Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 24
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


Written law in an illiterate society... 15 July 2005

Do you live in a nation under the rule of written law, as was the United States in prior years? Or do you live in a nation under the verbal rule of personalities, such as a king, president, congressmen, court judges, dictator, emperor, a democracy, majority rule, sheiks, clerics, agency officials or other personalities, that is, the decrees of persons rather than the rule of written words on paper, as the United States has become?

Because the successful dumbing down of America, primarily but not exclusively effected through its government schools, has rendered the vast majority of Americans ignorant of what government is, and how it works, what law is, and how it works, among other knowledge basic to social functioning, the above questions, if answered, and the answers verified, offer highly useful knowledge. The vast majority of Americans, including lawyers taught by American law schools, do not understand that human rights in the US are recognized by government only through the US Constitution and the Common Law, written words on paper, the only government instruments that identify rights rather than privileges.

Government is the primary instrument of inherently insatiable power (that inherently corrupts) and the rule of personalities. Only the US Constitution and the Common Law, which are in harmony with each other, effect the rule of written law above the rule of raw power and personalities, and describe the limit of government's authority, if they were in effect.

The US Constitution and Common Law are no longer in effect within the US or its State governments. The written prevailing laws have been set aside by a particular process that fools fools who have been too dumbed down to understand that process, and the plain English words you are reading, and what questions would verify that conclusion.

The vast majority of Americans, especially the inordinately dumbed-downed government personnel, are too ignorant to distinguish rights, recognized under the US Constitution and Common Law, from privileges, existent under the rule of personalities. Americans cannot identify rights, which are those human actions for which no permission or payment of a fee can be required by government or any other persons, by definition of rights. Rights cannot require permission, by definition. Permission is grantable and therefore deniable, and can, by decree, require the payment of fees, defining privileges. Americans verifiably do not know what demarcates the two, even if they read those words, as is verifiable by observing their actions or by asking them a simple series of related questions, much to the amusement of anyone who simply learns such fundamental human knowledge.

The government of the federal United States of America, and the governments of each of the united States of America, were originally designed to effect and be under the rule of written law, that is, the absolute rule of words written on paper, words which hold their dictionary meanings understandable to the common people, and thus laws able to be obeyed by the common people, not under the rule of ever-changing verbal words from the mouths of government personnel. A process, as described in written words of law, was created to decide upon and write those words of law that then constitute the ruler of the nation and States, thus ruler of the people. That process involved the open debate over those words, by the public and certain elected officials (congressmen, legislators, court judges). Rule was effected only after the words were written on paper, in accordance with prior described process, not before that action. The ruler is a piece of paper with written words. The government personalities are hired to only apply the written words to any human actions described in those words, a concept understandable by even children, but not understandable by the power-damaged minds of government and other institutionally trained chaps.

The rule of written law is dramatically superior to the rule of personalities because the time-consuming process of writing law causes the mind to think more thoroughly about the indelible words that will then constitute the ruler, ruling even the writer of the words of law. Several related mechanisms are involved, such as that time facilitating more questions being asked and answered about the process and results of the law, to identify and resolve related contradictions, and the words being ascribed to permanent record no longer deniable, including the names of the persons writing the law, before the rule takes effect, for enduring public judgment of those individuals, their intelligence, and their reasoning which is written as part of the record, etceteras.

Now notice the next sentence, which verifiably (by asking certain questions) cannot be understood by American government officials, especially their court judges, police and military minions who were selected because they tended to ask no questions of contradictions, from childhood training, and who were then further trained to ask no questions of the contradictions created by their superiors, and promoted because they dutifully asked no questions, despite their laughable claims to the contrary. The difference between the rule of the words written on paper, and any words verbally stated by government agents, is absolute, by definition of the words, unless the only words out of the mouths of the agents, are those being read verbatim from the written law. Not one word can be verbally changed without the rule of written law being negated, and replaced by the rule of personalities verbally stating the law.

When a government, such as through its schools, trains its personnel and its citizenry to not be able to distinguish between what a government agents says is the law, and what the written words of law are on paper, the superior rule of written law is immediately subverted and negated because it limits the raw power of personalities holding the intimidating power of office, to rule by hasty or altered verbal decree. Power is insatiable, will always use itself to seize more power, and can never willingly surrender any portion of itself and still exist as power. Power at play in a human mind dictates an imperative to change the rule of written words that limits power, into the rule of personalities that holds no limit of record, by stating different words.

Words that hold their meaning, constitute a concept that government-trained minds cannot understand, by design of power, even if they read this sentence. Bring forward any government-trained humans (power damaged minds), and I will ask the series of questions that any common person can accurately answer, that flawlessly prove that government-trained minds cannot understand or mentally function with words that hold their dictionary meaning.

You might read these words carefully, because they hold their meanings. Your goal is to learn what no institutionally-trained mind can learn, so that you do not display yourself as amusingly ignorant as Americans.

A nation, that is, its system of governance, is doomed if it tolerates the existence of military personnel or police who are so illiterate or otherwise ignorant that they cannot distinguish between a lawful order effecting the rule of written law, and an unlawful order effecting or advancing the power of personalities in contradiction to the written law. Of course the same holds true for court personnel and any other government personnel.

If the nation is under the rule of personalities, a lawful order is whatever the ruler states as an order. If government personnel contradict that order, perhaps because they cannot understand the words of the order, because they are ignorant of how to use language, that system of government is doomed to incessantly created contradictions that require increasing time and effort to resolve, instead of advancing the society's knowledge beyond self-induced contradictions.

If the nation is under the rule of written law, a lawful order must be in harmony with the words of the law, and cannot contradict it, or the contradiction either negates the rule of written law, or immediately requires the expenditure of time and effort, asking questions, to resolve the needless contradiction. If a government person carrying out the order of a superior is functionally illiterate or too ignorant to be able to distinguish between a lawful order, conforming to the words of the written law, and an unlawful order contradicting the words of the written law, then the rule of written law is again negated when those persons do as they are ordered in random or concerted violation of the written law. The immediate effect will be personalities with power to give orders, giving orders that advance the power of the personalities, in contradiction to the written law that inherently limits the power of those personalities, or they would not have created the rule of written law above the rule of personalities to preclude such effects, by design of power.

An instructive example, among countless, would be a nation under the rule of written law precluding the torture of prisoners of war, wherein a typically ignorant American military enlisted person is ordered by a typically malicious and equally ignorant American military officer, to effect the clear and evident torture of military prisoners, by any descriptions, wherein the obviously unlawful order is carried out, as usual, because the enlisted person, taught by the American government schools, is taught to obey orders, without question, and is therefore just too plain flat ignorant, as usual, to distinguish the difference between the unlawful, and thus criminally issued order, effecting a crime when carried out, and a lawful order conforming to verifiable, written words of law on paper, verbatim. The rule of written law is therein negated for lack of any understanding of how to distinguish it from the rule of personalities issuing unlawful orders, that is, ignorance of how to ask questions that resolve contradictions, or ignorance of how to read words of law on paper. Because physically harming another fellow human who is already rendered powerless by imprisonment, is such a fundamental and obvious contradiction, the result of a sub-reptilian mind, that even a reptile would not effect, to effect that harm, such as any degree of torture or painful action, requires a mind with absolutely zero comprehension of how to identify or ask a question of a contradiction, such as those currently dumbed-down Americans who gravitate toward the jobs of US military, police, lawyers, court judges, elected officials and other government positions. The American court judges, and all other American government officers, who criminally evade their known legal duty to initiate due process of law upon evidence that a crime (torture) has been committed by an American citizen under any American jurisdiction of law, are therefore equally ignorant of the concept of the rule of written law above the rule of personalities. The example of the inability to understand the difference between a lawful (not contradicted) and an unlawful (contradicted) order, is only one of countless saturating the American system of governance which is therefore doomed, and which will in the future objectively identify Americans as just plain flat ignorant, primitive minds, much to the amusement of historians and observers. Is that not so? What is your answer to that useful question which can advance your mind's intellectual ability?

Do most people of our times not suggest that the sacrifices of virgins among certain previous religions, and trials for witchcraft, identify primitive people? Is it not amusingly easy to identify your intellectual ability as highly advanced beyond the primitive humans around you, especially the ludicrous Americans, by recognizing such simple but rarely understood concepts that it is inherently unlawful to carry out an unlawful order, that an inferior law contradicted by a superior law holds no effect of law, and many other such contradictions that the dumbed-down Americans, especially the government dolts, and more so their court judges, cannot understand even if they read these words, as proven by their actions?

With that obviously simple knowledge, vastly beyond the intellectual ability of the dumbed down Americans, especially the American court judges who apply inferior law above superior law approximately 100 percent of the time, you will be able to learn of the future what only those of the future will otherwise learn, among other useful knowledge, much to your amusement. Learn it.

If murder is not lawful, is it lawful if carried out by a person who is told that he is required to obey orders, and is following a government personality's order to murder a person?

If torturing a prisoner is not lawful, is it lawful if carried out by a person who is told that he is required to obey orders, and is following a government personality's order to torture a prisoner, perhaps described in the order as forcing the person into sustained, stressful positions?

If you were training military or police personnel, what questions and answers would you give your students, with what repeated emphasis for effective training, 1: if you sought to effect the rule of written law, and 2: if you instead sought to advance your power which is inherently limited by the rule of written law?

Which US military and police personnel will tell you that they are required to obey the orders of their superiors, and which will tell you that they are required to obey the prevailing laws above the orders of their superiors?

Upon seeing the above question, which dumbed-down American fools already proven as such, would attempt to say that the orders from power-craving personalities and the written laws on paper are always in conformance with each other?

Can an otherwise lawful instrument lawfully effect the commission of a crime?

The routine denial of jury trials, under any rhetorical illusion contradicting the words of the US Constitution, or beyond the authority it creates for the government, by order of supposedly educated American court judges, while the written law, by the meanings of the words, precludes the denial of jury trials, and defines such denials as crimes, is another of countless examples identifying American court judges as just plain too illiterate and ignorant to distinguish between lawful orders and unlawful orders, leaving the military enlisted person who tortures prisoners, by order, as no less intelligent than the intellectually absent US Supreme Court Justices who have sustained that and countless other blatant contradictions between the rule of written law and the rule of their judicial cronies as personalities.

Humans hold no ability, none, to sustain any contradiction. The creator of the universe, by any reference you prefer, created a universe without that ability, for identifiable reason.

The nation that attempts to sustain contradictions in governance, such as contradicting the written words of law described as the highest law of the land to which no law may lawfully contradict, is laughably doomed, and identifies the primitive nature of the nation's governing personalities whose minds would not yet be sufficiently developed to understand the reasoning process of the human mind if that were the reason instead of the damage that power does to their otherwise sufficiently developed minds.

It is amusingly easy to always be able to promptly distinguish prevailing laws and lawful orders after you learn how to ask effective questions, and practice doing so a bit, a simple skill or arena of knowledge categorically feared by the power-damaged minds of police, court judges, lawyers, military chaps, elected officials and other government sorts.

Not even one American military sort, policeman, lawyer, politician, court judge or other government bureaucrat, thoroughly dumbed-down lot that they are, will even attempt to learn the easy knowledge of how to identify an unlawful order that contradicts the prevailing written law.

Power can never willingly surrender any portion of itself in the human mind, and remain as a concept among humans, by design. That is an accurate use of the word, never.

Written law, which was originally designed to replace the damaging effects of the incessantly contradicting rule of personalities wielding the raw power of ever-changing verbal decrees, is useless in a functionally illiterate and otherwise ignorant society, such as that of the dumbed down United States of America, whose people cannot distinguish between the written words of a prevailing law, and whatever any government dolt says is the law, or orders to be done.

The American children of today, when they are older, may learn, by the process of the collapse of your government, that their parents, school teachers, government officers and other adults trained them to be ignorant fools, too illiterate or otherwise intellectually crippled, to distinguish between written words of law on paper, and contradicting verbal words stated by any government dolt.

Until then, enjoy the show. You can only enjoy it if you ask enough questions to distinguish between those concepts. And then you can learn how to promptly solve the problem, if you are not laughing too often.




The threat of whooptidoos and fliggets...17 July 2005

The many rhetorical illusions that ignorant humans devise to fool themselves and fellow fools into perceiving that contradictions are not contradictions, thus rendering the words of their language as holding no identifiable meanings, thus rendering their language of no utility to transfer knowledge, and thus displaying their society's ignorance, serve to produce entertainment for observers.

Jokes commonly identify contradictions which assume that the other guy was so ignorant or dull that he did not recognize the contradiction, to thus create laughter among those who recognized the contradiction. All contradictions are therefore amusing to those who identify them, while common people are often so willfully ignorant that they sincerely attempt to sustain the contradictions.

For example, consider a person whose damaging actions clearly identify him as a common criminal, or a soldier in a war, including a resistance fighter. Consider a government under the rule of written law, capturing him and taking him into custody. He is therefore under the prior written laws relating to criminals or prisoners of war. The laws were written for reason, are understandable to literate persons, and the resulting process is easy, simply conforming to the written law. But if the government is comprised of illiterate or ignorant people, not able to understand their own written law or the process of written law, such as the American government, and the government personnel hold malicious, inherently power-damaged minds, they might, to fool themselves into believing that the contradictions they create are not contradictions to the written law, invent rhetorical illusions to replace the words of written law, as is common. To place the captured prisoners of war or criminals outside the laws that relate to prisoners of war or criminals, the government thugs therefore invent different reference words for the prisoners of war or criminals, such as enemy combatants, fliggets or whooptidoos.

The prisoners of war are still prisoners of war, by definition of their actions, understandable to all reasoning minds, but the minds of the government dolts, self-trained to create contradictions, functioning on unquestioned orders that contradict the written law, unequivocally perceive that the prisoners of war are not prisoners of war, and are instead enemy combatants or whooptidoos. Because there is no prior written law relating to that contrived rhetorical illusion, the government dolts perceive the related law to be whatever they say the law is, again displaying absolute ignorance to the concept and process of the rule of written law above the rule of personalities. They could read this paragraph, and would still not even be curious about what the rule of written law is, how it is effected, or how it then works.

Their displayed intent is to contradict and violate the rule of written law, to seize raw power above the rule of written law, for the rule of their choice of personalities, including themselves or their superiors. Power at play in their minds creates an insatiable craving to be emperors or any such titled personalities at any level, holding and wielding raw, unreasoning power over any otherwise inherently equal humans.

It is beyond their pitiable, intellectually undernourished or unexercised minds, regardless of their titles or positions, including those of the US Supreme Court Justices, to understand that, in a society under the rule of written law, the absence of a written law relating to enemy combatants means that their government holds no authority over enemy combatants and thus no authority to use force to seize them or restrict them. Their government holds authority over prisoners of war and criminals, but not enemy combatants or whooptidoos. George Bush and his entire American government of idiots, including every Supreme Court Justice, and the pitiable Americans who vote for the RepublicratDemocan Regime, cannot understand this paragraph, as can be proven against any questions any humans can devise.

In the absence of related written law, in a nation under the rule of written law and the concept of the (British origin) common law (as opposed to the French claimed civil law), an action or phenomenon, such as being a Jew, Catholic, dissident, enemy combatant or whooptido, is lawful until a law making it unlawful is properly instituted by process described in prevailing written law. While law describes process for prisoners of war, no law describes process for enemy combatants, Jews or whooptidoos, therefore no process is lawful for the rhetorical illusion of enemy combatants. Therefore any action such as seizing and imprisoning enemy combatants constitutes the crime of assault and other crimes described by the physical actions.

If a Catholic or terrorist robs a bank, the crime is robbing the bank, not being a Catholic or terrorist. If they effect no damaging action, they have not committed a crime. Under the common law, it cannot be a crime to be a human described with some word. The word effects no damage to anyone.

There is no void in the law. The void perceived by fools is created by the rhetorical illusion. Law still describes fully adequate process for prisoners of war and criminals who effect the actions which define the words.

As a dictate of the concept of power functioning in the human mind, first such power-damaged minds invent the rhetorical illusion (a proverbial straw man), without any process to effectively question the reasoning for inventing the illusion rather than using existing words in law that fully and accurately describe the actions at question. Then otherwise logically threatening or damaging actions described in existing law, are rhetorically transferred to the illusion, without any transfer of action for that rhetorical illusion, such as that of an enemy combatant or fligget. Then the threat of a fligget replaces the neuron routing process for any related data, because a fligget was the concluding word for the discussion. Fliggets must be immediately controlled, because they are a threat, there might be too many fliggets, or they might attack us, or there might not be enough fliggets, or fliggets might be used by the enemy, or they might cause the sky to fall. It becomes imperative to control the fliggets or enemy combatants, for whatever further rhetorical illusion is invented if any illusion is disproven, and the order to control the fliggets cannot be questioned, because it is an order, and orders must be obeyed. Power-damaged minds, such as those of US government personnel and their supporters, are more predictable than sunrise. They cannot comprehend the process of reasoning or the utility of language. The incessantly contradicting results offer humor to those who recognize the contradictions and their origin among power-damaged minds.

Power-damaged minds are not sufficiently intelligent to ask the questions that distinguish a lawful order from an unlawful order, or any other contradiction.

The US Supreme Court Justices, and all American court judges, who were originally predicated on the process of patiently and methodically asking the questions to identify and resolve contradictions to the plain English words of the prevailing written laws that rule the people of the United States of America, are no longer intellectually capable of that task, and have less chance of understanding this section or the meanings of English words, than do the American military minions still torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Cuba, the US prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and certain other countries ruled by the American empire of personalities holding written law in contempt.

The Roman, American, British, Ottoman, Hun, Aztec and countless other empires were doomed by the failure of their social system to invent a language wherein the words they used held their meanings for transfer of knowledge. In the United States the rule of carefully written law became the rule of malicious personalities rhetorically alluded to as the rule of written law. The fliggets were invented without a definition in words that held their meanings, so nobody could verifiably identify the fliggets, and because the fools who would invent such illusions are easily fooled, they were fooled into perceiving that the fliggets must be attacked with all the power of the government, because the fliggets are obviously a threat.

Enjoy the show of verifiably illiterate humans without a useful language, attacking their rhetorical illusions with the greatest police and military power so far created by humans, and therefore laugh yourself to tears. If you do not learn how to resolve contradictions, do not wonder why commonly intelligent people are laughing. Learn how to resolve contradictions. Simply ask and answer the related questions.



Time or questions... 24 July 05

It was apparent to commonly intelligent people that on the days the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries which did not attack the United States, as was the case with other such wars, that most of the Americans did not understand how badly they would inherently be defeated, or how thoroughly they would be credited and hated for the resulting American slaughter of so many people in other countries, and for the destruction of so much that had been created by hard working people, at such great cost.

What did the French-Vietnamese war, the American-Vietnamese war, the Soviet-Afghanistan war, etceteras, teach which people? Who learned nothing from such great human effort, proven by their subsequent actions?

What will the American-Afghanistan war and the American-Iraq war teach those who have not yet learned?

At this late date in that amusingly old game, 24 July 2005, the above is still not apparent to George Bush, his advisors, any of their highly titled experts, the American RepublicratDemocan Regime and a smaller but still large number of Americans who were not taught how to ask effective questions of contradictions. The US would have otherwise designed and promptly effected a victory, or even fled with less resulting damage.

On the day that every power-based institution inherently collapses, by design of power, the institution is replete with people who cannot understand how the collapse could have happened, and who blame the collapse on the more knowledgeable people who learned the inescapable failure of power during the time before that day. As the day approaches, more people belatedly recognize the fatal flaw of using power instead of reasoning, but not enough of the people until the day of the collapse, and even then the next power-based institution is started by those remaining power-damaged minds who learn nothing from contradictions.

The process to reduce the self-induced damages to the invader, and the damages to others, and the process to create victory from the otherwise certain defeat of using power, is available before that day, the latter diminishing and ending sooner than the former. The United States can still win the Iraq and Afghan wars at this date, but knowledge of the process is verifiably unknown to the entire US government, its war machine leaders, and all of their experts, and will remain unknown because those chaps will refuse to learn how to ask questions of contradictions. Soon enough, that opportunity cannot possibly be effected, by design of power. The inherent defeat of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq will noticeably contribute to the collapse of the US empire, and more, just as the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan made the collapse of the Soviet empire obvious. Understanding even the existence of that process requires the knowledge that would have precluded invading the other countries, or required the knowledge of how to ask effective questions of contradictions before time illuminates their results.

Pity the Americans, at one time with the most effective education system in the world, which passed into history when they failed to teach their offspring how to use words that hold their meaning, and how to ask effective questions, thus how to think and learn useful knowledge from events and concepts. The Americans must learn again that ancient lesson they have been increasingly repeating.

You can wait for the test of time to illuminate the questions of your interest, from the billions of questions randomly asked by humans during that long time, or you can learn how to ask those questions within a few days, and know what others will only learn in decades, centuries or never, and use the knowledge.

How so primitive these humans, especially the Americans, who are amidst the knowledge of the universe, which is theirs for the asking, and they do not ask.

Ask, for the purpose of advancing your knowledge beyond the primitive humans.



Legacy of Saddam and George... 26 July 05

Is it not amusing that historians will describe Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a common dictator in his region, who started a couple local wars and displayed the usual ignorance of a petty mind, but otherwise created a prosperous nation and noticeably advanced equality among his people, especially between males and females, not common in that region.

In contrast, George Bush and his arrogant Americans, the most petty minds of this era, will be described as having fabricated another laughable array of childish lies, as excuses to go half way around the world, yet again, to maliciously ruin the advancements that Saddam Hussein achieved for his nation, especially the equality among males and females, to serve the petty ego of Bush and his war mongering DemocanRepublicrats, destroying the productivity of Iraq, setting it back decades, and slaughtering over a hundred thousand Iraqi's for no result beyond the preceding and creating more rightful international hatred for the war mongering Americans, with the inevitable results.

Would it not have been wiser, and just plain common sense, long known to all commonly intelligent people, to let Saddam's advancements serve the Iraqi people, and thus all people in the world, and let his damaging contradictions defeat him among his own people, on schedule, instead of taxing the Americans so heavily, stagnating their productivity, to destructively advance the American war machine's contradictions, to thus defeat the Americans, on schedule?

For those who would not be reading these words anyway, what was the purported threat of Saddam Hussein, that the Americans have not vastly more manifested at threat to the world, and at slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in the world? If the American reasoning is valid, the Americans must be destroyed before anyone else.

What collapsed the Soviet Union, if it was not themselves bankrupting and strangling their social system for a police state and war machine, when no one was effectively attacking them? What were the Americans doing to themselves even before the enemies that the Americans alone created, laughingly decided to easily and inexpensively cause the Americans to do to themselves, sooner, what the Soviets did to themselves?

When I was a lieutenant in the US Army, foolishly believing what adults told me, before I started asking extensive and then effective questions, I would not have understood such words. Is it not the adults who create wars? But I was fortunate to be sufficiently curious to leave the normal institutions of the war mongering societies, which include their equally ignorant peace organizations, to thus be able to question the commonalities of all power-based institutions, including the peace organizations who strive for the majority power and donated money to stop wars, instead of the knowledge of how to stop wars. Is it not institutions, rather than individuals, who start, support and only complain about wars?

Ask your questions about them, until you ask enough questions to learn the design of institutionally functioning human minds, and thus laugh yourself to tears at the humans who are not sufficiently curious to ask the questions of the concepts about that which they complain, and instead lash out to destroy what they create, and each other, with mental activity that illuminates reptiles as comparatively intelligent.



US Afghan/Iraq War... 22 Aug 05

It was not, and remains not, possible for the US to win the Afghan and Iraq wars, without the war leaders understanding intellectual technology.

The same can be said of any institutions and their contradictions, including the amusing Nobel Peace prize committee incessantly giving peace prizes to people who do not produce peace.

The US Afghan and Iraq wars were predicated on the same controlling concepts as the Vietnam war, and a few million other wars. The wars will continue until the defeat of the US, on schedule. The defeat will initially be described as a victory, by fools fooling fools, until the effects of time (more questions asked and answered) causes the lies to no longer fool even the fools who fooled themselves into starting and supporting the war that destroyed so much and slaughtered so many innocent people. Pity those fools when they learn the effects of their efforts, within their own minds.

Left to their own affairs, the Afghan and Iraq public would have sooner abandoned support for the obviously flawed Taliban and Saddam governments, to collapse them, but the fundamentally flawed US gave them a new enemy, upon which power is predicated, to first strengthen those governmental systems under different names, and then create their resistance movement, fighting the obviously doomed occupation. The US occupation created the enduring retaliation against the US, to effect the US developing a Police State within the US, fearing retaliatory attacks to the extent of US Police attacking suspected people within the US society and around the world, much to the amusement of observers, until the public inherently abandons support for the therefore flawed US RepublicratDemocan Regime, on schedule.

Among the countless measures of the primitive nature of humans, is wars, creating contradictions of such extensive destruction and slaughter, that the resolution can only be effected by the highest intellectual ability known to humans, having always been known but not yet socially effected, for lack of incentive by those who simply learn the knowledge.

Concurrently, a measure of the primitive nature of the American RepublicratDemocan Regime leaders, is the US Afghan/Iraq war, started by US government dolts who must create enemies to create power, were self-trained to believe that the resolution to such destruction and slaughter creating escalating retaliation by inherently equal minds, is more destruction and slaughter creating more retaliation by inherently equal minds. After deciding on a course of destruction and slaughter, for lack of intellectual ability, they genuinely believe their mantra of, "stay the course", because they literally do not know what question to ask to identify an alternative to war, because they never learned how to ask effective questions.

A classic indicator is that of the many Democan congressmen who voted to authorize and repeatedly fund the Republicrat war on Iraq, even though the Democans wanted to oppose the Republicrats for the usual political reasons, but hold no knowledge of an alternative to war for resolving a US president's petty personality grudge with another nation's leader, because the Democans, like the Republicrats, simply do not know what type of questions to start asking to resolve contradictions.

The DemocanRepublicrat leaders who belatedly recognize the destructive and doomed nature of their course, will individually limp away from the course, confused, still with no clue of any alternative beyond confused defeat. And they will be the wiser only in comparison to those who stay the course to the maximum achievable destruction, slaughter and retaliatory hatred before the consequences are no longer deniable.

Simply learning intellectual technology, the same way all knowledge is learned, can effect the prompt winning of the Afghan/Iraq war, if learned and effected before the loss is concluded as a matter of history.

The American DemocanRepublicrat Regime leaders could read these words, and would remain clueless, even if they were handed a dictionary. Their minds are as primitive as mentioned, or they would not have started another war based on controlling contradictions that even children could itemize and verify against every question any human could devise.

Who would start a war, creating a contradiction of great magnitude, without answering every question that illuminated any contradiction in starting a war, to synthesize the verifiably correct answers, to therefore hold the knowledge of the process to promptly win the war against any opposition, if not a mind too primitive to ask and answer questions, and too primitive to understand that no human can sustain a contradiction?

Notice that none of the 536 US Congressmen and President who started the US Afghan/Iraq war picked up their rifles and participated. They held and created no incentive to ask questions of their decision, not even the idiot Vietnam veterans among them who would have otherwise promptly resigned their Congressional position to demonstrate that they learned the inherent failure of such a decision, and that they learned the responsibility for such slaughter, in Vietnam.

The US DemocanRepublicrat Regime again fooled fools into destroying, killing and dying for the decisions of fools effecting no benefit to humans.

To such primitive minds, the only questions that can be understood, are those which lead to more effective methods of killing and destroying, for their perception of winning the war with more destruction and slaughter creating more destructive retaliation by inherently equal minds.

They were not trained by their parents, school teachers, government or other adults, to use their mind to question their way beyond the obviously primitive, current nature of humans.

The peace advocate organization leaders are equally clueless, as their result proves. They do not know what questions to ask, and pay themselves too lavishly with money and praise from fools, to effect any incentive to do otherwise.

Your goal is to ask and answer the questions that the peace and war chaps equally fear and flee, to learn intellectual technology, the technology of thinking, the technology of asking and answering progressively more effective questions until you resolve every identifiable contradiction, easily including those of opposition by laughably primitive human minds.



Ludwig von Mises Institute... 28 Aug 2005

Fill in any think tank name, or any institute asking for donations to advance social knowledge, such as those who send you the usual junk mail solicitations, and refuse to remove your name from their mailing list used to fool other fools into believing that the Institute has a large following.

They are like the proverbial baker, with great baking credentials they baked, whose gullible customers pay every day for a loaf of bread, and forever receive only promises that the bread is being baked. After a few weeks and then years and then decades, the publicly lauded baker's mind has learned the lucrative and social status rewards of baking no bread, because the customers are so gullible, and the customers have trained their minds that it is normal and expected by mutually flattering peers to keep paying such a highly credentialed baker for the hope of receiving bread. The society of Mises bakers and bread customers, like all other institutionally trained sorts, have trained their minds to ask no logical questions of their institution's glaring contradictions and failures, and thus define a society of primitive, ignorant people, pandering the rhetorical illusion of intellectual advancement.

Among the first results of power infecting a mind, is the mind's inability to understand what power is and how it functions in the human mind, and the recognition of shame for obviously shameful actions.

How long would you ask for donations for a goal you did not manifest, if you were paid lavishly to keep asking?

Your answer will define the limit of your learning ability, as it has of the pitiable Ludwig von Mises and his drones.

Was your mind designed to accumulate money, or knowledge?

As time goes by, the gullible victims taught by the Ludwig von Mises Institute become the next Ludwig von Mises Institute leaders, void of any knowledge of that proverbial bread or its baking, but institutionally versed in the memorized, lucrative rhetoric of promising to bake bread, fooling the next crop of fools, and fleeing questions about bread or the process to bake it.

Mises Institute personnel and members could read these words, and would remain too intellectually absent, if not intellectually void, to recognize any utility in them. They are clueless of how to ask effective questions. Those chaps, among many other such so called intellectual institutions, have been repeatedly offered the knowledge of how to promptly manifest their espousals, by many arrangements of words, from myself and others. The institutions have been asked inordinately useful questions that those chaps flee, to remain ignorant, rather than answer to advance their knowledge. The uniform response has been either no response, or the standard solicitation letters requesting donations of money, and offering membership. They manifest the process of George Bush who sincerely believes that peace can be achieved by starting wars, and other social goals can be achieved and being rewarded for never manifesting what is incessantly promised. They insatiably crave more members, money and praise (power) for their rhetorical illusions that consistently fail any related manifestations, which are never questioned, the product of the power-damaged mind.

To suggest that they need new knowledge to manifest their espousals they have not been able to manifest, by design of humans, not money, members or other forms of power, is to write a sentence for the writer's amusement. Ludwig and lot perceive that they hold the knowledge of how to bake that bread, and are miffed that not enough of you send them enough money to print and mail enough junk mail to cause the entire world to respond with yet more money for the bread they have never baked, and for which a simple series of questions proves their ignorance of the process.

A pitiable but amusing lot, would you not agree?



The court defense of Saddam Hussein... 19 October 2005

The successful defense of Saddam Hussein, in court, for the crimes of which he is accused, regardless of opposition, including that of the US puppet court judges who will judge him, exists and is amusingly easy, however being a multi-part puzzle which, in full, is beyond the scope of this section which introduces one of the parts for the reader to question as a learning vehicle advancing the knowledge of the reader. Of course Saddam and his counsel will not be reading this.

The process to effect the successful defense of Saddam could be used to end the tyranny of dictators, an effect that would be welcome by common people around the world, but not tolerable to the American DemocanRepublicrat regime which constitutes a tyranny of dictatorial government officers routinely violating the written laws of the US to advance the raw power and personal benefits of those officers.

Nothing herein by itself can successfully defend Saddam because concepts described in conclusions, such as stating that the successful defense of Saddam Hussein exists, cannot be effected or manifested by incomplete reasoning, which is the reason that institutionally stated goals remain unachieved by their institutions because institutionally trained minds always defend their institution's controlling contradictions against reasoning, leaving their reasoning for any goal incomplete, with the resulting institutional contradictions recognized by opponents and others who therefore logically do not ascribe to the institution's flawed reasoning.

Not recognized by institutionally trained minds, especially those of court judges, even if they read the words in this section, as is verifiable, is the concept that words must hold their meanings if the rule of law, most clearly identified by the rule of written law, exists above the rule of personalities (dictators, presidents, court judges, etc.). United States government sorts rhetorically claim that their nation is under to the rule of written law, yet not one government or other institutionally trained mind in the US, especially its court judges and justices, can understand or manifest that otherwise easily understood and manifested concept.

Saddam, with the support of his Bathe political party, was ruling Iraq by verbal decree in routine contradiction to any written laws, an inferior but common form of rule. The Iraqi people acquiesced, by manifest proof regardless of their bickering which was not sufficiently reasoned to change Saddam's rule. The existence of Saddam's rule of Iraq was recognized under the Law of Nations, a written law also recognized in the US Constitution. Saddam's government was recognized by other governments, including the US Government which willfully left his government ruling Iraq after the Iraq - Kuwait/US war.

Similar to Saddam's Iraq, the United States is also under the inferior rule of verbal decree, in manifest criminal violation of the written laws of the United States, by a mob of government office holding personalities in the DemocanRepublicrat regime, with the acquiescence of the United States people whose resulting bickering remains not sufficiently reasoned to change that laughably illogical form of rule which stagnates the American society's advancement.

The United States, in violation of the written law of the US Constitution and Law of Nations, involving the US violation of a list of other internationally recognized laws, militarily attacked and conquered Iraq, in sufficient part for a fleeting moment to stumble upon Saddam Hussein hiding in his rat hole, and then placed Saddam on trial in what was purported to be a court of law, that is, a puppet court of the US military, whose judges were indoctrinated in the US process of violating all written laws, by verbal decree, for the purpose of effecting raw, reptilian minded power above the reasoning of law. Therefore the law and standard of law effected by that court is the law and its standard, of the United States of America. The US effected the process by military force remaining in power for the process of the trial orchestrated by the US, including the US limit on Saddam's access to legal counsel. Saddam is held under US guard, in a US facility in Iraq.

No excuses prevail. The US actions, force and control imposed the law of the United States. The US does not administer any other law in Iraq, and holds no lawful authority to do so. No other national or international law effected the US occupation and administration of Iraq. The US puppet Iraqi government is not sovereign or independent. Its decisions are categorically subject to US approval or denial, and thus constitute only requests for a privilege to act under the US law of raw military power. The words accurately describing the US control of Iraq hold their meaning. There would otherwise be no reason for the US military occupation of Iraq after its government (Saddam) was removed from office so the Iraq people could form their own new government their own way.

What is therefore lawful in the US, is lawful in Iraq, until the US military occupation is completely removed from Iraq, and the rule of Iraqi law is established, voided of all effects of US force, without the interference of the US or any Iraqi government officers placed in office by US influence of force.

Who in the United States would object to Saddam being tried under US law as it is applied by the US government?

A successful defense of Saddam is within the US law and its standard of application, made available to Saddam because US law seized control of Iraq and Saddam.

In courts of law, the law is always on trial, to insure that it was not effected with inadequate reasoning, or reasoning not previously considered, a process which methodically created the superior common law, the highest social reasoning written as law by the human species, a jurisdiction created by Great Britain and the nations it influenced, including the United States. Would you do anything without considering what you learned from what you prior did? The jurisdiction of the common law, upon which the US system of government and private enterprise economy is dependent, is now held in absolute contempt, and categorically violated by the corrupted, power-mad US DemocanRepublicrat regime of personalities ruling by decree above written law, including the RepublicratDemocan pocket court judges. The common law, which constitutes the reasoning for precluding damaging actions, replaces power with reasoning, while the corrupted American RepublicratDemocan regime has replaced reasoning with power. The United States of America is therefore on schedule in the normal process of governmental and economic collapse, because the governmental and economic systems have become dependent upon a fundamental contradiction which inherently cannot be sustained. Because the common law is based on the currently most advanced human social reasoning, separate from regimes of power-craving dolts which rise and fall, on schedule, such as those of Saddam and Bush, and because the mind's design is predicated on the process of reasoning, the common law can be used, with adequate knowledge, to effect that which society concludes is more valuable to advance social benefits, than to serve the emotion-based whims of any power-craving individual or group of government dolts and their corrupted court judges, even within the minds of said court judges and dolts.

For emphasis, with Saddam Hussein's murderous actions a bit known to the people, as a result of so many victims and witnesses, his defense is not in denying his actions, or claiming his previous power that he lost in a power game, but in the American law and its standard of application for such actions. His defense is in the highest form of reasoning that no human mind can escape when accurately applied to involved minds.

Saddam was the President of Iraq. He presided over a government of officials who acquiesced to Saddam's rule.

What specific laws apply?

Are the decrees of the president of the United States of America, with the acquiescence and facilitation of the other US government officials, lawful for the action of killing people in the United States and elsewhere, in verifiable violation of US and international written laws, without punishment of the president and the officers of his regime?

The answer is in the law as it is applied by the entity judging the person on trail for that question in a court of law. It is identifiable on record, before the trial begins. Law otherwise holds no meaning as a word or concept, and could therefore be removed from the language and society. If the answer to the above question is, yes, that the decrees of the president of the US, effecting the killing of people, are lawful and not punishable, regardless of any written law such decrees may violate, then Saddam must be protected from punishment, under the US application of law for national leaders, by definition of the words, or the American people remain so primitive and ignorant that they do not have a language which is capable of conveying concepts with words.

Who, if not a power-damaged mind, would consider it so imperative to kill a person in retaliation for his killing people, if that action, subjected to reasoning, categorically proved the void of the retaliatory killer's intellectual ability, with his name on public record for all people to thereafter ridicule, including his offspring if he did not render them as intellectually void as himself? The society he formally represented as its leader is equally subject to rightful ridicule in history, for its intellectual paucity, if it did not immediately remove the leader from office.

What nation of people, if not the idiot Americans, represented by the idiots they willfully, democratically elected to represent their social intellectual ability or disability, would kill a person as hate-based retaliation, to thus prove their society's intellectual void, among reasoning people observing the Americans?

Of course under Iraq law, Saddam's actions were all lawful because his decrees were the law. Iraq was ruled by a personality, not law. The Iraq people effected no change in their manifested form of law. It was only the Americans who changed any Iraq laws, by force, which therefore instituted American law in Iraq, by the results of using force, emphasized by the ongoing Iraqi objection (resistance fighters) to the American form of law, and thus their desire to return to the Iraqi law under which Saddam's actions were lawful.

It is irrelevant that Bush, Rumsfeld, their mindless attack dogs in their military, with their dutifully compliant Congress, can slaughter whomever they wish, as usual, just as did Saddam and countless such thugs selected as national leaders, without fear of punishment, at their reptilian minded whim, with due apology for slighting the good character of reptiles by equating them to Bush, Rumsfeld and the mental midgets of the US DemocanRepublicrat regime. National leaders slaughtering people for whim is an ancient and ongoing process still popular among US leaders. What is relevant is your reasoning ability. The reasoning, like the common law, prevails as reasoning upon it being identified, expressed, written or transferred, by design of the human mind, regardless of the usual mob of government dolts and their unquestioning minions who continue to physically defy reasoning and thus stagnate the advancement of social reasoning ability among humans.

Planet Earth was round, and revolved around the sun, before humans recognized those facts, and during the time institution leaders punished people who dared to speak such truths. The reasoning prevailed as reasoning above the power of the institution leaders while those leaders manifested the damaging effects of their power rather than reasoning. With time, the power failed in face of the reasoning. Had it done so sooner, society, that is the total of its individuals, would have sooner, by centuries, discovered more advanced knowledge dependent upon recognizing the related fundamentals, and you would therefore be living a longer, more pleasant life inherent to the advancement of knowledge among humans desiring those effects.

Saddam, Bush, their military dogs and all of their ilk, by concept, cannot possibly sustain their contradiction of purportedly attempting to manifest peace and security by killing people. They only define the laughably primitive, ignorant condition of the people they represent, such as the Americans, retarding them in the intellectual dark ages, still dying from diseases that could have been cured long ago if their societies had spent their time and money advancing reasoning ability rather than the destructive military industrial complex comprised of highly innovative idiots advancing the process of killing people and destroying their efforts.

It is an instructive aside to note that the easily recognized intellectual abilities of whales, birds and other species, will not ultimately surpass that of humans because of any advantage in the other species, but because despite the obvious disadvantages of other animals, humans will continue to laughably disadvantage their intellectual abilities, illuminated by the example of their still starting wars to create peace, without a clue as to the meanings of the words they spew. Humans train their minds with the words they use, and those words obviously do not retain their meanings, thus transferring and advancing confusion among humans, when useful knowledge is otherwise readily available.

It is categorically proven that the dumbed-down Americans, as a society, a product of their government ("public") schools, do not have a language, or an ability to use language, that is capable of conveying useful concepts, but YOU, as an individual, can promptly advance your intellectual ability above such a primitive condition of humans. The concept of words and language is useful. You need only learn how to use words that hold their meaning. Yes, you will not be understood by the idiot Americans. Did you want to be understood by idiots because you trained yourself to be one, to comfortably fit in among idiots, or did you want to know why and how the brilliant design of the human mind facilitates a progression of idiots for the entertainment of observers, and the results?

Simply apply the verified actions of the US presidents and their amusing DemocanRepublicrat gang, to the concept of law and its manifested standard in the US, using words that impartially hold their meaning. Your goal is not to effect any correction of any manifested contradiction, but to learn part of the puzzle of knowledge that allows your mind to access the other parts, to then learn how to resolve complex contradictions, and then learn how to manifest the resolutions, regardless of opposition which is just another minor, easily resolved contradiction attempted by less knowledgeable minds.

Select any of countless examples of record. Ask the questions, and answer them. Then ask and answer the questions that you identify from your answers, and from any of the questions. Do not fail to answer any of the questions asked by any mind. Saddam, Bush and their amusing ilk simply did not ask or answer that sector of the obvious questions of obvious contradictions, that would have precluded them from creating or attempting to sustain the contradictions that ultimately collapse all human actions retaining a contradiction. Those sorts are just intellectually lazy. The questions and answers cannot harm them, and can only advance benefits to them and others.

Did the US president, by action of his military and police subordinates, knowingly and willfully, proved against every question, without any attack on the US or its citizens by the Dividian Christians, place a shaped explosive charge on the roof of the Dividian Christian Church in Waco Texas, and detonate the charge with the full knowledge that the innocent women and children who were known to have sought refuge in the church, directly under that roof, would therefore be slaughtered, and did the president's federal police and military pump a massive dosage of kerosene-based, internationally outlawed CS nerve gas into that church, torturous and lethal to children, and then fire 40 mm incendiary and explosive grenade rounds into the church, inherently igniting the fuel-air mixture, on a very windy day, with no fire fighting equipment at the location completely controlled by the US president's military and police, to knowingly burn to death any survivors of the several other deadly methods of government attack on the church, and to destroy evidence proving the excuses of the government to be lies, and were the president and his minions therefore brought before a court of law, convicted and punished?

Of what is Saddam accused, that the US manifestation of law for a national leader verifies as not punishable?

What is the American standard of law for the decisions and actions of national presidents, and therefore those of Saddam Hussein, as openly and repeatedly demonstrated by the effect of American law?

Is the United States imposing the rule of law, or the rule of murderous presidents, for record and therefore lawful application now and in the future, to define the reasoning ability of the American people, as was defined of the Iraqi people by Saddam?

The standard is consistently supported under opposing questions. If the US president, with his minions, can murder whom he wishes, without punishment of himself or his minions, by decree in contradiction to other laws, recognized by his own society which claims to be under the rule of law, thus effecting the therein prevailing law of presidential decree, then the prevailing US law itself, as the concept of law, effecting the meaning of the word by its manifestation, recognizes that the US-recognized Iraqi president can lawfully do the same, without punishment. Law holds no other utility as a word or concept. If presidential decree prevails above law, in defiance of law, then law is of no social utility, and presidential decree is the form of social rule. If words do not hold their meanings, there is no rule of law or even rule of decree, and only the rule of guns or such representation of raw power. Further questioned for its effect, if the US president can lawfully violate his own decree effected as law, that a national president can kill without being punished for doing so, to effect the killing of Saddam as punishment for his killing Iraqi people, under his authority as a national leader, doing what the US law defines by its manifestation as lawful, by way of US appointed puppet Iraqi court judges, then the prevailing law is again that of the lawful nature of a national president, through his minions, killing whomever he decrees, just as Saddam therefore effected lawfully, and thus again not subject to punishment unless the American president and American people are so thoroughly ignorant that they hold no useful language that can convey knowledge with words which hold their meanings, and thus are clueless of the concept of law, and are nothing more than the Cave Troll depicted in the movie, Lord of the Rings, for the routine laughter of observers.

Of course not one government drone in the US, including those of all the government's think tanks, Universities and legions of highly credentialed experts, as is verifiable, can understand the plain language reasoning in the above paragraph, even if they read the words slowly and you hand them a dictionary. They trained their minds to create and attempt to sustain, rather than resolve, contradictions, and thus cannot understand the process to resolve contradictions (process of reasoning). Do not continue reading until you understand the above, and ask the questions that verify your understanding, or reveal, in words that hold their meaning, a prevailing contradiction that negates the reasoning against all questions.

The above mentioned Cave Troll reference was fun, and illuminates the following useful aside. The mindless Cave Troll, representing the epitome of military mentality, clumsily killed many of his handlers, which was of no concern to his owner who had a massive supply of ignorant military fodder for wars, as does the cowardly US president who slithered out of hazardous participation in the Vietnam war, more cowardly than Saddam who got closer to his wars. The US president commands a military of obviously mindless orcs, trolls and minions who express their honor to serve the commands of a manifest coward, much to the amusement of the observers laughing at the Americans. The many more friendly fire and friendly action deaths of US military personnel in Iraq, and all wars, than admitted by military leaders, as well as the huge number of collateral damage deaths of innocent Iraqis, illuminate the fundamental Cave Troll mentality (intellectual void) of US military personal who are not sufficiently intelligent to think enough (ask and answer questions) to easily design war, or even war actions, that would kill no friendlies or innocent civilians. It is year 2005, with a long history of wars from which to learn lessons, and like military Cave Trolls throughout human history, the Americans still just blunder into war, as usual, wildly swinging their clubs and other weapons, killing more of their own and innocent civilians than any enemy fighters, with no comprehension of asking any effective question of what they are doing.

As a further useful aside, President George Bush's classic rich kid's dodge out of the Vietnam war would have been wise and honorable if he had gone to Canada or paid any other rational price for having not prior politically worked to curtail the US presidential power to unlawfully start ego-gratification wars. Or likewise if he subsequently worked to effect the curtailing of such malicious power. But George sought to pay no price for what was therefore a cowardly scam, and then used that therefore successfully corrupted power to start his own ego gratification wars to effect the slaughter of Americans and others. George's mind holds no effective recognition of the contradictions (horrors) of war, and holds only the government / American schools glorification propaganda of war and war leaders. The reason such cowardly actions remain common to the fundamentally dishonest chaps who are therefore so successful in achieving DemocanRepublicrat jobs as congressmen and other high government offices within an ignorant, gullible society taught by the government schools to admire war, is illuminated in the generally dishonorable or ignorant nature of government ("public school") educated American young people who gullibly agree to fight the wars of egotistical cowards like Bush and his predecessors, much to the howling laughter of the observers. One of the mechanisms available to humans, to diminish the number of wars, albeit only as a learning vehicle, would result from a society at least sufficiently educated to understand the logic of fighting a war only under a leader who had demonstrably learned the lessons of any previous war. To fight in a war, under the leadership of a demonstrated coward, as do American military sops and their ilk in several nations, illuminates inordinately laughable social ignorance. Is that not so?

Saddam's successful defense is in the reasoning of the manifestation of American law, which could identify and thus subsequently resolve any (obvious) contradictions remaining in said manifestation, for benefit to society. If you do not resolve the identified contradiction upon which you are acting, regardless of the effort and consequences, nothing you attempt to do, based on the contradiction left in place, can possibly be sustained, and will only increase the damages to you, until all that you attempted collapses with the original contradiction. And it is laughably easy to resolve the contradiction upon which you are acting, at benefit to you. But of course, like Bush and his minions, Saddam and his minions could not understand the concept of law, in any language, even if you handed him a dictionary. And then he would need to learn the easily learned knowledge of how to effect the recognition of the concept of the rule of law, and its social benefits, within the minds of the pitiably ignorant US-selected puppet court judges assigned to convict Saddam in the name of law that does not exist in the US or Iraq.

Did US presidents and their subordinates, in violation of US and international law, without any Congressional Declaration of War required by law for such action, without any Vietnamese attack on the US, bomb Vietnamese villages with hideously repugnant napalm and explosives, repeatedly, thousands of times, each time fully knowing and repeatedly informed, as repeatedly verified, that innocent and harmless women and children civilian peasants were being slaughtered, burned to death and otherwise horribly maimed for life, and were the US presidents and their minions therefore brought before a court of law, convicted and punished for such unlawful actions repugnant to society? What is the American standard of law for the decisions and actions of national presidents, in regard to killing people, and therefore those of Saddam Hussein?

Of what is Saddam accused, that the US manifestation of law for a national leader verifies as not punishable?

What law describes its administration for Saddam gassing to death Iraqi villagers, and US presidents gassing to death and burning to death Dividian Christians in their church, and burning to death Vietnamese villagers? At an earlier time, was not the US burning accused witches to death, at the stake, replaced by gassing to death convicted murderers, because burning them to death was belatedly recognized as too repugnant to the human conscience, as a result of the law being on trial in successive court cases, and then did not the US return to the process of burning to death thousands of innocent Vietnamese, with napalm, while Saddam retained the comparatively more humane process of gassing his enemies? What is your answer useful for subsequent decisions, while George Bush with his intellectually void DemocanRepublicrats and supporting Americans literally cannot answer that easily answered question to therefore perpetuate their repugnantly murderous actions effected by their self-induced ignorance?

What is revealed of American reasoning ability by the US military napalming thousands of Vietnamese civilians, and using ignited kerosene-CS nerve gas to burn to death the Dividian Christians in their church in Texas, after the rest of the world concluded that intentionally burning people to death was too repugnant for social tolerance, and then again of the Americans still using depleted uranium explosive artillery rounds that created a surge of horrible cancers where that artillery was used in Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere?

Why do all malicious empires fall?

Is the United States imposing the rule of law, or the rule of murderous presidents, for record and therefore future lawful application, to define the reasoning ability of the American people, as was defined of the Iraqi people by Saddam?

Was not the rule of law invented by reasoning humans, to preclude the rule of unreasoning, murderous national or social leaders who attacked and damaged their own and other societies?

Shall Americans of this era be defined, by their actions which prevail above their rhetorical illusions, as so intellectually primitive that they cannot even understand the above old question, to thus be ridiculed throughout human history?

What actions of Americans educated in government ("public") schools shall define what they learned or failed to learn from the entire history of humans, for the amusement of observers?

What was the effect of the American government schools on an entire society? What was the effect of government schools in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?

What do American law schools teach their gullible victims, while the salaries of their professors are derived from government?

Among the countless examples, what did Saddam do that American presidents did not do, under claim of authority in law, by the dictionary meanings of the words describing the actions, under the standards of law applied to Saddam Hussein, as previously applied by US presidents attacking and slaughtering people in Somalia, Korea, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Bosnia, among several other US military / CIA actions not discussed by the US news media that parrots US Government, "copy ready" news releases?

What are the itemized standards of law for itemized human actions, by the meaning of those words, under the law manifested in actions by the United States of America, its elected president, Congress and Supreme Court, and therefore the highest reasoning ability of the American people as a society, for application to those actions when they are identified, including those of Saddam?

What do George Bush, the court judges trying Saddam Hussein, and the individually named people of the United States of America want, in flawlessly precise words on indelible record of history, to identify their intellectual ability in 2005, between the uncontradicted rule of written law as the reasoning that functionally prevents future social damages by murderous government thugs heretofore ruling fools by decree, or the rule of verbal decree by said murderous government thugs ruling fools? What is your answer? How would you manifest your answer, if not by learning the knowledge of such after you identified what you want by simply answering the related question?

In law and other human actions, humans have learned that they divide an intended action into a process, and the results. In law, that phenomenon is termed as the form and the substance. That can be described as the procedure to effect the results, and the results. A common example would be properly filling out all the paperwork, and paying money, as the process, to acquire ownership of a house as the result. Because government-licensed lawyers have seized ownership of law in countries blighted and stagnated by lawyers, and their income is predicated on fabricating paperwork processes, they and the judges they become have emphasized the paperwork, or form (process), to such an illogical extreme stifling even themselves, that even they had to create the law recognizing the obvious logic or reasoning that substance prevails above form, or the lucrative process would never be allowed to reach its intended goal or result. For emphasis, substance prevails above form. Therefore, if an error was made in the paperwork, the form, but the involved people acknowledge the manifested results without dispute, the correctable error in the paperwork does not negate the results or substance of the action. Conversely, if an illusion of the substance is created by an impressive array and volume of properly completed paperwork, with all the required stamps and signatures, such as a phony shipment of bananas, but there are no bananas, the phony shipment that looked real on paper, cannot satisfy any claims or other laws. Substance prevails above form. Therefore if the law precludes the presidents of the US from starting wars, that constitute killing people, without a Congressional Declaration of War, as a "Congressional Declaration of War", rather than an "authorization", "police action", and such rhetorical illusions fabricated to fool fools into believing that the war was lawfully started, but a series of wars are started by US presidents, each without a Congressional Declaration of War, and there is no effective objection to those actions over time, then the substance of the manifested wars identifies the new form of the presidential scams to start wars, as the new lawful process or form to start wars.

US law therefore recognizes, from its functionally accepted substance, that a national leader can kill people without complying with existing law, if the leader invents any rhetorical illusion for his action, such as "authorization" or "agreement" from himself or his minions. Substance prevails above form. Saddam therefore complied with his Iraqi law and with US law for his actions of killing people, and therefore cannot be punished under law, if language is of any utility among Americans, and if Americans understand the concept of reasoning. Saddam can only be punished under the rule of emotionally immature and unreasoning personalities, most commonly identified as kings or emperors, but also as presidents or such titles who have seized the power of kings, such as the US presidents. Therefore the cost of punishing Saddam is the undisputable acknowledgement for history and all reasoning people that the US and Iraq are under the rule of personalities, not the rule of law, imposed by raw military force void of reasoning and the ability to reason among people of said societies. There is no escape within reasoning and the utility of language.

What is of greater value, punishing yet another inconsequential tyrant for doing what his punishers, the American tyrants, did, to thus define Americans as still intellectually immature, laughably primitive humans, or instead, belatedly recognizing the process to belatedly advance an entire society into the age of reasoning and its unlimited benefits, by conforming the form of reasoned words to the actions or substance they describe by the meanings of those words?

When repeatedly manifested substance identifies a new form, by acknowledgement and the test of time, for a person to rhetorically retain the old form that defies the new substance, when the form is easy to immediately change, again identifies a fundamentally ignorant person who if retained as a public official, instead of immediately relieved of his job, identifies a fundamentally ignorant society.

If law as manifested is to be the rule, by your acknowledgement, and if your mind is capable of reasoning, you must first obey the law, rather than violate what you manifested as the law, then you resolve any contradictions illuminated by obeying it. If you recognize the contradiction before an imperative to obey the law, resolve the contradiction. If you are caught by your retained contradiction in the law, at the moment you must act on it or resolve it, in face of a contradiction, your reasoning-based action must not create another contradiction if you decide to resolve the contradiction, by definition. You cannot resolve a contradiction, and you create a greater contradiction, if you kill a person who is already rendered as not able to kill you at the moment, such as by him being logically imprisoned because of his manifested threat to people. The usual rhetorical illusion suggesting that the person might kill you in the future, as a reason to kill him, is rendered as a fool's illusion by the facts that he might not kill you, because you successfully educated him as to the inherent failure of using force, or, because he has proved himself too dangerous to society, by his previous actions, that you keep him separated from society (in prison) until you can verify his mind's understanding of the failure of harming others.

In all uncorrectable contradictions, such as the inability to bring back to life a person who was killed, the valuable result is the knowledge you learned. Consider reading that again. Learn the knowledge by asking and answering the related questions, and then use the knowledge. If instead, you defy it, to repeat the contradiction, and thus attempt to sustain it as a concept for your continued use, you will identify your intellectual absence, and your deadly hazard to other people, such as the deadly hazard the war mongering Americans present to other people, by their obvious actions including their desire to kill a person who is already rendered harmless and subject to learning the reasoning process while he is in prison.

But of course, if you want to kill him, you already identify your void of reasoning ability, and thus could not convey the knowledge of reasoning process to anyone else, much to the laughter of the observers. Stop wanting to kill people, so you have time to learn why you previously wanted to create an inherently unsustainable contradiction whose consequences create a deadly threat to you. Learn that by asking and answering the related questions.

Nothing herein could cause the mind of Saddam, the minds of his lawyers, or the minds of the pocket court judges whom the US government selected for Saddam's kangaroo trial, to understand these words or to effect a law-based and thus a reasoning based trial, which would therefore preclude court punishment of Saddam under US and occupied Iraq law, to therefore institute the subsequently effected law that would manifest the preclusion of all such obvious crimes by typical government thugs, such as Saddam, Bush, Rumsfeld, US Congressmen and lot, for the rest of human history, and therefore greatly advance human intellectual ability with its inherent benefits for society, and concurrently effect the greatest public support and respect ever accorded to court judges, despite that amusingly easy opportunity, because the other parts of that particular puzzle are not mentioned herein, for lack of time at the moment, or incentive, or manifested by those who have learned that puzzle. Of course the whole of the knowledge puzzle would have to be manifested by those who already learned that knowledge because no one directly involved with the issue, or institutionally interested, will read these words or inquire. But there is no incentive among those who have learned the knowledge, to manifest it, by design, or it would have been manifested centuries ago and thus humans would be lavishing in the benefits of the resulting knowledge.

To convict and punish Saddam, the court judges must in effect reveal that they refuse to administer the law, in the name of law, and instead will administer their personal decree based on the emotional hatred of Saddam by themselves and their handler, George Bush, rather than on reasoning. Of course that is what they, Saddam, Bush, US government officers and such power-damaged minds routinely do, by design of power within the human mind. You recognize the contradiction therefore created, while power-damaged minds cannot recognize the contradiction. But because it is a human-caused contradiction, a resolution inherently exists, and when effected with the knowledge to do so, therefore not creating another contradiction, a power-damaged mind cannot escape the effect, by design of the human mind.

You may therefore individually advance your knowledge, easily beyond the amusing humans, but only if you actually ask and answer your questions, in writing, after learning how to use words that hold their meanings, by the same process. Those are actions that no institutionally trained human mind will effect, even if they claim to seek new knowledge, and you verify to them that the human mind learns new knowledge by asking and answering questions, much to your amusement.

Now therefore, of course, you may want to recognize that all of the above, like many of the words at this website, describe the resolution of a controlling contradiction, albeit only in part until your mind completes the process of asking and answering all of its related questions. If you create a contradiction, such as killing or initiating damaging force against another person, or violating the law in the name of law, as does power in the minds of humans such as Bush, Saddam, their minions and all who fall victim to adopting power within their mind, then no arrangement of words can render the action as not contradicted, and each arrangement of words advanced for such an attempt, can be disproved with words in the form of related questions, and answers to those questions. The words are the training vehicle for your mind's advancement of its knowledge. The yet scarce recognition that no use of force is sustainable within the human species, because said species was designed for, and is predicated on, the concept of reasoning, which is the prevailing opposite or counter balance of force, can be learned by several processes, but the verification of it, and thus the utility of the knowledge in your mind, is learned by the process of asking and answering all the questions of all the attempts to describe the creation of a contradiction as conforming to reasoning. And further, those questions and answers constitute the learning mechanism for the process to manifest reasoning, as prevailing, against the otherwise routine use of force by government and other power-based institutional idiots who do not learn such knowledge because they are just too intellectually lazy (primitive) to ask simple questions of glaring contradictions created by fools who promise illusionary benefits for fools who do not question them. Within those questions, you will find the few which effect your goal, within the minds of those who thereupon recognize that they were fools to believe the fools who could not tolerate even the expression of the questions.

Of course the ability of the American RepublicratDemocan regime leaders, pitiable, power-damaged minds that they are, to kill whomever they wish, and fool the easily fooled, government-educated Americans into believing that such actions are lawful, to the extent of insuring no effective public reaction, just as did Saddam, is among the most cherished manifestations of power by those and other such murderous regimes. As a dictate of power, by design, the American DemocanRepublicrat regime leaders will kill again and often before they will allow the effects of reasoning to even approach their minds. The resolution of that controlling contradiction is therefore in learning the process to manifest its effect in face of humans who will kill to evade the threat that reasoning poses to power. That simply requires you to ask and answer more questions (think), before you act, if you wish.

Do so. The knowledge is readily available and has been known since humans were invented. Simply learn it, and you will more thoroughly enjoy life. Humans are predicated on knowledge. The more knowledge you acquire, by simply asking and answering questions, an easy process costing no money, the more you will enjoy that which frustrates those who choose to remain ignorant.




Another offer, for the knowledge herein... 4 November 2005

Among the parts of the knowledge puzzle explaining why socially unsolved problems exist among the humans, despite the fact that every human-caused problem (contradiction) holds a readily identifiable, verifiable and promptly manifestable solution, regardless of the problem's magnitude, complexity or human opposition to the solution, inherently already known by certain people, is that part variously described as the meaning or utility of the arrangements of words offered by the humans who have already learned said solution, not being recognized by the minds of the humans who express or demonstrate their desire to learn or manifest said solution.

If a mind learns an extent of knowledge about a particular contradiction, which does not include the knowledge of the promptly manifestable solution, the solution is described by arrangements of words whose substance or utility the mind has obviously not yet learned, a mere lack of knowledge. People who have trained their mind to adamantly remain ignorant in the face of available knowledge of their expressed or demonstrated desire to learn, will commonly scoff at the previous sentence, which they commonly describe as circular, redundant or otherwise of no value. Because anything but the most commonly solved common problems, and often not even those, involve more parts or items of data, than just one sentence describing a solution, if the solution is to be manifestable, each part or item of data, such as described in the first sentence of this paragraph, must be recognized or learned by the human mind, to then synthesize with the other parts. If a person scoffs at one part of the knowledge, therefore discounting or ignoring it by manifested process of the mind, that part will not be available to the mind when it attempts to synthesize a useful conclusion from the other parts of knowledge that were variously learned, and therefore the flawed conclusion will fail an actual solution to the problem.

Therefore, various arrangements of words can be offered by the person who has already learned the solution to a problem, but may have no incentive to manifest the solution, to increase the chance that a person desiring to solve a problem might recognize enough of one of the arrangements of words to start an inquiry to learn the rest of the parts of the related knowledge puzzle. People who learned the referenced knowledge are usually willing to transfer it to others, if anyone is genuinely interested, but despite holding the ability to manifest it in all cases, regardless of opposition, they hold no incentive for such an unchallenging activity while there are greater intellectual intrigues for one's time.

If anyone knows anyone, anywhere in the world, of any country or organization, who seeks the knowledge of how to manifest any goal or promptly solve any human-caused problem of their interest, regardless of its magnitude, complexity or human opposition, they might suggest to that person, that they may inquire.

The solution is laughably too easy. It is just knowledge resultant from a series of harmless questions that said person has simply not yet asked because their mind has not yet encountered or learned portions of the related knowledge puzzle, for a reason that is described within the knowledge of how to solve any human-caused problem.

The people who have learned such knowledge often laugh upon hearing or reading the daily news that other people consider to be anguishing, sad, angering, disappointing, enraging or anything except humorous. At issue are merely human-caused contradictions whose solutions are readily available and otherwise obvious but not recognized by the people desiring or attempting to resolve the contradictions, which is a description of common jokes and comedies, inducing laughter by design of the human mind. Why do people routinely laugh at what other people emphatically do not consider funny, and vice versa among the same individuals, as is universal to humans? The answer which is sustainable against the questions of both, is part of the knowledge puzzle that must be learned to be able to resolve human-caused contradictions.

Among billions of such examples throughout human history, when the world trade towers in New York collapsed, millions of people around the world spontaneously cheered. No amount of anger or its results can alter than reaction created by the same design of human mind which reacted with anger, anguish or such emotional responses. It is, however, amusingly easy to learn the process, and its origin, for each reaction, within the mind's design, to thereafter preclude the creation of such damaging contradictions.

The contradictions which are not caused by humans, commonly those whose solutions are pursued within the so called hard sciences, while generally not as quickly resolvable as human-caused contradictions, are made more readily discoverable by learning the process of promptly solving human-caused problems. The same process of the mind is involved. If that process is not fully developed in a mind, therefore simply lacking knowledge of the process, therefore unable to immediately resolve the more easily resolved human-caused contradictions, that mind is inefficient for the task of solving non human-caused problems for which only additional data is otherwise lacking. Therein the portion of the brain used to identify and resolve contradictions needlessly retains contradictions which limit the efficiency of that process within the brain. Therein otherwise available arrays of neurons and synapse chemicals are not available for the contradiction resolution process. Therefore the mind which has learned intellectual technology will variously be intrigued by the activities of scientists pursuing knowledge involving data yet not discovered by humans, or laugh at the scientists who do not recognize otherwise obviously available data and thus the obvious solutions verifiable against any questions.

Understanding the process of the human mind, and thus its controlling contradiction, facilitates the immediate demarcation between a lack of data and a lack of data synthesis ability in another mind. Either can be corrected. The knowledge to do so is available.

Consider an example among billions. A particular human society, that of the Americans, has developed a currently popular process within what they define as law, wherein if a person is accused of a crime (a contradicted action), which may result in said person being sent to prison as a purported solution to a problem, which constitutes the loss of productive time and thus the loss of money in that money-based society, a criminal court process determines if the criminal action, as ascribed to that person, happened or did not happen. The result of the court process demarcates the social recognition that the event happened or did not happen as ascribed to that person, by that society's most advanced process for such determinations. However, if the criminal court determines that the action did not happen as ascribed to that person, the society which trained itself to seek revenge above reasoning, even for illusions, has created a separate civil court process within the same population pool with its governmental officials, to accuse the same person of the same action a second time, with only a few process wording changes that effect no substantive difference for the controlling contradiction, this time for the purpose of more directly seizing money from the accused person, instead of imprisoning him, as a purported solution to a problem. The same court process again demarcates the social recognition that the same action happened or did not happen as ascribed to that person, by that society's same most advanced process for such determinations. Using the same data available to the criminal court, the civil court's conclusion can contradict the conclusion from criminal court, to conclude that the action which was prior concluded as not happening as described, happened, as has commonly happened. Despite the contradiction being as obvious as any contradiction can be made, recognizable by even children, but obviously not by American adults, that the action both happened and did not happen as described, the society, including what it purports to be its most advanced reasoning process for law and social governance, including its extensively lauded court judges trained as lawyers by the society's most lauded law schools, literally cannot understand the contradiction, even if the pitiably ignorant Americans read these words, and are therefore even further from the otherwise easily understood process to readily resolve the contradiction. The Americans commonly manifest that contradiction with its resultant damages, leave it unresolved, and train their thus intellectually victimized young to believe that no contradiction exits. Nothing prevails above the action happening or not happening as described, for a social determination of the consequences of the action happening or not happening. If consequences are socially applied to an action that was determined to both happen and not happen, the purported action is immaterial, and the contradicted form or process has therefore prevailed above substance, leaving the pitiably ignorant Americans back under the incessantly contradicted system of governance (kings / personalities) that their military fools did not escape because they attempted to do so by force, flawlessly always self-defeating, by design of humans, rather than easily learn how to effect reasoning to resolve all contradictions, against any human opposition.

If one wishes to derive even greater laughter at the primitive Americans, one need only listen to the arrangements of consistently contradicted words that Americans, especially their idiot lawyers and court judges, spew in their attempt to describe the above referenced contradiction as not a contradiction. Further, they purport their society to be ruled by written law (words on paper), which by its definition under the common or prevailing law, cannot include a contradiction which would therefore negate the effect and reason for the rule of written law, and again institute the incessantly self-contradicting human rulers with various titles such as kings, dictators, presidents, court judges, police, directors, superintendents and such personalities, summarily deciding which contradicted laws to variously apply for their friends and enemies. And they still cannot understand the contradiction, even if they read these words and you hand them a dictionary, for a reason any human can learn.

If the contradiction is not socially resolvable by the current court process, for lack of knowledge among the involved people, and for the usual purpose of seeking revenge, the result is the inordinately valuable knowledge, if not foolishly used for the contradicted and thus useless purpose of seeking revenge, and if adequately questioned, that can be used to design the process to socially resolve the subsequent contradictions, to the extent of precluding them before they happen. The latter remains beyond the knowledge of the Americans who are still wasting their social efforts seeking the primitive and useless goal of revenge rather than the obviously useful knowledge of how to preclude damaging contradictions. Notice that the Americans constantly express their desire to reduce crime and other socially damaging actions, yet their socially designed governmental systems are predicated on seeking useless revenge for prior actions, usually designed to duplicate the contradicted action in concept and effect (harm a person), and thus train their young to believe that the contradictions are not contradictions if effected by people with government jobs, who can easily be anyone, including the obviously most ignorant people inherently attracted to government jobs and most rapidly promoted within them, and thus teaching the process of damaging actions as solutions to problems, available to other people who logically recognize no logical difference in the government job for such actions. If it is not logical, and is unlawful, for a person to physically torture another person, it cannot logically be lawful for a person with an American military, CIA or FBI job to torture a person, since any person can get the government job, except in the laughably addled minds of the primitive, ignorant Americans who are currently attempting to fool fools into believing that the contraction of government orcs torturing people while it is not lawful or logical, is not a contradiction.

Additionally, the same social actions are predicated on inherently greedy government drones deriving more tax money for what is proven by the test of time as only their useless rhetoric about reducing crime and other socially damaging actions, rather than seeking the knowledge of how to reduce crime and other socially damaging actions, therein creating yet another contradiction predicated on a contradiction, as defines the actions of power-damaged minds.

The solution to the above example and others, is readily available, verifiable and manifestable. It is already known in every case. It does not matter what the contradiction is, or what a person's resulting perception is. It can be related to any issue you read in the news or hear on the street every day. If it illuminates a contradiction, the efficient resolution is available. Consider the bombs, including deadly chemical weapons of mass destruction that the US left strewn through the jungles in Panama, Vietnam and elsewhere, still killing innocent people, the issue of schools teaching the newly described old concept of intelligent design, abortion, same sex marriages, the inability of the army to attract enough recruits, especially anyone other than obviously unquestioning and thus incompetent people for the task of national defense, the current lack of cures for a long list of diseases, the increasing world opposition to the war-mongering American government, or other citizen reactions to institutional actions, the poorly maintained roads while government officials lavish in opulent wealth and its benefits, pollution, openly reneging on promised war veteran medical benefits while creating more war veterans, the amusing American practice of officially taxing people into poverty, and taxing the poor deeper into poverty, the poor people rioting in the streets where wealthy government officials meet to further fool themselves into believing they are solving problems, the Americans increasingly caught torturing prisoners and hiding them in obscured gulags around the world, the wars, America's prisons burgeoning while over half of the prisoners harmed no one, human and citizen rights violations in the US and elsewhere, the corruption of power, poverty, waste of public money, terrorism, security, crime, the US police state created by National Security Letters and other such tactics, the stagnation of medical research and other sciences which would otherwise advance social benefits, incessantly devalued money robbing the people, the obviously failed American government education system producing ignorant and thus frustrated, under-productive people, and every other contradiction you recognize, or existing regardless of your recognition. The solutions are laughably easy.

Perhaps some arrangement of words herein, in whole or part, might by chance be usefully recognized by the mind of a person seeking a solution to a problem. Until a mind lacking knowledge identifies a question of its current knowledge, it will not advance its knowledge.

Notice the consistency of the American government and other governments striving for more inherently self-defeating power and the use of more force that creates the problems they seek to solve, while none of their officers can identify a question of their utilizing that arena of knowledge. No question exists within their minds, to lead them beyond that arena of knowledge, while countless such questions are obvious.

If you express any desire for the solutions to social problems, and are waiting for any institution leaders to solve those problems, you are the comedy at which knowledgeable people are laughing. The best intellect of the entire array of American society institutions, including their most titled and credentialed scientists, research institutes, think tanks, Mensa members, university professors, the mutually lauded American news journalists, high court judges, lavishly praised politicians, their experts and minions, are literally not able to resolve even the hilarious contradiction they created with their highest law of the land, the US Constitution, which no law or action may lawfully contradict, repeatedly insuring the right of Americans to jury trials, while over half the requests for jury trials are summarily denied by judges therefore criminally violating the law but self-exempted from any duty to obey the law. You can tell the intellectually self-incapacitated Americans to either amend the Constitution to deny that right, or provide the jury trials, or at least inform their offspring that they have no useful language, and the Americans still cannot understand even this sentence, as proven by their actions, because they have already rendered their language of no utility for transferring the meaning of its words, much to the howling laughter of the observers. The American jury trial example is a classic contradiction upon which the Americans have built so many more contradictions so lucrative and ego-gratifying to corrupted court judges, police, politicians and lawyers, that they literally cannot comprehend the otherwise easy resolution of their empire of contradictions, again, much to the howling laughter of the observers. They trained their minds to not recognize any question of their contradictions.

If any American government dolt stumbles upon this website, and reads any of it, his or her first reaction after ignoring it for inability to understand any of these plain English words, would be anger and a desire to use government power to attack and damage the author, as dictated by the power-damaged mind. The concept of power within the human minds it infects, including that of the laughably useless philosophers self-impressed with the power-based institutional benefits of their titles, cannot tolerate the threat that the mere existence of identifiably thinking humans, those who ask effective questions of institutions, create against the power of institutions.

However, controlling or prevailing above the suggestion that any arrangement of words herein might be recognized by a person seeking a solution to a problem, is the scant chance of an institutionally trained mind seeking knowledge outside institutions, such as at this website, much to the author's amusement.

And controlling that subsequent suggestion is the institutionally trained mind's institutionally trained reaction to any suggestion or indication that the institution itself could have flawed the perceptions of the institutionally trained mind, which of course this website suggests, for even the institutions of adults and Americans, and is the controlling reason all the institutions cannot identify or manifest the solutions to the problems upon which the institutions were predicated.

She or he who learns intellectual technology, and retains any incentive to socially manifest its results, and does so, will become the most known and respected person in human history, much to the amusement of those throughout current and prior history, who already learned the knowledge by simply asking and answering the questions of the contradictions created by institutionally trained minds, and the aforementioned answers.

Therefore, this different arrangement of words again only serves to identify questions, not written herein, that could possibly identify a contradiction in the concept, for the purpose of it being promptly resolved.

It did not, but the search continues, for its value vastly beyond anything indicated on this website.


End of Intech Concepts 24


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