Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 21
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


Controlling Contradictions, again... 28 October 2004

The below article was sent to AntiWar.com, as an instructive example. AntiWar.com is a news and comment site whose editors link and print world news articles from common, diverse sources, selecting those articles which better illuminate the fallacy and contradictions of using war as a means to solve problems, albeit of scant quality above the norm, for lack of any such quality among sources understandable to the AntiWar.com folks.

The AntiWar.com chaps are journalists, and therefore did not learn how to ask effective questions that would illuminate truth, advance knowledge or manifest their goals. If that were not so, journalists would not print or broadcast the usual government and institutional responses to questions, which do not answer even the ineffective questions journalists ask, and certainly not any effective questions. Therefore, the AntiWar.com editors, ignorant of the utility of questions, predictably declined the opportunity to print the article below, for reason you can quickly recognize. Those chaps, like their colleagues, fill their website with little beyond the usual unquestioned news media entertainment, attracting the antiwar folks who fear effective questions as much as George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair and their ilk, and thus become progressively more ignorant, confused as to why wars remain popular while nearly everyone expressly decries wars.

How many times would you need to ask questions, to which government and other institutional sorts responded with statements that consistently did not answer the questions you asked, before you identified that pattern, and started asking yourself questions to identify precisely how such a pattern of contradicted actions could exist, and how to resolve that particular contradiction to thus defeat its effect?

As a random example, if you were a journalist, and you asked a government official to reveal and certify a law, as uncontradicted, that purportedly requires citizens to perform a certain action demanded by the government official, such as the demand that Army personnel go to war or a person get police permission to purchase a gun, and he responded with an obviously contradicted personal opinion or rhetorical illusion, not the law, and without a certification of its uncontradicted applicability, would you parrot the personal opinion as the law, because the official holds a government title, adding the claimed credibility of your news journalist title, as do American news journalists, or would you ask the original question again, and again, and again, until you got the correct answer or could report that the government official was mentally incompetent and acting without lawful authority, with the verification of the question he could not answer while he held the known legal duty to know, reveal and certify the law which he claimed as his authority to demand a certain citizen action? What is your answer?

No journalists can answer that easy question, because the question, in face of their entrenched pattern of actions, illuminates a controlling contradiction of thus useless American news journalists, identical to the government chaps they question. Or did you too, because your mind functions within the self-induced fear created by a conceptual institution, perhaps your self-flattering perception that you are a commonly intelligent adult, fail to answer the question, in writing, with your signed name?

Are there obviously not contradictions that control arrays of resulting contradictions, such as nearly everything American news journalists pander, predicated on a controlling contradiction of presenting another institutional person's rhetorical illusions as truth, adding your implied institutional credibility, not initially recognized by those who are easily fooled by the illusion of institutional titles which those gullible people did not learn how to effectively question? If titled government officials have conclusively proven, from the test of time (millennia), that their power-damaged minds cause them to lie approximately 100 percent of the time, sometimes more, and news journalists consistently publish what government dolts say, without asking the readily available questions that illuminate the lies as lies, would you ever, even once, believe any news journalist, or information originating from a journalist, rather than ask the questions illuminating the compounded contradictions of both the news journalist and the institutional source of information he was reporting?

In a world of inherently corrupted government officials, and inherently corrupted news journalists (power-damaged minds) who never effectively question government officials or themselves, is it therefore not twice as imperative for YOU to learn how to ask effective questions to avoid being illuminated as a fool, victimized by fools with power, such as news journalists?

What itemized process, without omission, caused the German society of the 1930's and 40's to adopt a perception that Jews were criminals or otherwise evil? What is your answer of the question as it is stated? What process caused the American society of today to continue voting for the DemocanRepublicrat regime that cannot even answer simple questions of their actions? Select any of billions of societal or individual examples. What is that process, by exact and verifiable description, at play in otherwise diverse human minds?

Is your answer not the starting point to learn how to solve the problems created by human actions in society, and a failure to answer the question the certainty of your failure if you attempt to solve such problems?

Is there anyone who lies to only the other guy? Can a human mind that trains itself to routinely create contradictions (lies), identify them to resolve them? Who but a self-fooled fool would attempt to pander a contradiction (lie) that cannot possibly be sustained among humans whose mind is predicated on identifying and resolving contradictions? If you lie to another inherently equal human mind which learned how to ask questions, how much time would normally be required for that mind to identify the contradiction of your lie, by simply asking questions? If someone lies to you, and you learned how to ask questions, how long would you need to identify the lie as a lie? If you lie to your own mind, by stating a conclusion that is openly verifiable as contradicted, but which if stated can materially or emotionally benefit you for temporary gratification, is it not your own mind's inability to recognize the resulting contradiction, as a result of your self-training, even when it is stated to you in plain language so that you can ask the questions to resolve the contradiction, for lack of your knowledge of how to question contradictions, that will progressively train your mind to retain your lie as useful information, rather than immediately correct it, and thus use it as the basis for your mind's next therefore fundamentally contradicted conclusion that will ultimate defeat your efforts based on it?

Would you not want to learn the controlling contradictions, such as your self-trained inability to use your mind to ask and answer effective questions of contradictions, that therefore create all subsequent contradictions that frustrate what you attempt to do, as early in life as you can, to avoid being easily made a fool of by incompetent news journalists, government dolts and other institutionally self-impaired minds who did not learn how to ask effective questions?

Because the AntiWar.com chaps, like Bush and war mongers, did not learn the utility of asking their own mind effective questions, they continue to do that which perpetuates wars and other contradictions, under their contradicting rhetoric of advocating peace, as the results surrounding you prove. Precisely why have all the antiwar and peace organizations, of highly diverse human minds with piles of titles and reams of credentials, throughout history, failed, if not for a controlling contradiction universal to all those otherwise diverse minds, which they cannot identify because they have not learned how to effectively question their own mind's contradictions? Is not the answer in the question?

Below are the questions that AntiWar.com chaps could not understand, and considered of no utility to people, including AntiWar.com sorts, who might wish to learn how to easily end the addiction to wars among humans who fear questions. Notice why.


What percentage of those people reading these words would shift to a word program on their screen, and write the words, "controlling contradictions", twenty times, at the suggestion of this sentence, and what percentage would instead just keep reading, without writing those words?

Is your mind of sufficient intellectual self-training to actually answer questions, such as the above, when you hear or read them, or does your mind function like American politicians and journalists who rarely answer questions with answers that answer the questions asked, if at all?

Are you among the majority percentage of people who sustain the ongoing social contradictions, such as wars, by your support of a warring society, by proof of their existence, including the people who only complain about wars, or are you among the minuscule percentage genuinely seeking the knowledge of how to resolve damaging contradictions such as wars?

Does your mind learn new knowledge from hearing statements of which it already established agreement or disagreement, or by encountering curious questions that cause your mind to think more than that induced by the usual flow of informational statements?

If you hear a titled person, such as a government or religious leader, quoted by a respected news service, without any questions, state that Muslims or western infidels are terrorists or satanic, or state anything else, do you use such information as facts for subsequent conclusions, or does your mind ask the questions that the useless news journalists failed to ask and answer, to ascertain the validity of the information?

Are lies, pandered without questions that could easily identify the lies as lies, news, or even worth the time to read if the issue is not the analysis of lies, or a matter of pure entertainment?

If you identify any ongoing contradictions, such as wars, for which you would prefer to manifest the resolution, is it not inherent that you have not yet learned the knowledge of how to resolve them, or you would have already done so?

Are not all contradictions identified and resolved by asking and answering questions?

Are not contradictions created by attacking the other guy, regardless of the excuse?

Are not contradictions which are sustained among many diverse people, over long periods of time, predicated on a controlling contradiction among them, or noticeable solutions would have been manifested early in the game, at individual locations, and the beneficial knowledge quickly propagated among humans who communicate by language?

Who would develop more incentive or curiosity to learn more useful knowledge about the concept of, "controlling contradictions", between the person who only reads those words, and the person who wrote the words twenty times or performed some other action emphasizing the concept in the mind?

Does not war represent a profound contradiction, by its damaging nature that nearly everyone, including the war-makers and their minions, routinely state that they do not desire?

If a person makes a statement that the person contradicts with his actions, is not the contradiction easily resolved by either not making the statement or not performing the actions?

If a perceived resolution creates another contradiction, is that other contradiction not resolved with the same process of either not making the involved statement or not performing another action that creates any contradiction?

If each resolution creates more contradictions, was not the sustainable resolution back at the original, controlling contradiction?

If identifiably different groups of inherently independent, individual minds, separated by distance or time, manifest the same contradiction, amid any array of actions or statements, is it not inherently predicated on a controlling contradiction or it would not be the same contradiction?

If a person states one thing, and does the opposite, and the easy resolution is to not do either, to thus conform with the other, but the person instead sustains the contradiction, is there obviously not a controlling contradiction that the involved mind cannot recognize, including the minds of peace advocates who observably fear and flee the questions that can inherently illuminate the process to end wars regardless of opposition?

If there is human opposition to a person's desired espousal, is not the resolution found among the questions of the human mind's process to create opposition?

Therefore, if your perception of the original contradiction seems to require a contradicted reaction, might it obviously be that you did not ask the questions to identify a preceding, controlling contradiction that could be resolved without damage, or without creating any other such contradiction?

If significant social contradictions which are created by human minds, such as wars, are manifested around the world, through many generations, and thus sustained by the great diversity of individual human minds, is it not inherent that an unrecognized contradiction within all those human minds, controls their ability to learn the knowledge of how to resolve the contradictions they create, by design?

Therefore, would you not be wiser to seek the knowledge of that single contradiction which controls the human mind's ability to learn how to resolve the subsequent, compounded and thus more complex contradictions it creates?

Would you not do so by asking and answering questions, a simple skill which you can practice by answering the questions you are reading, the process by which the human mind learns new knowledge, while less-thinking people speak and write their useless statements, and routinely skip past any self-accountable answering of questions?

If you asked enough questions about the contradictions humans routinely create, of the diversity inherent to the human phenomenon, would you not begin to recognize patterns of contradictions inherent to the fewer words, such as the word, "war", that reference and encompass arrays of diverse or complex contradictions?

If you state that killing innocent people is wrong, and the slaughter of innocent civilians is so routine to all wars that the phrase, collateral damage, was invented by Americans to divert their mind's recognition from the wrong of Americans incessantly killing innocent people to thus sustain America's incessant war-making, was the contradiction resolved, or left in place by creating a second contradiction of defining innocent people as collateral damage to sustain America's wars?

Within those patterns, is it not inherent that certain significant contradictions, such as the mind's decision to not answer certain types of questions, to thus leave it without otherwise available knowledge, affect and control arrays of thus created or sustained contradictions?

Would you not therefore identify "controlling contradictions", the resolutions of which efficiently resolve arrays of otherwise complex contradictions, while those folks who did not answer such questions as your are reading, are forever left lost with the billions of humans still making the same useless statements about too many and too diverse of superficial contradictions for a mind to synthesize and resolve without first classifying?

And most intriguing, or amusing, which you might start to recognize at this moment, would it not be inherent, by the results surrounding us, that a certain controlling contradiction within the minds of both the war advocates and the peace advocates, unrecognized by either, who both expressly advocate the ultimate goal of peace, precludes them from learning the knowledge of how to manifest what they both ultimately advocate?

Is it not inherent that any human mind which creates or can define a contradiction, holds knowledge of the resolution, by definition of the contradiction origin and design of the human mind, and can identify the resolution if no other contradiction has been created or sustained, by a lack of questioning, which would therein obscure or divert the mind's access to the original contradiction?

Might that other contradiction, a controlling contradiction, perhaps the fear of questions within the minds of journalists, be the reason that you have not heretofore seen an article such as this in any anti-war, pro-war or other institutional publication, despite such articles being offered across the spectrum of institutions throughout human history?

To what extent and for what controlling reason does the human mind, including that of institutional leaders, even the institution of neurologists, and your mind, fear questions and answering questions, such as what you are reading, and thus fear thinking, by design, and why have wars therefore raged among otherwise thinking humans?

Were there any obscure, specialized or uncommon words in the above questions, that would create the inconvenience of a person having to reference a dictionary to understand the questions?

Is it not the easy ability to read slowly, and patiently think about a question, to thus create an accurate answer, to thus train your mind to learn new knowledge, with thus exponential efficiency, that identifies a thinking and thus useful human mind, therefore soon able to promptly resolve complex contradictions regardless of human opposition, while unthinking people, such as the war mongers, peace espousers and their institutional ilk, waste thousands of years slaughtering each other, destroying the efforts of each other, and uselessly decrying each other's actions, simply because they were too intellectually lazy to ask and answer questions that would promptly resolve the contradictions they and their predecessors created by slaughtering each other, destroying the efforts of each other, and uselessly decrying each other's actions?

May you learn the most knowledge of the most concepts, most efficiently, which you can do by actually answering every question you encounter, if you ask them, an easy process that the peace and war chaps will not do, much to your amusement.



Oh shit, it's raining... 29 Oct 2004

Certainly you laughed robustly, during the recent Civil War movie, Cold Mountain, distracting others watching the movie, when one of the actresses stated with magnificent derision:

"They call this war a cloud over the land. Well, they made the weather. Then they stood out in the rain. Then they said, Oh shit, it's raining."

As usual, many accurate conclusions fool humans, such as movie producers, who stop thinking at their artistically crafted conclusions, and do not ask the questions which can create the process to stop the raining, of which movie producers complain, much to the further laughter of those who ask the questions.

They, in the above movie quote created by the script writer, are the adults. Is that not so?

It is not just the poor sad pitiable, intellectually void Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell and their clique. Not just their mental midget minion military officers, as was I in Vietnam, much to my laughable embarrassment. Not just the gullible, unquestioning enlisted military dolts of the US Civil war, Vietnam war, Iraq war and others. Not just their equally unquestioning enemies.

It is those, and all the other American adults who keep voting for the endlessly war-mongering DemocanRepublicrats, and keep paying taxes to fund their weather-making game, and then most illuminating of themselves, keep making fools of themselves by saying, Oh shit, it's raining.

An easy way to not contradict yourself, and thus not make a fool of yourself in public, as an adult, is to not complain about the rain you help make.

So if you complain, that leaves you with the only other resolution to your contradiction. It can be only your contradiction.

If you are a teenager, not yet an adult, there may yet be hope for your mind, if you start asking and answering effective questions, now, before you fall victim to doing what adults do. The adults are already hopeless, as their results prove. The test of time has proven their intellectual inability to identify and resolve their glaring contradictions. The movie script writer expressed the conclusion well, but did not ask the questions of his conclusion to easily learn how to stop the same rain of today.

If you are a teenager, and talking to an adult, every sentence out of your mouth might wisely end with a question mark. Is it not easy to arrange the words to properly structure a useful question from what is otherwise a useless statement? If you do so, you will not derive useful or accurate answers from the adults because they did not learn how to ask questions to identify truth, and thus cannot produce truth as an answer, as the results of society prove. Your goal is to learn how to ask increasingly more effective questions, by practicing asking questions, to learn what the adults obviously did not learn because they did not learn how to ask questions. Because the adults are attempting to deceive you when they answer or babble words that do not answer the question you asked, as their endless wars, compounded contradictions and their incessant excuses easily prove upon your effective questions, you must ask a half dozen questions of their every answer to discover just what sort of lie they were attempting with their first answer. If not at the outset of your questions, the adults will soon more noticeably dodge your questions, illuminating the uselessness of adults, other than illuminating the nature of that uselessness. Notice the methods of their dodges, then as the adults become noticeably irritated by your questions, leave the adults to their self-confusion, and continue your questions elsewhere for your own more useful mind.

If you are not stricken with abject pity upon therefore understanding American adults, then you might shake your head in a sweat of fear that you may have become the same victim as they, to thus eventually die of old age still unable to figure out how to resolve the easily resolved contradictions they keep creating, compounding, complaining-about and rightfully blaming on adults.

The adults will not lead you out of perpetual wars, institutional lying, escalating imprisonments of non-harmful people, confiscatory taxation to buy more bombs, denials of your human rights, and arrays of other damaging contradictions in their laughably futile quest for power over each other. They were trained by adults. They are clueless of what power is, and how it functions in the human mind. They cannot identify the process of reasoning. They were not taught how to effectively question the lies of adults. And they were too cowardly to easily learn on their own by simply asking questions of their own statements.

They just kept making the weather, standing in it, and saying, Oh shit, it's raining. That is all they will ever do, by design, for the entertainment of the observers.

They do not ask and answer real questions to learn the knowledge of the process the adults could use to easily stop making the proverbial weather that the adults keep making while complaining of it. Is that not so?

Your mind is on its own. The adults will not do anything but damage its ability. Use your mind, or fail as miserably as they. Before your mind sinks to the uselessness of American DemocanRepublicrats and other institutionally self-victimized adults, ask the questions to identify their controlling contradictions they will forever refuse to question, or your mind will sink at the speed of gravity the moment you foolishly flatter yourself with the title of, "adult", or any other institutional illusion created by adults to fool themselves into believing that their mind is somehow superior to the minds of people without equally self-deluding titles, such as you. And they unquestionably believe that whatever their fellow titled colleagues, such as adults, RepublicratDemocans, or any titled illusion, tell them, must be true because it is from a colleague with the same or greater illusion of a superior-sounding title.

Notice that the following question asks for a LOGICAL answer, one that is not inherently contradicted. If you need a logical answer to a currently unrevealed question, such as one sealed in an envelop until you answer this question, to test your own ability to think logically, among the following, who would you select to ask the question, a highly educated US military general who inherently believes that problems can be solved by killing other people, an extensively trained police officer who inherently believes that problems can be solved by jailing other people, a politician who inherently believes that problems can be solved by lying to other people then adopting laws enforced by the aforementioned police and protected by the aforementioned military, who are paid by seizing taxes against the will of those who worked to earn the money, a journalist who inherently believes that problems can be solved by asking the aforementioned chaps what they are going to do to solve the problems they are still creating, a think tank expert with many university degrees, titles and credentials, who inherently believes that think tanks know the solutions to the ongoing problems that think tanks have been paid to have already solved, an adult who inherently believes that the aforementioned sorts are solving the problems they are still creating or the aforementioned could not socially exist, or a peasant without a title or power, who does not even claim any superior intellectual ability above children, and is therefore inherently left with only the ability of his or her mind to solve problems?

Use your answer, and laugh at the adults who are caught with the wrong answer that their actions already revealed.

What most logically answers questions, a human mind with no other illusions of resources, or a person who relies upon guns, prisons, laws, lies, titles, credentials, institutional references, seized money, illusions of superiority and other rhetorical devices which are already categorically proven by the test of time to have flawed the ability of the human mind? Are you of your mind, or of a bag full of rhetorical titles held by adults who have not just failed to solve the problems they keep creating, but keep creating them and keep complaining about them?

Use your answers to identify the contradictions that adults manifest, and then ask questions about those contradictions, and answer the questions. The adults cannot even start that process, the process of thinking, the process to learn the knowledge of how to actually solve problems rather than perpetually complain about them, because the adults cannot answer the above questions, or they would have already told you that adults are idiots, and should be questioned instead of believed.

If adults are over 21 years of age, and are idiots as proven by their social results of incessantly starting and funding the wars about which they complain, and you are over 21 years old but claim to not be an idiot, what is the easy resolution of the identified contradiction? Why would you claim to be an adult, or any other institutionally flattering title beyond your given name, after the holders of the title prove that the holders of the title are idiots?

As previously stated, practice answering the following questions, among many other instructive questions. Have any American Republican and Democrat government officials verifiably lied to the people? Did the Republican and Democrat Party officers and members therefore removed those lying Republicans and Democrats from party membership to protect the parties from being defined as represented by liars? Do those political parties therefore functionally acknowledge that they are represented by liars, and thus sustain their support for lying? Does your vote for a liar, as an individual or an organization verifiably sustaining liars as its representatives, further identified by the liar willingly joining an organization defined as represented by liars, identify you as believing that supporting lying (creating a contradiction) can achieve a sustainable goal? Can a vote be functionally divided to support only part of what the vote supports? Do you endorse lying as a means of achieving a goal and defining your integrity? Is there anyone who lies to only the other guy? Can humans sustain a contradiction? Will you therefore ever again vote for a Democrat or Republican?

What precisely described mechanism causes the minds of adult RepublicratDemocans to be emotionally affected by the above questions (angered, frustrated), and refuse to answer the questions, while you can easily answer the questions, with your name for public accountability?

The adults will watch their every war create the process for each next war, and can read the same script of the entire history of humans, and will refuse to ask or answer the questions that identify the war-making contradictions created by adults, which can only be resolved if first identified. The adults will only stand in the rain they make, exclaiming, Oh shit, it's raining.

That is the zenith of their intellectual ability, the unmitigated uselessness of their self-flattered minds, for themselves, society, and you.

You do not have to display yourself as such an idiot.

Question your way out of their abject intellectual void. And have fun doing that. When you start answering the simple questions that adults fear and flee, you will start laughing at the foolishness of their fears.




Consider the mountain climber... 27 November 2004

Consider any arena of knowledge, such as that held by automobile mechanics, mountain climbers or politicians.

At the greater extent of that knowledge, the mountain climber can look at a mountain or a climbing route on a rock cliff, perhaps with binoculars, and methodically identify every move, ability and piece of equipment needed to get to the top of the mountain, and back, in every weather condition, just as highly experienced auto mechanics can quickly solve car problems that frustrate highly experienced car drivers.

The knowledge involves each part of the puzzle, without any part missing.

The knowledge was acquired by the mind.

No one is smarter than anyone else, by design. Different human minds of the inherently same design just hold different knowledge that was learned by the same process, that of the brain asking and answering questions, or identifying and resolving contradictions, either by consciously used words, or by experiences that imparted sensory stimuli and neural responses without formulating related words.

It is worth recognizing the extent of the brain formulating words for most of the sensory stimuli learning process relating to phenomena external to the body. You train your mind by the words you use, and by your actions. Most of your actions result in your applying words to them, either before or after the actions, in part because humans enjoy their new invention of language.

And therefore, with the patience to ask enough questions, with the same patience for the answers, and of the instructor if one is utilized, combined with existing or developed physical ability, a person can become the most able and knowledgeable mountain climber without ever climbing a mountain. The knowledge can be transferred to the mind without having to make a fool of oneself, risking one's life with environmental events, inefficiently using time stumbling up a mountain with a miserably heavy pack in horrible weather conditions, with a climbing partner who farts in the tent, and forgot the chocolate.

So why do mountain climbers run off to the dangerous mountains, risking their lives, inefficiently using their time, and come back with popular stories of how miserable they were, accented with self-flattering words and a few comments on how beautiful it all was, when the same knowledge can be more quickly learned by more rational means?

Why? What mechanism, flawlessly described, within the design of the human mind, produces the contradiction to the reasoning ability of the human mind?

After the data was learned, the miserable way or otherwise, by one mind, why was it not sought out and more comfortably, more safely acquired by other minds who wanted to become knowledgeable mountain climbers, especially with no end of egotistical climbers who want to bestow their great knowledge upon anyone who will listen to their climbing stories of great detail?

For those who do not understand these words because they have never written a question and answer series, the process to more comfortably become the aforementioned mountain climber, and efficiently learn any other multi-part knowledge, requires that the person learning the knowledge physically write each question and each answer.

Why, as the flawlessly described mechanism in the human mind, do politicians who mouth the words of the benefits of political solutions for social problems, as the reason for the existence of politicians rather than war lords, and who decry war, incessantly send gullible fools onto battle fields to slaughter each other and destroy human efforts, as a purported solution to social problems, rather than comfortably learn the knowledge the politicians purport to hold, without killing people and destroying cities to prove they hold no more related knowledge than do war lords?

And why do those gullible military fools fooled by politicians, who state that they do not prefer to be shot or blown apart, who genuinely do not wish to spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair as a result of the openly known methods of war, so eagerly run off to war, and say great things about it in contradiction to what they elsewhere say actually happened?

Why and how does the human mind contradict itself?

For what was the human mind invented, and by what mechanism therein, as part of its design, did it create the contradictions it seeks to resolve, to thus define it?

Would not the answers to those questions identify an arena of knowledge, like other arenas of knowledge?

The verifiable answers are available. The knowledge can be used to promptly solve all the social problems, and more.

If you would like to become the most knowledgeable and capable Alaska Range winter mountain climber, or end wars regardless of opposition, solve every human-caused problem, or learn the design of the human mind, and a very few of the countless other arenas of knowledge, you may inquire. The knowledge, like that of those countless other arenas, has always been available to those who sought to learn it, by design, and long known, if not always known, by a small percentage of people.

Now notice from whom you would learn how to climb mountains, fix cars, become a politician, end wars or solve every human-caused problem, and from whom you would not, if you chose other than yourself. Would your first question not be that of who holds the knowledge you seek? Would you inquire of a coal miner to learn how to grow apples, or inquire of a war lord to learn how to be a politician, or inquire of a politician to learn how to manifest peace, or of a think tank expert to learn how to solve complex social problems, etceteras? What do the results of their actions demonstrate of their knowledge? Did they accept pay or benefits to manifest what they have not manifested, to thus create a contradiction, to thus demonstrate that they do not hold the knowledge of how to resolve the contradictions they therefore perpetuate with the support of fools who look to the people without the knowledge, for the knowledge?

Might it be that the coal miner knows how to grow apples, but is not paid to do so and therefore does not demonstrate his knowledge? How would you know, if not by asking, and then asking the resulting questions to verify the first answers? Did you write your answer to that question? Do you use your own mind's answers to questions?

In contrast to those who are not benefited to manifest any particular arena of knowledge, those who are benefited, and have not manifested it, do not hold the knowledge, by proof of their results. Therefore, you may more efficiently start your inquiry among anyone else.

Now notice among whom all the institutionally titled people inquire to learn knowledge that has already been openly proven to be not held by those fellow institutionally titled people accepting the benefits of their titles which have not produced the results implied by those titles, and who do not ask questions of why.

Notice those who simply learn the knowledge, and those who continue contradicting themselves their entire lives.

And therefore, you may rightfully laugh yourself to tears at the people who are frustrated, rather than laughing themselves to tears, at the contradictions they decry while refusing to simply learn how to resolve them. They exist for the entertainment of the observers who easily learned the knowledge. Is that not so, by the definitions of the words?



The news... 29 November 2004

If you are reading or listening to the common news, including all the details, of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, the 14 other shooting wars, the political and social strife, suffering and turmoil, the destruction, maliciousness and robbery perpetrated by governments, the injustices, poverty, crimes, the actions of the US Homeland Security Gestapo, monumental screw-ups, abject incompetence, and more, and you are not laughing robustly, you are wasting your time reading the news.

The news is on schedule, and offers only magnificent comedy.

Humans are doing what humans are designed to do, and willfully remaining deep in the intellectual dark ages, attacking each other and destroying each other's efforts, in the name of, fill in the blank pandered by YOUR government and YOUR organization leaders. No humans have yet chosen to use their intellectual ability for social process, especially all the social leaders.

Every injustice and other contradictions can be promptly corrected, to the satisfaction of whomever identifies the injustice or contradictions, regardless of opposition which is just one of the involved contradictions, if whomever easily learns the knowledge of how to correct them.

The process is just knowledge, learned by asking and answering every question between your current knowledge and that which you seek to learn.

The reasons that laughably ancient contradictions still render human society as a comedy of self-induced misery, suffering and hard work, involve those parts of the related knowledge puzzle that the involved people do not question for those reasons which can be learned and corrected if they were questioned, with real questions. Questions are harmless, and are the food for your mind.

Do not for a moment believe that anyone else is doing anything to correct any of what you consider to be wrong. They are adults. They do not know how to correct it, as the test of time proves. If the wrong is a human-caused contradiction, it does not matter what the adults are doing, their effort is doomed to failure. If you believe otherwise, you are amusingly gullible and ignorant of the test of time. It is 2004. Why are those old problems still defining human society, if anyone being paid or purporting to solve those problems had learned how to resolve human-caused contradictions?

The people being paid to perform the leadership task of thinking, to thus devise the processes to solve the problems, do not think, by design. Thinking is the process of asking and answering questions. If you do not easily learn their process by their results, listen to any leadership group to which you have access. They are not asking and answering questions. They are not thinking. They are making statements not resultant from any questions. If a question is asked, on rare occasion and of no substance, the response does not answer the question asked. They are not even at a lower grade school level of asking and answering questions (thinking), and will never reach the level of asking and answering a continuously related series of questions that arrive at a solution for which no related question is unanswered and therefore promptly solves the problem regardless of any opposition which would have raised the related questions to derive the answers.

And further, the leaders are being paid, rewarded or benefited to perpetually talk about the problems, not solve them. Is that not obvious? Would your mind seek to solve a problem if you were being paid or rewarded to perpetuate it, and you would no longer be rewarded if the problem was solved? Incentive is everything to the human mind, for manifesting results.

The people who have learned the knowledge, because of basic human curiosity with contradictions, are not just not paid, and not just ignored, they are viciously attacked if they too noticeably offer advanced knowledge to any power-based organization they could assist, or its gullibly loyal followers. Further, the knowledgeable people are offered no incentive to solve those problems against opposition, so they watch and laugh robustly.

Organizations, especially governments, cannot exist if they manifest their espoused goals, and must therefore never do so, and must therefore perpetuate the problems that define the goals, and therefore must defend against the knowledge that would advance society to those goals and thus to greater benefits beyond those goals, by design of organizations, in contrast to the superficial rhetoric of self-fooled (corrupted) organization leaders whose actions disprove their rhetoric. How did you otherwise believe that human society could remain so laughably primitive and intellectually void as to imprison and kill each other in wars and police actions, in the name of freedom and peace?

And therefore only you will learn how to resolve each contradiction, if you wish, regardless of opposition. If you do not have time to learn the knowledge, which requires less time than you will otherwise spend complaining, if you do, and vastly less time than used by the people being paid to fool you with their rhetoric about their attempting to solve the problems, then wisely learn to laugh robustly at all those people killing each other and anyone standing nearby, including innocent little girls, and blowing the legs off gullible young lads, in wars and police actions, maliciously destroying and robbing, etceteras and etceteras, because that is what unthinking people train themselves and each other to do, and are rewarded well by all the gullible people who pay taxes and send donations to have that done and supported in all manners.

And therefore enjoy the show. It is the best comedy on the rock.



How easy is it?... 1 December 2004

Before a particular time in history, the knowledge simply did not exist within the minds of common people, medical people or shamans, about bacteria and their effects. For many thousands of years, many millions of humans, including the wealthy and powerful, the government and military sorts, innocent children and their parents, the most educated and the peasants, needlessly died early deaths simply because humans had not yet learned the knowledge of easily preventable bacteria transmission to and between sick or injured people. The number of needless amputations was also high, and considered an advancement when humans learned that they could save lifes by cutting off legs or arms that were infected with untreatable demons.

When the knowledge belatedly started emerging from the people who were simply curious about observable commonalities in types of deaths and illnesses, just like the knowledge that Earth was round instead of flat, or the knowledge that humans could fly, the institutional leaders, including doctors, scoffed at the new concept, and ridiculed it, delaying its utility. There were wars to be fought, and costly processes to elevate the status and wealth of government and other institution leaders, requiring the heavily taxed efforts of society which could not be wasted on hair-brained prattlings about teensy little invisible things crawling over people, and in their blood.

The bacteria has not been seen, and the words or word arrangements had not been formulated to describe the phenomenon to create the knowledge to resolve the contradictions to thus save lives, including the lives of institution leaders who routinely scoffed at new knowledge.

Yes, there were exceptions throughout human history. But those people were therefore killed, imprisoned or learned the futility of trying to describe advanced knowledge to people who feared knowledge, especially to government leaders who had wars to fight and costly processes to orchestrate to elevate the status and wealth of government leaders.

Read the above analogy several times, or do what you must do to recognize the full substance of that fact of history, to the extent that you can write the words below before you read them. The minds of government and other institutional leaders cannot possibly understand the above, no matter how many times they read it, for reason available in the knowledge mentioned below.

Before a particular time in history, the knowledge simply did not exist within the minds of common people, government leaders, think tank experts and other institutional leaders, about intellectual technology and its effects, amusingly despite humans being predicated on their intellectual (thinking) design and ability. For many thousands of years, wars raged, humans slaughtered and maimed each other, destroyed cities and other of their endeavors, imprisoned each other, stole money with forced taxation, stuffed the lifetime labor of billions of humans down the government and other institutional rat holes that compounded those socially stagnating and destructive processes, simply because humans had not yet learned the knowledge of how to easily ask a series of questions starting at the origin of a contradiction, and concluding at the resolution, answering every question of each revealed contradiction, including that of human opposition, so that no contradiction remained to preclude the prompt manifestation of the resolution.

World peace? Too easy. It just involves an additional series of questions after less dramatic contradictions.

When the knowledge of intellectual technology belatedly started emerging from the people who were simply curious about observable commonalities in types of institutional contradictions altering the processes of individual minds, just like the knowledge that Earth was round instead of flat, or the knowledge that humans could fly, the institutional leaders, amusingly including think tanks, highly titled educational institutions and even neurologists, scoffed at the concept, and ridiculed it, delaying its utility. There were wars to be fought, and costly processes to elevate the status and wealth of government and other institutional dolts, requiring the heavily taxed efforts of society which could not be wasted on hair-brained prattlings about asking more effective questions to exponentially advance human knowledge.

The institution leaders refused to ask the questions, for reason found within the harmless but institutionally frightening questions, while the common people gullibly looked to their therefore ignorant institutional leaders for knowledge, instead of asking and answering the questions that would advance their knowledge by design of questions.

Yes, there were exceptions throughout human history. But those people were therefore killed, imprisoned or learned the futility of trying to describe advanced knowledge to people who feared knowledge, especially to government leaders who had wars to fight and costly rituals to orchestrate to elevate the status and wealth of government leaders.

And therefore, if you believe that demons are so frightening that medical scientists should not be allowed to disturb them to perhaps discover that they are simply bacteria, viruses or genomic sequences which can be controlled to thus save lives, perhaps yours, then you understand why government and other institution leaders believe that effective questions are so frightening that common folks should not hold the freedom or right to publicly ask those questions to perhaps discover that they hold answers which can be used to stop wars and thus save lives, perhaps yours if you work in a tall office tower, Washington DC or other targets.

Discovering bacteria was easy. You can even see the things, after glass and then the microscope were invented. The discovery has saved millions of lives, perhaps yours. But notice how long that required of human endeavor.

It is easier to discover the process to end wars, and manifest many less dramatic goals universally sought by all people, including the folks who get government jobs, and their offspring. But notice that institution leaders have not yet learned the knowledge. The reason is within the knowledge. Knowledge is learned by simply asking and answering questions, something anyone can do, and do so while sitting in comfortable chairs, sipping fine wine and nibbling on chocolate, albeit with a pen and paper in hand.

Wars are just a dramatic example, among knowledge of greater potential for humans. The asking and answering of questions is associated with intellectual freedom, and with advancing knowledge among the common people. Knowledge of the full effects of social freedom and the process to advance knowledge, verifiably does not exist in the minds of institutional leaders, especially government leaders, especially those of the United States of America, especially their think tanks and judicial branch. That those humans fear freedom more than death is merely an accurate arrangement of words of no utility until you learn why and how that effect can exist in a human mind of the same design as your own which craves freedom. You and they can learn that knowledge, by two primary processes, among others.

How frightening are those questions? As mentioned elsewhere, among my own favorite examples, far less dramatic than countless other examples experienced by billions of other people, I was once jailed for a week, because I asked certain questions of the United States National Park Service, a police agency. The full story, found elsewhere, is amusing. The poor sad Park Service chaps, simply because they foolishly accepted that institutional job without asking questions of its effects, because their parents, schools and other institutions of adults did not teach them how to ask effective questions, so frightened of simple questions that the Park cops and their government colleagues perpetrated several felony crimes to unlawfully arrest and jail me, genuinely believed that they could intimidate me out of asking further questions, so the government dolts could remain comfortable inside their cocoon of ignorance dependent upon maliciously attacking people who ask questions and thus think.

And, likewise described fully elsewhere, Judge Robert Hackett of the Washington State Superior Court in Yakima, stated with words close to these on record elsewhere: This court, Mr. Buchanan, will cut you off at the ankles, literally, if you even breath a word of those principles. The principles which Hackett's power-damaged mind so feared that he boldly ascribed his criminal threat to court record, were the questions of law, in a court of law, that revealed the crimes Hackett was perpetrating by denying the right of freedom of speech, the right to respectfully ask questions of law in a court of law. Courts of law exist for the questions of law to be asked, answered, and revealed in the written words of the law, or there would be no need for courts instead of kings.

If you are not laughing as much as I, while I am writing these words, you are missing the only utility that the pitiable ilk of Judge Robert Hackett offer to humans. The principles of law will no longer invade the American courts of law, that might question the raw power of court judges, negating the rule of written law, to threaten citizens with torture to preclude the principles of law from invading the courts of law. And that new raw judicial power above the law, to prevent the questions of law, created by the increasing contradictions in the applications of increasingly flawed new laws, from being respectfully asked in courts of law, is currently upheld by the intellectually absent Washington State Supreme Court justices, appointed by corrupted politicians, much to the robust laughter of commonly intelligent people.

The mental midget George Bush, Robert Hackett, all US government personnel, especially the American judicial branch sorts, and their institutional ilk throughout human history, including their university and think tank dolts, by proof of their results, genuinely believe that they can intimidate, torture, imprison, tax and kill their way to the advancement of humans, therein creating the obvious contradictions and problems that stagnate human society and preclude the advancement of useful knowledge, rather than simply use the human mind for its designed purpose to ask and answer the questions that resolve every contradiction to thus manifest uncontradicted conclusions as the foundation to advance human knowledge vastly beyond the amusing nadir of human-caused contradictions.

Enjoy the show. You will be able to do so if you learn that knowledge by asking and answering those questions, an easy process.



All contradictions can be identified, to the extent of their resolutions... 15 December 2004

Why are American soldiers being increasingly caught murdering, maiming and torturing unarmed, innocent civilians in Iraq, in addition to captured resistance fighters, with malicious intent, and will continue to do so as long as Americans can sustain the Iraq war?

If you are not a victim of the American news media, and if you are interested, you are noticing the extent of American soldiers being caught knowingly violating US and international laws, and fundamental human decency, by maliciously murdering, maiming and torturing unarmed, innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as the same for submissive military captives, admitted on record by US officials when caught with the undeniable proofs, albeit scantly reported in the American news media.

As with all wars, decades after World War II, German people visiting other countries expressed surprise at routinely learning verified knowledge of significant events during that war, which were not mentioned in the German society, not because they were kept secret by the Hitler regime, but because they embarrassed the institution of the German society, and therefore were naturally not mentioned by Germans, including German news journalists.

This is of course nothing new or unusual. The phenomenon is merely receiving a slightly greater public exposure resultant from advancing information distribution technology, the internet erosion of the effect of political borders, and the inexorably slow evolution of the human phenomenon, wherein contradictions become more widely noticeable, enhanced by the inherently counter productive, centralized institutional attempts to create and retain power-based secrets.

If the American military chaps held the superior honor and integrity of the Iraqi resistance fighters, the Americans would murder Iraqis on video tapes, display the tapes, and openly claim credit for their actions, to inform the world of the danger of being an Iraqi in Iraq during an American military occupation of Iraq, to intimidate and threaten Iraqis out of Iraq, in the video taped manner that Iraqi freedom fighters openly inform the world of the danger of being an American or American sympathizer in Iraq during an American military occupation of Iraq.

But the repugnant American soldiers murder and torture Iraqis with attempted secrecy, as do criminal minds, for the pure personal joy of killing and torturing people, and then threaten their military colleagues to prevent them from informing anyone, as do common mobsters. The Americans have no honor in that particular regard, as well as other regards, and deny that they are doing what they continue to be caught doing, as do ignorant criminals.

Because those actions create contradictions, and contradictions are not sustainable, by design, some of the inherently independent minds among the therefore disgusted colleagues inform their superiors and other people, disclosing the pervasive criminal actions of the US military, in addition to the blunders of US military personnel murdering Iraqis while being inadvertently video taped by embedded reporters, or taking pictures of their actions to privately brag about their exploits.

Such actions are part of the magnificent comedy of war, common to soldiers and other criminal minds. You can thoroughly enjoy the comedy if you hold the knowledge of its origin and full process, rather than remaining ignorant, confused or angered by how and why it happens.

You cannot learn that knowledge if you do not learn its origin. If you have no patience for an hour or so to learn the origin of a contradiction, you will waste days, months or years from the results of being ignorant, confused or angered by easily resolved contradictions. If you retain such laughably needless ignorance, your government can utilize your ignorance to spend trillions of tax dollars to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people in wars, much to the amusement of observers.

The origin controls all that follows it... Language is useful because words have meaning (except among Americans). That is, each word is described with other words so that the one word produces an identified and verifiable concept in any mind correctly using that word. More words create meaning for one word.

For lack of enough invented words, which is in part for the mind's difficulty in learning so many separate words, many words hold similar but separate meanings. The resulting confusion, especially among arrangements of several multiple meaning words, is corrected by the other words being used with a particular word, to separate the meanings. The context, or surrounding words in a sentence, distinguish the meaning of a word that has multiple meanings. This additional process of more complexity is not always successful. Therefore confusion, or failure to transfer the intended meaning or concept, is common.

The above discusses words and their meanings. The same concept applies to multiple word concepts, rather than just individual words, that is, arrangements of several words which describe concepts, or ideas. This is the extension of the same concept, to apply meanings to arrangements of several words. Groups of words explain, or create meaning for other groups of words. When a mind indicates that it does not understand a group of words, more words can be applied until the arrangement of words is produced, which finds recognition in the mind that previously learned the concept through those other arrangements of words.

For instructive analogy, all or nearly all man-made tools originated from the hammer, which was the tool that made the tools to make other tools, and therefore the description of how to use a hammer. You can learn how to use all man-made tools by a description extending to, or extending from, the description of how to use a hammer to create the tool in question.

To extend the knowledge of the mind, by using words, one must start with individual words or groups of words that the mind previously learned, and then add the new words or groups of words in small increments. As an aside, the new knowledge must be verified by a second sensory perception, such as a visual perception induced by writing the words that were heard, or by other means. By ancient analogy, you cannot build the house before you build the foundation, or put in the window before the wall. Also, the materials cannot be joined by your desire and imagination. You must actually pound nails, screw screws, mix mortar and other such processes, just as you must write or speak the words, or perform actions, that hold no contradiction before you can learn any resulting, useful knowledge.

Those communication and learning skills are easy processes, but require a bit of patience at times. So why does confusion reign among humans, after language was invented? In addition to the above, and controlling, humans are not taught how and when to ask questions, for reason that is part of the knowledge puzzle. Briefly stated, and beyond the scope of this section, knowledge is the death of power. Power, a flawlessly describable, quantifiable and qualifiable concept functioning within the mind, by design, is the counter balance to knowledge, and power cannot allow a power-infected mind to learn the knowledge of power, to the extent of learning its controlling contradiction, and still exist within the human mind which is a contradiction identification and resolution device, or the era of power would be concluded, humans would function on reasoning, humans would emerge from the intellectual dark ages, and experience a quantum advancement in knowledge, which could be described as a new game. The current human game was designed with such brilliance that it will not be rapidly advanced without equivalent effort by the human mind, fully within its design, and amusingly easy, but disguised by the simplicity of asking and answering questions.

Consider an example that illuminates the concept among all humans, including you, and most notably, appointees of the US Presidents. During the Vietnam war, the US was training many Vietnamese to fly helicopters, so they could sustain America's war to keep killing those evil Vietnamese. Therein large numbers of people with a significantly different language were suddenly introduced to an American language culture at US Army helicopter flight schools in Texas and Alabama, to be hastily taught a new technical skill that each Vietnamese student desperately wanted to learn because it was a high paying, high status, ego-gratifying job within a poverty culture. Add the technical helicopter and flying language to the normal language translation problems, and therefore understand the deadly comedy within a dangerous activity. Add the fact that the graduation certificate was the determinant, not the acquisition of the knowledge. The Vietnamese learned the controlling concept for all jobs predicated on pleasing the holder of the superior position, especially government superiors who face no competition for advancing their thinking ability. The Vietnamese sought to please the flight instructor superiors. Easy enough. Every time the Vietnamese flight students were told something, they smiled and responded with, "Yes." It was a commonly mimicked joke among the American flight students. Then the Vietnamese tried like hell to mimic the instructor's actions, and not kill themselves while trying to learn how to fly a helicopter. Some of them failed in the latter effort, for lack of the knowledge otherwise fully explained to them with ineffective words, which they did not understand, and did not patiently ask questions to learn. Their military officer instructors were trained to give orders, be satisfied with a, yes sir response, and not be pleased with questions. The surviving instructor pilots were extremely stressed. The American student pilots, I among them, stayed clear of the noticeably erratic helicopters with Vietnamese student pilots. The results in Vietnam were equally observable. Americans gave Vietnamese "cowboy" helicopter pilots a very wide berth, and watched some dramatic maneuvers of helicopters, not always successful.

The controlling concept was to please the superior, not learn the knowledge, as manifested in all institutions, especially government, by definition of institutional process.

And usually the superior is ignorant, because he acquired his position in the same manner, to some degree, often a great degree, responding to his superior with a, yes sir, despite confusion, compounding the problems, to routinely manifest the fatal or doomed results.

In competitive private enterprise, the progressively more successful superiors, among a gradient, have learned to reward, rather than punish, questions and criticism which result in solutions to costly problems, and improvements in products and services that please customers, such as you, who are impartial to the egos and other contradictions of company superiors, an objective analysis system void in government. Within government, the competition is to more consistently say, yes sir, even to the most outrageous absurdities, thus training one's mind to perpetrate those absurdities, with obvious results, and use power to attack anyone who objects. Within private enterprise the competition is to create those better products and services, and less costly systems, for objective profit. That system constantly creates new questions of each result, and thus advancing knowledge. Private enterprise superiors thus learn useful new knowledge, equally with their employees, tested against many impartial minds (customers), despite the fact that they learn needlessly slow because they are victims of a social system that does not teach its young how to ask effective questions.

Further obscuring the origin of problems, American school teachers, especially of the government's so called public schools, do not, and did not, teach American school students (YOU) how and when to ask questions to learn knowledge rather than get a good grade. In time, those poorly taught students then became the inherently ignorant teachers whose minds are therefore fearful of questions they did not learn how to ask or answer. Fear is an emotion-based concept identifying a lack of knowledge which thus creates confusion which induces other emotion-based responses, such as anger, hatred, etceteras, such as irrational attacks and retaliation upon minor confusion or misunderstanding otherwise resolved with patient questions and answers. Genuinely effective questions illuminate the fact that the most credentialed, highly paid teachers know very little more, if any more, than any student. Humans are still dumb as a post, and any suggestion that one knows more than the other, is a laughable fool's illusion, as proven by the existence of wars and countless other phenomena. The illusion of the credentials cannot tolerate those particular questions, or any of thousands of questions that approach the more effective questions, thus teachers actively discourage large arrays of questions, as is verifiable against any school teacher who would be so foolish as to attempt a denial in face of a knowledgeable person.

In regard to the following example, on a particular occasion I thought one of my Army helicopter driver instructors was just having a bad day, an excuse that ends the questioning process among most people. But my curiosity and no fear of the effects of knowledge, with a repeated analysis of such events, verifying the current example against a series of similar questioning processes, illuminated certain knowledge otherwise hidden within the bad day excuse, and other superficial excuses. Upon the instructor informing me of what to do in the event of a hydraulic assist failure, I genuinely did not understand the mechanism of a particular helicopter servo that automatically shut off the hydraulic assist to the cyclic if a system failure occurred elsewhere, so I naturally asked more questions. I did not even know what a servo was. Back on the farm I had never heard the word. Perhaps I had not paid adequate attention in the mechanics portion of the flight school class. After three questions in which I was trying to access an explanation, an arrangement of words that would connect with something I had already learned, so that I could learn the useful new knowledge, the instructor suddenly became impatient, angered with my questions, and said that the event happens because it happens. I was tempted to ask a fourth question, at the same moment I realized that he was clueless of the knowledge I sought, and was parroting superficial knowledge that he had been taught by the military which teaches hollow memorization of superficial process, and disdain for questions that produce substantive knowledge. Clearly I could not learn the knowledge from him. Because I was too busy to ever get back to that question with another information source, the absence of that knowledge repeatedly caused my ongoing curiosity with servos when I was driving helicopters in tight or discomforting places, hoping I did not lose hydraulic assist to compound the problems.

Besides not asking questions, and thus not learning the knowledge, for your incentive to please the superior, to get the job, title, credentials, status or other superficial benefit, if you ask questions beyond the knowledge of a person who accepted a job, title, credentials, status, or such superficial benefit overtly implying the existence of the knowledge, that thus threaten the ego, job, title, related illusions, etceteras, the titled human mind reacts with an adverse emotion-based response, for lack of a knowledge-based response, by design.

On many other occasions I asked the fourth question, and more, to cause inordinate grief, anguish and anger within the minds of inherently ignorant, titled persons, to the extent of my being jailed for asking questions of something so inconsequential as National Park Service mountain climbing regulations, an inordinately rare questioning process in face of the consequences, and therefore learned the separate knowledge of the effects of effectively questioning titled and thus power-damaged minds, to the extent of their proverbial breaking points, and the knowledge beyond that. It is rare that power encounters both fearless and effective questioning, because all power-based social training is describably designed to discourage and punish such questioning, because the counter productive power of social institutions cannot exist in the face of productive knowledge.

By design of power within the human mind, power-based societies such as America and most others, teach people to face power with power, a fool's quest, using many mechanisms therein, for fear of questions that create knowledge. The designed process of opposing power with power, rather than with knowledge, facilitates the process to advance power, at cost of knowledge. In a game of power against power, power always wins. Therein power is certain to prevail. It is questions, especially a class of effective questions, that threaten the inherent ignorance of power itself, and can advance highly beneficial knowledge which benefits humans.

A knowledge-based, or logic-based, response to a question, in the absence of the knowledge that answers the question, is to therefore patiently ask the additional questions to learn the originally sought knowledge. Therefore, if a student's question reveals a lack of knowledge by the titled and thus power-holding instructor, a knowledge-based or logic-based response by the instructor would be to ask the additional questions so that the instructor and student learn the knowledge at that time. But a power-holding mind cannot allow that event if the question questions the institutional perceptions of the institution, including an array of perceptions that get close to that concept. Were it otherwise, even one effective question could logically destroy the illusion that the instructor or any titled person, especially government dolts, held any raw power or superior position to that of another human striving to learn and share progressively more beneficial knowledge from within a gradient of knowledge that is too diverse and proverbially spherical to identify any superior position.

To date, human society is amusingly predicated on an inherently unsustainable, foolishly unquestioned, stagnating power structure which therefore fabricates enemies, rather than a knowledge structure which cannot possibly create enemies. A knowledge-based social structure would make available for learning new knowledge, all human energy currently wasted on the concept of enemies. That energy represents over eighty percent of the entire human potential, depending upon different analysis parameters, much to the robust laugher of the observers.

Amusingly, the minds of one hundred percent of the instructors, superiors, and all other titled persons reading these words sincerely believe that they react to questions with logic-based responses, and they believe they ask any additional questions to learn the knowledge whose lacking is revealed by a question. In fact, if the question threatens the institutional perceptions of the institution, and thus the institutionally titled person's perceptions, the reaction is opposite, even in glaring absence of the knowledge. The reaction becomes an emotion-based response, by design of the human mind infected with the perception of power, to a controlling degree, to evade or attack the question, with indignation, anger, ridicule and other such emotions that block the mind's recognition or understanding of this sentence, even while reading it, even if you hand those fine chaps a dictionary. When the knowledge does not exist in the mind of the person whose title has trained the person to sincerely believe that his mind holds the knowledge, and whose title and thus institution is dependent upon that illusion of existing knowledge, upon the question illuminating the absence of the knowledge, a compounded contradiction therefore exists. And therein an artificially created imperative, the title (power), cannot allow the mind access to the knowledge that it does not hold the knowledge that the illusion of the tile taught the mind that it holds.

Read that again.

The power-damaged mind will use power to kill, and initially lesser but equally contradicted reactions, before it can access the controlling contradiction of a lack of knowledge within the illusion of knowledge upon which power is dependent. An institutionally trained, power-damaged mind, easily identified as such, is an inherent killer, or otherwise irrational threat to others and itself, much to the entertainment of observers.

And therefore......

Consider the commonly unfathomable diversity of knowledge among humans.

Now grab a gaggle of young male minds, and some female minds trying to emulate the males, from that diversity of minds in any nation, such as the United States.

Throw them into the institution of military training, a common event within these intellectual dark ages of primitive humans.

Militaries, ancient, primitive, counter productive, destructive institutions, are specifically designed to nurture and sustain the intellectual immaturity of young males, and foolish females who seek to emulate the flaws of males, with such childish trappings as laughably meaningless medals, ribbons, awards, badges, patches, tabs, titles, certificates, ranks, stars, bars, things that go bang, robotic rituals, saluting and marching, drums, waving flags, macho images, and other toys of childhood surrounded with the rhetorical illusions of adulthood in a self defended fortress protecting militaries from those suspicious civilians who dare to ask questions. And questioning orders is punishable, with all statements requiring an action, constituting orders, no matter how blatantly damaging, deadly and illogical to a thinking mind, to stagnate minds at that Neanderthal level of immaturity and ignorance, by design. Is that not so?

Keep in mind that some of those young chaps genuinely want to please their superiors, because the young chaps, setting sail on yet unlearned social seas of chronological adulthood, want to elevate their perceived social or economic status, etceteras, in accordance to what society taught them to not question.

A few of them, trapped by governmentally forced military duty, or economic desperation and a dumb decision to join the military, may NOT want to please the noticeably ignorant and arrogant military superiors, but quickly learn that they dare not displease the superiors, under threat of emotion-based reaction with a gradient of serious detriments.

Accentuate the latter by teaching these minds that to question orders (ask a question), which are ANY statement from a superior, requiring an action, is severely punishable within the military extreme of that concept.

Read the above sentence one more time, then that below.

Tell them only once, in hasty passing, if at all, for a technical reason beyond the scope of this section, that it is unlawful to obey an unlawful order, quite obviously, then drum into their minds the dogma that to question rather than obey orders, is severely punishable, to negate any further questioning or understanding of the duty to question routinely unlawful orders. Read that again, or write it, if you wish. Of course never teach them the otherwise easily learned demarcation between a lawful order and an unlawful order, because that would create the questions that the ranking superior was never taught to ask or answer. If they were taught such knowledge, militaries, police, American court judges and other power-based institutions of therefore power-damaged minds could not exist, for lack of need.

Train the military chaps to grunt and make other Neanderthal type, meaningless, guttural sounds, such as, "huuwaa", as an institutionally trained, positive Pavlovian response to otherwise laughably illogical actions, suggestions and orders, to preclude their thinking and thus avoid their developing questions about obviously embarrassing actions suggested or ordered by equally mental midget military leaders.

Then advance the dismal failure of American public school English teachers, by repetitiously instilling the old military dogma that the best defense is a good offense, among other examples, to further degrade their degraded use of language for effective communication. The best defense is the best defense. A good offense is a good offense. The words are different for a reason. They cannot be the same. They produce profoundly different results. A defense creates no original damage and no need for an offense. An offense creates original damage and the need for a costly, ongoing defense against an inherent retaliation from the equal human minds who were attacked. The retaliation will occur by a means and a time of the choosing of those attacked, thus compounding the cost of a broad defense for a specific attack. The cost of creating a contradiction is vastly greater than the cost of not creating the contradiction. You can train people to defend against invaders as a part of reasoning, but no sustainable reasoning supports an attack or the existence of enemies. Military dogmas, often laughably illogical arrangements of words that therein defy their meanings, like those of all institutions, are designed to perpetuate the institution among fools who ask no questions of illogical actions and expressions, not for any value to humans, or the dogmas would not need an institution.

Then saturate all the think tanks, consultant firms, universities, legal teams, institutions of experts, political colleagues, media production entities, and every other institution to which institutions inherently turn to seek counsel, with institutionally titled and credentialed minds, so that no institution facing an institutionally induced contradiction or problem will ever escape the controlling contradiction of institutional training to seek the solution to an institutionally created contradiction.

Emphasize the institutional illusion that superiors are superiors, and thus to be unquestioningly obeyed, praised, kowtowed to, served, and not to be questioned, and thus inferiors kept believing they are inferior, despite the glaring fact that no superior or inferior human has ever been identified, by design. And therefore a superior's command or suggestion to kill, must certainly hold no flaw subject to questioning by an inferior, by training and its intent.

Then teach the gullible young victims of military service how to march around in formation, or any other form of acting in unison at command, for the benefit of the institution, and while you are at it, teach them to march with verbal cadences, such as chanting, "I want to go to Vietnam. I want to kill a Viet Cong.", over and over and over and over again, much like a drum beat. I was amused. Encourage the array of similar, repeated expressions of a desire to kill, and hatred for the enemy. Because the duty of a military is to kill people, or military would not exist, military is saturated with a full spectrum of training devices used to train inherently trainable human minds to want to kill fellow humans, otherwise not a design-induced desire of a human mind. Those devices are of many forms, both overtly and not overtly recognizable as training minds to WANT to kill people. Keep in mind that the institutionally trained desire to kill people is only a dramatic example of other institutionally trained contradictions, but the one used for this section.

Of course there is a gradient of minds being trained, from those who are repulsed by such Neanderthal, Bush/Rumsfeld styled training to hate and kill, to those who were already looking for an opportunity under any excuse. But the training consistently leads in only one direction. It trains those who would not have prior wanted to hate and kill, or would not have actually done so, to then greatly want to hate and kill, and do so upon command or perception of command. Without that institutionally induced desire, trained into an inherently trainable human mind, void of the rational opportunity to ask effective questions, a military is not effective for attacking enemies on command, by design. Notice the words, "attacking", and, "enemies", as opposed to, "defending", and, "invaders". Notice them again, ascertain their meanings, and ask a few questions.

If you train military chaps to WANT to kill people, a contradiction, by identification such as Iraqis who did not attack you, or Taliban when the Taliban are Afghans who did not attack you, or Viet Cong when the Viet Cong are the Vietnamese who did not attack you, or Somalians who did not attack you, or terrorists when terrorists are defined as anyone in the world, including you, and the ones who attacked you to identify themselves already killed themselves, and the others so labeled have not attacked you, and therefore the military chaps you train, do as you train them, kill on command or perception of command, without question, then you are a fool to be confused when those you trained, kill people, including those who did not attack them, and fellow humans around the world increasingly react with revulsion toward your efforts and murderous results, at first not enough or you could not have so trained anyone, but as time goes by, with the ongoing killing perpetrated by those you trained, there will inherently be enough revulsion among fellow humans, in only part for their survival against your repugnant efforts, to facilitate your self-defeat, if not sooner by more direct means such as doing to you what you trained your military chaps to do to others. They only want to kill you because you already proved to them that you WANT to kill them, and then did so.

That is the design of inherently unsustainable contradictions created by humans. No schools in the United States or other power-based nations teach the proofs of such concepts not escapable by humans, because the proofs, as opposed to the useless philosophy, involve the same questions that destroy the illusion of power that teachers retain over gullible students, that all institution leaders retain over followers who were not taught how to ask effective questions.

Then saturate your teaching with the superficial assumptions of an "enemy", us against them, as an enemy, inducing a Pavlovian response of the mind, to the word, "enemy", which was usually already taught by hate-based human societies at an early age, such as the American society. Do not teach the young minds the substance of the inherently contradicted concept of an enemy among inherently equal humans predicated on the reasoning ability of the human mind. Within the process of reasoning, an enemy cannot possibly exist. The other guy is only a source of different and mutually beneficial knowledge to be questioned for sustainability within the process of human reasoning. Teaching the concept of reasoning and its absence of enemies, is easily avoided by titled instructors who are dutifully parroting government and military dogma, in abject ignorance, that they were not taught how to question to escape their ignorance.

Now therefore within the military, you have an institutionally trained, skewed gradient of human minds holding the commonality of hating the enemy to the extent of wanting to kill him on command or perceived command, or even the first institutionally taught excuse without a command, a trained craving to kill, with no allowed or understood questions of that process, with thus a newly created category gradient of WANTING to do so, or otherwise willing to do so on command to please the superior, or to avoid punishment, and to be sooner promoted or rewarded, as opposed to the normal human gradient identifying most people who hold no hatred for the other guy (YOU), or desire, or willingness to kill him (YOU), and who would immediately question the obviously contradicted suggestion of killing another person.

Select an enemy, any enemy, perhaps because a president needs an enemy to divert public attention from his institutionally trained ignorance and dismal failures within a governing process, as usual, inherent to every power-based institution. It is an aside to note that power-based institutions cannot exist without enemies, so enemies are incessantly fabricated, among the other guys, by institutional necessity. There are institutions whose paid job is to fabricate political enemies when no adequate enemies otherwise exist, to create, enhance or sustain the institutional power of those who hire such entities. The process is amusingly simple and boring, especially among the laughably gullible, unquestioning Americans. How did harmless recreational hemp smokers become an enemy of most governments? Are the American liberal Democan hemp smoker leaders supporting the conservative war mongering Republicrats because the hemp smoker sorts have learned that without an international enemy to attack, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea,the illusion of terrorists and others, the Washington DC DemocanRepublicrats turn more of their guns on the American hemp smokers as the most convenient enemy? Some. There is no escape from the us-against-them game, until you learn that them is us, by design of humans, a concept that the power-damaged mind cannot comprehend, by design, because it will flee or attack the few controlling questions which constitute the proof leaving no related questions unanswered.

In addition to the percentage of military chaps killing enemy military chaps within the contrived laws defining that amusingly self-contradicted game as socially acceptable and widely praised by idiots, the inherent result will be that percentage of military sorts, from US Army and Marine soldiers, to Air Force bomber pilots and Navy gunners with cruise missiles, knowingly, with full desire, intent and trained hatred, repeatedly killing innocent, unarmed civilians, including women and children, as well as methodically torturing and maiming them, in the country that the president declared as the enemy, for the mentally trained enjoyment of killing fellow humans. There is no other process that facilitates the minds of, for example, highly educated Air Force officers repeatedly dropping bombs on villages, for no profit of individual gain, after the results have proven to slaughter thousands of innocent women, children, old men, their pet dogs and cats, and leaving the maimed survivors as homeless. There is no escape to that manifestation within the gradient of human minds subjected to that type training. None.

That type training is not necessary, or even useful, and is counter productive for an impenetrable defense system, especially against so called terrorists. It is necessary for war mongers, such as Americans who will therefore collapse their fatally flawed empire predicated on starting wars.

The organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are inescapable within their process, because they represent the results of organizationally trained ignorance, the institutionally induced evasion of asking and answering questions.

The original contradiction prevails, and is controlling, with no solution other than resolving the original contradiction. That spontaneous American military cheering and other expressions of genuine joy, when a witnessed or televised explosion rips through fellow humans on the enemy side, wherever some government superior said the enemy side was at the moment, including the Dividian Church at Waco Texas a few years ago, could not exist without first abjectly destroying the questioning and reasoning ability of the cheering human minds, by design, or your neighbor would have already easily bombed your house the last time he was irritated by the contradiction of your barking dog, while your friends cheered.

If you intensely train an inherently independent human to want to kill people, and surround that institutional process with all manner of rewards, illusions of rewards, public praise, mutual support, trappings of greatness, etceteras, for killing people, the evil enemy, with a barely mentioned contradiction of not doing so under this or that obscured conditions, and with institutionally trained evasions of questioning, you are a fool to believe that you or anyone else can then control that killing process to conform to your mind's inherently contradicted conditions for the killing, further proven as a fool for having trained people to kill rather than to reason. Is that not so?

The Americans are still avidly feeding the proverbial monster, with hundreds of billions of dollars, the socially trained desire to kill humans, that no human can then possibly control, to thus doom the American system of government, like all of its previous power-based institutions, by design, for needless fear of asking and answering questions to learn the absence of any sustainable utility in that process, much to the howling laughter of observers.

Keep in mind, that the peace organizations are also victims of the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals. The pitiable peace institution leaders are equally clueless of the questions that can promptly manifest world peace, for the reasons above and below, or the peace institutions could not exist. The controlling concept is the design of the human mind. If you fail to learn that design, by failing to simply asking and answering related questions, you cannot resolve controlling contradictions by intent.

At the extreme of the most powerful, most war-mongering, most arrogant, most military dependent, most hate-training nation in the world, whichever nation that is at the time, currently the United States of America, the openly identified government murdering of innocent civilians, and excusing the murdering, compounds the consequences of using power, and demarcates a point on the gradient of the inherent self-demise of power. The leaders and militaries of many smaller Arab, Asian and African nations can kill thousands of their citizens, as usual, with little international reaction, because those power structures are often relatively young, and therefore have not yet accumulated the threshold level of enemies associated with significant reaction by people outside those particular countries. Mass slaughtering of fellow humans is still common among Homo Sapiens, primitive lot that they are. But an accumulated power structure, created by chance of events, cannot kill as many civilians without an escalating reaction, by design of power with its inescapable self-destruction. The compounding effects of the American government chaps killing people outside America, instead of minding their own business by just killing Americans, are made more noticeable with the American accusation that Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people in Iraq. The accusation is functionally meaningless in comparison to the Americans killing even a few Iraqis, because the accumulation of American power, resultant from having killed many more thousands of people in many countries, is noticeably close to its therefore inherent self-demise, and has openly reached the level of US military chaps executing unarmed, submissive Iraqi civilians, for the US military trained, personal joy of killing people, and being functionally excused.

And Saddam never did to a major Iraq city, or almost any national leader did to one of their own cities, what the Americans did to Falluja in Iraq. Only the Americans, and to a degree the equally idiot Brits, self-deluded by their government-compliant information distribution system (primary news media), have accumulated such a historic extent of damaging contradictions, without asking and answering even basic questions of their contradictions, or or the results of such an accumulation, including the institutionally self-flawed anti-war sorts among them, or the contradictions would have already been resolved. The promptly manifestable resolutions of contradictions are identified by asking and answering questions.

While the Iraqis sustained their war mongering Saddam regime, the Iraq people suffered. The Americans are yet sustaining their war mongering DemocanRepublicrat regime which has done more damage to presidentially decreed enemies who did not attack America, than dozens of Saddams. The results are inherent, currently known in amusing detail. No human can ever escape the balance in all things, by design.

Therefore, thinking people are not wringing their hands in contradicted anguish and expressions of lament for what humans are knowingly and intentionally training fellow humans to do. Primitive humans, such as Americans, yet support such actions, as proven by the results. If a contradiction exists, which is otherwise resolvable with simple knowledge learned by simply asking and answering questions, then thinking people are laughing themselves to tears, a naturally enjoyable reaction, at the existence of the easily resolved contradiction while humans are refusing to simply resolve it by simply doing what the human mind was designed to do, ask and answer questions to learn the knowledge not currently held.

From this date, more American soldiers, with so little integrity that they will foolishly try to hide their repeated actions, will intentionally murder openly unarmed Iraqi civilians not involved with the war, point blank execute them with M-16 rifle shots to the chest and head, yet again, for the sheer joy of killing people, as their likewise-trained military superiors and DemocanRepublicrat government dolts trained them to do, with majority public support and full funding, and a few of them will be caught on record, and fewer of those will make the news, and little of that news will reach the Americans, while the world learns that of Americans, and the humanly inescapable consequences are therefore scheduled.

If Russia was doing what the United States of America is doing, what would be the ultimate consequences? The names are immaterial to the concepts.

Like the US Army sargents who are repeatedly executing individual, unarmed Iraqi civilians, with increasing frequency, for the intensely trained joy of killing people, George Bush's mind was trained to decree the existence of enemies who did not attack America, to order his military to kill many thousands of people for George Bush's sheer joy of killing people. It could not otherwise happen within the design of the reasoning process of the human mind. Is that not so?

You do not do what you do not enjoy doing, without a reward that you enjoy, by design.

The mind is fully capable of describing excuses for doing what it claims that it does not enjoy, nor derive an enjoyable reward, by design, and the power-damaged mind does. Power damaged minds create contradictions, in contradiction to the undamaged design of the human mind.

What is the reason, that they describe for their own mind, for American soldiers who have continued to murder unarmed, non-threatening Iraqi civilians, and torture military prisoners, and be functionally excused by the US military?

What part of that reason is found among American Air Force pilots who have continued to drop bombs on villages and cities when they are fully aware that most if not all the victims will be innocent civilians who disliked Saddam Hussein more than George Bush disliked him?

Is that reason adequate for so called terrorists to kill American civilians, and torture any military prisoners they might capture, or anyone to kill or torture anyone else?

Is any US military person, of any rank, entrusted with the use of deadly weapons for the claimed benefit of Americans, intellectually capable of publicly answering the above questions for accountable record identifying the intellectual ability of Americans?

What are the two respective descriptions of the data synthesis processes for a normal human mind, and a power-damaged human mind?

If you are not laughing yourself to tears at these humans who fear asking and answering questions, the process to learn knowledge, you are missing the only show they yet know how to stage.

If, for curiosity or other reasons, you would like to learn how to resolve any contradictions, including those contradictions of such complexity that the resolutions have evaded social and all other institutional leaders since society was invented, you may inquire. The knowledge starts at the fourth question of your own institutional perceptions, after the questions that reveal the flaw of emotionally reacting to questions after having been institutionally trained to evade the questions of one's institutional illusions.

A military that wins wars without murdering innocent civilians, or without shooting and bombing, or which does not send soldiers to war without the correct equipment or without a plan for the normal events of war, that does not need to torture captives to easily get all of their useful information, etceteras, is only among the more noticeable knowledge currently lacking in a society, such as the US, that uses a traditionally hate-trained, unquestioning and thus ignorant military for the therefore futile attempt to resolve perceived contradictions. The knowledge is readily available. It can be transferred within days, maybe up to a month for entrenched war mongers like Rumsfeld or Bush.

Is it not inherent that the knowledge exists, or every contradiction, such as a person's displeasure with the color of a neighbor's house, would result in a new color or a shooting war? The knowledge is that of just a process, which must resolve more sub-contradictions, with more questions and answers, as the complexity of the superficially perceived contradiction increases. That just involves a few more hours. But the controlling concepts remain the same. When the human mind which is self-inflicted with a title, cannot tolerate the fourth question, instead of simply answering it or finding the available answer, the socially trained, emotion-based hatred of the other guy, and thus the extent of imprisoning, forcefully seizing assets, and killing people, common to governments, becomes explainable and correctable to the person who asks and answers the fourth and subsequent questions. Ergo, the value of learning how to tolerate and seek the answer to the fourth question.

Consider the confusion these words would cause the minds of US President George Bush, all of his highly credentialed advisors who foolishly became dependent upon their titles, for the above reasons exampled with the military concept, and all of his military sorts of the same self-induced dependency on unquestioned illusions, who would react with an emotion-based response, and thus not ask any curiosity-based questions, and thus remain within their ignorance and confusion, void of the knowledge that simple questions could create in their minds, for fear of knowledge, if they read these words. No power-damaged mind will read these words, because of the nature of the first few sentences.

Consider their confusion over their American military troops being increasingly proven to the world as plain American criminal murderers of innocent, unarmed people in other countries, defining the therefore doomed American empire, and their ludicrous believe that it will not get worse, when it cannot escape getting worse after the intensity and style of American military training for wars that the Americans now start for presidential ego gratification and the trained enjoyment of the entire military institution.

All the good that you do, cannot excuse a single wrong, or the bank robber could donate to charities, and be excused to keep robbing banks. The Americans, the Iraqis, or any other institution can murder all of their own institution members they prefer, to the extent of the tolerance of their institution members, to define their institution, but if they murder members of another institution, they sooner doom their own institution, by design of humans and their institutions. The timing is immaterial, but it is known, and can be scheduled by those who do not create contradictions.

The US military's same confusion and ignorance prevails among every institution leadership inherently failing their institutional espousals, such as all those citizen organizations, including the anti-war organization leaders, only exampled by the more dramatic national leaders and wars. The organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are flawless, by design.

Now consider, much to your amusement, the inherently existent day that any significant institution leader encounters any genuine incentive outside his control, to endure the fourth question, and seek the answer, and thus facilitate himself or herself being patiently questioned out of their institutional contradictions, with their own answers, and thus the knowledge they learn to therefore resolve those contradictions, to thereafter lead an institution with no contradictions, thus precluding the existence of an enemy or opponent who can only exist on the contradictions of an opponent, and thus manifest their espousals regardless of originally perceived enemies which therefore proverbially evaporate, and are in fact without a defense of their own self-defeating contradictions.

Perhaps by flat dumb luck in surfing the net or Googling a phrase, a categorized source of knowledge not yet corrupted by institutional illusions, despite the efforts of his advisors to keep him as ignorant as his highly credentialed, ignorant advisors, away from the internet, because he vaguely recognizes that something must be wrong with all the advice his "Yes" responding advisors keep giving him, because things keep getting screwed-up and worse, a national leader might just plain stumble upon words such as in this paragraph, which suggest the value of questions rather than answers, and thus asks himself if there is any knowledge beyond what he and his cocoon of institutionally trained advisors were taught, and seeks the answer.

Because more prominent contradictions of greater magnitude are more fun than the more easily manifested resolutions of countless lesser social contradictions, consider if Vladimir Putin of Russia, or the leaders of Iran, the main guy of North Korea, Palestine, those of Germany, France, Spain or any other national leader not currently in favor with the pitiable Americans, belatedly encountered enough incentive to learn how to sooner defeat the monumental arrogance and inherently self-defeating, war-mongering United States leaders supported by the majority of socially trained, murderous Americans, many of whom were trained by their military. The inherent and otherwise unavoidable collapse of the fatally self-contradicted American form of government would result within days, as an inconsequential aside to that other national leader becoming the most respected national leader in human history, and their country becoming the most prosperous in the world, if they retained any incentive to do so after learning knowledge of greater worth.

Was it not inherent that if all people state for public record that they do not prefer war as an option, as is the case with only aberrant exceptions, and only humans create wars, that wars would eventually fall into functional disfavor, no longer utilized, and the knowledge to preclude their use exists within the human mind, the origin of wars?

Yes. The knowledge is currently available, as has always been the case. And that is just a dramatic example of the knowledge to promptly resolve countless less complex contradictions.

When it happens, besides its inherent result from the self-defeating effects of power in sum as a concept, it will most likely result from the effects of the currently most advanced system of information or knowledge distribution least stifled by institutional illusions. That is currently the internet, until the American Homeland Security Gestapo more thoroughly institutionalizes the internet by force of American RepublicratDemocan laws, in the attempt to keep people as laughably ignorant as the American Homeland Security Gestapo, their superiors and minions.

At that time there will be a proverbial chorus of laughter among all the people who prior learned the knowledge and were watching the show.

American military chaps will continue to execute openly unarmed Iraqis whom American military sorts are successfully trained to genuinely believe are inferior to humans, on schedule, as long as Bush and his ilk can sustain the war in Iraq. Enjoy the show, which you can do with greater knowledge, which you can learn by asking questions.

Oh, for the curious or perceptive, as you may have noticed, indeed, in the above is the proverbial seed, but only that seed, for the flawless defense of any American military sort who is accused of murdering, torturing or otherwise unlawfully damaging anyone in Iraq. It is complete, resolving every related question. No court judge, jury or government agents can escape its conclusion upon presentation. It requires knowledge of the other parts of the puzzle. No lawyer can discover it, because the controlling contradiction of lawyers is part of the puzzle, as with any actual resolution of a power-induced contradiction. Of course, to discover the flawless defense is to discover the resolution of the controlling contradiction that created the need for the defense, a concept whose understanding power cannot tolerate in the minds it has seized.


End of Intech Concepts 21


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