by a pattern of government actions.

A right exists by the human mind's understanding of it. Rights are inherent to humans, and not lawfully separable by force. While privileges can be granted or denied, a right cannot be lawfully or logically denied, or lawfully declared to be a privilege, because a right is inherent to the existence of a human mind, and is superior to any legitimately devised authority of any other inherently equal human mind. A right cannot be granted because it already exists. Humans were designed as a single species. They are equal by design. If a right is held by Presidents, who are just common humans with an idiot's title, the right is held by every other human, including the least peasants. All the questions of the above cannot identify a sustainable conclusion in contradiction, as is easily verifiable.

While raw power can deny the free exercise of rights, reasoning cannot do so, defining the intellectual void of the mental midgets who use power to deny rights, such as American court judges.

Some governments do not recognize human rights, or they attempt to limit rights, in defiance of human reasoning ability. That is a matter for the people living under those governments. Many humans, especially government leaders, have not yet learned how to utilize the reasoning ability of the human mind, and therefore do not yet understand the concept and vast social benefits of human rights and thus individual freedom.

But the US constitution, the highest law of the United States, expressly recognizes rights, and also emphasizes certain rights, such as the right to a jury trial. There is no excuse for literate Americans to not understand, or to disobey, what their highest law of the land states in plain English words openly available to read.

The right to a jury trial, for a person accused of crime by the government, is now denied more often than it is granted by the American government's court judges. Therefore the law is routinely violated by court judges who are therefore criminals who have unquestioning, armed court security thugs at their command. American government security thugs ask as few questions as Saddam's thugs did, and routinely carry out unlawful orders for the sole identifiable purpose of increasing the raw, reasonless power of their government overlords.

One hundred percent of American court judges have been corrupted by their power of office, because every American court judge has criminally evaded his or her known legal duty to initiate due process of criminal law against their fellow court judges who have criminally denied jury trials. The prevailing laws and logic require that agents of government hold a priority duty to initiate due process of law upon recognition of evidence that a crime has been committed. Court records illuminate openly known evidence of countless denials of jury trials.

Officers of many governments routinely violate their laws in many ways. Those contradictions are a matter for the people living under those governments.

Notice that the American people do not resolve the contradiction of their court judges criminally violating the law of their constitution, to deny people the right to a jury trial, as well as other rights routinely denied at whim of American government officers. The American people do not put their law-violating court judges and government officers on trial for violations of the law, just as the people of Iraq did not initiate process of law against Saddam. The reasons are similar. The results are identical.

Should Iraq or China militarily invade the US because the US government leaders are evil, as proven and verifiable by their routinely malicious violations of laws, and because they openly deny human rights in America?

The primary purpose of written law, words on paper, which hold their meaning, is to replace the rule of inherently fallible personalities, with a reliable, more reasoned and accountable process for knowing what is lawful and not lawful, and thus protect the people from the unpredictable whims of government personnel. To exempt government personalities from obeying the laws that limit their power, as the Americans have done, negates any reason to use written law rather than use the rule of kings. Written laws making demands upon the citizens but from which the government officers are exempt, are not the rule of law, and are the rule of personalities with government jobs. To claim that society is under the rule of written law while the government administrators of law are exempt from obeying the law, is to define a society of idiots who do not have a useful language.

The rule of Saddam Hussein, an individual mind, is more logical and predictable than the rule of written law that is actually the decrees of thousands of American government officers who impose whatever decrees they wish, at their arbitrary and routinely contradicting whims, not accountable to any process of reasoning, and reflecting only raw power of office. One mind is more predictable than thousands under no functioning restraints. Because law limits accountable human actions, it must be known in advance if society is to rationally function. The process of many routinely changing personalities making demands of law within many government positions in close jurisdictional locations, not confined by a single mind's pattern of decisions, such as found in America, is only logical under the rule of written law, a known system of accountable reasoning, which remains relatively consistent and openly accountable, and therefore learnable. That process is highly illogical when the known system of accountable reasoning is replaced with the rule of constantly changing personalities whose preferences as law are therefore never learnable.

The American rule of written law has therefore become a lie. What the Americans call law is openly violated and contradicted by government personnel, while Americans willfully support their government. The contradiction is highly useful for anyone who might wish to sooner collapse the inherently doomed American form of government. All contradictions are eventually resolved. The knowledge of how to sooner resolve them can be learned. Contradictions left in place long enough to create uncorrectable damages, collapse their system.

It is no longer possible for the American government to reinstate jury trials as an undeniable right rather than a privilege deniable and deniable at whim of laughably corrupted government officers who routinely contradict each other to define themselves as malicious idiots. US government personnel built too many lucrative and power-centralizing contradictions on top of that contradiction.

The only remaining question is whether someone holds the knowledge and incentive (with incentive being controlling) to promptly collapse the inherently doomed American system of government, to free the Americans from their self-destructive plight, regaining their freedom and rights, and save the lives of those upon whom Americans wage wars, or let the idiot Americans continue to cause themselves and other people increasing grief, while laughing robustly at them.

The Americans imprison more of themselves than any other nation, and are building more prisons faster than schools. They are destructively taxing themselves and limiting their freedom to create more police and war machinery than any other nation, for the sole purpose of using it.

Because they do not know how to use words which hold their meanings, US government officers have lost the intellectual ability to resolve even simple contradictions, and certainly not controlling or complex contradictions. American leaders are still creating contradictions, not resolving any. Any of a certain type of government-caused contradictions can be used to promptly collapse that government, for an easily verifiable reason beyond the scope of this article.

The writer of these words was accused of crimes by the US government, and once jailed, denied a jury trial, or any trial, and declared guilty, and denied an appeal, because he asked certain questions, on a certain type of record, that proved the criminal actions of a list of petty US government bureaucrats. The US government reacted by attacking the writer for peacefully asking the questions, but could not allow the questions to reach court record, identical in principle to George Bush's attack on Iraq without allowing a World Court case that could have ascribed to indelible record, certain controlling questions which would prove the American government's repeated violations of the Law of Nations, other international laws, the US constitution and other US laws, illuminating Saddam as the more rational and less dangerous leader.

Because they hold the dominant world military and police power, American government personnel openly violate all laws at whim, rendering their legions of government officers as kings, unbound by law or reasoning, who threaten the world with a massive military holding weapons of mass destruction. The US is not under the rule of any written law, is irrational and dangerous.

A certain type of peacefully asked, effective questions enrage the highly vulnerable, power-damaged minds of government officers, and thus cause certain predictable flaws that can be utilized. Enraged minds make mistakes, and the results of those mistakes can be prior crafted by knowledgeable people who utilize their mind for reasoning, and do not live in fear of the pitiable American government dolts.

The above-mentioned contradictions and countless of their nature make the US form of government highly vulnerable, as part of being doomed.

Because the US is under the rule of countless personalities with government jobs, maliciously damaging citizens, for the addictive purpose of seizing more power, it is similar to the previous rule of Saddam and his sons, with similar results soon enough. The US government officers, including the President, court judges and others, routinely contradict each other, leaving the citizens unable to ascertain what is lawful or not lawful, and dependent upon pleasing contradicting personalities. No society can sustain itself under that system.

It is impossible to serve two masters. Power always creates two or more masters. Reasoning, by design of the human mind, creates a single master the description of which is beyond the scope of this section.

The common law, which was designed to resolve those contradictions, has been verifiably rendered null and void in the United States. It is randomly granted as a privilege, not a right or law, to a very few who are personally favored by higher court judges, again verifying the contradiction.

Read that again. The system designed to resolve the contradictions created by corrupted power in America has been nullified by the effects of corrupted power, much to the howling laughter of observers.

American courts exist only to sustain the contradictions that court judges created to increase their personal raw power above the laws and fellow humans. The judges cannot possibly resolve their contradictions. Their minds do not know how to do so. The contradicting laws, and decrees by many names, are sustained by judges, rather than resolved, so that judges can personally choose whichever contradicting decree they wish to impose, to decree as the law of the moment, favoring friends and damaging anyone else, in the false name of law, fooling fools who believe court judges, to thus serve raw power, as dictated by the process of power within the human mind. Learn that process. Without knowledge of that process, you will remain confused with contradicting human actions the rest of your life.

There has been no effective reaction by the easily fooled American people who were fully capable of correcting the contradictions at the ballot box or with the millions of guns that American citizens own. For an interesting reason, the contradictions have been allowed to compound themselves until they became too complex to resolve with the American system of government.

The use of guns or force to resolve any contradiction within the human species predicated on the ability of its mind, is fundamentally flawed, and ultimately futile, but the failure of heavily armed Americans to at least use the traditional means of force to regain their rights, after they have openly lost 100 percent of their rights described in their constitution, illuminates their ignorance and disregard for human rights, and thus the waste of effort and lives by the American colonists who waged war against the British king to institute human rights, in written law, within the process of the new American government.

The American people have willfully changed the original form of American government, to make it opposite of the prevailing American laws. The contradiction is untenable, and the laws offer no process of correction because they hold no effect, and can no longer regain effect within the American form of government.

The modern wars started at the personal whims of ego-craving US Presidents, including military actions against the American people, and prisoners kept on foreign soil under American military control, to evade laws with no resulting process of law, are indicators of the untenable extreme that has been reached.

For emphasis of the contradiction, Americans routinely call their form of government a democracy, and claim that their military is bringing democracy to Iraq and other occupied nations, yet in the 2000 election George Bush was handed the Presidency by a small, obscure group of political insiders, called an Electoral College, after Al Gore received the majority of the citizen votes for President.

Nothing of what the American government propaganda says about the American government is true. None of the definitions of the words match the actions for which the words are used. The actions contradict the words. The Americans are so ignorant of rational social process that they do not even have a useful language. They do not apply the meanings of words to the words they use. Only fools would adopt the American form of government.

The Americans attacked the Iraqi people, slaughtering thousands of them, for the expressed purpose of imposing the American form of government on the Iraqis, and on other intimidated nations.

To manifest the American form of government, the Iraqis would have to write laws that hold no effect as law, laws that the government personnel intend to openly violate, routinely deny human rights, start wars at presidential whim, jail citizens who ask questions, deny them trials, appoint government leaders in defiance of majority citizen votes, and use words that contradict their meanings, etceteras.

Only idiots who do not understand the utility of language, such as Americans, would institute such a government. If the Iraqi people adopted the American form of government, they would embarrass themselves as a society, for the judgment of history. Commonly intelligent people around the world would laugh at the Iraqis, as they do at Americans. Only fools respect Americans. Would the Iraqi people want to fool themselves as thoroughly as the gullible Americans have fooled themselves, destroying the utility of their language by defying the meanings of their words? Obviously, No.

Concurrently, regardless of the similar contradictions of the political leaders in the Muslim world, invoking their God, the political leaders of the Christian world, invoking their God, display such embarrassing contradictions between their words and actions, that only a fool would adopt their social processes. Americans certainly hold no God-granted authority or verifiable reasoning to militarily force their social process upon the Iraqis or anyone else. The flaws of other people are not sustainable reasons to force your own flaws onto other people, under any excuse. Did God invent humans with a gun on their shoulders, or a human mind? What is your answer? What does your answer illuminate to your mind? Notice the percentage of Americans who refuse to answer those questions, for fear of the knowledge they might create in their mind.

Now therefore, rather than trade the useless old accusations between warring people, and bullets and bombs, that have proven to perpetuate the wars, killing each other, destroying each other's property, which inherently create more enemies than can be killed, would it not be more effective for the leaders of the Iraqi resistance to face the idiot Americans with certain well constructed questions, on certain public records, which prove to the world that the American government leaders are successfully lying to the gullible Americans, but not successfully fooling the Iraqi resistance leaders or the other Iraqis who see the questions and the inability of the American leaders and their puppet Iraqi government leaders, to answer the questions, while the Iraqi resistance leaders can openly answer the questions for public record reported to the world, including the Americans? There is more substance in that question than you will recognize from hastily reading it, and the referenced questions are not what you hastily guess.

The reason the writer of these words was once jailed, was because certain controlling questions are profoundly effective against minds damaged by the process of their acquired government power. The Iraqi resistance leaders are not so easily jailed, and can more widely illuminate the questions before international news journalists, and may hold incentive to ask them. Effective questions, peacefully asked, can collapse flawed empires.

Questions are the instrument which resolves contradictions within the human mind, by its design. First you train your mind, and then it controls you. Be careful of how you train it. If you train your mind to be unable to answer certain types of questions that common people can openly answer, your mind may defeat you when it cannot escape those questions.

Of course to easily effect the collapse of the American occupation forces in Iraq, and much more, words of this nature would have to reach the Iraqi resistance leaders, while such words are often feared by the people who could convey them. And then the leaders would have to ask the questions that cause their minds to recognize the controlling questions.

Some of those questions threaten the lesser power of the people who would seek to use the questions to easily destroy the greater power of the American occupation forces. That is why intellectually timid Iraqi resistance leaders foolishly use force to fight the intellectually timid American occupation forces dependent upon force above reasoning, and thus sustain their enemies otherwise easily defeated. The same applies to the American leaders and any other government leaders.

The advantage goes to he who does not fear questions, and thus learns new knowledge first. Between knowledge and power, knowledge always holds the advantage over power within the human species predicated on its mind rather than its guns. If you suggest otherwise, still enamored with power, you may do just that, in the company of the masses defining the bomb-throwing Neanderthals and their American ilk throughout history, and are of no utility for the advancement of humans. Do that which pleases your mind.

Of course the American government can use the same intellectual technology to defeat its opponents, but as the most powerful government at the moment, its personnel are flawlessly addicted to the power that prevents their fearful and vulnerable mind from asking the questions that can access advanced knowledge, much to the amusement of observers.

The greater power, fooled by its power, holds little incentive to learn new knowledge. The lesser power is sometimes less fooled by its power, and sometimes holds more incentive to learn new knowledge. The American occupiers in Iraq, who fear new knowledge, are dependent upon the Iraqi resistance fighters also fearing to learn new knowledge. That identifies a controlling vulnerability.

The humor of the situation is in the ability of the Iraqi resistance leaders to not only defeat the American government leaders, and become the most respected national leaders in human history, but also peacefully save the American people from their destructive and self-confused form of government, and thus disgrace the American government leaders into oblivion. The Iraqi resistance leaders need only stop functioning on anger, and start asking and answering flawlessly impartial questions to resolve each of their own contradictions. Some of those resolutions create immediate benefits. It is with that new knowledge that the process to promptly defeat the American government becomes obvious. Anyone else willing to learn the knowledge can do the same thing, if they have any incentive to change the superlative comedy of humans, currently enjoyed by the observers.

Regardless, if you are an American military sort in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other nations outside America, ask the questions that the power-damaged minds of your superiors most fear and refuse to answer, sooner than I asked them in Vietnam, sooner than Soviet military sorts asked in Afghanistan, sooner than Iraqi military sorts asked in Kuwait, sooner than German Nazis asked in Poland, sooner than the Brit military chaps asked in India, sooner than the Japanese soldiers asked in China, sooner than all invaders of other countries.

Ask the question of yourself, that you would have the Iraqi soldiers ask themselves about their government. Why are you fighting to defend US government leaders who have verifiably turned America's laws into lies, are already betraying you and your family, betrayed all previous military personnel, incessantly lie to you, deny Americans their rights, tax Americans to make more bombs, define Americans as idiots without a language whose words hold their meanings, and offer the Iraqis only perpetuated war in their country, at cost of your valuable time, etceteras? The question is, Why, so that all people can test your written answer against what verifiably exists, the results after the test of time, and therefore your ability to simply think as a human mind.

Write your answer to identify your reasoning ability. Do you use your own mind's answers to questions? Your mind's ability to ask and answer questions, rather than flee them, is worth more to you than all the military power in human history.

If your parents, schools and government trained you to be intellectually incapable of resolving such a simple contradiction as that of an absolute right to a jury trial in the written words of your nation's highest law, and your nation's routine denial of that right, resolved by simply repealing that highest law, or simply granting the trials, in your own country, then even your own offspring, if you did not train them to be idiots, can recognize that your attempt to resolve the contradictions of another culture in another country with another language, is a fool's illusion, you being the fool. Those other people would define themselves as fools to accept your nation's process, especially if you attempted to impose it with bullets and bombs.

Are you an unquestioning minion of no more value to humans than are Saddam's thugs, and a person who cannot think beyond the gun-slinging and bomb throwing of George Bush?

What do your actions prove as your answer?

What can your family, friends and fellow Americans see as your answer?

If you are too fearful, too lazy, or suggest that you do not have enough time to answer those simple questions, and similar questions at this website, you will be verifiably useless for regaining the free exercise of the unalienable rights described in the US Constitution, for yourself, your family, fellow Americans, Iraqis or anyone else. You will be useless for advancing society beyond its current intellectual dark ages, leaving your offspring as nothing more than cannon fodder for the next wars started by American DemocanRepublicrats, and slaving under punitive taxation to buy more bombs.

If you cannot answer, or if you refuse to answer, the type questions that you suggest that your opponents should ask of themselves and their government, for any reason, you and your ignorant military colleagues may continue to slaughter fellow humans to the extent of the bullets and bombs produced from the money paid by gullible idiots slaving to pay taxes, a traditional pursuit of government knuckle-draggers, but you can never kill enough humans to kill all the enemies you create by killing people.

You cannot sustainably regain human rights by using force. Rights are a result of reasoning. If you fail to answer the controlling questions of your force-based actions, the actions that destroy the rights of yourself and your enemies, your legacy will be that of Bush, Saddam, Hitler, Putin, Clinton, the other Bush, the Czars, the Krauts, the Romans, the Brits, the Khans, the Huns and their minions, war mongers praised by unquestioning idiots, and ridiculed by commonly intelligent people who simply ask and answer simple questions that are foolishly feared by mental midgets with government guns.

Did you want to teach your offspring how to reason their way to goals, using their minds, or to kill and imprison their way to goals as was taught the Saddam family, the Bush family and their American RepublicratDemocan ilk? The choice can only be yours.

Just because the Iraqi resistance fighters are too timid to ask the questions to easily learn the process of how to promptly defeat the Bush regime, does not mean that you should be too timid to ask those questions to learn how to defend the rights of yourself and your family from the lawless, functionally illiterate American government personnel.

Now notice that your fellow American government personnel, Bush and his unquestioning minions, are currently attempting to bring criminal charges against a previous American military person, to imprison him for the new crime of "encouraging disloyalty", because that person encouraged American military personnel to start asking questions about what they were doing. I am a previous American military person, as you will be if you are in the military. From the above, and the rest of this website, you can see that I am encouraging American military personnel, and all humans, to start asking questions about what they are doing. The process of asking and answering questions is the process of thinking.

Therefore, to encourage people to think in America, especially American military chaps, is now a crime, for which your government will attempt to arrest you if you dare to encourage Americans to think, including your offspring. Asking questions and thinking is disloyal to the idiot American military officers who cannot think and therefore cannot answer questions, as is verifiable. Such American government actions define Americans as idiots, whose governmental system is therefore laughably doomed. Was it not Saddam and his ilk whom Americans accused of arresting and imprisoning their own people who asked questions and thought? Well?

The maximum intellectual ability of all US military officers, from second lieutenants to generals, fears the process of thinking and asking questions. Is there any lower intellectual ability? Not one such officer spoke out in public to denounce the concept of attempting to arrest a previous military person for the new crime of encouraging disloyalty (encouraging the questioning of American military contradictions). Not one such officer resigned their commission to regain their integrity from such an institution so repugnant to the human phenomenon that it fears thinking.

I resigned my Regular Army Commission when I belatedly started thinking, that is, asking and answering questions of military and other government contradictions. Wiser people did so sooner than I.

Later, when I was jailed in 1993 for asking federal government personnel certain questions, my arresting officer stated: "We can arrest you for virtually anything. It's true."

So with virtually anything a crime in America, at whim of the American police, as proven, even encouraging people to think, precisely, in your written words for your offspring and other family members to compare with the verifiable truth of American government actions, why are you defending the American government?


Which nations arrest their people for thinking and asking questions? The leaders of which nations openly violate their own laws to maliciously attack and damage their citizens?

If you are too fearful to answer questions for your own mind, your mind is useless to you, your country and your fellow humans.

May you learn the most knowledge of the most concepts, most efficiently, so that you may sooner laugh the laughter sought by all people, and thus be able to assist your fellow humans.




Mind maintenance... 23 August 04

Teeth are a heavy use item. Consider not going to the dentist for 10 years, just because you did not get around to it.

At that time, the dentist will do a thorough check up, and inform you of the problems, if any, that resulted from your neglecting tooth maintenance for ten years.

If you had not neglected normal tooth maintenance, you would have noticed small changes for which you would have wisely performed corrective actions, or visited a dentist to have him or her do the routine maintenance.

The same concept applies to the rest of your body, automobiles, kayaks, fine leather chairs and all other things.

All things change with time, even if they sit unused. They more greatly change if they are routinely used.

All things require routine maintenance if you wish to maintain or improve their original utility.

Therein dentists, doctors, auto mechanics and such specialists can more efficiently repair, maintain and upgrade whatever is being used, within their specialty, if the owner considers the item to be worth repairing, maintaining or upgrading, and prefers a specialist to more efficiently do the work.

Therein your mind is not exempt. It is just another device that humans use.

Is that not so? What did you learn from answering the question, while other people foolishly assume that there is nothing to think about in regard to their mind whose routine maintenance they are neglecting.

Herein I note that the brain is a biological organ, and the mind is a reference for the brain's functioning, or operating system with its accumulated data. Because the brain and mind are so closely related and complex, sometimes the terms overlap for concepts involving both of them. This section references the functioning system and accumulated data, thus the mind.

The human mind is a bit complex, still poorly understood by humans. Humans are still deep in the intellectual dark ages. Therefore humans do not do much in regard to maintaining their mind, for lack of related knowledge.

In the past, people went to dentists to have cavities filled or dentures made, after dentists were invented as a specialty of accumulated knowledge about teeth.

Dental knowledge has increased by the process of more data points or pieces of information (additional knowledge) being synthesized by minds, so that modern dentists can identify an array of dental problems as soon as they start, and take corrective action to reduce cavities, fix other problems, and to thus maintain the utility of one's teeth much longer. The demand for their services proves their value.

If you want to repair, maintain or upgrade the utility of the human mind, your choices are still more primitive than dentists of old whose instruments consisted of a little pick, a brush, and a pair of pliers, maybe a hammer when the pliers were not enough.

Consider the proof of the proverbial pudding. Human advancement is predicated on the human mind, its functioning design. Humans have traveled to the moon, taken a stunning pictures other galaxies and nebulas, successfully transplanted hearts, and have invented electric tooth brushes, which impresses people who are easily impressed, but human minds still perceive the utilization of force as a means to resolve contradictions despite the flawless proofs of ongoing history that the use of force resolves no contradictions, and always creates greater contradictions. Therein humans routinely use force to maliciously deny people their otherwise unalienable rights, deny non-harmful opportunities, bureaucratically harass them, prevent the asking of questions and impede the advancement of knowledge, imprison people, slaughter them in wars, and seize their assets to pay for more police, prisons, soldiers and bombs. Obviously the human mind is still as primitive as the Neanderthals who also could not figure out how to use the mind's designed ability to resolve human-caused contradictions.

The most valuable human minds, in terms of having learned highly advanced knowledge that could greatly benefit the human phenomenon, are routinely among those whom government dolts imprison, slaughter, seize otherwise productive assets, and prevent from efficiently transferring their beneficial knowledge to others in society.

As an aside, the reason that the most valuable and beneficial human minds are among those imprisoned, variously damaged and slaughtered by mental midget government dolts wielding police guns and military bombs as their only known means of attempting to resolve contradictions, is that the balance is perfect in all things. At that point on the inherently circular gradient where a person's actions so contradict the perceptions of the inherently scant-thinking government social managers, that a reaction of force or deception is initiated to ostensibly protect society, other person's whose actions are of the greatest, newly discovered benefit to society, also therefore contradict the stagnant mental illusions of government dolts who cannot comprehend concepts outside their laughable little Neanderthal level government cocoon, and cannot comprehend the concept of asking and answering questions to discover the advanced knowledge outside their cocoon, invoking the same reaction. The same is true within every institution, not just within government. From their institutional training, they only know how to attack, deceive, imprison, slaughter and seize assets, if their ignorant mind perceives a contradiction to their existing knowledge, as is the design of the concept of inherently self-defeating power within the human mind.

To the institution-limited mind, a contradiction is a threat to its inflexibly defined institution, which initiates a force or deceit-based attack reaction as defense of the institution.

To the normal human mind not limited or damaged by institutional power, a contradiction creates curiosity and incentive to resolve the contradiction by process of reasoning, to expand human knowledge.

When I was in various positions of institutional power, especially government, my mind created the same Neanderthal level displays of idiot mental midget government dolts, as I was, with its first reaction to the perception of contradictions as that of incentive to attack with force or defend with deception, with an inkling of my unusual curiosity at the time, and my subsequent amusement after I started asking definitive questions which I wrote. Not only can you readily identify such displays in other people, if you simply ask questions about what you perceive, you can induce those displays, with absolute precision, to learn more about them. It is possible but very difficult to train your mind to recognize your own such power-based displays. Upon learning the knowledge, you promptly replace power-based displays with reasoning-based displays.

Perceived threats more often result from the ignorance of the person who perceives the threat. To derive great benefits, one must risk great damages. One can preclude the damages by more extensively using reasoning before acting, a simple process requiring patience, and asking and answering more questions, and concurrently increase the resulting benefits, because the human is predicated on its mind, not its muscles. To use force rather than reasoning to preclude any action, for fear of possible damages, the use of force, the Neanderthal level antithesis of reasoning, precludes any substantive benefits, does not preclude any damages, because force is an idiot's delight easily negated by other idiots using force, and creates the great damages inherent to the use of force instead of reasoning.

The minds of the government dolts literally cannot distinguish between destructive and constructive human actions that are not within the narrow, institutional perceptions of force-based institutions, as is a precept of the concept of power within the human mind. Among countless examples, had the government sops who jailed me for asking them questions, simply answered the harmless questions and thus learned how to promptly resolve their destructive contradictions, those poor sad chaps would have advanced society, made themselves more valuable to society, more valuable to their government agency, more valuable to themselves, and compounded their ability to recognize and resolve more complex contradictions that were creating damages. My questions, the readily available answers and the readily available manifestations of those answers created no harm or damage, while the government contradictions creating those questions continue to increasingly damage and stagnate the pitiable American society, and concurrently cause more people to rightfully despise American government personnel.

I was jailed for the harmless action of asking questions, so the government dolts could protect and maintain the damaging government actions, because the minds of the government dolts literally could not distinguish between destructive actions and constructive actions, as can be proven with a series of questions. The government dolts fear even questions, along with nearly all other human actions, because they were trained to not understand the concept or utility of questions, primarily in America's public (government) schools. Therefore because questions are outside their mind's understanding of the world, their first and only reaction to effective questions, as trained, is to attack. Again, for its value, the minds of the government dolts literally cannot distinguish between destructive and constructive human actions that are not within the narrow, institutional perceptions of force-based institutions, as is a precept of the concept of power within the human mind. Pity them, and laugh yourself to tears over the brilliance of such a self-defeating design.

If your mind recognizes a contradiction, such as if you were one of the pitiable government chaps who arrested me for asking questions, and you encountered these words to cause your mind to recognize that my asking questions created no damage, but your having put me in jail for a week obviously caused damages, such as having to tax people, including yourself, to pay for many people involved with putting and keeping me in jail, while a full array of obviously rational citizens ridicule you for that action, while your fellow government dolts tell you that you must do those things for a never rational-sounding reason, would you not want to learn how to resolve the contradiction, so that your actions never created ridicule by rational people, and the accountable reason for your action could be sustained against every question?

Would that process not merely be knowledge which you have not yet learned? Is not knowledge learned by asking and answering questions to resolve contradictions between what you currently know and what is introduced to your mind as new data? What happened, by line-item events and their verifiable results, which changed the thinking process of the high school graduate age person, who at that time would deny that he or she would end up attacking a person for the non-damaging action of simply asking questions, to thus create a damage?

The question holds an answer, for each person, that is flawlessly verifiable against every question any human can ask. The controlling concept to learn the answer, is to ask the question. The power-damaged mind will not ask the question, because the mind's process to defend the flawlessly addicting concept of power within it will not allow the mind to do so. But of course the utility of the knowledge is derived from the subsequent process of asking and answering a certain series of resulting questions, which requires a bit more time than only asking the first question.

Power-damaged minds have a lifetime of patience for the power-based process of imprisoning, slaughtering, lying and seizing the assets of more people, thus creating contradictions, the only product of power, as dictated by the process of power in the human mind, to create more damages and excuses for using more power, but do not have the patience for a few hours or days for intellectual process (asking and answering questions) that can then promptly resolve all the contradictions that create all damages. That lack of patience is the result of a certain stimulus effecting a certain electro-chemical impulse demarcated at a neuron synapse.

Therefore, if you sought to introduce certain knowledge to such a power-damaged mind, you need only learn more knowledge about that concept, and then apply those actions which did not require that person to display patience. With only that knowledge, or any parts of the puzzle short of the fully assembled puzzle of related knowledge, you cannot possibly identify those actions, but you cannot possibly assemble the puzzle without that knowledge. Simply learn each controlling concept, and use that knowledge to learn the others.

The contradicted actions of government folks, which therefore create damages and more contradictions, are just popular examples. The neurology scientists, university professors, think tank experts, Nobel peace prize committee members, parents, adults, and all other institutionally thinking people, create the same type of contradictions that confuse the data routing in their brain, because time went by, and they did not pay close attention to the effects of time and data acquisition within the functioning process of their mind. Like the person who keeps on eating while ignoring tooth maintenance, they just assumed the mind was doing what the mind does, without change, and continued to neglect the functioning process of the mind. Notice that I included neurologists who are among the more amusing of the lot who do not consider the institutional effects of the neurology institution, on their mind, for the study of the brain and mind. Same for the think tank (research institute) chaps.

Psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists are even more contradictory than the neurologists. Consider a proof. Psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists exist, and have existed for a long time. So why are there any remaining social problems? Why do questions asked of those chaps derive a laughable array of contradicting answers? Why did the chaps of those institutions, not decide to stop embarrassing themselves among thinking people, and not decide to create at least some credibility for their institutions, by simply asking and answering the questions that verified flawless answers, against which no remaining question could identify a contradiction, for a few or more of the most common psychology related questions created by the human mind?

Why have all the arenas of human knowledge noticeably advanced, except that related to the functioning process of the mind? Humans have advanced from only walking, to flying to the moon, etceteras, while the most primitive and consistently failing form of resolving contradictions, the institutional process of war and other forms of force, is still dominant and still failing, while the people denounce it, while all the institutions of experts espouse the same ancient espousals expressing contradictions to the use of force, and no institution effectively questions how that institutional phenomenon can continue within the human mind's design, because they would have to question their own institutions and their own mind's process.

You will not learn the design of the human mind, and thus not learn how to resolve contradictions in other minds, if you question the contradictions of the other guy's mind, thus focusing on the other guy. You must question how and why (with why being a mechanism of how) your own mind creates the contradictions that the other guy perceives in your actions, that, of course, you do not perceive or you would not create those contradictions. The process is simple. Simply start with the assumption that the other guy is correct, and that your action at question is therefore contradicted, and then ask the questions that reach the verifiable resolution of the contradiction. The resulting difficulty and thus your own requirement for your own patience is identified in the contradiction of your assuming the utility of your questions after you were never taught how to ask effective questions. You will be asking the wrong questions until you patiently learn how to ask effective questions, or learn that part of the puzzle from someone who has already learned it. But you will not know which questions to ask to identify that person. Therefore, memorize this question: "What questions should I ask to verify if you know how to ask effective questions?"

The institution of psychologists can assist people with their personal problems, by conveying arrangements of words not yet recognized by the person with the personal problems. The more amusing ego-based institution of government-licensed psychiatrists can do the same and also prescribe pharmaceutical drugs to advance the lucrative pharmaceutical industry experiments on humans. The sociologists and think tank chaps can confuse groups of people with what the sociologists and think tanks confused themselves, expressing contradictions as purported solutions for contradictions, as demonstrated by their contradicting results that have resolved no social problems.

None of them can resolve the contradictions of their own institutions, even when asked the questions that illuminate the contradictions, that can be resolved if the questions are simply answered. And therefore their minds, retaining the contradictions as the foundation of what their institutions do, attempt to convey that which is fundamentally contradicted and thus of no sustainable value, and do not question that process even after the test of time openly illuminates the failures of the institutions of psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and think tanks approximately 100 percent of the time, and sometimes more.

What otherwise verifiably answered questions do all psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and think tank chaps flee rather than answer, and the same respectively for military chaps, parents, adults, males, females, and all other institutionally identified minds?

Would not those questions and answers be as valuable for resolving social contradictions, as the knowledge of a dentist when you have a toothache?

Why do any social contradictions exist as manifested or in your mind, after the human mind, a device of ability beyond your most extensive imagination, was invented, and the test of time has been more than ample?

Well, why do dentists find tooth problems that they recognize as having been preventable if you had simply learned a bit of knowledge about the teeth in your own head?

What you carelessly did not notice while eating, and brushing your teeth, was that some of those foods were building up stains, and your needlessly using a hard bristle toothbrush was wearing away some of the softer surfaces of your teeth next to your gums, etceteras, some of which may suddenly create serious problems if neglected.

Alaska Intech offers the service of repair, maintenance and advancement of the functioning of the human mind, the most valuable service known to humans. You may inquire.

What you did not notice while using your mind, was that some of those only slightly incorrect initial perceptions, resultant from not asking the right questions at the time, were progressively altering your mind's data routing into neural-effected patterns of beliefs that are contradicted by elsewhere verifiable data, and that have become variously embarrassing among commonly intelligent people, or highly damaging to yourself and others. Your mind cannot recognize the escalating contradictions, that more questioning people, or people who did not encounter those initial perceptions, can recognize, because the data routing patterns in your mind prevail simply by accumulated neural comfort alone, sort of like a foolish person's preference to die early of the infection from an abscessed tooth, rather than go to the dentist for a minor toothache, hoping the toothache will go away on its own, for foolish fear of the dentist's drill.

There is no school which can offer the knowledge of that service, because a school is an institution, and the perceptions of its instructors would thus be altered by their acquired institutional power. The knowledge can only be learned the tedious way, a very rare phenomenon by chance of unusual circumstances, or from an individual mind which learned it the tedious way, which is why the knowledge is so rare. Concurrently, the knowledge is not sought by the people who would most benefit from it, by design of the concept of power within the human mind. The results of the knowledge can be promptly effected for society, but there is little if any incentive to do so by those who learn the knowledge the tedious way.

It is the knowledge that allows a human to laugh the laughter sought by all people, and manifest what humans most crave to achieve.

You can learn the knowledge on your own, just as many people learn how to successfully maintain their own automobiles and teeth. You need only consume time learning how to do that. Learning intellectual technology from scratch, on one's own, takes a bit more time than learning dentistry, brain surgery, carburetor repair or anything else, but there are many brain surgeons. The process is available to humans. You need only ask and answer a lot of questions, writing them. You can start with the questions throughout this website, if you wish.

May you learn the most knowledge of the most concepts, most efficiently.



Your enemy... 25 August 2004

Your enemy is not a person. It is a concept, which is part of the design of the human mind, at play within a person's mind.

The concept is at play in your mind, and everyone's mind. It is merely manifested with different superficial phenomena within an array available to it, so you do not recognize it in your mind as the same in the other person's mind.

You cannot kill, imprison or damage enough humans to eliminate that concept which you perceive as the enemy. It is part of the human design. It is beyond the human ability to change with force.

The human mind's design is predicated on reasoning, the electro-chemical synthesis of data to resolve contradictions without creating a contradiction. That design can resolve all contradictions, including the contradiction of the existence of enemies.

You can only perpetually frustrate and damage yourself, and your colleagues, by attacking other humans, with mechanisms of force or deception, as your perceived means of eliminating your enemies.

Or you can easily learn the concept which creates your perception of enemies, and promptly resolve the contradiction within the minds of your enemies, to defeat your enemies and thus be left with no enemies. They will be your friends. Or you can learn the concept and laugh yourself to tears over the flawless brilliance of the design of the human phenomenon, and enjoy the show.

That free choice is part of the design of the human phenomenon.



The human mind fears itself... 1 October 2004

Why are there certain arrays of questions that your mind refuses to answer, even to yourself in private?

How would you describe the concept in your mind that creates fear of knowledge, while knowledge is your avenue to resolving all of your frustrations? Frustrations are the lack of knowledge.

Who, by individual name or by identification of their social group, taught your mind to avoid even the mention of certain arrays of questions, even in private?

What teaching, training or concept within your mind created the contradiction of your mind's refusal to answer certain arrays of questions, even in private, even to yourself, while the human mind learns new knowledge by asking and answering questions, and new knowledge is your only access to the solutions to the problems that currently frustrate you?

What new knowledge that will solve problems which yet frustrate you, is derived from synthesizing seemingly unrelated knowledge that may be in the answers to questions you refuse to answer?

If you are continually frustrated by a lack of knowledge, such as the knowledge of how to cause the other guy to function in relation to knowledge you currently perceive as obvious and logical, what parts of the knowledge puzzle are you lacking, and might those parts be in the knowledge created from the answers to questions that you continually refuse to answer?

Why will certain groups of people refuse to write their answers to certain questions in this section, even in private, if they read this section? Are you among those groups?

Consider for a moment, having learned the knowledge that will promptly resolve some of the usual arrays of contradictions that frustrate diverse groups of people with whom you normally engage in conversation. Perhaps at the conclusion of a social gathering, a party, someone bids a good evening to the group, leaves, then later walks back into the party to use the phone to call a taxi because his car will not start. Perhaps he is an expert paleontologist, but knows little about cars. There are many reasons for a car to not start, complex contraptions that they are. A person at the party, who is knowledgeable of cars, may ask him precisely what happened when he turned the key. The guy said that nothing happened, not even a click or oomph. The knowledgeable car guy, recognizing the weather pattern of the last few weeks, of muggy wet days alternating with warm dry days, takes the paleontologist back out to the car, disconnects the battery cables, cleans the contacts, reconnects them, and asks they guy to try again. The car starts. The knowledgeable car guy mentions that if the car does not start, with the described symptom, one of the more common problems, quickly solved, is to clean the battery connections, especially if there was reason for corrosion to build up, such as alternating wet and dry conditions.

Now consider the results if the guy with the car problem refused to answer any questions related to the problem, even the questions of the mechanic who arrived the next day to tow the car to the shop. What additional time and expense would therefore occur, that is otherwise rationally avoided so that the guy could use his time and money for more productive purposes? And of compounding result, how would that person be training his mind in relation to all other problems he faced, by refusing to answer questions?

Now consider a nation purportedly under the rule of written law, rather than the rule of a dictator's verbal decrees at his changing whim, wherein the government's lawyers and court judges write a maze of laws in a complexified manner that the common people who are otherwise fully literate in the nation's language, cannot rationally understand, such as by using legalistic jargon, et. al., not common to the language, Latin words, pro se, not common to the language or a liminie, words with double and triple meanings found only in obscure case laws too many and too lost in law libraries for the common person to have time to find, or even learn how to find, with those law libraries not available in most communities, written with many citation abbreviations and cross references found only in the same maze of millions of case laws, statute laws, codes, rules and multiple other forms of laws, complexified sentences longer than this one and not without double negatives, contradictions to the laws in other laws found only in the same referenced maze of laws identified as contradictions only in a separate and obscure process, entire contradicting jurisdictions of laws, the separate or mixed application of which the government's court officers routinely refuse to identify upon citizen request, legalistic references to power of office by government lawyers and judges who with that rhetorical illusion simply refuse to answer any citizen questions resolving ambiguities in the law, and who refuse to certify any law as prevailing above legalistic opinions of government officers, or other laws, or even as applicable, with access to the protection of prevailing law routinely denied to citizens under rules of the court written exclusively by lawyers and judges serving their institutional power above law, with lawyers and judges using raw power of office to incessantly apply their own descriptions of actions, using words that only marginally apply to the action, to therefore invoke otherwise contradicted laws that effect the whim of the lawyers/judges, while lawyers demand that an unaffordably high tribute be first paid to lawyers for what is only their legal opinion anyway, and not the law, etceteras.

Therein, can the common person be rationally expected to obey the law?

The question is simple. Its controlling clause is at the start of the question, in the phrases: ...the common people who are otherwise fully literate in the nation's language, cannot rationally understand...

Every commonly literate person can correctly answer the question, from the information provided.

Obviously, the answer is, No.

The human mind cannot be rationally expected to obey that which it cannot understand.

That is my written answer. You can write that answer. It is flawlessly verifiable. School children can recognize and state that answer.

The rule of written law was created to protect the common people from the rule of personalities. There is no other reason for creating the more inefficient rule of written law.

Thereof, there is no obligation under the common law, the highest law of every common law nation, as is America, to obey the written law in America. Law cannot create an impossibility or irrationality, or law would define fools, such as American lawyers, judges and the fools who acquiesce to their rule.

No American lawyer or judge can answer the question, even in private. Their mind will not allow them to do so. That can be verified.

First you train your mind. And then it controls you.

The American institution of lawyers, and therefore judges because they must be lawyers to be appointed as judges within that corruption of the therefore doomed American system of jurisprudence, cannot allow the minds it owns to identify the controlling contradiction which dooms its institution. That can be verified.

Not one American lawyer holds the intellectual ability and simple courage to state the openly verifiable truth that all other common people can state, because the minds of lawyers cannot tolerate stating their own institution's controlling contradiction, by design of the human mind and institutions. American lawyers have methodically and intentionally replaced the rule of written law, with the rule of personalities, precisely what the wiser rule of written law was designed to replace. American lawyers/judges, who now adamantly rule by personal decree above the prevailing laws, are verifiably more petty, malicious and intellectually void, than were the kings of old who also ruled as personalities. The institution of American jurisprudence is as doomed as that of said kings.

Human minds can recognize errors, that is, contradictions.

In contrast, institutions, and thus human minds having fallen victim to institutional thinking (the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals) cannot recognize the contradictions which threaten the existence of their institution, by design, or institutions could not exist because all institutions hold a controlling contradiction to the utility of the human mind.

Your concern is not the pitiable American lawyers and court judges, poor sad sops that they are. They are already lost to the utility of humans, and will continue to more maliciously damage people before their institution destroys itself, along with the US government, on schedule. Your concern is that your mind effectively learns from their example, and that you preclude your mind from training itself to fear and flee the questions that lawyers and judges fear and flee, or any other questions that any human can devise.

Therein, if you value the vast utility of your human mind above the laughably limited material benefits offered by any particular institution, especially power-based institutions, you will ask and answer the questions that identify and verify the controlling contradiction of any institution, wisely in writing with your signature, before you stumble too closely to its enticing benefits, and thereafter be amused by any proverbial dance with that institution.

Consider an older and more universal institution of superlative entertainment, the military. Consider a US soldier or officer who is told by his or her superiors, other government sorts or those fooled by government, that he or she is going to war, such as Iraq, Afghanistan or the next war already scheduled by the DemocanRepublicrats, for the purpose of defending the rights of Americans, against threats to those rights, and elsewhere told that those rights are described in the US Constitution. The US Constitution emphasizes, in plainly understandable common English, the right of Americans, to a trial by jury. Trials by jury are denied to Americans, by American court judges, more often than jury trials are granted. Additionally, all rights described in the US Constitution have been reduced to privileges, grantable and deniable at whim of any among legions of government officers, and thus are no longer rights, by definition. That is verifiable. Rights and privileges are mutually exclusive, by definition.

Therefore, are US military personnel defending American rights described in the US Constitution?

Obviously, No.

You and I can answer the question. Our minds are capable of doing that.

American military personnel, especially the idiot officers, cannot answer the question. Their minds will not allow them to do so, or they would identify themselves as either fools, or too cowardly to even express the verifiable truth of their part in murdering people for a lie.

The American military sops are currently concluding the destruction of the American manifestation of human rights described in the US Constitution, on schedule, by defending and supporting the governmental system doing so, just as I did when I was so laughably dumb and cowardly as to be an infantry officer in Vietnam, fighting on the wrong side, defending the malicious Washington DC dolts who have abrogated citizen rights to replace them with routinely denied privileges. Granted, the Vietnamese soldiers were also fighting on the wrong side, defending their government dolts rather than any rights of the Vietnamese people, but they displayed the integrity, void in Americans, to obey the law of nations, by not attacking America, and only defending their country from the American military invasion. They also did not create the contradiction of claiming that the people held any rights above the rule of Vietnamese government personalities. They proved their greater intellectually capability.

Not one American military person holds the intellectual ability and simple courage to state the openly verifiable truth that all other common people an state, because the minds of military personnel cannot tolerate stating their own institution's contradiction, by design of the human mind and institutions. American military personnel defend and support the American DemocanRepublicrat regime's methodical and intentional replacement of human rights described in the US Constitution, with privileges grantable and deniable at whim of the government elite, precisely what the wiser US Constitution was designed to replace. American military personnel, who now routinely slaughter more innocent women, children and bystanders, than so called enemy soldiers, are verifiably more malicious, cowardly and intellectually void, than were the more honorable and chivalrous militaries of previous kings. The institution of American military is doomed to be referenced among the greatest disgraces in the history of militaries, after they finish trammeling the last vestige of human rights in America, at unquestioned order of the Washington DC thugs.

Retain your mind's ability, and simple courage, to accurately answer every question that any human mind can devise, and then do so. That is your only access to learn the knowledge which resolves the contradictions that yet frustrate you and the people around you.

Now consider if you do just that.

First, your knowledge will expand exponentially. You will learn the readily achievable solutions to the problems that previously frustrated you, and that continue to frustrate other folks.

Then you will find yourself in conversations at social events, if you attend them and converse. You will routinely hear expressions identifying the many common contradictions that frustrate or confuse people. You will know the prompt resolution of the contradictions they express, just like the guy who knew to first check the battery terminal for a car that would not start under the described conditions. You will be tempted to express the knowledge. And you will be amused, because your knowledge will include that of the results of such an attempt.

Your first comments would cause noticeable expressions of interest. But the moment you inherently mentioned the controlling contradictions of the institutions of the people trying to figure out how to solve their expressed problem, including the institution of adults, you would have difficultly not laughing when their visual focus promptly drops to the floor, or off to one side, when you see the body language of their mind shutting down for that concept. You will understand the source of their mind's sudden disinterest, anguish, fear and their noticeable effort to change the subject.

You will know precisely, in relation to which institutional references, why they will ask and answer no questions about why their proverbial car will not start, and thus go through life repeatedly expressing their frustrations without ever learning the simple process to solve them. You will laugh. And you will laugh each time thereafter when you hear the same people express the same frustrations with the same array of perceived problems, over and over again.

And you will laugh again during each American political election when the same people suggest that you vote for the RepublicratDemocan regime which incessantly creates the problems they incessantly lament.

Enjoy the laughter. It is the laughter sought by all people. They cannot learn it because their institutions, and thus their institutional predecessors, successfully trained their minds to fear and flee effective questions about their institutions.



G. Gordon Liddy... 9 October 2004

Consider driving home from work, listening to the radio, and G. Gordon Liddy is doing his usual radio talk show, fooling fools who fail to question contradictions, first himself, a popular and profitable human activity.

The words of G. Gordon Liddy, like those of all power-damaged minds, routinely offer good learning vehicles.

From these words, Liddy could learn the access to the knowledge of how to promptly manifest his and George Bush's espousals, instead of continuing to doom their ilk to perpetually yammering about their espousals while perpetually imprisoning and killing their perceived opponents to thus create more opponents whose equal effects cannot be escaped. You may notice why Liddy would instead just be confused as usual, if he were to read these plain words, the reason he is currently confused.

But will you remain confused as to why you cannot identify the access to the knowledge of how to promptly manifest your espousals? If you perceive Gordon to be an opponent, consider using his displayed contradictions as the pattern for the questions you must ask and answer of your own institutions. He and his ilk will fail to use your displayed contradictions as the pattern for the questions they must ask and answer of their institutions. If you understand the substance of this paragraph, you need read no further, and would more wisely spend your time asking those questions, to the extent of discovering the controlling contradiction of each of your institutions, to therefore no longer need your institutions, and therefore utilize your individual mind's ability learn how to promptly manifest the espousals of your institutions.

As usual, but as a more readily understood learning vehicle for the concept herein, each item of Gordon's accusations against his enemy, was separated by only one functionally meaningless word from what his perceived enemies are saying of Liddy's ilk, propagated by their information distribution systems.

Given that Gordon and his enemy are attempting to advance a shared concept, therein mutually supporting each other's reasoning (albeit mutually flawed), with the demarcation being only a functionally meaningless reference that you can identify, you might more easily identify the controlling concept. The G Man and his enemies are not sufficiently intelligent to identify it because they question only the other guy, not themselves, and thus do not identify their mutual concepts, to thus not identify their mutual flaw, which if corrected, an easy task, would leave the other guy immediately defeating himself with a controlling contradiction. You cannot sustainably beat the other guy with a contradiction, but he will defeat himself if you stop sustaining his efforts with your controlling contradiction. And further, you can effect harmless actions that will cause him to promptly defeat himself.

The cranial goo of Liddy and his perceived enemies have each been rendered by their social and self training to be no longer biologically capable of recognizing any error or contradiction created by their institutional actions. The contradiction of Gordon's discussion, the Iraq adventure, has become obvious to millions of people around the world. From the increasing public reaction to being made fools of again by the usual US government lies, the G Man's mind recognizes that something is a bit slaunchwise, but he cannot figure out what it is. In his radio broadcast Gordon's mind was stretching his rhetorical contrivances into highly amusing contradictions recognizable as such by others, but genuinely believed as true and not contradicted, by his mind.

The more obvious nature of his new contradiction more noticeably defeats his illusions.

Gordon's mind will not recognize what is stated herein, but if you do, and if you apply it to your own institutional perceptions, to thus ask questions you have never asked before, you may learn how to never fall victim to the perceptions held by Liddy, his enemies, and all other self-defeating enemies of each other.

If you merely agree that Liddy was lying as usual, because your institutions consider Liddy's institutions to be an enemy, waste no time with these words, because, while he was indeed lying as usual, your enemy cannot possibly be the Liddy ilk. They are their only enemy, as is your own mind. Your mind must reach the controlling contradiction of your own institutions, something the minds of Liddy and his enemies cannot achieve.

It seems that the current leader of the Liddy ilk, a pitiable chap named George Bush, flawlessly serving power in the futile quest to destroy reasoning, cobbled together an adequate arrangement of words to start yet another war, the current one in Iraq, as one of the popular hobbies of the human phenomenon. Notice that most of Bush's institutional colleagues, the DemocanRepublicrats, including Kerry, perceived to be opponents by fools, voted to endorse and fund their therefore mutual effort to kill the other guy, for their process to create more enemies to keep fighting.

Notice what you will learn from these words, that no institutionally thinking person will ever attempt to convey to you, regardless of their institution.

This time the war was predicated on the threat of Saddam Hussein and his stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, with Saddam's ability to deliver them in 45 minutes.

The threat was clearly and repeatedly stated, on record. There was no other threat. Saddam had otherwise conclusively proven himself as a social, intellectual and military failure doomed by time. The war-makers did not remove any of their expressed accusations from their reasoning to start the show, before they started it. They stopped asking questions of their institutions, and initiated their conclusions with a war.

Based on the usual conclusions of a power-damaged mind, formulated before he expressed the invented reasoning to start the Iraq war, George Bush, a common fool fooling fools, and facing no effective questions from any institution, started a war, with his military of fools, to slaughter thousands of fools who were foolishly believing their varied institution leaders who were also perpetuating that common social process, in the names of peace, prosperity, security, national strength and other rhetorical illusions maintaining fools holding power over fools. Good show, trite as waves on the ocean, but good show entertaining millions of people watching their TV's and computer screens around the world.

You know most of the story. The Weapons of Mass Destruction did not exist. The lies failed the test of time, on schedule. Saddam and his minions were still the same laughably incompetent mob progressively constructing their own demise within their own society of fools, by using petty power to attack each other rather than using their minds to benefit each other, identical to Bush and his RepublicratDemocan minions.

Therefore the Bush and Liddy crowd were left to perpetually invent more contradicted excuses to start the war, after the war was started. They could not, and cannot, simply state the original contradiction to thus easily resolve it. They are attempting to sustain a contradiction with more contradictions, a fool's quest, currently to an extent which more clearly illuminates their foundational problem.

Perhaps you remember when President Bill Clinton and his identical ilk of power-damaged minds invented a series of similar lies for attacking the Dividian Christians in Waco Texas, after Clinton started the attack. First it was unlicensed machine guns that were never found, then a drug lab that did not exist, then child molesting that was disproven, then mass suicide that was absurd and disproven, among other excuses for the US military and Federal police slaughter of harmless Christian men, women and children in their church. Learn from the pattern of actions which identify the concept that controls whatever names hold power-damaged minds. Liddy still perceives Clinton as his enemy, while they share each other's controlling concepts, as with George, Saddam and their ilk.

The excuses to start the current war in Iraq, among the several other shooting wars around the world at the moment, were just the usual type of lies told by fools pandering meaningless rhetoric to fool unquestioning fools into supporting or not effectively objecting to an institutionally sanctioned process of killing fellow humans, to serve the sport of power. I was once the aforementioned as an American infantry sort in Vietnam, much to my subsequent embarrassment, and to my amusement with the process of human minds.

There have been millions of wars, and trillions of their manifested concept. They all share the same controlling contradiction, which you may learn. It controls, and flaws, all the inferior rhetorical devices, within every human mind which adopts its process. There will be more wars, on schedule, until humans emerge from the intellectual dark ages. That emergence will happen either when all the power-damaged human minds, such as those of Gordon, George, Saddam, Vladimir and their ilk throughout its spectrum, including their successors, as a phenomenon, progressively die off, by the design of the human phenomenon synthesized with the design of time, or an individual who learns intellectual technology encounters the incentive to promptly manifest the emergence, by design. You may wish to be that individual. The process is just knowledge.

And therefore, a fool having been fooled by his own illusions, or he would not be a member of his institution, on the radio G. Gordon Liddy was fervently parroting the resulting, current institutional line, a lie, to maintain the contradiction of American presidents starting wars and slaughtering whomever they damn well please, based on laughably illogical lies, to serve power above reasoning.

But the current war, after time has produced the current level of intense informational acquisition and distribution not controllable by the victors, unlike previous wars, proved that the previously identified contradiction of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Production, was just that, a contradiction, a fabricated lie. There were no such weapons, as was amusingly prior verifiable regardless of Saddam's efforts. And Saddam's previously identified incompetence was more greatly illuminated. Like George Bush, he was without substance. He was no threat to the US or anyone but a few of his neighbors who held adequate process to advance his self-defeat if he attacked them again.

But the institution of Bush, Liddy and their ilk, and therefore the human minds who have fallen victim to the institution, yours if events had led you into their institution, cannot understand or accept the resolution to a contradiction of its creation, regardless of the institution, including yours. Their institution can only exist by creating and attempting to sustain their contradictions, or no institution beyond their individual minds would be necessary.

Therefore starting and continuing the war, a contradiction, must prevail above reasoning within the minds of the war mongers. Therefore commonly intelligent people can amuse themselves by making bets on each next most prominent rhetorical illusion the Iraq war-mongers will advance to maintain the war, and to start the next war.

Therefore, to defend the war, and prepare for the next one, a demand of power within the human mind, G. Gordon Liddy avidly described Saddam Hussein's INTENT to produce weapons that make a big bang.

Now read more carefully, if you wish. Words must hold their meaning in your mind, or it is as useless to you as the G Man's mind is to him.

These words discuss the intellectual absence of G. Gordon Liddy, albeit identical to George and all American RepublicratDemocans.

These words offer you the opportunity to discover if you, the reader, understand the utility of language, for the advancement of your knowledge.

Some of you will readily understand it. Others of you, including Gordon and his ilk, will not understand the utility of language, ever. Herein is the proof that can prevail above all questions.

Ask a large number of individual people if they would like to acquire enough power to achieve their political intents. Write the names of the many people who say they would. Liddy would be among them. I would have been among them before I asked enough questions to learn what power is, and how it functions within the human mind.

A week or so later, if not a few minutes later after changing the subject, ask the same people to describe the greatest power invented by humans. Write the names of those who mention nuclear power in the first few guesses, the G Man among them. If they offer some esoteric diversions because the word, power, has varied uses, rhetorically guide them to their expressed recognition of atomic bombs as a great power invented by humans. Do not forget to write their names.

Is it not true that all the great benefits for humans, which are not yet manifested, and which are represented by political organizations openly stating their intent to achieve their goals, have not been achieved, as stated by those organization leaders, and in regard to their perceptions, because those organizations do not yet have sufficient power to effect their espousals?

How many times have organization leaders stated that they do not yet have enough power to achieve their goals, but that they are working to acquire the power? Often.

How many times do they say they do not yet have enough knowledge? Never.

If those answers are yours, remember them.

Next ask those chaps whose names you have written, to definitively describe the maximum level of power they seek to achieve their goals, after mentioning that any process to acquire power to prevail above opponents, inherently causes those equally capable opponents to increase their power by the same means, because the acquired power threatens the power of the opponent. When they describe the maximum level they will accept, mention that their opponents may therefore easily achieve just a bit more power, by the same means, to thus defeat them, until they hold weapons of mass destruction which create mutual fear of using the weapons. With the description of the maximum power they seek, write the names.

If they state the limit of their desire for power at any demarcation less than nuclear bombs and missiles, or weapons of mass destruction, or jet airliners with suicide pilots, you may inform them that they have therefore defined their defeat within their ilk who chose to pursue power, rather than knowledge, as the mechanism to achieve their goals. The other guy holds the same human mind design than can construct the currently known and more innovative weapons of mass destruction. The power game is finite. The knowledge game extends beyond the power game, and controls it, by design of the human mind.

Does the holding of weapons of mass destruction represent significant power for the purpose of achieving political goals, by the manifested proof of the American DemocanRepublicrats having created them, stockpiled them, continuing to develop new designs of them, and maintaining them for just that repeatedly expressed purpose, and by the Liddy ilk accusing Saddam of that capability if he held them?

If your mind is as addled as Liddy's, and you are of his institution discussed herein, your mind will refuse to answer that easily answered question, and not read the question again, because the question starts to illuminate the knowledge path to the controlling contradiction of your institution, the contradiction that destroys your institution. You might otherwise easily answer the question. The answer is, Yes. Your subsequent questions can lead to the knowledge of how to defeat the institutions of Liddy and/or his enemies.

Because the Democans claim to be the opponents of the Republicrats, among countless other politically opposing institutions within and beyond the US, would they therefore not wisely use that answer to acquire their own weapons of mass destruction, and would not Liddy's failure to endorse that process, as he already does for the US, and oppose it for his countless enemies, define the defeat of his Republicrat ilk? The highly useful answer cannot be escaped, while Liddy's mind cannot comprehend answering controlling questions. Simply answer the question, and use your own mind's resulting knowledge to ask the next questions for the knowledge you seek.

Why does each nuclear power nation retain functionally useless and destructive atomic bombs? Does not the holding of otherwise useless atomic bombs illuminate an intent of those national leaders to eventually destroy what humans do? Can each new generation of humans keep playing with matches, without repeatedly getting burnt, or handle liquids without repeatedly spilling them, or do things without repeatedly making mistakes? Why do national leaders who learn the lessons taught by the nuclear power nations, tenaciously seek to make atomic bombs? What is power as defined by atomic bombs, and what is power as defined by its concept in the human mind? Take the time to write your answer.

Words hold their meaning. If you later say that the words you used did not mean what the other guy recognized with the dictionary meanings of your words, the failure was yours. The failure is common, especially in America where the government's public school English teachers, and their private school colleagues, cannot identify the meanings of words if you hand them a dictionary, because they were not taught to recognize those meanings, and they teach the resulting ignorance, and Liddy is a classic example. Simply ask the questions of an English teacher who votes for DemocanRepublicrats, and says he or she does not endorse lying, among countless other common contradictions, to recognize that English teachers do not understand the meanings of the words they use, and they teach that ignorance to students.

Simply combine the two directly related expressions of the people you questioned about the power they seek, as they expressed, to identify people who therefore hold the INTENT to acquire weapons of mass destruction to achieve their political goals, and are thus subject to being attacked and slaughtered by the US military and police, with Liddy's support because a rhetorically perceived INTENT, regardless of the absence of any capability, process, incentive or other controlling concepts, is reason for the Liddy Bush ilk to start a war.

With that intent, what capability does it take for any of thousands of Democan commercial airplane pilots to become suicide airline self-hijackers to destroy the Republicrat leadership, using the concept endorsed by the Republicrats? Who is therefore a new enemy against whom a shooting war is justified by Liddy's addled mind, as defined by Liddy's words which cannot escape that conclusion until they defeat their meaning? If your words do not hold their meaning, your mind is as useless to you and everyone else, as Gordon's is to him and everyone else. If your words hold their meaning, they will lead you to the knowledge you seek.

If any American citizens state their intent to defend their rights, while the government is obviously attacking those rights, and those American citizens have guns, they hold both the weaponry and the expressed intent to oppose the government by force, which is the displayed reasoning of the conservatives, for the liberals to endorse to methodically ban gun ownership in America.

If the rhetorical fabrication of intent is adequate to attack a person, the attack is either ultimately inherent, or the attacker's mind holds no understanding of language and its utility.

If your words do not match what you mean, change your words, and therefore learn from your accurate words. You train your mind by the words you use. Train your mind to use the words that accurately represent the concept you wish to convey, because it is conveyed to your mind first, with results. If you convey a contradiction, the other guy will often recognize the contradiction, and inherently act against you because no contradiction is sustainable. The fact that the other guy is as incompetent in his expressions, creating contradictions, is the reason the first guy compounds the mutual perception that the two minds are enemies, while they are otherwise not enemies.

From their answers to your questions about their seeking the power to achieve their political intents, those people whose names you wrote, including Liddy and Bush, have been caught with the error of their unquestioned answers. They would object to the reasoning that they advocated their nation's military and police slaughtering the people caught with the intent to acquire the power to achieve their political goals, which includes themselves. Had they prior asked questions of their statements, and their sloppy use of words, they would not have made the error.

Liddy, Bush and their ilk, did not ask. The result was the initiation of a war before the questions were asked that would have prevented the war and its inherent process of retaliation.

If they read, and could understand these plain words, they would immediately suggest all manner of different arrangements of words separating their prior arrangement of words supporting the current war, from their identification of most of their friends seeking power to achieve political goals, as enemies.

And therefore, because you learned how to ask effective questions, you would ask the questions of each of George's and Gordon's defensive arrangements of words, until you assembled the array of their own words that perfectly described the intent and capability of George Bush, before those identical words could reach the description of Saddam Hussein.

Therein, by the meaning of the words they used, Liddy describes Bush and their American ilk, as a much greater enemy of American citizens, and of the world. They have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. They are designing new ones, such as the MOAB bomb they recently put into full production. They distribute weaponry around the world, such as the 500 bunker buster bombs they recently sold to Israel. Since the end of World War II they started eight wars against nations that did not attack America, categorically proving their INTENT and willingness to start wars. They have used napalm, carpet bombing, dispersed-gas bombs such as the Daisy Cutter used in Vietnam, internationally outlawed CS gas in lethal concentrations used to kill the children in the Dividian Christian church at Waco Texas, toxic dioxin Agent Orange that escalated cancers in Vietnam, toxic Depleted Uranium artillery that escalated cancers in Bosnia and Iraq, incessant dismissal of collateral damage (slaughtering thousands of civilians) as an ongoing US military policy, and more. If Saddam had done a tenth of what the US had done, with the same proven INTENT, by both the impartial and US descriptions of those actions, war against him would be impartially justified, and thus vastly more justified against the Americans, as increasingly recognized by the Muslim world and countless others.

If your words describing the other guy, verifiably describe you, and your resulting actions create a contradiction, your mind is not capable of the reasoning or logic process, most commonly because that electro-chemical process within your brain has been damaged or altered by the electro-chemical process routing data through a different set of neurons previously activated by a self-trained perception, again an electro-chemical neural process, of acquiring institutional power. If you perceive that the individual brain, that of yourself in this example, prevails above the impartial description of your words, to thus create a contradiction with your opposing conclusions, you therefore describe yourself as god, with the otherwise unknown power to create a sustainable contradiction defying the design of the universe, and therefore again describe the power-damaged mind of a human.

If an intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or a threat of their use, is America's official reason sufficient to start a war, and bomb a nation, how would you describe the bombing of the nation holding the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, whose most recent eight wars were attacks against nations which held no weapons of mass destruction, and which did not initiate an attack? Does not Liddy and his ilk state Saddam's case, and that of an increasing portion of the world, against America, and destroy America's case against Saddam?

Notice that the only difference in Liddy's description, except for the greater magnitude and extent of America's maliciousness, is the inconsequential reference to Saddam Hussein and George Bush, just two different petty humans. If that concept were controlling, then Bush could do no wrong regardless of his actions, and thus be God as perceived by American idiots who could not comprehend that concepts control humans, not vice versa, or humans would be God, and Saddam could do no wrong regardless of his actions, and thus be God as perceived by Iraqi idiots who could not comprehend that concepts control humans, not vice versa, or humans would be God.

The words describe the actions. The actions identify the individuals. It is not within the design of humans for an intent by one person to constitute grounds for war, and the same intent by another person to not constitute grounds for war. Either your words hold their meaning, or your mind is as useless to you and humans as that of G. Gordon Liddy, Bush, Hussein and their ilk.

What is the utility of your mind, in regard to accurately answering questions that therefore advance your knowledge?

Using the words of Bush and Liddy, who fits the description of the greatest threat to the world, in regard to possessing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

Using your words describing the other guy, who, of which institutions, create the greater contradictions when those words impartially match the actions of your own institutions?

Liddy, Bush and Saddam are immaterial. They are of no value to humans. Nor is any current political thrashings-about. They are on schedule with no possibly sustainable utility.

What is material, is the utility of your mind to you, and only therefore to humanity as a concept.

You cannot correct the contradictions of the other institutions, until you learn how to correct the contradictions of your own institutions, and verify the effect of your new knowledge.

If you are sufficiently intelligent to use language for its designed utility to advance humans, you will not suggest starting a war against a person who is said to hold intent to achieve weapons of mass destruction, of any nature including nuclear power, if you are the holder of those weapons, and if other people state that you hold the intent to start a war.

You cannot sustainably have what you attempt to deny the other guy. The method of your attempt will be used against you, as well as your attempt stagnating your other opportunities, because he and you are both of the same design. That design is of the self-contradicting humans, for the amusement of the designer.

An absolute demarcation in a person's intelligence, or thinking ability, is the displayed ability, or its lacking, of using words that hold their meaning. If a person uses words that do not hold their meaning after questions of contradictions perceived to be created by the words, or if that person refuses to answer questions of his words, or refuses to make himself available to answer such questions in public, then that person is useless to himself, you and humanity, for anything of value. He may still be able to do what idiots can easily do, such as get rich, be praised by fools, rob, imprison, or kill people, but that is of no sustainable utility.

Therefore, power-based institution leaders are useless to you and humanity. You are on your own, with the demarcating ability they do not hold, a mind that can question its conclusions to remove contradictions, perhaps with colleagues holding that same common ability of human minds not damaged by power.

At an extreme, if you slaughter thousands or millions of fellow humans, based on a rhetorical illusion, either you must slaughter everyone who matches that illusion, or you identify your mind as just too damn dumb to even understand what you say, such as George and Gordon, much to the amusement of observers.

Of course it is fun to accurately describe society's more noticeable, malicious egotists, but that which happened to their obviously addled minds can just as easily happen to your mind, before you recognize the wisdom of preventing such an event. George and Gordon will die of old age still avidly supporting the laughable effort to kill those who agree with George and Gordon's intent to gain the military power to achieve their political goals by killing those who do not agree.

Therefore, if I were to suggest that you sign your name to a statement that you will retain your mind's reasoning ability, by training your mind to never attack anyone who is accused of an intent to gain sufficient power to achieve their goals against a nuclear power, but does not attack, Liddy, Bush and their ilk would not recognize my support for the effect of their own words, and they would accuse me of being an unpatriotic coward for not supporting Bush's Iraq war, much to my amusement.

The same applies to all the people within the anti-Bush or anti-anything institutions who play the political power game, rather than the knowledge game, including the Nobel Peace Prize chaps and all anti-war organization folks who obviously crave the power, not the knowledge, to achieve their espousals.

When you hear or read a contradiction, simply ask and answer the questions that the speaker or writer foolishly failed to ask and answer before making a fool of himself by creating and displaying the contradiction because he was too damn lazy or cowardly to simply ask a few more questions. But if you do not first identify and resolve the contradictions of your own institutions, your attempt to identify and resolve the contradictions of the other guy will make a fool of you when others see your descriptions as making a fool of your own institutions.

And if you recognize any contradictions in what I write, please inform me, so that I may correct them, to thus advance my knowledge. But consider first asking the questions of what you may have too hastily identified. Nothing created with a contradiction is sustainable. There is no useful reason to labor for that which is fundamentally contradicted, after human minds were invented to identify and resolve contradictions.



Note....... Draft........ 6 November 2004

This is a rare glimpse of an undeveloped and unedited note, but not unique, as a very few readers may recognize. And it will not last long before it is shifted to a future, potential section, not seen on this page, if I get around to uploading that future section.

Common to unquestioning members of organizations or their conceptual manifestations as ideologies (common to humans), they routinely praise their leaders for "getting the truth out".

That praise was expressed, a few minutes ago, as I drove home from a classically unique Fairbanks Alaska function, albeit as usual, on a radio talk show, by a typical American idiot praising the idiot G. Gordon Liddy of the G. Gordon Liddy show. Well, the selection of radio entertainment on an old Jeep AM radio, is at the nadir on the few radio channels available on planet Earth, especially in Fairbanks Alaska, the last modern, full services town at the most northern line around the planet for towns of that nature.

One chap was praising the other, and the other was thanking the praiser.

They were discussing the truth that got out, that therefore caused the American people to elect George Bush for president for a second term.

Now think, a process not recognized by educated Americans who genuinely believe that if they are alive, they think.

If they are alive, their bodily functions are functioning to the extent of identifying their being alive, including those which maintain the life of the brain, but thinking is the process of asking and answering questions, which does not exist if either the questions are not asked, or the answers do not answer the questions that were asked.

George Bush won a fool's popularity contest by a vote of 51 percent of the American voters. 49 percent of the same population of fools voted against him. As an aside, among a fraction of a percent therein, a few thinking persons voted for a concept that the RepublicratDemocan/NaderiteGreens will not understand no matter how long their mind lives. They fear the questions that prove their contradictions, and thus do not answer the questions, and thus do not learn how to resolve the contradictions created by their minds.

So if the propagation of truth caused 51 percent of Americans to vote for Bush, then about half the American population cannot recognize truth, the 49 percent that voted for anyone else.

Do Americans use words that hold their meaning? Do you? Can you not therefore recognize the type of questions, that if asked in any of several certain formats, would leave you with no escape from publicly destroying your prior contradicted illusions?

Does the first question of the prior paragraph, which can never be asked or answered on the G. Gordon Liddy show, not identify the intellectual ability of the American Republicrats, or its void, after the following question?

Because George Bush, as President of the United States, with inordinately great power over what knowledge was propagated by the inordinately powerful and grossly over-funded United States government, including so much excess power and wealth that billions of dollars were left over to buy bombs and fight wars based on the pure macho ego of US presidents, had four years to propagate truth, and truth was recognized by only about half the American people, is not the unmitigated failure and intellectual inability of George and his worshipers, identical to the other half who previously held more than adequate time to propagate truth, proven?

What is your mind's answer? Which questions would easily embarrass anything but the flawlessly accurate answer?

Can you recognize truth by your own mind's answers to questions, including the answers to the questions of your answers?

Liddy and his unquestioning minions who praise him, identical to his opponents and their minions, will not read these sentences. If by rare circumstances they did, their minds would not be capable of answering the questions, as you immediately recognize if you use words that hold their meanings.

Every inherently untenable contradiction is illuminated by questions which the creator of the contradiction cannot answer because he trained his mind to be dependent upon sustaining the inherently untenable contradiction, by design.

Kerry's minions stated that they represented the truth, and they simply failed to get the truth out enough, for lack of as much money as the Republicrats control.

Even if they read these words, they would still genuinely believe that each other are lying.

It is beyond the ability of their power-damaged minds to recognize that the test of time has unequivocally proven that they are both lying.

The truth or its utility cannot exist in your mind if your opponent perceives a contradiction in your words or actions, and you cannot resolve the contradiction regardless of his reaction.

Bring forward any human whom you perceive can disprove the above, while the DemocanRepublicrats flee in abject fear and cowardice, and I will ask the questions which prove your failure to ask the questions to disprove your hasty perception.

At 120 KB for this page of rhetoric, this section will be deleted and maybe added to another page, maybe not. This website holds a fraction of the data utilized to question and prove the process of intellectual technology. Your mind holds no question that cannot be accurately answered, and thus no sustainable contradiction. Ask the questions.

And laugh with your ability to do so, while power-damaged minds fear questions more than death, because questions are the death of power, and power will kill all humans before it willingly faces the questions that prove its controlling contradiction, much to the amusement of observers.


End of Intech Concepts 20

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